Good and bad Starship news from the FAA!! Chopsticks landing is a bad idea for SpaceX right now!
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 13 июн 2024
- Elon Musk wants to try a chopsticks landing on Starship's next flight. Here's why this is a lousy idea, given the recent update I got from the FAA.
#space #spacexstarship #spacex
Support CBass!!
/ @cbassproductions
Please support my NEW PATREON CHANNEL! AS LITTLE AS 10 CENTS A DAY!!
DISCORD MEMBERSHIP, EXCLUSIVE CONTENT AND EARLY RELEASES PLUS 15% OFF MERCH!
/ angryastronaut
www.paypal.com/paypalme/Angry...
Follow me on twitter:
/ astro_angry 
Развлечения
![The moment we stopped understanding AI [AlexNet]](/img/1.gif)
6:21 You're mixing facts. A full-fledged explosion of a booster would only happen at or before launch, a level of potential danger we experience now. A booster returning to the pad will be almost out of fuel and oxygen. An explosion at the pad would not amount to much more than the explosion during testing last year and not as significant as the power released during a full engine test or even launch. The physical damage from debris from a blown booster (basically an empty tin can at that point) may be something to be concerned about, but again, we've had larger explosions without any irreparable damage. The tower arms may receive damage, but it should not be an all-out disaster, and it wouldn't even be as bad as the first test flight.
A good example of a ship blowing up on landing is SN11, which disintegrated in mid-air, leaving no intact pieces.
Correct, also: although Jordan has some valid points, the video is a contradiction in itself. It starts saying the project is late. And then midway say it is accelerate too fast by allowing the boost to return. You cannot complain it is delayed and complain it is increasing the pace.
@@franciscomelojunior2535 He's now the whiny astronaut.
I really miss the old 2 The Future coverage.
My concern is not so much the booster or launch pad, but more so the proximity of the tank farm. That could be a catastrophic event potential. They seem to know what they are doing, but I can't help but notice the incredible dangers.
He does tend to talk out of both sides of his mouth lol
Luckily for SpaceX they've manage to beat your expectations most of the time. Although, I do agree they should keep testing soft landing until they managed it without issues.
I think an exploded engine, was a wonderful test of the boaters design, any other rocket would have been torn to peaces (aka SN11). This booster did a soft landing despite this incident. And could have survived with a tower catch as well.
@@sgfxand still landed where they wanted it. If it’s coming in hot it can still abort into the ocean on trajectory.
@@ScarboroughStactually I'm concerned that an ocean landing or very close to the shore will create much more problem to SpaceX than an RUD on the landing pad.
Damaging the endangered wildlife area of Boca Chica will immediately activate all sort of organizations that already tried to stop the whole starbase project in the past
Booster is basically empty at the point of tower cap. Any explosion at that point would be very small and localized.
The more empty, almost, the bigger explotion. Same as for car. Full tank, little explotion.
@@supermarius0706 We already know what an explosion would look like. Any explosion of a nearly empty booster would be very similar to the SN8 - SN15 flights. Basically a fireball, scorched the concrete and a heap of shredded stainless steel.
@@supermarius0706 That's because you have more oxygen in the tank mixed with gasoline vapour. The Super Heavy methane tank has no oxygen.
I couldn’t find exact volumes for booster but the header tank on starship holds 7.3 tones of liquid methane. Add in the liquid oxygen in the downspout and you have something like the energy potential of 150 blocks of C4. Nothing compared to fully fueled booster, but still very destructive.
@@DontPanicVU The energy equivalent of fuels vs explosives is way too simplistic. Cheese has more energy per kg than TNT.
It's all a matter of how fast the energy can be released, and the answer is not very fast for pure unmixed methane. To burn it needs to mix with air/oxygen. To explode it needs to be pre-mixed with air/oxygen before ignition.
From an engineering standpoint, I would say Starship is becoming a known technology. They understand the first stage well, they now know the reentry heat and tech required, they tested all components and have 4 launches and thousands of tests to learn from.
