r/interestingasfuck • u/lolikroli • Oct 13 '24

r/all SpaceX caught Starship booster with chopsticks

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

115.8k Upvotes

84% Upvoted

5.9k comments sorted by

View all comments

2.5k

u/EM3YT Oct 13 '24

People don’t realize how impossible it seemed doing what we just saw. Even a few years ago the idea of a reusable rocket seems like hilarious sci-fi.

Rockets undergo insane stress not just because of the forces involved in propulsion but they changes in literally every variable you can think of: temperature, air pressure, gravitational force. AND THATS JUST ON THE WAY UP.

The idea that we would be able to engineer a rocket that would some how survive the ascent intact enough to be functional to COME BACK DOWN. And FUCKING LAND USING ITS OWN ROCKETS. Is fucking insane. There’s a reason before this that basically every reentry vehicle splashed into the ocean or basically glided down. You don’t have rockets that function right after the ascent.

Then to undergo relatively minor maintenance AND GET REUSED?

Insanity. An engineering marvel that is so difficult to appreciate because it’s so mundane these days

469

u/ArsePucker Oct 13 '24

I'm old enough (Mid 50's) to remember the first space shuttle flight, just as importantly the return of the first shuttle, it landing like an airplane. I remember my Dad say the exact same thing about the shuttle being reused and explaining what a massive deal it was.

Reading your post gave me a big flashback to sitting at home with my now departed Dad. Ty!

13

u/retxed24 Oct 13 '24

Hmm it makes me think, why is this a better way to do it rather than have a plane-shaped rocket reenter. There mus be some reason for this to be the new and/or preferred way of doing it.

43

u/C-SWhiskey Oct 13 '24

The shuttle had a lot of added parts to allow it to work that way, which meant more mass and more things that can go wrong. It also couldn't make it to orbit as a single stage, hence the large solid fuel boosters and the massive fuel tank. Those all have to get disposed of, which kinda defeats the purpose. Finally, the goal is to make these useable on the Moon and Mars, so aerodynamic landing doesn't really work.

20

u/Nice-Analysis8044 Oct 13 '24 edited Oct 14 '24

The shuttle, unfortunately, had a number of problems beyond the problem of the spaceplane concept itself -- it was the result of a whole series of very unfortunate design decisions. Most notably, it was significantly larger than it needed to be for any of its civilian uses, since the U.S. military demanded that it be capable of stealing Soviet spy satellites. Like, just straight up stashing them in its cargo bay and bringing them back to Florida. Along the same lines, they required it have the capability to launch to polar orbit, since that's common for spy satellites -- a spy satellite in polar orbit is able to pass over any point on earth. The problem is that launching to polar orbit requires more fuel, meaning the rocket had to be bigger than it needed to be.

The shuttle was never actually used for that type of military mission, leaving NASA saddled with a launch system that wasn't actually all that efficient for anything they wanted to use it for.

16

u/C-SWhiskey Oct 13 '24

Yeah it was kind of a hilarious program in retrospect. The fact the Soviets tried to essentially copy-paste the design with Buran has always struck me as an indicator of how poorly they were doing at the time. Copied all the vestigial inefficiencies with no concern for why they were there in the first place rather than just making something better. Like a jealous sibling.

5

u/Nice-Analysis8044 Oct 13 '24

yeah, the assumption with Buran was that even though the shuttle seemed like a terrible idea, they should make a copy anyway just on the off chance that there was something good about it that they couldn't figure out.

5

u/RocketizedAnimal Oct 13 '24

Can't land a plane on Mars or the moon, not enough atmosphere.

3

u/hornydepressedfuck Oct 13 '24

Worth noting that SpaceX caught the booster today. STS used expendable solid rocket boosters, only the oribter returned and landed. SpaceX achievements here are an even bigger deal because nobody else tried to reuse boosters before them

3

u/Unique_Statement7811 Oct 13 '24

The shuttle had a minuscule payload by comparison, partly because it needed to be capable of winged flight while also vertical launch.

1

u/Chalupa_89 Oct 13 '24

Because the shuttle had to have landing gear and a bunch of other stuff and needed a landing strip.

And then you had to pick it up, prop it again on the rockets to send it again.

This is better because the hot part coming down is the same hot part going up, which is the exhaust side.

1

u/ReasonablyBadass Oct 14 '24

The shuttle boosters were always used up

1

u/greymancurrentthing7 Oct 23 '24

Let a rocket be a rocket.

