PJYoung said:

---

TexAgs91 said:

---

PJYoung said:

---

Ah SpeaceX said they meant to land on 1 engine. Excellent. What a huge step forward.

---

I think they mean after they turn it upright and decelerate, then they can land on one engine.

---

Yeah, last week i thought they were saying they would light all 3 engines then shutdown the worst 1 and land on two.

---

There is too much thrust to land with 2 even at minimum throttle. I would decelerate to zero and then start rising again. They could do the whole landing with 1 engine, but they would have to start the maneuver a lot higher and gradually slow down. With 2 engines, they can start it lower. The reason they started 3 this time is because last time one of the two failed and it couldn't slow down enough to keep from crashing. With 3 they have some redundancy and one can fail and they still have 2 to complete the maneuver.

There is still a risk of the single engine failing when it's doing the final landing burn. That would make the rocket drop like a brick and crash. If they were able to throttle down enough to run 2 or even 3 the entire way down then they would have a lot more redundancy and would be able to lose 1 or 2 engines and make up for it with the remaining engine.

They definitely changed plans.

First was 2 burned all the way.

Next plan was light 3, then burn 2 for landing. Never tested.

This time they lit 3, then only burned 1 for landing. I think that's the best answer because you can use all 3 to decelerate and make sure you're stable, then running only 1 allows you to keep the throttle in a more reliable range.

Higher flow likely means better response to changes in throttle as well.

Wonder why it landed so hard after all that - it really seems like they did the hard part right.

Decay said:

---

They definitely changed plans.

First was 2 burned all the way.

Next plan was light 3, then burn 2 for landing. Never tested.

This time they lit 3, then only burned 1 for landing. I think that's the best answer because you can use all 3 to decelerate and make sure you're stable, then running only 1 allows you to keep the throttle in a more reliable range.

Higher flow likely means better response to changes in throttle as well.

Wonder why it landed so hard after all that - it really seems like they did the hard part right.

---

Are you certain the intention was for two engines to turn off?

I believe some of the NSF photos showed the landing legs didn't successfully deploy. That probably had a little to do with it.

I'm still shocked. During the ascent, it looked like one of the engines was burning at a different color, so I really thought that we were in for another crash due to Raptor failure. But what a huge accomplishment.

Maximus_Meridius said:

---

I believe some of the NSF photos showed the landing legs didn't successfully deploy. That probably had a little to do with it.

I'm still shocked. During the ascent, it looked like one of the engines was burning at a different color, so I really thought that we were in for another crash due to Raptor failure. But what a huge accomplishment.

---

I'm not sure whether the legs would have helped whether they deployed or not.

Watch the spacex feed. They bounced it on landing. I think that would have crushed their current leg system...

My take on the current landing legs.

I think they know the current legs are junk. I think they see landing right now as "yay, cool" but the real test is engine performance, fuel flow and pressurization issues (like we've seen in earlier launches), maneuverability, flight characteristics, and so forth. They've got to get this thing orbital, and learn to fly it, errr belly-flop it home.

If they stick the landing great, if they crush the legs and pancake it, no biggie.

The current 3( or 2)-1 step down looks a lot like the high retro thrust landings the falcon has started using. You light more engines and give a short blast, them make the final TD with one engine burning. It means you're burning multiple engines at a low throttle, but it ends up more efficient. In this case they just went for extra overkill to have redundancy.

In fairness.... this was the third flight, but the first time it ever successfully made final approach.

The very end of this is right before the kaboom, you can see it sitting on the shroud, the legs definitely collapse.

You can also see the little bounce when it lands.

Just watching the landing, it looks like they may have had trouble shutting off the methan flow in an engine, that was what was on fire, then the landing legs collapsed and damaged the lower structure. Just a guess


Oops here's the video

Ag_of_08 said:

---

The very end of this is right before the kaboom, you can see it sitting on the shroud, the legs definitely collapse.

You can also see the little bounce when it lands.

