Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
SpaceX Starship SN10 #2919028
05/05/21 08:02 PM
05/05/21 08:02 PM
Joined: Aug 2019
Posts: 9,384
Super Spudsville
Mr PotatoHead Online rolleyes OP
Half Baked
Mr PotatoHead  Online Rolleyes OP
Half Baked

Joined: Aug 2019
Posts: 9,384
Super Spudsville
Stunning, simply stunning. For me, an older guy it almost seems unreal to see this much tech at work.



STOP POTATO HATE!
Re: SpaceX Starship SN10 [Re: Mr PotatoHead] #2919128
05/05/21 11:08 PM
05/05/21 11:08 PM
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,868
Oregon
hooziewhatsit Offline
master
hooziewhatsit  Offline
master

Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,868
Oregon
SN15 flew today, landed, and didn't blow up later laugh2

They lost the video downlink in the middle of it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z9eoubnO-pE

edit: different view of SN10, and its later explosion laugh2
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2CpXxu9W0U8

Last edited by hooziewhatsit; 05/05/21 11:11 PM.

If you ever find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics suck.
Re: SpaceX Starship SN10 [Re: Mr PotatoHead] #2919303
05/06/21 12:32 PM
05/06/21 12:32 PM
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 3,369
St. Charles, MO
wingman Offline
Uncreative Title
wingman  Offline
Uncreative Title

Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 3,369
St. Charles, MO
Originally Posted by Mr PotatoHead
Stunning, simply stunning. For me, an older guy it almost seems unreal to see this much tech at work.


It's super cool, don't get me wrong.

But the basic functionality of the rocket hasn't changed that much from what they were doing in the 60s and early 70s with 1/100,000th of the computing power.

Everyone thinks the "landing" part is so revolutionary. In fact, the reason they didn't land the rocket back then was because there was no point--not because the tech wasn't there to do it. The basic math is the same that they used to land on the moon.

1) They didn't want to carry the extra fuel (weight) needed to do a powered landing.
2) It was the Cold War Space Race, so cost savings was not important.

It's cool, yes. But as fast as tech was moving in the early days, it's a little disappointing how little certain aspects of space flight have changed form the 80s until now.

I want my flying car, dang it!


1969 Dodge Coronet Super Bee 383 A4
1970 Plymouth Road Runner 440 FC7 (sold)
Re: SpaceX Starship SN10 [Re: wingman] #2919330
05/06/21 12:55 PM
05/06/21 12:55 PM
Joined: May 2019
Posts: 6,209
nowhere
S
Sniper Online content
master
Sniper  Online Content
master
S

Joined: May 2019
Posts: 6,209
nowhere
Land on a rocket's tail is pretty difficult and back in the moon landing days it was virtually impossible. Today's electronics make it easier, but it's not 100% even now.

One day though.

https://makezine.com/2015/12/23/why-its-so-hard-to-land-a-rocket-on-its-tail/

Re: SpaceX Starship SN10 [Re: Sniper] #2919695
05/07/21 02:38 PM
05/07/21 02:38 PM
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 4,877
Virginia
BSharp Offline
master
BSharp  Offline
master

Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 4,877
Virginia

Re: SpaceX Starship SN10 [Re: wingman] #2919786
05/07/21 08:56 PM
05/07/21 08:56 PM
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 22,695
Bitopia
J
jcc Offline
If you can't dazzle em with diamonds..
jcc  Offline
If you can't dazzle em with diamonds..
J

Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 22,695
Bitopia
Originally Posted by wingman
Originally Posted by Mr PotatoHead
Stunning, simply stunning. For me, an older guy it almost seems unreal to see this much tech at work.


It's super cool, don't get me wrong.

But the basic functionality of the rocket hasn't changed that much from what they were doing in the 60s and early 70s with 1/100,000th of the computing power.

Everyone thinks the "landing" part is so revolutionary. In fact, the reason they didn't land the rocket back then was because there was no point--not because the tech wasn't there to do it. The basic math is the same that they used to land on the moon.

1) They didn't want to carry the extra fuel (weight) needed to do a powered landing.
2) It was the Cold War Space Race, so cost savings was not important.

It's cool, yes. But as fast as tech was moving in the early days, it's a little disappointing how little certain aspects of space flight have changed form the 80s until now.

I want my flying car, dang it!


I don't quite agree, you are excluding any external uncontrollable aero loading (winds), which did not exist on the moon, and in landing on earth, the launch aero design is basically in complete chaos in that you can't depend on using any aero loading at the slowest speed, center of pressure is completely different vs launch, and center of gravity is also greatly changed with the reduced fuel load upon landing, all very important aspects to maintain directional stability.

Maybe like trying to reload a fired shell back into a cannon? biggrin


Reality check, that half the population is smarter then 50% of the people and it's a constantly contested fact.






Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.1