Starship musings

 

The morning started with some thoughts about the Spacex Starship project. It appears that there is something of a problem with the launch pad. The enormous amount of thrust has caused concrete to come loose and rain down on the complex. Some videos show that repairs are ongoing to the launch pad, and probable upgrades. There has yet to be a full 33 engine static fire. This will delay the eventual launch of the new rocket for awhile. What should be done?

There has been some discussion about the purchase of offshore rigs, and possibly using them as offshore launch pads. Also, some discussion about a flame trench, which would divert the rocket's blast so that the facilities don't get so damaged with each launch. A crazy idea came to mind. Maybe more than one crazy idea. What if a "flame trench" could be built offshore? The rocket's blast could be diverted into tubes below the water line. The water will keep the tubes from getting too hot ( presumably). What's more, some blowback could actually supply some more thrust! This is reminescent of some undersea launches from submarines. The rocket pops up out of the water, and goes airborne. Could something like this work? Is it even being considered? There was an idea from sixties to use a "Sea Dragon" concept rocket, which would take off out at sea. The rocket would have been monstrously big. Even bigger than anything Musk is proposing now. Such a study said it was a feasible idea back in those days.

Or would they just use the offshore facility as a testing facility? But in the same manner discussed above. No need to land rockets that aren't intended to land anyway. Or perhaps a combination. It could be a way station to the main site onshore. Rockets could land out there too, but only first stages. They could be tested out there, and then fly back on their own power to the main facility. They could be positioned to catch the rocket offshore, and then reload it offshore and fly back to the main base. This would allow them to devote more fuel to the payloads. It wouldn't take as much fuel to take a mostly empty first stage back to base, where it could be launched with a full payload. With the fuel savings not having to be used to take the empty stage back to land, they could put more payload onboard the land based launches. Every pound of fuel saved saves at least 20 more for additional payload. This could make it all worthwhile.

Obviously Musk is thinking about something like this, or why acquire their offshore platforms? Evidently, he doesn't want big flame trenches like NASA used for the Saturn V launches in the sixties. He needs some sort of testing facility and an offshore platform might be suitable for that purpose. A short hop to land for the main launch doesn't seem too way out of an idea. He has already perfected the technique with the Falcon 9 of landing out at sea. What would prevent such a scenario? It might be what he has in mind.

This wasn't the really way out idea I thought. It might even be brilliant.

The thing that is way out there may be in putting the rocket under water and launching it. What would happen then? Maybe it would explode. Too much power in too little space, perhaps.

But it isn't that far out of an idea to do it as I've laid it out above. It might even be considered "conservative" to use the offshore facility to land the rocket, while increasing its payload fraction a bit because it didn't need a boost back burn to get the rocket back to base. The main transit to get the payload in orbit doesn't get so penalized by having to save fuel for the boost back burn. It could be a difference maker.