Main problem with Starship's Failure, was its re-entry speed! Why the hell did they have it come back at 25,000 MPH?!? Had they cut the speed to what our Shuttle Re-entry speed was, Starship-3 would have landed! But nooo... The idiot engineers let it burn off all fuel, so the engines were useless.
@@OdeeOzYou just made a clueless comment. The Space Shuttle re-entered earth's atmosphere at the exact same speed as the Starship did if not a little bit faster. That 25,000 was in kph not mph. Now who's useless.
You are the clueless one little troll @@johnarnold893 My comment comes from 65 years of Space Race, and Jet Age experience and Facts. FACT: This was a Planned Failure. Now if you're so smart, explain Why they Planned it. (Yes I know already)
Lol, man no chance would I trust my life in that thing, I take my hat off to the people who will go up in this giant coke can off death, it looks so fucking flimsy, surly this will never be used to lift people into space will it ?
@5:50 Why are so many channels saying the heat is from air friction? One of the very first things you learn about the heat from entering the Earth's atmosphere at high speed is that the heat is from the compression of air. Has the current understanding changed to say that the heat is actually from friction and I just have outdated ideas? I've heard friction being named in relation to this IFT3 launch so many times, and even on the SpaceX official broadcast, that now I'm doubting my understanding of re-entry heat.
Scott Manley said the same thing you’re saying. It’s not friction because there aren’t enough molecules, it’s the compression of the fewer molecules that are there
No different than saying `vacuum ` cleaner , or saying which way electricity travels in a wire , as long as the end result is the same its semantics . What is the compression of the air heating ? Friction !
@@MyKharliwrong. A bow shock forms in front of blunt body at hyper sonic speeds which compresses the air in front of the body. The heat is then radiated onto the blunt body. Definitely not friction….
Wow 😅 that was an impressive amount of information you give on the mechanics of rocket powered flight. Now im hooked. All of you are an elite crowd if you were able to understand and be interested in these topics.
Maybe add a coating over the tiles to protect them during the ascent and help hold them on until re-entry when the coating burns off. It could help prevent ice from the chill getting between the tiles and loosening them from ice expansion on the gaps.
SpaceX have confirmed that they actually managed to close the payload door before re-entry. The ship had already lost attitude control before re-entry began. This is why there was a high roll rate after engine shut down and the engine relight was skipped. The stuff seen falling away from the ship at start of re-entry was mainly ice falling off as the outside of the ship began to heat up. If it had been tiles the irregular shaped pieces would have been smaller with larger pieces being hexagonal.
As is well known white ice turns black and forms hexagonal shapes on reentry. Those who denigrate this phenomenon are just Muskhaters who try to criticise this almost but not yet quite perfect flight.
I think that the landing burn failed because of the long axis spin on the booster causing propellant to be centrifugally pushed to the sides of the booster, away from the intake filters. The booster did not appear to have sufficient roll thrusters to cancel the spin.
Agreed,@@johnturner8286... it sure seems like the Falcon control surface structures (both grid fins and RCS) cannot just be scaled up to the dimensions of Starship or Super Heavy. The SpaceX engineers are going to have their hands full with re-engineering these without adding a large amount of weight to the total stack.
Only one issue I see is lost of control in "orbit". That seems to be something relatively easy to fix. Other than that, it is already better and bigger rocket than anything we had. With its capacity and size, I really see Starship as game changer to space exploration.
No payload , loss of control on decent on both parts in the year the moon base was supposed to be happening hardly counts as a pass . It could even indicate this approach is unfeasible however much hopeum is poured in .
@@MyKharli 4 years ago they had nothing, but exploding small silly prototypes. Today, they reached orbit (they would, if they wanted) with largest rocket ever. I think they are on the right way. ruclips.net/video/PBOS5kvQH1U/видео.html
@@gregbailey45 Do they? Then why do their licenses say how many flights they're good for? Doesn't that imply "if everything goes perfectly, no need to re-license." The FAA might effectively be rubber-stamping SpaceX's investigative reports, but it's the frivolous lawsuits filed by activists that delay their turn-around.
They need to feather the hard edge of the tile edge. The hard edge puts too much strain on them, and they pull off. A square edge will get really hot and is transferring it to the skin. Also adds drag.
It amazes me how quickly space X builds things. Ifitwas NASA it would take them a year to finish the paperwork before they even thought of starting any more work.
It's really not all that quick, the key is serial construction. They have at least five more test articles in various stages of construction. In fact, the next Starship was conducting pre-flight qualification tests just a day before this one lifted off.
@@jamesbuchanan4414 wasn't that a launch rehearsal test which resulted in the block 1 capsules being dropped for redesigned block 2 capsules and a heap of protocols that mitigated/resolved the cause of the problems, and caused NASA to implement a new policy of "Tough and Competent" to prevent anything like it from happening again?
4 booster/starship pairs already lined up for the next launches!!! Guess they were already planned when they announced the Starship flight schedule for this year!
@@ItsReallyJackBlackI think it will be more. Stack is pretty cheap (90mln), and they iterate fast. I doubt they will try land booster before second tower will come online. Losing stage 0 will be pretty disastrous as for time. So I think they will try few times really precise hover maneuvers before first attempt.
