Elthy Posted August 6, 2020 Share Posted August 6, 2020 I guess not, thats why they are testing them... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikegarrison Posted August 6, 2020 Share Posted August 6, 2020 Interesting to see some of those fasteners. Anyway, it's clear they are experimenting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatastrophicFailure Posted August 6, 2020 Share Posted August 6, 2020 (edited) 41 minutes ago, sh1pman said: Some of the heat tiles are cracked. This norminal? And some are outright missing, definitely not normial. Like the other guys said, this is why they're testing them like that. In related news, there's pics on NSF of one of the new robots gearing up to weld on tile studs in the future. ETA: that's also on the side with the crushed leg, so might have had more of an impact on landing than they otherwise would. Edited August 6, 2020 by CatastrophicFailure Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted August 6, 2020 Share Posted August 6, 2020 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted August 7, 2020 Share Posted August 7, 2020 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
insert_name Posted August 7, 2020 Share Posted August 7, 2020 Coverage has started Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatastrophicFailure Posted August 7, 2020 Share Posted August 7, 2020 Finally! Yeesh that liftoff-moment anxiety never goes away. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mitchz95 Posted August 7, 2020 Share Posted August 7, 2020 And touchdown! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IncongruousGoat Posted August 7, 2020 Share Posted August 7, 2020 I'm now wondering about the timing of the landing burn. Usually, the landing burn happens almost at the same time as SECO, but it was much earlier than that on this launch. Anyone have any ideas? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted August 7, 2020 Share Posted August 7, 2020 Different orbit because of the rideshares. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatastrophicFailure Posted August 7, 2020 Share Posted August 7, 2020 Dang. That was like the shortest burn ever. I think even static fires are longer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted August 7, 2020 Share Posted August 7, 2020 46 minutes ago, IncongruousGoat said: I'm now wondering about the timing of the landing burn. Usually, the landing burn happens almost at the same time as SECO, but it was much earlier than that on this launch. Anyone have any ideas? Different payload with the rideshares. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RCgothic Posted August 7, 2020 Share Posted August 7, 2020 B1049 and B1051 are now joint flight leaders at 5 recoveries each, at least until B1049 gets its next flight for Starlink-10 later this month. All the Starlinks on Starlink-9 had the sun visor installed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kerbiloid Posted August 7, 2020 Share Posted August 7, 2020 Evolution of futurism. Spoiler 1936 2020 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatastrophicFailure Posted August 7, 2020 Share Posted August 7, 2020 10 hours ago, CatastrophicFailure said: ETA: that's also on the side with the crushed leg, so might have had more of an impact on landing than they otherwise would. Addendum to addendum: NSF pic shows the legs right near there look to have bottomed out, so quite possibly a big off-norminal jolt shattered the tiles. Curious if SN5 will fly again after that, tho nothing else looks obviously damaged. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RealKerbal3x Posted August 7, 2020 Share Posted August 7, 2020 2 hours ago, CatastrophicFailure said: Addendum to addendum: NSF pic shows the legs right near there look to have bottomed out, so quite possibly a big off-norminal jolt shattered the tiles. Curious if SN5 will fly again after that, tho nothing else looks obviously damaged. I still think SN5 will fly again; aside from the obvious damage to the legs and heat shield tiles it looks fine. Also, back at the build site SN7.1 is coming together, as well as the new high bay: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kerbiloid Posted August 7, 2020 Share Posted August 7, 2020 If Starship can catch the Falcon upper stages in orbit and return them in cargo bay, then Falcon will be fully reusable, just not on its own. SpaceX, feel free to use it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DDE Posted August 7, 2020 Share Posted August 7, 2020 17 minutes ago, kerbiloid said: If Starship can catch the Falcon upper stages in orbit and return them in cargo bay, then Falcon will be fully reusable, just not on its own. SpaceX, feel free to use it. They need collapsible upper stages, then. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kerbiloid Posted August 7, 2020 Share Posted August 7, 2020 (edited) 2 minutes ago, DDE said: They need collapsible upper stages, then. Yes, but without heat protection it seems possible. Or they can split it in several and put inside aside. Edited August 7, 2020 by kerbiloid Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cubinator Posted August 7, 2020 Share Posted August 7, 2020 22 minutes ago, kerbiloid said: If Starship can catch the Falcon upper stages in orbit and return them in cargo bay, then Falcon will be fully reusable, No, actually Starship would be 150% reusable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DDE Posted August 7, 2020 Share Posted August 7, 2020 57 minutes ago, cubinator said: No, actually Starship would be 150% reusable. WhyNotBoth.jpg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kerbiloid Posted August 7, 2020 Share Posted August 7, 2020 They have a chance to start Transformers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magnemoe Posted August 7, 2020 Share Posted August 7, 2020 1 hour ago, DDE said: They need collapsible upper stages, then. Falcon 9 upper stage is listed as 16 meter long. Starship payload bay is 17.2 meter long, Yes you will need an docking adapter and you need some way to stabilize the engine. Assuming they are docking the top to the bottom of starship bay and have an very low profile docking adapter it might fit. Now I doubt it make much sense but could see SpaceX fly Starship in experimental mode perhaps deploying starlinks while Falcon 9 continue to do commercial payloads. But doubt second stage are has enough control to dock, both has to drop their payload adapters and the Starship starlink deployment system would be reusable and pretty expensive, they can not use rotation so they need something else. Perhaps cold gas to push them out one after the other. Or you could just jettison the stack then do something to seperate more like with falcon 9, rotation would not work here either but you don't have to release it inside the hull with other stacks next by. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RCgothic Posted August 7, 2020 Share Posted August 7, 2020 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RealKerbal3x Posted August 7, 2020 Share Posted August 7, 2020 (edited) LabPadre stream shows a crane now linked to SN5, which means they're preparing to lift it onto a roll-lift for transport. Perhaps it'll be moved back to the build site for repairs/modifications. Edit: NASA Spaceflight is doing a stream as well! Welcome back to another episode of Texas Tank Watchers! Edited August 7, 2020 by RealKerbal3x Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.