But look how it's paying off for them! Back in 2020 they only thought they'd be on Mars by now. But look! They're already doing booster relights and soft splashdowns. It's almost going TOO fast. 🤔
@@zotfotpiq relax lil bro, every company yapps timelines. But looking at it without the promises they are innovating so fast! Rockets that have been in development before falcon 9 even landet it's first time still haven't flown ONCE! and when they do the first launch it takes years for the next one. Starship has launched 5 times already, at probably less of the cost of ONE SLS launch. And it pays off!
As far as I know, there was nothing which the FAA would consider a failure, so I don't think they have to submit any accident investigation reports this time.
Yup. Now it's up to SpaceX to compile all data and implement fixes and tweaks. 4-6 weeks depending if they will aim directly for catching or they will try again with soft landing for confirmation
@@SuprSBG was included as one of the systems under test, and as such, a failure, especially as it did not result in any wreckage outside the designated landing areas, is considered with the launch license, and not a mishap requiring a formal investigation.
Assuming no ground systems repair again. Hopefully they've made enough robustness fixes after each flight so that hoses and shields don't need to be replaced. The current flight hardware i believe is finished and just needs testing. @@just_archan
@@just_archanhard to say. It could be a supersonic cone that was created in that part of the air. It could also be a startup puff of gas that forms that cone because of the supersonic speed.
@@just_archanthat is in fact a vapor cone as a result of interactions between a vehicle in the trans-sonic region and humid air. The gas youre referring to is nigh invisible in these conditions.
I was wondering if we had footage, especially in flight three, seeing as it got pretty close! Glad we got to see the booster from another angle; it performed spectacularly!
@@Eman-vp5wk Maybe they didn't want a video of a Superheavy falling over and exploding to be floating around just yet. SpaceX hasn't been shy about showing their rockets exploding in the past but controlling *when* that video goes out is reasonable PR.
@@facedeerI have another theory. That perhaps a landmark in the background when it panned down would have given away the target location and prompted treasure hunters.
Heyyyy..... yeah... why did they do that? I noticed we had the better third person view of the booster for a little bit and then For some reason they went to the crappy first person view of the booster. Why did they do that? I wanted to see it splash from a distance.
@@Eman-vp5wkI'm sure they had their reasoning. I would speculate that there was some landmark visible once it panned down that would identify where it landed and they don't want treasure hunters going after it.
SpaceX have been landing boosters for a long time and the expertese they gained from that is obviously helping with getting the SH booster to exactly the right spot to be caught. Have to say IFT-4 was incredibly exciting to watch but seeing a booster literally get caught out of the air is going to be an insane thing to witness.
I'm believing that they'll get to catch the boosters...which will be a massive savings into the future, but I'm worried about the Starship being able to re-enter without damage. That's a TALL order especially after watching the fin burn away...that would suck SO bad being on that ship and seeing it burning away control surfaces. Lots of work to be done on Starship and they might eventually make disposable versions which would be easier than making one live happily through the heat.
It still seems like an incredibly risky strategy considering the only purpose for doing this is to eliminate the need for landing legs. Musk wants to make space travel more like commercial aviation but we don't take the landing gear off airliners and attempt to catch them at the destination airport!
@@recoilrob324I think the plan is to reposition the fins so the hinges are out of the plasma. The hinge is the weak point because it leaves a gap and exposes parts which can’t be shielded with tiles. I’m sure this is fixable. I think their biggest challenge will be catching the booster with enough precision to avoid wiping stage zero out.
@@brucelytle1144 6km off target ? In short, as fan boys will proclaim it, a SUCCESS. Isn't it amazing how good they are, the empty badly damaged melted scrap metal fell into the correct ocean. WHOA What a feat of engineering. (yes, sarcasm)
I don't think they'll attempt a booster catch until the second tower is built. If they damage their only tower it'll be a long pause before we see another launch.
@@ГришкаБулатовHe didn't say when is 'next'. I think he also said they will relocate the fins on the Ship to mitigate the plasma burn- through issue. It may give them more time to build the second tower.
If he does miss the catch, I'm sure the FAA is going to wait for an accident report, which may take long enough for the second tower to be completed during the investigation
As an old Science Fiction fan, one who thinks his dreams of ever seeing the stars in person or walking on another planet died decades ago in the abomination that was the Space Shuttle, I watch those videos with the wonder of a 16-year-old boy that understands that this is the step into the stars, finally. It is primitive to what we will have in decades, but it is so much better than what we had for decades, and it follows the old dreams of Werner Von Braun - the man who invented basically rockets and then after WW2 the NASA Space Program. And it is not that. AI is coming, Fusion is close, we work on medicines that would have been seen impossible a decade ago, and long life - let's not say immortality - is around the corner. The young boy in me, one that thought his dreams are dead for decades, smiles.
@@LuMaxQFPV Yeah, that one was interesting enough one of my "man, the teeth will be a problem" things and guess what - they are in the process of being solved. Insanity for sure.
@@stevenobrien557 Yeah, promises broken - also, they never really went anywhere with it, in terms of further development. It was a dead end, sign of bad engineering way below the plans. And then there was a crazy company names SpaceX and suddenly things move.
It was probably related to the middle-ring engine that failed to re-ignite. They'll figure out what happened and design a fix for IFT5. Even then, it landed, so it's not a big deal.
At 2:29 it appears there is a 3D (insta 360) style cam set up as you can see the "digital cut" during the feed which may not mean that they had cameras pinpointed. but either way was a nice landing as alway by Space X. and an even cooler flight.
Musk said they would change the position of the flaps to eliminate the disintegration of the flap seen on this flight. I would say it is very likely they will catch the Super Heavy on the next flight. Whether they try to catch the Star Ship is another matter. I don't think they are there yet. I think there is still a long road ahead on the tiles.
Yeah the next iteration or version of starship has its flaps moved more leeward. Basically they already know this issue and already had a solution for it, still not a guaranteed solution and needs to be tested out but yeah I'm impressed!
@@Jamux69 - some tiles are still disintegrating so moving the the flaps alone won't solve the problem. If I had to use tiles, I would bake the pin into the tile using a matrix screen and attach the pin into a locking mechanism on the rocket. That's reverse of what they are doing now. You can see the rocket side disintegration of the ceramic material around the pin caused by vibration and heat, etc. - it's a breaking point. I believe the tiles could be increased in size and made generally thinner with fewer pins. That's my take on it:-)
@@rocroc If the flaps are moved more to the leeward side of the ship it stands to reason that they receive less heating from reentry at least at the base of the flap which is the most vulnerable point anyway. Then it is only the outter end of the flap that would take the heat. The tiles could be made thicker like you suggest. Moving the flaps more to the leeward side could cause the ship to lose some stability on descent, but that is not obvious either.
@@rocroc That's the point why they are moving the flaps leeward, to avoid direct stress from the heat and the hinges where the plasma was able to pass through, if tiles was the problem the whole ship could have disintegrated already.
