Starship Reached Space. What Now?

[@RealEngineering]

why did I say june?!! wtf brain

[@nushratjahannabila7047]

😂

[@PeterJCalkins]

lol, you're good. It happens

[@jusu8961]

its pie day come on. couldnt be easier to remember

[@MikePSU]

You had me wondering if you were some sort of time traveler or something.

[@GIPvideos]

Lolol! Just came to say that 🤣

[@orashadow]

I came to watch a video about Starship and got attacked for owning a Miata. What a twist.

[@Tod_oMal]

Yeah. It's your fault. Why buy a Miata? Just buy a real convertible. 😂

[@swivvy3037]

​@@Tod_oMalalso a mx5 MK1 owner here (UK don't call it Miata) but what exactly is a "real convertible" given the mx5 is THE convertible

[@endjfcar]

​@@Tod_oMal MX-5 is THE convertible. You should watch Jason Camissa's Revelation about Miata.

[@Tod_oMal]

@@swivvy3037Just a joke, don't bother too much.

[@Tod_oMal]

@@swivvy3037Just a joke, don't bother.

[@HelionDark]

Rapid unscheduled disassembly always make me smile

[@weekiely1233]

I mean it should. It’s a lighthearted joke

[@namenloss730]

except they always pretend it was done on purpose

[@weekiely1233]

@@namenloss730 they literally said BEFORE the first flight they didn’t expect the vehicle to go far. For flight 1 they said they’d be happy with some ascent data (“clear the pad” so to speak), for flight 2 they said they’d be happy with staging and for flight 3 they wanted the prop demo and entry data but didn’t expect it to survive. Again they said this BEFORE the flights. They quite literally outlined why they didn’t expect or need it to go all the way, gave almost to the tee what they expected the vehicle to do and what they hoped to gain and learn. Ignoring this isn’t an argument it’s denial and acting like it was a reactive spin is too

[@namenloss730]

@@weekiely1233 talking to sycophants is never interesting... yes, they did announce those things before the flights, just before. after promising much much more than the last second announcements. How many rockets did bezos blow up on tax payer dime? is it zero rockets and 0$? meanwhile musk does his stupid f*ing design that makes no f*ing sense at billions of tax payer dollars obtained through obvious corruption of kathy luders

[@GageEakins]

​@@weekiely1233this is nonsense. They have not said any such thing until after the accidents occurred. They have wasted billions upon billions of dollars relearning things we already knew. This company is never going to be capable of safely launching anything into orbit. The idea that they're going to have humans on board. This death trap is insane.

[@itsvondell]

A Miata is capable of carrying more than one person, it's just statistically extremely unlikely.

[@OcinMarsh]

It does have infinite vertical storage

[@lakonoki9189]

Mazda

[@POTheta001]

Fun fact: A Miata is also statistically unlikely to carry testicles as well!

[@MaestroAlvis]

It's theoretically capable of carrying more than 1 person

[@blackwing1362]

more likely than you think. you might often find a father with their son, or a son with their girlfriend

[@rbesfe]

When I saw the plasma during the livestream my jaw was on the floor. I hope people understand how insane it is to see that in HD, and that the cameras kept transmitting for so long

[@atomicviking2497]

It was a surprisingly long time. I knew the ship was tumbling, and I fully expected a quick RUD. But I was blown away by how tough Starship seemed.

[@williamhatfield8935]

Probably the most used term in describing Elon’s shenanigans is insane. With good reason.

[@williamhatfield8935]

And the miracle of the cameras! They kept going until they stopped! Pure genius.

[@curtiswfranks]

That was one of the coolest moments of my life.

[@depressed_neutron]

​@@atomicviking2497truely starship is tough it survived cartwheels in the air during ift 1 at mach 1

[@arekkasu1432]

My cousin works at starbase as a welder for years now, spacex began with your conventional welders & trained them to weld rockets & are the only ones who used regular welders, they made it clear that their work can withstand anything at this point!

