F9 won’t be compatible with a catch as it can’t hover (the engine needs to ignite precisely that the speed will be 0 at touchdown, too early and it will start going up again and too late then it will crash land)
The post flight investigation of a failed catch would likely take far longer than rebuilding the first tower and finishing the second tower combined. If the catch doesnt go 100% to plan, there will be a mishap investigation, and if the booster fails to light up and it comes in at full speed, that investigation will take ages. Not to mention all the enviro groups and possible legal actrion from said groups holding things up. SpaceX will have prototypes and towers ready to go before the red tape is done with.
@@anthonylosegonah, they'll switch all over to starship. The only ones that will stay on f9 will be those with contracts signed before starship is used commercially.
They can't use a Falcon for this maneuver because Falcon's can't 'hover' with their current Merlin engines. They are currently slamming into the earth and using the Merlin engines to kill the speed before hitting the ground. The raptors being used by Starship can be throttled down and Booster/Starship have enough weight to allow it to hover while lit. That is the only reason why Starship can be 'caught' while Falcon's can't.
True but 90% sure Elon has stated that super heavy won’t hover. The fact falcons can’t hover do not prevent them from being caught, the necessary expenditure on new infrastructure on both the ground and on falcon is what prevents them from catching falcon 9. They would have to redesign the entire vehicle as well as change every falcon launch site just to prove the concept of a catch, they may as well make a whole new rocket… Maybe out of stainless steel or something…
213 days from April 20 to nov 18 2023 118 days from nov 18 2023 to march 14 2024 84 days from march 14 to June 6 2024 June 6th to today august 30 2024 is 86 days the reason why flight 5 is taking longer because it is a far more complicated to build and test the infrastructure for a launch attempt plus the FAA has been delaying their licensing for the starship with no new leads on the starship at this time
Everyone who had criticized SpaceX for such brazen moves is only exemplifying the behavior that has kept our space program at a standstill/retraction. Pioneers do!
@Mac-oj1vm imagine how much we could accomplish if people learned how to dream again, and instead of fighting one another, we could all focus on building a better society for human beings, not corporations. Not in my lifetime, but after society collapses and rebuilds, perhaps we'll realize we need to do things differently.
The booster would never hit the pad at full speed, it's going to dogleg over to the pad after the landing burn starts. And as Elon said if something goes wrong during the landing burn the booster will "YEET" itself into the ocean.
@@Blodhelm OP is correct as this is already done for f9 landings; f9 booster aims for a point in the ocean then doglegs towards barge/pad once its happy the engines are working. Reasonable to expect a similar flight profle for superheavy recovery.
@@Blodhelm Pretty sure its not in his best interests to destroy one of his launchpads. I get that you don't like the guy but can you at least criticize him for stuff that merits criticism? Like whine about how Starlink will result in civil unrest in 3rd world countries due to governments not being able to control internet access.
I think that's what Elon's "boring company" is for?...the first astronauts will live beneath the surface (radiation protection?)..with linking up (neurolink) to his Optimus robots on the surface building infrastructure for humanity...with starlink also around mars...all makes sense
Funny, because SpaceX is all hype. Grounded again and NASA can't even plan its moon mission, something we did in the 60's with 1 launch, because Elon can't show them that Starship can carry an apple into orbit, let alone 100 tons, which would still need 16-22 launches to get that can to the moon.
@@BlodhelmSeriously, SpaceX is all hype?!? Who’s rescuing Boeing’s passengers?!! All Boeing does is double their projected costs and timelines and then STILL can’t deliver, even when given 3x the amount of initial development money. What a freakin joke saying SpaceX is why NASA can’t go to the moon!!!
I suspect that SpaceX isn't too concerned about nuking Pad 1 simply because it's the old design which they've already revised, just like they had plans for some kind of deluge/diverter originally but let IFT 1 dig a hole anyway. Besides, seeing how the tower survives a failed catch attempt is useful data, too.
Bump stops will get replaced with piston dampers. This creates outward load on the arms as they are closing so they don't bounce and stay under tension 100% of the time as they get close to the actual "catch". This is a common technique in machining to get rid of back lash in drive screws and gears.
My thoughts for a smaller-scale catch test would be doing a hop. Having a barely-fuelled super heavy lift off, take it up like 10 meters, then lower it back down to be caught. Would verify that the chopsticks can support the weight at catch, determine the amount of damage to the booster, determine the amount of flame damage to the launch mount, and, if anything went wrong, a booster falling that slow from not very high up would only risk denting some metal they'd have to hammer back out, rather than completely KO-ing the entire launch mount and catch tower.
An intermediate solution to testing the Catch function - fly the Booster only, partially fueled, to a high altitude, and then complete to landing phase under equivalent conditions. But then you would expend a Booster but not gain the Starship launch. Probably best to proceed with the flight as planned.
Because Pad B is an improvement over Pad A, damage or loss of Pad A would not create a catastrophic loss for SpaceX or substantially slow Starship/Super Heavy Development development
I'm surprised they didn't launch a super heavy without a Starship, go up to 30 km or so, and do a live test catch. They're either so confident of a catch, or figure there's enough to be learned from even a full failure that they're going for it.
Launching a superheavy to 30km and catching it wouldn't be any different than doing a full orbital launch and catching it. And with the full launch they can test Starship at the same time.
Why not just stick a ship on top at that point and go the whole hog.. a catch is a catch ultimately, no matter how high the booster gets, it will still perform the same landing profile from at the very least a kilometer up. The destructive potential would still be there in its entirety
An even more relevant question is do you have to interrupt "every" vid with the same spiel??? "We've looked into our channel metrics and..." If viewers like your content they will sub...if they don't, then keep reading the comments and making good videos and the channel will grow naturally. You do a disservice interrupting the flow of every vid to beg for subs and likes... It's unbecoming and clashes with the balance of the production which is done well with professionalism. Maybe include it every 3rd or 4th vid or move it to the very end of the vid if you simply can't help yourself and must include it. At least there it will not disrupt the presentation as it does now.
4:13 i would add that falcon 9 cant do the same thing because it has way too much thrust to hover so it does a suicide burn unlike super heavy which should be able to hover
Felix, scale models have been tested for a long time. It wouldn't be anything unusual if SpaceX were to test a scale model of a booster for a catch attempt. I still think they could lift that test tank with a crane and then lower it slowly for a catch attempt, then speed it up a few times to see how it goes. I'm not too worried about a returning booster hitting the tower, I'm more concerned with a booster slamming into the tank farm -- that would be a major BOOM!
Returning to pad like that makes repair, inspection, and refueling an order of magnitude easier. Moving a rocket on the ground is difficult and time consuming.
Hi! I'm going to Cape Canaveral for the first time during my honeymoon. I will be there around September 24th which is the launch of Falcon 9 • Crew 9. Where is the best place to see the launch? I often watch your videos. thank you!
Jetty Park Launch Viewpoint at Port Canaveral is an amazing spot to watch. Night launch especially are great from that viewing area and it's "free" at night. I haven't been there during the day or when there's a cruise ship in dock so the parking might be taken up by that. But you can see and hear the launch a long way out along the beach, including Cocoa Beach, if you want to make it a day and need to have the kids (or new wife 🙂) entertained.
You guys are my #1 space news.. In conversations with family and friends, i frequently pass on what you have shared. Im keeping it cutting edge with my updates to mom and Dad, soo thanks😊
Excellent question. My guess is that they don't want to put stage zero at risk unless it's being used for a real launch. A real launch produces data on all aspects of launch/orbit/reentry/landing, rather than just the booster landing.
@@meanderinoranges Yeah, that seems reasonable. Feels like a similar reason why they stopped at one hopper test and one successful belly flop test. I wanted to see more of those and figured they could get more data, but reason it's all they need and like @hawkdsl mentions, they don't need to spend the money.
@@danielreborn4707 It would take a VERY long time for Mars to lose its atmosphere. It took a few hundred million years to lose its original after it lost its magnetic field. It would be pretty trivial to replenish it if we could re-create it in the first place (e.g. release massive quantities of that underground water to the open and increase pressure)
If the bumpers were set to the width of the booster, then when they bumped together, a ripple would have been induced into the chopsticks that would cause them to open and close like ones hands clapping. This would cause a recoil of the arms away from, then into, the vehicle: Bad! I've seen this happen on a much smaller scale. There are better methods, such as compression dampers (Large, tuned damper, shock absorbers if you will.), to do that kind of job. Also, the structure of a Falcon 9 is not designed for a catch. A specially built version would have to be created that didn't have landing legs and would have the necessary structural reinforcement to handle the catch. A new set of chopsticks capable of closing to the desired size would also need to be created as the Starship ones are 300% too big. The amount of money and time necessary to conduct this test is impractical. Another issue is that, contrary to classroom physics, scaling results has it's issues; Systems simply act differently when scaled up. Again, an issue I've seen in the past.
