The static fire lasted 2.5s and was at about half power, minus 4 engines. And yet there are no "after" pictures of the rocket bidet. It was demurely covered by a tarp.
If it fails, it will fail due to the full strength of the rocket blast either directly penetrating the bidet or flashing the water into steam and deforming or breaking the steel structure.
It's not a "deluge" system. To have a deluge system, you need a flame trench, a flame diverter made of steel that can be readily replaced if it ablates, and your pour a massive amount of water onto the flame diverter and into the flame trench.
To have a flame trench in a place with a high water table, you have to build a large mound because you can't actually dig a trench. Like at Kennedy Space Center.
SpaceX won't do that because they are stuck in a sunk costs fallacy.
> SpaceX won't do that because they are stuck in a sunk costs fallacy.
I think it's rather because that would be the kind of change that would require redoing permits, and while they could be very confident that they would get those permits⁰, this would almost likely take more than a year to get done. The thing to look out for is how they build their setup at the cape. If they make a conventional flame trench over there, they might just give up on their Texas launch site, at least until they can redo permits.
0: Every government actor involved seems supportive of them, and the impact on the environment would not be meaningfully larger than the current setup.
8 comments
[ 0.25 ms ] story [ 23.2 ms ] threadPresumably the new deluge system would also result in some sound dampening during the first seconds after the engines are lit, no?
https://x.com/rainmaker1973/status/1659648607014756370?s=46&...
If it fails, it will fail due to the full strength of the rocket blast either directly penetrating the bidet or flashing the water into steam and deforming or breaking the steel structure.
It's not a "deluge" system. To have a deluge system, you need a flame trench, a flame diverter made of steel that can be readily replaced if it ablates, and your pour a massive amount of water onto the flame diverter and into the flame trench.
To have a flame trench in a place with a high water table, you have to build a large mound because you can't actually dig a trench. Like at Kennedy Space Center.
SpaceX won't do that because they are stuck in a sunk costs fallacy.
I think it's rather because that would be the kind of change that would require redoing permits, and while they could be very confident that they would get those permits⁰, this would almost likely take more than a year to get done. The thing to look out for is how they build their setup at the cape. If they make a conventional flame trench over there, they might just give up on their Texas launch site, at least until they can redo permits.
0: Every government actor involved seems supportive of them, and the impact on the environment would not be meaningfully larger than the current setup.