Realistically, how does he expect to catch the rocket? This seems overcomplicated and insane to do.

Realistically, how does he expect to catch the rocket?
This seems overcomplicated and insane to do.

POSIWID: The Purpose Of A System Is What It Does Shirt $21.68

Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68

POSIWID: The Purpose Of A System Is What It Does Shirt $21.68

  1. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    simple

  2. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    same as ur mum

  3. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    drones carrying a net high up?

  4. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    With the same arms used to put it on the launch mount
    They have already landed boosters in precise locations like 300 times now

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      The level of accuracy is going up, though.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Accuracy is good enough, the biggest "what if" is if the booster can control itself fully after launching, it already has quite the control authority with grid fins, RCS and the theoretical ability to hover to maneuver itself into the arms.

        Doesn't need to fly right into the arms but just end up on one side of the tower as to not hit it

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        There's more margins.

        1) Falcon 9 boosters landings have no margin, so it has to land as close to the ground as possible when the engine stops. It literally slams to the ground with zero margin left. Superheavy Boosters have 3 engines running to provide enough thrust to hover for few sec above the arms. It can then shutdown 2 engines to lower the booster on to the arm in a soft and precise landing

  5. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    just in case you didn't notice, the rocket stops right when above surface. it's some sort of moving target but not really.

  6. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    bruh, they can steer to sub-metter precision

  7. 1 month ago
    Anonymous
  8. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Nuh huh, forget it Melon, not doing your thinkgeeniring for you.

  9. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Yeah man it does seem pretty insane. If it's too big to land safely under its own power why not just crash into the ocean and recover it that way?
    It worked before.
    And don't feed me that like about rapid reusability. I'll be shocked if they could get one turned around in 6 months launch to launch. Even years from now.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >If it's too big to land safely under its own power why not just crash into the ocean and recover it that way?
      >It worked before.
      Because he wants to refuel it, place another Starship on top and launch it within a day.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >he wants to refuel it, place another Starship on top and launch it within a day.
        If that ever happens I'll eat my hat.

        > I'll be shocked if they could get one turned around in 6 months launch to launch
        F9 turn around is already well under 30 days depending on how fast they want to launch that booster again
        Starship architecture is meant to enable even faster turnaround to less than a day

        >he thinks a bigger and more complicated booster can be turned around faster than a simpler and smaller one
        Good luck with that.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >>he thinks a bigger and more complicated booster
          Much easier when you don't have to clean shoot from the engines, refill hydraulic fluids or replace the crush cores in landing legs. There aren't even any helium pressure vessels to refill either

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >There aren't even any helium pressure vessels to refill either
            There are currently. But right now its temporary to get this worked out. Future is to replace it.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      > I'll be shocked if they could get one turned around in 6 months launch to launch
      F9 turn around is already well under 30 days depending on how fast they want to launch that booster again
      Starship architecture is meant to enable even faster turnaround to less than a day

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      > I'll be shocked if they could get one turned around in 6 months launch to launch
      F9 turn around is already well under 30 days depending on how fast they want to launch that booster again
      Starship architecture is meant to enable even faster turnaround to less than a day

      The quickest Falcon9 turnaround was less than 3 days.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        That was for different boosters on the same pad
        The quickest single booster turnaround was 27 days

  10. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    catching these rockets, spacex, nasa, etc. its all just a show. theres nowhere to even send these rockets to.

  11. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I think you don't realize how good some people are at math.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *