Quote from: JDTractorGuy on 04/07/2023 04:49 pmFolks,I apologize if I'm asking a question that's already been answered, but reading the article posted on NSF I'm a bit confused. Are they not going to attempt recovery of the booster or starship? I was under the impression that they would at least attempt to recover the upper stage. Any clarification appreciated!I thought the idea was both stages soft land at sea. Whether they get towed back in I've never seen mentioned one way or another. I can't imagine them just leaving them floating around at sea though.
Folks,I apologize if I'm asking a question that's already been answered, but reading the article posted on NSF I'm a bit confused. Are they not going to attempt recovery of the booster or starship? I was under the impression that they would at least attempt to recover the upper stage. Any clarification appreciated!
Quote from: sferrin on 04/07/2023 04:53 pmQuote from: JDTractorGuy on 04/07/2023 04:49 pmFolks,I apologize if I'm asking a question that's already been answered, but reading the article posted on NSF I'm a bit confused. Are they not going to attempt recovery of the booster or starship? I was under the impression that they would at least attempt to recover the upper stage. Any clarification appreciated!I thought the idea was both stages soft land at sea. Whether they get towed back in I've never seen mentioned one way or another. I can't imagine them just leaving them floating around at sea though.There was an extensive discussion about this about 18 months ago. We assume they intend to do the same maneuver they will need as part of a chopsticks landing, but over empty ocean, reaching a zero-velocity vertical orientation just above the sea surface. The question: what happens next? if they simply cut off the engines, the booster (in the gulf of Mexico) and an hour later the Starship (off Hawaii) will fall into the water. These are big and relatively fragile structures. They will probably crumple, take on water, and sink: think of a 22-story building and a 16-story building made of steel so thin that it can buckle if not pressurized. There are several possible tricks that might mitigate this, but we have no reason to believe SpaceX intends to do any of them.
By happy coincidence, I am going to be in Hawaii on starting April 17th visiting the islands Oahu and Kauai. If I go to the north shore when the water landing is attempted, is there a chance that I may be able to catch a glimpse of the water landing off in the distance, or it is still going to be too far away?
Quote from: DanClemmensen on 04/07/2023 05:08 pmQuote from: sferrin on 04/07/2023 04:53 pmQuote from: JDTractorGuy on 04/07/2023 04:49 pmFolks,I apologize if I'm asking a question that's already been answered, but reading the article posted on NSF I'm a bit confused. Are they not going to attempt recovery of the booster or starship? I was under the impression that they would at least attempt to recover the upper stage. Any clarification appreciated!I thought the idea was both stages soft land at sea. Whether they get towed back in I've never seen mentioned one way or another. I can't imagine them just leaving them floating around at sea though.There was an extensive discussion about this about 18 months ago. We assume they intend to do the same maneuver they will need as part of a chopsticks landing, but over empty ocean, reaching a zero-velocity vertical orientation just above the sea surface. The question: what happens next? if they simply cut off the engines, the booster (in the gulf of Mexico) and an hour later the Starship (off Hawaii) will fall into the water. These are big and relatively fragile structures. They will probably crumple, take on water, and sink: think of a 22-story building and a 16-story building made of steel so thin that it can buckle if not pressurized. There are several possible tricks that might mitigate this, but we have no reason to believe SpaceX intends to do any of them.Just like with Falcon 9, will *probably* crumple, but they *might not*. Therefore they’ll need a plant to either tow them to shore or to sink them. No one has made a strong enough argument to me that sinking is assured, ie that they won’t need the ability to tow or sink them. Marine safety considerations means we can’t count on them for sure crumpling.
You all assume that the heatshield holds.
Quote from: Slothman on 04/07/2023 08:32 pmYou all assume that the heatshield holds.If the heat shield does not hold, then the issue of floating debris (a hazard to navigation) is moot. No one is assuming that the heat shield holds, but no one is assuming it fails, either.
Quote from: Slothman on 04/07/2023 08:32 pmYou all assume that the heatshield holds.There are two "landings". The booster landing does not depend on a heat shield. SS needs its TPS to work (and also lots of other stuff) to survive re-entry. A landing failure of SS would still be a spectacularly successful test flight.
Superheavy going for a chopstick landing will come to a stop and cut it's engines while still some 50 meters in the air. Without the chopsticks to land in, it will fall that distance to the surface, and I don't see any way it can survive that, water or no water.I could see it maybe surviving a zero-zero landing. But why would SpaceX do a zero-zero landing when that's not the intended mode of operation?
Quote from: Robotbeat on 04/07/2023 06:29 pmQuote from: DanClemmensen on 04/07/2023 05:08 pmQuote from: sferrin on 04/07/2023 04:53 pmQuote from: JDTractorGuy on 04/07/2023 04:49 pmFolks,I apologize if I'm asking a question that's already been answered, but reading the article posted on NSF I'm a bit confused. Are they not going to attempt recovery of the booster or starship? I was under the impression that they would at least attempt to recover the upper stage. Any clarification appreciated!I thought the idea was both stages soft land at sea. Whether they get towed back in I've never seen mentioned one way or another. I can't imagine them just leaving them floating around at sea though.There was an extensive discussion about this about 18 months ago. We assume they intend to do the same maneuver they will need as part of a chopsticks landing, but over empty ocean, reaching a zero-velocity vertical orientation just above the sea surface. The question: what happens next? if they simply cut off the engines, the booster (in the gulf of Mexico) and an hour later the Starship (off Hawaii) will fall into the water. These are big and relatively fragile structures. They will probably crumple, take on water, and sink: think of a 22-story building and a 16-story building made of steel so thin that it can buckle if not pressurized. There are several possible tricks that might mitigate this, but we have no reason to believe SpaceX intends to do any of them.Just like with Falcon 9, will *probably* crumple, but they *might not*. Therefore they’ll need a plant to either tow them to shore or to sink them. No one has made a strong enough argument to me that sinking is assured, ie that they won’t need the ability to tow or sink them. Marine safety considerations means we can’t count on them for sure crumpling.Superheavy going for a chopstick landing will come to a stop and cut it's engines while still some 50 meters in the air. Without the chopsticks to land in, it will fall that distance to the surface, and I don't see any way it can survive that, water or no water.I could see it maybe surviving a zero-zero landing. But why would SpaceX do a zero-zero landing when that's not the intended mode of operation?
If they want to recover it for inspection.
Quote from: Robotbeat on 04/08/2023 12:48 am If they want to recover it for inspection.That would be an immensely challenging task....
Quote from: envy887 on 04/08/2023 01:51 amQuote from: Robotbeat on 04/08/2023 12:48 am If they want to recover it for inspection.That would be an immensely challenging task....Not really. Was done for SRBs. For Shuttle and Ariane 5. Doable if it does survive somehow. Don't know if they'll want to.