Why SpaceX Wants To Make Landing Super Heavy MORE Difficult.
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 10 сен 2024
- There's been a lot of discussion about SuperHeavy - the booster used by Starship - after some tweets by Elon Musk confirming that the ultimate plan is to save time and mass by landing the booster on a capture system able to support the vehicle by its grid fins.
The upsides are great, but it'll require new levels of precision in the landing system and, will increase the consequences of failure. So, it's a fascinating and I'm not 100% convinced they'll get it to work right away, but I'm always happy to watch anyone pushing the limits of rocket science.
"I wasted all that time learning science" sick burn
"so I play video games instead. how does that work?"
and a self burn after that
Who didn't invest time in things that didn't turn out the way they expected?
@@thePronto nobody!
Careful, next thing you know, you will be learning to code in your spare time and wake up one day as a nerd.
Hail Science! /s
"There's no way SpaceX is topping that flip n' burn landing, this is the peak of rocket landings"
Elon: "We'll build a giant robot arm that grabs the rocket in the air"
The number of new things they are trying to do is probably too much for an iterative approach; this system is designed for Luna and Mars trips and the further away from home you go the bigger the cost in money and time becomes with that sort of approach.
My point being the costs are not linear, especially with time, compared to doing that for trips into LEO.
-> Ends up making a Gundam.
All these things they are doing to save fuel. Gravity is the main obstacle for space exploration.
@@zakelwe It's not yet explicitly designed for any particular mission. What SpaceX is currently doing is R&D to see just what capabilities can be implemented into their vehicles using modern technology, and what kinds of crazy stunts they could maybe pull off with the power of Raptor engines. Starship is really a platform, it can do many different missions, both on Earth and in the Solar system.
I wonder what will come next after THAT! 😂
It feels like Elon is making a new rocket manouvering/tricks sport. SpaceX allready does 90° flipps, are planning on doing mid air catching. I wonder when they start doing 360's and shit.
Soviets beat them to it with Polyus.
@@BCPvideo Bruh
its actually some very gifted engineers doing this stuff while musk keeps his name front and center on twitter.
Next one will do a 360 ladderstall noscope
now i want to see a 720° no sensor landing
Interesting! I wasn't aware that the Falcon rockets were not capable of hovering.
its called a suicide burn for that reason, its so cool to think of the precision reqired.
@@harmanjeetsingh4121 I remember using Flight engineer in KSP for suicide burns. I no longer do that. I see my acceleration, and crudely calculate an altitude on the spot. QUICKSAVES ARE MANDATORY.
They have too much power, so decelerate continuously, then stop the engine at the point of touchdown; otherwise they'd take off again!
The hoverslam was really difficult to pull off, but it's one of the reasons why everyone thinks very highly of SpaceX now :D
Imo this aspect of the landing may actually make it far easier to accurately land the super heavy than the falcon 9. Not saying that a Raptor or 3 at full tilt won’t be challenging to whatever is below them, but at least maneuverability won’t be a limiting factor.
They're turning a rocket landing into dude perfect.
Exactly lmao
Doesn't dude perfect have thousands of tries and edit out all their mistakes?
@@_j5155_ anyone who does trickshots does
You know when space stuff is difficult when Scott Manley has to fake it in editing instead of hand-flying the mission...
Lmaoo
that's how they faked the moon landing, just filmed it in reverse.
@@krovek
Hol’ up. If they filmed it in reverse wouldn’t they have started on the moon?
@@topsecret1837 You see, due to the Senate actually wanting the landing on the moon they didn't had no other choice but to Fake the Moon Landing _on The Moon_
@@topsecret1837 The expensive part was the catering for the film crew on the moon.
"I'm not Scott Manley.... land safe"
Good point. Safe flights should end with a safe landing.
any landing you can walk away from...
@@trinalgalaxy5943 As a pilot, that's really not a saying I like very much.
@@UncleKennysPlace Same for me ^^
@@UncleKennysPlace Yeah, on my 132nd jump I could only just barely crawl away. Got an inch shorter that day...
Ah yes SpaceX, where the rockets are reusable and the launch pads expendable.
Hehe I like that one.
The boss of the Russian space program has a new comeback .
LOL
Hehe good one
Concrete is cheaper than steel. -Chairman Mao (not really, but he could have said that).
Say rather, redundant.
Young man, how many times have I told you to hang up your rockets when you're done with them?
The engine on sn8 didn’t get destroyed, it just provided engine rich exhaust
Lmaooo!!
@Jack Kavanagh Actually the reason why the exhaust is green is the copper burning due to extreme heat.
@Jack Kavanagh also he pointed that out the the header tank lost pressure, its not the turbine, so high oxygen to propellant ratio made extreme heat that cause the copper to burn which turned the exhaust to green.
Good joke.
thanks
Faster computers surely has made many older ideas viable.
That and private funding. With public funding its more of a popularity contest than what idea have a big profit reward.
And its not only spaceX. Its also blue origin and electron.
@@matsv201 ish, you also cant be spending frivolously. Well, ish, you cant be see too
Indeed, when the computer is fast enough that you don't have to optimise for every cycle, and can potentially tolerate that one errant input/output better because there's thousands of good to each fail and all in fractions of a second it becomes possible to do some of these older more challenging ideas on an affordable budget - many of them might have been possible with the computers of their era and application specific electronics - its just a challenge too steep and expensive to try.
