@@jahoyhoy9097 Pretty sure it was an Israeli Air Force F-15. Also, Starship apparently has learning algorithms onboard to measure how the vehicle responds to the control inputs, and then update its control matrices so it can stay optimally effective, likely specifically for cases like this where the aerodynamics are changing rapidly.
@@ahgflyguyit's called a PID control loop. A lot of vehicles and robots use this to operate autonomously, so it's nothing new. Tried and tested technology.
The cameras on Starship Ship 29 managed to truly produce some of my favorite camera angles in space. That along with Gemini 11, Gemini 12, Apollo 6 (despite that ironically being a near-disaster mission performance wise), Apollo 11 Lunar Lander detaching and landing, Apollo 16 docking with Lunar Module in orbit, Apollo 17 docking to Lunar Lander while that's still attached to final Saturn V stage, Apollo 17 docking to Lunar Module in orbit, Apollo 17 final Lunar Module departure from moon surface, pictures of the Earth from moon surface, Hubble Servicing Missions, Space Shuttles showing their underbelly, final Skylab mission, and Soyuz Expedition 43 docking to International Space Station.
@@Chillz_OG I would have to say that if it was one fin one side, I don't know if it would have stayed stable throughout the flight. I could be wrong. Multiple cameras would have solved this.
Side by side comparison of Starship IFT 3 vs IFT 4 - reentry phase (gives a good perspective on the data and footage differences between the 2 missions). Congrats to SpaceX team for this milestone, incredible achievements.
One thing that I immediately noticed comparing the two was how IFT-3's roll affected initial re-entry. They are both moving at about the same speed, but with IFT-4, you can see the plasma starting to form at an altitude of 108 km. With IFT-3, at that same altitude, the ship was hitting the atmosphere on its side before flipping upside down. You can begin to see the plasma forming at an altitude of 102 km on the wrong side of the fin before the ship flips over properly at 101 km. The ship continues to spin and you can see the plasma hitting the side and back starting at 97 km. It's no wonder IFT-3 had to abort early.
hard to say, because you need to take into account the space weather. But the time sync doesnt make sense in this video. Better syncing would be to have in at atmospheric entry
@@LaggerSVK "But the time sync doesnt make sense in this video. Better syncing would be to have in at atmospheric entry" So you mean like try to sync them by dynamic pressure when they're close to 100km, and not really strictly altitude or time? What altitude do you have to get down to in order for space weather to not really be a strong influence on density? I think 100km is below where the diurnal variations matter, but I haven't looked at it in a long time, though that shouldn't be a factor here.
@22:30 Noticed that the starship started to flip around 350Km/hour and slowed down to about 2Km/H (1.24274 miles/hour), standing vertically just before toppling over into the sea.
My analysis is that some tiles toward the rear of one the forward flap that burned fell off, because we could see the sheet metal was getting heated and wrinkling, and the green explosion-ish flashes also denote that there was iron and nickel (I think that’s what that means) burning, and it was just the tiles. Also, at the very end, you could see the fin lost half the wraparound tiles on its furthest edge. This probably means that more tiles than that fell off, because those really didn’t take the brunt of the force.
Jup if starship managed to land heavily damaged it won't be a problem wen its fixt! And of course they now have the data from the flight so the next starship software wil probably be able to handel it even better!!
This is stupendous! Positive things reverberating throughout the program due to no failures. It can fly again immediately, without an investigation! Wowee!
Dude, this is awesome! I had no idea how synced into flight time these two flights were! Besides attitude, where IFT-3 was running into issues early, the speed and altitudes of both flights at the same times were spot on! Incredible footage!
Looks like IFT-3 flaps were trying to compensate for the roll issue. IFT-4 flaps were in a deeper decent mode. So IFT-4 shows more concentrated thermal heating on the belly side of the heat tiles and the flaps.
70% melted flap and busted glass on the camera and both still managed to function just fine, flight 5 is going to be truly a sight to see, I cant imagine how much better these flights can get only time will tell.
This gives me so much more respect for what NASA accomplished with the Space Shuttle program. when you consider how much more complex a shape it was and the lack of fancy super computers to crunch data it's a damn miracle any of those made it back down to earth!
Yet NASA retired it because it's so expensive not to mention it is risky. They relied on Russian Soyuz until SpaceX developed Crew Dragon. Space Shuttle is designed only for Low Earth Orbit (LEO), while Starship is intended to go to Mars and Moon with 150 tons payload compared to 25 tons of Space Shuttle. But it is still one the best piece of engineering ever created.
For me it takes a lot of respect away from what NASA accomplished. The first re-entry of the Space Shuttle was done with humans on board. That's just a complete disregard for human life.
