Elon Musk Just Revealed New Details How SpaceX Catching Starship Booster In Flight 5!
Вставка
- Опубліковано 13 чер 2024
- Elon Musk Just Revealed New Details How SpaceX Catching Starship Booster In Flight 5!
===
00:00: Intro
00:48: Catching plan: basis and challenges
07:28: New tower’s impacts
09:56: Conclusion
===
#greatspacex #elonmusk #spacex #nasa #starship
==
Advertisers who want to place ads on our channel, please contact the email manager: smanager339@gmail.com
===
SpaceX Starship SN
Be the first to sponsor us Thank you.
www.patreon.com/GreatspaceX?f...
Our video content is referenced by video sources at these sites:
HUGE THANKS TO:
TheSpaceEngineer: / mcrs987 / @thespaceengineer
ILoveDP: / @ilovedp
Lewis Knaggs: / @lewisknaggs
/ lewisknaggs42
Ashtorak : / ashtorak
StarbaseSim
/ @ashtorak
PRØXIMA ⁂
x.com/pr0ximacentaura
PRØXIMA ⁂
/ @proxicentia
C-bass Productions: / cbassproductions
Clarence365: / clarence3652
/ @clarence3654
Owe @Bl3D_Eccentric: / bl3d_eccentric
Spacex 3D Creation Eccentric: t.co/QGbEwDwv7j
HoppAR: / hoppar_app
TijnM : / m_tijn
/ @tijn_m
iamVisual:
/ visual_iam
Ryan Hansen Space: / ryanhansenspace
/ ryanhansenspace
===
Elon Musk Just Revealed New Details How SpaceX Catching Starship Booster In Flight 5!
Nearly ten years ago, SpaceX amazed the world by achieving the vertical landing of the Falcon's booster, heralding a new era in the aerospace industry. Now, a decade later, a new legend seems ready to unfold.
This incredible story will start with Flight 5, when a massive rocket booster returns to its launch site and is caught by the Chopstick mechanism. It sounds fantastical, but the brilliant minds at SpaceX have devised a clear and exciting plan.
As we eagerly anticipate Flight 5, today’s episode of Great SpaceX is dedicated to this groundbreaking moment: the capture of the Starship Booster by the Mechazilla Arm.
Elon Musk Just Revealed New Details How SpaceX Catching Starship Booster In Flight 5!
It’s incredible how quickly things have progressed! Just a year ago today, SpaceX was still grappling with repairs and upgrades for the Starship after Flight 1. However, through relentless effort, they managed to conduct three more flights. The recent Flight 4 was especially groundbreaking, marking the first time a rocket was fully landed.
This success sets the stage for SpaceX to pursue the ambitious goal their founder discussed a few months ago:
Elon Musk Just Revealed New Details How SpaceX Catching Starship Booster In Flight 5!
“If the landing on the virtual tower with the booster works, then we’ll actually try with Flight 5 to come back and land on the tower.” (Link)
Recently, Elon Musk tweeted: "Next flight, we [will] try to catch it with giant Mechazilla arms, inspired, at least in part, by Kong vs. Godzilla."
There's no doubt that the upcoming flight will see the booster returning to Starbase and being caught by the Mechazilla Arm. The goal is clear, but how will it happen?
----
We use images and content in accordance with the UA-cam Fair Use copyright guidelines: ua-cam.com/users/intlen/about...
Any questions about copyright please send us via Gmail: colonbina25@gmail.com
To be resolved, thank you. - Наука та технологія
its gonna be crazy thats for sure
All are expecting spectacular gigantic “KAAH-BOOMMMM”
You should hover out in the ocean proving maneuvers.
There would be less damage to stage zero if no explosion occurred during a failed or missed "catch." You would find some structural damage, but an explosion would result in much more.
On the other hand, you need enough fuel in the booster to steer it and drop it down next to the tower. Ideally, only a tiny amount of fuel remaining would be safer. An empty rocket would not explode, just crash.
