It is nearly empty at this point. So size really is not an issue. The real question is how are they going to deal with the starship landing with its payload on. the empty booster is around 160 tons, But the star ship is 100t dry with payload up to 200t. I just do not see how they can land that, the margins are just too narrow. See steel is super strong in tension, but not great under compression buckling. This is why they choose to catch the booster (using tension as the primary mechanism). Knowing this. how are they going to land the starship on a land, let alone uneven unprepared land on mars or moon. I just do not see how this is practically even possible. They will need to have a separate lander. or they need to be able to split the start ship into second stage with the lander separating from it. To land something heavy, the technique shown on Avatar with cable lowering is the only practical way. In short star ship needs to change their design.
@@curio78 Yeah but on landing wouldnt you a) have way less weight as well because you have less fuel (unless you land on moon/mars, in which case however you would have less gravity as well maybe making thigns easier. Lets not forget that 10-15 years ago people said "I just do not see how this is practically possible" about landing a booster and had given up on that. And here we are with SpaceX landing both their booster and their ship (arguably on the sea but landing looked pretty smooth). Every mission where something is going wrong they learn a lot. We saw the same with with falcon, in the beginning they had some losses of the vehicle and the payload, later on we started talking about a "failure" if there was a problem with landing the booster and nowadays a failed booster landing is basically just not happenign any more lol.
@ Its a question of scale. What was before an engineering problem. Beyond a certain weight becomes physics and material science problem. Well it is not really a problem but one of known limitations. For example, they can never land that booster(starship) like they land the falcon boosters. Because the size and the weight of the landing legs will be so huge, not to mention the weight of adding structural strength. Falcon is a nice size, but when you scale to starship size with reduced material but significantly increased, mass. You run into the shrinking safety margin problem. Their only choice is to catch both the booster and the starship honestly(unless its empty which is the only way that can land, with a big question mark). I will say if they decide to go for interplanetary they will change the design. This one is purely for reusable earth orbit and landing empty design. they could have just designed a falcon heavy upper stage that can land honestly. Just attach some 4-5 falcon boosters and carry heavy load. They can do the same for the upper stand and all of them then can split off and land separately getting around the shrinking margin problem
the landing looked super smooth and like they fixed many booster issues as well (last landing seemed to have a lot of fire going on lol). Such a bummer that they lost the ship or this could have been a pretty much perfect mission. I honestly thought they had figured stuff out with the ship but I guess there is always something new to learn lol. Cant wait to see them launch these things as often as they do the F9 right now.
However, the angle looks like it's worse. You can see the fire can go though the tower bottom's section. It's not bad like that from the 5th flight. It might blew up or damage the tower. They must add more protections for next flight.
Moi je délire peut être mais j'ai vu des vidéos qui montre le chariot descendre de plusieurs mètres et sur tous ce que je vois depuis le chariot semble ne pas bouger ??
I think the second lkanding was much bettrer and attribute this to having the exstra fuel to have that exstra confidence. To me it really looked from the camera`s perspective much better than the first landing.
The boomerang shape or horseshoe will be the safest & most efficient way of space travel. The rocket design is just too risky and when something goes majorly wrong you can say I told you so.
It is nearly empty at this point. So size really is not an issue. The real question is how are they going to deal with the starship landing with its payload on. the empty booster is around 160 tons, But the star ship is 100t dry with payload up to 200t. I just do not see how they can land that, the margins are just too narrow. See steel is super strong in tension, but not great under compression buckling. This is why they choose to catch the booster (using tension as the primary mechanism). Knowing this. how are they going to land the starship on a land, let alone uneven unprepared land on mars or moon. I just do not see how this is practically even possible. They will need to have a separate lander. or they need to be able to split the start ship into second stage with the lander separating from it. To land something heavy, the technique shown on Avatar with cable lowering is the only practical way. In short star ship needs to change their design.
@@rizizum That is the whole point of this design isn't it? to land the starship, eventually for interplanet travel. If that was no the case then what they have for Falcon should have been enough. Even if the argument is this for short term goal of reusable upper stage. then they will need to land the upper stage just like the booster (by catching it). even at empty this is too big to be reliable to be landed like the falcon boosters. And if catching is the plan then it is not interplanetary, and if it is not interplanetary, why so big?