I think they had some temporary tiles placed on the starship and intentional weakspots. Ift5 has the flaps in a slightly different place and will have all tiles securely on. This time, they ran out of time, but amazingly still got all the data they needed and more.
Dude *Trust the Process* . The ship is still in development phase. People said same about falcon 9 but now SpaceX does like a 100 launches successfully, has landed hundreds of boosters, launched several crew to ISS etc and are also making profit and they are the only company doing so. Starship has already made so much progress in very little time and soon starship launches will be as common as falcon 9 in the future. It is not a waste of money. About Mars, that is still a long way to go. First obviously they will be doing moon landings first and then aim for Mars. Also SpaceX Starship seems to be more promising for cheap crewed moon missions rather than SLS of NASA.
I have mixed feelings. On the plus side they do ged get a little further each time, and if they just keep doing that they will get there eventually. On the negative side they seem incapable of predicting and modelling performance. The heat shield is the biggest and most important part of the project. It is what doomed the Space Shuttle’s rapid reuseability, and SpaceX seems to be behind the performance that the Space Shuttle had. It is all good and impressive that the flap worked despite heavy damage, but from a reuseability perspective that Ship was done even if it had landed.
@@torben777the method of spacex is very different to anyone else. They don’t do as extensive Modeling with computers etc. that take for ever. Instead it’s more of a let’s test it for real.
@@torben777many news companies don’t understand this and called ift1 2 and 3 a failure, which they weren’t. Did the rockets reach all their mission targets on 1-3? No. Did they reveal design flaws and supply data regarding aerodynamics of the rocket in different scenarios that a computer would take years to simulate? Definitely, because that is exactly what TEST flights are for, testing a design, and putting it under load to reveal flaws and give insight in things that could be future flaws or problems. Other rocket manufacturers do way less real tests and way more computer sims. SpaceX on the other hand tests things way more, which is in many ways a genius idea: 1. real data unlike any computer sim. 2. Starship is primarily made of stainless steel, which costs like 3$/kg while the stuff that other rockets are made of costs over 100$ per kg. A starship test flight just simply costs less than most other rockets. 3. PR, do I really have to explain? This video is a result of the test flight. Basically free advertisement. 4. That free advertisement also inspires the next generation that could eventually become an engineer or whatever working at spacex contributing to their goals. 5. Motivation for the team. Every flight test yields positive results so far. They’ve always made progress. The people that made the Starship get to see the results of their work! During the Live stream you could repeatedly hear the spacex team reacting to what was going on. Imagine designing a rocket, testing the designs with extensive simulations,and calculations, building the rocket, all this usually takes for ever lets assume 5-10 years, and then doing one test flight before the mission of the rocket design is supposed to be, and then having the test flight fail due to an issue/flaw in the design that sims and calculations couldn’t reveal. Wouldn’t that be extremely demotivating for anyone working on that rocket? If they had done tests earlier or more frequently that flaw would have probably been found. Hope this clarifies some things on SpaceXs method of developmentof the Starship
@@torben777 That's because spaceX doesn't spend years modelling performance. They prefer to just send it up and straight up see what happens. It's much easier, faster, and you get hard data as opposed to potentially erroneous simulations.
I liked the comment one of the ladies made about it looking like a scene from "Interstellar" because I thought it did too. The data gleaned today will "show" the way to orbit for future launching and returning of SH back to it's intended target. Then, a goldmine of reentry and landing data for Starship.
this just shows that they still have a lot of work to do on the tile fastener design and might need to start making adjustments for tiles in the gaps between the fins and main body to absorb the heat during reentry. once the stainless steel warped it was all over for the adjacent tiles.
Also, notice that the Starship is symmetrical, meaning that just because we saw only one flap getting damaged does not mean that the other three were not. Most likely, all four flaps were being damaged to a similar degree.
It is probable that the cause of the damage to the flap is damaged heatshield tiles in the area where the flap,connects to the ship. If that wasn’t damaged on the other flaps then they will not have been damaged like the one that was.
23:10 "the landing burn shutdown was commanded" Now this got me thinking: what if the command never reached the ship, did the ship become the fastest jet ski to ever exist
Probably the heat shield at that point was damaged at launch or during reentry as we see sparks flying off the backside of the flap here and there, indicating that the other side, which was not visible from the camera, was getting damaged before we could see it on camera which amplified the weak spot.
Apparently from what I've hear they are going to move the flaps more toward the leeward side of the ship to get the joint out of the air stream a little better, though I'm sure there's more planned too, still, what an impressive demonstration of the adaptive abilities of the flight control software for it to still nail a landing even with much of a flap missing, unlike Boeing, SpaceX really knows how to write the software
Equalizing the altitude does not make sense either, for with their different control (or lack thereof on IFT3) and other factors make it too different as well. It should, instead, be measured from engine cut-off.
