14

In the test flight of SN9, it appeared that 1 of 2 engines did not relight upon landing. Why is the transition to vertical not done at a higher altitude where a backup engine could be lit if needed or give longer for a single engine to slow it down?

Eric Johnson
  • 322
  • 2
  • 8
  • 12
    Obviously to safe fuel? Longer horizontal position = more atmospheric braking, shorter and stronger landing burn = better fuel efficiency. The theoretically ideal landing burn would be full throttle of all engines at the very last moment, and SpaceX is already operating very far from that. – cmaster - reinstate monica Feb 04 '21 at 19:03
  • 4
    Okay, so given they didn't manage to land one yet, why not flip it early just during testing? Fuel is probably not an issue. They can refine the flip once they manage to land reliably. Also how low can raptors throttle down? Obviously one engine is not enough to land, so would it make sense to relight all three at lower throttle to have some redundancy should one fail? – Jester Feb 04 '21 at 19:56
  • I would guess they modeled out the correct time to flip. Now the issue is how to get the engines to respond as expected. The first failure was caused by lack of fuel tank pressure. The second one seems to be an engine reignite failure. If this was easy, everyone would be doing it. – gwally Feb 04 '21 at 20:30
  • 7
    @Jester I guess that the flip is an integral part of the landing dynamics: The goal is to learn how to flip and nail the landing at the same time. The integrated movement is more than the sum of a separate flip and subsequent landing because the integrated movement needs to kill lateral velocity while adjusting thrust for the hover slam. Ideally, lateral, vertical and rotational movements all come to an end at exactly the same time, the correct height, and correct orientation. SpaceX knows how to do a hover slam. They can flip starship in the air. They want to learn how to do both together. – cmaster - reinstate monica Feb 05 '21 at 00:00
  • 1
    @cmaster Definitely not in manned landing. The deceleration would be devastating. – SF. Feb 05 '21 at 10:04
  • 3
    @SF. The deceleration's only a few gravities, two Raptors aren't even capable of inflicting "devastating" accelerations on a Starship. Yes, they're doing this for manned landings. – Christopher James Huff Feb 05 '21 at 14:02
  • @ChristopherJamesHuff Two, sure! Full throttle of all 6-7 engines though? The test article only has 3 because it's a test article, and still only lights 2 for landing. – SF. Feb 05 '21 at 14:42
  • 4
    The full Starship isn't even going to have 7 engines, and the other three it will have are fixed vacuum engines that will be useless for landing. It has three landing engines for redundancy, it only uses two for landing...this is the exact maneuver they intend to use. – Christopher James Huff Feb 05 '21 at 15:21
  • 1
    The whole point of these tests is to learn things, landing successfully is completely optional and perhaps even irrelevant at this point. They are still many iterations off from having something that looks anything like the final product. – eps Feb 06 '21 at 01:55
  • @ChristopherJamesHuff Vacuum-optimized engines have worse efficiency in atmosphere, but they do work. Sure they won't be used, but not because they can't, just because it would be counter-productive, wasting fuel, and creating way more thrust than needed, over too short a time. And as for the number of engines, it changed enough times that don't take the current plans for granted. – SF. Feb 07 '21 at 13:44
  • 1
    @SF. they can't gimbal. You couldn't land on them even in vacuum. And the plans have been to land on 2 out of 3 landing engines since the 2017 presentation where Musk noted that the graphics were out of date and they'd added a third engine for redundancy. – Christopher James Huff Feb 07 '21 at 13:52
  • @ChristopherJamesHuff You don't need gimballing in all your engines - as long as some can be gimballed you have a decent control authority. Never mind... what are you disagreeing on? Because my argument was that Starship landing on ALL the engines full throttle is a bad idea. – SF. Feb 07 '21 at 15:24
  • 1
    @SF. The flip maneuver requires engine gimbaling. Fixed engines have nothing to contribute to it. And your claim was in fact that "the deceleration would be devastating". Since the maneuver only uses two engines that can't possibly produce more than a few gravities of acceleration, this is incorrect. – Christopher James Huff Feb 07 '21 at 18:43
  • @SF. The Shuttle's vacuum engines couldn't be used in atmosphere, period--they would be destroyed. If you never intend to fire your engine in atmosphere you save weight by not making the engine bell capable of it. – Loren Pechtel Feb 07 '21 at 19:32
  • @ChristopherJamesHuff 1. The vacuum engines aren't gimballed The atmospheric ones are. Since the maneuver uses only two engines, the acceleration is only a few g. We're talking about a burn of all the engines, 3 vacuum and 3 atmospheric, all at once. – SF. Feb 07 '21 at 21:44
  • 1
    @SF. even if it could do such a burn, they could avoid the excessive accelerations by just...doing what they're actually doing instead. So why are you saying the accelerations would be "devastating" for a manned vehicle? They'll be in the area of 3-4 g at most...that's not devastating, it's not even especially difficult to handle for someone in good health. – Christopher James Huff Feb 07 '21 at 22:12
  • @ChristopherJamesHuff "The theoretically ideal landing burn would be full throttle of all engines at the very last moment, and SpaceX is already operating very far from that." - the first comment in this thread. So what would be the practical effects of this "ideal" burn? – SF. Feb 07 '21 at 23:31
  • @SF. I read your comment in the context of the previous one by cmaster, rather than the one three comments up from that. I'm still not sure how it connects to the theoretical "ideal" mentioned in the first comment, which has about as much relation to a real world maneuver as the "impulse burns" used in simplified Hohmann transfer calculations, but it appears we are all agreed that firing all engines isn't useful. – Christopher James Huff Feb 07 '21 at 23:51
  • An explanation can be found at https://everydayastronaut.com/starships-belly-flop-maneuver/ – Andrestand Apr 26 '21 at 08:20

