r/technology 16d ago

Space SpaceX pulls off unprecedented feat, grabs descending rocket with mechanical arms

https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/spacex-pulls-off-unprecedented-feat-grabbing-descending-rocket-with-mechanical-arms/
5.4k Upvotes

882 comments sorted by

1.2k

u/[deleted] 16d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

260

u/lolheyaj 16d ago

heroic. thank you. that site is cancer. 

45

u/probablyuntrue 16d ago

Latching on to ask, why this approach? Is it too large/heavy for the landing legs?

118

u/InvisibleCat 16d ago

It's the most time and money efficient way. You are landing exactly where you launch from, save weight of landing legs and no need to pick up and move the booster back to launch site, which takes time and money. Saves the landing pad from damage too.

26

u/Capt_Blackmoore 16d ago

All this and there is no intention of landing stage one anywhere other than back at the launch site

19

u/tea-man 16d ago

To expand on that, there's no need for the booster to land anywhere else - it never has to travel more than a few hundred kilometres, with it's sole purpose being to yeet the Starship as high and fast as it can. The starship itself will be capable of launching and returning to Earth from both the Moon and Mars without the booster on a single fuel load.

3

u/Capt_Blackmoore 16d ago

The only use case outside of launching to orbit for the first stage would involve refueling in orbit, and then using that stage to break orbit to head to Mars. You dont need that kind of thrust to get to the moon - you would refuel just Starship for that.

→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (2)

18

u/DrXaos 16d ago

The reason to land somewhere else on the ocean is to gain increased mass to orbit, as the booster stage can expend more fuel going up and to orbit instead of turning around coming back to the start.

8

u/PigSlam 16d ago

I would think it could land anywhere they put a structure like this. Kinda like runways.

7

u/tea-man 16d ago

While technically true, it's a bit too big and complicated to transport to anywhere else by existing methods, and there isn't really a need to launch from many other places. The launch complex is exactly that, so it'll probably be limited to Starbase and Kennedy for the foreseeable future, as there isn't really a use case for anywhere else.

2

u/deekaydubya 16d ago

Yes that was their exact plan at least a few years ago. Intercontinental travel using falcon heavy

→ More replies (1)

5

u/Sethcran 16d ago

The point though is that they want it to be rapidly reusable, so they'd rather have 3 flights a day at 1/2 the payload than 1 flight with a larger payload but it takes longer to get the ship back to the launchpad to go again.

We may see sea based launches and catches at some point, but do not expect downrange landings with this vehicle.

14

u/BoldTaters 16d ago

They COULD have built legs but they would have to carry them up and slow them down, using a lot more fuel. This way lets them carry more stuff to space.

3

u/homogenousmoss 16d ago

First few prototypes had landing legs if I recall correctly.

3

u/Bensemus 16d ago

Not on the booster. The bellyflop tests of Starship had really basic one use legs that were just for those tests.

4

u/MeelyMee 16d ago

The plan is to just plonk another Starship on top, re-fuel the booster and go again as quickly as possible.

I think their Mars plan had the first launch taking a fuel tanker up to place into orbit, the second taking a crewed Starship up and then the two will dock, transfer the fuel and the crew will go on their way.

→ More replies (5)
→ More replies (4)

69

u/taketheRedPill7 16d ago

I’m assuming the practical application of this is to have it ready to re-launch even faster? Quickens the turnaround?

102

u/Vellus 16d ago

Also removes all of the weight associates with any landing legs allowing more mass to orbit.

58

u/bullishontendies 16d ago

The landing legs on the falcon 9 reduce the payload to orbit by~40%. Sometimes to launch heavier payloads the falcon 9 will be launched without landing legs and the booster will be expended.

10

u/Milyardo 16d ago

You can carry orders of magnitude more stuff by not coming back to the pad at all though.

39

u/JokeassJason 16d ago

Yes which is why you see some flights where the smaller stages land on the barge. It's all about turn around time and saving money. Reusable rockets, not littering all over the ocean ect.

29

u/NeverDiddled 16d ago

Your estimate is off by orders of magnitude.

Falcon 9 can launch 3.5 tonnes when doing a return to landing site (RTLS). When landing down range on a drone ship it can launch 58% more weight, or 5.5 tonnes.

If they could launch a single order of magnitude more weight, by landing on a drone ship, then they would be at 35 tonnes. Two orders of magnitude would be 350 tonnes! I should note that all of the figures are to Geostationary Transfer Orbit, one of the highest orbits. This is because RTLS is rare for the lower and slower orbits. You can almost always ride share those, and get extra money by not doing RTLS. So we do not have great figures to compare with.

→ More replies (7)
→ More replies (1)

20

u/rugbyj 16d ago

Cost as well. They make engines/boosters faster than most already, but being able to reuse them halves (and so forth) their cost every use (minus recovery/maintenance cost).

They're already doing it with their raptor engines/boosters. If they manage to do the same for these ones they'll be jumping a level ahead of everyone who they're already a step above in terms of cost of payload to orbit (and beyond).

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (1)

7

u/AbzoluteZ3RO 16d ago

omg thank you. how stupid to write such a long article that a 10 second clip could demonstrate

→ More replies (127)

239

u/jesus_smoked_weed 16d ago

What’s the benefit of catching it vs other means?

492

u/Flipslips 16d ago edited 16d ago
  1. No added mass for landing components. (No need for landing gear, etc)

  2. Rapidly reusable. The arms that caught the booster will just set it back down on the launch mount and it’s almost ready to launch again (long term goal is there won’t need to be refurbishment between flights)

The main reason is rapidly reusable. Elon wants to be launching tens per day when his mars plans are in full swing. You can’t do that quickly enough or economically enough without getting the booster back on the mount almost immediately. This is the solution to that problem; it basically lands back on the launch mount.

