Jan Morten Berg

[Jan Morten Berg @soppskalle]

@esherifftv It should have been scuttled already

[Jan Morten Berg @soppskalle]

@gouda25 @faruqabdul31098 @elonmusk You probably mean Columbia. The Challenger accident had nothing to do with heatshield.

[Jan Morten Berg @soppskalle]

@DJSnM Well, 4x faster than the shuttle is still shockingly bad - and nowhere near the ambitions Musk has for this launcher

[Jan Morten Berg @soppskalle]

@DJSnM Yeah it is a very valid concern whether or not this particular technology can ever become rapidly reusable - regardless of iterations/development.

Also, the concept of ablation is dubious when meeting the requirement of reuse.

[Jan Morten Berg @soppskalle]

@Ultimateplasma @elonmusk You have a lot to learn about buoyancy. Starship has an empty weight right below 100 tons. The weight of the water displaced by the empty volume is far, far greater - hence why it floats so high.

[Jan Morten Berg @soppskalle]

@rambo_cfc @elonmusk @grok Yes it was. Unfortunately, it didn't crack open when tipping over.

[Jan Morten Berg @soppskalle]

@elonmusk Disappointing. Recovering ship 40 makes no sense at all.

[Jan Morten Berg @soppskalle]

@Erdayastronaut Disappointing. Recovering ship 40 is a complete example of thinking with the heart rather than brains.

[Jan Morten Berg @soppskalle]

@CSI_Starbase @DJSnM It took a good beating when it tipped over - at least enough to spill methane - so I doubt very much that the payload bay is pressurized any longer.

[Jan Morten Berg @soppskalle]

@NotPJORourke @DJSnM Will definitely be scuttled. Recovery is neither realistic nor sensible.

[Jan Morten Berg @soppskalle]

@DJSnM The front end is obviously compromised anyway, regardless of the door (ref the methane spill when it splashed down)

But it will never sink as long as at least one main tank is intact.

[Jan Morten Berg @soppskalle]

@OverlyTrev Sounds about right. It is hard to imagine how this particular tech can become rapidly reusable. Not because it loses tiles - it already pretty much doesn't. But cracked tiles is a huge issue - and the concept of ablation is fundamentally contradictory to rapid reuse.

[Jan Morten Berg @soppskalle]

@ARealRocketMan @dpoddolphinpro @MarineTraffic Good. Recovering ship 40 is not practical or sensible at all.

[Jan Morten Berg @soppskalle]

@jpgodinho @Erdayastronaut First of all because it is not intact. Secondly, because it's not worth the risk or cost.

[Jan Morten Berg @soppskalle]

@Erdayastronaut I hope they don't. First of all, ship 40 is structurally compromised, and partially destroyed. Handling is dangerous.

But far more importantly, they will soon get intact ships delivered on their doorstep on a more or less regular basis anyway

[Jan Morten Berg @soppskalle]

@Evil13rt @DJSnM @elonmusk Definitely no booster catch on 14, so yes, that's not a constraint.

Ship can return on first orbit. If they want to is another discussion.

[Jan Morten Berg @soppskalle]

@KevinWo18771062 @DJSnM @elonmusk Potentially, ship can return to launch site on the first orbit, since they have so much surplus delta v (dependent of payload choices obviously)

[Jan Morten Berg @soppskalle]

@DieterDonnert @DJSnM @elonmusk Ship needs about 90 minutes (at least)

[Jan Morten Berg @soppskalle]

@elonmusk Easy to be fooled here. First thought those engines were running - which would make the statement totally wrong. But I guess they are merely illuminated by the v3 satellite lights

[Jan Morten Berg @soppskalle]

@JohnHanzl @DJSnM Hopefully yes