banner
banner

28 Mar 2024, 10:51 [ UTC - 5; DST ]


Concorde Battery (banner)



Reply to topic  [ 61 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Username Protected Message
 Post subject: Re: Starship SN-10 - Landed Okay-ish, then the KABOOM
PostPosted: 30 Mar 2021, 14:49 
Online



User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 04/26/13
Posts: 19758
Post Likes: +19428
Location: Columbus , IN (KBAK)
Aircraft: 1968 Baron D55
Username Protected wrote:
SN11 exploded when they attempted to relight the engines at 1 km AGL.


Yep, and no video of it because the visibility was about zero/zero at the pad. Something unfortunate went wrong well before the flip was completed. I think it would be useful if we had been able to see it.

_________________
My last name rhymes with 'geese'.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Starship SN-10 - Landed Okay-ish, then the KABOOM
PostPosted: 30 Mar 2021, 18:56 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 11/30/10
Posts: 4263
Post Likes: +3718
Company: Flagstaff-Williams Dev. LLC
Location: KCMR
Aircraft: 1965 310J
Trends being the game; it looks like flight control isnt thier problem; Engine control.

maybe more time on the test stand. :)

_________________
All my friends are here. I know this because all my enemies are dead. :)


Top

 Post subject: Re: Starship SN-10 - Landed Okay-ish, then the KABOOM
PostPosted: 30 Mar 2021, 21:33 
Offline



User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 12/10/07
Posts: 7975
Post Likes: +6842
Location: New York, NY
Aircraft: Debonair C33A
Username Protected wrote:
Yep, and no video of it because the visibility was about zero/zero at the pad. Something unfortunate went wrong well before the flip was completed. I think it would be useful if we had been able to see it.


Yes, I am rather perplexed they choose to launch in zero/zero conditions. I understand the systems don't care about the visibility - but this is a test for God's sake, don't you think you'd want to see what is happening if things don't go as planned? :scratch:


Top

 Post subject: Re: Starship SN-10 - Landed Okay-ish, then the KABOOM
PostPosted: 30 Mar 2021, 22:30 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 12/07/17
Posts: 7026
Post Likes: +5805
Company: Malco Power Design
Location: KLVJ
Aircraft: 1976 Baron 58
Username Protected wrote:
Yep, and no video of it because the visibility was about zero/zero at the pad. Something unfortunate went wrong well before the flip was completed. I think it would be useful if we had been able to see it.


Yes, I am rather perplexed they choose to launch in zero/zero conditions. I understand the systems don't care about the visibility - but this is a test for God's sake, don't you think you'd want to see what is happening if things don't go as planned? :scratch:


SpaceX likely saw everything. They’ve got cameras and telemetry up the yin yang. Some European hackers have managed to get the Falcon feeds (turns out you’re actually not allowed to encrypt the telemetry coming off of a peaceful rocket, something in a treaty between the US and USSR).

Top

 Post subject: Re: Starship SN-10 - Landed Okay-ish, then the KABOOM
PostPosted: 31 Mar 2021, 10:02 
Online



User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 04/26/13
Posts: 19758
Post Likes: +19428
Location: Columbus , IN (KBAK)
Aircraft: 1968 Baron D55
Username Protected wrote:
SpaceX likely saw everything. They’ve got cameras and telemetry up the yin yang. Some European hackers have managed to get the Falcon feeds (turns out you’re actually not allowed to encrypt the telemetry coming off of a peaceful rocket, something in a treaty between the US and USSR).

Yeah, those folks who captured the Falcon 9 feeds did some slick work. Very cool to see the video feed. The telemetry of course is harder to decode, I don't think they've done that.

On the SN11 flight their video feed was terrible. They lost several camera feeds, and the rest were constantly dropping off. Something wasn't working well. They don't put those cameras on there for our entertainment; they presumably provide information that SpaceX wants to gather and losing the feed like that is concerning. I assume, and hope, that their actual telemetry feed is more robust, but visual evidence is something different and many times will quickly point to a problem or narrow down the search. There has been a lot of noise about cameras in the cockpit for NTSB investigations. While I don't support the idea, I agree that having video of an event can provide depth and context to what happened in a way that only visual evidence can.

