I guess I need to do simulations to see how sand can fly 5 miles from a Starship launch. I did the analysis for NASA for Mars landings, and the size of particle that went farthest in that super-thin Martian air was pea gravel (~3 mm diameter) and it only goes 725 meters. /1
2/ Larger particles go less distance because their inertia prevents them from getting up to a higher velocity. Fiber particles start out faster but the atmospheric drag rapidly stops them and they fall straight down.
3/ I made these plots for NASA’s Mars Design Reference Mission (DRM) 5.0. They are in Addendum 1, pages 234-248. nasa.gov/pdf/373667main…
4/ So I did not believe sand would go 5 miles on Earth, but people got pictures showing that it *did*. 🤯
4/ You can see in the plots that small particles travel straight out at high velocity, then atmospheric drag stops them and they fall straight down. So we should be able to determine the initial velocity they had to end up falling 5 miles away.
5/ Knowing that initial velocity will help calibrate models of particles accelerated by a plume. For Mars I used plume simulations with assumed crater shapes then I integrated the forces on the particles as they are blown out of the crater. (Image: ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/…)
6/ The crater shapes were informed by experiments firing rocket motors into regolith so it wasn’t arbitrary, but at the time we had no models that integrated sand + gas that we could trust. (We still don’t have fully benchmarked models.)
7/ If I recall, I used various crater slopes to find worst case on how far the particles travel on Mars. It might have been 45 degree crater slopes but I don’t recall. You can see there is some slope in the crater formed by Starship, but the flow field was doubtless complex.
8/ Despite the complexity (which makes analysis hard) we have to work with what we’ve got. This is by far the biggest rocket cratering experiment in history so it pushes the envelop of experimental data and I’d hate to waste the opportunity. So here’s the request…
9/ If anyone can sweep up some of the sand that landed 5 miles away and send it to me, I will pay postage and will return the sample after testing along with some small thank you token (a patch?). I want to measure density, sizes, and drag forces on the particles. DMs are open!🙏
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
We did see plume anomalies during ascent. Engine shutdowns are common but very few are “loss of nozzle” events. Six in one flight suggests a common cause. I’d guess it was failure of the launch pad creating ejecta that struck various bells, causing their failures during ascent.
And I gotta add, for many years we have talked about the dangers of plume ejecta striking engine bells, and we always assumed it would lead to loss of vehicle (and crew) as the engine explodes. It is remarkable that six events in one flight did not destroy the vehicle. 2/3
3/3 This suggests there was more safety margin than we knew. That is good news. But still, better not keep rolling the dice.
We used steel plates for some of the Morpheus launch locations so we weren’t tied down to places with concrete. I analyzed the heating of the sheet and showed that the heat would redistribute fast enough that it would not locally melt on the surface, and… /1
2/ …that the steel plate was large enough to take the heat of the entire launch event without melting. To be conservative (because that’s what nasa does 😉) we also put paint-on ablative on the top of the steel. An ablative erodes under heat and thus uses up some of the heat…
3/ …keeping what was under the ablative cooler. (Partly we were just testing the use of ablative. It wasn’t just conservatism that motivated this.) So compare to Elon’s tweet about Starship. They plan to make their giant steel plate water-cooled. That way it doesn’t have to…
One thing that people probably forget when building launch pads is that there is gas pressure pushing up from under the pad. Dirt has air pressure in it. If rocket exhaust finds a crack, it pressurizes the dirt under the launch pad far more. This can lift concrete slabs. /1
2/ If a slab starts to lift, it creates a bigger crack, and the gas that hits its edge comes to a full stop, converting its kinetic energy to super high pressure. This pressure is right at the crack so it drives even more gas to the space below the slab, lifting it even more.
3/ Every disruption of the gas flow also creates high temperature. Concrete gets eaten away by high temperature. The sand grains and gravel thermally expand in random directions creating micro cracks that grow, so material fractures and sluffs off the surface at some rate.
Coincidentally I just prepared a lecture for tomorrow where I will discuss one aspect of this. Please read this linked thread first then my additional thoughts are below. /1
2/ I have been worried about the same problem at the next step of the career ladder. How many PhDs are we graduating in astronomy/planetary compared to the number of jobs available? These plots indicate no growth of funding to support astronomers. (Cred: homepages.rpi.edu/~newbeh/WhyFun…)
3/ If there’s no growth in academic positions, then shouldn’t each astronomy professor graduate only *ONE* PhD student during their entire career? That is, a one-for-one job replacement. When I retire, one person gets my job. But we graduate far more than this.
@JPMajor@cgruttke@ColB1Kenobe@its_the_Dr@BellFlight The combustion that creates light only happens where the gas is high pressure. In lunar vacuum, once it comes out of the nozzle is has been expanded, and the heat energy was converted into kinetic energy for thrust. Since it is relatively cool, there’s no combustion, no light./1
@JPMajor@cgruttke@ColB1Kenobe@its_the_Dr@BellFlight 2/ Here’s a simulation of the rocket exhaust flowing out of a nozzle. The temperature is far below combustion temperature at the wide end of the nozzle.
@JPMajor@cgruttke@ColB1Kenobe@its_the_Dr@BellFlight 3/ On Earth there is an atmosphere that keeps the rocket exhaust focused into a jet, so it cannot keep expanding and getting cooler. Generally, plumes will oscillate from too wide to too narrow as they try to equalize to the atmosphere. The oscillations create bright hot spots…
Unfortunately, lunar dust is not charged in just one polarity. Some will be positive, some negative, and in general the dust specks have patches of both positive and negative areas on their surface. However, this *can* be used in an electrodynamic system to remove lunar dust. 1/3
2/3 The trick is to put regions of both positive and negative (and neutral) electric field on your spacesuit, and then cause those fields to move across the surface of the suit dragging all the dust, positive and negative, with it. NASA has developed this: nasa.gov/feature/kenned…
3/4 They developed versions that are embedded in fabric, and other versions that are clear to go in windows. But even this technology is not a complete cure for lunar dust since it gets embedded in the fibers of spacesuits and is very difficult to get out.