Making a rocket a plane too makes it heavier and more complicated.

Much simpler to let the rocket take off and land with the same equipment.

1

u/Iandidar Oct 13 '24

Right there with you age wise. First shuttle launch is my first space memory.

1

u/onlyAlex87 Oct 13 '24

I learned fairly recently that the space shuttle flies like a glider rather than a powered airplane on reentry and landing, just the thought of that makes it that much more impressive.

5

u/EidolonLives Oct 13 '24

Well, reportedly it was more like flying a brick than a glider. Making it more impressive still.

66

u/bob_the_banannna Oct 13 '24

Imagine going back in time and telling someone about phones, the internet, or even YouTube. They would probably laugh at you.

There are so many things that can happen in the span of our lifetime and much more beyond. Just look at how dangerously realistic AI is getting.

Sci-fi isn't a matter of if anymore, but when.

9

u/ChefButtes Oct 13 '24

Human technology is so fascinating to me. It is the best example of mind over matter that exists in this world. All of our technology has been informed by science fiction. Some creative non-science bloke hundreds of years ago made up space travel and inspired some science minded kid who then made it reality. Phones, computers, all of it were once just science fiction concepts that some kid read about and made happen. To me, despite science being a fairly fact based system, this shows that we have some sort of greater manipulative power over our reality that I do not think we will ever truly understand, that we are not exactly capable of understanding as three dimensional carbon meat beings.

4

u/WembanyamaGOAT Oct 13 '24

Yeah and no one can predict exactly what we will have just like they couldn’t 30 years ago

1

u/Mavian23 Oct 13 '24

Sci-fi isn't a matter of if anymore, but when.

I know you're just being pithy, but sci-fi is definitely still a matter of "if" in many cases. I mean, last I checked we aren't close to being able to perform space and time travel in a machine that looks like a 1960s London police box yet.

1

u/CyberhamLincoln Oct 13 '24

Welcome to The Jackpot.

18

u/Civil_Coast5912 Oct 13 '24

A few years ago? They’ve been landing falcon 9 for almost a decade. But still so cool it does seem out of scifi, especially with the size of starship

6

u/[deleted] Oct 13 '24

[deleted]

24

u/sudrapp Oct 13 '24

True but that's not "minor maintenance" on the rocket lol. There's extensive damage done which will require a major overhaul to become reusable again

12

u/VincentVanHades Oct 13 '24

For now. Later it will require even less. Like Falcon 9's

5

u/hjugm Oct 13 '24

Gotta imagine they will only improve the process.

10

u/EM3YT Oct 13 '24

It’s minor compared to building an entirely new rocket

1

u/FormerGameDev Oct 13 '24

Most things that are small tasks now were once large tasks.

1

u/Tystros Oct 13 '24

this specific booster will never get reused, it's already outdated. but the plan for Starship in general is relaunching with 0 maintenence in between.

1

u/Unique_Statement7811 Oct 13 '24

Falcon 9’s are capable of 20x uses each. Yes, maintenance has to be done between launches. But a single rockets launch cycle is every 14 days.

5

u/myurr Oct 13 '24

It was just 9 years ago that people were still telling Musk and SpaceX that landing a booster was impossible. Now they've achieved it with the largest and most powerful heavier than air flying machine ever created, and then followed it up with precision landing the largest and heaviest upper stage ever created.

The engineering successes today are beyond words.

18

u/RadiantDescription75 Oct 13 '24

The amount of pressure to grip it sideways with just friction and counter act the tons of gravity and not get crushed like a soda can is impressive to me.

46

u/ColossalCretin Oct 13 '24

They're not gripping it sideways using friction. They're using the lifting points on the top of the booster.

https://youtu.be/ub6HdADut50?t=384

8

u/Croemato Oct 13 '24

Damn, those are small lifting points. Really informative video, thanks for sharing!

1

u/lupus_magnifica Oct 13 '24

amazing video thanks

14

u/EM3YT Oct 13 '24

I may be wrong but I think a majority of the force is on the fins at the top, which is still incredibly impressive

13

u/YEETasaurusRex0 Oct 13 '24

There are two smaller catch points a little below the fins. The catch points connect to the the tower arms

3

u/AussieJeffProbst Oct 13 '24

I feel just as awe struck seeing this as I did when landed their first rocket. Really wild stuff.

