Wiki Super Heavy/Starship - General Development Discussion

[scaesare]

Man when looking at the size of Starship, and knowing it's mass is gonna go up with its prop/oxidizer load:

And then looking at the hot-staging ring and thinking about the load it's gonna have to handle with multiple G's of acceleration... I know the back of those "staves" are reinforced, but it sure looks like it has it's work cut out for it:

 

[JB47394]

Man when looking at the size of Starship, and knowing it's mass is gonna go up with its prop/oxidizer load:

Here's a size comparison between the Shuttle and Starship. Note how similar Starship is in size to the external tank. I can picture the seven crew in the Shuttle, but I can't imagine 100 people in a Starship. Sardine city.

And then looking at the hot-staging ring and thinking about the load it's gonna have to handle with multiple G's of acceleration... I know the back of those "staves" are reinforced, but it sure looks like it has it's work cut out for it:

Thank goodness for computer simulations and can crusher tests. If that ring fails during liftoff it's going to be a Bad Day in Boca Chica.

 

[ecarfan]

I can picture the seven crew in the Shuttle, but I can't imagine 100 people in a Starship.

I can’t either, and I think Elon was stretching the bounds of credulity when he talked about that years ago, but I also think that in a few years there will be a “stretched” version of Starship that will have a much larger pressurized volume.

 

[nativewolf]

I can’t either, and I think Elon was stretching the bounds of credulity when he talked about that years ago, but I also think that in a few years there will be a “stretched” version of Starship that will have a much larger pressurized volume.

Can you imagine the line to the 1 single toilet. Excuse me, turn that way, excuse me...could you just lift you leg slightly. Gonna look like the worlds largest twister competition. That doesn't even begin to address how the steward is getting through the isle to hand out those crappy almond packets.

 

[JB47394]

I can’t either, and I think Elon was stretching the bounds of credulity when he talked about that years ago, but I also think that in a few years there will be a “stretched” version of Starship that will have a much larger pressurized volume.

Stretched and inflated. I've always found it ironic that we go into the vastness of space only to operate inside little cans.

 

[Buckminster]

I've been in training for mars for years now. Capable of operating in a confined horizontal space for hours with only a MacBook for comfort. Put me in coach.

 

[mongo]

Here's a size comparison between the Shuttle and Starship. Note how similar Starship is in size to the external tank. I can picture the seven crew in the Shuttle, but I can't imagine 100 people in a Starship. Sardine city.

Starship payload compartment is over 10x the Shuttle crew area. 664 m^2 vs 65.8 (including flight deck, equipment bay, and airlock).

 

[JB47394]

Starship payload compartment is over 10x the Shuttle crew area. 664 m^2 vs 65.8 (including flight deck, equipment bay, and airlock).

Suggesting 70 people for 10 days with Space Shuttle accommodations - which were considered cramped. In contrast, the ISS has a habitable volume of 400 m³ for its typical complement of seven crew. Longer duration missions involving more room only seems reasonable. A Starship space station would allow for a crew of 12 with ISS accommodations. Probably better because larger single areas could be created and the interior could be reconfigured over time.

The dearMoon project is supposed to involve a crew of nine. So that should be comfortable if it ever actually comes to pass.

 

[Buckminster]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1700051709433897125

Might get some extra flights and funding?

 

[JB47394]

Might get some extra flights and funding?

Starship would have to be human-rated, which is years away. As much fun as it is to dump on SLS, it is human rated from the start.

 

[mongo]

Woot! Progress!

https://twitter.com/x/status/1700148557641097474

 

[mongo]

Update from SpaceX
SpaceX

 

[Buckminster]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1700239116993233015

 

[TunaBug]

From https://www.faa.gov/media/70901 (a letter from FAA to SpaceX' Director of Starship Reliability)

The FAA has been provided with sufficient information and accepts the root causes and corrective actions described in the mishap report. Consequently, the FAA considers the mishap investigation that SpaceX was required to complete to be concluded.

So SpaceX provided the root causes and the corrective actions and the FAA agreed with it. Basically the only "news" here is that the FAA has now officially told them "yeah, keep doing what you're doing".

 

[JB47394]

From https://www.faa.gov/media/70901 (a letter from FAA to SpaceX' Director of Starship Reliability)

So SpaceX provided the root causes and the corrective actions and the FAA agreed with it. Basically the only "news" here is that the FAA has now officially told them "yeah, keep doing what you're doing".

With the admonition that they better not try to launch before they complete those corrective actions. Otherwise, "enforcement".

You said it, but I wanted to underscore that SpaceX is the one that identified those 63 corrective actions. Elon asking what those items are makes him look pretty foolish. He should already know because they came from his own company. No doubt somebody on Twitter has already pointed this out to him.

 

[ecarfan]

Update from SpaceX
SpaceX

Interesting regarding IFT-1…

During ascent, the vehicle sustained fires from leaking propellant in the aft end of the Super Heavy booster, which eventually severed connection with the vehicle’s primary flight computer. This led to a loss of communications to the majority of booster engines and, ultimately, control of the vehicle. SpaceX has since implemented leak mitigations and improved testing on both engine and booster hardware. As an additional corrective action, SpaceX has significantly expanded Super Heavy’s pre-existing fire suppression system in order to mitigate against future engine bay fires.

