George C asked: “I would like to know where I can find out more about the details that we all saw from the point of view of the cameras running during the flight experiment. For example, why did the number of engines in use go from 3, to 2, to 1, and then 0?”

I do not have any inside information about what we saw, other than what SpaceX has already released, but I spent a few years in test of satellites. Scott Manley (thanks, Wayne, for including that video in this thread, and while I’m at it, thanks Chris for the review of The Three Little Pigs) mostly gives an explanation of what happened without that much “why.” He does not know either. I may be in a unique position of just enough knowledge mixed with a lot of ignorance to give a reasonable sounding but wrong explanation.

In all likelihood, the SpaceX engineers were eager to learn as much as they could about controlling Starship, and the launch phase was an excellent time to glean more information than they told we outsiders that they were after.

Shutting down the first engine gives them plenty of information about performance in the case of an engine-out problem. It is clear that the software was able to keep control. Also, gimbaling the remaining engines would also result in the rocket being slightly tilted so that the thrust continues to go through the center of mass (which changes any time the propellants in the main tanks slosh around, such as during pitch over), and it continued to be under control despite the airflows and aerodynamics being slightly different than under nominal flight conditions.

They only needed a single engine to perform the nudge that got the craft to tip over to its horizontal attitude — at slow speeds, the fins would be unable to do it — but it is difficult to be sure whether they shut down the second engine while the craft was still climbing at a fast enough speed to examine the aerodynamics when it is tilted to be “balanced” on just one engine. It looked like they had a bit of speed during single engine operation, though.

Manley did say that they hovered for a while, as they translated sideways before the pitch over maneuver. Note that the white condensation clouds (from O2 venting) move sideways shortly before the pitch over, showing its direction of travel. The final engine is shut down just as the pitch over begins, otherwise it will push the craft far out of the test zone. All the engines had to be off during the fall phase of the test.

The pitch over amazes me.

First, it pitched over fairly quickly, suggesting to me that there were high stresses on the extreme ends of the craft. Second, I am shocked that the front fins were capable of stopping that much rotational momentum. Notice that the aft fins were fully tucked against the body as the momentum was being stopped. As far as I know, that puts all the responsibility for control on the forward fins. To me, they do not look large enough to do what they did.

The pitch over shows that they have a large amount of control over their craft. I have much more confidence that they can make Starship work, at least up to low Earth orbit. The Russians have been transferring propellants in orbit for decades, so I am confident that SpaceX will be able to do that, too., thus getting Starship to lunar orbit seems likely, too. Landing on the Moon has some scary parts, because landing on a dusty gravelly field rather than a landing pad can result in rocks flying around and damaging the spacecraft. I expect an early objective for a lunar or Martian base would be to create a landing pad or two.

My understanding is that the oxygen header tank is at the nose of the Starship test article (unit). I would expect that it would have had the problem that the fuel header tank had, low pressure, because during the second pitch over, back to vertical, and the re-ignition of the engines, the nose of the craft has tremendous centrifugal forces (or centripetal, depending on how you are looking at it) that would make it harder to transport the O2 from the nose header tank to the engines. The fuel header tank was closer to the center of mass, so centrifugal forces would be much lower, so pumping the fuel would be easier.

Anyway, SpaceX’s engineers have plenty of data to keep them happy and busy for weeks. What a nice Hanukkah present for them.

https://youtu.be/egHxiX40eJY
(12:14)

Returning to the political discussion, note that the US Constitution mentions patents and copyrights and contracts, and that it is the people’s representatives who are responsible for working out the details. Also, obviously by induction, it is the people who get to decide the meaning of we the people, that axiomatic phrase from the preamble.

Many confuse American exceptionalism with the ability of Americans, with being better than the people of the rest of the world. Americans are not better than the rest of the world. We come from the rest of the world. We are the rest of the world.

The difference is not innate ability but the freedom that is allowed here in the U.S, the ability to express our abilities, good or not. The attitude in America is that if it is not expressly forbidden then it is allowed. The attitude in much of the rest of the world is that if it is not expressly allowed, then it may be forbidden. The difference is the attitude of freedom that the Statue of Liberty’s lamp was supposed to light the way for the rest of the wold to follow. The rest of the world was supposed to take America’s example and become free, not seek refuge by coming to America (whoever chose that dratted poem did not understand the meaning of the statue).

This attitude also allows for American ingenuity. We try new things, such as reusable first stages and reusable upper stages, because we are free to try. The government did not try it, We the People tried it, braving through public and humiliating failures in a way few dare.

It is said that Elon Musk chose to came to the U.S. because great things can be done here.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elon_Musk#Early_life_and_family

Although Musk’s father insisted that Elon go to college in Pretoria, Musk became determined to move to the United States, saying “I remember thinking and seeing that America is where great things are possible, more than any other country in the world.”

American exceptionalism is that possibility for doing great things. It can happen anywhere that allows freedom and liberty, and it can be stifled anywhere that discourages freedom and liberty.

This is why Elon Musk and several other companies are fleeing California. Musk is now choosing the much more free Texas over the tyrannical Socialist Republic of California. The more tyrannical California becomes, American exceptionalism becomes harder and harder to accomplish, even for individuals and families. The same is becoming true for the rest of America.

