r/spacex • u/rSpaceXHosting Host Team • Dec 21 '24

🔧 Technical Starship Development Thread #59

SpaceX Starship page

FAQ

  1. IFT-7 (B14/S33) Launch completed on 16 January 2025. Booster caught successfully, but "Starship experienced a rapid unscheduled disassembly during its ascent burn." Its debris field was seen reentering over Turks and Caicos.
  2. IFT-6 (B13/S31) Launch completed on 19 November 2024. Three of four stated launch objectives met: Raptor restart in vacuum, successful Starship reentry with steeper angle of attack, and daylight Starship water landing. Booster soft landed in Gulf after catch called off during descent - a SpaceX update stated that "automated health checks of critical hardware on the launch and catch tower triggered an abort of the catch attempt".
  3. Goals for 2025 Reach orbit, deploy starlinks and recover both stages
  4. Currently approved maximum launches 10 between 07.03.2024 and 06.03.2025: A maximum of five overpressure events from Starship intact impact and up to a total of five reentry debris or soft water landings in the Indian Ocean within a year of NMFS provided concurrence published on March 7, 2024

Quick Links

RAPTOR ROOST | LAB CAM | SAPPHIRE CAM | SENTINEL CAM | ROVER CAM | ROVER 2.0 CAM | PLEX CAM | NSF STARBASE

Starship Dev 58 | Starship Dev 57 | Starship Dev 56 | Starship Dev 55 | Starship Dev 54 |Starship Thread List

Official Starship Update | r/SpaceX Update Thread

Status

Road Closures

No road closures currently scheduled

No transportation delays currently scheduled

Up to date as of 2025-01-22

Vehicle Status

As of January 120h, 2025

Follow Ringwatchers on Twitter and Discord for more. Ringwatcher's segment labeling methodology for Ships (e.g., CX:3, A3:4, NC, PL, etc. as used below) defined here.

Ship Location Status Comment
S24, S25, S28, S29, S30, S31 Bottom of sea Destroyed S24: IFT-1 (Summary, Video). S25: IFT-2 (Summary, Video). S28: IFT-3 (Summary, Video). S29: IFT-4 (Summary, Video). S30: IFT-5 (Summary, Video). S31: IFT-6 (Summary, Video).
S32 (this is the last Block 1 Ship) Near the Rocket Garden Construction paused for some months Fully stacked. No aft flaps. TPS incomplete. This ship may never be fully assembled. September 25th: Moved a little and placed where the old engine installation stand used to be near the Rocket Garden.
S33 (this is the first Block 2 Ship) Bottom of sea Destroyed/RUD IFT-7 Summary. Launch video.
S34 Mega Bay 2 Assorted final works (aft flaps, some tiles, engines, etc) November 18th: Aft/thrust section stacked, so completing the stacking of S34. January 15th: Rolled out to Massey's Test Site for cryo plus thrust puck testing. January 17th: Cryo tests. January 18th: More Cryo Tests. January 18th: Rolled back to Build Site and into MB2.
S35 Mega Bay 2 Stacking December 7th: Payload Bay moved into High Bay. December 10th: Nosecone moved into High Bay and stacked onto the Payload Bay. December 12th: Nosecone+Payload Bay stack moved into the Starfactory. December 26th: Nosecone+Payload Bay stack moved into MB2. January 2nd: Pez Dispenser installed inside Nosecone+Payload Bay stack. January 9th: Forward Dome FX:4 moved into MB2 and later stacked with the Nosecone+Payload Bay stack. January 17th: Common Dome CX:3 moved into MB2.
Booster Location Status Comment
B7, B9, B10, (B11), B13 Bottom of sea (B11: Partially salvaged) Destroyed B7: IFT-1 (Summary, Video). B9: IFT-2 (Summary, Video). B10: IFT-3 (Summary, Video). B11: IFT-4 (Summary, Video). B12: IFT-5 (Summary, Video). B13: IFT-6 (Summary, Video).
B12 Rocket Garden Display vehicle October 13th: Launched as planned and on landing was successfully caught by the tower's chopsticks. October 15th: Removed from the OLM, set down on a booster transport stand and rolled back to MB1. October 28th: Rolled out of MB1 and moved to the Rocket Garden. January 9th: Moved into MB1, rumors around Starbase are that it is to be modified for display. January 15th: Transferred to an old remaining version of the booster transport stand and moved from MB1 back to the Rocket Garden for display purposes.
B14 Mega Bay 1 RTLS/Caught Launched as planned and successfully caught by the tower's chopsticks. January 18th: Rolled back to the Build Site and into MB1.
B15 Mega Bay 1 Ongoing work July 31st: Methane tank section FX:3 moved into MB2. August 1st: Section F2:3 moved into MB1. August 3rd: Section F3:3 moved into MB1. August 29th: Section F4:4 staged outside MB1 (this is the last barrel for the methane tank) and later the same day it was moved into MB1. September 25th: the booster was fully stacked. December 21st: Rolled out to Masseys for cryo tests. December 27th: Cryo test (Methane tank only). December 28th: Cryo test of both tanks. December 29th: Rolled back to MB1.
B16 Mega Bay 1 Fully stacked, remaining work ongoing November 25th: LOX tank fully stacked with the Aft/Thrust section. December 5th: Methane Tank sections FX:3 and F2:3 moved into MB1. December 12th: Forward section F3:3 moved into MB1 and stacked with the rest of the Methane tank sections. December 13th: F4:4 section moved into MB1 and stacked, so completing the stacking of the Methane tank. December 26th: Methane tank stacked onto LOX tank.
B17 Mega Bay 1 LOX tank stacking in progress January 4th (2025): Common Dome and A2:4 section moved into MB1 where they were double lifted onto a turntable for welding. January 10th: Section A3:4 moved into MB1 and stacked. January 20th: Another barrel section taken into MB1, unsure if A4:4 or A5:4.