Sanjosemike (no longer in CA)
Let's wait to see what will happen
I'm glad somebody finally commented that the ship's landing speed of 9 mph is too fast. Also, I'm interested in trying to understand how the spaceship missed its landing target by 6 km (I believe that is the number I heard). Can anybody answer this?
Landing will indeed be rough at 9mph, but probably they can counter some by lowering the chopsticks simultaniously. The booster landed pretty much on point (they have awesome landing footage from the water), only starship was miles off due to the flap issue.
Starship and the Booster are supposed to be able to hover for several minutes, this wasn't demonstrated in flight four and until it is demonstrated they shouldn't attempt a return to base catch.
Both Starship and the Booster only just stuck the landing with engines on fire and other sorts of damage.
They need to repeat flight four and demonstrate that the booster and Starship can hover at a precise location without any damage to engines or structure, after returning from space, for at least one minute before attempting a return to base catch.
I hope they will wait until tower 2 is built
Quite late
They need to wait until the second tower is complete. Losing the tower will really delay the launch-n-learn cycle.
Let's wait to see
When Falcon 9s land on the barge or on land they don't hit the center point frequently...they are often off by a few feet...what happens if Starship's booster is off by 5-10 feet? And this has to happen right every time. Very ambitious but I'm not optimistic.
I wonder why they didn’t have the booster Hoover over the water at a little higher altitude and perform several side-to-side movements until the booster completely ran out of fuel. They could have gained so much more data in just one test.
If enough of the engines light up properly, they will nail it. Hopefully they will get the in orbit engine relight tests done so they can start working on taking payloads up. Heat shield and flaps will get sorted over the next few launches. If they can do these next launches without triggering the mishap investigations then things will advance quickly.
Yeah 👍
No one else could, but SpaceX team will be able to.
Land the booster in the water one more time, just to make sure all corrections work - i.e. Raptor malfunctions.
I’ll say that they need to try it with two launches without the space ship to get rid off any bugs in the system. Before the actual integrated launch
i'd love to see a simulation of superheavy blasting off from the launchpad at twice the speed because it doesn't have starship on it. would need to replace all them hold down clamps
They should construct a pond with a Mechazilla in the center and catch a Falcon 9 first to get experience and work out the kinks.
Just WOW!!!😎
😮😮😮
Yes Space X will do it. Elon needs to build 4 towers… Just in case
Wow
The landing at the tower will need to be incredibly precise with no margin for error and the risk of horrendous damage if it goes wrong. I suggest the use of a deep tank, filled with something which will decelerate the booster and not damage it. A bit like a children's ball pond, but on a huge scale.
I see the booster catch as being next to 0% possible. It should demonstrate another precision landing in the ocean before the catch is attempted..
Catch a Falcon 9 first
Great video! Thank you.
♥️♥️♥️
I think Elon’s estimation of a 50% probably of success catching the booster is accurate. The planned alternative to land the booster in the ocean if something isn’t right, makes sense. It’s a risk that must be taken in order to move forward. Failure is always an option. Without failure, success isn’t possible.
Great comment, bro👍
they should use a crane to to a sorta catch test with a booster
I think it will land, and be successful, however, i think it will damage the grid fins on he first landing from coming down harder than the vehicle structure can support hold when you include velocity.
Let's wait for their next feats
Apparently MUSK is going to strap a big apple AI watch to the booster
They could do practice catches for either stage by using the 10k launch of a starship much like the early landing tests of several years ago.
Personally I'd want at least 2 virtual tower landings before trying the real one, but then I'm not Tony Stark, I mean ELon Musk.
Very concerned... Sticking a landing within inches of the catch-pins. None of their re-used boosters have even demonstrated this pin-point accuracy that starship booster will need. How big/small are the catches... 6 to 8"?
Maybe SpaceX should put adapters on the Chopsticks to allow a Falcon 9 test booster to land there first.
See if they can do it with a Falcon 9 before doing the big boomba!
Oh ok. I was not aware that the flap issue was the reason but that would make sense.
Thanks
Fascinating
😂😂😂
Absolutely yes.
i think they should build first second tower before making any attempts for catching buster . If something goes wrong with catching and tower is damaged they wont have delays with next flights ...
