37
(Alleged) Photo of the Flight 6 payload bay during reentry (forum.nasaspaceflight.com)
submitted 2 years ago by to c/spacex@sh.itjust.works
17 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Image link from NSF forum.

Originally leaked on X (I think), then posted to the SpaceXLounge subreddit by u/mehelponow

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 10 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Well that isn't fully and rapidly reusable. Goddamn. I was starting to feel better about booster reuse soon. Maybe that's still the case, but, man, what the hell is this.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 7 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    Wasn't this flight the one where SpaceX intentionally removed a bunch of heat shield tiles?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

    I think this is all coming from the flap hinges. The hotspots on the leeward part are sparks from the sides. They fall that direction since the re-entry is applying some drag.

    The intentionally missing tiles were just on the engine skirt section IIRC. So this isn't necessarily a problem with the main heat shield. The V2 flap design might mitigate it completely. We can't really say much from just one (alleged) image.

    Edit: The IFT7 stream stated SN33 has missing tiles spread over the entire heat shield this time.

    Edit2: Not going to see anything from IFT7 re-entry.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [+] 7 points 2 years ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 child)
    [deleted]
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 7 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    Yeah, the Spaceshuttle was a cautionary tale and the Ship doesn't seem to have a fundamentally different approach. But lets see how things will develop.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 8 points 2 years ago* (1 child)

    I don't think the shuttle is a good example at all.

    The reusability was just marketing shtick so a large enough vehicle could be built to launch multiple Hubble-chassis Keyhole satellites for the NSA. (It's probably more accurate to say the Hubble is built on a Keyhole satellite chassis).

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Yet the technology it used for the heat shield was very similar to what SpaceX is trying to do with the Ship.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Shuttle was aluminium beneath the thermal tiles, so damage to the tiles was catastrophic. The expectation is Starship will be okay with a few tiles out, partly because steel is much more capable than aluminium, and partly because they have backup thermal protection

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Sure, but there it a huge chasm between "catastrophic failure" and "looks good to go again next week", and even minor structural damage will prevent rapid resuse.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    I'd much rather be on a spacecraft that wore out too soon than one that catastrophically failed

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago

    Sure, but the rare catastrophic failure issue is not why the Spaceshuttle is widely considered an engineering failure. The real issue with it was that the re-usability of it turned out to be a huge money sink. Spaceship might face a similar fate with those heat-tiles.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent