Did Starship explode during IFT-4?? Plus, SpaceX prepares for its most dangerous mission yet!
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 6 июл 2024
- A new leaked photo suggests that Superheavy might have exploded at the end of IFT-4. Is this legit? And if so, why would SpaceX hide this?
PLUS, SpaceX prepares for its most ambitious and dangerous mission yet!
#space #spacex #nasa
Here's the thread in question:
x.com/mcrs987/status/18096855...
Please support my NEW PATREON CHANNEL! AS LITTLE AS 10 CENTS A DAY!!
DISCORD MEMBERSHIP, EXCLUSIVE CONTENT AND EARLY RELEASES PLUS 15% OFF MERCH!
/ angryastronaut
www.paypal.com/paypalme/Angry...
Follow me on twitter:
/ astro_angry 
Развлечения
What the actual hell, Jordan... this explosion was EXPECTED to happen!
After the 'landing', SuperHeavy tipped over and then exploded when it body-slammed into the water broadside - which is entirely what should have happened; nothing unusual or embarassing about it. The rocket isn't designed to take compressive stresses transversely to its long axis: for the same reason, it can't be laid down and transported horizontally - and in this case, it didn't just lay gently down, but its top hit the water at around 100 km/h as it pivoted around the bottom; you can literally see that (both the velocity and orientation, changing) on the live-streamed telemetry readout, FFS!
And of course it tipped over because it's a nearly empty and very tall tin can that floats really well: try to balance one on top of the water in a bathtub, and see for yourself what happens... This is entirely predictable; indeed I personally forecast this exact outcome (including the explosion) for both Ship and Booster even before the same was actually seen mentioned in the flight plan that SpaceX filed with the FAA... Yes, the flight plan explicitly mentions the expected RUD following a tip-over after landing: no requests for information necessary - it's already public! 🤦 SMH
This needs to be pinned at the top of the comment section.
Make it so Jordan !!
No need to get too upset. I've been reading the comments on this video and on the leaked photo itself, and haven't seen anyone correctly explain what the picture shows and when the picture was taken.
Here's hoping YT will let me post a link to an excerpted portion of the original SpaceX IFT-4 livestream, containing the Booster landing: pay attention to the Booster telemetry specifically, as the Booster first lands, then tips over and finally its signal cuts out just as its top hits the water (i.e. a RUD). It's all right there, plain as day:
ruclips.net/video/JOgiQLi6GyE/видео.htmlsi=M5-TbBrAGkRu0OZc
Just one note: it's not an RUD if it's planned. The U is for Unscheduled.
and all of this is assuming they didnt blow the fts to better sink the ship which should be the normal procedure on such a test flight.
Am i watching thunderfoot or the angry astronaut?? C'mon man
Lolz blunderboot is a total clown.
Hot engines hit cold water + plenty of flumes in the tanks. I would be more surprised if it didn't
Totally agree. In addition, water is noncompressible. Where does a thrust-induced pressure wave go when all that force is directed backward into the engines themselves. Finally, the last time I checked, hot steam being squeezed back into the nozzles is going to be highly explosive. Let’s see if Angry has answers for these questions.
We call that thermal cavitation.
Plus the FTS, they would have to detonate that, they can't just leave a live bomb there.
Do you have any sense of just how fast the top of a structure that tall would be going when to topples over and hits the water?! I would have called bullsh¡t if they told me it didn’t blow up! 🤨
So what, it exploded after it fell over.
Yeah, this one seems like grasping at straws...It's basically a building falling over, I wouldn't be surprised if it exploded when it's smacking on its side. It's after the soft landing, so it doesn't really matter. I expect if the catch doesn't go well, and it slips from the chopsticks, it will be a mess as well, which is why they are building a second tower.
@@MrPsychopathy Even if the catch fails and it explodes, it wont be very big as there will be very little propellant left, a lot of people i have seen saying goodbye launch tower if the catch fails, seem to forget that its not the same as an explosion at launch.
@@MrPsychopathybro, I would have been so surprised if it didn’t blow up after toppling that I would have probably called bullsh¡t on the whole thing and switched sides over to the flat earth community…🤨
Imagine the speeds at which this 70-ish meter, so many ton structure they purpose built thin as possible, rotated about its axis at the water. I’ve heard estimates of 100kph hitting broad side onto water. You would absolutely expect ruptured tankage and dislodged down comers et al. And of course there’s an obvious source of ignition there….🙄
This whole thing is Jordon riling up engagement and jumping on the currently popular trendy bandwagon of Musk hating cuz all the cool kids are doing it. I’ll be making sure NOT to “like” this episode…lol
@@rjswasdef not as big as a RUD at launch, but honestly it would still be very big. There’s still a lot of propellant left even when they’re ostensibly empty. There will still be pressurized vapor filling the entire volume of all the tankage on super heavy, and that equals a very very large amount of fuel and oxidizer. I would bet money on there being more than enough to destroy the tower, provided it ignites properly to result in a proper explosion and not a slow deflagration…
Oh that’s another thing, this so called leaked photo, I see no evidence of any shock wave front that would indicate any real explosion, so to my untrained eye this appears more like a deflagration…🤔🤷🏾♂️
Why do you keep calling it a "supposed" soft landing? Didn't it decelerate to almost zero meters per second?
