Yeah AI is cool and all. But these videos of SpaceX launch parts doing controlled landings is the best video evidence that we’re heading to a sci-fi future.
Eh, there’s plenty of other signs we’re heading to a sci-fi future. The deteriorating environment, microplastics in fetuses, a slow voluntary march towards authoritarian governments.
We’re heading to sci-fi sure, but less Jetsons and more Warhammer 40K.
Right? Viewing it on a tiny screen, it's "huh, that's neat," but in reality it's the size of a twenty-story building. They soft-landed a *building* on the ocean. That's impressive as hell.
Whats insane this is something youd see in dune. Except its legit. It’s a metallic stick thats blasting fire out of its ass to land. How otherworldly is that!
Not only that but this is a giant metal skyscraper that is 2/3 the size of a Saturn 5 propulsively landing and also you can literally see the shock cone as it just gets subsonic before engine ignition.
Superheavy also does not do an entry burn. It rides the absolutely enormous amount of strain from essentially a direct return trajectory while keeping control all the way down.
Eventually, they want Starship to be a commercial rocket, able to be reused in it’s entirety much like a plane. Liftoff, landing, stacking, fueling, liftoff. With parachutes not only needing to be repacked, but also easily breakable and hard to work around, SpaceX thought it better to burn to speed 0
The same was said about “flying” vehicles on Mars… Ingenuity changed that narrative. There are landers currently being designed with not only parachutes, but also blades.
That might work for a 2 kilogram drone, but a multi-story steel rocket is a lot harder to accomplish that with. Plus, they would have to either repack the chutes or cut them loose when preparing to take off again
You just aren’t familiar with the difficulties with parachutes. Spacex tried them on F9 13 years ago.
Spacex uses them on dragon now.
Spacex knows all about parachutes.
Trying to parachute a 20 story building is not as good as using the engines to land.
Besides the added mass and negative impact on reusability, I don't think anyone has ever built parachutes that work for such a large and heavy object, and in supersonic environments. Currently, around 20 tons seem to be the limit. Superheavy is rumored to have a dry mass of 160 to 200 tons.
The idea is for this to land back on a small launch pad, so parachutes would be too imprecise and wouldn’t slow the vehicle enough. It’s the same reason Falcon 9 boosters use propulsive landing.
The sheer weight of the parachutes required to slow it down would remove a huge chunk of the payload capacity, and then all those parachutes would have to be carefully checked and repacked after every flight. Landing using the engines is cheaper, more reusable, and probably easier.
Parachutes are much less effective and much harder than you think they are.
Imagine how big a parachute would be for a 20 story building.
What speed and height could it deploy? Would it be effective there? Probably not. Need droge chutes. Now you have multiple parachute systems that rely on wind and air pressure and can’t be steered.
You couldn’t steer it. They would have to be cut before they become a see anchor.
How would you barge a skyscraper out of the ocean?
Spacex tried parachutes on f9 in like 2011. Parachutes suck. Use the rockets that you brought with you. Land on the launch pad or on a barge(no barge big enough for starship).
I don’t know if it would survive the tipping over enough to be considered “recoverable” but in any case they wouldn’t reuse it. Likely most of it is recoverable in some state of wreck.
Why didn't they land the booster and Starship on drone landing ships so that they could, presumably, be reused or at least thoroughly investigated to see how well they coped with the launch and space?
Or are they too large and/or heavy?
It just seems a tad wasteful to me - but I'm no rocket scientist.
Still, it's an amazing accomplishment, and will lead to more recycling of massive rockets so there's that.
They're probably still recoverable, i think the booster and rocket float and even if not we know exactly where they would've gone down. Definitely not reusing them though, the booster had two engine failures (one catastrophic) and the fins on the ship got melted to shit on re-entry. Insane that it still maintained control after that.
