SpaceX Starship IFT4 Mission Update
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 16 мар 2024
- Join this channel to get access to perks:
/ @spacenewspod
The Starship system is a fully reusable, two‑stage‑to‑orbit super heavy‑lift launch vehicle under development by SpaceX. The system is composed of a booster stage named Super Heavy and a second stage, also called "Starship"
►► spacenewspod.com
►► starshipshirts.com
►► open.spotify.com/show/0jW7nOH...
►► / discord
►► / spacenewspod
►► / spacenewspod
►► / spacenewspod
►► / spacenewspod
►► / thespacenewspod 
Наука
Subscribe and join the Pod Squad! >> www.youtube.com/@spacenewspod?sub_confirmation=1 and my Elon Musk Podcast show here >> www.youtube.com/@theelonmuskpodcast?sub_confirmation=1
J e s u s P o w e r S t a r t I n g
Sure, IFT-3 went great: the third loss of Starship and its booster in as many tries. Anyone who says "Elon says ..." with even a hint of credulity in his voice has got rocks in his head.
As an old fart that was building ground support equipment for the Titan I from 1958 forward I can tell you the joy we had when we finally got a bird to fly out of sight.
I'm rooting for SpaceX on each flight.
It amazing the engineering that it takes to move the volume of fuel all those engines burn.
I've stood under several Titan Is and Titan IIs after they become operational totally amazed that that machine could orbit the earth. Today's generation have no clue as to what it took to reach that milestone with slide rules and vacuum tubes. There were no high powered computers to simulate what would happen, we had to develop those along the way.
Onward and upward SpaceX.
Salute to you sir! Thank you for your service.
I'm 70 and a rocket fan since I was 7 years old... this is amazing. I remember all the rockets that blew up on the way to getting to Gemini..... Apollo... such tremendous progress by SpaceX... if only the media would be honest and have the proper context in how much success has been accomplished!
GO SpaceX
GO SPACEX!
GO GO GO FOR LAUNCH!
SpaceX is doing development like software. Launch a rocket and find the bug. Fix the bug and launch again. Musk said that prototyping is easier than production. SpaceX has created a production system that pumps out prototypes for the time being. Now if only the government can keep up.
@SpaceNewsPod 7:05 really a tanker at the end of this year! ... It seems less than 70% probable but more than 40% ... my resolution of discernment is too low.
I am hoping for 8 nose to nose locked Starships, docked into a special housing unit that lets them rotate fast enough to generate artificial gravity as the united ships scatter like cosmic spores across the inner solar system.
I'm only 39 but in the 60s and 70s it seemed like the anchors/announcers in the media actually did some research and knew what they were talking about.
From the comments I can tell that many of them are not from people that were around in the 50’s and 60’s when rockets were blowing up almost every launch.
I’m on the side of the street that says success all around space X YA’ll should be proud of all you have accomplished ✌️❤️🚀
I enjoyed every second of the launch and the whole project is just getting better and better. Thank you , Wil.👍🙏🏼👏
OK review but you missed the two major problems that need to be fixed before IFT-4. Booster stability, grid fins were going wild on their attempt to stablize the booster so the final firing of the engines was only partially started and then quickly stopped. Was there a damaged fin or software adjustment needed? 2nd major problem was again stability with the STARSHIP. It was rolling and yawing like crazy so SpaceX could not restart an engine simulating a reentry burn. The Starship heat shield was not facing down, it was half way rotated so that was prability what caused the ship to burn up. These small stabilizing engines may need to be replaced on the Starship. I my option the next major problem to be solved is both Booster and Starship stability for landing and reentry. Enjoy your channel, David.
Indeed. The booster is coming back at a very high velocity though. So any small issue with the stabilization software can easily cause occillation, which is what we saw. Considering the booster had telemetry almost right before it crashed into the ocean, I'm sure they got plenty of data on how it behaved, so they should be able to fix that. Given that this was the first time the booster reached those speeds while coming back down, I wouldn't have expected it to go smoothly on the first try.
As for Starship, yes that needs more stuff on it for stabilization in orbit. Given the fact that starships need to dock with eachother to refuel and all that jazz, Starship needs more maneuverability and stabilization in space. But again, given the fantastic connection we had to starship I'm sure they got plenty of data. If we get amazing camera feeds, they get amazing data as well.