Just watching the landing, it looks like they may have had trouble shutting off the methan flow in an engine, that was what was on fire, then the landing legs collapsed and damaged the lower structure. Just a guess


Oops here's the video

---

Why does this video look so weird to me? The rocket itself looks so odd and then the manuvears themselves.

Because it's shot with a camera that's not a potato( or at least streamed in non potato quality), and it's a MASSIVE rocket propelled silo.... there's really no reference beyond these three flights.

I domt know where you're headed with that statement, but have a hunch....

Honestly it looks weird to me too but it's just the scale I think. Moving like that, you instinctively assume a certain size of thing. But this is as tall as the space shuttle... SRBs and big orange tank included.

It practically defies intuition. It's marvelous.

Any ideas how they could make (bigger) landing legs that could protrude outward after a re-entry? It does seem like a challenge if they are not going to be housed somehow inside the engine bay vs. a F9-style flip down.

But again precisely controlling that one raptor is perhaps something they will get much better at over time. It might explain why they want to 'catch' the SH, too.

Ag_of_08 said:

---

Because it's shot with a camera that's not a potato( or at least streamed in non potato quality), and it's a MASSIVE rocket propelled silo.... there's really no reference beyond these three flights.

I domt know where you're headed with that statement, but have a hunch....

---

I just watched it a second time and this video looks fake. During liftoff, the rocket is moving so slowly with hardly any exhaust coming off in mid air or on the ground for that matter. Then it free falls back to the ground perfectly sideways? With the help of side trusters? And then a 90 deg correction probably 600ft above ground?

Also everything on the pad looks so small, making it look like the rocket is huge yet it the main camera angle is above that. Speaking of camera angles, after the 90deg correction, does it look like that camera angle is directly below the rocket?

Either way, this video looks weird

They likely have a camera on the landing pad for those shots just pointing up and broadcasting to the live feed, no different than the cameras on the second stages of their rockets that live stream during launches and then are burned up upon re-entry from space.

Having been out to Boca Chica myself, it's hard to get a perspective for just how dang enormous the thing is until you see it up close.

This epic thread just got better.

Tell us more...

joerobert_pete06 said:

---

Ag_of_08 said:

---

Because it's shot with a camera that's not a potato( or at least streamed in non potato quality), and it's a MASSIVE rocket propelled silo.... there's really no reference beyond these three flights.

I domt know where you're headed with that statement, but have a hunch....

---

I just watched it a second time and this video looks fake. During liftoff, the rocket is moving so slowly with hardly any exhaust coming off in mid air or on the ground for that matter. Then it free falls back to the ground perfectly sideways? With the help of side trusters? And then a 90 deg correction probably 600ft above ground?

Also everything on the pad looks so small, making it look like the rocket is huge yet it the main camera angle is above that. Speaking of camera angles, after the 90deg correction, does it look like that camera angle is directly below the rocket?

Either way, this video looks weird

---

You do realize this isn't the only video of the launch, right?

As others mentioned... the hard part is wrapping your head around the scale of this thing. There just aren't good frames of reference for it. Things look wrong because of how big it really is.

Also, the high definition footage of stuff like this is pretty unprecedented. We're used to seeing much lower res stuff for this kind of thing and the high def stuff was the movies.

Size comparison for Starship (Approximation but close enough) and remember, there will be an even larger first stage below Starship...

Brad06ag said:

---

As others mentioned... the hard part is wrapping your head around the scale of this thing. There just aren't good frames of reference for it. Things look wrong because of how big it really is.

Also, the high definition footage of stuff like this is pretty unprecedented. We're used to seeing much lower res stuff for this kind of thing and the high def stuff was the movies.

Size comparison for Starship (Approximation but close enough) and remember, there will be an even larger first stage below Starship...

---

To go along with your image.



ETA: I wonder when they will get started testing BFR booster?

That's the SpaceX feed. That's the one I watched yesterday. Does it look CGI? A bit. All of theirs have been like that. I'm assuming that's because their cameras are at a way higher frame rate and refresh rate much less way higher quality resolution. They would need them to be to freeze and pull still shots at very precise moments.

