Noticed Falcon 9 doesn't actually land in the "X" but still within the
cicles.

(Considering they want Super Heavy to be caught by a cradle, thet would
need greater presision().

Has Elon provided any hints on what causes that imprecision in landing
of Falcon 9?

Is this an issue of GPS accuracy? Ship's inability to precisely station
keep?

I realize that it lands within needed specifications, but would have
thought they would have fined tuned the software as a learning exercise
to gain experience to do same with Super Heavy.

On 05-Jul-21 10:46 am, JF Mezei wrote:
> Noticed Falcon 9 doesn't actually land in the "X" but still within the
> cicles.
>
> (Considering they want Super Heavy to be caught by a cradle, thet would
> need greater presision().
>
> Has Elon provided any hints on what causes that imprecision in landing
> of Falcon 9?
>
> Is this an issue of GPS accuracy? Ship's inability to precisely station
> keep?
>
>
> I realize that it lands within needed specifications, but would have
> thought they would have fined tuned the software as a learning exercise
> to gain experience to do same with Super Heavy.
>

A video I watched recently commented that Falcon 9 cannot hover (the
thrust from one engine is too high). So it's doing a suicide-burn, which
limits its scope for fine-tuning the landing point.

Sylvia.

On 2021-07-04 21:31, Sylvia Else wrote:

> A video I watched recently commented that Falcon 9 cannot hover (the
> thrust from one engine is too high). So it's doing a suicide-burn, which
> limits its scope for fine-tuning the landing point.

With the number of landings they have done, I would have thought they
would have adjusted the software to deal with the thrust. I would assume
the grid fins have much moe to do with placing the vertical cylinder
over the X than the engines that light up only at very end.

or perhaps they have a "good enough" attitude and prefer to not make
changes and rather live with some inpreision than risk a few crashes
with tweaked software.