SpaceX Starship splashdown somehow SHOCKED NASA with this method...
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 10 พ.ค. 2024
- SpaceX Starship splashdown somehow SHOCKED NASA with this method...
1, Sources of music
The-Doctor-main-version
2, Sources of images and videos
SpaceX: / @spacex
SpaceX: / spacex
C-bass Productions: / @cbassproductions
Evan Karen: / @evankaren
Tamás Török/@tomket7: / @tomket7
NASA: / @nasa
NASA: www.nasa.gov/
TijnM: / @tijn_m
Elon Musk: / elonmusk
Project Road to Mars: / @projectroadtomars
Greg Scott: / gregscott_photo
NASA Goddard: / @nasagoddard
NASA Video: / @nasagovvideo
LabPadre: / @labpadre
iamVisual: / @iamvisualvfx
ErcX Space: / @ercxspace
RoBossBomb: / @robossbomb0000
TijnM: / m_tijn
THELONELYCAT: / @thelonelycat
Christian Debney: / @christiandebney1989
ACTUSPACEX: / @actuspacex6995
Erc X: / ercxspace
Alexander Svan: / @alexsvanart
Andrew C - Rocket Future: / media
Starbase Surfer: / cnunezimages
Ryan Hansen Space: / @ryanhansenspace
NASA Goddard: / @nasagoddard
Ryan Hansen Space: / media
TheSpaceEngineer: / @thespaceengineer
Cosmic Perspective: / @cosmicperspective
TheSpaceEngineer : / mcrs987 / @thespaceengineer
Matthew/ \Ryan: / mattr5226
/ @mattr5226
Evan Karen: / @evankaren
Shuttle Man Productions: / @matthewcable
Clarence365: / clarence3652
/ @clarence3654
Bowen Cameron: / bojay_stellar
Warnix: / @warnix13
Ezekiel Overstreet: / ezekieloverstr1
ILoveDP: / @ilovedp
3D_Daniel: / 3ddaniel1
/ @3d_daniel445
David Nagy: / @davidnagy03er
=======
SpaceX Starship splashdown somehow SHOCKED NASA with this method...
Starship is indeed the most extraordinary spacecraft in the world.
It not only dominates in terms of size and power, but what makes it even more special is its unique ground system designed for assembly, launch, and recovery.
As rocket enthusiasts, we have had high expectations for the epic Starship recovery demonstration during the upcoming orbital launch of Starship.
Particularly, the scene of Mechazilla catching Starship, a moment that seemed like it could only exist in science fiction movies.
However, the reality is different! SpaceX's decision for Starship is to have it descend directly into the sea.
To explain this, let's dive into more in today's episode of Alpha Tech!
SpaceX Starship splashdown somehow SHOCKED NASA with this method... - วิทยาศาสตร์และเทคโนโลยี
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
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!
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.
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.
They don't want to get in trouble with the FAA or destroy the catcher without an ocean test. It's a great move.
Looking forward to Starship's total success and recovery for reuse over and over. Elon Musk rocks!
He is stupid!
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.
The First Sub-Orbital Launch wasn't a Failure but, a Learning Experience. As Elon Musk has stated B4.
HAH.
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?
The explosion was a result of the “setback”. Not vice versa. The launch failed by components breaking down. Self destruct was commanded after failure.
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.
This is probably the best presentation this channel has produced! Thanks!
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.
The idea isn't to relaunch in Texas. They are building the facilities to launch, land, and refurbish in Florida.
No more clicking on videos with "shocked" in the headline...lol
Elon stated that Starship and booster will be scuttled if they don't break up on their own. No plans to salvage any.
How many times will you repeat information to fill time?
Calculations can only tell you so much. Actual circumstances often differ from calculation 👍
Thanks for your comment! Keep watching our channel ☺️
This is a test! Why shocked? Go SpaceX Go 💪💪💪
👍👍👍
I believe NASA is working to lead the way in rocketry, and science, not just pride…
Thank you for not playing obnoxious dramatic LOUD music in your videos... We can actually understand your dialogue... Thank you! 😀
Space X could build a fresh water landing pools. I'd bet something the size of a dry dock. It's a thought.