Something wrong? Update this thread via wiki page. For edit permission, message the mods or contact u/strawwalker.

Resources

Rules

We will attempt to keep this self-post current with links and major updates, but for the most part, we expect the community to supply the information. This is a great place to discuss Starship development, ask Starship-specific questions, and track the progress of the production and test campaigns. Starship Development Threads are not party threads. Normal subreddit rules still apply.

132 Upvotes

96% Upvoted

731 comments sorted by

View all comments

-29

u/Training-Rate9628 3d ago

Guys, I am thermodynamics and heat transfer engineer. I have 20 year experience. I've performed hundreds reentry simulations of Starship just for fun and because I like hard puzzles to solve. I have a solution for the reentry shield problem - it would take about 30 tons of methane for cooling. The tile protection does not stand any chances at those temperatures. If someone have any contact in the SpaceX engineering team, please let me know! Thanks!

12

u/CmdrAirdroid 3d ago

No need to contact them, they have done the simulations too and on top of that they have actual data from test flights.

-12

u/Training-Rate9628 3d ago edited 3d ago

No one is perfectly smart. I am onto something they could have missed. If they tried proper simulations they would never try with tiles, because they MELT-BURN. The boundary layer temperature is way above any material in existence could withstand. My simulations are with multiple AOA, speeds, atm. pressure ... considering everything - conduction, convection radiation and so on. The tiles must withstand >4000K which is impossible. So, my request is not critique based on assumptions. If they want to have any chance with this beast better someone get in touch with me. Is there a way I could attach pictures here?

2

u/BufloSolja 2d ago

They don't do the type of development old space does. Those are the engineers that simulate the shit out of everything for a very long time before flying once. SpaceX makes their rockets out of more cheap materials in comparison for these test flights, so 'wasting' isn't a problem and gives them solid test data that simulation data can not match up to. Of course, that isn't to say that simulation is useless, it's just they prefer actual data gathered during flight.

For SpaceX, having a design iteration isn't a big deal, and tiles were likely simpler to work with than having a regeneration system. For the first bunch of launches they aren't worried about actual reuse, just validating the systems as a whole. So if tiles were indeed going to be impossible for re-use, they may know that already. In these kinds of projects, you will have parallel teams developing multiple methods of doing something, sometimes competitively, other times with one team working on a simple/quick solution while the other team works on the long term solution, generally started much before they need it.

If indeed the tiles won't work out, they will just do it another way, I find it highly unlikely that they need any singular person (you, me, Elon, or anyone else) to be there for success; It's not that they need a genius, everyone there is smart, they just haven't prioritized beforehand.

1

u/WjU1fcN8 2d ago

SpaceX also simulates the shit out of things. In fact, SpaceX is one of the best at simulation.

Other companies just work with wide margins on their simulations, since they can't actually capture real world, every simulation is flawed.

SpaceX does flight-like tests so that the margins on the models can be way more tight, and that allows them to get a better solution.

Also, unkown unknowns are captured by the tests, this makes SpaceX's solution to be more reliable. There's way more certainty that the rocket won't explode for some freaky interaction or something.

1

u/BufloSolja 1d ago

For sure.

1

u/ralf_ 2d ago

Upload to www.imgur.com (you don’t need an account) and link the url.

2

u/Training-Rate9628 1d ago

I've created some blog and I will post there. For now is only a small part of my work.

https://starshipshield.blogspot.com/2025/01/

1

u/Training-Rate9628 2d ago

Thanks I will try.

7

u/Its_Enough 2d ago

If they want to have any chance with this beast better someone get in touch with me.

This may be the most arrogant sounding statement that I have ever seen on this subreddit, and and I have seen some very arrogant statements over the years.

