ExtremeSquared Posted January 20, 2021 Share Posted January 20, 2021 I wonder if they will attempt fairing capture in the poor weather conditions. I guess they'll mention it at t+39 if so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RealKerbal3x Posted January 20, 2021 Share Posted January 20, 2021 (edited) They said it was an 'envelope expansion' landing due to winds and the booster might not make it, but it did it! Nice job on the 8th landing B1051! Edited January 20, 2021 by RealKerbal3x wrong booster lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted January 20, 2021 Share Posted January 20, 2021 Starlink deploy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted January 20, 2021 Share Posted January 20, 2021 Transporter-1 moved to Friday. The thought is that the fairing recovery ships need time to get there since they are launching South. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RealKerbal3x Posted January 20, 2021 Share Posted January 20, 2021 Looks like the new test tank, SN7.2, is at the pad! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zolotiyeruki Posted January 20, 2021 Share Posted January 20, 2021 Two thoughts about the recent starlink mission: 1) As I recall, the F9 reuse goal was 10 flights. They now have a booster that has hit 8. Dang, that's impressive, and dang, that's a lot of money saved. 2) In some of the early landing attempts, SpaceX tried some 1-3-1 landing burns, and there was speculation of a 3-engine hoverslam, as an optimization to squeeze a bit more payload into orbit. Why did they abandon those efforts? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RealKerbal3x Posted January 20, 2021 Share Posted January 20, 2021 The road is closed and the pad is clear, so we may be seeing a static fire attempt today! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elthy Posted January 20, 2021 Share Posted January 20, 2021 40 minutes ago, zolotiyeruki said: Two thoughts about the recent starlink mission: 1) As I recall, the F9 reuse goal was 10 flights. They now have a booster that has hit 8. Dang, that's impressive, and dang, that's a lot of money saved. 2) In some of the early landing attempts, SpaceX tried some 1-3-1 landing burns, and there was speculation of a 3-engine hoverslam, as an optimization to squeeze a bit more payload into orbit. Why did they abandon those efforts? Afaik Starlink is volume constrained, most other payloads also dont push the limits of the falcon 9. Its propably simply not neccessary. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sevenperforce Posted January 20, 2021 Share Posted January 20, 2021 1 hour ago, zolotiyeruki said: In some of the early landing attempts, SpaceX tried some 1-3-1 landing burns, and there was speculation of a 3-engine hoverslam, as an optimization to squeeze a bit more payload into orbit. Why did they abandon those efforts? I believe the droneship landing burns are still 1-3-1 while the RTLS landing burns are single-engine all the way down. And as @Elthy said, Starlink is volume-constrained, not mass-constrained, so a three-engine hoverslam simply isn't necessary. We might see a three-engine hoverslam if they really needed it for a more massive payload. One possibility would be a really large MEO or LEO payload, with a lofted trajectory where they needed all the TWR they could get. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deddly Posted January 20, 2021 Share Posted January 20, 2021 Re-entry burns are always three engines, aren't they? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RealKerbal3x Posted January 20, 2021 Share Posted January 20, 2021 Just now, Deddly said: Re-entry burns are always three engines, aren't they? Yes. They usually go with either a 1 or 1-3-1 engine landing burn as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deddly Posted January 20, 2021 Share Posted January 20, 2021 Ah I see what you mean. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zolotiyeruki Posted January 20, 2021 Share Posted January 20, 2021 That's interesting, because in the most recent launch, they only mentioned a single engine for the landing burn. Maybe they were simplifying it for the masses? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrandedonEarth Posted January 20, 2021 Share Posted January 20, 2021 58 minutes ago, zolotiyeruki said: That's interesting, because in the most recent launch, they only mentioned a single engine for the landing burn. Maybe they were simplifying it for the masses? I think they usually do a single engine burn for most landing burns, when they can. The 1-3-1 landing burn significantly increases the pucker factor, IIRC, pushing the edge of the envelope. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kerbiloid Posted January 21, 2021 Share Posted January 21, 2021 And if the central engine gets off before landing, and the passengers are onboard... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RCgothic Posted January 22, 2021 Share Posted January 22, 2021 One thing I've just noticed - B1051 has now overtaken B1049 as flight leader! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotius Posted January 22, 2021 Share Posted January 22, 2021 Now we're waiting for first booster to make 10 flights goal Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted January 22, 2021 Share Posted January 22, 2021 SN( pushing for another static fire right now (in the fog again). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted January 22, 2021 Share Posted January 22, 2021 Siren happened already: If you don't like blather: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RealKerbal3x Posted January 22, 2021 Share Posted January 22, 2021 SN9 static fire! Looked like full duration! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RealKerbal3x Posted January 22, 2021 Share Posted January 22, 2021 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted January 22, 2021 Share Posted January 22, 2021 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flavio hc16 Posted January 22, 2021 Share Posted January 22, 2021 the 2nd moon is arriving Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted January 22, 2021 Share Posted January 22, 2021 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrandedonEarth Posted January 23, 2021 Share Posted January 23, 2021 (edited) And while we're waiting for Tp1 to launch and SN9's flop to be scheduled, this drops... Apparently SpaceX wants to drill for natural gas near their BC launch site. You can imagine the Twitter blowback, with the envirogod Musk *gasp* drilling! What happened to "Electrify eveything!?" But of course it makes sense. Starship and SuperHeavy must be fuelled, and that methane has to come from somewhere. May as well source it locally if you can. It also makes me wonder how they get their fuel there in the first place. Do they have a pipeline hookup? Or tanker it in? Regardless, if/when SH/SS gets operational at the cadence Musk hopes for, they will need a LOT of fuel. But then there's this: Which would make a great offset for all that methane burnt. And he'll probably want to use to to synthesize methane for SH/SS anyways. Edited January 23, 2021 by StrandedonEarth 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.