Ag for Life said:

---

joerobert_pete06 said:

---

Ag_of_08 said:

---

Because it's shot with a camera that's not a potato( or at least streamed in non potato quality), and it's a MASSIVE rocket propelled silo.... there's really no reference beyond these three flights.

I domt know where you're headed with that statement, but have a hunch....

---

I just watched it a second time and this video looks fake. During liftoff, the rocket is moving so slowly with hardly any exhaust coming off in mid air or on the ground for that matter. Then it free falls back to the ground perfectly sideways? With the help of side trusters? And then a 90 deg correction probably 600ft above ground?

Also everything on the pad looks so small, making it look like the rocket is huge yet it the main camera angle is above that. Speaking of camera angles, after the 90deg correction, does it look like that camera angle is directly below the rocket?

Either way, this video looks weird

---

You do realize this isn't the only video of the launch, right?

---

I am interested in watching those

Here are just a couple:

NASA Spaceflight
Everyday Astronaut

Here is the one I was watching yesterday. Everyday Astronaut queued up to seconds before launch.

joerobert_pete06 said:

---

Ag for Life said:

---

joerobert_pete06 said:

---

Ag_of_08 said:

---

Because it's shot with a camera that's not a potato( or at least streamed in non potato quality), and it's a MASSIVE rocket propelled silo.... there's really no reference beyond these three flights.

I domt know where you're headed with that statement, but have a hunch....

---

I just watched it a second time and this video looks fake. During liftoff, the rocket is moving so slowly with hardly any exhaust coming off in mid air or on the ground for that matter. Then it free falls back to the ground perfectly sideways? With the help of side trusters? And then a 90 deg correction probably 600ft above ground?

Also everything on the pad looks so small, making it look like the rocket is huge yet it the main camera angle is above that. Speaking of camera angles, after the 90deg correction, does it look like that camera angle is directly below the rocket?

Either way, this video looks weird

---

You do realize this isn't the only video of the launch, right?

---

I am interested in watching those

---

Independent YouTuber covering it for 9+hours yesterday. I have it queued up to launch point

Mathguy64 said:

---

That's the SpaceX feed. That's the one I watched yesterday. Does it look CGI? A bit. All of theirs have been like that. I'm assuming that's because their cameras are at a way higher frame rate and refresh rate much less way higher quality resolution. They would need them to be to freeze and pull still shots at very precise moments.

---

Framerate is definitely a part of it. The spaceX stuff is at 1080p60 streaming and others were 1080p30. I'm sure spacex is filming at even higher rates...

aginresearch said:

---

Here are just a couple:

NASA Spaceflight
Everyday Astronaut

---

Okay I guess I should believe it, just looks unreal. The announcers are selling it pretty good

joerobert_pete06 said:

---

aginresearch said:

---

Here are just a couple:

NASA Spaceflight
Everyday Astronaut

---

Okay I guess I should believe it, just looks unreal. The announcers are selling it pretty good

---

Heh, if you want a conspiracy theory about rocket flight that has teeth, go figure out why SLS still exists

I seriously cannot believe that there is an Aggie on this thread that thinks this is fake.
Why would they fake it?
There are literally thousands of people within visual range of the pad watching this.
Just to help out here, the world is not flat....

Centerpole90 said:

---

Link removed. You got good ones above.

---

Fake graphics, fake crowd noise,... Fake news my friend

Also earth is flat, we never landed on the moon, and there is a face on mars

joerobert_pete06 said:

---

Ag for Life said:

---

joerobert_pete06 said:

---

Ag_of_08 said:

---

Because it's shot with a camera that's not a potato( or at least streamed in non potato quality), and it's a MASSIVE rocket propelled silo.... there's really no reference beyond these three flights.

I domt know where you're headed with that statement, but have a hunch....

---

I just watched it a second time and this video looks fake. During liftoff, the rocket is moving so slowly with hardly any exhaust coming off in mid air or on the ground for that matter. Then it free falls back to the ground perfectly sideways? With the help of side trusters? And then a 90 deg correction probably 600ft above ground?

