I added the EPCOT ball and estimated scale based on your car v semi trailer at the ball.

Think Elon robbed the launch pad from the supports the EPCOT ball sit on. Disney should sue.

Quote:

---

. He says the water pressure would have to at least match the pressure of the engines. Not sure how that's possible.

---

I can't wait until the test of this Staship schliterbahn.

TexAgs91 said:

---

Kceovaisnt- said:

---

So the only issue is durability of the pad under the OLM.

---

Not just under the OLM. Remember boosters and starships will be flying back to the pad. While it's true it won't be as much thrust as a launch the area surrounding the OLM will still need to be hardened as well.

---

I am not convinced this will be an issue at all.

The full stack left the pad with about 1.3 thrust to weight ratio. That approximates to above 10 million lbs of thrust. For about 5 full seconds before liftoff firing 31 engines at launch on the pad at about 60 ft above the pad surface which was Fondag. Thrust was likely closer to 12 million lbs but let's assume just over 10M.

When the Booster attempts a landing at the launch site, it will ignite 5 of the 10 inner ring engines along with the center 3 engines for the landing burn. Before the Booster even approaches the launch site and has finished the bulk of it's deceleration, it will cutoff the 5 inner ring engines and land with nearly empty propellant tanks with only the center 3 Raptor 2 engines running at throttled power around a 1.0 thrust to weight ratio. So, that's about 450 thousand lbs of thrust. It will land about 250 ft above the pad surface and the engines should cutoff just after the vehicle comes to a rest on the chopsticks.

So that's 3 engines at landing compared to 31 at liftoff, approx. 5% total thrust at landing compared to liftoff, and around 4x the height off the pad surface as compared to liftoff.

These are huge factors.

We see the damage that resulted from the 1st test flight of the full stack. We have also seen 6 engine static fires from Ship 24 on the suborbital pad about 20 ft above the pad surface which I think is plain concrete for about 5 seconds. Although it DID have a small deluge system. Also that pad has seen suborbital launches with 3 engines and about 25% propellant load for suborbital test flights with no deluge. Although, those were Raptor 1 engines. No major issues on the pad on those tests other than bit of spalling

I don't see the need to beef up the pad or surrounding areas for landings at the launch site.

Please at least add the monorail for my entertainment. I've been *****ing about that for over 20 years, almost as long as I've hated RC and even longer than the stupid bevel.

Perfect! Thx!

fka ftc said:

---

All pics of the launchpad and the rocket need to have a scale reference.

Can someone go out there and place a $5 bill next to the pad so I can determine just how big it is?

But seriously, I can tell its big by the skytraks but it really helps to have some scale reference.

How big would the Epcot gold ball be next to this thing?

---

I went out there last year when the booster and starship weren't stacked and the launch tower wasn't built yet and the scale blew me away. It's hard to describe unless you have a 40 story building standing by itself where you live.

Going to send the collaborative drawing to Elon and tell him they really need to help people understand the scale of the rocket, and that is best done with EPCOT ball, paper mache Godzilla and to-scale new Kyle Field.

Happening now: Roscosmos cosmonauts Sergey Prokopyev & Dmitri Petelin have ventured outside the #ISS to uninstall an experiment airlock from the Rassvet module & reattach it to Nauka.

Watch live: https://t.co/ggYjSewueG

— Tyler Gray 🚀 (@TylerG1998) May 3, 2023

fka ftc said:

---

Going to send the collaborative drawing to Elon and tell him they really need to help people understand the scale of the rocket, and that is best done with EPCOT ball, paper mache Godzilla and to-scale new Kyle Field.

---

Don't forget a banana for countries on the metric system.

I've heard that fully stacked, Starship is taller than the highest building in 18 states.

fka ftc said:

---

---

This really needs a flying McGee for scale.

JB!98 said:

---

fka ftc said:

---

---

This really needs a flying McGee for scale.

---

I just commissioned the Benjamin Knox version so that will have to wait.

fka ftc said:

---

JB!98 said:

---

fka ftc said:

---

---

This really needs a flying McGee for scale.

