Something Weird Happened with Starship Flight 7 after Separation!? New FAA Big Trouble...

[@firenx437]

summary "ship had a fuel leak, caught fire, went boom"

[@sambrill2519]

Saves 23 mins. I do find this channel repeats things all the time. Scott Manley is a great channel for getting to the point and really good content.

[@firenx437]

I watch him he's great

[@jubeaumont6305]

Sometimes theres very little to talk about. That's a problem if you put out daily videos

[@sambrill2519]

@@jubeaumont6305 true. Make it a 10 mins video. Not 23mins. 🤗

[@danethorson]

Ok for first 2-3 tries but not ok for seventh.

[@raulastorga3611]

He keeps repeating the same things am I right or wrong

[@wb8cxo]

You are right. Quite annoying. All the space related channels do it but this channel leads the pack.

[@Rednecklesson]

Too much AI writing

[@Hogwild90]

If it isn’t Scott Manley, Marcus House or Everyday Astronaut you might as well click “do not recommend this channel”

[@wb8cxo]

@ That's right! t

[@davidwright7193]

Yes it was bullshit on Thursday and is still bullshit on Sunday. Apparently turning on a tap is a “great technical achievement” and a rocket failing to get to orbit for the 7th successive time is a “great leap forward in space exploration” despite it blowing up and scattering debris outside the cleared range area and the FAA may have been subjected to regulatory capture but there is also an investigation by the Turks and Caicos aviation authority which will need to complete before the FAA can authorise further launches.

[@Dhruvmeena69]

Just watched the Lex Fridman podcast and I'm all in on XAI01v now! The potential is huge and I'm excited to see what's next!

[@fionabyron83]

Go SpaceX! They're developing better & better rockets & boosters!

[@colonbina1]

Yeah

[@polska4968]

so 5mins and 24 secs of stuff we already knew , theres no need for repeating what you have already done in previous videos and also we already know

[@zipo1200]

i found this to also start getting very repetitive.

[@VA3ELX]

Going to ignore this channel. Repeated BS just for clicks and monetary. Really useless.

[@Mark-hb5zf]

Ditto. Usually this channel is pretty decent but went off the rails a bit, as you mentioned. I actually thought the video started at the beginning again.

[@tommdillinger7553]

Yep boring

[@MrAlexscara]

This. Had to stop it. And it's not the first time. Does it ever get to the effing point? Unsubscribed, sadly.

[@RmclDevendla]

Just bought XAI01v after watching your video, thanks for the tip!

[@InsightGlobal365]

Super Heavy Booster 14 landing flawlessly on the Mechazilla arm for the second time is an incredible feat! SpaceX continues to amaze us with its engineering prowess. Great job, SpaceX!

[@GopalGopal-t5v]

Elon Musk's vision for XAI01v is inspiring, can't wait to see it come to life!

[@Krishna.....Gamer_764]

Elon Musk's involvement with XAI01v is a game changer, can't wait to see what's next!

[@MrHalvnir]

GOOD JOB SPACE X !!!

[@theohughes7170]

Good catch SpaceX

[@danatirrell2457]

A steel patch that is flapping like paper? It is steel, see the tack welds in the middle. This part of ship was not finished properly. Past the speed of sound, this flapping was causing such a violent vibrations that stuff had to be coming apart inside. Aerodynamics was not good on this day.

[@tonyduncan9852]

Indeed.

[@RamniwashBhaskar-u6y]

I love how you explained the potential of XAI01v! Elon Musk’s insights make it even more exciting!

[@tonyduncan9852]

I wish I could understand this. OAI

[@footynutguy]

This might just be my poor eyesight playing tricks on me but I love the shot of the booster landing where it looks like the person putting their hand up to try and catch it.

[@StevenRedcay-gw5ci]

Wow great landing but starship needs vents in the engine bay to keep it cool on decent or maybe if they open up the whole bay like the hot staging ring ! ! !

[@comebychance]

Yaaaay SpaceX!

