Spacex

Out of context: Reply #273

  • Started
  • Last post
  • 278 Responses
  • dbloc3

    dbloc 3Permalink
    UpvoteDownvote
    Flag
    • still don't see why they're hell-bent on landing it vertically, so much can and does go wrong. Land it horizontally FFS._niko
    • I mean it does look cool and its a great feat, but there are way to many variables to go wrong and it does._niko
    • and i don't really get the "it needs to be reusable" argument, they can land horizontally safely, then prop it back up for launch and re-use it._niko
    • 'cause the way they're going now it definitely isn't reusable either lol_niko
    • It's the height of a 15 story building.shapesalad
    • Next time you walk in the city, and you see a 15 story building, imagine it taking off and landing vertically.shapesalad
    • I work with a few Data Scientists who used to work on rockets (and now work on real time credit fraud prediction) - The reason for the vertical landing is...orrinward2
    • ...largely due to how the rockets are built for strength. Their are most resistant to pressure/force vertically (the bullet shape), and landing horizontally...orrinward2
    • ...largely due to how the rockets are built for strength. Their are most resistant to pressure/force vertically (the bullet shape), and landing horizontally...orrinward2
    • ...is apparently significantly harder with reverse thrust, because it puts extreme force on an axis that isn't built for it.orrinward2
    • @_niko it's crazy that they don't consult with you on this first! ;-)Krassy
    • I still say a giant baseball mitt is the way forward with these usable rockets...shapesalad
    • they need the vertical landing to be able to land on mars and the moon and stuff.uan
    • a giant parachute ought to do itKrassy
    • or a giant trampolineKrassy
    • Lol@krassy yeah for sure I’m also available for vaccine advice, covid advice, global warming and a bunch of other things I know nothing about :)_niko
    • It all comes down to mass & usable payload. Could probably land horizontally, but vertical is for sure more efficient.inv
    • As mention, load on the structure. But also center of mass. To do it propulsively, you would need engines in both ends. Not very efficient.inv
    • That said, the shuttle landed horizontally. Starship is built to land where lift generating wings will not work (mars etc).inv
    • They can’t land horizontally until we build runways on Mars and moonhotroddy
    • yea this rocksStoicLevels
    • the shuttle landed horizontally. but had to be launched attached to a rocketESKEMA
    • how about retractable legs that are roughly 1/2 the length of rocket... they fold down and give more stability to the landingMHDC
    Show [[ numHiddenNotes ]] more notesAdd Note
    SaveCancel

View thread