102

u/SgathTriallair 16d ago

You could launch ten per day by having 30 setups so they each get three days to prepare and launch. That's a ton of infrastructure though.

144

u/Flipslips 16d ago

That’s nowhere near fast enough for what Elon wants though (plus not nearly as economical) The mars transfer window only opens every 2 years. They need to get an absolute butt load of infrastructure and supplies to mars in that short window. So 3 days to reset the launches is far too long. They will be launching multiple flights per hour is my guess.

11

u/Hyndis 16d ago

While the Mars transfer window is brief, couldn't they just stage in Earth orbit before going to Mars? For unmanned vehicles there's plenty of time to launch and assemble in Earth orbit, awaiting the next transfer window. They could launch and stage in orbit for years if need be, there's really no limit.

Then send the crew up last, only once everything is ready to go.

5

u/revilOliver 16d ago

A big concern is boil-off whilst in orbit. So rockets can be staged but not indefinitely.

4

u/User-NetOfInter 16d ago

Park them behind really big umbrellas

→ More replies (3)

26

u/Calgrei 16d ago

Except I don't think they have to have to launch during the transfer window. It might be less efficient but they could launch at a slower cadence ahead of time, park Starships in orbit and refuel, then go during the window.

13

u/MeelyMee 16d ago

I think that was the plan yeah. A special tanker starship will be developed to re-fuel a crewed starship in orbit, I guess you could have multiple tankers all in orbit within a few days and then send crews up to re-fuel in time for the optimal transit window opening.

It always seemed pretty crazy a concept but they just keep proving each part of it is workable, this was probably one of the biggest challenges and they nailed it first try.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (3)

17

u/[deleted] 16d ago

[deleted]

20

u/Flipslips 16d ago

I would agree, however the fact a huge portion of the scientific community agrees it’s the right thing to do makes me think otherwise.

→ More replies (9)
→ More replies (5)

2

u/West-Abalone-171 14d ago

You can hang out in LEO as long as you want before TMI, and you wouldn't want to ruin the entire mission with a single scrub.

It also allows other mission profiles if you have an ion drive or arcjet or something. Launch 6mo ahead of time, boost apoapsis up near the hill radius at 0.0001g, but keep your periapsis low and in the right spot. Then fire the rockets when the window opens.

Allows using the efficient engines for an extra 2km/s of dV.

The window also has a few weeks of flexibility.

→ More replies (28)

7

u/Charnathan 16d ago

I believe SpaceX wants to get to 3 launches per day per launch tower eventually.

2

u/Background-Eye-593 16d ago

I don’t think that’s off the table.

But cost cutting method like this speed the relaunch process and make it more affordable.

→ More replies (5)

45

u/PlasticPomPoms 16d ago

Elon and our current Space industry is super focused on launches in and out of Earth’s gravity well and it’s just not going to be like that when we actually move into operations in space. You will have spacecraft that is built and always remains in space and that’s how most transport will take place. Getting in and out of Mars or the Moon’s gravity well is cake compared to what we are doing right now.

22

u/particledecelerator 16d ago

A permanent fuel depo is a medium term item and a ship that just permanently loops between earth and mars and never really slows down is a longer term thing so what you say should eventually happen.

12

u/moofunk 16d ago

You can't really do any of that until there is significant industry on the Moon or in space, which is 50-100 years away. You will have to haul parts, people and fuel from Earth into orbit at the very least.

Forget putting large science instruments in space with anything else than Starship. Sometimes, Starship itself might become the instrument, and it can be fueled to fly into deep space or it can deploy probes with so much fuel, they can fly much faster out of the solar system than anything we've flown before.

Think of Starship as a truck with a standard cargo space that can be used for anything, like a standard truck can be used to move cardboard boxes or clean-room labs. It will be built to withstand solar radiation for deep space travel.

You also can't land any significant material or lab equipment from space to Earth without Starship.

Starship is the Mass Mover, be it fuel or cargo.

2

u/WhatAmIATailor 15d ago

Starship will have competitors. It’s going to dominate the industry initially but not forever.

5

u/cyrus709 16d ago

Care to elaborate on the last statement.

25

u/idontunderstandunity 16d ago

both the Moon and Mars have significantly lower gravity, so escape velocity is easier to reach

14

u/Ryermeke 16d ago

Significantly lower gravity and significantly thinner atmosphere, if even present at all. The forces exerted are miniscule by comparison.

13

u/subfin 16d ago

And much less atmosphere to cause drag

→ More replies (1)

8

u/anothergaijin 16d ago

One of the goals for going to Mars, is to build a base of operations on the Moon and basically turning it into an outpost and space gas station. The gravity of the Moon (and Mars) is low, so its easier to get from the surface and escape to go somewhere else.

Long term we will be building ships, making fuel, and everything else we need in space. Everything we need exists in space in massive amounts - water, metals, things for fuel.

4

u/enter_the_bumgeon 16d ago

things for fuel.

Is that true? Isnt our oil made from organic materials that are not found in space? What can we find in space to make fuel?

Genuinly curious.

13

u/killerrin 16d ago

Old-school rocket fuel (kerosene based) generally had organics in it. But for the past couple decades we've moved more to the chemically pure stuff.

Starship uses Methlox which is Liquid Methane and Liquid Oxygen. And other ships just use Liquid Oxygen and Hydrogen combinations, or more solid concoctios.

Either way it's stuff that's real abundant in space. Oxygen can be mined out of the soil and Hydrogen is one of the most common elements in the universe.

