Interestingly, there's a similar large "block" recovery rig in the South China Sea. They use two sets of steel cables running in the X and Y directions — visually it's a lot like the Japanese cat's cradle string game. From a quick search, it appears to have shown up after SpaceX's chopsticks catch. Different engineering approach, but the same idea of catching the returning stage in a grid rather than with arms.
The Starship is about twice as wide, and the chopsticks open quite wide. It's hard to tell glancing at pictures, but I think the chopsticks might actually have more catch area, though the rocket does need to be rotated correctly for the catch pins.
Also, counter intuitively, it's actually easier to hit a precise target with a larger rocket: You're pushed around by the wind less, and the same impulse gives finer control.
The Chinese catcher is pretty cool, and seems like an upgrade compared to the Falcon 9. However with the chopsticks you're effectively landing on the crane which loads it onto a transport or even stack it directly back on the pad for the next launch (far more likely with boosters, though it could happen with fuel tankers I suppose). So I don't think anyone at SpaceX is currently sad they chose chopsticks.
How much damage do the vehicles or the chopsticks take during a catch, especially once they start catching the Ship too? It looks pretty rough in the footage. Not saying it's the wrong choice though, I obviously wouldn't know that, just curious
this doesn't make sense for Starship - Starship is RTLS (return to launch site), and a cable/net catch system creates an unnecessarily complex launch tower.
The cable catch system for long march 10B is superior to the landing legs of falcon 9 - of the 11 falcon 9 failures, a cable catch system would have avoided 4-6 of them. Removing the landing legs also reduces the rocket dry mass and increases payload mass to orbit.
If SpaceX did Falcon 9 again, they would likely use a cable catch system, as it resolves about half of falcon 9's historic landing failures.
The rocket that system catches (Long March 10B) is the size of Falcon 9. Starship is an order of magnitude larger and heavier. It may not be a practical solution for a significantly larger scale rocket.
The Chinese catcher is pretty cool, and seems like an upgrade compared to the Falcon 9. However with the chopsticks you're effectively landing on the crane which loads it onto a transport or even stack it directly back on the pad for the next launch (far more likely with boosters, though it could happen with fuel tankers I suppose). So I don't think anyone at SpaceX is currently sad they chose chopsticks.
The cable catch system for long march 10B is superior to the landing legs of falcon 9 - of the 11 falcon 9 failures, a cable catch system would have avoided 4-6 of them. Removing the landing legs also reduces the rocket dry mass and increases payload mass to orbit.
If SpaceX did Falcon 9 again, they would likely use a cable catch system, as it resolves about half of falcon 9's historic landing failures.
I had trouble visualizing your comment until I saw 2 YouTube videos from another commenter down thread of their alternate rocket catching mechanism.
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/GJ-wZLLuh9M
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zt1V9UWhuKk
From https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50502490