Astronomy and space exploration

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by eloyc, Apr 10, 2017.

  1. jayco

    Veteran Regular

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2006
    Messages:
    1,718
    Likes Received:
    1,255
    Nice, I didn't know they were already using autogenous pressurisation for the tanks. I though there were going to use COPVs until they moved to the orbital vehicles, can't blame them after all the issues they had with them.

    My guess is probably is just RCS and, maybe, pneumatic stuff as you say like to open and close valves but they could be electrically driven as well. For ignition maybe not, probably they just open the valves and let the fuel start moving the pumps just using gravity but I'm not really sure. I really need to get up to speed with Starship operations, I wish I had more time for these things.

    But I don't think they'll help much with that maneuver, right? Even if they move to hot gas RCS do they have enough thrust to make any difference? I thought that maneuver was handled mainly by the aerodynamic surfaces and the engine's TVC.
     
    Lightman and eloyc like this.
  2. cheapchips

    Veteran Newcomer

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2013
    Messages:
    1,797
    Likes Received:
    1,931
    The hot gas RCS they'd proposed was quite sporty, can't remember the stats. It's designed to keep SS/SH on target for landing in pretty much all weathers. I don't know if it removes the need to use Raptor TVC, but the will have enough oomf to change what the manoeuvre looks like.

    The landing thrusters for the HLS Moon Starship are probably just a repurposed hot gas RCS design too.
     
    Lightman and jayco like this.
  3. nutball

    Veteran Subscriber

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2003
    Messages:
    2,351
    Likes Received:
    785
    Location:
    en.gb.uk
    Because Raptor SN42 was onboard:

     
    fehu, Lightman, hoom and 1 other person like this.
  4. eloyc

    Veteran Regular

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2009
    Messages:
    2,462
    Likes Received:
    1,617
    I'm disappointed at the inaccuracy. I was expecting a Texan accent.
     
  5. jayco

    Veteran Regular

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2006
    Messages:
    1,718
    Likes Received:
    1,255
  6. cheapchips

    Veteran Newcomer

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2013
    Messages:
    1,797
    Likes Received:
    1,931
    "what the hell did they just to to my twin!" <Faints>
     
    eloyc likes this.
  7. nutball

    Veteran Subscriber

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2003
    Messages:
    2,351
    Likes Received:
    785
    Location:
    en.gb.uk
    Oh dear, it's been on the bourbon I guess?
     
  8. hoom

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2003
    Messages:
    3,136
    Likes Received:
    692
    "Oh no, not again" :runaway:
     
    pharma, Lightman, eloyc and 1 other person like this.
  9. pharma

    Veteran Regular

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2004
    Messages:
    4,204
    Likes Received:
    3,388
    Dec 21, 2020
     
    #769 pharma, Dec 23, 2020
    Last edited: Dec 23, 2020
    Lightman and eloyc like this.
  10. jayco

    Veteran Regular

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2006
    Messages:
    1,718
    Likes Received:
    1,255
    Going back to helium for SN9.

     
    Lightman, BRiT, cheapchips and 2 others like this.
  11. cheapchips

    Veteran Newcomer

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2013
    Messages:
    1,797
    Likes Received:
    1,931
    Sounds like a sensible way to get flying/landing. They don't have to drop helium for the short to medium term. Might need to for long term for cost and availability on Mars (main tanks are will still be autogenously pressurised).

    The new booster landing idea they're pursuing it beautifully nuts.

     
    Lightman and eloyc like this.
  12. pharma

    Veteran Regular

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2004
    Messages:
    4,204
    Likes Received:
    3,388
  13. eloyc

    Veteran Regular

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2009
    Messages:
    2,462
    Likes Received:
    1,617
  14. hoom

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2003
    Messages:
    3,136
    Likes Received:
    692
    eloyc and Lightman like this.
  15. jayco

    Veteran Regular

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2006
    Messages:
    1,718
    Likes Received:
    1,255
    SN9 blew up as well xD

    This time looked like an engine issue, which is worse than a header tank. Let's see what the investigation says.
     
    Lightman likes this.
  16. cheapchips

    Veteran Newcomer

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2013
    Messages:
    1,797
    Likes Received:
    1,931
    Looked like a chunk flew out when they tried to light it. Still, SN10 should be later this month. Third time's the charm and all that.

    (and the launch and belly flop went perfectly again, so it's a not doom and gloom by any stretch)
     
    Lightman likes this.
  17. jayco

    Veteran Regular

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2006
    Messages:
    1,718
    Likes Received:
    1,255
    It's going to depend on what was the issue with the engine. Lighting a rocket engine on an horizontal position while free falling is really at the limits of what has been done, if Raptor has issues doing it, I think they will try to solve those issues before crashing more ships. Raptor is one of the most advanced engine ever made, I can see it having issues for a lot of time, given how other engines like the SSME took to refine and make them reliable.
     
    Lightman and eloyc like this.
  18. cheapchips

    Veteran Newcomer

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2013
    Messages:
    1,797
    Likes Received:
    1,931
    Could do. They certainly has issues during static fires. Two has to be swapped out needing minor repairs. They were pushing relights though.

    On the upside, over 50 Raptors manufactured. They're really churning them out. If they've not exceeded the number of RS-25s made, they will have done so about.......now. :)
     
    Lightman, eloyc and jayco like this.
  19. nutball

    Veteran Subscriber

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2003
    Messages:
    2,351
    Likes Received:
    785
    Location:
    en.gb.uk
    Rare(*) slip-up from Falcon 9 this morning. Watching the video it seems that there was something a bit wrong with the re-entry burn and the booster went for an early bath.

    (*) What world do we live in where it's a "surprise" that a company failed to land an orbital-class booster on a ship in the ocean??! Odd times people. Odd times.
     
    Lightman, eloyc, jlippo and 1 other person like this.
  20. Lightman

    Veteran Subscriber

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2008
    Messages:
    1,935
    Likes Received:
    913
    Location:
    Torquay, UK
    So we now have another rover on a red planet :)
    I can't wait when it will start rallying across Martian surface and pooping samples here and there!
    When I was watching landing live on YT, I was pleasantly surprised how quickly they got first pictures from the surface after landing. Must be at least ADSL connection now, instead of Dial-up from the years past ;)
     
    pharma, eloyc and cheapchips like this.
Loading...

Share This Page

  • About Us

    Beyond3D has been around for over a decade and prides itself on being the best place on the web for in-depth, technically-driven discussion and analysis of 3D graphics hardware. If you love pixels and transistors, you've come to the right place!

    Beyond3D is proudly published by GPU Tools Ltd.
Loading...