[@stevejohnston4889]

Good Job SpareX

[@StMyles]

Good Job SpaceX

[@colonbina1]

❤❤❤❤❤

[@alanhart9992]

Good job SpaceX.

[@geobrower3069]

Good job, SpaceX.

[@Drekerm]

Good Job!! Well Done!!!🎉🎉🎉

[@colonbina1]

Yeah yeah. Let's wait for their next feats

[@rogerosborne1943]

I think this is just the learning process. Can they use engine 314 pi on the next launch to see how many launches it can perform?

[@dennisslack3945]

Good job SpaceX !

[@RicardoMiranda-b2o]

Way to go SpaceX, good job!

[@colonbina1]

🚀🚀🚀

[@ronjon7942]

I’ll watch the booster be caught a hundred times, and I’ll still just shake my head. Whoever or whichever team imagined that up needs to write a book. I’m not sure Heinlein, Clarke, Asimov, Wells, Herbert, Bradbury, or Verne could have dreamt that up - unless they did. If they didn’t, what the heck inspired SpaceX to come up with this technique? And HOW? I can’t even fathom what writing the software must have been like - although since ‘Hello World’ amazes me, that doesn’t mean much. The whiteboarding must be…involved.

[@MUTLY1972]

Good job, SpaceX

[@aaravsharma5590]

Your analysis of XAI01v was spot on! I’m ready for those 10x gains, especially with Elon Musk backing it!

[@Stubby0266]

Think that the extra weight of the 25% more methane put pressure on the whole structure and caused the leak?

[@corecollapse4726]

A lot of this video is just repeated waffling, sadly. We already knew a lot of these details from the same day as the launch. Also, you completely overlooked some of the cooler/more important information about Super Heavy, like that it was reflying the Pi Raptor, 314, which was originally used on Flight 5.

[@tudogeo7061]

Yes Mr Musk! Launch ze V2!

[@ronjon7942]

Is the image at 4:40 the real deal, or is that someone’s artwork? That pic is mind blowing.

[@colonbina1]

True! That is exactly happening at Starbase

[@Mayankff4454]

Just invested in XAI01v after hearing Elon Musk discuss it, excited for the future!

[@tonyduncan9852]

Thanks for the deja vu experience in your Starship account. Otherwise kudos for succinctness. Cheers. 😎

[@colonbina1]

We will improve this

[@tonyduncan9852]

@@colonbina1 Not on my account. You're doing fine. It happens . . . 😎

[@davidrussell6105]

Yes,,,, You know that the FAA is going to have a field day with this one 😂

[@paulr4353]

Seems like they'll do anything to slow SpaceX

[@ronjon7942]

I’m from the FAA. We’re to help.

[@tusharshitap6322]

Just watched your analysis of XAI01v and I'm feeling bullish!

[@sanjoyadhikary4794]

XAI01v is going to be huge, thanks for the insights!

[@sirexilon]

Yes there was a fire on the booster after being caught. AWAI has footage

[@rustyheckler8766]

Probably not, it will be a delay, but not a big one. Though, as more launch systems come online and launches become as common place as planes taking off, such burning debris streaking our skies could become as common. All of these launch vehicles push materials we use to build them to their very limits, failures are going to happen.

[@pilot341]

Said that countdown t-01.15.00 is missed or do not hold or change 35 minutes good.

[@hughwitherington7956]

Is coverage of these flights , Starship and New Glenn, broadcast in China, media and internet ?

[@tonyduncan9852]

I wish I could understand this.

[@brendanwood1540]

Maybe deleted too many parts in the design iteration. Or possibly the welds failed in a couple spots. Which highlights the major problem with welded joints; consistency and reliability. There needs to be weld quality assurance before any human should trust the system. Carbon composite material will not leak as easily because it is made with flexible resin that cures in normal atmosphere and temperature. While welds require precisely controlled extreme heat and controlled atmospheric conditions to produce a good result.

