I understand engineering is complicated but this honestly seems like the easiest part of the problem to solve.
It's more likely that SpaceX determined they didn't need super tight tolerances and called it a day.
I understand engineering is complicated but this honestly seems like the easiest part of the problem to solve.
It's more likely that SpaceX determined they didn't need super tight tolerances and called it a day.
The meatball Fresnel lens is canted slightly side-to-side, and only places the hook in the right spot at a given angle of attack. Which is a design compromise necessitated by having to allow multiple types of aircraft with multiple hook-to-eye distances to land on the same aircraft carrier while using a visual input in one location (the cockpit) to properly place a device in another location (the hook point) with high precision.
Source: I've done it.
So just as it is not "very easy" to trap on board the boat with "just" a light signal, I would assume landing a building-sized booster has a similar if not bigger list of potential "gotchas."
Yup! This is my conclusion in the article - the landing box for the Super Heavy booster is 5x13x18 meters on each side, with 5-15 degrees of angular tolerance in each of the vehicle axes. So the margins are big enough that you don't need millimeter level precision for the rocket position.
This is the part I question though. Seems like an org as well motivated as SpaceX could easily solve that if it was necessary.