Rocket Lab helicopter successfully catches falling rocket
Space launch contender Rocket Lab has successfully demonstrated its peculiar method of capturing spent rocket boosters so they can be re-used: catching them with a helicopter as they fall.
The outfit planned to make the catch on April 29, but bad weather delayed the mission.
The skies cleared today and the mission – dubbed “There and back again” – sent 34 satellites aloft after launching from New Zealand’s Mahia Peninsula. The Electron booster used for the launch then returned to Earth beneath a parachute.
At 6,500 feet (just under 2km) above the ground, a Rocket Lab Sikorsky S-92 helicopter met the falling booster and “used a hook on a long line to capture the parachute line.”
The attempt to make the catch looked like this, as seen from the ‘copter as it started dangling its hook once it found the falling booster.
While the catch was made, flying with a rocket under a helicopter turned out to be a tad tricky thanks to what Rocket Lab has described as “different load characteristics than previously experienced in testing.” But the mission still had a happy ending.
Launching into space is not cheap, but the cost falls considerably if rockets are re-used rather than allowed to burn up in the atmosphere or sink beneath the waves. Which is why the likes of SpaceX and Blue Origin have built rockets that keep a little fuel in reserve to allow them to make controlled landings. The tech works so well SpaceX has re-used one of its boosters a dozen times.
Rocket Lab’s Electron booster is too small to carry the fuel needed for a controlled landing, so has previously recovered boosters from the ocean after parachute descents.
Dunking rockets in salt water is sub-optimal, so Rocket Lab hopes helicopter retrieval could speed the process and save its boosters a bath.
Today’s mission was rated a success for the catch, but a learning experience in terms of what it takes to use a helicopter to return a spent rocket to terra firma.
“Bringing a rocket back from space and catching it with a helicopter is something of a supersonic ballet,” Rocket Lab founder and CEO Peter Beck said in the company’s mission accomplished statement. “A tremendous number of factors have to align and many systems have to work together flawlessly, so I am incredibly proud of the stellar efforts of our Recovery Team and all of our engineers who made this mission and our first catch a success. From here we’ll assess the stage and determine what changes we might want to make to the system and procedures for the next helicopter catch and eventual re-flight.”
See more here: theregister.com
Header image: Futurism
Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Defend The Scientific Method
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Trackback from your site.
Mark Tapley
| #
No video is provided for this alleged booster recovery procedure nor information on the success rate. The idea of snagging a rapidly descending parachute with a helicopter seems to me to not be a good idea. I have posted the Blue origin fake CGI flight for comment 3 times on PSI. I question the ability of a booster rocket to fall from high altitude and land upright with just the use of small thrusters on the sides. I also pointed out the dummy in the capsule, visible through the almost opaque window. And what was the purpose of a window that you can’t see through? Other than to fool the audience.
Reply
Howdy
| #
Hi Mark,
Before the rocket lifts off, you can see the bottom of the engine exhaust moving around. It’s on a gimbal as far as I know. As the booster comes down, it is the main engine that appears to ignite again, and you can see the thrust direction changing as the gimbal moves to correct the attitude. Just before touchdown though, it does look a bit odd.
Through the window, the ‘dummy’ moves it’s head, and arm/hand. Another hand can be seen moving through the other window.
Is it fake? I guess this stuff is easily achievable these days given enough capital, and they hardly went anywhere anyway really. Why bother faking it?
Reply
Howdy
| #
https://www.thoughtco.com/rocket-stability-and-flight-control-systems-4070617
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi PSI Readers,
Who, or what, is thoughtco.com? This is one of its science writers “Anne Marie Helmenstine, Ph.D., has extensive experience as a science writer. She has covered chemistry for ThoughtCo and About.com Education since 2001 and has taught chemistry, biology, astronomy, and physics at the high school, college, and graduate level. She has worked abstracting and indexing diverse scientific literature for the Department of Energy.” Make your own decisions about what Mark and Howdy write
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Howdy
| #
“Who, or what, is thoughtco.com?”
Hi mr important. Is anybody, anywhere, safe from your tongue, or good enough for you. here it is from NASA themselves: https://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/k-12/rocket/gimbaled.html.
