Jump to content

RCgothic

Members
  • Content Count

    1,429
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by RCgothic

  1. Which doesn't work because you need multiple flights' worth of fuel and LH2 would all boil off between flights.
  2. The absolute deal-breaker for me in SLS isn't ultimately the cost, or that it isn't big enough to do capsule and lander to the moon at once. It's flight rate. A high flight rate could cover all manner of sins. Can't co-manifest a lander? Send up another launch. Can't do Mars return without a mothership? Multiple-flight-construct that thing. SLS will never have the flight rate to work unsupported. And this must have been known from the start. I just... I just don't understand how such a crititical component of a crewed BLEO programme gets missed. It's almost like NASA have
  3. Eric Berger thinks SN9 may be ok to ship to the launch site Thurs, maybe:
  4. Carried out attached to the stand, carried back in without it: i saw somewhere someone claiming it was the pillars that the stands sit on that collapsed, but I haven't seen photos yet.
  5. SN9 structure is sound enough it can be lifted by the nose cone lift points.
  6. Wow, ok: SpaceX is to significantly expand at Vandenberg. Just a month or so ago we thought they were winding down over there!
  7. Good catch, that one's in the windbreak, not the highbay.
  8. This series of French tweets has a good round up of pictures: "Assembly of SN10 and SN11 prototypes continues as one section prepares to recurve a large quantity of heat shield tiles." I'm quite psyched to see what a large collection of tiles looks like. The lunar starship mockup also has a curtain round the bottom, so I'm sure there's lots of work going on in there. "The SN9's fins were damaged following the incident with its mount, and will certainly be replaced if the prototype remains essentially in good condition. The nosecone of SN10 is
  9. Take a look at these pics. This doesn't look good. I wonder if they did some modifications to get the Raptors under there? Doesn't look like good practice at all.
  10. More to the point, @tater, SN9 before it tipped: what was this all about. That... Does not look like good practice.
  11. Ah, I got confused between Launcher One and Spaceship Two. Oops.
  12. Abort. The Problem with plane-dropped rockets is you don't get to recover the rocket on an abort.
  13. This fin looks a bit damaged to me: I think the edge had been caved in.
  14. Too soon to say. Depends very much on how exactly it impacted.
  15. Careful, some Twitter handles are not forum safe. Elon and Gwynne take a tour. Pieces on a truck already.
  16. Edit: tweet scrubbed, email address visible. SN9SN9 rollout on Monday? Odd that an email would be leaked though.
  17. I'm out of likes right now. I think it was supposed to be a 2-1 landing burn, but the 1 was having an engine-rich anomaly (not its fault, due to low tank pressure). The engine would not abort in this situation, it has to try and save the stage at the cost of its own internals. One of the ground tents is on fire. Landing site on fire.
  18. Header tank pressure low leading to landing overspeed. They got all the data they need!
  19. Good catch. Yes it looks like an engine out and the engine was required. An almost totally successful test otherwise!
×
×
  • Create New...