From: snidely.too@gmail.com   
      
   JF Mezei speculated:   
      
   > This past week, SpaceX had another SN24 engie test.   
   > But just a startup and shutdown.   
   >   
   >   
   > Considering that during the "iterative" testing early on, one of the   
   > problems was the restart of the engine(s) for landing, shouldn't engine   
   > tests at this point in time test the ability to start and restart   
   > engines to emulate a flight ?   
   >   
   > In a previous inteview, the PR person had explained that the engine   
   > start is the most challenging part with a serious challenge to spin up   
   > the turbo pumps at the right time/sync etc. (so that would explain why   
   > previous tests had been for short burns, since they were only testing   
   > engine start, not actual engine performance).   
   >   
   > But as engine start remains a challenge, shouldn't restarts be tested?   
      
   Restarts are tested, at SpaceX's McGregor site.   
      
   Note that with Falcon 9s, SpaceX doesn't test relight during a static   
   fire test.   
      
   [...]   
   > And without the ability to target an "X" on a landing site   
   > (since neither booster now Starship have landing legs),   
   > how can they test the ship's ability to land precisely at a tower?   
      
   With the water landings, they will have a chance to assess the   
   performance of the landing guidance, although they already have some   
   information from the belly-flop tests.  Plus all the experience with   
   the F9 landings.   
      
   /dps   
      
   --   
   And the Raiders and the Broncos have life now in the West. I thought   
   they were both nearly dead if not quite really most sincerely dead. --   
   Mike Salfino, fivethirtyeight.com   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)