I can't thank you enough for displaying both miles, mph, etc. as well as the metric standard. I love you channel. I've followed the space program since the Mercury day's. The good days and bad. Thanks again.
NASA did water recovery of the SRBs. The Solid Rocket Boosters (SRBs) operate in parallel with the main engines for the first two minutes of flight to provide the additional thrust needed for the Orbiter to escape the gravitational pull of the Earth. At an altitude of approximately 45 km (24 nautical miles), the boosters separate from the orbiter/external tank, descend on parachutes, and land in the Atlantic Ocean (+ View Video: SRB Processing). They are recovered by ships, returned to land, and refurbished for reuse. So as long as Space X can slow the decent of Starship and the Super Heavy sufficiently before impacting the ocean, and have water recovery vehicles waiting, this water landing technique should allow them to examine Starship after the test. and could be used as an emergency backup plan.
Ah Yes but where is the recovered Starship? The telemetry showed it hitting the ocean at 223mph. We are never going to see that recovered Starship because it burned up and crashed.
@@anthonyb5279 At this point and time Starship's planned re-entry position is more about it's ability to survive re-entry than accomplish any landing. The GPS will just point to an underwater area to recover pieces of the crashed vehicle.
Even tho "flight one" didn't make it too space...... it did get quite a ways up in the sky !!!..... plus it didn't blow up on the pad..... so Partial success !!!
SpaceX should build a simplified and shorter landing only tower in a separate location to protect the launch tower, and eventually several landing only towers (and of course, launch towers). Separation of launches and landings will be necessitated by significant launch schedules in the future anyway.
@@ethioUSA See ITAR and other commercial export controls. As for an island that is beyond a jurisdiction, the only region I could think of that being the case would be some isle off of Antarctica. The Pacific was the subject of a variety of imperialist landgrabs, while WWII was fought across a significant portion of that body of war - doubt there is some unclaimed real estate left. Sea launch tried a mobile maritime platform for Zenit launches in the past, but didn't pan out. Not sure if such an approach could accommodate the scale of a Starship...
@bobbobber2536 Don't know. Not such a big atoll. But there was the Naval Air Facility there: refueling stop and base for air reconnaissance. Now there is an airport (runway: 7,800 in feet; 2,377 in meters), so maybe not a bad destination.
The first Falcon 9s were expendable one shots. Later when they began to try and land them, there were failures. It was expected, and they learned from each one. That has been the SpaceX model! Not to expect perfection at first, but to try it and learn from the mistakes. These first Starship launches are "throw away one shots". They will analyze what worked and what didn't and make improvements!
Watched for 8 minutes for you to say about being shocked at not landing the rocket. It's their second launch attempt, why work on landing the Starships landing capabilities when it's likely that it won't even get that far. Those who are shocked need a reality check.
FYI the belly flop starship maneuver has been often compared to a skydiver's body position when instable terminal velocity free fall. This is somewhat appropriate. A skydiver in this position sometimes called frog position cant Free Fall at the slowest speed and can adjust arm and leg positions and he'll get the ball as it is sometimes turn and slow down a bit further, or by using arm and leg position can assume a more head up or head down position which will increase speed of free fall. In these aspects the starship can behave in similar fashion. This has nothing to do with how a skydiver lands. Obviously a skydiver must deploy the parachute and makes it controlled descent using the lift and drag effects of the parachute landing in an upright position on feet and legs, hopefully within almost zero zero velocity at the moment of touchdown.
If Washington had to have dealt with modern Government bureaucracy,. He would still be waiting on permission to cross the Delaware. Sorry General we need another "Environmental Impact Study" before we can approve your crossing.
Why is Space X not, trying to design horizontal engines for vtol with landing legs with shock absorbers for horizontal soft landing. This design would lead to actual ship's that would not require a launch or Land tower
How about landing in designated man made ponds, one deep enough for a splash down type landing and one just shallow enough for an upright landing but deep enough to extinguish fire from excess fuel?
I thought the exact same myself but after somethought it would prove more dangerous to surrounding areas. untell they have got a few tests runs done. They could then look at the idea of ot then they could build it where they need for faster recovery and transfer to repair/refit
Given that the first launch destroyed the launch pad, it makes sense that they wouldn't want to depend solely on the launch pad for landing. The can do the second launch, still test the controlled descent of the first stage and starship, and take the time necessary to see what the condition of the launch pad is. Given that they have a assembly line for these components, they can easily be ready for another launch in a short period of time and if the pad is in good shape, they have a better chance of a capture operation.
The problem with launch pad was on launch. Landing with a very much lighter booster will not be a problem. The problem is the very narrow parameters of trying to catch the booster with the arms! They will want to test their landings first to make sure they don't wreck the launch tower!
@@mahbriggs They talk about landing on the arms, but I think that's way off into the future 3-5 years? after the ship has become operational. The mechanical arms have proven to be a very great way of stacking the Starship to the booster. If they never "catch" the ship with the arms, they are saving so much time and money with the stacking capabilities anyway. I think the premise of this video is way off - why would they ever land the ship in the ocean when it has landing capability?
@HerschelHorton Because it is an experimental, and expendable test vehicle! How long it is before they start trying to land it in the arms depends upon how well the test go! Neither the first stage or the second stage are currently equipped with landing legs. Although I suspect they could be if they decide they need to.
Not sure what the talk track at 8:40 or so in (and 10:00 in) is trying to assert about programs centered on reusability (or partial usability). However, NASA spent a good amount of time and money on the Space Shuttle - from development from 1972 to 1981, and with flying the spacecraft from 1981 to 2011. Operations spanned 3 decades and 133 successful missions. Prior to the shuttle, there was the X-20 spaceplane in the early 1960s called Dyna-soar, which entered development but was cancelled - that too was supposed to be reusable. As for the SLS, certain components were designed for reuse as a function of having been inherited from the Space Shuttle program, like the engines and solid rocket boosters. Seems NASA didn't want to go through the expense of trying to retrieved them though, or lacked the necessary funding. Now when it comes to making partial reusability a practical proposition for launch systems, especially for unmanned launches, then SpaceX deserves a good amount of credit and recognition in possibly moving the dial in making the launch business more efficient. And hope that Starship does the same in the next 5 - 10 years, in bringing about a step change in efficiencies. Still find the landing in the middle of the Pacific a bit odd. Will there be some sort of special recovery ship to attempt to retrieve the rocket?
