![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 2020-05-23 8:41 AM, David Spain wrote:
There is a lot we don't know here. 1) The configuration of the pressurization pipes vis-a-vis the tanks, 2) presuming there is more than one engine performing tank pressurization, how the pipes come together and the manifold and regulator structure being used to join them, etc. I'll keep digging, see what I can find for that. You can too. So far the best pictorial I can come up with is he https://i.stack.imgur.com/H4RtH.png Which doesn't really show the pressurization plumbing as far as I can see. Note the smaller tanks inside the larger tanks. As I understand it these are NOT for pressurization, but to provide pressurized propellant for the return trip. They can be smaller because you are not using as much propellant for the return leg. Seems to be missing the first stage (Super Heavy) LOX return tank, maybe because they did a cut out of the base? You can clearly see them both in Starship. Dave |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 2020-05-23 4:46 PM, David Spain wrote:
So far the best pictorial I can come up with is he https://i.stack.imgur.com/H4RtH.png Oh and some further interesting discussion he https://space.stackexchange.com/ques...led-propellant Dave |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
In message
David Spain wrote: Seems to be missing the first stage (Super Heavy) LOX return tank, maybe because they did a cut out of the base? You can clearly see them both in Starship. The Super Heavy has a very big LOX feed pipe to the engines which holds enough for the landing so no additional tank needed. Anthony |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 2020-05-24 5:36 AM, Anthony Frost wrote:
In message David Spain wrote: Seems to be missing the first stage (Super Heavy) LOX return tank, maybe because they did a cut out of the base? You can clearly see them both in Starship. The Super Heavy has a very big LOX feed pipe to the engines which holds enough for the landing so no additional tank needed. Anthony Ah, that makes sense. Thanks! Dave |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 2020-05-23 9:06 PM, JF Mezei wrote:
On 2020-05-23 16:46, David Spain wrote: https://i.stack.imgur.com/H4RtH.png Which doesn't really show the pressurization plumbing as far as I can see. Nor does it show a dome to terminate the lower end of the O2 tank above engines. I was told here quite forcefully here that the Starship/SuperHeavy won't have helium pressurization. That is correct. It's autogenous not helium pressurized. I was also told here that there may be smaller tanks to run the thrusters. And those round tanks might be those instead of fuel for landing. No I doubt that. I've seen other diagrams that show a different tank arrangement for RCS. Some diagrams show it just venting GOX for RCS control. Here's Elon's take on it: https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1091159618263298048 So cold gas thrusters. That gas can come from anywhere. I could be wrong, but I suspect the LOX tank. This site also suggests a move perhaps to a methane based thruster in the future, so who knows?: https://www.elonx.net/super-heavy-st...ndium/#general See the penultimate paragraph to the section "Super Heavy Starship System". Especially for Super Heavy, one would think you'd want as large a single tank as you could to add versatility (more fuel for launch in a disposable launcher mode vs use some of that fuel to land after launching lesser load). If you dedicate a tank to landing, it's fixed size removes some of that flexibility. Yes but you don't need to deal with ullage for restarts in a very nearly empty tank either. In the case of super heavy, would it be correct to state that thrusters would only be used after MECO to turn the rocket around to orient it for re-entry ? During re-entry per say, are they used or does it rely solely on the fins for orientation ? See above link. Just curiuous to on why thsoe round tanks would be so big. As I said, for return from orbit. You *are* firing one or more Raptors for this. You could have a small tank that is replenished from big tank via a small pump and heaters to make it gaseous since thrusters wouldn't typically be use continously for long periods, you'd have time to refill the small tanks by moving some liquid from big tanks, heat it into gas into small tank. Why bother when you can launch with full tanks? All that pumping needed to get home? No thanks. Dave |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
In article ,
says... On 2020-05-23 16:46, David Spain wrote: https://i.stack.imgur.com/H4RtH.png Which doesn't really show the pressurization plumbing as far as I can see. Nor does it show a dome to terminate the lower end of the O2 tank above engines. I was told here quite forcefully here that the Starship/SuperHeavy won't have helium pressurization. Starship won't have helium tanks. I was also told here that there may be smaller tanks to run the thrusters. And those round tanks might be those instead of fuel for landing. The header tanks serve both purposes. Cite: https://space.stackexchange.com/ques...the-spherical- tank-in-this-drawing-of-the-bfs/18769#18769 From above: Question -------- ITS Spaceship design question II.: The ITS Spaceship has two mystical spherical tanks, marked green in this slightly edited image. The whole tank design looks very exciting, and there's rampant speculation on this sub about the purpose of those spherical tanks: are they for landing fuel? ... or are they storing 'hot' gaseous propellants as part of the autogenous propellant pressurization system? ... or are they used for on-orbit propellant densification to store vapor before it's liquefied again? All of the above perhaps? Answer by Elon Musk ------------------- Those are the header tanks that contain the landing propellant. They are separate in order to have greater insulation and minimize boil-off, avoid sloshing on entry and not have to press up the whole main tank. Especially for Super Heavy, one would think you'd want as large a single tank as you could to add versatility (more fuel for launch in a disposable launcher mode vs use some of that fuel to land after launching lesser load). I really don't think SpaceX will ever intentionally dispose of a Super Booster. They might do so with a Starship-like upper stage. But, I suppose like Falcon, if the customer wants to pay for a disposable launch, SpaceX would oblige, charging them for the disposed parts, of course. That said, Starship/Super Booster is optimized to be a fully reusable TSTO. Any use as an expendable would be a compromise, not an optimal thing to do. If you dedicate a tank to landing, it's fixed size removes some of that flexibility. That's what they appear to be doing though. In the case of super heavy, would it be correct to state that thrusters would only be used after MECO to turn the rocket around to orient it for re-entry ? During re-entry per say, are they used or does it rely solely on the fins for orientation ? I'm sure it will be very Falcon 9 first stage like. Just curiuous to on why thsoe round tanks would be so big. Landing propellant. You could have a small tank that is replenished from big tank via a small pump and heaters to make it gaseous since thrusters wouldn't typically be use continously for long periods, you'd have time to refill the small tanks by moving some liquid from big tanks, heat it into gas into small tank. I don't know the details of how SpaceX will handle pressurization in the header tanks, but it won't involve helium, according to Musk. Jeff -- All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone. These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends, employer, or any organization that I am a member of. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Tank Pressurization on Starship | David Spain | Policy | 2 | May 23rd 20 08:29 PM |
Nervy pressurization method | Pat Flannery | History | 6 | November 17th 06 04:54 PM |
Russian Soyuz Landing Capsule Has Pressurization Problem During Descent | Jim Oberg | Space Station | 6 | October 15th 05 07:26 PM |
French Starship | Chris | SETI | 3 | August 9th 05 06:45 AM |
Propellant pressurization | Iain McClatchie | Technology | 14 | February 1st 04 03:29 AM |