UKC

For those who are interested, time to start watching again. Could fly today.

Fingers crossed for whenever it flies, that it is successful.

We don't want it to end up like swamp castle.

Reaching space on the wreckage of every other Starship prototype, like some sort of twisted tower of babel.

Lots of drama over the LabPadre cameras... 

Sometimes you get a thread on here which is to some readers eg me totally meaningless. Not complaining.

It refers to the launch (and landing) of a SpaceX test rocket.

The PreadatorCam is up.   It needs an edge detection outline from an aligned mono cam.  Hopefully something will start getting cold enough to show up soon... 

Have you really stared at the image stabilisation on Nerdle?  It's very weird.  It's clearly being done in software on local parts of the image.  The launch mount stabilises far better than the fins and barrel sections.  I wondered if it's some sort of horrible "AI" mechanism rather than a proper correlation based approach generating distortion maps and de-morphing the images.

Why is it on the Nasa feed not the SpaceX channel?

youtube.com/watch?v=XOQkk3ojNfM&

That's "NASA Space Flight" which is a website (and LLC, I presume) which is one of the bands of people obsessive enough to have installed near military grade surveillance posts to watch and stream the rocket site 24x7...

For the last couple of launches, SpaceX have quietly put up their own live stream shortly before launch.  Much to my delight, the last one had John Insprucker as the host.

Tim Dodd has driven over and set up his streaming as well... 

youtube.com/watch?v=_jWbqhP5eJI&

I think there are people who've moved states specifically to watch the launch complex.

SpaceX tend to start streaming just before the launch.

It's never advertised as such.

Yes, it's a bit trippy. I just assumed it was some combination of laggy stream, CMOS wobble and image stabilisation, possibly fighting each other in some way. Tbh it's remarkable it's not worse given how far away that camera is.

You should ask in the chat. They love it when people ask about the shake :-D

I’m pretty sure it’s all a whacky stabilisation code vs the atmospheric distortions of the heat haze. As you say it’s amazing it’s as good as it is, although some of the LabPadra cameras are (or were?) on a house in Boca Chica.  Also the rocket is out of the ground layer and there’s a lot of water under various site lines so it’s favourable conditions for long distance imaging.

There’s plenty more than enough contrast, but there is a lot less than for the launch mount. Lower spatial frequencies over the rocket as well.  I think there’s some AI segmentation going on but I’m not really sure.  It’s unlike any of the other cameras.

Also remember the camera shake is necessarily worst when the sky is the same colour as the rocket. Can't help.

Edit: crossed edits

It’s not really camera shake.  The isoplanatic angle of the optical turbulence in the siteline is probably less than the angular FOV so you’ll get time varying localised warping of the image - one part moving left, another moving up and right, stuff that can’t be fixed by a simple global stabilisation - hence the localised block based stabilisation.  Which is tripping balls when doesn’t have the required contrast or features.  Which is why I think it’s might be based in an AI solution and not Proper Maths.

looking at the little canisters either side I'd say the Starflyer is leaving today - has it boarded yet?

Part of me thinks there's a compression algo having a hand in it too. Ever watched on a properly windy day?

Dunno. You do a hell of a lot more image processing stuff than I do so I'll defer but it looks very artefacty and connection limited to me when it's windy.

Fuel farm venting now

I’ll keep an eye out for a windy day, but what’s going on today looks like segmented stabilisation rather than compression artefacts.  

I was wondering if they’ll be able to fly a booster and a Starship in to an air show in the UK one day.  Booster would probably need to come most of the way by boat....  Unless they SSTO it and then refuel it on orbit...

Meh

Liftoff at just before 2230

edit, looks like they aborted a launch at zero a couple of hours ago.

youtube.com/watch?v=8RKkv5yRXcg&

and have just aborted again. Got a couple of hours left in the window.

Engine chill again now

Looks like they've nailed it!

Looks a bit off-vertical, though...

Booo-yaaah.

NSF speculating that the landing legs might not have deployed.

Looked to me like an earlier, more cautious re-light of the engines this time, rather than desperately burning hard at the last minute. But maybe that's mostly or partly just because of the success of the relight and the third active engine.

Well that didn't quite end as planned.

I think you mean 'Boom-yaaah'.

I was a bit worried about the fire they were obviously trying to sort out...

Close enough for a proof of concept. They've nailed the hard part, who cares whether the bottom's a bit squished. At least one of the early Falcons landed perfectly and then toppled over thanks to a leg failure.

Edit: I gather I stopped watching too soon!

The alternative is that 'range safety' hit the 'kaboom' button, due to that lean, and the risk of having to deal with an unstable rocket partially filled with fuel...

That’s the most excited I’ve heard Insprucker by a long way.

They’ve survived two kabooms now...

That would have split it in the middle, where the two white 'kaboom' boxes are.

Nice image: https://twitter.com/thejackbeyer/status/1367364251233497095/photo/1

After the first abort yesterday I went to sleep.  

I woke up the the news of its successful landing but unfortunate ending. 

Awesome .

Aha. Uncontrolled dismantling it is, then... They didn't get the fire under control quickly enough.

Don't think that would have helped. Have a read of Scott Manley's analysis. He's written some stuff on Twitter but I'm sure there'll be a video soon. Looks like the boom started where a fire hose wouldn't get to.

Just seen a report on the test on BBC news. Can't believe how negative they were, and entirely missing the point of the test (the landing). Can't they find someone who can report on science and engineering matters, or are they all arts, PPE and media studies graduates at the BBC?

But then I suppose they've got all their best reporters on the most important stories: old man stays in hospital after heart operation, whilst his ongoing family feud plays out on international TV...

Answered your own question there

I was surprised at the negative take Eric Burger had on this in the Arstechnica article.  The comment calling this out has 422 up votes and it's rising.

I think he's pushing constructive advice towards Musk on perception management in terms of ongoing tendering with NASA - it's a very unusual feel for an article from Berger.  

In other news, crane on the move. Looks like SN11 will be making an appearance soon.
youtube.com/watch?v=tYZaaz8UbRE&

And it's windy. Have a look at the cams....
On lab cam (which seems to be moving quite a bit) the whole frame freezes for a moment every second or so.

The article on the BBC news website strikes a reasonable balance in my opinion.

https://www.bbc.com/news/amp/science-environment-56274183

They prominently mention the explosion, obviously, but they also make it clear that the landing is a big success and a substantial step forward.

Manley vid up now:
youtube.com/watch?v=CF9mdMI1qxM&

It does, yes. I was commenting on the TV news, which barely mentioned the successful landing, commenting on the launch (the 'easy' bit), and the explosion. It then wibbled on for some time about 'online fashion retail billionaire Yusaku Maezawa' and his 'dearMoon' project for artists to visit the moon; something to interest those arts and media studies grads, I guess...

Can't remember now when or why it was relevant, but there's a really good shot of them landing legs here:
https://twitter.com/austinbarnard45/status/1369353962269274113/photo/1