[@jaydonbrown617]

It held for only so long though. Both craft still eventually broke up, but it is interesting to see how long it takes them to do so.

[@matthewspencer2094]

​@@jaydonbrown617 everything can break... not everything can hold together to within spec

[@jaydonbrown617]

@@matthewspencer2094 Well with a space craft, you generally want it to stay together for the most part

[@matthewspencer2094]

@@jaydonbrown617 what no good kinda fireworks don't explode a little from time to time eh?

[@jaydonbrown617]

@@matthewspencer2094 Spaceships =/= Fireworks At least not under normal circumstances

[@AbbreviatedReviews]

Those simple Miata folks didn't deserve that.

[@rogerrinkavage]

Its the Corvette people we should be hating on

[@superbarnie]

@@rogerrinkavage but Corvettes destroy Miatas in just about every performance metric...

[@rogerrinkavage]

@@superbarnie they are also 8x more likely to be owned by a balding man in the middle of a midlife crisis

[@erasmus_locke]

I know. And it wasn't even a short joke, that was like a 5-minute rant

[@alexbrewer4570]

​@@superbarnie We get more smiles per gallon, though.

[@aidanlua8462]

The insane footage we got as a result of the new Star link terminals are just insane, its hard to believe it's not CGI, Especially during re-entry

[@fulconandroadcone9488]

And queue the theory is just another clever roose to convince us Earth is not flat. Of course it is CGI, Earth is flat and they never got to space, star link is just regular towers maskarading as trees and rocks.

[@harrytaylor4360]

​@@fulconandroadcone9488not true im in space right now

[@superbarnie]

@@fulconandroadcone9488 But star link doesn't use towers? Its direct from satellite to your starlink receiver..

[@mercerwing1458]

I am over here wondering what the camera is made out of that it didn't melt...

[@ajToncek]

​@@mercerwing1458it's on the forward flap, looking straight down.

[@Levitiy]

As far as I know, there is reentry plasma footage of the Shuttle from the inside looking out the windows, from Falcon 9 fairings, and right before Starship launched, the Varda capsule. The Shuttle's was not live or HD. Falcon 9 fairing's was not live or HD. Varda's was HD but not live. Starship's was live and HD.

[@moonasha]

I misheard the first sentence as "spaceX's turd integrated flight test". Laughs aside, very excited for the future of this vehicle

[@RealEngineering]

Look, I am making an effort to not hide my accent as much. If I say turd instead of third more, so be it 😂

[@ToTheGAMES]

Haha, same!

[@Mikineitor]

I choose to believe it was on purpose

[@xMorogothx]

How about you learn proper pronunciation of words? You can still have an accent but you are not speaking english if you say "turd" instead of "third".@@RealEngineering

[@caldodge]

me, too

[@digitaldyslexia7589]

The miata jab was diabolical

[@noahhastings6145]

I feel personally attacked

[@riggerman362]

​@@noahhastings6145100%

[@fluffyflextail]

Did the jab kick you off your high-horse?

[@lcrazy8l]

Leave the Miots alone!

[@nickn7939]

That jab was a near miss for me, I own an MR2 Spyder

[@mrtoastyman07]

As a 33yo going through a divorce with a Miata, I feel personally attacked.

[@hvp685]

Why did the Miata finally d3cude to kick you out?

[@christopher4101]

Miatas are terrible. You should feel attacked lol

[@nssr4031]

If you own a Miata then you deserved it 🤣

[@LarsLarsen77]

@@hvp685 Once a miata dude asked me if I wanted to try driving it, that it was really fun. And I was like "You couldn't catch me dead in that thing."

[@literallyjustgrass]

@@LarsLarsen77 at what point does the anti-miata ego become larger than the miata ego?

[@13orrax]

if you break up with your significant other while in space they become your space ex

[@RealEngineering]

Good one

[@LuisSierra42]

I will give you ONE like

[@omotolaoyeniyi631]

Comment of the year😂

[@dangerfly]

The world needs to break up with Elon.

[@maxedout1046]

Take my like and get out.

[@titan401CT]

14th June???

[@mrxmry3264]

you beat me to it.

[@tedarcher9120]

He's from the future

[@BooleanDisorder]

Hey now, some of us have gone crazy this winter. Wishes have become truth.

[@thebirb747]

He meant march, read the top comment

[@lenorado]

Yup. Have you been will be watching it? 🤔

[@FlorianGerlich]

A couple of things to correct (I believe): - IFT2 did Cross the karman line - Starship’s “reentry” burn wasn’t meant to be a reentry burn, it was an in-orbit test burn. While it will need deorbit burns in the future, it does not need a “slow down burn”, but reenters as full speed, as shown in your video. Furthermore, while, as a space nerd, I appreciate your deep dive into FFSC, it doesn’t contribute to answering your video’s title question: what now?

[@NoResultFound]

Catching a skyscraper bomb out of the sky with chopsticks... Now that I'd need to see to believe.

[@fulconandroadcone9488]

If that guy from a movie can catch a fly then real world iron man can catch a space stick

[@person8064]

​@@fulconandroadcone9488 iron man without all the morals, at least

[@weekiely1233]

Give it a year

[@sebastianorye2702]

@@weekiely1233 I like the optimism

[@ryndrssn]

it's just landing a Falcon 9 booster, with a few more, extra fancy steps

[@quistador7]

it's insane watching those grid fins move back and forth so fast knowing how large they are

[@ggApollo]

Yeah dude my thoughts exactly!

[@baiterage]

all thanks to tesla motors lol

[@MaticTheProto]

@@baiteragenah. Not fast enough, not big enough, ship gone.

[@baiterage]

@@MaticTheProto And they got plenty more to test with each one inching a lot closer to success. So what's your point?

[@MaticTheProto]

@@baiterage my point is they have a really bad track record so far for something that’s supposed to go to mars

[@oooChickenatorXooo]

We're a minute in and so far: - The launch was March 14th, not June 14th - IFT-3 apogee of 234 km is nowhere near the ISS altitude, 408 km (220 nautical miles) - IFT-3 was not the first to make it to space. IFT-2 got up to 140 km, which is above the Karman Line. IFT-3 was the first to make it to orbit.

[@lazarus2691]

IFT-3 didn't quite make it to orbit. The perigee was about -50km, so inside the Earth, as opposed to the 50km planned for IFT-1 and IFT-2, which would have been above the Earth's surface but still inside the atmosphere. Apparently the planned engine relight actually would have accelerated it rather than decelerated it, and should have been enough to lift the perigee above the surface, but since it didn't happen it doesn't really matter.

[@oooChickenatorXooo]

@@lazarus2691 Quite correct, good call. As a trained Kerbonaut, I must acknowledge that a circularization burn at apogee would have been required to create an actual "orbit" and if that didn't happen, and perigee was still

[@tapep225]

I didn’t even know this launch was happening and I followed the stuff pretty well. What the hell is going on with KZbin?

[@lazarus2691]

@@tapep225 SpaceX only livestream on X now. KZbin can hardly give you notifications for livestreams that aren't happening.

[@focumQuarium]

@@tapep225 Even KZbin is tired of ElMo's BS...

[@minutemotivation.]

4:30 Note that Sabatier process uses H2, not H like displayed in the equation

[@The-KP]

Besides which, setting up a working methane plant extracting the "plentiful carbon dioxide" from a near-vacuum atmosphere (0.6% PSI of earth sea level, or earth atmospheric pressure at 35 km altitude), using solar power on a planet receiving about 44% solar radiation of earth's. Given the most reliably detected source of water is at Mars's south pole (beneath the frozen carbon dioxide cap!), the time, energy and expense to mount an expedition and extract CO2, frozen H2O AND collect enough solar radiation to perform the Sabatier conversion.. we're looking at many trips to deliver enough equipment, nickel reaction mass.. which multiplied by the dozen or so Starship trips required to fuel one Mars-bound Starship.. When finally we do establish a colony on Mars, Musk's attempt will be thought of as just that, the first attempt. I believe we won't get there until portable fusion power is available. Mr. Fusion!

[@mh6276]

@@The-KP Fusion sucks. Just use Thorium, it exists and it works very well already. Everything else makes sense though.

[@snakevenom4954]

​@@The-KP They don't plan on using solar, but rather Nuclear to meet all the power demands. It'll work both day and night as a result. Also, 1% atmosphere or around 0.15 PSI is plenty of atmosphere to extract from. A literal helicopter flew on Mars. It's an atmosphere that envelopes a planet. It's like trying to lower our sea level my 1mm. You would need to take out billions of kilograms of water to have any noticeable impact

[@danman3542]

As someone working in the first aerospace industry, I love your videos

[@Logqnty]

9:20 "Experienced a rapid, unscheduled disassembly" is portably the most scientific way of saying it blew tf up

[@weekiely1233]

It’s a lighthearted, jokey way of describing it since it really doesn’t matter that they blow up

[@nickl5658]

This s PR speak. Three words where one would do and provides no details to the reader other than it exploded. Science communication want to be clear and concise with details. It is thought at university. You are not writing a novel.

[@weekiely1233]

@@nickl5658 it’s a ✨Joke✨ Because these are tests and, has been repeatedly stated, it really doesn’t matter if they blow up because the aim is to find weaknesses in the vehicle during testing

[@whiteerdydude]

​@@weekiely1233 it does matter if it blows up. Having leftovers is vetter for diagnosing issues and demonstrating the validity of the core engineering. Most 5hings in life don't get to catastrophically die a couple of times before it is "done right". Even in rocket science, it's an embarrassment to all but the spectacle crowd if your rocket blows up because it means you screwed the primary design, testing or assembly stage and didn't even know it.

[@weekiely1233]

@@whiteerdydude it doesn’t. That’s kinda the whole point of these flights. To push the vehicle past its current design and see ways that it should be improved. There’s no need to have “left overs” the data is transmitted and recorded on the ground. This is simply a DIFFERENT type of development as has been repeatedly stated before and after the program started. These are TESTS. Not demonstrations. Literally every rocket will need some kind of explosive testing on the ground unless it uses pre existing but slightly modified hardware. This happened with the Saturn V that had many many explosions on the ground But what’s different is SpaceX is taking an iterative and incremental development cycle in flight. Flying vehicles in a hard to simulate and realistic environment and making changes based on how far they got. And it’s evidently working. They’re currently matching the dev time of the saturn V with 1/10th the resources. The last 3 flights have progressed significantly and both SpaceX and NASA agree they have been successful. The progression has gotten to the point they’re attempting a never before seen flip and landing from orbital velocity this year and have already flown 3 tests in a year which is remarkable given the challenges in cadence and regulatory factors. It genuinely seems like the only people who think this approach is bad or that it’s not going to work are either rabid musk haters, people who don’t know a think about spaceflight engineering or pessimists who just don’t like it

[@L33tSkE3t]

The way Starship powers down its engines, concentrically inward, is so cool.

[@Mallchad]

Aparently its to stop the _momentum of the fuel_ flying backwards and slamming into the plumbing and tearing the rocket to pieces. (several tonnes per second).

[@wally7856]

@@Mallchad Water hammer is a bitch in rockets. You shut off the valves all at once and you have several tons of fuel in those pipes travelling at 60 mph coming to a complete halt instantly. Like a Ford F150 hitting a brick wall from highway speeds. Would blow out all the pipes all at once.

[@L33tSkE3t]

@@wally7856 Yeah, you have all of the weight and momentum of that cryogenic liquid propellant to account for and I imagine it is not an easy feat to try and compensate for that when powering down the engines.

[@wally7856]

@@L33tSkE3t Watch a fire fighter shut down a hydrant. They close off the valves slowly. Shut them down too fast and you'll get a pressure spike that'll cause blowouts on the adjacent houses water lines.