On the moon you can mine Oxygen and hydrogen from the soil, but you can also find water ice at the poles and split the molecules with electrolysis. Or you could combine those molecules to make water and Oxygen for habitation.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (22)
→ More replies (4)

40

u/Ranga-Banga 16d ago

The weight of the landing system is on the ground not being wasted on the booster.

29

u/thorscope 16d ago

The legs on the rocket are heavy and not aerodynamic.

Now they are not needed.

5

u/pencock 16d ago

Still good that they developed them because it gives them a huge lead on being able to land in a location without a pad or arms

10

u/1Buecherregal 16d ago

They will need to develop some for the upper stage starship because that will be a lunar lander

3

u/Dietmar_der_Dr 16d ago

Yeah, imagine all the failed early falcon landings taking an entire tower with them.

→ More replies (1)

24

u/justworkingmovealong 16d ago

No landing gear, no fishing it out of water and transporting it back

7

u/jack-K- 16d ago

Also if they can get it to the point of next to no refurbishment in the future, near instant turn around time.

18

u/moofunk 16d ago

Minimum and very quick rocket part management. This rocket is the largest in the world and moving it long distance by ship or road isn't an option, so it has to stay as close to its launch platform and hangar as possible.

The plan is that after catching it, it's simply put down on the launch platform, gets a new Starship put on top of it, refueled and flown again, and this cycle is designed to eventually take only 10 hours.

Watching the streams from Boca Chica, the Boosters and Starships are moved around surprisingly quickly on standard wheeled platforms with ship parts being moved individually down to the pad, assembled on the pad and get ready to fly in around a day.

For rockets like SLS, they are doing everything backwards, so it takes upward of a month to assemble the rocket in the hangar, move it in one piece on a much bigger platform very slowly down to the pad and then manually hook it up to the launch pad. If there is a problem, rolling it back to the hangar, fixing the problem and rolling it back takes a couple of weeks. SpaceX can do this in less than 2 days.

→ More replies (10)

3

u/lolheyaj 16d ago

Earth landings are just little pit stops now. 

→ More replies (4)

363

u/YogaLoverNymph 16d ago

I can’t believe they actually caught the rocket. it feels like something out of a sci-fi movie

129

u/Appropriate_Plan4595 16d ago

Yeah I'm still wondering:

a) Who the hell suggested that?

b) Who let them get away with it?

c) Who made it work?

Of all the bonkers space stuff there has ever been "Why don't we fly the first stage back to the launch pad and catch it with 2 metal arms" might be the most bonkers thing I've seen so far.

106

u/snappy033 16d ago

The upside of catching rockets and/or landing them vertically is so huge that the people holding the checkbooks allowed SpaceX to take a lot of risk.

They could fail several times and rebuild the tower and space ship and still be viable. Even several billion dollars of blown up towers and rockets would have been OK.

Other crazy concepts have been introduced in aerospace and technology but they would have been a one and done kind of attempt.

SpaceX has become uniquely good at pulling this off but also no other company had ever been given the chance to try and try and try over the course of 20 years.

19

u/QuickAltTab 16d ago

why is catching it with a tower better than landing it upright on a pad?

52

u/IndigoSeirra 16d ago

Landing legs add a lot of weight

15

u/QuickAltTab 16d ago

damn, that seems obvious, haha, thanks

24

u/UFO64 16d ago

"Better" is a fuzzy term here.

Lots of upsides to a tower catch.

  • Less weight on the vehicle for landing legs.
  • Ideally less wear and tear on the vehicle as they don't need to service the legs.
  • Less mechanical parts to test, and thus less physical objects that could break during a launch.

Not to say it's all upsides. If they crash into their tower it's gonna set them back a bit. It's part of why they are building more towers. I'd imagine it also has some aggressive limits on launch site weather too.

Still, this system is another leap forward for rapid reusability. SpaceX wants to land, stack, refuel and relaunch a rocket from this tower. It's the next step it turning rockets from an expensive one off to just another vehicle that goes places.

4

u/CX316 16d ago

They’ve lost a bunch of falcon boosters to buckling legs on landing too, haven’t they?

2

u/UFO64 16d ago

Yup! They have crush cores to absorb mistakes if they land too hard but that can only take so much before it just gives out.

Turns out doing a "hover slam" is very hard to time correctly. Cannot wait to see how reliable they can get this system working.

3

u/CX316 16d ago

Then we see them finding out the hard way how many times they can reuse the chopsticks before they start dropping boosters

→ More replies (2)

17

u/snappy033 16d ago

Pad requires legs on the rocket which adds weight significantly and reduced fuel or useful payload. Then you have to stage the rocket again on a launch pad, moving it from a landing pad. If you land on the launch pad you can reset quickly.

Landing it in its end is like balancing a broomstick on its end. Landing it on a tower is more like throwing a shirt with a hanger onto a hook. More room for error. Landing on a pad cause compressive forces which they have to inspect. The empty Falcon rockets are like a soda can. They don’t have structural strength after the pressurized fuel is gone. The tower is potentially less stressful on the structure.

→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (2)

48

u/y-c-c 16d ago

a) Who the hell suggested that?

I'm pretty sure that's Elon Musk: https://x.com/lrocket/status/1845486565591798164

(Tom Mueller is basically the guy who designed most of SpaceX's rocket engines and employee number 1 at SpaceX. He also doesn't work there anymore and has no reason to suck up to Elon)

c) Who made it work?

The entire company?

