JoeSchmuckatelli

GRIN! - - Or are they? Having been in the service, sometimes one does not tell the other what they are doing - even when operating in the same space. It may have been something that the Navy pilot couldn't identify - but others with little inclination to disclose their work knew what the Navy saw. This is true down to the 'stupid' level - ala when Rangers are training in infantry tactics alongside Marines. ("ooh don't want them to see how we do a FireTeam Wedge")... Super sekret stuff! So when one service member spots something in a restricted area that isn't recognized - I think 'geeks are testing something' - not 'Aliens'.

What link are you guys watching?

The image of that 'flight to submersible' did not happen to have been caught by a Navy pilot and now be the source of intense hype by Fox'news' about UFOs now, would it?

Edit - that was supposed to @tater 's post asking Mike a question... I came here to ask Mike the same question. Guess he's tetchy today. But Mike: from an engineering standpoint - why only a single thin wing between the two fuselages? I thought most two fuselage planes had wing and tail connections

Link?

Don't you have to be a friend to have a friend?

I watch this... And so want you guys to succeed. Selfishly, because I look forward to playing the game, but also because I want to share it with my teenage kids. Tipping a beer at the team and hoping you achieve the goals you have set for yourselves!

Technically, that would be a flight. Were it to fail ground level by 1m... They'd have to transfer ownership to the Boring Company

Didn't they authorize 'up to space' in the FAA closure - or is that something else entirely?

That part of the video is striking, almost looks made up.

Okay using data sheets is cheating... Or perhaps very 'Army' of you. I mostly worried about making sure that some helpful idiot didn't hook up the detonator and play with it while I was setting the charge.

I'd sure want some specialized equipment before trying this. Definitely not something jury rigged by the meth head in my group. (My experience with detonators suggests it does not take a whole lot electricity to kick off the charge.)

Sent that to my wife. ... She likes Disney Kids games are back on? Soccer, field hockey, outdoor activities abound. But thank you for keeping me informed during half-time!

Interesting to read that you would have to protect the CF.

Mea Culpa!

Is there a trade-off in weight that could be captured in reduced propellant costs / greater lift capacity that might make it more economical? As to the reentry - I've read that CF gets stronger as it gets hotter, but steel weaker... but that doesn't tell the story of shedding heat, etc.

Probably asked and answered before - but I can't find it. Would carbon fiber be better as a rocket body / reentry vehicle than steel? ** **(Thinking in terms of Starship & Falcon, but this is more of a general question than something specific to SX)

I'm reading this... and my first thought is, 'Here's why SX has been pushing out (and almost landing / crashing) so many Starships, so fast.' The general public may not recognize that an 'almost land' and a 'did land, but blew up' is an amazing technical feat... but NASA engineers certainly do. So by getting so ever-freaking close to pulling off the miracle they're aiming for (as merely a stepping stone), along with their proven ability to reuse Falcon... the subconscious / unpublished reason SX got chosen wasn't merely cost, or reusability, or 'failed to comply with requirements' - it was belief that they could do what they offer.

I'm with you guys on this - the booster video looks like something is going on, but I'll take @kedrednael 's answer. Was the exhaust blue b/c high atmosphere vs lower (yellower)?

This is the true mark of SX's success: their launches are so common and routine that even we don't make an event out of it

Sorry - I meant 'lifting body for aerodynamic landing' - to allow for landing on wheels on a runway. I intended that to be distinct from terminal velocity - which AFAIK is the best a cylinder can do without the engines kicking in. From what I glean from Mike's thread, lifting body + control surfaces allow for a plane-like landing. Cylinder + control surfaces give you some control over where you crash absent the engine assist

From Mike's thread, the flat bottom is to take advantage of the lifting body design, and land aerodynamically - right? Shuttle lands on wheels and all that? (presumes the graphic you provided lands on the skids, too) - and in that profile you need lift My understanding is that SX wants to slow down to effectively terminal velocity with broadside entry and then use the rockets for a powered descent for the last leg - where aerodynamic surfaces would not be able to assist. My question is a bit different - having looked at wind loads and turbulence on rectangular vs cylindrical buildings - the cylinders have the least turbulence (and, hence drag??) of the two. If the concept extends to a reentry vehicle - Won't that make it more difficult to slow?

Dumb jarhead asks 'why?'

That got a true LOL

That graphic is pretty telling. Cost lines alone give the answer - but the other lines (beyond the 'gooned up the proposal' part) have to sting a bit for Bezos and crew. Would be nice to see SpaceX get a competitor - but that is unlikely in the near future