[@literallyjustgrass]

@@Mallchad i love rocket science because every legitimate problem sounds insane when you try to explain it

[@CopyableOak]

Nice to see you working with Tim Dodd, love his stuff

[@RealEngineering]

Tim is the man

[@namenloss730]

@@RealEngineering Tim is nice, he is also a musk sycophant. He slobbers over musk, even when musk says ridiculous stuff straight to his face

[@herrgodfrey9563]

I recently got Starlink for my farmhouse. Moreso out of necessity as a lot of rural America has very few options for internet. Starlink had the best performance out of all of the other companies like Dish Network and US Cellular and it isn't even close. While still not as fast as fiber optic, I don't see that being an option anytime soon and I'm still averaging around 100mbps out in the middle of nowhere. The service has been great and very stable, which surprised me. The per month cost is competitive with the other providers, it's just the $600 start up fee that is a bit pricey. Overall, I'm very happy with the service.

[@hoppingturtles]

0:56 the orbit altitude of the ISS is 400km, i.e. 250 miles. Looks like you got confused by the units!

[@ironwarr]

fuck thr imperial system

[@davidajayi1207]

400km vs 250km, the velocity difference is not that much so it is still quite close

[@namenloss730]

@@davidajayi1207 not that much as in? Only an extra 50%?

[@davidajayi1207]

@@namenloss730 nah not even that

[@davidajayi1207]

@@namenloss730 maybe like 500-1000km/hr more in terms of velocity

[@bryanttspross1456]

2:45 I feel personally attacked. My car isn't that empty and I'm not that desperate😢

[@Roughdog86]

Personal responsibility talk.

[@spacecowboy2483]

Grow a pair!

[@drfirechief8958]

You sound kinda desperate.

[@stevert24]

I don't have Mazda, but I found that part pretty stupid for an engineering video. A divorced dude with a Mazda slighted this nerd.

[@troyarrington5492]

@@stevert24that hurt, eh? Lol

[@ryndrssn]

9:10 the grid fin turning so quickly is absolutely insane to see, that thing is the size of a car, if not bigger

[@wally7856]

They are in Texas. There must be plenty of Mexicans who build "low riders" (jumping cars) to help them move those car sized fins so quickly.

[@Polysanityy]

The booster's name isn't just heavy, it's quite literally super heavy. That's the name. "Super Heavy"

[@just_archan]

I will say one advantage of methane over kerosene or hydrogen. It's it's temperature that is stored. it's very close to temperatures of Liquid Oxygen, so rockets that use Methalox can use "common dome", without thick and complicated insulation between tanks. LH can freeze solid LOX. LOX can freeze Kerosene. Methalox doesnt have that issue so it makes construction of rockets much simpler.

[@fulconandroadcone9488]

now I want to see someone mix liquid methane and oxygen

[@dphuntsman]

@@fulconandroadcone9488Starship does that. It’s called the engine.

[@Mark_Bridges]

@@fulconandroadcone9488 You have seen it. They mixed in the booster engines and it lifted off.

[@jasonwalker9471]

@@fulconandroadcone9488 You did. That's what made the fireball coming out of the ass end of the rocket.

[@sandman_-_]

i remember when falcon 9 was being built and people were in denial with the possibility of landing a rocket upright. the problems Starship has left are minor in the scale of progress SpaceX has gone forward

[@Agorax_gg]

Project DX was doying ti decades before

[@yujinhikita5611]

@@Agorax_gg no it wasnt, because it was sub orbital nothing near what spaceX is doing, btw, its really stupid to use that card because it says that they were making it and then just gave up, spaceX didnt.

[@globetrotter7778]

It's amazing what a comeback stainless steel has made in the aerospace sector. It enables Starship to accomplish things that are exceptionally difficult, expensive or even impossible with cutting-edge CFRPs and non-ferrous titanium and aluminum alloys.

[@TheOwenMajor]

The issue is the weight. Musk has publically admitted that Starship needs to be less heavy. We don't really know it's actual payload to LEO right now, all the tests so far have been done without any payload.

[@globetrotter7778]

⁠@@TheOwenMajor Correct (believe it or not, but metallurgy student here), but despite its weight, stainless steel is: Compared to aluminum alloys: Considerably more resistant to high temperatures, it has a higher melting point, it maintains its mechanical properties at much higher temperatures, it does not expand and contract as much when heated and cooled (all important traits during reentry) and it is less conductive, meaning that less fuel is likely to evaporate when the exterior of the spacecraft is at ambient temperature. Compared to CFRPs : Considerably cheaper, better at handling extreme temperatures (both the extreme cold of the fuel and the extreme heat of reentry) as CFRPs can simultaneously become very brittle when cold and degrade when heated, it’s easier to use when building large components (no need for an autoclave, plus stainless steel is relatively easy to weld and to machine). Compared to titanium: Cheaper and easier to work with as it is easier to weld and to machine. The stainless steel alloy that they’re using is actually quite ductile while titanium is quite hard and low in elasticity. This is great for strength-to-weight ratio, but not for machinability (yes, that’s a word). If you haven’t already, I recommend watching this channel’s video on why SpaceX opted for stainless steel: m.kzbin.info/www/bejne/bHLGdmqed82jj7c

[@VictorQuesada-bl1xk]

@@globetrotter7778Thanks for that write up!

[@Mallchad]

@@TheOwenMajor It's relatively minor right now. The steel is only ~6% of the fueled weight of the vehicle right now. and they haven't even attempted to start shaving off weight in some areas yet. The stainless steel grid fins are super crude and just welded plate metal right now.

[@TheOwenMajor]

@@globetrotter7778 Thanks for regurgitating the SpaceX fanboy rhetoric, which I already am familiar with, while ignoring my actual comment. It’s amazing how many words you dedicated to 100% ignoring my comment. Of course I know the benefits of steel. Steel has been long used in aerospace and rockets. And it’s been proposed for similar massive rockets as Starship many decades before. Still doesn’t change the fact it’s really heavy, and that drawback is why most rockets don’t use it.

[@WALRUSFACELOL]

The out-of-control roll didn't prevent the Ship from doing a re-entry burn as there wasn't a re-entry burn planned for this flight; it was a burn intended to test re-lighting the vacuum engines in micro-gravity, and the burn would have actually slightly increased the perigee of its orbit. The Ship was intended to re-enter aerodynamically regardless of the test burn; it was just oriented incorrectly (tumbling).

[@namenloss730]

when was the "re entry burn"? I saw the ship that was going to slow to be in orbit fall back into the atmosphere after leaking for 15 minutes

[@WALRUSFACELOL]

@@namenloss730 This is exactly what I said, but in the form of a question.

[@zomgneedaname]

Biggest thing about the heat tiles is they are standardised and will help reduce servicing cost massively. The shuttle wasnt really economically viable with just the re-using the airframe, because all the tiles were custom made and each launch required a new set, which basically meant there was no cost advantage over throwaways like the soyuz.

[@Suppise152]

The ship did reach space in the second flight, the flight termination system was triggered shortly before it could finish its burn to the desired orbit. It was at ~245 km when it blew up, flight 3 was cruising around 250 km; space is recognised to be above 100km

[@JohnVanderbeck]

It reached space yes, but the distinction here is the velocity. It wasn't really made clear in the video, but IFT-2 was well short of orbital velocity, whereas IFT-3 was within a pubic hair of orbital speeds and just held back intentionally.

[@billcichoke2534]

First of all, the Flight Terminatiin System is automated, not an 'on demand' function. Second, they didn't trigger it, as the stainless dildo lost signal right before they even knew something was wrong.

[@gpaull2]

The flight termination system was triggered long after it had already blown up. This has been shown and proven several times. Like many things with Musk that was a lie to try and save face.