@@matsv201 Also, with public funding, they are not allowed to have failures. And as we see, learning through failures might be much cheaper than NASA’s way of double and triple-checking everything.
Don't call me Shirley.
liked as soon as I heard "swat light aircraft out of the sky" LOL
Yeah i cracked up.
That's why we have range safety.
This needs to be his next video, simulated in KSP.
When you think this actually isn't an exagerration, though...
Gotta learn to talk different sizes in the future m8
I remember the very earliest statements about the super heavy landing. It was supposed to land exactly on the same contract points from which it launched. This new idea seems easier.
"26 seconds ago"! exciting!
Indeed, not to mention the benefit of not damaging the pad a little bit at a time until it cracks, which has already caused problems with just 3 raptor engines, let alone 20 or 30 of them.
The question then becomes, what about landing starship on mars? Would the shockwaves or debree damage a landing starship, making it unable to launch back to earth without huge repairs? I would like to know more about the opinions of the people on the physics side of design, since i come more from a software perspective on this topic.
@@yonidellarocha9714 Agreed. The Saturn V needed a special pad to not damage it thanks to 3,000 tonnes of weight and even more thrust. (Starship and Super Heavy will be even bigger)
@@yonidellarocha9714 the launchpad is almost certainly going to be designed differently than the starship suborbital launch pads so as to reduce the amount of damage sustained during launch
@@yonidellarocha9714 -- I don't think there are any terrestrial bodies in this star system larger than earth, mars is only 0.38g, and the moon is 0.17g. Landing on mars would be a lot easier, possibly with single use crush legs installed in orbit. The takeoff might need some kind of jack system to lift it off the ground so it doesn't damage it's engine bells.
"You don't need to demonstrate that something is able to work in order to patent it" One of the biggest problems with US Patent System.
One benefit of this system is that if you do manage to get your idea working, it is already patented and can't be poached mid-development.
However, there should be a clause that makes unproven patents expire more quickly.
@@KevinJohnMulligan agreed. Speculative patents stifles innovation.
The problem is the patent office can't test 500k patent applications a year to make sure they work and the inventors certainly are not going to tell you their patent doesnt work.
Patents are the worse thing a civilization could invent...
Don't copy this line: I've patented it.
This one too...
Intellectual property is absurd, amoral and is an insult to God.
Heh, yeah, you get weird stuff in there as well... Like reactionless spaceship engines
I absolutely love how you switch from animation to reality! The first time you played the SN8 landing burn I was like "great animation! It looks SO real!" xD
The shear stress on the fin hinges is something...
Yeah how big are those hinge pins going to be? The size of my thigh?
I'm sure the stress on the pivots is already pretty massive during reentry, while it's traveling hypersonic through the upper atmosphere, they should be able to handle it.
No. Robert Forstemann’s thighs.
I think the Normal Stresses due to the Bending Moment would be the first fault case one should be analyzing, while also thinking about Force Collectives.
I have always wondered how thay are going to actuated and then I seen them move that fast wich is incredibly
The drone ships are in constant motion due to the sea state, comparing the accuracy of the landings on land would be better.
Drone ship landings allows more mass to orbit for a given launch. Those boost-back burns cost fuel.
@@CarFreeSegnitz And that is relevant... How?
@@CarFreeSegnitz I don't think drone ship landings are even considered for the heavy booster, it is just too hugh.
and it doesn't fit in their fast re-use idea. In essence the lower cargo is made up by fast re-use and cheap flights.
The only possibility is a launch platform that is also used to land out on sea, but that would be so big it wouldn't have nearly any impact from waves.
The could have them land back into their 'rocket silos' with the extended fins keeping them off off the bottom of the pit/hole - they already have a the boring of holes down to a T
There is a question if land based launches and landings are going to be an option as the super heavy requires quite an exclusion zone. Boca Chica isn't really an option for a super heavy with full raptor load, at least that's my understanding
I never expected to hear the words "launch site attrition". Boca, you have a problem.
Does remind of early Kennedy with the huge number of initial launch sites. With all the rockets exploding had to. I read over 40 over time. Some were silo probably for missile test launches.
35 hundred tons? I have operated freight trains that weigh less than that. And, that’s only the first stage. Holy Moly!!
Before SpaceX did the first stage landing, we all said: it's lunatic!
Before SpaceX catches the first stage of Starship, we all said: it's Kerbal, but not entirely impossible.
there’s a word in English called “lunacy”
Well yes some people thought a self landing rocket was lunatic. Other people were aware that this has already been done before in like the 90s.
But hey if musk says it's new it must be new.
Good news it landed
@@guiagaston7273 Lol you mean that shitty vtol that made a handful of one minute test hovers? Dude, don’t even compare them.
I think a better idea would be to use parachutes
"I faked it by playing the video in reverse."
It's like that old trick where you film yourself scrambling a solved Rubix Cube and play it backward so you can say you solved it.
Needless to say I can't solve a Rubix Cube.... :P
...nor spell it :P
That's what SoaceX did when it "lands" two Falcon Heavy boosters in tandem.
(Said a bunch of numbskulls after the first FH demo flight )
interesting... however the cube "solution" is also in the video. Just follow it backwards.
It is actually really simple, you just need to learn an algorithm - sequence of few moves you have to repeat, look it up and test it, neet party trick to impress the ladies.
@@skierpage well I’d like to see somebody suck the exhaust fumes back in just to make the reverse trick work....
All Elon’s big innovations are old ideas from other people. Others may dream, but Elon turns dreams into reality.
