Vile or not, it WAS funny. The others should stop whining with their woke attitude. It's better to joke about something like that than forget about it.
Build a second tower for landing until they perfect the process, and then they can use the launch platform for landing...Then upgrade the landing tower to a launch and landing tower.
@@bendobbing7015 We know they wont, but sometimes suggesting things like "hot gas thrusting", "hot staging", "diverter trenches", "areo-spike engines" happen. We dream...
I'd keep it with the current catch arms, but I think it would be better if the booster had a couple of grapple hooks that shoot out and grab on to a profile made for it, with the fingers as a last ditch effort to catch it if the cables fail, but I guess the cables would have to be too thick anyways. Pretty sure every kind of scenario you can think of, has gone through the engineer's minds at SpaceX....
@@geesehoward700 They want to squeeze every last drop of payload tonnage out of the booster. That's why the options are limited. I suppose later on, when they've determined how much they actually need, some of it could be sacrificed for some extra engineering into a landing system. Remember, Elon works with first principles, and "best part is no part".
@paulmichaelfreedman8334, even after the landings were perfected on Falcon 9, we still had one falling, and they don't always land in the center of the landing pad. Seems like an expensive accident waiting to happen. But I want them to continue with the idea because it will improve landing accuracy in the industry.
Not for the one way Rockets, they could Belly down once we design that into the Rockets, if these were transporting Tesla Bots they could travel off in padded packing and could survive a heavy Mars landing. If the Rockets carcase survived without Leaks it could become Robot base Mars and it would also make unloading vehicles like the Boring machines and Cybertrucks from upper decks much easier than having to lower them from a Vertical Rocket, the front of the rocket (the cone) could easily open for access … or even be ejected from the main body to stand on its rim and become an admin base … not every rocket has to return to Earth …
I've said this since the got rid of them. If Mars is the goal, the legs MUST come back and soon. If they can survive Earth's gravity, Mars's won't be an issue.
It's irrelevant how long it takes to build a tower to catch the rocket and booster. Once the landing and catch are perfected, then you can expand it to a launch tower. If either of them blows up on the launch tower during a catch attempt, how long is it going to take to rebuild it? A lit longer than a simple catch tower. I'd also double up on proximity sensors etc for more precise maneuvering and hovering control. The tower and rockets need talk together.
Legs dont make as much sense, since they both require designated landing zones either way. Saves weight on the rocket, and you can build in WAY more dampening technology in the tower since there are almost no weight or space restrictions compared to building it into the rocket.
I suggested a launch cradle with XY slew for the Hummingbird suborbital launcher in 1988, inspired by seeing a skydiving friend catch another jumper on landing. If it can be done with ram air parachutes and Mk I eyeballs, robotics can do it too.
The turnaround time for falcon 9 boosters is an average of 3 months, and they’ve been flying for years. It’ll be 15-20 years minimum before starships are rapidly reusable, if it’s possible at all.
If ever. Cybertruck was 40t, didn't have steel exoskeleton, didn't have the range claimed, didn't have the features claimed, didn't meet the proce point claimed. Hyperloop was nothing like what was claimed. Why would his rockets be any different. Just lies to trick people into inflating stock so he could take the largest ever ceo payout. Lol. Suckers gunna suck lol
Don't think this is going to work long term. The constant thrust on the lower structure will eventually destroy it. They can and should put landing legs on the booster just like the Dragon booster. That makes more sense. If they are going to do this it makes more sense to just have a capture tower...let the booster cool then transfer it to a transport vehicle for servicing and system checks then move it to a launch pad.
@@Videos_of_Glory_man but what about this needs rapid reusability? Your launching stuff. Rockets are not coming back. Unless you are talking about refueling in space. Soo 20 rockets to refuel 1. But they can't even do that
@@THE_PeKa they have a limited amount of total rockets. So if they want to launch more total tonnage than they eather need to build more, or launch the ones that they have more often.
Catch-wires and landing nose-hooks. The motive behind dispensing with landing legs is to save weight, where if only 6% of the rocket's mass is orbital payload it behoves to economize on as much weight as possible. Landing struts and shock absorbers are heavy... Landing spars or outward-turning cables that terminate in catch-hooks are much lighter, and catch-wires projecting from the chopsticks can more easily and more pisitively engage the hooks on both sides of the rocket with lessened risk of damaging the heat tiles or fuselage.