@ Catching is only for LEO missions, usually for satellites or refuelling, so it won't have any payload to land with in them. It will have landing legs for interplanetary missions, which will have payload, but most planets and moons we can land have way lower gravity than Earth's, so even with payload it would end up being lighter than an empty Starship on Earth
@@rizizum you are missing the point, we are talking about mass in motion. I am talking about how much velocity can the structure take to withstand bulking. the more the mass the narrower this range. the more elaborate your landing legs need to be/more material the body need to have(weight). if you noticed starship earlier landing attempts in their hop test. it was clear that even the most gentle landing was bulking the starship. I still think it just too big to act as a lander. it practically makes no sense to me.
The best engineers I’ve worked with are usually interested in…everything. Wanting to know how stuff works is why they became engineers in the first place.
I can see in a way how that would make sense. Like a classical guitarist having no interest in heavy metal guitar or a Dr or surgeon specialising in a particular field
@@olegklimov3717 и что если один или какое-то кол-во двигателей выйдет из строя ( не взорвутся и не поменяют вектор тяги) ракета полетит дальше и не разрушится?
Russian designs, including the one intended to take cosmonauts to the moon, relied on many engines as well. Soyuz too, on a smaller scale but still several engines.
@@mcdavidok И тысячи записей с разных камер и независимых людей то-же блеф. Комментарии российских учёных, которые поддерживают естественно то-же блеф и вообще земля плоская и американцы никуда не летали
@@rudelagudron какие еще записи. Это графика, причем галимая. Это видно невооруженным взглядом. Когда это станет реальностью, никто не опровергнет уже. А пока как говорится мультики.
@mcdavidok эти приземления опровергают только недалёкие люди, у которых не хватает мозга вбить в поиске другие приземления и трансляции в том числе русских учёных и т.д. Посмотри Сурдина, Семихатова, или они то-же врут? )))
Too much bouncing from the chopsticks, they lucked out. The booster needs to hover a little longer to allow the chopsticks to settle before lowering onto the pins.
@@derekcoaker6579nah, he's got a point. I've been launching and catching 300ft tall rockets from my back yard for 5+ yrs. Unsettled chopsticks was a big issue for me
chump will override any FAA delays with his buddies rockets, Rocket man turning traitor and now interfering with not only us politics but global politics makes me sick and has ruined my admiration of him and spacex
The slomo at the end was priceless
Not as good as the slow motion NASA footage or Saturn V.
@@AmbientShores They're just so different they're not comparable
@@AmbientShores Not good enough? but still awesome!
It was great.
The slowmo of the engine cluster was like looking at the gates of hell
This is just insane, catching 30 story metal skyscrapers from the sky is crazy
Seriously impressive. The SpaceX engineers know their stuff 👍
Imagine showing this video to a person in the renaissance era or just 100 years ago 🤯
Again, It was really smooth and gentle for such a massive thing.
That's what she said
It is nearly empty at this point. So size really is not an issue. The real question is how are they going to deal with the starship landing with its payload on. the empty booster is around 160 tons, But the star ship is 100t dry with payload up to 200t. I just do not see how they can land that, the margins are just too narrow.
See steel is super strong in tension, but not great under compression buckling. This is why they choose to catch the booster (using tension as the primary mechanism). Knowing this. how are they going to land the starship on a land, let alone uneven unprepared land on mars or moon. I just do not see how this is practically even possible. They will need to have a separate lander. or they need to be able to split the start ship into second stage with the lander separating from it.
To land something heavy, the technique shown on Avatar with cable lowering is the only practical way. In short star ship needs to change their design.
@@curio78 Yeah but on landing wouldnt you a) have way less weight as well because you have less fuel (unless you land on moon/mars, in which case however you would have less gravity as well maybe making thigns easier.
Lets not forget that 10-15 years ago people said "I just do not see how this is practically possible" about landing a booster and had given up on that. And here we are with SpaceX landing both their booster and their ship (arguably on the sea but landing looked pretty smooth).
Every mission where something is going wrong they learn a lot. We saw the same with with falcon, in the beginning they had some losses of the vehicle and the payload, later on we started talking about a "failure" if there was a problem with landing the booster and nowadays a failed booster landing is basically just not happenign any more lol.