He also turns dreams into a lot of spacecraft wreckage.
"Nebo Zovyot"
A classic MosFilm from the URSS days.
Lands on an offshore barge onto its legs.
@@stargazer7644 Well, how many iterations of the lightbulb did Edison go through before he found a practical design?
@@MarsJenkar I'm not sure that's quite the same comparison. Edison's blown filaments didn't have quite the same level of engineering or explosiveness. A better one might be how many space shuttles did we destroy before the first one launched to space and returned successfully for the first time? That was a manned launch of a brand new reusable space plane and rocket stack which had never been done before. The answer is: Exactly zero. It worked the very first time.
@@stargazer7644 during the construction of the space shuttles rockets, they blew up a LOT of them before they strapped the shuttle to one. I would actually guess that NASA blew up more rockets\engines than they successfully launched. Not knocking NASA, its just the nature of the beast. And I am not sure that yours is a good "same comparison" where the shuttle was strapped to other rockets, where the SN is more like all in one.
Well, it's official now - SpaceX is going full Kerbal!
Never go full kerbal!
@@olliea6052 I dare say.... FULL KERBAL !!!
Always go full Kerbal
That's how they got here :-)
As if they haven't done so years ago!
That one hell of a landing even in KSP, he must write a program to do that.
Scott: I played the video in reverse.
Technically I also modified the engine VFX to avoid making it look like engines were sucking in smoke
This is, actually, just getting back to how rockets have almost always been designed- they are held by the launch apparatus, as they are incapable of standing on their own. If the complexity of landing legs can be removed, it follows Elon's mantra:
"The best part is no part; the best process is no process. "
The SN8 flight hit me alot like the first time I saw F9 landing attempts. Reusable rockets are the coolest thing that has happened in my life time
So creating several vaccines against Coronavirus, a literal planetary threat, in under a year, doesn't do it for you then? You need a sense of perspective.
@@CAsCurryKitchen Rockets are way more cool (or cooler? i don't know English) than vaccines (IMO).
They are less useful as well. If we talked about the most impressive or something i would agree with you.
@@CAsCurryKitchen How did you manage to get offended by this lol! Lefties, amirite?
Any type of science is cool... be a vaccine or a rocket. In this video right now we are looking at our civilization starting to shift from planetary to interplanetary. So EPIC COOL, anyways all type of science and engineering is cool. No matter if you are from one political side or another... science is above that stuff (should be).
@@antoniomigueljimenezmartin4018 I did not even say anything politcal before three* lefties came in here getting politcal (and offended that I dare occupy my mind with something other than the coof)
*edited for Aleide :)
Just like breaking the sound “barrier” was never physically impossible, there’s nothing in physics that says catching a big rocket with an even bigger arm can’t be done. Therefore, I believe they’ll do it.
It's not a question of physics, it's a question of economy.
Very complex. A kind of retractable feet with cushioning, like spider legs, would be more efficient.
It’s like climbing a mountain.... “BECAUSE ITS THERE”
I can not wait until I see this. It will be AWESOME...
@@Broken_Yugo you’re correct, it is a question of economy, and this will be much more economical once it’s working. Just the amount of fuel which is saved by not having to send landing legs into near orbit will be staggering.
@@Nevir202 Yeah but until then, how many expensive spacecraft will have to explode before they get it working...
Crazy idea but if anyone can pull it off it’s SpaceX.
I mean sure its fucking nuts, but its spaceX....
Yeah true
Maybe not so crazy after all. Ship can hover, you can build all kinds of fine alignment systems on the ground to guide the thing the last moments. The current generation of Falcon 9s landing on solid ground already seem to do so with impeccable accuracy and they can't even hover.
I'd say it's less that SpaceX is some magical being, moreso computers + sensors have advanced considerably since apollo, so all these "impossible to do things" are quite doable with enough computing power, sensors, and developers.
X+
ROFL: you LITERALLY reverse enginerd the solution, hah!
"Everyone else uses blender and other stuff, they have mad skills. I wasted all that time learning science so I'm playing video games instead, how does that work?" ROTFL I'm dying Scott.
Much easier to make precision landing on a land based platform than on the deck of a ship bouncing around in the ocean!
Spoken like an ex-Navy pilot who routinely landed on "rolling, pitching, aircraft carriers" at night in the middle of a storm.
@@thomasboese3793 I was never a navy pilot, just a civilian one who had enough fun landing a 7ECA Citabria in cross winds. But I've seen enough videos of Navy fighter pilots almost crashing their planes onto the deck of a flat top.
Musk did say that they are going to build spaceports on the ocean. Not floating, but more like an oil rig. So it's the same stability as being on land.
They do land in the centre of the barge now, but sometimes slide in the swell before being secured.
@@paulhiggins6024 I bet they feel that way to the pilot! And the sudden deceleration caused by the tail hook is rather gut wrenching, or so I've heard.
SpaceX is the pinnicle of "Hold my beer"
from an engineer i worked with that visited them "They're a bunch of cowboys"
@@AsbestosMuffins really?
@@AsbestosMuffins space cowboys? Sounds awesome, they literally sound like an amazing group though, geniuses and people who don't take their lives seriously like NASA
@@JL1 l
@@AsbestosMuffins nyy
"I wasted all that time learning science" has to be quote of the year 2021 already!
Buckle up buttercup.
The problem with learning science is that you have to keep re-learning it; it's less like riding a bike and more like using a TV remote. It's much easier to curse the darkness.
Yes, but it is still a well reflected suborn conclusion. Many of the graduated are still thinking, that there is a guarantee for a job in the field of study. It is good, that such popular persons like Scott Manley are opened about theirs experience. It's more important what are you doing about the thing you can and know of. At the end of your University time more than 50% of the information and/or knowledge is not up to date any more and after a further two to five years - there is almost no value on it for you and you as a potential job applicant.
@@vaterchenfrost7481 I've been told a few times that the value of a degree is less in what you've absorbed but more about the fact that you can bring a complex, multi-year project to a successful conclusion. I concede the point but think it's more a demonstration of an ability to put up with random BS and a fitness for Corporate Life.
In any case, science is an entertaining past-time.
Elon may be taking old ideas, but the difference is, he's making them reality...and making them work.
except the hyperloop....
@@SpydersByte It's literally a pneumatic post system.
@@hellcat1988 Its also completely pointless, and ridiculously expensive and dangerous.
@@ineednochannelyoutube5384 That's why he's not building it right now. It's in the R&D phase for a reason.
Saw this on other channels, but came here first. Scott does way better explanations than everyone else.
"The littlest Scots sing the prettiest songs..."
It wouldn't be fair if they did it the normal way!
style points are now a nasa contract figure
@@fifagamer1857 KSP renders now mandatory
Well, let's face it, "normal" today is how Boeing has done business in the 20th-century, but that no longer works in the 21st-century.
@@thomasboese3793 yeah, I felt a bit odd saying landing boosters was the 'norm', but it's definitely more true now than it was in say 2016
"Normal" is how the space shuttle landed on a run way bcs that's how all flying objects land. There's no way the Falcon-9 propulsive vertical landing can be considered normal. To me, it's still witchcraft!
3:22 For like a minute or so, I was watching like '' Is he really going to do that in KSP?'''
"I wasted all that time learning science..."
Wow, what an unnecessarily rude burn there Scott...
but true for many
Depends if it is referenced to something or what
To on the nose 👃?
Scott has to keep reminding us that he is smarter than all those other youtube space reporters ;)
I love how Scott's mock up at 3:50 is almost exactly what we actually got
3,500 tons is.... is like.... idk.... a couple of WWII destroyers?! That can’t be right, can it?!
Edit: Just checked and yep.... sure as shit. That’s nuts.
And the whole stack is in the 5 kiloton range... They are launching something that has roughly the size, weight and shape of a nuclear attack submarine into orbit.
@@eulemitbeule5426 funnily enough, there's a video where Scott does exactly that in KSP i think
What's the weight limit on 18-wheelers; 80,000 pounds? 35 tons (ish). 100 fully loaded big rigs flying through the air.
Full stack is like 50 average-sized adult blue whales to orbit
@@RyanGrissett...how many hump backs would you say? Asking for a completely different Scotsman :)
It must never be boring working for Space X.
...then again, there's a reason why "may you live in interesting times" is a curse. A polite one, but very much a curse.
I doubt you have time to be bored...
"Do you job faster! And for less pay! And we are still getting rid of you the moment you finish! Faster! FASTER!" *Whip*
Isn't hyper-capitalism just grand? It's SO much easier to get things done when your only concern is "Make number BIGGER" and everything else can be discounted.
I mean I've heard it's basically a nightmare, there's a reason most of the entire lower level burns out after ~18 months max and gets swapped out for new fresh eyed aerospace grads. It sure does achieve some incredible results though
...having the boss constantly changing your project on you.
I agree. If you're working for SpaceX, you're not working for The Boring Company.
Can't wait to see this in action IRL.
But this is Real Life :)
@@daskampffredchen.... this is ksp
It's gonna be so cool seeing a Superheavy get plucked out of the air by its grid fins, I'm just wondering how their gonna design the launch tower to support the weight
@@aarons1234 true. But its smart to remove legs. Legs would need so much mass to be able to carry the booster. So why not use landing robots that are not mass restricted? Spacex is so fucking smart. No one else would have the balls to do this.
@@WasatchWind I know. Thats why I put the :) smiley at the end
This is the most insane thing I've ever heard... I'm so excited!
Hi Scott
Can I say how much I enjoy watching your programs. As a 61 year old, I was a child of the space race and Apollo but school was never answered my questions. Thanks for rekindling my enthusiasm for "all things space".
Glad to be of service!
2 things are going to happen:
1. The booster will occasionally hit the tower
2. The thing that catches superheavy will move according to the location of the booster
As it can hover, i will never have to hit the tower, since it can just stop midair and adjust itself very precicely. Something that falcon 9 can not do.
@@gelisob It's still fuel limited, I imagine it can't stop and hover for more than a few seconds unless they intentionally leave a larger fuel reserve (which then cuts into payload capacity). It's going to have to be very accurate so that those few seconds of hover are used to gently set it right where it needs to be, any significant deviation and that hover will just be delaying its inevitable collision with the ground.
@@MrMattumbo The alternative, described as continuous deceleration until it reaches the ground, reminded me of the old Lunar Lander game. Do you hit too fast? Do you run out of fuel? When do you start the deceleration burn? All playable through a vt100.
@@gelisob Why hover when you've already mastered suicide burns? It's the same thing as a falcon 9 landing, just the stopping point is different and the landing legs are now ground equipment with waaay more suspension.
@@randgrithr7387 because hovering is cheaper than rebuilding the landing complex and vehicle, when things are not so certain. They would hover falcon 9 too to lessen the damage if they could. Like blue origin does.
