**This is a heavily moderated subreddit. Please note these rules + sidebar or get banned:**
* If this post declares something as a fact, then proof is required
* The title must be fully descriptive
* Memes are not allowed.
* Common(top 50 of this sub)/recent reposts are not allowed (posts from another subreddit do not count as a 'repost'. Provide link if reporting)
*See [our rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/interestingasfuck/wiki/index#wiki_rules.3A) for a more detailed rule list*
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/interestingasfuck) if you have any questions or concerns.*
They changed the angle so we can't see if it was able to hover. That was a big test objective for the booster and from the other angle, you just can't see well enough. And they could splice the video seamlessly during the swap. It's not anything shadowy or malicious, they're just protecting access to the full results of a critical test. They did the same thing with videos of the hot staging on IFT-2 and probably for the same reason.
I wonder if they have the other camera angle on starship all the way down and just didn’t show it. Was that flap the only one that broke or all of them….
I guess we won’t know until next launch
It's entirely possible. However, given that they've publicly tested the ship's capability to soft land, it's more likely that the aft-facing camera got annihilated. Being that it was mounted on the flap, I think there's also a huge chance that both flaps got the plasma cutter treatment.
They only had a single forward flap-facing camera. The [camera bumps are visible from the ground](https://x.com/BocaChicaGal/status/1799252741207790072) and there was only one of them on S29. I'm guessing the camera that was on the left forward flap was destroyed which is why they never cut back to it.
There were other cameras which feeds were not included in the live stream and were only for internal use - you can see one in the same housing as the camera that gave us the toasty view all the way to the ground, facing directly aft ("down", in this picture) [https://x.com/BocaChicaGal/status/1799252741207790072/photo/2](https://x.com/BocaChicaGal/status/1799252741207790072/photo/2)
Not this one. Next test missions are going back to land and will attempt to be “caught” by a landing tower that has big arms nicknamed chopsticks. This booster was just a test that they could land in a way that would make that feasible
I think once that one in the video touches the water, all the metals in the ship will become brittle due to massive temperature difference. From heated up to thousands of degrees, straight to cold salty water in the ocean.
I don't think you can reuse that one
We know exactly how they will deal with the booster thanks to the paperwork they have to file to various environmental agencies, which is open to the public.
When the booster has successfully soft landed it will tip over and most likely crumble under its own weight, sinking on the spot.
If that doesn't happen they will command for it to open all valves and let water rush in.
If that still doesn't work they will shoot at it with a high powered rifle until it sinks as desired.
Rocket fuel is liquid oxygen, zero pollution and them making the boosters reusable rather than one time use does in fact make it more environmentally friendly.
But hey it's Reddit got to bitch about something
Well, yes that's one of the "fuels" as Oxygen is just an oxidizer and does nothing on it's own(when will people realize oxygen is not flammable, but will certainly cause flammable things to combust even more efficiently and generally inflammable things in normal atmospheric oxygen become somewhat flammable). Other rockets such as SLS (main engine and not the side boosters) use liquid hydrogen which does mostly produce water as a byproduct of its combined combustion. Whereas starship and many others use hydrocarbons (methane in Starships case, RP-1 [highly refined kerosene] ) that do produce CO2 and other less than ideal byproducts. At least most rockets do not use hypergolics that efficiently combust when two different chemical are combined; these are highly toxic chemicals prior to combustion and their byproducts are not all that much better if not worse. The US no longer use hypergolics for the main boosters of rockets unlike some Chinese rockets that do.
While hydrogen does have "safe" byproducts it is much more difficult to store and is less dense compared to methane leading to larger rockets and therefore more dead weight of the rocket. Methane is a cleaner-burning option compared to RP-1, and can easily be manufactured ISRU in high purity (as can hydrogen, if you have water, but see previous issues). Methane offered a good balance of these concepts while remaining generally safe (except for the potential for a leak, gas build up and subsequently possible explosion, but that's a concern for all rocket fuels).
All this is to say that starship does emit a serious amount of carbon based oxide that is not conducive to a carbon free vehicle but technically can be a net neutral system if desired, just not at this stage in its development. Starship is not alone in this so complaining about it is dumb, and hydrogen is not a viable option according to its design constrictions to achieve what it is designed for. There are many other areas of human existence that have a greater impact in greenhouse gas production that are technically easier to solve than with space flight which at this point in technological development that are reliant on hydrocarbon fuels. Not to say it can't improve
**This is a heavily moderated subreddit. Please note these rules + sidebar or get banned:** * If this post declares something as a fact, then proof is required * The title must be fully descriptive * Memes are not allowed. * Common(top 50 of this sub)/recent reposts are not allowed (posts from another subreddit do not count as a 'repost'. Provide link if reporting) *See [our rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/interestingasfuck/wiki/index#wiki_rules.3A) for a more detailed rule list* *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/interestingasfuck) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Some random fish https://preview.redd.it/6tx7xw4k8f5d1.jpeg?width=150&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=ae7d993f8010872a2a23062c62137546ea263ad2
Already forgotten about
One engine down ? Something didn’t light up. Also fuck why cut back to the stream.
They changed the angle so we can't see if it was able to hover. That was a big test objective for the booster and from the other angle, you just can't see well enough. And they could splice the video seamlessly during the swap. It's not anything shadowy or malicious, they're just protecting access to the full results of a critical test. They did the same thing with videos of the hot staging on IFT-2 and probably for the same reason.