At first, I thought at least 4 or 5 virtual catches would be done before an actual catch, but now I'm not. SpaceX has obviously gathered enough data from the last 2 flights to feel confident to perform an actual catch. "Break things fast and make them better." I wish SpaceX a perfect catch on flight 5.
Unlike the graphic where the starship failed to translate from the belly flop to hover and hit the pad. This manuver will take place over the water just off shore. Once hovering,while breaking to a stop, it will manuver towards the chopsticks.
On the subject of why they can't use a Falcon 9 to simulate the catch of a buster, the Falcon 9 uses a "Suicide Burn", Because even at minimal thrust with a single engine on return it is so light it has a greater the 1 thrust to weight ratio. Basically it can not hover, it lands by trying to 0 out it's speed right as it lands and turning off the engine at the same time. The buster is able to hover on return, and doesn't use a reentry burn to slow down in the upper atmosphere. In short as was stated they are two completely different vehicles. I am sure Space X has already applied all possible information from the development and operations of Falcon 9 and getting it to land to guide the development of the buster. Also as other have noted the reentry profile for the buster will bring it down in the ocean if the engines don't relite. I am sure they have automated in the guidance computer to only start to guide the buster to the launch pad if everything is operating properly. And even then they would still have options to redirect the booster back to ocean in most cases. I would say the risk to the tower is relatively small and they will have the second tower finished before the next test flight either way.
All good points. But seriously, if SpaceX wanted to do it, they could. Since the falcon would just be hopping, it could carry as much fuel, or a mass simulator, to allow it to hover. It’s not like they would do it with a random returning booster. They’d build a test article. Possibly using a well used booster. As you point out, a Falcon can’t hover because it’s too light….so add weight.
@@evanmorris1178 But it's also not hard to see why they wouldn't bother. The goal is to catch Starship, not Falcon, and any effort spent on doing Falcon-based experiments would a) be of limited value because it's a different vehicle, and b) would be a distraction from doing Starship development.
@@evanmorris1178 Oh, yeah, it's certainly *possible*... as you say, an empty Falcon booster can't hover, but that just means you need to add some ballast to make it heavier.
Cave colonies on Mars! That’s a sci-fi book just waiting to be written. Cave dwelling would solve the radiation issues for habitation and we could build up an atmosphere underground until we are advanced enough for surface terraforming.
Falcon 9 has a smaller diameter, so, the chopsticks could not be parallel. The tips could touch if F9 is closer to the tower allowing it to slip through. Once caught F9 could not be shifted in or out along the chopsticks to rest centered on the OLM (assuming they want to use the water deluge for this catch). Otherwise, the mobile carrier is not configured for F9.
If it fails relit engines ,it will be traveling supersomic, with dry mass alone and fumes inside tank it will be enought to demolish entire launch tower.
An empty booster weighs less than half a million pounds and is made of thin sheet metal. The tower, which is filled with concrete, masses hundreds of times the booster. Also the booster does not come straight down at the tower so if the engines fail it just hits the ocean.
@@filonin2 Yeah, it's like chucking an empty coke can at someone. It might hurt a little, but it's not going to do any serious injury. That tower is a *lot* more solid and more massive than the boosters...
Another reason that building a catch tower for a falcon 9 is that they already have that data. As I understand it, the booster is supposed to come to a stop, as the chopsticks close. They already have all the data they need on a falcon 9 booster coming to a stop at exactly the right time, and they recently obtained the data on the chopsticks closing. They also have at least one set of data on the starship booster coming to a complete stop from the last flight. It only remains to be seen if they can hit the target and if they can synchronize the actions.
Thanks for the continuous updates! All we need is the right advice on how to invest in crypto and we will be set for life, made $28,000 profit last week regardless of how bad it gets on the economy.
Same here, I believe the Bitcoin ETFs approval will be a life changing opportunity for us, with my current portfolio of $108,000 from my investments with my personal financial advisor < Mrs Linda Raschke> I totally agree with you
Just because? You do realize the FAA is not adversarial to SpaceX and that they are working together, right? Clearly not. You've created a fictional plot line in your head to entertain yourself. Maybe write a fanfic.
@@filonin2 No... I have seen the US Congress question these people. They were told to change things because they were taking Months to approve launches.
Felix, dude. That intersection with info telling us to check subscription and like stuff is such a turnoff that after this intersection I am kind of tuning out and don’t care about the rest of the content. Do you think you should cancel it or at least say only once a month. I don’t think it’s helping your goal
Catching the booster seems so outlandish. But considering SpaceX's very short but incredible reputation, and seeing them doubling down on the concept, fills me with confidence that they will succeed.