At 10:00 you say, that Nasa doesn't care how much the operational costs are ... and show the Space Shuttle as a rare occasion when Nasa thought about reusability. Because they have enough gouvernmental money to postpone the expensive ways of space operations. I'd say that is a misunderstanding of collosssal proportions! I was a kid, rather well educated on space operations and the long time goals of Wernher von Braun with his team. The space shuttle should have been an addition to the Saturn V rockets - but after the moon landings, the money was cut down to a fraction for other important endeavures, like the Vietnam war. So Nasa tried the most obvoius step: convince the gouvernment, that the Space shuttle would cost nothing to operate on the long run, as soon as it would be finished and operational. It would be a Space Transport System (STS) that earned more by bringing up commercial and military satellites, than it cost to operate. That was the explicit communicated goal! But there was the space race with the russians - who already had their own Saljut Space station up and running and were constructing their own shuttle Buran as a payload to their modular Energija rocket system. The US intelligence and gouvernment most likely were very nervous to lose to the Russians, and forced Nasa to rush to finish the Space Shuttle. The booster rockets were a very cheap quick solution, the decision to leave out the parachute rescue system for more actual payload also showed, that they tried to do as much as possible asap. And then it worked! The magnificent Space Shuttle showed, what no other country in the world could achieve! At every flight they brought up their own little space station with a huge cargo hold and safely back to earth! That was huge! And then the gouvernment expected the costs to come down as promised. But they didn't. Heads a Nasa were replaced, discussions about unmanned space flight over costly bringing men and women in space were conducted publicly. In the end Nasa was stuck with a small fleet of functional prototypes, with unfinished main engines (by far not as often reusable as planned) unfinished insulation materials (that fell off in dangerous chunks during every start), unfinished boosters (way more costly than planned and not modular), with no rescue system at the critical ascend phase (in stark contrast to all the other human rockets by US and USSR alike), no heavy lift rocket to build their own space station (while the russians brought up their MIR station and later the service module of the ISS). After some years Nasa finally finished the design of the main RS 25 engines (okay, it was Rockedyne, Nasa just paid for it) - but at the same time the other flaws had cost reputation and lives, while still being a money pit in comparison to the russian "one use only" rockets that could lift even more. It was cheaper to pay the russians for taxi flights than run their reusable technical prototype marvels. And far more safe. So time ran out for the space shuttle, with no money to iron out the flaws, or maybe construct a far more developed 2nd generation Shuttle system, and when the likely second accident cost another ship with humans on board, the writing was on the wall. Nothing of that hints to a lack of will to try to save costs! It was simply obvious, that the operational costs of the flying prototype fleet were way higher and more dangerous than single use rockets. And there was this new more important endeavour in Afghanistan... The SLS Design was chosen to get humans into space and even up to the moon again- way cheaper than the Saturn V or the Shuttle would have been. Reuse the Shuttle technology and even its actual vintage (reusable) engines, to make the new generation of big single use rockets. For cost and time saving! But alas - the vintage start towers and the main engines again evolved into massive money pits, while Space X showed the world not only how to produce completely new designed, affordable main engines - but also how to make a reusable, modular and human rated rocket system. No one else than Elon Musk and Gwynne Shotwell had been able to lead such visionary teams for decades and achieve such lofty goals, as soon as Wernher von Braun and Sergej Koroljew had died. Space X isn't more about saving money than Nasa had been! Imagine what the development of their new Merlin engines had cost, how much Raptor development and the whole Star ship program has cost so far, with no revenue! The Star ship development has been spanning over a decade by now! There is nothing cost saving at the moment. But they have managed to build an extremely relieable, cost effective and human rated rocket- and got it and the capsules to be reusable in the later iterations. There were almost no iterations for the Space shuttle. It had to fly as it was designed up to 1981 for its maiden flight. No modularity. No alternative. What the Nasa decline mostly showed, is how costly desperately trying to save money can become...Imagine if they had used their RS 25 engines and the solid fuel boosters for a Rocket like the SLS back in 1985. And developed reusable liquid fuel boosters to be as efficient and modular as the Energija system. In addition to the space shuttle and their own Space station! But there was a complete lack of money and leadership. They were complely absorbed by thinking on how to save money.
That's a good question! So why does spaceX use the launch tower to catch when a separate Catch tower located far from any unnecessary superstructure. One for catch and one for boost. More expense but much safer in the long run.
I think SpaceX needs to build a more removed/remote mechazilla for its first catching demonstration after starship can repeatedly demonstrate its precision landing.with pinpoint accuracy. Since Falcon landing pads obviously have a beacon(s) on them, place one in the ocean and have the booster and starship land on them. Since both have rare parts/elements on them, I'm interested in SpaceX's plan on recycling?
Your channel is great on providing us a look and also by explaining what SpaceX does and what they are going to do is very enjoyable. Space X is a wonderful Refreshing Company and the company displays why we all live in the USA. Musk came here and displayed the Capitalism part of our great nation and HE HIMSELF IS PROOF that nowhere else on earth can you accomplish so much and be free to do it. All of us, everyone of us on this earth has something amazing in the talent department and it is different than anything else. It's just convincing each of us that we do have that talent. That is why when I watch your reporting it shows how very wonderful it is to Live and Work here in America. Thank you for your presentations. They ROCK ! ! ! ! !
If they work out the kinks, seal up the vehicle and it works well, they could literally take off, water land it off the coast of Florida or Texas, have it recovered to land in under a day and be cleaning and refitting/inspecting in under 48 hours. That is still a hell of a beginning to a turn around, the Shuttle barely made that when it landed on the runway right next to the hanger.