@@rocroc That was because the heat was getting in through the hinge seam. If you can avoid that by moving the hinge to a more protected spot, the flat parts should be fine.
@@michaeldeierhoi4096 I agree. One of the on-board cameras shows the touchdown up to the point where the booster starts to fall over. No explosion was evident up to the point that clip ends.
@@michaeldeierhoi4096 No I mean on the time the camera went off and the booster was falling over and also I am just assuming and I didn't say it didnt touch down. Just one reason in my mind why the camera went off right away not even half way it was falling over and also not showing it to us from the buoy cam.
Why do they follow the booster almost to the water, then switch cameras to looking down on the booster. I want to see video of it actually landing, straight up, on the water. This cutting off vids at what should be the best parts is starting to get real suspect! 😠
I'm such a fan boy! They'll get it right and perfect it. Each attempt is exponential progress. I feel like such a chimp in comparison with these brilliant humans. Never gets old
If you haven't been down to see the beautiful Starship on the OLM, what are you doing with your life? It's truly a marvel of human engineering. To think humans went from building huts from mud and straw to this is astounding. My first trip to Boca Chica brought tears to my eyes.
You didn't read the memo? NASA already landed in Mars in 1976 and a total of TEN Mars landings by robotic, uncrewed spacecraft have had successful soft landing. There were six crewed landings between 1969 and 1972, and numerous uncrewed landings. All crewed missions to the Moon were conducted by the Apollo program, Did you heard of the Saturn v? As of 2024, the Saturn V remains the only launch vehicle to have carried humans beyond low Earth orbit (LEO). The Saturn V holds the record for the largest payload capacity to low Earth orbit, 311,152 lb (141,136 kg), which included unburned propellant needed to send the Apollo command and service module and Lunar Module to the Moon.
@@joannewilson6577I didn't see where they discredited the Apollo missions, but rather at celebrating the next chapter that THEY get to witness. So many of us were born in the Space Shuttle era, we never saw a moon landing, so getting to see the next generation go back to the moon to verify the tech, then heading to Mars is really incredible.
The chopsticks can swing quite a bit, and also have the treadmills to move the caught booster into the correct position for the mount, so accuracy could be more than just a few feet off without impacting the catch. Rotation is a bit more important though, msybe theyll make the catch points a lot wider to give them more leeway there.
I think the hardest part of a rapid turnaround is the orbital launch table. Getting it back into serviceable condition takes a lot of time, well it has so far. Also the Ship Quick Disconnect arm looked skewed again. If they have to do major repairs each time then it will be quite awhile before we get much shorter between launches. I can't wait for the next one 👍
@@karlwest437 agree 100%. But until they do that it won't be a quick turnaround. I'd also like to see if the Booster QD faired any better this time with the changes they made.
I think the smart way to try catching the booster would be to have a dedicated catch tower that has plenty of clearance from all the fuel and O2 tanks. Also there is so much stuff that has taken a long time to build on the current launch tower and the platform that would not necessarily be needed for a dedicated catch tower. If the build a separate tower I don’t think the platform would be needed at all if the booster was not taking off front m that tower, which would then mean the whole tower could be significantly shorter that the current tower.
As to doing a "Catch" with the 5th flight, it brings back watching Star Wars in 76' when first released; when Han Solo said " I have a bad feeling about this...". Risk to the Starship and booster is assumed, but heavy damage to the Tower or surrounding infrastructure is pushing your luck. Another landing test at least or two to get some assurance of a stable controlled hover at the target LZ would be a really really good idea....
Seeing that booster hang itself up on that tower, like a wall phone gets hung up, will be the most spetacular thing ever to see. It would bee a whole lot easier to have the booster just parachute into the water. Then a boat crew pulling it to shore.
sea-water is not realy that good for any type of machine.. you realy dont want to deal with that for something that should be rapidly reuseable AND good enough to be launched into space..
I wonder how fast can the chopsticks close up to catch the booster? How long will the booster need to hover before chopsticks can grab onto it? WIll it have enough fuel for that? As for the catch attempt. I think they should do that with IFT 6. Try to duplicate this soft splash down first with IFT 5. Or at least when the 2nd OLM is in place.
Since the chop sticks can close in a matter of seconds the booster would not have to hover long at all. The harder part is lining up the catch pins on the booster meaning that the booster has to be rotated to the proper orientation as it approaches the chop sticks.
i saw a video where they already have a fix for the rotation in case the pins don't line up. But I have never seen the chopsticks close in real time. So I have no idea how fast it moves.
Next launch within 30 days - they have the new license thingy with the FAA and the launch mount took minor damage. They already have Block 2 ready to go, this launch and the next are Block 1 launches because what else are they supposed to do with them? The launch cadence with the new license is going to increase drastically.
My concern was the landing burn up here to be a little late or the velocity a little high that grid fin looked like it was just about ready to be ripped off Honestly it's incredibly impressive at hell together and then starship holy cow that thing got absolutely totally burnt and roasted and that freaking flapron still worked! Either pure luck or pure marvel of engineering or both
I was not sure about catching the booster but after seeing this external video i think elon is right to attempt a catch next flight. This was a precise steady landing despite what looks like engine RUD in one the raptor center engines. Recovering this booster would have accelerated the journey to booster reusability.
In order to have rapid reusability they have to land the rocket on the same infrastructure that's going to launch it if they landed it on a separate structure they would not be able to execute rapid reusability
@@nerys71 for development, they should have a seperate catch tower. Isn't the plan to have 2 towers in Texas.. they can put up part of the 2nd tower, enough structure for catch only testing.
@@KrustyKlown why would they build a whole new tower, dedicated entirely to a singular catch test? The point is to be able to catch and then relaunch *rapidly*. At least within in the same day. The only way to do that is if the catch tower and launch tower are the same tower.
With how well it went, I would be surprised if they don’t try to catch it in the next two flights. I think the launch cadence will increase and they might be smart to try the catch on the 6th flight so they have more data before trying. Especially as they need to nail down and test a new fin design with starship. They also need to address the engine failures.
Either they will go for a fast fifth launch to get more data before attempting the catch or they'll stay on the ground a bit longer to make sure everything is ready for the catch. I'm wondering which of these options they will prioritize because if they wait and fail the catch it will set them behind more than just going the safe route and going for one more "quick" test flight before attempting the catch. I doubt that the mostly empty booster can would cause much damage to the ground infrastructure but a flight 5 seems more sensible without the catch.
They can't afford the ring's mass. That's one reason they jettisoned it, and why there is no dummy payload. This version of the vehicle is too heavy, and the raptors are not quite powerful enough. Yet!
@jackmorrison8269 . Then you will have to make it even taller to put more even fuel it to carry the extra mass of the first lot of fuel you put in it. ... This really is rocket science 😅
@@jackmorrison8269there is an eventual point of diminishing returns, where you're just flying it to get it to space, but you don't have any weight capacity to haul anything.