"Flight" 5? The first two exploded 3 times and the third returned uncontrolled and burnt all to hell. None of them even had dummy payloads. We have no idea how much weight one of these can carry because none of them have successfully carried anything. This moon mission isn't happening anytime soon, if at all.
3:33 Я бы сделал такой дизайн бамперов чтобы они могли закрываться на чуть большее расстояние, чем размер ракетоносителя . Более узкий зазор ближе к концам Палочек , надежда на автоматику. Но если не сработает то есть механика. Которая не даст возникнуть более катастрофическим последствиям если будут проблемы с автоматическими системами. Я бы сделал не два бампера а две упругие рессоры которые бы слегка гасили удар. Но это было бы временное решение на период испытаний этой концепции. Дальше стоило бы придумать что-то более лучшее
The Merlin 1D engine is only slightly throttleable, and Elon has said on multiple occassions that F9 first stage landiings are a "hover slam". I.e. The M1D can't throttle enough to provide hover, so they program the F9/M1D to reach zero velocity at zero altitude. If you watch the SpaceX F9 launch videos, you'll notice the landings are markedly different the BO's New Shepard landings where the rocket can actually sit and hover for a bit. Super Heavy, as I understand it, will be able to hover like BO+NS in place until the chopsticks can engage. The other thing, if I relate catching SH like trapping a jet on an aircraft carrier... the jet has landing gear that is hydraulic and has give, as do the tires. The cross deck pendant (cable / wire) also has give, as does the arresting gear engine below decks, which is hydraulic and likewise has give. Plane is much lighter but lands much faster... SH is much heavier, but lands much slower... I just don't see that much give in the chopsticks... the draw cables might give a little, and part of the chopsticks move to absorb the force of landing a bit, but I still worry that those tabs on SH meant to catch the chopsticks might just get ripped off as the ship and system are unable to accomodate motion between the two enough. Time will tell.
Let's leave the science to the scientists and instead, enjoy the show. For something that defies both physics and logic, catching the booster would be quite a spectacle!
Chopsticks are way too heavy right now, generally that's a good thing for lifting and handling equipment but for something requiring quick precise movement the momentum and moments are the wrong way around. Increase hyd supply, reduce moment and reduce weight.
I really believe that if the booster hits the pad in an uncontrolled way, spaceX probably wants to replace that water deluge method with the new design used on pad 2 they are almost done with anyway. I think getting rid of the deluge would be an advantage to SpaceX simply to get the FAA looking at one fewer thing.
To be accurate, they *did not* discover massive amount of water underground on Mars. They discovered *evidence* of the water. It's the difference between holding a test tube of water and holding a paper sheet with numbers and graphs.
Starship launch cadence has just had a set-back. Time between full-stack flight 1 & flight 2 was 6 months & 29 days Time between flight 2 & flight 3 was 3 months & 25 days. Time between flight 3 & flight 4 was 2 months & 23 days. Two months & 23 days past flight 4 was August 29th!
Catching and Hot Staging is the same philosophy - incremental efficency. By themselfes these decicions do not matter a lot but together it is a big deal.
I always thought they would at least make something like a super heavey hop-to-catch-test. But they just smash the sticks against the can and go for it 😀
The Mars data is exactly why Elon needs to mount a nosecone on one of his Boring company machines. Create underground habitats and get closer to the water on Mars
Why not have a dedicated catch Tower and then you can eliminate possibly damaging the launch tower..... Just my 2 cents. Great work Felix, I absolutely love the channel buddy👍👍
I think they should be testing catching the booster with booster only launches. This would be similar to the early Starship launches when they landed them on unfolding legs. However, this scheme would have either only Starships or only Boosters launch to a 30k to 50k feet altitude then retirn to launch-pad for catch attempt...
The basic flight profile for landing is the same the big difference is Falcon9 does a suicide slam where Super Heavy does a hover catch. 1 merlin at lowest throttle would push F9 back up making its landing more difficult than SuperH 3 engine hover.
In Boston MA, they needed to do the same thing but first, they had to FREEZE IT, which we will not get into, what they were putting in is called, a COPPER DAM? VERY NORMAL for places by the water. I know the copper dam needed to go down to BED ROCK. but here down south they do not have any rules to building anything. A 4 inch slab build a house on top of it.
Personally I think landing legs are a better option because it would limit the need for variants. And even a reduction of 50 tons still gives them an advantage