Post Flight Data review for Ship 28 ought to include video Footage from NASA's WB-57. That thing can hang out @ 60,000 ft and is Well equipped w/ Cameras made just for such events. I'm sure SpaceX will eventually release Some WB-57 footage but likely not until they've made full assessments over this latest StarShip flight.
At 3:35 you incorrectly said Booster 9, however in this flight test Booster 10 was used, as you mention later in the video. Nevertheless, it's a great video, thank you!!
There would be no mishap investigation if the flight plan had only been what any other rocket would have expected; that is, the no planned recovery of the first and second stages.
the video footage did not show a problem with the door closing. it did show a problem with the door not properly fully opening. this is a huge difference! at first only a small opening gap is shown when the door opens and he stops the video (4:11). then the door should retract further and it also pops up but it seems to be got stucked in that now popped open position. the mechanism cannot however open it like its supposed to, fully. nowhere it shows that there is a closing problem. well to be fair maybe they tried to got it closed from the stuck position again. but it did not work. but we do not know that from video footage alone. summing up we see a failed attempt to open the cargo door like its supposed to be working to be opening. but i do not see this as something bad. cause its a further progress compared to before. lets say 30% from 100% towards cargo door functionality. a partial success as well therefore.
@@johnturner8286Is anyone calling Starship safe for manned flight or reuse? No. These are EXPERIMENTAL PROTOTYPES. Science is making an hypothesis about how you think something will work and designing and conducting experiments to test your hypothesis. Sometimes the results support your hypothesis. Sometimes you get wholly unexpected results. Either way, you learn what works and what does not work. This allows you to refine your model and move closer to your goal. The first Falcon Rockets didn’t all work. The first Falcon Rockets weren’t rated as safe for humans flight. Now they’ve flown more crews to the ISS than anyone except the Russians.
You can’t blame the tiles when they weren’t designed to work in that orientation, like sticking your head backwards out the window of a car going 100mph and then complaining your hair was covering your face and you couldn’t see anything.
yeah, it was attitude control issue, not the tiles. They have aced the going up bit, now they have to fix the coming down bit, and the data they got from this will be invaluable for that
Laymens: The 200-ton "empty" booster within the last 12000-5000 ft was traveling at 600mph with almost no fuel on board. Either way, they'll need a large parachute or more fuel for a soft landing of the booster. As it was uncontrollable, being rather large and fast. Colloquium might be the starship will receive a similar fate at that altitude when it makes it through the atmosphere as it was out of fuel 60 miles above the Indian Ocean with regard to a soft landing.
GenlTch (below) writes: "Appreciate the non-clickbait title and content. Subscribed." Title: SpaceX Revealed What Exactly Happened To Starship & Booster On IFT-3 at 6:35 "We will have to wait for an official statement from SpaceX after post-flight data review to learn what went wrong and >>what exactly happened to ship 28.
They have boosters and star-ships ready for next flights, and SpaceX are building factories, at this point whatever people say about success or failure, SpaceX is determined to launch new prototypes until they have a solid and reliable rocket.
@@karlkarlsson9126 I strongly suspect that with the technology currently available starship will turn out to be rapidly refurbish-able rather then reusable. Of course with a fleet of 50 starships or more they could launch 1 a week, repair, refurbish and upgrade them regularly, and the first 1 would be ready to launch again long before they got to the last 1. So, same effect.
@@karlkarlsson9126 As long as they do a funding round every once in a while and give jobs to NASA officials who awarded them multi billion $ contracts.
10:39 "The J shaped flame deflector has channels through which water will be flown." 😂 Who will be piloting the water and what plane will they be using?
About 6:25 the voiceover says Starship passed through the densest part of the atmosphere. Isn’t that at seal level? Most intense heat generation, perhaps. This would be a combination of air density and speed.
Thermal Tiles: Get rid of the SS pins on Str Shp. Install monument tabs 2 per tile. Two vertical holes will pass through the tile and the tabs. Two steel pins 2-3mm will will pass through holes. Once installed these can not be removed except by destruction. Huh, no more popcorn thermal tiles.
Private space launch companies will always outperform governmental companies. Don’t get me wrong, NASA had very few total rocket failures during start up than our private companies of late, but they did it by spending between 10 times and 100 times the cost. Our private companies push a very lean budget to failure, and quickly taking another shot, gaining the most bang for the buck. It’s a must when it’s your money!
Malfunction of the pez door could have added to the demise - if it did not seal up on closure, it's likely it allowed plasma to intrude inside the bay. This wouldn't normally be a critical issue, but with their lack of roll control authority during re-entry the pez door was exposed to the aerodynamic braking forces instead of the heat shield tiles. I'm curious about what happened that prevented a full engine relight prior to re-entry.
@tedarcher9120 yeah, they aren't using mono prop, but instead the fuel that's turned into gas. I recon that ice built up around the RCS thrusters causing them to throw mass out in the wrong direction.