[@jcdisci]

Having witnessed the moon landing (I was 12 years old), every time the booster is caught by the chopsticks I get goose bumps! NASA never dreamed of such an action. Mars, here we come!

[@colonbina1]

Great comment. SpaceX will recreate past glory

[@jukeseyable]

bit premature, starship hasnt yet made orbit. saturn 5 went to the moon and back on its 6th flight. hold on to your memorise. Space X is nowhere near as competant and NASA in the 60s

[@reinhardfranzwehringer7803]

I was 7 when Neil Armstrong did his first steps on the moon and have been disappointed by the lack of further exploration with manned missions since the Apollo program until now.

[@jcdisci]

@@reinhardfranzwehringer7803 I completely agree!! We should have been to Mars decades ago and working on Venus now.

[@jcdisci]

@ And how old were you in the 60's?

[@petertimp5416]

Problem V2 rock 😮….😊

[@ANGRY_AMERICAN]

same kind of problem the SR71 BlackBird had where the builder determined a that a certain amount of fuel was allowed to leak while on the ground where just the hear created from friction at refueling speed reduced the leak to almost 0 and at operation speed 0 fuel leaks and 0 surface skin buckling at speeds above 3.5x the speed of sound at 80K feet that is much faster than sea level or even 10K feet. taking that into consideration the Starship and booster system has to deal with even greater temperature fluctuations from -100* to read hot in seconds and repeated several times during each flight and with Starship V2 is compatible with both Raptor 2 and 3 the fix could be as easy as a plumbing upgrade

[@PaulGrant-t6t]

I realize that ship block 2 is slightly longer and has different fins. However, how much was done internally specifically around the fuel tank area. Other expanding it I hope there were not cost cutting measures involving thinner lighter materials. When it comes to fuel that is one area where tanks should not be made thinner or lighter. Further there should be protective redundancies to reduce the chance of ever leaking. This ship has to have Bullet Proof reliability. When the goal is complete reusability like an airplane, safety and redundancy have to come first. This cannot happen when humans are on board. This type of failure reminds me of flight # 2 of Starship. Other than having a larger tank, what is specifically different between block 1 and block 2 in this area? Or is it just a manufacturing lapse? If it is then construction procedures need to be changed. I get this is still a test vehicle. However, it will remain so until this gets completely figured out. In the meantime, Falcon 9 remains the work horse for the foreseeable future. I now see Flacon 9 competing directly with Blue Glenn once Blue Glenn figures out and refines the landing of it's booster.

[@davemeeks8109]

I warned Mr Musk to never put lizard decals on his ships again. Obviously they take offense and deal appropriately 😮😊

[@colonbina1]

😂😂😂

[@vaikjsf34a]

That does _not_ "underscore their commitment to progress and safety" - the pieces landed _outside_ of their debris field. Had there been a ship (or plane) there, it possibly could have been hit. The way it _should_ work is they should be forced to make a debris field and the exclusions are based off those. If the ship is unmanned and breaks up but stays inside the debris field, there should be no investigation - encouraging them to learn how to predict better debris fields and improve control. If the ship is unmanned and breaks up but lands outside the debris field, there should be an investigation as someone / ship could have been hit. This way they are rewarded for more correct predictions, which can help them avoid land masses entirely and land their debris within the debris field exclusion zones. As a PCO carrier and a fan of shipping, I'd rather not be hit by debris or have any other ship be hit by debris. We have exclusion zones and NOTAMS for a reason.

[@ronjon7942]

It’s really inconvenient when things don’t fail properly.

[@poppedweasel]

As a Brit, I find you labelling the rockets "V1 and V2" kinda disturbing.

[@BloPsyy]

Don't worry, Wernher von Braun can't hurt you anymore.

[@user-yd1vl9lj5j]

Did dummy satellites break free and cause damage? A camera view inside the cargo area would be interesting to view.