Syncing would be more useful via speed or altitude, any chance you could make that too? The missions were different a bit, so comparing by time is not that insightful.
There is no perfect way to sync, as you said, the 2 missions didn't have the same orbital insertion (parameters differ). But I'll try to post that video tomorrow.
There was nobody there to photograph it. SpaceX were not recovering either the booster or the Starship. If it turned over with the starlink antenna under the water they would lose all signals.
eah it landed etc. But that heatsheild didn't stand up to much at all. I think it will need a whole new redesign of the ship and the flaps and the heat shield. I am sorry to say. That heatshield cannot take high temperatures under stress of the wind rushng by etc. It just peeled off the flaps and they were toast.
It’s not confirmed but it’s likely just the flaps that were damaged, space x expected this and it was a known flaw on this ship even before liftoff. If this damage occurred anywhere else on the ship it would have failed.
so did starship go surfing after landing? the speed shot up as it was sideways in the water. If they can't/don't land ift5 starship on the chopsticks, i really hope they get video of it landing in the ocean. But let's go with chopsticks!!
Elon just did an interview and said starship did complete a soft landing however ... it landed 6 km from it's target. He said unless there are problems he hasn't heard about yet then he would like to try a chopstick landing with the booster next flight.
@@KiRiTO72987 nah it just means starship can't even navigate itself to the correct landing zone. Which is a fatal problem and will delay starship ever being used by humans for another 70 years at minimum
@@xMorogothx 70 years is a bit of a long stretch, It seems like under-estimating SpaceX for its fast-paced development like Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy which took 5 Years and its first Reusability attempt. 2030 to 2040 might be the best bet
@@kelly806 Yeah i realised im wrong. It appears to be a data-mosh of some kind - look right before the ship appears again and you can see it clearly. Comms must have been a bit spotty or something. doesn't look like anything weird or not-normal tho
I see Starship vanishing but also some parts of the background (clouds) under some grey overlay - same color as the majority of Starship, it's a glitch/saturation, nothing abnormal.
How can it be that at minute 1:33 the image of the starship disappears for 3 seconds but the clouds are still visible in motion down there? someone explain to me please
Different camera pointing at the same location? The perspective doesn't change much because remember earth is much much bigger than starship, even couple meters camera displacement doesn't matter much
Interesting catch. It is a glitch in the video codec processing. For bandwith reason, videos are compressed. Areas which don´t change much from frame to frame (like the ship) get copied an pasted in in every frame from the same previously transmitted picture. Only the parts that do change from frame to frame get transmitted. If there is a processing fault in the codec, the "picture" of the ship is "lost" for several frames. There is a thin line left visible from the rear skirt and the flap. Also notice that in this area no "new" clouds pop up to be visible, because the camera can´t see them in first place (area blocked by the ship). Flat Earther´s would call it a glitch as well, but one of the CGI software that pasted the ship onto the moving background.
@@hectorpascale1013 Wow. Thanks for the explanation, I opened my mouth when the ship disappeared for almost three seconds and there was nothing in its place other than the surrounding clouds down there.
When considering Elon Musk's plan to send a gigantic spaceship, as he calls it, to Mars, one could argue that it is potentially more dangerous to send a large object there than a small one. A large object offers more surface area for damage or malfunctions, as it has more components and systems that could fail. Additionally, it requires more complex logistics and higher precision during launch and landing. On the other hand, a larger spaceship could also include more redundancies and safety measures that might not be possible with smaller spacecraft. So, it's a trade-off between the risks and the benefits that a larger spaceship might offer.
It's a combination of risk analysis and mission needs if you want to go to Mars your gonna be stuck their for at least two years before the next transfer window comes around (orbital mechanics etc ) so you have to bring two years worth of supplies with you on top of that building a sustainable colony will require large amounts of payload to orbit so you need a rocket capable of delivering large amounts of payload to Mars and to do that you need a Large and very powerful rocket
Just watch people try to say this was a failure if your trying to demotivate Elon it’s not going to work even if it is a failure which it isn’t we all learn from failures so that’s really good so if you don’t think SpaceX will bring humans to mars I’m sorry but your wrong it’s just a matter of time before humans are interplanetary.
It was a failure. Starship won't be used by humans until we're all long dead. Minimum another 100 years to take humans back to the moon or even think about taking us to Mars.
I read this comment that they just faked this landing, and that they just an ipad falling down. I was rolling on the floor, laughing at that rocket engineer xD I get it though. The whole concept of rocket and space flight is too much for your tiny brain to comprehend.
IFT 3 flaps were coated with thermal resist. while IFT4 were just stainless steel. Obviously they cannot survive re entry. is an expliaination for this?
