Starship 12.5km launch

[wraper]

EDIT: watch at 1:47:00
EDIT2: Just in case somebody doesn't know how large this thing is, it's 9m (30ft) wide and about 50m (160ft) tall.

[wraper]

1 minute left, will be spectacular in either way it ends up.

[wraper]

Well, it almost worked. Successfully hit the target.

[Gyro]

That was awesome! 

[rdl]

It was incredible how close they came to a perfect test flight. It was so cool to see it floating down sideways all shiny in the sunlight. I hope they figure out the fuel pressure problem quickly and try again soon.

[BravoV]

Love to see how the big fat ass rocket while falling with horizontal position, and then suddenly turned into vertical, slowing the fall and approached the land. 

Not a rocket scientist, as an avg. Joe, I considered that is a really close to success, and have really high confident on next trial. 

Wonder how much recorded data they've gathered. 

[sandalcandal]

That was so cool

[edy]

It was definitely spectacular to watch but now they have to go back and figure out why this thing either miscalculated its speed of approach on landing or perhaps didn't have enough thrust to carry out the instructions it was intending. Was it a matter of sensory input, calculations/feedback/prediction, or lack of proper motor output?

[wraper]

It was definitely spectacular to watch but now they have to go back and figure out why this thing either miscalculated its speed of approach on landing or perhaps didn't have enough thrust to carry out the instructions it was intending. Was it a matter of sensory input, calculations/feedback/prediction, or lack of proper motor output?

It was answered within minutes after crash by Elon on Twitter. There was too small pressure in secondary tank used for landing. Thus only one engine kept somewhat working with barely any thrust. It's not like maneuver was miscalculated.

[Gyro]

I love Manley's description of "engine rich exhaust". That's even better than 'RUD'. 

[Brumby]

I love Manley's description of "engine rich exhaust". That's even better than 'RUD'. 

Made me smile too.   

[S. Petrukhin]

Please, explain what makes SpaceX so happy? With modern tools, they try to repeat what was done many years ago with primitive tools. Yes, well done, it's good that there is work for engineers, but this is the invention of the wheel.

I bought a tube from an old soviet scope and want to make it a three-beam high-voltage low-freq scope with isolated inputs - will you be happy for me? 

[BravoV]

Please, explain what makes SpaceX so happy? With modern tools, they try to repeat what was done many years ago with primitive tools. Yes, well done, it's good that there is work for engineers, but this is the invention of the wheel.

I bought a tube from an old soviet scope and want to make it a three-beam high-voltage low-freq scope with isolated inputs - will you be happy for me? 

Well, at least for me, SpaceX did the inverted what Russia had done, which is turned the rocket falling in horizontal position, into vertical position while slowing down to be landed, while Russia as below example on the supersonic missile launch, that turned the rocket vertically into horizontal and leaving the land with acceleration.

Ok, similar ... but ... nahh .. forget it. 

[S. Petrukhin]

Please, explain what makes SpaceX so happy? With modern tools, they try to repeat what was done many years ago with primitive tools. Yes, well done, it's good that there is work for engineers, but this is the invention of the wheel.

I bought a tube from an old soviet scope and want to make it a three-beam high-voltage low-freq scope with isolated inputs - will you be happy for me? 

Well, at least for me, SpaceX did the inverted what Russia had done, which is turned the rocket falling in horizontal position, into vertical position while slowing down to be landed, while Russia as below example on the supersonic missile launch, that turned the rocket vertically into horizontal and leaving the land with acceleration.

Ok, similar ... but ... nahh .. forget it. 

I didn't really understand what it was about... 

In the video, the rocket is fired vertically because it is universal and very fast - you do not need to slowly turn around before launching, it can turn itself instantly. In addition, the main engine starts after the rocket is ejected by an ejecting projectile so that it does not blow anyone away on the ground. This has long been used in the missiles of many countries.

And vertical jet landing has been used many times by NASA to land on the Moon. Soviet lunar rovers also had a vertical landing.
This is a common thing, and all space countries already have these technologies.

[BravoV]

In the video, the rocket is fired vertically because it is universal and very fast - you do not need to slowly turn around before launching, it can turn itself instantly. In addition, the main engine starts after the rocket is ejected by an ejecting projectile so that it does not blow anyone away on the ground. This has long been used in the missiles of many countries.