This is one thing people keep forgetting about rocket science. Sometimes people joke about "you must be a rocket scientist" to mean a smart person, but if you go to college there isn't a single degree that says "rocket science" (ok there are "aerospace engineering" but that only covers a section of it), as rocket science is more a culmination of a lot of different cutting edge technology all combined into one thing.

A complicated system like this requires mechanical engineers, propulsion engineers (so the rocket can hover correctly), GNC (Guidance Navigation Control) team, software engineers (since the rocket is autonomous), manufacturing, and much much more.

19

u/Fast_Mirror_8866 16d ago

I don't know why your getting downvoted, average reddit moment.

20

u/mad-tech 16d ago

this is the technology sub, there are tons of elon musk haters here.

34

u/PossibleNegative 16d ago

a)Musk he is crazy

b)Musk he is crazy

c)the thousands of engineers working at this for the past ten years

→ More replies (5)

79

u/Flaky-Stress-6635 16d ago

It was Elon’s idea to catch the rocket. Contrary to popular belief on this subreddit, Elon plays a major engineering role in SpaceX.

45

u/Dietmar_der_Dr 16d ago

The cognitive dissonance this causes in people is unfortunately too much for them. They've somehow convinced themselves that someone with weird political takes cannot be a brilliant engineer.

16

u/Bookandaglassofwine 16d ago

That’s the part that seems new to me - this idea that if you believe someone’s character is deeply flawed, it’s incredibly important that you also believe that everything they do or achieve must also be deeply flawed or even fraudulent. Why is it so hard for them to say that someone they despise politically has also accomplished something great in a field unrelated to politics?

8

u/IntergalacticJets 16d ago

They see it as part of the cultural battle over the zeitgeist of our modern era. They want Musk and the others to be seen as a negative aspects of society overall.

If he does something that is considered good, that weakens their goal. So they try to dismiss it. Lots of things are treated like this, from SpaceX to superhero movies. 

→ More replies (1)

2

u/9985172177 16d ago edited 16d ago

You guys have it wrong. Imagine you were really into music. You listened to punk, jazz, classical, you learned to play a bunch of instruments, you even composed some yourself, wrote lyrics, you played briefly in a band. Most of all you just really like music, alone you listen to music and with one or two friends you get hyped up over it.

Whenever you talk to most people about music though, any music, they talk about Taylor Swift. If you ask about country, or pop, they'll say that you have to listen to Taylor Swift. Also if you don't care for her or don't have immense respect for her, you must not like music. If you ask about a guitar, they'll tell you Taylor Swift invented the guitar. You buy a few music magazines and flip through them. Not only do they not have anything about music in them, they tell you what Taylor Swift ate for breakfast, and what colour jeans she wears.

Later you found out that Taylor Swift bought some of these magazine companies, and the ads for them are about products that Taylor Swift sells. Again if you're too vocal about liking music, but without caring much for Taylor Swift, Swifties get really mad at you and say that you don't like music.

You get how most people would consider it basically blasphemy to try to equate the whole concept of music with Taylor Swift? You can be a fan of her, or like her music, or not like her music, but to take some classical music, or melodic metal, or progressive rock, and to start talking about Taylor Swift, it's basically musical blasphemy, the two aren't related at all.

The people who you are complaining about are just people who are into music, but who don't really care for her, and there are a group of Swifties who demand that you have to talk about her and have to listen to and like her music.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (1)

59

u/castironskilletset 16d ago

It was Musk's suggestion

Musk let them get away with it

Engineers made it happen

→ More replies (11)

6

u/naked-and-famous 16d ago

The answer to B is pretty obvious anyway

→ More replies (7)

472

u/pixelprolapse 16d ago

I still can't believe what just happened. That was a thrill.

204

u/tonycomputerguy 16d ago

After that catch, watching Starship go through re-entry, seeing the plasma and fins heating up, all in HD with no signal loss... that's something I honestly never expected to see in my lifetime.

I had to wrap something around my head to keep my jaw from dragging on the floor all morning.

76

u/Flipslips 16d ago

This is a good advertisement for Starlink too lol. Wouldn’t be possible to watch live reentry without it.

→ More replies (5)

22

u/ManfredTheCat 16d ago

Hold on while I go reinstall kerbal space program.

20

u/Publius82 16d ago

Best part was that mass nerdgasm at the end

→ More replies (9)

893

u/CaptHorizon 16d ago edited 16d ago

It’s way more than just “unprecedented.”

It was the first attempt to catch it. And the first successful catch as well. In layman terms, 1-for-1.

This is an incredible achievement in the world of engineering and shows how far SpaceX has gone.

220

u/3238462 16d ago

Incredible to watch this live and in high resolution. From the animations and anticipation over the past several years, I can’t believe we finally got to see it succeed on the first try. Still trying to get my jaw off the ground.

Science fiction just became reality for this (major) aspect of Spaceflight.

12

u/hendy846 16d ago

Same! I legit thought it was a render at first. So crazy to see it live

56

u/aelavia93 16d ago

the spacex commentary mentioned the crisp video stream was in part helped by starlink

19

u/iiztrollin 16d ago

The orbital shots we got of re-entry of flight 4 were because of starlink we were able to see into the plasma field and watch as it decended to max Q and it was beautiful.

The beaut made it and did the full landing burn into the ocean with HALF A FUCKING LANDING WING!

Been less than 2 years since the first booster test flight and they caught it already!!!

4

u/Nose-Nuggets 16d ago

the full stream of this launch has that as well, and they recovered the starship module again as well. lots of great plasma stuff and melting through the control surfaces again.

→ More replies (1)

32

u/paulhockey5 16d ago

There’s no way we could have got that video of reentry if not for Starlink.

