Top
Best
New

Posted by ls612 1 hour ago

SpaceX Catches the Starship to end Flight 15(x.com)
398 points | 223 commentspage 3
rpmisms 1 hour ago|
The heat shield looks very good. Excited to see how much work it will take to fly this again. I'm in awe. I like the future sometimes.
Meneth 35 minutes ago|
Seemed to me two tiles were missing, including one right in the center of the ship's belly, but no hull damage.
ahmedketata 1 hour ago||
The most amazing thing i've seen in a while.
rpmisms 1 hour ago||
Holy cow.
proee 1 hour ago||
i wonder how much fuel was left over after landing? What is their safety margin in seconds of burn remaining?
Rover222 57 minutes ago|
Probably 2 to 3 seconds max? You pay a massive penalty for carrying any extra fuel.
james_anderson 1 hour ago||
Best thing ever built and it works!!!
jdprgm 23 minutes ago||
It's crazy how far you have to scroll to even see this on the front page of NYT.
bamboozled 10 minutes ago|
Maybe people have bigger problems ? War, cost of living crisis etc ?
fierycatnet 1 hour ago||
It's very impressive
arjie 1 hour ago||
Magical era. What a feat!
motionlessveloc 1 hour ago|
It's difficult to underline how huge this is. This marks the first time in the history of rocketry that the upper stage of a rocket has returned home from orbit to a safe, upright landing.

(And to preempt the obvious objection: yes, maybe you can call the Space Shuttle an "upper stage of a rocket" if you squint hard enough, but it didn't do upright landings, its external tank was not reusable and even the Shuttle itself was effectively rebuilt from scratch at exorbitant cost each time.)

It's sad to see a lot of media missing the point, eg as I type this BBC is reporting this as "SpaceX successfully catches part of Starship rocket on its return to Earth".

Edit: corrected to note that the SRBs were reusable, but the ET was not.

mmustapic 1 hour ago||
> none of its boosters were reusable

Notably, they were reusable! Sure, they had to refurbish them, same with the shuttle’s main engines. The only thing they threw away was the external tank which didn’t have any engines.

echoangle 1 hour ago|||
> none of its boosters were reusable

The SRBs of the shuttle landed by parachute and were recovered from the water and reused

wat10000 1 hour ago|||
Whatever you call it, the Shuttle Orbiter wasn’t a complete stage in any case. It needed the external tank, which was never recovered.

SpaceX has now demonstrated all the pieces of a fully reusable launcher. Next comes putting them all together in the same flight, and hopefully demonstrating that the flights can become frequent and cheap. There’s no guarantee of that, but it’s looking good.

palata 1 hour ago||
[flagged]
wat10000 1 hour ago|||
If they manage to launch one of these every day it’ll be like adding a few more daily transpacific airline flights. The scale is not particularly significant.
palata 1 hour ago||
And adding tons of satellites in the sky.
dylan604 9 minutes ago||
Not all Starship launches will be used to add satellites.
palata 2 minutes ago||
Which does not mean they won't add satellites at a whole new scale?
dabluecaboose 1 hour ago|||
You can always tell the pearl-clutchers who have no idea what they're talking about when they complain about pollution from space travel.
palata 1 hour ago||
Ask astronomers what they think about Starlink then.
wat10000 1 hour ago||
Always the sign of a solid argument when the subject gets changed to a completely different one the moment there’s pushback.
palata 1 hour ago||
How is it completely different? Satellites are polluting the sky...
fedpost 54 minutes ago|||
Don't forget the X37
palata 1 hour ago|||
> yes, maybe you can call the Space Shuttle an "upper stage of a rocket" if you squint hard enough

Why wouldn't it count? It is not the first time in the history of rocketry that the part that is not the boosters returns home intact.

Sure, you can say "it's the first time in the history of rocketry that it lands upright", but you could also say "it's the first time in the history of rocketry that it is not white".

If you want to say how huge this is, tell me how different it is from landing the boosters. Because from the outside it sure as hell looks very similar.

motionlessveloc 1 hour ago|||
The Space Shuttle has four parts, namely the Orbiter, the External Tank, and the two SRBs. Only the Orbiter is reusable and actually lands, the rest are jettisoned in flight. (SRBs are recovered, the ET is not.) However, the Orbiter is completely incapable of flight without the other three, so it's not a rocket stage on its own, just part of one.

As for why it's harder to catch Starship than Super Heavy, where do I begin:

* Super Heavy is suborbital, its maximum velocity is far, far less than Starship.

* Super Heavy returns upright. The Starship does the famous but aerodynamically very complex "belly flop" to reduce speed.

* Super Heavy only has two static fins to guide it. Starship has four actively controlled fins that need to survive the extreme forces of launch and re-entry.

dabluecaboose 1 hour ago|||
> The Space Shuttle has four parts, namely the Orbiter, the External Tank, and the two SRBs. Only the Orbiter is reusable and actually lands, the rest are jettisoned in flight and burn up in the atmosphere.

