Hey there, I stitched together a few frames from the GOES-16 view of the launch, thought you might be interested, I uploaded it as a short. The view in visible light is not that good from geostationary altitude, but GOES also has several infrared filters, the one around 6 microns is sensitive to water vapor in the upper atmosphere, and the rocket exhaust plume is basically just H2O and CO2 so it shows up really well as a cool cloud in the infrared!
Hey space science guy theres something you need to know about both starship n super heavy , they all have landing tanks that arent visible from telemetry meaning the visible fuel amount on telemetry is in their main tanks and not their landing tanks
A couple of updates regarding the observation I made about the closest plane to the splashdown. First is that Starship IFT4 seems to have been targeting a splashdown further west x southwest than predicted by the SatTrackCam Leiden blog (and I've been told that it landed 6 km from the target, but I'm yet to independently verify that), putting it further away from flight TGW9. The distance of the horizon for a commercial plane is around 370 km, so the splashdown itself would have been out of line of sight. However, there seems to be a private jet (MXJ F900) which was circling the area at the time of splashdown. Interestingly, I missed this the first time I looked because it wasn't actually showing on Flight Radar at the exact time of splashdown (13:55 UTC), and it only pops back up 30 minutes later (14:23 UTC). I don't know much about plane transponders, e.g., whether they could have turned theirs off, and whether there are any airspace violations for flying so close to a splashdown.
15:25 I would say only about 15 or 20% of reaction videos manage to identify that the wave of white you see on the right hand side of the view _is_ the splash. There's literally no other thing it could possibly be. Telemetry remains about 2 seconds ahead of the video footage for the entire flight plan and I'm sure that contributes somewhat to the confusion.
We lost many astronauts in shuttle explosion due tiles malfunctioned! That made shuttle broken apart and now here where we have starship who passed through reentry with thousands broken tiles and flaps Perfect demonstration of government vs private
@@spacescienceguy I would not say its completely wastage but atleast should have sense to manufacture space craft with feasible materials that what SpaceX thought and implemented
So in my opinion there were a few factors that helped in Starships favor -They used Steel, which has a higher melting temperature than Aluminium - that part of the fin just needs to be strong enough to stabilize itself during the belly flop, rather than act as an aerodynamic surface like the shuttle - the header tanks are nestled safely inside the main tank, so if there were any ruptures in the tank, it wouldn't be catastrophic. - this one's my own hypothesis, but it might be possible that the cryogenic fuel might've pre-chilled the steel plates enough to survive reentry. - an even less likely possibility was that the tank might've had a small rupture(we got some light roughly at the 14-10km mark) , and the excess fuel/oxidizer that was venting out acted as a primitive form of transpirational cooling.
The hot staging ring stays on because it’s physically latched on using the same latching clamps used to latch the ship and booster together, not just by gravity.
Could it possibly be both? It started to float away as the engines shut off and the booster started to flip around, but maybe that's just when they decided to release the clamp. I was basing what I said on what I heard on the NASASpaceflight stream at the below timestamp, plus my own observation. th-cam.com/users/livemTkhv4fvOgA?si=CIE4EVThf2Qqo9Ah&t=31339
@@spacescienceguy Well, it’s both, but on different flights. On IFT-3 it was intended to be left on, but the booster problems created such forces that it was torn off, and the extended period of it hanging by one clamp caused more problems. On IFT-4, it was released on purpose, but it flew off sideways, so I’m wondering if it had a spring assist or a thruster to make that happen.
Hey there, I stitched together a few frames from the GOES-16 view of the launch, thought you might be interested, I uploaded it as a short. The view in visible light is not that good from geostationary altitude, but GOES also has several infrared filters, the one around 6 microns is sensitive to water vapor in the upper atmosphere, and the rocket exhaust plume is basically just H2O and CO2 so it shows up really well as a cool cloud in the infrared!
Very cool find! The launch had a bigger, more noticeable infrared footprint than I think I would have expected.
Hey space science guy theres something you need to know about both starship n super heavy , they all have landing tanks that arent visible from telemetry meaning the visible fuel amount on telemetry is in their main tanks and not their landing tanks
Ah, I actually didn't know that! Thank you for sharing!
this is good to know
A couple of updates regarding the observation I made about the closest plane to the splashdown. First is that Starship IFT4 seems to have been targeting a splashdown further west x southwest than predicted by the SatTrackCam Leiden blog (and I've been told that it landed 6 km from the target, but I'm yet to independently verify that), putting it further away from flight TGW9. The distance of the horizon for a commercial plane is around 370 km, so the splashdown itself would have been out of line of sight.
However, there seems to be a private jet (MXJ F900) which was circling the area at the time of splashdown. Interestingly, I missed this the first time I looked because it wasn't actually showing on Flight Radar at the exact time of splashdown (13:55 UTC), and it only pops back up 30 minutes later (14:23 UTC). I don't know much about plane transponders, e.g., whether they could have turned theirs off, and whether there are any airspace violations for flying so close to a splashdown.
15:25 I would say only about 15 or 20% of reaction videos manage to identify that the wave of white you see on the right hand side of the view _is_ the splash. There's literally no other thing it could possibly be. Telemetry remains about 2 seconds ahead of the video footage for the entire flight plan and I'm sure that contributes somewhat to the confusion.
Good catch! I don't think I even noticed the white wave, I was so fixated on the telemetry.
I didn't hear 1 sci3nce sounding thing. New title. Ift 4 Reaction ?
We lost many astronauts in shuttle explosion due tiles malfunctioned! That made shuttle broken apart and now here where we have starship who passed through reentry with thousands broken tiles and flaps
Perfect demonstration of government vs private
And many more years and dollars of technology development, I guess!
@@spacescienceguy yes taxpayers does get waste to invest in government because there is no way to invest in private sectors directly
@@spacescienceguy I would not say its completely wastage but atleast should have sense to manufacture space craft with feasible materials that what SpaceX thought and implemented
The space shuttle never had a loss of the crew or the shuttle itself because of heat tile losses.
So in my opinion there were a few factors that helped in Starships favor
-They used Steel, which has a higher melting temperature than Aluminium
- that part of the fin just needs to be strong enough to stabilize itself during the belly flop, rather than act as an aerodynamic surface like the shuttle
- the header tanks are nestled safely inside the main tank, so if there were any ruptures in the tank, it wouldn't be catastrophic.
- this one's my own hypothesis, but it might be possible that the cryogenic fuel might've pre-chilled the steel plates enough to survive reentry.
- an even less likely possibility was that the tank might've had a small rupture(we got some light roughly at the 14-10km mark) , and the excess fuel/oxidizer that was venting out acted as a primitive form of transpirational cooling.
What was your favourite part of the live stream, and why was it the hero flap?
The hot staging ring stays on because it’s physically latched on using the same latching clamps used to latch the ship and booster together, not just by gravity.
Could it possibly be both? It started to float away as the engines shut off and the booster started to flip around, but maybe that's just when they decided to release the clamp.
I was basing what I said on what I heard on the NASASpaceflight stream at the below timestamp, plus my own observation.
th-cam.com/users/livemTkhv4fvOgA?si=CIE4EVThf2Qqo9Ah&t=31339
@@spacescienceguy Well, it’s both, but on different flights. On IFT-3 it was intended to be left on, but the booster problems created such forces that it was torn off, and the extended period of it hanging by one clamp caused more problems.
On IFT-4, it was released on purpose, but it flew off sideways, so I’m wondering if it had a spring assist or a thruster to make that happen.