Catching Booster 12
Starship Flight 5 · Super Heavy B12 · 13 Oct 2024 · Starbase, Texas

Catching Booster 12

Six minutes and fifty-four seconds after liftoff, a 71-metre rocket stage came back down from 96 km, lit 13 engines less than 2 km above the ground, slid sideways into the gap between two steel arms and set its catch pins down on them. These eight sheets take the catch apart, from the decision to fly without legs to the last few metres.

HUD read off the webcast SRC published source CALC my math on the telemetry EST estimate or model
T+6:54Caught SRC
96 kmBooster apogee HUD
≈88 kmMax downrange CALC
4,395km/h falling, peak HUD
DWG IFT5-B12-000
Drawn from webcast telemetry and public sources · Units SI
Sheet 00 / 08
3rd angle
01

Delete the legs

Dwg no.IFT5-B12-001
ScaleBoosters to scale · NTS legs

Falcon 9 lands on four legs that fold out in the last seconds of flight. Super Heavy has none. At the end of 2020 Elon Musk said SpaceX would try catching the booster with the launch tower instead, and the idea went through three design revisions before Flight 5 proved it.

“We’re going to try to catch the Super Heavy Booster with the launch tower arm, using the grid fins to take the load.”

“Saves mass & cost of legs & enables immediate repositioning of booster on to launch mount — ready to refly in under an hour.”

Elon Musk on X · 30 Dec 2020 SRC

The trade is mass for infrastructure. Legs ride the booster to staging and back on every flight, and the booster must carry propellant to lift them and to land them. The tower’s arms never leave the ground. The cost moves to the pad: it has to work every time, and the booster has to arrive at a target the size of a pair of steel rails.

Fig 1.1 Three ways to land the same boosterBooster 71 × 9 m SRC
Revision block
RevDateChangeSource
A—Landing legs on the booster (the Falcon 9 approach)baseline
B30 Dec 2020Delete legs. Catch on the tower arm, grid fins take the loadMusk on X
CAug 2021Two pins for lifting and catching; the fins stop carrying the loadMusk, via Inverse
D13 Oct 2024First catch, Booster 12 on Flight 5SpaceX
Notes
  1. Each of the four grid fins weighs roughly 3 t SRC. They are not spaced at even 90° intervals; pairs sit closer together to give more pitch authority.
  2. Legs for a stage this size would weigh an estimated 24–36 t EST, from an outside analysis (IMechE, Oct 2024). SpaceX has not published a figure.
  3. Catch pins are hardpoints near the top of the booster, between the grid fins. The same pins let the arms lift the booster onto the launch mount, which is how “refly in under an hour” was meant to work.
02

Mechazilla

Dwg no.IFT5-B12-002
ScaleElev. to scale · plan schematic
Fig 2.1 Assembly elevation, Pad A towerTower 146 m SRC · arm ≈36 m EST

The tower is a 146-metre steel lattice. A carriage rides tracks on three of its four legs, lifted by cables that run over a sheave at the top and down to a winch at the base. The carriage carries two arms, roughly 36 m long, that swing open and shut on hydraulic actuators. The same arms stack the rocket before launch and catch the booster after it.

OPEN
Fig 2.2 View A — plan at catch levelSchematic, not to published dims EST
Fig 2.3 Section B–B, pin on railFollows the slider above
Parts list
ItemPartWhat it doesSource
1Tower146 m (479 ft) steel lattice, the tallest launch tower on recordGuinness SRC
2CarriageRides tracks fixed to three of the four tower legs on 12 guide blocksTeslarati 2021 SRC
3DrawworksWinch at the base; cable passes over the crown sheave and through a travelling block (5 wire-rope passes on Pad A)NSF 2025 SRC
4Chopstick armsAbout 36 m long by an observer’s measurement; swing open and shutTeslarati 2021 EST
5Arm actuatorsLinear hydraulic actuators; shielded before Flight 5Wikipedia, NSF SRC
6Landing railsThe pins land on them; they compress as shock absorbersNSF 2024 SRC
7BumpersCompressible steel on the arms’ inner faces, replacing foam and rubber; the booster slides down themNSF 2024 SRC
8Catch pins (×2)Hardpoints near the top of the booster, between the grid finsWikipedia, SpaceNews SRC
9Jackscrews + stabilizer pinsAfter the catch, translate the booster to line it up for loweringNSF 2024 SRC
10Launch mountThe arms lower the booster back onto it after the catchNSF 2024 SRC
03

Flight profile

Dwg no.IFT5-B12-003
Scale1 : 1 (km) · booster enlarged

The webcast showed two booster numbers on every frame: altitude in whole kilometres and speed in km/h. Everything on this sheet starts from those readings, OCR’d at 30 frames per second. The path through the sky is reconstructed from them, and it lands back at the tower within about 0.1 km after an 88 km excursion, which is a good sign the method holds. Drag across the charts or press play.

—
04

Go / no-go

Dwg no.IFT5-B12-004
TypeLogic schematic

SpaceX wrote the rule down before launch. A catch would be tried only if thousands of vehicle and pad criteria were met, automated checks found the booster and the tower healthy, and the Flight Director sent a manual command before the boostback burn ended at T+3:41.

“If this command is not sent prior to the completion of the boostback burn, or if automated health checks show unacceptable conditions with Super Heavy or the tower, the booster will default to a trajectory that takes it to a landing burn and soft splashdown in the Gulf of Mexico.”

SpaceX, Flight 5 mission page SRC

The default is the safe one. Doing nothing sends the booster to the water, and the tower has to be actively chosen. The checks stay armed after the command: software would abort the catch if either the booster or the chopsticks reported something unhealthy.

Fig 4.1 Catch commit logic · click a switch—
How it played out
  1. Flight 5: every input true, command sent, booster caught. A SpaceX engineer later said a misconfigured spin-gas abort check was about one second from tripping, which would have sent the booster to “crash into the ground next to the tower.” SRC
  2. Also on Flight 5, a chine cover tore off as the landing burn began, exposing what the same engineer called single-point-failure valves that had to work during the burn. They did. SRC
  3. Flight 6: automated checks of the tower failed and the booster flew its pre-planned divert to a Gulf splashdown. SpaceX later traced it to radar sensors on the tower damaged at liftoff. SRC
Musk after Flight 6

“Lost comms to the launch tower computer. Catch would probably still have worked, but we weren’t sure, so erred on the side of caution.”

Elon Musk on X · Nov 2024 SRC
05

Boostback, then no entry burn

Dwg no.IFT5-B12-005
ScaleVectors to scale

At staging the booster was about 67 km up, still climbing, and moving downrange at roughly 1.24 km/s. It flipped, relit the ten-engine middle ring alongside the center three, and in under a minute turned that into about 0.5 km/s heading back toward Texas. The thrust dropped sharply ten seconds before shutdown, which looks like a trim on fewer engines.

Then the engines went quiet for nearly three minutes. Super Heavy flies no entry burn. It coasted over a 96 km apogee, fell back to 4,395 km/h, and let the air brake it. Below 20 km the deceleration reached about 5.7 g with no engines running, and the dynamic pressure peaked at several times what the full stack saw on the way up.

Fig 5.1 Velocity before and after boostbackFrom telemetry CALC
Notes
  1. Boostback change in velocity ≈1.75 km/s, mostly horizontal, in about 53 s CALC. Engines: middle ring of 10 plus center 3 SRC.
  2. Thrust fell from about 3.7 g to about 1 g at T+3:31, ten seconds before shutdown CALC. A drop to the center three would fit; SpaceX didn’t say.
  3. Peak aerodynamic deceleration ≈5.7 g near T+6:12 CALC, read straight off the speed and altitude trace.
  4. Dynamic pressure uses a standard atmosphere CALC. Ascent max-q ≈23 kPa; on the way down ≈130 kPa at 11 km and Mach 2.9.
  5. The fall implies a ballistic coefficient near 2,500 kg/m² CALC. Sheet 08 uses that number for drag.
  6. Musk afterwards: some outer engine nozzles were “a little warped from high heating & strong aero forces.” SRC
Fig 5.2 Dynamic pressure vs altitudeStd. atmosphere CALC
06

The divert

Dwg no.IFT5-B12-006
Scale1 : 1 · ticks every 1 s

The booster came in on a slant. Its speed on the webcast is higher than its rate of descent, so some of that speed was sideways. At landing-burn ignition the reconstruction puts it roughly 0.8 km east of the tower, 1.8 km up, moving west at about 150 m/s. The 13-engine phase killed the sideways motion in about seven seconds; the last 500 m were close to vertical on the center three.

NASASpaceflight described the same move from the video: the booster “translated over to get in between the chopsticks.” A likely reason to come in from the side is that the booster isn’t pointed at the tower until its engines are lit and steering. Falcon 9 uses the same idea on return-to-launch-site landings: it aims just off the coast, so a failure ends in the water.

Fig 6.1 Detail B — last 2.9 km, looking northReconstructed path CALC · ±0.3 km
Notes
  1. The HUD shows altitude in whole kilometres, so the exact ignition height is uncertain. The 2→1 km tick came at T+6:30.9 and the 1→0 tick at T+6:34.5; ignition came between them at about T+6:31.3 HUD.
  2. The east–west offset at ignition comes from integrating the sideways part of the speed; plausible choices in the reconstruction move it between about 0.7 and 1.2 km CALC.
  3. Whether a booster that failed to relight would have missed the tower can’t be settled from this data: the uncertainty is as large as the offset. SpaceX hasn’t published the aim point.
07

The grab

Dwg no.IFT5-B12-007
TypeSequence · 6 frames

The last 20 metres took about seven seconds. In that time the arms closed, the booster slid down the bumpers until its pins met the landing rails, and the rails compressed as the engines shut off. The HUD speed went from 37 km/h to zero, and at the very end it was falling at walking pace.

