GuessingEveryDay Posted October 8 Share Posted October 8 19 minutes ago, tater said: I was thinking that this might be a way to simplify construction, but if those struts, just next to the corners, are where the support arms are supposed to be put in, they would have less parts overall, but the shapes are going to be weird, compared to the old one. Of course, they could just be using the square as the bottom, then slapping a shorter version of OLM-1's table. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted October 8 Share Posted October 8 Ship 34 nose. Thinner, leeward flaps. Tiles over that nose vent in the middle. Interesting solution on the Starlink dispenser to bridge the compressive load during flight (?). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darthgently Posted October 8 Share Posted October 8 28 minutes ago, tater said: Huh. Ok, so we have a NOTAM for SS30 but so far crickets from the FAA on B12? Maybe they will repeat IFT-4’s booster return to sea or maybe they will try a catch. SpaceX site clearly states they will try a catch. But until the FAA backs that up I’m not so sure yet. I hope they do, but would be happy to see another launch and more data either way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AckSed Posted October 8 Share Posted October 8 Circle is over, square is my new friend now. But seriously, how does that work? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darthgently Posted October 8 Share Posted October 8 43 minutes ago, AckSed said: Circle is over, square is my new friend now. But seriously, how does that work? I’m guessing maybe there will be a circle in that square and by starting with the square it will make positioning curved parts far simpler during construction. The protruding corners could also provide space for mounting various things during maintenance and maybe make alignment of the booster quicker. Maybe raised extensions of the deluge on the corners that kick on as the engines clear the mount? It will be great to find out what the heck is going on Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted October 8 Share Posted October 8 (edited) The previous statement had the Novemeber date in there, since expunged. 51 minutes ago, AckSed said: But seriously, how does that work? Spoiler Edited October 8 by tater Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeSchmuckatelli Posted October 8 Share Posted October 8 36 minutes ago, tater said: The previous statement had the Novemeber date in there, since expunged. Hide contents That is my new favorite video Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrandedonEarth Posted October 9 Share Posted October 9 F9 started with a square engine block, later changed to round. Meanwhile, Stage Zero started with a round table, with the next version at least starting with a square. The wheel of ka keeps turning… Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted October 9 Share Posted October 9 Currently the launch websites are showing both IFT-5, and FH (Europa Clipper) on Oct 13. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darthgently Posted October 9 Share Posted October 9 Fingers crossed. Not a bad render either way Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted October 9 Share Posted October 9 Looks like this is happening. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magnemoe Posted October 9 Share Posted October 9 15 hours ago, StrandedonEarth said: F9 started with a square engine block, later changed to round. Meanwhile, Stage Zero started with a round table, with the next version at least starting with a square. The wheel of ka keeps turning… Yes they gone back to an more standard launch mount. Still nontraditional as they lift the rocket onto the stand rather than drive it. But mechanisms is better protected by all the concrete also from an failed catch. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darthgently Posted October 10 Share Posted October 10 I gather they will be flowing cooling water through the top of the launch mount like with the ground plate, or so the rumor went Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted October 10 Share Posted October 10 <blink> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted October 10 Share Posted October 10 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flying dutchman Posted October 10 Share Posted October 10 Also, where will the hot staging ring splash down? It should be pretty close to shore, right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ultimate Steve Posted October 10 Share Posted October 10 I may have drank the kool-aid on this one. I excitedly shared this number with people without really considering what it would mean. Unless they rolled a nat 20 or are doing stuff 17 levels above everyone else, half of a centimeter seems really small. That's 0.5cm next to the catch point (not my image). Firstly, it is really hard to get something that accurate, obviously. Then there's wind. Wind gusting seems like it would be enough to make this kind of accuracy impossible on a consistent basis. And then there's like, how are you even measuring distances to such accuracy? The general consensus among other people is that Super Heavy uses local guidance for terminal descent (unlike Falcon which uses GPS I believe), and that the guidance hardware was on buoys for this flight. Buoys bob up and down in the ocean, they move around... I am really confused as to how this number could be accurate. If they can reliably get this precise, then just go back to landing on the launch mount. Accuracy was most of the reason for the catch in the first place I think. Other people have floated the idea that he misspoke and meant 0.5 meters. That's 0.5m next to the catch point for reference. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RCgothic Posted October 10 Share Posted October 10 I would personally find 0.5m much more credible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darthgently Posted October 10 Share Posted October 10 Hard to imagine 0.5cm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RCgothic Posted October 10 Share Posted October 10 The fabrication tolerances won't even hold 0.5cm over the whole booster. Thermal expansion/contraction alone would be much larger than that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted October 10 Share Posted October 10 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CBase Posted October 10 Share Posted October 10 (edited) 6 hours ago, Ultimate Steve said: Firstly, it is really hard to get something that accurate, obviously. Why not ? They are using some kind of control loop. If the control force is working at all and there is not too much oscillation, you get very high precision. These either fail miserable or hit the nail. 6 hours ago, Ultimate Steve said: And then there's like, how are you even measuring distances to such accuracy? The general consensus among other people is that Super Heavy uses local guidance for terminal descent (unlike Falcon which uses GPS I believe), and that the guidance hardware was on buoys for this flight. Buoys bob up and down in the ocean, they move around... I am really confused as to how this number could be accurate. This sounds like a academic discussion. Probably they report the difference of above control loop coordinates, so it is the difference between the desired location and internal determed location. Maybe the buoys for the water landing did not provide mm precise real world coordinates (as they moved), the one near landing tower will. 6 hours ago, Ultimate Steve said: If they can reliably get this precise, then just go back to landing on the launch mount. Accuracy was most of the reason for the catch in the first place I think. Probably more that the empty SH can handle tension way better than compression. And a rocket standing is meta stable, while hanging is stable. Edited October 10 by CBase Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darthgently Posted October 10 Share Posted October 10 1 hour ago, tater said: Vision is good Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikegarrison Posted October 10 Share Posted October 10 2 hours ago, tater said: Like the Boeing tradition of painting large murals on their factory doors. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted October 10 Share Posted October 10 39 minutes ago, mikegarrison said: Like the Boeing tradition of painting large murals on their factory doors. Just googled that—cool! 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.