The flaps do have a heat shield on Flight 4, it wasn’t just stainless steel, the did remove 2 heat shield tiles near the aft of the vehicle to test out the heating
![Quando Rondo - Grow Up [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/8zFnCg3BO4Q/mqdefault.jpg)
That flap melting and still working afterwards reminded me of that meme with a plastic chair being fine in a tornado
😂😂
😂😂😂😂😂
the one that says "Never Forget"? 🤣
The Flap be like: "Was all that plasma supposed to destroyed me? who decided that?
When i saw the flap still intact it immediately reminded me of elton john's "Im still standing" song
The two greatest Starlink ads,
until flight 5 ofc.
Exactly :
STARLINK : "if we can handle re-entry at 25 000KM/h! we can more than handle your airplane's internet connection!"
LOL
Starship going on with its flaps literally melting really felt like that F-15 landing without 1 wing🥶🥶🥶🥶
thats what I thought of
But Shure this mf landed with no wings.
I asume all flaps get the same damage
I believe that was an A-10 Warthog
@@jahoyhoy9097
Pretty sure it was an Israeli Air Force F-15. Also, Starship apparently has learning algorithms onboard to measure how the vehicle responds to the control inputs, and then update its control matrices so it can stay optimally effective, likely specifically for cases like this where the aerodynamics are changing rapidly.
@@ahgflyguyit's called a PID control loop. A lot of vehicles and robots use this to operate autonomously, so it's nothing new. Tried and tested technology.
Earth's Atmosphere: It's not possible.
Little Starship Flap: No, it's necessary.
"Little" being 3x the size of your room
@@redyau_ compared to atmosphere..
Unbelievable , wow , just wow , cannot wait for IFT5
Might not have to wait long for IFT5, there should be very little in the way of delays from the FAA this time. It could be within 2 months
They say it will be in late july (they might even do a booster catch) @@GR8SALAD
@@GR8SALAD the timeline is for late july. i cant wait for the next flight, even if they abort the catch booster catch attempt.
The cameras on Starship Ship 29 managed to truly produce some of my favorite camera angles in space. That along with Gemini 11, Gemini 12, Apollo 6 (despite that ironically being a near-disaster mission performance wise), Apollo 11 Lunar Lander detaching and landing, Apollo 16 docking with Lunar Module in orbit, Apollo 17 docking to Lunar Lander while that's still attached to final Saturn V stage, Apollo 17 docking to Lunar Module in orbit, Apollo 17 final Lunar Module departure from moon surface, pictures of the Earth from moon surface, Hubble Servicing Missions, Space Shuttles showing their underbelly, final Skylab mission, and Soyuz Expedition 43 docking to International Space Station.
That's some list 😁
Good selection 👍
that one flap: this is fine
Are we certain it was one flap?
@@derrick8206 I don't think we know for sure yet no, it was probably affecting other flaps though.
@@Chillz_OG I would have to say that if it was one fin one side, I don't know if it would have stayed stable throughout the flight. I could be wrong. Multiple cameras would have solved this.
@@derrick8206 prob not
@@heheehyup one fin out of four was monitored????!!!
Side by side comparison of Starship IFT 3 vs IFT 4 - reentry phase (gives a good perspective on the data and footage differences between the 2 missions). Congrats to SpaceX team for this milestone, incredible achievements.
This is awesome tysm
One thing that I immediately noticed comparing the two was how IFT-3's roll affected initial re-entry. They are both moving at about the same speed, but with IFT-4, you can see the plasma starting to form at an altitude of 108 km. With IFT-3, at that same altitude, the ship was hitting the atmosphere on its side before flipping upside down. You can begin to see the plasma forming at an altitude of 102 km on the wrong side of the fin before the ship flips over properly at 101 km. The ship continues to spin and you can see the plasma hitting the side and back starting at 97 km. It's no wonder IFT-3 had to abort early.
IFT-4 had an engine out which could have changed the timeline.
@@klixtrio7760 I'm looking less at the time and more at the orientation of IFT-3
hard to say, because you need to take into account the space weather. But the time sync doesnt make sense in this video. Better syncing would be to have in at atmospheric entry
"It's no wonder IFT-3 had to abort early." It didn't "abort early". It melted.
@@LaggerSVK "But the time sync doesnt make sense in this video. Better syncing would be to have in at atmospheric entry" So you mean like try to sync them by dynamic pressure when they're close to 100km, and not really strictly altitude or time? What altitude do you have to get down to in order for space weather to not really be a strong influence on density? I think 100km is below where the diurnal variations matter, but I haven't looked at it in a long time, though that shouldn't be a factor here.
IFT 3 : 💫
IFT 4 : ☄️
IFT 5 : 🪶
What does ift mean
Intergrated Flight Test
@@senseii_philippines5353Integrated Flight Test
Integrated flight test@@senseii_philippines5353
@22:30 Noticed that the starship started to flip around 350Km/hour and slowed down to about 2Km/H (1.24274 miles/hour), standing vertically just before toppling over into the sea.