SpaceX now announced that the door was closed successfully before re-entry. It seems there was a control system problem after engine shutdown in orbit so the ship couldn't orient itself properly to perform the engine relight or to orient correctly for re-entry. Probably an issue with the cold gas thrusters which caused the constant roll noticed when main engines cut off which didn't seem to get corrected.
Was I the only one who noticed some explosions in the engine compartment just after cut off? If they were venting fuel or LOX, that would account for the loss of attitude control.
@@johnny_fatz There are ullage vents in the engine bay where they vent excess pressure from the tanks. After engine shutdown there will be a lot of gas to vent until the engines cool down too. Remember the engines are full of cryogenic fluids for cooling and all that has to vent after a shutdown.
HONESTLY.... if they would have treated the Starship with a Ceramic Coating (that you put on vehicles)...I am certain it would not have burnt up in the atmosphere. That's definitely something they will do next time and you'll all see that things will go smoothly!
I mean, spacex is already ways off their schedule of having a moon base this year. If this was 2-3years ago, i would have agreed with you but spacex needs to feel a bit of urgency if they want to deliver what they've promised. @stratolestele7611
@@stratolestele7611NASA had big rockets sorted. Saturn V never failed. Why erase the chalkboard? Why is this thing even needed? Given this "data" and the blind engineering that fuels it, the crashes will continue.
@@WyoSavage1976Yes they did. And they produced rockets that did not fail .SpaceX already has these. The Saturn V remains the superior large rocket. Why erase the chalkboard? Vert costly.
My thought is the header tanks should always be what feed the raptors propellant the header should be at the bottoms of the tanks and just above the engines. Then the main tanks feed down into the headers to always keep them full. No more switching between tanks from header to main.
Man those tiles are a disaster waiting to happen. It is just too difficult to insure the adhesion between the dissimilar materials, ceramic and metal, in that stressing conditions.
Youre wrong about re entry. The ship barely made it anywhere into the atmosphere. You stated that it was lost is the thickest part of atmosphere yet the velocity was still above 26,000 KM/ at nealry the same altitude as engine cutoff
It lost control after scrubbing only 1,000 km/h at the top of the upper atmosphere, thats complete failure. It did not survive almost all the way through reentry and it did not lose attitude control on the entry and lost it while still in the lower earth orbit boundary space. This should be pretty basic. I'm surprised you got it wrong
It was kind of skipped over but what engines were supposed to re-light at what point in the booster landing sequence? I thought someone said all 13 inner engines but I was watching the feed where Felix was going crazy making it difficult to know who was saying what. The indication on flight data of the engines that did relight were in an asymmetrical pattern which would seem to make it difficult to maintain a vertical position.
I remember hearing that the inner 13 were supposed to relight for the landing burn, as they can gimbal. Then right before landing (or splashdown in this case) all but the inner 3 shut down.
I don't understand how Starship and Artemis would be integrated. Starship does not seem to need Artemis as I thought Starship is supposed to land directly on the moon or mars. Artemis as I see it needs a Lunar lander that would be docked with Artemis until lunar orbit then undock like the Apollo days.
How much can the Starship Super Heavy rocket actually carry into orbit? With Raptor 3.1 3.2 engines, the total thrust mass will exceed 10,000 tons, and the rocket with fuel alone will exceed 5,000 tons. The difference between the rocket's thrust and mass is huge, which shouldn't be the case problem with putting 500 tons or more into orbit? What is it like in practice? Is it possible to put 500 tons into orbit?
i wonder if it would be possible to make one piece custom molded heat shields (like a section of PVC pipe cut lengthwise) that would be lap - jointed together every twenty feet or so
not especially. tiles are pretty fragile, and they have to be baked. on the other side: spaceX already tested new type of tiles on one segment. Much smaller (look like a bit bigger than hand, instead dinner plate sized).
The California Redwood Trees endure severe storms in part because their roots are intertwined allowing the entire forest to share the stresses and load. I don’t think making much larger (20 foot ?) heat tiles is the answer. Smaller tiles that have multiple connections to nearby tiles (like LEGOs) might be a possible option. I know they leave space between them for heat expansion. As they continue to collect data they will be better able to calculate where the areas of greatest stress will be and how to strengthen the tiles and ship’s hull if needed.
@@mikegardner107 I think major problem with tiles is attachment method. Material of tiles itself is a bit too fragile , so clips due to vibration are loosing grip. Similar to screws in drywall plates. SpaceX probably tried to reinforce mount points with different class of silica (there is several types of that material, often melted into one piece, but with different strength/insulation capabilities/heat dissipation). On test rig there was "mockup" out of thin metal. Rn I think that those weren't exactly a mockups, but mounting plates. While "bake" it into plates itself would be very difficult, as temperatures needed to bake tiles exceed melting point of metal, it could be that in production process of tiles this steel sheet will be glued or attached in different way into plate. Main expense of gluing tiles to space shuttle was that that it was lot of tiles that were designed for specific places. Like a puzzle. And also fact that everytime OLD glue had to be removed, cleaned etc. Glue itself if I recall wasn't super expensive by itself. Probably today we have even cheaper alternatives. And creating assembly line to attach tile to plate wouldn't be as complicated and expensive. While it WILL increase price per tile, I think this would be offset by less fragile tiles, so less inspection/less replacement tiles for operational Starship. With goal to reusing of Starship, less maintenance will be greatly bemeficial
Teaser clickbait title: "SpaceX Revealed What Exactly Happened..." Video: "...we still have to wait for an official statement from SpaceX after postflight data review to learn what went wrong and what exactly happened..." The Space shuttle did not depend entirely on control surfaces for re-entry but also used generous attitude control thrusters. I suspect the control surfaces are too slow and not fine enough control in the early stages and over-compensate.