I'm one of the biggest SpaceX skeptics out there but the booster relight was legitimately encouraging. I'll still complain that, if they'd accepted the help from the army corps of engineers in the first place, they may have been able to attempt the exact same thing as early as ift1... but it was still impressive AF and I clapped. You know... Maybe SpaceX deserves a little criticism for setting unrealistic expectations with their Mars and HLS timelines. I only had positive feelings about them before they took the Artemis contract.
the melting Starship was not encouraging, but yes, the booster did good, seems they will get to reusability for the booster, IMO, starship won't end up being reusable.
The fact they put a buoy in the middle of the ocean where they wanted the booster to "land", and it landed next to it, proves that the booster's trajectory is controlled with the same level of precision as that of Falcon 9. There's probably a lot of commonality in the guidance software. One thing's for sure, that's definitely a good sign for the upcoming attempt to catch one of those.
In my opinion SpaceX should used all that funding and resources to Starship program towards building a bigger payload fairing to Falcon Heavy. Able to fit a small lander and a kick stage. And then build a Methalox rocket similar to New Glenn, with a flight path similar to Falcon 9 with reentry burn. And then iterate towards a reusable upper stage.
Yes but even though Falcon Rockets are incredible, RP1 ( rocket grade kerosene ) produces a lot of soot necessitating engine overhauls after a limited number of flights or the swapping out an engine that is too clogged with soot. Methalox produces far less soot thus is a better fuel and far easier to handle than Liquid Hydrogen. Methane is natural gas BTW and we all know that it burns much cleaner than Petroleum based fuels
When you consider how difficult it is to get a rocket engine started in the first place, it's so impressive how preceisly the Merlins and Raptors ignite.
The 1,200 km/h to 103 km/h uninterrupted deceleration sequence takes 12.4 seconds (3:04 to 3:16), giving an average of acceleration of -24.57m/s² or ~2.5G of deceleration. It is slowing down pretty hard.
Two posts I'm seeing a lot of: 1) A hop and catch test doesn't make sense. The risk to the tower isn't any less, and if they do the catch attempt on a full stack launch, then at least they get another Starship flight out of it. 2) Having separate towers for catching and launching doesn't make sense in the long run. In the short term, during development, it might make sense. As soon as they're confident they have it down tho, they'll upgrade the second tower for launches. It'd be very expensive to move the full stack to another tower for every launch. Better to just catch it where its next launch will be.
That's what you say other posts are saying, but what is it you are saying? A second launch can only help with at least initially launches taking place at the OLP and catching of the booster and ship at the second tower!!
@@michaeldeierhoi4096 I'm not sure how you might be confused by the first point, so I'll assume you're referring to the second point. The issue is that SpaceX has a contract with NASA to develop, produce, and launch HLS. Long-term, catching Booster is the goal for every flight, but HLS is already behind schedule. It's less risky to not try catching with main tower during these early flights. I'm not saying that's what they'll do, but it's the only reason not catching and launching with _both_ towers would make sense early-on.
@@xitheris1758 I was not confused by the first point just indifferent. I simply try to understand what it is that Space X HAS DONE. I don't care about what they plan to do next. I watch the progress of starship like a long documentary movie. My opinion of whether they try and catch the booster on the next flight is irrelevant.
The starship should have legs too in case the tower has an issue before catching it or if the fins are too burnt up to hold the ship by them. Redundancy is needed once they have people on board.
My only question is why they'd catch the booster this early? I understand the benefits of catching, that being easy and fast removal from the pad and less potential damage to the booster after touching down, but I'd imagine it would make more sense to test the landing at least a few more times with 100% success rate every time (including 100% working engines) before catching it.
60-70 days for next launch. They will definitely perform faster than last time like they always have. But not that fast, but there is a good chance at the end of year they maybe be as fast as 30 days.
So launch 5 is September, and launch 6 in November and 1 more at the end of year, if they need more data. And want to cover quota of 6 launches this year.
Given there was little issue concerning public safety in IFT3 and even less so in IFT4, SpaceX honestly should be given the green light to go as fast as they can without any red tape as long as additional safety concerns don't arise. They've shown that they're at a stage in their development where they can perform these flight tests safely and giving them the power to kick their development process into even higher gear akin to their falcon 9 launch cadence will dramatically speed up the progress made on Starship beyond the incredible pace it's already at in comparison to the rest of the industry and we'll be back on the Moon and finally to Mars before you know it.
@@gdutfulkbhh7537 Somebody in another thread opined that perhaps SpaceX didn't want to give more fuel to the small but very loud crowd who either wouldn't understand or would deliberately misconstrue a toppling, exploding vehicle as "failure ending in a debris field."
The touch down of the booster on the water was not shown nor was any explanation given. So why do some people have this need to assume something is being covered like an RUD? We don't have any information either way so speculation without evidence is the just hubris!! imo
@@gdutfulkbhh7537 They literally have a video up on their channel titled "How not to land an orbital booster" with about a dozen exploding Falcon 9 boosters failing to land. I don't think they are camera shy about some explosions.
Excellent Presentation....the dynamics and Uncertainties of Precise Attitude Control of a ship that huge are presented...................basic wind loads alone on the booster could be 8 to 10 tons... on a moderate day.
My concern is you have one misstep with the arms and you lose the entire tower...and this has to repeat dozens of times...I would think having it land on a platform a short distance away that then rolls up to the tower would be safer and still be efficient...I hope they pull it off.
@@rizizum I get it...but all that needs to happen is for one of the center engines to fail (like the other day), or underperform, and there goes the tower. For this to work they have to land as efficiently, and reliably, as airliners, hundreds of times. I hope it works.
@@reeldealstudios5645 They are kinda already doing that with Falcon 9, they just need to achieve the same reliability with Starship, I'm sure it'll fail in the first tries, and maybe a few more all the way to 100 successful flights or so, but that's a risk SpaceX is willing to take
Rather than risking the tower launch system, SpaceX should build a dummy system to check the aim of the landing and make the tower “disposable.” Sanjosemike (no longer in CA)
If they had some durable netting spread out attached to floats around the landing pad they wouldn`t have to make a perfect landing of the booster every time to be reusable.At least keep it from sinking and aid in recovery. Catching it at the landing pad on land would be the ultimate but you risk losing your launch pad too.Maybe building a dedicated system separate from the launch pad would keep launches on time in case of a botched recovery.
Has SpaceX revealed if a catch would be made in the launch position immediately above the water deluge system or orientated to the side where the boosters and starships are unloaded from their transporters? I guess it depends whether the water deluge system is to be involved in the catches to minimise the risk of damage to the launch infrastructure? Also I'd hate for the auto-termination explosives mounted to the outside of the booster to strike the chopstick arms during a catch.
The data is what really matters. There's very little the hardware could tell them that they couldn't infer from the data. Anything important, they put a sensor on it.