@ Its a question of scale. What was before an engineering problem. Beyond a certain weight becomes physics and material science problem. Well it is not really a problem but one of known limitations. For example, they can never land that booster(starship) like they land the falcon boosters. Because the size and the weight of the landing legs will be so huge, not to mention the weight of adding structural strength.
Falcon is a nice size, but when you scale to starship size with reduced material but significantly increased, mass. You run into the shrinking safety margin problem.
Their only choice is to catch both the booster and the starship honestly(unless its empty which is the only way that can land, with a big question mark).
I will say if they decide to go for interplanetary they will change the design. This one is purely for reusable earth orbit and landing empty design. they could have just designed a falcon heavy upper stage that can land honestly. Just attach some 4-5 falcon boosters and carry heavy load. They can do the same for the upper stand and all of them then can split off and land separately getting around the shrinking margin problem
the landing looked super smooth and like they fixed many booster issues as well (last landing seemed to have a lot of fire going on lol). Such a bummer that they lost the ship or this could have been a pretty much perfect mission. I honestly thought they had figured stuff out with the ship but I guess there is always something new to learn lol. Cant wait to see them launch these things as often as they do the F9 right now.
However, the angle looks like it's worse. You can see the fire can go though the tower bottom's section. It's not bad like that from the 5th flight.
It might blew up or damage the tower. They must add more protections for next flight.
1950’s B&W Sci-Fi was right all along!
Awesome footage!
Scottys giving her all she has
They need to use high-speed film on this rather than digital, it would look even cooler.
Very inspirational ! Thank you very much indeed for your good work : )
Just amazing they can catch a skyscraper.
Moi je délire peut être mais j'ai vu des vidéos qui montre le chariot descendre de plusieurs mètres et sur tous ce que je vois depuis le chariot semble ne pas bouger ??
good graphics...
Unreal.
very C👀L shots
I think the second lkanding was much bettrer and attribute this to having the exstra fuel to have that exstra confidence. To me it really looked from the camera`s perspective much better than the first landing.
Hard to say. Don't recall the rocket painting the base of the tower with flames on the first one, and it was swinging more this time when it was done.
those booster catchers are game changers in the space race... meanwhile elon's salute was not/
NASA - Needing Always SpaceX Assistance
Real life sci fi.
No😂
Sci nonfi
No bucks, no Buck Rodgers. Cool!
The boomerang shape or horseshoe will be the safest & most efficient way of space travel. The rocket design is just too risky and when something goes majorly wrong you can say I told you so.
Unbelievable!
Mis respetos a todos los ingenieros de space X y a Elon por su vision de salvar la especie humana.
It is nearly empty at this point. So size really is not an issue. The real question is how are they going to deal with the starship landing with its payload on. the empty booster is around 160 tons, But the star ship is 100t dry with payload up to 200t. I just do not see how they can land that, the margins are just too narrow.
See steel is super strong in tension, but not great under compression buckling. This is why they choose to catch the booster (using tension as the primary mechanism). Knowing this. how are they going to land the starship on a land, let alone uneven unprepared land on mars or moon. I just do not see how this is practically even possible. They will need to have a separate lander. or they need to be able to split the start ship into second stage with the lander separating from it.
To land something heavy, the technique shown on Avatar with cable lowering is the only practical way. In short star ship needs to change their design.
Why would they land it with the payload?
@@rizizum That is the whole point of this design isn't it? to land the starship, eventually for interplanet travel. If that was no the case then what they have for Falcon should have been enough.
Even if the argument is this for short term goal of reusable upper stage. then they will need to land the upper stage just like the booster (by catching it). even at empty this is too big to be reliable to be landed like the falcon boosters.
And if catching is the plan then it is not interplanetary, and if it is not interplanetary, why so big?
@ Catching is only for LEO missions, usually for satellites or refuelling, so it won't have any payload to land with in them. It will have landing legs for interplanetary missions, which will have payload, but most planets and moons we can land have way lower gravity than Earth's, so even with payload it would end up being lighter than an empty Starship on Earth
@@rizizum you are missing the point, we are talking about mass in motion. I am talking about how much velocity can the structure take to withstand bulking.
the more the mass the narrower this range. the more elaborate your landing legs need to be/more material the body need to have(weight).
if you noticed starship earlier landing attempts in their hop test. it was clear that even the most gentle landing was bulking the starship.