Three hours after launch, the fog was gone and the sky was clear. Like a pilot launching into similar conditions I have to ask "why the rush"?

Edit: Looking at the weather for Boca Chica I think I know the answer: Wind. By the time the time the fog cleared the wind had gone from around nine knots to over twenty five with ten or fifteen knot gusts and stayed like that for the rest of the day. It was launch in the fog or scrub. So why not scrub? I'll go into speculation mode for a minute: I think that what they intended to learn from the first generation of Starship prototypes has already been accomplished. They are ready to move on to Gen 2 which begins with SN15, the next to fly. I think they didn't care whether 11 landed or not and so essentially shot it off as much to get rid of it as anything else. In the process they got some more flight data and probably got some good engine data, which it seems they desperately need. The rest is just the now routine cleanup and move on. :shrug:

_________________
My last name rhymes with 'geese'.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Starship SN-10 - Landed Okay-ish, then the KABOOM
PostPosted: 31 Mar 2021, 10:57 
Offline


 WWW  Profile




Joined: 12/03/14
Posts: 19252
Post Likes: +23612
Company: Ciholas, Inc
Location: KEHR
Aircraft: C560V
Username Protected wrote:
I think they didn't care whether 11 landed or not and so essentially shot it off as much to get rid of it as anything else.

Three Raptor engines are not for nothing, so I don't buy the "waste it" explanation.

Much of the problem seems to be from starting engines in a horizontal position. Probably lots of fuel slosh problems from the reorient effort.

Why not use the flap fins to get the rocket more upright and then start the engines? They seem to start well in that position and perhaps this saves weight on the systems (like header tanks) trying to compensate for the horizontal start position.

Mike C.

_________________
Email mikec (at) ciholas.com


Top

 Post subject: Re: Starship SN-10 - Landed Okay-ish, then the KABOOM
PostPosted: 31 Mar 2021, 11:02 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 05/17/10
Posts: 4402
Post Likes: +1719
Location: canuck
Aircraft: x23mouse
https://www.spaceflightinsider.com/miss ... -maneuver/
Quote:
It’s unclear whether that explosion was from a Raptor or the vehicle’s flight termination system. What is clear, however, is Starship SN11 did not come close to landing and instead performed a “rapid unscheduled disassembly”, or RUD.

_________________
nightwatch...


Top

 Post subject: Re: Starship SN-10 - Landed Okay-ish, then the KABOOM
PostPosted: 31 Mar 2021, 11:10 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 08/26/15
Posts: 9514
Post Likes: +8745
Company: airlines (*CRJ,A320)
Location: Florida panhandle
Aircraft: Travel Air,T-6B,etc*
Username Protected wrote:
Much of the problem seems to be from starting engines in a horizontal position. Probably lots of fuel slosh problems from the reorient effort.

Why not use the flap fins to get the rocket more upright and then start the engines? They seem to start well in that position and perhaps this saves weight on the systems (like header tanks) trying to compensate for the horizontal start position.

I see your point and I have a feeling they're looking closely at this. Probably a better way to look at it is which way is the acceleration vector when they're restarting the engines, not necessarily the same thing as the rocket's orientation with the surface of the earth.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Starship SN-10 - Landed Okay-ish, then the KABOOM
PostPosted: 31 Mar 2021, 11:16 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 10/31/14
Posts: 534
Post Likes: +255
Aircraft: eclipse
If you watch the video on a big screen then you can see fire where it doesn’t belong on the ascent
It’s my guess that’s what caused the boom


Top

 Post subject: Re: Starship SN-10 - Landed Okay-ish, then the KABOOM
PostPosted: 31 Mar 2021, 11:17 
Offline


User avatar
 WWW  Profile




Joined: 03/23/08
Posts: 6908
Post Likes: +3552
Company: AssuredPartners Aerospace Phx.
Location: KDVT, 46U
Aircraft: IAR823, LrJet, 240Z
^^ sorta what I was thinking.
Use Solid propellent kickers to flip the flop which solves your ullage problem and header tank necessity.

Something easily replaceable so one of you younger types can do it while you are on MARS waiting for the next shipment of stuff...

