New platform for working on most/all 33 booster engines. Fits through OLM supports and then sides lift up.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Looks like I was wrong, if those aren't already Starlinks, they will be added.
Duh (to myself) shiny side up on re-entry .
New FCC filing OET List Exhibits Report
That classic motorcyling phrase has never seemed more appropriate.
From the FCC filing: “Multiple Starlink terminals will be fitted to each vehicle to ensure a clear view of the SpaceX satellite constellation through the Starship flight profile. The terminals will use the same antenna and communications electronics as SpaceX’s previously authorized consumer terminals but with a revised enclosure and mounting that is suitable for the mission profile.”
Wow, talk about Starlink MOBILE: the same antenna and electronics that are in my Starlink RV receiver are going to be going over 25,000kmh on a Starship.
Yes, I think a “revised” enclosure and mount is in order.
Thanks. The latest NSF video calls it an “OLM Work Platform”. Now I get it; the flat pieces on the sides move through 90 degrees to make a big flat surface that covers basically the entire area under the 33 engines.
I don’t see a “REMOVE BEFORE ENGINE IGNITION” sign.
Reminds me of fold-out wings on the Droneships....Thanks. The latest NSF video calls it an “OLM Work Platform”. Now I get it; the flat pieces on the sides move through 90 degrees to make a big flat surface that covers basically the entire area under the 33 engines.
I don’t see a “REMOVE BEFORE ENGINE IGNITION” sign.
View attachment 826606
Those don't fold. JRTI had them cut off and reattached in 2019 to transit the Panama canal. In 2021 OCISLY rode a semi submersible transport ship through the wider locks with a special permit and kept theirs.
SpaceX drone ship to ride transport vessel through the Panama Canal
Ah right you are... for some reason I thought they could, and that the issue with Panama was actually that even in their folded configuration it was slightly too wide... but alas I was mistaken.
Well it would be cool if they did, then it would look like that Booster maint platform! lol
Ignore me and move on...
Uh oh. Did something catch fire on the ground or on the vehicle or on the OLM?
it looks like the central engines ignited for a static fire and at the same time maybe there was some leaking propellant or oxygen that then ignited to cause that fireball.
it looks like the central engines ignited for a static fire and at the same time maybe there was some leaking propellant or oxygen that then ignited to cause that fireball.
Last edited:
From NSF live stream: they didn't think any methane was loaded, so both fuel and ignition sources are a mystery.
Later, it did a huge Oxygen dump which turned into a ground support fire.
Reviewing the videos further it appears that there was no engine ignition: I was wrong. Here are two views from just before the explosion. There is a frost line on both tanks. So they were loading the tanks. But that does not seem like a normal amount of vapor below the OLM. Was there a line leak and then somehow the LOX ignited outside the vehicle?
Elon made this tweet in response to someone asking about the fireball and then deleted it:
—————————————
@elonmusk
Yes. Booster engine testing.
——————————
That explosion cannot be just “testing”. I am very concerned this is a setback. Not a big one, but it will delay the launch attempt. Of course the GSE and everything is new and not fully tested, and setbacks are part of any testing program. Hopefully this explosion looks worse than it actually is. But…
Elon made this tweet in response to someone asking about the fireball and then deleted it:
—————————————
@elonmusk
Yes. Booster engine testing.
——————————
That explosion cannot be just “testing”. I am very concerned this is a setback. Not a big one, but it will delay the launch attempt. Of course the GSE and everything is new and not fully tested, and setbacks are part of any testing program. Hopefully this explosion looks worse than it actually is. But…
And this clip from NSF starts at about 5 seconds before the explosion and shows LOX venting at the bottom of the booster and then what appears to be a sudden dump of LOX from the bottom of the vehicle and then the explosion. So, what was the ignition source?
Last edited:
Elon has tweeted that is was an anomaly/ not expected and that they have sensors for flammability...
Well, if everything isn't built with intrinsically safe/ explosion proof components, any electrical switch could set it off. But top tank was theoretically nitrogen, so what burned? GSE issue?
High oxygen environment makes fire easier, but, assuming top tank was N2 per NSF, what was the fuel? Maybe spin up is from ground methane supply?
Agreed.
So NSF is saying that upper tank was being filled with N2 and lower tank with LOX? So they were doing a cryo test of the vehicle and not using CH4?
That was their thought since apparently the methane recondenser wasn't running. Engine spin up tests with some nitrogen in the top tank for thermal simulation.
Similar speculation here https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=54775.1880
Lots of speculation as to how much, or how little, damage the OLM might have suffered.
Yah, NasaSpaceFlight (NSF).
From Elon's most recent Tweet, it sounds like it may have been fueled. Either way, going to add burn off devices and no more simultaneous 33 engine spin up tests.
Similar threads
- Article
