Considering it landed on its engines, not its landing gear, it wouldn’t surprise me if a bit of fuel splashed out.
jpinard
4237
That sucks majorly. Now they can’t deconstruct the engines to see how they fared.
Yep, there’s the methane leak. It exploded a few minutes post landing.
Pour one out for SN10, the first one to make it back to earth after a belly flop.
jpinard
4239
Tim Dodd keeps saying it’s no big deal because the landing legs are crap and they know it, but this adds at least one extra test to do metallurgical stress testing of the engines after a full successful landing. So it kinda sucks a bit.
I think it’s already built and ready, so it’s just a matter of seeing if the data from SN10 causes them to want to modify the design or adjust the flight plan.
I think the window was till 6, so maybe in the next 8 minutes!
jpinard
4243
They need to do something with the fuel leaks they keep having. I think the methane was leaking before it even landed, and I think there was burnt engine metal yet again due to a green flame.
On landing there is billowy flame several meters up on one side.
Looks like a buildup of methane under the base of the rocket got ignited and launched the rocket, which blew it up. So I guess you could say SN10 launched twice in less than 30 minutes for a new turnaround record lol.
60 Minute and had an interesting piece on the women of NASA and putting on Women on the moon.
But also a lot of discussion on the SLS compared to SpaceX. I think Bill Whitaker is a SpaceX fan.
We only need to annihilate Jupiter each time, so we are getting closer…
Or compress an Earth-sized mass into about 10km. It’s nowhere as bad as a Neutron Star, so it’s doable!
MikeJ
4247
One thing I wonder about these models: what are the implications for causality? AFAIK, a warp drive that moves faster than c in a Earth-reference frame would be seen as moving backwards in time in another reference frame. Is there something that pins the warp drive to a certain reference frame (breaking relativity?) or is it just accepted that warp drives are physically possible and also time machines?
Hmm… good question. At first blush, that sounds like a variation on the Twin Paradox?
Nah, Twin Paradox is about time dilation when travelling at relativistic speeds. Subjectively to the travellers, near light-speed travel is already “faster than light” in that you can cross 4 light years in 4 subjective minutes at very nearly c.
The thing with warp drives is that they posit true faster-than-light travel, that is travelling faster than light from a neutral reference frame POV.
And as @MikeJ says, it does seem to break causality, since FTL information transfer does.
Hmmm… That’s true. The FTL causality implications are the more interesting aspects. It’s been a (very) long time since I had the math to actually think about this stuff at a non-superficial level, unfortunately.
Sorry, you missed Pi day, no more math talks pls.
As one might expect, I’m wearing this shirt today:
