The amount of progress we have seen in rocketry and space travel in the last decade is mind blowing, I never thought I would see this in my lifetime.
First there are solid state inertial motion sensors[1]. Those combined gyros, accelerometers, and magnetometers that way just a few grams. Those bad boys weighed a couple hundred pounds in the Apollo rockets. We put the equivalent up in a $100 quadcopter these days.
Second there is 3D printing of rocket engine alloy, this allows SpaceX to 3d print a raptor engine[2] both faster, lighter, and without error than any engine we could have built before 2010.
Third was the development of fracking which created so much methane availability [3] that using it for rocket fuel became cost effective.
Fourth and fifth changes were three decimal orders of magnitude on the ability of computers to compute with a commensurate drop in cost, and with that an explosion the the ability to use high frequency radio to do things that used to be done by cable harnesses and wiring. (sorry no citation, general knowledge)
I can appreciate that it is really really hard to internalize how much as changed and improved since Apollo and can strongly recommend a trip to one's local science museum if you have one to get a visceral sort of amazement at what Apollo engineers did with the technology available to them at the time.
So it isn't accurate to say we could have had this all along, although if one of the 'big' players like Lockheed Martin or Grumman Aerospace had continued investing even after the 'Star Wars' program was cancelled I do agree we would have had it sooner than we did. How much sooner? Maybe 5 years? But it is important to realize that at that time (late 80's early 90's) they didn't know that the Internet was going to be a thing and so they didn't have a built in "market" for all of that launch capability. Even with Teledesic[4] which tried to go there, you needed someone who like Musk who was too ignorant of what "could be done" to push a bunch of really smart people beyond what they thought they were capable of.
[1] Apollo PGNCS --- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_PGNCS
[2] SpaceX simplifies Raptor engine: Has it used additive manufacturing? --- https://www.tctmagazine.com/additive-manufacturing-3d-printi...
[3] The U.S. fracking revolution has caused natural gas prices to drop 47 percent compared to what the price would have been prior to the fracking revolution in 2013. --- https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-economic-benefits-of-...
[4] Teledesic -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teledesic
Musk isn't Tony Stark, single-handedly building everything. But then again, that's not how most innovations work.
Engineers who worked directly with Musk, such as Tom Mueller, have spoken about Musk's technical acumen and involvement in managing projects.
There have been many rocket programs, both public and private, that have accomplished less with more money. Bezos's Blue Origin, for example, started earlier than SpaceX and had a much richer backer for most of its existence, but is only now hoping to launch its first orbital rocket (and I hope they succeed).
There's more to it than just writing a check.
He’s a twat. But he has vision longer than the next quarter and can inspire / coerce people into delivering.
“Never been done before – xAI did in 19 days what everyone else needs one year to accomplish.”
He’s a twat? What are your credentials?
It's a lot less impressive being the second person to fly a plane. Grok was released in November 4, 2023; Llama was released freely in February 2023. They had plenty to build off.
> He’s a twat? What are your credentials?
What credentials would be relevant to determining that?
I credit Musk for a lot of the vision behind SpaceX, but I'm glad he seems a bit distracted from it right now with X etc. It's possible to be both visionary and a twat simultaneously. Howard Hughes serves as a similar example.
For sure. Outstanding vision. I'll give him credit. But vision doesn't launch a rocket or finance a business. There are probably thousands of people out there with sufficient "vision" to build a space program, but only one of them is a billionaire willing to finance it. Musk is not some one of a kind unique person. He just happens to be one of the few who have the means ($$) to hire people who can actually bring his vision to life.
For better or worse, he's single-handedly facilitated watershed progress in more areas than just about any individual we can name from recent times. All the "cringe" and human shit he does that we hate and clown on will be erased by history and forgotten when the stuff that -other people- create, as a byproduct of him starting and funding these companies, pushes us forward and eclipses the clickbait and/or questionable personal behavior of the man himself.
Teamwork makes the dream work, and I believe sometimes we need gigantic egos to set the ball firmly in motion.
Why don’t they deliver, in spite of them being decades more experienced in this area? Why don’t they deliver in spite of getting much more money from the government and from your mentioned complex?
IIRC they were talking about 100+ Apollo launches to get a real space station, moon base, and expedition missions to Mars by 1980 and with that would have come a real drive to innovate and improve on the Saturn V.
Without the computational power that we take for granted today they would have definitely brute forced their way to elegant solutions and got somewhere close to where we are by the mid 90s.
This would have lead to tremendous innovations in solar panels, batteries, and metallurgy much sooner than we ended up getting to them.
Instead we chose a different path and made ourselves completely dependent on oil.
Now only if Project Orion had not been canceled due to international treaties banning nuclear testing we’d be on the moons of Jupiter by now (sigh).
I think that the Saturn V was a solid platform that was robust enough to do the kinds of things that Von Braun and others had in mind as well as versatile enough to be improved upon.
They would have done it with sufficient budget but the political drive wasn't there. The politicians were more concerned with killing Vietnamese and Cambodians and then selling out American interests to oil companies.
It's possible that SpaceX programed the AFTS to trigger some time after the rocket touched down in the water. Just to make sure that it completely submerges quickly.
> I can easily imagine that flight 6 will be nominal end to end without any unintended damage.
I think it depends on what you mean by "nominal". SpaceX ultimately wants to catch the 2nd stage as well. I suspect that they are a ways off of that, since it would have to approach over land. The FAA is going to need to have very high confidence that it will do exactly what it's designed to do before they're going to allow that.
Why would they want to do that? (genuinly curious).
I reckon there would be a lot of useful data left if they could recover or even just inspect the remains. The remains are one big tank, so it would have floated.
With Starship it could have been similar & possibly worse given the size and more complex shape (various voids that might fill/drain & the thing is not really built for floating). Also you are in the middle of an ocean (Indian in this case) with potential for all kinds of weather on the way. Towing might again be very slow, so you might need to stage a massive submersible transport ship or something similar to make a recovery successful. And then the thing might still tip over and explode anyway - meaning all this was in vain.
I think is most likely they won't bother and instead just stream as much data as possible over Starlink in real time (or heck, even via WiFi once the buoy is in range) for analysis. They want to catch the shop eventually anyway, so manual post flight analysis will wait.
They can now check all over the first recovered booster anyway. :)
[0] https://www.flickr.com/photos/europeanspaceagency/3700131835
I get that towing is probably too expensive for what it's worth. But I'm surprised they don't even go pick up some tiles before kablooing it.
At the same time, this is SpaceX and they have a few others ready to launch already. Perhaps they indeed can keep it somewhat coarse and wait for detailed inspection until one of them makes it right back to solid ground?
Over 4 months old. The same thing posted, over, and over. Even alleging xAI "knows" about Musk's "secrets".
the scale of Superheavy is such that the above two items are making the arms scheme make sense. The number of engines also gives this rocket the ability to hover, which probably makes the scheme easier to pull off.
All high performance engines tend to only throttle in a range in the upper half of the engine's performance, the difference making hovering possible in this case is that the Super Heavy has _so many_ engines that it can turn off. This is a sort of secondary throttling, or meta-throttling, and the rocket can use the combination of engine throttling and engine-off to hover comfortably (while near-empty) with three engines going.
True, but wouldn't the deceleration burn be putting much more compression onto the near-empty rocket than the landing?
The SpaceX host on the stream said that they were going to try and touch it down on the water at more of an angle than the previous flight to attempt to get it to survive the initial splash-down so they could get some more data and video footage.
Obviously this wasn't guaranteed to succeed, but it indicates that they weren't planning to immediately detonate the ship on touchdown.
As I recall it was common on the early Falcon 9 landing tests that splashed down in the ocean to also explode after tipping over and smacking the water. Once they're actually landing them on a pad, tower, or ship that should be much less of an issue.
I think they've towed stuff in the sea before so I would have thought that'd be their preference if it were possible.
I'm not sure if they would have actually attempted to tow this one somewhere given its location in the Indian Ocean, but they might have taken the opportunity to do some inspections before sinking it.
https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiLeaks/comments/1fy10k1/tracking...