4 Answers4

16

Notice how it came down quite a bit askew apart from not halting the main rotation of the flip: they need two engines for roll control during the maneuver (you can see the engines gimbaling independently to control roll during SN8's flip). Even if this wasn't so, during the flip they have reduced drag slowing their descent: a slower flip means more downward velocity that Starship would need to brake, and more landing propellant.

About starting the third engine: the engines don't take that long to start, and can shut down very quickly. They likely don't need more altitude to start the third, just a startup process that gets it ready to start, but which shuts it down if the first two work properly. I expect they're not doing that simply because starting two engines is complicated enough, they don't want any unnecessary complexity at this point in development.

Also, starting a third engine isn't necessarily helpful. Of the two landing failures they've had so far, the first was from a fuel tank pressure issue. Trying to start a third engine with a propellant system that's already providing inadequate fuel pressure would only make things worse. We don't know why SN9 failed to light the second engine yet, but it could have been from a similar propellant system issue rather than something wrong with the engine itself. Starting the third engine can only help if the problem was internal to one of the other two engines.

Christopher James Huff
  • 10,784
  • 1
  • 29
  • 50
  • 2
    "would only make things worse." Worse than complete destruction of the vehicle? I guess it could have fallen on some Teslas parked nearby. – Organic Marble Feb 04 '21 at 21:17
  • 3
    @OrganicMarble the goal of the flight was to test the landing maneuvers. Flaming out one or both of the other engines by trying to start a third and failing the flip maneuver as a result would have been a worse outcome. – Christopher James Huff Feb 04 '21 at 21:28
  • 7
    By the way, per a recent tweet from Musk, it sounds like they will attempt to start all three for SN10. That might be a hint that SN9's issue was with the engine itself, in which case engine redundancy could have saved it. – Christopher James Huff Feb 04 '21 at 21:34
  • 1
    @ChristopherJamesHuff O.M. was trying to make a joke there – Carl Witthoft Feb 05 '21 at 12:44
  • 1
    It would seem to make the most sense for them to try and have other engines available as backups. I believe the Falcon 9 does this, it has engines it can relight if the main ones go out on entry and landing. They're going to need to fuel it more at some point anyway; one would presume the F9s regularly have excess propellant remaining, considering the high percentage of returns.. – David Morris Feb 05 '21 at 18:41
  • 2
    @DavidMorris the F9 does not do this, only some engines have the additional TEA/TEB fluid to ignite and losing an engine means coming down in the water. The ignition fluid's a highly toxic substance that ignites on contact with air, they don't want more of it around than they absolutely need. Raptor uses electrical ignition and Starship has the third engine specifically for redundancy on landing. It simply wasn't done on SN8 or SN9, but will be for SN10. See the second paragraph of the answer and the preceding comments. – Christopher James Huff Feb 05 '21 at 18:49
10

The SpaceX Starship is a very ambitious design still in its very early stages of development. The SN8 and SN9 both had about 7 seconds between completing the flip and landing.

G forces decelerating from around 7 meters/second to 0 in 7 seconds work out to a very survivable 3 Gs.

However, it must be pointed out, sans atmosphere on the moon, and very little on Mars, the late flop/flip may be a theoretically possible but less safe option destined to be removed from the final design.

On Mars, the Starship may enter the atmosphere in the prone position, however (especially being liquid fueled), it may benefit itself by descending stably using a drag device such as a grid fin or parachute, then using rockets to land.

Current Mars landers do exactly that: discarding their heat shields after atmospheric friction sufficiently slows the space craft down. Once the Martian Starship slows down even enough, it would then be able to do its "suborbital thing" by flipping (much higher up), extending grid fins, and guiding to its landing sight. The drag device also insures directional stability as now the rocket is flying "backwards" to land on its tail.