Seeing their way of doing things, I would say they are going to try but have countless amounts of auto cancels programmed in. If anything out of the ordinary happens, it'll go to a safe spot and expode or sink. They do this every other test so it stands to reason they'll do it in the next test. Aim for the best but accept learning.
The fuel tanks will be damn near empty. And when they blew up starships repeated the fcc didn't stop them
Kinetic energy
@@ajctradingthe ballistic trajectory would be for the ocean.
Only after the engine relight is successful would it target the tower for landing.
At that point, the speed is close to zero because starship is intended to hover.
This is much different from the way falcon9 does a suicide burn.
*"live from the Gulf Coast off Texas I'm trying to retrieve ten tons of stainless steel for my pots and pan business! And I need your help! Demand more wasted launches now! I'm counting on you!"*
There is a 10 ton chunk in the Gulf somewhere, I saw them toss it!
Catch it baby come on. Lets gooooo!!!!!! No risk no reward. I think they will nail it first try.
Spectacle either way.
V1 boosters an ships are expendable....and it appears that Tower 1 may be expendable too....if the catch fails...remember, Tower 2 is under construction RIGHT NOW....V2 ships an boosters are the ones slated to be built wen Starfactory gets up an running later this summer....and to put all fear aside....the booster catch for IFT-5, if it can't make it to the tower within a specified margin of error, it will dump itself into the Gulf....and IF it makes it to the tower for a catch but the arms can't pinch it out of the sky....the deluge system will spill enough water to douse........most ot the flaming carnage....so we're told....
Either way you look at it...four TEST flights hitting their marks in such a short time is incredible. Do I honestly think the catch attempt on flight 5 will succeed.....(bad word) NO !!! Will the catch work in time...(bad word) YES !!!
sorry for rambling on.....I jus had to vent a bit.....lol
Thanks for keeping it real, Jordan 🤟
There wouldnt be any flaming carnage. What would burn? The metal? There is barely any fuel in the booster aswell. I belive its far less risky then most think
@@Hungary_0987 Yeah, the primary concern is the kinetic energy of the vehicle. And if it just flops off the chopsticks in a failed catch it won't have a lot of kinetic energy.
i would use tower 2 for landings as its farther away from ground equipment.
@@Hungary_0987 agreed the biggest risk is hitting the tower and breaking stuff.
@@Hungary_0987The tanks are still pressurized with Methane and O2 gases, which by itself, without any liquid fuel, would cause massive explosion
I think SpaceX is making great progress with each subsequent launch. However, we have to remember that this is a process, one that will take as long as it takes. Unfortunately, we just have to be patient.
Elon doesn't do patient.
Elon didn't do a flame diverter before flight 1 either...that went well too🙄
@@eddiegaltek He does not have to, but we do.
Big $ per launch
@@ajctradingha yeh, best part…. Lol
I think they should go for catch. Rip the band aid off fast, don’t wait.
so little fuel on board during landing of the booster, that an explosion would not be that bad.
If chopstix is not a working solution and they need to change to something else, it's better for them to find out sooner rather then later!
you're being cautious, which is great, but not SpaceX culture. Elon is that guy in the cowboy hat riding the bomb out of the B-52 :-)
Slim Pickens, RIP.
Dr. Strangelove, the ultimate American idiot. 😂
@@kenanacampora thanks for filling in the name of the actor. i knew that, but forgot it years ago :-)
he will pay someone to do that for him
Right on hehehehe
I think he has to push as fast as he can - safely.
I heard that the tower catch is going to be optional - have the rocket boost back and if, and only if, it is running well and under control then they will catch. Otherwise they will ditch in the water safely.
I think making it a strong possibility with a safe ditch option is the best all around.
Don't forget we don't know how much control or how accurate that last water landing was. Exploding engine aside it may have gone perfectly. And they have how many Falcon 9 landings of experience and data to draw upon??
I think it's a good idea to at least put it on the table as a possibility.
Time is the real expensive commodity here, not the hardware...
Why don’t they try using a short-fueled booster in “hopper mode” without Starship which only has the engines required for landing with the rest being inexpensive dummies for mass?
They would have to 'hop' the booster all the way out to the Karmen line to simulate the catch correctly and you want to design a new ship capable of launching to support this testing?
@shaung949 we know they can get it where they want to get it, barring an unexpected issue, they have 0 experience catching. Therefore, I think there would be a lot to gain from hover and catch like it sounds like he is suggesting.
@@shaung949 - Not a new ship. A cheaper version of the existing one to cover the last few kilometers. It would tell a lot about the stresses on the chopsticks, how precise the booster
@@KevinBalch-dt8ot The time and effort invested into this test version is time and effort not put into making the actual flight version better. SpaceX prefer to use flight hardware as much as possible.
@@SpaceAdvocate - Yes, let’s continue to throw out 33 engines per flight and discover problems when first trying to recover a booster from an orbital flight. By your logic, the Star Hopper was a waste.
Elon's optimism and ElonTime and all that aside, looking at the worst case scenario for a booster catch attempt on IFT-5, heres what i believe:
1. Booster will have minimal fuel left and be close to empty dry mass weight.
2. The catch attempt will be offset from the OLM.
That said, i think the booster could greatly damage the chopsticks, but not the OLM. Fixing/replacing the chopsticks is months not years.
I also hope the tower is sturdy enough to withstand an accidental collision with the booster, but we'll see.
Tower is a massive and heavy steel structure with concrete inside so it's for sure not going anywhere
“Sometimes you gotta roll the hard-six.”
With SpaceX, I have been always sitting on the edge of my seat as they go into this move forward with what has always looked to me as boldness infused with a serious dose of recklessness. Still. I am captivated and truly supportive. And I hope each time that those new steps may well indeed prove me wrong on the various issues brought upfront in this video and others before that. This said; my ten fingers are crossed for the safe return of the booster in Mechazilla's arms.
Cheers from Belgium.
Well said, I feel the same haha.
Catching a Super Heavy booster and a Starship on a LAUNCH TOWER is always going to be a bad idea, because even when they "perfect" it, a malfunction will eventually happen. When it does, you lose a 100 million dollar, months long repair, ESSENTIAL launch pad that will ground a small fleet of Starships. You will have to put landing legs on Starships anyway, since a failure in the landing system will necessitate another type of landing -either parachute or a less perfect landing on a pad when they put people on it. And of course a landing on Mars will need to have landing legs initially anyway.
A decent compromise is a pad landing some distance away from the launch pad. The pad unit could be on rails and rapidly move the item back to the "pick up zone" of the launch pad for reuse, so reuse is NOT evidence that catching is essential. The weight penalty is real, but safety is essential to maintain flight rate.
Note: the initial SpaceX renders showed the boosters and Starships landing NEXT to the pad, and a crane remounting them. My plan would be even safer for the pad, since it keeps the distance greater in case of a small explosion, and it does not impact turnaround significantly.
Elon sometimes does not express common sense. He would rather "break things" and then whine when the FAA complains that he needs to put safety first. If he were Boeing, the fanboys would be piling on with criticism if he screws up. Elon can get away with the most boneheaded mistakes and receive a complete pass from his fanboys.
The stainless steel spruce goose has something for you. Give it time.
they have to repair the OLM, chopsticks and SQD for 2 months after each launch anyway. they might aswell try to catch, a miss wont add much damage.
Catching on flight 5 seems reasonable here's why
If they try to catch it and fail - 6 mos of repairs
If they wait for 2nd tower - 6 mos of construction
My point, why delay progress, no point in being scared to do something you know you can pull off
Less than six months to build tower 2
@@EMichaelBall the construction plans go into next year and there is more than just the tower that needs to built before the pad is functional.
@@EMichaelBall Even if so, why delay the inevitable? Could be getting valuable data from this catch attempt instead of waiting around
IFT-3 showed that the current design of the vehicle can put a useful payload to LEO of about 40 tons, IFT-4 showed that with the engine out they can get about 38t up there with full reusability.