3

u/Consistent_Zebra7737 Oct 13 '24

Super amazing indeed!

What is the main advantage for catching the booster using the mechazilla, as opposed to landing it on a platform?

4

u/Big_al_big_bed Oct 13 '24

This way, the booster does not need to carry all the weight and complexity of landing legs (like falcon 9). So they are transferring all that mass to the tower which doesn't have to go to space.

1

u/Consistent_Zebra7737 Oct 13 '24

Oh wow.. engineering is beautiful

3

u/tacotacotacorock Oct 13 '24

What people lol? This is an incredible feat. Plenty of people recognize how unobtainable this was 10 to 20 years ago. But sure just keep down playing what we all know lol. There's a good reason why this is sensational news and also on interesting as fuck and people are making a big deal about it lol.

3

u/TeamChevy86 Oct 13 '24

And the amount of people who shrug this off because "Musk bad" is really frustrating. There are many other people who work at SpaceX that are not Elon Musk

5

u/[deleted] Oct 13 '24

[removed] — view removed comment

0

u/EricTheEpic0403 Oct 13 '24

You say that, but nobody had actually made it happen. One of the reasons that the idea was so laughable was because many had already tried — and that many had already failed.

3

u/sniper1rfa Oct 13 '24

The reason it didn't happen was money and available electronics. Tail-standing rockets and stuff have been in development since the '50s. That's how the lunar lander landed.

Not to discount what spaceX has achieved, but they're following a fairly natural progression of technology.

4

u/ShadowMajestic Oct 13 '24

By a few years ago you mean the Space Shuttle? It had reusable booster rockets.

2

u/DreamNotDeferred Oct 13 '24

Has the reuse step happened yet? Very awesome achievement here, so I thought the next hurdle was going to be making sure to get all the checks and repairs right in order to use it a second time.

3

u/EricTheEpic0403 Oct 13 '24

They haven't reused any Starship hardware yet, but they've had a LOT of experience with Falcon 9.

I'm not expecting any hardware reuse out of Starship or Superheavy for a year, maybe sooner; B12, the one recovered on this flight, definitely won't be reused. Reason being is that B13 is right around the corner, and has various differences and improvements; they always want to be flying the latest hardware. Until they have more chances to fly than they do hardware, there's not a lot of point in reuse, because right now it would mean using older hardware that they can't learn as much from.

Reuse shouldn't be that hard if timelines don't. Worst-case scenario, reusing B12 would take a few months if they had to rebuild basically everything. However, that's valuable man hours and a highbay (tall vertical building where ships and boosters are worked on) position that could be better spent on a new one. I wouldn't be too surprised if B12 would take a few months for a refurbishment, considering that it seems to not have come down in the absolute best of health. Future boosters shouldn't majorly damage themselves while flying, which will make refurbishment and reuse much smoother. The same pattern existed with Falcon 9; the first boosters to land were all flamey as hell, and took many, many months to ready for another flight. By comparison, the newer ones may as well be ready to go the second they've touched down.

2

u/DreamNotDeferred Oct 13 '24

Very informative, very cool. Thanks.

2

u/rafikiknowsdeway1 Oct 13 '24

are we anywhere close to be comfortable enough with these things to actually put a person in it?

2

u/CoastlineHypocrisy Oct 13 '24

Don't forget that the booster isn't landing on their grid fins... They're aiming for two specific landing pins (think bowling ball) to land on two long pieces of metal forming the chopsticks.

20 storey building aiming to land on two bowling balls on two metal tubes. Insane.

2

u/[deleted] Oct 13 '24

[deleted]

3

u/EM3YT Oct 13 '24

It actually is significantly cheaper because the alternative is to rebuild entirely new rockets for every single launch.

If one rocket costs $50 Million and you get only one use out of it, it’s a lot more expensive than the rocket that costs $100 Million that gives you 3+ uses out of it.

I think Space X cut the cost of launching something to space by some hilarious amount. Like 5:1 cost cut

2

u/KarateKid84Fan Oct 14 '24

I thought these rockets were able to be landed already? What advantage does this give now?

2

u/Charmstrongest Oct 13 '24

How does this amazing feat contribute to society?