Elon said it exploded when it fell over, how do you make videos about space x and not keep up with interviews with elon??
And that's not for the first time!
He knows, just engagement farming.
He doesn't trust Elon any more. *shrug* Not that you should blindly trust anyone, however...
Surely they are required to detonate the booster if it's going to be abandoned with ITR those engines can't be recovered by others
This guy doesn’t understand basic physics.
He moved to the UK to record a launch stand that Americans build in their back yard.
He’ll never be a player in this space.
A mushroom cloud can also be formed without a nuclear explosion.
I really don’t think calling Jarred an “ Amateur”. I think he’s gone through as much training as Any other Astronaut out there with one flight under his belt.
I think Jared is an "amateur" because astronaut is not his paid employment. It is extremely unlikely that he has done the amount of training of NASA astronauts. He has other jobs.
@@EricFielding Riding a Falcon-9 is not a short-hop pogo-stick all-auto Blue Origin special. Jared and crew have been involved with every step of planning the mission and designing the suits. I'd be willing to bet, and I'm not a betting type of person, Jared knows more about the Dragon they are using than Butch & Suni do about the Starliner. One crew was taking a check ride to the ISS for a week-long trip... Jared and crew will do things that have not been done in some time. One other point, Jared and his crews spend a lot of time together flying jets in formation building teamwork. I've never seen any photos/info about any Starliner crew doing anything outside of Starliner training. Remember Butch & Suni are the second set of crew for the Starliner, the first set quit when there were delays after delays.
@@thomasboese3793right! I am actually outraged everytime I see them pinning that crap on the shirts of New Shepherd and Virgin Galactic passengers and literally calling them “astronauts”. They’ve most certainly not earned the right! That to me sounds a lot like stolen valor…😒
I was very disappointed in your commentary when Star Ship IFT 4 was reentering. You kept saying, " Where is the re-entry burn?" It is going too fast ." You did not know what you were talking about, there was not supposed to be a burn to slow it down. With that said, there is a potential for an RUD.
I was thinking the same thing. Nowhere on the timeline or in the leadup to IFT-4, also the actual commetary from SpaceX if I am not wrong talked about the lack of a reentry burn. It was never even a planned thing to happen. I basically stopped watching AA's coverage at about that point as I figured there was no lead up research or planning for what was actually supposed to happen, just raw commentary (which is good), but not when you assume that because every other rocket does a landing burn, this one should too despite many official sources saying no landing burn. It kinda made AA sound a bit clueless, almost as if he was completely out of the loop.
@@MrGeneralScaryou’re not wrong. SpaceX distinctly explained why there would be no reentry burn on both stages in fact…
Oh and yeah Jordon has become an anti Elon meme at this point because all the cool kids are hating on him so this is how he’s going to go about his bandwagon jumping…
Also, I’d like to point out that this episode is pointless. Just imagine the sheer velocity the top of stage one hit the water after toppling over. I’d be shocked as hell if it had not ruptured and exploded…🤷🏾♂️
@revmsj yeah the topple over would have been the mother of all belly flops. If you imagine someone belly flopping into a pool.
Except the booster done it with flare, mushroom shaped flare.
Angry wants wrong with you, this channel has changed
He sucks. I can't stand listening to him or watching him anymore. It's all drama drama drama and clickbait and very short on facts. Stop watching like everyone else is doing.
When the subscribers begin to slow to crawl he panicked and began changing content. This has the reverse effect of losing existing subs and creating more panic. DeathSpiral
@@robertmiranda2444 There are so many variables in running a You-tube channel that influence your monthly income that it is hard to resist the urge to change something when income is going down.
What’s wrong with him is he’s jumping on the hate Elon bandwagon. He sees all the cool kids doing it and thinks he’ll gain viewers this way. I will say, it seems he’s def increased engagement in the comments this way…🤔
I don't like that much negativity. It was an awesome flight with many highlights, like the successful launch, showing that Starship has engine out capabilities, successful hot staging, successful boost back burn, successful reentry of Super Heavy, successful landing burn and landing, successful fight of Starship itself, successful use of attitude control in contrast to flight 3, successful reentry of Starship itself even if the flap melted and successful landing burn of Starship. Why don't you make a video about one of those?
No, you speculate about a possible explosion after tipping over and the bad intentions SpaceX might have to not show that 🙈
It is good to hear an informed critical view. The raptor engines do seem to explode or fail frequently. Is the fuel more volatile than that used on Falcon 9?