Even Starship each launch had made some progress,but it blew up at the end.Is this call success or call failure?Saturn 5 rocket never blew up at the first flight!
00:00 Starship Updates
10:17 SpaceX Launched Crew-8 Astronauts To ISS
11:49 SpaceX Launched Tenth Transporter Rideshare Mission
Learn More:
1. Latest Upgrades To Starship
a. Starship Hot Staging Explained: ruclips.net/video/qgZHo9wYRW0/видео.html
b. Super Heavy Booster Upgrades: ruclips.net/video/vZH5esgrFiM/видео.html
c. Starship-26 Explained: ruclips.net/video/9tiUa4jdv4s/видео.html
d. How SpaceX Protect Raptor Engines: ruclips.net/video/L22gyQDDXho/видео.html
e. OLM Water Cooled Steel Plates: ruclips.net/video/zyoM0c4QAGs/видео.html
2. Starship V2 Features:
a) shorturl.at/lpGT7
b) shorturl.at/gwNQ4
3. Starship V3 Features: shorturl.at/mnBT4
4. FAA Starship Flight 2 Mishap Investigation & 17 Corrective Actions: shorturl.at/ntxyV
5. All 53 Transporter 10 Payloads: shorturl.at/gsvIR
Weekly Updates: bit.ly/3HIQjPC
SpaceX Playlist: bit.ly/34wue8T
Consider Supporting on Patreon: www.patreon.com/scientiaplus
Facebook Page: facebook.com/scientiaplus
Main problem with Starship's Failure, was its re-entry speed! Why the hell did they have it come back at 25,000 MPH?!? Had they cut the speed to what our Shuttle Re-entry speed was, Starship-3 would have landed! But nooo... The idiot engineers let it burn off all fuel, so the engines were useless.
@@OdeeOzYou just made a clueless comment. The Space Shuttle re-entered earth's atmosphere at the exact same speed as the Starship did if not a little bit faster. That 25,000 was in kph not mph. Now who's useless.
You are the clueless one little troll @@johnarnold893 My comment comes from 65 years of Space Race, and Jet Age experience and Facts.
FACT: This was a Planned Failure. Now if you're so smart, explain Why they Planned it. (Yes I know already)
not explained... "must wait for info from Spacex"
I'm glad we finally got to see inside starship ! A hollow tube with a garage door opener !
Giant space cargo hauler. The C5 Galaxy of rockets.
UR correct - thought I had seen that bent arm before
Lol, man no chance would I trust my life in that thing, I take my hat off to the people who will go up in this giant coke can off death, it looks so fucking flimsy, surly this will never be used to lift people into space will it ?
Oh yeah, any vehicle crash test should come with full package of heated and ventilated seats, ambient lighting and audio system.
@@serlancerlot315
Don't forget the ABS so you can crash test without locking up the brakes.
Excellent rundown, no bs, straight to it. Thank you, refreshing. Keep it up
@5:50 Why are so many channels saying the heat is from air friction?
One of the very first things you learn about the heat from entering the Earth's atmosphere at high speed is that the heat is from the compression of air.
Has the current understanding changed to say that the heat is actually from friction and I just have outdated ideas?
I've heard friction being named in relation to this IFT3 launch so many times, and even on the SpaceX official broadcast, that now I'm doubting my understanding of re-entry heat.
Scott Manley said the same thing you’re saying. It’s not friction because there aren’t enough molecules, it’s the compression of the fewer molecules that are there
You are correct. It's the compression of the air. Some people simply don't understand physics
Or the problems that musk has yet to overcome ..literally zillions of them .@@user-sl5nm9js8p
No different than saying `vacuum ` cleaner , or saying which way electricity travels in a wire , as long as the end result is the same its semantics . What is the compression of the air heating ? Friction !
@@MyKharliwrong. A bow shock forms in front of blunt body at hyper sonic speeds which compresses the air in front of the body. The heat is then radiated onto the blunt body. Definitely not friction….
You learn more from failure than you do a flawless flight. Next flight will be an improvement.👍
Wow 😅 that was an impressive amount of information you give on the mechanics of rocket powered flight. Now im hooked. All of you are an elite crowd if you were able to understand and be interested in these topics.
A lot can be learned from the recent Starship 3 launch.. onward and upward! 👍🚀
Good summary and account of the event, thanks for sharing
Maybe add a coating over the tiles to protect them during the ascent and help hold them on until re-entry when the coating burns off. It could help prevent ice from the chill getting between the tiles and loosening them from ice expansion on the gaps.
