Here is another youtube video on the subject:
....
however if you look at the total joules of energy to be dissipated during re entry, and then the heat of vaporization of methane or water, the numbers do not add up.
It can be done but it's not a spectacular innovation like the vertical landing of the boosters.
Yet, as shown in one of my previous posts, water can be heated to 5,000 degrees F, and probably above, and is done so in gasoline engines at times.
When you combine this with the pressure of the atmosphere flying by on re-entry, it's difficult to envision what will actually happen. We need some computer simulations, and some actual tests to tell for sure. The steam layer around the spaceship doesn't need to be very thick.
If one uses methane rather than water, the burning of the methane with the oxygen in the atmosphere, just might maintain a set temperature by its explosive burning, which could push extra heat away from and around the spacecraft, because there isn't enough time for extra heat to penetrate the "steam" by convection.
We really need some tests, starting with computer simulations. Does Musk have any of these?
None of what you said bears any relation to reality.
There would be no burning of methane around the spacecraft because of nature of combustion.
All aspects of the question/issue are amendable to one dimensional heat transfer calculations. No, water isn't heated to 5000 in IC engines.
This is basic rocket science and engineering.
If water isn't heated to 5,000 degrees in IC engines at times, then the old
Motor's Manual is a liar. Back in the '60s these manuals had a general training section in them that explained this.
How do you know that there would be no burning of methane around the spacecraft? There might be limited burning because of how fast the vehicle would be moving, and the small amount of time that even the outer fringes of the methane would have to mix with the atmospheric oxygen, but to say that there would be
no burning... how do you know? Diesel engine pistons can move quite rapidly, yet the fuel has time to mix in the cylinder and to burn quite cleanly. Why not methane and the atmosphere?
What does that even mean? Or are you saying that you don't really know what you are talking about?
Being basic rocket science means that somebody has already done this with rockets, right? That's exactly the operations that I and others are looking for. If it is basic rocket science, Musk would know about it, and that would be why he would be talking about it to use it, right? Do you have the literal test or usage reports? Or the locations where such reports can be found? Are any of the test locations websites?