With all these engines, it sounds moe like the N1 than the Saturn 5
The Falcon Heavy has 27 engines burning at launch, so the control algorithms to handle 28-32 on Super Heavy aren't a challenge to the SpaceX engineers.
We have much better tech these days than the days of the N1. Thanks to improvements in autopilot systems, flight computers, and rocket engines, its actually practical to do this now.
I bet they are not skipping the evaluations of their Raptor engines in order to complete the project faster, unlike what Soviet Union did with their N1
@asdrubale bisanzio -- Not to mention that the ideas that go into those engines can be used elsewhere more easily, if not the engine itself.
@asdrubale bisanzio actually having more engines makes the chance of failure higher. And the N1 vs Saturn V approach demostrated that. Moreover remember that if you loose on engine on one side you have to compensate for the lack of thrust on that side and the excess of thrust from the opposite side.
That idea seem so crazy that ssto's seem real-
I direct you to nuclear isomer reactors, & beamed power (specifically the heat exchanger variant). Either one is capable of making SSTOs realistic.
@@absalomdraconis reusable rocket stages make SSTOs almost irrelevant.
Starships upper stage will be ssto capable if empty.
@@danielboatright8887 same with the falcon 9 first stage but it couldn’t take more than a backpack and couldn’t land so sstos are not actually that good
Why waste fuel on dragging dead mass?
Unless you can bend physics, I don't see SSTO's being viable.
"I wasted all that time learning science" - guess that time wasn't wasted after all :)
@@jcd-k2s He has 2 science related degrees.
"I'm just trying to build something that flies, so I can demonstrate some critical features" - literally the Starship program in a nutshell right now haha
make a giant swinging arm with a butterfly net.
I'm for it. If it would'nt work, it could be sold to boston dynamics as first part of proper mecha.
Haha, I'm imagining a colossal Ms. Chief on four giant robotic legs, holding out a net for the booster, looking up and stepping back and forth like a person trying to catch a ball or something.
They already did something similar with the "I stiol love you" boat that catches fairings lmao
@@juanordonezgalban2278 "Of course I still love you" is a booster catcher (along with "Just read the instructions"). The net ships for fairing catches are Ms. Chief and Ms. Tree.
Just land it in a giant bucket of unpopped popcorn. The corn will pop as the booster approaches.
Just drape a blanket over several towers, like a blanket fort. The boosters will burn a hole through the blanket and then the fins will catch on the blanket and it'll sink slowly into the ground.
😉
A small(really big) but well deserved snack for the spacex team after a launch and landing
@@racitup4114 Most corn varieties do not pop. Elon would be making a big error of he nickel-and-dimed on the corn.
I don't think popcorn would pop quickly enough. popcorn needs time to slowly heat up, and turn the moisture inside the kernel into steam. If you apply too much heat/fire, it will just burn up instead of pop
@@tchamp72 We're going to need a special facility where we pre warm the kernels and then we dump them in the bucket right as it's coming down with the robot arm. Science and industry! Industry and science!
I just figured out how to bring back Airwolf! "String Fellow Hawk has hidden Starship somewhere in the Western United States."
Hazardish had a build
1000 IQ
when scott manley plays the landing clip in reverse
In SpaceX's facebook group a user suggested a system with 4 movable steel cables in a frame-like structure. At first the cables would be kept out of the way along the edges of the frame so the booster would have plenty of room for it's descent. As soon as the booster has descended into the frame the cables would be moved inwards. Slide rails along the booster would prevent damage to the hull (the extra weight of these would be easily affordable if they can in turn get rid of landing lags, their actuators, the power source for those and crush cores). The cables would then slide underneath the grid-fin hinges into a hook-like structure and the fins would fold down to lock the cables in place.
At this point the engines would still be running to offload most of the booster's weight, and the cables could be used to guide the booster precisely above the launch stand for touchdown. Consequently the hinges, cables and frame wouldn't even have to support the full weight of the booster - so the frame could be made arbitrarily large to allow for enough margin of error.
Mechanically this shouldn't be all that complicated (4x 4 motors - 2 to move the cables laterally and 2 to control tension/slack from both sides - plus an appropriate shape of the hinge so it can catch and lock onto the cable). This is quite similar to the traveling winch systems used on construction cranes - just two of them on opposing sides of the frame and used horizontally instead of vertically. Actually they would be even simpler with less pulleys, as the cable would run to the opposite side and get it's tension from there.
The magic would be in the control systems that coordinate all those motors with the booster's internal guidance - but that's exactly what SpaceX does best.
Winch systems are definitley capable of catching large loads - think eg. of the arresting cables on aircraft carriers - so this concept could actually work.
It's rare to really have a monopoly on a good idea, wanting to be the first or only person to think of something is quixotic. Actually putting it into practice effectively.. now that is impressive
They landed rockets propulsively 20 years ago, before spacex was founded. Shit nasa landed propulsively on the moon 50 years ago.
Elon: "If you dont fail you are not innovating enough"
spacex: "but it doesnt make sense to purposely make stuff difficul..."
elon: DO AS I SAY
You did better than most that have English as their first language!
Happy 2020+1
Next year they will start to shoot at them on reentry
"THATS IT!. YOUR LANDING WITH BLINDFOLDS NEXT TIME!"
