I never get tired of seeing those boosters land.
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.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.
Doing it without hypergols is impressive too.Restarting engines into a hypersonic airflow turned out easier than most expected. I am sure the devil is in the detail though.
Attempting to catch Starship with the chopsticks is going to be 10 times crazier.
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.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.
Exactly my point.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.
This is a video I saw off a YouTube shorts. I thought it might interest some of you.
Enter your email address to join: