> Read the IFT-3 pre-flight materials
I did.
> They clearly intended to enter an orbital trajectory and then get out of it
Nope, they very clearly did not.
Even the graphic you linked to earlier shows this very clearly.
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi...
1. At step 4 for Starship, they write "Once S28 has reached orbital velocity..." Not trajectory. Not orbit.
2. At step 8, we have the "relight demo". Note the last sentence, the one in parentheses: "for an actual deorbit burn, the ship would need to yaw 180º first".
So there is no deorbit burn in the flight plan. The relight demo was just supposed to show that they could relight, and thus hopefully could do a deorbit burn. Note also that the ship deorbited despite the fact that there was no relight demo (never mind no deorbit burn).
Sounds like the plan to de-orbit was then to just go belly forward and let drag take you out of orbit. That is pretty much how every object in LEO de-orbits.
The trajectory was suborbital, the perigee was inside earth so the actual trajectory would intersect the earth's surface, and the atmosphere first.
By the way, I agree that they never intended to complete an orbit, just that they intended to get into (and promptly out of) an orbit. IFT4 did that, for example.
After IFT3 failed to achieve orbital insertion (probably because a leak caused it to run out early), SpaceX announced that not only was the plan to not get to an orbit, but also that they had achieved orbital velocity. They claimed both things!
Both of those claims seem to be lies, and it is also logically inconsistent to claim that you never wanted to reach orbital velocity and also that you got there.
And everything matches what they said, what they filled with FAA prior to the fight, etc.
"for an actual deorbit burn, the ship would need to yaw 180º first"
So there was no deorbit burn planned.
How were they going to get the 100t spaceship out of orbit before completing a single orbit without doing a deorbit burn?
They deliberately selected a suborbital trajectory with a velocity that matched orbital reentry... See 1:20 of this video.
Everyone who actually follows SpaceX knows this. You are confidently and totally wrong.https://youtu.be/LOerY66mrPc?si=5FUAARFQ3Z98eqjb
And actually, people rely on drag to deorbit huge objects in space in a controlled manner all the time. It's the preferred way to do it, and is basically the only way it's done - any satellite with fuel left will just stay in orbit. They have it down to a science. Usually they aim for the middle of an ocean. Sometimes they miss and chunks fall in a backyard.
Given that the video was posted 4 days prior to that test, it is downright prescient that they are parroting a post-hoc rationalization.
It's possible that SpaceX made the mistake of using the words "orbital velocity" and this YouTuber is right, though.
You are claiming that, SpaceX never claimed that, only "orbital velocity". They wanted to test if the Starship is capable of reaching orbit, but w/o entering orbit for safety reasons. For that they wanted to achieve "orbital velocity" but of course not in an "orbital trajectory".
So there... you're vindicated :-)
How many times can you be so stridently wrong about something before you consider the possibility that you might not know what you're talking about?
Read the IFT-3 pre-flight materials, preferably from a source that comes from before the flight. They clearly intended to enter an orbital trajectory and then get out of it. SpaceX's historical revisionism muddies the waters. At the very least, they would not have announced (ie lied about) successful orbital insertion (which they didn't do) if they had no intention to get there.