@PearsonArtPhoto - what could prove this assumption, is information that some or all 27 Raptors did not work at nominal performance. For example, due to fuel tank pressure issues. Otherwise, after burning 1000-tons of propellant, Super Heavy should not have struggled so much.
I mean, even the fact that there were operating at most with 90% power at liftoff and were able to still move upwards demonstrates some margine.
It's the easiest thing in the world to run simulations if one has the proper data, I can pretty much guarantee that SpaceX has run thousands of simulations in software and hundreds using near-flight hardware (Electronic) of various test scenarios.
"thousands of simulations" - How would this help, if you have fundamental design limitations? You cannot use more engines and you cannot create a new, more powerful engine. Super Heavy clearly struggled. We just don't know why. Was it a fundamental design flaw of a fixable minor issue?
The simulations would have revealed a fundemental design flaw, unless the engines somehow don't work as well when run as a large group.
The issue with the Superheavy launch clearly seems to be that many engines were out, leading to less performance.
I mean, we know that 3 engines were out a few seconds into the flight, and at least 6 were out a minute in to the flight. That's pretty bad...
There's 0 chance that SpaceX would have gotten this far if the data they gathered from Raptor testing didn't show that the vehicle was capable of making it to orbit if they did everything according to plan.
So they need to figure out how to get more engines running, and running them more powerfully, but only to the limits of what they already demonstrated they can run via testing individual engines.
Large scale methane fuel tanks, fuel pumps, methane burning engines - are still pretty much uncharted territory. So, you cannot assume that even with SpaceX smarts, there will be no engineering surprises.
@PearsonArtPhoto Heard some suspiscion that the booster 'slid' and banged a couple of engines on the edge of the OLM ring. And of course others suggest that debris bouncing upwards dinged a couple of engines as well.
I was very disappointed by the performance of the Raptors. I do hope it is mostly debris caused, that would be 'good' since they knew that was a bad idea and a possible problem and is not an inherent flaw. (Excpet for, what about when you land on Mars and break an engine?)
@TheMatrixEquation-balance Avoid destroying the pad. Almost certainly that was the biggest reaosn.
2
@PearsonArtPhoto Russian launcher roullette?
This one is interesting - claim is the OLM ring is damaged, and they will ship the Florida one over... And it weighs 2 million lbs in one piece or more.. Which is 'interesting'.
@PearsonArtPhoto I forget the number it, was single digit millions and is in that tweet. But that is quite heavy... Makes sense if you wish to hold a 10 million lb vehicle, th ebase should be within an order of magnitude of its mass.
Ignoring Starship for a moiment (how?) they have 3 Falcon launches this week from all three pads. The VAndy one this morning is delayed to tomorrow morring. LC-39A is ding a Falcon Heavy tomorrow night and then SLC-40 on Friday.
And the Heavy is fully expendable, and they are using the 1052/1053 boosters, from I think the second and third Falcon Heavy flights to expend.
B8 is already scrapped, B9/B10 are approaching completion and fitting out. Multiple Ships are mostly complete... Vehicles are not in short supply. Pads, well that stuff will buff right out.
You think so? Keeping within the 5 launches allowance? Assuming they do not steal the Florida OLM ring, I would expect Florida to be ready for launches within this year.
I am surprised we have not seen them build a tower at SLC-40 for Crew Access so that the LC-39A pad is not the only human accesible pad.
I was wondering if the third tower in Florida, sitting, waiting to be installed, was going to be the SLC-40 tower.
Might make sense, if you could build the tower right on SLC-40, and one side if for Falcon, and other side has the OLM/legs for Starship. Even closer than at LC-39A
SLC-40 is so busy with launches, it is going almost every 8-9 days. LC-39A is killint the cadence. Switching the launch tyable F9-FH-F9 takes time. And then manned flights suck up pad time...
@geoffc - Good idea with a crane-drop Super Heavy testing! I guess they will need data from the mock water landing, before they can proceed with further land and catch tests.
@TheMatrixEquation-balance They can test forever. But if they are building them fast enough, there is something to be said with just test it on a booster.
They obselted B7 so fast that they largely completed B8, decided to change stuff for B9 and up, and simply junked B8. B7 was junked a different way, more across the Gulf of Mexico.