It's unlikely that belly landings in the ocean are being tested for future use when Starship becomes operational. It's just a way of disposing of the Booster and the Ship at this point in time since SpaceX has not perfected tower landings yet. The only operational tower now is the one at Boca Chica with its OLM. I would think that SpaceX would not try to land on that tower due to the risk of damage to the OLM if the landing goes sideways. SpX should build that second tower at BC, the one that was in the original plan for the BC launch site and practice tower landings there.
I think they should land, and launch the starships from the ocean all the time. No launch pad infrastructure, no landing infrastructure. All you need is a good barge for drop off, and pick up. Oh, that's right, SpaceX already has some barges. If something goes wrong, no big deal, it's in the middle of the ocean. Also the launch, and landing can be done almost anywhere. The launch location can be optimized for the desired orbit needed. It's a win, win, win situation. The biggest problem, how to make the Super Heavy, and Starship salt water proof? I think it can be done. It would make launching, and landings much simpler. Can this salt water proofing be done with the Falcon9? This would allow Falcon9s to launch, and land in the ocean too. Maybe a Falcon10 is in order here?
On the western tip of Kauai is a government tracking site used for various missile test flights. Tracking the re-entry of Starship with the sophisticated instruments there will provide valuable information if the starship makes a less than smooth landing.
ISTM that tracking sites are unneeded, obsolete. The Starship & booster will constantly broadcast their exact position/attitude/velocities/etc, vehicle/fuel status, etc real-time to land/ship stations & through Starlink.
@@warrenwhite9085 distant cameras could show the state of the ships insulation tiles directly after reentry. Before it maybe crashes into the sea. Remember, this vehicle with its heat shield is untested so far! Onboard cameras are great, but it is not even clear if they will be operational after reentry.
@@gravelydon7072 Bloated, pork driven, incompetent big government Federal Agency NASA struggles for relevance… its massive budget wasted on HQ/Center dead wood overhead, pork & dead end, unaffordable, unsustainable legacy tech boondoggles like STS/SLS. So the best NASA can do is fly their little plane by to take unneeded pics of innovative, efficient, spirited private enterprise SpaceX actually doing impressive things far beyond NASA’s competence or abilities. While this sad administration does every petty, underhanded, dirty regulatory harassment, trick & lawfare it it can to obstruct, delay, block Elon Musk’s companies.
Why no mod of Falcon Heavy only with two additional stage 1 units attached, giving 4 boosters and one second stage. Perhaps the advanced Starship engines could be used in some way to advantage.
You know what this reminds me of? Sudden pressure changes crushing a tanker truck. The chilled tanks should not be an issue given there will be some insulation, but is a belly flop going to stress the rocket superstructure? All of the thrust is straight along the long axis, so the rocket lands in the same orientation as launch then we know it's good. Even landing on its side should be OK, but they want starship to land on its bottom side and not upside down, right? So if they cut thrust at an angle, will that diagonal landing force require more reinforcement and less cargo tonnage?
"NASA doesn't have to worry about money; they're funded by the govt." haha. I'm sure you didn't mean it that way. WE the people fund everything the govt does (most of it wasteful & unnecessary, or even detrimental).
Plus is there even enoug& gravity on moon or Mars to even build a tower to catch a starship. Everything has to be built before it can be use, then there has to be enough material and workers on the planets to build anything.. So think how may flights will have to occur to have that scenario to play out .
Probably not. For example, Falcon 9 will ditch into the sea if an engine fault is detected when trying a barge landing, to protect the barge. If a serious engine fault is detected on Starship during descent, it is likely to be descending too fast for a soft ocean landing.
Cant wait for the next launch hope it's in October, a cool idea would be to build a third tower to try catching the super heavy when they are ready to do so, away from the actual star base so if anything went wrong star base would still be intact
Your video is incorrect on some points 1 is no 2nd launch this year due to DPW 130 day reevailuation, after which SpaceX has to reapply for launch license with FAA And that could take another 2 or 3 months. So maybe April 2024 before Ship 25 can launch
Almost my first thought was that they should put a wooden target in the ocean for it to land on, something fragile enough that it would at worst just scratch the Starship plus cheap to build and not harmful to the environment.
Competitive high divers will tell you the water contact from any appreciable height is anything but soft or cushioned. That's why the create turbulence to break up the surface before the diver hits the water.
Starship should land on a drone ship, even temporarily without landing legs. At least for initial vertical landings. If they could land SN15 at Starbase LZ, then they could land on drone ship without legs. Just extend and strengthen the ships skirt to recede the engines.
A water surface like the surface of the ocean or even a swimming pool is not a soft surface and should never be considered a soft surface. There will be a shock absorbing effect on contact only if that contact occurs at a velocity of less than a couple of meters per second, otherwise do the surface tension and other physical properties of the water, the contact with the surface will be the same as contacting solid ground or even concrete. Unless starship transitions from the belly flop to a near-vertical position infires its engines effectively enough to reduce bowlocity to only a few meters per second at the time of contact with the ocean surface the impact force will be the same as hitting the ground at Boca chica or any other on land landing point
Starship will make a hard landing off of Hawaii and will break up on impact. If it doesn’t then SpaceX will shoot it with guns to make it sink. This is a requirement of the FAA. It will hit the ocean as a approximately 300 mph.
Hope SpaceX nails multiple targeted landings in the oceans. It would be great to be 95%+ sure a Megazilla landing will go well. An accident with a botched landing at Starbase would become a regulatory nightmare and delay the program more than necessary.
Considering what happened to 24 on the uncooled launch pad, I have a hard time seeing how a return launch from Mars or the Moon can be executed safely.
Maglev technology backed up by a jet piggy back propulsion systems should be used to catapult this large craft high into our atmosphere before rocket engines are used . Maglev technology can get the craft up to optimal speed enabling lift off, then the jet engine piggy back system takes over, taking the craft to the edge of space before the piggy back disengages and returns to a designated airfield. The piggy back aircraft would be huge and very expensive, but can be used for decades with general maintenance, eliminating much of the risks and expense.
SpaceX had to assure the FAA that Starship would break up entirely on landing at Hawaii. It will hit at 3oo mph. If it doesn’t break break up, they have to shoot it with guns to make it sink. I bet that they won’t attempt a catch until they have gone to orbit. This is a slow process.