That's okay, he also commented on how the ship is basically a flaw of a vessel because its heatshield didnt remain entirely intact on the first reentry... Totally skipping over the fact that V2 ships have already got a differnet flap shape, and different location which will be much more out of the peak heating area... Almost as if this was envisioned.
@@Steve-Richter I dont think the fuel has anything to do with it. I think SpaceX are just operating the Raptors at the very limit most of the time, constantly trying to improve and push that limit higher. When you think about it, most rocket engines are probably not run at thier hard design limit, they take on a rating which is likely a reasonable amount below thier structural limit for pressure, then maybe run them at 100-104% of that rating which is still below the limit of the materials.
I suspect SpaceX runs the Raptors much closer to the limit than others as at least for now Reliability on the engines probably isnt a top goal while they are trashing boosters in the ocean. Once they get to booster reuse or full reuse, one might expect they will tone down the engines power to increase reliability. Elon has already said they can knock out a new Raptor every 2 days or less. So why not push them hard for now while there is a reasonable time between flights, they wont run out of engines by doing so until they are flying much more frequently.
@@Steve-Richterit’s certainly good to hear an informed critique of a thing. This was not that. This was pandering to the Musk haters out there that’re blinded by their ideology. The fact is this is new tech so expect some stumbling. Like dude before me said, they are pushing Raptor to the very edge of what’s possible and what they can withstand. They’re also perpetually learning procedurally what can be done and when it can be done. Expect errors.
Speaking of errors, the “explosion” in this video was to be expected. When a 70-ish meter, several ton, purposely thin built rocket stage rotates from vertical to horizontal on the water, and the top reaches around 100kph due to gravitational acceleration, what exactly do you expect to happen?? I woulf have 100% called bullsh¡t on SpaceX if they had reported that it did not rupture and ignite the remaining propellant fumes…🤨
Maybe Space X blew it up with the destruct package on the rocket to sink it and burn off the remaining fuel.
The FTS is there for that exact reason, they had no plan to recover it, so the first thing to do is to sink it.
Yes… but after it is on its side floating around like a dead whale they have all the time in the world. They could let it float for days, attempt to communicate with any sensors which remain active, collect data and if it off gasses enough to create a safe situation they could even approach it and examine whatever survived. After you have all your data then you can use the FTS to sink the booster. If it went boom soon after falling over I would have to assume that was part of the automated function of the FTS.
I am willing to bet that the FTS system did its job and destroyed the booster.
@@Codysdab if it's true, why hide it?
@@kirillperov3843 why show it? You'd get just as many if not far more bad column inches with the rocket blowing up on touchdown. Lay folks would just see the rocket explode and roll their eyes at another failure.
@@waterboy181 do you really believe that it would just topple over and not be destroyed? It hit hard and had fuel onboard. There, of course, was no infrastructure out there to keep it upright allowing it a gentle and intact landing. Imagine that water being concrete because it acts the same in this instance.
During the webcast, SpaceX had video for at least a few seconds after landing burn cut off for both the ship and booster, making it unlikely to have exploded on initial landing. My assumption is that the Booster exploded when it tipped over. If a 71m tall and 9 wide tower with a mass of 200+ mt tipped over, there is going to be a lot of energy behind it. If it exploded during tip over, that would make it a post landing event. since during a catch, it shouldn't tip over if it lands normally, meaning that it probably wouldn't't explode. In which case, you are completely overblowing the issue for what it is. But that is just my 2 cents from somebody who is not an engineer (but aspiring to become one) and a total outsider.
Greetings from Germany.
Angry likes to ignore the obvious in order to make his videos more negative.
You’re 100% correct. He’s simply jumping on the Elon hate bandwagon here and ignoring physics
Angry, remember when you said it was crazy for Elon to try to launch and land Starship after only one successful hop? Elon saved a lot of time in Starship's development by not spending months perfecting hops. Here you go again, you suggest not trying a catch without perfecting the booster landing. Elon's belief in his engineering team's abilities has proven to be justified.
Angry is looking at SpaceX thru liberal colored glasses.
Angry is a weak sister.🤣
@@ryandavis4448 WTF BS statement is that? You do not know anything about him or his Sociological ideology. Maybe you need to clean your glasses for your myopic thinking.
@@leonardbakers Umm ok I'm thinking you're projecting your insecurities onto Angry, typical.
There is a huge difference between having the booster explode in the middle of the ocean or in the hop test landing area and having it explode in the area of the launch pad. It is his choice if Elon wants to take the chances with the catch and destroys a large part of the launch pad since it is largely his money getting blown up, but it is a big risk. Angry Jordan is right to question the decision. Elon was in a big hurry to launch the IFT-1 and that did major damage to the launch pad, requiring the extensive repairs and FAA inquiry. A catch explosion would also likely delay the future tests, as Jordan mentions.
How sad you are, all details were declared Elon weeks ago….