> When Elon Musk came to the White House asking me for help on all of his many subsidized projects, whether it's electric cars that don't drive long enough, driverless cars that crash, or rocketships to nowhere, without which subsidies he'd be worthless and tell me how he was a big Trump fan and Republican, I could have said, "drop to your knees and beg," and he would have done it,"
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/its-time-trump-sail-into-su...
It’d be not a good place to end up being hostage to Musk (or Trump) whims and depend on them to keep lights on for Starlink or ability to put satellites into an orbit.
And having a clear separation of government is also important.
It should be possible to outcompete X now. The opportunity is there, a lot of people who work there would prefer to avoid supporting Trump. And while X outcompeted NASA (for a motivated Silicon Valley company it’s not that difficult to outcompete a government agency, while draining best people from it), now X itself is becoming a perverted place. So there should be some opportunity there.
SpaceX will do just fine.
“You are a genius!” messes with the brain if heard enough.
They have to prove out the landing of the second stage, either with another catch or with landing gear, which they need for the lunar lander anyway.
Starship is not really in a true orbit, I forget the exact terminology but the trajectory is designed to re-enter regardless of what happens with the the flight.
Think of it as instead of thrusting perpendicular to gravity for the most optimal energy usage Starship instead points its nose up gaining more altitude but now lacks the speed to miss earth as it comes down.
Heat shielding didn't look relevant at this section of the flight at all. The booster didn't have any shielding.
Where was a heat shield holding out?
The booster never travelled fast enough to need heat shielding ever. Only the starship needs it.
If chuck is talking about both likely he doesn’t know what he’s talking about.
However, Raptor 3 is supposed to obviate the need for this shielding.
The booster doesn’t travel fast enough to need heat shielding ever.
It makes zero sense to use heat shielding behind the engine bells. Why? Think about it. If the booster renters the atmosphere engine bells first the engine bells would burn up BEFORE the air even touches the heat shield. If there are actually tiles there it’s just there to protect the booster from the heat of the exhaust.
> However, Raptor 3 is supposed to obviate the need for this shielding.
Not completely getting this. So there’s a case for the booster entering the atmosphere at orbital velocity engine bells first? I would think if they did this then THEY want the booster to burn up. Anything entering the atmosphere at that velocity needs to be made aerodynamically stable as it will be traveling faster then the speed of sound. This is what causes the heat. If you send something at the speed of sound engine bells first that’s not stable and is unlikely they will do that at all, with or without heat shielding.
I don’t think parent knows what he’s talking about.
The engine bells are made of different material than what's behind them (a material that has to directly withstand hot exhaust) and the aerodynamics of the ass end of the rocket are complex; some combination of these factors means this heating isn't an issue for the bells but is a concern for what's behind them. The booster does not re-enter from orbital velocity, but does come down engines first at supersonic speed. Stability in this orientation throughout the descent is a problem SpaceX solved with Falcon 9, and SH works the same way.
See the other reply to your comment for timestamped video of aerodynamic heating behind the engine bells.
Is it possible you're confusing the booster with the second stage (Starship)? They are not the same thing.
Don't appreciate this at all. I can be wrong, but there's no need to make personal comments on my mindset.
> I don’t think parent knows what he’s talking about.
We can all do better.
This is a better view than the sibling comment linked. It's a greater close-up and you can clearly see the yellow glow behind the engine bells. This view is from Cosmic Perspective, a partner of Everyday Astronaut, whose video is linked:
https://www.youtube.com/live/pIKI7y3DTXk?si=LI4-xQ7UhnvITTiG...
In case you get confused due to lack of context, the booster shot is a replay. When Tim goes to split-screen view, the right-side image is a live view of the second stage ("Starship") as it re-enters from orbital speed. It is not a different angle on the booster that is shown on the left.
Later commentary explains that the heating behind the engine bells is due to atmospheric compression and SpaceX specifically orients the drop of the booster to focus heating in this spot.
I think the primary reason would be that landing legs are heavy, and it wastes performance to carry them. If your landing mechanism is mostly on the ground, you get that performance back.
