A Chinese rocket narrowly missed a landing on Sunday—the video is amazing

Deep Blue Aerospace is just one of several Chinese companies working on vertical landing.

See full article...

 

[dosmastrify]

Why is this a setback for the launch? It didn't stick the landing, that doesn't mean it can't launch

 

[Papewaio]

So in the stationary video location 3 flags can be seen at the site. What happens to them in the flying drone version(s)?

 

[Felix K]

Mongolia is so beautiful.

Congratulations to the Chinese. I will happily go on one of their rockets.

I’m more worried about our dependence on one unhinged billionaire than I am about the Chinese succeeding in reusable launches.

jiā yóu

加油

 

[Faanchou]

Here’s the thing. This is a very well done video (lots of editing, music added for dramatic effect etc)… almost too good to be done and published within four hours of the event occurring. And that’s my reservation here. This video is “trying too hard”… to show what exactly? It really looks more like a sales pitch to whoever is financing this to keep the cash flowing.

I’m hardly an expert on CGI explosions, but my first impression the second I saw them was, man, these look fake. It make me think of the movie “Speed” actually .

The other major thing that looks odd is the relative lack of dust. Watch starhopper land, which is not even in a dusty desert. It completely disappears in dust for a while. Same thing with starship.

The thing is, the drone footage was exactly what would've been shot for a successful flight and landing, apart from the final few seconds. It was a well pre-planned shoot with timed views and angles but with some of the content exhibiting an unplanned modification. With a proper landing it would've made for a slick PR video, and that's what it was trying hard to show. As for the lack of dust, the preparations probably included hoovering the landing area for the express purpose of not obscuring the perfect landing shot.

 

[butcherg]

Yes, trying to simplify things. Yet, a wideangle shot of the same scene will have less angular resolution than a tight tele shot of the same scene, even if their FOV will be wildly different.

Gotcha, I'd just advise against oversimplifying; don't get me going about ISO sensitivity...

Now, angular resolution is not something I've figured out. Started to in dissecting point-spread-function to code Richardson-Lucy noise, but I got sidetracked with other ops and then had it obviated by procuring a NIkon Z 6 - what noise? I love that camera...

OK, back to picking at Chinese rocket video...

Edit: 'distortion' to 'noise;, don't know what I was thinking...

 

[Oregano]

It looks like they ran out of propellant shortly before landing. A lack of propellant would also explain the image in post #211, where you can see that the upper part of the rocket just fell over and wasn’t exploded.

 

[subsolanus]

deleted

 

[Jeepster1]

The thing is, the drone footage was exactly what would've been shot for a successful flight and landing, apart from the final few seconds. It was a well pre-planned shoot with timed views and angles but with some of the content exhibiting an unplanned modification. With a proper landing it would've made for a slick PR video, and that's what it was trying hard to show. As for the lack of dust, the preparations probably included hoovering the landing area for the express purpose of not obscuring the perfect landing shot.

How do you hoover the desert? That doesn’t make sense.

Here is starship landing NOT in the desert and then exploding.


View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=hzhP3Q5fku8&pp=ygUSQXRhcnNoaXAgZXhwbG9zaW9u

It looks like they ran out of propellant shortly before landing. A lack of propellant would also explain the image in post #211, where you can see that the upper part of the rocket just fell over and wasn’t exploded.

Then, what is the fireball if they ran out of propellant?

 

[shawnce]

Then, what is the fireball if they ran out of propellant?

You can “run” out of propellant such that you don’t have enough of a liquid head in the tanks and are quickly risking sucking gas. You shut down the engines before that happens.

You still will have a good amount of propellant in the base of the tanks and plumbing. Additionally the tanks would have gaseous propellant mixed in the space left by the liquid propellant.

This gas and liquid in the plumbing can easily cause nice energetic conflagration despite the craft being “out of” propellant.

 

[Jeepster1]

The Chinese are coming for the re-usable rocket market just like they came for the EV market.

Western governments don't yet understand the game here but they will and no amount of tariffs will prevent their space industry from being obsoleted just like is happening to their auto industry.