It is essential that all flights are dress rehearsals for landing in the chopsticks. This means they must demonstrate micrometer controllability during all phases of flight before they go for the sticks. That is at least a year of solid testing and crashing and we aren't testing enough until SpaceX looks like a rocket junkyard. It might also be a good idea to practice landing in break away chopsticks made of PVC pipe.
Incorrect! Starship is not the world's largest vehicle? Several Larger vehicles come immediately to mind: E.g.: Oil tankers, Cargo vessels, Aircraft Carriers, etc. Horever it is the world's largest Space vehicle!
Why not have re-fueling tanks on the landing pad ship and have the boosters and spaceship re-fuel just enough to make it back to the home landing pad?!?
Why not belly flop off the Gulf coast, and restage from the water via rail system to the launch pad? I personally like the idea of landing like a plane because the risk is less.
Its cool that you are answering these questions and covering covering the news about starship but it was so wordy, this could be summarised very way shorter than 15 mins. Feels like padding it out for watch time
Sooner or later SpaceX is going to have to improve their booster and starship landing legs before trying to land on the moon or Mars. Hydraulics are good to a certain point, after that something else needs to be used to handle the compressive shock and loading. Who knows, maybe a hybrid.
I doubt that any lower stage could survive landing on the moon tail first of a large spacecraft. The amount of stuff blasted into the rockets would cause failure .
@@chrisbraswell8864, there was some mention of SpaceX moving some engines towards the nose for landing to avoid that scenario. Haven't heard any more about it, they still have to prove and improve their test vehicles. Personally I think that a horizontal landing is going to have to be necessary to offload heavy construction equipment, etc. I don't think a crane is going to be viable. Dropping the load from space won't work either. The alternative would be shipping in crates and onsite assembly. That might make a load weight problem using the planned elevator. Somebody is going to have to figure out the maglev problem. Currently it's just a toy concept with no weight lifting ability.
The safety factor makes landing in the ocean the safest way to land. A virtical landing of a vehicle the size and weight of the starship is very dangerous because of the weight of the starship, the amount of fuel required to stop its decent, and the power the engines will creates to stop it. It will actually turn the starship into a stick of nitroglycerin with a lit fuse heading for a landing pad of solid concrete that if it might bump just a tiny bit to hard on landing could turn it into a very big bomb and a great big explosion. Thats why a ocean landing is the only way to go. And even landing the starship in the ocean has its risks. Were going to see what happens when the test is done.
This is only for the first attempt until they work out how it’s going to happen. It is not their goal or mission. It’s a test phase you’re making it sound like this is how they’re going to set things up permanently and they’re not.
It's improper to call it explosion. I would call it malfunction. It started with that ridiculous take off when most of the damage occurred. You don't ffart inside a closed room !
Looking forward to Starship's total success and recovery for reuse over and over. Elon Musk rocks!
I can't thank you enough for displaying both miles, mph, etc. as well as the metric standard. I love you channel. I've followed the space program since the Mercury day's. The good days and bad. Thanks again.
Glad you like them!
AI commenting on AI then being thanked by AI for the uplift.
It's. A.I. all the way down
NASA did water recovery of the SRBs.
The Solid Rocket Boosters (SRBs) operate in parallel with the main engines for the first two minutes of flight to provide the additional thrust needed for the Orbiter to escape the gravitational pull of the Earth. At an altitude of approximately 45 km (24 nautical miles), the boosters separate from the orbiter/external tank, descend on parachutes, and land in the Atlantic Ocean (+ View Video: SRB Processing). They are recovered by ships, returned to land, and refurbished for reuse.
So as long as Space X can slow the decent of Starship and the Super Heavy sufficiently before impacting the ocean,
and have water recovery vehicles waiting, this water landing technique should allow them to examine Starship after the test.
and could be used as an emergency backup plan.
Ah Yes but where is the recovered Starship? The telemetry showed it hitting the ocean at 223mph. We are never going to see that recovered Starship because it burned up and crashed.
@@anthonyb5279 At this point and time Starship's planned re-entry position is more about it's ability to survive re-entry than accomplish any landing. The GPS will just point to an underwater area to recover pieces of the crashed vehicle.
@@djohannsson8268 HAHAHAHAHA OHHHH HAHAHAHAHA Bullshit it fucking crashed because it can't fly.
No one has ever flown a ship of this magnitude. Everything is unknown until she is allowed to wake.
Thanks for your comment! Keep following our channel♥️
Even tho "flight one" didn't make it too space...... it did get quite a ways up in the sky !!!..... plus it didn't blow up on the pad..... so Partial success !!!
@@alphatech4966I lost interest because you repeated yourself so many times., but I appreciate the update. 😉 😜
Airships we’re pretty big…
the russians have with the N1…and they were just as successful as spacex
They don't want to get in trouble with the FAA or destroy the catcher without an ocean test. It's a great move.
SpaceX should build a simplified and shorter landing only tower in a separate location to protect the launch tower, and eventually several landing only towers (and of course, launch towers). Separation of launches and landings will be necessitated by significant launch schedules in the future anyway.
Yes, was thinking of some desert locale, like White Sands, or Edwards AFB.
Good thinking! Building more starting/landing towers would be a good move - if it could be financed.
How about at a SpaceX owned island in the Pacific that doesn't have governmental jurisdiction. If there is such a place!
@@ethioUSA See ITAR and other commercial export controls.
As for an island that is beyond a jurisdiction, the only region I could think of that being the case would be some isle off of Antarctica. The Pacific was the subject of a variety of imperialist landgrabs, while WWII was fought across a significant portion of that body of war - doubt there is some unclaimed real estate left.
Sea launch tried a mobile maritime platform for Zenit launches in the past, but didn't pan out. Not sure if such an approach could accommodate the scale of a Starship...
@bobbobber2536 Don't know. Not such a big atoll. But there was the Naval Air Facility there: refueling stop and base for air reconnaissance. Now there is an airport (runway: 7,800 in feet; 2,377 in meters), so maybe not a bad destination.
This is probably the best presentation this channel has produced! Thanks!
The first Falcon 9s were expendable one shots. Later when they began to try and land them, there were failures. It was expected, and they learned from each one.