Technically both techniques are hard to do but the other option offers less uncontrolled risk such as debris flying around because of the exhaust
your english is perfectly fine
Great ideas from the past that where just not capable due to the levels of technology needed to make them successful but with todays technologies, super materials and smaller and faster computers some of those ideas could work nowadays.
"Everybody else…they have mad skills-I wasted all that time learning science-so I'm playing video games instead."
YES YES YES YES! Fucking Priceless! (And, I'm sure, exactly why I'm here.)
The landing station could move to correct for the heavy booster's offset. As long as you're within a certain radius of error I bet this could be pretty do-able.
I highly doubt that such a huge thing could be moved fast enough to be useful. I think that the hover capability and the fact that it doesn’t need to have perfect alignment might make it doable.
The best part is no part, the best step is no step. Elon sure takes this very seriously.
Rob maurer when picking up his first Tesla “ the best brake is no brake”.
Quote quote Everyday Astronaut
"A designer knows he has achieved perfection not when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away." -Antoine de Saint-Exupéry
I just feel like .. a giant rocket grappling arm is a pretty huge part.
@@izckloable Yeah, I mean... at least it's not a part of the rocket itself. And if they manage to pull it off, it should have great advantages.
Scott Manley is one of those RUclipsrs who are able to explain things to the smallest detail
nothing small about the musk he sometimes must cover. details about musks self absorption would be like a soap opera, no a show about science or physics. ask anyone who must be near him. like trump on really good cali herb. me me me.
@@gregknipe8772 What a sad & nasty little envious under achiever u must be!
Poonam - And I love it that way. :)
@@gregknipe8772 Most wealthy business moguls have a certain degree of sociopathy and/or psychopathy that drives them to get where they are. If any humble, modest, altruist billionaires exist they are few and far between and very likely not interested in drawing any sort of public attention.
Will Scott be the first DJ on the ISS or Mars?
Mars will need a DJ.
YEAH!!
no, SM will still be needed on earth. There is no RUclips on Mars.
@@vaterchenfrost7481 Yet! Mars can have a new one. Maybe... RedTu- nooo. We need a good name for it
@@vaterchenfrost7481 no, we need SM to report on location from Mars. Doesn't matter if it takes 20 more minutes to upload the video.
I like the second mock up you showed with the moveable arms that squeeze in close and can be adjusted real time based on where the rocket comes in.
As someone who has done both Blender and modding KSP, your approach at showing this is completely valid.
A legless landing really does sound like an idea from the aftermath of a heavy hogmanay.
This is what I subscribed for ❤️ quality content
I get sad when i am the only Pakistani here and Indians are everywhere in technology related things while most of my Pakistanis are busy with that is haram or this is haram type s&+$
@@leonidkhamadakov7778 A start is to not think about human 'races' as different. Indians and Pakistani are the same DNA. As is everyone on earth in the bigger picture. Humans are just afraid of what they understand, so they get racist. Sadly.
@@rickmartony9566 you're right and even though people in my neighborhood and stuff say space is fake nasa is fake and stuff i know i am a human out of 7 billion on a blue dot. And i want to serve space agencies and make them take the first baby steps of humanity into the universe.
Shades of SWDennis and his "Pacific Rim Jaeger" rocket catching technique...
Don't suggest such things, elon could be reading this..
@@Lorem_the_Ipsum Elon surely knows about that video, especially now that Scott Manley retweeted it as a response to this new idea. I really hope Elon knew about the video already and it inspired him a bit
3:20 was the reason I came to this video this morning. I've seen the video before, it's of an extremely high quality but I just wanted to hear Scott Manley, one of the Old Gods of KSP, say "Do you know how I did that? I played the video on reverse."
Your search is over, Scott because in Starship you have truly found your Cottingley Fairy. Doyle would be proud.
So, they're not so much planning to land, but rather planning to dock with the ground.
Underrated comment
Berth
"Dock with the ground" -yes, exactly! (...and I think this qualifies as "docking" not "berthing" because so much of its success depends on the powered approach of the SuperHeavy: the active adaptation of the catching apparatus only increases the safety margin, it doesn't actively take over the process while the SuperHeavy is passive)
"Launch site attrition" what a wonderful term for it!
Elin must have read "Have Spacesuit Will Travel" as a kid, or Andre Norton.
Ad Astra...
Fly safe... or at the very least, fly without any living thing in the rocket or anywhere near the landing pad. "Launch site and landing site attrition." There's a new phrase I never expected to hear. First of 2021!
Btw Mr. Manley, your deep knowledge of pretty much everything (and ability to explain it to us) is the reason your channel is so successful. There's no need for Blender or pretty effects or any of that stuff when you're always delivering the real content we crave. And using Kerbal for animations is just cool.
Putting "lauch site attrition" in the fun space exploration concepts, along with lithobraking and engine rich exhaust
Engine rich exhaust?
@@zrspangle one of the spaceX test videos, at the end the plume took a lovely shade of green due to bits of the engine melting away
@@pegzounet lovely!
"swatting light aircraft out of the sky" that was great
More likely to swat some birds.
aircraft carrier cables, that's all i'm saying.
A trampoline. Land to relaunch times ~1 second
That's what I was also thinking. Two anchored blimps with a catch wire between them. The rocket deploy a kite with which can drag out a hook quite a ways from the rocket and make intercepting the catch wire extremely easy with their current level of guidance precision. You get much more friendly deceleration. The main point is that if you have a crew return mission they have a 2nd chance with an ejection system if the catch fails.
