really liked this one with the rocket icon showing orientation through the flight and all the telemetry data. Keep up the good work with your launches and I look forward to seeing more in the future.
So much for all these flat earth trolls.Outrageously sick sir!Ive been building and launching rockets for a half century.Its no hobby..More like a terminal addiction! Blessings to you and yours!
I was there for this launch. Watching launches like this really inspires me in the hobby. I am taking my L3 this year and would love to eventually get on a space shot team!
You don't need to join no stinkin' team. Do it yourself - Create your own team! Sure wish ol' Frank Kosdon was still around. He was a fun guy to have on any team.
@OneZeroAte I am working on it. I got my L3 a few months back, and launched a minimum diameter M1780 NT at balls last weekend and will be working on a two stage version soon. I have 2 other guys working on their L3s who want to make a space shot team with.
@@joshsickles1163Cool. I never got into the "certification" stuff; I just designed & built rockets and flew them. There was a whole group of us who were renegades in that respect. We had a lot of fun at BALLS & Delamar. No rules. Great stuff.
The wonders of proper telemetry to give viewers some perspective! People don't realise how important this is! Thank you so much for that! Very well done!
A mile- vertically- in 1.3 seconds at 63.000ft is quite difficult to wrap ones head around. As is pretty much all the data in the whole video! Bravo chaps!
Considering that C-4's velocity of detonation is 26,400 feet per second. (5 miles per second).This rocket team is really walking that fine line between let’s make a rocket versus let’s make a bomb. That really is crazy fast.
You ought to go out to Black Rock Dry Lake (after the Burning Man freaks are all gone) and attend a BALLS launch. Those are the best launches in the world. There, you will see a lot more stuff you never knew was possible!
Highest I ever flew a model rocket to was a Centuri rocket I owned in the 70's to 2000 feet with a C6-7 engine. I flew it for my grammar school in the eighth grade and it began to rain right after I flew it as if the smoke seeded the clouds. I often flew it at my high school, flying it until I finally lost it after owning it two years. I had a camera on my RC glider and also mounted one on a kite I owned with an eight foot wingspan, and another w/ a six foot wing span that was easier to haul in, on 1000 feet of line or 500 feet of line. I found a hack for the Canon camera that let it automatically snap a shot every second during the flight. But your rocket is the best I've seen, and only twelve feet yet with the power to go to the edge of space--gr8 video!
This is my top channel, you guys are amazing and love the journey from the first video until now. Congratulations on the launch, and I like this clip with the HUD overlayed.
I'm going to link people to this video when they ask what "coning" is, not bcuz it's excessive or anything, but because your animation of the rocket's orientation shows it brilliantly. Congrats on a truly epic flight!
Thank you! I hope to design a longer burning 2nd stage motor. It wouldn’t have more impulse but instead double the burn time. This would increase the performance (altitude) of the second stage. But designing this motor will be a complex project.
@@kdaugi Can you also separate the rocket to give less mass for the second stage to accelerate? That should raise the apogee with less need for extra propellant.
@@kdaugiIf Frank Kosdon were still with us, he would be your go-to guy for the motor design. Dude was the greatest rocket scientist in HPR. (Rest In Peace, Frank.)
It must be really frustrating that whenever you post just a cool-ass video like this showing your amazing achievement, it becomes a magnet for conspiracy theorists. Keep up the great work!
Now if you look closely at the video, you can see that the Earth is indeed flat. This is proved by the fact that it suddenly goes void after a certain distance, meaning that there is a sudden drop-off after that point indicating the edge of the flat world.
According to the Flat Earthers these types of Rockets are supposed to hit the firmament, This bird never hit it or skimmed along the higher waters. So, this bird really did go to space. You even proved the Earth is round. Congrats.
Space starts at 327,000 feet or 62 miles. The fact is that this rocket was built by ordinary people is awesome and inspiring. As far as NASA is concerned space starts at 52 miles. So yes that rocket did go into space. Again congrats guys. You inspired me and I can’t thank you enough. A modified GoPro was used with. Rectangle lens and not a fisheye was a great touch. You can see the planet’s curve. It’s so beautiful. Even I’ve seen the curve from concord that I flew on going to France before it was retired. So the planet is really round.
@helious74 you didn't see any curvature. Maximum height of a concord flight is 60,000ft. What you saw was a distortion from the window in the plane. Curvature isn't visible at 60,000ft.
Raw video on launch welcomed. Tingling 60s vibe, like from NASA, here, and previous. Saw lens flares and thought jjabrams produced it, so clean is the video. 'Carry on, gentlemen.'
Hey, really, cool project! Congrats on your amazing flight! Here are some things I think would up the game for the next one: 1) Figure out a way to get the shot turned 90 degrees. 2) Roll stabilization. 3) SI/Metric readout along with the Imperial one. Anyway, thanks for sharing!
