darthgently Posted yesterday at 02:02 AM Share Posted yesterday at 02:02 AM 1 hour ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said: I've said this before - but I remain impressed that they are practice landing that close to a prepositioned camera. Indicating that the reentry is pretty much on target. That said - there is not much lateral transition. Basically if you just go off the above video and imagine a tower - they'd pretty much have to scrape by it. Suggests that when they go for the tower catch things could get interesting. It can hover and translate. But, but yes, will be nice to see it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeSchmuckatelli Posted yesterday at 03:45 AM Share Posted yesterday at 03:45 AM 1 hour ago, darthgently said: It can hover and translate. But, but yes, will be nice to see it I get that - but... ...at least in that video I'm not seeing much in the way of "pretending there's a tower". I do see a neat, controlled landing on the water. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GluttonyReaper Posted yesterday at 10:36 AM Share Posted yesterday at 10:36 AM I'm still not super clear what the utility of catching the upper stage with a tower is - presumably for an actual mission you'd catch the lower and upper stages separately, so you'd have to mount them back together either way. Is it just about saving the weight of the landing legs? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elthy Posted yesterday at 11:18 AM Share Posted yesterday at 11:18 AM 37 minutes ago, GluttonyReaper said: Is it just about saving the weight of the landing legs? And about the volume/complexity. There is no easy place to stick them: The engine bay is cramped (at least when they go for six vacuum raptors) and would only allow tinylegs (like on the non orbital versions). And on the outside (like Falcon 9) the legs would require extra shielding for reenty... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AckSed Posted yesterday at 11:48 AM Share Posted yesterday at 11:48 AM The final stage of any rocket is really mass-sensitive. Heat-shield tiles and flaps and actuators and batteries suck up a lot of payload on a heavy structure, which is partly why Raptor 3 is a miracle of lightness. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darthgently Posted yesterday at 12:29 PM Share Posted yesterday at 12:29 PM 8 hours ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said: I get that - but... ...at least in that video I'm not seeing much in the way of "pretending there's a tower". I do see a neat, controlled landing on the water. They know the engines can gimbal. They’ve translated hundreds of landings (the final moments in an F9 landing involves translation even without the ability to hover), and they know Starship can hover. I’m just putting the pieces together and they fit fine in my imagination. They’ve earned any confidence they are displaying imo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted yesterday at 02:21 PM Share Posted yesterday at 02:21 PM Last night's booster tipped over after landing. RIP booster. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted yesterday at 03:17 PM Share Posted yesterday at 03:17 PM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AckSed Posted yesterday at 03:42 PM Share Posted yesterday at 03:42 PM 1 hour ago, tater said: Last night's booster tipped over after landing. RIP booster. Wikipedia says it was booster 1086 and on its 5th flight. Yes, reuse of anything is not the norm, but such a young and late-series booster with two previous <30-day short-turnaround refurbs, and a new failure mode, has planted a worm of concern in me. SpaceX's strength is its culture, and if that slips... Perhaps it being a Falcon Heavy side booster led to something. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted yesterday at 03:56 PM Share Posted yesterday at 03:56 PM 13 minutes ago, AckSed said: Wikipedia says it was booster 1086 and on its 5th flight. Yes, reuse of anything is not the norm, but such a young and late-series booster with two previous <30-day short-turnaround refurbs, and a new failure mode, has planted a worm of concern in me. SpaceX's strength is its culture, and if that slips... Perhaps it being a Falcon Heavy side booster led to something. Meh, they'll use it to make them better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darthgently Posted yesterday at 04:45 PM Share Posted yesterday at 04:45 PM 1 hour ago, AckSed said: Wikipedia says it was booster 1086 and on its 5th flight. Yes, reuse of anything is not the norm, but such a young and late-series booster with two previous <30-day short-turnaround refurbs, and a new failure mode, has planted a worm of concern in me. SpaceX's strength is its culture, and if that slips... Perhaps it being a Falcon Heavy side booster led to something. Planes have been landing for over one hundred years and one just flipped upside down recently. There will always be a tail on the curve even for SpaceX Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Superpluto126 Posted yesterday at 05:48 PM Share Posted yesterday at 05:48 PM Weather does not look the best for todays launch with high winds. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darthgently Posted yesterday at 08:38 PM Share Posted yesterday at 08:38 PM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minmus Taster Posted 23 hours ago Share Posted 23 hours ago (edited) 31 minutes ago, darthgently said: Can't decide if that's great or horrible for PR 2 hours 20 minutes to launch, weather is meh.. Edited 23 hours ago by Minmus Taster Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darthgently Posted 23 hours ago Share Posted 23 hours ago (edited) Grok confirms power outage. Thanks Sierra Ok, Grok flagged something on October 2024 and I sloppily didn’t notice. But apparently it happened again? Or power went out for some reason. Backup power is up at Starbase, but batteries drained in meantime so may incur an delay according to sources on Intetstellar Gateway stream Yes, the information in the X post appears to be true based on available evidence. On October 24, 2024, a surveillance blimp operated by Sierra Nevada Corporation, used for border monitoring, broke free from its mooring near Rio Grande City, Texas. Its tether lines reportedly snapped and dragged across power lines, causing a power outage on South Padre Island, approximately 130 miles away. This incident disrupted electricity for thousands of customers, with AEP Texas reporting around 3,700 affected at the peak. The timing aligns with the X post from October 25, 2024, and SpaceX’s Starbase, located near Boca Chica on the South Padre Island vicinity, was impacted. The power outage interrupted a planned livestream of Starship Flight 8 updates, as SpaceX relies on stable power for its operations and broadcasts. Local news outlets like MyRGV.com and posts on X from credible sources, including SpaceX enthusiasts and regional reporters, corroborate the event, noting restoration efforts were underway by October 25, with power largely restored by late that day. While the exact scale of the outage’s impact on Flight 8 preparations is unclear—since the flight itself was still in regulatory review—no evidence contradicts the claim of a power shutdown affecting the Starbase area. The blimp incident and its fallout were real, and the connection to SpaceX’s livestream disruption tracks with the facility’s location and timing. Addenda [mine, not grok]: In theory this only affects the SpaceX streaming, not the launch itself as Starbase has its own power or something like that Edited 23 hours ago by darthgently Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darthgently Posted 23 hours ago Share Posted 23 hours ago Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minmus Taster Posted 22 hours ago Share Posted 22 hours ago Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nuke Posted 22 hours ago Share Posted 22 hours ago (edited) didnt miss? half asleep. still hung over. why is it venting so hard? Edited 22 hours ago by Nuke Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darthgently Posted 22 hours ago Share Posted 22 hours ago Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PakledHostage Posted 22 hours ago Share Posted 22 hours ago 6 hours ago, darthgently said: Planes have been landing for over one hundred years and one just flipped upside down recently. There will always be a tail on the curve even for SpaceX Not a fair comparison. Tens of thousands of planes land DAILY. Yes there will always be a tail, but these two tails differ by orders of magnitude. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted 21 hours ago Share Posted 21 hours ago 2 minutes ago, PakledHostage said: Not a fair comparison. Tens of thousands of planes land DAILY. Yes there will always be a tail, but these two tails differ by orders of magnitude. True, but how was the ratio when only 400-something cumulative airplane flights had ever taken place? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AckSed Posted 21 hours ago Share Posted 21 hours ago Seeing frost on the booster. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted 21 hours ago Share Posted 21 hours ago Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minmus Taster Posted 21 hours ago Share Posted 21 hours ago Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ultimate Steve Posted 21 hours ago Share Posted 21 hours ago Hold. 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.