News Changes to the SpaceX BFR rocket.
- Thread starter RGClark
- Start date
GLS
Well-known member
70kms and I haven't seen any stuff falling off...
GLS
Well-known member
I think we could see the sats burning up behind the ship... yes!
GLS
Well-known member
Now going back up...
GLS
Well-known member
Some small burning/debris on the aft left flap...
GLS
Well-known member
Past peak heating, and sunrise coming up....
GLS
Well-known member
60kms and more small stuff flying away, both on the aft and forward ends, but nothing like previous flights...
GLS
Well-known member
GLS
Well-known member
Subsonic, coming down fast
GLS
Well-known member
Touchdown and boom!
steph
Well-known member
Well, booster boom, Starship boom...
Where have I seen this before ?
Where have I seen this before ?
GLS
Well-known member
GLS
Well-known member
What a mess of engine ignitions and shutdowns
GLS
Well-known member
At times it seems like that is the objective...
Thunder Chicken
Resident Lua Script Rabble-Rouser
Just catching up with the replay. The video is just amazing, start to finish.
I didn't see anything about them attempting to soft land the booster stage in the water - did they actually get a reentry burn or did the booster just freefall like a bomb from engine shutdown after staging? And Starship losing one of the vacuum engines right after staging isn't good.
Aren't they planning to fly these things through space and need the engines working to actually safely land at their destination? The booster can absorb a certain number of engine failures because it has 33 of them. Starship (where the people and payload are) has only six, and I'd imagine that they need at least two of the main and two of the vacuum engines working to boost and land. What would be the minimum engine out criterion to commit to a trans lunar or trans Mars injection burn? If they were to lose any one of the main or vacuum engines, they could be down to a single additional failure causing loss of mission and crew, which might make for a tense couple of days or months during the coast phase. If they lost any engines going to orbit, would that essentially end the mission?
I'm not convinced that they have enough 9s of engine reliability for the number of engines that must work on Starship to complete a mission safely. I'll throw that on the pile of the other things that concern me about human rating this mess.
But the video is still amazing.
I didn't see anything about them attempting to soft land the booster stage in the water - did they actually get a reentry burn or did the booster just freefall like a bomb from engine shutdown after staging? And Starship losing one of the vacuum engines right after staging isn't good.
Aren't they planning to fly these things through space and need the engines working to actually safely land at their destination? The booster can absorb a certain number of engine failures because it has 33 of them. Starship (where the people and payload are) has only six, and I'd imagine that they need at least two of the main and two of the vacuum engines working to boost and land. What would be the minimum engine out criterion to commit to a trans lunar or trans Mars injection burn? If they were to lose any one of the main or vacuum engines, they could be down to a single additional failure causing loss of mission and crew, which might make for a tense couple of days or months during the coast phase. If they lost any engines going to orbit, would that essentially end the mission?
I'm not convinced that they have enough 9s of engine reliability for the number of engines that must work on Starship to complete a mission safely. I'll throw that on the pile of the other things that concern me about human rating this mess.
But the video is still amazing.
jedidia
shoemaker without legs
So, starship planned boom, booster unplanned boom, I gather. Any word about how much damage starship received from re-entry? Because that still seems like a main concern to me when it comes to reusability...
steph
Well-known member
It won't really matter until they actually recover it one way or the other. Until then, they can keep on doing their suborbital hops, it doesn't seem to matter much. If it starts getting RUDs again, move on to V4, V5 etc, all plagued by similar issues but hey, it's a new version, so "it's to be expected"
GLS
Well-known member
So the booster flipped sideways instead of upwards, and engines did fail...
GLS
Well-known member
GLS
Well-known member
A bit too many acrobatics?
Similar threads
