Thursday Night Falcon9 Starlink
This booster’s 15th launch/landing
Friday’s Falcon Heavy Jupiter3 comsat launch
Side boosters land, center booster expended
Full water-deluge test on Starhip launch mount
Another angle
Just a reminder of what can be done,
if your goal is to actually fix an actual problem
(see: engineering vs legislating)
Question: during the Starship launch we were clearly able to see each of the (almost) 33 engines separately.
Not so with Falcon 9, where it is just one big blob of fire.
Is that because of using a different fuel, having a more complete/clean burn?
• First guess: Starship booster engines have larger engine exit diameters, so there’s more room between ’em
• Second guess: that cool view of Starship’s early ascent was from more directly behind than we see with Falcons
• Third guess: night launch vids are very high contrast, so detail in the bright part of the exposure is lost
• Buuut you’re prob’ly right; Falcon (Kerosene/Ox) is smokier than Starship (Methane/Ox), i.e. Starship’s exhaust is more transparent
Like I said, guessin’
Anybody out there have a good explanation?
(you know, somebody who knows what the sam hill they’re talkin’ about)
Uh, yes – I used to work on missiles.
1st – essentially right. The engines are closer together.
2nd – makes no difference. Essentially correct though.
3rd – right, of course.
4th – Methalox DOES burn much cleaner than Keralox. That’s why the Falcon 9 gets so sooty during reentry.
Thanks!
Speaking of Starship, what is the advantage of methane over kerosene? (I saw an article wherein the CCP claimed to have launched the first successful orbital rocket using methane. Since it’s the CCP, grain of salt and all that)
I think the main advantage is that methane can be made on Mars
Yes. Plus, Methalox has more Isp than Keralox (Isp = Specific Impulse, or how much thrust you get).
Hydrolox is superior to either one of them, but as was mentioned, Methane is MUCH easier to make – a tremendous advantage when sporting about another planet…
Hydrogen is so very slippery to handle, unfortunately.
Well, to be pedantic, using a simplified form:
Isp = thrust (lbf) divided by propellant flow rate (lbm/sec)
It’s a measure of how efficiently propellant is converted to impulse
(i.e. how well delta-V is made, larger is better)
There’s always methane recovery from, umm, waste systems, too. 😀
I was keeping it simple, Doug.
*heh*
And I was trying to keep it pedantic,
so we both won
Trolling for oldsters here.
Was the Jupiter 3 launched to find/rescue the Jupiter 2?
Mmmm,
Judy Robinson
^^”….methane can be made on Mars.”
They have cows on Mars?
*heh*
Methane (CH4) is just Hydrogen & Carbon,
and I understand it’s readily doable on Mars.
Don’t make me go look-up the process;
organic chemistry’s not my strong suit
It’s not really Organic Chem, Doug.
Methane can be readily be made from CO2 and water. Hydrogen can be disassociated from water alone but takes more energy and is relatively harder to handle. You are always having to make tradedoffs in Engineering.
Thanks
Hey, if a cow can make CH4, so can a chemical engineer
Obviously not mine either. I just couldn’t resist a riff on the Eco-Nazis’ cow fart phobia.
And Igor, thanks for the enlightenment!
Looking at the water deluge test makes me go, “hmmm.”
Yeah, sure, Elon and SpaceX had no plan because the launch pad was destroyed.
So, SpaceX just whipped up that water deluge system and had Ace Hardware deliver?
Thanks for the satellite deployment video, I had been looking for it.
If anyone can find video of the sat opening up for business, that would be supremely awesome.
–mech