I don't understand the "have to move" argument for not building two towers. Surely the booster or starship will have to be moved for the other part to land anyway?
Booster and Starship are two different things. Boosters are unmanned and should never need legs and unmanned Starships likewise can fly sans legs. There will always however be a requirement for an "extra" tower because Starship is intended to be manned and a manned vehicle cannot always be kept in space while a damaged or destroyed tower is repaired or replaced. That said, the "extra" tower can be anywhere as Starship doesn't have to return to the point it was launched either. As long as there is at least one working tower and sufficient ground transporters, cranes and yard space to move extra Starships out of the way there's no reason manned Starships cannot land where there's space available for them in an emergency. Of course it will usually be preferable to stay in orbit until it's possible to land in it's actual destination but we are talking emergency edge cases. That said, manned Starships might be equipped with simple landing legs like those that were on the only Starship that survived it's flight, they are not "rapidly reusable" but as an emergency landing on a pad instead of a tower they would provide an additional safety option.
Unlike Falcon9, where they went through a few boosters to fine tune the landing (with minimal damage to the drone landing ships). This time, they can't affort to go through 3 or 4 starships/boosters or 2 to 3 towers before a successful "catch". They already burned through at least a billion dollars.
Since we now know that a tower rebuild takes two days too long, wouldn't it make more sense to build a surface flush revolver/horn gear platform for rapid swaps? If the quick exchange, is an hour or less then roughly how much extra real estate is likely needed? How much of that space can be moved to a vertical position? How many tons of structure would it take to be immune to a major crash?
In my opinion, they should have a wave off, an option where a damaged ship could be splashed down nearby in the Gulf of Mexico. This is what I had envisioned the offshore launch landing platform research to be for. This philosophy is what Navy carriers plan for.
second tower for just catching to start with the ability to upgrade it to full launch landing capability makes the most sense, as long as it is in fairly close proximity of the launch tower. at this stage a few days IS rapid reusability.
In his video, elon, showed the boosters being caught but not the starships used to refill the starship in leo. Lol. He also said he was going to leave another starship in leo as a refilling pod. Lol. So now you have an extra stage 1. He hasnt planned how this works. He is just marketing nonsense he makes up, lol. Someday elon fans will figure this out lol
The landing legs would have to be massive. Making the ship bigger to take Starship into orbit. Which makes the OLM larger and the Mega Bay larger too. So much added mass and millions in extra spending for a worse cadence. Catching makes sense in the long term
He claimed he would have living quarters for 100 people for the 6 month trip to mars in luxury with rec centers and concert halls with floating violinists. Lol. Can we all just admit when elon says it will happen, it won't. Lol
@snakevenom4954 elon presented it I think when he called it MCT. Lol. So direct quote from elon from space X. Lol. Why is it all the sycophants have no idea of thw stupid things elon says. Lol
I think their thought process might be that they’re launching the rocket on the tower anyway, which is arguably more dangerous because if it explodes it’s both parts and filled with fuel. So comparatively an empty super heavy crashing back in at terminal velocity is not that bad
For the number and frequency of launches planned, and given that complicated machines tend to fail for numerous reasons, they will need a large number of towers. Just a temporary delay in launching would mean that starships coming back to earth would have to be redirected.
Expensive, copper tube or equivalent to use the Lorenz effect to give the arms more time to engage, and cheaper, use arrester cables to encompass the cylinder and the enclosure arm would only have to be large enough to transport the cable, less mass. Assuming the rocket could support it's hanging weight
Just make a tower indescructable so it wont be affected a lot even if hit directly.... and make some spare parts as replacements for damaged arms if it happens.... Just make it in a way that you expect explosions there.
I'm somewhat sceptical about that rapid reusuabilty. Replacing broken parts/engines and testing the new ones in system will take time and cost money. Exactly that made the Space Shuttle uneconomical.
Glad we are slowly acknowledging rapid resuability was a flawed concept and only worked when he wanted to use a rocket to fly people from nyc to saudi. Lol. 40t to leo as elon admitted is max (still doubtful), which means if it was going 15 launches to refill one rocket, itll take like 40. Saturn V used one launch. Efficency -4000% lol.
