Honestly though!!

yea, flying almost two times lower and slower, but B4 tried its best and fought till the last second, against all odds and engine failures

@@Caliper_Click B7* B4 never flew

Iirc, IFT-1 throttled slower when leaving the pad compared to both IFT-2 and IFT-3, and I don't think the number of lost engines is the factor here.

@@SyahmiAsyraffYT That and they had newer raptors.

@@SyahmiAsyraffYT The loss of Raptors on B7 made a big difference, as did the loss of control due to the HPUs being wrecked.

holding down IFT1 (possibly) could've been some of the issues with a few of the raptors going out. I'm not sure if this was ever confirmed or debunked though.

But sadly you have to understand what is going on. For me it was great, but I just can't seem to pass my enthusiasm around !

Oddly it took flight quicker but IFT-2 quickly caught up and then managed to stay slightly ahead all the way through staging. Presumably because IFT3 was taking a slightly higher arching trajectory in order to ensure a steeper reentry angle over the Indian Ocean, so that the vehicle could still reenter at near-orbital speeds on reaching it's significantly less distant destination.

Have you got that backward? Both IFT-2 and IFT-3 saw flawless uphill flights from both their boosters and ships ... right up until IFT-2's ship's LOX dump led to its final demise just a short way from its planned engine shutdown. IFT-3's ship had no such problems; and appeared to fly flawlessly till after reaching zero-G and developing a slow but continually accelerating roll that the ships lack of conventional OMS was clearly unable to address (on this flight - I'm not presuming just one failure on its first attempt is enough to force SpaceX to abandon their plans to only utilize ullage venting for orbital attitude control, station keeping, and maneuvering). For most of the flight there appeared to be a constant venting from the starboard side of the vehicle as viewed from the forward port-side flap which to my eyes matched up with the ships accelerating starboard roll. I imagine either the ship spung a leak (unlikely) or a vent froze open and couldn't be reclosed (likely due to ice buildup or prior mechanical failure of the valve itself). If it was a stuck ullage vent, it's prolonged venting after engine shutdown (when no more hot gasses were available to represurize the tanks) may have robbed the ship of its ability to restore control before reentry (as excess tank pressure was lost to space the remaining, still functional vents would have been deprived of their power source and thus robbed of their ability to operate efficiently and deliver the necessary thrust to regain control).

That was a poor choice of words on my part there. I meant "its end" or maybe "demise" would have been a better word. IFT-2's numbers generally looked as good or better than IFT-3's up until the big boom. What I was trying to say was that, sans the boom, it looked really good and would have completed more objectives than it did. I am interested to see if they were running more tests than normal on the OMS this time around. It is hard to tell if they were intentionally stressing the system at first or fighting the space craft the whole time. After awhile it was clear something was frozen open, or was blocked. Freezing of the vent ports is going to be a real concern when using cryogenic gasses. I am sure they will figure it out or adjust fire. I think reentry would have been smoother had it been under control at the start. The initial entry images looked amazing (visually), and seemed (from the heat) to be pointing the right way, but the orientation graphics told a completely different story. I think I noticed some missing tiles before reentry, so I think there is still some work to do on that end.

Consider also that #1 failed to disconnect when signaled to do so.

@@2Chickaboom2 Yes I know, but It's just fun fact.

@@2Chickaboom2IFT-1 never achieved the speeds or altitude required to trigger a stage separation. Thus, it was never "signaled to do so".

The reason for that is actually because IFT-3 was carrying more mass!

While IFT-2 was impressive, IFT-3 was substantially more impressive.

@@SlartiMarvinbartfast I think the engineering requirements for IFT3 over 2 were tweaks. There was much bigger differences in the whole system on IFT2 over 1, most notably the deluge system and the way they protected the engines, from lifting off with engines blowing up every few seconds, to all 33 working all the way up, and not destroying the pad to the extent that happened on IFT1 was a huge difference. Not to forget, completely changing the staging concept to hot staging and nailing it on first attempt.

B7 was the booster that simply refused to die. Not even tumbling around mortally wounded while still dragging a fully-fueled Ship 24, nor the detonations of both vehicle's flight termination explosives were enough to convince in to give up. That beast not rules in the hall of Vahalla.

Indeed!

Thanks!

And show the video of how far the maiden flight of another company's first rocket (a far smaller and far more simple one at that) to launch that day fared. (Hint: not well. And also, it wasn't their first launch attempt for that vehicle, which failed to ignite at T-0 at least twice prior. Space is hard. IFT-3 launched on-time on its first attempt - shrimpers in the range taking one for the team to make SpaceX wait till after the sun rose and some of the fog burned off not at all SpaceX's fault.

that's not what sells.. 🙄

So you do the minuet?😊

LOL

Clouds etc probably absorbed a lot of the sound waves.

July to December : Clouds without 🌞 January to June : Clouds have ☁

That's because you're going deaf from the first two.

Haters are what they are. Small people.

Well it’s just a test rocket and they already have another ship model that is longer and can carry more fuel

I saw that too. Slightly lower altitude. But I think the speeds were very similar so perhaps it's a different flight profile?

Heavier, had extra fuel for the propellant transfer demo

@@johnfisher7143 makes sense