Booster instability most likely just requires tweaks to the software controlling the grid fins. It really only looked like they were over correcting. Ship instability during reentry though…..that might be a bigger deal and require a lot of work, but really the only people that know for sure are the people working on that rocket, so we’ll just have to see.
I didn’t attend this launch because the weather looked really iffy, like the first flight where it disappeared in clouds. Ift-2 was glorious and really spoiled me😁
Should reread your post before posting.
Excellent comments on this thread.
Observe the aftermath of the 1/2 power of Saturn V launch . The pad is not Fine . There is always some damage , Space X has done improvements to minimize theirs . I would like to see an honest comprehensive tour of the launch aftermath.
MORE ITERATIONS= GUARANTEED SUCCESS ! ! !👍👍👍
IFT-4 WILL BE MORE SUCCESSFUL AND I AM LOOKING FORWARD TO THAT ! ! !🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔
I think that just because the ship made it to orbit, SpaceX might go ahead and include a payload on Ift4. Even if ship doesn't survive reentry, the payload would have been delivered!
LOVE IT! When I.T. doesn't mess up a Launch 👍🏼 Let's Go SpaceX
Will,
Do you happen to know if there's any additional SpaceX video that is still being processed, and has yet to be released?
I would think there'd be a ship-based video for the booster splashdown. Someone had to be watching in the gulf.
one thing I haven't heard yet is how well the OLM pad survived
NASA Spaceflight gave some close ups of the OLM and the chopsticks.
Amikor a rakteret mutatták, üresen tátongott az űrhajó. Elképesztően sok mindennel lehet beépíteni ezt a hatalmas teret. Hamarosan lehet benne rengeteg műhold, ember, berendezés növényház, lakótér stb. Hatalmas ugrás ez az űrhajózásban!
You asked for my subscription in a very polite way. I didn't have to think twice.
Flight 4 will include Dr. Smith and the robot
I agree, I think overall the mission was mostly successful. Where ⁸⁸ issues? Of course there were but, that's what they are good at fixing problems and going up again.
Thank you. I truly enjoyed watching and have subscribed to it.
Awesome, thank you!
At a minimum with the current rate of success SpaceX should have both booster and Starship return and soft land successfully by the end of the year at least.....
Getting that sorted out to the T is much more important than adding complexities like any kind of cargo on Starship.
좋아요. 다음을 기대하고 있습니다. 꼭 성공하기를 바라고 있어요.
For the note on Starlink: I think its worth it to them, the Starlink V2 satellites can only be deployed by Starship so I'm sure they want to get those being launched ASAP.
That being said I'd assume they would want to have a full success before they fill the PEZ dispencer up.
Hopefully, we'll see a couple in there the next launch, though.
Yes, starlinks on 4
I think you should rewatch the ship after engine cut off until it disintegrated, it was not under control and you can see the tikes coming off, these plus the not fully closed pay load door and the failure to slow the ship by relighting the engines, hardly goes down as minor flaws , but it fits within the idea of testing to destruction. The big surprise was in the booster failure, that seems to be the most common part of all Spacex rockets, so an engine relight fail is strange.
The loss of heat tiles was likely caused by the lack of stability during orbit and re-entry, meaning the tiles experienced air flow on their exposed upper edges that they were not designed to resist. SpaceX needs to ensure rock solid stability, or may need to redesign the edge sealing to resist lifting in the case of instability.
Excellent stuff bro
This is exactly why Elon Musk made so many star ship spacecraft. The starship payload door did not open correctly up in space. The first stage engines did not relight like they were supposed to coming back down into the atmosphere. Elon Musk has made a lot of these starships so he can send them up into space to be sure that they will be able to work and we will be able to make it to Mars one day. ❤Elon
Thanks Wil
Was the payload bay pressurized? Vid appears to indicate an atmosphere? Great Vid!
Whatever the doubters and Musk-haters claim, the recent IFT-3 launch proved that the Spacex launch pad design and water deluge system has proven successfull !
I think that they may have to have a decelerating boost back for the ship, to. It might be too much for the tiles to take all that punishment on the way back.
You should definitely go witness IFT-4 in person.
100%. I was fortunate enough to see Crew8 go up from my back yard in central FL, Truly AMAZING! Starship is top of my wish list by some measure.
I would love to, but I am on a limited budget from the UK, So will wait for the first return to stage 0 chop sticks attempt. Anyone like company in the USA while we wait, and chat about all things SpaceX?