It would not take days to transport it. They would put it right in a stand and move it over to other tower like when the move it from the mega bay to the stand
I don't understand why they don't just build 10 starships and launch 1, then load another on the pad and have the booster land safely on legs and keep the cycle going.
The current tower will be outdated when the bigger version 3 Starship comes out. So risking the current tower to perfect or test boost catches is not as bad an idea as you think. Starship V3 will be too tall for this current tower.
Till next year Space X plans to build four launch Towers...the process with landing of the flight sections with high precision exactly in the mechanical arms is challenging task that should be successfully demonstrated with future Starship iterations.The forth Integrated Test flight should demonstrate simulation of landing of Super Heavy Booster flight section exactly in the mechanical arm.
IFT5 will provide catch data they REALLY need right now. Let's get it done! Crash or not, the data is the best thing they can get. Tower 2 is just a few piles in the dirt now. Build it to a catch attempt understanding rather than the same thing. Do the catch, learn from it.
Yes? But keep in mind the flaw in the logic… the tiles like any bbq need time to cool down to work on and that will not be less than 1 day regardless tower or legs 😂😂😂
High risk, high reward you say, I take ur high risk and play Oceangate sub. It does implosion damage, while at the same time I’ll lay my land card Chernobyl. It does spicy radioactive damage.
I think the catching tower is stupid, musk is not always right in what he does. Just make a landing leg pod the booster sets down in.they could move it around to wherever they want a landing.
We saw what the Raptor Engines does to concrete after 5 seconds of continuous fire. So you need a second deluge system for that. That's assuming you don't cook the landing system which would need to be beefed up. You're being too short sighted. A catch is the best option going forward
Trying to cut corners and save time by a day or two is the WRONG thing to do - ask the crew of the Challenger. It's better to slim down broad advancements than to cut corners and gamble.
In my grandpa's days, he tells me, some european nation had gone behond Mars already, and they were getting ready to take over the moon...., or so he says...
Has anyone looked into the payload of starship? I’m no rocket engineer but from the last launch both booster and the ship were fully loaded with fuel and used all of it during launch and it had no payload??
@@k1ngjulien_ yes, do you understand how heavy the booster is and the moment arm that it would produce? It’s like hanging a skyscraper off of a 300 ft moment arm. Also, an oil rig is tied down, this structure would have to be more movable
Because you have to put those back in the compartment that releases the parachutes, and there would be a lot of parachutes so it would take a lot of time.
They weight a lot, at the velocities they need to be super beefy and strong, not to mention the system around them. Then theri the control problem, parachute gliding is not that precise, less for a gigantic soda can.
A grabber makes more sense. When landing, the rocker is basically empty and low pressure, meaning if it lands any force can collapse or damage the rocket body at it will have much less rigidity. This is a bigger long term risk than catching it.
Mr. Elon a rocket has hit the 2nd tower
That's vile lol
Using that incident for a lame joke IS vile...
What was vile was the forever war that was started because of it.
Vile or not, it WAS funny. The others should stop whining with their woke attitude. It's better to joke about something like that than forget about it.
@@paulmichaelfreedman8334 3000 people died. you know how many families that is? how many families torn apart by 20 goofy-ahh terriorists?
Build a second tower for landing until they perfect the process, and then they can use the launch platform for landing...Then upgrade the landing tower to a launch and landing tower.
Yep, this. Plus have enough spares ready to go straight on to the launch tower.
I’m amazed they didn’t do this with their oil rig.
Let this be the exact reason they are building the second tower, to ensure continuity.
They're not doing this, they plan on catching the booster with the current OLM in the next few months if the simulated catch on flight 4 goes well
@@bendobbing7015 We know they wont, but sometimes suggesting things like "hot gas thrusting", "hot staging", "diverter trenches", "areo-spike engines" happen. We dream...
The Starship is supposed to be rapidly reusable. I wonder if the tower is designed to be rapidly rebuilt.
most things that are meant to be rapidly reusable stop being so once they get blown up
Starship is a pipedream
good thing they managed to make it less reusable than the space shuttle
Rapid disassembly
There’s a third option; land on the OLM, no catch, no legs. The OLM could be redesigned so it funnels the booster onto the clamps as it lands.