Aside from African countries, who else will put their cargo on chinese rockets? For the West, it’s a definite no. The Russians and Indians have their own. The rest is scraps.

 

[see]

WHY FAKE A FAILURE?

Yeah, so, whatever the merits of your other arguments, with that one you're just being ridiculous.

If you fake a 100% success, investors and media and government officials and whatnot can ask to see, with their own eyes, the rocket that successfully landed.

If you fake a 91% success ("10 of 11 objectives achieved!"), you can hype your near-success, point people at SpaceX's failure-montage video to explain that perfection took them a few tries too, and not have to come up with a story to explain why you won't show off your successfully landed rocket to anybody.

It's like asking, "Why would a politician have falsely claimed to have been drafted by a major league team, when he could have falsely claimed to have played major league baseball?" Well, because the latter claim would have been quite easy, even in 1982, for a reporter to fact-check. The former was enough more difficult to fact-check that it lasted decades before being exposed as a lie.

 

[mcswell]

A lot of comments that the video looks fake. Reminds me of Lloyd Mallen in the early 1960s, who claimed that nearly every Soviet space achievement was faked. The really interesting one was the Luna 3 image of the far side of the Moon, which was alleged to be fake in part because that wasn't how the far side of the Moon "should" look (IIRC, too few maria). Of course a few years later, when the US lunar orbiters took pictures of the far side...sure enough, mostly non-maria, and it looked pretty much like the Soviet (low image quality) pictures looked.

Bottom line: If you're going to fake a video, why would you show a failure?

 

[Demosthenes642]

How do you hoover the desert? That doesn’t make sense.

Here is starship landing NOT in the desert and then exploding.


View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=hzhP3Q5fku8&pp=ygUSQXRhcnNoaXAgZXhwbG9zaW9u


Then, what is the fireball if they ran out of propellant?

Well rockets need fuel and oxidizer sooo run out of oxidizer and then breach a fuel tank there turns out to be a whole lot of oxygen rich atmosphere about to help with combustion.

 

[drthh8r]

The fast transition part looks fake. Like it was interpolated or something.

Edit: Note I am not suggesting the launch didn't happen. Just that video doesn't look right. Something odd is going on, like they used AI software to stitch together multiple angles.
Other videos look very odd as well. Everything will be sharp except for the area immediately around the rocket. Starting at 1:03 at this link.....https://www.bilibili.com/video/BV1USs1eYEbg/

Lol why would they use AI to stitch the video together? Why can’t they just stitch video together like normal people? This is so dumb.

 

[drthh8r]

You are just not used to really good drone cinematography. Probably done with a high end drone and somebody that actually practiced a lot.

All the armchair video analysts are like… My $239 DJI drone I get in 2014, with an iPhone strapped to it, doesn’t look like this at all!

 

[Troper1138]

Mongolia is so beautiful.

Congratulations to the Chinese. I will happily go on one of their rockets.

I’m more worried about our dependence on one unhinged billionaire than I am about the Chinese succeeding in reusable launches.

jiā yóu

加油

And I'm more worried about the ambitions of the guy who is literally committing genocide.

 

[Uragan]

Aside from African countries, who else will put their cargo on chinese rockets? For the West, it’s a definite no. The Russians and Indians have their own. The rest is scraps.

What makes African countries "scraps" exactly? And there's a whole lot of Asia that you didn't account for.

 

[SportivoA]

Aside from African countries, who else will put their cargo on chinese rockets? For the West, it’s a definite no. The Russians and Indians have their own. The rest is scraps.

I'll swing the question around: who's going to have cargo suited to Chinese launch vehicles (couplings, avionics, comms, shock/vibration analysis) and be far enough forward in line to get on one of these unless they're a similar domestic project? I'd expect that their military, government-civilian, and academic projects will be plenty ready to snap up additional domestic launcher capacity. After the obvious tactical benefits of Starlink/Starshield, getting more comms and imaging birds up will be a priority (already in progress). They can overbuild now, us it for their own benefits, and maybe export it (the services, really) later on. As with their domestic EVs, maybe it'll also improve things for civilians (not dropping toxic booster stages on populated areas).