Rocket might have exploded, but I think they fired the FTS as soon as they got all the data. There's no need for the booster to float around for any longer. Same for the ship.
Yes, that’s what I assumed. The last thing SpaceX wanted was to have SS floating in international waters and “recovered” intact by scavengers.
@@TimAZ-ih7yb they safed the fts on descent
The explosion is definitely planned. If the explosion is not planned, SpaceX has to report to FAA and investigate the mishap and we will know about it.
also could've just exploded after falling over into the water it's a ship the size of a skyscraper which still probably has some fuel in it
Remember the sniper for flight 3? I assume it was purposely shot at the tanks to explode the booster. But I’m not sure about the ship
I recall Elon saying in an interview that the booster blew up after it tipped over.
As it should have! Have you ever toppled over onto a hard surface as a 70ish meter tall several ton, purposely thin shelled tank of pressurized fuel and oxidizer…? Hell, I’d be shocked as phuck if they told me it didn’t blow up…🤨
@@revmsj 100%
Really angry? This was 100% expected by SpaceX they told us about the expectation that if everything went completely to plan it was supposed to topple over and explode. If it didn't it was an issue and they would have problems safe-ing the vehicle.
He literally shows a clip of an early F9 landing attempt that lands, comes to a stop, then topples and explodes, but he doesn’t think a much heavier, way taller stage, filled with a much more volatile propellant mixture wouldn’t have similar/much more explosive results?! wtf??🤨
Kinda surprised you didn't even consider intentional self destruction. For various reasons.
The booster exploding isnt a big deal, if the engines shut off at the point of watercontact i would expect it to explode when the upper parts hit the water from 70 meters high, if it exploded on its own before tipping over that could be problematic.
He literally shows a clip of an early F9 landing attempt that lands, comes to a stop, then topples and explodes, but he doesn’t think a much heavier, way taller stage, filled with a much more volatile propellant mixture wouldn’t have similar/much more explosive results?! wtf??🤨
If you're not going to bother doing any research about SpaceX stop the videos on them. So sad that you didn't even bother watching the interview with Elon Musk. He clearly stated the booster tipped over and blew up.... Your channel is becoming very sad. Thumbs down!!!
Ever since Elon bought twitter, Jordan bad mouths SpaceX/Elon every chance he gets. Jordans usually proved to be dead wrong, but NEVER corrects his mistakes. I can understand not liking Elon (tho I think he's ok), but Jordan should be smart enough to separate Elon from Starship. Starship has thousands of people working on it, not just Elon Musk.
He literally shows a clip of an early F9 landing attempt that lands, comes to a stop, then topples and explodes, but he doesn’t think a much heavier, way taller stage, filled with a much more volatile propellant mixture wouldn’t have similar/much more explosive results?! wtf??🤨
Jordon has 100% jumped on the ideologically driven “Elon bad/ I hate Elon” bandwagon…
Firstly, Elon did say in Tim Dodd's interview with him after the launch that the booster did explode. He also said it was because it was a 70m tall object falling very rapidly and hit the water hard. We see this in the livestream. It makes the soft landing, then quickly tilts over and video cuts out. If you look at the bottom left, it's going almost 200km/h when it explodes.
And as for the fire that comes out of it, it's exactly the same with Falcon 9. Just risidual fuel being fed out form the turbopumps. Or venting some excess methane to maintain pressure in the tanks.
Is the photo real? It very likely is. But the cause for the explosion has gone completely over your head. You went straight to implications and what it would mean to SpaceX instead of wondering why it exploded
He literally shows a clip of an early F9 landing attempt that lands, comes to a stop, then topples and explodes, but he doesn’t think a much heavier, way taller stage, filled with a much more volatile propellant mixture wouldn’t have similar/much more explosive results?! wtf??🤨
This ain't it. This, the weird commentary from the livestream, the constant aliens clickbait; I think I've seen enough.
If SpaceX is trying for a booster catch next flight, they’re not too worried about unintended explosions.
This channel is turning into WAI bad.
Ugh, that was spot on 😂
@@leandro3710 Ouch
Except WAI is better than this tripe
Lucky, the test wasn't for the booster to gently land in the ocean and spend the rest of its days in paradise. The test was for the booster to simulate being caught... Full stop.
I've been editing images for 28 years and that image looks fake to me, there seems to be no water movement from the explosion shock wave. And the light cast on the water is not right it would not be direct!
It looks more like a large deflagration than an actual explosion
Oh look! Another Space X hater video. I'm starting to think that some of Angry's top donors are Blue Origin and ULA. Angry is kinda losing credibility, Space X must be turning down his interview offers.
Left the States for a reason 😂… Being a big turd in a small pot suits his personality 😂
No doubt
Well, some of the possibilities for Superheavy supposed explosion.
1) Engine cutoff after touching water. Change in density around nozzle could have capped off escaping gasses.
2) Rapid temperature change of engine components could have burst lines/hozes causing escaped propellant.
