3 ms·
>The 'chopsticks catch' was amazing to watch. Seems like it adds a lot of risk and clearly the booster needs additional fire suppression systems :-) perhaps the
by potato3732842 2y ago
>The 'chopsticks catch' was amazing to watch. Seems like it adds a lot of risk and clearly the booster needs additional fire suppression systems :-) perhaps the tower could mount something that sprays the booster like the barges have for the F9 boosters.
There's no reason to reinvent the airport firetruck.
- kortilla 2y agoThe airport fire truck can’t control fires 250ft in the air
- potato3732842 2y agoIt's pushing the limits but it's close enough to existing capability to be a pretty easy ask.
- CydeWeys 2y agoUnless you're gonna make it fully automated, it's not gonna work here as it can't be within kilometers of the landing site during landing in case there's a catastrophic failure.
- nine_k 2y ago> no reason to reinvent the airport firetruck. There is. The booster is high above, and is larger than basically any aircraft. There's no flat concrete airfield around either. I would suggest blowing CO2 or nitrogen through pipes positioned at the right height on the tower.
- adastra22 2y agoIt’s not going to burn like that in production.
- Cthulhu_ 2y agoWhy would you use a firetruck if you could also run a hose up the tower and get it right where it's needed?