I think that they should wait for a starlink until the door and mechanism is hammered out. Ift5 or 6 would make more sense
Thank you for that update, an I would agree,door an dispenser operation only , maybe @ least one orbit including engine start, but most importantly craft stabilisation for re-entry an initial deceleration an landing burne. Tremendous achievement so far.❤ Absolutely fantastic. M.
I’m not sure a full orbit is a possibility for IFT-4 given that SpaceX didn’t manage to demonstrate a successful in-space Raptor relight during IFT-3. I doubt that any flight can be fully orbital until that testing milestone is successfully accomplished because once on orbit a correctly timed breaking burn at the full planned duration will be necessary to reenter into a defined target zone. That is why right now the test flights are on a slightly sub-orbital ballistic trajectory so that even without a reentry burn it can be reliably determined where they will reenter to be sure it is at sea with NOTAMs and NOTMARs in place to protect life and property.
Things needed to be done on IFT 4 - Booster splash down SOFT landing & Star-ship again sub orbital flight complete stable re-entry and SOFT landing
Starship has accumulated a bit too much ice. Maybe the vector control boosters were covered with ice and need a defrosting system?
Could it be, that one of the grid fins got stuck at max rotation, and the other three couldn't compensate for that? If I remember correctly, one Falcon 9 booster had a similar problem.
The biggest issues in IFT 3:
- leaking of LOX, CH4 (LOX in both stages) before the launch.
- loss of control of both stages.
- not reaching designated landing zone with the second stage.
- bay door test video indicated leak in propellant transfer system.
- ground facilities no drone zone indicates some serious issues. But the damage was less than with IFT 2.
- heat tiles flying off, but this was probably not critical (unless the design requires all to be attached during the re-entry)
But progress, as reached to the space.
You’re not correct about most of what you’ve said here. There were no leaks. Payload bay test was trapped atmosphere, not a leak. The designated LZ was reached. It was 6000km long. They knew it wasn’t going to survive. Yaw issues will be corrected. Hot gas thrusters have never been used on this platform. Booster grid fin issues were related to uneven engine relight…. All fixable easily. People have to stop expecting perfection, and stop pretending like this is a total failure.
Thanks!
Thank you for the support !
There is also the problem with the Heat Tiles. I hope they can fix everything this time and have their perfect launch and return in a controlled manner.
Agreed. But it was still a great leap forward from flight 2
Space X is the brightest and the best
really? I mean NASA Artemis 1st launch went to the moon and back without a single problem. SpaceX can barely reach orbit after 3 launches and all 3 ships and booster 100% destroyed. Brightest, definitely. Noone can explode a ship like space x. Best, yep, at destroying ships...
@@pierrepellerin249 starships not like sls,much more things to get done.they are masters in rockets in falcon heavy,
@@pierrepellerin249Do you tell him or do I tell him that it took 12 years to launch a rocket? 😂
@@S-T-A-R-M-A-N well, he ain't that bad. Space X does have a reliable smaller rocket to get satellites and astronauts in space. However, Starship has been a failure so far and is way behind schedule. Makes me laugh when people are all impress by a glowing fin or a door opening on the ship. I mean we never saw any of that with the space shuttle... LOL!
@@pierrepellerin249 In 2012, everyone was saying that the falcon 9 would never work, everyone was saying that it was a waste of money to spend on grasshopper and Dragon V1, do you know how many times the falcon 9 failed? What's more: Do you know how many times the Saturn V DESTROYED its own platform in the AS-100 tests in the post-Gemini era? Do you know the Thor missiles and their enormous failures in the middle of 1958? Are you even aware of what a BEAST Starship is? It is the BIGGEST, POWERFUL rocket that has ever existed, and honestly, for only 3 missions, it is infinitely more successful than the space shuttle, oh and by the way, the space shuttle is considered the worst rocket in history: disgustingly expensive, unviable , complex and inefficient, to send 28 tons to orbit it was necessary to pay 1,110,000,000 USD PER launch, even being pessimistic the price of starship will be below 40,000,000 USD, and being realistic with its trajectory: its launch cost will be 20 or 15,000,000 USD per launch, ah, I forgot to say that it has the heaviest payload of all rockets (150,000 kg to LEO) Starship is by far more successful than Saturn V itself, give it time and it will not only take us to the moon, but to Mars.