3) Physical damage occured as a result of splashdown may have ruptured engine or tank components leading to leak/explosion.
100% from toppling over. Elon even said as much during intern with Tim Dodd.
He literally shows a clip of an early F9 landing attempt that lands, comes to a stop, then topples and explodes, but he doesn’t think a much heavier, way taller stage, filled with a much more volatile propellant mixture wouldn’t have similar/much more explosive results?! wtf??🤨
I’m starting to think jordan is an undercover agent for blue origin… just constantly bad mouthing space x.
Seriously
Of course the rocket is going to explode when it falls over... Every Falcon 9 that attempting the first ever landing, which also fell over, exploded. Every. Last. One. It's kind of what they do... "How not to land an orbital rocket booster", set to Monty Python's Fly Circus shows it in all it's glorious and fiery colour!
Actually, that's not true. There was one that soft landed in the water off the coast. It fell over and they towed it back in.
@@zysmith Yes, but 1 is not all or even some, you get exceptions. Rockets are controlled explosions, and in science there is the Mediocrity Principe, that is typicaly the fore runner of any conclusion. In this case the expectation of abused rockets getting explody is why they have so many safety systems, and the got to phrase for it's not as hard as all that is, "It's not rocket science."
Spot on! If it had not exploded, I would have been calling bullsh¡t! Jordon is either ignorant or too wrapped up in the Elon hatred bandwagon to let objectivity shine through his bias…
A skyscraper literally just fall to it's side. If it doesn't explode i will be hella impressed
Same
He literally shows a clip of an early F9 landing attempt that lands, comes to a stop, then topples and explodes, but he doesn’t think a much heavier, way taller stage, filled with a much more volatile propellant mixture wouldn’t have similar/much more explosive results?! wtf??🤨
"I'm going to be delving into speculation based on shaky evidence" Dude, you've got UFO videos, at least one of which has already turned out to be a bird.....
99.99% certainty? I'd like to see the math behind that number.
So, AA is now full on clickbait.
that's an unsub and do not recommend.
A shame, I remember when AA wasn't a complete waste of time effort.
Yep
They won't have to worry about the hatch so long as they bring an inanimate carbon rod along.
Lol, that reference.
I would have been more surprised if had not blown up. Imagine several metric tons of fuel remaining in a rocket. Using the self-destruct would be a reasonable way to terminate the mission.
He literally shows a clip of an early F9 landing attempt that lands, comes to a stop, then topples and explodes, but he doesn’t think a much heavier, way taller stage, filled with a much more volatile propellant mixture wouldn’t have similar/much more explosive results?! wtf??🤨
Really bad take, Angry. The goal was to decelerate the booster to near zero speed over the surface of the ocean while maintaining control. Whatever happened after that is irrelevant to a tower catch.
He literally shows a clip of an early F9 landing attempt that lands, comes to a stop, then topples and explodes, but he doesn’t think a much heavier, way taller stage, filled with a much more volatile propellant mixture wouldn’t have similar/much more explosive results?! wtf??🤨
What happens to a red hot engine when it hits cold sea water?
They blow up sending hot shrapnel thru tanks holding 20 tons of fuel and oxidiser.
kerr-boom!
What happens when you let a skyscraper full of explosive volatiles topple over? They rupture and go boom boom! This was 100% expected and Jordon is being a bum bass…🙄
Why leave tech intact if you’re wasn’t going to retrieve it
Jordan sure hates Space X.
Yep! He’s willing to forgo objectivity in exchange for his obvious bias and or want to be part of the cool kids club of Elon hate.
Fortunately, the SpaceX EVA suits won't be blowing up like balloons as the early ones did.
What’s the timing of that pic versus the landing? If it’s after booster tipped over, it’s not an issue
Jordan, I am genuinely suprised by your lack of insight into this expected phenomenon, this is a rookie mistake, but you are no rookie.
There are multiple expected explosions, the first is when the super hot engines touch the cold water, this explosion tears the engine cluster apart breaking fuel lines and igniting fuel, then the rocket falls on its side cracking open and igniting more fuel spilled.
Jordan does it on purpose. Ever since Elon bought Twitter, he's had it out for anything Elon related. It's sad, I used to really like this channel.
He literally shows a clip of an early F9 landing attempt that lands, comes to a stop, then topples and explodes, but he doesn’t think a much heavier, way taller stage, filled with a much more volatile propellant mixture wouldn’t have similar/much more explosive results?! wtf??🤨
@@ephen6356yup! He’s got that Elon derangement syndrome
Sorry Angry, but if you drop a running engine into water, it's going to explode or at least stop. That is basic mechanics. I don't care if it's a rocket or car engine ect. Dunking a running engine into water will not turn out well.
If it exploded? Then, yes it isn't the first time when spaceX heavy falcon booster landed correctly then tip-over and exploded.