Not a bad idea tbh, it’s like what we’ve seen on the ITS animation back in 2016, but I think that might end up being exclusive to the booster
just spend some time and get some proper landing gear on it. the raptors are more powerful now so it shouldnt be that much of an issue weight wise.
I'd keep it with the current catch arms, but I think it would be better if the booster had a couple of grapple hooks that shoot out and grab on to a profile made for it, with the fingers as a last ditch effort to catch it if the cables fail, but I guess the cables would have to be too thick anyways. Pretty sure every kind of scenario you can think of, has gone through the engineer's minds at SpaceX....
@@geesehoward700 They want to squeeze every last drop of payload tonnage out of the booster. That's why the options are limited. I suppose later on, when they've determined how much they actually need, some of it could be sacrificed for some extra engineering into a landing system. Remember, Elon works with first principles, and "best part is no part".
@paulmichaelfreedman8334, even after the landings were perfected on Falcon 9, we still had one falling, and they don't always land in the center of the landing pad. Seems like an expensive accident waiting to happen. But I want them to continue with the idea because it will improve landing accuracy in the industry.
They have to develop landing legs eventually, for the moon and Mars.
Not for the one way Rockets, they could Belly down once we design that into the Rockets, if these were transporting Tesla Bots they could travel off in padded packing and could survive a heavy Mars landing. If the Rockets carcase survived without Leaks it could become Robot base Mars and it would also make unloading vehicles like the Boring machines and Cybertrucks from upper decks much easier than having to lower them from a Vertical Rocket, the front of the rocket (the cone) could easily open for access … or even be ejected from the main body to stand on its rim and become an admin base … not every rocket has to return to Earth …
@@chrisbraid2907 If think they should have designed belly down landing into the system from the test flights.
The booster wouldn't need that as both moon and mars would only have the ship
I've said this since the got rid of them. If Mars is the goal, the legs MUST come back and soon. If they can survive Earth's gravity, Mars's won't be an issue.
It's irrelevant how long it takes to build a tower to catch the rocket and booster. Once the landing and catch are perfected, then you can expand it to a launch tower.
If either of them blows up on the launch tower during a catch attempt, how long is it going to take to rebuild it? A lit longer than a simple catch tower.
I'd also double up on proximity sensors etc for more precise maneuvering and hovering control. The tower and rockets need talk together.
Legs dont make as much sense, since they both require designated landing zones either way. Saves weight on the rocket, and you can build in WAY more dampening technology in the tower since there are almost no weight or space restrictions compared to building it into the rocket.
The only factor is accuracy. A tower has a much lower capacity to correct for poor guidance.
Then build 3 towers?
Usually the simple sollution is the best. So obviously just stack a bunch of old matresses and give it a soft landing : D
Build a second tower for practice till you master it, then you have two towers for launches and caching.
And you don't have to launch the booster all the way into space to practice catching, which means less fuel on board.
And crashing into
@@gutentagpolen 🤨
Last time someone built 2 towers it didnt go well
I suggested a launch cradle with XY slew for the Hummingbird suborbital launcher in 1988, inspired by seeing a skydiving friend catch another jumper on landing. If it can be done with ram air parachutes and Mk I eyeballs, robotics can do it too.
The turnaround time for falcon 9 boosters is an average of 3 months, and they’ve been flying for years. It’ll be 15-20 years minimum before starships are rapidly reusable, if it’s possible at all.
Pessimist !
@@chrisbraid2907 : How is an assessment based on past performance pessimism?
If ever. Cybertruck was 40t, didn't have steel exoskeleton, didn't have the range claimed, didn't have the features claimed, didn't meet the proce point claimed. Hyperloop was nothing like what was claimed. Why would his rockets be any different. Just lies to trick people into inflating stock so he could take the largest ever ceo payout. Lol. Suckers gunna suck lol
It'll never be rapidly reusable as it's pointless. There's basically no commercial market for such a big rocket, only customer would be Nasa.
@@chrisbraid2907there is a fine line between pessimism and realism
Don't think this is going to work long term. The constant thrust on the lower structure will eventually destroy it. They can and should put landing legs on the booster just like the Dragon booster. That makes more sense. If they are going to do this it makes more sense to just have a capture tower...let the booster cool then transfer it to a transport vehicle for servicing and system checks then move it to a launch pad.
high risk, high reward? what could be sooo important for a need to launch every few hours?