👍👍👍
You think that if something goes wrong there wouldn't already be a delay with the next flight due to investigation?
Hmm..why not construct a stand alone catch-tower with no infrastructure close by and have a mobile transporter move stuff around? If something goes sideways, only one tower and one set of mecazillas are lost. Would be a lot cheaper and quicker to replace, i think..
Quite impossible at this launch site on protected land. Maybe in Florida, or on a sea platform. Their plan is rapid reusability, so no time to transport. I just think it's too soon to test it.
@@matfax Mmm..good point about the protected land..it is a bit cramped over there. But i think rapid reuse wont be a problem once enough ships are in circulation. Eventually they will have 3-5 in line waiting to get launched and will have time to move resently landed ones.
I agree with Elon that the chance is 50/50 - So in the 50% chance the catch can't happen, that might come down to 40% it successfully ditches, then a further 10% chance scenario that they attempt a catch but it fails.
In the case of a failed catch attempt, I would estimate it comes down to 5% chance (overall) in relatively minor damage that can be fixed in a few weeks/months and then in absolute worse case a 2.5% chance the damage to the tower is substantial, in which case they may need to wait several months until the new tower is installed/completed or the original tower is repaired.
I think in the scheme of things, a 2.5% chance (of severe tower & stage 0 damage) is acceptable risk versus the risk of delaying the development program.
NASA wants SpaceX to refuel Starship with Tanker next Year and Elon also wants Starlink to launch on Starship - Both goals require rapidly proving the full re-usability of Starship. I read a comment where someone said (or paraphrased) SpaceX's philosophy as: Waste steel, not time.
As others have said the booster needs to able to hover precisely above the tower before they attempt to catch it. But to be honest I think it’s a bit farcical. Having the booster and starship caught by mechazilla is not mission critical for trips to mars or the moon. I hope spacex isn’t diverting too many resources to perfect that type of landing and thereby delaying mars/moon trips. Will be spectacular to watch them try it tho…..excitement guaranteed.
Question: What is the allowable timing deviation between booster engine cutoff and the chopsticks holding all of the booster's weight? If the engines cut off too quickly before the chopsticks have control of it, the booster will fall and its momentum will probably damage the tower. If the engines cut off too late when the chopsticks are holding most of the weight, the thrust from the engines may be enough to propel the booster upwards briefly before it then falls back onto the chopsticks, damaging them.
This stuff is sci fi. I love it!
Yeah!!! Hope that it will succeed
Seeing how amazing dji drones can fly, using that with the starships gimble jets .. its very possible it will land flawlessly..
What I would do is practice the booster/stage 0 snatch action a couple times by simply launching the booster alone up to about 10,000ft and then returning it. No Starship involved in this test. And if you don't go above 10k feet, do you need an FAA license at all? I'm a little concerned about the approach to stage 0 on the return and the dynamics of the snatch. Water landings are not gonna alleviate this. Catching a booster at much slower descent speeds might help iron out those needed details.
Hi great 👍 video let’s hope it goes well for space x 🚀🇬🇧❤️👌👍
Have a nice day ☺️
I would do a second landing test before "smashing" the tower
What make you worry about the landing?
Or have a designated alternative water landing area close to Starbase, if too many unexpected events happen, during the catch attempt. It should be a reserved area in the booster's expected flight return path.
@@colonbina1 Neither Starship or the Booster has demonstrated the ability to hover for several minutes until they do a return to base catch is NOT possible.
If flight 5 attempts a tower catch landing we'll be saying "Goodbye" to Tower 1
an empty booster wouldnt cause that much damage
You were likely one of the same people saying “reUsABilITy iS iMpOsSibLe” when they built falcon.
😂😂😂
@@The1QwertySky Not totally empty residual fuel is more explosive
@@colemiller8685 Not impossibe just difficult I hope they keep trying till they get it right
Yes absolutely, I’m confident that SpaceX will successfully achieve success of landing the rocket with the Megazilla arms!
