161–170 of 203 posts
Two of the three engines flaming out in the last few seconds, was that intentional? Something similar happened last time too, but at least this time it landed.
Congrats to SpaceX for sticking the landing. The most important launch of a reusable craft may be its second. Looking forward to SN10 flying again.
I doubt there's any plan to fly SN10 again. The point of this vehicle was to learn about controlling the flight with the flaps. The landing was a bonus, and reuse isn't part of the plan for the early prototypes (they already have several more in the pipeline, including SN11 which is pretty much ready to go) EDIT: I take that back... It did fly again...
I'm not an engineer (well not that kind), but it seems to me relying wholly on thrusters seems kind of iffy on being fully stable... wouldn't maybe having the rockets slow down the craft to the point where drones could lasso it, or connect to it, or even built in wings could expand with copter blades to steady it and lower it down more gentle? I mean early space-flight used parachutes, that's an option too though I'd…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, they did fly a rocket up to 3km and land it. That's not nothing, but it's also a totally different accomplishment to Starship.
Looks like Starship got to 10 km. It's not that different.
The truth is that the “landing a rocket” part is the least interesting here, Starship is a 150t capacity reusable space vehicle that will reduce launch costs by a factor of 100x, and is to be produced en masse like airplanes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, they did fly a rocket up to 3km and land it. That's not nothing, but it's also a totally different accomplishment to Starship.
Looks like Starship got to 10 km. It's not that different.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> SpaceX's rapid iterations and fail fast methodology might save the human species Would you mind elaborating here? How will reaching a dead planet while we actively kill the literally perfect place for us to survive and foster save the human species, exactly? And how does a fail fast methodology fit in there?
Learning to survive on mars will help our species learn how to survive on future earth
I'm not an engineer (well not that kind), but it seems to me relying wholly on thrusters seems kind of iffy on being fully stable... wouldn't maybe having the rockets slow down the craft to the point where drones could lasso it, or connect to it, or even built in wings could expand with copter blades to steady it and lower it down more gentle? I mean early space-flight used parachutes, that's an option too though I'd…
Helicopter blades have been proposed and tested, but apparently Roton, an early space company, did not have nearly enough money. Also they pursued a SSTO platform that they didn't have the efficiency margins to pull off.
Alright. It's getting real! What kind of math should I study to be able to play in that space?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the lean is expected, I’ve been predicting it. The vehicle lands on only one engine at the end which is off centre, so the landing legs are going to get asymmetric forces on landing. Also these are only interim leg designs. Oh, keeblewey!
I very highly doubt the lean is expected. The fact is that 2-3 of the landing legs deployed but did not lock into their extended position, which resulted in the lean this time. This also caused structural damage to the engines and tanks, causing the rupture and kaboom.
I'm not an engineer (well not that kind), but it seems to me relying wholly on thrusters seems kind of iffy on being fully stable... wouldn't maybe having the rockets slow down the craft to the point where drones could lasso it, or connect to it, or even built in wings could expand with copter blades to steady it and lower it down more gentle? I mean early space-flight used parachutes, that's an option too though I'd…
From what I've read, passive landing solutions like parachutes, wings, rotors, air bags, etc. are feasible only for smaller payloads. Think Apollo/Soyuz capsules, or the first couple Mars landers, or RocketLab's Electron rocket with a parachute.
I'm sure the JPL engineers would have preferred a tried-and-tested passive parachute (and maybe some airbags) over a sky-crane, but the latest rovers are just too heavy for safe parachute landing. I believe it's the same situation with Falcon 9 and Starship recovery.
And remember that SpaceX's Dragon capsule demonstrated an impressive propulsive landing, but NASA said no thanks and required parachutes.