I'm having some real concerns with the raptor engines, they seem much more fragile than the merlin engines used now. I know technically the engine is still a prototype but so far it doesn't seem reliability is all that good. Maybe the next version will be a improvement?
I've got a hunch the video is suddenly cut because the booster exploded. No one seems to mention the steady fueled flame coming out the side that isn't momentary. It's intensely burning till it hits the water and the video mysteriously cuts. Could be from the outer engine that failed on launch. Not sure liquid methane is going to be predictably "safe". An engine lost immediately on launch is most likely from damage from the deluge system still not effectively surpressing all the shock pressure at ignition. Needs a proven flame trench which due to the water table they cant dig. Wonder if they have a flame trench at Cape Canaveral.
is very likely that the booster and starship were destroyed either when they touched the water or when they topple over in water. Even after a light landing when you topple over a thing 70 m high it will hit the water with high force.
I would say it's impressive to see.. But since the tower is stationary I think it would be less risky to build a hole in the ground like the tower just down in the ground with the less risk of ruining the tower if something goes wrong. There is no problem building it like that tower but with a brick wall behind and an angled at one side for getting it to transport and unto a service vehicle.... A squared/rectangle or triangle catching arm with possibility to move in 360 degrees inside the catch system and then you could have rails on the ground the base to the top hanging ready 😊
I don't think that next flight is in three months, because the melting, they need a new design of the wings this will need more time... I wonder how the space shuttle solves the problem with plasma between rocket and wing, I mean there is no room for head shields...
The real question is how to get those flaps to survive and relaunch without replacing the entire flap every time. Way too much heat on that discontinuous surface, right at a joint, no less. Redesign with fully retractable flaps? Contour surface to deflect plasma away from hinge? Whatever they come up with, a major design change is needed.
“SpaceX likes to take the occasional risk”
Understatement of the month.
The goal for Starship Flight 1 was to clear the launch pad...
They weren't sure it would clear the launch pad and they still launched it lol
🤣🤣
But look how it's paying off for them! Back in 2020 they only thought they'd be on Mars by now. But look! They're already doing booster relights and soft splashdowns. It's almost going TOO fast. 🤔
@@zotfotpiq Better late than never, eh? Aerospace projects are pretty much always delayed, no matter who tries.
@@zotfotpiq relax lil bro, every company yapps timelines. But looking at it without the promises they are innovating so fast! Rockets that have been in development before falcon 9 even landet it's first time still haven't flown ONCE! and when they do the first launch it takes years for the next one. Starship has launched 5 times already, at probably less of the cost of ONE SLS launch. And it pays off!
As far as I know, there was nothing which the FAA would consider a failure, so I don't think they have to submit any accident investigation reports this time.
Yup. Now it's up to SpaceX to compile all data and implement fixes and tweaks. 4-6 weeks depending if they will aim directly for catching or they will try again with soft landing for confirmation
Flap?
Also landing 6km off target with ship
@@SuprSBG was included as one of the systems under test, and as such, a failure, especially as it did not result in any wreckage outside the designated landing areas, is considered with the launch license, and not a mishap requiring a formal investigation.
Assuming no ground systems repair again. Hopefully they've made enough robustness fixes after each flight so that hoses and shields don't need to be replaced. The current flight hardware i believe is finished and just needs testing. @@just_archan
look at the size of that vapor cone at 0:37!
It's not vapour. It's propellants during spinning engines. Look at any static fire. They spin turbopumps then fire .
@@just_archanhard to say. It could be a supersonic cone that was created in that part of the air. It could also be a startup puff of gas that forms that cone because of the supersonic speed.
@@just_archanmore likely a shock cone
I did some quick math and based on the booster (71m tall) that cone has a diameter of around 175m! That's 1.6 times the length of a football field!
@@just_archanthat is in fact a vapor cone as a result of interactions between a vehicle in the trans-sonic region and humid air. The gas youre referring to is nigh invisible in these conditions.
I was wondering if we had footage, especially in flight three, seeing as it got pretty close! Glad we got to see the booster from another angle; it performed spectacularly!
IFT3 had a lot of engines fail for its boostback burn, I expect the booster ended up quite far from the intended splashdown location for that one.
Why did they switch to the crappy view just before splashing down?
@@Eman-vp5wk Maybe they didn't want a video of a Superheavy falling over and exploding to be floating around just yet. SpaceX hasn't been shy about showing their rockets exploding in the past but controlling *when* that video goes out is reasonable PR.
@@facedeerI have another theory. That perhaps a landmark in the background when it panned down would have given away the target location and prompted treasure hunters.
I’m just happy we got 3rd person vision of it at all
Next time we'll have multiple cameras watching them try to catch it, can't wait. Gonna be another epic show from starship, it never disappoints.
Heyyyy..... yeah... why did they do that?
I noticed we had the better third person view of the booster for a little bit and then For some reason they went to the crappy first person view of the booster. Why did they do that? I wanted to see it splash from a distance.
@@Eman-vp5wkI'm sure they had their reasoning. I would speculate that there was some landmark visible once it panned down that would identify where it landed and they don't want treasure hunters going after it.
SpaceX have been landing boosters for a long time and the expertese they gained from that is obviously helping with getting the SH booster to exactly the right spot to be caught. Have to say IFT-4 was incredibly exciting to watch but seeing a booster literally get caught out of the air is going to be an insane thing to witness.
I'm believing that they'll get to catch the boosters...which will be a massive savings into the future, but I'm worried about the Starship being able to re-enter without damage. That's a TALL order especially after watching the fin burn away...that would suck SO bad being on that ship and seeing it burning away control surfaces. Lots of work to be done on Starship and they might eventually make disposable versions which would be easier than making one live happily through the heat.
It still seems like an incredibly risky strategy considering the only purpose for doing this is to eliminate the need for landing legs. Musk wants to make space travel more like commercial aviation but we don't take the landing gear off airliners and attempt to catch them at the destination airport!
But landing on I still love you with a 50 ft target area is a lot different when the landing is going to be a matter of inches
@@recoilrob324 The fin issue is just an engineering problem. They have more data points to adjust the ablative tile coverage on the next flight.
@@recoilrob324I think the plan is to reposition the fins so the hinges are out of the plasma. The hinge is the weak point because it leaves a gap and exposes parts which can’t be shielded with tiles. I’m sure this is fixable. I think their biggest challenge will be catching the booster with enough precision to avoid wiping stage zero out.
Now waiting for ground footage of the Starship.
Never going to happen. China doesn't want to show it grabbed it.
It is my understanding, it landed about 6 km off target. This was probably due to damage on re-entry.
If they find it, it'll be right next to MH370!
@@brucelytle1144 6km off target ?
In short, as fan boys will proclaim it, a SUCCESS.
Isn't it amazing how good they are, the empty badly damaged melted scrap metal fell into the correct ocean.
WHOA
What a feat of engineering.
(yes, sarcasm)
?