Secondary reasons might include that it's simpler to get the booster right back to the pad. Once things have settled into an operational cadence, it's likely feasible to lower and lock the booster onto the stool, stack a ship on top, refuel, and relaunch -- no more messing around with barges, transport, weather issues, etc.
Landing on a device that spreads out the shock moves that weight to the static landing platform.
I'm actually wondering about that. If I understand correctly, the arms can move up and down, and pivot around the tower. This allows them to correct for some error in the rocket trajectory and also (presumably) "soften" the final contact. Between the nozzles and the arms, it gives SpaceX a lot of degrees of freedom in the final seconds (you can see how the booster kind of "hovered" right at the end) and in certain respects might even offer more forgiveness than the hard ground.
Could it smash into the tower? For sure. Would that be more dangerous than smashing into the pad? I don't know.
It's a new technique with which we don't have a lot of experience.
It can arrive to the designated intermediate point with some already good accuracy, and then take some time to trim the remaining errors to the noise level more slowly, possibly with feedback from the ground sensors.
The chopsticks also include rails with shock absorbers, the action of which can be seen in the view from the tower during the landing [1], so the required accuracy is probably relatively modest, provided one plans the maneuver carefully.
The second stage might want to land in other places. Not as a satellite launching bus or fuel truck though, that just wants to go up and down in an uncomplicated and unsurprising way, and that's where the vast majority of their launches will come from.
For inter-planetary missions yes, but they have different second stage designs for those that aren't made for tower landings. If it gets used as a military transport, then similarly it will be a different second stage design.
It's the C5 Galaxy, but with only a couple of hours needed to deploy into any theater in the world.
In comparison, simplified, if you have a bunch of things you need to send somewhere, you can go to the nearest airstrip and call a bunch of C5:s from somewhere a couple of hours away.
Instead, with a near-future rocket, you could have some sort of assortment of "most likely stuff needed" stored near a launch site and be ready to pack and launch in an hour.
The capability hasn't been tested but why wouldn't it work if it works on a x-37?
How different those consoles with pins are from possible landing legs, and how much savings they provide is an interesting question. It's quite possible they provide some savings - but it would be nice to know some details.
IIRC at least one returning Falcon 9 stage was lost to a landing leg collapsing.
That is, unless the falling rocket could abort a tower catch and move to a secondary nearby tower if a failure is detected in time.
They will have a tower in the Cape. It’s conceivable they could land there depending on return trajectory and save some mass for payload with that maneuver. I am also quite sure they will be a dozen towers in Boca Chica and I wouldn’t be surprised if they build a couple in California for Southward launches.
The tower is used for various stacking and craning operations between launches. There is a better chance to detect any developing anomalies outside the launch context.
Also, being on Earth and flying nowhere, it can be sturdier and heavier than any flight hardware. Much like Roman aqueducts, it can be overbuilt a bit to ensure some extra resilience.
Plus, more towers at the same site, as you say. If one malfunctions, another one can act as a backup. In contrast, every single landing leg is a mission-critical component and cannot be replaced in-flight by another one.
I'm curious how late in the catch sequence they can still abort.
It is not just about shift of complexity from A and B. Anything that stays on Earth permanently can be built without particular regard to its weight, e.g. much stronger, much more resilient, with bigger safety factors etc.
With any flight hardware, you need to make painful tradeoffs between reliability/sturdiness and weight.
If anything out of the ordinary happens, massive steel chopsticks can take a lot more strain than a landing leg which needs to be carried to the edge of space and back.
Starship will get landing legs.
Do you have a source for this where I can read more?
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RS-25
[2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sound_suppression_system#NASA [3]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pIKI7y3DTXk&t=6850s
The catchzilla solution is an example of their amazing ability to think out of the box. This solution, and things like the rapid evolution of the Raptor engine (see picture, story here: https://medium.com/@futurespaceworld/the-evolution-of-spacex...), dynamic engine configuration (33, 13, 3, zero, up again) and control is almost magically impressive. This is the stuff of Sci-Fi, brought to life.
There's no reason to reinvent the airport firetruck.
There is. The booster is high above, and is larger than basically any aircraft. There's no flat concrete airfield around either.