[@katrine-pearls]

It's poignant to wht has happened to Starship 33. There's shd NOT A DELAY on deploying Flight 8 and ready to go in as much tht the previous issues fr Flight 7 were found. Resolved with a better solution for further reliability and strength leads to success. In addition is the statement came fr FAA in accord of rec'ving the Debri Response Area reports. And, other contingent agencies like NASA support. We're ready for Flight 8 🚀 🚀🚀 As always, Thank U ✨️kev🌟 enjoy the other partner of the w-end 🌾

[@colonbina1]

Thanks for your comment. Keep following and discussing on our channel ☺️

[@katrine-pearls]

@colonbina1 I'd learned so much fr yah, and it's a milestone for me to grasp and to understand the SpaceX-Flights concept. FASCINATING. I cld have been an Aero-engg. but having a set of parochial family settings, esp my Madre (mother). I rebelled, growing up and joined the military 🪖, they sent me to school. They noticed my high IQ, and I b-came an MD 😹. My parents were on hi-end professionals also, both works in the USGov't. Hey, so many haters, esp men. I showed them their way out 🤭😆😂🤣 via verbal wars. Heya 👋 kev✨️ keep looking UP ❗️ENJOY ✨️🚀

[@PAVANCHAUHAN7777]

I'm all about XAI01v now, thanks for the awesome insights! The community is great and the potential is huge.

[@mohdmazidmazid1511]

XAI01v is the next big thing, don't miss out!

[@1donjuego]

This was a test of payload delivery and re-entry. Basic craft structural integrity failure is a set back. 2 years of progress now in question.

[@paulr4353]

No. SpaceX will find the cause and fix it, whether it be a design of manufacturing failure.

[@tonyduncan9852]

As is your understanding of thermodynamics. We already know that the Starship airframe is mechanically strong enough to be able to rotate *_lengthwise_* at hypersonic speed, for WE HAVE SEEN IT DO SO. This does not mean that it can, or should be able to, withstand internal detonations caused by ignited leaking propellants. Study up.

[@Tom-f5q8e]

the answer is in the comments

[@fgeiger41]

Thought i read that piece that was flapping was a test article and not a breach. If that were a breach, the interior pressure build-up would've also been catastrophic.

[@colonbina1]

Thanks for your contribution

[@tonyduncan9852]

Internal pressure might have already popped it out. Gaseous combustibles, once ignited, and in confined spaces, become accelerated to supersonic and detonating velocities in a fraction of a second. Shockwaves may be generally fatal under such extreme mechanical static load conditions for a variety of reasons.

[@fgeiger41]

@tonyduncan9852 the payload bay is a separate open section. At the speed it was ascending it would've probably ripped the ship open. If the aft fuel section were connected to the payload bay it would've relieved that pressure build up once in zero atmosphere.

[@Martimus98]

Given that BOTH SpaceX and Blue Origin will be concurrently dealing with FAA investigations, my guess is that flight 8 won't happen before March. After all, improved processes or not, the FAA is still a bureaucratic mess. And that won't change until after the new leadership gets in place, and has time to shake things up within the FAA.

[@BloPsyy]

FAA is not only a bureaucratic mess but also highly corrupt (Look at how they deal with Boeing for example)

[@Piratesussie56]

Your voice back to normal 🎉

[@colonbina1]

🤣🤣🤣

[@biomechanique6874]

Escape capsule needed.

[@MichaelCarriger]

Click bait; pure and simple. If you don't have anything new to add, then don't publish.

[@tonyduncan9852]

They actually added. Then they published. You must have missed something. (Then there are the comments).

[@ronjon7942]

@@tonyduncan9852oh, the comments. Where the real experts lurk.

[@tonyduncan9852]

@ Or not. Hobson's.

[@pedrosura]

Is the Booster going to fly again? Like on the next flight? Otherwise, what os the purpose? After the explosion, it sounds out of touch to have such a cheering video for a failure. You realize the mission failed right? I feel lile I am in North Korea! Unbelievable! Almost sad…

[@tonyduncan9852]

If you would *_really_* like to leave North Korea, I suggest you study a relevant science. Being _almost educated_ will help lift your depression.