Its absolutely very exciting to witness SpaceX push space exploration forward
I was hearing some of the media were claiming the booster was wobbly but it wasn't the booster it was the camera
Yeah the media is pretty stupid
Correct. The booster is massive; it physically cannot move as fast as it appeared in the video. It's an artifact of the recording.
It's melted T bottom part 😮 you see the fire is orange 😮
@@PlanXVyeah, rocket motors can burn metal. That was a result of that one motor not relighting.
Wow. Do you remember when the sound level peaked? That landing peaked my eyes similarly. WOW. 😎
incredible , hoping to see another in 60-70 days
I don't think they'll attempt a booster catch until the second tower is built. If they damage their only tower it'll be a long pause before we see another launch.
I would agree with you, but Musk tweeted that they might try it next flight.
@@ГришкаБулатовHe didn't say when is 'next'. I think he also said they will relocate the fins on the Ship to mitigate the plasma burn- through issue. It may give them more time to build the second tower.
If he does miss the catch, I'm sure the FAA is going to wait for an accident report, which may take long enough for the second tower to be completed during the investigation
Why would anyone build failure into their overall timeline.... that's a piss funny attitude... 🤔😂😎🇦🇺👌
That would makse sense, but I don't think you're factoring in Elon. ;-)
I would say if the progress continues at the same rate IFT5 will be in 2 months.
As an old Science Fiction fan, one who thinks his dreams of ever seeing the stars in person or walking on another planet died decades ago in the abomination that was the Space Shuttle, I watch those videos with the wonder of a 16-year-old boy that understands that this is the step into the stars, finally. It is primitive to what we will have in decades, but it is so much better than what we had for decades, and it follows the old dreams of Werner Von Braun - the man who invented basically rockets and then after WW2 the NASA Space Program.
And it is not that. AI is coming, Fusion is close, we work on medicines that would have been seen impossible a decade ago, and long life - let's not say immortality - is around the corner. The young boy in me, one that thought his dreams are dead for decades, smiles.
Don't forget that we also recently had a breakthrough that will allow us to grow new teeth at any age!
@@LuMaxQFPV Yeah, that one was interesting enough one of my "man, the teeth will be a problem" things and guess what - they are in the process of being solved. Insanity for sure.
Space shuttle was cool they just never got the turnaround anywhere near what it was meant to be.
@@stevenobrien557 Yeah, promises broken - also, they never really went anywhere with it, in terms of further development. It was a dead end, sign of bad engineering way below the plans. And then there was a crazy company names SpaceX and suddenly things move.
crewed spaceflight is a waste of resources. there's nowhere to go that is habitable. at least not without warp drive.
Imagine seeing a building falling out of the sky, and then just landing lol.
Its not a building, its a cylinder of metal.
@@paintspot1509 oi, its still a good metaphor considering its the size of a building...
@@paintspot1509a cylinder that's structurally sound and nearly 400ft tall...
Sounds like sci-fi from 20 years ago.
@@jonathanbranyon correct, that all thay impressive when you think about it.
None of them have actually been structurally sound yet either.
I've been waiting for this video since the day it landed. Thanks!
Jeff Bezos is angrily punching air right now
Jeff Who?
Let him pound sand!
And moments later making the engineers finnish the building and testing faster lol
First video of yours I’ve seen. Superb presentation. No bullshit, no cruft. IPO be back.
The yellow flames on the side look to me like sumpin' ain't quite right. Recognizing the degree of difficulty in sticking the landing, Simone.
It was probably related to the middle-ring engine that failed to re-ignite. They'll figure out what happened and design a fix for IFT5. Even then, it landed, so it's not a big deal.
Yah. Not exactly “perfect”.
Great report as always 👍
Thanks so much
At 2:29 it appears there is a 3D (insta 360) style cam set up as you can see the "digital cut" during the feed which may not mean that they had cameras pinpointed. but either way was a nice landing as alway by Space X. and an even cooler flight.
Ahhh finally.. a comment that sees sense.
Bros pumping out these videos! Lets go
fr, its been like 5 in the last 2 days
awesome footage! I have no doubt that they will nail the catch eventually, maybe even on the first attempt. That will be nuts to watch!
Musk said they would change the position of the flaps to eliminate the disintegration of the flap seen on this flight. I would say it is very likely they will catch the Super Heavy on the next flight. Whether they try to catch the Star Ship is another matter. I don't think they are there yet. I think there is still a long road ahead on the tiles.
Yeah the next iteration or version of starship has its flaps moved more leeward. Basically they already know this issue and already had a solution for it, still not a guaranteed solution and needs to be tested out but yeah I'm impressed!
@@Jamux69 - some tiles are still disintegrating so moving the the flaps alone won't solve the problem. If I had to use tiles, I would bake the pin into the tile using a matrix screen and attach the pin into a locking mechanism on the rocket. That's reverse of what they are doing now. You can see the rocket side disintegration of the ceramic material around the pin caused by vibration and heat, etc. - it's a breaking point. I believe the tiles could be increased in size and made generally thinner with fewer pins. That's my take on it:-)
@@rocroc If the flaps are moved more to the leeward side of the ship it stands to reason that they receive less heating from reentry at least at the base of the flap which is the most vulnerable point anyway.
Then it is only the outter end of the flap that would take the heat. The tiles could be made thicker like you suggest.
Moving the flaps more to the leeward side could cause the ship to lose some stability on descent, but that is not obvious either.
@@rocroc That's the point why they are moving the flaps leeward, to avoid direct stress from the heat and the hinges where the plasma was able to pass through, if tiles was the problem the whole ship could have disintegrated already.
@@rocroc That was because the heat was getting in through the hinge seam. If you can avoid that by moving the hinge to a more protected spot, the flat parts should be fine.
0:51 Why is the video cut before the booster settles on the water? It would seem to me that was the whole point of taking the video?
I am assuming they activated fts for it to sink right away and wouldn't want to show the explosion but who knows, that's just what I thought.
@@Jamux69 Except there was no explosion. Only the burning off of excess methane from the engines.
@@michaeldeierhoi4096 I agree. One of the on-board cameras shows the touchdown up to the point where the booster starts to fall over. No explosion was evident up to the point that clip ends.
Perhaps they don't want to share it yet for trade secrets.....etc.... the booster landed as it was supposed too .....almost perfect.
@@michaeldeierhoi4096 No I mean on the time the camera went off and the booster was falling over and also I am just assuming and I didn't say it didnt touch down. Just one reason in my mind why the camera went off right away not even half way it was falling over and also not showing it to us from the buoy cam.
Those flames were mostly the 10 middle raptors shutting down, that one engine already had it's fun before it broke the clouds
Hi from new zealand , watched it live , so cool, like your extra coverage..
Why do they follow the booster almost to the water, then switch cameras to looking down on the booster. I want to see video of it actually landing, straight up, on the water. This cutting off vids at what should be the best parts is starting to get real suspect! 😠
Yes this pisses me off. I want to see if it hovered or slowly landed on the water.
