Do you plan a model rocket powered version? "Without the flame, it just ain't the same." A model rocket motor-powered scale model of the Hughes Aircraft-built Surveyor robotic lunar lander spacecraft (see: www.drewexmachina.com/2017/04/17/surveyor-3-touching-the-face-of-the-moon/ ) was built and flown in the 1960s, using an 18 mm diameter rocket motor in place of each of the three equidistantly-spaced vernier final descent retrorocket engines. Dropped from a height, it made several successful rocket-braked gentle touchdowns; on its sixth (if memory serves) flight, one motor failed to ignite, and it flipped and crashed (that actually happened to the real Surveyor 2, whose Atlas-Centaur launch vehicle's Centaur second stage recently entered temporary orbit around the Earth, from its solar orbit, see: www.drewexmachina.com/2020/10/27/has-the-centaur-that-launched-nasas-surveyor-2-to-the-moon-returned-home/ ), BUT: Unlike the Surveyor Moon landers (which--naturally--had *no* aerodynamic control surfaces, and whose three vernier rocket engines were spaced very widely apart), a R/C model of SpaceX's Starship, with its rocket motors (the operational full-scale Starship vehicles will have six Raptor engines, three with larger vacuum-optimized nozzle bells) clustered snugly together along the vehicle's centerline, couldn't have such a wildly-off-center thrust problem, like the Surveyor model did. A clustered motor mount--holding three, four, five, or six individual motor mount tubes--could be gimbal-mounted, with pitch and yaw servos that could change the motor mount's orientation as needed, and: One set of rocket motors (three out of five, say) would be ignited to boost the Starship model into the air. The two "flip" maneuvers (the first from vertical attitude into the horizontal "belly-flop" high-drag descent attitude, and the second "flip" back into vertical attitude, for the rocket-braked touchdown) could be done aerodynamically, via servo-actuated (in pitch, as well as in the root-hinged, variable-dihedral mode of motion that the full-scale Starship's wings and canards have [the canards could either be all-moving in pitch, or they could have hinged control surfaces at the rear]). The model, being lighter after its boost motors had burned out, could descend and gently land using fewer rocket motors. Or the same number of retrorocket motors (as boost motors) could be used, and ignition of the "landing set" of motors would be delayed until the model was descending fast enough so that the greater total thrust would cancel out the descent velocity. As well: The Falcon 9 first stages have to do this (start the landing burn at very low altitude while falling rapidly, that is) in order to land gently, because the thrust of the single (center) Merlin rocket engine--even at minimum throttle--is significantly greater than the first stage's mass when its propellant tanks are almost empty. It can't throttle down enough to even just hover, as New Shepard's booster does before it extends its undercarriage and lands; the Falcon 9 first stage's downward momentum is necessary, to keep the stage from "bouncing" back upwards under thrust, instead of gently touching down at almost zero velocity (This isn't a design flaw; the vehicle's larger size and mass, plus considerations of structural strength and propellant utilization efficiency that those factors "drive" [Starship also has this same "sporty" descent & landing profile], make such 'breathtaking' landings necessary.)

Very impressive work Nicholas. I was watching with interest throughout all video and it is not happening often. I am curious what will you achieve in it next time.. I am holding my thumbs. This aircraft is incredible but not controllable enough due to no lift on horizontal flight mode. Would you consider 3 surface controls X 2 instead of 2 surface and the too yaw control can't be working well as it is disturbed by bottom thrust..

Nicholas Rehm I can’t wait!

My dad has been trying to get in touch with you. He manufactures carbon fiber and I think you could use some of his material in your projects. Send him and email at da-graphite@cox.net. Subbed after he sent me your video this is awesome.

Carbon fiber tubes would increase the torsional rigidity and hopefully be lighter than adding the skin. Monokote might work for the skin also. I'm sure you have already considered these options though. If you added some orange and red ribbons to the bottom, it would look cool. Hopefully the idling motors would keep them out of the propellers.