Any plans to add an RCS and/or reaction wheels for better attitude control in the higher altitude regime post burnout when control surfaces stop being effective? Clearly not necessary if all you want is the altitude record, but would make for nicer footage :)
I would love to. Weight and space for an RCS system would really impact the rocket’s performance. It would be great to one day spin stabilize and despin like the real sounding rockets.
should invite a flat earther for the next launch and let them see the empty SD cards on the gopros pre-launch and let him be the first to view it post-launch 🤣
Did you guys develop the HUD? Is there one for sale? I am level 2 certified and have used various First Person View OSD modules to broadcast telemetry and video on 5.8hhz
I used this software to create the gauges: goprotelemetryextractor.com/ I took the flight computer data I wanted to use and exported to a CSV file which the telemetry software read in to create the gauges. They have good instructions on how to do this in the link above. Hope this helps!
Late to this video somehow. Thanks for keeping on sharing details about this flight. The Kate surely is an impressive unit and really the only choice for a flight like yours.
Flat earther cant use the "Fish eye lens" excuse anymore, because if that the case at 3:03 the earth should bent inward not outward, because thats how the fish eye filter/lens work, they bend thing inward into the center of the camera.
Very cool video! To all the tin foil hat folks here, before screaming “fish eye lens” (it’s not) but also take a second and observe what’s going on after the parachute deploys. 4:08 Look at all those cords and stuff smoothly floating around while it’s falling at 600ft/s, doesn’t look like there’s a whole lot of air resistance there does it? It’s almost as if this was filmed in a vacuum, hmm 🤔
Fascinating addition to the original flight video - thank you. The fact that the rocket is still climbing when it's going sideways is weird! The only thing I would add (if possible!) would be for the graphic to illustrate the stage 2 separation (or, even better, on-board camera views!). It's the stage separation that really intrigues me - I can (more or less) imagine the construction of the two stages, how the parachutes could be deployed, etc, but exactly how you separate and (safely) start the second motor is beyond me. I guess that's the key to the whole flight? Would a third stage be a better answer to get even higher than 'just' a longer burning second stage? I guess there's too much of a weight penalty that way, but a three stage amateur rocket really would be something!
Glad you liked it. The stages are designed to drag separate. So once drag on the first-stage outpaces it’s delivered thrust the second-stage slides apart. It then coasts to altitude and the motor is ignited at its forward end. To go higher, I plan to design a longer burning but lower thrust upper stage motor. Same impulse. This will limit energy losses to drag for the second-stage.
Very cool launch video. Curious why we see no stars in the expanse of space. I was under the impression that once you get above the atmosphere the stars would become visible. If anyone has an answer it would be appreciated.
Space is full of light. It is only the scattering of the suns light in our atmosphere that makes the sky blue. It's a very common, and understandable misconception that because space appears black, it must be dark. Because we associate a black sky with night time and the absence of sunlight. If the exposure and shutter speed were set correctly them you might see the stars, but everything else would be a whitewash.
Imagine standing under the night sky looking at stars, then suddenly someone shines an incredibly bright flashlight at you. The stars will disappear. If the rocket were stable and he took a long exposure photo, you would see them.
Very nice! As a real earth observer, I appreciate your efforts! Could you correct the lense to make it look natural and not the curved effect to concave? Some programs have that. Amazing shots and the artwork of your rocket is spot on! Nice!
I have to comment again, simply amazing shot. I watched at .5 speed and was able to see what is happening better and help illuminate the huge picture being taken in. It’s overwhelming what you’ve done! Cheers
Congratulations, you are amazing! I also want to build a model rocket. They recommended me to use APCP as fuel. With your permission, there is a responsibility. If possible, what fuel composition would you use and in what percentage? What is the content of the fuel?
Lol oh we are here just trolling some more nasa style bullshit cgi my 6 yo nephew laughed at it and said let's watch a real one uncle I don't watch cartoons anymore !!! Oh the wisdom of a 6 yo but how you guys got lost along tbe way is truly sad that you are willing to follow the devil instead of our true creator !!! Now get back to bed
@@FLOWER6669The earth wouldn’t move under the rocket because the surface’s sideways motion is imparted to the rocket. The rocket’s moving sideways through space, too, because of Newton’s first law. Like if you jump on a train, the train doesn’t move under you.
@@FLOWER6669 If you were to jump on a train you don't get flung to the back of the carriage(Unless you were leaving a station). You would fall back where you jumped.
@@FLOWER6669It’s crazy how simple minded and smooth brained you people are. You actually think that if something isn’t physically attached to a surface, then it “must be independent and not affect eachother”. It’s as ridiculous as saying “the earth should move under me if I jump”.
@@sailorman8668 I see the images of the planet warping. It's not the same at the edge as when it's near the center of the shot. *Why is it doing that?*
@@thomasg4324 At the times you think you can see the 'planet warping', pause the video, and you'll soon realise that it's only an optical illusion that makes it appear that there's any 'warping'.
@@Andrew-13579 Are you mocking all of these people that do actually have an expectation of stars being visible in the footage, or do you really think that stars should be visible?
@@chtwrone1 Mocking, lightheartedly. The contrast ratio between the bright sunlight reflecting off the Earth and the stars’ light is probably too great for the camera to capture. Plus the tiny size of the stars in the wide-angle view. They just don’t show.
