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.
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.
Yes. Doesn’t seem to working out if this picture is what OP claims. But if that’s the case, I don’t understand why they removed even more tiles on the Flight 7 ship.
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.
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).
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
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.
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.
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.
Wasn’t this flight the one where SpaceX intentionally removed a bunch of heat shield tiles?
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.
Yes. Doesn’t seem to working out if this picture is what OP claims. But if that’s the case, I don’t understand why they removed even more tiles on the Flight 7 ship.
Booster reuse vs ship reuse is a completely different beast. I am not sure it’s ever going to be viable to reuse the ship economically.
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.
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).
Yet the technology it used for the heat shield was very similar to what SpaceX is trying to do with the Ship.
I’ve heard whispers that they are trying a new transpirational heat shield design since the tiles aren’t working out so well.
That would be pretty cool indeed.
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
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.
I’d much rather be on a spacecraft that wore out too soon than one that catastrophically failed
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.