 

[Uragan]

I'll swing the question around: who's going to have cargo suited to Chinese launch vehicles (couplings, avionics, comms, shock/vibration analysis) and be far enough forward in line to get on one of these unless they're a similar domestic project?

The same countries and companies that would theoretically launch cargo on a Long March?

I'd expect that their military, government-civilian, and academic projects will be plenty ready to snap up additional domestic launcher capacity.

Most likely the PRC and Chinese companies would get priority.

 

[android_alpaca]

Agreed. Not to mention the presumably drone footage that, if real, would require high speed maneuvering close to a flying test vehicle.

That's easily done if you have no qualms about the safety of the rocket test or bystanders (these types of FPV drones are like less than 8 inches square and weight less than pound so I guess the weren't too worried about it interfering).

I recently stumbled a upon a FPV drone racing in the nearby park, those pilots can do some ridiculously high speed manuevering. I mean I keep posting the same clips showing a FPV shot following Tom Brady's hole in one golf shot as well as chasing a thrown football, then spinning midair to track it while flying backward, but here is another of high speed manuevering in tight spaces



In contrast, chasing and circling a rocket on a pre-planned route with no obstacles should be relatively easy again in terms of pilots (and if you don't care if crashes or interferes with the rocket itself).

 

[rabby]

It is common for a western person to feel fake when watch eastern videos (especially Chinese videos). Most if not all Chinese commercial cameras have very strong video processing built-in. If you ever tried any China domestic phones or sports cameras, you will definitely notice these effects.

 

[Derecho Imminent]

Aside from African countries, who else will put their cargo on chinese rockets? For the West, it’s a definite no. The Russians and Indians have their own. The rest is scraps.

Anyone that doesnt consider it a political/security liability would go with it if China can do it at lower cost. That said, Im not sure China wants to be in the business of supporting other country's space efforts.

 

[android_alpaca]

A picture of a drone camera! I'm convinced! /s
Is this camera small enough and light enough to move at the delta V's displayed in the video and stll have a lens and sensor which will resolve the debris flying through the air as crisply as that in the video?

You made this reply at 3:50PM, which was ~5 hours after my previous reply at 11AM to your first "just asking questions post" in that that reply already covered many of the questions you just repeated but you don't seem to actually be interested in real potential answer.

Again, I just use still/video cameras, actions cameras, drones as a hobby... but I think I can give a guess to some of your answer and provide from example drone video footage for you to decide for yourself assuming you are honestly looking for information and didn't already make up your mind without any actual research or information.

I'm just play with cameras, actions cameras, drones as a hobby... but I think I can give a guess to some of your answer and provide from example drone video footage for you to decide for yourself. I think any modern action camera (e.g. GoPro Hero 12 or DJI Osmo Action 4)* although ) has the lens, sensor to do it. I linked to them before, but I think you didn't bother following the Youtube link, here they are embedded you can see how small and how maneuverable FPV drones (fast enough to , agile enough to ) are and that type of video quality they can output (YMMV, but the footage of that golf ball and the football to me look very crisp, along with the people in the background). Please watch and explicitly tell me if this footage does have the long depth of field focus (I don't think you can claim these drone don't have the "deltaV" to maneuver like the drone video)

Chasing a hit golf ball


Fly a few inches away from a thrown football and some some cases fly past it and then twirl to backwards to look back at it


Following a F1 Race Car

What is the camera? The lens? What is the aperture? What is the shutter speed What is the frame rate? What is the ISO.

Again, something like the GoPro Hero 12 (maybe 12 Bones, or a GoPro 12 stripped for FPV by a third party all have the same video quality) or maybe a DJI Osmo Action 4. Those cameras have a F2.5 or F2.8 aperture. In bright sunny weather it will be ISO 100. The Sunny 16 rule means that at F/16 the shutter speed would be 1/100. Without ND filters (which I explained to you before) For F2.5 that would be 1/4000s for F2.8 that would 1/3200 (there would be virtually zero motion blur). Frame rate is probably 120 fps (to allow drop down to 4x slowmo at the end) as both of the previous mentioned cameras are capable of 4K120 (as seen the the above embedded video of the football throw and catch).