That has been the SpaceX model! Not to expect perfection at first, but to try it and learn from the mistakes.
These first Starship launches are "throw away one shots". They will analyze what worked and what didn't and make improvements!
Every time SpaceX launches, and recovers a Falcon9 booster, Elon puts another $40 Million in his wallet.
@@jfeeney100what's your point?
Watched for 8 minutes for you to say about being shocked at not landing the rocket. It's their second launch attempt, why work on landing the Starships landing capabilities when it's likely that it won't even get that far. Those who are shocked need a reality check.
FYI the belly flop starship maneuver has been often compared to a skydiver's body position when instable terminal velocity free fall. This is somewhat appropriate. A skydiver in this position sometimes called frog position cant Free Fall at the slowest speed and can adjust arm and leg positions and he'll get the ball as it is sometimes turn and slow down a bit further, or by using arm and leg position can assume a more head up or head down position which will increase speed of free fall. In these aspects the starship can behave in similar fashion. This has nothing to do with how a skydiver lands. Obviously a skydiver must deploy the parachute and makes it controlled descent using the lift and drag effects of the parachute landing in an upright position on feet and legs, hopefully within almost zero zero velocity at the moment of touchdown.
No more clicking on videos with "shocked" in the headline...lol
The explosion was a result of the “setback”. Not vice versa. The launch failed by components breaking down. Self destruct was commanded after failure.
How many times will you repeat information to fill time?
I think choosing to splash down in the Ocean of starship is very wise and logical! ⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️
Thank you for not playing obnoxious dramatic LOUD music in your videos... We can actually understand your dialogue... Thank you! 😀
The idea isn't to relaunch in Texas. They are building the facilities to launch, land, and refurbish in Florida.
If Washington had to have dealt with modern Government bureaucracy,. He would still be waiting on permission to cross the Delaware. Sorry General we need another "Environmental Impact Study" before we can approve your crossing.
It really has not changed if you read some history on the revolution war.
It seems to me that it would also be a good practice and test for a specific type of emergency return, landing, and recovery.
You do not LAND the rocket into the ocean.. you OCEAN it.
No mention of the most important issue? After it lands in the ocean which ship and HOW will it be picked up???
Why is Space X not, trying to design horizontal engines for vtol with landing legs with shock absorbers for horizontal soft landing.
This design would lead to actual ship's that would not require a launch or Land tower
How about landing in designated man made ponds, one deep enough for a splash down type landing and one just shallow enough for an upright landing but deep enough to extinguish fire from excess fuel?
I thought the exact same myself but after somethought it would prove more dangerous to surrounding areas. untell they have got a few tests runs done. They could then look at the idea of ot then they could build it where they need for faster recovery and transfer to repair/refit
So, it's back to the drawing board 😮
This is a test! Why shocked? Go SpaceX Go 💪💪💪
👍👍👍
Given that the first launch destroyed the launch pad, it makes sense that they wouldn't want to depend solely on the launch pad for landing. The can do the second launch, still test the controlled descent of the first stage and starship, and take the time necessary to see what the condition of the launch pad is. Given that they have a assembly line for these components, they can easily be ready for another launch in a short period of time and if the pad is in good shape, they have a better chance of a capture operation.
Damaged, not destroyed. It was repaired and upgraded in record time.
The problem with launch pad was on launch. Landing with a very much lighter booster will not be a problem.
The problem is the very narrow parameters of trying to catch the booster with the arms! They will want to test their landings first to make sure they don't wreck the launch tower!
@@mahbriggs They talk about landing on the arms, but I think that's way off into the future 3-5 years? after the ship has become operational. The mechanical arms have proven to be a very great way of stacking the Starship to the booster. If they never "catch" the ship with the arms, they are saving so much time and money with the stacking capabilities anyway. I think the premise of this video is way off - why would they ever land the ship in the ocean when it has landing capability?
@HerschelHorton
Because it is an experimental, and expendable test vehicle!
How long it is before they start trying to land it in the arms depends upon how well the test go!
Neither the first stage or the second stage are currently equipped with landing legs. Although I suspect they could be if they decide they need to.
The First Sub-Orbital Launch wasn't a Failure but, a Learning Experience. As Elon Musk has stated B4.
HAH.
Thank you for explaining SpaceX Build it, Launch it, Break it, Redesign it, Rebuild it, system of experimental rocket testing.
Nothing astounds the NASA Beaurocrazy more than competence and honesty. They are not used to it.
Having been alive from the birth of the space program, it is incredibly phenomenal how far we have advanced in this time frame.
there is so many difficults to overcome that in the end the Starship will land like Spaceshuttler. Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha.
Not sure what the talk track at 8:40 or so in (and 10:00 in) is trying to assert about programs centered on reusability (or partial usability). However, NASA spent a good amount of time and money on the Space Shuttle - from development from 1972 to 1981, and with flying the spacecraft from 1981 to 2011. Operations spanned 3 decades and 133 successful missions. Prior to the shuttle, there was the X-20 spaceplane in the early 1960s called Dyna-soar, which entered development but was cancelled - that too was supposed to be reusable.
As for the SLS, certain components were designed for reuse as a function of having been inherited from the Space Shuttle program, like the engines and solid rocket boosters. Seems NASA didn't want to go through the expense of trying to retrieved them though, or lacked the necessary funding.
Now when it comes to making partial reusability a practical proposition for launch systems, especially for unmanned launches, then SpaceX deserves a good amount of credit and recognition in possibly moving the dial in making the launch business more efficient. And hope that Starship does the same in the next 5 - 10 years, in bringing about a step change in efficiencies.
Still find the landing in the middle of the Pacific a bit odd. Will there be some sort of special recovery ship to attempt to retrieve the rocket?