Hey thanks for pointing this out. I was so stuck watching the sparks and light show and listening to the crowd to catch that. The first 4 times....
they made history
My analysis is that some tiles toward the rear of one the forward flap that burned fell off, because we could see the sheet metal was getting heated and wrinkling, and the green explosion-ish flashes also denote that there was iron and nickel (I think that’s what that means) burning, and it was just the tiles. Also, at the very end, you could see the fin lost half the wraparound tiles on its furthest edge. This probably means that more tiles than that fell off, because those really didn’t take the brunt of the force.
Wow, you don't realise just how stable IFT 4 was until you compare it side by side with IFT 3. Thanks for sharing!
If they landed with a damaged flap then it must be pretty easy for the people of SpaceX to do it without a damaged flap
Jup if starship managed to land heavily damaged it won't be a problem wen its fixt! And of course they now have the data from the flight so the next starship software wil probably be able to handel it even better!!
@@justinvanderweg204 and hardware... puting some cooling gel on that flaps corner will do the job. the kind they use for fire stunts on films.
This is stupendous! Positive things reverberating throughout the program due to no failures. It can fly again immediately, without an investigation! Wowee!
Dude, this is awesome! I had no idea how synced into flight time these two flights were! Besides attitude, where IFT-3 was running into issues early, the speed and altitudes of both flights at the same times were spot on! Incredible footage!
The largest man made object to ever successfully reenter from space without breaking up.
Congratulations to SpaceX and it's workers. Fantastico!
Absolutely great idea, and nice work. Thnks for this.
This video was a suggestion from a subscriber, after seeing the ITF 1-4 synced footage video ;)
Looks like IFT-3 flaps were trying to compensate for the roll issue. IFT-4 flaps were in a deeper decent mode. So IFT-4 shows more concentrated thermal heating on the belly side of the heat tiles and the flaps.
That thing got the shit kicked out of it and still made it down. Beyond awesome!
Despite Starship Ship 29 beginning to melt, it managed to soldier its way to the ocean.
“I didn't hear no bell!”
70% melted flap and busted glass on the camera and both still managed to function just fine, flight 5 is going to be truly a sight to see, I cant imagine how much better these flights can get only time will tell.
This gives me so much more respect for what NASA accomplished with the Space Shuttle program. when you consider how much more complex a shape it was and the lack of fancy super computers to crunch data it's a damn miracle any of those made it back down to earth!
But it was so expensive. Waste money for tax payers.
Space Shuttle = Legend
Yet NASA retired it because it's so expensive not to mention it is risky. They relied on Russian Soyuz until SpaceX developed Crew Dragon. Space Shuttle is designed only for Low Earth Orbit (LEO), while Starship is intended to go to Mars and Moon with 150 tons payload compared to 25 tons of Space Shuttle. But it is still one the best piece of engineering ever created.
For me it takes a lot of respect away from what NASA accomplished.
The first re-entry of the Space Shuttle was done with humans on board. That's just a complete disregard for human life.
@@kalelidos3473 Bro we have infinite money for the Military just throw NASA more money why the hell not.
I think they had some temporary tiles placed on the starship and intentional weakspots. Ift5 has the flaps in a slightly different place and will have all tiles securely on. This time, they ran out of time, but amazingly still got all the data they needed and more.
this is really cool
nope! it was plasma HOT! lol
Dude *Trust the Process* . The ship is still in development phase. People said same about falcon 9 but now SpaceX does like a 100 launches successfully, has landed hundreds of boosters, launched several crew to ISS etc and are also making profit and they are the only company doing so. Starship has already made so much progress in very little time and soon starship launches will be as common as falcon 9 in the future. It is not a waste of money. About Mars, that is still a long way to go. First obviously they will be doing moon landings first and then aim for Mars. Also SpaceX Starship seems to be more promising for cheap crewed moon missions rather than SLS of NASA.
Yeah I’m thinking that they will do moon landings in 2026 the rest of 2024 might be like ift5 or 6
Planning to compare IFT 4 with IFT 5?
ruclips.net/video/JY6j-X2cq8M/видео.html ;)
this is truly amazing!
At the pace SpaceX and starship are moving you can see they are getting even better and if they keep the same pace we will be in mars very soon
I have mixed feelings.
On the plus side they do ged get a little further each time, and if they just keep doing that they will get there eventually.
On the negative side they seem incapable of predicting and modelling performance. The heat shield is the biggest and most important part of the project. It is what doomed the Space Shuttle’s rapid reuseability, and SpaceX seems to be behind the performance that the Space Shuttle had.
