I find it amazing how im just ticking along learning next to nothing and theres people out there designing and enabling this kind of business. Very impressive.
They had great live vid of the first stage from launch to landing. SpaceX could teach NASA a thing or two about launch coverage--the Artemis had like 22 cams on it, but they mostly just used animations during launch. Heck, views of mission control showed the live views on their monitors, they just didn't bother sharing them with the public during the launch.
The wider it is the more force is required to maneuver it. Mix that with them aiming for next to the landing up until the last moment and you have the reasoning.
This was the first time that I noticed they stagger the three engine entry burn. First light on, then the other two Then cut off the two and then the one. I assume it helps reduce the thrust shock somehow.
Reactionary thoughts, during free fall there can be a bit of fuel sloshing, if they only fire 1 engine they can force the fuel to the bottom of the tank for the other engines. If they try to fire all three, they might get unreliable results, where they just pull too much. Like the last thing they'd want is the back pressure of the thrust to jam up the turbopump, or even incomplete compression due to cavitation or vortexing inside the pump.
Do you mean the white bursts coming off the booster shortly after it separated? Cold-has thrusters: bursts of nitrogen gas being tooted out, so to speak, for guidance above the atmosphere. Lower down, the grid fins can swivel to control the path.
Good question! It takes some different engineering than a traditional expendable booster, as the base (such as the skirt around the engines, insulation, etc) needed to be reinforced to take those reentry loads.
I loved seeing the re-entry burn for exactly that reason, it was a beautiful shot of how the rocket flies through its own exhaust, with the engineer-announcer explaining that's why the boosters are so sooty.
With the booster firing, the majority of heat is pushed away from the rocket. Not to say it's not bonkers hot in there, but this entry firing goes a long way.
I live on the space coast. I watch these happen. They're real. My work is less than ten miles from the launch site so we all gather to watch the launches on the front lawn, especially if there's a booster return (which means we get an awesome sonic boom).
Several have gotten up to 14 reuses. There's some inspection after a landing; we don't know details but it's not too onerous, given the reasonably fast turnaround time.
My understanding of physics is fairly basic, I like to think I understand conservation of energy, but can anyone answer my curiosity? Does the rocket require the same amount of thrust coming back down (obviously minus what was required for the payload now that it’s gone) as it did going up? Hypothetically if one of these rockets went up unloaded then came back down at the exact same weight (I realize there would be a loss in fuel weight, but forget about that factor for this hypothetical) would it have to burn just as much fuel to slow it back down on re-entry as it did on launch?
Currently they're doing the final preparations for the first orbital launch. This includes upgrading the ground support equipment to ensure it will survive all 33 engines firing. Hopefully in the next few weeks there will be the 33 engine static fire, if sucessful the launch will be in a couple of months perhaps.
Awesome idea and incredible video. Thanks a lot. I had the pleasure to der launched twice while being on vacation in Florida. This video is an awesome reminder of these lifetime experiences.
Golden hour launches are the best launches. Can see so much even on the west coast of Florida.
[удалено]
I find it amazing how im just ticking along learning next to nothing and theres people out there designing and enabling this kind of business. Very impressive.
There's lots of people ticking alone even in the space business
They had great live vid of the first stage from launch to landing. SpaceX could teach NASA a thing or two about launch coverage--the Artemis had like 22 cams on it, but they mostly just used animations during launch. Heck, views of mission control showed the live views on their monitors, they just didn't bother sharing them with the public during the launch.
I think NASA fears another challenger type accident more than anything.
It seems to be a recurring theme when it comes to NASA launches, unfortunately.
Apparently change takes decades to happen.
All the landings I've seen, and until this one I'd never realized how close they get to the ground before deploying the landing legs.
The wider it is the more force is required to maneuver it. Mix that with them aiming for next to the landing up until the last moment and you have the reasoning.
This was the first time that I noticed they stagger the three engine entry burn. First light on, then the other two Then cut off the two and then the one. I assume it helps reduce the thrust shock somehow.
