TMC is an independent, primarily volunteer organization that relies on ad revenue to cover its operating costs. Please consider whitelisting TMC on your ad blocker and becoming a Supporting Member. For more info: Support TMC
  1. TMC is currently READ ONLY.
    Click here for more info.

Falcon Super Heavy/Starship - General Development Discussion

Discussion in 'SpaceX' started by Grendal, Nov 4, 2017.

Tags:
  1. JRP3

    JRP3 Hyperactive Member

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2007
    Messages:
    19,384
    Location:
    Central New York
    I did some sophisticated modeling

    Catchy Mc Catchtface.jpg
     
    • Like x 8
    • Funny x 4
  2. mongo

    mongo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2017
    Messages:
    12,857
    Location:
    Michigan
    Nice :)
    The thing I don't like about that setup is the arms push the top of the rocket into the valley which messes up the control dynamics. Also need sone level of movement to track the ship. Without enough standoff, the rocket needs to slot the gap.
    Can work with less gap if the cradle rotates around the tower to surround the booster as it moves by.

    Two towers playing double dutch with cables?
    :D
     
    • Like x 1
  3. JRP3

    JRP3 Hyperactive Member

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2007
    Messages:
    19,384
    Location:
    Central New York
    Yeah I thought about straps/cables to allow some flex and cushion the forces, though the arms could have a swivel point and be spring loaded to provide some flex.
     
  4. Brass Guy

    Brass Guy Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2014
    Messages:
    1,136
    Location:
    Holbrook, MA
    You people are too funny - designing Space-X's SH booster catcher for them! I hope Elon's paying attention here.
     
    • Like x 3
    • Funny x 1
  5. Cosmacelf

    Cosmacelf Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2013
    Messages:
    8,229
    Location:
    San Diego
    I hope he isn't :D
     
    • Funny x 4
    • Like x 1
    • Love x 1
  6. Ben W

    Ben W P85 #61, Roadster #108

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2009
    Messages:
    620
    Location:
    Santa Barbara, CA
    I would imagine that catching all four grid fins at once (rather than two) would be much better for load-balancing. I'm envisioning two semicircular arms that start wide and pinch inward as the rocket descends, catching two grid fins each.

    FWIW, I don't think it's realistic that the fully-fueled rocket could be held in midair by its grid fins on launch; all that fuel (plus Starship) is HEAVY! (Hence the name.) But who knows, maybe the arms could still attach and provide a slight upward push on launch? Might increase max payload by a ton or so, but I doubt it's worth the added complexity.
     
    • Like x 1
  7. Watts_Up

    Watts_Up Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2019
    Messages:
    3,092
    Location:
    In a galaxy far, far away
    What not using existing buildings to have StarShipPorts similar to HeliPorts !!!!

     
    • Informative x 1
    • Funny x 1
  8. UkNorthampton

    UkNorthampton TSLA - 12+ startups in 1

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2019
    Messages:
    512
    Location:
    Northampton, England
    Elon has been practicing THROWING the baby up & then CATCHING. A small initial vertical throw upwards seems like a good idea, just getting the mass moving. Very mild catapult (aircraft carrier) launch.
     
    • Like x 1
  9. bxr140

    bxr140 Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2014
    Messages:
    2,607
    Location:
    Bay Area
    FWIW I think the KISS approach probably rules out ground based motion. Providing any appreciable external energy into a fully fueled launcher seems a complicated proposition. I think this one is analogous to SpaceX using Starship as a moon/mars lander instead of adding complication with additional vehicles.
     
    • Like x 1
  10. mongo

    mongo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2017
    Messages:
    12,857
    Location:
    Michigan
    Yeah, it's added complexity, but if the arms already have the actuators due to the landing system, it would boost payload. The rocket is least efficent on a fuel to delta-v metric at launch.
    The travel is a limiting factor, but with 50m of motion, at 1G (same as static loading, engines provide net acceleration, so could be as simple as a counter weight) it would provide 31m/s of boost or 112 kph.

    I've had the mind game of using a pully and counter weight system to lanuch rockets with >1G acceleration using a tunnel in/ on a tall mountain for launch rail support. A counterweight 8x the rocket mass and a 2:1 mechanical (dis)advantage (so pulley output of 4x) gives a 3 G acceleration (I think). But I digress (even further).
     
    • Like x 3
  11. bxr140

    bxr140 Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2014
    Messages:
    2,607
    Location:
    Bay Area
    You're thinking 50m of motion!?!? :eek:

    So you're thinking a mostly/fully passive thing? Interesting...that would be a little less complicated. I guess the major factor would be designing the thing to abort a big ass rocket moving at 112kph?

    Given my extreme laziness what's the benefit of 31m/s in vertical velocity? I guess one would wag the nominal energy required to get to orbit and then 1/2mv2 a 0th order fractional energy offset from the huck-o-gizmo?

    Also could use fans to minimize the air column in a tunnel...though...maybe the impact of hitting the atmosphere at the end of the tunnel would cause some problems...
     
    • Informative x 1
  12. mongo

    mongo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2017
    Messages:
    12,857
    Location:
    Michigan
    Yeah, because I'm also thinking of the arms traversing that far on the landing catch. Basically make contact early and then lock at 0 velocity.

    No abort at that point, same phase of launch as releasing the hold down clamps.

