zolotiyeruki

My understanding is that, regardless of the wing loading, re-entry heating is still really, really hot. A large wing may be able to reduce the peak flux by slowing you down higher in the atmosphere, but then you're just trading heavy heat shield tiles for heavy wings, and you *still* have to worry about the heat. From what I've heard, NASA didn't want the big wings that the space shuttle had. It was the military that wanted the cross-range capability (which it never used).

It sounds like you're describing an upsized Space Shuttle. Even with wings, it required a heat shield. I would hope we're all aware of what happened when the heat shield tiles were damaged. In KSP, it's possible to design a spaceplane to survive reentry without a heat shield, but 1) it's not trivial, 2) KSP's model is far more forgiving than real life, 3) KSP's parts are far more heat-tolerant than real life materials, and 4) you're only going 2,400 m/s in LKO, vs 7km/s in LEO.

If you're looking to shift the resonant frequencies of the downcomers, it'd probably be lighter to change the stiffness rather than the weight.

I just saw Scott Manley's short, and it looks like there might be *two* RVac nozzle extensions damaged: (look at 0:25)

I had to hold back a belly laugh when I saw that, so as not to alert my boss next door...

It feels like there's an implication here that SpaceX's lack of communication means they aren't motivated to fix deficiencies. Seriously? In what world would SpaceX NOT want to fix design issues with Raptor?

Apollo was a great achievement, but it was hardly without its own failures: Apollo 1 - fire in the capsule, 3 dead. Apollo 6 - Two of the second stage engines shut down prematurely and the third stage did not reignite for its second burn, forcing an alternate mission. Wait, this sounds vaguely familiar...almost as if ground testing couldn't ensure engine reliability! Apollo 11 - Nav computer ran out of memory during descent. Also, ran pretty low on propellant. Apollo 13 - One second-stage engine shut down early, and of course there's that whole oxygen tank thing that happened... It's also worth pointing out that, adjusted for inflation, the Apollo program cost over $250 Billion (in 2020 dollars) over its 13-year run. You have to wonder what SpaceX would do with a freakin' quarter-trillion dollars.

1) You don't know that a Raptor failed on the boostback. All we know is that it didn't start. We have zero reason to believe that there's something wrong with that particular Raptor. In fact, since it fired up just fine for the landing burn, we have evidence that the Raptor worked just fine, and the failure-to-relight during boostback was due to something else. 2) You don't know that a Raptor failed catastrophically on SS. All we know so far is that it RUD'ed, and Musk's tweet about a leak above the false ceiling. Was it inside a Raptor? It's possible, but we have no evidence to support the conclusion you consistently jump to. 3) How is that "standard industry practice" working out these days? How well did it work for SLS? How well did it work for New Glenn? Both of them had second-stage issues, didn't they? All three are at a similar stage of development. BONG started in 2013, similar to Starship's early concept. SLS started in 2011, with a huge head start on propulsion. Starship (effectively re-)started development in 2017, when it was shrunk to a 9m diameter. Money spent so far? SS/SH: ~$7B. New Glenn? I'm not sure. SLS? hehe...$23 Billion and counting. Between the three, it's pretty clear that the "standard industry practice" isn't bringing the benefits you imagine it does.

I'm glad I'm not the only one who noticed flames coming from the hinge at T+07:55. No flames at that same location at +04:45. That's right near the engines. Yup, something blowed up good.

Was any reason given for the no-go on the catch?

In addition to everything else, I'm stoked about the idea of reusing stripped-down starships in space as the foundation for a space station. Picture a bunch of stripped-down (no tiles, ablative, or even flaps) Starships docked to a central hub like wheel spokes. The amount of volume for science or even space tourists would be spectacular.

I just noticed that one of the ten engines in the second ring isn't glowing and flaming like the other nine. The graphics on SpaceX's feed show all 10+3 engines running nominally for the landing burn, but something is different about this one:

Well, hello there, new wallpaper!

The California Coastal Commission has denied Space Force + SpaceX's application for 50 launches next year: https://www.politico.com/news/2024/10/10/california-reject-musk-spacex-00183371 It sounds like the commission didn't like a few things: --sonic booms --disturbance of wildlife --Musk's politics --SpaceX's labor practices

Well, so much for the "b-b-b-b-but they didn't do a full-duration static test fire!" nonsense.