User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 4/20/2023 2:30:52 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By RyanEsstac: :36 Seconds was definitely a raptor dieing I think that was the first HPU exploding. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2023 2:31:05 PM EDT
[Last Edit: AgeOne]
[#2]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By double_trouble_2003: NASA Space Flights van was hammered too. https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/31659/2832D6D9-806E-41BD-8FE5-8AE823B12EF5_jpe-2789597.JPG they seriously underestimated the power of this thing. if I'm google earthing this right, that van was over 400 yards away. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2023 2:33:08 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By t75fnaco3pwzhd: I wonder if a RUD on the launch mount would have caused more or less damage to stage 0 NSF wouldn't have had to worry about an insurance claim for their vehicle. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2023 2:34:57 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By AmericanPeople: You may have the crux of the failures identified yet not having a flame diverter and water deluge system has to go back a year or more. See Musk tweet about it a page or so back. I am not a launch structures engineer but it just seemed sketchy early on. I would like to see unbiased engineering data that a water deluge system alone will solve this issue without trenches to get the flames away from that area. Even if I saw it personally I would reject the data and implement trenches as well. SpaceX has done incredible things but sometimes they make bone-headed decisions. I have been an advocate of a flame trench and water deluge since they started building the OLM and that's no secret. Even got flamed for it here several times. That's OK though, thick skin and sticking to my guns hasn't hurt me much. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2023 2:36:01 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By AgeOne: they seriously underestimated the power of this thing. if I'm google earthing this right, that van was over 400 yards away. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By AgeOne: Originally Posted By double_trouble_2003: NASA Space Flights van was hammered too. https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/31659/2832D6D9-806E-41BD-8FE5-8AE823B12EF5_jpe-2789597.JPG they seriously underestimated the power of this thing. if I'm google earthing this right, that van was over 400 yards away. I think NSF mentioned it was roughly 1100' away. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2023 2:36:41 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By t75fnaco3pwzhd: I wonder if a RUD on the launch mount would have caused more or less damage to stage 0 I think it's safe to say detonating 3600 tons of fuel and oxidizer there would be less damaging than burning what they did at the rate they did. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2023 2:42:06 PM EDT
[#7]
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2023 2:42:09 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By t75fnaco3pwzhd: I wonder if a RUD on the launch mount would have caused more or less damage to stage 0 They would be setting up logistics right now to get the OLIT sections completed at KSC delivered to Boca Chica, as well as everything they could get to replace the tank farm. Let alone the other equipment that would have been destroyed. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2023 2:43:32 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Chokey:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FuLWlsMagAEwoFo?format=jpg&name=large We're getting close to gimbal lock here Houston. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2023 2:44:34 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Dagger41: I have been an advocate of a flame trench and water deluge since they started building the OLM and that's no secret. Even got flamed for it here several times. That's OK though, thick skin and sticking to my guns hasn't hurt me much. Yup, I agree. I have also always thought that not having any sort of flame mitigation was a huge mistake from the start. I thought it was sort of evident after the short static fires that bad things would happen without something in place. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2023 2:48:27 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Dagger41: I have been an advocate of a flame trench and water deluge since they started building the OLM and that's no secret. Even got flamed for it here several times. That's OK though, thick skin and sticking to my guns hasn't hurt me much. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Dagger41: Originally Posted By AmericanPeople: You may have the crux of the failures identified yet not having a flame diverter and water deluge system has to go back a year or more. See Musk tweet about it a page or so back. I am not a launch structures engineer but it just seemed sketchy early on. I would like to see unbiased engineering data that a water deluge system alone will solve this issue without trenches to get the flames away from that area. Even if I saw it personally I would reject the data and implement trenches as well. SpaceX has done incredible things but sometimes they make bone-headed decisions. I have been an advocate of a flame trench and water deluge since they started building the OLM and that's no secret. Even got flamed for it here several times. That's OK though, thick skin and sticking to my guns hasn't hurt me much. How are they going to launch a return from Mars or the Moon if ground shrapnel is a problem as the rocket will be sitting on the surface, although it will just be a Starship. In the Everyday Astronaut stream they had to take cover inside because they were getting covered in dust, at 5 miles away.  |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2023 2:50:13 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Stillnothere]
