-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
I think I can see my single crew cabin from here...
well, what ever the heck it is, it looks almost done!
This and smart summon in one week...what did YOU do this week! lol.
This and smart summon in one week...what did YOU do this week! lol.
pdx_m3s
Active Member
All this Starship and v10 stuff has been affecting my productivity at work.
And... now it is complete: Mary on Twitter
Considering how it appeared that cherries were in season all week in Texas (so many pickers), this is the cherry on top!
Considering how it appeared that cherries were in season all week in Texas (so many pickers), this is the cherry on top!
A picture is worth a thousand words on what has been going on in TX:
Found the answer to my question SpaceX's Starship Mk1 prototype heads to the launch pad - but why?
Yes, it was being moved and now apparently it has been placed in the newly built launch mount. Nose section hasn’t been moved yet.
Yes, it was being moved and now apparently it has been placed in the newly built launch mount. Nose section hasn’t been moved yet.
Might be worth remembering that these early development vehicles don't have weight concerns. They can be massively heavier than the final design as they don't plan to carry any actual cargo. Although these units are planned to fly without a BFR under them, so they can't get CRAZY, but still they can get away with making the skin out of heavier / thicker material than the final version will use. Using thicker material allows for less perfect welds and more of them.
It sounds to me like they just want make sure it re enters the atmosphere and lands properly. Consider that they likely won't stick the landing on the first try. Consider how many Falcon 9's went kaboom before they stuck the landing. The process of landing these is a bit more complicated than landing an F9. Building 2 is a good move.
It sounds to me like they just want make sure it re enters the atmosphere and lands properly. Consider that they likely won't stick the landing on the first try. Consider how many Falcon 9's went kaboom before they stuck the landing. The process of landing these is a bit more complicated than landing an F9. Building 2 is a good move.
F9 didn't really have many RUDs and the ones that did happen were one off issues. They had five or so successful test water landing after the first reentry test that failed due to roll issues. Ran out of oxygen. Sticking engine valve. Ran out of hydraulic fluid . Then there was the leg that didn't lock. A bunch of landings interspersed with the stalled hydraulic pump, FH ran out of TEA/TEB, FH2 fell over on the way back.
Falcon 9 first-stage landing tests - Wikipedia
What I find interesting on this pix, is what is the obvious internal volume. The craft itself is smaller than A-380, but bigger than a 747-100. However, it is obvious that the available volume is less than 1/3, and more like 1/4. As such, this will be doing great to hold 100 ppl in an all-coach airline configuration, and ZERO chance of 100 ppl to space (along with their cargo, etc).
Hummm....
Starship has over double the volume and area per person (ignoring unpressurized cargo).
A-380 diameter: 7.14m
A-380 cabin length: 50.68m
Theoretical volume: 2,029 m^3
Reality: main passenger width is 6.58m , upper is 5.92m
Passenger area: 633.5 m^2
Passenger volume: 633.5* 2m = 1,267m^3 (approx)
A-380 seating: 555
Area per passenger: 1.14 m^2
Cabin volume per passenger: 2.28 m^3
Total volume per passenger: 3.66 m^3
Starship diameter: 9m
Starship cabin length: ~14m
Starship cabin volume: 890m^3
Internal outer area (circumference only): 396 m^2
Capacity: 100
Area per person: ~3.9 m^2
Total volume per person: 8.9 m^3
Edit: or 6 levels 8.5m diameter with 2m hole in center
362m^2
Last edited:
I forgot about the F9 water landing tests. I wonder if the first Starship will be sacrificed at sea?
Not if things go well. Probably start put off the coast then bting it back to the pad.
Early F9 didn't do boostback burn so had to land at sea. Early attempts were too unproven to use a drone ship. Plus first stage reusability may not have been there.
Similar threads