It's all fake, these videos are created to fool people into thinking that the earth is spherical, now many people have woken up and know that the earth is not spherical and this terrifies them of these criminal scoundrels
@@unindoctRYANated Now that you've outed yourself as actually being one of these deluded flat earth believing fools, perhaps you could explain to everybody how the flat earth sun can disappear BELOW the horizon, when it's always supposedly situated ABOVE the earth's surface? Incidentally, the earth doesn't 'look pretty flat' in the footage at all - the CURVE is more than obvious.
@@dorkception2012 school is not for intelligent people please provide demonstrable evidence of earth curvature otherwise your globe is just a religious belief system
It's all fake, these videos are created to fool people into thinking that the earth is spherical, now many people have woken up and know that the earth is not spherical and this terrifies them of these criminal scoundrels
@@msidc1238 Because it's a gopro. All of them use fisheye. The "non rectilinear" just changes the fov to a narrow view. Space exploration is a lie and you paid shills are nothing but operation mockingbird in action.
@aaallljjjj It was, though. One can clearly see the curvature go from flat to curve as the camera pans up and down. And this observation is nothing new, we see the same thing happening with videos supposedly demonstrating curvature.
@@markalan4026 A rectilinear non-distorting lens do not add anything. The reason it appears "flat" is because of the shutter and orientation of the camera. Loads of videos, including from Flat Earthers who've sent up their own balloons with Rectilinear non-distorting lenses show curvature.
Everyone (except You) can see that at the beginning of the launch, nothing is curved. Grow some gray matter and a spine! ;) And liking your own comments is pretty sad.
@@dorkception2012 Oahah you can see by the land that it’s a fish eye lens, they surronded themselves with mountains to avoid a level horizon.. you can see the curvature very clearly as soon as it hits 5000ft you just refuse to accept it! They ALSO made the camera vertical to make the fisheye lens even less obvious
@@VishnuIncarnation Again, you can see the ground and other objects in the video, are you for real? :D By the way, we know the shape of the Earth way before cameras were invented. Eratosthenes was the first who not even figured it out, but his calculations almost matched the radii of the Earth. Also, If it were flat, why can't we see the whole earth, all the continents and the North and the South Pole? Huh? XD Your god is as real as unicorns, or Santa Claus. ;)
Thanks! Technically the atmosphere ends several thousand miles higher (exosphere). And satellites have had perigees lower than the max altitude of this rocket (~80km).
Interesting video. I assume accelerometers or gyros were measuring the rocket's attitude during flight given the display. Interesting how once it got into the very rarefied upper atmosphere that it began to porpoise because the fins no longer had a good bite on the air the rocket was flying through.
Regardless of the fact that the chute deployed prior to apogee, the rate of climb was dropping off so quickly, that the rocket still wouldn't have exceeded 300k ft.
No it's not a dumb question! The reason why rockets with fins stay straight in the air is because there is lots of air flowing over them keeping them pointed straight but as the air gets thinner the higher up the rocket goes it starts toppling over itself but its momentum keeps it going up as gravity and and very small amount of leftover air resistance chips away at its leftover speed until it hits its 'apogee' at that point it stops having any speed going up and it starts to fall down!
The second stage (sustainer) motor burns out at just over 60,000 ft. Gravity at 300,000 ft is nearly identical to what it is at ground level. To go into orbit the rocket would need to get a bit higher (there’s still some air at 300k ft) and also have a horizontal velocity of 17,000mph.
I think it’s the rocket’s low coefficient of drag and the very thin atmosphere above 60,000 ft that allows it to coast pretty much drag free in a ballistic flight. It’s going so fast upward at 60,000’ that it coasts all the way up to almost 300,000’. When you see the chute or streamer ejected at apogee, it just floats there in zero-g, due to being in a ballistic flight, unaccelerated, but also no significant wind drag due to the very thin air up at 290,000 feet, about 55 miles up! Arguably in space! But at apogee at 55 miles, it has very little horizontal speed. And to go into orbit would probably need to double that height AND accelerate horizontally (or tangentially) to around 17,000 mph! That’s one reason why, as Elon says, “space is hard.” And not only that, but fins are worthless up there. So how do you keep the rocket pointed in the correct direction so that all thrust goes to accelerating to 17,000 mph? Thrust vectoring and some sort of attitude sensing gyro…a self-guided rocket.
![BLACK BAG - Official Trailer [HD] - Only in Theaters March 14](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Du0Xp8WX_7I/mqdefault.jpg)
This must be the most breathtaking footage out of any rocket launches.
Thank you!
@@kdaugi what lens did you use for this rocket?
@kid.
What camera and lens did you use.
@@adrianmoore3118 Its in the full video of the mesos launch. M12 rectilinear lens.
You should write a research paper outlining the manufacturing, testing, and launching of this project. Great achievement 👏
Maybe one day!
Shut up
@@kdaugi pleasee
It's crazy to me that you are still doing Mach 1 at 280k feet. This is pretty damned cool, sir.
Thank you! Yeah it’s amazing, flying sideways too!
Very THIN air
Yeah, tumbling upwards at Mach 2+ passing 220k feet was nuts!
