Elon Musk Just Changed SpaceX's Plans On Booster 7 For First Orbital Launch

Elon Musk Said That SpaceX Try To Catch Booster 7 On Their First Orbital Launch!

» Subscribe to Science Of Space!

Twelve months later, SpaceX has submitted an updated overview of Starship’s orbital launch debut in a new request for permission to use multiple Starlink dishes on both stages. While most of the document is the same, a few particular details have changed about Super Heavy’s role in the mission.

This time around, SpaceX says that the Super Heavy booster will “will separate[,] perform a partial return[,] and land in the Gulf of Mexico or return to Starbase and be caught by the launch tower.”

Prior to this document, SpaceX’s best-case plans for the first Super Heavy booster to launch never strayed from a controlled splashdown in the Gulf of Mexico – potentially demonstrating that it would be safe to attempt booster recovery on the next launch but all but guaranteeing that the first booster would be lost at sea.

Videos For Educational Purpose Only.
Business Inquiries and Contact
• For business inquiries, copyright matters or other inquiries please contact us at: . [email protected]

❓ Copyright Questions
• If you have any copyright questions or issues you can contact us at [email protected]

⚠️ Copyright Disclaimers
• We use images and content in accordance with the YouTube Fair Use copyright guidelines
• Section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Act states: “Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.”
• This video could contain certain copyrighted video clips, pictures, or photographs that were not specifically authorized to be used by the copyright holder(s), but which we believe in good faith are protected by federal law and the fair use doctrine for one or more of the reasons noted above.

Credited –
Jessica Krish –
ErcX –
Everyday Astronaut –
Evan Karen-
Yukon09 –
Alexander Svan
#spacex #starshiplaunch #spacexstarship
#jwst #starship

The launch tower and its three mobile arms will play a crucial role in all aspects of orbital Starship launches. The first arm swings out to brace Super Heavy for Starship installation and connect the upper stage to power, propellant supplies, and other launch pad utilities. A more exotic pair of arms nicknamed ‘chopsticks’ has a more complex job.

On top of using the chopsticks to lift, stack, and demate Starships and Super Heavy boosters and almost any weather and wind conditions, SpaceX wants to use the arms as an incredibly complex and precarious rocket recovery system.

For a booster or Starship “catch,” the rocket will approach the tower, enter the gap between the splayed arms, hover in place while the arms close around it, and eventually come to rest on hardpoints that appear to offer about as much surface area as a coffee table.

Based on a simulation of the process shown by Elon Musk, calling it a “catch” is a misnomer, as the arms will mainly move in one dimension (open/close) and can’t actually ‘grab’ the rocket in any real sense. As built and shown, they are closer to a tiny fixed landing platform capable of minor last-second positional adjustments.

Eventually, the chopsticks could shave a small amount of time off of post-recovery processing, removing the need for a crane (or the same arms) to attach to a landed booster or ship.


About Science Of Space

Listen to the world top thinkers in science, astronomy, cosmology, technology and futurism.

So we are inviting you to join us in exploring Space, Rockets and Science and together we can conquer the unknown! “Science Of Space!?”

» Subscribe now!

» Science Of Space on Twitter

» Science Of Space on Instagram –

#Starship #starship #spacex #starshipspacex #spacexstarship #spacexsn20 #sn15 #starshipsn1616 #nasaspaceflight #everydayastronaut #starshiporbitalflight #supercatching


  1. This is absolutely old news, real dedicated Starship accounts have updated us already on this stale news.

  2. There is so many unbelievable designs update need changes, with respect to the Mechazilla tower, the first issue begins with the OLT, too many multi sequals in one structure. it will need to separate task, of fuel chamber, the weight baring hold and away to avoid the wrath of the Beast flares, ( perhaps a split o-ring table like a Mecha Legs/foot).

    The towers Chopstix requires a tractor chest/torso, as rotation beyond just a 90° is too adjacent for a launch and catch sequal. The Chopstix will also need to REACH (almost twice range), just like the falcons, the boat doesn't chase a landing spot, so in this case, the Beast must not fail to guide the same way. It's on land, with NO legs.

    As for the Starship cargo vessel, it will need atleast small rod-catches, like the Beast navigation fins, but only to be catched. The risk on only two edge of wings is very critical.

  3. Great content!! Thank you! – We need NASA and SpaceX success! Chinese already have a powerful heavy-lifter. And we beg European and Russian rockets, stronger than ours. We built the strongest, F-1 to the moon. Why then forget it and only use smaller rockets since? Why beg Russians for their stronger rockets since? Why wait 15 years for the Shuttle? Half a generation wait for 3/4th the size of Apollo but only lifted 1/6th the weight and only 250 miles, not the 250,000 miles of Apollo! Where is the strongest F-1? Apollo, lifted 6 times the weight, 250,000 miles! Fastest, farthest of any rocket EVER! Both Shuttle explosions, 14 people dead from external fuel tanks and solid fuel boosters would have been prevented using the Apollo F-1s to lift the Shuttle! No F-1 failures, 65 times proved, 13 flights. 100% successful, most weight lifted, most distance, 250,000 miles. All other rockets lift less and mostly to 250 miles. The F-1 was promised to take us to Mars by 1985. It was quietly retired, even the blueprints lost. After complete success and reliability to the moon! Apollo (3-man) retired and for 60 years, we use old Mercury (1-man) and Gemini (2-man) Titan and Atlas rockets, upgraded. We use the Apollo upper stage J-2, it is the Centaur. And we beg the Russians for their old 1950s rockets stronger than the Gemini, but weaker than the Apollo F-1 that took us to the moon. All other 1960s rockets are still used in America and Russia. Strongest EVER Apollo F-1 forgotten! We put a lot of mass into space. We need every good rocket we have. And the F-1 was our BEST! After silent 15 years replaced by the Shuttle. A weak hydrogen burning rocket with solid rocket boosters (SRBs). Half a generation wait. Why? We had fully developed in 7 years, the 100% reliable, proved, most powerful F-1 that could lift SIX TIMES the weight. The Shuttle, 75% the weight of Apollo, but could only lift 1/6th the weight and up only 250 miles (at 3 times the cost per launch). All F-1 blueprints are missing. Gone! I've worked a government office. They keep everything! In 5 copies! The 5th, last goes to a special place; it can NEVER be lost! F-1 rocket, strongest, telling Russia our nuclear missiles stronger. F-1 forgotten, blueprints gone! If an alien UFO landed we would take it apart and reverse engineer it. Why 60 years, we have not reverse engineered the perfect record, strongest ever F-1s still in museums? They are easily X-rayed and copied. They are mostly plumbing. No. We beg Russians for their weaker than the F-1 rockets and use weaker Mercury and Gemini rockets. Gus Grissom, intended 1st on the moon, 2 weeks before he died in Apollo 1 fire said the Lunar LEM was unsafe. "Staples and taped aluminum foil." NASA officially says the LEM was 3 sheets of kitchen aluminum foil thick. 12/1000th of an inch. The "moon blanket" IS the mylar invention used as Lunar lander walls. Yet a 10,000 lb rocket did not tear it to pieces. Look closely at official hi-def pics of the LEM sitting on the moon. You can see admitted "Scotch tape" holding on external panels. NASA admits using Scotch tape! It saved weight. Temperatures of 250 heat on the moon, but Scotch taped. (Odysee com search Lunar lander or American Moon). Was the Apollo Lunar lander on the moon a time machine!? Some audio questions were answered in 0.9 of a second in official NASA tapes. That is 3 times the speed of light. 2.7 seconds to-from the moon is required (without time-travel). Some NASA questions were answered by moon astronauts 0.9, 1.0 and 1.1 seconds between question and answer. In official NASA tapes. Every country was given a moon rock. The Netherlands tested theirs, it was petrified wood. From earth. Von Braun, NAZI head of moon mission would leave at busiest times to collect meteorites in the Antarctic. Antarctica was once a forest, petrified wood "rocks" are found there to this day along with meteorites, visible in the white snow. The original tapes from the moon landings are gone! We keep the original Constitution and a bell that cracked in 1776, but not record of America and human's historic first trips to the moon! Nor blueprints to the strongest rocket ever built, during Cold War when rocket missiles were vital! James Webb, the head of NASA resigned DAYS before the 1st mission to the moon. Why? Neil Armstrong resigned and was silent all his life. Why? He was shy? Who cares, that was his job! To be the triumphant first on the moon, voice of all of us. Armstrong fully trained, successful on the moon, why not go on other missions like other trained astronauts? No. Retired! Standing next to Clinton-Gore, his anniversary words, "Much that is left