For context, the heaviest payload of the space shuttle program was 25t with the Chandra observatory.
Now HLS is going to need around 1200 tons of propellant to complete the its mission for Artemis. With boil off That comes to about 35 flights with the starships we’ve launched up to this point For HLS to work the way it should.
I’m sure improvements will be made, the rocket will get stretched and maybe it can be made lighter. It’s still gonna be a lot of launches
What would they test if not the chopsticks catch? That's what's next.
There are other things that are much more important to the future of the programme than a catch - like testing/proving the heat shield & on-orbit refuelling - and you need lots of launches for those, not launches held up by FAA investigations for a failed catch attempt that doesn't matter yet.
@@chrismoule7242 On-orbit refueling isn't scheduled for testing till next year when they have the hardware ready and heatshield testing is done every flight. The first catch attempt is going to be risky no matter how long they delay it and at present there is an expected gap in the launch cadence between v1 and v2 starships.
@@chrismoule7242 Booster with raptors is way more expensive than the ship and needs reuse ASAP. Refueling doesn't make sense until you have affordable booster reuse. Catch is more important than heatshield.
@@jonmichaelgalindo Love this comment, very analytical. I was wondering about the priority between the two but this makes sense and really puts it together.
Better to take the bet and catch it. Then you can build 3 more tours.
They should have kept the oil rigs, modified for testing landings only.
Even a simple steel girder "tower" to aim for on a barge/rig would help to show that landing at the real tower is viable.
Yes. This makes a lot of sense
@@brauliobthey don't need that, all they need to do is show they can reach a desired speed at a specific altitude and an exact location. Why build infrastructure when all you need to do is show you can get it to where is it needs to.
We definitely need to do a chopsticks landing soon ! What could possibly go wrong ! We are dealing with the most brilliant genius engineers on the planet Earth !
Compared to NASA or Boeing engineering their definitely the best on earth.
The booster will be almost empty of fuel when it lands, so the explosion wouldn’t be nearly as catastrophic as you seem to think.
Be Positive! why all the hate on Spacex.
Because losers love to hate winners… it make them feel less like losers…Elon thinks on a whole level the losers don’t know that even exists.
Hey just wanted to say I've been following your for a while and I love your videos!! Your glass half empty takes on launches and the space industry is needed also want to add your curiosity/skepticism with the ufo topic is greatly appreciated as well. Hope you see this and I hope you have a great day!! Thanks for the content!!!!!!
Honostly the first time I heard they were thinking of catching the rocket I thought he was joking.
Like with 'S3XY' and 'just read the instructions'.
I became really interested in SpaceX after realising it wasn't.
I'm sure SpaceX engineers are like, guys have you seen this video....
Here’s the catching system he needs…
Two massive steel cables stretched between steel structures. At each structure the cables are spooled in elastic tension. These four spools are each bolted to a motorized mount, which moves independently along a track.
So these cables essentially thread pluck the starship. This would be much more forgiving. Less rigid and can maneuver to get under the starship. Cheaper. Safer.
I dont think spacex is worried about the FAA mishaps, i really dont what concerns spacex more is getting the booster and ship to do everything they need them to do. SpaceX isnt often waiting that long, mishaps are led by spacex so when they (spacex) are done with the mishap they are done. The only thing slowing spacex down is trying to figure out how to see what went wrong and iterate.
There seems to be some political momentum to keep the starship program moving along for the moon missions as well right now.
The booster is going to be just about empty when it attempts its landing. Not much of a threat.