I would suggest blowing CO2 or nitrogen through pipes positioned at the right height on the tower.
The way these chopsticks are set forces the booster into a dangerous, snake like maneuver (a SnakeX maneuver) at the last second from a vertical setting, to get into the chopsticks. This maneuver is due to the fact chopsticks are short and the booster has to land on one point in space. No degrees of freedom.
Now, imagine if the chopsticks were long. The booster wouldn't have to land at one specific point, but it could now land on a line. One degree of freedom.
Now replace the long chopsticks with cables, and then add another pair of cables perpendicular to them. So you have a pair of parallel cables perpendicular to a second pair of parallel cables. Now the booster doesn't have to land on a line, but can land anywhere in the grid that's covered by the cables. Two degrees of freedom.
Pushing this thought leads to having a sort of iris diaphragm, like the ones in optics, but an iris diaphragm of cables. The diaphragm is open when the booster is about to land, then closes in quickly. Imagine this[1], but it's cables cinching in.
Now, it's a diaphragm of cables, not a diaphragm of rigid beams, so I imagine the deceleration to be even smoother as the cables elongate, and an additional system of springs and dampers to counter the weight of the booster.
The booster is vertical and stays vertical. Granted, an unstable equilibrium, but it beats doing the SnakeX maneuver to get to the chopsticks, and that's another story.
Now, imagine the iris cable diaphragm can move up and down like equipment handling containers, and now you have three degrees of freedom. That's less control to worry about on the booster's side at the worst possible moment, landing, where you can't make adjustments anymore.
This not only means being more forgiving on mistakes related to position, but also on speed and angle. The diaphragm catches the booster at any angle, and given that it cinches way above the center of gravity, the booster goes back to a more stable vertical position.
For the fire, maybe you just need a big hole down there.
- [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arresting_gear
- [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Iris_Diaphragm.gif
Moreover I think Elon discusses the mechazilla arms in one of Tim Dodd interviews. They dont want longer arms, ratger shoeter.
Think about physics involved for longer arms and how much more stress you will putt on the connection points.
Yes. Something falling into a web of cables. I'd say it may be simpler than optimally controlling that last SnakeX maneuver to be hugged by a short-armed T-Rex.
>Think about physics involved for longer arms and how much more stress you will putt on the connection points.
That's why I wasn't talking about arms, but cables, as explained by most of the reply.
I'm sure you think it's easy, but I'm sure some people thought a bit more
Mechanical advantage. The booster weighs 250 tons. A 40' shipping container has a max payload of about 30 tons. There are cranes that can lift 250 tons, and it won't be one, but many. Have you seen gantry cranes?
>So you need a big-ass structure to hold all of these cables.
Similar to the big-ass structure holding the 250 ton booster with the T-Rex arms?
>They must be able to circulate around the perimeter, while being in tension, while not collapsing the structure that holds them, etc..
Not circulate, but translate. The cinching in is a result of them translating. Again, see cranes and gantry cranes. Or, just see the actual chopsticks: circulating, not collapsing the structure that holds them, while being in tension, holding the booster at the free end.
Are you seeing the shear and moment diagram of that cantilever beam with point load? (I know, it's an extension of a supported beam, but still cantilever).
>I'm sure you think it's easy
I'm not sure I think it's easy, I can't see how you're more sure than I about my own thoughts.
>but I'm sure some people thought a bit more
You are people, too. Nothing prevents you from thinking as well, if for nothing than to have a civil conversation on a forum.
Now, that's all fun. Imagine they keep it the way it is, but they duplicate the setting to make a circle, so the booster lands in the middle of many chopsticks... What do you think about that?
And how exactly this requires less precision? I see multiple issues:
- No way to escape/last second abort away from tower once you dipped into that net.
- The booster arms must be longer/heavier, the tower support structure need to support more weight.
- Cables have a lot less thermal mass than the tower/arms - if the torch coming out of raptor engines will touch the cable, it may either cut or soften the cables and they will behave in a different way.
I mean we could have had this discussion previously but now they demonstrated on the first try that they can catch the booster... why bother?