I love NASA, but they are simply obsolete just like China and Russia. They use a very expensive rocket to send a paltry 30 tons to lunar orbit with a rather poor colonization plan. NASA launched the SLS because they will not throw away the work of 15 years of development. Do you remember the Artemis show? The Ares program? Artair? How many concepts were discarded in a span of 30 years, and they couldn't handle the space shuttle.
flying Starlink V2, Depends how confident SpaceX are of fixing all the stability and door/ dispenser issues of IFT3, This does not require fixing the landing issues for IFT4.
I believe IFT4 will be very similar to 3. They didn’t do a deorbit burn so trying to launch even one satellite next launch could risk space debris. Very excited to see how quickly they can turn around and launch again.
The are stuck with this launch direction and a de-orbit perigee until they nail in-orbit stability and can demonstrate a de-orbit burn rather than an in-orbit burn
I don't think SpaceX will put Starlinks on Starship until they solve the control problem with Starship that was evident in IFT3. Hopefully that will be solved in the next mission. So a Starlink test mission as soon as IFT5. Solving the booster landing is slightly less important, not required for getting payloads into space.
IFT-4 mission: give the booster landing legs and try to stick the landing. Pack that mission with as many useful trials as possible. We’re so excited about SpaceX’s meteoric progress!
They just keep getting better! The plasma views were incredible!
@@mervstash3692 camera and internet speed(starlink).
@@mervstash3692 didn't you know that they streamed it using starlink constellation? There were starlink units on the starship.
@@mervstash3692 better data transfer while in air for further improvement. The craft was not to be recovered , so this is the only response you can get from the ship. Also demonstrates starlink technology , so two birds with one stone.
My bad fam.@@mervstash3692
The engine relight failure of the booster upon landing imho was due to the booster swirling around almost out of control, which must have the fluel caused to slosh around (just like on IFT2 after stage separation), which caused the engines to suck bubbles and air and let the booster explode just like on IFT2 (but back then right after staging). Also the ship was tumbling out of control, which is why the relight didn‘t happen and the entry was with the wrong attitude, which led to the demise of the ship. I didn‘t see a lot of tiles falling off, it seems these were just bits of ice. The tiles seemed to work extremely well - but if your ship enters with the tiles on the wrong side, the tiles are useless. The main question to me is, whether the ullage gas thrusters were a great idea or not, as it seems they were unable to stabilize the ship. Maybe they were clogged with ice and need to be heated or redesigned otherwise - or they need to use classic cold nitrogen thrusters instead. That‘s the main question to me!
Honestly I cannot understand why all the people are so fascinated with that launch.
Yes indeed its an improvement in comparison with last 2 attempts but not so much went well.
1. This flight was without payload, empty SS, but it bent dangerously on joint, guess there is 100T additional weight in SS. I can bet it breaks apart as Soviet N1 did.
2. Both parts lost control entering atmosphere, neither of them were able to reignite engines not stabilize their flight.
3. Payload door mafunctioned obviously and during reentry it will be fatal.
4. Isolation tiles broke down and again its fatal during reentry.
There can be only one criteria of success: SS reaches orbit with at least half of payload, lets say 50T. Deploys it and lands on Earth in one piece.
The ship didn't fail on reentry because of the tiles, but because of the attitude on descent which was rolling back and forth. Also the ship orientation was wrong with the engine bay taking the burnt of reentry this destroying any chance for a relight as well as premature destruction of the vehicle.
Much of the debris seen coming of the ship was ice though there were probably some tiles lost as well.
Everything that you are complaining about was during reentry of the ship and booster which neither had gotten anywhere near that far before.
The booster completed the flip and relight to the boost back successfully.
The booster completed the boost back burn successfully.
The ship completed its flight all the way to reentry before encountering serious problems with its attitude on reentry.
And the ship completed its burn after stage separation essentially reaching orbital velocity.
These were all successes achieved by these two vehicles which they failed at on ITf-2. When you only cite the negative then its no wonder your perspective is negative. Sorry, I just happen to be moderately pedantic, but I'm also an optimist.
@@michaeldeierhoi4096 "The ship didn't fail on reentry because of ..."
Simple rule on spaceflights, everything, every single thing must work to get ship back on the ground in one piece.
I was just listing 4 (four) definitely fatal fails of that test flight. Every single one of this fails will cause vehicle crash certainly.
And only one of that fault is enough.
By the way, 3 of those fails are very serious hardware fails what demand not just refurbishing but redesigning.
