Elon Musk SpaceX Landing Debunked

People Are Saying the SpaceX Starship Landing Looks Off. Here's Why.
So from the more common perspectives, the landing looks nothing short of impressive. My favourite angle is this close up, look how precise the landing pads have to be. But something people can't get over is that if all other SpaceX rockets can land on their own legs in any location,
why does the starship have to land back in the exact same location?

Well for a rocket to land anywhere, it needs the landing legs to support it. But the larger the rocket is, the larger and heavier the legs have to be. These heavy legs would cut into the amount of people, satellites, or other payloads the ship can take. So according to an ex SpaceX engineer, Elon told them to figure out how to build the rocket without legs. So...

Sources:

[alementary]

Road to 1M!!! 👀 Thank you for subscribing 🙏 Even better videos to come 🔥

And as always, sources in the video description :)

[xpgtv]

The reason for catching the Booster is because ther goal is to reload the rocket with fuel and a new ship in 4 hours. If landing with legs its a longer process to take the booster to the launch tower. The tower actually have 2 chopsticks, the second chopsticks takes the main ship up to the booster.
So it's not a PR stunt it's for efficency.

[Nikgamingnl]

1, it saves weight due to no landing legs being needed, 2 it saves time cuz the booster can be lowered on launch stand, instead of needing to be brought over there, 3 when landing, the legs have to be very strong and heavy (also kinda number 2), 4 starship ripped the ground up during launch, so during landing, it would atleast damage the landing pad, 5 it is cool, 6 those landing pegs on top are super light compared to legs because they are stationary and thus can handle more weight

[glennm]

I hate it here. Imagine people seeing something this amazing and thinking its for pr. Even if it is it's still mind blowing

[josephhenry]

People are saying.... What people? Online social media flat earthers?

[florinpandele]

Not only the legs are no longer adding weight but the tower provides a lot better stability and the chopsticks attach from the top which is above the rocket's center of mass, making it invulnerable to wind and anything that would be able to topple it over.

[gerpsu]

The guy who had that idea to catch the rocket probably had a good pay check

[katiedanner]

The reason for catching the booster is all because of weight ratios pretty much plus it's kind of hard to engineer Landing legs when a rocket that heavy is in play

[jake]

Literally no one is saying the booster landing looks off.

[Steveakamiddleagedfatman]

Engineer: Elon! The legs are too heavy what are we going to do?

Elon: knee surgery

[Crumbed_Broccolli]

Im not surprised that people think that it was fake, just remember that we have flat earthers

[coreyzimmerman]

"Can't get over""PR engineers are very smart & are operating on the outer-edge of technology.
It is just astonishing to witness. The margin of error is considerably less by landing it this way.

[alhassanbah]

The reason is not that the landing legs is heavy because if u notice the falcon landing it reach at few feet above the ground and cut off making the rocket to fall on the ground and for super heavy the rocket is heavy enough that cutting the rocket engine off within few feet can cause it to brake. For instance dropping a mug at few feet can cause it to break but not rubber cup

[shawnomeara]

No one under 25 realizes we can actually do this because their minds are not smart enough to comprehend it.

[ariguest]

It's not just weight. Landing legs in spaceflight usually use "crush cores" which are basically a one-time-use shock absorber. As such, you need extra refurb to get the vehicle flying again when compared to a booster that was caught.

[Bronek.Konarski]

Wait 'til he tells 'em to build the next one without engines!

[thomasowens]

So dumb to suggest the catcher is a PR stunt, It provides a more consistent chance of recovery.

[D-coolcoop]

Yeah, but a rocket catching itself is bad ass so it kind of cancels everything out

[mr.frogster]

I actually disagree with the idea that it was mainly for weight savings. While catching it does save weight ide argue it would be far easier to increase the tank size of the booster and put more fuel to make up for that especially considering it already has to probably burn more fuel then it would to do a landing gear landing to get caught. I think the main reason by far is rapid reuse people dont really think about how much of an undertaking it is to just move a falcon booster from the landing pad back to the launch stand now moving a super heavy would be a HUGE effort so ide say catching is by far more for making it easier to ready up again and substantially cutting down cost.

[Randy_]

These are the same people that think the earth is flat and the moon landing is fake.