He literally shows a clip of an early F9 landing attempt that lands, comes to a stop, then topples and explodes, but he doesn’t think a much heavier, way taller stage, filled with a much more volatile propellant mixture wouldn’t have similar/much more explosive results?! wtf??🤨
It seems the angry astronaut has become a Merchant of Panic, once again rolling out his self- admitted speculative worst case scenario commentary. Obviously hoping to come back later with an, "I told you so!" Speculative journalism is not journalism.
you are tilting at windmills... sad
Didn’t Elon say it exploded when it landed in the water???
No he said it exploded when it fell over in the water. Just as predicted…
The explosion looks kinda fake, I can't imagine the internet has this footage and the FAA dosen't. If it's real, the only way it makes sense that the FAA didn't mention this, if its an explosion from an intentional demolition after landing or something inconsequantial like that.
Or it was expected and they didn't share the video yet because they knew people would make stupid videos about it exploding
bot channel comment
It was expected
He literally shows a clip of an early F9 landing attempt that lands, comes to a stop, then topples and explodes, but he doesn’t think a much heavier, way taller stage, filled with a much more volatile propellant mixture wouldn’t have similar/much more explosive results?! wtf??🤨
all explosions produce a mushroom cloud
i Mean, we saw it splash, we saw it tip over.
If not intentional then i dont really think we can draw any conclusions from a superheavy not surviving a tip-over.
Why would they be worried about an explosion during the catch attempt? When attempting to land after the 10 km hops with the starship, several of them blew up. I'dd assume they have similar propellant onboard at that point to the superheavy. When landing, all they have is a few tonnes for the final few seconds of landing burn. Sure, it would not be optimal for the equipment around stage 0. But that's not really any public concern?
Alot of arguments in this video doesnt make sense to me.
We can draw one conclusion tho…
He literally shows a clip of an early F9 landing attempt that lands, comes to a stop, then topples and explodes, but he doesn’t think a much heavier, way taller stage, filled with a much more volatile propellant mixture wouldn’t have similar/much more explosive results?! wtf??🤨
Yeah! shoot an email to the FAA, Lets draw as much attention to an issue I'm sure SpaceX and the FAA already on top of. All you're doing is trying to slow down the licensing process for future flights.
Yeah he’s an actual id¡ot…🙄
In a catch attempt, the booster engine area will not be making contact with anything. In IFT-4, we don't know precisely when engine cutoff occurred. Rapid temperature changes (in water) or blockages could easily account for an explosion. Had the entire 20 tons of propellant gone off, I expect the fireball would have been much larger.
He literally shows a clip of an early F9 landing attempt that lands, comes to a stop, then topples and explodes, but he doesn’t think a much heavier, way taller stage, filled with a much more volatile propellant mixture wouldn’t have similar/much more explosive results?! wtf??🤨
@@revmsj We'll just have to wait and see. :)
Literally nothing to see here. They DID in fact set it down gently on the water, but a fall of 70-ish meters would almost certainly rupture tankage and/or dislodge down comers etc. With the flames we saw at landing as a source of ignition, you would absolutely expect an explosion or at the very least a very large deflagration which is more likely as the “leaked photo” doesn’t indicate any shock wave…🙄
On the other hand, the mushroom cloud does suggest a detonation rather than mere deflagration.
@@robertclark1734You know what it suggests to me? That it’s a FAAAAAKE!
It toppled over,.. wot the eff does it matter if it exploded after that? Toppling over isn't a planned mission phase!
If you crumple tanks of fuel beside hot rocket engines of course it's gonna exploed!
"Hiding" give me a break, that's some desperate click/content chasing!
I have one question that has remained unanswered since before the 4th launch. Why would they leave the flight termination system in tact after landing even on the bottom of the ocean! There are potentially scuba divers, drones, submersibles, etc that might be inclined to recover or even visit an unexploded FTS? Your question may explain my question. If they were to arm the FTS wouldnt you think they would wait till the last second possible as to not compromise any last minute data? The most logical answer to both our questions would be it was FTS system also it would set off the remaining propellants giving the colored fireball you saw.
The FTS is “safed”, that is, deactivated during descent.
Nobody cares what makes sense to you. When you start your own rocket company, then we still won't care.😂😂
The superheavy rocket fell over after landing. Hitting water at the velocity that thing would have fallen at would be like hitting cement. The Falcon 9 rockets that fell over after landing also energetically exploded, so it stands to reason that this would also be the result. It's no surprise at all that this thing went boom when it fell.
“Faint heart never won fair maiden.”
risk is what allowed us to live in a free country....and not under a heavy thumb like the EU….
Another perspective is , definitely SpaceX doesn’t want booster to be floating in gulf anyways.