@@andresmikeshin2091 Maybe, maybe not. Regardless, I can wait and see how this plays out. I'm not attached either way though I think Space X will figure out how to solve the problems as they arise.
Let see at least 4 starlings released on IFT4. This will show it works correctly. IFT4 will have some BIG milestones. Let's look back on Falcon 9 and it took a few launches to get it right and the future of Falcon 9 has been great.
Unlikely,the tiles are falling off, the Booster will explode again,both parts of the rocket will be destroyed
@@codeforce5556shuttle tiles fell off all the time, begone hater
Not sure if they'll get the approval to get into orbi, at least not high enough for starlink.
I think nailing re-entry for the ship and the booster should be the key for starlink part as re-use will enable all other experiments without waiting for a new ship.
While for Artemis reliable flying of the ship and propellant transfer will be the key.
They need to work on getting the Starship and booster to space and back safely before working on the pez dispenser any further, they have the Falcon 9 rockets to do satalite deployments
They’ll have it working perfectly by 10th launch, imho.
I think you are right about SpaceX probably not trying to eject Starlink satellites until the tast pert of this year and that they instead will keep focused on improving the Starship so that it can basicly make a perfeft flight from launch to the landing of both the booster and the Starship.
Omg the reentry feed was so amazing!
Showed they aren’t close to success
For IFT-4, I can't see them dispensing starlink unless the starship actually gets to the orbit needed to release the satellite.
Getting to orbit wouldn't be the issue. They intentionally didn't go to full orbit for safety reasons, because they didn't know if the re-entry burn was gonna work. Getting to orbit at this point it simply a matter of burning the engines a little longer. The bigger problem with Starlink is stabilizing Starship and stopping any rotations, and getting that door to work properly.
@LeutnantJoker I was referring to upcoming IFT-4, not IFT-3. IFT-4 would still need to achieve the required orbit to be able to dispense satellites to their proper orbit, a much different mission objective with different parameters.
I think you're right. There will only be a pezzing in our near future if the Elon boldness factor is extremely elevated. I don't think he'll be that bold, it's nuts.
I think 4 will be just like 3 but try to soft water land booster and reenter at the correct angle
Great vid +1 SUB 👍👍👍
It seams easy to test door on earth, you technical just need over pressure to simulate, cargo space in space.
The bay door might have been buckled by the rush of the over 1 ton of air being sucked out past it.
hello from France!
They can't do Starlink until they can do a de-orbit burn. So IFT 5 at best. Probably 8 Starlink Sats on the first full test and if that goes smoothly a full starlink mission ( I think I heard the capacity was 80 starlink 2 sats. ) I think that maybe IFT 6 might launch these 80 but that the rest of the year would consist of Three flights in rapid sucession to ( 1. Put up a Fuel Depo. 2. Send up some fuel in one Starship and 3. Refuel a Starship ) all done in the same Month probably November. That would be Six more flights this year, 88 Starlink sats launched and the Refueling system proven. Then there targets for 2025 could be Master Reuse and do an Unmaned Starship landing on the moon as well as put about 400 more starlink 2 sats. up if all that goes well full operations including maned moon landing (If something else does not delay it.) by the end of 2026 and Dear Moon and other commercial opperations by 2027.
They need to do a successful booster recovery to get over that hurdle before anything else.
I think the main theme of IFT3 is control laws, and attitude control. Both the Booster and Starship had controllability program. This vehicle is not resdy for paylosd
Depends how confident SpaceX are of fixing all the stability and door/ dispenser issues of IFT3, This does not require fixing the landing issues.
Considering that Starship demonstrated no level of control during reentry, seeing it fly again soon seems doubtful. If the control thrusters simply didn’t work is one thing. If they worked and were inadequate to maintain ship’s orientation quite another. Not sure what SoaceX will reveal about what went wrong with the booster and Starship, so it could be a while before facts receive more press time than speculation. Part of the answer will come when SpaceX posts its list of fixes for IFT-4.
Starlink dispensing might be most easily done with Starship gently firing at least one engine to provide some artificial gravity to facilitate the Starlink units moving smoothly "down" towards the door. Just a thought...
Does the Falcon 9 fire its engine when deploying Starlink minis? Different deployment as it is from front of vehicle as opposed to side on starship, but I'm asking honestly to understand the possible reasoning better.
