Timeline for Why does Blue Origin land the crew capsule separate from the booster?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
5 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 3, 2016 at 11:28 | comment | added | LocalFluff | @GdD It can be a good idea to do a general fueling rehearsal IFF the real payload is NOT aboard. I do realize now that landing an empty booster stage is easier than one top heavy with a crewed capsule. I still suspect that the suborbital thing is a test rather than a serious business idea of its own. An ambitious reliability commitment. | |
| Nov 3, 2016 at 8:12 | comment | added | GdD | SpaceX's landing failures have been pretty spectacular @LocalFluff, even a small (comparatively) explosion is still an explosion. Why introduce the risk? | |
| Nov 1, 2016 at 14:23 | comment | added | PearsonArtPhoto♦ | I think the best point of this is ensuring the booster doesn't collapse upon landing. That would require significantly more engineering to correctly manage. | |
| Nov 1, 2016 at 13:37 | comment | added | LocalFluff | Wouldn't a launch (and here also landing) escape system be required to function even if fired within the seconds it takes for a landing leg to break, and to deal with a non-vertical launch start? The booster should be practically empty at landing and would not represent a great explosion risk. Now, I'm sure they've made the trade offs very carefully, actually, they have demonstrated it. It just isn't obvious to me how the trades played out like this. | |
| Nov 1, 2016 at 10:30 | history | answered | GdD | CC BY-SA 3.0 |