SpaceX launches

In reply to DasAuto :

I'll bet they'd love to see it, but recovery may not be practical. It's in the Indian Ocean. Or, more likely, under it.

I can't believe they didn't have any ground cameras (well, water cameras) for external views of the landings.

That was incredible! My jaw was on the floor for the entire re-entry.

I wonder if the Chinese will be  sending something like the Glomar Explorer to the Indian Ocean landing site ?

Duke said:

I can't believe they didn't have any ground cameras (well, water cameras) for external views of the landings.

It's quite possible they don't have the re-entry guidance system down well enough to aim at a specific a specific location yet.  Re-entry from orbital speeds is a chaotic process, in the technical sense that very small changes in the starting conditions can have massive effects on where the object ends up.  Capsules in the 60s would often end up dozens of miles from the recovery vessels.  The Shuttle went to a specific location, yes, but it had a lot more aerodynamic control surfaces than Starship does.

Clearly SpaceX feels that they can get it to target a specific location eventually, but given that so far the number of (mostly) successful re-entries for a system like that stands at 1, I wouldn't be at all surprised if they haven't perfected it yet. :)

If I were SpaceX marketing, I'd look at installing some cameras with covers that can be closed during re-entry and opened afterwards to protect against damage, so that they can show clean footage of the landing.

Good job Space X!

Whomever designed that fin should get some sort of bonus!   Clearly, there needs to be some changes, but man, the fact that it stayed on was impressive!

I also suspect the fin issues may have taken it off course a bit, so the ship waiting for it may have been too far away for a video.

In reply to aircooled :

That camera, too :)

Keith Tanner said:

In reply to aircooled :

That camera, too :)

I'm surprised they got any telemetry because of the data blackout caused by plasma ionization during re-entry.

Worth watching as per usual!

In reply to VolvoHeretic :

I think the "trick" was that they could transmit to Starlink satellites that where above the rocket when re-entering.  The size of the ship created enough of a hole in the plasma so at least one satellite could be seen (having crazy numbers of them of course is helpful).  

aircooled said:

I think the "trick" was that they could transmit to Starlink satellites that where above the rocket when re-entering.  The size of the ship created enough of a hole in the plasma so at least one satellite could be seen (having crazy numbers of them of course is helpful).  

They could apparently get telemetry from the shuttle during re-entry, but yeah, camera footage is only made possible by having enough Starlink sats that there's basically guaranteed to be one lined up with the "hole" in the ionization that goes straight backwards.

In reply to adam525i :

Before I turned off the sound and the annoying commentary, I remember them saying that they put thinner tiles on certain places to see what would happen. I hope it wasn't on the flapper wings.

In reply to VolvoHeretic :

There were a few spots where tiles were left off, but they weren't critical ones. I think the camera was looking at those flaps because they were a known problem area.

Apparently one of the design changes with upcoming Ships is to move the flaps a little more to leeward. That should help. They're currently right on the sides, at 3 and 9 o'clock if you will.

codrus (Forum Supporter) said:

Duke said:

I can't believe they didn't have any ground cameras (well, water cameras) for external views of the landings.

It's quite possible they don't have the re-entry guidance system down well enough to aim at a specific a specific location yet.  Re-entry from orbital speeds is a chaotic process, in the technical sense that very small changes in the starting conditions can have massive effects on where the object ends up.  Capsules in the 60s would often end up dozens of miles from the recovery vessels.  The Shuttle went to a specific location, yes, but it had a lot more aerodynamic control surfaces than Starship does.

Clearly SpaceX feels that they can get it to target a specific location eventually, but given that so far the number of (mostly) successful re-entries for a system like that stands at 1, I wouldn't be at all surprised if they haven't perfected it yet. :)

If I were SpaceX marketing, I'd look at installing some cameras with covers that can be closed during re-entry and opened afterwards to protect against damage, so that they can show clean footage of the landing.

It's also worth reiterating just how big this thing is. It's also falling through the sky enormously fast, and SpaceX didn't know if it would be under complete control. At the point where a Falcon 9 starts the landing burn, the ship was still going something like Mach 10. So yeah, there was a big exclusion zone.

The black part is the ship, the silver part is the booster. 

In previous flights, SpaceX has released other camera views after the fact. So we might be able to see something.

Apparently the booster landing went so well they're considering catching it on the next flight. That'll be something right out of sci-fi.

Manley is guessing they will wait until they finish building their new launch tower before trying to catch it.  

That might be a good idea, because if things go wrong and it damages the tower, they will have to wait to repair it until they can launch again.  Of course if they are confident of the control, and the ability to know when they don't have it (and can abort), it might happen.

I keep eyeballing those giant tanks right next to the tower... filled with splody' things.... a bad landing could go VERY bad, very quickly (I am sure the clear zone considers that of course)

In reply to Keith Tanner :

That sure looks top heavy. It will be interesting to see how the Star Ship lands on the Moon at an angle what with probably no flat places anywhere.

In reply to aircooled :

The way Falcons land is they aim away from the target until right at the end - this means that if something goes wrong, they splash down in the water instead of taking out the landing pad/barge. The Super Heavy booster has a lower minimum thrust-to-weight ratio than a Falcon 9, so it can actually hover. The Falcon landing is a very dynamic "hoverslam", there's not a lot of room for error. Super Heavy can come in a lot slower, especially during development flights. 

In reply to VolvoHeretic :

Only the black part would be the moon lander, and the heavy part is the engines which are right at the bottom. The CG is probably a lot lower than you think.

Keith Tanner said:

Only the black part would be the moon lander, and the heavy part is the engines which are right at the bottom. The CG is probably a lot lower than you think.

Also, the moon's gravity is only 1/6th that of Earth so you can get a lot more landing gear support for the same weight.

Also, til they have the new design, they are separating the hot start ring. That was pretty cool. They will have a design, eventually, like the Russians use. Did you guys see the shockwaves through the smoke and even the clouds? 33 (32) thundering engines are awesome!

In reply to Iusedtobefast :

There's a rumor floating around that on IFT-3 the hot stage ring may have come loose and really shaken things up with the onboard guidance and a sudden shift in CG. That could be a reason we see the booster grid fins going absolutely bonkers and overcorrecting during its descent.

In reply to Parker with too many Projects :

It also failed to light about half of the required engines for the landing burn.

I bet that hot ring made a pretty big splash ahead of the booster landing shortly after.

In reply to Keith Tanner :

I wonder what the booster looked like penciling into the gulf at supersonic speeds...