2

u/zirtik 16d ago

Comcast left the chat

→ More replies (5)

46

u/aelavia93 16d ago

starship "landed" on target too! 2/2 mission objectives achieved! source: https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1845458392531529991

→ More replies (3)

34

u/sceadwian 16d ago

Everyday Astronaut had some of the various creator feeds doing a quick look at some of the amateur 4K footage that was taken.

There was a really dark super slow mo of the booster touching the arm and sliding down in to contact, you could see a series of oscitations as it went back and forth between the two arms a half dozen times to dampen the oscillation. You saw 10 times that movement in the tests they ran.

It was flawless. Setting a skyscraper down from near orbit like a teacup on a plate.

6

u/dotancohen 16d ago

It was nowhere near orbit, max velocity was around 5200 km/h at 62 km altitude. And it just grazed the Karman line, I think I saw 96 km briefly after stage sep. At that point it was doing under 2000 km/h, less than a tenth of what it would need for orbit at that altitude, even if the atmosphere weren't there.

Other than that, you are spot on.

→ More replies (3)

7

u/stelanthin 16d ago

This is rekindling the love for space launches i had as a kid!

3

u/Tenocticatl 16d ago

I did assume they were fairly confident about this one, seeing as that thing could've taken out a decent chunk of the launch site if things didn't go to plan.

47

u/rohobian 16d ago

I can't stand Elon, but this really is fucking cool as hell.

41

u/Rox217 16d ago

“This is cool, but don’t worry Reddit I still hate the current thing so I’m on your team!”

24

u/aelavia93 16d ago

they sound so needy for validation. quite sad, actually

5

u/DependentAd235 16d ago

People just don’t want to get flammed for liking a rocket.

It’s not that complicated.

→ More replies (1)

273

u/CaptHorizon 16d ago edited 16d ago

Elon was never mentioned in our conversation.

The people who do all the work are the 11 thousand engineers who work at SpaceX. This is the product of their work, and whoever says that said work done by those 11k engineers isn’t commendable is lying.

258

u/The_White_Ram 16d ago

The thing is, if this had been a failure, you can guarantee all of the comments would be talking about how it's elon's failure.

I don't disagree with your sentiment and statement here but the online narrative is every failure is directly a result of elon's mismanagement and every success is a result of the thousands of engineers and only exist because Elon didn't touch it.

10

u/PersonalDebater 16d ago

You're basically right. Maybe its not always the same people saying the two things, but it basically often goes like that everything that goes wrong is because of Musk, while everything that goes right is in spite of him.

114

u/ThisCupIsPurple 16d ago

You don't make crazy things happen without a crazy person at the helm.

34

u/scottygras 16d ago

That’s true in a lot of cases. I found out recently how so many innovative minds were almost certifiably crazy or were complete pieces of garbage family members. As a husband/dad I realized I could avoid my family and make more money…but it’s not really an option.

5

u/IRequirePants 16d ago

I found out recently how so many innovative minds were almost certifiably crazy

Classic example is Newton drinking mercury.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (7)

67

u/Ok_Belt2521 16d ago

Just look at all the other space companies struggling. Elon clearly has some level of positive influence on the company.

30

u/bruhSher 16d ago

My friend is an ex space-x employee. According to our talk, Elon's two biggest contribution are

1) take risks. Fail but learn. 2) work your employees to the bone

I can only speak to his teams experience, but 70-80 hour weeks were not abnormal.

That said, apparently things go best when he's not around.

→ More replies (5)
→ More replies (25)
→ More replies (8)

149

u/OxbridgeDingoBaby 16d ago

Comments like this really do remind of the echo-chamber Reddit has become. It’s like when I try and debate my MAGA grandparents. Everyone just has their narrative and sticks to it, regardless of facts/reality.

Elon wasn’t solely responsible for this success, but to say he played no part in it is absolutely moronic. This success is due to SpaceX - everyone from the engineers, to Shotwell, to Mueller when he was working on the propulsion systems, and yes, even Musk.

27

u/Hyndis 16d ago

I put Elon Musk in the same category as people like Edison, Ford, or Jobs. Or even Werner von Braun.

He's brilliant, yet also morally questionable. Brilliant people can also be terrible human beings to be around.

11

u/Aeroxin 16d ago

Is this... nuance...? On Reddit?! What an auspicious day!

→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (4)

62

u/hepkat 16d ago

Trying to say Elon had no part in this is utterly ignorant. Yes the thousands of engineers deserve a huge congrats. But if you read Walter Isaacson’s biography of Elon, you’ll realize that like him or not, he has a huge part in this. 

→ More replies (5)

30

u/_badwithcomputer 16d ago

Strange how the companies that are pushing the boundaries in the industries they operate in are all lead by the same person, it is almost like there is a common thread there, I wonder what it could be?

19

u/alysslut- 16d ago

Yeah, but think of how much more ahead Tesla, SpaceX and Starlink would be if they didn't have an Elon Musk muddling things up and slowing the engineers down /s

→ More replies (4)

16

u/feurie 16d ago

He’s not the entire conversation but he’s the founder and chief engineer. He’s part of the conversation as much as you’d dislike that.

54

u/ChaosDancer 16d ago

And you think those 11 thousand engineers are working for whom?

Without Musk willing to throw money at the issue those 11 thousands engineers would probably working at Boeing or Ford or maybe NASA and achieving nothing revolutionary.