Because these things must work every time, not just the first time. Because why not talk about it, it's an interesting topic and musing about it is amusing. Because it's not a bother. I'm surprised one needs a reason, but here are three already.
What do you mean?
>Now you got other problems to target into some cell. Moreover cables could be lingering depending on thrust. Or maybe thrust will just cut em easily.
It's an iris diaphragm that's open but cinches on the booster.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=27TvGDpPLNw
It will be interesting to see how these two approaches fare vs. one another.
Then again, I just watched the launch and that was the first thing that popped into my mind, and the first "design" that popped into my mind as I was replying to the thread, so not much thought went into it.
The rocket was set to come down on the pad just in front on the tower and launch mount until the final 3-engine landing burn started. This kept the infrastructure safe until the last moment, but also required that lateral translation you referred to.
First, to the extent the booster is out of position in the x (sideways) direction, the chopsticks can move to accomodate error. But actually I think this dimension is the easiest of the three, as the booster has plenty to time to null any error in this dimension.
In the y direction (direction of travel towards the tower), the rails on the chopsticks can cope with the booster touching down along quite a long distance. But importantly, they appear to be smooth, so the pins can initially skid along them and then the booster can swing if it has not fully nulled any horizontal movement. In contrast, if the booster used legs and has not yet fully nulled any horizontal motion at touchdown, there is a greater risk of breaking a leg or simply tipping over.
And in the z direction, it should be possible for the chopsticks can absorb more vertical motion than legs can absorb, because you can easily build in huge springs/dampers/etc into the ground equipment without concern about mass.
Catching also puts the booster in tension rather than compression - it's easier to be rigid in tension than compression.
Finally, if legs were used, the engines would have to get close to the ground during landing, so reflected shock from the ground could cause damage. I know Falcon 9 does this, but the area of the base of Starship is much greater, so there's effectively less room for the reflected energy to escape. Catching completely removes this risk.
On balance, I think they would have better chance of success for each mission by catching. The main downside would be if you fail to catch, you may need to build a new tower, whereas a flat pad would be cheaper and easier to repair.
I have experience with docking large boats and it does seem to be a bit similar. In the case of boats, wind is a big deal, and the booster has nothing "below the waterline" to slow down the effects of wind.
Not because wind wouldn't affect an empty booster; it certainly would.
But since the booster returns within 8 minutes of the launch, the weather in which a booster lands is restricted to the weather in which they will launch a rocket.
Source: Kerbal Space Program
Yes this has absolutely nothing to do with Elon Musk and is entirely a team effort you see. The SpaceX engineers are just an entirely different kind of engineers than the ones working at NASA Boeing Blue Origin ULA ArianeSpace etc etc. They come from entirely different colleges and use totally different engineering principles.
SpaceX ... has nothing to do with Elon Musk? What am I missing?
The 'chopsticks catch' was amazing to watch. Seems like it adds a lot of risk and clearly the booster needs additional fire suppression systems :-) perhaps the tower could mount something that sprays the booster like the barges have for the F9 boosters.
The heatshield held out for a much longer time, the asymmetric heating on the flaps was interesting. I had guessed that all four flaps would have equivalent heating based on an approach that was basically that side of the rocket perpendicular to the flow but it seems like that isn't the case. Still it seems like they are close to having something workable here.
The detonation at the end was pretty spectacular too, but I suspect that structurally the tanks failed as the rocket hit the water vs anything that was an engineering failure. Engineering it to be strong enough to land on water would presumably compromise the cargo to orbit number.
The use of Starlink was really interesting. The ability to get live video for the entire re-entry is pretty game changing for engineering. I'd guess there are even more 'views' than they showed (there would be if I were running things :-)) but overall that capability is something that really helps evaluate the changes made.
I can easily imagine that flight 6 will be nominal end to end without any unintended damage. That would enable, perhaps, one of their 'massive' Starlink missions to test cargo delivery. It will also start to give us some better numbers on exactly how much cargo Starship can put in orbit in 'full reuse' mode which is essential if they want to create a fueling station on orbit for the Artemis program.
Again, hats off to engineering at SpaceX, y'all did good.