[#12]
|
|
|
|
UT, USA
|
Posted: 4/20/2023 2:50:41 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Stillnothere: I really hope that the administration doesn't use this as a reason to curtail further attempts of starship launches. I could see them being bitches and raising hell about flying ground debris or making up shit about rocket debris in orbit. Unlikely. D politicians would love to make political hay over this but I don't see much of that happening. NASA has awarded over $3B in contracts to SpaceX that rely on Starship becoming not just operational, but man rated, as it is their chosen delivery method for putting the next people on the moon. SLS will get them there. Starship takes them down to the surface and back up to orbit after. Not just that, but NASA, NSA, NRO, CIA, DoD, NSF, etc., are all salivating at the enormous diameter, volume and payload the booster can deliver to orbit. Same goes for commercial launch customers that have politicians in their hip pocket. No, entrenched bureaucrats who wield the real levers of power and control in .gov REALLY want this to be successful. That's my take anyway. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2023 2:51:57 PM EDT
[Last Edit: AJ_Dual]
[#14]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By AmericanPeople: You may have the crux of the failures identified yet not having a flame diverter and water deluge system has to go back a year or more. See Musk tweet about it a page or so back. I am not a launch structures engineer but it just seemed sketchy early on. I would like to see unbiased engineering data that a water deluge system alone will solve this issue without trenches to get the flames away from that area. Even if I saw it personally I would reject the data and implement trenches as well. SpaceX has done incredible things but sometimes they make bone-headed decisions. But it's big... Basically it's what Disneyworld did later on with the concrete "Utilitadors" network of tunnels, and built foundations for all the attractions at mostly ground level, then bought in an additional 12' of soil to cover it all and make the park's public street level. I assume in that flat sandy area so close to the ocean, the geology is similar in Boca Chica. So I'd guess that the lack of a trench and water deluge system, and risk of FOD, and even acoustic shaking or resonance damage to Superheavy it created, was calculated against the massive earthworks needed to raise the level. So the expense and time for what might be destroyed by a RUD right on the pad, at a site that has a limited use-time, and EPA, Army COE, and whatever TX submissions, reviews, and approval would be needed, not just for the diverter & deluge system, but a bajillion cubic yards of dirt was in the balance. I imagine that amount of dirt getting trucked in would get a lot of hairy eyeball from bureaucratic enviroweenies. It could be cut corners, or simply just not worth it, not just in sunk-costs time and expense, but in future losses against testing and upgrades/changes. Just my armchair opinion, but the only loss from not having a more sophisticated pad is if the failures turn out to be 100% FOD and/or noise and vibration, and nothing else could be learned, and it doesn't sufficiently advance the aggressive "Physical test & iteration" strategy. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2023 2:59:38 PM EDT
[#15]
From ChatGPT:
Starship soared high into the sky, A shiny steel rocket, sleek and spry. Its engines roared with a fiery might, As it pierced the heavens, a dazzling sight. The countdown ticked, the tension rose, But Starship knew just where to go. Through clouds and skies it cut a path, A mission of science, with no aftermath. But as it reached the pinnacle of space, Disaster struck, a fiery chase. Starship burst into a million parts, And scattered across the ground, broken hearts. But even in its catastrophic fall, Starship gave us lessons, new knowledge tall. For though it failed, it tried its best, And inspired us all, to reach for the crest. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2023 3:01:05 PM EDT
[#16]
Maybe Sea Dragon water launches weren't such a dumb idea for a huge rocket.
Doesn't help the Mars launch piece though... Regardless - awesome event today. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2023 3:04:01 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Zam18th: I think those 2 tanks are empty but there's a LOX leak on the other side. ETA I think 1 is empty and 1 may have been converted into a water tank.
Both water tanks.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2023 3:07:17 PM EDT
[#18]
Given the damage to the launchpad and other support facilities - how far is Boca Chica still ahead of the Florida launch site?