Thanks, still plenty of room for improvement!

Nicholas Rehm wonder how hard it would be with model rocket engines 🤔

@@NicholasRehm Yep. That last landing. Low voltage in the header-battery? : )

Daniel, Thanks man! Loved your version

this guy kind of sounds like you LOL :D

djSpinege they do sound alike...

Including the RUD on the last flight

@Game Over I wonder if a container with a weighted ball of gell inside could simulate the fuel movement and weight change during the maneuvers. Or a weight on a screw shaft that goes along the center.

A pint of petrol should do the trick ...

You beat me to the joke. Very cool build. Happy flying!

I’ve built a SN8 with a rocket engine ,issue I had that it wasn’t stable with the original profile of the SN8 . I had to use a four fin tail configuration not ideal but on a budget it looks great in flight. I’ve looked at your fantastic take on the SN8 it’s absolutely brilliant,have you thought of a small smoke unit on the tail section the ducted fans will give the desired effect.

The flight was amazing. That would be cool to see a little explosion at the end. don’t shoot your eye. Thanks Nick.

Great work Nicholas! I saw your earlier comment on another vid, so it's great to see it flying.

Thanks for the kind words

Agreed. Outstanding work!

Thanks for stopping by

And it was absolutely awesome

But it proved the belly flop is viable!

& SN9 tipped over, just like this one. :-) VERY COOL!

Haha not bad???

And SN9 too

Thanks James, always inspired by your work

Yes--so glad I don't have to do a hover slam like they do. I have faith in belly flop too

@@NicholasRehm I gather they have better throttling than the falcons, fuel is probably the limitation. Your demo convinced me they'll only lose 0-1 starship practicing the flip rather than 2-3.. I also wonder why they dont practice the flip at altitude for data gathering purposes

@@CAPUT-rh2cm different Reynolds number at altitude... could be good for simulating Mars landing though

@@NicholasRehm well I guess we may know more in 15 minutes ;)

Wow you're right haha

@@NicholasRehm And a lot of green, just before crash 11:58

:)

Thanks a ton

Thank you!

Absolutely insane watching it live, happy to host the after-party here :)

My plan was to cover the skeleton with something lighter like paper or monokote, but turns out it needed the stiffening so I ran with that

That's quite the challenge but just might have to try it

Thanks, just getting started

I agree--a very simple concept that seems to work really well or what its designed to do. Thanks!

Thanks Luka!

Always makes for a good show though

Thanks for the awesome comment

Thank you, just getting started

Thanks for the awesome comment

Thanks a ton

Thank you!

I think it’s safe to say we saw some success!

​@@NicholasRehm The final turn was amazing to watch. Can't wait to hear the post-flight analysis and what happened to the engines on both ascent and descent. A bit more thrust and I think it would have stuck the landing, I was so impressed that they hit the pad at all!

Thanks for the comment!

Thanks for such a great comment, cheers!

I forgot to mention that you must have a nice workshop but, I was thinking like an old man at 64 and not the space age setup you have

@@kevinmccarthy8746 I'm working out of a small bedroom at the moment actually, nothing too crazy haha

Thanks!

Thanks!

That one dislike-person should make a better functioning version. That would be fair :-) (He would fail ;-) He would not even get so far) ... because I'm guessing, he wants to see quick and perfect results and has no patience. But well, prove me wrong, nay-clicker whoever you are (not yet in this thread) and pull off a better funtioning version than in this video in 4 weeks (not just a quadcopter with a cylinder on it, that's nothing) and I would greatly write "wow" in a comment to that video, because that would be aweseome and would deserve some respect. For now, this guy in this video has my respect. Great idea, well performed.

@@richard--s Dude i would not get as far as he did in terms of cosmetics

@@Surrenitie he did not add so many cosmetic details, most things are necessary, even the simple wrap-around outer shell - that was for aerodynamic reasons in the bellyflop phase ;-)

@@richard--s Exactly lol

Thanks for the comment!

Thanks Bob!

Thanks!