I still think it just too big to act as a lander. it practically makes no sense to me.
nice
I work with an engineer who has zero interest in rocket engineering - bizarre!
The best engineers I’ve worked with are usually interested in…everything. Wanting to know how stuff works is why they became engineers in the first place.
I can see in a way how that would make sense. Like a classical guitarist having no interest in heavy metal guitar or a Dr or surgeon specialising in a particular field
I am very interested in this😊
Maybe he doesn't like math
Just because you like one ball game doesn’t mean you like all of them.
A-Mazing!
Please even more put here
Imagine in the slowmo you are in the middle of the engine
If i saw this in a science fiction film i would say don't be bloody rediculous .
DAMN !!!!! that shit is soooooo Awesome!
They should have drone's high enough showing a Starship high speed pass at 17500 mile per hour !!!
Jet fighter
Гениально...
The sound….
Mega👍
yes, this is real
Sweet.
Elon's catch and release program in action.
More like release and catch. But even more fun.
Why would you use as thumbnail the only take that is not in the video?
To catch a flying Silo
SpaceX is a big fireworks🙃
Havybooster ist the most powerful Engine on Earth i gues
I know it worked and watching the chopstick bounce still gave me anxiety.
Moving forward, It seems the catch no longer an issue So let's Go X!
Почему так много двигателей, надёжность меньше
the engine out capability increases the reliability, not decreases
На данный момент это самые мощные кислородно-метановые двигатели.
Ракета весит 5 тысяч тонн и двигателей нужно много.
@@olegklimov3717 и что если один или какое-то кол-во двигателей выйдет из строя ( не взорвутся и не поменяют вектор тяги) ракета полетит дальше и не разрушится?
Russian designs, including the one intended to take cosmonauts to the moon, relied on many engines as well. Soyuz too, on a smaller scale but still several engines.
@ Странные у вас представления о надёжности. 🙂
That's not your Dad's NASA!
woahhh
Absolutely beautiful !
Un-freaking-real...
Dude just caught a 20 storey building.
30 story
@Cameraflyer- no. The booster is 20 storeys. 200 ft. The entire stack is 35
@@penguin44ca it’s still the most impressive thing I’ve seen this decade.
@Cameraflyer- hell yes
жалко что башку потеряли :(
а так все отлично 👍
Thanks for the clickbait bud
What clickbait?
WOW NICE CGI
Flat Earthers trying to figure out how this was all faked.
Your clip's thumbnail... Where is it in your video?
Oh! Nowhere... just shieting on your viewers.
Thumb Down 👎
The thumbnail is a lie.
How is Rogozin’s trampoline in Russia 🇷🇺??? 😂😅
Блеф
Завидуешь тому, что в Парашке никогда не сделают? ))
Графика галимая
@@mcdavidok И тысячи записей с разных камер и независимых людей то-же блеф. Комментарии российских учёных, которые поддерживают естественно то-же блеф и вообще земля плоская и американцы никуда не летали
@@rudelagudron какие еще записи. Это графика, причем галимая. Это видно невооруженным взглядом. Когда это станет реальностью, никто не опровергнет уже. А пока как говорится мультики.
@mcdavidok эти приземления опровергают только недалёкие люди, у которых не хватает мозга вбить в поиске другие приземления и трансляции в том числе русских учёных и т.д. Посмотри Сурдина, Семихатова, или они то-же врут? )))
Too much bouncing from the chopsticks, they lucked out. The booster needs to hover a little longer to allow the chopsticks to settle before lowering onto the pins.
You should tell them. 😂
Incredible to still see a Critic show up here and insist, they didn't do it correctly. 🤦🏻
@@derekcoaker6579nah, he's got a point. I've been launching and catching 300ft tall rockets from my back yard for 5+ yrs. Unsettled chopsticks was a big issue for me
It’s always the sad people who’ve done nothing with their lives who criticize the engineering geniuses who have.
chopsticks? I was hoping not to hear that word on here.
@@BubbaZanetti-p7w Ok, the Bilateral Catch Trolly...lol
chump will override any FAA delays with his buddies rockets, Rocket man turning traitor and now interfering with not only us politics but global politics makes me sick and has ruined my admiration of him and spacex
Ok so why are you here
I don't see how he's interfered with global politics other than state his own opinions.
You sir, have contracted EDS.
George Soros has been interfering with global politics for decades.