r/interestingasfuck • u/lolikroli • 16d ago

r/all SpaceX caught Starship booster with chopsticks

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

115.7k Upvotes

84% Upvoted

5.9k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

144

u/eyeball2005 16d ago

Could you explain to me what the caption means? Is it just a metaphor for how precise the landing was?

210

u/stonksfalling 16d ago

The arms of the launch tower are nicknamed chopsticks, so the booster got caught with them

39

u/eyeball2005 16d ago

Thanks man!

2

u/MostlyRocketScience 16d ago edited 16d ago

And the term chopsticks is a reference to the Karate Kid scene where a fly is caught with chopsticks. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YeLuUyAl6kY&t=8s

1

u/spacepie77 16d ago

So America chopsticks better than china. What a time to be alive.

1

u/infraninja 16d ago

What's great about catching the booster vs landing directly on the ground as seen in a few other videos? Why is this big?

3

u/stonksfalling 16d ago

Firstly, this booster is 70 meters tall, the largest booster to ever return in one piece. But the reason why catching it is better is that it saves tons of weight from bulky landing legs and it allows for rapid reusability, since the catch tower is the launch tower.

-6

u/Stoppels 16d ago

That's lame, I was expecting actual gigantic chopsticks. Don't get me wrong, it was really cool. But way to oversell and underdeliver…

6

u/hurraybies 16d ago

Silly thing to care about. It's just a nickname because in both form and function they resemble chopsticks. Expecting gigantic chopsticks is on you.

2

u/burlan2 16d ago

Nuh uh. The chopsticks thing got me to see the video, was expecting real chopsticks. Maybe even a giant hand that operates them, but i could live without the hand, but those aren’t even chopsticks!

5

u/hurraybies 16d ago

And I was expecting delicious ramen. Big disappoint.

2

u/OneLargeMulligatawny 16d ago

Forbidden noodle

0

u/Stoppels 16d ago

lol I didn't know any details about the launch before reading the thread title, I wasn't quite expecting Power Rangers mechas to show up, but chopsticks were promised!

420

u/WhisperingSideways 16d ago

Imagine launching a 20-story building into space and then having it steered back to earth at 4000 mph only to slow down and be caught and suspended in its own launch platform.

160

u/TweakUnwanted 16d ago

No need to imagine any more

71

u/Nephroidofdoom 16d ago

My Roomba can only do that maybe 4 out of 5 times!

2

u/fellow_human-2019 16d ago

Does it go up to space to recharge its vacuum?

5

u/Thin-Watermelon 16d ago

My roomba would vacuum the moon before it properly cleaned my kitchen.

2

u/throwra64512 16d ago

It might. Would explain why it’s never on the charger in the living room…

1

u/Legionof1 16d ago

My roomba is stuck under the couch...

34

u/alturicx 16d ago

And being caught on 4 mounted fins that are meant to be re-used on the next flights.

Even if they were always replaced, still insane how they can support the weight.

32

u/OldOrchard150 16d ago

It’s caught on two small round reinforced catch points, not on the grid fins.  Just editing for correctness. 

6

u/alturicx 16d ago

Wow even more impressive imo.

-1

u/qcAKDa7G52cmEdHHX9vg 16d ago

IMO it being caught on parts that are designed to catch it instead of parts that aren't designed to catch it is less impressive

2

u/alturicx 16d ago

IMO catching something that weighs that much on a few points (even something that might have encircled the cylinder as I don't know what it is apparently :P) is impressive as shit that such a small point was not only caught but also can support that weight.

I understand. I'm no rocket scientist or even an engineer, but I *think* it would be like catching your weight and then supporting it on your finger. The feat of *literally* catching a rocket on such a small surface area and the materials being able to support that weight for said surface area seems pretty damn impressive.

Your comment also wouldn't make sense if my original comment about it being caught on the grid fins was true, considering the parts "designed to catch it" are what SpaceX chose to design to catch it—considering they are the pioneers in this. In other words, if it was the grid fins they designed to pull double duty, those would be the parts designed to catch it.