If you think about it these test flights are all about data gathering and if I was spacex I would make damn sure we could catch and gather all the data from a V1 booster before we get too far into manufacturing of V2. They are doing what has never been done and risking some work or replacement of a pad that will more than likely be replaced after the second one is built anyways is a much better outcome than being cautious and only finding out they need to make more major redesigns to the V2 booster after manufacturing has been set up for it. We must remember time between early test flights is important but what is more important is gathering all the data you can to make time between V2 flights as short as possible in order for them to get to making orbital refueling viable for Artemis. V1 is for tweaking and testing, V2 is for honing the design and early operational before V3 Operational
Jordan, the Raptor failure on landing occurred immediately on Raptor re-light. Elon said Flight 5 will target a point offshore then move inland towards the tower. Most certainly the translation inland will occur AFTER successful relight. If insufficient relights, Elon said Booster Heavy will "... suicide itself ..." out over the Gulf. Deano From DC
AA still doesn't seem to understand how an iterative development program is supposed to work. The FAA don't either, but are edging there slowly but surely.
Pretty sure of this as well. I mean do AA really expect that IFT-5 booster will be the same as IFT-4? Since when did spaceX have 2 tests that were the same
Of course improvements will be done, elon had already stated that the ship's flap were the weak point in the heat shield.
he's been blabbering this stupid stuff about the ship engine RUD, tower catching for far too many videos in a row
Here does. He’s just calling it honestly! An honest appraisal is a Raptor exploded on both landing attempts. That has to be addressed before landing on land.
It is frustrating. If SpaceX could do what they want they would have a Mars ready vehicle right now. The US government is the hindrance here.
@@nathangoddard8115I doubt it. This whole plan is radical, and likely more complex than originally envisioned.
The FAA 'delays' appear to be mostly the time required for spacex to finish their own investigation and then the FAA rubber stamps.
Probably the biggest actual hindrance is environmentalists and lawsuits from NGOs trying to stop them from working.
@@flewdefur Yeah I agree, Spacex fans have complained about the FAA quite a bit about a year ago but all in all the delays were a couple of months at one point at best. SpaceX has enough work on their plate to keep themselves busy either way and I don't think that there would have been a way that they would have been ready for full starship and booster use and reuse yet however they would have tried. They are doing a lot of things and moving fast but the challenge is daunting to say the least.
Thank you for you opinion. I"m sure that Elon Musk is going to give it all the consideration that it is due.
I’ll never understand why it is so critical to catch a booster on a complex launch pad; a pad it just took off from 10 minutes earlier, and by pinching it as it hovers for a moment.
Why not land it 100 yards away on a concrete pad (I know it would need rudimentary legs) then roll it into the shed for refurbishment? Then a second booster could be mounted on the launch pad immediately.
Once you had 6-8-10 boosters this little sequence/parade could go on and on…very efficient…
This catching business is like putting an airline terminal at the end of a runway positioned at the exact spot for a landing jet to just roll precisely to the gate😮
rudimentary legs wont hold that booster.
To add legs you'd have to redesign the whole booster for the structural loads on the legs, upgrade the landing area to support the landing attempt ... and risk a rock tornado like ift1 if it isn't good enough. throwing that many months of redesign development and costs for something that is at best a temporary solution is never going to be practical. Booster is probably around 500t on landing nothing rudamentary is going to hold that much weight.
The booster design is to catch the returning booster, place it back on the olm. Refuel and launch again much more efficient.
If the plane and airport are designed for the terminal to have that configuration then that would also work.
Ok, good points, but where and how does a returning Starship land? A tower catch also?
@@henrychinaski3720a separate catch tower I suspect based on the latest florida plans. The starship itself won't at this stage have a quick turn around as it would need it's payload loaded, whereas the only payload for the booster is fuel and a whole starship.
There'll probably be far more Starships than boosters
They are trying to save weight. The landing legs for a Falcon booster are already 3300 pounds (1500kg), imagine how much more weight you'd need for super heavy. They already use the lightest materials they can, aluminum and carbon fiber.
Those are the remaining Raptor 2’s and the new iterations will be more reliable as for reigniting them.
One thing to keep in mind, 33 raptor engines may cost more then the entire launch tower. So risking the tower to save the engines may be a better deal.
They won't have chopsticks at least at first when they get to Phobos and Mars. As an alternative, there should be a way of landing the Starship on legs.
Both of those landings would be much different than landing on earth because the gravity is lower, and the atmosphere is thinner.
I would expect these landings would rely more on propulsion, which means they also probably rely a lot on refueling from orbital tankers sent in parallel.
It is said that Edison tried over 2,000 times before he perfected his light bulb. Let's hope Elon can do better with starship.
Hopefully it'll work out by SN-2000 🤑
Remember that the booster has very little fuel when it lands. Think of explosions on the order of the starship landing attempts of a couple years ago rather than one you can contemplate for an explosion on launch.
Still could damage the launch table. maybe they should use the next tower just for landing.
If the one engine failure was because a particular part not found on Booster 12’s Raptor 2 engines failed (newer versions aren’t the same as older Raptor 2’s), then it’s not a concern for Flight 5.
Landing on the chopsticks isn't even the hardest part of this whole thing. They have been landing boosters for over a decade now. If they think they are ready for it, I believe then.
Ah! Time for my dose of Reality Moonshine!!! 😁
Cheers, brother.
A friend of mine makes the best moonshine that I know of. Beats the pants of any renowned single malts out there.
Be angry for sure - but PLEASE don't be so negative....Innovation takes time regardless of disappointments...
I agree with 1 or 2 more tests before chopstick attempt, if the OLM and tower are damaged the setback will be massive. There is a lot of risk there. But Elon will be Elon and thankfully so we would never be seeing any of this. Progress vs risk a tough call but when you have virtually unlimited funding it may make it an easier choice.
I'm a big starship fan but before I heard Jordan's opinion I was thinking also that the catch attempt is a little premature at this point. But Elon didn't get to be the richest man in the world by being as cautious as me......
There's not a second in this reality where that guy ever been cautious
AA has boeing syndrome when it comes to when things are safe ... never until it's been done 20 times perfectly and complain it's taking too long at the same time. The first catch is always going to be a risk but spacex has a complete landing profile from flight 4 including what fell of and what caught fire so they can make sure that doesn't happen again.
@@shaung949I think AA is just worried about slowing down the test cadence, and I can understand that concern.
That said, I agree. No risk/no reward.
This is spacex not Boeing.
But they need the water deluge system under OLM2. Remember how IFT1 had to go, because they're not allowed to dig such a hole? If they're going to loose one more SHB, that booster can just as well help solve the next major problem. The resulting explosion of a miscatch will not be very big, as the fuel will at that point be empty.
I agree, it's a bad idea to catch it with chopsticks. We should be experimenting with getting Starship in zero-g and how it fares.
Easier to iterate on starship if you are reusing boosters.
Statship only needs 6 engines compared to 33 on the booster.
If you are reliability catching boosters you could be sending up starships with new heat shields, payload bays, and refueling eauipment every week
They don't even need to be a single unified prototype. You could have teams working in parallel on different starship prototypes and then merge the designs
At this rate and stage of development, the maturity of both vehicles (booster and ship) is beyond remarkable and though late but prime for landing on the chopsticks, if it delays it delays commercial programs and end game, moon, Mars and beyond 🚀
Good journalism, very well researched.
Test Flight 5 ... Put upgraded falcon 9 legs on it and have it land on a drone ship. or an island. Weight doesn't matter as there is no payload. Once pinpoint landings are achieved then do a chop sticks landing. This approach saves engines and avoids FAA scrutiny.
Super Heavy weighs more then 200 tons, wich is more than 10 times heavier than a falcon 9 booster. You need more than upgraded falcon 9 legs.
Successfully on the first try is how the SLS happen. SpaceX and NASA both want to avoid that.
The delay by the FAA is likely still shorter than Starship right on the first try.
Starship on the first try is also a worse starship than the iterative starship.
You take things out until things breaks you never really know what you can take out. No one expected the flaps to be that resistant after a failure meaning they don’t have to be reinforced as much as they would have if a first time success is necessary.
100% agree Mr. angry. No matter how excited us SpaceX enthusiast are.. We all want to see the chopsticks catch the booster Miyagi son. Elon‘s time frame, although understandable with all the millions of dollars wasted watching booster after booster starship after starship fall into the ocean. they don’t call it rocket science because it’s easy slow down. Let’s get things right before we go trying to catch a fly with chopsticks. Slow and steady wins the race what SpaceX has done has proved that they will get it right let’s just slow down and do that.