SpaceX have confirmed that they actually managed to close the payload door before re-entry. The ship had already lost attitude control before re-entry began. This is why there was a high roll rate after engine shut down and the engine relight was skipped. The stuff seen falling away from the ship at start of re-entry was mainly ice falling off as the outside of the ship began to heat up. If it had been tiles the irregular shaped pieces would have been smaller with larger pieces being hexagonal.
Awesome knowledge!
Tremendous video!!! The re-entry segment was so good that no details were lost from viewing. Wonderful achievement - kudos to all hands.
I could have sworn I saw stuff falling away while it was coming back
As is well known white ice turns black and forms hexagonal shapes on reentry. Those who denigrate this phenomenon are just Muskhaters who try to criticise this almost but not yet quite perfect flight.
Shure, that is why they never went back to the door camera, because they don't want the world to see them succeding in something
Booster + Starship will become as regular as Falcon 9 is today.
I think that the landing burn failed because of the long axis spin on the booster causing propellant to be centrifugally pushed to the sides of the booster, away from the intake filters.
The booster did not appear to have sufficient roll thrusters to cancel the spin.
Agreed. This ship lacks proper rate control authority.
Agreed,@@johnturner8286... it sure seems like the Falcon control surface structures (both grid fins and RCS) cannot just be scaled up to the dimensions of Starship or Super Heavy. The SpaceX engineers are going to have their hands full with re-engineering these without adding a large amount of weight to the total stack.
Starship was not lost, the prototype test served its purpose! It's the BIRTH of STARSHIP!
Only one issue I see is lost of control in "orbit". That seems to be something relatively easy to fix. Other than that, it is already better and bigger rocket than anything we had.
With its capacity and size, I really see Starship as game changer to space exploration.
No payload , loss of control on decent on both parts in the year the moon base was supposed to be happening hardly counts as a pass . It could even indicate this approach is unfeasible however much hopeum is poured in .
@@MyKharli 4 years ago they had nothing, but exploding small silly prototypes. Today, they reached orbit (they would, if they wanted) with largest rocket ever. I think they are on the right way.
ruclips.net/video/PBOS5kvQH1U/видео.html
They gonna cancel this program. The progress is too slow and way to expensive.
@@slickdiggler1197 TOO SLOW????? WTF U ON AHOUT BRO 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
NASA has 10 times more delays
Wayy to go SpaceX, Team Starship
what amazes me is how they theorize out one of these rapid dismantlings
They have a lot of detailed data to look at.
Lots and lots of sensors. Cheap sensors have changed everything.
IFT-3 was a great success, but the unplanned destruction of the booster and ship means more delays until they can get another license. That sucks.
Yeah. Great success. The very definition.
They need a new licence every time anyway. And SpaceX conducts their own investigation that the FAA rubber stamps, so no big deal.
@@gregbailey45 Do they? Then why do their licenses say how many flights they're good for? Doesn't that imply "if everything goes perfectly, no need to re-license."
The FAA might effectively be rubber-stamping SpaceX's investigative reports, but it's the frivolous lawsuits filed by activists that delay their turn-around.
They need to feather the hard edge of the tile edge. The hard edge puts too much strain on them, and they pull off. A square edge will get really hot and is transferring it to the skin. Also adds drag.
Agreed. Also they made the tiles too big. Very difficult to keep oversize tiles from flexing and breaking.
Just to clarify the FAA review the analysis and recommendations by SpaceX, and confirm actions have been implemented. FAA don't recommend updates.
Thank you. I wondered about that..
There is nothing new compare to original IFT-3 videos. The main cause of heat during re-entry is air compression rather than frictions.
It amazes me how quickly space X builds things. Ifitwas NASA it would take them a year to finish the paperwork before they even thought of starting any more work.
It's really not all that quick, the key is serial construction. They have at least five more test articles in various stages of construction. In fact, the next Starship was conducting pre-flight qualification tests just a day before this one lifted off.
If it was NASA, it would have worked first time.
@@andrewbutton2039 nasa has had there share of fk ups. It just takes them ten times longer.
@@andrewbutton2039 *laughs in Apollo 1*
@@jamesbuchanan4414 wasn't that a launch rehearsal test which resulted in the block 1 capsules being dropped for redesigned block 2 capsules and a heap of protocols that mitigated/resolved the cause of the problems, and caused NASA to implement a new policy of "Tough and Competent" to prevent anything like it from happening again?
Thanks a lot for the briefing ,its all fantastic ❤thanks.
4 booster/starship pairs already lined up for the next launches!!! Guess they were already planned when they announced the Starship flight schedule for this year!
Six more this year. 15 -20 next year. They say they planned on losing up to 7 in testing.
@@ItsReallyJackBlackI think it will be more. Stack is pretty cheap (90mln), and they iterate fast. I doubt they will try land booster before second tower will come online. Losing stage 0 will be pretty disastrous as for time. So I think they will try few times really precise hover maneuvers before first attempt.
great video man !
Post Flight Data review for Ship 28 ought to include video Footage from NASA's WB-57. That thing can hang out @ 60,000 ft and is Well equipped w/ Cameras made just for such events. I'm sure SpaceX will eventually release Some WB-57 footage but likely not until they've made full assessments over this latest StarShip flight.
