4 ms·
The fact that it managed the flip and landing burn means the fuel tanks (i.e. most of the fuselage) must have suffered no burn-through, despite what happened to
by mhandley 2y ago
The fact that it managed the flip and landing burn means the fuel tanks (i.e. most of the fuselage) must have suffered no burn-through, despite what happened to the front flap. They've obviously got some redesign needed on the thermal protection around the flap hinges, but broadly, the thermal protection system and aerodynamic control during reentry seem to have worked well enough. It's finally starting to feel like Starship could actually work!
- tocs3 2y agoOne of the NSF commentators commented the fuel for the landing burn comes from the header tanks (little extra tanks for this kind of thing). Still, I would think if one of the closed up sections had a hole that it would cause all sorts of other troubles.
- mhandley 2y agoYes, that is correct - they need the header tanks to make sure that fuel is immediately available, not sloshing around the main tanks as the ship flips. Rockets really don't like sucking in vapour. I'm not sure if they're pressurized separately from the main tanks though - I would assume not, as that would be more complicated, but I could be completely wrong.
- proaralyst 2y agoThe strength of the body of the rocket comes from some level of pressurisation – much like a drinks can. I suspect that if the tank got holed the ship wouldn't have held up during the flip
- proaralyst 2y agoImpressive the flap actuators held up too!