SpaceX Starship Hopper 150m Test Flight *Success!

It's a different type of rocket engine, and it's the highest altitude that such a rocket engine has ever flown. You are oversimplifying things in order to ignore historical nature of this achievement. If you want to group all rocket engines together that's your business but then don't reply to me denying that this was a first because I am talking specifically about the type of rocket engine being used here.

Last Edited by Astromut on 08/28/2019 01:58 PM

That was quite a launch and landing. I will never look at a water tower the same way again. ;-)

Has there been an official explanation as to what exploded out of the top of the hopper as it landed. Looked like some sort of tank that landed several hundred yards away and burned for hours.

If that happened in space, would that flight have been considered a success?

It could be a nitrogen tank which was tied to the cold gas thruster system. You wouldn't want that to happen in space, for sure, but it's not clear exactly what failed or why yet. It's not even clear that the nitrogen gas system shares much in common with whatever the final design will be. Elon Musk is supposed to give a talk about Starship and he'll most likely cover it.

Historic!!!!

Very Cool!!!

Thanks Astro!!!

This is pretty much the reason I won't pay to subscribe here, the ACs are shill morons that piss on everything and almost ruin every single meaningful posting. They hide in obscurity and disappear like a fart in a tornado. This isn't the old days where people just wanted anonymity, it's now AI botts and morons that take the whole thing over. Thanks for your wisdom anyway Mutt!

The other thing I notice is that it looks like something started flaming near the engine as it starts to descend. Not sure if that was deliberate or not, but if you look close you can see it start at 59 seconds in this video:

Since this is a full flow staged combustion engine the turbopump exhaust is not dumped overboard, so we shouldn't be seeing a secondary flame as far as I know. I wonder if something sprang a leak late in the flight. In any case I'm sure they'll be able to learn a lot from this test flight, and since the vehicle was recovered intact they can tear it apart and analyze every bit of it to find out what worked and what needs to be changed.

Last Edited by Astromut on 08/28/2019 10:53 AM

LOL... 150M, Sure we went to the moon...

They cant even get 20 stories off the ground.

This is a single engine prototype you dumbass, the point of it was not to go to space, the point was to test the engine and landing systems. SpaceX already has rockets that can put payloads well beyond the moon.

A brilliant catch of a monumental Space-X screw up by fellow YouTuber Level Earth Observer In this video, Elon Musk & the fraudulent Space-X CGI company are caught red handed faking a test launch. It seems the CGI artist forgot some laws of physics and omitted the thrust from the rocket from having any effect on the massive exhaust/smoke plumes created by the liftoff. How many Space-X / NASA fan boys are going to rush to the defense of this one? LOL!

[link to youtu.be (secure)]

It was observed by independent observers, your assumptions about how the plume should interact are false. It's not CGI you fucking retard.

DCXs farting by then haha [link to en.wikipedia.org (secure)] were much useful fo get Malvinas back to the rails :)

Was that supposed to be english?

from an engineering point, what a historic moment indeed!

150 meters

how about the ISS's 400km altitude :) I just wonder the tank size for going up and considering the additional combustible for the weight of the additional combustible to come back in a controlled manner

does all the additional combustible worths not disposing the "launching-only" related parts like classic missions have done so far?

yup I see "worth" must consider a period, not a shot, in time - more combustible can be more expensive compared to disposable classical ways but since the time needed BETWEEN missions can be SIGNIFICANTLY less for a next launch than classic missions that need to build whole new launching-only parts again and again, and hence in a period of time the "new way" can be worthy compared to classic, more trips in same time frames (more income)

however, it would be just a matter of building launch-only parts in a SERIE, in advance, stock pilling them - since the cost of additional fueling the non-disposable new way needs ALSO is recurring, only differing it can be "paid" closer to launch date while disposable launch-only parts would need to be paid some months before - but am not sure if such capital cost flux wouldn't be able to be managed in some way to dillute and be closer to that of the larger refuelling the new way demands..

I think you're trying to ask if the extra fuel of bringing it back to land is worth ditching parts of the rocket. It's really not; fuel is cheap, it only accounts for a few hundred thousand dollars of cost in a multi-million dollar launch.

sorry, back "on track"

thanks

nasa fanboys on a mission to nowhere

Space cartoons do not prove fake space or Earth globe theory, as adults you should know that.

It's not a cartoon you idiot.

Typical bawler ad hominem - instead providing facts attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person.

Who are you talking about? Astro?

It's only an "ad hominem" argument if it is used to advance the point, to support the case. Otherwise, it's just an insult, and does not affect the logic of the case.

Astro has a bad temper and likes to insult people. That is one way you know is not a real shill, because a real shill would be careful not to alienate his audience.

However, he does understand how rockets work and he does accurately photograph their launches and recoveries.

^^^^
... one way you know he is not a real shill ...

I know astro agreed to debate on neutral territory where neither side will control the mute button, but I'm a lying coward bitch so I try to pretend he's hiding from a fair debate.

Last Edited by Astromut on 09/06/2019 09:22 AM

I'm still a fucking idiot who is too much of a coward to debate Astro on a neutral third-party platform.

Last Edited by Astromut on 08/30/2019 08:14 AM

Hey Astro
Was that a space flight? No but you can think of it as a space flight.

Here are a couple of questions for you?
1 Is gravity a force?
2 is there a Coriolis effect on earth?

I don't like Astro because of his personality but he is correct on his knowledge of rockets, orbital dynamics, photography, and the spherical Earth.

Nathan refuses to debate me on the Great Debate Community Channel which already has a large audience and is a neutral platform where neither of us will control the mute button. I am not afraid to debate people on neutral territory with a third-party moderator. I'm not even afraid to debate someone with a conspiracy theorist moderator. Iproven this before but Nathan is too much of a fucking coward to debate me on such a neutral platform and you are too much of a goddamn liar to admit it.

There's proof I'm not afraid to go along to a neutral third-party platform for debate. Nathan is welcome to come debate me anytime he wants. And yes as long as you continue lying about it and spamming the forum with your fucking lies you will continue to be banned.

Last Edited by Astromut on 08/30/2019 08:15 AM

Listen up you fucking idiot, I have attended these launches and landings for years now, I have written my own software to track these rockets from launch to landing uninterrupted and it works. For years you fucking idiots have claimed that its fake and CGI and you are all wrong and I know this for a fact. You refuse to debate me on a neutral platform because you're a fucking coward and I'll ram your ass with my proof. If it were on Nathan's channel of course he could just mute me anytime he wants and refuse to present my evidence. That's not how this is going to go. It will be on a neutral platform and it will be moderated by a neutral third party. I'll even debate you so come on you piece of shit. Are you game or you will fucking coward? We both know the answer to that one, don't we?

Last Edited by Astromut on 08/30/2019 08:14 AM

This is sooo epic.

Thanks again Astro for all your efforts.