Mars missions which have very small windows and long times between windows (about 2 years between each launch window)
@@Videos_of_Glory_man but what about this needs rapid reusability? Your launching stuff. Rockets are not coming back. Unless you are talking about refueling in space. Soo 20 rockets to refuel 1. But they can't even do that
@@THE_PeKa they have a limited amount of total rockets. So if they want to launch more total tonnage than they eather need to build more, or launch the ones that they have more often.
"George, a second rocket has hit the tower."
Less weight without legs means more payload and profits.
Thanks for this video. I was wondering about this very question.
I can't wait until the catch of starship booster happens and we start seeing more frequent launches!
Catch-wires and landing nose-hooks.
The motive behind dispensing with landing legs is to save weight, where if only 6% of the rocket's mass is orbital payload it behoves to economize on as much weight as possible. Landing struts and shock absorbers are heavy...
Landing spars or outward-turning cables that terminate in catch-hooks are much lighter, and catch-wires projecting from the chopsticks can more easily and more pisitively engage the hooks on both sides of the rocket with lessened risk of damaging the heat tiles or fuselage.
what does the launch-tower need what the catching tower does not have? i' m quite sure that a few fuel trucks are not an issue.
It doesn't have a pad.. also fuel trucks? You even know how this ship is loaded lol?
I don't understand the "have to move" argument for not building two towers. Surely the booster or starship will have to be moved for the other part to land anyway?
The second stage will have legs so it will land in a different spot
Don't worry about how it lands because it never will.
Why?
Booster and Starship are two different things. Boosters are unmanned and should never need legs and unmanned Starships likewise can fly sans legs.
There will always however be a requirement for an "extra" tower because Starship is intended to be manned and a manned vehicle cannot always be kept in space while a damaged or destroyed tower is repaired or replaced.
That said, the "extra" tower can be anywhere as Starship doesn't have to return to the point it was launched either. As long as there is at least one working tower and sufficient ground transporters, cranes and yard space to move extra Starships out of the way there's no reason manned Starships cannot land where there's space available for them in an emergency. Of course it will usually be preferable to stay in orbit until it's possible to land in it's actual destination but we are talking emergency edge cases.
That said, manned Starships might be equipped with simple landing legs like those that were on the only Starship that survived it's flight, they are not "rapidly reusable" but as an emergency landing on a pad instead of a tower they would provide an additional safety option.
Unlike Falcon9, where they went through a few boosters to fine tune the landing (with minimal damage to the drone landing ships). This time, they can't affort to go through 3 or 4 starships/boosters or 2 to 3 towers before a successful "catch". They already burned through at least a billion dollars.
what they are planning to launch the same booster on the same day ?
Since we now know that a tower rebuild takes two days too long, wouldn't it make more sense to build a surface flush revolver/horn gear platform for rapid swaps?
If the quick exchange, is an hour or less then roughly how much extra real estate is likely needed?
How much of that space can be moved to a vertical position?
How many tons of structure would it take to be immune to a major crash?
In my opinion, they should have a wave off, an option where a damaged ship could be splashed down nearby in the Gulf of Mexico. This is what I had envisioned the offshore launch landing platform research to be for. This philosophy is what Navy carriers plan for.
Catching it FTW!
second tower for just catching to start with the ability to upgrade it to full launch landing capability makes the most sense, as long as it is in fairly close proximity of the launch tower. at this stage a few days IS rapid reusability.
In his video, elon, showed the boosters being caught but not the starships used to refill the starship in leo. Lol. He also said he was going to leave another starship in leo as a refilling pod. Lol. So now you have an extra stage 1. He hasnt planned how this works. He is just marketing nonsense he makes up, lol. Someday elon fans will figure this out lol
so why wasn't landing it discussed despite the premise at the start of the video?
The landing legs would have to be massive. Making the ship bigger to take Starship into orbit. Which makes the OLM larger and the Mega Bay larger too. So much added mass and millions in extra spending for a worse cadence.