It is all good and impressive that the flap worked despite heavy damage, but from a reuseability perspective that Ship was done even if it had landed.
@@torben777haters gonna hate
@@torben777the method of spacex is very different to anyone else. They don’t do as extensive Modeling with computers etc. that take for ever. Instead it’s more of a let’s test it for real.
@@torben777many news companies don’t understand this and called ift1 2 and 3 a failure, which they weren’t. Did the rockets reach all their mission targets on 1-3? No. Did they reveal design flaws and supply data regarding aerodynamics of the rocket in different scenarios that a computer would take years to simulate? Definitely, because that is exactly what TEST flights are for, testing a design, and putting it under load to reveal flaws and give insight in things that could be future flaws or problems. Other rocket manufacturers do way less real tests and way more computer sims. SpaceX on the other hand tests things way more, which is in many ways a genius idea: 1. real data unlike any computer sim. 2. Starship is primarily made of stainless steel, which costs like 3$/kg while the stuff that other rockets are made of costs over 100$ per kg. A starship test flight just simply costs less than most other rockets. 3. PR, do I really have to explain? This video is a result of the test flight. Basically free advertisement. 4. That free advertisement also inspires the next generation that could eventually become an engineer or whatever working at spacex contributing to their goals. 5. Motivation for the team. Every flight test yields positive results so far. They’ve always made progress. The people that made the Starship get to see the results of their work! During the Live stream you could repeatedly hear the spacex team reacting to what was going on. Imagine designing a rocket, testing the designs with extensive simulations,and calculations, building the rocket, all this usually takes for ever lets assume 5-10 years, and then doing one test flight before the mission of the rocket design is supposed to be, and then having the test flight fail due to an issue/flaw in the design that sims and calculations couldn’t reveal. Wouldn’t that be extremely demotivating for anyone working on that rocket? If they had done tests earlier or more frequently that flaw would have probably been found. Hope this clarifies some things on SpaceXs method of developmentof the Starship
@@torben777 That's because spaceX doesn't spend years modelling performance. They prefer to just send it up and straight up see what happens. It's much easier, faster, and you get hard data as opposed to potentially erroneous simulations.
I liked the comment one of the ladies made about it looking like a scene from "Interstellar" because I thought it did too.
The data gleaned today will "show" the way to orbit for future launching and returning of SH back to it's intended target. Then, a goldmine of reentry and landing data for Starship.
Time stamp for plasma 3:00.
Start of flap burn 14:22
Landing 23:10
spacex is by far the coolest company on earth. i think epic games is number 2
already in june damnn
Just Amazing 😂… Big Thanks to the whole Spacex Community…. For me watching Neil Armstrong walking on the moon and this was just as amazing!!!!
INCREDIBLE
this just shows that they still have a lot of work to do on the tile fastener design and might need to start making adjustments for tiles in the gaps between the fins and main body to absorb the heat during reentry.
once the stainless steel warped it was all over for the adjacent tiles.
WHat a time to live !!
Also, notice that the Starship is symmetrical, meaning that just because we saw only one flap getting damaged does not mean that the other three were not. Most likely, all four flaps were being damaged to a similar degree.
No.. otherwise it would have lost orientation.
@@xavieralexander3131 so you are saying a car can turn with just three tires?
It is probable that the cause of the damage to the flap is damaged heatshield tiles in the area where the flap,connects to the ship. If that wasn’t damaged on the other flaps then they will not have been damaged like the one that was.
@@greensky01 I can do a full 180 degrees with 2 tires. And parking in the Mall>
@@iuliandragomir1 haha that's great!
23:10 "the landing burn shutdown was commanded"
Now this got me thinking: what if the command never reached the ship, did the ship become the fastest jet ski to ever exist
Design change will be needed. The flaps will have to be longer and at a 120 degree angle like they were taking about doing back in August 2021
NASA has got to be HAPPY! This is thrilling.
NASA has too much invested in Artimus, which is obsolete the minute Starship is successful.
@anthonycordovano2438 You need the 2 rockets, which will be used with different purposes (working together).
I always figured the gap between the body and the flap would be a weak point. It will be interesting to see how they work this out.
Probably the heat shield at that point was damaged at launch or during reentry as we see sparks flying off the backside of the flap here and there, indicating that the other side, which was not visible from the camera, was getting damaged before we could see it on camera which amplified the weak spot.
Apparently from what I've hear they are going to move the flaps more toward the leeward side of the ship to get the joint out of the air stream a little better, though I'm sure there's more planned too, still, what an impressive demonstration of the adaptive abilities of the flight control software for it to still nail a landing even with much of a flap missing, unlike Boeing, SpaceX really knows how to write the software
IFT4 flap started to burn.