Too bad WB-57 can’t come anywhere near the speed of the IFTs.
At 3:35 you incorrectly said Booster 9,
however in this flight test
Booster 10 was used, as you mention later in the video.
Nevertheless, it's a great video, thank you!!
Excellent overview of current state of affairs in space exploration flight.
There would be no mishap investigation if the flight plan had only been what any other rocket would have expected; that is, the no planned recovery of the first and second stages.
Appreciate the non-clickbait title and content. Subscribed.
Space x fanboy channels always make me think of the old saying " The operation was a success, but the patient died."
The mere fact that starship lasted so long during reentry says a lot.
the video footage did not show a problem with the door closing. it did show a problem with the door not properly fully opening. this is a huge difference!
at first only a small opening gap is shown when the door opens and he stops the video (4:11). then the door should retract further and it also pops up but it seems to be got stucked in that now popped open position. the mechanism cannot however open it like its supposed to, fully.
nowhere it shows that there is a closing problem.
well to be fair maybe they tried to got it closed from the stuck position again. but it did not work. but we do not know that from video footage alone.
summing up we see a failed attempt to open the cargo door like its supposed to be working to be opening.
but i do not see this as something bad. cause its a further progress compared to before. lets say 30% from 100% towards cargo door functionality. a partial success as well therefore.
About time, it's so cool
Kudos to spacex team. Liftoff, separation and transition went fine. Need improvements for reentry and landing. 👏👏
If airliners always crashed before landing, we wouldn't call them successes. Or man-rateable.
@@johnturner8286Is anyone calling Starship safe for manned flight or reuse? No. These are EXPERIMENTAL PROTOTYPES.
Science is making an hypothesis about how you think something will work and designing and conducting experiments to test your hypothesis. Sometimes the results support your hypothesis. Sometimes you get wholly unexpected results. Either way, you learn what works and what does not work. This allows you to refine your model and move closer to your goal. The first Falcon Rockets didn’t all work. The first Falcon Rockets weren’t rated as safe for humans flight. Now they’ve flown more crews to the ISS than anyone except the Russians.
2:41 its crazy seeing the shock waves from the exhause.. thats a whole butt ton of thrust to be able to cause shockwaves like that 8:12
That thing was tracked all the way to where the pieces hit the ocean! 😱😁🤪🤣👍👍🇺🇸
I agree, tiles, as used, arent working here. Something new is needed.
It really wasn’t the tiles fault this time is was actually the orientation of s28 that doomed it
It wasn't a steady bellyflop. They have real world data now so the logic software for stability can be perfected.
You can’t blame the tiles when they weren’t designed to work in that orientation, like sticking your head backwards out the window of a car going 100mph and then complaining your hair was covering your face and you couldn’t see anything.
yeah, it was attitude control issue, not the tiles. They have aced the going up bit, now they have to fix the coming down bit, and the data they got from this will be invaluable for that
@@autogyro333Yeah, nah ... that's absolutely not going to happen. Give it a minute, why don't you? They know what they're doing.
Excellent stuff Elon , congratulations 🎉🎈🎊
Survived almost all of the way through re-entry? It barely started... are you kidding?
Yeah that shows how much this channel knows.
Laymens: The 200-ton "empty" booster within the last 12000-5000 ft was traveling at 600mph with almost no fuel on board. Either way, they'll need a large parachute or more fuel for a soft landing of the booster. As it was uncontrollable, being rather large and fast. Colloquium might be the starship will receive a similar fate at that altitude when it makes it through the atmosphere as it was out of fuel 60 miles above the Indian Ocean with regard to a soft landing.
Thanks! Great show!
GenlTch (below) writes: "Appreciate the non-clickbait title and content. Subscribed."
Title: SpaceX Revealed What Exactly Happened To Starship & Booster On IFT-3
at 6:35 "We will have to wait for an official statement from SpaceX after post-flight data review to learn what went wrong and >>what exactly happened to ship 28.
negative news, it was a HUGE success
It was progress, yes. We are just not used to seeing so many failures in such a short time. Sure seems wasteful.
@@buddypage11you must not have been around when Falcon 9 was being developed.
They have boosters and star-ships ready for next flights, and SpaceX are building factories, at this point whatever people say about success or failure, SpaceX is determined to launch new prototypes until they have a solid and reliable rocket.
@@karlkarlsson9126 I strongly suspect that with the technology currently available starship will turn out to be rapidly refurbish-able rather then reusable. Of course with a fleet of 50 starships or more they could launch 1 a week, repair, refurbish and upgrade them regularly, and the first 1 would be ready to launch again long before they got to the last 1. So, same effect.
@@karlkarlsson9126 As long as they do a funding round every once in a while and give jobs to NASA officials who awarded them multi billion $ contracts.
10:39 "The J shaped flame deflector has channels through which water will be flown." 😂
Who will be piloting the water and what plane will they be using?
That’s what you get when you use an AI BOT to write your material and an AI BOT to read your script. I gave up about half way through.
