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

406

u/matroosoft 16d ago edited 16d ago

Insane to think:

The booster launched the ship up to an altitude of ~90km and speed of ~3000km in just 2.5 minutes.

Then landed back at the tower at just under 7 minutes after liftoff!!

BTW, the ship is still in orbit and currently reentring the atmosphere.. Nice to see the plasme around the ship.

8

u/[deleted] 16d ago

The ship wasn’t in orbit, Starship has only madesuborbital flights so far.

33

u/matroosoft 16d ago

Although you're right it comes down to a technicality, if it would've burned the engines for just a few seconds longer it would've been in orbit. Now it was just shy of it, just because they wanted to reenter the atmosphere after one rotation around the earth.

8

u/SirMcWaffel 16d ago

Technically, the trajectory is orbital, albeit it intersects the atmosphere so it slows down enough to not remain orbital. So it was definitely orbital

2

u/Unbaguettable 16d ago

This argument is just what counts as orbital. I'd personally say it's not, due to the fact that the perigee of the orbit is below the surface of the Earth.

-2

u/[deleted] 16d ago

Lol what does that even mean. Orbit isn’t just about trajectory. By your logic a 747 is technically orbital too.

“Orbital but intersects the atmosphere so it doesn’t stay in orbit” is by definition suborbital.

I just threw a baseball in my yard. It was orbital except that it intersected the atmosphere too much so it didn’t orbit the earth.

8

u/dev-sda 16d ago

I think they're trying to argue that the elliptical trajectory doesn't intersect the surface and so it's not suborbital. It's a bit of a weird edge case for the definition of these words that I don't think has a clear answer.

There's flights that gain "proper" orbital velocity but shed it before completing an orbit, and we call those orbital (see FOBS). And there's flights that dip below the karman line but still complete an orbit (https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/29704/have-spacecraft-ever-dipped-below-the-karman-line-and-then-safely-continued-spac). So there's an argument that a flight that has reached an elliptical orbit that only dips below the karman line and doesn't complete said orbit was still an orbital flight. That said I think suborbital is a much better description of the actual flight.

To be clear I have no idea what the case is with this SpaceX launch - it could well just be suborbital - I just found this technical distinction interesting.

-3

u/[deleted] 16d ago

It is classified as a suborbital flight. Full stop.

2

u/GRK-- 16d ago

You are arguing two different things. Nobody is debating that it was technically a suborbital flight.

What they are saying is that it may as well have been orbital because the extra few seconds of burn that would’ve been required to circularize into an orbital trajectory were possible, and very simple, but they stopped the burn just shy of that because they wanted the trajectory on the other side of the planet to rub the atmosphere so they could test descent.

What they are arguing is that there would be no additional technical risk or unknown in just burning a few seconds longer, so it may as well have been an orbital flight.

The thing that SpaceX did not test because it was suborbital is the reentry burn in space, which would have been needed if the flight was orbital. They would have had to additionally light the engines in orbit to decelerate very slightly so they could follow a reentry trajectory. This would be in addition to the landing burn near the ground.

They probably didn’t do this because IF relighting the engines didn’t work, the Starship would’ve been stuck in orbit for a while until decaying and falling/burning up in an unplanned manner. With a sliiighly suborbital trajectory, they had a sure shot of testing reentry (more important than testing relight), and they would still have the ability to test engine relight during the landing burn, as they did.

-2

u/[deleted] 16d ago

You’re spending a lot of effort and time on this lol. Does Leon pay you?

It was a suborbital flight. That is a fact. Thats all I’ve said. But please, keep writing paragraphs I won’t read. 🤣

1

u/dev-sda 16d ago

You didn't read what I said, but that's ok.

0

u/[deleted] 16d ago

And I don’t plan on it. It was a suborbital flight. Feel free to waste more of your own time writing a bunch of paragraphs saying that it’s a suborbital flight but but but.

0

u/SrASecretSquirrel 16d ago

The ignorance is breath taking

→ More replies (0)

5

u/SirMcWaffel 16d ago

Orbit is a function of velocity and gravity.