Everyone: ohh no. No nooo
IFT4 FLAP: NAH I'D WIN 🗿🍷
The indomitable flap spirit
It's incredible how starship continued its mission despite one of its flaps burning up.
Are there any long range views from earth of the ship splashing down?
Well done and very interesting.
Mainfocus probably improving that wing joint on the next test flight, catching the booster and maybe starship landing?
Amazing !
Equalizing the time doesn't make sense; you need to equalize the altitude.
Equalizing the altitude does not make sense either, for with their different control (or lack thereof on IFT3) and other factors make it too different as well. It should, instead, be measured from engine cut-off.
@@atemoc I'll try for the next time to sync it to the engine cut-off.
Here is the new version synced to Altitude ruclips.net/video/kWU1KoI0EJg/видео.html
imma print out a picture of the flap and stick it on the wall, I think that would motivate me to do anything for the rest of my life lmao
Where's the feed Video from within the Starship hold? Anybody got leaked vid
It's as if the flap was holding on as long as it could, then right when the engines took over and it had done it's job it finally let go
"Зато мы в области балета впереди планеты всей! И покорили Енисей!" :)
Starship commanded that landing - no matter the heat
Long story short; Keep the shiny side up!🤣
Very wrong idea during peak heating of reentry, it is almost engines-down during this phase. But otherwise, yes.
@@atemocup in this case means opposing the direction of movement
@@vice214 Basically.
Syncing would be more useful via speed or altitude, any chance you could make that too? The missions were different a bit, so comparing by time is not that insightful.
There is no perfect way to sync, as you said, the 2 missions didn't have the same orbital insertion (parameters differ). But I'll try to post that video tomorrow.
ruclips.net/video/kWU1KoI0EJg/видео.html here it is ;)
Would be amazing to see it synced uf for altitude or velocity as here they are at different stages eg altitudes.. still cool tho!
Will drop that video tomorrow
@@GoToSpace_GTS fucking legend
@@Wurmloecher ruclips.net/video/kWU1KoI0EJg/видео.html ;)
I see I design change coming up.
Surely there must be a view of it hovering before it landed on the sea.
How is that there are no photographs of flight 4 after it splash down? Did it flood and sink immediately?
There was nobody there to photograph it.
SpaceX were not recovering either the booster or the Starship.
If it turned over with the starlink antenna under the water they would lose all signals.
@@derekmillar5407 space x or at least Elon said it landed on target or at least near enough. One would think that they would have had someone nearby.
This is much more suspenseful and exciting than any Hollywood movies. SpaceX could charge for live launch broadcast in the future.🤣
Don't jinks it. Lol
Don't be stupid
Congratulations 🎉.
Space is brutal
If the reentry attitude is known to be tail down why are the aft ends of the flaps blunt and flat with sharp edges?
eah it landed etc. But that heatsheild didn't stand up to much at all. I think it will need a whole new redesign of the ship and the flaps and the heat shield. I am sorry to say. That heatshield cannot take high temperatures under stress of the wind rushng by etc. It just peeled off the flaps and they were toast.
It’s not confirmed but it’s likely just the flaps that were damaged, space x expected this and it was a known flaw on this ship even before liftoff. If this damage occurred anywhere else on the ship it would have failed.
I imagine it not technically wrong to call mach 25 "more than Mach 5".
I was expecting it to slowdown way faster then that.
Elon is unique. He somehow still manages to continuously provide us with excitement. By the way, how's Boing's capsule doing? Anyone?
Honestly, I love the moans and groans, these people are going to do everything to make sure the same mistake doesn't happen again.
Great!
Can’t wait for the day when this kind of enthusiastic cheering is for the first football game between Mars and Earth colleges.
1:32 Who knew even with billions in funding SpaceX rendering simulations still sometimes glitch!
so did starship go surfing after landing? the speed shot up as it was sideways in the water. If they can't/don't land ift5 starship on the chopsticks, i really hope they get video of it landing in the ocean. But let's go with chopsticks!!
Elon just did an interview and said starship did complete a soft landing however ... it landed 6 km from it's target. He said unless there are problems he hasn't heard about yet then he would like to try a chopstick landing with the booster next flight.
@@wally7856 it being 6km off target probably had something to do with the flaps getting the crap burned out of them
@@KiRiTO72987 nah it just means starship can't even navigate itself to the correct landing zone. Which is a fatal problem and will delay starship ever being used by humans for another 70 years at minimum
@@xMorogothx 70 years is a bit of a long stretch, It seems like under-estimating SpaceX for its fast-paced development like Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy which took 5 Years and its first Reusability attempt. 2030 to 2040 might be the best bet
@@Alderiteno it will be 2025. Mark my word.
Am l the only one who noticed the spacecraft vanish for a moment, (at the 1:32 mark) but left the background?