Catching makes sense in the long term
The tyranny of the rocket equation.
i doubt catching is a viable solution
He claimed he would have living quarters for 100 people for the 6 month trip to mars in luxury with rec centers and concert halls with floating violinists. Lol. Can we all just admit when elon says it will happen, it won't. Lol
@@elbob1491 Where did he say that? Tell me the news site that quoted him saying that. Else, everything you said was nonsense
@snakevenom4954 elon presented it I think when he called it MCT. Lol. So direct quote from elon from space X. Lol. Why is it all the sycophants have no idea of thw stupid things elon says. Lol
I think their thought process might be that they’re launching the rocket on the tower anyway, which is arguably more dangerous because if it explodes it’s both parts and filled with fuel. So comparatively an empty super heavy crashing back in at terminal velocity is not that bad
For the number and frequency of launches planned, and given that complicated machines tend to fail for numerous reasons, they will need a large number of towers. Just a temporary delay in launching would mean that starships coming back to earth would have to be redirected.
This strategy is going to backfire so hard
No reason to doubt spaceX. But it is certainly tense. Makes for great popcorn though.
Expensive, copper tube or equivalent to use the Lorenz effect to give the arms more time to engage, and cheaper, use arrester cables to encompass the cylinder and the enclosure arm would only have to be large enough to transport the cable, less mass. Assuming the rocket could support it's hanging weight
Just make a tower indescructable so it wont be affected a lot even if hit directly.... and make some spare parts as replacements for damaged arms if it happens.... Just make it in a way that you expect explosions there.
If downtime is really that critical then doesn't it make sense to leap to a mega project version of a launchpad?
Im pretty sure the rockets need to be checked over before they can be reused anyway, so a separate landing tower makes sense
Wings for starship, tower for booster.
Everything is pretty close together. And wait for the first try successfully or not it will be awesome.
I'm somewhat sceptical about that rapid reusuabilty. Replacing broken parts/engines and testing the new ones in system will take time and cost money. Exactly that made the Space Shuttle uneconomical.
We need an offshore tower to minimize casualties
Glad we are slowly acknowledging rapid resuability was a flawed concept and only worked when he wanted to use a rocket to fly people from nyc to saudi. Lol.
40t to leo as elon admitted is max (still doubtful), which means if it was going 15 launches to refill one rocket, itll take like 40. Saturn V used one launch. Efficency -4000% lol.
It would not take days to transport it. They would put it right in a stand and move it over to other tower like when the move it from the mega bay to the stand
landing legs would only have to be strong enough to support the almost no-fuel weight of the vehicle, and allow for multiple landing options.
You see the landing legs on F9? Super beefy and heavy, that is why they don't want to use them..
I don't understand why they don't just build 10 starships and launch 1, then load another on the pad and have the booster land safely on legs and keep the cycle going.
It works in the cartoon.
A giant bowl of Jello - any flavor.
Whatever method works, reusable rockets are important and we should be pushing for them.
Futuristic 9/11 no way
Here's a suggestion: if Elon came up with the idea, do not do it.
Why?
How will they land it on moon or mars?
more complicated = more money
mo money = mo problems
With the power of 33 Raptor engines they could build landing legs fixed position type rather than automatic type like Falcon 9s.
The current tower will be outdated when the bigger version 3 Starship comes out. So risking the current tower to perfect or test boost catches is not as bad an idea as you think. Starship V3 will be too tall for this current tower.
Till next year Space X plans to build four launch Towers...the process with landing of the flight sections with high precision exactly in the mechanical arms is challenging task that should be successfully demonstrated with future Starship iterations.The forth Integrated Test flight should demonstrate simulation of landing of Super Heavy Booster flight section exactly in the mechanical arm.
They will get it done.
Use both if tower fails we have a choice !
Transporting them between towers absolutely would not need to take 2 days…
Why does his voice remind me of reading rainbow
IFT5 will provide catch data they REALLY need right now. Let's get it done! Crash or not, the data is the best thing they can get. Tower 2 is just a few piles in the dirt now. Build it to a catch attempt understanding rather than the same thing. Do the catch, learn from it.
Yes? But keep in mind the flaw in the logic… the tiles like any bbq need time to cool down to work on and that will not be less than 1 day regardless tower or legs 😂😂😂
Landing legs makes more sense to me.