How many frames a second?

So you mean playback frame rate vs recording frame rate? I think they shot at 120 fps and played back at 120fps for most of it (which will look weirdly smooth to the human brain that is used to 24 or 30 fps playback) then for the explosion I mean maybe for the crash they went from 120 fps down to 30 fps (4x slowdown) or even 24 fps (5x slowdown).

Again, I'm just a hobbyist... but I get the feeling you don't have the knowledge to understand the "guesses" I'm about to give. - but that's ok, at the end of the day, just look at the videos I embed and see if they have the crisp focus, and field of view that you are talking about. The Hero 23 has a Type-1/2" 8:7 sensor and the DJI Osmo Action 4 has a Type-1/1.3" 4':3 sensor along with an ultrawide angle lens F2.5 or F2.8 while that is a largish aperture the small size of these sensors allows the lens to have a relatively short hyperfocal distance of like 1 ft (for GoPro) to 2 ft (DJI Action 4) such that everything from 1-2ft to infinity is in focus.

Look at the video below and I would say that everything in screen from 2ft to infinity is "crisply" in focus. The difference field of view options also kind of look weird to people unfamiliar with ultrawide angle lenses.




* - maybe not the Hero 13 and Action 5 Pro, because they were released only like a week ago (which I've been reading up on a lot recently) and I doubt a pro FPV drone would already be using them for commercial shots. I have the Ace Pro and it is a chonky camera (my NuBear float grip/tripod barely floats with it) and unless they do some major surgery on it I think's a bit heavy.

 

[garybaldy]

This article commentary may be a Wickwick Event, but not the one I was hoping for.

 

[beb01]

An alternative interpretation is that the engine was supposed to throttle more before final shutdown but remained at a higher throttle, which resulted with the rocket ending it's suicide burn above the target position (ie, the suicide burn ended with the rocket above the ground) after which is shut down.

If the rocket can hover, and the article implied that it could, then it doesn't need to do a "hoverslam." SpaceX does that because they can''t throttle down far enough to hover. The Chinese rocket either ran out of fuel, or misjudged it's altitude, or perhaps flame instability from excessive throttling caused the flame to blow out.

 

[uhuznaa]

Last year there were reports that (according to Chinese newspapers) China has recognized the challenge presented by reusable rockets and the successes of SpaceX and will have to adapt. Not only technology-wise but also by trying different approaches, furthering competition and accepting risks. I have the impression that delivering top-notch video even of failures is part of this.

And they're really pushing hard here, SpaceX always has been very aware of the PR value of good video, but this is another level. It's also low-hanging fruit, China has becoming crazy good with drones and they'll be able to draw from lots of resources for this.

And it works. Without that video nobody would have talked much about this test. You can generate lots and lots of interest with spectacular videos these days. Much more than with some bland news releases that hardly anybody cares for.

 

[uhuznaa]

If the rocket can hover, and the article implied that it could, then it doesn't need to do a "hoverslam." SpaceX does that because they can''t throttle down far enough to hover. The Chinese rocket either ran out of fuel, or misjudged it's altitude, or perhaps flame instability from excessive throttling caused the flame to blow out.

You don't want to do any hovering in production. It's just a waste of propellants and with this payload. You do this during development and tests, and especially when your prototypes aren't mass optimized yet this is easier to do. With the final product you want to zero out your velocity at zero altitude in one fell swoop and ideally touch down just when your tanks start to run dry.

 

[Malmesbury]

You don't want to do any hovering in production. It's just a waste of propellants and with this payload. You do this during development and tests, and especially when your prototypes aren't mass optimized yet this is easier to do. With the final product you want to zero out your velocity at zero altitude in one fell swoop and ideally touch down just when your tanks start to run dry.

Though SpaceX, who are the world leaders in hoverslam landing, are specifically designing a short hover into both Super Heavy and Starship

 

[Jeepster1]

What makes African countries "scraps" exactly? And there's a whole lot of Asia that you didn't account for.

