Space X booster landing
- Thread starter Sparky
- Start date
Help Support The Rocketry Forum:
Yea, we finally get the rear landing rockets from the 1950s and early 60s SciFi that Engineers said would never work...
Given both the Soviet Union and the US soft-landed robotic probes on the moon in 1966, any engineer who said propulsive landing would never work was forced to eat his words more than 55 years ago.
Given both the Soviet Union and the US soft-landed robotic probes on the moon in 1966, any engineer who said propulsive landing would never work was forced to eat his words more than 55 years ago.
It's not the same
Restarting engines into a hypersonic airflow turned out easier than most expected. I am sure the devil is in the detail though.
Doing it without hypergols is impressive too.
No matter how many times I see that it still looks like CGI from a sci-fi movie. Attempting to catch Starship with the chopsticks is going to be 10 times crazier.
Perhaps they have Ralph Macchio on the payroll?
It has come to this:
Saw a FB post the other day of a photo of a Falcon 9 booster after it landed on a drone ship.
The booster was outside the circle on the landing pad.
Comments were mostly complimentary like "Never gets old" and "Amazing".
One guy said "That's not a good landing".
Heh.
Saw a FB post the other day of a photo of a Falcon 9 booster after it landed on a drone ship.
The booster was outside the circle on the landing pad.
Comments were mostly complimentary like "Never gets old" and "Amazing".
One guy said "That's not a good landing".
Heh.
A good landing is one that you can walk away from, right? I don't see the issue. The booster landed on the barge, no damage, yeah maybe it wasn't on the bullseye, but good enough.
Exactly my point.
NTP2
Well-Known Member
Thanks sparky for reminding all us mega rocket nerds that rockets are cool.