---

I just commissioned the Benjamin Knox version so that will have to wait.

---

Perfect. Anything worth doing is worth doing right!

Knox would have the starship horizontal and something more akin to a wright flyer, with wings and a propeller etc.

AI generated

jt2hunt said:

---

AI generated

---

I used the AI embedded in PowerPoint to create my image.

https://news.yahoo.com/analysis-spacex-few-alternatives-lawsuit-100820294.html

Murray Feldman, an attorney at the law firm Holland & Hart, said it was possible Congress could throw out the need for the environmental review if the project delays were deemed a national concern, given NASA's plans for a moon landing by 2026 - a deadline the agency's chief Bill Nelson has cast to lawmakers as an urgent race with China.

Feldman said Congress previously passed laws that override environmental review requirements, including last year when it mandated the Biden administration issue certain oil and gas leases in the Gulf of Mexico.

"If the SpaceX efforts were truly important enough to the nation that Congress felt they needed to go forward and this delay would be too significant, there's always the possibility for something to happen," he said.

Speaking of...😳https://t.co/wg0HMrmzPS

— Latest in space (@latestinspace) May 4, 2023

nortex97 said:

---

Knox would have the starship horizontal and something more akin to a wright flyer, with wings and a propeller etc.

---

A good Roton Rocket throwback.

Really good breakdown of what went on during Starship Super Heavy's maiden launch,

So are they grounded? Saw a blip of something on Facebook about FAA stepping in…

The FAA put a hold on their license as expected. No one is alarmed by this as it's pretty standard.

However, a suit has been brought forward by some environmental organizations against the FAA. This could prevent the FAA from resubmitting SpaceX's launch license for an until this matter is resolved. SpaceX will likely take time to finish repairs and redevelop the pad with their new steel plate deluge and proof the system with some checkouts and test firings. I am hopeful that the test firing bolster the defense of the FAA.

will25u said:

---

Really good breakdown of what went on during Starship Super Heavy's maiden launch,

---

This is a really excellent breakdown.

17,700 kph to 🌊

The payload fairings flown from the recent FH/Viasat-3 mission have just returned to Port Canaveral aboard Doug - can confirm they are very toasty.

Crazy to think that these are the fastest flown fairings SpaceX has yet recovered!

📸 - @NASASpaceflight pic.twitter.com/QwJKNupgeg

— Max Evans (@_mgde_) May 5, 2023

Wrong, I guess.

Another point not mentioned in that video, if you are designing to launch off of an offshore platform, what do you do when launching from Mars?

Pretty sure that was one of the considerations in developing a ship that could launch off of land. Won't need as much thrust to get off of Mars, but you still have to deal with things like flying debris and you won't be launching from a launchpad, at least until one could be constructed.

They had a one-flight license. There's not technically even a hold. They completed the license term. They were always going to have to apply for another one.

One doesn't have to worry about noise pollution/sea turtles/FAA licenses etc. on Mars. To a small extent, an offshore platform is more analogous to a Martian launch base in its isolation/separation from terrestrial (earth) infrastructure/people vs. Kennedy/Boca Chica etc..

A flame diverter/channel system could also split the flame in opposite directions to prevent 'thrust' pushing the platform one way or the other.

Regardless, the water on the surface/down a few feet might boil indeed, but I doubt it would much deeper than that. Everything near the ocean corrodes, I don't think the spray from water vapor of a launch really would be all that material in its corrosive impact.

I think they wanted a more complete GSE level of design maturity though before committing to a long term plan for the platforms (including the tower, starship itself, and nitrogen/methane/helium support infrastructure).

Not a Bot said:

---

They had a one-flight license. There's not technically even a hold. They completed the license term. They were always going to have to apply for another one.

---

The launch license was good for 5 years, although things like flying concrete and a glitchy FTS would require fixes and another launch license

joerobert_pete06 said:

---

Another point not mentioned in that video, if you are designing to launch off of an offshore platform, what do you do when launching from Mars?

---

You don't need the booster to launch from Mars. I think they'll just create a concrete pad to launch starship from there. They can refuel in orbit if needed.