Elon is definitely a mess. Fortunately it hasn’t seemed to affect spaceX. They have a lot of talented and dedicated employees and Shotwell, Leuders, and others run the day to day . Elons role at this point seems to be final sign off on big decisions and overall direction of the company. Comparing starship development to all other rockets that have come before shows starship beating them all. Not only is spaceX developing capabilities never brought together in one rocket it is much bigger as well as being produced at rate much faster than any others. They are simultaneously developing a mass production assembly line and off loading as much to the launch system from the rocket as they can. Perhaps it’s easy to be critical at a moment in time but the overall course of starship blows the others away. In the next 1-2 years that will become obvious and undeniable.

100% disagree!! "not to supervise the process of SpaceX doing iterative improvements" Just what flavor is that Kool Aid?? Why doesn't SpaceX just submit their report??? Could it be because they don't have a clue WTF happened?? Elon probably wouldn't want that to become public knowledge because that doesn't speak very well of the "iterative process" where you collect a massive amount of data, analyze it to determine what went wrong and the fix it for the next test. Or maybe what seems entirely probable, is Starship was out of control as it flew over Africa. Or it's just that Musk hates anyone telling him what he can or can't do??

Actually no - they may decide that it is worth running a test with some of the fixes not in - after all, they may expect the failure and know about those failure points but testing i.e. a new heatshield configuration may be worth a failure. It is called iterative development.

@@ThomasTomiczek doubtful - if their objectives include getting farther in the flight plan than last time (i.e. actually attempting controlled reentry on Ship, and controlled landing on Booster). Which is what their stated objectives, in fact, do include for IFT-4.

SpaceX Falcon 9 was the first orbital booster to be successfully landed propulsively. And it's success record speaks for itself for practical value. On the off chance that Starship orbital refilling doesn't pan out as SpaceX envisions it, they would just add a third expendable stage. At that point it would be around as capable as a Saturn V, and because of reusing the first and second stages, it would cost a tiny fraction of what Saturn V cost. Look, I get that SpaceX has big plans, and it can be hard to accept, but even if they only succeed in 5% of what they are attempting, they'll still have done more for opening up space than anyone in the last few decades.

Which math doesn't add up? If Starship achieves full reuse - as it is _designed and intended to do_ - then each launch will cost on the order of $10 Million. Even 20 consecutive launches would add up to something under $1 Billion, conservatively speaking. Compare that to the cost of a single SLS launch of Orion and crew to the Moon - at $4.2 Billion, per NASA's Office of Inspector General. Suffice it to say, much smarter and better-informed people than you and me - namely, NASA's subject matter experts - had reviewed SpaceX's proposal for Artemis 3, and found it good enough to greenlight. They did the math, and it added up well enough to beat out the alternatives.

They'll have at a minimum 3 launch pads, build at least 1 a month. Methane doesn't cause carbon build up in the engine as rp1 does. They've successfully landed over 300 times with the falcon 9. So landing at least the first stage shouldn't be an issue. So is this taking longer than we'd hoped, yes. Will they be successful this year, maybe, I believe by 2026 it'll be fully reuseable. Starship is the most complicated vehicle ever conceived. Space x has achieved more than 80% of launch mass to orbit. Soon it'll be 99.9%

The on-orbit propellant transfer test set out to transfer a minimum of 10 tons of liquid oxygen between two tanks on starship, the header tank and the main tank. That it seems to have been a success suggests that they were able to transfer at least 10 tons, despite having lost attitude control. They will do a ship to ship test next year, if things go as planned.

They transferred fuel between 2 tanks in the same ship. I’m not sure if it was LOX or CH4 or if it was from a main tank to the corresponding header tank or the other way round but someone else might be able to clarify that, if indeed SpaceX ever clarified it. SpaceX hasn’t said much at all about this first fuel transfer test, in fact I think I’m right in saying that the first confirmation we got that the test was successful wasn’t from SpaceX but rather when it was mentioned as an Artemis milestone during a NASA presentation. We also, as far as I know, have no idea how much fuel was transferred.

You ask a question without looking into the details of the tranfer. I question your 'desire' for an answer. The fuel transfer was to test the fuel transfer within the Starship itself for the boost back burn. It was to test the transfer between the header tanks and main tanks in microgravity. It was NEVER a test of ship to ship transfer. It's for the boost back burn and landing that this 'transfer' test was necessary. That long with 'relighting' the Raptors for de-obit which did NOT occur.

Seriously do you not remember the first couple of years of the Falcon 9? There where frequent changes to the design. The craft went through several iterations when developing landing technology along with improved capabilities. The current design did not finalize until the nailed the landing then the block 5 was designed. Even this design recieved minor tweeks.