He literally shows a clip of an early F9 landing attempt that lands, comes to a stop, then topples and explodes, but he doesn’t think a much heavier, way taller stage, filled with a much more volatile propellant mixture wouldn’t have similar/much more explosive results?! wtf??🤨
The explosion photo @3:12 lools a lot like the UFO shape/photo in the previous video... lol no? just me? lulz
Anything to pad that runtime, eh? Lol why wouldn't it explode after falling over? Elon said it bobbed and eventually tipped over. If SpaceX was trying not to alarm the public, this certainly isn't helping.
Why would you want to leave fully intact examples of Space X tech just floating around the Indian Ocean.
They could have towed it to port like what they did with the Falcon 9 booster when it made an ocean landing: ruclips.net/video/rkR7iaim4aw/видео.htmlsi=ogcTI_DIC0RbN1ft
He literally shows a clip of an early F9 landing attempt that lands, comes to a stop, then topples and explodes, but he doesn’t think a much heavier, way taller stage, filled with a much more volatile propellant mixture wouldn’t have similar/much more explosive results?! wtf??🤨
@@revmsj This F9 booster did a water landing and floated after the tip over:
m.ruclips.net/video/LFdep0qCmYA/видео.html
I would be more worried if they left the booster floating on the surface of the ocean
Wouldn’t it explode from the engines being blocked by the water . And in fact could end up being a bomb ?
And the reason why they would cut away since so many would misunderstand the imagines.
Raptors have an exhaust pressure of like 16 Bar, and water at sea level should have ~1 or so bar. The engines would just push out any water trying to enter. Look at a missile fired from a submarine. They light their engines a few meters below the surface. so to answer your question, No it wouldn't!
Are you even allowed to leave booster intact and recoverable by different nations with ITR regs i would expect them to terminate the booster once it's landed in foreign waters. No conspiracy just seems like you're clutching at straws here
I strongly suspect they initiated the FTS at the government’s request to comply with ITAR requirements and ensure that the engines and other sensitive tech cannot be recovered by bad actors. That would also explain why they didn’t publicly announce it.
Did your someone abuse you.. it certainly seems your an un happy person when watching anyone that actually trys to build a life and take risks..
Man up dude..
Regarding testing the pressurized space suits, I didn't realize until now that the suit forearm had articulation for wrist rotation. Wow, that seems like a risky joint! Seems like this would be a great use for human-shaped robots... put them in suits in an evacuated chamber, have them run through the expected range of motions, and there's no one killed if the suit fails. Just ignore the fact that the bot will weight immensely more than a human.
I mean, did we not already just assume it exploded? It was on fire and made impact with the ocean.
He literally shows a clip of an early F9 landing attempt that lands, comes to a stop, then topples and explodes, but he doesn’t think a much heavier, way taller stage, filled with a much more volatile propellant mixture wouldn’t have similar/much more explosive results?! wtf??🤨
This is the angry astronot
I guess he didn’t read my last comment on his last video, well guess what he just lost another subscriber good bye and good luck with your channel
I am not a Rockit Sintist, just a correspondent corse Brain Surgeon, how ever it seems clear to me if you take a running Rockit Engine and drop the hot end in a dense fluid it is likely to increase back pressure dramatically (not the kind of thing a ridiculously fast spinning high pressure Turbo Pump likes).
don't understand why you have to try to find fault with space X
why not speak about all the others
If I recall my Gemini history, Ed White's suit actually had an emergency oxygen chest pack. I'm not sure exactly how long it had, but it was there.
The suit inflation issues are going to depend heavily on the internal pressure of the suit. In Gemini and Apollo, that was only about 3.5 to 5 psi pure oxygen. The Soviets and Russians used slightly higher pressure. It will be curious to see what SpaceX is considering for this given the spacecraft utilizes two gas (oxygen nitrogen) at sea level pressures. Lower pressure pure oxygen for a spacewalk is going to require pre breathing pure oxygen for a while to flush nitrogen from the blood to avoid the bends.
Since the 4th flight, Ive said that they need to do at least 1 more water land to make sure. The actual catch NEEDS to be pin point.
So... you're comparing a 70m tall booster falling on its side in the ocean to a catch attempt? lol
Angry i swear for some time now all of your content is about hating on SpaceX and the way they do things, you say you are a realist, but you are starting to sound more like a pessimist. Except for some dates that you kinda got right, you have been wrong on all your SpaceX takes. In the beginning you couldn't stop talking about that old fart N1 rocket and how Starship will follow the same fate, then you got your sight on the Stage0, the concrete is being poured to soon, it didn't cured enough, the cooling plate has no chance of deflecting the booster trust you always assume that the Spacex team has missed something or that only you thought about some thing only. Honestly you do what you want but your latest content has slowly but surly made me stop clicking on your videos. And if you think I'm a SpaceX fanboy, i tell you this, i am, you know why? This company and ONLY this company is pushing us into the future, show some god damn respect and support.
PS: Have you stopped to think that if indeed it exploded it was because they fired the FTS so nobody can get their tech???? How about that for a thought!! Everything is controversy with you, SpaceX is lying, SpaceX is hiding something..give me a break...