@@ElectricGears there are no people in a Super Heavy booster. Starship has landing legs and no abort system (as covered in an earlier video by either Scott Manley or Everyday Astronaut).
If we're talking aircraft carriers, I want to see Rocket Labs build a vertical catapult for the Electron. It is lighter weight than a typical carrier-launched fighter jet.
that still requires a ton of precision, and there would be a massive amount of force going down, the amount of inertia of the Super Heavy is a crap ton more than any fighter jet. Even if the cable didn't break, the grid fins take a lot of force. This is why it's going to slow down... a LOT... before landing.
Just make a Huge Funnel on the ground. The booster would be self-centering when it lands in the funnel................
Couple a constricting ring at some level inside the funnel to grab the rocket to prevent it from falling over. Should be a piece of cake to any graduate student mech engineer.
@@robertmorency6335 I don't think either of you are aware of how structurally fragile a rocket booster is. It's not like a pen that you can grab and move by applying force to points on the outer body.
@@reddmst I don't think you were aware of the joke lol
@@reddmst Sorry Reddy, I think you're wrong. My father was a structural engineer who worked for Aerojet-General many years ago. We had many conversations about rockets, and rocket engines......
@SkyKnight34 Haha yeah maybe you're right, my humour sensor might have failed me there - my bad :P
My father worked for a company that will remain nameless (although they used to make a certain famous VTOL fighter jet) who developed the fundamentals of a new form of deep drilling, but they gave up on it as 'too risky/likely to fail'. So my father quit said company, developed the new drill rig head and control on his own time and built his own drill rig having reverse-engineered the abandoned process.....and now sells his tech as far away as Japan as well as having a local operation able to provide geothermal taps and any other drilling you might like done at between 3x and 10x the speed of traditional drilling, and is a multi-millionaire.
NEVER fear risk, the worse you can do is fail and start over. If you succeed, the world can yours. And if you are Elon Musk, the very solar system can be yours! I hope life extention technology debuts soon, we need his kind of genius to stick around for as long as possible, he's literally one in a billion.
"NEVER fear risk, the worse you can do is fail and start over." Yeah, because it's just that easy ... well, in the mind of a well-heeled millionaire's kid it is anyway. Pffft!
@@CAsCurryKitchen I praised my father, not me #1, and #2 I grew up in the years while he was building the damn thing. We were poor, both parents worked and father then worked another 6-8 hours on his dream until he achieved it, with no time for his wife and kid or himself. it was after I had moved out and started my own family that he started seeing success. HE earned the money through his hard work. I've seen nothing of his money (nor should I) except for the small loan he gave me to start my own business. Not that I need to justify to anyone, but incase someone else thinks it's a poor rich boi talking, it's not.
He showed me what hard work and smart planning can do and I admire him for it.
"You know how I did that? I played the video in reverse!!!"
Kerbal Space Program...
I feel SpaceX has proven that they can bring first stages back with sick accuracy, I think they'll be able to do it!
Well, if they had an active landing site that itself could move 20’ or so in each direction quickly, it could help accommodate some inaccuracy in the rocket during landing. Might be cheaper than putting all of the burden on the flight vehicle.
Like the unmissable dartboard?
@@otterylexa4499 Yep.
“Wasted all that time learning science” 🤣🤣🤣
I think this is really smart. I can imagine that landing a rocket of this kind of size and mass could be very unstable, since once landed the stability only comes from the bottom of the rocket (landing legs). Catching the rocket from the top and lowering it down to the ground would provice stability both from the top and the bottom of the rocket.
I suspect, Scott, that the Super Heavy booster will need to use some sort of terminal guidance system to achieve the required landing accuracy.
If the military could fly cruise missles through windows and drop 500 pound bombs down air vents 30 years ago surely Elon can manage to get within 10 meters of where he took off today.
(6:47) Even if Elon's innovations were thought of before by other people, he's the one actually DOING, and making the ideas reality.
nothing in spacex is new in theory and practice, just as the hyper loop.
The ones ACTUALLY DOING stuff are the engineers, programmers, builders, etc. You know, people who actually DO stuff, not just throw in money. Even the cleaning staff should be given more credit than musk
@@Rayman120 Comments like this are cute. They reveal so much about the way you view successful, driven people. Musk is not just the chief executive, he's also the lead engineer AND chief designer at SpaceX. He and a handful of engineers built and flew the Falcon 1 and early Falcon 9. He isn't Tony Stark (that is, designing and building everything himself) because that's not even remotely feasible. Plus, he never claims to. However, the vision, passion and drive behind the achievements of SpaceX ARE derived from Elon. Sure, sci-fi writers for decades had envisioned rockets landing, but no one in aerospace cared to try because they thought it was not reasonably possible. Now SpaceX has landed 70 boosters and we're nearly bored of it. We're more shocked when one DOESN'T land.
Elon's laundry list of character flaws notwithstanding, it is entirely unfair to discount Elon's material contributions to the company he cares most about. You're thinking of that other guy.
@@jackinthebox301 Let me know when Elon gets close to the 268 SRBs that were landed and reused during the Shuttle program. And parachutes are far more reliable and cheaper than landing under rocket power.
@@stargazer7644 Well, see .....none of that is true. The SRB's weren't 'landed' and they certainly weren't reused in the same sense as a F9. Dunking the booster in the ocean and then gutting them entirely is hardly the same as propulsive landing on a pad. Plus, each SRB refurb cost basically the same as a brand new booster. Now, I will admit that SpaceX doesn't publish their refurb costs, but when Tory Bruno whined about reuse needing 10 reflights to be economical for ULA, Elon responded with saying they're basically break even at 3, ahead with 4. In the end, refurbishing the SRB's had nothing to do with cost savings. It was a way for the contractor to get more money from the government.
