NEW License for IFT 5 after Review of Ship 29 Booster 11 Data, Rocket Lab Govt Support | Episode 50

[@Berilaco]

Starship didnt lose and tiles during ascent... and those that were missing were tests for the underlying ablative shield

[@pilot341]

Yes, many considering the FAA what is ensuring public safety?

[@coyotej4895]

One point of correction. FAA did not have the personal with the knowledge and certifications to oversee investigations into Space x and Rockets. So, It was NOT the FAA that was overseeing the investigations it was Space X and their teams drive to achieve perfection in reusability that led the way in every investigation. All the FAA did was fallow along and learn and then ensure the investigations where throw. It was Space X that made the final reports and recommendations and corrective measures.

[@wkjeeping9053]

That's huge from faa. Now they can start launching more when prototypes are ready to go. I bet within 60 days to launch ift5

[@intheknow7659]

Yeah by August. Will they catch is the question.

[@woutgaming9685]

July​@@intheknow7659

[@eugenecbell]

@@intheknow7659catch or not on flight 5, I can’t wait. I hope they catch the booster, so they can fly it again.

[@Berilaco]

@@intheknow7659elon said in an interview that he will look at everything with his team and then depending on if they find any problems they will try the catch... they will also have a plan B if the booster fails to catch but elon as more about that

[@TheMoneypresident]

They were never held back.

[@Targus28]

Great news regarding the FAA!

[@robertarnold9815]

They'll still need FAA clearance for flight path zones. Granted not a big deal or time consuming but they do have to clear probable trajectory of the vehicle and all that debris. All the FAA has concluded is they have a good handle on what might happen in future launches and that their monitoring systems can deal with it (yes, they have a section that clears and monitors ALL space launch and reenty attempts).

[@taylorw99]

Thanks!

[@spacexcommunity]

Hey Taylor! thank you too:)

[@pedrosura]

Maybe the fact that ot didnt blow up or that the Booster didnt hit the water at supersonic soeed has sometjing to do with this?

[@Wirmish]

Or maybe NASA want to go to the Moon before 2047... and before China.

[@theastronomer5800]

How is not requiring an investigation a significant shifts in the FAA's approach??? They only require one if something goes very wrong, which it did not with IFT4. This video is full of incorrect information.

[@PDLM1221]

Yes! Get ITF5 ready for liftoff! Hopefully this will speed up development of the Starship , we need this rocket , it’s a National treasure and a security must for this nation. Go Starship Go SpaceX. I heard on another news channel yesterday that we are behind on satellite launches and that’s why we have not been able to get more intel on the wars that are going on in the world , I believe this is because the be4 rocket engine was delayed and ULA launches are backed up so come on let’s get caught up!

[@TheMoneypresident]

😂

[@royhi1809]

GO SPACEX!

[@chadgdry3938]

3:59 That green hue you saw in the plasma stream was Boron; the heat shields likely use boron-silicate in their heatshields. That means that the heatshields were being eroded. With a melting point of 1600 C, and the expected temp of the plasma to hit about 1400 C, what happened?

[@juanalonsobarrio145]

Todo saldrá bien. Saludos 🇪🇸

[@danielreece8898]

On flight 4 ..despite having one engine off ..it went faster on take off compared to flight 3 ...from the speed at lift off to the first km .what rapture engine did they use on flight 4 ??

[@mjh7609]

Such great news that the FAA is seeing and contributing to the way forward. Makes me proud to be an American again.

[@dennyoconnor8680]

A couple of comments. First, the previous flight test did not explode. It was detonated deliberately by radio control to safely terminate a vehicle that was no longer under control. Choose your words more precisely. As far as the FAA, if the bureaucrats working at the FAA were actual experts in rocketry they would be working for Elon at 3-5 times their current salary + stock options that would make them multi-millionaires. They are civil servants working at a pay grade. And their "official" pronouncements of what Space-X has to do needs to be viewed from that perspective. As a lifetime pilot I have endless experience at dealing with the FAA and have a much lower opinion of their expertise than they do. Their new found willingness to defer to the experts at Space-X is not magnanimous, rather it is response to the public uproar over their foot dragging mindset and private warnings from the Congress that the FAA is not mentioned in the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Lastly, the Congress need to put limits on the endless Alphabet groups filing infinite lawsuits against Space-X and other rocket companies, or technology and manufacturing in this country will continue to grind to a halt.

[@bi1iruben]

While the initial approval and environmental impact assessments were lengthy, probably too lengthy, the previous two post flight reviews were led by SpaceX, not the FAA. Rather SpaceX were required to identify issues, propose solutions and then implement these. The FAA merely oversaw this by agreeing with the SpaceX's assessment of issues and then signed-off on the completed task reports. That was hardly FAA delaying SpaceX from iterating as they do so well and then progressing. Stage 0 (the launch pad) has been almost completely revised and rebuilt bewteen the 3 launches, and I doubt Space X could have launched much faster if entiely unregulated without pragmatically still having to address this. The water dampening system was introduced, the lauch pad substantially rebuilt twice as so severely damaged after each launch and now is much more robust with seemingly minor damage after this recent 3rd launch. There has been a near complete rebuild of the vertical tank farm to horizonal tanks for faster loading and also greater safety from the ingnition blast wave and bits of exploding engines (one engine exploded on take-off this time). It does seem FAA and SpaceX have both modiefied their regulatory approaches and this bodes well for the further development and progress we all hope for.

