151–160 of 413 posts
The test is essentially a success at this point. Starship can take payload to orbit and open/close the payload doors. The remaining things are icing on the cake. They can refine re-usability while flying payloads.
I wouldn’t classify the re-entry survival problem as icing. But otherwise, I agree with you.
I was surprised that during the initial ascent footage from the fin-cam, you can see that the grid fins are out. Do they not fold back on ascent? Or possibly drag on one side to arc over? Just seems weird to have your “drag device” deployed during ascent.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wouldn’t classify the re-entry survival problem as icing. But otherwise, I agree with you.
They have a great pipeline for building ships. They want reusability, but for near-term needs like deploying bigger Starlink satellites and their moon lander contract they could probably power through without reentry survival. It would be expensive, but unlike in-orbit refueling not really mission critical
[flagged]
To be fair the capsule caught fire in a ground test once with three lives lost (Apollo 1) and the command module had an explosion in space once (Apollo 13) with no loss of life but it was a close thing. I do agree with your larger point though. SpaceX just feels so much less impressive then previous major rockets, and that's only reinforced when they try and celebrate minor milestones like its supposed to be the grea…
I was surprised that during the initial ascent footage from the fin-cam, you can see that the grid fins are out. Do they not fold back on ascent? Or possibly drag on one side to arc over? Just seems weird to have your “drag device” deployed during ascent.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's impressive revisionism. Where's the Soviet reusable launch vehicle that is half the price, is able to reuse even one stage and takes less than a month to refurbish?
Nevermind
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wouldn’t classify the re-entry survival problem as icing. But otherwise, I agree with you.
Yeah, breaking up in-air during re-entry (at 65 km going by last telemetry) seems like a potential big issue to fix.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Technically its suborbital
Isn't orbit above 125 miles (200km)?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Technically its suborbital
Technically it's a transatmospheric orbit. That is, an orbit such that it'd stay up there if the atmosphere were not present. The difference between this and full orbit is just a few seconds longer burn, so it's a difference with little meaning in terms of proving out the ability to reach orbit.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's impressive revisionism. Where's the Soviet reusable launch vehicle that is half the price, is able to reuse even one stage and takes less than a month to refurbish?
Nevermind