5 ms·
I'm kind of glad they had something fail. That means maybe they learned something new to improve the next shot.
by imglorp 9y ago
I'm kind of glad they had something fail. That means maybe they learned something new to improve the next shot.
- make3 9y agomost of the people I know are twisted pessimists. you're a twisted optimist
- simonh 9y agoThe rocket ran out of engine igniter fluid. It had enough to light the centre engine, but not the two side engines. That seems to imply they were trying to do a 3-engine landing, which they tested recently in the 'failed to expend the rocket' incident. This might explain why they miscalculated the igniter requirement since they don't have much experience with 3-engine landings.
- MayeulC 9y agoOn the other hand, if you look carefully at the landing video, it looks like they did a three-engine landing boost on the other boosters: https://youtu.be/BBA7su98v3Y?t=517 https://youtu.be/BBA7su98v3Y?t=517 So they have definitely learned something valuable in that landing incident.
- simonh 9y agoCool. I'd assumed they only did that with the centre core, but you're right.
- dtparr 9y agoInteresting. Looks like a 1-3-1 burn (start with 1, ignite two more for a bit, then finish on a single one). I wonder how much longer the '3 engine burn' was for the GovSat launch last week that did a 'water landing'
- rocqua 9y agoIs the normal landing a 1-engine landing? If so, is the advantage of a 3-engine landing that it requires less fuel due to having a much shorter 'suicide burn'?
- dtparr 9y agoYes, and yes. The less time you're in the air, the less fuel needed to counter gravity's continual pull, so the most efficient landing burn is basically the highest acceleration you can handle without coming apart such that your velocity hits 0 as your altitude does.
- TimTheTinker 9y agoWhat’s a “suicide burn”?