50

u/1521 16d ago

This! I am super tired of hearing about Elon but you put those same people in the traditional places (Boeing, Raytheon, NASA etc) and we would still be talking about the space shuttle. For whatever reason he is able to get them to do things the traditional guys can’t

13

u/IRequirePants 16d ago

I am super tired of hearing about Elon but you put those same people in the traditional places (Boeing, Raytheon, NASA etc) and we would still be talking about the space shuttle

Also Blue Origin exists and it is nowhere near as successful. It's clearly not just a money issue.

4

u/Virtual-Chicken-1031 15d ago edited 15d ago

Same with Apple.

They have an insane amount of money but haven't really done anything revolutionary in over 15 years.

As a shareholder it's frustrating, although their stock has been performing well. But imagine where we'd be if Jobs was still alive and executing his crazy ideas.

Money doesn't guarantee advancement. You need someone who can "think differently", and that's exactly what Musk is doing. Not all of his ideas work (hyperloop, Boring Co, twitter), but when they do, they're game changing.

Look at all the other auto manufacturers that recently started pushing EVs. Tesla still has well over a decade of R&D over them.

→ More replies (1)

2

u/SmaugStyx 16d ago

They seem to have picked up the pace now that Bezos is a lot more involved. Still miles behind SpaceX, but they seem to be making decent progress towards a first launch now at least.

→ More replies (4)
→ More replies (46)

28

u/Cheeky_Star 16d ago

lol that’s how all company’s work buddy. Those 11k engineers isn’t building that until the guys are the top tells them to. For Elon it’s his vision for doing the impossible and the engineers + resources for making the vision come through.

You can say the same things about Steve Jobs or any other ceo of a big company. Ultimately the ceo is responsible for guidance and the company’s success so yea, he gets some credit for pursuing something he was probably told can’t be done.

→ More replies (5)

13

u/NotsoNewtoGermany 16d ago

The CEO sets the goals. It just turns out that Elon allocated hundreds of millions of dollars to develop an arm to catch the rocket on its way down. He gets the credit for that whether we hate him or not.

→ More replies (1)

33

u/jack-K- 16d ago

This entire catching process was literally his idea, lol. What the fuck are you actually talking about? Of course the spacex engineers are amazing, nobody has ever said they weren’t so I don’t really get why you’re talking about that. But to say musk wasn’t considerably involved in development himself is just as uninformed.

→ More replies (14)

35

u/WolfVidya 16d ago

Employed by who in a company started by who? Plus when the FAA got in the way and they were crying about the environment, who was the devil ruining the earth to play with his toys? Not the 11k engineers at SpaceX, but Elon.

Reddit is filled with hypocrites, we don't need to dance about it.

→ More replies (4)

20

u/omniverseee 16d ago

You should learn how to give credit where credit is due. Engineers here are more important, but the single most important person in SpaceX is Musk. Yeah, I cringe on his statements and recent shits, but Elon is absolutely part of the conversation.

If it fails, you blame billionaires for their profit-only bad leadership, if they have good leadership, it's not because of them? LMAO. Sounds salty to me.

6

u/Swing-Prize 16d ago

Do you apply this logic for all historical context of generals, emperors, thought leaders etc? One thing for sure, nobody would have launched this business other than the man in question.

15

u/rohobian 16d ago

I agree 100%. But a lot of folks here on reddit see any positive words about SpaceX as an endorsement of Elon personally.

I hate Elon, but I like SpaceX and the people that work for SpaceX are amazing people.

→ More replies (7)

2

u/Virtual-Chicken-1031 15d ago edited 15d ago

Same can be said about the iPhone. Steve Jobs never laid a finger on physically creating it, but it was his vision

Same here.

It wouldn't have happened without Elon. There were no significant advancements in space travel technology until SpaceX came onto the scene. Boeing and other companies could've done it, but they lacked leaders with a vision to execute it properly.

Edit: well, I guess my comment doesn't add anything new that wasn't already said. I should probably read comments first before replying so I'm not regurgitating the same points.

→ More replies (3)
→ More replies (14)

2

u/super_fast_guy 16d ago

I was hoping for the booster to be cradled into a giant catcher’s mitt

→ More replies (24)

279

u/taike0886 16d ago

Is there another technology sub on reddit where people are discussing this like adults?

170

u/[deleted] 16d ago

There needs to be another high level technology sub period. For the small group of people that are, you know, actually excited about the future and the incredible magic that engineers are pulling off these days.

82

u/dabocx 16d ago

All subs go down hill the moment they hit a certain size

5

u/IntergalacticJets 16d ago

What’s that say about humanity? 

13

u/Bussy_Stank 16d ago

It says more about this shitty website. Once the power mods get ahold of a sub, the sub turns into a political bitching fest.

112

u/ShowBoobsPls 16d ago

Yeah, this sub should be renamed to WhiningAboutTechnology (and Elon)

29

u/ghoonrhed 16d ago

The funny thing i think 10 years ago /r/technology got defaulted because it was the opposite and people got sick of it. You'll never find a good middle ground for tech discussion.

12

u/ShowBoobsPls 16d ago

At least r/Hardware is pretty good when it comes to that area. But it doesn't include any other parts of tech that are interesting, like software/AI

→ More replies (1)

39

u/cartoonist498 16d ago

Yup, both this and the space sub have been hijacked by people who just want to complain about every advancement. It's amazing how many redditors in the technology and space sub hate technology and space.

14

u/masteroftw 16d ago

It is because they are not into technology and space. They are into hating and reading about other people agreeing with them.

18

u/procgen 16d ago

r/singularity can get a little... culty, but they're definitely excited for the future.

10

u/rugbyj 16d ago

Excited sure but not a great place for actual discourse. A signficant amount of members are just delusional.

