"SpaceX test fires massive Super Heavy booster for Starship for 1st time
(video)"
https://www.space.com/spacex-starship-super-heavy-rocket-booster-engine-test

"SpaceX fired up the massive booster rocket for its new Starship
spacecraft Monday night (July 19) in a short first-of-its-kind test for
the company's ambitious new launch system.
The towering stainless-steel booster, called Super Heavy, ignited three
Raptor engines in a brief "static fire" test on a pad at SpaceX's
Starbase facility in southern Texas, near the village of Boca Chica.
Booster 3, as this particularly Super Heavy is known, is the latest in a
series of prototypes for SpaceX's Starship program, which aims to
develop a fully reusable launch system for trips to the moon, Mars and
beyond.
"Full duration firing of 3 Raptors on Super Heavy Booster," SpaceX CEO
Elon Musk wrote Monday night on Twitter. When asked about the chances of
more tests with the rocket, Musk added: "Depending on progress with
Booster 4, we might try a 9 engine firing on Booster 3.""

The firing with all 32 rocket motors should be wild.

Lynn

On 7/20/2021 5:13 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote:
> "SpaceX test fires massive Super Heavy booster for Starship for 1st time
> (video)"
>
> https://www.space.com/spacex-starship-super-heavy-rocket-booster-engine-test
>
>
> "SpaceX fired up the massive booster rocket for its new Starship
> spacecraft Monday night (July 19) in a short first-of-its-kind test for
> the company's ambitious new launch system.
> The towering stainless-steel booster, called Super Heavy, ignited three
> Raptor engines in a brief "static fire" test on a pad at SpaceX's
> Starbase facility in southern Texas, near the village of Boca Chica.
> Booster 3, as this particularly Super Heavy is known, is the latest in a
> series of prototypes for SpaceX's Starship program, which aims to
> develop a fully reusable launch system for trips to the moon, Mars and
> beyond.
> "Full duration firing of 3 Raptors on Super Heavy Booster," SpaceX CEO
> Elon Musk wrote Monday night on Twitter. When asked about the chances of
> more tests with the rocket, Musk added: "Depending on progress with
> Booster 4, we might try a 9 engine firing on Booster 3.""
>
> The firing with all 32 rocket motors should be wild.
>
> Lynn

Can't wait to see them recover the first stage
using the launch pad arm.

--
https://twitter.com/Non_Linear1

Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
>"SpaceX test fires massive Super Heavy booster for Starship for 1st time
>(video)"
>https://www.space.com/spacex-starship-super-heavy-rocket-booster-engine-test
[...]
>"Full duration firing of 3 Raptors on Super Heavy Booster," SpaceX CEO
>Elon Musk wrote Monday night on Twitter. When asked about the chances of
>more tests with the rocket, Musk added: "Depending on progress with
>Booster 4, we might try a 9 engine firing on Booster 3.""
>
>The firing with all 32 rocket motors should be wild.

ITYM 33 [1]. Yeah, the 33 engines (230T/2.3MN/510k-lbf) will outclass
anything that has been flown or seriously considered by a considerable
margin. Wild is one word for it.

Well, except the Sea Dragon (350MN!) study but the rocket nozzle for
that was PURE handwavium, combustion instabilities grows quickly as
the combustion chamber & nozzle grows in size and SD specified one
that would be an order of magnitude larger than the largest rocket
nozzle ever built (F-1).

And taming the combustion instabilities of the F-1 was extremely hard.
Yes, we have much better tools (CFD and otherwise) these days but it
really doesn't help as much as you would expect with this aspect!

No one would ever consider using a single engine for something that
large today, it was ruled out many decades before SpaceX flew their
21-engined Falcon Heavy. And SD's second stage engine is even worse
that the first, it's pure "what-if" material.

1. https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1414284648641925124

In message <sda76i$faf$1@dont-email.me>
Torbjorn Lindgren <tl@none.invalid> wrote:

> Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
> >The firing with all 32 rocket motors should be wild.
>
> ITYM 33 [1].
>
> large today, it was ruled out many decades before SpaceX flew their
> 21-engined Falcon Heavy.

ITYM 27. :-)

Anthony

On 7/22/2021 2:06 AM, Anthony Frost wrote:
> In message <sda76i$faf$1@dont-email.me>
> Torbjorn Lindgren <tl@none.invalid> wrote:
>
> > Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >The firing with all 32 rocket motors should be wild.
> >
> > ITYM 33 [1].
> >
> > large today, it was ruled out many decades before SpaceX flew their
> > 21-engined Falcon Heavy.
>
> ITYM 27. :-)
>
The number keeps changing every time someone counts.

--
Troll, troll, troll your post gently down the thread
Angrily, angrily, angrily, the net's a nut's scream.

pete...@gmail.com <petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Thursday, July 22, 2021 at 1:53:24 PM UTC-4, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
>> On 7/22/2021 2:06 AM, Anthony Frost wrote:
>> > In message <sda76i$faf$1...@dont-email.me>
>> > Torbjorn Lindgren <t...@none.invalid> wrote:
>> > > Lynn McGuire <lynnmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > >The firing with all 32 rocket motors should be wild.
>> > >
>> > > ITYM 33 [1].
>> > >
>> > > large today, it was ruled out many decades before SpaceX flew their
>> > > 21-engined Falcon Heavy.
>> >
>> > ITYM 27. :-)
>> >
>> The number keeps changing every time someone counts.
>
>You have keep up with Elon's Twitter.
>
>As of July 11, it's 33.

No, read again, it specifically say *Falcon Heavy* has 21 engines, and
he corrects that to 27.

And while there was some early Heavy ideas (including "what if we use
four side boosters") it's been fixed at 27 engines for a long, LONG
time. Probably since before it got it's final name,

So he's absolutely correct, basically my fingers slipped.

Given that I had just corrected the number of engines on SuperHeavy
this made MY slip of amusing and he ran with it, fair deal.

It's correct but irrelevant that the count for Superheavy has varied
over time and that it's now set to 33 and will likely stay at that
number until at least "Raptor 2" which should well beyond the first
few orbital flightls.

The part where I linked up Elon's Twitter was removed because... it
didn't MATTER given that his correction was about Falcon Heavy.

,On Thursday, July 22, 2021 at 7:34:55 PM UTC-4, Torbjorn Lindgren wrote:
> pete...@gmail.com <pete...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Thursday, July 22, 2021 at 1:53:24 PM UTC-4, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
> >> On 7/22/2021 2:06 AM, Anthony Frost wrote:
> >> > In message <sda76i$faf$1...@dont-email.me>
> >> > Torbjorn Lindgren <t...@none.invalid> wrote:
> >> > > Lynn McGuire <lynnmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > > >The firing with all 32 rocket motors should be wild.
> >> > >
> >> > > ITYM 33 [1].
> >> > >
> >> > > large today, it was ruled out many decades before SpaceX flew their
> >> > > 21-engined Falcon Heavy.
> >> >
> >> > ITYM 27. :-)
> >> >
> >> The number keeps changing every time someone counts.
> >
> >You have keep up with Elon's Twitter.
> >
> >As of July 11, it's 33.
> No, read again, it specifically say *Falcon Heavy* has 21 engines, and
> he corrects that to 27.
>
> And while there was some early Heavy ideas (including "what if we use
> four side boosters") it's been fixed at 27 engines for a long, LONG
> time. Probably since before it got it's final name,
>
> So he's absolutely correct, basically my fingers slipped.
>
> Given that I had just corrected the number of engines on SuperHeavy
> this made MY slip of amusing and he ran with it, fair deal.
>
>
> It's correct but irrelevant that the count for Superheavy has varied
> over time and that it's now set to 33 and will likely stay at that
> number until at least "Raptor 2" which should well beyond the first
> few orbital flightls.
>
> The part where I linked up Elon's Twitter was removed because... it
> didn't MATTER given that his correction was about Falcon Heavy.

You're right; I misread it. My mind is much more occupied with Starship
than with FH.

I note that the Wikipedia page for th Starship booster hasn't been updated,
and claims 42 engines, not 33.

Pt