But it was always planned to be this way.

I am almost certainly being too old space about this idea, but I wonder occasionally why I have not read of SpaceX flying reentry tile attached to a Falcon 9 second stage to get some performance data.

After two flight (8 & 9) failures in a row for what SpaceX reported were unrelated problems, I have started to think that a good idea would be for SpaceX to build an (approximately) one-fifth scale Starship, outfit it in tiles and expend a Falcon 9 mission on a trajectory similar to Starship Flights 8 & 9. This would allow them to continue to get tile option performance data as they work through internal plumbing and engine reliability issues inside the full-scale Ship. Expecting that such an approach would simply reenter, aerodynamically control itself and belly flop in with no powered flight. One could further simplify and have no movable fins & flaps for additional cost savings bit it seems the interface between airframe and fins/flaps has been seen to be problematic.

This may be too administratively difficult given Varda problems in getting reentry license. SpaceX may also not want to expend the scarce engineering and manufacturing time & manpower to scale develop such a test article.

It just seems like SpaceX is still working to figure out the most effective tile options even though they had relatively good success with tiles on Flights 6 & 7 using a Block I Starship.

Again, probably too old aerospace about the idea.

Quite so. Re-Entry is a great read. But revenge, as the old saying goes, is a dish best served cold. I think taking down SLC-37’s infrastructure explosively was a suitably chilly riposte. By the time SpaceX does the same to SLC-41, the dish will be positively cryogenic.

Jeff Wright,

The “Falcon guys” have nearly all been on Starship for at least four years now. They pioneered booster landings and, as you note, Super Heavy seems pretty much alright. But the Falcon boys never re-entered and landed a 2nd stage so they’re now plowing fresh ground. I make allowances.

Add some sort of stand-alone, relatively powerful quad thrusters (ala Apollo Command Service Module) on the leeward side of the Ship. This might give the snakebit Block 2 version of the Ship a fighting chance, even with leaking gases internally and externally, to maintain attitude control until the Ship fins and flaps could exert aerodynamic control.

In this way, they could get some useful and needed reentry performance data, even if the Ship did not fully survive. It beats just throwing the two Block 2 Ships up when, without some additional attitude control help, they have such a lousy track record. to reach entry point in an oriented manner.

I have been fascinated by severe weather, had some close calls–etc.

There is a space section–and one of the members claims to have had bad experience with the Starship end of things.

Any scuttlebutt about some Falcon guys maybe trying to straighten things out?

I hate to say this Richard M, but I am starting to wonder if some of the ULA guys were right to mock the tent city team, at least.

We know SuperHeavy is good—why doesn’t that transfer?