Falcon 9 water landing, 5 December 2018 

There was maybe 3 seconds delay on first engine firing to reduce 1stage landing speed

Learn it from the Indians yo, they would guide you better😂😂

🤣😂🤣😂😋😂🤣😂

Oooops!!!

why did you put the clips in chronological order? it falls before it splashes. thanks anyway i guess.

its a valve bro.

A fail is a way to learn how not to do things. Basic engineering principal.

Tru

But that's what it's potpst to do

mars attack!

Looks to me like all the fish got fried.

Lol. Fishes think, first use dynamites to hunt us, now fuckings rockets? Lol

LOL hard

dhurtt22 hahahahaha

That abrupt change of temperature distort any metal.

I thought it was about reusable and lowering the cost of landing.

but four times it worked extremely well

James Sempy if you like i agree 😉

Frik Na luzie It truly would be amazing if it could fly again. Would comprehensively show the reusability of SpaceX’s rockets.

That will be added next haha

@@forrestaustin7050 if they do, all for royalties for suggesting the idea lol

If Elon Musk would concentrated on putting a good evinrude mother on the thing instead of launching his used cars into space, maybe he could get something done!

Elon...note to self....talk to Mercury.

Stowp

well they did cut the live feed

Yea that pissed me off. Own it guys, you obviously released the footage anyway.

@@Urov. there is reason why they do so... If there happens that they actually kill someone with that rocket, wouldnt be good if couple million people see it from youtube live...

They cut it on the feed, and begun go focusing on the "real" mission.

The rocket has a computer chips, so the calculation is failed, but it landed just like how it supposed to landing on land

I know, when they cut the feed, i felt like we would never see any of it. But this is the one time i liked being wrong.

@@jimd4609 they wouldn't have showed us if it had exploded or sth

@@user-fe3gy1wf2r they even made a compilation of all their exploded landings

@@thomaswijgerse723 to show an evolving process (promo of course).

@@user-fe3gy1wf2r youre shifting the goalpost

yeah saved elon musk from having to explain a booster stage landing on someone's house.

@@marshalcraft They aim for the ocean and only align themselves to land at the landing pad once they are happy to do so, just in case this happens. Not only that, but Elon also stated that if something were to happen above land, computers know where buildings are in order to avoid them. The engineers there are amazing, seriously good job guys.

@Richard Ensey The control system engineers did their jobs well, it's the grid fin hydraulics that failed and still they made sure it went gently into the water, so yeah the navigation/controls team do deserve some credit.

@Richard Ensey - Where's YOUR multi-million dollar rocket?

@Richard Ensey - so that's YOUR multi-million dollar rocket then?

epic save

Bullshit, grid fins aren't worth millions. It's a few pieces of titanium welded together with a rotating conector on the end. Maybe a few thousand.

@@Galactis1 They cost btw 50-100k. They are not "a few pieces welded together". They are all made from a single piece of titanium and the process of cutting them is extremely complex

@@MikkelLarsen97 The grid fins are cast. (Casting titanium is a specialized process that is offered by only a few foundries, especially for such large items.) We can only guess how much they cost, but Elon Musk did mention in relation to the Falcon Heavy incident something along the lines "at least the central core did not have the titanium grid fins -- those things cost a fortune." I doubt that he would fret over a few hundreds of kilobucks. (The engines cost more than that each.)

@@MikkelLarsen97 I think even more taking in account the machinery and work hours! Such amazing pieces of technology! :D

@@cogoid You are correct, they are cast. But the point is still the same, I remember reading a paper about how complex the manufacturing process is compared to their aluminium counterparts. People saying that they are cheap and simple are just straight up wrong.

An engineer was listening to the Beatles songs being played backwards and got an epiphany.

If I break both my arms and lose all my teeth in a landing, I'm calling it a bad one, no matter how much worse it could have been. Finding something worse, does not turn bad into good.

@@ashscott6068 at least youre alive bro and thats what matters

So... tell me, how many stowaways were on that booster... and how could they have walked away from a SEA LANDING?

Lol, no pun intended ;-)

Literally 🌏 🚀

Kingdom of Hush - the most gentle crash I’ve ever seen

Thank you Elon, very cool!

@Dirk Klapwijk calm down 'dirk'

It's still failed to land where it should have. Failure is good no reason not to call it what it is.

Damn true.

Jim's Wholiest of Coleus and Jeff Bezos

Americký shit))))))

Reminds me of when Jim Lovell described Apollo 13 as a "successful failure".

They have, but is designed for catching fairings, rockets would've ripped it apart with their retro-boost

While Musk's efforts can be lauded, credit must be due to the engineers. My respects to them as such a fellow.

Definitely some brilliant engineers and software programmers.

@@enriqueayala8252 I recall an interview were he said, in the beginning, he had to do the physics, because he couldn't afford engineers, but, YES, BRAVO TO HIS TEAM! They built one hell of a ship, I nearly cried when she started to wobble and spin, knowing instinctively, THAT'S BAD! Even with a major malfunction, she still LANDED! I feel great pride for them, I would love to see his reaction while this was happening, he's such a character, I flash back to the interview for the BFR, " I just hope it doesn't blow up on the launching pad " he said with a smile to a horrified reporter, PRICELESS!!!

Man, zealots are scary.