_________________
Tom Johnson-Az/Wy
AssuredPartners Aerospace Insurance
Tj.Johnson@AssuredPartners.com
C: 602-628-2701


Top

 Post subject: Re: Starship SN-10 - Landed Okay-ish, then the KABOOM
PostPosted: 31 Mar 2021, 11:39 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 02/10/12
Posts: 6819
Post Likes: +7927
Company: Minister of Pith
Location: Florida
Aircraft: Piper PA28/140
Username Protected wrote:
I think they didn't care whether 11 landed or not and so essentially shot it off as much to get rid of it as anything else.

Three Raptor engines are not for nothing, so I don't buy the "waste it" explanation.

Much of the problem seems to be from starting engines in a horizontal position. Probably lots of fuel slosh problems from the reorient effort.

Why not use the flap fins to get the rocket more upright and then start the engines? They seem to start well in that position and perhaps this saves weight on the systems (like header tanks) trying to compensate for the horizontal start position.

Mike C.

No baffles in the fuel tanks? Pressurization?
_________________
"No comment until the time limit is up."


Top

 Post subject: Re: Starship SN-10 - Landed Okay-ish, then the KABOOM
PostPosted: 31 Mar 2021, 11:40 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 05/17/10
Posts: 4402
Post Likes: +1719
Location: canuck
Aircraft: x23mouse
Username Protected wrote:
If you watch the video on a big screen then you can see fire where it doesn’t belong on the ascent
It’s my guess that’s what caused the boom
Quote:
Musk later elaborated that engine No. 2 appeared to have issues during the ascent and didn’t reach operating chamber pressure during the landing burn.

However, the plan was for all three Raptors to ignite initially with the least-desirable engine to immediately shut down. So in theory, Musk said, that engine wouldn’t have been needed anyway.

_________________
nightwatch...


Top

 Post subject: Re: Starship SN-10 - Landed Okay-ish, then the KABOOM
PostPosted: 31 Mar 2021, 11:44 
Offline


User avatar
 WWW  Profile




Joined: 03/23/08
Posts: 6908
Post Likes: +3552
Company: AssuredPartners Aerospace Phx.
Location: KDVT, 46U
Aircraft: IAR823, LrJet, 240Z
Username Protected wrote:
No baffles in the fuel tanks? Pressurization?


They have isolated header tanks like aerobatic aircraft (sans flop tube though)...

_________________
Tom Johnson-Az/Wy
AssuredPartners Aerospace Insurance
Tj.Johnson@AssuredPartners.com
C: 602-628-2701


Top

 Post subject: Re: Starship SN-10 - Landed Okay-ish, then the KABOOM
PostPosted: 31 Mar 2021, 13:14 
Online



User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 04/26/13
Posts: 19758
Post Likes: +19428
Location: Columbus , IN (KBAK)
Aircraft: 1968 Baron D55
Username Protected wrote:
Three Raptor engines are not for nothing, so I don't buy the "waste it" explanation.

Much of the problem seems to be from starting engines in a horizontal position. Probably lots of fuel slosh problems from the reorient effort.

Why not use the flap fins to get the rocket more upright and then start the engines? They seem to start well in that position and perhaps this saves weight on the systems (like header tanks) trying to compensate for the horizontal start position.

I was exaggerating slightly when I implied that they were just tossing it away. I'm sure that they had some reason to fly it that added value to the program. Just avoiding the cleanup afterward, and as you say, the cost of the Raptors would be reason enough to not fly if there was no value. I do think that they're at the point where they're done with Gen 1 and are ready to move on.

They designed the header tanks to address the problem with fuel un-porting when transitioning from horizontal to vertical. Their smaller size is to provide for continuous flow in either orientation, and they are pressurized by a "head" of gaseous material (fuel or oxidizer) that builds up above the liquid level and is replenished by a return flow from the Raptors. The trouble they seem to have is that during the flip, the gaseous part gets tossed around with the liquid, causing the gas to "collapse" back into liquid, taking the head pressure with it. That's why they tried using Helium as a substitute. They may have worked that out in Gen 2 (SN15-19), or not.