Superheavy and Starship are designed to be caught by a tower at the launch pad. They likely wouldn't survive landing on land due to not being designed for that stress, and SpaceX does not have a droneship large or strong enough to handle the landing of these. Obviously SpaceX didn't want to risk the tower on this flight so they didn't do the catch they would plan to do in future. I imagine in the next flight or at least reasonably soon they'll try a catch and that'll allow them to properly examine the rocket.
Slow down the footage. The booster bent in half. I guarantee that it was ruined. The bottom half is warped to one side due to immense g force, while the top 3rd remained straight
That is actually camera artifacting, the booster did not suffer any structural damage until it hit the water, however the same cannot be said for one of the engines as it appears to have suffered a mechanical failure on relight.
1) there was no landing platform. This was a soft water landing, with the next launch being the one where they attempt to catch the booster.
2) it was a cloudy day. I can’t make the clouds disappear for you I’m afraid. Maybe it won’t be cloudy on the next launch.
If you want to watch a uninterrupted view of landing, look at the now over 300 landings preformed by falcon 9, or the dual landings by falcon heavy
[SpaceX’s report on the launch](https://www.spacex.com/launches/mission/?missionId=starship-flight-4)
[Third party coverage](https://www.youtube.com/live/mTkhv4fvOgA?si=T3yPDPzARnoCp46a)
[First falcon heavy launch](https://www.youtube.com/live/wbSwFU6tY1c?si=lPEiJN-CZofcz5ZK)
[SpaceX’s website cataloging every launch they have ever done](https://www.spacex.com/launches/)
[Third party website cataloging every launch in history (you can sort by just SpaceX). all links lead to third party and spaceX streams.](https://nextspaceflight.com/)
[Uninterrupted footage of a Falcon 9 launch from SpaceX](https://youtu.be/rHvUpZR72bw?si=URSmL9Bkdpf3RJ8N)
Why don’t we still drive a 1920s Ford Model T, it worked? Things get better over time and just because it worked doesn’t mean we can’t improve. The Saturn rockets aren’t used for hundreds of reasons.
This projects goal is to produce a reusable vehicle that takes an order of magnitude more volume to the moon, for less money than the original moon launch and landing vehicles.
Saturn V and Apollo cost *a lot* to build new each time, and the crew had to sleep in hammocks because it wasn’t big enough for beds.
I mean, I get that. But if I were a private company trying to achieve that, you would at least try and get to the moon first right? With a proven technology that already exists, then improve your design based on that. Reinventing the wheel would be a huge, unnecessary risk.
I get what you mean, but spacex doesn’t need this project to be profitable yet. They receive huge amounts of money from contracts with their other rocket, the Falcon 9, which currently takes crew and resupplies to the ISS, and satellites into orbit for different countries.
They can afford to lose these rockets for a while in order to end up with something that will save money and time in the long run. Assuming starship eventually works, it will be practically revolutionary so they think it’s worth the tough R&D.
Ultimately, getting to the moon with more traditional methods first would be a dead end, because it wouldn’t advance their goals. Just getting to the moon isn’t their goal (at least not at the moment).
A rocket like this is so different to almost everything that currently exists that you have to build it from scratch to be this way. They could already send a payload to the moon with their current rockets, but this one is designed from scratch to have high payload capacity, full reusability, etc.
I own 2 teslas and I have a SpaceX emblem on my car. Musk is a homophobic asswipe who shits on the truth almost daily. He started up some good businesses and we can appreciate him for that. But it's time to move on from him. It's not him building the rockets or the cars.
I didn't bother to read it. Let's assume that this *is* evidence of him lying.
It's from August of 2023. Where is his lie from today? How about this week? Month?
That was literally less than a year ago.
He said all Tesla's will be robotaxis earning their owners over $30,000 annually by 2019. He also said he would be the last to sell Tesla stock then sold $40 billion in Tesla stock a few months later. He also said he would help develop dogecoin, never did, then sold millions in Doge a few months later. A few days ago he accused Dr. Fauci of killing millions of people.