Just as in an airplane, a stabilized approach is much safer, in this case particularly in rate of descent. As the stopping thrust requirement is proportional to the square of Velocity, a 20% difference in vertical velocity requires 44% more vertical distance to reach 0 meters/second.

A tall order for even the fastest computerized system. But this is cutting edge. While suggesting Space X consider a safer three step approach to landing (building on the suborbital Falcon 9 booster technology) as follows:

  1. Flop (70 meters/second) to intermediate altitude
  2. Transition to vertical with controlled and stable descent using drag device
  3. Ignite and check retro rockets (adjust as needed)
  4. Powered landing (larger landing zone to start)

Update on use of a parachute to control rate of descent (for a BFR)

The Space Shuttle solid fuel boosters weighed around 100 tons empty, comparable to SN9's empty weight of around 130 tons. Their parachutes were deployed at around 360 mph. A parachute system for the SN 10 (and beyond) would only need to match the horizontal "flop" rate of descent in the vertical position, allowing more time for engine restart.

The surface area of the "flopped" SN 10 is (generously) 160 x 30 = 4800 feet$^2$ + fins = (roughly) 6000 feet $^2$.

The Space Shuttle solid fuel main chute was 138 feet in diameter, yielding over 14,000 feet $^2$ of drag area with a much higher drag coefficient!

Imagine that parachute, deployed at 20,000 feet, bringing the craft into a slower vertical descent over a dry lake bed.

If the rockets check out ok, cut the parachute loose for a precision powered landing. If not, cut the rocket loose, and save the passenger capsule with the parachute.

Best of luck for SN 10!

Robert DiGiovanni
  • 1,058
  • 6
  • 15
  • 8
    The starship is supposed to land on Mars, refuel with Martian fuel, take off and then land on Earth. So regardless of the atmospheric density on Mars, it needs a way of landing on Earth with minimal fuel - and that's what they're practising with these tests. Additionally, though Mars' atmosphere is thin, it's apparently not so thin that fuel can't be saved by bellyfloppping in. – Robyn Feb 05 '21 at 08:40
  • 3
    One thing at a time. For the foreseeable future, starship is only going to land on planet Earth. That's what SpaceX are practicing... – user2705196 Feb 05 '21 at 12:10
  • 2
    It has only a few seconds to land anyway, it doesn't have propellant for anything more. The reality is that parachutes are complicated and of little use at these scales (and grid fins aren't even drag devices), and there's nothing to gain from this "stabilized" backwards descent...it would only cost additional propellant in the end due to the reduced aerodynamic braking. There's nothing to indicate that SpaceX's approach is unrealistic, calling it "worthless theatrics" betrays both irrational bias and ignorance of the subject. – Christopher James Huff Feb 05 '21 at 13:57
  • "there's nothing to be gained from stabilized descent" except the aircraft is stable at a slower rate of descent, giving them much more time to get the retro rockets ready (run diagnostics and adjust if they aren't). And Yes, they are practicing, so use a parachute and aim for a wider landing area (such as a salt flat), at first. I can't believe even Space X can afford to throw away many of these test craft. – Robert DiGiovanni Feb 05 '21 at 16:11
  • 1
    There is no time to "run diagnostics" and try to fix engines, no matter when they flip. If an engine doesn't start, its part in the landing is done. And flipping the vehicle vertical sooner means it will descend faster and require more propellant. There's no way your "drag device" can possibly equal the drag of the skydiver position...never mind the issue of control. The reasons why they're not using parachutes have been explained many times here and other places, it's not just "theatrics" and suggesting them yet again shows you just haven't done even a bare minimum of research. – Christopher James Huff Feb 05 '21 at 16:25
  • @Christopher James Huff so tell me, what is the Coefficient of Drag of a falling cylinder vs a closed hollow hemisphere? And, how do you propose we slow down on Mars? You're getting way too flustered. This is only the beginning of the development process. And no one said anything about "fixing" the engines, just adjusting to a failure of one. – Robert DiGiovanni Feb 05 '21 at 16:29
  • Starship isn't a simple cylinder, a parachute is not a simple closed hollow hemisphere, and a parachute big enough to have anything approaching the drag of a Starship in horizontal position is completely impractical even on Earth where it'd be subsonic...on Mars it would have to function in supersonic conditions. And if one engine fails, they just don't shut one down...there's nothing else to do. That's why they have three engines. Again, this is hardly obscure information, it's been widely discussed here and elsewhere why parachutes aren't useful for Starship. – Christopher James Huff Feb 05 '21 at 18:07
  • So, how do you stop it on Mars?? Seems shortsighted to me. The Earth system would be smaller in area (although Mars has lower gravity). I'd make the Martian system 1st (out in the Mojave). Earth return could orbit, and thumb a ride home on the Dreamchaser. – Robert DiGiovanni Feb 05 '21 at 18:15
  • 1
    ...it stops on Mars the same way it does on Earth, it just has a longer landing burn after the flip. Again, a few minutes of research would tell you this. Your opinions of what's "theatrics" or "short sighted" don't amount to much when you won't even do the most basic of research, especially when the company you're criticizing is the world leader in flying and landing rockets. – Christopher James Huff Feb 05 '21 at 19:08
  • @Christopher James Huff. Being a world leader does not make one perfect. It is my opinion the a low flip may not be this best way, especially with the Falcon design nailing everything in sight. But I do enjoy a good debate, so why can't we have "a longer landing burn" on earth? I would fly up to 200,000 feet, do the Mars landing, then come down and do the Earth landing in one flight using various techniques. Remember, this is still research. Thanks for your opinions. – Robert DiGiovanni Feb 05 '21 at 22:31
  • This answer has gotten a baffling number of upvotes. Upvoters: this answer is opinionated, biased, and inaccurate. The flip maneuver is not "theatrics" and the proposed drag device is unworkable. – Christopher James Huff Feb 06 '21 at 17:36
  • @Christopher James Huff well, you don't give up, do you. The worst thing one can do early in research is be close minded. You are the one being opinionated. So, you are asked to write your own answer, as it is well known that gliders and parachutes provide a lower rate of descent than prone skydivers on any scale. I do not discount the bold, innovative work of Space X, only to improve it by bring the ship to vertical early enough to confirm it can be safely landed with rockets. If not, a parachute system could save the occupants while the failed rocket was jettisoned. – Robert DiGiovanni Feb 06 '21 at 21:05
  • You're the one who's decided they know better than the people who are actually doing it without bothering to research why they're doing things that way, and proceeded to ignorantly spout off about "worthless theatrics". And you still clearly haven't done any research. Parachutes do not scale up the way you claim, and would only add mass and complexity even if they did. This answer is factually incorrect, period. – Christopher James Huff Feb 06 '21 at 21:57
  • @Christopher James Huff your comments have become rather unproductive, circling back to the same shrill assumptions, while your own logic seems to be "the Titanic is unsinkable, why bother with lifeboats". To clarify, I support the Starship landing concept, and seek only to add a backup system to improve safety. That's it. – Robert DiGiovanni Feb 06 '21 at 22:22
  • @ChristopherJamesHuff "...it stops on Mars the same way it does on Earth," Given SpaceX's apparent "design by breaking stuff" methodology, we might know the real answer after the first 5 or 10 Mars missions have all crash landed. – alephzero Feb 07 '21 at 22:50
  • @alephzero it's entirely possible it'll take more than one try, but the main difference is that the landing burn will have to handle around 600 m/s and the first part will be done while supersonic. SpaceX routinely does similar maneuvers with each F9 booster reentry burn. They're trying to get the "breaking things" mostly done here on Earth while flying just the spacecraft to get the test loop as tight as possible. – Christopher James Huff Feb 07 '21 at 23:39
5

