High quality commentary!

Fascinating, clear, precise and enthusiastic technical comments. Thank you.

Yes, please do more segments like this. Very informative! As I watch most of these from my backyard, it's really cool to have the commentary, Great job!!

i wish to add a correction , Air is not particulates , it is Molecules , O2 oxygen is 2 combines oxygen elements , (a Molecule) Carbon Dioxide (1 carbon 2 oxygen Molecule ) so in the absence of other rare elements air really is full of molecules

Every flat earther, that is totally cgi.... 🤣🤣🤣🤣

They did talk some about it. It's just a fancy flight controller with a GPS and an altimeter. They put into it the target coordinates, the estimated wind, and the rest is the controller solving the trajectory optimization problem in real time. There was a good article on it, which also gave some additional references: _"SpaceX’s self-landing rocket is a flying robot that’s great at math"_

SpaceX actually wrote a paper with NASA a few years ago on propulsive landings. They use something called non-convex optimisation

That's why there's a Navy flight bunch, have a son that's a 18 pilot so I'm biased

Basically PID loop control of engine gimble, cold thrusters and grid fins. Nothing terribly exotic, once it is turned properly. Tuning crashed many rockets but now they've definitely got it!

The problem is that if you can land a rocket on target you can land a bomb on target and the military wants a monopoly on that ability, so sharing how you do it even for educational purposes or hobby size payloads is a no-no.

Spectacular Clarification. Thank you so much

Excellent, thanks! I always kinda noticed it but never really thought about it.

You know, the moment you mentioned flame color, I immediately knew where you were going with it and thought to myself, "Oh, hey, that's a neat point." ... but as many of these as I've watched, I just never registered it myself! Thanks!

But..................but..................what about pollution and global warming?? 😲

​@@bdickinson6751 One of the purposes of running fuel rich is to *drastically* reduce both mass, which would require a great deal more fuel to offset (and the fuel to *lift* that fuel, Tsiolkovsky's not very forgiving on that), and part/material complexity. By running fuel rich, they give a film over the nozzle that keeps it cool. If they instead went with more "active" cooling (and ran perfect fuel/oxydizer ratios and had an idealistic environment), they would need to potentially change the nozzle material, as well as add all of the mass and complexity of pumping the coolant and removing heat from the coolant too. Energy cost of manufacture of the components themselves would potentially overshadow the fuel saved, and paired with the fuel needed to *then* lift those components, and it's *very* likely far worse, ecologically. Lastly, you *still* have to err towards fuel rich. Rocket engines are just fire. Fuel, oxygen, heat. Given enough heat and oxygen (which you have in a rocket engine) nearly *anything* can work as a fuel. Including the nozzle itself. Excess oxydizer can and often will *find* something to react with to burn when provided an ignition source. Running engine rich is *very* bad for a rocket. The other detail is the fuel used. While hydrogen is great for cleanliness through the launch, that may be offset by the costs of production and infrastructure. It's also simply *very* hard to work with, as shown by the repeated issues on the ground side infrastructure for Artemis 1. RP-1 and Methane are simpler, and simpler allows a much higher launch cadence (which favors reuse, which means *not* producing and then throwing away the rocket after one flight, which is *also* better environmentally). Eventually, maybe, we'll get hydrogen production from green sources, cooling, storage, and use down to allow the same levels of use, but that'll be a while yet. Also, cutting out all spaceflight tomorrow would provide such a negligible change in carbon emissions on the whole that it's *definitely* not the tree to bark up.

Yea to make the earth appear round smh

Came to the comments to see if anyone else saw that… Why the need for it.. just giving flat earthers more fuel to prove their point…

What do you mean? Fish eye lens and earth looking ridiculous?

@@shtoleva07the camera lens is a fish eye lens. It curves everything in picture. And since when is the whole earth water.

They don't want you to see how flat it really is 😂

😂 no stars,1of many RED FLAGS!! AND WHO TF MADE THE GUY TALKING AN OFFICIAL SPINNING BALL BABBLER 😂😂!!! ​@opposition13

🤣

And all this time I thought Tom Cruise was the camera man 😅

no they're just trying to hide the infinite power of the cameraman

You bust me up! Laughed so hard, Cheeto's came out my nose!