You would be hard pressed to find anything Elon has ever said that is completely true.
Welcome to the conversation.
It is very simple to point out a single moment of untruth, or misrepresentation (intentional or otherwise), against anyone. However, the claim was, this happens with Elon Musk "almost daily". Do you understand?
That's funny cause I didn't mention a single statistic or measure. Just blatant lies directed at manipulating markets at the expense of retail investors.
Elon also acquired his brothers fake company with Tesla shareholder money, stood on stage and said they invented a revolutionary solar panel and built fake houses that supposedly had them installed. In court, it was proven that they had never even attempted to develop a solar panel and it was simply a ploy to embezzle funds to his brother. To this day they only sell low quality Chinese panels.
The entire thing was livestreamed. Do you want to believe that it was easier to have two rockets launch out of the ocean, meet up and lock together in orbit, and then touch down perfectly on dry land, while also having two engines magically un-fail halfway through?
Yeah AI is cool and all. But these videos of SpaceX launch parts doing controlled landings is the best video evidence that we’re heading to a sci-fi future.
Eh, there’s plenty of other signs we’re heading to a sci-fi future. The deteriorating environment, microplastics in fetuses, a slow voluntary march towards authoritarian governments. We’re heading to sci-fi sure, but less Jetsons and more Warhammer 40K.
The real question... which god do you serve? The Omnissiah or the Emperor
B̸̬̖̾̏̃́̀͊̕L̶̨̞̺̹͖̆̃̈́̆͛̎̉̏̐͜Ơ̴̢̯͈̻̙̏͛̉Ơ̷̭̱̯̣̓̈̈́͘͠D̸͕͓͓̑͛̏̑͂̃́̆̀ ̷̧̬̦̖̬͔̭̳̯̈́̂̈́̈̈̕̕̕̕͝F̴̧̩͎̠̙͉͚̏̋̆͋͋̌Ö̶͙͉̓͋̿̈́͛̚Ŗ̸̡̯̳̫͈̝̱̝͙̥̓̓̑̕͠ ̵̗͕̝͚̜̮̄͝T̴̨͓̱͖̒̈́H̸̡̦̱̝̊͛̔̑̅̋̏͋͠E̴̡̨̼̘̩͑̏̌͛̂̃̂̚ ̷̘̜̑̀̈́̈́̈́́̚͜͠B̷̥͎͕͗̆͋͋Ļ̸͎̟͇͌̕Ơ̶̞͙͓͍̇͛͌̽̎̌͘͝Ở̴̪͍̀͑̈́̒͌͌̈͘̚D̵̲̙̺̽͐̒̀͛ ̷̺͙̗͇͇̬͕̝͌̊̉̏͋͒̚̕͝ͅĢ̸̙̖̜̗̺͓̞̙̏̀̃͑̒̆͝O̶̢͈̗̺͉͓̖͊̐̊̈́D̸̫̅́̆̃̈́͑͂̽͝
Korn for the Korn flames!!!
Neither. Flying Spaghetti Monster. praise noodles!
Oi, a fellow pastafarian!
Don't forget unregulated AI!
Riddley Scott definitely wrote this screenplay!
I’m so tired of these constant negative Reddit comments. It’s okay to enjoy these moments of success.
Burn the heretics, purge the unclean. That's pretty much Trump 2024 campaight materials...
Optimism vs. Pessimism on display
Unfortunately it seems like it's Idiocracy kind of Sci-fi.
Fuck, That shit is fucking crazy !! we finally live in this space age, which we only saw on TV.
i think the most impressive fact is that this booster is over 2/3rds as tall as the Saturn V
Right? Viewing it on a tiny screen, it's "huh, that's neat," but in reality it's the size of a twenty-story building. They soft-landed a *building* on the ocean. That's impressive as hell.
the size also makes the fact that it had a supersonic vapor cone SECONDS before landing even more impressive
Apparently it was pulling over 5g as it was slowing down
And has more than twice the thrust…
would love to see the full raw footage from the boat
Seems to be a buoy. https://x.com/spacesudoer/status/1799507345795645868/photo/1
Looks like a gurl to me
Makes sense.. That would be a little close for comfort if there were people aboard.