We don't see the actual touch down in the water. Nothing is perfect. It's as if people have to have something to complain about.
Yeah it's all fake! SpaceX isn't real, you can't just. Go there!
@@michaeldeierhoi4096 Or worse, comment self righteously 🙄
Probably BC the steam created covers everything from that angel. And no it is not suspect
I'm such a fan boy! They'll get it right and perfect it. Each attempt is exponential progress. I feel like such a chimp in comparison with these brilliant humans. Never gets old
Excellent summary. Thank you!
try catching NOW, before the second tower is complete, then you can easily make necesarry design changes.
tower is pretty simple any design change woudl be to the arms which can be done at any time really.
If you haven't been down to see the beautiful Starship on the OLM, what are you doing with your life?
It's truly a marvel of human engineering. To think humans went from building huts from mud and straw to this is astounding. My first trip to Boca Chica brought tears to my eyes.
You didn't read the memo?
NASA already landed in Mars in 1976 and a total of TEN Mars landings by robotic, uncrewed spacecraft have had successful soft landing.
There were six crewed landings between 1969 and 1972, and numerous uncrewed landings. All crewed missions to the Moon were conducted by the Apollo program,
Did you heard of the Saturn v?
As of 2024, the Saturn V remains the only launch vehicle to have carried humans beyond low Earth orbit (LEO).
The Saturn V holds the record for the largest payload capacity to low Earth orbit, 311,152 lb (141,136 kg), which included unburned propellant needed to send the Apollo command and service module and Lunar Module to the Moon.
@@joannewilson6577I didn't see where they discredited the Apollo missions, but rather at celebrating the next chapter that THEY get to witness. So many of us were born in the Space Shuttle era, we never saw a moon landing, so getting to see the next generation go back to the moon to verify the tech, then heading to Mars is really incredible.
The chopsticks can swing quite a bit, and also have the treadmills to move the caught booster into the correct position for the mount, so accuracy could be more than just a few feet off without impacting the catch. Rotation is a bit more important though, msybe theyll make the catch points a lot wider to give them more leeway there.
I think the hardest part of a rapid turnaround is the orbital launch table. Getting it back into serviceable condition takes a lot of time, well it has so far. Also the Ship Quick Disconnect arm looked skewed again. If they have to do major repairs each time then it will be quite awhile before we get much shorter between launches. I can't wait for the next one 👍
Maybe the QD arm needs to swing farther back, get itself more out of the way
@@karlwest437 agree 100%. But until they do that it won't be a quick turnaround. I'd also like to see if the Booster QD faired any better this time with the changes they made.
that's why they fly and then make changes and fly again.. until it works?!
I think the smart way to try catching the booster would be to have a dedicated catch tower that has plenty of clearance from all the fuel and O2 tanks. Also there is so much stuff that has taken a long time to build on the current launch tower and the platform that would not necessarily be needed for a dedicated catch tower. If the build a separate tower I don’t think the platform would be needed at all if the booster was not taking off front m that tower, which would then mean the whole tower could be significantly shorter that the current tower.
If the goal is true rapid reuse, you want the booster to land on the tower so it can literally be fueled up and launch again.
Are you going to make videos about every miniscule SpaceX video now? ...I'm all for it.
As to doing a "Catch" with the 5th flight, it brings back watching Star Wars in 76' when first released; when Han Solo said " I have a bad feeling about this...". Risk to the Starship and booster is assumed, but heavy damage to the Tower or surrounding infrastructure is pushing your luck. Another landing test at least or two to get some assurance of a stable controlled hover at the target LZ would be a really really good idea....
Seeing that booster hang itself up on that tower, like a wall phone gets hung up, will be the most spetacular thing ever to see. It would bee a whole lot easier to have the booster just parachute into the water. Then a boat crew pulling it to shore.
quick and economical turnaround =/= landing it in the water
You are wrong
Parachutes aren’t that simple and you have zero idea how huge that parachute would have to be.
sea-water is not realy that good for any type of machine.. you realy dont want to deal with that for something that should be rapidly reuseable AND good enough to be launched into space..
@@LashlayDS9and only a 12 hour turnaround.
I wonder how fast can the chopsticks close up to catch the booster? How long will the booster need to hover before chopsticks can grab onto it? WIll it have enough fuel for that?
As for the catch attempt. I think they should do that with IFT 6. Try to duplicate this soft splash down first with IFT 5. Or at least when the 2nd OLM is in place.
Since the chop sticks can close in a matter of seconds the booster would not have to hover long at all. The harder part is lining up the catch pins on the booster meaning that the booster has to be rotated to the proper orientation as it approaches the chop sticks.
i saw a video where they already have a fix for the rotation in case the pins don't line up. But I have never seen the chopsticks close in real time. So I have no idea how fast it moves.
Next launch within 30 days - they have the new license thingy with the FAA and the launch mount took minor damage. They already have Block 2 ready to go, this launch and the next are Block 1 launches because what else are they supposed to do with them? The launch cadence with the new license is going to increase drastically.
My concern was the landing burn up here to be a little late or the velocity a little high that grid fin looked like it was just about ready to be ripped off
Honestly it's incredibly impressive at hell together and then starship holy cow that thing got absolutely totally burnt and roasted and that freaking flapron still worked! Either pure luck or pure marvel of engineering or both
It is unbelievable impressive. The combined strength of bright minds, effort and funds are really proving its logic.
I was not sure about catching the booster but after seeing this external video i think elon is right to attempt a catch next flight. This was a precise steady landing despite what looks like engine RUD in one the raptor center engines. Recovering this booster would have accelerated the journey to booster reusability.
They should build a landing tower not blow up launch tower
In order to have rapid reusability they have to land the rocket on the same infrastructure that's going to launch it if they landed it on a separate structure they would not be able to execute rapid reusability
@@nerys71 for development, they should have a seperate catch tower. Isn't the plan to have 2 towers in Texas.. they can put up part of the 2nd tower, enough structure for catch only testing.
Yeah but its better to test with the actual tower so they have experience with the actual tower and not just a extra landing pad @KrustyKlown
@@KrustyKlownthe other tower is for double the launches
@@KrustyKlown why would they build a whole new tower, dedicated entirely to a singular catch test? The point is to be able to catch and then relaunch *rapidly*. At least within in the same day. The only way to do that is if the catch tower and launch tower are the same tower.
Excellent synopsis!
With how well it went, I would be surprised if they don’t try to catch it in the next two flights. I think the launch cadence will increase and they might be smart to try the catch on the 6th flight so they have more data before trying. Especially as they need to nail down and test a new fin design with starship. They also need to address the engine failures.
I would rather they launch 200 to 1000 starlink 3 satellites. 5 to 10 launches could easily do that!
That's a lot of space junk. You could close the skies for a century if something went wrong and they weren't deorbited responsibly.
@@gdutfulkbhh7537 I think they nailed getting to orbit, now they just need to come up with a better shield to survive reentry.