|
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 4/20/2023 3:07:27 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Dagger41: LOL. Not real funny but it's not far off. I contend that launch pad debris is what condemned the launch, rendering 3 engines inop at the beginning and damaging several others to the point of cascading failures, including the hydraulic pumps that provide the steering. The rocket was doomed as soon as the hold down clamps were released. Get there itis is a thing and it's universal. I'm really surprised it survived so long. It may actually be overbuilt.  In the long run I think confirming the Stage 0 flaws now will turn out to be worth any setback. And now Starship teams have a lot of real data to work with while Stage 0 gets revamped. |
|
|
UT, USA
|
Posted: 4/20/2023 3:08:17 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By couchlord: How are they going to launch a return from Mars or the Moon if ground shrapnel is a problem as the rocket will be sitting on the surface, although it will just be a Starship. In the Everyday Astronaut stream they had to take cover inside because they were getting covered in dust, at 5 miles away. This is a great question. The Apollo LM's detached the upper section and the lower half acted as a shield as the motor burned to send them back to orbit. Starship engines will be exposed to moon dust, rocks, etc during both landing and launch. I'm sure we are not first to think of this, so I'm curious as to SpaceX and NASA's Engineers and scientists have been anning on for this. |
|
|
TX, USA
|
Posted: 4/20/2023 3:09:45 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By couchlord: How are they going to launch a return from Mars or the Moon if ground shrapnel is a problem as the rocket will be sitting on the surface, although it will just be a Starship. In the Everyday Astronaut stream they had to take cover inside because they were getting covered in dust, at 5 miles away. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By couchlord: Originally Posted By Dagger41: Originally Posted By AmericanPeople: You may have the crux of the failures identified yet not having a flame diverter and water deluge system has to go back a year or more. See Musk tweet about it a page or so back. I am not a launch structures engineer but it just seemed sketchy early on. I would like to see unbiased engineering data that a water deluge system alone will solve this issue without trenches to get the flames away from that area. Even if I saw it personally I would reject the data and implement trenches as well. SpaceX has done incredible things but sometimes they make bone-headed decisions. I have been an advocate of a flame trench and water deluge since they started building the OLM and that's no secret. Even got flamed for it here several times. That's OK though, thick skin and sticking to my guns hasn't hurt me much. How are they going to launch a return from Mars or the Moon if ground shrapnel is a problem as the rocket will be sitting on the surface, although it will just be a Starship. In the Everyday Astronaut stream they had to take cover inside because they were getting covered in dust, at 5 miles away. Only the ship would be taking off from Mars or the moon, and with lower gravity and little or no atmosphere, it won't need that much thrust to get off the surface, but at the same time those conditions will cause debris to that is kicked up to fly a very long distance. They might need terrain or a berm between the landing pad and the habitats on Mars. On the moon, debris might even make a full orbit and hit surface structures from the opposite direction. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2023 3:11:15 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Dagger41: I have been an advocate of a flame trench and water deluge since they started building the OLM and that's no secret. Even got flamed for it here several times. That's OK though, thick skin and sticking to my guns hasn't hurt me much. 
|
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 4/20/2023 3:16:27 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By tortilla-flats: Both water tanks.
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By tortilla-flats: Originally Posted By Zam18th: I think those 2 tanks are empty but there's a LOX leak on the other side. ETA I think 1 is empty and 1 may have been converted into a water tank.
Both water tanks.
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 4/20/2023 3:17:28 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By t75fnaco3pwzhd: I wonder if a RUD on the launch mount would have caused more or less damage to stage 0 Depends on if you count ceasing to exist as damage. |
|
|
UT, USA
|
Posted: 4/20/2023 3:22:43 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Utahshooting]
[#25]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By castlebravo84: Only the ship would be taking off from Mars or the moon, and with lower gravity and little or no atmosphere, it won't need that much thrust to get off the surface, but at the same time those conditions will cause debris to that is kicked up to fly a very long distance. They might need terrain or a berm between the landing pad and the habitats on Mars. On the moon, debris might even make a full orbit and hit surface structures from the opposite direction. Correct. More I think about it, the more I'm concerned about the initial soft landing on the moon. It will come down pretty gingerly with thrusters firing until it is settled. All that will kick up a lot of debris potentially damaging the engines or other components. Obvious and cool ass Buck Rogers solution would be to pre-stage a robotic Stage 0 on moons surface. It would land first, level itself, then unfold blast shield petals similar to an unfolding solar panel. Starship then lands and blasts off from this safe LZ. If they go this route, I want full credit for crazy idea. 
|
|
|
WA, USA
|
Posted: 4/20/2023 3:23:48 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Utahshooting: This is a great question. The Apollo LM's detached the upper section and the lower half acted as a shield as the motor burned to send them back to orbit. Starship engines will be exposed to moon dust, rocks, etc during both landing and launch. I'm sure we are not first to think of this, so I'm curious as to SpaceX and NASA's Engineers and scientists have been anning on for this. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Utahshooting: Originally Posted By couchlord: How are they going to launch a return from Mars or the Moon if ground shrapnel is a problem as the rocket will be sitting on the surface, although it will just be a Starship. In the Everyday Astronaut stream they had to take cover inside because they were getting covered in dust, at 5 miles away. This is a great question. The Apollo LM's detached the upper section and the lower half acted as a shield as the motor burned to send them back to orbit. Starship engines will be exposed to moon dust, rocks, etc during both landing and launch. I'm sure we are not first to think of this, so I'm curious as to SpaceX and NASA's Engineers and scientists have been anning on for this. The SpaceX renders showed the ship landing on the moon using Draco style thrusters placed high up on the sides of the ship. |
|
|
UT, USA
|
Posted: 4/20/2023 3:29:12 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Combat_Leader: The SpaceX renders showed the ship landing on the moon using Draco style thrusters placed high up on the sides of the ship. Does this mean I don't get to see my Buck Rogers, robotic Stage 0 hair brained idea? 