Thank you random rocket scientist 👨‍🔬

Time will tell if it is successful in its mission, whatever that is. To me it has been a rocket looking for a purpose, they built it, and then had to figure out what they could do with it rather than having a purpose-built rocket to begin with.

@@monkeyboy4746 Starship is purpose-built to deploy Starlink v2 satellites, which are too large and too heavy for any other launcher. Falcon 9 owes its high launch cadence to Starlink, and so will Starship, because it is the heavy-lift replacement for the Falcon 9 in that regard. Starlink will be SpaceX's main money-maker; it has already turned cashflow positive (estimated to bring in around $600 Million for this fiscal year), and has loads of growth potential - particularly when version 2 satellites improve bandwidth by an order of magnitude, and allow global direct-to-smartphone connectivity. No other company or constellation can compete, because no other company or constellation can match the cost structure of a fully vertically integrated business with its own high-cadence, highly-reused launchers and mass-to-orbit capability an order of magnitude greater than any competing launcher can offer.

​@@monkeyboy4746it's purpose is to go to mars and also deliver Starlink satellites. It is possible to take on any mission once refueling is accomplished.

Absolutely not. It's way lower.

There is no distortion of the Audio, that means the level is good unlike many KZbinrs.

@@DonaldDucksRevenge Seriously? We must have vastly different ears then.

@@favesongslist I'm not saying the quality is bad, it is not. Quite the opposite in fact. It just seems to be mixed a little higher than most videos I listen to.

@@bobthebomb1596 KZbin automatically lowers the sound levels if the submitted video is mastered too loud. So it's more likely that whatever you're listening to before/after has a relatively low sound level. If you right click on the video and look at "stats for nerds" you can see if youtube has adjusted the sound level. (A positive dB value means that youtube has lowered the sound level, a negative dB value means the video is quieter than the norm.)

The request is for the FAA to validate that there was no public safety concerns, only if the FAA agree can they proceed to the next flight. Due to the nature of the problems on IFT3 it is quite possible that spacex do not have enough data to completely mitigate them without further testing.

This isn’t planned to be manned any time soon. Furthermore, these mishap rules for space flight have been implemented with government funding in mind. Notice that ULA is taking forever and a day to get the Starliner up? The engineering is to make sure it’s right the first time. Or else they have to get the FAA to go through everything between stops. SpaceX is busy going again and again to work out kinks.

Some things can only be learned through real life experience. The atmospheric reentry of an orbital cylinder with the size of Starship can not be simmulated by computer. Remember the NASA X-15. There was a movie made about this rocket. With very realistic reentry scenes, displaying some aspects of the involved difficulties and serious dangers upon reentering Earth's atmosphere. Just google "X-15" and you will most likely find this movie.

No humans are involved, with regard to these flights or any other Starship launches any time soon. At least, no humans are being launched on the rocket, to be more precise.

The report is complete and handed over to the FAA for validation that all the causes/concerns have been dealt with to the FAA's satisfaction. The initial report is generated by spacex with FAA oversight but it is not considered complete until they have handed it over and got it approved.

It's a mishap because the vehicle was planned to survive reentry but didn't. It may seem excessive to call that a mishap, but that is what the current regulation says. It does however seem completely reasonable to approve the next flight before the mishap investigation is closed.

@SpaceAdvocate, thats what the video also said. The real issue, the part I don't understand, is: why did SpaceX put the most difficult task in front of all the developement? A complete entirely new system. They had to learn even how to launch this ship. Now learn how to fly it, get it to orbit. Then see how to get it back down and finally, learn to land the thing. Remember how long Falcon9 flew perfectly, before they announced to reuse it by attempting to land the rocket after launch? *Everybody* took it as a joke. NASA, 1967: "We don't try to use burned out rockets; we are a rich country"! ~In response to Werner vonBraun suggesting reuseable moon rockets. I would not have been surprized, if the SaturnV, with only a few tweeks, had turned out to be a reuseable rocket. 🚀🏴‍☠️🎸

@@MichaelWinter-ss6lx I'm not completely sure what you're trying to say, but they didn't go right to full scale testing. First they did small hops, figuring out how to control the vehicle and the Raptor engines and have sufficient control for a soft touch down on the ground. Then they did high altitude hops, where they learned how to control the Starship aerodynamically, relighting the engines in flight and going from horizontal to vertical orientation. Only after they had done this, they moved on to mastering the launch aspect, and that seems to now be mostly complete. The major thing that remains for Starship to be a functional recoverable orbital rocket is to get through reentry, and that is what they are working on now. They couldn't really test this sooner, because reentering from orbit requires reaching orbit first.