Parachutes are reliable, obviously, but they have there own issues. For what its worth, SpaceX tried to use parachutes to save the booster originally, but realized it wasn't going to be what they needed so they moved on. Cheaper is a totally different ballgame, though. Parts and engineering? Probably. But landing the booster in the ocean and having to clean out the salt water flips that calculus on its head. Time and time again SpaceX has proven they are obsessed with reducing cost. So yes, parachutes may be cheaper on the face of things, but certainly not over time.
Look, Star Gazer, I hope you keep enjoying whatever space stuff you like, but lets not pretend your disdain for SpaceX/Elon is not just unfounded, it is blinding you. The future you wanted when you were a kid happening right in front of you.
make the landing structure move on rails x and y to catch the rocket
Yes, and a rotating ring to align the base with the plumbing connectors.
Hanging the rocket from the grid-fins after it lands _also_ means the rocket doesn't need to be able to support its own weight with empty unpressurized fuel tanks.
Yep, I also like that it is a whole lot easier to not topple over when you hold a long tube from the top. It will need some beefy hinges to support that weight but then there are 6 less chunky inboard legs so mass might even be less.
To me, the answer to landing and the quick relaunch of the booster is to set up several landing platforms that would support the booster as shown in your animation video when it lands. The difference being that the booster would move by a conveyor system that would vertically and horizontally move the booster to the launch platform after a successful recovery. If the first booster craters on landing, just use recovery platform #2 for landing the next inbound booster...GC
I once read an SF novel that described a space port with a set of "cradles" or "nests" (I don't remember exactly what they were called), where descending rockets were captured in some sort of webbing. Will be interesting to see what kind of capture design SpaceX comes up with.
It’s a genius move
The grid fins bending moments and flange connections are already designed to be in high tension
The whole rocket structure itself is better designed to be in tension. It’s steel not concrete :)
The catch apparatus incorporated into the tower ( s ) can actuate horizontally to compensate for out of tolerance rocket landings.
I don’t see why the catcher structure can’t also be the launch point also.
Then there is nothing below your rocket ! Solves are the problems with supersonic projectiles harming the rocket inadvertently
Catching a 200 ton booster doesn’t require the same structure as supporting a 5,000 ton fueled ship
If your catcher is strictly a catcher, then when you ram it with a booster, you don't take out any of your refueling equipment. Also, even if you accidentally decommission all of your landing sites, you can still launch expendable boosters.
Or what that other commenter said, I didn't notice their name.
We already have big moving cranes that move seacans in two dimensions, why not a bigger one with some springs in it? The rocket just needs to get within 20m of center, the crane will move to catch it.
They just need Mark Rober's automatic bullseye dartboard. On a really, really large scale and horizontal.
what a genius idea! thx you made my day
Yeah I was thinking the same, the landing site should be able to move autonomously as well.
It seems refueling should take place to an orbital tanker so as when full , then launch Star Ship for a single step refueling .
The whole point of all this, is to bringt down cost. So why invest in an orbital tanker instead of refueling the rocket directly. If you are going to the moon or even to to mars, it should not be that big of an issue to wait one or two days to complete refueling.
@asdrubale bisanzio they wont set up any depots if they need to refuel something in orbit they will just send up a tanker version of starship
@asdrubale bisanzio No its not thats the whole point about Starship, nothing humanity has ever seen has a cheaper mass to space ratio than Starship and adding an intermediate depot only increases the amount of docking manoveurs that have to be performed overall. The bigger a rocket becomes the more cost efficient you are able to design it.
@@oO0Xenos0Oo From what I heard it would take five launches to fill one ship , the delay is great and so is the risk to crew .
What the naysayers don't seem to realise is this idea is not about catching a falling rocket. The super heavy booster will have enough thrust control to be able to hover. It will gently hover into position and come down gently into the cradle.
It doesn't need to be a "launch stand",
it could be a landing hole.
Also keep in mind,
a boat is a whole in the water.
"I wasted all that time learning science, so Im playing videos games, Hows that work?"
It works well my dude.. it works well
idk why but i got a feeling that sn9 is going to land
It will land, it's just a question of how many different places it lands.
In many
"I'm Scott Manley - fly safe!"
_[Musk keeps ignoring that advice and continues to pursue that high risk / high reward strategy.]_
It's perfectly safe to crash rockets if nobody is aboard.
@@chubstheclown it costs money and time not lives
@@adamkerman475 "Safe" has nothing to do with money or time.
@@chubstheclown as long as no one is under it.
@asdrubale bisanzio Sure. And one very valid way to achieve safety is to crash crew-less rockets until they are immensely safe. This is exactly the reason *SpaceX* (not Boeing, not really even NASA) are flying crews to the ISS.
To cut down complexity in the rocket, SpaceX is moving complicated stuff to the landing system on the ground.
It makes a lot of sense, but problem is complexity is like entropy, you can simplify the rocket landing system at the cost of a higher complexity in the whole system.
This monster rocket will come down from an altitude of 100+ miles with a tolerance of just some inches. Yeah, this concept is something so mind boggling that only SpaceX can turn it into a real thing!
The physical realization of a successful engineering idea is nothing short of a small miracle.