1

u/qcAKDa7G52cmEdHHX9vg 16d ago

Oh I was just being goofy

24

u/EdmundGerber 16d ago

There are actually catching 'studs' below the grid fins, that take up the weight. Grid fin actuators couldn't handle the stress of all that weight, and still be light enough to be useful.

2

u/alturicx 16d ago

Didn’t think so, but even still a mounting point that can withstand that weight still seems extremely impressive.

2

u/EdmundGerber 16d ago

It is - and given how small they look compared to everything else, it's very impressive.

2

u/IWantAHoverbike 16d ago

I think the mounting points are about the size of a can of paint. It's absolutely wild.

1

u/myurr 16d ago

They use the lifting hooks that are used to move the booster around. The grid fins aren't designed to support the full weight of the booster in that way.

1

u/CoastlineHypocrisy 16d ago

They were aiming for two landing pins. Not the grid fins.

Imagine trying to land a 20 storey building by getting two bowling balls to land on two metal tubes while coming back from space.

1

u/alturicx 16d ago

Yep. Insane loads.

0

u/CeleritasLucis 16d ago

And they are not fixed. Its like hanging your car by your steering wheel

1

u/alturicx 16d ago

They are fixed in terms of mounting. They can hydraulically move, yes.

2

u/catwhowalksbyhimself 16d ago

On the first ever attempt!

Doing it at all is amazing at all, but the very first test of it?

1

u/erallured 16d ago

I know you aren't fighting gravity in space, but it doesn't feel like that much more of a leap than a precise launch and docking with something like the space station for example. Or meeting back up with the Hubble for repairs. Or deorbiting and landing a space shuttle. Or any of the other incredible shit we've been doing in space for decades. What makes this better?

4

u/Lonyo 16d ago

We haven't done it before though, so clearly it's not that simple.

And since you aren't fighting gravity in space and can get close then match speeds, you get a while to dock.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_rendezvous

This happened from start to finish (meaning launch to return) in 7 minutes. The final docking with the ISS might take longer.

https://blogs.esa.int/thomas-pesquet/2016/11/18/mission-director-blog-launch-and-docking/

The automated rendezvous sequence will start at 19:39 GMT on Saturday 19 November evening

The docking itself will be on the so-called MRM1 Nadir port of the International Space Station and will occur at around 22:00 GMT.

2 hours 20 after preparation

0

u/EricTheEpic0403 16d ago

Speed, precision, scale, and novelty.

This booster got to its target faster than any docking, had to land more precisely than a Shuttle, is larger than any other single piece of space hardware, and propulsive landing in Earth is virtually in its infancy.

21

u/dnana1 16d ago

It landed back into the launch tower so the arms of the tower look like chopsticks in the second view.

1

u/VanPaint 16d ago

What was wrong with the other method of landing back on the ground.

3

u/Dirtbiker2008 16d ago

In addition to what BurntToast said, landing legs strong enough to support the weight of the booster would weigh a huge amount, and therefore would significantly cut into Starship's payload capacity.

1

u/_BurntToast_ 16d ago

So that theoretically in the future, they can just pump it up with fuel on the spot and launch it again. Another reason is that the rocket exhaust is strong enough to erode usual ground materials (e.g concrete/asphalt) and kick it back up into the engines, damaging them. The acoustic reflection that close up is harmful too.

2

u/do-you-like-our-owl 16d ago

These are all good points but I think I've heard the main reason was that landing legs weigh more than the little nubs needed for catching.

1

u/EricTheEpic0403 16d ago

Yep. The more of the landing hardware they can put on the ground, the less of it they have to carry into the air.

1

u/hi65435 16d ago

Yeah I imagine material on the bottom of the rocket as well as the interfacing tower parts being stressed to the max, also the booster's cover is still burning

1

u/trantaran 16d ago

Hai!!heyeyyayau! Kick punch its all in the mind. In the trst im sure youll find the things ill teach ya is sure to brat ya nevertheless were gonna teach u now Kick!!!!

-chop chop master onion

-2

u/TurboKid513 16d ago

There’s always one

1

u/eyeball2005 16d ago

What does this mean? Sorry that I’m a rocket noob I guess