@@maroonmedia2000 No, the entire launch vehicle is 70m tall. These are just the side boosters, which are a lot shorter (like, 45m-ish, perhaps; possibly less; the info isn't easily findable online; but, maybe 14-15 stories, or less---still huge, obviously).
I had to go back 3 times to see it. Great eye dude. I totally would have missed that entirely if I hadn't read your comment... and then the comments to your comment.
@@ralanham76 what do you mean maybe? They literally show us the booster speed on its way down on the streams. Sonic booms are conical and take time to travel down and outwards.
If you haven't heard a rocket in person, it isn't terribly loud (from 5 miles away), but the bass is thunderous and incredible to hear. I just saw starship launch last week.
This is as real as the car flying around in space with no modifications yet tires don’t melt paint doesn’t bubble in the extreme temperatures of space. My dash cracks here on earth and also paint faded
@@brentbel1348 Take a pencil, and try to balance it on your finger, all the little micromovements you are doing to keep it pointy end up? Its about like that but now you are moving the pencil upwards. Its alot of math, and its very precise
It’s amazing to watch these launches and watch the boosters return to earth. I live in New Smyrna Beach so we are about 30 miles away and we get to watch the rockets launch all of the time especially at night. The Falcon Heavy has a launch coming up so we may go to Cape Canaveral and see it. We saw the recent launch of the Atlas a few weeks ago in Cape Canaveral. We were going to take flowers to my dads grave.
I don't at all get the masses of people that are rooting for SpaceX to fail, how is this anything short of an absolutely astonishing advancement of technology.
I'm pretty sure people are not so much rooting for them to fail as thinking that blind fanboyism misses the problems with some things they're doing. (Worker injuries, unsafe practices, damaging the sky for astronomy, reckless and stupid things, etc) Cheap access to space is great and unlocks a lot of opportunities for humanity, but it's not some existential crisis that we should be sacrificing lives over.
I think you have zero data to back up your claim about worker injuries. How much higher is their injury rate than the aerospace or construction industries? Where are the noteworthy articles about fatalities and permanent injuries. Low earth satellites have a limited lifespan and eventually their orbits decay and they burn. So the sky is not being damaged even if your view of it might be 0.00000001% impacted. Electrifying cities also "damaged the sky" to borrow your phrase, maybe we could address that before hammering away at aerospace advancements. Sorry, but insult Elon if you must.... but these weak endless arguments that are never about NASA's SLS prove that the rationale behind comments like yours are not fair minded.
@@nicholasjohnson778 Reuters published an article, but the link is filtered by RU-vid. "At SpaceX, worker injuries soar in Elon Musk’s rush to Mars", published Nov 10, 2023.
I had tears in my eyes when they landed the boosters the first time. My (now ex) wife was like "what's wrong with you??!! What's the big deal???" She's still clueless. (she's a social worker, so... well...'nuff said)
@@vaprexDivorce her. Any wife who cannot understand or share their husband's passion for something is not worth it. Unless she looks like Pamela Anderson of course.
I've always thought that the typical Hollywood special effect of a spaceship landing is always way too tame and calm. They need to watch this and up their game.
Its absolutely incredible how it essentially just "falls" into place standing straight up. Its like the water bottle challenge, except it's 230 feet tall! 🚀
I’m a photographer / videographer and I work with other incredibly talented videographers (cosmic perspective) and reinvest everything back into gear and opportunities. We’re trying to capture, share and preserve history!
@@thecyanadon I can understand why someone would think that - but its not really. The efficiency you are referring to is about payload weight to orbit. Which on the face of it is logical, but it starts to become much less efficient when you look intro it. Because, you now have to back burn to a launch pad that has the infrastructure to support your landing and you cant just land (relatively speaking) anywhere, which would be far more efficient - you lose a lot of the gains of the weight savings. You also need a huge investment and the upkeep of the stage zero infrastructure to support landings doesn't make sense. The costs involved with the maintenance of launch and in this case landing infrastructure are astronomical. Rockets by comparison are actually cheap. Launch complex 39 at NASA for instance cost around 500 million to build and it doesn't have the complexity of landing to deal with and that doesn't factor in the refurb costs after every launch. Its also completely unproven that this will work - we know landing legs work and we know how to build them. This is a huge gamble, that i'm not sure is worthwhile.
Cool. I watched a night launch from Vandenberg, I had my headphones on getting the play by play, as it's going up, I saw the first stage do it's landing burn. This is 50s Sci fi in real life. As I watched, cars are gioing by on the freeway. Cool stuff
I'm guessing this is a remotely operated thing, but then again I would probably trust those things enough these days to have a glass shield to stand behind just to be there when it comes down :-)
When I was a Kid watching science fiction movies... and then when I was an adult watching science fiction movies... I wondered how far in the future this sort of thing would become an Actual REALITY. It is truly amazing to see the progress, in spite of all the crazy crap going on in the world, there is hope for humans.
this is flipping amazing. We know over the years of use some are going to fail to land properly but just being able to get half of them to land is a huge resource saver compared to any other time in my lifetime. Congrats to SpaceX
Perfect reply, that's what I love about these guys, they don't have time for BS excuses. And quite frankly if it wasn't for the FAA and their environmentalist activist We would probably already be back On the moon with Space X Rocket systems. Honestly, that was some serious hole starship drilled into the ground on its maiden launch, and then to watch it do somersaults Was mind blowing and a undeniable testament of how strong it is, these folks are not playing around.
Realistically it makes more sense for a flightline. You've got turbine engines and wheels to worry about. With the blast from that relight engine though, anything that was there will be moved. Besides some of that debris is probably just some of the pad getting blown away.
It’s so hard to remember that these are about 164 feet (50 meters) tall. They make landing them look so easy but they’re the size of a 16 story building and moving at transonic speeds at the time of firing the engine for the landing burn. Insane engineering, can’t wait to see super heavy eventually land.
@@ryanrenolds idk, I found various sources stating that the booster alone was 70 meters. Can’t trust the internet I guess. Thank you for the correction. Still incredibly impressive even with 40 less feet
Watching SpaceX boosters land upright is one of the most incredible things to watch. It still feels like the future and I’m mesmerized every single time.
Because there are 3 main structures on a single booster, 1 The Main body ,2 grid fins, and 3 the legs. The sonic booms come from these! You learn more everyday!
No, sonic booms are created when you start traveling faster than the speed of sound and has to do with air friction/ compression and decompression. These rockets were not going faster than 767 mph on approach to land… not sonic booms.
That is just absolutely insane. That somebody could take that from idea to reality is hard to believe. Like, literally, I go back and forth on whether or not I believe that shit's real. It's just crazy.
So, basically the motive behind advancement of space technology is because "USA has to stay at the top of the Space Race" cuz the main priority is to satisfy the US ego, right? 😂😂
Some people are confused with like how it enters the atmosphere. Won't it burn up? Awnser: Sometimes. If you control the speed with thrusters, it wont burn up. If you just do a free fall, then you already know whats gonna happen.