Yeah yeah
Question: What is the latest abort point for a Starship booster catch attempt? How long after a booster catch attempt is decided on can the attempt be aborted and the booster flown to a safe crash area? How close to the tower can the booster get before SpaceX is in a "catch or die" situation? NOTE: The more abort margin SpaceX leaves, the more fuel will have to remain in the booster which means a bigger BOOM if there is a crash!
I think they should just install airbags all over the SH and let it bounce !
Plans for separate lunch and catch towers? Over on the UA-cam channel “Scientists plus“, they’re talking about SpaceX planning to have separate towers to launch starship and then to catch starship. This makes sense to me. Have you heard anything like this?
Yeah, keep following and discussing this on our channel ☺️
Yes
♥️♥️♥️
Yes!
♥️♥️♥️
I'd like to see an animation of the booster catch played in real time
Yeah yeah
Good morning
Have a good day!!!
Have a nice day 🤗
they should do a hard landing on land for the scrap metal
IMHO is too early to try to catch it. Like the 1st Staship launch was too early and destroied the tower, it should try another soft landing in the ocean before try to catch it
That's not spaceX style, they always push the envelope. If anyone can do this they can 😎
Yeah, I'd think they would try and land it in a specific target area and check for center accuracy as well as proper orientation. I have to imagine this is what they were doing with the soft landing in the water though.
Agreed. Although it takes a lot of fuel to hover so they can't do it very long.
👍👍👍
So 50% is not good. The engine problem has not been solved, and Raptor is NOT reliable. The launch tower and mount will be sacrificed. I believe he should wait till the Raptor problems be corrected first, before landing in Starbase.
Yes I believe with the minds that work behind the scenes at SPACE X have their #@=× together. The thing that bothers me is equipment failure and having to abort the landing. I really hope and pray 🙏 that they can work out all the little bugs. At my age I probably will not see people landing on Mars but I believe that if everything goes SPACE-X way I could possibly see them put people on the moon. Wish my health was better I would love to at least go watch a launch. Anyway BEST OF LUCK TO THE TEAM AT SPACE~X.😊🎉
🚀🚀🚀
Should delay to 6 or later as 50-50 chance is a bad bet for millions $ and months of repairs. And put 5 to 10 drones to catch all the data they can up close.
I wonder if they will activate the water deluge system for the landing
They do
They did it during flight 4 just a bit later
They will do everything as long as it's necessary
Question: What is the acceptable amount of deviation for the vertical center of the booster while approaching and hovering next to the tower? If the booster come down in a curved trajectory, the grid fins could strike the upper part of the tower and throw the booster out of vertical and out of control. If the booster is hovering too close or too far from the tower, the chopsticks may not close properly and the booster go out of control. If the booster is too far to the left or right, same thing. What is the tolerance here? If Does the booster have very fast acting lateral thrusters, are they fast enough to move the booster before disaster? If the booster is too far out of tolerance, what is the latest abort point? If an abort decision is made, where will the booster go to crash if it starts the abort right next to the tower?
I admire SpaceX a lot .I just cannot imagine that thing landing on those arms successfully but I admit I was shocked when they began to land the smaller ones. Maybe .
♥️♥️♥️
I like how you tell SpaceX what to do to fix their systems because of course, they don't know.
Keep following and discussing on our channel ☺️
SpaceX launch pad
Why is the launchpad not secured with the Heat Shield Pads?
The Heatshield Pads are the best protection against the raptors.
I don't remember the exact numbers but the engines are basically breaking the sound barrier continuously, they would destroy the tiles in milliseconds.
The legs and lower half of the OLM should be encased with ablative heat shielding.
A previously recommended flame diverter trench could provide reusability on takeoff and landing from the same orbital launch mount. Time will still be required for inspection and for possible replacement of orbiter tiles. For safety, the tank farm even in the horizontal position appears way too close to be near landings. I suggest the entire tower be surrounded by a half mile of water at least 100 ft deep. For the booster landing, a fast downward vertical velocity may damage both the booster and the catching arms. Compression air bags and and/or shock absorbers in the catching arms may help At sea a large, strong, high temperature life raft could catch the booster tipping over after an accurate return while keeping the engines dry to prevent thermal shock. Such a raft could be towed onshore for booster inspection, potential engine replacement, testing and reuse. Flight testing at sea, booster recovery may be the simplest and safest with potentially the fewest iterations; moreover, it would build on flight four and not distract from the goals of future flights.