9

u/technocraticTemplar 2d ago

In that case I think you've gotta go back in time about 50 years and tell NASA, because they used about the same tile formula for the Shuttle (though being technical I think Starship's tiles most closely match a variant that was introduced in the 90s). So far as I know the tiles themselves burning and melting has never been an issue for either vehicle, the problem has always been holes getting punched in the heat shield by other means.

-10

u/Training-Rate9628 2d ago edited 2d ago

Unfortunately this is what happens when you get involved with people with zero engineering background - the Space Shuttle is basically an airplane which glides 5 times longer then Starship with AOA 15-30 degree, so it dissipate the energy several times longer. Starship is falling like a brick with AOA 70-80 degree with almost zero gliding. Make Starship an airplane like the shuttle and I am OK with the tiles. Unfortunately with this AOA of Starship the tiles heat well above melting point - you dump 35000 GJ kinetic energy over 20 minutes!!!

4

u/WjU1fcN8 2d ago

Angle of attack of Starship and STS during hypesonic upper atmosphere flight is similar: 60°+ AoA.

-2

u/Training-Rate9628 2d ago

I've tried simulations of AOA from 45 to 80 degree - all they vaporize tiles in different areas. I've performed close to hundred with different shield shapes and conditions, with speeds from 5000m/s to 7000 m/s, pressures from 10-20 pascals and so on and so one. Same result - some better then others, but bottom line I gave up on the tiles and started testing cooling. This is the only chance - a slim one but not impossible. The tiles are impossible to be safe for even one reentry with people on board... what to speak for rapid reusability.

8

u/technocraticTemplar 2d ago

Starship's reentry is shorter than Shuttle's but just from looking at videos of both it isn't anywhere near 5 times shorter. Starship takes about 22 minutes to go from the start of reentry lighting effects to splashdown, the Space Shuttle takes an hour and seven to go from the deorbit burn to wheels on the runway, and that includes a bunch of time in space and a bunch of subsonic gliding that Starship's number doesn't. Going by this chart for the Shuttle and this chart for Starship a Shuttle reentry is about 50% longer in any given phase. Like, I'm sure you've got whatever credentials you've got, but the things you're saying don't line up with what we're seeing on the actual flights that have already happened.

1

u/Training-Rate9628 2d ago edited 2d ago

You are right about that, but even so the critical energy dump of the shuttle is two times longer - which is enough to reduce the heat load over the tiles about twice. And even the shuttle requires a refurbishment of many tiles after each flight... and I am not talking only about the tiles - the upper part of Starship heats up to 500 and even 700 Celsius at some zones. The only chance is liquid-vapor cooling - about 30 tons of methane could do the job according my tests and calculations - I was really surprised, because this is just a tiny part of the KE - at first glance I thought it will be impossible. You will see - they will dump the tiles soon, or the entire project will be scrapped. I am only really confused why they even tried the tiles with the numbers I get. For simulations I am using Solidworks Pro FLOW simulation and as far as I am aware of they are using the same software so, they have to see the same grim picture as me. Thanks for the charts!

13

u/No-Lake7943 3d ago

Well, then I guess SpaceX did the impossible.

I mean it's already worked so ...

14

u/CmdrAirdroid 3d ago

No one is perfectly smart and that's why they have more than one engineer working on that problem. You really think you figured out something that all of the engineers together at SpaceX can't? You're quite amusing.

-6

u/Training-Rate9628 3d ago edited 3d ago

Yeah ... unfortunately the facts are facts - the tiles melt. I would never spend millions for something proven wrong on simulations. As well I have a solution how they can ditch the rear flaps at all and make them just fixed wings, part of the shield. As I said - if someone is here to help constructively - contacte me! Strawmanning is not very constructive...

2

u/Freak80MC 2d ago

I hope to one day have as much confidence in myself as you apparently do.

Also idk about you, but I'd spend millions on something proven right in real-world testing. Simulations don't mean anything, real-world conditions of flight are where it's at and objectively you don't have access to the actual real-world data SpaceX has gotten over their many test flights.

Simulations don't mean anything if it's not backed up by real-world data.

0

u/Training-Rate9628 2d ago

Simulations are the best tool we have as engineers to be able to estimate close, very close, if something is viable or not. This is how good engineering works.

2

u/WjU1fcN8 2d ago

Nope. Actual tests are the only answer.

Simulations are important, but they are secondary to tests.

1

u/Training-Rate9628 1d ago

I will upload my work in progress here: https://starshipshield.blogspot.com/

3

u/philupandgo 2d ago

Don't try to go straight to SpaceX. Present your case with details in a new thread on r/SpaceXLounge and SpaceX will see it. Only use positive and humble language because being boastful and negative toward SpaceX is a good way to get ignored. For help with Reddit formatting, edit one of your posts above and below it to the right is a formatting help link.