GoPro has a fish eye lens.
This was awesome to watch. Thanks for sharing your hard work bro! What s the budget for a such adventure?
really liked this one with the rocket icon showing orientation through the flight and all the telemetry data. Keep up the good work with your launches and I look forward to seeing more in the future.
So much for all these flat earth trolls.Outrageously sick sir!Ive been building and launching rockets for a half century.Its no hobby..More like a terminal addiction! Blessings to you and yours!
@@thomashamilton9864 Yep, just 100,000 feet short of hitting the firmament.
I was there for this launch. Watching launches like this really inspires me in the hobby. I am taking my L3 this year and would love to eventually get on a space shot team!
You don't need to join no stinkin' team. Do it yourself - Create your own team!
Sure wish ol' Frank Kosdon was still around. He was a fun guy to have on any team.
@OneZeroAte I am working on it. I got my L3 a few months back, and launched a minimum diameter M1780 NT at balls last weekend and will be working on a two stage version soon. I have 2 other guys working on their L3s who want to make a space shot team with.
@@joshsickles1163Cool. I never got into the "certification" stuff; I just designed & built rockets and flew them. There was a whole group of us who were renegades in that respect. We had a lot of fun at BALLS & Delamar. No rules. Great stuff.
@@joshsickles1163What kind of altitude did you manage to get out of that min. dia. M?
@@-108- 21,000 AGL and just under mach 2.
The wonders of proper telemetry to give viewers some perspective! People don't realise how important this is! Thank you so much for that! Very well done!
Thank you!! I’m glad you enjoyed the video!
No Nasa and no CGI but FE's will still deny.
It's impossible for me to not get a headache dealing with FE's
@@randomalt9617 Its your cognative dissonance!
Why don't FEs send up their own rockets to prove us wrong? I think we all know that answer.
@@Hummerbird99 They've tried, but they're too dumb to actually make something that flies more than 1000 feet high
@@randomalt9617 Why bother even talking to them? They are of no consequence ,
Wow! That camera is crystal clear and that framerate is spectacular!
Awesome launch!
Thanks a lot!
A mile- vertically- in 1.3 seconds at 63.000ft is quite difficult to wrap ones head around. As is pretty much all the data in the whole video! Bravo chaps!
True. I find it hard to process too. Amazing feat.
Yes those speeds are not something we deal with on an average day! Thank you!!
Considering that C-4's velocity of detonation is 26,400 feet per second. (5 miles per second).This rocket team is really walking that fine line between let’s make a rocket versus let’s make a bomb. That really is crazy fast.
I had no idea amateur rockets went that high
You ought to go out to Black Rock Dry Lake (after the Burning Man freaks are all gone) and attend a BALLS launch.
Those are the best launches in the world. There, you will see a lot more stuff you never knew was possible!
@@-108-Burning man freaks lmao
Highest I ever flew a model rocket to was a Centuri rocket I owned in the 70's to 2000 feet with a C6-7 engine. I flew it for my grammar school in the eighth grade and it began to rain right after I flew it as if the smoke seeded the clouds. I often flew it at my high school, flying it until I finally lost it after owning it two years.
I had a camera on my RC glider and also mounted one on a kite I owned with an eight foot wingspan, and another w/ a six foot wing span that was easier to haul in, on 1000 feet of line or 500 feet of line. I found a hack for the Canon camera that let it automatically snap a shot every second during the flight.
But your rocket is the best I've seen, and only twelve feet yet with the power to go to the edge of space--gr8 video!
This is my top channel, you guys are amazing and love the journey from the first video until now. Congratulations on the launch, and I like this clip with the HUD overlayed.
Thanks so much!! Will try to post progress more often, rocket building season (spring/summer) is quickly approaching.
Its amazing you did 89km altitude with a rocket so small. Amazing job. Liked and subscribed
I'm going to link people to this video when they ask what "coning" is, not bcuz it's excessive or anything, but because your animation of the rocket's orientation shows it brilliantly. Congrats on a truly epic flight!
Way to go, Kip! If you wanted to go higher would you need more stages, or bigger stages, or something else? So impressed!
Thank you! I hope to design a longer burning 2nd stage motor. It wouldn’t have more impulse but instead double the burn time. This would increase the performance (altitude) of the second stage. But designing this motor will be a complex project.
@@kdaugi Can you also separate the rocket to give less mass for the second stage to accelerate? That should raise the apogee with less need for extra propellant.
@@RWBHere That was what happened with this rocket.
@@RWBHere Stupid question:! Of course you will drop the spent stage. Always been done in basic rocketry!
@@kdaugiIf Frank Kosdon were still with us, he would be your go-to guy for the motor design. Dude was the greatest rocket scientist in HPR. (Rest In Peace, Frank.)
It must be really frustrating that whenever you post just a cool-ass video like this showing your amazing achievement, it becomes a magnet for conspiracy theorists.
Keep up the great work!
Just ignore them. Don't give them the oxygen of engagement.
Right? you have video and telemetry and all they have are the words "It's fake"
All comments move a video up in the algorithm. More people will see it due to flunts.
