Jump to content

SpaceX Discussion Thread


Skylon

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, NFUN said:

Unplanned? Did they have any expectation it wouldn't explode?

In broadcast they said there was no plans to recover any hardware from starship ahter it tipped over and exploded

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Expectation maybe not, but certainly hope.

The ladies said that the landing angle was changed from the flight 4 to try and make it gentler and that they were hoping to recover as much data as possible from cameras and heat shield. After explosion they said they would not be collecting any more data.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

it looked to still be floating on the surface when the camera cut out. the explosion was probibly caused by the rapid cooling of the nozzels from the sea water.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Shpaget said:

Landed, but RUD.

RSD in this case. The ship isn't built to survive a water landing (why would it be?), so of course it was wrecked upon landing. And they needed to sink the thing too, because they had no intention or way to recover it, and it's illegal to create floating obstacles to shipping (even in the middle of nowhere). So I guess the contact between the hot engines/skirt and the cold seawater caused the first explosion, and that the FTS was activated afterwards to blow the tanks open.

The fact they had a buoy right outside the blast radius suggests it landed exactly on target too.

Edited by Codraroll
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That flight was so smooth, I'm now confident that flight 6 will be later this year. The biggest problem was the flaps are still burning through, but it was better than last time. So I guess we'll have to see if that delays the launch into next year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Spaceception said:

That flight was so smooth, I'm now confident that flight 6 will be later this year. The biggest problem was the flaps are still burning through, but it was better than last time. So I guess we'll have to see if that delays the launch into next year.

you could see parts of something coming off of the flaps during the earlier parts of reentry. i assume this was the ablative coating they had under the tiles. also while the flaps did get pretty toasty, i didn't see them turn to liquid, and eventually the glow started to dim. so i think its an improvement. with the new leeward flaps and the coating i think they might have this figured out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Codraroll said:

SpaceX: "So, here's our proposal for a reusable spacecraft: We send the rocket up the ordinary way, decouple the first stage right before it runs out of fuel, use some of the remaining fuel to boost the empty stage back towards the launch site, put some aerobraking equipment on it, use the last bit of fuel to cancel its velocity right above the launch mount, and catch it in mid-air using a pair of giant robot arms attached to the launch tower."

Industry: "Oh come on, that's ridiculous."

*The plan works*

SpaceX: "Umm, yes, you are right. It is ridiculous. Look at this footage, it's absolutely bonkers. Unmentionables-to-the-wall crazy. It evidently works, though!"

If your stupid plan works then it wasn't stupid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Brotoro said:

In replays I can see where the part of the chine is breaking apart during booster landing burn…so that damage wasn't from hitting the tower.

And they can inspect the vehicle, which is huge. The first recovered F9 booster informed all the booster decisions going forward.

2 minutes ago, TheSaint said:

If your stupid plan works then it wasn't stupid.

Out of reactions. +1!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I guess a certain someone can drop the argument that the engines aren't reliable enough. Not a single engine out on any of the burns. 

That out of the way, I didn't expect them to get the landing on the first try, but I couldn't be happier I was wrong. What and incredible thing to see.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, TheSaint said:

If your stupid plan works then it wasn't stupid.

2Wx3JmT.png

 

The corollary is: If your stupid plan didn't work (spin-separation of stages?) then it was, in fact, stupid.

 

Edited by StrandedonEarth
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...