African countries don’t provide much of a demand for rocket launch services. All together have like 20 satellites in orbit currently. For Asia, if you exclude India, Japan and S. Korea, how much demand can the rest possibly have? Vietnam, Philippines, Indonesia? That’s just not sustainable volume.

Here is how many satellites are in orbit currently by country:

https://www.n2yo.com/satellites/?c=&t=country

 

[StuiWooi]

Between the unnatural camera angles the drones can capture and the slo-mo at the end, the clips land (heh) firmly in the uncanny valley for me.

Just to be clear I don't think this is faked, it's just wild to have such high quality video - more please China (or others)!

 

[Jeepster1]

Anyone that doesnt consider it a political/security liability would go with it if China can do it at lower cost. That said, Im not sure China wants to be in the business of supporting other country's space efforts.

Well, that’s my point. “Anyone” is not very much.

Here is a list of number of satellites in orbit currently by county. The overwhelming majority belong to western countries. SpaceX’s success is a lot due to the fact that it does have access to the US/western markets and can maintain high cadence/lower cost per launch.

https://www.n2yo.com/satellites/?c=&t=country

 

[blackhawk887]

Meanwhile ULA and Arianespace still act like it's literally impossible to do this or it would take 2 decades and 100 billion dollars.

Masten did this with a few guys working out of a garage 15 years ago. It's not that hard to make a rocket hopper.

Going from a hopper to a reusable orbital launch vehicle is the hard part.

 

[uhuznaa]

Though SpaceX, who are the world leaders in hoverslam landing, are specifically designing a short hover into both Super Heavy and Starship

Because they plan to catch them, not land them. If you just land on a nice big pad, there's absolutely nothing to be gained by hovering over it first before landing. You may do this for testing purposes but this can and will be optimized away as soon and as far as possible.

 

[blackhawk887]

The thing is, the drone footage was exactly what would've been shot for a successful flight and landing, apart from the final few seconds. It was a well pre-planned shoot with timed views and angles but with some of the content exhibiting an unplanned modification. With a proper landing it would've made for a slick PR video, and that's what it was trying hard to show. As for the lack of dust, the preparations probably included hoovering the landing area for the express purpose of not obscuring the perfect landing shot.

The lack of dust is mostly from having a low thrust engine that's throttled down to even lower thrust. The Leiting-20 engine is supposed to make 20 tonnes-force of thrust at full power, which is only about 1/5th of a single Merlin 1D.

 

[blackhawk887]

Well, that’s my point. “Anyone” is not very much.

Here is a list of number of satellites in orbit currently by county. The overwhelming majority belong to western countries. SpaceX’s success is a lot due to the fact that it does have access to the US/western markets and can maintain high cadence/lower cost per launch.

https://www.n2yo.com/satellites/?c=&t=country

Africa and Asia could support quite a bit of demand, especially for internet, but the costs need to drop a lot.

 

[Uragan]

Africa and Asia could support quite a bit of demand, especially for internet, but the costs need to drop a lot.

Which increased choices and availability of launchers could spur.

 

[BrangdonJ]

After the links passed to you of the ground video of the launch (direct link) do you at least think the launch itself happened basically as portrayed in the drone footage regardless of whether the drone footage is legitimate or not? For me that's the bigger question.

Would we expect the drone to be caught on footage like that? At times it seems to be pretty close to the rocket, and moves all around it, so it seems likely it would come between the rocket and the ground camera at some point. Maybe it's too small to notice, or maybe its flight was pre-planned to keep itself out of shot. A lot of the time it is too high or too low.

 

[otso]

Deep Blue's Nebula-1 rocket has a diameter of 3.35 meters (11 feet) which is slightly smaller than SpaceX's Falcon 9 rocket (12 feet in diameter).

Why not give the Falcon diameter in meters (3.7 m) when the Nebula-1's diameter was given in meters? (I probably wouldn't have complained if both were given in feet only.)

 

[blackhawk887]

Which increased choices and availability of launchers could spur.

Satellite manufacturing and network management would likely also be in China, so it would look a lot like a domestic Chinese market even if they service a lot of international internet users.

 

[OccasionallyLeftHanded]

I love how this (hopefully) raises the bar for video coverage of these events. You listening, Elon?