Now if you look closely at the video, you can see that the Earth is indeed flat. This is proved by the fact that it suddenly goes void after a certain distance, meaning that there is a sudden drop-off after that point indicating the edge of the flat world.
@@EEF500troll?
literally unbelievable project considering it's "home made" . you are true hero, sir. like Hiro - from heroes
Would love to see another launch and video! Hopefully the next gopro won't overheat!
According to the Flat Earthers these types of Rockets are supposed to hit the firmament, This bird never hit it or skimmed along the higher waters. So, this bird really did go to space. You even proved the Earth is round. Congrats.
What makes you think the rocket reached high enough to be considered as 'really going to space'?
Space starts at 327,000 feet or 62 miles. The fact is that this rocket was built by ordinary people is awesome and inspiring. As far as NASA is concerned space starts at 52 miles. So yes that rocket did go into space. Again congrats guys. You inspired me and I can’t thank you enough. A modified GoPro was used with. Rectangle lens and not a fisheye was a great touch. You can see the planet’s curve. It’s so beautiful. Even I’ve seen the curve from concord that I flew on going to France before it was retired. So the planet is really round.
According to the bible birds fly in the fermament.
@helious74 you didn't see any curvature. Maximum height of a concord flight is 60,000ft. What you saw was a distortion from the window in the plane. Curvature isn't visible at 60,000ft.
@@luca830
Every continent on Earth should be visible from that altitude if the Earth was flat. It isn't.
Globe confirmed 💯🌎
That was like a NASA or a SpaceX video! Wild stuff! Excellent work!!!
That was really impressive and really well put together. Congratulations!
Thank you!!
Raw video on launch welcomed. Tingling 60s vibe, like from NASA, here, and previous.
Saw lens flares and thought jjabrams produced it, so clean is the video.
'Carry on, gentlemen.'
Thank you! Will definitely carry on!
Incredible. Literally out of this world 🌍
Thank you Alan, another flight later this year!
@@kdaugi
Looking forward to it.
Outstanding. Simply incredible it handled so many temperature fluctuation and g forces at over mach 4 speeds
Hey, really, cool project! Congrats on your amazing flight! Here are some things I think would up the game for the next one:
1) Figure out a way to get the shot turned 90 degrees.
2) Roll stabilization.
3) SI/Metric readout along with the Imperial one.
Anyway, thanks for sharing!
Awsome. Greetings from Poland to your team. Great job.
Cheers thank you!
Any plans to add an RCS and/or reaction wheels for better attitude control in the higher altitude regime post burnout when control surfaces stop being effective? Clearly not necessary if all you want is the altitude record, but would make for nicer footage :)
I would love to. Weight and space for an RCS system would really impact the rocket’s performance. It would be great to one day spin stabilize and despin like the real sounding rockets.
should invite a flat earther for the next launch and let them see the empty SD cards on the gopros pre-launch and let him be the first to view it post-launch 🤣
proves without a doubt the earth is indeed not flat xD
1:42 average airliner cruising altitude
1:49 Concorde cruising altitude (rip)
2:08 Félix Baumgartner’s balloon jump
-4 Gs at 10,000 ft going Mach 2 between stages.
That's some serious air resistance/drag for something so streamline
One of my favorite channel...thanks sir for uploading this type of video
Most welcome, thank you
Hello congrats!!
What microcontroller are you using?
What altimeter are you using?
Thanks!
??
this almost hit 100km! this was super impressive. Great job man.
Hey, thanks!
As others have observed - amazing!
Thank you David!
Where does it end up landing? How far from the launch site?
Did you guys develop the HUD? Is there one for sale? I am level 2 certified and have used various First Person View OSD modules to broadcast telemetry and video on 5.8hhz
I used this software to create the gauges: goprotelemetryextractor.com/
I took the flight computer data I wanted to use and exported to a CSV file which the telemetry software read in to create the gauges. They have good instructions on how to do this in the link above. Hope this helps!
@@kdaugi Thank you Kip!!
Dang, just 40K feet short of the Karman Line. That's insanely impressive.
this makes me wonder if we will ever see someone launch an amateur sattelite
Hasn't that been done?
@@awatt nope, reaching space is easy compared to orbiting
@@awattthere’s a reason the first rocket to space was in 1944 while the first orbit was in 1957
@@_apsis
The first rocket in space "landed" a few streets away from where I am now. Just saying
@@awatt what’s your point?
Love the HUD very nice feed back. I tip my hat to your team.
Thanks you! I’m happy you liked it.
Flat Earthers running for the ice wall after watching this! 😅
Late to this video somehow. Thanks for keeping on sharing details about this flight. The Kate surely is an impressive unit and really the only choice for a flight like yours.
Thank you! Yes Kate worked incredibly well - I was impressed. The plan is to fly it again on this year’s flight.
Flat earther cant use the "Fish eye lens" excuse anymore, because if that the case at 3:03 the earth should bent inward not outward, because thats how the fish eye filter/lens work, they bend thing inward into the center of the camera.
That thing going into a slow, graceful tumble while going straight up at Mach 2 was pretty wild.