@@richardpark3054 😂😂 you made it visually clear... No need of a cameraman there 😂

I think the part of the legs deploying because of momentum didn't require a long explanation of what momentum is. Other than that, I agree.

"Whatever you wanna call it" multiple times lol. Precise.

fake af lol

@@DoctorZisIN haha I was just going to say this 😅

@@MHollywood5 i'd think its pretty precise to call you a prick.

Lol cgi

I would love to like this comment but unfortunately I cannot add a like to the current 69 likes

You like cartoons, Eh?

This fake

Agreed!

Yep, bang on! I thoroughly enjoyed watching this one. I think that all the questions were answered.

Yes!

I think their potential competitors would love to know that process.

@@robertweinmann9408 indeed!

It really isn’t a well done video unless clouds can rotate 180 and keep its complex intricate shape to be a backdrop for the launch direction and the assent direction IMPOSSIBLE

@@rickyevans5822 Lol, I love it when flat earth people launch themselves up in homemade steam rockets strapped to an rv and accidentally unlive themselves to prove the flat earth.

@@thefunniestfarm4731oh that guy wasn’t a flat earther. He was just using the flat earthers money to have fun in his life. God bless that man.

@@Slacker_eepy If that's the case, too bad he couldn't make it to orbit on their money :( Would have been epic fun.

@@thefunniestfarm4731 for sure. It kinda makes that guy more of a legend to me, as he literally scammed the flat earthers with their stupidity.

Every landing I witness makes me giddy inside.

The Earth is flat! That's what they are hidding with Fish eye lenses !

then, fill the comment section with 50% of reinforcing bots and wah-lah!

So what your saying is You've been watching NASA deception for years 😂

It's one I've begged for, for so long! Now they need to do the same thing in their livestreams a single take livestream on board the f9 and also a full single tracking camera video would be great!

5yrs old, such EM damage it caused . hahahahha

It's not rocket science

i bet within the next decade a human can really walk on the moon

@@KillerCuddles-fc6kgcan’t walk on something that’s not a rock

@@eezz7822 I did... I walked on a tree branch after I climbed the tree

@@KillerCuddles-fc6kg .... dude what? You missed me point entirely.

@@eezz7822 LMAO Did I? ;-)

It's falling (ballistic) the instant the engines are off. Whether it still has some upward momentum is a red herring unless it has escape/orbital velocity and vector. But it lacks that velocity, so it's falling back to Earth, period.

@@linuxgeex He is talking about the boost-back burn. At this point the rocket is climbing again to increase time of flight for the return. Although Some on the forum have said that this is not always the case.

Yes, and the boost-back burn is a horizontal vector to cancel horizontal thrust and return to the cape. There is also quite a bit of slewing (horizontal flying) by the booster after the entry burn, so the return is more than just a ballistic trajectory. (If the booster loses complete control, it's ballistic flight will leave it short of the lz and it will fall into the water)

@@alankott3129 Even then the boost-back isn't adding velocity. It's actually cancelling out the horizontal component of the vector away from the LZ, and it's still ballistic, which is falling, even if it's falling up temporarily. The flamey bit needs to be pointed a different direction for it not to be falling. NSF is right, he's wrong. Though he's understandably wrong, ie it's not an easy concept for people new to rocketry that you can be *falling* *up.*

@@isbjorneliassen Agreed, but ballistic is the overwhelming flight behaviour, lol. They have a small amount of discretion *where* it is falling, but they reserve what little discretion they have *whether* it is falling for the last few seconds so they don't make a crater ;-)

Oh so you’ve seen the fake launches first hand?

@@eezz7822 stop being a dumbass person trying to deny what people seen with their own eyes.

Their pinned message is them saying Falcon Heavy coming soon. So :)

@@Vatsyayana87 oh lol Im dumb. I didn't see that the first time lol.

@@forge_gamer5174 lol, i only see the pinned if im just going through looking for questions i might have an answer for.

Hey, glad it showed you something new! - Das

The booster was already extremely high up when the horizon became visible. By then you are able to see hundreds of miles of the ocean.