In the 19th century, Americans were the free-est people in the world. Alexis de Tocqueville and others noted this freedom and how it enabled even the common man. They tried to inform the rest of the world of the virtue of freedom and the abilities for greatness. However, the progressives of the early 20th century and the Fabians began putting a stop to liberty and the independence from governmental supervision. After all, how can a free people be a blessing to the government when they believe that they did “ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America” with the purpose to “secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity” Liberty and freedom are the foundation of America and are why in less than three centuries it went from a backwoods village (literally) to a nation that saved the world (twice).

American exceptionalism is why America came up with a Wuhan virus vaccine in such a short time. Companies and their People were freed up to accomplish great things, reducing governmental restrictions. Can you imagine how long it would have taken to create such a vaccine if these people were locked down with the rest of us, under this tyranny of “safety?” How safe has it turned out to be, anyway, with so many testing positive and so many dying despite the government’s tyrannical interventions?

American exceptionalism is not location, governmental supervision or individual know-how; it is the freedom to apply that know-how however we see fit.

“Twelve-year-old boys of all ages, looking for nifty rocket ships, can find some of them on strips 102, 175, 316, 368, 452, 584, 588, 613, 620, 747, 756, 762, 772, 930, 946, 970, 979, 1007, 1021, 1024, 1150, 1233, 1241, 1253, 1261 and 1268.”

http://www.rolandanderson.se/comics/buckrogers/buckrogers.php
(Links to 1,302 images of the Buck Rogers comic strip.)

“In Worcester, Massachusetts, the Buck Rogers comic strip series was carried by the Worcester Evening Gazette, appearing six days a week – Monday to Saturday. These Buck Rogers comic strips were collected by Roland N. Anderson (1916-1982) while working as a paperboy. He was able to assemble an almost complete collection of the series from its start in the Evening Gazette on February 4, 1929 until March 25, 1933.”

As for all the “who’s nation is the most innovative” debate I point you to the punch line of a prior BtB post:

https://behindtheblack.com/?s=Three+little+pigs

Actually, the first Falcon 1 blew up within sight of the launch pad, and the second failed short of orbit. I think it was the third Falcon 1 that went all the way.
_______________________________________________________________________
I think what he ment is the design, not the first one they shot into the air. They moved on from the 1 to the two then the three ect. even though they worked.

“I attribute SpaceX’s success to South African tenacity, and RocketLab’s success to Kiwi ingenuity.
You guy’s can proudly bask in the success of ULA though.”

I would consider anyone a full citizen of the country they are living in after 20 years of legal residency.
And you must ask your self. Why did he build his car company in the US and not China or anyplace else? And the very same for his rocket company.

And the same for Rocketlab. There are a bunch of other companies everyplace else in the world why did they come here to America?

As Isaac Asimov often said.
‘When he was born he surprisingly found himself in Russia. He set out to change that as soon as possible and moved to America at the age of 3.’
My guess is Elon Musk felt much the same way.

That is evaporating oxygen. I’m not quite sure where in the overall LOX tank system (which includes two different tanks) it comes from.

Certainly the US forms the center of the Anglosphere, but all others things being equal that’s to be expected as it’s the largest English speaking 1st world population mass, with about 3 times as many people as the other “old” English speaking countries combined. That’s why Hollywood is the #1 movie center in the world (despite California) and why so many foreign actors end up there (as an interesting example, most of the leading rolls in the movie First Man were filled by Australia, Canadian and English actors). Also there is certainly a significant level of trade protectionism imposed that favors establishing ones self and ones company as American, Peter Beck really didn’t have an option other than to make Rocketlab a US company if he wanted to fly most of the US payloads that he does.

Once it was the UK which filled that roll as the leading center of the English world, with the most skilled, intelligent and entrepreneurial that the colonies had to offer flocking to Britain, Ironically Air Marshal Keith Park being one, though there are many other better examples from when Britain was still the hub.

Anyone want to venture a guess?

You are correct. Period.

Actually, the first Falcon 1 blew up within sight of the launch pad, and the second failed short of orbit. I think it was the third Falcon 1 that went all the way.

Your point about SpaceX flexibility is also made by the Falcon 5, which ended up being superseded before it ever flew.

“a 1 in 3 chance of failure”

Maybe I’m misreading this one, but I understood him to estimate a 1 in 3 chance of total success.

RISK IS THE PRICE YOU PAY FOR OPPORTUNITY.

“SpaceX however yesterday provided today’s fear-driven, generally close-minded Americans a glimpse into that past American culture …”

Mr. Z, I beg to differ. What I watched and read yesterday gives us all a glimpse into our possible future.

Our past is done, and while it has been and will remain instructive, its moment in time is behind us now and will stay there; we only have the present and the future to deal with.
What will serve us best is our courage in embracing the future, pioneering 21st Century Liberty with a full understanding that those who take great risks and succeed, reap great rewards on many levels beyond financial.

Wasn’t the side of a hill good enough?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YOTwJ1ASz1c