Take that flat-earthers
Bro you're my hero. Amazing work! I want to find part 2. I want to see the descent and landing.
Very cool video!
To all the tin foil hat folks here, before screaming “fish eye lens” (it’s not) but also take a second and observe what’s going on after the parachute deploys.
4:08 Look at all those cords and stuff smoothly floating around while it’s falling at 600ft/s, doesn’t look like there’s a whole lot of air resistance there does it? It’s almost as if this was filmed in a vacuum, hmm 🤔
Which type of FUEL did you use ....did you use a sugar motor ?????
Fascinating addition to the original flight video - thank you. The fact that the rocket is still climbing when it's going sideways is weird! The only thing I would add (if possible!) would be for the graphic to illustrate the stage 2 separation (or, even better, on-board camera views!). It's the stage separation that really intrigues me - I can (more or less) imagine the construction of the two stages, how the parachutes could be deployed, etc, but exactly how you separate and (safely) start the second motor is beyond me. I guess that's the key to the whole flight? Would a third stage be a better answer to get even higher than 'just' a longer burning second stage? I guess there's too much of a weight penalty that way, but a three stage amateur rocket really would be something!
Glad you liked it. The stages are designed to drag separate. So once drag on the first-stage outpaces it’s delivered thrust the second-stage slides apart. It then coasts to altitude and the motor is ignited at its forward end. To go higher, I plan to design a longer burning but lower thrust upper stage motor. Same impulse. This will limit energy losses to drag for the second-stage.
Awesome accomplishment. Congrats!
Thank you!
Flerfs are in panic all around this beautiful globe. 😁😁
The only thing a flat earther fears is sphere itself .....
.... I'll get my coat
go pro+ earth is a circle
@el8552 🤣🤣🤣💊
Very cool launch video. Curious why we see no stars in the expanse of space. I was under the impression that once you get above the atmosphere the stars would become visible. If anyone has an answer it would be appreciated.
It's to bright to see stars, even in space they're only visible over the night side of the planet
Space is full of light.
It is only the scattering of the suns light in our atmosphere that makes the sky blue.
It's a very common, and understandable misconception that because space appears black, it must be dark.
Because we associate a black sky with night time and the absence of sunlight.
If the exposure and shutter speed were set correctly them you might see the stars, but everything else would be a whitewash.
Imagine standing under the night sky looking at stars, then suddenly someone shines an incredibly bright flashlight at you. The stars will disappear. If the rocket were stable and he took a long exposure photo, you would see them.
Very nice!
As a real earth observer, I appreciate your efforts! Could you correct the lense to make it look natural and not the curved effect to concave? Some programs have that. Amazing shots and the artwork of your rocket is spot on!
Nice!
I have to comment again, simply amazing shot. I watched at .5 speed and was able to see what is happening better and help illuminate the huge picture being taken in. It’s overwhelming what you’ve done!
Cheers
The lens is very rectilinear and the earth isn’t concave at any point
Does "real earth observer" = "flat earther" ?
2:51 it is slightly concave . Watch at half speed. No big deal.
If the earth was flat, we wouldn’t have mountains. Silly comment
@@thomaskielbania6781 yeah… it’s not concave there at 0.25x speed
Amazing… that was exciting to watch. You’re the best!
It's sad that I have to look up videos like this to show how wrong flat earthers are. Great work.
Yes, I am the same sad guy badly agreeing with you!
Congratulations, you are amazing! I also want to build a model rocket. They recommended me to use APCP as fuel. With your permission, there is a responsibility. If possible, what fuel composition would you use and in what percentage? What is the content of the fuel?
If you were to continue with additional stages, can you use thrust vectoring to keep the rocket pointed upright when you're in the thinner atmosphere?
A beautiful sphere!
I never imagined it was possible to reach this high this fast. Breaking my brain.
Indeed, rockets fly fast!
Flat earthers are crying 😂
Nah they'll just deny reality!
@el8552Seek therapy
That's really cool! Thanks for this awesome video
Where are the flat earthers now?
No way to honestly discern the curvature with the camera rolling. Earth definitely didn't move out from under the rocket.
Lol oh we are here just trolling some more nasa style bullshit cgi my 6 yo nephew laughed at it and said let's watch a real one uncle I don't watch cartoons anymore !!! Oh the wisdom of a 6 yo but how you guys got lost along tbe way is truly sad that you are willing to follow the devil instead of our true creator !!! Now get back to bed
@@FLOWER6669The earth wouldn’t move under the rocket because the surface’s sideways motion is imparted to the rocket. The rocket’s moving sideways through space, too, because of Newton’s first law. Like if you jump on a train, the train doesn’t move under you.
@@FLOWER6669 If you were to jump on a train you don't get flung to the back of the carriage(Unless you were leaving a station). You would fall back where you jumped.
@@FLOWER6669It’s crazy how simple minded and smooth brained you people are. You actually think that if something isn’t physically attached to a surface, then it “must be independent and not affect eachother”. It’s as ridiculous as saying “the earth should move under me if I jump”.
Interesting seeing how impact the atmophere has on the deceleration after the first stage completes its burn vs the second.