undone", "protected by truth's protective layers." Who talks that way? He's admitting they lied! He avoided all anniversary's after! Human eyes see flashes in space. Film does not work beyond earth orbit. Both eyes and film see spots and cloudy patches from X-rays, Cosmic rays and the massive radiation of the Van Allen belts. There was NO thick lead around the moon camera. Nor lead lens! Nor around the film, going through the Van Allen belts twice! The film from the moon is perfect, no spots! As though made in Hollywood. The camera on the moon was thin aluminum. No insulation! Aluminum near INSTANTLY transfers heat or cold! It had no electric heater. -250 temperatures would have cracked and broken the plastic film as it moved through the camera. If it could move in a frozen camera. In sunlight, +250 temperatures would have melted the plastic film inside. The LEM has bright red hypergolic fire and smoke. The same SpaceX uses and Soviet thrusters maneuvering toward the Space Station. Always the flames are visible! You've seen them. Also look at the test films showing massive billowing dark red clouds from it. But on rise from the moon, the video shows no exhaust fire or smoke, not deep red, none. And no LEM thrusters fire as it rotates and aligns to join with the command module above the moon. You must have thruster fire right when the LEM moves left, but none! LEM landing pads in pictures on the moon have no dust in them. There are not even scorch marks under any LEM in moon pics. No craters either. The massive 10,000 lb rocket exhaust would have thrown dust into the pads. And at least left fire scorch marks under it. The LEMs were noisy. The engine more powerful than a jet, inside the LEM with the 2 astronauts. Engine and astronauts separated by thin sheets of aluminum foil. NASA says it was so thin, "You could put your fingers through it." That engine roars and massively vibrates! They couldn't even hear themselves. Yet you never hear anything in their calm, quiet words "from the moon." 1969 was the PEAK sun activity of that 11 year cycle, that could kill people in space. The WORST time to send astronauts! (Protected by 3 sheets of aluminum foil). And one Apollo, the landing site was in the dark when they were scheduled to land. You can check the charts. The LEM cannot land in the dark! And their rules forbade it! Because it would crash in the dark, on rocks or into holes! NASA always checked these details and timed launches to be exactly correct for a landing in the light. Fra Mauro, the landing site was completely in the dark at the scheduled landing time of Apollo 13! They knew they could not land! Before the launch! The sun/moon charts don't lie! Check them. Apollo 13 was totally faked! Another moon trip, video inside Apollo, when supposedly near the moon showed a full big blue earth through the window. That video is labeled by NASA, "Not for Public Showing." But was released. No Apollo moon mission ever left earth orbit! Grandpa lied! Nixon. Nazi Von Braun. 1960s American government. Vietnam. JFK killed by a magic bullet. The moon landings. CIA bs around the world. And more! Youtube hides it, but O d y s e e. com shows much evidence. Search Lunar lander. Or, 'American Moon (English)'. And while we SIT, Communist Chinese with Russians may be the TRUE first human beings to walk on the moon.

  4. Sounds like a bit of fear-mongering going on. The launch area will be well cleared and protected. The Pad and Tower have already shown they can withstand a detonating blast with minimal damage and SpaceX, I'm sure, have examined the dangers very closely and will be able to recover from an RUD and move on.
    Remember that these are all prototypes with all the risks that entails.

  5. How would the development have gone if the Russians would have sold boosters to Elon like he first tried to do.?

  6. I'm left wondering what was the point of this post. Old news. Content certinaly does not invite a return to your channel.

  7. STILL THINK, for getting human rating , SShip SHOULD be landed with legs!! They HAVE NOT landed a ship from orbit yet. They need to PERFECT the ship landing for Mars sake! Elon are being DUMB by NOT using legs for the ship.

  8. Do you think you could have been more negative? The booster's recovery will be controlled by software…the same as Falcon 9 with modifications for the catch arms. SpaceX seems to be mighty darn good at landing on that small drone ship in the Atlantic and landing in the circle. I'd suggest cleaning things up and being more positive in your report. Why don't you actually present how it will be successful instead of failing. Duh, novel idea!