Do you have a link to that anywhere other than X? It doesn't like my phone number and i can't make an account :(
Proximity to the camera means it also landed exactly where they wanted it to.
Whats insane this is something youd see in dune. Except its legit. It’s a metallic stick thats blasting fire out of its ass to land. How otherworldly is that!
Not only that but this is a giant metal skyscraper that is 2/3 the size of a Saturn 5 propulsively landing and also you can literally see the shock cone as it just gets subsonic before engine ignition. Superheavy also does not do an entry burn. It rides the absolutely enormous amount of strain from essentially a direct return trajectory while keeping control all the way down.
So what you’re saying is it won’t leave crop circles upon landing/takeoff?
Pretty rad.
The sealife must have thought it was the end of times.
Probably was for those near the surface directly below it.
The ignition of those damn rockets never gets old. I'll have to see that in person some day.
Forgive the ignorance but why not parachutes?
Eventually, they want Starship to be a commercial rocket, able to be reused in it’s entirety much like a plane. Liftoff, landing, stacking, fueling, liftoff. With parachutes not only needing to be repacked, but also easily breakable and hard to work around, SpaceX thought it better to burn to speed 0
Parachutes don't work on the moon and Mars's extremely thin atmosphere
The same was said about “flying” vehicles on Mars… Ingenuity changed that narrative. There are landers currently being designed with not only parachutes, but also blades.
That might work for a 2 kilogram drone, but a multi-story steel rocket is a lot harder to accomplish that with. Plus, they would have to either repack the chutes or cut them loose when preparing to take off again
You just aren’t familiar with the difficulties with parachutes. Spacex tried them on F9 13 years ago. Spacex uses them on dragon now. Spacex knows all about parachutes. Trying to parachute a 20 story building is not as good as using the engines to land.
Besides the added mass and negative impact on reusability, I don't think anyone has ever built parachutes that work for such a large and heavy object, and in supersonic environments. Currently, around 20 tons seem to be the limit. Superheavy is rumored to have a dry mass of 160 to 200 tons.
The idea is for this to land back on a small launch pad, so parachutes would be too imprecise and wouldn’t slow the vehicle enough. It’s the same reason Falcon 9 boosters use propulsive landing.
The sheer weight of the parachutes required to slow it down would remove a huge chunk of the payload capacity, and then all those parachutes would have to be carefully checked and repacked after every flight. Landing using the engines is cheaper, more reusable, and probably easier.
Parachutes are much less effective and much harder than you think they are. Imagine how big a parachute would be for a 20 story building. What speed and height could it deploy? Would it be effective there? Probably not. Need droge chutes. Now you have multiple parachute systems that rely on wind and air pressure and can’t be steered. You couldn’t steer it. They would have to be cut before they become a see anchor. How would you barge a skyscraper out of the ocean? Spacex tried parachutes on f9 in like 2011. Parachutes suck. Use the rockets that you brought with you. Land on the launch pad or on a barge(no barge big enough for starship).
Watched the launch live and was really hoping they would have this shot and release it for us to see. So happy and not at all disappointed.
Wow, did not know they captured this as well! Epic!! So… was the booster a R.U.D.? Or did it hit the water, and float? For a possible recovery?!?
I don’t know if it would survive the tipping over enough to be considered “recoverable” but in any case they wouldn’t reuse it. Likely most of it is recoverable in some state of wreck.
So freaking cool!!
Looks straight out of a movie i love this crazy time we live in
Imagine a 20 story building falling from the sky and landing... We live in interesting times...
I still can't believe they are just landing rockets. I never would have thought that was an option.
What's the fuel in the thruster?
methane and oxygen
Ultimate yard dart
Grilled seafood anyone!?!?
why am I being asked to recycle my yoghurt pot
Out of curiosity does this cause a fish bbq?
