ya think?!
That was my take as well. Confirm a soft water landing then activate the FTS. Activating the FTS also ensures that you aren't leaving live explosives to potentially be floating around the ocean or washing up onshore somewhere since this ship soft landed in one piece.OnlyForNow said:
It looked like there was a planned RUD of starship right as it touched down in the water (based on the bouy cam)
Capsules spending several minutes in -40 degree air then several more minutes slowed by parachutes have time to cool down...plus I believe most of the heat energy is shed away with the ablation of the heat shield.OnlyForNow said:
We should all go back and watch and study...
I fully agree that hot metal doesn't react too well when hitting water - BUT - the return capsules have never exploded when landing in the ocean.
I think it's either 100% planned, or a by product of the ship tipping over and then boom - which would undoubtably be a known thing, since it flips from bellyflop anyways.
Tower view of the first Super Heavy booster catch pic.twitter.com/Bgjeyuw7Hf
— SpaceX (@SpaceX) October 14, 2024
Do the return capsules still have propellant in them from the landing burn? Release of that residual propellant from cracked hot metal feed lines due to water immersion would be a great way to cause it to blow up.OnlyForNow said:
We should all go back and watch and study...
I fully agree that hot metal doesn't react too well when hitting water - BUT - the return capsules have never exploded when landing in the ocean.
I think it's either 100% planned, or a by product of the ship tipping over and then boom - which would undoubtably be a known thing, since it flips from bellyflop anyways.
Capsules also don't do a landing burn to heat up the area of the rocket about to be first into the water.The Kraken said:Capsules spending several minutes in -40 degree air then several more minutes slowed by parachutes have time to cool down...plus I believe most of the heat energy is shed away with the ablation of the heat shield.OnlyForNow said:
We should all go back and watch and study...
I fully agree that hot metal doesn't react too well when hitting water - BUT - the return capsules have never exploded when landing in the ocean.
I think it's either 100% planned, or a by product of the ship tipping over and then boom - which would undoubtably be a known thing, since it flips from bellyflop anyways.
Yes, absent SpaceX, let's face it, RFA's statement would be equally true here.aTmAg said:
Nearly the same could be said about NASA. Imagine if there was no SpaceX. Where would NASA be right now?
In fact, there are elements in the US trying to do the same to our own private players. But I don't think those elements will succeed, here. A real rivalry or competitors from Europe would be very healthy, and personally I think it's just sad that they are not facilitating that (and likewise, frankly, the Russians who have squandered their legacy of innovation and engineering capacity in this area).Quote:
Europe has ambitious private space players. With innovative ideas, courage and a vision. Unfortunately, they are being held by the long arm and are in danger of withering away while old structures, processes and mindsets are maintained.
What we need immediately and systematically are state anchor customers, substantial investment, and a framework that allows and promotes unbureaucratic, fast and risk-taking development.
Otherwise, Europe will quickly sink into insignificance when it comes to the exploration of space, its resources and its potential. And we leave it to the rest of the world to make history. Just like #SpaceX did yesterday.
It is up to Europe, up to us.
Onboard view showing a catch fitting on Super Heavy as it contacts a chopstick catch beam pic.twitter.com/r1TVQEdITc
— SpaceX (@SpaceX) October 14, 2024
can't get enough of these videos...Mr President Elect said:
New video just dropped:Onboard view showing a catch fitting on Super Heavy as it contacts a chopstick catch beam pic.twitter.com/r1TVQEdITc
— SpaceX (@SpaceX) October 14, 2024
The final phase of Super Heavy's landing burn used the three center Raptor engines to precisely steer into catch position pic.twitter.com/BxQbOmT4yk
— SpaceX (@SpaceX) October 14, 2024
It's hard to overstate how incredible this is.Mr President Elect said:
New video just dropped:Onboard view showing a catch fitting on Super Heavy as it contacts a chopstick catch beam pic.twitter.com/r1TVQEdITc
— SpaceX (@SpaceX) October 14, 2024
This is nucking futsMr President Elect said:
New video just dropped:Onboard view showing a catch fitting on Super Heavy as it contacts a chopstick catch beam pic.twitter.com/r1TVQEdITc
— SpaceX (@SpaceX) October 14, 2024
Small is relative. Would love a picture to show the scale but those things are I think like the size of a Cat D10JobSecurity said:This is nucking futsMr President Elect said:
New video just dropped:Onboard view showing a catch fitting on Super Heavy as it contacts a chopstick catch beam pic.twitter.com/r1TVQEdITc
— SpaceX (@SpaceX) October 14, 2024
I had no idea how small the catch pins were. They're shooting a skyscraper into space and landing with a two liter soda bottle onto a balance beam
Since your handle is “Whole Mars”, perhaps this lengthy reply is apropos:
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) October 15, 2024
Getting the cost per ton to the surface of Mars low enough that humanity has the resources to make life multiplanetary requires a roughly 1000X improvement in rocket & spacecraft technology.