 

[ICUDoc]

Elon asking what those items are makes him look pretty foolish.

I wonder if maybe Elon KNOWS what they are, but the FAA doesn't!!
That us to say, (he can't help himself) he is teasing the FAA as SpaceX identified 63 actions to them and they said "Fine" without necessarily working them out or even understanding the corrective actions themselves?

 

[mongo]

I wonder if maybe Elon KNOWS what they are, but the FAA doesn't!!
That us to say, (he can't help himself) he is teasing the FAA as SpaceX identified 63 actions to them and they said "Fine" without necessarily working them out or even understanding the corrective actions themselves?

SpaceX has always had all the data. Elon may be pushing for release of it.

SpaceX wrote the report (along with FAA, NTSB, and NASA oversight) that was submitted to the FAA as part of the mishap investigation. That report is where the 63 items came from.
Following acceptance of the report and closure of the investigation, SpaceX needs to (and likely already did) submit proof of correcting the 63 items that SpaceX identified to get the launch license updated and approved for another attempt.

Following the launch, the FAA, consistent with its statutory authority under Title 51 of the U.S. Code and 14 CFR § 450.173(e), required SpaceX to conduct a mishap investigation in accordance with its approved mishap plan under FAA oversight. The FAA conducted a final review of the mishap report, dated August 21, 2023 . The primary focus of this review was to ensure operator compliance with 14 CFR § 450.173 – “mishap plan requirement including the identification of root cause(s) and implementation of corrective actions [preventative measures] to avoid a recurrence of the event.” The FAA has been provided with sufficient information and accepts the root causes and corrective actions described in the mishap report. Consequently, the FAA considers the mishap investigation that SpaceX was required to complete to be concluded.

The final mishap investigation report cited a total of sixty-three (63) corrective actions for SpaceX to implement. These included actions to address redesigns of vehicle hardware to prevent leaks and fires, redesign of the launch pad to increase its robustness, incorporation of additional reviews in the design process, additional analysis and testing of safety criticasystems and components including the Autonomous Flight Safety System (AFSS), and the application of additional change control practices.

Launch license VOL 23-129 for Starship authorized SpaceX to conduct one launch. SpaceX is required to apply for a modification to the VOL 23-129 license to allow for subsequent launches. When SpaceX applies for this modification, it will need to demonstrate compliance with 450.173(f) by evidencing the implementation of corrective actions adopted in response to its April 20, 2023 mishap. If FAA approves the modification, SpaceX will be required to conduct licensed activities in accordance with the representations made in its application (450.211). Failure to do so is grounds for enforcement. Once the FAA determines SpaceX has implemented the corrective actions directly tied to public safety, the agency will consider SpaceX to be in compliance with 450.173(f)

https://www.faa.gov/media/70901

 

[Grendal]

Posted on another thread as well, but it clarifies that Elon and SpaceX knows the 63 items. They created them in their report to the FAA.

A tweet from former SpaceX mission director Abhi Tripathi:

I've seen dozens of "Twitter experts" misunderstand this (often time by adding "Breaking..." to their post for extra clicks) so let me reiterate and further explain what Chris Bergin tweeted.

SpaceX LEADS the investigation. SpaceX issues the corrective actions. They pre-write a mishap investigation plan before they even launch. Then they execute their plan if they have an actual mishap. The FAA formally reviews the plan and also the investigation results and SpaceX-recommended corrective actions (but...informally they already know what's coming because of close coordination). The FAA provides feedback, and could recommend adding something if warranted. Their main job is to verify and enforce that SpaceX does what SpaceX said it will do once they approve the final report. In reality, 90% or more of corrective actions may be finished before the report is even formally submitted. Just depends on how well the root cause(s) are understood and easy to fix.

The general public often believes the FAA writes all the corrective actions and has a large team of people conducting the investigation with a heavy hand (e.g. "the big bad government"). No way. I doubt that will ever be the case for any mishap or anomaly. That is simply not how the government is staffed.

The FAA (and their NASA colleagues who have the relevant technical expertise) are typically in super close contact with the SpaceX team through the head of SpaceX Flight Reliability (where the chief engineers reside).

The statements released by the government are usually kept vague but factual, often to the great dismay of social and traditional media (as well as "stans") who want a juicy bite, ideally brimming with conflict. It is in a government agency's best interest to maintain flexibility and work with who they are overseeing...while keeping the politicians and click-bait journalists and influencers away. Inflammatory statements could rally politicians to one side or the other, and then SpaceX and the FAA's job could become charged and harder. Many people want to see that happen for many reasons.

If the final approval stalls, often times it is over a corrective action that was too open to interpretation. As an example of what I mean, if a corrective action is worded as such:
"Redesign of the launch pad to increase its robustness."
Ooh boy. So you want to break that down into discrete actions defining what "robustness" means.

 

[Electroman]

Can you please put a link to that tweet?