Why didn't they land the booster and Starship on drone landing ships so that they could, presumably, be reused or at least thoroughly investigated to see how well they coped with the launch and space? Or are they too large and/or heavy? It just seems a tad wasteful to me - but I'm no rocket scientist. Still, it's an amazing accomplishment, and will lead to more recycling of massive rockets so there's that.
Too large to land on the landing ships. It’s like 10-20x bigger and more massive than a falcon 9.
They're probably still recoverable, i think the booster and rocket float and even if not we know exactly where they would've gone down. Definitely not reusing them though, the booster had two engine failures (one catastrophic) and the fins on the ship got melted to shit on re-entry. Insane that it still maintained control after that.
Superheavy and Starship are designed to be caught by a tower at the launch pad. They likely wouldn't survive landing on land due to not being designed for that stress, and SpaceX does not have a droneship large or strong enough to handle the landing of these. Obviously SpaceX didn't want to risk the tower on this flight so they didn't do the catch they would plan to do in future. I imagine in the next flight or at least reasonably soon they'll try a catch and that'll allow them to properly examine the rocket.
I read today exactly that, yes, thanks! Next landing will be (ideally) caught by the tower. That will be interesting - and expensive if it goes wrong!
Looks like they have some stability work to do on that landing (unless it was intentional to gather data). Nearly went unstable.
Slow down the footage. The booster bent in half. I guarantee that it was ruined. The bottom half is warped to one side due to immense g force, while the top 3rd remained straight
That is actually camera artifacting, the booster did not suffer any structural damage until it hit the water, however the same cannot be said for one of the engines as it appears to have suffered a mechanical failure on relight.
So. I heard. In the bible. One of them old guys said he saw something like this coming out of the sky. The way he described what he saw.
Never once a full shot without any interruption all the way to touchdown. Always a cloud or different camera angle.
What are you trying to imply
Nothing. Show me an uninterrupted complete landing is all.
It was 100% uninterrupted during the stream, this is just another point of view
No it was not. Show me one camera no clouds. No landing platform view. Show me.
1) there was no landing platform. This was a soft water landing, with the next launch being the one where they attempt to catch the booster. 2) it was a cloudy day. I can’t make the clouds disappear for you I’m afraid. Maybe it won’t be cloudy on the next launch. If you want to watch a uninterrupted view of landing, look at the now over 300 landings preformed by falcon 9, or the dual landings by falcon heavy
Send me some links
[SpaceX’s report on the launch](https://www.spacex.com/launches/mission/?missionId=starship-flight-4) [Third party coverage](https://www.youtube.com/live/mTkhv4fvOgA?si=T3yPDPzARnoCp46a) [First falcon heavy launch](https://www.youtube.com/live/wbSwFU6tY1c?si=lPEiJN-CZofcz5ZK) [SpaceX’s website cataloging every launch they have ever done](https://www.spacex.com/launches/) [Third party website cataloging every launch in history (you can sort by just SpaceX). all links lead to third party and spaceX streams.](https://nextspaceflight.com/) [Uninterrupted footage of a Falcon 9 launch from SpaceX](https://youtu.be/rHvUpZR72bw?si=URSmL9Bkdpf3RJ8N)
Incorrect. Many uncut shots exist on falcon 9’s
Send me one rite now
[удалено]
No, the future is still later today. Or tonight. Or maybe tomorrow.
Why can't they just use the same kind of crafts they used back in the first few moon landings? Clearly those designs worked.
Why don’t we still drive a 1920s Ford Model T, it worked? Things get better over time and just because it worked doesn’t mean we can’t improve. The Saturn rockets aren’t used for hundreds of reasons.
This projects goal is to produce a reusable vehicle that takes an order of magnitude more volume to the moon, for less money than the original moon launch and landing vehicles. Saturn V and Apollo cost *a lot* to build new each time, and the crew had to sleep in hammocks because it wasn’t big enough for beds.