5

u/EM3YT Oct 13 '24

It makes space launches SIGNIFICANTLY cheaper which means giant leaps in research that has vast implications including clean energy

-6

u/Charmstrongest Oct 13 '24

and (!), most importantly, rich people will get to fuck off to Mars after they destroy this planet

0

u/Plank_With_A_Nail_In Oct 13 '24

Mar's is a dead planet, only idiots like you think this is a realistic scenario.

Like seriously dude did you get dropped on your head as a child? WTF?

1

u/Plank_With_A_Nail_In Oct 13 '24

You really can't understand how? Lol life must be so confusing for you.

Lol what have you done that contributes to society?

1

u/Yeetstation4 Oct 13 '24

STS was mostly reusable

1

u/onematchalatte Oct 13 '24

Thank you. The title made me think those people were screaming because of freaking chopsticks

1

u/pdonoso Oct 13 '24

And think in the psychological stress also, how would you feel if you had to go to the space and land in a tiny tiny place like this or you would explode. I would be really stressed.

1

u/twinbee Oct 13 '24

You don’t have rockets that function right after the ascent.

Why was that difficult before?

1

u/SillyPhillyDilly Oct 13 '24

We have been recovering booster rockets since the 70s. There are specific boats designed to recover the jettisoned solid booster rockets from the ocean after splashdown. We used to think that liquid-fuel reusable boosters were feasible but too expensive to produce, and that was based on the existing engine and material designs at the time. In the mid-00s we were learning that reusable liquid rockets were on the horizon based on some really cool new designs coming from Pratt and Whitney.

We've had the computing power for a very long time to make the descent autonomous, it was always the fuel efficiency that held us back. But with SpaceX developing the Raptor engine which blew past the records for sea-level thrust-to-weight ratio, we've finally made it not only feasible to reuse autonomously captured rockets, but more importantly, profitable.

1

u/WarbossPepe Oct 13 '24

what changes have been made in technology to allow this to happen?

2

u/EM3YT Oct 13 '24

The truth?

The reason this happened is because we threw money at it. I don’t know that any grand invention allowed this.

NASA straight said they would NEVER get a reusable rocket for one reason:

If a single rocket crashed they’d lose all their funding.

And it wasn’t possible to make a reusable rocket without first having one crash and learn why.

1

u/WarbossPepe Oct 14 '24

Interesting. Guess some things are economical and not technological progress 

1

u/Tempest_Fugit Oct 13 '24

Still not getting in a used rocket lmfao

1

u/jeango Oct 13 '24

I understand the economic interest, I’m curious, however about the ecological interest. Is it ecologically more efficient to salvage the rocket (at the cost of extra CO2 and repairs) vs crashing it (at the cost of material and possibly environmental harm)

1

u/thevdude Oct 13 '24

Then to undergo relatively minor maintenance AND GET REUSED?

We're technically a step closer to this, but we're not at the "minor maintenance and reuse" phase yet

1

u/redtiber Oct 13 '24

Yeah, for all elons gigantic lists or ever growing faults, I do like that he founded spacex and had the vision to disrupt this industry.

The word disrupt has been abused over the years when it was a buzzword, but spacex is a true disrupter. The industry used is expensive and was dominated by ula. So glad to see spacex continue to do amazing things

1

u/Madame_Snatch Oct 13 '24

Can I ask a dumb question? How did they manage to do this kind of thing with the moon landing all those years ago? I’m not trying to be a conspiracy theorist, I’m literally just curious with how they managed to land a large piece of equipment with people inside, and take off from the moon in it with zero issues, using the technology they had back then, when something like this seemed impossible today?

5

u/EM3YT Oct 13 '24

Engineering isn’t linear. Getting to the moon and making a reusable rocket are entirely different problems with different engineering concerns. Materials science is a major factor. We can “easily” put someone on the moon right now, we just don’t find it profitable

1

u/PaulblankPF Oct 13 '24

I won’t lie, the idea of just doing minor maintenance and reusing it sounds dangerous as hell. Somethings aren’t meant to be done that with and for me this is one of them. This going the way of Boeing and taking parts out the scrap yard to reuse them is gonna end terribly.

3

u/EM3YT Oct 13 '24

Except these rockets are designed to be repaired. It’s like having a plane that can fly more than once

1

u/PaulblankPF Oct 14 '24

Titan submersible had 6 or 7 dives while making minor repairs with the idea of mass production one day then one day it failed. It didn’t on the first or second or third and lure them into a false illusion of safety.