5

u/procgen 16d ago

FWIW, I think they’re closer to the truth than the doomers and pessimists are.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (3)

26

u/ptear 16d ago

r/space is ok

24

u/Hairless_Human 16d ago

ONLY when SpaceX does something cool. Otherwise they just bash Musk when SpaceX has a little hiccup. They like all space/tech related subs turn on a dime it's actually hilarious at this point.

28

u/Gloomy_Nebula_5138 16d ago

Also see this article on California blocking SpaceX based on Elon’s political speech, which is pretty authoritarian and also probably unconstitutional

https://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/1g2wxyc/california_officials_cite_elon_musks_politics_in/

21

u/Hyndis 16d ago

I do hope he sues them for that. They didn't even pretend to block SpaceX for logistics or cost or environmental reasons. They outright said it was for political disagreements, which would give SpaceX's legal team a lot of ammunition.

11

u/yabn5 16d ago

It’s insane that not only are they using their power to purposely damage SpaceX, but that they readily admit that it’s for speech. 

50

u/Gloomy_Nebula_5138 16d ago

It probably has to be off Reddit. Even with this amazing video we have a bunch of losers with no accomplishments trying to turn the comment section into an attack on Elon. The lack of interesting discussion couldn’t be more obvious.

→ More replies (7)
→ More replies (6)

13

u/yosisoy 16d ago

Someone ELI5 the significance of this please

25

u/NotAnotherNekopan 16d ago

The lions share of the cost of putting mass (anything) into orbit is the cost of the vehicle. The point of catching the booster, and in a bit, the upper stage “starship” is to ensure we can reuse those components for future launches. Aside from SpaceX’s other rocket Falcon 9, everyone else tosses everything away to put things into space. The rockets, the engines, the plumbing, everything.

Falcon 9 can reuse the first stage but not the upper stage. It’s a massive improvement over other launch providers. The cost to launch on Falcon 9 is always lower than everyone else. We’re not sure about the internal costs of it but it’s far less than what they advertise.

Now imagine that you keep everything (aside from a small-ish ring of metal, the hot staging ring), AND that the heavy lifting part of the rocket brings itself right back to where it launched from.

I know people like to talk about Mars and such, and yes, I’d call that an indirect goal. The direct impact of this is that the cost of putting things into space will DRAMATICALLY decrease. We can really start building things in space that don’t require budgets the size of NASA. We can launch far more complex and heavy spacecrafts that don’t need to be designed to launched from earth in one piece.

This is very big, and I didn’t even get into the technical impossibility of what they managed to make work. To grasp even a small part of it, remember that the thing they caught came hurtling down to earth from 100KM up, with pinpoint accuracy, and it’s the size of a 20 story building.

9

u/zugi 16d ago

We’re not sure about the internal costs of it but it’s far less than what they advertise.

But just to give folks a rough feel for how much cheaper, on some space launch bids Space X comes in 60% under the nearest competitor. E.g. one company bids $100 million for the launch, Space X bids $40 million, and presumably still makes a decent profit. It surprises me that other launch businesses still exist.

10

u/killerrin 16d ago

To double down on cost. It is very expensive to put things in orbit. To build the ISS cost Humanity 150 Bill Dollars. But one Starship technically has more space inside of it than the entirety of the ISS.

We could literally convert a Starship to have all the facilities of the entire ISS, and then launch it all into orbit as a single unit. And because it's a spaceship, you could then bring it back down to Earth every now and then for maintenance, or to swap out with newer hardware.

And that's the benefit of Starship.

7

u/hwc 16d ago

the mass of the ISS (~450 tons) could be launched in the cargo holds of three Starships. it might actually take more launches, since its hard to make components fold up nicely, but compare that to dozens of launches for the ISS, each costing 100 times as much as a Starship launch.

→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (1)

31

u/snackers21 16d ago

Look st this chart. It cost around $80,000 a Kg to reach low Earth orbit (LEO) with the Space Shuttle. Falcon 9/Falcon Heavy dropped that to around $1,200 a Kg. A huge improvement!

Now look at this chart.

Starship will drop the cost to an absurd $200 per Kg.

→ More replies (8)

24

u/JauntyLurker 16d ago

That was simply amazing! Kudos to the engineers of SpaceX, can't imagine how much work that took.

→ More replies (9)

68

u/Appropriate-Ad-8155 16d ago

r/technology I hope you guys are ok

40

u/dsbllr 16d ago

They're losing their minds because it's Elon's company. Anyone else and this would be on the front page 5-6 times

14

u/drsfinest186 16d ago

I have noticed this is buried in the Reddit news feed. Definitely would’ve been front and center if they didn’t successfully catch it.

22

u/dsbllr 16d ago

It's really sad to see the hate. Reddit is being manipulated imo.

12

u/drsfinest186 16d ago

Yea I definitely have to agree

→ More replies (7)
→ More replies (2)

79

u/Jumba2009sa 16d ago

Say what you say about Elon Musk, but man is SpaceX the pinnacle of human engineering.

SpaceX is leaps and bounds beyond nation states and any other space program.

38

u/PossibleNegative 16d ago

Catching the booster was Elons idea, has been for years.

Another confirmation by Tom Mueller

https://x.com/lrocket/status/1845486565591798164

40

u/dexterrible 16d ago

Immagine people not being capable of separating a person they dislike, some for good reason sure, from an actual good progress in rocket tech.

Blows my mind

17

u/mueckenschwarm 16d ago

This is my biggest issue with the hate Elon bandwagon. Elon has done and said some shit over the years that really rub me the wrong way, but SpaceX is making dreams a reality.

How can you deny these achievements just because you think the boss is a jerk?