Can't believe that in 2024, we can not achieve what NaASA did in 1969
But we can ban TikTok and send $$$ to Selenski! 😀
About 6:25 the voiceover says Starship passed through the densest part of the atmosphere. Isn’t that at seal level? Most intense heat generation, perhaps. This would be a combination of air density and speed.
Very nice explanation and summary
Stunning
This is amazing 🤩
All rocket engines reliability need to be improved by 200%
Why is there so little ground footage of the third launch?!?
Whoever works at spacex. Can you please teach us plebs how you are able to redesign so quickly and build?
Thermal Tiles: Get rid of the SS pins on Str Shp. Install monument tabs 2 per tile. Two vertical holes will pass through the tile and the tabs. Two steel pins 2-3mm will will pass through holes. Once installed these can not be removed except by destruction. Huh, no more popcorn thermal tiles.
So what Exactly Happened To Starship & Booster On IFT-3??? No answers in the video.
Yeah, more clickbait a.i. bullshit
I love the idea to converting wench to hydraulic. You will never be sorry Matt. Keep up keeping up.👍🙏✌️🎄
Private space launch companies will always outperform governmental companies.
Don’t get me wrong, NASA had very few total rocket failures during start up than our private companies of late, but they did it by spending between 10 times and 100 times the cost.
Our private companies push a very lean budget to failure, and quickly taking another shot, gaining the most bang for the buck. It’s a must when it’s your money!
pull a wolfram net around starship to hold heat tiles
Malfunction of the pez door could have added to the demise - if it did not seal up on closure, it's likely it allowed plasma to intrude inside the bay.
This wouldn't normally be a critical issue, but with their lack of roll control authority during re-entry the pez door was exposed to the aerodynamic braking forces instead of the heat shield tiles.
I'm curious about what happened that prevented a full engine relight prior to re-entry.
It started spinning before light up. They lost RCS control
@tedarcher9120 yeah, they aren't using mono prop, but instead the fuel that's turned into gas. I recon that ice built up around the RCS thrusters causing them to throw mass out in the wrong direction.
SpaceX now announced that the door was closed successfully before re-entry. It seems there was a control system problem after engine shutdown in orbit so the ship couldn't orient itself properly to perform the engine relight or to orient correctly for re-entry. Probably an issue with the cold gas thrusters which caused the constant roll noticed when main engines cut off which didn't seem to get corrected.
Was I the only one who noticed some explosions in the engine compartment just after cut off? If they were venting fuel or LOX, that would account for the loss of attitude control.
@@johnny_fatz There are ullage vents in the engine bay where they vent excess pressure from the tanks. After engine shutdown there will be a lot of gas to vent until the engines cool down too. Remember the engines are full of cryogenic fluids for cooling and all that has to vent after a shutdown.
Looks like they need to stiffen the payload door.
Good progress of Space x
HONESTLY.... if they would have treated the Starship with a Ceramic Coating (that you put on vehicles)...I am certain it would not have burnt up in the atmosphere. That's definitely something they will do next time and you'll all see that things will go smoothly!
It ended the same way: both segments became uncontrolled, and were destroyed. Six crashes, and counting....
You're a glass half-empty type eh? 😊
I mean, spacex is already ways off their schedule of having a moon base this year. If this was 2-3years ago, i would have agreed with you but spacex needs to feel a bit of urgency if they want to deliver what they've promised. @stratolestele7611
@@stratolestele7611NASA had big rockets sorted. Saturn V never failed. Why erase the chalkboard? Why is this thing even needed? Given this "data" and the blind engineering that fuels it, the crashes will continue.
Have you seen the early development? There were many rockets barely made it off the launch pad.
@@WyoSavage1976Yes they did. And they produced rockets that did not fail .SpaceX already has these. The Saturn V remains the superior large rocket. Why erase the chalkboard? Vert costly.
My thought is the header tanks should always be what feed the raptors propellant the header should be at the bottoms of the tanks and just above the engines. Then the main tanks feed down into the headers to always keep them full. No more switching between tanks from header to main.
It’s so beautiful
Awesome ! My compliments!!
Hard to believe just now experiments in hyper flights. How long ago did the X15s fly? Where's that data?
The plasma is a result of compression of the atmosphere ahead of the vehicle, not the “friction of the air”.
Air compression heating is friction between air molecules . why are people forgetting this ?
Don't fall for it, it's just a click bait title, SpaceX has not released any details other than the preliminary observations.
Incredible
08:33 Folks in London when they find out a V2 is in the air again ^^'
Refractory anchors welded to rocket would hold every tile in place. Adhesive is not enough.
Looks like space X want to see beyond the limit of starship
Man those tiles are a disaster waiting to happen. It is just too difficult to insure the adhesion between the dissimilar materials, ceramic and metal, in that stressing conditions.
Youre wrong about re entry. The ship barely made it anywhere into the atmosphere. You stated that it was lost is the thickest part of atmosphere yet the velocity was still above 26,000 KM/ at nealry the same altitude as engine cutoff
You just have to love Elon Musk.
Soon as you can see the heat tiles falling of I guess it would burn up.something needs to better heat protection.seem bit out dated these tiles idea.