|
|
|
OR, USA
|
Posted: 4/20/2023 3:30:48 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By tortilla-flats: Correct on all counts. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By tortilla-flats: Originally Posted By Dagger41: I have been an advocate of a flame trench and water deluge since they started building the OLM and that's no secret. Even got flamed for it here several times. That's OK though, thick skin and sticking to my guns hasn't hurt me much. I can not think of a good way to integrate a flame trench with the existing launch mount. The water table is too high and they will probably need a pretty deep pool to obsorb the thrust. Repairing and retrofitting the launch mount would probably cost more than a complete redesign. The crane tower can be reused but it will have to be taller. Is an oilrig style launch platform the better option? The hight can be adjusted with buoyancy and you get a free source of coolant for your exhaust. |
|
|
OR, USA
|
Posted: 4/20/2023 3:33:24 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Utahshooting: Correct. More I think about it, the more I'm concerned about the initial soft landing on the moon. It will come down pretty gingerly with thrusters firing until it is settled. All that will kick up a lot of debris potentially damaging the engines or other components. Obvious and cool ass Buck Rogers solution would be to pre-stage a robotic Stage 0 on moons surface. It would land first, level itself, then unfold blast shield petals similar to an unfolding solar panel. Starship then lands and blasts off from this safe LZ. If they go this route, I want full credit for crazy idea. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2023 3:37:58 PM EDT
[Last Edit: double_trouble_2003]
[#30]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By double_trouble_2003: NASA Space Flights van was hammered too. https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/31659/2832D6D9-806E-41BD-8FE5-8AE823B12EF5_jpe-2789597.JPG
Live action of debris taking out the minivan  [4K] Starship Wreaks Havoc During Liftoff - 60FPS Ultrawide |
|
|
|
UT, USA
|
Posted: 4/20/2023 3:38:12 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By mort: How about a lunar orbital death ray that uses lasers to cinter the regolith into a landing pad like an giant metal powder laser printer? Best Dr. Evil laugh!!! Bwaaahaahaa |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2023 3:43:52 PM EDT
[#32]
BEFORE:
 AFTER: 
|
|
|
|
CO, USA
|
Posted: 4/20/2023 3:46:09 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Dagger41: I have been an advocate of a flame trench and water deluge since they started building the OLM and that's no secret. Even got flamed for it here several times. That's OK though, thick skin and sticking to my guns hasn't hurt me much. Maybe they did not understand the technical aspect of it. Without the trenches and water deluge system, the flame power is going to be going everywhere willy nilly. Never let rocket engine flames go willy nilly. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2023 3:46:31 PM EDT
[Last Edit: David0858]
[#34]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By t75fnaco3pwzhd: I wonder if a RUD on the launch mount would have caused more or less damage to stage 0 I'm thinking pieces of the pad caused a LOT of it.