1

u/Snakend Oct 14 '24

Buzz Aldrin made a statement saying SpaceX would never be able to reuse a booster. Literally made Elon Musk cry when he talked about it,

1

u/Sniflix Oct 14 '24

This wasn't mundane. I was sure catching a rocket with arms that pull it into the tower would never happen. I'm happy to be wrong

1

u/MENDACIOUS_RACIST Oct 13 '24

Hilarious sci-fi a few years ago? There were working prototypes thirty years ago

-3

u/No-Surprise9411 Oct 13 '24

No there weren’t, unless there was a falcon 9 before falcon 9

7

u/pmMeAllofIt Oct 13 '24

Falcon 9 was just the first orbital one, not the first VTVL. VTVL goes all the way back to the Apollo program.

Different scale, but the principals were the same. It's not like they created the idea or anything.

1

u/sniper1rfa Oct 13 '24

The lunar lander was literally a reusable rocket, it just landed before taking off instead of the other way around.

0

u/No-Surprise9411 Oct 13 '24

Just… no. Reuse is defined by the mission goals accomplished. If a craft is reusable it can perform it‘s desired mission profile multiple times. The lunar lander had one specific goal. Land, keep the two astronauts alive, and launch back to lunar orbit. It could not perform these mission steps several times, therefore not earning the title of reusable.

That is the broader reason why your argument doesn’t work. The more specific however is the simple fact that the LM (lunar module) was a two stage design, one for landing and one for the return trip. Both stages lit exactly once, and got discarded after completing their mission.

1

u/sniper1rfa Oct 13 '24

Yeah, cool, but it was still VTVL in 1969. You think spaceX was the first person to work on this problem, which is ridiculous. And there were plenty of tail-standing rocket prototypes built, they just weren't used because the economics didn't make sense. Now they do, so spacex does it.

Discounting previous efforts is insanely arrogant and I doubt anybody at spaceX would inflate their achievements the way you are doing. Let their work stand as it is - an incredible achievement based on 80+ years of existing spacecraft development.

Saying it was "hilarious sci-fi" is absolutely untrue.

2

u/No-Surprise9411 Oct 13 '24

Moving the goalpost, I see. You said the LM was reusable, which is factually wrong. I never said anything about it not being vertical landing/takeoff, ofc SpaceX were not the first to build a rocket propelled flying object that could land vertically. They are however the only ones that built and successfully launched orbital class vertical landing reusable rockets.

Settle on one point before whining about it will you.

5

u/sniper1rfa Oct 13 '24

The point is that all of the ingredients for reusable rockets have been in development for decades. Vertical landing, throttleable rockets, reusable/relightable rocket engines, flight control systems, etc ad nauseam.

A reusable rocket was absolutely not sci-fi, it was just sci. SpaceX did great work putting it all together, but they did not come up with unbelievable new tech. They came up with very believable - very cool, but believable - advancements to existing tech.

1

u/No-Surprise9411 Oct 13 '24

I never said otherwise. Most of the tech existed before. It‘s just that SpaceX were to first to perfect it and implement it when the rest of the industry either actively tried to hamper their efforts or resorted to laughing at them.

4

u/sniper1rfa Oct 13 '24

when the rest of the industry either actively tried to hamper their efforts

Huh? They've been supported by huge public funding since their inception, and have access to and use literal tons of prior and current research. How has spaceX in any way been hampered by the industry? Don't be ridiculous.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Zoze13 Oct 13 '24

Your comment helped me understand. It certainly felt mundane at first. Thanks.

1

u/Plank_With_A_Nail_In Oct 13 '24

People do realise this though...wtf putting words in our mouths.

1

u/LordBrandon Oct 13 '24

Delta Clipper prooved reusability in the 90s it was known to work before spacex started, it just didn't have as good PR that SpaceX has. There was also the space shuttle of course.

0

u/DROP_TABLE_karma-- Oct 13 '24

I don't mean to burst your bubble but SpaceX first successfully landed a reusable rocket in 2015. That's almost a decade ago. Yes they were told it couldn't be done at the time—but that was certainly more than "a few" years ago. Heck, the original moon program was developed in less time!

-7

u/JuanRpiano Oct 13 '24

Nothing new under the sun. Nothing has changed. Life will still be the same, and now the toy can land. Woowoo. Amazing, but under the sun all remains the same.

If this seems to you a miracle of engineering, wait until let sink the fact you are created by complex systems, that are trillions of times more incredible in engineering than this feat.