*Why is the world warping like that?*
There is no 'warping' in the footage.
Pause it at various intervals - see what I mean?
@@sailorman8668
I see the images of the planet warping. It's not the same at the edge as when it's near the center of the shot. *Why is it doing that?*
@@thomasg4324 At the times you think you can see the 'planet warping', pause the video, and you'll soon realise that it's only an optical illusion that makes it appear that there's any 'warping'.
Amazing how you can still receive very clear video streaming from such an altitude.
I think it wasn't streamed and instead recovered video footage from an sd card after it parachuted down
Notice how the Earth is very much round and not flat.
It's fake footage and it didn't reached the needed height
@@yak-machining Incorrect.
@@yak-machiningWe have the entire ascent and landing recorded, with telemetry data and you still think it's faked? My brother in christ you're cooked
@@yak-machining XD seriousely? That's not even an excuse lol, there's no "needed height" you just see the curvature man
@@RobopRUclips it's obviously staged, the data is easily edited in and the video is generated by AI
I'm stunned . The earth is not actually flat? Thanks for all the hard work. How long from concept to rockstars?
It still looks sort of flat. But of course, the video is fake because you can’t see any stars. 😉
@@Andrew-13579
You can't see the stars during the day
@@Andrew-13579 Are you mocking all of these people that do actually have an expectation of stars being visible in the footage, or do you really think that stars should be visible?
@@chtwrone1 Mocking, lightheartedly. The contrast ratio between the bright sunlight reflecting off the Earth and the stars’ light is probably too great for the camera to capture. Plus the tiny size of the stars in the wide-angle view. They just don’t show.
I like how the fisheye lens on the camera makes everything appear curved, just like NASA and fakeX! Way to go buddy!
A non-distorting rectilinear lens was fitted to the camera.
Sorry to debunk your flat earth narrative.
Everyone (except You) can see that at the beginning of the launch, nothing is curved.
Grow some gray matter and a spine! ;)
It's all fake, these videos are created to fool people into thinking that the earth is spherical, now many people have woken up and know that the earth is not spherical and this terrifies them of these criminal scoundrels
You obviously can’t tell a fisheye lense from any other lense 🤡
It even magically did it on the other side of the image centre of the lense!
so how do you not hit a plane or something?
FAA clearance
Looks pretty flat
Sarcasm noted.
@@sailorman8668 definitely not sarcasm. The earth is provably not a globe spinning in a space vacuum
@@unindoctRYANated Now that you've outed yourself as actually being one of these deluded flat earth believing fools, perhaps you could explain to everybody how the flat earth sun can disappear BELOW the horizon, when it's always supposedly situated ABOVE the earth's surface?
Incidentally, the earth doesn't 'look pretty flat' in the footage at all - the CURVE is more than obvious.
How to tell others that you haven't finished elementary, without telling that you haven't finished elementary.
- Flerfs
@@dorkception2012 school is not for intelligent people please provide demonstrable evidence of earth curvature otherwise your globe is just a religious belief system
nice, what type of engine are you using?
Can you please not use fisheye lens that would be much appreciated
It's not a fisheye lens!
Globe confirmed 💯🌎
Got to lie to flerf
It's all fake, these videos are created to fool people into thinking that the earth is spherical, now many people have woken up and know that the earth is not spherical and this terrifies them of these criminal scoundrels
He’s not using one moron. Google fisheye lense videos 😂
1:26 17,000 feet in 10 seconds, with a TWR==17 , holy, holy...
Question, what is G- LOAD ???
Fisheye lens with barrel distortion. The earth is flat.
Rectilinear lens with ZERO distortion. The earth is spherical.
There, fixed your mistake - you're welcome.
Cope you silly flerf.
@@jeremiahwasabearfrog9956 cope you shill.
@@canalluzdivina2424 Why are you ignoring the fact that a fisheye lens wasn't used in this video?
@@msidc1238 Because it's a gopro. All of them use fisheye. The "non rectilinear" just changes the fov to a narrow view. Space exploration is a lie and you paid shills are nothing but operation mockingbird in action.
I can't remember, what altitude is in outer space?
Maybe 122km
It’s 100 km
120,000 feet or 6 miles. Ok got it.
Wow...the earth looks really flat even from that high up!!
🤣
Even with the camera adding curvature
@@v8stmpr Even with the camera not* adding curvature. Fixed your mistake.
@aaallljjjj It was, though. One can clearly see the curvature go from flat to curve as the camera pans up and down. And this observation is nothing new, we see the same thing happening with videos supposedly demonstrating curvature.
@@markalan4026 A rectilinear non-distorting lens do not add anything. The reason it appears "flat" is because of the shutter and orientation of the camera. Loads of videos, including from Flat Earthers who've sent up their own balloons with Rectilinear non-distorting lenses show curvature.
Free spinning camera plus a temp gauge?
flat earth
Nope.
spherical earth
There, fixed your mistake - you're welcome.
…is the stupidest load of horse 💩 on the internet.
Cope flerf.