@@michaeldeierhoi4096 No, Falcon 9 second stage is in free fall [zero g] during deployment of any/all payloads, which are pushed away from the nose/top of the rocket by springs. That is the end of the mission from Spacex's POV, other than for that F9's second stage to move into a final long-term parking orbit, or to do a destructive re-entry. Only the first [booster] stage of the F9 is reused. Both booster [first stage] & ship [2nd stage] of Starship are intended for multiple re-use, but Spacex is still testing to achieve successful return & landings of either stage. They'll figure it out, of course, but are still experiencing normal teething troubles. Stay tuned, as they say in the broadcasting business!
Team SpaceX could bring it all to the next; IFT-4 where SpaceX might make it fantastic; minus the comic strip in to many ways 😊of coarse. 🌎
Almost doesn't count in life and death. The Starship was destroyed , there is no crew abort system. Will there ever be one?
Jet airliners don't have an abort system either, but most everyone is used to flying.
I think they will launch with one or more starlinks. This is Elon we are talking about. If not IFT4, then for sure this year, 5, 6, 7, they want this system up and running ASAP.
Seems likely they will put at least 1 Starlink V2 on starship for IFT4.
Hot gas thrusters will have to go (well not completely as needed in space) and dracos will be needed to keep attitude during reentry as the gas thrusters could not keep it oriented.
Pez door mechanics has to be revamped completely, way to ammmm "floppy"
Why would the pez door have to revamped completely after only one attempt to open it? Maybe only minor adjustments are needed.
@@michaeldeierhoi4096 did you see it flopping about!? anywho, lots of keyboard engineers without any paperwork around here.
No Starlink ejection before engine re-light. Need to be able to return StarShip after going to the Starlink injection orbit.
IFT 4 ... 4/20 !!!!
Iterative Process is fail / analyze / reengineer / manufacture the changes . Do they do preflight proving before flight?? Do they??
This method is known as 'fast prototyping'.
Get the data when you can
@@gottfriedheumesser1994 okay , in this age of A.I. prototyping and prototype manufacture is very quick compared to the 1960's . The Apollo program got men to the moon quicker than Space X getting Starship into Earth orbit. There is something not so great about the Space X way of progressing engineering success.
@@mikewallace8087 You seem to know everything. I even remember the Sputnik shock. AI has nothing to do with fast prototyping.
I think your underestimating Elon.
If they do release a single satellite they will not only be demonstrating the tech, but would also begin implementation while also simultaneously developing the craft.
Remember, the new business model is making money while beta testing, which is what all tech companies do. Now, however, it’s that model applied to space exploration, the Starship Platform.
Ultimately, ROI will be what separates SpaceX from all its competitors, not government contracts.
And the sooner they begin that process the more amazing this all will be.
Starlink is already profitable
How about getting the booster and the Starship to hover at 'chopsticks' height for about a minute before splashdown?
"Shut up Will" - Captain Jean Luc Pickard.
None of the boosters or Starships have been recovered successfully so far. Taxpayers paid SpaceX $2.9 billion to develop Starship HLS to ferry astronauts between Orion and the lunar surface; the Artemis program is delayed indefinitely because Starship HLS is so far behind schedule.
But if they put some starlink's in the bay, it will help with the flight.
Fuel transfer might have sloshed such that tumbling the ship resulted?
I still think that Starship should be build in space.
6:13 they could make a "dummy" satellite to prove it works. Like a 3D printed model of it. See if they can successfully launch it off starship.
Instead of having to bother with a mockup, they could probably just use a normal Starlink.
these launches are so expensive that these extra costs are not really a big deal I would think.
even if the mission fails and the satellite is lost.
is a drone ship to recover the booster possible? if there will be delays getting an FAA license to try returning the booster to base, a drone shop makes a lot of sense.
They would have to put landing legs like Falcon 9
To test the PEZ dispenser properly, they'd have to have two or three satellite boilerplates... Since SpaceX actually manufactures to real satellites anyway, may as well us the real thing.
Thank you, a great synopsis as always.
I really think the booster ran out of fuel. They almost landed the booster gently, at least the rocket went where it was supposed to go. Lol
Maybe it was due to sloshing around
The booster engines failed ,causing the booster to hit the ocean at mach 2, nothing will be found, FAA will be concerned
@@codeforce5556mishap investigation already underway
it looked like it was still pissing out fuel after the engines shut down
@@jebes909090 Basically continuous fuel dump
Ok, if Elon says 9 launches this year it will need a faster turnaround!