At 10:00 you say, that Nasa doesn't care how much the operational costs are ... and show the Space Shuttle as a rare occasion when Nasa thought about reusability. Because they have enough gouvernmental money to postpone the expensive ways of space operations. I'd say that is a misunderstanding of collosssal proportions! I was a kid, rather well educated on space operations and the long time goals of Wernher von Braun with his team. The space shuttle should have been an addition to the Saturn V rockets - but after the moon landings, the money was cut down to a fraction for other important endeavures, like the Vietnam war. So Nasa tried the most obvoius step: convince the gouvernment, that the Space shuttle would cost nothing to operate on the long run, as soon as it would be finished and operational. It would be a Space Transport System (STS) that earned more by bringing up commercial and military satellites, than it cost to operate. That was the explicit communicated goal!
But there was the space race with the russians - who already had their own Saljut Space station up and running and were constructing their own shuttle Buran as a payload to their modular Energija rocket system. The US intelligence and gouvernment most likely were very nervous to lose to the Russians, and forced Nasa to rush to finish the Space Shuttle. The booster rockets were a very cheap quick solution, the decision to leave out the parachute rescue system for more actual payload also showed, that they tried to do as much as possible asap. And then it worked! The magnificent Space Shuttle showed, what no other country in the world could achieve! At every flight they brought up their own little space station with a huge cargo hold and safely back to earth! That was huge!
And then the gouvernment expected the costs to come down as promised. But they didn't. Heads a Nasa were replaced, discussions about unmanned space flight over costly bringing men and women in space were conducted publicly. In the end Nasa was stuck with a small fleet of functional prototypes, with unfinished main engines (by far not as often reusable as planned) unfinished insulation materials (that fell off in dangerous chunks during every start), unfinished boosters (way more costly than planned and not modular), with no rescue system at the critical ascend phase (in stark contrast to all the other human rockets by US and USSR alike), no heavy lift rocket to build their own space station (while the russians brought up their MIR station and later the service module of the ISS). After some years Nasa finally finished the design of the main RS 25 engines (okay, it was Rockedyne, Nasa just paid for it) - but at the same time the other flaws had cost reputation and lives, while still being a money pit in comparison to the russian "one use only" rockets that could lift even more. It was cheaper to pay the russians for taxi flights than run their reusable technical prototype marvels. And far more safe.
So time ran out for the space shuttle, with no money to iron out the flaws, or maybe construct a far more developed 2nd generation Shuttle system, and when the likely second accident cost another ship with humans on board, the writing was on the wall. Nothing of that hints to a lack of will to try to save costs! It was simply obvious, that the operational costs of the flying prototype fleet were way higher and more dangerous than single use rockets. And there was this new more important endeavour in Afghanistan...
The SLS Design was chosen to get humans into space and even up to the moon again- way cheaper than the Saturn V or the Shuttle would have been. Reuse the Shuttle technology and even its actual vintage (reusable) engines, to make the new generation of big single use rockets. For cost and time saving! But alas - the vintage start towers and the main engines again evolved into massive money pits, while Space X showed the world not only how to produce completely new designed, affordable main engines - but also how to make a reusable, modular and human rated rocket system. No one else than Elon Musk and Gwynne Shotwell had been able to lead such visionary teams for decades and achieve such lofty goals, as soon as Wernher von Braun and Sergej Koroljew had died. Space X isn't more about saving money than Nasa had been! Imagine what the development of their new Merlin engines had cost, how much Raptor development and the whole Star ship program has cost so far, with no revenue! The Star ship development has been spanning over a decade by now! There is nothing cost saving at the moment. But they have managed to build an extremely relieable, cost effective and human rated rocket- and got it and the capsules to be reusable in the later iterations. There were almost no iterations for the Space shuttle. It had to fly as it was designed up to 1981 for its maiden flight. No modularity. No alternative. What the Nasa decline mostly showed, is how costly desperately trying to save money can become...Imagine if they had used their RS 25 engines and the solid fuel boosters for a Rocket like the SLS back in 1985. And developed reusable liquid fuel boosters to be as efficient and modular as the Energija system. In addition to the space shuttle and their own Space station! But there was a complete lack of money and leadership. They were complely absorbed by thinking on how to save money.
That's a good question! So why does spaceX use the launch tower to catch when a separate Catch tower located far from any unnecessary superstructure. One for catch and one for boost. More expense but much safer in the long run.
Calculations can only tell you so much. Actual circumstances often differ from calculation 👍
Thanks for your comment! Keep watching our channel ☺️
Considering the launchpads rapid disassembly, who sold them on the concrete and what was their sales pitch?
The founder of SpaceX, I mean what genius would have a launch tower right by all the infrastructure to support it and the rocket?
@@KoRntech, he didn't make that "special" concrete and he didn't sell it to himself.
I think SpaceX needs to build a more removed/remote mechazilla for its first catching demonstration after starship can repeatedly demonstrate its precision landing.with pinpoint accuracy. Since Falcon landing pads obviously have a beacon(s) on them, place one in the ocean and have the booster and starship land on them.
Since both have rare parts/elements on them, I'm interested in SpaceX's plan on recycling?
I think they should launch, and land in the ocean. The big problem how to make the rockets salt water proof. I think it can be done.
Your channel is great on providing us a look and also by explaining what SpaceX does and what they are going to do is very enjoyable. Space X is a wonderful Refreshing Company and the company displays why we all live in the USA. Musk came here and displayed the Capitalism part of our great nation and HE HIMSELF IS PROOF that nowhere else on earth can you accomplish so much and be free to do it. All of us, everyone of us on this earth has something amazing in the talent department and it is different than anything else. It's just convincing each of us that we do have that talent. That is why when I watch your reporting it shows how very wonderful it is to Live and Work here in America. Thank you for your presentations. They ROCK ! ! ! ! !
If they work out the kinks, seal up the vehicle and it works well, they could literally take off, water land it off the coast of Florida or Texas, have it recovered to land in under a day and be cleaning and refitting/inspecting in under 48 hours. That is still a hell of a beginning to a turn around, the Shuttle barely made that when it landed on the runway right next to the hanger.
It's unlikely that belly landings in the ocean are being tested for future use when Starship becomes operational. It's just a way of disposing of the Booster and the Ship at this point in time since SpaceX has not perfected tower landings yet.
The only operational tower now is the one at Boca Chica with its OLM. I would think that SpaceX would not try to land on that tower due to the risk of damage to the OLM if the landing goes sideways. SpX should build that second tower at BC, the one that was in the original plan for the BC launch site and practice tower landings there.