Recent US… https://t.co/BdasygYS5q
Huge day for @SpaceX! As the world tuned in, the conversation took off on @X this weekend. 🚀
— Data (@XData) October 14, 2024
8B impressions
1B video views
1M total posts https://t.co/ulqHLdmG3J
The man is a genius… and to thank there are idiots on this site that think they guy isn't very smart … we have a few low IQ dummies on our site !will25u said:Since your handle is “Whole Mars”, perhaps this lengthy reply is apropos:
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) October 15, 2024
Getting the cost per ton to the surface of Mars low enough that humanity has the resources to make life multiplanetary requires a roughly 1000X improvement in rocket & spacecraft technology.
Recent US… https://t.co/BdasygYS5q
Very cool videotk for tu juan said:
12:38 for human scale of gridfins and pin
I combed through it, so you don't have to.
— DKiS (@DKiSAerospace) October 14, 2024
3 minutes of Thunderf00t coping and not comprehending while his comments call it out. pic.twitter.com/wochZCyefu
Simply hovering until the tanks are empty would be catastrophic.txags92 said:Do the return capsules still have propellant in them from the landing burn? Release of that residual propellant from cracked hot metal feed lines due to water immersion would be a great way to cause it to blow up.OnlyForNow said:
We should all go back and watch and study...
I fully agree that hot metal doesn't react too well when hitting water - BUT - the return capsules have never exploded when landing in the ocean.
I think it's either 100% planned, or a by product of the ship tipping over and then boom - which would undoubtably be a known thing, since it flips from bellyflop anyways.
Will see how long they decide to wait for the next one, my swag would be around 30-45 days for tower checks etc:Quote:
Since your handle is "Whole Mars", perhaps this lengthy reply is apropos:
Getting the cost per ton to the surface of Mars low enough that humanity has the resources to make life multiplanetary requires a roughly 1000X improvement in rocket & spacecraft technology.
Recent US Mars missions have had a cost per ton of useful load to the surface of Mars of about $1B. Moreover, it has become more, not less, expensive over time!
To build a city on Mars that can grow by itself likely requires at least a million tons of equipment, which would therefore require >$1000 trillion, an obviously impossible number, given that US GDP is only $29T.
However, if rocket technology can be improved by 1000X, then the cost of becoming sustainably multiplanetary would drop to ~$1T, which could be spread out over 40 or more years, so <$25B/year.
At that cost, it becomes possible to make life multiplanetary, ensuring the long-term survival of life as we know it, without materially affecting people's standard of living on Earth.
Starship is designed to achieve a >1000X improvement over existing systems and, especially after yesterday's booster catch and precise ocean landing of the ship, I am now convinced that it can work.
NEWS: The FAA said today that "All flight events for both the Starship vehicle and the Super Heavy booster occurred within the scope of planned and authorized activities.” There will be no investigation.
— Sawyer Merritt (@SawyerMerritt) October 13, 2024
The FAA has already approved Starship test flight 6's mission profile, so… pic.twitter.com/xDpJPCg8XM
hph6203 said:
"The raptor engine will never work."
"Ok, it worked but barely and they'll never get 33 of them to light simultaneously."
"Ok, it worked, but the belly flop will never work."
"Ok, it worked, but the stainless steel ship will never survive re-entry."
"Ok, it worked, but the flap melted and there's absolutely no way they'll catch a booster."
"Ok, it worked but they'll never make it to orbit."
And then payload.
And then refueling.
And then landing on the moon.
And then landing on Mars.
And then sending enough material on mars for humans to make it there and back.
And then send enough material to colonize Mars.
And then some as of yet undetermined celestial body.
"SpaceX will own all intra-solar transport and logistics for the next century."
— Isaiah Taylor - making nuclear reactors (@isaiah_p_taylor) October 14, 2024
I don't think most "hard tech investors" even have the right categories. This is the real game.
Who gets own space logistics? Who gets to own the weather? Who gets to own energy?
Think bigger, guys pic.twitter.com/gV0ayby6m2