[@pedrosura]

@ Don’t feel so insulted. I am just a little bit allergic to propaganda. Sounds lile you are from the “let’s give everyone a Gold Star” crowd. Tell you what, you get a Gold Star for replying to me. :)

[@ronjon7942]

@@pedrosurayou’re an id10t.

[@2face789]

What is there to investigate exactly?

[@tonyduncan9852]

200 TONS OF HOT STAINLESS STEEL dropping on your head at 500 mph, perhaps.

[@vaikjsf34a]

The debris landed outside of the debris field, where a ship (or plane) _could_ have been. That should be investigated. Had it landed within the debris field, there should be no investigation as the ship was unmanned and debris landed inside the exclusion zone. As a PCO carrier and a fan of shipping, I'd rather not be hit by debris or have any other ship be hit by debris. We have exclusion zones and NOTAMS for a reason.

[@ronjon7942]

@@vaikjsf34aDo you realize how outrageous that sounds?

[@FujiYama609]

Space X focused too much on reusing the booster and disregarded of the reusing of the spaceship.😂

[@ronjon7942]

Right. I’m sure all the Starship engineers were all distracted by the booster landing.

[@Mrjonblakely]

Are you reading from SpaceX press releases for the final five minutes? Seems like it to me.

[@b0neme]

Dude, "Likely exploded due to a critical issue prompting the activation of the flight termination system". Really? You don't get why this is wrong? The FTS is programmed to terminate the flight if any of a number of "issues" arise. I asked GROK and he said "loss of control or deviation from flight path, failure to achieve intended trajectory, structural failure, malfunction of critical systems, anomaly detection by onboard systems, command from ground control. (with a lot of detail)" so there are a number of reasons but your analysis of "exploded, then FTS" makes no sense. If it exploded there'd be no ship and no FTS!! Despite your SpaceX-focused videos, that analysis sounded so much like the media's "SpaceX sucks!!" analysis that I am rethinking my subscription.

[@sonnynguyen2653]

Yes.

[@colonbina1]

So when do you think SpaceX can launch Flight 8?

[@kensmith8832]

What would it cost to have this as 4th of July fireworks? The Afrikaans word for Tree comes to mind! It would be a great joke in "Keeping up with the Jones'" saga!

[@tonyduncan9852]

I wish I could understand this.

[@deanminer2340]

RIP S33

[@KevinEgan-q3w]

But why did it go boom is the question ¿?

[@abishekabishek728]

XAI01v is LITERALLY generational wealth

[@themotorcyclezeroshow]

Are those metric pounds? Ha! Why do you go back and forth between metric and imperial units?

[@tonyduncan9852]

The US is full of metric pounds of BS. Only Systeme Internationale deals efficiently with Energetics. It's what Elon uses.

[@nickt9522]

Will be interesting to see how long the FFA stop starship as Elon,s best mate will be President on Monday.

[@colonbina1]

Let's wait to see what will happen

[@scotchegg6422]

EM will be a gazillion-aire before SpaceX reach Mars. Couldn’t hit a cows arse with a shovel!

[@johnwythe1409]

There was no hole in the payload bay. That loose flapping part had nothing to do with the explosion.

[@colonbina1]

Thanks for your great contribution 👍

[@greggweber9967]

22:00 Or it found something as yet not published.

[@JimmyRussell-c2s]

These are Raptor 2? Break out Raptor 4 in the next launch

[@Captlucpicard]

You just don't listen to your crowd. You need to get to the main subject faster and stop repeating yourself. I will seek my information somewhere else. All the best my friend. .

[@leoveenman3674]

Yes, it exploded

[@timemorphs]

Maybe it got connected to your video game playing Elon? 🤣

[@Tourn4x4]

the space Cigarette 😎

[@colonbina1]

Great flying object🤣

[@tonyduncan9852]

Don't mind my dig, but Blue Origin's flames are even more beautiful. Come on, Elon.