Know the equation? https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/airplane/rockth.html
Reply
Hi Howdy,
| #
Hi Howdy,
First, you and Mark claim that NASA ‘s and other nation’s space achievements are “Hollywood” and now NASA becomes your authority. What do you really believe???
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Howdy
| #
“First, you and Mark claim that NASA ‘s and other nation’s space achievements are “Hollywood””
If you weren’t so blinded by your silly attempts to discredit Mark and myself, you would know I have not sided with Mark on any of the issues we have discussed about legitimacy of truth regarding space travel etc. I say what I see.
There is an example directly above for heaven’s sake, of me choosing my own side, but you chose to question the credentials of the site I linked, and the scientist Anne Helmenstine.
Why am I even bothering? This is just you on rinse and repeat.
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Howdy and PSI Readers,
Yes, I commonly make mistakes and upon doing so I have just learned that one can use any name when making comments here at PSI. No security limiting one’s name to the email address. So PSI Readers, beware. If I hadn’t closed with my typical closing. I would have never remembered I had written my comment
Have a good day, Jerry
Howdy
| #
“No security limiting one’s name to the email address”
Why would there be, it’s pointless. I can use as many email addys as I can muster due to disposable addresses, and a plethora of real accounts. I choose to use the same one on PSI i have allways used.
Though some try to use it as a futile attack on those deemed not worthy because they use a nomme de plume, ‘Real’ names mean nothing. try proving somebody is the actual true holder or not of an identity they print as ‘looking real.’. Quite pointless.
Just because a name looks legit, does not imply trust, nor a person of good character. This is the internet, and bad things can, and do happen to people who are far too open for their own good.
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Howdy,
’Through the window, the ‘dummy’ moves it’s head, and arm/hand. Another hand can be seen moving through the other window.
Is it fake? I guess this stuff is easily achievable these days given enough capital, and they hardly went anywhere anyway really. Why bother faking it?”
“They hardly went anywhere anyway really.” Going to the moon and landing and taking off to return to the Earth is really “anywhere anyway really”??? Do you see why I am confused of what you actually believe?
I can see and understand your first reply to Mark “Before the rocket lifts off, you can see the bottom of the engine exhaust moving around. It’s on a gimbal as far as I know. As the booster comes down, it is the main engine that appears to ignite again, and you can see the thrust direction changing as the gimbal moves to correct the attitude. Just before touchdown though, it does look a bit odd.” However, why did you add “it does look a bit odd.”? Do you understand how these six words might (could) undo the many more words that you had just written?
Have a good day, Jerry
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi PSI Readers,
Howdy just wrote: “‘Real’ names mean nothing.” If you believe this it seems you might believe everything else he has written. That would be your problem, not mine. I have written several times that real scientists know that nothing is CERTAIN except wrong scientific ideas, which must have predicted something not yet known, which predictions have been proven to be absolutely wrong by common observations.
Have a good day, Jerry
Howdy
| #
“Howdy just wrote: “‘Real’ names mean nothing.””
It is correct. Neither you nor anyone else can prove a printed name is real to the person who wrote It.
Try asking the millions of scammed people every year what a real website looks like. They won’t be able to tell you because face value, is zero value, and tells you nothing.
I know these circumstances tick you off, it’s why you try as you do against me.
As far as others believing what I write, there are a lot of search engines that will prove what I say, or otherwise.
Despite your attempts, It is in the eye of the beholder to make the call. Not you doing your best to coax them into your way of thinking.
I’ll answer your other comments here.
“Do you see why I am confused of what you actually believe?”
Confused yes, but not because of me.
The first paragraph you quote states quite clearly I do not see an obvious fake, The second backs up that assertion because for what they did, which was peanuts, why bother faking it at all. They have the means. It’s just a stunt to benefit them. Why not do it for real?
“However, why did you add “it does look a bit odd.”? Do you understand how these six words might (could) undo the many more words that you had just written?”
No it doesn’t. Apply that logic to watching a movie: “I really enjoyed that movie but the ending was a bit tame”
So (in your view) I am really saying I didn’t enjoy the movie after all, because one part didn’t impress. Which is incorrect.