@@gdutfulkbhh7537he's got 4k up there now and they will all deorbit within 5 years. Also, he could reasonably launch 250+ on a single flight.
Either they will go for a fast fifth launch to get more data before attempting the catch or they'll stay on the ground a bit longer to make sure everything is ready for the catch.
I'm wondering which of these options they will prioritize because if they wait and fail the catch it will set them behind more than just going the safe route and going for one more "quick" test flight before attempting the catch.
I doubt that the mostly empty booster can would cause much damage to the ground infrastructure but a flight 5 seems more sensible without the catch.
If you can afford a 10ton hotstaging ring, just put fkn landing legs on it and start reusing them like the falcons
legs would weight like 15 tons 😆
@@surf2257 so make the whole thing 10 feet taller and put more gas in it lol
They can't afford the ring's mass. That's one reason they jettisoned it, and why there is no dummy payload. This version of the vehicle is too heavy, and the raptors are not quite powerful enough. Yet!
@jackmorrison8269 . Then you will have to make it even taller to put more even fuel it to carry the extra mass of the first lot of fuel you put in it. ... This really is rocket science 😅
@@jackmorrison8269there is an eventual point of diminishing returns, where you're just flying it to get it to space, but you don't have any weight capacity to haul anything.
I went nuts when they landed in the water and now they’re gonna make me go insane if they actually manage to catch it
I'm one of the biggest SpaceX skeptics out there but the booster relight was legitimately encouraging.
I'll still complain that, if they'd accepted the help from the army corps of engineers in the first place, they may have been able to attempt the exact same thing as early as ift1... but it was still impressive AF and I clapped.
You know... Maybe SpaceX deserves a little criticism for setting unrealistic expectations with their Mars and HLS timelines. I only had positive feelings about them before they took the Artemis contract.
the melting Starship was not encouraging, but yes, the booster did good, seems they will get to reusability for the booster, IMO, starship won't end up being reusable.
@@KrustyKlown Because of the roasting?
it blew up ift1 wtf are you even talking about?
@@KrustyKlown living up to your name lol
@@zachmoyer1849 that musk turned down an offer from the ACoE to build a flame trench before they built stage 0.
The fact they put a buoy in the middle of the ocean where they wanted the booster to "land", and it landed next to it, proves that the booster's trajectory is controlled with the same level of precision as that of Falcon 9. There's probably a lot of commonality in the guidance software. One thing's for sure, that's definitely a good sign for the upcoming attempt to catch one of those.
It is, it's one of the things I was wondering about. I knew they were off target with Starship, but had no word on the booster.
In my opinion SpaceX should used all that funding and resources to Starship program towards building a bigger payload fairing to Falcon Heavy. Able to fit a small lander and a kick stage. And then build a Methalox rocket similar to New Glenn, with a flight path similar to Falcon 9 with reentry burn. And then iterate towards a reusable upper stage.
They don't need all that, they have Starship basically worked out
Yes but even though Falcon Rockets are incredible, RP1 ( rocket grade kerosene ) produces a lot of soot necessitating engine overhauls after a limited number of flights or the swapping out an engine that is too clogged with soot. Methalox produces far less soot thus is a better fuel and far easier to handle than Liquid Hydrogen. Methane is natural gas BTW and we all know that it burns much cleaner than Petroleum based fuels
Why does no one have the full side view camera footage...
When you consider how difficult it is to get a rocket engine started in the first place, it's so impressive how preceisly the Merlins and Raptors ignite.
The 1,200 km/h to 103 km/h uninterrupted deceleration sequence takes 12.4 seconds (3:04 to 3:16), giving an average of acceleration of -24.57m/s² or ~2.5G of deceleration. It is slowing down pretty hard.
Two posts I'm seeing a lot of:
1) A hop and catch test doesn't make sense. The risk to the tower isn't any less, and if they do the catch attempt on a full stack launch, then at least they get another Starship flight out of it.
2) Having separate towers for catching and launching doesn't make sense in the long run. In the short term, during development, it might make sense. As soon as they're confident they have it down tho, they'll upgrade the second tower for launches. It'd be very expensive to move the full stack to another tower for every launch. Better to just catch it where its next launch will be.
That's what you say other posts are saying, but what is it you are saying?
A second launch can only help with at least initially launches taking place at the OLP and catching of the booster and ship at the second tower!!
@@michaeldeierhoi4096 I'm not sure how you might be confused by the first point, so I'll assume you're referring to the second point. The issue is that SpaceX has a contract with NASA to develop, produce, and launch HLS. Long-term, catching Booster is the goal for every flight, but HLS is already behind schedule. It's less risky to not try catching with main tower during these early flights. I'm not saying that's what they'll do, but it's the only reason not catching and launching with _both_ towers would make sense early-on.
@@xitheris1758 I was not confused by the first point just indifferent. I simply try to understand what it is that Space X HAS DONE. I don't care about what they plan to do next. I watch the progress of starship like a long documentary movie. My opinion of whether they try and catch the booster on the next flight is irrelevant.
this thing looks so gd glorious! i just love to see it fly. everything about it is beautiful.
That's awesome that they got video, wonder if they got any from Starship?🤔
Although catching the next heavy booster might destroy the launchpad, perhaps what they can learn from a dry land full teardown outweighs the risk?
The starship should have legs too in case the tower has an issue before catching it or if the fins are too burnt up to hold the ship by them. Redundancy is needed once they have people on board.
My only question is why they'd catch the booster this early? I understand the benefits of catching, that being easy and fast removal from the pad and less potential damage to the booster after touching down, but I'd imagine it would make more sense to test the landing at least a few more times with 100% success rate every time (including 100% working engines) before catching it.
They haven't tried a catch yet.
I'd like to point out that it landed in the perfect dead center of the buoy camera's view.
Do you not think it's likely they used 360° Cameras on the Buoy?
The video from the bouy is truly mindblowing.
Do you think you could show the video as it 'land' and then falls over?
SpaceX will very soon achieve the same success that Falcon 9 is...with Starship.... Simply Awesome...!
What a strange footage is that rolling shutter or why does is look so distorted?
Probably water drops on the lens, seeing as it is on a ship
At the ends of the "mechadzilla" it is necessary to provide retractable stops to prevent the first stage from falling by inertia.
60-70 days for next launch. They will definitely perform faster than last time like they always have. But not that fast, but there is a good chance at the end of year they maybe be as fast as 30 days.
So launch 5 is September, and launch 6 in November and 1 more at the end of year, if they need more data. And want to cover quota of 6 launches this year.
Given there was little issue concerning public safety in IFT3 and even less so in IFT4, SpaceX honestly should be given the green light to go as fast as they can without any red tape as long as additional safety concerns don't arise. They've shown that they're at a stage in their development where they can perform these flight tests safely and giving them the power to kick their development process into even higher gear akin to their falcon 9 launch cadence will dramatically speed up the progress made on Starship beyond the incredible pace it's already at in comparison to the rest of the industry and we'll be back on the Moon and finally to Mars before you know it.