And you sound like an uncritical thinking fanboy.
@@tonycincera3353 I sound like not a rocket engineer. And what's to critical think? You think me or you or Angry have a better perspective than SpaceX about their rockets? Be serious...
I think it is not surprising that Superheavy would explode after splashdown. There is a huge moment of inertia as this 70 m long cylinder rotates from the vertical to the horizontal. This is likely to rupture the tanks and result in a massive leak and explosion. This is akin to some of those explosions that you showed in the video when Falcon 9s tipped over after touchdown. The official SpaceX video shows Superheavy gently touching down and the Raptor flames seem to die down at that stage. I think the explosion happened after this when the main body rotated and hit the water. This (hopefully) would not happen during an attempted catch by the tower.
Come on bro, that thing is photoshopped, anyone can see it, some people are just biased so they'll support you on the comment section. If that photo was real, there should be particles all over, the flame looks fake and the flame is thesame size as the super heavy when landing suggesting the booster is just covered by the fake photoshopped flames
If I would take a guess, I'd imagine SpaceX needs to catch star ship, and boosters. My assumption would be the engine would be so hot, submerged the engines and fuselage would warp from rapid contraction of the metal cooling. Catching and allowing it to cool evenly would make the craft reusable, as warped equipment is no longer structurally capable of reuse.
Oh Angry, I see what you started to do. You realize you get paid more when you get more comments. So now you make terrible videos and ignoring interviews and what SpaceX has told us so you get more engagement. Money does funny things to people. Sad you’ve gone this way.
Why would it be a shock that it exploded on contact with the ocean. You've got superhot rocket engines contacting cold water! The sudden temperature change would have ripped the engines apart spraying fuel over hot surfaces. It would be far more surprising if it didn't explode!
Hitting the water is like hitting a brick wall when you are travelling fast. We have all done a painful belly flop dive to prove it. So exploding when it hit the water is not much of a surprise is it? I don't see that hitting the water is any different to hitting the ground for the first instant.
The booster exploded when it tipped over and hit the water
Hello, it was not a catch. It flipped on its side after touching the ocean. I was would not surprised it exploded. Also, we know one engine failed and I think they know why.
Elon spoke on this. It slowed down and hovered. Mission success. Then fell over, being such a large thing with fuel and fire, quite spectacularly. I see you are getting feedback by others. - Angry viewer. Remember - stay angry about angry astronaut!
It landed on the water. So yes, it can possibly exploded, but what's wrong with that ? Unreasonable speculations
Whether it blew up or not that was my gut feeling that catching it is premature.
The smart thing would be to set off the FTS charges after touchdown (and before signal loss) unless recovery was going to be attempted. Prevents ITAR equipment from being nabbed by 3rd parties.
They fall over and go boom. Duuuuh
I think Elon is very optimistic but the director of starbase was much more realistic saying that they MAY try a catch. I think there’s a good chance they don’t try it but maybe they will. If they fail they’ll obviously have to deal with the consequences and the launchpad will be severely damaged setting them back months. We’ll have to see.
My thoughts, exhaust plume bounce back when very close to the water surface could cause an explosion, something unavoidable. However, the super heavy will be caught higher off the ground with the chopstick so it will not be an issue unless the catch itself fails.
You called this one wrong Jordan. 😡
All SpaceX has to do to prove it wrong is to release what happened after the booster touchdowned to the water and tipped over horizontally.
Yeah, one engine was not burning and that's probably the cause. To me the important thing is that it made it to the ground before exploding. The catch attempt won't happen if things are not going well and this one did not go right. It was way off course and whether or not they are letting the public know, I'm sure that they are working on making sure that this will not happen again. Every time something goes wrong that's something they know that they need to fix. They go out of their way to tell us that these are all experimental flights.
One thing that seems to be missing in that photo is the ring wave from it's splash down.
It seemed intact for a short time after splashdown...
But then not sure someone would bother faking such an image that SpaceX could easily disprove presumably.
He literally shows a clip of an early F9 landing attempt that lands, comes to a stop, then topples and explodes, but he doesn’t think a much heavier, way taller stage, filled with a much more volatile propellant mixture wouldn’t have similar/much more explosive results?! wtf??🤨
Just an idle bit of speculation regarding the apparent Superheavy explosion: perhaps relatively cold water splashing on some extremely hot engine component caused sufficient thermal shock to allow the propellants to mix and ignite/deflagrate? Perhaps even setting off the detonator(s) for the Flight Termination System?
That Superheavy could burst open and explode after falling on its side, even in water, isn't surprising! How tall is it? Over a hundred feet? So a pressurized cylinder filled with 5 atmospheres pressure of methane and oxygen bursts open when it falls over, which it's not designed for, should be predictable, not surprising.
If it’s not being retrieved then it has to be sunk. Makes sense to blow a hole in it.