I know what you’re up to here, but I’ve taken part because it wish to. Now It is done.
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Howdy and PSI Readers,
Howdy wrote ((05/06/2022 at 8:46 pm): “Howdy just wrote: “‘Real’ names mean nothing.”” It is correct. Neither you nor anyone else can prove a printed name is real to the person who wrote It. Try asking the millions of scammed people every year what a real website looks like. They won’t be able to tell you because face value, is zero value, and tells you nothing.”
Howdy, at PSI Home, have you read the information ABOUT why PSI is a Private Assoc. and the list of Members and their biographies [resumes]??? These members have names and achievements and PSI’s first article by John O’Sullivan was 01/07/2011.
PSI is what a real website looks like because it was to give people like you and me a voice to the world which is better than any scientific journal which would not publish ideas and comments of PSI’s founders, some of whom also wrote a book challenging the idea of the greenhouse effect of atmospheric carbon dioxide before the PSI website was founded. I did not discover PSI until Memorial Day (USA) 1916 when I wrote my first comment. However, I have learned the names and ideas of many real people with real achievements at this real website.
I call attention to what you and some recent others have written that has little to do with SCIENCE. And a fact is I have directed PSI Readers to common metrological measurements which absolutely refute the prediction of the scientific idea of the greenhouse effect and to the commonly known fact that fertile bird eggs must incubated (keep very near the adult bird’s body temperature) for the adult birds to reproduce themselves. Which fact absolutely refutes Darwin’s proposed idea of very, tiny and very slow steps of his proposed evolution of life.
Galileo was not successful in convincing the Pope that the Earth did not stand still and it seems I have not been successful in convincing you (Howdy) that these common observations and measurements absolutely refute these two long accepted ideas. But it was not Galileo’s fault that the Pope refused to accept the consequences of Galileo’s observation, nor is it my fault that you and many others seem to ignore what I have written.
Have a good day, Jerry
Howdy
| #
Still going on then? Last response then you can talk to yourself.
Your whole long-winded, says-nothing response shows a total lack of understanding of everything I’ve written above, and indeed anything I’ve ever said to you.
And this: “PSI is what a real website looks like”
You have not the slightest idea what I was saying when I referenced ‘real websites’. Not a clue, even though the qualifying information to know what I meant was present.
“These members have names and achievements”
Honestly, as If i don’t allready know that. It has nothing to do with reputation, or real people. Get your head out of the box!
“it seems I have not been successful in convincing you”
Nobody, least of all you, totally by your own conduct, will convince me of anything.
“nor is it my fault that you and many others seem to ignore what I have written.”
But It is your fault, and you must surely know it by now.
Darwin, Galileo, birds eggs, greenhouse effect, the pope!! Not interested. Your heroes of the past.
“I call attention to what you and some recent others have written that has little to do with SCIENCE.”
You can include yourself in that group too. I’d ask for references in regard to that, but you never provide any, and I don’t care anyway. The Admin allow it, not you, and they delete all extraneous data from comments eventually, so don’t pull me over nonsense.
Finally, get it through that thick skull of yours, my life is not defined by your rules and standards, but mine.
Howdy
| #
In defence of Anne Helmenstine, who did no wrong to deserve the attempted tarnish of reputation by another, just to get a petty one-over on others.
Anne Helmenstine is a science writer and scientist with multidisciplinary training. She holds bachelor of arts degrees in physics and mathematics from Hastings College (Hastings, Nebraska) and a doctorate of philosophy in biomedical sciences from the University of Tennessee (Knoxville, TN).
https://sciencenotes.org/about/anne-helmenstine-biography/
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi PSI Readers and Howdy,
“Finally, get it through that thick skull of yours, my life is not defined by your rules and standards, but mine.” (Howdy: 05/08/ 2022 at 3:12am). Written by a true anarchist.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Mark Tapley
| #
Jerry, since you believe whatever the Jew MSM throw out no matter how ridiculous it is I will again link for other PSI readers the excellent video with actual NASA footage and interviews with the Apollo ass-tronouts. Note at the end, Buzz Aldrin’s answer to the 8 year old girls question of “when are we going back to the moon.”
https://www.bitchute.com/video/0oANUdFS0LxK/
Here is the Apollo Lunar lander that looks like the neighborhood kids cobbled together in the back yard. Does anyone really think this piece of crap went 140,000 miles, uncoupled, landed on the moon, then took off and recoupled with the capsule orbiting the moon at over 3,000 mph.