I'm surprised that nobody mentioned yet that another likely cause is that the thrust to weight ratio is too high to allow for an efficient flip "too high up above the ground". Let's take as a basic assumption that Starship requires 2 Raptor engines to land (others have mentioned roll control as one reason why this would be needed). Going off public speculation, 1 Raptor produces at the minimum 880 kN of thrust. Thus, 2 Raptors can make a mass of 175 tons hover. Anything lighter will just go up, not come down, under Earth gravity. But Starship's empty mass is speculated to be around 180 tons. Even if it is higher, something like 200 tons, then the final portion of vertical descent for landing will be relatively slow, and consume probably too much fuel.

SpaceX's strategy has always been to do the "hoverslam" since the Falcon 9 days, so it is not surprising that they want to do the same for Starship. This becomes all the more important when landing on bodies with less gravity like the Moon and Mars, where 2 Raptors will be enough to send far heavier objects up, not down.

space_voyager
  • 971
  • 6
  • 13
  • 2
    They reduce to one engine for the final part of the landing burn and can technically hover on Earth (not on Mars). However, a lengthy descent using one engine to fight the aerodynamic instability of backwards flight would not be an improvement. As you say, it'd be slow...meaning more time for things to go wrong...and would consume too much propellant. – Christopher James Huff Feb 05 '21 at 19:17
-5

Simply put, the two aft wings and two forward canard fins work as control surfaces, to guide the vehicle during descent, only in the horizontal position. The starship is just too large to be guided by grid fins, such as done with the F9.

Bonus trivia: The wings and fins are control by motors which are powered by Tesla Model S and X batteries.

Kristoffer
  • 59
  • 4