[@joeweb5581]

@@bi1irubenthat still don’t address that the FAA is overseeing something they don’t understand. Hence having the company being oversaw do the investigation. They look at the results for approval but can’t do the investigation. Therefore it’s needless oversight. What should have already happened is a space launch agency with experts in the respective field, maintaining legitimate regulations.

[@GoatPilot04]

I'm all for "fair and equitable treatment under the law" and all, but I think the time has come for the FAA to have a dedicated "SpaceX Only" team for investigations/regulations to expedite the process. There's no reason for them not to do this already, as after the second flight, it should be easy for them, but still...

[@onlyme972]

Check project Vanguard and early US rockets, BIG BADA BOOM time after time.

[@gracemwende8054]

Congratulations spaceX tongethar ❤

[@ingridhohmann3523]

I hope nothing gets in the way for flight 5 🙏

[@menone7993]

Typical. Government agencies with their own agendas. Questionable expertise to say the least. Plus - lots of time these 'agencies' serve as a tool for the competitors. That's a big pain in one place for all successful, innovative private businesses.

[@i.just.pooted]

I dont trust Rocket Lab or Beck. Time will tell if Im right.

[@damarismaldonadorivera5037]

✨️🚀✨️

[@chadgdry3938]

So if a rocket hits 5 G's, is that 4G's plush the Earth's 1G of gravity, or are we talking 5G's of rocket propulsion with an added 1G of Earth gravity?

[@rhodenamandil9604]

I believe that it is 5g PLUS the one for earth. That I’ve seen, all G-force meters are at 0 when stationary

[@raygan777able]

Good luck to those who are going to be using the starship spacecraft.

[@jesusvieira2000]

They don't need luck. They are testing prototypes for a reason

[@majic5zero]

So, Mr. Von Braun...Please "enlighten" us poor benighted savages. What's wrong with starship and how would you employ your engineering brilliance to fix it?

[@DeanLancasterMusic]

💯❤

[@AnubisSolvang]

70 million investment and they show what looks like them using a craftsman cresent wrench?

[@Soggy__Toast]

Lucas is clueless.

[@davidbowerman6433]

Well, of course, they delayed the first three flights. All three were failures. The first one spectacular failure that they are test rockets doesn’t forgive the fact that they caused damage to the surrounding area as well as therocket itself.

[@TR-qt8tf]

How so? Seems they stated what each launch was trying for and hit the goals. Recent launch definitely included.

[@ingridhohmann3523]

They were tests, not failures !!

[@karendressler6326]

Feed at that Governmental trough . . . and get fat, without the requirement to deliver a usable product.

[@larryfromchicago6526]

84 days is too long, the bureaucracy needs to be downsized. 3 months, really!

[@lordnilsson]

This whole Starship project is doomed to fail..! It's not realistic ! Neither in size or in technology. First... forget manned travels to Mars. Which was the basic reason to develop this fantasy goal. Just the childish idea to land a manned Starship on the Moon... is not realistic to manage. It's like landing the Pisa tower on the Moon... and believe it will succeed. With astronauts taking an elevator down to reach the ground. If... the ship still is in vertical position, which not is too likely.......

[@walter2990]

Well, okay..., since you put it that way, it'll never work! You must have such great insight into life in general and rocket dynamics in particular! Thanks for saving us a bunch of time, energy, and money. Whew!

[@mjh7609]

It can be a little scarey to witness rapid progress and technologic achievement. My grandfather never saw the utility of landing on the moon and he felt it was faked. But he was wrong. With great innovations come great things. It is time to dream big and do great things. We'll send you a postcard from Mars with that big rocket. ;)

[@b1bmsgt]

@@walter2990Yeah, we really dodged a bullet there, eh?

[@garrettnelson2293]

Wow! All of that convincing data you gave has really got me believing🙄. Eight years ago being able to reuse a rocket was a fantasy goal for NASA apparently. If anybody can do it then I think it’s the company that made that a reality. When you have some actual reasons why you think it will fail, let’s talk.

[@rogerphelps9939]

Totally wrong. Landing a manned spacecraft on Mars is visionary, not childish. Regarding landing on the moon clearly you have litttle understanding thatt the centre of gravity of the Starship will be low so it will be stable. as far as ttaking a lif to the ground is concerned it is clear that you are unaware that the apollo astronauts needed to use a ladder to reach the ground. The engineers working on Starship are much cleverer than you, you know.

[@majic5zero]

The biggest "hurdle" Spacex has had to face is Joe Biden's grudge against Elon Musk for not supporting him for another presidential run. So, let's cut the crap, shall we?