Contact energy, ½·m·v²

Frame times and speeds are HUD readings. When exactly the arms began closing isn’t published; frames 2–4 are placed by the NASASpaceflight description of the sequence EST.

08

Try the catch

Dwg no.IFT5-B12-008
Model2-D point mass · 120 Hz

A simplified model of the last 1.8 km, started from the reconstructed Flight 5 state at landing-burn ignition. Let the autopilot fly it and throw faults at it, or take the controls yourself at the 13-to-3 engine switch. Then run a few hundred attempts and see where they land. The tolerances are my estimates; SpaceX hasn’t published them.

Pilot

Autopilot flies the whole burn. Pick Throttle or Manual to take over at the 13→3 switch.

Faults

on timeLate lighting eats stopping distance at 340 m/s.
6 m/sPushes the 71 m side of the booster.
0.3 mWhere the booster thinks it is versus where it is.
0 tChanges thrust-to-weight at minimum throttle.
65 tModel estimate is 45–95 t.
0.0 sLate arms meet a booster that’s already low.
ReadyPress Light engines. Faults on the left change the run.

View A · plan

Pins above rails—
Descent rate—
Off rail centre—
Throttle / engine—
Propellant—
T/W at 40%—
Engines · arms—

Stopping envelope · height vs descent ratelog–log

Monte Carlo · 300 autopilot runs at these fault settings

Press Run 300 to scatter a batch at the current settings.
Lighter is harderNear the end, three engines at minimum throttle push about as hard as the booster weighs. Make it 10 t lighter and it can no longer slow gently onto the rails: about four runs in ten end hard or broken in this model EST.
Speed is squaredContact energy goes as v². Arriving at 3 m/s instead of 1 m/s puts nine times the energy into the rails.
Position is a few metresThe pins have to land on a short stretch of rail. With 1 m of navigation error, about one run in eight misses in this model EST.
Ignition has a cliffLight the 13 engines up to 1.5 s late and the autopilot absorbs it. At 2 s late most runs fail: there isn’t enough height left to stop and translate EST.
What this model assumes
  1. Start state at T+6:31.3 from the reconstruction: 1.77 km above the catch point, 148 m/s west, 317 m/s down CALC. The model starts 0.45 km east of the tower, the low end of the reconstruction’s range, so a steady sideways brake finishes by the 13→3 switch EST.
  2. Raptor 2 sea-level thrust 2.26 MN SRC; 704 kg/s per engine at full throttle from an assumed 327 s Isp; minimum throttle 40% EST.
  3. Booster mass 315 t at ignition (250 t dry + 65 t propellant) EST. Drag from the measured ballistic coefficient, 2,500 kg/m² CALC.
  4. Catch tolerances, all EST: pins must land within ±1.5 m of rail centre along the arm; the arms take 2 s to close and must finish with the pins between 0 and 20 m above the rails; contact under 2 m/s is clean, 2–4 m/s is a hard catch, above 4 m/s overloads the rails.
  5. The autopilot follows the reconstructed Flight 5 descent for the 13-engine phase, then flies a re-planned constant-deceleration descent with throttle and tilt limits. SpaceX’s guidance is not public. The model ignores slosh, structural bending, plume–tower interaction and roll.
—

What to trust

Dwg no.IFT5-B12-NOTES
RevA · Oct 2026
QuantityWhere it comes fromTrust
SpeedWebcast HUD, OCR’d frame by frame (SofieBrink/StarshipTelemetryExtractor). 1 km/h resolution.HUD high
AltitudeSame source, but only whole kilometres. The smooth curve is fitted through the moments the digit changes, which pins it to about ±0.1 km; at the end, height comes from integrating speed.HUD + CALC
Downrange pathHorizontal speed = √(speed² − climb rate²), integrated. Closes on the tower within 0.12 km out of 88 km; I removed that residual as a linear drift.CALC good shape, ±0.3 km late
Mach, q, g-loadsDerived from the path with a standard atmosphere. Loads near apogee are noisy because altitude is coarse up there.CALC medium
PropellantNo published numbers. Rocket equation run backwards from an assumed catch mass through the burns measured in the telemetry. The band spans dry mass 200–275 t and 5–35 t left at the catch.EST low
Event timesSpaceX’s planned timeline, Wikipedia’s as-flown times, NSF reporting, and what the telemetry shows. Sources disagree by 1–3 s.SRC ±3 s
Engine counts33 → 3 at MECO, 13 for boostback, 13 → 3 in the landing burn (NSF, SpaceX). The trim at T+3:31 and the 13→3 switch time at T+6:38 are read from the deceleration.SRC + CALC
Tower and booster dimsTower 146 m (Guinness); booster 71 × 9 m (SpaceX); arm ≈36 m (observer measurement). Arm spacing, rail length, pin size and catch height are drawn schematically.SRC / EST
Sandbox tolerancesMine. Chosen to be physically sensible, not published by SpaceX.EST
Sources
Fan explainer · not affiliated with SpaceXBuilt Oct 2026 from public data