Hacker News

Favorites Setup
Comment by stackghost | original | SpaceX catches the Starship to end Flight 15
[−]stackghost · 2026-11-15 Sun 08:21 UTC · link
Surely the same energy reflection happens on launch.

I would imagine it’s the weight savings of not having to carry thousands of pounds worth of landing legs onboard the rocket.

[−]taneq · 2026-11-15 Sun 08:29 UTC · link
I’d imagine it’s a bit easier to control the positioning of everything at launch.
[−]sib · 2026-11-15 Sun 08:30 UTC · link
Yes! Every kg used for legs is a kg not used for cargo... (And worse because the legs have to be carried up and down while the cargo only has to go up.)
[−]Aerroon · 2026-11-15 Sun 09:04 UTC · link
>Surely the same energy reflection happens on launch.

Don't the launchpads have systems in place to prevent that? Eg the sound suppression system where they basically spray water into the air to absorb the sound. Does the landing pad have that?

[−]foota · 2026-11-15 Sun 09:11 UTC · link
Something like it, because they destroyed the pad previously.
[−]IsTom · 2026-11-15 Sun 09:08 UTC · link
They've got flame deflectors at the launch site so this doesn't happen.
[−]peterbecich · 2026-11-15 Sun 09:16 UTC · link
So theoretically the rocket could land on a flame deflector, reversing the process?
[−]martyvis · 2026-11-15 Sun 09:33 UTC · link
Not easy the land on a reverse waterfall I think.
[−]gattr · 2026-11-15 Sun 10:15 UTC · link
Now that I think about it, why land upright at all? You could do a gentle controlled touchdown in a water pool and slowly tilt to horizontal with a minor splash, like the previous Starship.
[−]vardump · 2026-11-15 Sun 10:18 UTC · link
It'd destroy Starship, not enough structural integrity in that orientation.
[−]rplnt · 2026-11-15 Sun 09:31 UTC · link
I do believe it's mostly the legs, but to the first point, on launch you don't have the vacuum engine bells exposed to this. Or second stage at all, where weight matters much more, so any extra shielding you don't need is good.