Fat earth
Hey do you need a HAM license or smn for launches like these? Im guessing there should be some sort of radio based live telemetry
Another fisheye, not even making the camera vertical so you get less FOV stops the obvious.. ITS A FISHEYE
Everyone (except You) can see that at the beginning of the launch, nothing is curved.
Grow some gray matter and a spine! ;)
And liking your own comments is pretty sad.
@@dorkception2012 Oahah you can see by the land that it’s a fish eye lens, they surronded themselves with mountains to avoid a level horizon.. you can see the curvature very clearly as soon as it hits 5000ft you just refuse to accept it!
They ALSO made the camera vertical to make the fisheye lens even less obvious
@@VishnuIncarnation
Again, you can see the ground and other objects in the video, are you for real? :D
By the way, we know the shape of the Earth way before cameras were invented.
Eratosthenes was the first who not even figured it out, but his calculations almost matched the radii of the Earth.
Also, If it were flat, why can't we see the whole earth, all the continents and the North and the South Pole?
Huh? XD
Your god is as real as unicorns, or Santa Claus. ;)
Fisheyes SUCK!!!
@@dorkception2012 unicorns are real ahhaha they’re Rhinos.. shows how little you know
Great rocket launch! Lookin forward to more
Well done.
88% of the way to the end of our atmosphere.
Thanks! Technically the atmosphere ends several thousand miles higher (exosphere). And satellites have had perigees lower than the max altitude of this rocket (~80km).
@@kdaugiwouldn't those satellites experience too much drag from the atmosphere at this altitude?
Wish you didn’t change the description and remove the part that explains you used rectilinear lenses.
Interesting video. I assume accelerometers or gyros were measuring the rocket's attitude during flight given the display. Interesting how once it got into the very rarefied upper atmosphere that it began to porpoise because the fins no longer had a good bite on the air the rocket was flying through.
Congrats! Very smooth, what a ride!
Thank you!
This was an easy channel to sub
Awesome video that's speedometer was really good 😊
is this spin stabilized? awesome
Beautiful earth and all of its curves 😍
Is the camera a fish eye lens?
A non-distorting rectilinear lens was fitted to the camera.
they mounted a similar fish-eye lens on the video camera, to make people believe that the earth is spherical
@@antoniomazzeomonza
All videos at this sort of altitude prove the globe.
Globe confirmed 💯🌎
@@antoniomazzeomonza Grow up little princess.
@@antoniomazzeomonzaIf I was clueless I’d say the same thing. You have no clue what a fisheye video looks like😂
How do you measure altitude?
WOW amazing work.... there is a guy whose rockets he gets to land like spacex, maybe a team up?
Must have used a 10x safety factor on both the propellant to get that altitude and that airframe. Amazing stuff!
Drouge was deployed still at about 100ft positive rate of climb. Even a couple more seconds it would of definitely broke the 300k ft threshold
Regardless of the fact that the chute deployed prior to apogee, the rate of climb was dropping off so quickly, that the rocket still wouldn't have exceeded 300k ft.
Popped the chutes TOOOOO soon!☹️
Let’s draw out the crazies….. What kind of fish eye lense did you use to make the Earth look round??
Man, it already said that that camera lens ain't fish eye
Hi its amazing can you let me know the composition of it if possible, for my project at university?
Coolest thing I have seen short of a real (as in commercial/NASA) rocket.
Please excuse my dumb question - how can the rocket still be climbing when it’s pitching 360 degrees?
No it's not a dumb question! The reason why rockets with fins stay straight in the air is because there is lots of air flowing over them keeping them pointed straight but as the air gets thinner the higher up the rocket goes it starts toppling over itself but its momentum keeps it going up as gravity and and very small amount of leftover air resistance chips away at its leftover speed until it hits its 'apogee' at that point it stops having any speed going up and it starts to fall down!
Amazing footage ❤
Thank you very much!
Does the rocket keep burning untill it reaches peak altitude or does the momentum keep it going past a certain point due to less gravity?
The second stage (sustainer) motor burns out at just over 60,000 ft. Gravity at 300,000 ft is nearly identical to what it is at ground level.
To go into orbit the rocket would need to get a bit higher (there’s still some air at 300k ft) and also have a horizontal velocity of 17,000mph.
I think it’s the rocket’s low coefficient of drag and the very thin atmosphere above 60,000 ft that allows it to coast pretty much drag free in a ballistic flight. It’s going so fast upward at 60,000’ that it coasts all the way up to almost 300,000’. When you see the chute or streamer ejected at apogee, it just floats there in zero-g, due to being in a ballistic flight, unaccelerated, but also no significant wind drag due to the very thin air up at 290,000 feet, about 55 miles up! Arguably in space! But at apogee at 55 miles, it has very little horizontal speed. And to go into orbit would probably need to double that height AND accelerate horizontally (or tangentially) to around 17,000 mph! That’s one reason why, as Elon says, “space is hard.” And not only that, but fins are worthless up there. So how do you keep the rocket pointed in the correct direction so that all thrust goes to accelerating to 17,000 mph? Thrust vectoring and some sort of attitude sensing gyro…a self-guided rocket.