|
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 4/20/2023 3:49:47 PM EDT
[#35]
 |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2023 4:11:41 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Utahshooting: Correct. More I think about it, the more I'm concerned about the initial soft landing on the moon. It will come down pretty gingerly with thrusters firing until it is settled. All that will kick up a lot of debris potentially damaging the engines or other components. Obvious and cool ass Buck Rogers solution would be to pre-stage a robotic Stage 0 on moons surface. It would land first, level itself, then unfold blast shield petals similar to an unfolding solar panel. Starship then lands and blasts off from this safe LZ. If they go this route, I want full credit for crazy idea. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Utahshooting: Originally Posted By castlebravo84: Only the ship would be taking off from Mars or the moon, and with lower gravity and little or no atmosphere, it won't need that much thrust to get off the surface, but at the same time those conditions will cause debris to that is kicked up to fly a very long distance. They might need terrain or a berm between the landing pad and the habitats on Mars. On the moon, debris might even make a full orbit and hit surface structures from the opposite direction. Correct. More I think about it, the more I'm concerned about the initial soft landing on the moon. It will come down pretty gingerly with thrusters firing until it is settled. All that will kick up a lot of debris potentially damaging the engines or other components. Obvious and cool ass Buck Rogers solution would be to pre-stage a robotic Stage 0 on moons surface. It would land first, level itself, then unfold blast shield petals similar to an unfolding solar panel. Starship then lands and blasts off from this safe LZ. If they go this route, I want full credit for crazy idea. I watched a video somewhat related to that yesterday, talking about how brutal the moon dust was on equipment. Just the dust kicked up from their feet caused problems with the suits.  The Problem with the Next Moon Mission |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2023 4:14:29 PM EDT
[#37]
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2023 4:20:08 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By couchlord: How are they going to launch a return from Mars or the Moon if ground shrapnel is a problem as the rocket will be sitting on the surface, although it will just be a Starship. In the Everyday Astronaut stream they had to take cover inside because they were getting covered in dust, at 5 miles away. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By couchlord: Originally Posted By Dagger41: Originally Posted By AmericanPeople: You may have the crux of the failures identified yet not having a flame diverter and water deluge system has to go back a year or more. See Musk tweet about it a page or so back. I am not a launch structures engineer but it just seemed sketchy early on. I would like to see unbiased engineering data that a water deluge system alone will solve this issue without trenches to get the flames away from that area. Even if I saw it personally I would reject the data and implement trenches as well. SpaceX has done incredible things but sometimes they make bone-headed decisions. I have been an advocate of a flame trench and water deluge since they started building the OLM and that's no secret. Even got flamed for it here several times. That's OK though, thick skin and sticking to my guns hasn't hurt me much. How are they going to launch a return from Mars or the Moon if ground shrapnel is a problem as the rocket will be sitting on the surface, although it will just be a Starship. In the Everyday Astronaut stream they had to take cover inside because they were getting covered in dust, at 5 miles away. Was just going to post this |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2023 4:22:13 PM EDT
[Last Edit: burnka871]
[#39]
I wonder if there are individual flight termination systems for booster and ship. Maybe they didn't separate on purpose.
I'm also partial to the loss of hydraulic pressure theory. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2023 4:24:35 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By burnka871: I wonder if there are individual flight termination systems for booster and ship. Maybe they didn't separate on purpose. I'm also partial to the loss of hydraulic pressure theory. yes, there is a separate FTS for each, and they used both today. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2023 4:25:52 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By burnka871: I wonder if there are individual flight termination systems for booster and ship. Maybe they didn't separate on purpose. I'm also partial to the loss of hydraulic pressure theory. In the video you can see the boosters system getting triggered and then a moment later Starship's system going off. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2023 4:33:53 PM EDT
[#42]
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2023 4:37:26 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By t75fnaco3pwzhd: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FuLKr_0XwAc5zAP?format=jpg&name=medium Surreal pic ! Starship's last selfie, smile and wait for the flash. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2023 4:38:00 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Dagger41: I have been an advocate of a flame trench and water deluge since they started building the OLM and that's no secret. Even got flamed for it here several times. That's OK though, thick skin and sticking to my guns hasn't hurt me much. A flame trench would have delayed the FONSI, that’s why he went with the milk stool. They still didn’t have the flame diverted nor the full deluge system installed today. I suspect he expected some of this at least. |
|
|
|
CO, USA
|
Posted: 4/20/2023 4:38:07 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By fox2008: I watched a video somewhat related to that yesterday, talking about how brutal the moon dust was on equipment. Just the dust kicked up from their feet caused problems with the suits. They engineered a solution. They are sending a woman. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2023 4:40:07 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By t75fnaco3pwzhd: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FuLKr_0XwAc5zAP?format=jpg&name=medium that's insane
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2023 4:42:27 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Utahshooting: This is a great question. The Apollo LM's detached the upper section and the lower half acted as a shield as the motor burned to send them back to orbit. Starship engines will be exposed to moon dust, rocks, etc during both landing and launch. I'm sure we are not first to think of this, so I'm curious as to SpaceX and NASA's Engineers and scientists have been anning on for this. Actually, you are wrong. Starship will not be using the bottom engines for landing or ascent while close to the lunar surface. They have a ring of engines near the top for that. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2023 4:58:36 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Chokey:
I think the noise and vibrations are going to be a huge problem going forward for SpaceX. People won't put up with that on a regular basis. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2023 5:02:23 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By double_trouble_2003: NASA Space Flights van was hammered too. https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/31659/2832D6D9-806E-41BD-8FE5-8AE823B12EF5_jpe-2789597.JPG Too close... |
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
.jpg)
