- 24 Posts
- 25 Comments
RGV Aerial Photography @RGVaerialphotos Sep 2, 2023 · 4:35 PM UTC wrote,
Notice they filled in the heat tiles with some type of epoxy/clay instead of replacing these damaged tiles. Indicator Ship 25 probably isn’t expected to survive reentry.
125-megapixel image link: https://www.easyzoom.com/imageaccess/ad67522c147c4746bc055c5a80704e55
But they look like regular tiles to me, just with adhesive smeared around messily. Marcus House, in his weekly update at 5:31, zooms in and says, “we can see that a few surrounding tiles were damaged during the process [of adding tiles to cover lifting points], but these were to be replaced soon after this shot was taken.”. At 5:44 on, he explained and showed a worker using the suction cup device: one tile passed, one pulled off.
Zack Golden @CSI_Starbase (Nitter link) Sep 2, 2023 · 3:45 AM UTC has a multi-post speculation about Super Heavy testing at Boca Chica.
I am now 95% confident that SpaceX is in the process of building not one, but two Super Heavy Static Fire Test stands. One will be located near the Suborbital tank farm, and the other will be at the Massey’s test site.
These test stands are essentially mini versions of the Orbital Launch Mount. There are a few major differences though:
- These stands will not have launch capability so they will be much simpler…
- Because of the location of these test stands, and severe limitations on space, the method of testing engines will have to be different than how its done on the OLM. [flame trenches]
Why?
- Well at some point, launches will become much more frequent. This means the OLM will be nearly always be busy preparing for the next launch…
- The Orbital Launch Mount, with its new Bidet system is limited to Static fire tests of less than 10 seconds. It is truly designed for Launching Full stacks, and not for long duration tests purely due to the volume of water stored in the tanks.
- The OLM is also believed to be limited to Static Fire tests with thrust values at or around 50%. This is a result of the design of the hold down clamps. Also, the skirt of the booster is likely not designed for the kind of forces it would experience if it was being held down at max thrust…
So if this speculation is true, what should we be on the lookout for?
- The areas where these will be located will either be built up to accommodate a flame trench, or they will soon begin excavating large holes into the ground for this purpose.
- The suborbital tank farm will likely need to be expanded in order to increase its LOX and CH4 storage capabilities. I believe SpaceX is already in the beginning stages of this massive renovation.
- CH4 storage tanks will need to be added to the Massey’s test site. They will also need additional GSE equipment for filling Booster COPV’s. This includes Helium storage, CO2 for the engine skirt purge system.
- There will likely also need to be additional water tanks installed for traditional deluge systems for both of these tests stands…
He says he’d do a video if he weren’t already in the middle of two deep-dives.
u/Alvian_11 in The Other Place says that a “flame diverter/ramp” is different from a “flame trench” and that a flame diverter/ramp makes much more sense.
Zack Golden @CSI_Starbase (Nitter link) Aug 31, 2023 · 4:24 AM UTC states “They have been testing [tiles on ship 28] with a suction device to see if they would fall off. A large number of them failed the test.”
Starship Gazer @StarshipGazer 11:31 AM · Aug 29, 2023:
A close look at Starship 25 tiles this morning. 8/29/23
Specifically, the tip of S25’s nosecone. In images 3 and 4, note that two tiles have cracked-off chunks.
4 years ago, Starhopper flew. YouTube video.
Static fire attempt scheduled for tomorrow (Friday, 24 August 2023). Mary got a notice, pictured here.
Nice pictures of Booster 9 on the Orbital Launch Mount.
SpaceX @SpaceX 7:36 PM · Aug 22, 2023
Super Heavy Booster 9 transported back to the orbital launch pad at Starbase for additional preflight testing
10·2 years agoThere’s a lot more than what AutoTL;DR reported. The article is by Stephen Clark, who now swaps out with Eric Berger on the weekly roundup article for ArsTechnica.
I’m curious about the downvoting.
A bit of talk about the recent static fire, where 4 engines didn’t ignite. /u/warp99 stated,
There have been a lot of subsequent tests on the GSE that supplies spin up gas to the outer ring of 20 engines.
That certainly implies that the four that failed to start cleanly may have been starved of spin up gas as all outer engines started together.
With IFT1 the startup process was staggered over three seconds and three groups of engines. SpaceX are going to cut that startup time in half which likely means starting in two groups which are probably all inners followed by all outer engines.
I think that’s an interesting take, and more reassuring than engine problems, which a lot of other people have assumed.
Afternoon (US Central time) 20 August 2023: LabPadre covering the demolition of the Mid Bay here.
In re the 15-degree engine firing gimbal test mentioned here:
Musk xeexed 3:11 AM · Aug 18, 2023: “Landing burn max gimbal deflection”
The deluge mentioned in the linked timeline from /u/santacfan:
Anthony Gomez @AnthonyFGomez 9:56 PM · Aug 18, 2023
Suppression system is pretty wild. It almost sounded like a static fire. Bravo, @SpaceX That was one heck of a show.
It was! It is loud, though. With the nighttime video and muted dark colors, it looked astonishing! I wish I could download it, it’s so artistic … but of course that would be copyright violation and I would never recommend that.
Abhi Tripathi @SpaceAbhi 6:32 PM · Aug 16, 2023:
For context, in my relevant personal experience the FAA doesn’t just receive a mishap report thrown over a wall at them. They are read into the investigation and findings and corrective actions all along the way and not surprised. So I would disagree with the word “nuts.”
in describing sending the FAA the report on August 16 and immediately getting a Notice to Mariners for August 31.
The poster also doesn’t recognize that the FAA typically doesn’t issue a bunch of corrective actions in these cases. They often approve or comment against the self identified corrective actions.
Generically speaking: In all the Aerospace investigations I’ve worked on, corrective actions don’t start only when a report is issued. They start on Day 1.
SpaceX @SpaceX 2:42 PM · Aug 17, 2023
Long duration test fire of Raptor while gimbaled 15 degrees
Lots of discussion about why there was such a test. Some suggesting that it was for Starship for hot staging. Others saying that the new hot-staging ring has such a high dome in it that the sea-level engine gimballing so far wouldn’t actually help.
Some comments about how 15 degrees is really high, like Saturn V first stage having 5 degrees, and 3-8 is more common. The Space Shuttle has 12.5 for the RS-25, but the new ones are certified for only 6. The suggestion was that this is because the stages need to be able to flip.
Nice picture of Starship 29 rolling out of a high bay. Courtesy of Starship Gazer @StarshipGazer here.
“SpaceX Files its Starship Mishap Report to the FAA” by Jack Kuhr at Payload.
SpaceX has filed a final mishap investigation report to the FAA for its April 20 Starship integrated flight test, the FAA told Payload on Tuesday. …
SpaceX delayed submitting the final report for months while it implemented significant changes to both the launch vehicle and pad…
The changes mostly being the booster bidet, but there’s also the Flight Termination System (FTS).
The FAA did not provide a specific timeline for its review process, leaving the timeframe for potential approval up in the air. SpaceX will need the go-ahead from the FAA before it launches again.
Some Xer, Cowboy Dan @CowboyDanPaasch, wrote (Nitter link) Sep 2, 2023 · 11:58 AM UTC,
Kevin Mock @kevmk04 replied,
I can’t really find full confirmation of that. I do find an Xmission from Gav Cornwell @SpaceOffshore Apr 20, 2023 · 10:54 AM UTC,
And a bit later, with pictures,
Retweeting Jenny Hautmann @JennyHPhoto Apr 20, 2023 · 9:35 PM UTC.