On the dock there is a lady in white taking snaps due east with a long lens .... hmmm .... I wonder what of ? :-((
( edit) Now there are more people doing likewise. I can hear Elsbeth III ......
One of the people with a real camera and lens posted a lot of pix here
[Edit: as the grid fin toasting got discussed here some, it may be of interest to see an after-action shot of two of them.
The above grid-fin pic seems to be someone's screen capture from this extremely high-res zoomable pic of the whole stage as returned. Lots of details can be seen if you zoom in and move your keyhole view around.
... crikey mate, me bum's on fire ! But no, it is only one :
Yep, definitely one engine in the terminal phase :
For me, this will never "get old" or "routine". :-)
Cheers, Mike.
( edit ) BTW in the lower photo the 'dribbly' flames at the right side of the main centre engine exhaust is 'hydraulic fluid' being discarded while steering that engine's gimbal device. That fluid is - you guessed it - the rocket fuel itself ie. high grade kerosene. What a clever idea. I mean the RP-1 is already pressurized from the tank on the way through to combustion, so a side track takes it to the engine pivot actuators. Thus to relax a given part of that ( open ) circuit just bleed it out. :-)
I have made this letter longer than usual because I lack the time to make it shorter ...
... and my other CPU is a Ryzen 5950X :-) Blaise Pascal
I agree that the evidence is that this was one engine for landing. I'm a bit surprised. Possibly they have concluded that getting three-engine to work is trickier than the moderate fuel savings is worth. As these guys are pretty aggressive about saving fuel (not for the price of it, but for the launch performance capability of it), that suggests they on due consideration consider it rather tricky, I think.
I agree that the evidence is that this was one engine for landing.
Maybe what we think of as three engine landing is - three all the way to touchdown.
It would seem easier to control the final few feet of approach on one engine, even if three engines were used to do the majority of the final burn deceleration.
My slightly simplistic thinking is the reason they don't use all 9 (for even less time) is the stress would be too high and the control more difficult.
Thinking about re-use, the life on the centre engine will be shorter if it is being used to do all the work.
Mike Hewson wrote:On the dock
)
One of the people with a real camera and lens posted a lot of pix here
[Edit: as the grid fin toasting got discussed here some, it may be of interest to see an after-action shot of two of them.
The above grid-fin pic seems to be someone's screen capture from this extremely high-res zoomable pic of the whole stage as returned. Lots of details can be seen if you zoom in and move your keyhole view around.
Whoa ! That's some serious
)
Whoa ! That's some serious burn.
Cheers, Mike
I have made this letter longer than usual because I lack the time to make it shorter ...
... and my other CPU is a Ryzen 5950X :-) Blaise Pascal
Blimey that looks a bit Jules
)
Blimey that looks a bit Jules Verne to me!!! You wouldn't get me up in it!!!
Waiting for Godot & salvation :-)
Why do doctors have to practice?
You'd think they'd have got it right by now
Chris S_2 wrote:Blimey that
)
Chris not to worry, you probably won't get the chance.
it appears as though the
)
it appears as though the paddles are intact (no missing "bridging"), albeit a bit scorched.
it is amazing that after all of this re-entry stress that you can successfully recycle these units.
Is this a three engine
)
Is this a three engine landing ?
... crikey mate, me bum's on fire ! But no, it is only one :
Yep, definitely one engine in the terminal phase :
For me, this will never "get old" or "routine". :-)
Cheers, Mike.
( edit ) BTW in the lower photo the 'dribbly' flames at the right side of the main centre engine exhaust is 'hydraulic fluid' being discarded while steering that engine's gimbal device. That fluid is - you guessed it - the rocket fuel itself ie. high grade kerosene. What a clever idea. I mean the RP-1 is already pressurized from the tank on the way through to combustion, so a side track takes it to the engine pivot actuators. Thus to relax a given part of that ( open ) circuit just bleed it out. :-)
I have made this letter longer than usual because I lack the time to make it shorter ...
... and my other CPU is a Ryzen 5950X :-) Blaise Pascal
I agree that the evidence is
)
I agree that the evidence is that this was one engine for landing. I'm a bit surprised. Possibly they have concluded that getting three-engine to work is trickier than the moderate fuel savings is worth. As these guys are pretty aggressive about saving fuel (not for the price of it, but for the launch performance capability of it), that suggests they on due consideration consider it rather tricky, I think.
At last SES-10 landing video
)
At last SES-10 landing video from SpaceX.
This is just three views, with a pretty short time from each view. But you get a nice look at the accuracy, the bounce, and the wiggle.
https://www.instagram.com/p/BSfJDjMFzwR/
archae86 wrote:At last SES-10
)
It like watching an acetylene torch attacking a barge.
archae86 wrote:I agree that
)
Maybe what we think of as three engine landing is - three all the way to touchdown.
It would seem easier to control the final few feet of approach on one engine, even if three engines were used to do the majority of the final burn deceleration.
My slightly simplistic thinking is the reason they don't use all 9 (for even less time) is the stress would be too high and the control more difficult.
Thinking about re-use, the life on the centre engine will be shorter if it is being used to do all the work.