Reactionary thoughts, during free fall there can be a bit of fuel sloshing, if they only fire 1 engine they can force the fuel to the bottom of the tank for the other engines. If they try to fire all three, they might get unreliable results, where they just pull too much. Like the last thing they'd want is the back pressure of the thrust to jam up the turbopump, or even incomplete compression due to cavitation or vortexing inside the pump.
For a while they were trying 3 engines on the landing burn, too. It uses a bit less fuel.
What are the shockwaves coming off the rocket? I would assume it's not repeatedly breaking the sound barrier over and over?
Do you mean the white bursts coming off the booster shortly after it separated? Cold-has thrusters: bursts of nitrogen gas being tooted out, so to speak, for guidance above the atmosphere. Lower down, the grid fins can swivel to control the path.
It's different parts of the rocket going transonic. The engines, gridfins and the top.
Credit to SpaceX's webcast for the footage.
Absolutely incredible.
Good question! It takes some different engineering than a traditional expendable booster, as the base (such as the skirt around the engines, insulation, etc) needed to be reinforced to take those reentry loads.
I loved seeing the re-entry burn for exactly that reason, it was a beautiful shot of how the rocket flies through its own exhaust, with the engineer-announcer explaining that's why the boosters are so sooty.
With the booster firing, the majority of heat is pushed away from the rocket. Not to say it's not bonkers hot in there, but this entry firing goes a long way.
Nice. I wish I could see this live-in-person so I could stop thinking these are all CGI.
I think if they CGI'd the whole thing, the reentry burn would look less like it had exploded.
I live on the space coast. I watch these happen. They're real. My work is less than ten miles from the launch site so we all gather to watch the launches on the front lawn, especially if there's a booster return (which means we get an awesome sonic boom).
Beautiful. I couldnt even tell the camera angle transitions apart.
It is amazing what it goes through in a launch & landing and they still expect it to work again!😳
Hot damn! That atmosphere re-entry is no joke! Is the rocket reusable after sustaining temperatures like that?
This was the fourth flight for this particular first stage.
Several have gotten up to 14 reuses. There's some inspection after a landing; we don't know details but it's not too onerous, given the reasonably fast turnaround time.
Yes, and part of the thermal protection system is... cork!
My understanding of physics is fairly basic, I like to think I understand conservation of energy, but can anyone answer my curiosity? Does the rocket require the same amount of thrust coming back down (obviously minus what was required for the payload now that it’s gone) as it did going up? Hypothetically if one of these rockets went up unloaded then came back down at the exact same weight (I realize there would be a loss in fuel weight, but forget about that factor for this hypothetical) would it have to burn just as much fuel to slow it back down on re-entry as it did on launch?
I'm not an aerospace engineer but I would think air resistance helps a bit when coming down so less fuel is needed to land the thing
Think about it like this. To go up they run 9 engines at 100% minus MaxQ.
The return of the first stage, why is that possible now?
What's the status of starship? I don't think I've heard anything about it since those few hops in 2020 (?)
Currently they're doing the final preparations for the first orbital launch. This includes upgrading the ground support equipment to ensure it will survive all 33 engines firing. Hopefully in the next few weeks there will be the 33 engine static fire, if sucessful the launch will be in a couple of months perhaps.
Awesome idea and incredible video. Thanks a lot. I had the pleasure to der launched twice while being on vacation in Florida. This video is an awesome reminder of these lifetime experiences.
Acronyms, initialisms, abbreviations, contractions, and other phrases which expand to something larger, that I've seen in this thread:
The return booster sonic boom was intense this time.. shook my whole house.
Got to space and then realised they forgot to turn the oven off
Thing gets quite hot in that reentery burn. Does that not damage it?
You must have been close enough to hear the big boom
Would you also have this with the sound by any chance?
Now get the soundtrack set to “What I’ve Done” by linkin park and title the video, “if this launch happened in 2007”