And as The Beatles sang, " It's getting better all the time "
Don't use A.I voiceovers. put in some EFFORT. downvoted
I think crew should board and reenter using Dragon until it is 100% perfect.
It lost control after scrubbing only 1,000 km/h at the top of the upper atmosphere, thats complete failure. It did not survive almost all the way through reentry and it did not lose attitude control on the entry and lost it while still in the lower earth orbit boundary space. This should be pretty basic. I'm surprised you got it wrong
You said NOTHING about IFT-3, but don't worry, we all saw it and awaiting SpaceX analysis just as you are.
3:31
Middle 10 engines.
the 3 triangle is the "inner" engines, and never turned off up to this point.
It was kind of skipped over but what engines were supposed to re-light at what point in the booster landing sequence? I thought someone said all 13 inner engines but I was watching the feed where Felix was going crazy making it difficult to know who was saying what. The indication on flight data of the engines that did relight were in an asymmetrical pattern which would seem to make it difficult to maintain a vertical position.
I remember hearing that the inner 13 were supposed to relight for the landing burn, as they can gimbal. Then right before landing (or splashdown in this case) all but the inner 3 shut down.
@@christianvalentin5344I think this is correct.
Thank you
I don't understand how Starship and Artemis would be integrated. Starship does not seem to need Artemis as I thought Starship is supposed to land directly on the moon or mars. Artemis as I see it needs a Lunar lander that would be docked with Artemis until lunar orbit then undock like the Apollo days.
Apparently the plasma is not caused by friction with earths atmosphere, it’s caused due to the compression of earths atmosphere that causes the heat!
How much can the Starship Super Heavy rocket actually carry into orbit? With Raptor 3.1 3.2 engines, the total thrust mass will exceed 10,000 tons, and the rocket with fuel alone will exceed 5,000 tons. The difference between the rocket's thrust and mass is huge, which shouldn't be the case
problem with putting 500 tons or more into orbit?
What is it like in practice? Is it possible to put 500 tons into orbit?
Well the hot staging wasnt flawless in the sense they lost speed before being able to light starships engines still
you could see the tiles. must have been at least 8 of them.
Interesting presentation, but I hate listening to computer voices.
LFP Space can remove the need for heat tiles.
i wonder if it would be possible to make one piece custom molded heat shields (like a section of PVC pipe cut lengthwise) that would be lap - jointed together every twenty feet or so
not especially. tiles are pretty fragile, and they have to be baked.
on the other side: spaceX already tested new type of tiles on one segment. Much smaller (look like a bit bigger than hand, instead dinner plate sized).
The California Redwood Trees endure severe storms in part because their roots are intertwined allowing the entire forest to share the stresses and load. I don’t think making much larger (20 foot ?) heat tiles is the answer. Smaller tiles that have multiple connections to nearby tiles (like LEGOs) might be a possible option. I know they leave space between them for heat expansion. As they continue to collect data they will be better able to calculate where the areas of greatest stress will be and how to strengthen the tiles and ship’s hull if needed.
@@mikegardner107 I think major problem with tiles is attachment method. Material of tiles itself is a bit too fragile , so clips due to vibration are loosing grip. Similar to screws in drywall plates. SpaceX probably tried to reinforce mount points with different class of silica (there is several types of that material, often melted into one piece, but with different strength/insulation capabilities/heat dissipation).
On test rig there was "mockup" out of thin metal. Rn I think that those weren't exactly a mockups, but mounting plates. While "bake" it into plates itself would be very difficult, as temperatures needed to bake tiles exceed melting point of metal, it could be that in production process of tiles this steel sheet will be glued or attached in different way into plate.
Main expense of gluing tiles to space shuttle was that that it was lot of tiles that were designed for specific places. Like a puzzle. And also fact that everytime OLD glue had to be removed, cleaned etc. Glue itself if I recall wasn't super expensive by itself. Probably today we have even cheaper alternatives. And creating assembly line to attach tile to plate wouldn't be as complicated and expensive. While it WILL increase price per tile, I think this would be offset by less fragile tiles, so less inspection/less replacement tiles for operational Starship. With goal to reusing of Starship, less maintenance will be greatly bemeficial
seems like nasa has a lot of experience issuing corrective actions while can't even get its rockets up to space
Teaser clickbait title: "SpaceX Revealed What Exactly Happened..." Video: "...we still have to wait for an official statement from SpaceX after postflight data review to learn what went wrong and what exactly happened..." The Space shuttle did not depend entirely on control surfaces for re-entry but also used generous attitude control thrusters. I suspect the control surfaces are too slow and not fine enough control in the early stages and over-compensate.
Even Starship each launch had made some progress,but it blew up at the end.Is this call success or call failure?Saturn 5 rocket never blew up at the first flight!
"...booster flight concluded @462 meters...", above the ocean? That's a 1300' drop?!
My conversion calculator says 1,515’. Much better than a RUD at 20 miles up.
They're slowly catching up to Apollo.
Raptor 3s can't relight in a 1600kph tailwind. And a LOX blockage is blamed??
WHERE WERE THE TUGS TO GUIDE IT?
Flight 2 Starship 25 “anomaly” looks like it hit the Firmament.