MinimumSky5

Members
  • Content Count

    566
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

345 Excellent

About MinimumSky5

  • Rank
    Sr. Spacecraft Engineer

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. If that was an engine failure, it looks like they lost the centre engine, given that the plume still looked mostly symmetrical after the anomoly. Probably reason for booster loss, given that they land the boosters on the centre engine?
  2. CRS-16 failed a landing at LZ-1, though to be fair, that was a hydraulics issue with the grid fins, not the legs.
  3. Nope, no further launch attempts today. Probably due to inclination for launch. Looked like the abort was between engine ignition, and liftoff.
  4. Unfair comparison. SpaceX are developing their hardware by deliberately pushing their hardware to the edge of what it can do, and then far beyond, to see where the limits lie, not by simulating it to heck and back to find all of the possibly failure modes. There is nothing wrong with that approach, it's messy, and has very public failures, but it means that SpaceX won't invest in true production unless and until their hardware is flight proven, rather than hoping that they have coded in all of the variables right before they test their software. The exploded vehicles were (mostly, admittedly) built to be destroyed, so it's a bit unfair to say that those failures reflect badly onto SpaceX. Only do that if you know how many virtual SLS's Boeing has sacrificed in simulations.
  5. (paraphrased) "If Korolev knew that we'd still be flying Soyuz in 2020, he'd be turning in his grave." Well, shots fired much! (not that he's wrong)
  6. Is the talk over already? I'm just getting an ad for OilCon 2020 (Which is apparently a real thing).
  7. Is this the first fully private crewed launch? (Please say yes, please say yes, please say yes!!)
  8. I know, it actually feels like we have a shot this time, not just with SpaceX, but Blue Origin, Relativity (started by ex-SpaceX personnel, with an established company goal of building a rocket on Mars), Made in Space, Axiom, Planetary Resources (If they ever get the funding sorted...). It's not just a political stunt, this time, it's an economic push by the private sector.
  9. https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/03/inside-elon-musks-plan-to-build-one-starship-a-week-and-settle-mars/3/ Berger's had a field trip down to Boca Chica, to check out the new production lines for Starship
  10. It also looked like there may have been some ground damage, given that the lights gave out as soon as the tank landed.
  11. My money is on a bigger ASDS, if it's to stationkeep the smaller barges, at some point the limiting factor will be swivelling the thrusters to compensate for wave action, making them unsuitable for OCISLY or JRTI, but they may be worth it on a much bigger Starship barge the doesn't have to worry about wave action as much, due to its higher mass.
  12. Is that an unusually short amount of time for a Launch Readiness Review, or am I thinking of something else? I thought that that was the sort of thing that you'd do in the weeks approaching a launch, not hours.
  13. More like the sudden collapse of the baseball itself into a black hole just from it's kinetic energy alone, long before it hits the Earth
  14. Do you know if this will be available on a streaming service, I'd like to watch, but I'm not sure how to as a non-US citizen?
  15. The thing with Trident, is that it's going to use an alignment of Jupiter and Neptune that we wont get again for several decades, so I'm kind of in favour of Trident for that reason. Obligatory Scott Manley video!