50/50
Risk but so excited
The forces on the grid fins caused a lot of chatter. I did not think that was ok. More hydraulic pressure might be the answer or longer actuator arms..
The grid fins on SH are electrically actuated
I also noticed the forces on the grid fins and like you was concerned that some sort of grid fin failure was incoming if not in that flight then in forth coming flights if not addressed.
After having watched this whole thing unfold from afar I am thinking the booster could make the target, but perhaps not get caught and then there would be significant delay due to the resulting Stage 0 issues. I would say, let it land on another landing pad (or barge off the coast (can you catch it in the fairing nets?)) to get the final steerage worked out. Sure it might fall over and go boom, but that last bit of data (and I do not know what info you may have) might protect Stage 0 at the highest confidence. (Can you get a big enough flattop somewhere you could put off the coast of Boca Chica for this?) Hey, if you are ready, you are ready, so just ignore me and send it! This has been so fun to spectate!
I agree, as written in previous video's comments maybe they are ready to risk the full launch tower because they know it need a full upgrade for Starship V2 and V3...
There is only one thing that can protect the launch tower from the worlds biggest most powerful gas cutting torch, that is the starship exhaust.
The heat shield tiles, but built much larger for flat surfaces.
The only metal that can withstand that gas torch exhaust is Tungsten, and then only for a short while.
Otherwise kiss landing at the tower goodbye, you need an undamaged tower for landing.
Also kiss quick turnaround goodbye, you need an undamaged tower for quick turnaround .
SpaceX needs to Think about the Down Range / Landing Tower and " Surrounding Area " Especially Leeward / seaside...because of Booster Engine Exhaust .
The OLM has the water deluge system , the area around the launch tower Doesn't....!
In the words of the guy from the old TV show Get Smart, "missed it by this much" while holding two fingers close together is my prediction.
The 9km/hr shown on the tv data screen probably wasn't accurate. It was most likely filtered through several pieces of other software before being shown on the screen you watch for the little data display along with the engine status circles. These are great for us watching but unlikely to be 100% accurate. Like a cheap GPS speedo. I'd be guessing they either got to zero or really close to be happy to go ahead with a catch attempt.
There’s aggressive, and there’s too aggressive. Attempting a landing on the only launch pad available is a bad idea. Landing on a launch tower is itself a bad idea when a catch-only tower would be so much simpler to build and maintain. Destroy it, and you can still launch and experiment. Destroy the existing tower, and likely the launch mount, would take months to repair. Would definitely like to know Ms Shotwell’s thoughts on the subject.
Just some more people who think they are better then the thousands of engineers at spaceX
😂😂😂
Will the booster have enough fuel to make it back to the tower and hover long enough to be caught? It seemed in IFT4 it barely enough fuel to do more then a short suicide burn
well, make it back to the shore and then to the tower and then hover. at least that's what i gathered from the video
@@nadca2 Yes but there is not sufficient fuel to do that. What will spacex do to increase the fuel capacity as they will need atleast 5% more fuel
@@stephen5465 maybe they're using the lighter raptor 3, combined with hot stage jettison being *just* enough? i have no idea
Yes - In testing phase they aren't needing to deliver any payload to orbit - So there should be margin (only just) with Raptor 2.0 / 2.5.. When they get to Raptor 3 and Stretch the Design with Starship 2.0, there will be plenty of margin.. Also the main reason for F9s suicide burn is that with the small number of engines and that the engines can't throttle lower than 40%. With Superheavy booster, there is much more granular control over thrust (different geometries of engines can be selected/deselected quickly)... I am guessing they will have plenty of margin for a hover... We will see soon!!
I would like to see animation of the entire path of the bossier for its return to the launch tower.
ua-cam.com/video/nYic8Od-Gsg/v-deo.html
Yeah, we will try to find it and update to you as soon as possible
@@colonbina1 mate are you a bot? i just replied to his message with a link to a flight 5 animation lmao
Continuar.
