From: snidely.too@gmail.com   
      
   JF Mezei explained on 1/23/2021 :   
   > On 2021-01-24 00:10, Snidely wrote:   
   >   
   >> Falcon 9's landing track record counts for nothing?  And SN8 was   
   >> clearly capable of sticking the landing with just a little more header   
   >> pressure.  I don't think that will be ignored in February.   
   >   
   >   
   > When pitting "fantastic" Starship against smaller more realistic ships,   
   > politicians would be far more impressed with a succesful SN9 flight and   
   > landing whih would transform fantastic to realistic.   
   >   
   > Politicians will bave seen the SN8 fireworks and not realize that the   
   > controlled free fall and the last minute switch to vertical to land   
   > landed it right on the "X"worked flawlessly (which is THE big item,   
   > though not applicable to the moon).   
   >   
   >   
   > Sylvia Else mentioned number of engines.   Was SN8 at its mass limit   
   > with 3 engines only able to lift very light load of fuel, thus limiting   
   > altitude to 12.5km?  (the condensation rings showed the tanks were   
   > perhaps 1/4 full and that is generous).   
   >   
   >   
   > If 3 engines are only able to lift barely filled tanks, would addition   
   > of 3 vacuum engines give it the additinal thrust needed to take off with   
   > full tanks?   
   >   
   > At sea level, is there a huge difference in thrust between the sea level   
   > and vaccum engines?  Will the SNxx tests end up having 6 sea level   
   > engines to get the thing up to orbit to test re-entry/heat shield?   
      
   Wait and see.   
      
   /dps   
      
   --   
   Rule #0: Don't be on fire.   
    In case of fire, exit the building before tweeting about it.   
   (Sighting reported by Adam F)   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)