High risk high reward
What of instead of vertical landing try horizontal landing. Have crab like leg like startrek voyager landing legs
There will be a need for landing legs no matter what. They need to come up with a better version though.
there won't be a catcher waiting for them on the moon or mars so legs would be needed anyway
Yep.
the tower is for the booster not the ship and the ship would be the thing going to mars
@@filiplaskowski410 but the ship will still need landing legs
@@TheDonegan1 yeah but just the ship, easier problem by a lot. For superheavy a whole redesing of the aft section would be necessary.
how does gigantic space clamp look like a robot
Alright how does it land on mars where there is no landing pad with arms?
Different version will land on other planets. That version will have legs.
High risk, high reward you say, I take ur high risk and play Oceangate sub. It does implosion damage, while at the same time I’ll lay my land card Chernobyl. It does spicy radioactive damage.
How are they going to land on mars without legs and without a tower ?
Use both minimise risk
I think the catching tower is stupid, musk is not always right in what he does. Just make a landing leg pod the booster sets down in.they could move it around to wherever they want a landing.
We saw what the Raptor Engines does to concrete after 5 seconds of continuous fire. So you need a second deluge system for that. That's assuming you don't cook the landing system which would need to be beefed up.
You're being too short sighted. A catch is the best option going forward
Trying to cut corners and save time by a day or two is the WRONG thing to do - ask the crew of the Challenger.
It's better to slim down broad advancements than to cut corners and gamble.
Go with the old sci-fi ship big tail fins
Just wait… elon will have that chopstick tower fastened to a boat in the Atlantic plucking Starship from the sky on the daily.
the moment I heard second tower💀💀
"high risk. No reward"
Make an enormous net
Both. Legs for extraterrestrial landers, catch arms for return to Earth flights.
Gust of wind slams the nearly empty (and light) vehicle into tower...
Rapid vectoring control is a thing you know..
In my grandpa's days, he tells me, some european nation had gone behond Mars already, and they were getting ready to take over the moon...., or so he says...
Has anyone looked into the payload of starship? I’m no rocket engineer but from the last launch both booster and the ship were fully loaded with fuel and used all of it during launch and it had no payload??
There's always a test payload. You throw off the balance and performance tests otherwise.
Make the landing pad movable like nasas
put the tower on a boat. hover over the water into the mechazilla arms.
that way if something goes wrong not everything is broken
That’s impossible to put on a boat
@@JamesMathison98 nothing's impossible! have you seen an oil rig?
@@k1ngjulien_ yes, do you understand how heavy the booster is and the moment arm that it would produce? It’s like hanging a skyscraper off of a 300 ft moment arm. Also, an oil rig is tied down, this structure would have to be more movable
@@JamesMathison98lol, you don’t know much about ships, rockets, or physics. Go ahead and sit this one out buddy.
@@nathon1942 why don’t I?
Why not use both
Using towers is just a pointless goal. Rockets should be able to land and launch anywhere relatively flat
put wings on it abd fly down like an aeroplane
15 years from now spacex will find a way to land it on a barge floating in the ocean.
I think it's safe with landing legs
Pls do not joke about second tower
Cry
About
No
wtf you talking about? you think hes comparing it to 911?
its a bird
no its a plane
nah its a FUCKING STAR SHIP-
why not just use big parachutes ?
Because you have to put those back in the compartment that releases the parachutes, and there would be a lot of parachutes so it would take a lot of time.
They weight a lot, at the velocities they need to be super beefy and strong, not to mention the system around them. Then theri the control problem, parachute gliding is not that precise, less for a gigantic soda can.
It makes more sense to not go kaboom
😁😁🏹🪶🎯🎰
Sir the rocket hit the second tower
They're building a second tower right now. Problem solved.
Then just make more towers in general
A grabber makes more sense. When landing, the rocker is basically empty and low pressure, meaning if it lands any force can collapse or damage the rocket body at it will have much less rigidity. This is a bigger long term risk than catching it.
Felix, how did you get down this rabbit hole..?
They have a second tower near your house remember... ? Don't second guess Elon..🤠
They still need legs, when going to places without a tower!!!
the booster always RTLS. the 2nd stage will have multiple modes. different for Moon, Mars, & Earth landings.