Falcon was first caught in Dec 2015 And has been successful over 300 times. That is a huge data base of glitches.
Which knowledge has allowed building-in fixes of anticipated problems.
It is not that new problems will not occur with a new vehicle. But their number will be significantly reduced.
Increasing the probability of success.
It's like saying "Publisher X has produced good games in the past, so this complete overhaul will be fine".
like i thought that this will happen in 2026, not now
Yes it will land on the tower but both craft and tower will not leave unscathed.
In the fourth edition of the license, it is necessary to provide for the scenario of destortion of the booster 12 if the conditions for catching are unfavorable, the use of the flight termination system means an investigation and significant delays before flights 6 and 7, provided that the fragments of the booster do not go beyond the danger zone. And they will not cause damage to people and property.
Great analysis
@@colonbina1 what does detonation of the accelerator 12 if conditions for fishing are unfavorable mean
@@fionajack9160 Booster 12 destruction, is carried out in cases where the conditions for catching with the arms of Mechazilla, In particular, in the event of engine failure, too high a descent speed or deviation from the landing trajectory. Any use of the safety system for the purpose of early termination of the flight, unless otherwise specified by the license, is considered an mishmap. Any incident requires investigation.
His going to have to have WATER to absorb the noises and heat of the engine s. Not only will it deny it upstanding towers. But blow dust,machinery vehicles and any loose items on the launch pad off. That 50% rate is way too high. Since it will even blow down The SpaceX wall and sign. Destroying the tower means no moon landing op or re-fill attempts and the other launch plans I’m sorry Elon I have to disagree with this decision. I agree you have achieved the greatest outcomes until this point. But doing this without a backup tower. And PS new launches require different licences from FAA to launch from A 2nd Tower. That is a typical FAA catch-Line. ReRead be sure.
Yes , if they can fine tune the engines and positioningsystems it is perfect posible , i believe they will sukseed in the mission
👍👍👍
i believe they will catch it but might bend the grid fins a little
Nothing risked nothing lost but nothing gained. Pray it goes well.
♥️♥️♥️
There is still wobbling of the booster through Mach 2 they have to fix this else there’s 50/50 chances of risking the tower
What the fuck are you talking about?
@RyanGribble what he said makes sense although i dont think it will be much of an issue. As Elon said it will be targeted over the water so most of the accuracy/movement required will be during the landing burn. The booster should be able to hover unlike the falcon 9 so should provide a little bit more time to control the catch
If the Flight 5 booster isn't going to be reused as it is obsolete the second it is launched ... why risk even the slightest delay caused by even minimal damage to the tower or more likely the chop sticks. I guess it would be available for inspection, but it is probably so instrumented that that value is limited (not zero).
So is there a reason they don't build landing legs onto the starship? Like Falcon 9 has? Or is it too much extra weight?
Efficiency. Instead of having to go pick up the booster and then transport it back to the launch pad, mechzilla puts it back in ready position without all the manual intervention. The rate they want to launch starships in the future is almost daily.
@@WayPastCrazy2525 Ah i see i see. Good explanation.
And the weight. “The best part is no part.”
On the moon and Mars they will have landing legs but the gravity is so much less they won’t need to be as heavy.
They'll have more fuel for maneuvering and hovering if they take off from StarBase and land at Cape Canaveral.
A boost-back from near orbit takes lots of fuel to make it back to the takeoff site.
Why not land downrange?
That was said by someone that can't park own car. Maybe SpaceX is loosing a great brain. 😂😂😂
i wonder why it was so much slower off the pad
SpaceX experimenting with launch clamp release times.
I suspect it was more than likely the cause for the one Raptor engine that failed shortly after the ship was released.
will they put the booster back onto the OLM or onto a transport stand ?, the OLM is always busted after a launch.
On the off chance that they actually manage to catch the booster they would have to lower it back onto the OLM because there wouldn't be a transporter or personnel close to the OLM for several hours for safety reasons.
The damage caused to OLM after launch is usually minimal and not structural.