Elon said himself that the landing trajectory would be to a safe spot and that they'd only land it in pad if things were ok
Starship will need about another 10 years of R&D to get to the envisioned state. But it will be an amazing vehicle.
You have made some excellent points in this episode.
It certainly would be fun to see a chopstix landing but I think they will do one more sea landing
They won’t attempt a catch until the second launch tower is complete. Until then they’ll ditch in the ocean. They could try a hop with just a little fuel on board to match the planned landing trajectory.
Only way an empty booster takes out that launch tower is if it loses all control from high altitude and just so happens to land smack dab on top of it.
Your conclusion is pretty much my sense of things.
I think SpaceX will tower catch on V1 Booster will need catch. Before V2 for tower 2. An good option would be upgrade the chopsticks actuators and sliders and add more cladding around the chopsticks and tower. Additions a FireX below. Or upgrade, then take the risk of ITF 5, remember risk is the only way to forward in development then to go backward!
I think every single chopsticks landing will be a calculated risk. It’s just that the risk gets lower each subsequent time, just like the Falcon 9 booster relandings. Let SpaceX proceed with the chopsticks first landing attempt in IFT-5!
Add temporary landing legs to practice soft landings,,, apparently they're not going to so they must be very confident
since the booster landed exactæy where it was supposed to, it only makes sense to try and why wait? they need to verify it'll work. might as well get to it soomer rather than later.
The Booster landed _within sight_ of where it was supposed to. That doesn't say much regarding how _exact_ its landing actually was. For the chopsticks catch, it would have to land on a dime, rather than just in the general ballpark.
A landing would have practically no fuel, so I'm not so worried about a landing RUD of the entire spacecraft. I'm a lot more concerned about damage to the launch tower before the second launch tower is finished. If the current launch tower is heavily damaged, that will create a significant delay in the testing program.
I haven't heard anything about how accurate flight 4's landings were. Until they achieve pinpoint accuracy, they should not attempt any catch, as they also have to eliminate that wobble in the chopsticks completely. The potential for disaster is to great at this point.
On the icing problem, the heat from the rockets is more than enough to mitigate it through some kind of heat exchange or transfer. Either by producing electricity for a heating element or some kind of heat exchange.
One things for sure, Starship is one tough bastard. Can't say the same thing about the rest of those wimpy space companies.
they should do a couple landing on land before the chopstick thing. show that they can actually land the thing
This would have been a good time to have had those old converted oil-rigs. They'd allow you to attempt a chopsticks landing well away from the public.
Perhaps not that risky if they can maneuver the booster back out over the water and land it there if guidance parameters for chopsticks landing on the tower aren't nominal. They definitely have to get the engine problem resolved, but I'm guessing they already know how to do that.
Lol, a returning booster has very little fuel left, an accident will not be all that bad in comparison. Caution like yours is precisely why it has taken a person like elon to gets us where we should have been decades ago.
Kinetic energy
They may aswell target the Launch Tower asap for a catch because the booster will either be on track for a catch or not. They should easily be able to abort into the ocean soon after the landing burn begins. For the first attempts I would imagine they will have wide enough margins for error like extra fuel and obviously weather conditions would need to be ideal which I think will lead to 24 hour scrubs for the first time unless they are lucky.
Kudos to those animations, that's really impressive.
I got a feeling the Catch Style isn't going to be viable do to Sloshing, Wind, Technical Problems aka not functioning equipment. I'm thinking a landing of Booster is the safest just like the Falcon. If you need more fuel for the reentry, make the Booster bigger.