Hah! 😅
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.
You do not LAND the rocket into the ocean.. you OCEAN it.
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.
SPACEX should buy the next used Aircraft Carrier.
Objective viewpoints are
Refreshing
Thank you for explaining SpaceX Build it, Launch it, Break it, Redesign it, Rebuild it, system of experimental rocket testing.
The Falcon 1 and the early Falcon 9s were not reusable.
Yeah, feels like this channel is getting worse and worse at journaling
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.
Stunning stuff
No mention of the most important issue? After it lands in the ocean which ship and HOW will it be picked up???
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
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 !
I feel shocked by header! There was no splash down... and no start of second starship stack yet.
NASA is not shocked.
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?
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.
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.
It seems to me that it would also be a good practice and test for a specific type of emergency return, landing, and recovery.
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.
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.
Вода и огонь
Илон, ты гений🎉
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
Water isn't "soft", if you hit a body of water, fast enough, it's like hitting concrete.
They could strap a couple of barges together and put catching arms on them.
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.
The booster never gets to orbital velocity!
*The explosion was a result of the “setback”. Not vice versa*
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.
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.
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.
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.
a water landing is a possibility it most likely needs testing, like aircraft ditching tests.
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.
We applaud the dreams and achievements so far, however many challenges to overcome before we see real stability.
Now that’s what I’m talking about
Why not have a separate "catch tower?" In that way SpaceX need not endanger the launch facility.
Someone is always getting shocked about something.
I think choosing to splash down in the Ocean of starship is very wise and logical! ⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️
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
Very interesting and informative. Thank you.
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
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.
Why not have separate landing pad?
Thank you, Elon & Space X
Having been alive from the birth of the space program, it is incredibly phenomenal how far we have advanced in this time frame.
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.
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
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.
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 ! ! ! ! !
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
Just put out there positive energy
Kinetic energy transfered into the tower would be massive
Expectation is that the startship can hover when near empty. Why do you think there will be a lot of Kinetic energy?
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?
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.
Great video and info ! The Starship (second stage/upper stage) will need Landing Legs to land on the moon. The Landing Legs will need to be tested soon ! Also NASA and SpaceX will need a SpaceX Starship Cargo rocket to deliver cargo to the moon ! Back to the moon to stay and onto Mars and beyond-Ad Astra... Timothy Lipinski
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.
Why do I always get a feeling that this channel is a publicity outlet for Space X in every video ?!?
I just hope SpaceX does not make the same mistake NASA did where they sunk a few of theirs
I still can’t get over the similarities of the Starship to a 1950s TV serial called “Space Cadets” something like that
Out of date information. The splashdown has been moved to the Indian Ocean. Please update.
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
Landing it in water is a terrific idea !
Fast iterations. Fast data. Fast production.
Equals fast rocket.
SpaceX also has to operate under NASA’s rules and regulations. That means crewed missions land in the sea. Never mind that there’s danger of sinking and drowning like Columbia’s crew.
Wouldn’t it be safer if they landed on a pad? That way emergency staff & equipment would be right there!
Was the explosion of 24 a setback , or part of a learning curve???
Elon musk is the Newton of our age
Next gone be catching starship then landing legs to landing on moon and mar
This is not news. It has been the plan for a long time for these development launches.
All this bellyflopmanouvring looks very nice, with just the vehicle.
But what about when it does land with humans in it??
Are they forced to be on that rollercoaster?!
yep... that is the plan
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?
You need a fresh water pond to belly flop into like maybe a man made one near Boca.
Regarding Space-X, there is no failure, only delayed success.
Put a buoyant chamber at the top so it can land vertically and float vertically.
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.
I'm not quite on board with the ocean landings but I'm thinking Elon Musk could consider having 8 legs that are gas shocks on each leg to help slow the rocket down. And land just like Falcon rockets 🚀.
Falcons legs are used once and need replacing as they use crush zones.
If musk spent as much on his rockets as he does on CGI he might, might have something.
Well let's have 2 landing pads at Texas maybe a 3rd would be really cool
How do you fly an ocean to Mars for the vehicle to land ?
NASA wan't shocked. Also. it dominates jack.