Tower one is to be the sacrificial catcher this time in case things go badly, it has fulfilled its usefulness, and now that two is almost done, it won't be a huge setback if lost.
I think there will be more horizontal movement in the last few seconds of the "catch" 1) why would they have been doing the "bounce" testing to generate more data regard the last few seconds. 2) why would spaceX have introduced the arms with a variable include-able ??
Have any of you seen any reporting on how many engines are replaced when they reuse a Falcon 9?? Been trying to get some information on that for months now!!
I think you'll find that the "catching" is part of their rapid turnaround program!! If they can catch in such a way as to facilitate the service and relaunch, and they avoid using the slow moving SPMT which has it's own issues! They will certainly be able to minimize the use of those giant crawling ground based cranes! There's tons o risk in that alone!!
It isn't just a matter of saving weight. When returning directly to the OLM there is no need for cranes, picking-up and transport of the ship and booster. Remember that these rockets are .onsters !
Good ideas from SpaceX but I think it would be best if they land the first booster on a offshore platform before they try landing at starbase for safety prove the technology before landing on land .
Will NASA permit Starship to have no landing legs in order for it to be human rated? If HB has a fault Starship may need to land without having a catch tower available. Starship Lunar Lander will need landing legs.
Yes but it's not proven till it lands on chopsticks 6 or more times and booster won't land on tower B or #2 most likely they will catch it with tower A or #1 there is to much movement of the # 1 O.L.M. launches will move to tower #2 and landings on tower # 1 but I maybe wrong
When Landing the BF Booster ...... Why not just Land it in the Water ... Lift it onto a Boat ... and Rinse it Off with fresh water .... People do it everyday with Boats ! .... Unfortunately with the World's Biggest BF Rocket ... comes the Biggest BF Rocket Problems ...... :-[
Noted, and discounted. "Deceleration" is self-evident in its meaning. "Negative acceleration" is practicing semantic judo... 😂. Admittedly to a mathematically oriented person "Negative acceleration" will be a valid term. YMMV..
Nothing new about this. Tower landing has been discussed for months. Why do you need to post twice In one day if you don’t have anything fresh ? Somehow Shocked NASA has got to go. Reads very awkward and stupid to English ears
![Chino Pacas - Modo Capone (with Drake & Fuerza Regida) [Video Oficial]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/zjv8TQ0gBkg/mqdefault.jpg)
Tower one is to be the sacrificial catcher this time in case things go badly, it has fulfilled its usefulness, and now that two is almost done, it won't be a huge setback if lost.
All of a sudden their tech can't make it land. C'mon this is weird.
Go for it!
Do it!
I think there will be more horizontal movement in the last few seconds of the "catch" 1) why would they have been doing the "bounce" testing to generate more data regard the last few seconds. 2) why would spaceX have introduced the arms with a variable include-able ??
This is exemplified technologically advanced machines #SpaceX
the booster will surely have some thrusters allowing SpaceX to make small precise adjustments in a hover relative to the mechazilla arms!!!
Have any of you seen any reporting on how many engines are replaced when they reuse a Falcon 9?? Been trying to get some information on that for months now!!
I think you'll find that the "catching" is part of their rapid turnaround program!! If they can catch in such a way as to facilitate the service and relaunch, and they avoid using the slow moving SPMT which has it's own issues! They will certainly be able to minimize the use of those giant crawling ground based cranes! There's tons o risk in that alone!!
😊thanks for the video David 🚀🇬🇧❤️👌👍
It isn't just a matter of saving weight. When returning directly to the OLM there is no need for cranes, picking-up and transport of the ship and booster. Remember that these rockets are .onsters !
Thanks great episode 👍👍
Glad you enjoyed it
Is there any video you made that doesn't shock NASA?😂. Tell me one, just one.!
😂
Good ideas from SpaceX but I think it would be best if they land the first booster on a offshore platform before they try landing at starbase for safety prove the technology before landing on land .
It went to zero before dropping the last 10 ft. Watch the video again and watch closely
Thanks your feedback. I noted this
Will NASA permit Starship to have no landing legs in order for it to be human rated? If HB has a fault Starship may need to land without having a catch tower available. Starship Lunar Lander will need landing legs.
Very data information.
Glad you think so!
Frankly I think the Starship's main purpose is to entertain us while they are developing much faster vehicles!! If not Mars is about it!!
Wake me when he gets to MARS.
😂
Yes but it's not proven till it lands on chopsticks 6 or more times and booster won't land on tower B or #2 most likely they will catch it with tower A or #1 there is to much movement of the # 1 O.L.M. launches will move to tower #2 and landings on tower # 1 but I maybe wrong
When Landing the BF Booster ...... Why not just Land it in the Water ... Lift it onto a Boat ... and Rinse it Off with fresh water .... People do it everyday with Boats ! .... Unfortunately with the World's Biggest BF Rocket ... comes the Biggest BF Rocket Problems ...... :-[
Salt damage.
Hot engines and cold salt water…. Not a good mix
All the components and wiring under the covers on ships outside would be soaked.
clickbait
Better caughtion Legs or wheels
than mud in nface and disaster
Deceleration does not exist. The technical term is negative acceleration.
I noted this, thanks
Noted, and discounted. "Deceleration" is self-evident in its meaning. "Negative acceleration" is practicing semantic judo... 😂.
Admittedly to a mathematically oriented person "Negative acceleration" will be a valid term.
YMMV..
AGAIN WHY ARE THEY CATCHING THINGS THEY HAVE ALREADY PROOVED CAN SELF LAND...
Starship CAN'T land!!
Nothing new about this. Tower landing has been discussed for months. Why do you need to post twice In one day if you don’t have anything fresh ?
Somehow Shocked NASA has got to go. Reads very awkward and stupid to English ears
nothing new here, click bait, you get my free thumbs down
Thanks for the comment