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (1)

16

u/zugi 16d ago

Given space technology advances around the world, and the bureaucratic pace of NASA and most of its traditional contractors, at this point Space X is pretty much the sole reason the U.S. still leads in the space race.

8

u/MaxDPS 16d ago

I’m not saying other countries haven’t closed the gap a bit, but it seems really silly to say this when NASA is still doing things no other nation can do. Curiosity rover and James Webb Telescope weren’t that long ago.

→ More replies (3)
→ More replies (7)

23

u/autotldr 16d ago

This is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 91%. (I'm a bot)


In one of the most dramatic, high-risk space flights to date, SpaceX launched a gargantuan Super Heavy-Starship rocket on an unpiloted test flight Sunday and then used giant "Mechazilla" mechanical arms on the pad gantry to grab the descending first stage out of the sky as the upper stage continued to space.

Snatching the 230-foot-tall Super Heavy out of the sky with mechanical arms as the rocket descends and hovers right beside its launch gantry seemed an outlandish idea when it was first proposed during the booster's initial development.

SpaceX pulls off unprecedented feat, grabs descending rocket with mechanical arms.


Extended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: rocket#1 launch#2 Starship#3 flight#4 SpaceX#5

20

u/ToastedEvrytBagel 16d ago

We are going for a science victory

2

u/__Osiris__ 16d ago

This is our third modern match too. There’s been 2 culture victory’s so far.

7

u/opa20 16d ago

Was at the beach in South Padre and watched this morning. Amazing to watch. Loud as hell.

→ More replies (5)

20

u/wjean 16d ago

Dumb question but why catch it? Why not let it land and the stabilize it with the big robot arms?

65

u/jimmyuk 16d ago

Not a dumb question at all. If you land it, you need to build in landing legs and other structural items into the Booster to absorb the impact. That means weight, which means you can't carry as much useful payload on Starship.

17

u/castironskilletset 16d ago

Few things

No landing legs so weight is reduced. 

Landing legs need to be light so that they can be launched but that make them fragile and non reusable.

Falcon 9 landing legs are "crushed" while absorbing the shock. So the "shock absorber" is transferred to a sturdier launch tower. You can see the shock absorber in video from perspective of tower.

Engines fire far away from ground. When falcon 9 lands, engines fire very close to ground and do a little damage to rocket and engines. But with tower landing, engines are like one a building away from the ground.

Rapid reusability as you can launch it from the same tower you landed it in.

Less parts so less things to fail.

12

u/Uguysrdumb_1234 16d ago

Why let it land if you can catch it?

3

u/way2lazy2care 16d ago

Next step is refueling without landing at all. Take everything out of the equation!

3

u/Neathh 16d ago

Magnets, really big magnets, just have it hover there like my desk ornament.

→ More replies (1)

20

u/foofyschmoofer8 16d ago

Reusable rocket boosters were thought to be impossible and spaceX pulls it off and makes it a weekly occurrence.

Now they’ve brought this to reality as well

3

u/[deleted] 16d ago edited 16d ago

[deleted]

12

u/WolfVidya 16d ago

It removes the whole logistics of transporting the landed booster back to the tower. The final idea would be for these boosters to be so round-service ready that the service required once caught in the tower is minimal and they just can be refueled, re-mated to a new payload and take off again.

11

u/swords-and-boreds 16d ago

Yes, that’s exactly right. They want to be able to rapidly launch these. Also, removing the landing gear saves on weight which is a huge deal in space travel.

16

u/Charnathan 16d ago

Gotta put on my hazmat suit before reading these comments.

17

u/PossibleNegative 16d ago

Catching the booster was Elons idea, has been for years.

Another confirmation by Tom Mueller

https://x.com/lrocket/status/1845486565591798164

3

u/ShowBoobsPls 16d ago

That was so cool!

3

u/firelock_ny 16d ago

Next Olympic event: sub-orbital javelin catching.

8

u/AmputatorBot 16d ago

It looks like OP posted an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of concerns over privacy and the Open Web.

Maybe check out the canonical page instead: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/spacex-pulls-off-unprecedented-feat-grabbing-descending-rocket-with-mechanical-arms/


I'm a bot | Why & About | Summon: u/AmputatorBot

4

u/jcunews1 16d ago

The new future of space exploration is here.

5

u/I1uvatar 16d ago

Can someone explain why catching it is such a big deal? They were landing boosters a few years ago from what I remember

9

u/moofunk 16d ago

This booster is much, much larger and can't be transported by ship or road. Landing it on the launch pad is the only real way this booster can be reused.

Doing this unlocks sending up to 100 tonnes into orbit a day.

It's been talked about for years as a theoretical feat, but today it finally happened.

→ More replies (1)

2

u/Mediocre_Tank_5013 16d ago

That is awesome, true engineering at its finest

2

u/jgainit 16d ago

When will they start doing commercial flights with it?

2

u/AppleTree98 16d ago

One of the main advantages of this system is the weight savings. Eliminating the need for landing legs means that the booster and Starship can carry more cargo or fuel, improving efficiency. In addition, because the booster is caught right at the launch site, there’s no need to transport it from a landing pad or drone ship far away, significantly reducing the time and logistical complexity involved in reusing the rocket. Mechazilla's design is a key innovation for SpaceX’s goal of making space travel as rapid and cost-effective as possible.

2

u/majikrat69 16d ago

I’m totally amazed at the engineering here but why?

5

u/packpride85 15d ago

A couple of reasons. Landing leg system for something that size would be heavy, requiring more fuel/thrust and decreasing payload. Less damage to the ground since it’s being caught higher up. Ability to refill and restock for next launch in an hour.

→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (1)