51–60 of 75 posts
This change in perception from the public, is the most critical change to fundamentally accelerate the progress of space exploration.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've plotted a graph with these two data points and predict that it will successfully re-light all three engines in only two more tries.
The landing burn will relight 2 engines to slow down, then land on 1 engine. SN8 was really close. Only a couple more seconds before the engine ate itself would do. :)
Looked to me like they didn't rotate all the way back to vertical, either.
I think it was the opposite; they rotated past vertical. I'd guess they were probably counting on the vectored thrust of a second engine to halt the angular momentum.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What would they replace it with?
Seems like there are two different things here; launching passengers and freight, and returning passengers in comfort and without neck injuries. One could easily envision a passenger only winged glider similar to the space shuttle to serve the passenger return role. Indeed, although spacex has nothing like that planned, these BFRs enable damn near anything.
It felt much less eerie as it had commentary this time (and probably because it wasn't the first Starship high-altitude flight), but on the face of it, it looked to be a rougher 'landing' than SN8. I'm sure they got a lot of data from it, but it looked like some of the debris was headed towards SN10 - definitely squeaky bum time then! Can't wait to see this work, though, it really will be a step change for space expl…
Yeah - it really looked like they just got lucky with the debris somehow avoiding SN10. I wonder what the reasoning was behind them even having SN10 on the other pad during this launch - surely it would have been safer to just keep it in a hangar until afterwards?
There's probably a cost/benefit calculation here, too: SN15 has been said to be bringing significant design improvements over the current design they're flying, and SN10 is of the older design. SN11 is probably ready or very close to ready for "high-bay" stacking... SN10 was waiting in the high-bay along with the first booster (BN1)leaving really no room for anything else to go in there. SN12, also of the same older design is being pro-actively scrapped right now and SN13, SN14 are also not going to happen so they get to SN15 faster. They have a test article at the launch site (SN7.2) to test a different construction material (3mm think stainless steel vs. the current 4mm). All that said and done... I'm sure they want to get SN10 in the air and would be disappointed by losing it... but they already have their sights fixed on the future it doesn't completely represent.
I was impressed that they confidently landed it right next to another prototype. I am sure they will stick the landing next time.
It is irresponsible and it seems to me that the only reason they risked millions of dollars in prototypes is for media attention. Just because it looks cool is not a reason to do it.
They expect to lose many rockets along the way. They only put 3 raptor engines in there because that's the expensive part.
This is in contrast to the SLS where they spend 5 years and billions of dollars designing and building one rocket that's make of break, with the second rocket launching people.
Anyone guess whats going on?
What I find odd is: when this thing is operational, passengers are supposed to ride through this "flip to land" maneuver?
Also the center of rotation can be controlled to be inside the passenger section. Add some seats that can automatically tilt 90 degrees and the forces might be barely noticable.
It felt much less eerie as it had commentary this time (and probably because it wasn't the first Starship high-altitude flight), but on the face of it, it looked to be a rougher 'landing' than SN8. I'm sure they got a lot of data from it, but it looked like some of the debris was headed towards SN10 - definitely squeaky bum time then! Can't wait to see this work, though, it really will be a step change for space expl…
Yeah - it really looked like they just got lucky with the debris somehow avoiding SN10. I wonder what the reasoning was behind them even having SN10 on the other pad during this launch - surely it would have been safer to just keep it in a hangar until afterwards?
I've been so conditioned by how flawless SpaceX launches have tended to be over the last few years. It's exciting going back to not knowing what will happen during the stream. I'm reminded of the enthusiasm around the early Falcon 9 first-stage landing tests, when folks were attempting to reconstruct individual frames of footage from the first "ocean landings" just to get a small taste of what happened. I'm sure they…
I noticed the news barely covered it, and I thought at the time it might be to avoid casting doubt on the human-crewed launch.
https://www.dallasnews.com/business/technology/2020/05/29/wa...