Yes, but that won't happen in one step. More likely as the flights reach their goals without and RUD's or ships lost the FAA investigations will become shorter. And Space X still has a lot to learn to shorten vehicle preparedness. It should do better now that the new GSE is in use.
It is a major achievement for what Elon musk and is engineers and all the team as don for humanity my respect for all their hard work ❤ Ron UK
As the Ship has shown to be able to get into an orbit, why should it not deliver a few Starlink satellites into the orbit for demonstration in the next flight? As the flight will be very expensive too, it does not make sense to deploy mockup satellites as the real satellites are much cheaper than the flight.
Full Pez on IFT 5, probably 2 satellites
Probably didn't do the engine relight is space because re entry data was more valuable this time.
It didn't light because starship didn't have attitude control. It was tumbling which is why it burned up.
No big deal they will fix it
Personally I think the payload door mechanism is too flimsy, and maybe an entirely different approach should be used, slide to open up and down or just on hinges. Could be the door not being closed changed the aerodynamics. The fact the ship came in tail first and didn't change aspect is odd, vector control failed. I'm amazed that you can even re-light a rocket engine going tail-first in the atmosphere.
What does IF stand for in IF 3 etc.
Usually the whole abbreviation is ITF which stands for Integrated Test Flight.
Knowing Elon, they should a starlink deployment! How much does it take to launch ift1, 2, 3?
How can they test if FAA keeps trying to de-rail the operation?
The FAA has not been delaying the test flights of starship much at all. ITF -3 was delayed in part because Space X wasn't ready. Twice the WDR was aborted and the ship and booster returned to the production site for rechecking each vehicle. The problem may had a lot to do with the new GSE that was added since ITF-2. Or there may have been an issue with something else.
ITF-2 was delayed in part because of the review by Fish and Game which has oversight of the Wildlife Refuges surrounding the launch pad and production site. Since the first launch left such a mess of the area a thorough review was necessary of the mitigating efforts Space X put into avoiding such a mess on the next launch. Space X was in too big a hurry to get ITF-1 off the ground and was overconfident that the launch pad could hold up which of course it didn't.
The next flight mishap review of should go easier, but we can only wait and see.
Didn't you see the tiles blowing off like autumn leaves? It didn't look OK to me...
That was thought to be mostly ice with some tiles.
@@michaeldeierhoi4096
?? Very regular shaped black ice ??
@@Nodeoergosum They weren't all regular shaped pieces. Some ice some tiles. Doesn't matter, the attitude of Starship was too compromised for a valid test of the tiles. When Space X can get the ship stabilized on reentry we should see better results.
The shuttle was the only rocket to successfully return from orbit, but it cost a billion $$ each flight. What Space X is attempting with a much larger vehicle is harder. And they are trying to design it to be reusable with a quick turn around. That's an especially hard order!!
What was all that stuff falling off starship I hope those aren't heat tiles.
I think it's just ice, way too thin to be titles.
"Mr Musk is a genius" is an understatement! He has assembled a super genius team!
Pay....loads. it's a question of whether they want to start paying for these launches. Getting paid might motivate the decision. May also attract paying clients too.
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?
What is the "total trust mass of 10,000 tons"? Like what does that mean? Thrust to weight ratio is 1:1.5. And the total starship weight is 5000 tonnes. So the thrust should be about 7500 tonnes. I have heard that up to 200-250 tonnes can be put in orbit depending on if the ship is expendable or not.
Future versions of Raptors 3.1, 3.2, 4.0, 33 on the rocket, will give a total of 10,000 thousand tons of thrust for this rocket and hence my question about the possibility of putting 500 tons into orbit.@@michaeldeierhoi4096
Future versions of Raptors 3.1, 3.2, 4.0, 33 on the rocket, will give a total of 10,000 thousand tons of thrust for this rocket and hence my question about the possibility of putting 500 tons into orbit.@@michaeldeierhoi4096
The FAA is going to demand better attitude control for re-entry. Bigger RCS thrusters on the nose. They need to depressurize the payload bay before trying to open the door. I think that caused damage to that system.
That cargo bay is in no way air tight and it doesn't need to be
Does SPACEX even have a fuel tanker to send to space ?
A starship will be configured to carry fuel as a tanker
Cardboard starlinks for testing 😂