Also, what do you mean by a "full fledged explosion" at the OLM during the attempted landing catch. The vast majority of Booster Heavy will be empty (mostly gaseous Ox & CH4) except for the residual amounts in the landing header tanks. If the worst happens, the public 8 kilometers away will definitely get an eye full & earful, but it shouldn't be of any significance. Deano in DC
An explosion in the chopsticks might be relatively small since almost all the fuel will have been depleted at that point. OTOH, if it drifts off course into the tank farm...
the tower 2 should have a repair/refurbish dock on the other end or a way to get the rocket out of the way quickly of other rockets while engines get repaired or replaced.
I think AA is a bit too cynical and sometimes exaggerates situations that may occur. A returning Booster exploding on the pad is not the same as "an RUD on the pad" of a fueled booster ready for launch. I do agree that OTF5 should fly the same profile again, with a successful relight in space and clean landings of both systems.
I don’t think they attempt a catch till the next tower is ready. Could you imagine it not going well and the booster damaged the tank farm ?
possibly slower now for definitely faster later. Landing in a different place of course means a newer flight plan. The engine out on landing is actually an expansion of the tolerances the FAA is probably willing to allow and so an easier approval process all around. A catch attempt does of course not mean a catch. Spacex will have to have designated an abort zone also and so even just hitting that will give the FAA more confidence. Getting the initial possible FAA delay in now simply allows the second tower more time for completion. Just getting the landing in the near abort zone on the next flight would advance everything quicker.
If SpaceX is successful it could put them well ahead of schedule. If SpaceX is unsuccessful, they could fall behind schedule more than a year. How long to recover from a single catch failure depends on how unsuccessful, unlucky and unprepared they are.
They had better pray it doesn't rip one of those arms off the tower, or crash land on top of it. That could set the program back for most of a year. So August launch should be exciting. I still say it is too dangerous to put people in it, and that legs will be the final solution.
They could use ift6 hardware for ift5 and deploy starlink then use ift5 hardware for ift6 just a booster catch and heatsheild test
In the meantime China did succesfully test out it's Moon rocket today.. It was a huge success ❣ Long March 10 did fly like an angel, and China could if they wanted go to the Moon tomorrow. Well not really yet of course, because more than a rocket is needed....The Chinese schedule is to go to the Moon in 2030, but they are ahead of their schedule, thus do not be surprised if all of the sudden the world does get the images of Chinese Taikonauts reaching the Moon....
If Spacex goes ahead with a catch i would think the deluge system would be ready in case of engine problems
the deluge fired up on the simulated landing for flight 4
It is all progress in action keep up the good work. 6:20
Maneuvering data needs to be obtained for the booster structure. Get the inertial data and we good to catch.
I hear what you're saying about the engine, but it's not a fair comparison.
Agree that it may be risky to attempt a chopsticks capture next flight. However, it's Musks decision. If he wants to roll the dice on this and is successful then fair play. If unsuccessful though he risks the booster, Mechazilla and the propellant farm. As well as a huge delay to the following launch.
Don't forget that all these launches are data collation excersises and with each failure priceless data is gathered.
It's difficult ro jusge on this.
I far as I know, theres only 2 boosters and ships left for testing (not counting S26). Then SS V2 and raptor V3 testing are going to begin. I would think they want to get data on a chopstick landing attempt before running out of SS V1. Any updates on this schedule?
Three: S30, 31, 32 and B12, 13, 14. B15 is also in-production, and so far looking like a Block 1 design - it's possible the first few Block 2 Ships will fly on Block 1 Boosters...
@@Spherical_Cow Thanks.
Any mishap will be investigated and delays. If you had a mishap with the falcon nine, SpaceX would probably be looking at at least a month for another launch.
Expecting every test flight to go picture perfect is the best way to kill development. SpaceX should have huge amounts of data from IFT4 to try a catch AND a soft ship landing.
That wouldn't matter. They still require an FAA license wherever they launch from.
Its possible that Stage ZERO might be able to handle a RUD on top of it. Think of the pressure waves and forces that it has to endure on the OLM at lift off.
How long do you think it would take to assemble the new tower? They have added all the plumbing before assembly this time so it should be much quicker to complete. Also the booster will be almost empty should be a small explosion...
Slim Pickens, the iconic scene from Dr. Strangelove ... loving it!