What "weed need" is a space mission!

[James Heinrich]

Originally Posted by KEP

... Now time to watch some SpaceX and hopefully a 12.5KM hop for starship

Did they reschedule that?

[Uncwilly]

Originally Posted by James Heinrich

Did they reschedule that?

Currently SpaceX's YT channel is showing 38 minutes until their start.

[KEP]

Originally Posted by James Heinrich

Did they reschedule that?

Not that early, as my message could imply and now unfortunantly a delay, so if it happens at 22:40 UTC, it sure will be too late for me to watch. Dang, we were so close

[James Heinrich]

Certainly worth a watch if you missed it!

[Uncwilly]

Link to today's test.
https://youtu.be/ap-BkkrRg-o?t=6445

[storm5510]

What was it that this vehicle was supposed to do? It did not turn out very well from the looks of it.

[Uncwilly]

Originally Posted by storm5510

What was it that this vehicle was supposed to do? It did not turn out very well from the looks of it.

It was supposed to land in the same orientation as it took off. It ran into low fuel pressure. The belly first fall was as planned. The flip to tail end down was as planned. It just didn't slow enough.

[diep]

From what i wrote to someone on my chat regarding starship sn8.

I design CNC machines
i act as if i know something about hardware design
i do not understand why starship sn8 has inside 1 tube 3 rocket engines
1 shuts down and 2 continue to steer it then moveable in the tube
from engineering viewpoint seen that looks clumsy.

Why not use 1 engine that's moveable?
a) much cheaper
b) easier to bugfix
c) more efficient

[James Heinrich]

Originally Posted by diep

Why not use 1 engine that's moveable?

Previous tests were 1-engine versions. The final version will be (I believe) a 6-engine design.

[Uncwilly]

Originally Posted by James Heinrich

Previous tests were 1-engine versions. The final version will be (I believe) a 6-engine design.

But only the three that you saw today will be steerable. The other 3 will be optimized for vacuum. Having large engines causes them to be more expensive than a straight scaling would lead you to believe. Also, 1 engine with the thrust of those 3, would no be able to throttle down enough to land. With the Falcon9, they use 9 engines to launch, but only 1 during the landing. And even then they have to wait until very late to use it, otherwise the nearly empty booster would start flying up again.
More small engines allow the craft to loose 1 and still make it to orbit.

[storm5510]

Originally Posted by Uncwilly

It was supposed to land in the same orientation as it took off. It ran into low fuel pressure. The belly first fall was as planned. The flip to tail end down was as planned. It just didn't slow enough.

I watched the latter part of the video. The liftoff seemed slow. I wondered what all the engine misbehavior was about. It definitely hit the ground too hard. I have seen a few of the Falcon 9 first stage landings. Amazing stuff considering how fast it falls.