@@PistonAvatarGuy what is your passion? Math, science? Engineering? Can you land a rocket? You DON'T care, do you.

gray011170 nah, this one was supposed to land on a drone ship but the grid fins got stuck so ship landing was aborted and it touched down in the sea instead.

Kilian Seibl no. They said at launch it was to return to LZ1 which is at KSC on land.

главное груз доставлен и ступень практически цела но трещин много

молчать.скот, засравший весь Казахстан гептилом!

Except, in that plot-hole of a film, the docking point wasn't on the spin axis, but had a radius from the axis, making the dock maneuver a spiral. Not even Thunderbirds has physics as bad as Interstellar.

r/iamverysmart

Which one of you should I post on reddit?

Not acting smug, just asking a direct and reasonable question Which you apparently aren’t

In any case, I merely said it reminded me of that scene regardless of context. :D

Buildup of pressure from the engines as they are dunked into the water...? (strange, not from the engine. it looks like it comes from the side of the rocket)

I think it was releasing all of its propellant as a safety measure to make it safer for the recovery crew to approach the rocket.

I think they normally depressurize the tanks as soon the rocket touches down. Since the rocket apparently was still going through it's automated post-landing sequence even after tipping over, that may have just been the valve opening up...but obviously it's intended to do that when the rocket is vertical, so some propellant came out and ignited. That's my guess anyway.

i'm wondering if it was a pressure release valve that opened when the engines entered the water and pressure built up

@@RocketToTheMoose It was definitely the fuel tank venting. In flight it is pressurized to about 3 bars, which is close to the limit of what the walls of the rocket can withstand. If the rocket topples over while pressurized, it is almost invariably bursts like a popped balloon.

i thought the same thing

well... it's better for the parts than smashing into the ocean an mach 2 :P

Probably experiences more extreme thermal loading from conditions in space and during reentry.

Not to mention salt water

better land the damn thing at sea than having it land on people's houses lol

its like it has so much character, but its just a rocket. These onboard computers are something else

It tried so hard.... But in the end... Lol

Bro the test was succesfull

Except him ^

Rocket is all automated. If it falls out of its parameters of a nominal descent, it's trajectory takes it into the ocean. They do this because the landing burn is very precise and has little room for error. The only way the first stage will make it to the pad, is if everything is going fine right until the landing burn, which directs it towards the landing pad for a landing.

That's why they launch nearby the sea... And it's also why they changed the landing zone to the ocean when they noticed the failure, It would've been dangerous if it landed on the pad

I would br happy. I would try to hide it though. It would be cool to have an entire 1st stage of a rocket

@@chazdude3644 lel, n sold to them as spare part.. Profit!!

"its mine now"

It's programmed to descend over sea. Only after it proves stable does it move inland. Makes it easier to dump it in the ocean rather than programming it to land 1st on the pad and then having to ditch it at sea at the last minute.

dangerous to the public too

Cliff P grid fin got stuck, too little control to risk LZ-1 landing

While such a failure would automatically result in "sea ditching mode" I hardly think that the rocket would have had enough control authority left to guide itself to land. It was barely able to contain the rising roll rate.

@@3gunslingers I do not know. This seems to be one smart rocket.

@@3gunslingers Spin pretty much gone by touchdown.

Without the grid fins the rocket is not able to perform the aerodynamic slide towards LZ1. So they couldn't perform a pad landing, even if they would have tried

@peter Well if you believe we've got that kind of transparency you're naive, we're not told everything and only through people like Julian Assange etc do we get to see what truths are hidden, and look what happens to people like him. We're no better.

I assumed they cut the feed as soon as they noticed an anomaly in case of catastrophic failure. An explosion, for example at that altitude can be extremely deadly. If you search youtube you'll find an old NASA video that shows one of their rockets exploding shortly after takeoff where flaming chunks of metal the size of VW Beetles were raining down and smashing into the ground.

@@whyismynametaken123 send the link I'd like to see.

@xElMery Compare to ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-BXd5UHFuZVI.html

It’s a crash. These NPC’s are empty brainwashed vessels

@xElMery - What you call the landing on a barge in the ocean ? Barging ?

lol

Oceaning of course.

Yes, imagine if it was a BFR ship with passengers jumping to Hong Kong... They would of survived!

@@GymVideos1 I said " a " passenger as in a test flight, they haven't tried one with a single person or even a dog or monkey yet. It looks more survivable than American or Russian crashes.

There were rats/mice on this mission and they are still on their way to the station... And I was agreeing with you, if it had one passenger or 100 they would of survived.

@@GymVideos1 cool, I am amazed these flights have gone this well and I applaud the efforts and successes may we all learn something about our universe from this.

Is way dangerous to jump out of a ship than landing like that tho

Так Точно Аххахахх бля

Так же они и бывали на Луне, уверен! Что там невероятно, что здесь косяки!

Ведущая держава, накорми своих шастающих по помойках пенсионеров клоут блять))

Они везде есть, как вы выразились, " шастающие "!

Нафига он нам нужен. Пусть в своей Америке экспериментирует. У нас у Рагозина батут есть, дешево и практично.

Sergei Demin lmao

@Don Holmes Falcon 9 landing anomaly explained ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-SreNDDNZIG4.html

@@SciNewsRo exc coverage and explanation. Thumbs up to science! 🌑🌏⭐