So I was checking the replies on Instagram for one of the fairing parachute deploy pictures and came across this regarding the reentry and landing of the second stage.
Falcon 9 Block 5 on pad.
Block 5 is supposed to do 10 flights per booster with minimal refurbishment. A huge next step: the most important after actually landing the rocket at all. Look at that thing… We’re living in the future, guys!
I can’t believe no ones mentioned InSight!
Here’s a pretty good short video on how they plan to land it
I always wonder about these landers. They keep saying “they have to figure out how this is going to land.”
It makes me wonder why there isn’t a standardized lander that can carry a variety of vehicles.
I think it’s pretty great that they’re developing a method of finding landing sites though: that will surely help the aerospace industry as a whole, and will probably help the BFR land when they publish their results.
I did, here. My zero and one’s are flying to Mars!
Landing vehicles, each with their own purpose, form factor, and mass requires on a variety of planets is anything but standard.
Mass remains the main limiting factor of missions, and I imagine tightly integrating your landing hardware with your mission hardware can save mass.
The California rocket company SpaceX has conducted what is arguably its most important launch to date.
Flying out of Florida, the firm’s Falcon-9 vehicle lifted a standard telecommunications satellite for Bangladesh into orbit. But the booster incorporated everything SpaceX has so far learnt about reusability. This “Block 5” version of the Falcon is designed to launch and land at least 10 times without any servicing.
I did not know this. Fascinating! - Scott Manley discuses.
Could you elaborate on what “this” is? I’m curious but clickbait titles that make me play the video to know what the video is about is a bit of a turn off for me and I’d rather not support it with my view.
Had to do with “burning” (throwing a ball) towards the orbited body and the changes to its orbit.
Anybody who has played KSP should have some understanding of it, but it’s super counter intuitive.
Oh the burn tangential not radial business. It’s definitely counter intuitive at first glance.
I dunno. It triggers for me this sense like I’m throwing a ball towards the center of a merry-go-round which would result in it flying away. If you want something to go into a permanently lower orbit, throw it backwards. Of course, this puts you into an ever so slightly higher orbit.
Sure, once you understand the basics it makes plenty of sense, just seems illogical prior to that.
How Well Did SpaceX’s new Falcon 9 Work - Scott Manley discusses.
The satellite launched on a Long March-4C rocket from the Xichang launch centre
The Most Dangerous Rocket Fuels Ever Tested - Scott Manley discusses.