[@discombubulate2256]

new starship version, new problems. they'll get it right.

[@satyendrababu831]

XAI01v is going to moon, mark my words.

[@muratoz2931]

Why post something that was posted days ago. Click bait is what this is called. Regurgitated crap. Just reported you as not genuine and un subscribed. Money must be your only motivation. No thanks

[@mclark42]

SpaceX is brilliant at catching boosters, too bad their Starship is a HUGE failure. After 7 attempts over the past 2 years they haven't even attempted a single orbit of earth.. Next stop Mars!

[@BloPsyy]

That's because Starship is nowhere near being a completed vehicle. It's still highly experimental - a first-of-its-kind vehicle. The point of those 7 tests wasn't to do everything perfectly, it was to test out the vehicle so they could rapidly develop this new technology.

[@bws605]

3 minutes of information pack into 15 minutes. Be more succinct!

Too much clickbait. Clickef "dont Show me anymore now"

[@TimAnnear_1961]

something weird eh!? yep and the correct technical term for this is 'ship 7 turned to shit'!

[@williamhoward7121]

Quit repeating the same thing. Stated one time instead of five times with slight changes.

[@VipinKumar-ut9xc]

I know what I hold XAI01v 💎👐

[@stgeorgeist]

when ev er testing pushing the limits bounderies There is never anything wierd prototypes are tests and weaknesses are better to be found and annaliesd. BNetter for weakness bad design to be found early than later? As proved in early passenger plane design as found with the comet and why rouned windows are better than the flawed square that ended the Comet. Change if hight weight may well have puyshed tolrance of the huge liquid Gas filled Pop can of thin metal machine to destruction

[@elnoey]

Something weird? JAJAJAJA it's called explosion. It exploded.

[@keithmillay1523]

No

[@DestinexBT]

First?

[@colonbina1]

Yes, and it's time to get excited

[@galaxiedance3135]

Damn.... Missed it be 5 minutes :) Congrats!

[@jaykaknes1133]

Good job SpaceX sell twitter elon

[@stellarfortressnemesis]

This idiot thinks that success comes by spewing out as many videos as possible as quickly as possible, regardless of if there's nothing new to say and he just keeps repeating the same information over and over.

[@KurtColville]

Yeah, just keep repeating your content. Nice job. You should "work" for NASA.

[@alexanderhamilton3007]

RUD, try BBB, big badda boom. Save the planet, nah. Mars awaits Elon's salvation.

[@mountedpatrolman]

Good grief Kevin, You're videos are terrible now. Stop recapping things everyone knows and get to the point of the video. There's no need to rehash flight 7 every video, report on the title of the video and stop with all the filler. Going to unsubscribe if all the clickbait nonsense filler doesn't stop.

[@RickyKirkman]

You like saying the same thing more than once, why?

[@Steelninja77]

I wonder if indians will eat spicy food in space 🤣

[@tonyduncan9852]

Only if they have their own personal air treatment system, I fear.

[@markmyra-cn7rd]

Super heavy looks like its heading in the right direction.. But Musk using the rapid unscheduled disassembly cliche,,,,is bs. Something a used car salesman would say. But that's crass intertainment. And a advertising campaign that tries to make failure,, look like success. Flight 7 of starship was a catastrophic failure. And don't waste my time telling me about the virtues of trial and error relative to this level of failure, in the age of computer aided design and manufacturing. Along with accurate computer simulation. Looks like NASA simply has higher standards. Just admit it. Instead of creating cute sugar coated verbiage for the fan base. Remember, space x has not matched the first Artemis mission to the moon and back. And a distance record from earth. 100% success, first time. Reusability is what makes private space enterprise,, a viable business plan. Nothing new or profound about that. But astrophysics is about physical reality. Not marketing psychology. Make starship work. Stop making excuses,,, musk.