Th background also looks like it has a filter over it. Half of it is just grey. Didn’t notice this in the livestream
they changed the camera for a split second. its a different view without the ship
@@Unbaguettable But the view of the background stayed at the same angle.
@@kelly806 Yeah i realised im wrong. It appears to be a data-mosh of some kind - look right before the ship appears again and you can see it clearly. Comms must have been a bit spotty or something. doesn't look like anything weird or not-normal tho
I see Starship vanishing but also some parts of the background (clouds) under some grey overlay - same color as the majority of Starship, it's a glitch/saturation, nothing abnormal.
IFT 3 lost so many heat shield tiles, it’s crazy
1:32 to 1:35 what was that? Starship went poof but the background did not 🤔
How can it be that at minute 1:33 the image of the starship disappears for 3 seconds but the clouds are still visible in motion down there? someone explain to me please
Different camera pointing at the same location? The perspective doesn't change much because remember earth is much much bigger than starship, even couple meters camera displacement doesn't matter much
it just like when you see a moon, and then you move several meters from starting point. you would still see the moon at the same spot
Interesting catch.
It is a glitch in the video codec processing.
For bandwith reason, videos are compressed.
Areas which don´t change much from frame to frame (like the ship) get copied an pasted in in every frame from the same previously transmitted picture.
Only the parts that do change from frame to frame get transmitted.
If there is a processing fault in the codec, the "picture" of the ship is "lost" for several frames.
There is a thin line left visible from the rear skirt and the flap.
Also notice that in this area no "new" clouds pop up to be visible, because the camera can´t see them in first place (area blocked by the ship).
Flat Earther´s would call it a glitch as well, but one of the CGI software that pasted the ship onto the moving background.
@@hectorpascale1013 Wow. Thanks for the explanation, I opened my mouth when the ship disappeared for almost three seconds and there was nothing in its place other than the surrounding clouds down there.
anyone knows the max temperature on the surface of the ship ?
The flap thought it was terminator
mut instead of "I'll be back" it opted for "I WILL Make it back"
Conclusion. To solve their heat tile problem they can just have it roll around its own axis 😅
When considering Elon Musk's plan to send a gigantic spaceship, as he calls it, to Mars, one could argue that it is potentially more dangerous to send a large object there than a small one. A large object offers more surface area for damage or malfunctions, as it has more components and systems that could fail. Additionally, it requires more complex logistics and higher precision during launch and landing. On the other hand, a larger spaceship could also include more redundancies and safety measures that might not be possible with smaller spacecraft. So, it's a trade-off between the risks and the benefits that a larger spaceship might offer.
It's a combination of risk analysis and mission needs if you want to go to Mars your gonna be stuck their for at least two years before the next transfer window comes around (orbital mechanics etc ) so you have to bring two years worth of supplies with you on top of that building a sustainable colony will require large amounts of payload to orbit so you need a rocket capable of delivering large amounts of payload to Mars and to do that you need a Large and very powerful rocket
오징이를 구울때 날개가 타는 것은 당연한 이치입니다.. 날개에 더 많은 보강을..
remember when people said ohh starship cant reach orbit after ift 1 lol .now its nothing
anyone noticed and can explain the flash vanish of the ship in 1:32
Sabe o que mudou? O controle de atitude, trocaram do teste 3 para o 4. Por isso que a Starship parece parada no voo 4 😂😂😂
Just watch people try to say this was a failure if your trying to demotivate Elon it’s not going to work even if it is a failure which it isn’t we all learn from failures so that’s really good so if you don’t think SpaceX will bring humans to mars I’m sorry but your wrong it’s just a matter of time before humans are interplanetary.
It was a failure. Starship won't be used by humans until we're all long dead. Minimum another 100 years to take humans back to the moon or even think about taking us to Mars.
1:30 just for fun
Will a live chicken survive better turkey
Too much hype and hysterics, if this was with NASA's, it would be considered a huge failure. Expensive and interesting trials though.
Why are these women giggling so much
Lost and a lot of dust, to much expensive buy 2 or more camera
Haha....so funny. PPl are in this thing... not you
I read this comment that they just faked this landing, and that they just an ipad falling down.
I was rolling on the floor, laughing at that rocket engineer xD
I get it though. The whole concept of rocket and space flight is too much for your tiny brain to comprehend.
her laugh and her comments are so annoying
IFT 3 flaps were coated with thermal resist. while IFT4 were just stainless steel. Obviously they cannot survive re entry. is an expliaination for this?
Some said that they made it intentionally to monitor how plasma go through flaps
The flaps do have a heat shield on Flight 4, it wasn’t just stainless steel, the did remove 2 heat shield tiles near the aft of the vehicle to test out the heating
The flaps on Ship 28 (IFT 3) and Ship 29 (IFT 4) are identical.