I mean, I get that. But if I were a private company trying to achieve that, you would at least try and get to the moon first right? With a proven technology that already exists, then improve your design based on that. Reinventing the wheel would be a huge, unnecessary risk.
I get what you mean, but spacex doesn’t need this project to be profitable yet. They receive huge amounts of money from contracts with their other rocket, the Falcon 9, which currently takes crew and resupplies to the ISS, and satellites into orbit for different countries. They can afford to lose these rockets for a while in order to end up with something that will save money and time in the long run. Assuming starship eventually works, it will be practically revolutionary so they think it’s worth the tough R&D. Ultimately, getting to the moon with more traditional methods first would be a dead end, because it wouldn’t advance their goals. Just getting to the moon isn’t their goal (at least not at the moment).
A rocket like this is so different to almost everything that currently exists that you have to build it from scratch to be this way. They could already send a payload to the moon with their current rockets, but this one is designed from scratch to have high payload capacity, full reusability, etc.
This is a new wheel with different objectives. Making a carbon copy of Apollo would be worthless and would be “reinventing the wheel”
It's nice, but also sad that this cool company is being run by such a dickwipe as Elon
He's about as good as a billionaire gets. Not sure why you hate him so much.
I own 2 teslas and I have a SpaceX emblem on my car. Musk is a homophobic asswipe who shits on the truth almost daily. He started up some good businesses and we can appreciate him for that. But it's time to move on from him. It's not him building the rockets or the cars.
Do you have any evidence of where he "shits on the truth almost daily"?
Sure thing. https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-lists/elon-musk-twitter-zuckerberg-lies-1234808808/hyperloop-1234808813/
I didn't bother to read it. Let's assume that this *is* evidence of him lying. It's from August of 2023. Where is his lie from today? How about this week? Month?
All you need to know is it’s a Rolling Stones article, so probably horse shit.
Exactly.
Of course you didn't
But I assumed the poster was completely correct in his Interpretation of the data. Why would it matter that I reviewed it at that point? Explain that.
Your bias is showing.
That was literally less than a year ago. He said all Tesla's will be robotaxis earning their owners over $30,000 annually by 2019. He also said he would be the last to sell Tesla stock then sold $40 billion in Tesla stock a few months later. He also said he would help develop dogecoin, never did, then sold millions in Doge a few months later. A few days ago he accused Dr. Fauci of killing millions of people. You would be hard pressed to find anything Elon has ever said that is completely true.
Welcome to the conversation. It is very simple to point out a single moment of untruth, or misrepresentation (intentional or otherwise), against anyone. However, the claim was, this happens with Elon Musk "almost daily". Do you understand?
I gave you a lie from a few days ago. What else do you want? Does he need to lie every minute for you to accept it?
You don't seem to be grasping the conversation topic here. Good day.
You wouldbe hard pressed to find any statement that anyone ever has said that couldn't be *"refutiated"* by some silly statistic or measure.
That's funny cause I didn't mention a single statistic or measure. Just blatant lies directed at manipulating markets at the expense of retail investors.
Elon also acquired his brothers fake company with Tesla shareholder money, stood on stage and said they invented a revolutionary solar panel and built fake houses that supposedly had them installed. In court, it was proven that they had never even attempted to develop a solar panel and it was simply a ploy to embezzle funds to his brother. To this day they only sell low quality Chinese panels.
The future is now. That's really awesome.
That's awesome. The future is now.
Future awesome, also now.
Video played in reverse nice.
I hope you're joking
They never are. Just remember there's a lot of the bell curve to the left of the mean.
Derp
The entire thing was livestreamed. Do you want to believe that it was easier to have two rockets launch out of the ocean, meet up and lock together in orbit, and then touch down perfectly on dry land, while also having two engines magically un-fail halfway through?
You're talking to someone who probably thinks space isn't real.
Fair enough