    If it's a really tall mountain, then we could get lower pressure. Or for most worst case failure, vacuum doors at the end
     
  13. Ben W

    Ben W P85 #61, Roadster #108

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2009
    Messages:
    620
    Location:
    Santa Barbara, CA
    #1133 Ben W, Jan 2, 2021
    Last edited: Jan 2, 2021
    The rocket equation is cruel, particularly when combined with gravity losses. Saturn V used up 8% of its fuel just clearing the tower. So a little boost at launch can go a long way. It still may not be worth the added complexity, but I bet they've done the math. If the arms are reliable enough to catch the booster, they're probably reliable enough to throw it (or rather, to give it some assist on launch; even a 10% effective weight reduction is huge during the first few seconds).
     
    • Informative x 3
    • Like x 3
  14. mongo

    mongo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2017
    Messages:
    12,857
    Location:
    Michigan
    #1134 mongo, Jan 2, 2021
    Last edited: Jan 2, 2021
    My go to for the rocket equation: Rocket Equation Calculator

    If the full stack is 5,000 mT and the isp is 330, then the first 31m/s would require burning off 48mT of fuel. 38m/s takes 53mT.
    However, that is the in-orbit calculation (ideal). Since the rocket is fighting gravity, the acceleration and fuel burn depends instead on total engine thrust and burn rate.
    Number of engines: 28
    Full stack mass of around 5,000 mT (metric tons)=5,000,000 kg = 5Mkg
    Total thrust: Raptor is 2,200 kN * 28 engines = 61.6 MN. (Might be 65MN)
    Force due to Gravity is 5Mkg * 9.8 = 49 MN.
    Net force 12.6 MN.
    Acceleration = 12.6 MN / 5Mkg = 2.52 m/s or about a quarter of a G.
    Assuming mass stays relatively constant for ease of calculation:
    Fuel consumption: 565kg/s

    Note that using a straight 1:1 counterweight approach would result in only 9.8 m/s acceleration until the rocket hit a thrust to weight ratio of >1. Anything higher would out accelerate and unload the counterweight.

    Edit: need mechanical advantage in addition to the mass: Using a 1.25x mass counterweight would provide the acceleration calculated here.

    With a 1G addition: 9.8m/s + 2.52m/s = 12.32m/s
    50 m travel: t=sqrt(50*2/12.32) = 2.85s
    Speed at end of boost: 2.85 * 12.32 = 35.1m/s
    Time to speed without boost: 35.1/2.52 = 13.93s
    Time saved: 13.93 - 2.85 = 11.08s
    Fuel saved: 11.08 * 565 * 28 = 175Mkg or 175mT
    This does not correspond directly to payload, and they would not rely on the boost to get to orbit, but it would increase the amount of fuel Starship or Tanker have once they get there which is the critical factor for refueling trips needed.
     
    • Like x 3
  15. JRP3

    JRP3 Hyperactive Member

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2007
    Messages:
    19,384
    Location:
    Central New York
    Scott Manley did some Kerbal modeling

     
    • Like x 4
  16. Xepa777

    Xepa777 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2017
    Messages:
    155
    Location:
    California
    I'm never gonna get tired of these crazy "catching booster" videos. SpaceX. Amazing.
     
    • Like x 1
  17. ICUDoc

    ICUDoc Active Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2015
    Messages:
    1,624
    Location:
    Sydney NSW
    Stunning statistic.
    1960's NASA was metal, man
     
    • Like x 1
  18. Cosmacelf

    Cosmacelf Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2013
    Messages:
    8,229
    Location:
    San Diego
    So, what's the under/over for when Bezos is going to say that the New Glenn was always going to be caught, and that landing on barges is so last decade?
     
    • Funny x 4
  19. Grendal

    Grendal SpaceX Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2012
    Messages:
    5,661
    Location:
    Santa Fe, New Mexico
    Tim Dodd gives a tour of the Boca Chica facility:
     
  20. HVM

    HVM Savolainen

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2012
    Messages:
    969
    Location:
    Finland
    #1140 HVM, Jan 19, 2021
    Last edited: Jan 19, 2021
    There was talk about how sea launch and landing platform would cost up hundred millions of dollars to build. SpaceX subsidiary has acquired two oil rigs just $3.5 million apiece. What was the thread "Shorting Oil, Hedging Tesla"? There could be lot of semi free sea platforms for sale in future...

    rigs1.jpg
    https://twitter.com/thejackbeyer/status/1351331758084661252

    NSF thread about rigs:
    Deimos and Phobos - offshore Starship launch platforms

    "Following up on thejackbeyer's find, I can confirm that Deimos and Phobos are the names of two oil rigs purchased by SpaceX – likely for conversion to support Starship operations. ENSCO 8500 and ENSCO 8501 were the previous names of the rigs. They are nearly identical twins."
    https://twitter.com/nextspaceflight/status/1351442201134264321
     
    • Informative x 5
    • Like x 2

Share This Page

  • About Us

    Formed in 2006, Tesla Motors Club (TMC) was the first independent online Tesla community. Today it remains the largest and most dynamic community of Tesla enthusiasts. Learn more.
  • Do you value your experience at TMC? Consider becoming a Supporting Member of Tesla Motors Club. As a thank you for your contribution, you'll get nearly no ads in the Community and Groups sections. Additional perks are available depending on the level of contribution. Please visit the Account Upgrades page for more details.


    SUPPORT TMC