I think they should land, and launch the starships from the ocean all the time. No launch pad infrastructure, no landing infrastructure. All you need is a good barge for drop off, and pick up. Oh, that's right, SpaceX already has some barges. If something goes wrong, no big deal, it's in the middle of the ocean. Also the launch, and landing can be done almost anywhere. The launch location can be optimized for the desired orbit needed. It's a win, win, win situation. The biggest problem, how to make the Super Heavy, and Starship salt water proof? I think it can be done. It would make launching, and landings much simpler. Can this salt water proofing be done with the Falcon9? This would allow Falcon9s to launch, and land in the ocean too. Maybe a Falcon10 is in order here?
On the western tip of Kauai is a government tracking site used for various missile test flights. Tracking the re-entry of Starship with the sophisticated instruments there will provide valuable information if the starship makes a less than smooth landing.
ISTM that tracking sites are unneeded, obsolete. The Starship & booster will constantly broadcast their exact position/attitude/velocities/etc, vehicle/fuel status, etc real-time to land/ship stations & through Starlink.
@@warrenwhite9085 distant cameras could show the state of the ships insulation tiles directly after reentry. Before it maybe crashes into the sea. Remember, this vehicle with its heat shield is untested so far! Onboard cameras are great, but it is not even clear if they will be operational after reentry.
Those government stations, are meant for our safety not amusement. As others have said, the starship could broadcast, somehow.
Also one of NASA's WB-57s is supposed to be in the area when it lands to get photos of it as it reenters the atmosphere.
@@gravelydon7072 Bloated, pork driven, incompetent big government Federal Agency NASA struggles for relevance… its massive budget wasted on HQ/Center dead wood overhead, pork & dead end, unaffordable, unsustainable legacy tech boondoggles like STS/SLS. So the best NASA can do is fly their little plane by to take unneeded pics of innovative, efficient, spirited private enterprise SpaceX actually doing impressive things far beyond NASA’s competence or abilities. While this sad administration does every petty, underhanded, dirty regulatory harassment, trick & lawfare it it can to obstruct, delay, block Elon Musk’s companies.
Time and experience is well balanced in SpaceX. I trust their decisions as they grow and prosper.
For some reason I feel like I watched this video twice...
I dont think this is a human-generated channel. AI script, AI voiceover, plagiarized images.
Why no mod of Falcon Heavy only with two additional stage 1 units attached, giving 4 boosters and one second stage. Perhaps the advanced Starship engines could be used in some way to advantage.
You know what this reminds me of? Sudden pressure changes crushing a tanker truck. The chilled tanks should not be an issue given there will be some insulation, but is a belly flop going to stress the rocket superstructure? All of the thrust is straight along the long axis, so the rocket lands in the same orientation as launch then we know it's good. Even landing on its side should be OK, but they want starship to land on its bottom side and not upside down, right? So if they cut thrust at an angle, will that diagonal landing force require more reinforcement and less cargo tonnage?
Very interesting and informative. Thank you.
Elon stated that Starship and booster will be scuttled if they don't break up on their own. No plans to salvage any.
"NASA doesn't have to worry about money; they're funded by the govt." haha. I'm sure you didn't mean it that way. WE the people fund everything the govt does (most of it wasteful & unnecessary, or even detrimental).
Amazing😮
Water isn't "soft", if you hit a body of water, fast enough, it's like hitting concrete.
Plus is there even enoug& gravity on moon or Mars to even build a tower to catch a starship. Everything has to be built before it can be use, then there has to be enough material and workers on the planets to build anything.. So think how may flights will have to occur to have that scenario to play out .
Don't you think they might be testing a belly flop touch down for other extra-terrestial landings? Perhaps even a hard landing on rock.
Thank you, Elon & Space X
Was the explosion of 24 a setback , or part of a learning curve???
Why not just add wings to it, (which can carry extra fuel) and it can glide back?
Yes my idea also
If you are going carry payload into orbit and back, having a flying platform would be more practical
Could a water landing be used in case of emergency landing like a water runway if it to dangerous to use the arms.
Probably not. For example, Falcon 9 will ditch into the sea if an engine fault is detected when trying a barge landing, to protect the barge. If a serious engine fault is detected on Starship during descent, it is likely to be descending too fast for a soft ocean landing.
I still can’t get over the similarities of the Starship to a 1950s TV serial called “Space Cadets” something like that
Why not have a separate "catch tower?" In that way SpaceX need not endanger the launch facility.
Cant wait for the next launch hope it's in October, a cool idea would be to build a third tower to try catching the super heavy when they are ready to do so, away from the actual star base so if anything went wrong star base would still be intact
Your video is incorrect on some points 1 is no 2nd launch this year due to DPW 130 day reevailuation, after which SpaceX has to reapply for launch license with FAA And that could take another 2 or 3 months. So maybe April 2024 before Ship 25 can launch
We applaud the dreams and achievements so far, however many challenges to overcome before we see real stability.
Space X could build a fresh water landing pools. I'd bet something the size of a dry dock. It's a thought.
Hah! 😅
Then you would need parachutes capable of changing course
Almost my first thought was that they should put a wooden target in the ocean for it to land on, something fragile enough that it would at worst just scratch the Starship plus cheap to build and not harmful to the environment.
Out of date information. The splashdown has been moved to the Indian Ocean. Please update.
Competitive high divers will tell you the water contact from any appreciable height is anything but soft or cushioned. That's why the create turbulence to break up the surface before the diver hits the water.
They could strap a couple of barges together and put catching arms on them.
No, There would be damage without a net to absorb the sudden stop
I believe NASA is working to lead the way in rocketry, and science, not just pride…
So literally no footage of this thing landing in the ocean…
Would you want to be in a boat near where this 200 ton hunk of metal will be setting down, possibly not in full control?
How do you fly an ocean to Mars for the vehicle to land ?
It floats! Great design. Hawaiian Native People will be excited and ready with their kayaks.