Still lame that we dont see the final seconds like we did live..
What the hell? Just as the ship is touching down they cut away? We want to see if it hovered and how deep it went and at what angle.
Why does the video change as the booster gets close to the sea?
I imagine SpaceX don't want to show the rapid unscheduled disassembly part.
@@gdutfulkbhh7537 Somebody in another thread opined that perhaps SpaceX didn't want to give more fuel to the small but very loud crowd who either wouldn't understand or would deliberately misconstrue a toppling, exploding vehicle as "failure ending in a debris field."
The touch down of the booster on the water was not shown nor was any explanation given. So why do some people have this need to assume something is being covered like an RUD? We don't have any information either way so speculation without evidence is the just hubris!! imo
@@gdutfulkbhh7537 They literally have a video up on their channel titled "How not to land an orbital booster" with about a dozen exploding Falcon 9 boosters failing to land. I don't think they are camera shy about some explosions.
Starliner finally took some people up.
Elon.. "Hold my Super Heavy."
Excellent Presentation....the dynamics and Uncertainties of Precise Attitude Control of a ship that huge are presented...................basic wind loads alone on the booster could be 8 to 10 tons... on a moderate day.
My concern is you have one misstep with the arms and you lose the entire tower...and this has to repeat dozens of times...I would think having it land on a platform a short distance away that then rolls up to the tower would be safer and still be efficient...I hope they pull it off.
The whole reason they're catching the booster is to get rid of the landing legs though
@@rizizum I get it...but all that needs to happen is for one of the center engines to fail (like the other day), or underperform, and there goes the tower. For this to work they have to land as efficiently, and reliably, as airliners, hundreds of times. I hope it works.
@@reeldealstudios5645 They are kinda already doing that with Falcon 9, they just need to achieve the same reliability with Starship, I'm sure it'll fail in the first tries, and maybe a few more all the way to 100 successful flights or so, but that's a risk SpaceX is willing to take
@@reeldealstudios5645 newsflash - one of the engines failed and it still made it.
Or maybe they just have it land on a pile of high tech bubble wrap 😂❤
Lol would someone PLEASE create a Vid about Boeing Starliner! From launch to docking!🙏👍
So is there no video of starship coming down… would be cool to see the ship now after the flight
with one flap half dead, im not sure they reached their planned landing location.. it landed, somewhere.. ship managed to stabilize, but barely.
Rather than risking the tower launch system, SpaceX should build a dummy system to check the aim of the landing and make the tower “disposable.”
Sanjosemike (no longer in CA)
catching booster with with tower arms will be legendary.
Why they cut external video final sequence?
They're better than I was a moonlander on that TRS80 i always wound up crashing.
What if they didn’t catch the booster and explode the pad, do they have a new pad or how long would it take to build
Booster usually aims to miss right before it re-orients itself for landing. So, it could be fine, or it could be catastrophic
So much water... can't you just show the landing?
The new video shows some good detail of the engine failure.
If they had some durable netting spread out attached to floats around the landing pad they wouldn`t have to make a perfect landing of the booster every time to be reusable.At least keep it from sinking and aid in recovery. Catching it at the landing pad on land would be the ultimate but you risk losing your launch pad too.Maybe building a dedicated system separate from the launch pad would keep launches on time in case of a botched recovery.
Sure, if such an incredible imaginary net could be built then they only have to engineer to cope with all the salt water.
Has SpaceX revealed if a catch would be made in the launch position immediately above the water deluge system or orientated to the side where the boosters and starships are unloaded from their transporters? I guess it depends whether the water deluge system is to be involved in the catches to minimise the risk of damage to the launch infrastructure? Also I'd hate for the auto-termination explosives mounted to the outside of the booster to strike the chopstick arms during a catch.
Great footage...
I'd still like to Know if they Recovered the Booster ...??
And Starship...??
I fear starship burned out and than sinked
Recovery was never part of this plan
They planned to shoot the booster if it didn't sink, similar to previous launches.
The data is what really matters. There's very little the hardware could tell them that they couldn't infer from the data. Anything important, they put a sensor on it.
I'm having some real concerns with the raptor engines, they seem much more fragile than the merlin engines used now. I know technically the engine is still a prototype but so far it doesn't seem reliability is all that good. Maybe the next version will be a improvement?
Really Good. A lot of detail info not widely avail on all the reg channels (i sub to mannny spacex etc, of course) Good Work TSB
The catch arms are massive and close slowly in real time. The booster will have to hover for a significant amount of time to pull this off.
They already did some upgrades on the close time.
Did the booster float after soft landing and tip over? Will SpaceX tow booster back for examination??
Is expect it floats just based on simple volume comparison. However, I can't find any source confirming that.
No recovery
Tow it? 😅
From the Indian Ocean to Texas?
I have never heard any plan from Space X to retrieve the booster.
I've got a hunch the video is suddenly cut because the booster exploded. No one seems to mention the steady fueled flame coming out the side that isn't momentary. It's intensely burning till it hits the water and the video mysteriously cuts. Could be from the outer engine that failed on launch. Not sure liquid methane is going to be predictably "safe". An engine lost immediately on launch is most likely from damage from the deluge system still not effectively surpressing all the shock pressure at ignition. Needs a proven flame trench which due to the water table they cant dig. Wonder if they have a flame trench at Cape Canaveral.
That's 100% nonsense.
is very likely that the booster and starship were destroyed either when they touched the water or when they topple over in water. Even after a light landing when you topple over a thing 70 m high it will hit the water with high force.
I would say it's impressive to see.. But since the tower is stationary I think it would be less risky to build a hole in the ground like the tower just down in the ground with the less risk of ruining the tower if something goes wrong. There is no problem building it like that tower but with a brick wall behind and an angled at one side for getting it to transport and unto a service vehicle.... A squared/rectangle or triangle catching arm with possibility to move in 360 degrees inside the catch system and then you could have rails on the ground the base to the top hanging ready 😊
Chopstick landing is gonna be tricky 🥢
la vidéo est vraiment coupé juste avant le l'atterrissage ???
So, when they gonna start using dilithium chambered raptors?
I don't think that next flight is in three months, because the melting, they need a new design of the wings this will need more time... I wonder how the space shuttle solves the problem with plasma between rocket and wing, I mean there is no room for head shields...
They seen it coming. the next Ship already has the wings moved back.
watch Scott Manley where he talks about all of this (Shuttle, etc)
The real question is how to get those flaps to survive and relaunch without replacing the entire flap every time.
Way too much heat on that discontinuous surface, right at a joint, no less. Redesign with fully retractable flaps? Contour surface to deflect plasma away from hinge?
Whatever they come up with, a major design change is needed.
There was talk back in the 10km hop days of mounting them off centre (Atlas 5 SRB style). Wonder if this was why they were considering that.
A change in flap design and position was already in the pipeline.