What’s the opposite of “Rube Goldberg” for excessive simplicity?
It's pretty clear to me that the reason is to buy mass for the fairing recovery experiment, but @IridiumBoss isn't allowed to say that (or is just being polite by not spoiling SpaceX's announcement). That explains his coy answers.
https://twitter.com/Teslarati/status/943300377570508800For real?
Irrespective of the picture, just a data point, when the military uses net-captured drones, the drone basically fly into a net that is pretty steep - they don't land on a horizontal net.Many differences between the two systems of course.
Quote from: meekGee on 12/20/2017 01:57 amIrrespective of the picture, just a data point, when the military uses net-captured drones, the drone basically fly into a net that is pretty steep - they don't land on a horizontal net.Many differences between the two systems of course.Yeah, the fairing would essentially need to stall just before the net in order to land on a horizontal net without sliding right off.
I have trouble imagining that they are ever going to try catching and unloading the first half like an F1 pit crew while still having enough time to reset the catching mechanism and pre-positioning the ship for the second run.
Quote from: cscott on 12/20/2017 12:48 pmIt's pretty clear to me that the reason is to buy mass for the fairing recovery experiment, but @IridiumBoss isn't allowed to say that (or is just being polite by not spoiling SpaceX's announcement). That explains his coy answers.I said it before and I'll say it again, I think you're vastly underestimating the performance reserve SpaceX have for this flight and the leeway in the recovery method they therefore could choose if the reserve is deemed insufficient for the recovery method using a boostback burn.
- If it was from the stern then you'd think they would be trying to catch the fairing while the boat was in motion. If so they that implies communications between the boat and the parachute system so that they can be cooperative in the landing.
Quote from: ugordan on 12/20/2017 01:17 pmQuote from: cscott on 12/20/2017 12:48 pmIt's pretty clear to me that the reason is to buy mass for the fairing recovery experiment, but @IridiumBoss isn't allowed to say that (or is just being polite by not spoiling SpaceX's announcement). That explains his coy answers.I said it before and I'll say it again, I think you're vastly underestimating the performance reserve SpaceX have for this flight and the leeway in the recovery method they therefore could choose if the reserve is deemed insufficient for the recovery method using a boostback burn.Perhaps. There is L2 info re: the re-entry profile, maybe we'll discuss that further there. My post was stating a cause-and-effect: @IridiumBoss' coy response, which seems to hint at the key factor being something he can't directly disclose, was making me more certain. I should have written "It's becoming more clear to me" instead of just "It's pretty clear to me" to make the point clearer. As you mention, the actual reasoning is in other posts, I didn't feel I had to repeat that.And I'm not claiming the fairing experiment is the *only* factor. Just that it's one piece which, combined with the other issues discussed here (block 3, lack of space, etc), may have pushed the decision over the edge into expendibility.