Starship should land on a drone ship, even temporarily without landing legs. At least for initial vertical landings. If they could land SN15 at Starbase LZ, then they could land on drone ship without legs. Just extend and strengthen the ships skirt to recede the engines.
The Falcon 1 and the early Falcon 9s were not reusable.
Yeah, feels like this channel is getting worse and worse at journaling
A water surface like the surface of the ocean or even a swimming pool is not a soft surface and should never be considered a soft surface. There will be a shock absorbing effect on contact only if that contact occurs at a velocity of less than a couple of meters per second, otherwise do the surface tension and other physical properties of the water, the contact with the surface will be the same as contacting solid ground or even concrete. Unless starship transitions from the belly flop to a near-vertical position infires its engines effectively enough to reduce bowlocity to only a few meters per second at the time of contact with the ocean surface the impact force will be the same as hitting the ground at Boca chica or any other on land landing point
Starship will make a hard landing off of Hawaii and will break up on impact. If it doesn’t then SpaceX will shoot it with guns to make it sink. This is a requirement of the FAA. It will hit the ocean as a approximately 300 mph.
Only the first stage will make a soft landing.
Now that’s what I’m talking about
Hope SpaceX nails multiple targeted landings in the oceans. It would be great to be 95%+ sure a Megazilla landing will go well. An accident with a botched landing at Starbase would become a regulatory nightmare and delay the program more than necessary.
The booster never gets to orbital velocity!
Why not have separate landing pad?
Considering what happened to 24 on the uncooled launch pad, I have a hard time seeing how a return launch from Mars or the Moon can be executed safely.
Well they won't be landing with 33 engines at full throttle, but only a few at lower thrust. That is how....it's not rocket science you know. LoL
@@ntal5859 Not landing, launching again. The launch is what damaged 24.
Is 100lbs of thrust per 10 lbs of engine weight and two moving parts anything?
Landing it in water is a terrific idea !
Maglev technology backed up by a jet piggy back propulsion systems should be used to catapult this large craft high into our atmosphere before rocket engines are used . Maglev technology can get the craft up to optimal speed enabling lift off, then the jet engine piggy back system takes over, taking the craft to the edge of space before the piggy back disengages and returns to a designated airfield. The piggy back aircraft would be huge and very expensive, but can be used for decades with general maintenance, eliminating much of the risks and expense.
Вода и огонь
Илон, ты гений🎉
Why do I always get a feeling that this channel is a publicity outlet for Space X in every video ?!?
Anyone that has ever done a belly flop in a swimming pool would not consider water to be a soft cushion.
SpaceX had to assure the FAA that Starship would break up entirely on landing at Hawaii. It will hit at 3oo mph. If it doesn’t break break up, they have to shoot it with guns to make it sink. I bet that they won’t attempt a catch until they have gone to orbit. This is a slow process.
I don't understand why this would be an FAA requirement. It makes no sense to me.@@davidcolwell614
landing in the ocean doesn't the sudden cooling down of these hot thrusters make it shrink and crack.
It is main engines, not thrusters. If they are damaged, they can be replaced.
Stunning stuff
It is essential that all flights are dress rehearsals for landing in the chopsticks. This means they must demonstrate micrometer controllability during all phases of flight before they go for the sticks. That is at least a year of solid testing and crashing and we aren't testing enough until SpaceX looks like a rocket junkyard. It might also be a good idea to practice landing in break away chopsticks made of PVC pipe.
Incorrect!
Starship is not the world's largest vehicle? Several Larger vehicles come immediately to mind: E.g.: Oil tankers, Cargo vessels, Aircraft Carriers, etc. Horever it is the world's largest Space vehicle!
Why not have re-fueling tanks on the landing pad ship and have the boosters and spaceship re-fuel just enough to make it back to the home landing pad?!?
Someone is always getting shocked about something.
I just hope SpaceX does not make the same mistake NASA did where they sunk a few of theirs
Why not belly flop off the Gulf coast, and restage from the water via rail system to the launch pad? I personally like the idea of landing like a plane because the risk is less.
a water landing is a possibility it most likely needs testing, like aircraft ditching tests.
Its cool that you are answering these questions and covering covering the news about starship but it was so wordy, this could be summarised very way shorter than 15 mins. Feels like padding it out for watch time
Sooner or later SpaceX is going to have to improve their booster and starship landing legs before trying to land on the moon or Mars. Hydraulics are good to a certain point, after that something else needs to be used to handle the compressive shock and loading. Who knows, maybe a hybrid.
I doubt that any lower stage could survive landing on the moon tail first of a large spacecraft. The amount of stuff blasted into the rockets would cause failure .
@@chrisbraswell8864, there was some mention of SpaceX moving some engines towards the nose for landing to avoid that scenario. Haven't heard any more about it, they still have to prove and improve their test vehicles. Personally I think that a horizontal landing is going to have to be necessary to offload heavy construction equipment, etc. I don't think a crane is going to be viable. Dropping the load from space won't work either. The alternative would be shipping in crates and onsite assembly. That might make a load weight problem using the planned elevator. Somebody is going to have to figure out the maglev problem. Currently it's just a toy concept with no weight lifting ability.
Thanks for that.@@johnruckman2320
This looks like a spaceship that Buck Rodgers flew on that movie.
Haha!
The safety factor makes landing in the ocean the safest way to land. A virtical landing of a vehicle the size and weight of the starship is very dangerous because of the weight of the starship, the amount of fuel required to stop its decent, and the power the engines will creates to stop it. It will actually turn the starship into a stick of nitroglycerin with a lit fuse heading for a landing pad of solid concrete that if it might bump just a tiny bit to hard on landing could turn it into a very big bomb and a great big explosion. Thats why a ocean landing is the only way to go. And even landing the starship in the ocean has its risks. Were going to see what happens when the test is done.
This is only for the first attempt until they work out how it’s going to happen. It is not their goal or mission. It’s a test phase you’re making it sound like this is how they’re going to set things up permanently and they’re not.
It's improper to call it explosion. I would call it malfunction. It started with that ridiculous take off when most of the damage occurred. You don't ffart inside a closed room !
Put a buoyant chamber at the top so it can land vertically and float vertically.