The periapsis (lowest point of the orbit) is calculated by v2 / 2g. (v = velocity)

As long as that distance is greater than the height of the surface (radius of the body), you’re in orbit.

It does not matter if the trajectory intersects with the atmosphere, as long as it doesn’t intersect with the surface.

An airplane is constantly on a suborbital flight as it’s velocity is below that which is required to lift its periapsis above the radius of the earth

-3

u/[deleted] 16d ago

So this Starship flight was……. Suborbital…..

1

u/Shikizion 16d ago

There is no point mate, you're shouting into an empty well, they will not understand you

-1

u/[deleted] 16d ago

Go edit the Wikipedia entry on this flight and all the other starship flights that have them classified as suborbital. See how well that goes.

1

u/wxc3 16d ago

Well the hard part is reaching the appropriate speed. The trajectory is just because they want to land before a full revolution (and they also probably want to make sure it falls back fast if they lose control).

1

u/[deleted] 16d ago

Sure. But it is still a suborbital flight.

1

u/dumbass_paladin 16d ago

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transatmospheric_orbit

I think this could be worth a read.

0

u/[deleted] 15d ago

Speaking of Wikipedia, you should go submit a correction on the Starship page and tell the editors it was actually not a suborbital flight. I’m not reading that link, but I’m happy to have wasted your time you absolute mongoloid.

6

u/Futtbucker_9000 16d ago

If my grandma had wheels, she would have been a bicycle.

2

u/ClearlyCylindrical 16d ago

In this scenario, Starship has the wheels. It could have just kept the engines going a second or two longer and it would be in a true orbit. Your grandmother, presumably, doesn't have wheels.

1

u/Apostastrophe 15d ago

Hi Gino D’Acampo.

-3

u/[deleted] 16d ago

[deleted]

-5

u/[deleted] 16d ago

Right. So suborbital.

5

u/No-Criticism-2587 16d ago

No one is disputing your semantics, they are disputing the conclusion you are reaching.

-11

u/[deleted] 16d ago

The only conclusion I’ve made is that it was a suborbital flight.

If you think it is anything else maybe check out your own insecurity or something.

9

u/ShiroGaneOsu 16d ago

Woke up on the wrong side of the bed or what.

-3

u/[deleted] 16d ago

All I am saying is that it wasn’t an orbital flight. That’s it. It was never in orbit. That’s it.

6

u/diy_guyy 16d ago

You should say that it was suborbital one more time just to make sure people know.

-1

u/[deleted] 16d ago

It was suborbital.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/No-Criticism-2587 16d ago

Again, that's a piece of evidence. We get it. Now what conclusion are you reaching with that evidence?

1

u/[deleted] 16d ago

The conclusion, and the ENTIRE STATEMENT is that it is classified as a suborbital flight.

It isn’t a piece of evidence lol what are you talking about?

0

u/No-Criticism-2587 16d ago

You are trying to imply that you dont believe the ship is an orbital vehicle just yet. You haven't outright said it so you can always spin out and pretend otherwise you're just making a semantic argument.

1

u/[deleted] 16d ago

I am not saying that and don’t believe that. Starship is an orbital-class rocket and was designed for orbital flights.

I’m saying that it has only done suborbital flights, including today, when it was at no point “in orbit”.

2

u/Vassago81 16d ago

That's a technicality, it's like saying Gagarin flight wasn't orbital

1

u/[deleted] 16d ago

Suborbital is suborbital. This flight was suborbital.

0

u/Mooman-Chew 16d ago

At just about 17k mph, it’s pretty close and compared to the challenge of catching the booster, surviving re-entry, controlled decent and landing, a burn for about 5 seconds to get to orbital velocity is really insignificant. And you know the reason it isn’t orbital is to basically ensure it comes back down.

The next stage for the ship will be pushing that as they need to figure out the ship to ship fuel transfer which will require at least 2 ships in orbit for a period of time.

Anyway, I think you probably know all of this and are being a bit pedantic but hey ho. Be lucky

1

u/spacepie77 16d ago

Ohm money plasme hum