Also everything on the pad looks so small, making it look like the rocket is huge yet it the main camera angle is above that. Speaking of camera angles, after the 90deg correction, does it look like that camera angle is directly below the rocket?

Either way, this video looks weird

---

You do realize this isn't the only video of the launch, right?

---

I am interested in watching those

---

After you look them up you should check out some of the "moon landings". I hear those are fake too

Or drive down to Boca Chico and check out all the props they have lying around. I went there over Christmas and they had the prop SN9 as well as fake debris from SN8 on the pad

Change Detection said:

---

I seriously cannot believe that there is an Aggie on this thread that thinks this is fake.
Why would they fake it?
There are literally thousands of people within visual range of the pad watching this.
Just to help out here, the world is not flat....

---

Maybe he's a fake Aggie. I hope so.

Brad06ag said:

---

Mathguy64 said:

---

That's the SpaceX feed. That's the one I watched yesterday. Does it look CGI? A bit. All of theirs have been like that. I'm assuming that's because their cameras are at a way higher frame rate and refresh rate much less way higher quality resolution. They would need them to be to freeze and pull still shots at very precise moments.

---

Framerate is definitely a part of it. The spaceX stuff is at 1080p60 streaming and others were 1080p30. I'm sure spacex is filming at even higher rates...

---

I bet they film in 8K at least at 240Hz.

joerobert_pete06 said:

---

aginresearch said:

---

Here are just a couple:

NASA Spaceflight
Everyday Astronaut

---

Okay I guess I should believe it, just looks unreal. The announcers are selling it pretty good

---

Framerate, focal length, lots of different camera recording variables can make a video look fake when it's not. We're used to watching lower quality video feeds on TV/film, because that medium has its origins in a time where they were actually recording to film/hand cranking the exposures. People notice and dislike when those variables are change dramatically, and complain about it look too real/fake, even though it looks more like real life.

It launches slow, because that's what it has to do. When it's running missions it will never, ever be this slow. They only have 3 engines installed (it will have 6 in its final form, carried by a booster with 28), and to get it to go to only 10km high (their legal limits for this test flight) they have to launch with just those 3 engines and then during ascent shut off 2 of them. At apogee the throttle is such that they actually hover, then do their bellyflop maneuver and shut off the engines.

On one of their Falcon 9 missions they hit 10km in around a minute and if they were to completely shut off their engines at 10km they would coast to a much, much higher altitude. If they did that on this mission they'd have to go through FAA review.

I understand it not looking real, it doesn't look real to me either, but I know it is, because there's no reason to fake it and they couldn't pull it off if they tried. It's unreal and awesome. Watch again when they do an orbital mission (maybe at the end of the year), it won't look as slow, will look more and less real.

hph6203 said:

---

joerobert_pete06 said:

---

aginresearch said:

---

Here are just a couple:

NASA Spaceflight
Everyday Astronaut

---

Okay I guess I should believe it, just looks unreal. The announcers are selling it pretty good

---

Framerate, focal length, lots of different camera recording variables can make a video look fake when it's not. We're used to watching lower quality video feeds on TV/film, because that medium has its origins in a time where they were actually recording to film/hand cranking the exposures. People notice and dislike when those variables are change dramatically, and complain about it look too real/fake, even though it looks more like real life.

It launches slow, because that's what it has to do. When it's running missions it will never, ever be this slow. They only have 3 engines installed (it will have 6 in its final form, carried by a booster with 28), and to get it to go to only 10km high (their legal limits for this test flight) they have to launch with just those 3 engines and then during ascent shut off 2 of them. At apogee the throttle is such that they actually hover, then do their bellyflop maneuver and shut off the engines.

On one of their Falcon 9 missions they hit 10km in around a minute and if they were to completely shut off their engines at 10km they would coast to a much, much higher altitude. If they did that on this mission they'd have to go through FAA review.

I understand it not looking real, it doesn't look real to me either, but I know it is, because there's no reason to fake it and they couldn't pull it off if they tried. It's unreal and awesome. Watch again when they do an orbital mission (maybe at the end of the year), it won't look as slow, will look more and less real.

---

This is a good Aggie response, the others not so much