Reply
Mark Tapley
| #
Forgot fake lunar lander on last post.
Reply
Mark Tapley
| #
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jDbUgd3MWSI
Mark Tapley
| #
Hello Howdy:
Why does the dummy just keep sitting there (as you say there is a very slight mov). Nothing is shown as far as to how the booster is supposed to have fallen back and landed backwards with only the use of thrusters.
Reply
Howdy
| #
Hi Mark,
Could be strapped in. There is more than one body moving.
I don’t know what tech they use, but as a functional attitude system, thrust vectoring sounds a legit answer to me. Perhaps they use a gyro?
Reply
Howdy
| #
Hi Mark,
Know of Voith Schnieder propulsion system? Nothing to do with rockets, but still, a superb control system for water craft. Similar idea to helicopter cyclic/collective controls. Just thought it worth mentioning as it’s a similar, stability based propulsion system with excellent station keeping ability.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voith_Schneider_Propeller
Individually addressable engine power levels. Individually addressable propeller thrust level, plus fwd/aft, and steering wheel for overall thrust direction. A proper, worthwhile application of science.
Video of the system in action: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mTkVIebREhA
Reply
Mark Tapley
| #
Hello Howdy:
Rarely can get JewTube on weekends (or lots of other times) due high traffic on the channel I guess, so was not able to watch video. I understand they have directional propulsion. On the Bezos video they did not show the rocket booster return to earth and land standing up. Because it didn’t happen. I think the the capsule parachuting was CGI, which has been greatly improved since the fake airliners of 911. I find it suspicious that you can barely see through the smudged up windows.
We know that the Apollo program was fake. As was the shuttle flights and the space station or else NASA would not need to put out videos that are obviously using CGI. Even videos with the dumb ass women ass-tronauts with their hair froze upright. Which brings up another question for PSI readers. Now I admit I don’t know much about any of this but if a space station (weighing several thousand pounds) is orbiting the earth that means it is within the earths gravity. How is it that the people in it would not be subjected to that gravitational field just like the vehicle? Thanks Howdy for the information. Here are some fake ass-tronout videos from JewTube from the NASA money laundering agency:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NU0IBMUD2dw&t=16s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDqWaxfmbic&t=2248s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ot54-wbVqb4
For those with bitchute here is the video of Buzz Aldrin answering the question “when are we going back to the moon?” Also lots of official NASA fakery and ass tronaut interviews. And people actually think these scammers run by the same syndicate that are doing the fake climate change, fake war in Ukraine and fake virus are going to Mars.
https://www.bitchute.com/video/0oANUdFS0LxK/
And what about those air bubbles in space?
https://www.bitchute.com/video/NXaj3Crq1Ce0/
Reply
Howdy
| #
Hi Mark,
“I find it suspicious that you can barely see through the smudged up windows.”
I get your point there since the other window appears clear.
“On the Bezos video they did not show the rocket booster return to earth and land standing up”
On the one I saw It did. The legs extended as it landed and the engine exhaust moves around as the attitude is corrected.
Have a look at this one, though It’s also embedded tube video: https://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message4855201/pg1?c1=1&c2=1&disclaimer=Continue
Reply
Mark Tapley
| #
Hi Howdy:
My JewTube kept cutting out but you can tell the image switched around. CGI is lots better now and makes it lots easier to fake all kinds of stuff. NASA money laundering is trying to pump up the goy so they are easier to fleece with the mission to Mars (Devon Island). I am still waiting for someone to answer my question as to the ass tronouts being in zero gravity while the fake shuttle is locked in earth orbit. They either use CGI harnesses as we have seen on NASA videos or sometimes they are in the big jet while it is diving to simulate no gravity. Outside scenes are filmed under water in the special tank. They have a large green screen building set up in Louisiana as I posted in one video. Thanks for the video Howdy. Everything the Zionists do is a lie and a fraud just like the fake virus and climate scam.