@@straighttalk2069 Having to replace most or all of the lock down clamps means "minimal damage" ?
This guy uploads 2 videos a day based on samething, now you imagine, he has a lot to say. But is it anything about the title says...(just same previous test results, isn't it)
Alguém assistindo??🎉🎉🎉
I remind myself that they are experts at precision landing. They would have compared the landing accuracy of the Big Booster with the Falcon 9 landings before making this statement. High anxiety though; if the tower goes kaboom! it will delay the program by months?
It's why they are building another one as we speak. I have a lot of doubts about this entire program myself but they do surprise me on a regular basis so we will see. The other thing people need to remember is that this base is just a test base. When they get the all clear, all future launches will happen at the NASA facility from what Elon has said in the past.
9 Km/Hr is walking speed, I have worked in areas where the speed limit was 10 Kmh and I frequently passed vehicles doing that speed (I was wearing overalls and boots and I wasn't young)).
I would guess the nay sayers don't realize just how slow that is.
Nothing higher than a zero KM/HR hover for several minutes between the catch arms will be successful.
I have a Starship question: We witnessed the 'burning up' of one fin during re-entry (flight 4), but the ship could still function. Did we see a demonstration of the power of AI to compensate for hardware failures?
AI was not on this flight. What you saw was just good ol stainless steel
well, if by power of AI to compensate, you mean, the software programming, then yes
@@AnunnakiAaron I wouldn't call the flap control software AI. It uses sensors to sense the attitude of StarShip and a control loop to maintain orientation but that was being done in WWII with the V2. I doubt they have code that accounts for half a flap.
even if the Rocket fails to land you have a lot of nice valuable scrap metal that is on land not water that you can recycle, why let the rocket go to waste by sinking in the ocean, as for the olm, SpaceX has plenty of welders and electricians and plumbers to fix the Damage
👍👍👍
Falcon 9 boosters land on a moving drone ship so i say its plausible a starship booster can be caught ! If there are any anomalies with the booster even a few miles from the catch they will just destroy it ! 💢
Yeah
Fantesticul?
So is the booster too large to land on a landing pad?
"The decision to catch the booster with the arms rather than landing with landing legs was made to enable flights and reduce the rocket's mass and part count"
👍👍👍
1. Rocket is too massive to make landing legs
2. Having the rocket landed in the same state it took off in allows for rapid reusability in the future (if it were to land on a pad it would need to be transported back to the launch tower)
3. Landing legs would make it heavier
@@natix1_ Points 2 and 3 are correct. Point 1 is not.
Point 1 is incorrect is because it is possible to put legs on the Booster - It's just that it would reduce the mass to orbit and increase the reuse time.
Granted, the booster would need significant redesign (larger chines+COPVs to pressurize outer engines) and it's mass to orbit would be further reduced because stage 0 would not be able to supply fuel to the outer engines (and legs wouldn't fit in stage 0).... But Space X are clever - it should be possible to design delployable legs that stay out of the way (similar to F9's deployable legs) - So by clever leg design it may be possible to keep Stage 0 as it is...
But hopefully SpaceX never need to go down this road if the Mechazilla Catches work reliably ;)
Sometimes Elon just gets a little to antsy to move forward in trying to accomplish the next leap forward in technology for his on good!!!!!
♥️♥️♥️
there is nothing wrong with ants in your pants,
That's how you push the envelope.. if you are afraid to fail, you will never make progress. We take the falcon 9 landing for granted now.
Mechazila can go up down with one speed. So ships need Mach that speed or below. My noob opinion.
👍👍👍
Booster gone fission..... I know, I know.... Bad dad joke. 🙂
Can I get a Wow
Wow wow😮
Hard in flight 5
Why do you think so?
@@colonbina1 Although I'm not an expert, but since we've seen despite good performance of raptor engines, some 1-2 shutdown, so luckily we didn't see any mid 3 engine failing, but catching booster in flight 5 needs a lot of precision, They will nail it within flight 6-7-8 but it's hard in flight 5.
Just a few meters off will destroy the launch site completely...