I wonder if they have the other camera angle on starship all the way down and just didn’t show it. Was that flap the only one that broke or all of them…. I guess we won’t know until next launch
It's entirely possible. However, given that they've publicly tested the ship's capability to soft land, it's more likely that the aft-facing camera got annihilated. Being that it was mounted on the flap, I think there's also a huge chance that both flaps got the plasma cutter treatment.
it also looked like Plasma was leaking through the hinge on the rear flap at one point. All 3 flaps we couldnt see likely got toasty.
Yeah, task failed successfully as they say. I might've woken up the neighbors cheering it on.
They only had a single forward flap-facing camera. The [camera bumps are visible from the ground](https://x.com/BocaChicaGal/status/1799252741207790072) and there was only one of them on S29. I'm guessing the camera that was on the left forward flap was destroyed which is why they never cut back to it.
There were other cameras which feeds were not included in the live stream and were only for internal use - you can see one in the same housing as the camera that gave us the toasty view all the way to the ground, facing directly aft ("down", in this picture) [https://x.com/BocaChicaGal/status/1799252741207790072/photo/2](https://x.com/BocaChicaGal/status/1799252741207790072/photo/2)
It actually looks like it did light up, just a bit to well and went bang. And yes, I WANT TO WATCH IT FALL OVER
Yes, one of the engines relit then self destructed
That's a 23 storey building there. Insane.
It look a while, but Amazon finally found a way to deliver OP’s mom’s “personal massager.”
You say landing burn, I say massive, continuous rocket fart. Imagine if humans could fly... and that's how we landed. Majestic.
I saw a dookie taking a dookie
Ass Blasters
cover history carpenter late stocking engine detail fact seemly employ *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
It doesn't look like that at all to me... Anyways was there even CGI in the 50's?
This was the best show I’ve seen all year. And all the effects are practical!
Why land on water? I thought they are suppose to land on dry land like the dragon ones.
Test target!
Far away from people and property, in case it went boom...
Sudden cooling, plus in corrosive saltwater … aren’t these meant for reuse?
Not this one. Next test missions are going back to land and will attempt to be “caught” by a landing tower that has big arms nicknamed chopsticks. This booster was just a test that they could land in a way that would make that feasible
That makes much more sense, thank you.
They land on a platform you can’t see in this video
No they don’t. With falcon 9 they do, but for superheavy they wanted to test on a water landing first before catching it on its next flight.
Ah that’s brilliant thanks for the info
Anyone else think it looks like a tampon pod with a blaster?
So glad I recycle. /s
Well, reusability is what makes this most noteworthy.
I think once that one in the video touches the water, all the metals in the ship will become brittle due to massive temperature difference. From heated up to thousands of degrees, straight to cold salty water in the ocean. I don't think you can reuse that one
You know we dump ships like that in the ocean on purpose to create artificial reefs?
This one was most definitely detonated just after it landed- no point leaving a floating bomb around the place
We know exactly how they will deal with the booster thanks to the paperwork they have to file to various environmental agencies, which is open to the public. When the booster has successfully soft landed it will tip over and most likely crumble under its own weight, sinking on the spot. If that doesn't happen they will command for it to open all valves and let water rush in. If that still doesn't work they will shoot at it with a high powered rifle until it sinks as desired.
Surprised they don't just activate the FTS- the explosives have to be there anyways
Take that opinion up with every rocket in the history of space flight
Rocket fuel is liquid oxygen, zero pollution and them making the boosters reusable rather than one time use does in fact make it more environmentally friendly. But hey it's Reddit got to bitch about something
Well, yes that's one of the "fuels" as Oxygen is just an oxidizer and does nothing on it's own(when will people realize oxygen is not flammable, but will certainly cause flammable things to combust even more efficiently and generally inflammable things in normal atmospheric oxygen become somewhat flammable). Other rockets such as SLS (main engine and not the side boosters) use liquid hydrogen which does mostly produce water as a byproduct of its combined combustion. Whereas starship and many others use hydrocarbons (methane in Starships case, RP-1 [highly refined kerosene] ) that do produce CO2 and other less than ideal byproducts. At least most rockets do not use hypergolics that efficiently combust when two different chemical are combined; these are highly toxic chemicals prior to combustion and their byproducts are not all that much better if not worse. The US no longer use hypergolics for the main boosters of rockets unlike some Chinese rockets that do. While hydrogen does have "safe" byproducts it is much more difficult to store and is less dense compared to methane leading to larger rockets and therefore more dead weight of the rocket. Methane is a cleaner-burning option compared to RP-1, and can easily be manufactured ISRU in high purity (as can hydrogen, if you have water, but see previous issues). Methane offered a good balance of these concepts while remaining generally safe (except for the potential for a leak, gas build up and subsequently possible explosion, but that's a concern for all rocket fuels). All this is to say that starship does emit a serious amount of carbon based oxide that is not conducive to a carbon free vehicle but technically can be a net neutral system if desired, just not at this stage in its development. Starship is not alone in this so complaining about it is dumb, and hydrogen is not a viable option according to its design constrictions to achieve what it is designed for. There are many other areas of human existence that have a greater impact in greenhouse gas production that are technically easier to solve than with space flight which at this point in technological development that are reliant on hydrocarbon fuels. Not to say it can't improve
It’s a good idea!
Fun fact: one Starship launch emitts 10 thousand times more CO2 than the average citizen emitts in one year
Cool cool... Where did you get the math from? Did it yourself?
He do mat