@SpaceAdvocate, no, they have not mastered the flight of Starship yet. How can you compare that to the grasshopp- er, eh no: the StarHopper?!? I don't even count the IFT1, as they had massive problems with the launching environment. Seems they were not allowed to dig the needed hole. Elon went into solving mode, like: F@¢ it and let that Big F Rocket dig for itself & just hope it wont blow up the whole pad. A drastic 'workaround', but there was no other way. So this was actually the 2nd real test launch/flight. Too early to concentrate also on landing. Thats the only reason their launch license is at rest. Atmospheric reentry with a ship of this size can not be simmulated on computer. This can only be learned in real time. The angle in which it hits the atmosphere can make Starship bounce off, back to space. The drop angle is important. The balance between heat and velocity. The movie about the NASA X-15 rocket plane shows this really nice. They must learn this, before they can land. But they showed the FAA a flight plan with a soft landing on the ocean; and now they have delay and a mishap investigation. Is Elon too confident, or just in show-off mode, Idk. He should put less in the flight plan and see to how far they get. Then we could have seen more Starship flights by now. I do hope they don't try catch that booster without a dedicated "catch tower"! Elon mentioned catching IFT5 booster. Good luck with that. 🚀🏴‍☠️🎸

I do agree. I think it is in fact rather problematic that Spacex is asking for FAA to bend the rules for them since it kinda implies that they want to maybe cut some corners that potentially shouldnt be cut. Their rocket has exploded 3 times so far. This is a cause for FAA investigation. If the rocket doesnt explode and makes a safe return trip then no mishap report is needed.

@@sliceofheaven3026 But they aren't asking the FAA to bend the rules. That was my whole point. They are asking the FAA to follow the rules.

@@SpaceAdvocate Are they? I think they are asking FAA to skip some parts of their normal procedures. IF you try to "bend" something then it usually means that you arent going through all the normal stuff that usually is involved in a procedure like this. Show me the part where they are asking FAA to follow the rules?

@@sliceofheaven3026 They are asking the FAA to allow them to launch before the mishap investigation is closed, as allowed by the rules in cases where there are no safety-related issues involved in the mishap investigation. That's exactly the way the rules were intended and written. The idea is that when there are no safety issues, the FAA shouldn't be blocking launch companies from running their business as they see fit. The FAA exists not only to ensure public safety, but also to support the space industry.

@@SpaceAdvocate Isnt that a case of bending the rules if they are asking for a launch permit before the mishap report is concluded? It might be fine to cut corners when there isnt a crew aboard but with a live crew on board at some point speeding stuff up might have fatal consequences.

The Starship from flight test 3 was kept slightly suborbital exactly to ensure that no debris was stuck in orbit and could eventuelly reenter anywhere. All the debris from the Starship upper stage reentered where it was supposed to in the Indian Ocean.

what's your problem with the Chinese space program?

chinese will eclipse us. if they havent already.

Space shuttle had a lot of hope and pray involved, the way things are currently they would not have been cleared for human spaceflight.

​@@giovannifoulmouth7205Only that the CCP controls it and all the Chinese people.

@@giovannifoulmouth7205 Go live in China and find out what life’s about under Communism.

what an idiot

In fact, I don't mind if the Chinese are the first on the moon in the 21st century, it will push the global and American space industry to equality

Exactly. But the people who own our political system hold little allegiance to America.

On the other hand, China doesn’t care about its people like we do…or used to do, based upon your comment. Safety rules are based upon lessons learned through tragic experience, or near misses of a tragedy. Do you not put your babies in car seats because you want to get to work faster? Do you want to fly on aircraft that don’t have safety regulations for the aircraft and the mechanics? My dad worked on the LEM. They kept a log of bent pins in electrical connectors that had been straightened because they learned that you could only straighten a pin so many times before it broke, causing other problems. If SpaceX can’t function within the rules, they shouldn’t be in business. But Musk apparently thinks that ignoring the lessons of the past is dandy…cybertruck comes to mind, for some reason, with its cost saving electrical harness.

@@ronnie-being-ronnie They aren't attempting to operate outside the rules. Their request to the FAA is entirely appropriate, and completely in line with the rules as they were intended and written. And btw, straightening pins? That's kinda nuts on space hardware. You'd definitely replace the plug/pins these days.

@@SpaceAdvocate No, actually, re bent pins. Those old rules still apply. Replacing a pin actually creates more opportunities for other damage, so there are rules about when a pin can be straightened, how to do it, and inspections for return to service. And this goes to the point…Musk IS trying to go around the rules, and it isn’t as if they gave the FAA the important information and just talking about paperwork hiccups. They haven’t answered the most important questions, and haven’t even offered an explanation of why not, so the FAA can make informed decision.