Solid rocket motors dedicated to the flip are expensive, add weight and complexity, and take up space in the engine bay that they don't really have. From a SpaceX perspective of "less is more", they're a non-starter.

I'm especially curious about this deconstruction because all evidence points to it occurring long before ground contact. I do not believe that it was initiated, I think something went very wrong right after the engine start was initiated. Video would have helped to understand it. Maybe the upward facing pad camera got a view of it looking straight up.

_________________
My last name rhymes with 'geese'.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Starship SN-10 - Landed Okay-ish, then the KABOOM
PostPosted: 31 Mar 2021, 13:32 
Offline


User avatar
 WWW  Profile




Joined: 03/23/08
Posts: 6908
Post Likes: +3552
Company: AssuredPartners Aerospace Phx.
Location: KDVT, 46U
Aircraft: IAR823, LrJet, 240Z
Honestly listening to the Spacex stream when I heard the audio it remined me eerily of the Yorba Linda 414 Nest camera audio... right away I was thinking "That didn't sound good".

Quite a RUD.

_________________
Tom Johnson-Az/Wy
AssuredPartners Aerospace Insurance
Tj.Johnson@AssuredPartners.com
C: 602-628-2701


Top

Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic  [ 61 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next




You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  

Terms of Service | Forum FAQ | Contact Us

BeechTalk, LLC is the quintessential Beechcraft Owners & Pilots Group providing a forum for the discussion of technical, practical, and entertaining issues relating to all Beech aircraft. These include the Bonanza (both V-tail and straight-tail models), Baron, Debonair, Duke, Twin Bonanza, King Air, Sierra, Skipper, Sport, Sundowner, Musketeer, Travel Air, Starship, Queen Air, BeechJet, and Premier lines of airplanes, turboprops, and turbojets.

BeechTalk, LLC is not affiliated or endorsed by the Beechcraft Corporation, its subsidiaries, or affiliates. Beechcraft™, King Air™, and Travel Air™ are the registered trademarks of the Beechcraft Corporation.

Copyright© BeechTalk, LLC 2007-2024

.aeroled-85x50-2022-12-06.jpg.
.dbm.jpg.
.wilco-85x100.png.
.saint-85x50.jpg.
.ABS-85x100.jpg.
.jandsaviation-85x50.jpg.
.boomerang-85x50-2023-12-17.png.
.planelogix-85x100-2015-04-15.jpg.
.centex-85x50.jpg.
.MountainAirframe.jpg.
.lucysaviation-85x50.png.
.avionwealth-85x50.png.
.Rocky-Mountain-Turbine-85x100.jpg.
.ssv-85x50-2023-12-17.jpg.
.aircraftferry-85x50.jpg.
.one-mile-up-85x100.png.
.stanmusikame-85x50.jpg.
.midwest2.jpg.
.ei-85x150.jpg.
.daytona.jpg.
.chairmanaviation-85x50.jpg.
.jetacq-85x50.jpg.
.Wingman 85x50.png.
.Marsh.jpg.
.airmart-85x150.png.
.shortnnumbers-85x100.png.
.kingairnation-85x50.png.
.Genesys_85x50.jpg.
.bpt-85x50-2019-07-27.jpg.
.tat-85x100.png.
.blackhawk-85x100-2019-09-25.jpg.
.headsetsetc_Small_85x50.jpg.
.pdi-85x50.jpg.
.AAI.jpg.
.concorde.jpg.
.SCA.jpg.
.geebee-85x50.jpg.
.bullardaviation-85x50-2.jpg.
.kingairacademy-85x100.png.
.pure-medical-85x150.png.
.Foreflight_85x50_color.png.
.Latitude.jpg.
.sierratrax-85x50.png.
.CiESVer2.jpg.
.wat-85x50.jpg.
.aviationdesigndouble.jpg.
.temple-85x100-2015-02-23.jpg.
.traceaviation-85x150.png.
.avfab-85x50-2018-12-04.png.
.cav-85x50.jpg.
.blackwell-85x50.png.
.camguard.jpg.
.tempest.jpg.
.gallagher_85x50.jpg.
.aircraftassociates-85x50.png.
.Wentworth_85x100.JPG.
.kadex-85x50.jpg.