Nitpick- the SRBs were also recovered and reused

motionlessveloc 1 hour ago||
Right you are, corrected.
palata 54 minutes ago|||
Thanks, the insights about Super Heavy vs Starship are interesting.

About how "huge" it is, I understand that it is economically huge: Musk will get even richer.

I would be interested in knowing how "huge" it is in terms of engineering. Like, my understanding is that they needed to invent new maths to go to the moon in the 60s. Does SpaceX compare with that, or is it "just" what you can do with a lot of money and powerful computers?

Genuinely interested, even though rocket fans will hate me for not knowing the answer and daring asking. Bring the downvotes!

origini 1 hour ago||
You know what was huge? James Webb telescope.

Look its cool to see a catch like this, it doesn't necessarly feels that difficult tbh?

And I just don't get it? Is it cool to watch? yes, but whats the endgoal besides reducing costs for starlink and military stuff?

motionlessveloc 1 hour ago|||
Do you want more cool stuff like James Webb in orbit? Fully reusable huge rockets like Starship is how you get them there.

Also, remember how JWST had to do that incredibly complex and fiddly in-orbit expansion and alignment to fit together the mirror after launch? If Starship had been available at the time, this would have been far easier, since Starship has twice the diameter (four times the area) of the Ariane rocket they used to launch it.

origini 58 minutes ago|||
Besides that I really really wished it wouldn't be Elon Musk, i'm looking forward to cheaper stuff so its easier to send science stuff up. Don't get me wrong at all.

But it feels like hyperbole.

Pure technically speaking, if you can fly a rocket up and control it properly, whats the crazy thing flying a rocket back down and controlling it?

Or do you see it more like a milestone seeing?

And for me, it still feels like if Elon Musk tries his Dataenter 'idea' and really sneds up everyday a Starship, we will lose a lot of control as normal humans whats going on in space and what will happen to our atmosphere.

7952 21 minutes ago|||
I think the main challenge is really the heat shielding. That is the part that is so different from the takeoff. And it actually remains to be seen if that is good enough for repeated rapid reuse.
CrimsonRain 23 minutes ago||||
> Pure technically speaking, if you can fly a rocket up and control it properly, whats the crazy thing flying a rocket back down and controlling it?

You are absolutely right. Same thing about just putting a battery and some motors to make a car like RC car! Same about 48v/replacing canbus. Same thing about putting some satellites on orbit for internet! Same for mobile service! Same about if humans can use eyes to drive, computers should be able to using cameras! All _simple_ things, obvious in retrospect.

Yet one man is marching forward, poking his nose in industries he does not belong, and still almost always coming on top.

Makes you wonder why existing incumbents can't do these "simple" things.

origini 14 minutes ago||
One man who got money, has money and a cult following.

Of course he is flexible enough mentally and ignorant enough to disrupt markets, sure and for this he got rich.

But why does every Musk follower ignore all the bad things he leaves in his march forward?

All the humans around the Space-X 'city'?

Kids and Humans affected by USAID and DOGE?

His lying around everything he promised to people?

ssl-3 42 minutes ago|||
> Pure technically speaking, if you can fly a rocket up and control it properly, whats the crazy thing flying a rocket back down and controlling it?

It only took the entire existence of humanity to reach this point.

I'm not willing to hand-wave that away as some kind of technologically-obvious conclusion.

origini 35 minutes ago||
"It only took the entire existence of humanity to reach this point." as everything else.

EUV required genuine new engineering for an example.

motionlessveloc 2 minutes ago||
To pick just one achievement among many, the Raptor engines on the Starship are literally revolutionary. First ever full-flow staged combustion engine, designed for both extreme reliability and cheap mass production, even the fuel they use (methalox) had never been tried at this scale.
Rebelgecko 51 minutes ago|||
Can Starship get to L2?
squidmaster 43 minutes ago||
[dead]
redox99 1 hour ago|||
> it doesn't necessarly feels that difficult tbh?

Are you for real?

squidmaster 42 minutes ago|||
[dead]
origini 1 hour ago|||
?! We know how to send rockets up, we know how to send them back to earth. We know how to stabilize a rocket. I mean we fly them for ages?!

'that difficult'

Look at projects like James Webb telescope.

redox99 30 minutes ago|||
You don't understand the precision required to catch a 70m tall behemoth when you have Earths atmosphere. It's not even close to bringing a capsule to an approximate area, a small ship somewhere with almost no atmosphere, or even landing a rocket on a pad (which we've only had since Falcon 9)
origini 19 minutes ago||
But others are also working on it and showed they can do it too?
motionlessveloc 1 minute ago||
Today was literally the first time humanity flew a rocket to orbit and landed it vertically.
More comments...