Cmiiw, I thought these kind launch style is to ensure the missile attitude is low, hence low radar footprint, either while cruising to the target or protecting the launch location. 

Traditional missile like ICBM or common ones, launched vertically, and do not need to turn horizontally so fast right ?

And vertical jet landing has been used many times by NASA to land on the Moon. Soviet lunar rovers also had a vertical landing.
This is a common thing, and all space countries already have these technologies.

Moon has no atmosphere (hence no side wind) and much lower gravity, so these alone are not a major factors on the difficulty/complexity ?

[S. Petrukhin]

By the way, pay attention: the rocket turns around the center due to two steering engines at the edges. For some reason, SpaseX decided to rotate one engine around the nose, which I think is unwise. But I can be wrong, probably a fairly powerful main engine on the nose did not fit.

And I also have an idea that rockets don't fly backwards, that the problems started earlier, when the skin fires were visible. And then it fell with the engine turned off very hot. And the red, then the green color of the flame, I think, from the fact that something melted and burned there.

Besides, if I'm not mistaken, Ilon understands Russian a little, probably he watched one wonderful Soviet movie "KIN-DZA-DZA" with such a device "Pepelats", but did not understand that this is a comedy...

[Vovk_Z]

Please, explain what makes SpaceX so happy? With modern tools, they try to repeat what was done many years ago with primitive tools. Yes, well done, it's good that there is work for engineers, but this is the invention of the wheel.

I bought a tube from an old soviet scope and want to make it a three-beam high-voltage low-freq scope with isolated inputs - will you be happy for me? 

Many years ago the whole Soviet Union (or the USA), a very large country (almost the whole continent) worked together to make a rocket. It cost too much for the Soviet people. Now it is done by a quite small private company.
P.S. And jealousy is a bad thing.

[S. Petrukhin]

I recommend watching a funny сomedy with a great philosophy (have subtitles).

[S. Petrukhin]

Please, explain what makes SpaceX so happy? With modern tools, they try to repeat what was done many years ago with primitive tools. Yes, well done, it's good that there is work for engineers, but this is the invention of the wheel.

I bought a tube from an old soviet scope and want to make it a three-beam high-voltage low-freq scope with isolated inputs - will you be happy for me? 

Many years ago the whole Soviet Union (or the USA), a very large country (almost the whole continent) worked together to make a rocket. It cost too much for the Soviet people. Now it is done by a quite small private company.
P.S. And jealousy is a bad thing.

But this private company is located in a country that has long mastered space. Do you think this private company doesn't have the technology and expertise? After all, NASA is very seriously involved, obviously investing a lot of money.

Where do you see jealousy? I am glad that he has a lot of money and spends it on the development of technology, that engineers have a good job. But somehow the result reminds me Arduino...

And I still can't understand why american missiles need russian engines. Where did the american ones go?

[S. Petrukhin]

In the video, the rocket is fired vertically because it is universal and very fast - you do not need to slowly turn around before launching, it can turn itself instantly. In addition, the main engine starts after the rocket is ejected by an ejecting projectile so that it does not blow anyone away on the ground. This has long been used in the missiles of many countries.

Cmiiw, I thought these kind launch style is to ensure the missile attitude is low, hence low radar footprint, either while cruising to the target or protecting the launch location. 

Traditional missile like ICBM or common ones, launched vertically, and do not need to turn horizontally so fast right ?

And vertical jet landing has been used many times by NASA to land on the Moon. Soviet lunar rovers also had a vertical landing.
This is a common thing, and all space countries already have these technologies.

Moon has no atmosphere (hence no side wind) and much lower gravity, so these alone are not a major factors on the difficulty/complexity ?

Yes, agree. This rocket is flying low. But I was talking about a more convenient start. Intercontinental missiles have a different task - they rather need to escape up into orbit, where they can no longer be caught.

But in any case, it is always more profitable to turn around the center than around the edge.

Landing on the Moon is just less energy-intensive, algorithmically it differs from landing on Earth only in coefficients.
And, if you remember, the Moon landings were performed manually by humans with very limited fuel resources.
The American guys did it successfully several times (I don't remember how many - 9?). Almost visually!

Are modern positioning and computing tools afraid of the wind? 
So go ask Armstrong how to do it. He trained on the Earth and did it like everyone else. 

[wraper]

Please, explain what makes SpaceX so happy? With modern tools, they try to repeat what was done many years ago with primitive tools. Yes, well done, it's good that there is work for engineers, but this is the invention of the wheel.

Really? Please tell me who ever landed the rocket or even simply space capsule in this way. Not to say no one besides them landed orbital class rocket yet.

By the way, pay attention: the rocket turns around the center due to two steering engines at the edges. For some reason, SpaseX decided to rotate one engine around the nose, which I think is unwise.

Starship rotates by using main rocket engines. On the nose there are only comparably weak cold gas thrusters for rapidly correcting it's position.

And I also have an idea that rockets don't fly backwards, that the problems started earlier, when the skin fires were visible. And then it fell with the engine turned off very hot. And the red, then the green color of the flame, I think, from the fact that something melted and burned there.

They do and you apparently have no clue. Their Falcon 9/heavy boosters land with engines first just fine. Read the thread instead of baking baseless claims. Engines malfunctioned due to lack of pressure in fuel tank.

Are modern positioning and computing tools afraid of the wind? 

If it's so easy to land 15 story building falling down from space, why nobody else did this?

[S. Petrukhin]

Please, explain what makes SpaceX so happy? With modern tools, they try to repeat what was done many years ago with primitive tools. Yes, well done, it's good that there is work for engineers, but this is the invention of the wheel.

Really? Please tell me who ever landed the rocket or even simply space capsule in this way. Not to say no one besides them landed orbital class rocket yet.

By the way, pay attention: the rocket turns around the center due to two steering engines at the edges. For some reason, SpaseX decided to rotate one engine around the nose, which I think is unwise.

Starship rotates by using main rocket engines. On the nose there are only comparably weak cold gas thrusters for rapidly correcting it's position.

And I also have an idea that rockets don't fly backwards, that the problems started earlier, when the skin fires were visible. And then it fell with the engine turned off very hot. And the red, then the green color of the flame, I think, from the fact that something melted and burned there.

They do and you apparently have no clue. Their Falcon 9/heavy boosters land with engines first just fine. Read the thread instead of baking baseless claims. Engines malfunctioned due to lack of pressure in fuel tank.

Are modern positioning and computing tools afraid of the wind? 

If it's so easy to land 15 story building falling down from space, why nobody else did this?

Can you walk backwards? Why do you usually go to the store, but don't come back from it in reverse? 

Yes, the steps are landing. What's unusual about this? Is it necessary? Is it safe? Do you think that all space companies would not be able to make such a landing and then some unique discovery? A man who just threw batteries from a store into a car? 
It's a good show, I think. I'm not saying that it's bad, on the contrary - it's better than many other things. But I don't see any admiration.
Maybe I'm wrong, don't worry - just my opinion. 

[S. Petrukhin]

If it's so easy to land 15 story building falling down from space, why nobody else did this?

Watch the movie I suggested.  I think you understand Russian very well. Relax and smile. 

[wraper]

But this private company is located in a country that has long mastered space. Do you think this private company doesn't have the technology and expertise? After all, NASA is very seriously involved, obviously investing a lot of money.

They received way less money from NASA and did a way better job than traditional space companies. And it was not a free money but money to do particular job for NASA. Starship is developed using their own money.

And I still can't understand why american missiles need russian engines. Where did the american ones go?

American missiles don't use Russian engines. Atlas V rocket does, because sometime in the past ULA decided its a good deal financially. If not US government support of their over expensive rockets, they would be bust. They barely ever launched any commercial loads. They are not competitive when Spacex is around.

But somehow the result reminds me Arduino...

Their Rockets are way more reliable than your non-arduino Proton. F9/Heavy version B5, did not have a single launch failure ever (45 launches so far).

[BravoV]

Are modern positioning and computing tools afraid of the wind? 

If it's so easy to land 15 story building falling down from space, why nobody else did this?

I get it now, I guess we're all "mis-understood"  what S. Petrukhin intents to say, that Rusia is so rich, that throwing away such big rocket stage (pic below) is no big deal, probably for Rusia its like wiping nose with tissue paper and throw it away.

Right ?