[@mattfarrar5472]

​@@JohnVanderbeck it was an elliptical orbit and could have easily been orbit. Scott Manley already did the calcs and the perigee was -50km with a apogee of 234km if you centre that orbit on Earth it worked out to be an orbit or ~115km

[@Nonya-uj2gv]

@@JohnVanderbeck "It reached space yes, but the distinction here is the velocity." The claim in the video is 'reached space for the first time', and it is factually incorrect. The claim is not 'orbital velocity'. THAT is the point being made by Suppise152. Timestamp 0:14

[@SnackPack913]

The live video feed of the plasma field generated upon reentry was by far the coolest part

[@andrewkaylor2416]

Nice touch by stabilizing the video, this def help put this into a must easier to comprehend perspective.

[@willrsan]

If Starship/Superheavies purpose was as a single use rocket it would already be a huge success. I'm looking at you SLS. I would like to see a comparison of an SLS vs a single use Starship/Superheavy on cost terms.

[@juliuszkocinski7478]

Everyday Astronaut already did a very comprehensive video about it

[@richardmetzler7909]

So you're saying, after 5 billion dollars in development cost, Starship has almost achieved what's been par for the course for other rockets for 50 years (notwithstanding the minor detail of tumbling uncontrollably after reaching orbit)? 👏👏👏

[@simonm1447]

@@richardmetzler7909Well, other rockets with nearly that payload capacity (non reusable it would be even higher for Starship) always costed 2 bn $ per launch (Saturn 5, SLS). Starship is estimated to reach launch costs of under 100 million $ very soon. SLS had development costs of nearly 12 bn $, and most of the technology they use even existed before and was used for the shuttle back then

[@shaung949]

@@richardmetzler7909on it's third TEST flight. Spacex learn fast and each flight gets more sucessful so by the end of the year they should be well past other rockets.

[@nicolaskrinis7614]

@@richardmetzler7909Much longer than 50 years.

[@k29king1]

@RealEngineering There is publicly available footage of the Space Shuttle during reentry, however it is from inside the cockpit. STS-65 Space Shuttle Columbia. And of course we also have reentry footage from the Orion Capsules reentry.

[@andrewparker318]

I've seen the shuttle footage before and it's practically unusable. It was all shot in standard definition on what appears to be an old VHS camcorder, and you only get small looks at the plasma field through the shuttle's windows. You don't at all see any of the heat tiles or how they react to the plasma, and it was all shot from the seat that was furthest away from the windows. All other reentry clips have either been shot from the ground, or are from engineering cameras meant to observe how the parachutes deploy (meaning you are looking backwards into the plasma trail being left behind from the spacecraft). The only other good high quality reentry footage we have besides Starship is that of the Varda capsule entering the atmosphere, and even that footage was only released a few weeks ago.

[@gulfy09]

CGI

[@notjebbutstillakerbal]

The vesta capsule released hd footage of reentry before starship

[@notjebbutstillakerbal]

​@@gulfy09 are you serious my brother

[@andrewparker318]

@@notjebbutstillakerbal I know, and I was stunned when I saw it!

[@petergerdes1094]

I think it's worth mentioning the reason that full flow staged combustion is meaningfully more efficient is that they don't use a stoichiometric ratio in the turbopumps. If they could then they'd be able to grab essentially all the energy in that fuel in the turbine. But heat considerations mean that what you throw overboard includes a bunch of unreacted fuel.

[@airbus7373]

1:53 there’s some footage of the shuttle reentry from inside the cockpit, and you can kind of see the plasma. But not from its outside facing cameras

[@Alex-lc1bv]

I remember seeing video of a falcon 9 fairing re-entry

[@andrewparker318]

@@Alex-lc1bv While that footage was cool, those engineering cameras lacked the infrared filter that all normal cameras use. This means that the colors were wildly inaccurate, especially in the first clip in which the plasma field appeared purple.

[@russianbear0027]

I've seen that footage from the shuttle I think. Its kind of flashing or pulsing irrc as its buffeted

[@tehllama42]

The 'other' footage he's alluding to is... awesome. It'll be cool when more people get to see it.

[@andrewparker318]

@@tehllama42 What's this "other" footage you're talking about?

[@Mr.Nin10do.]

Now you need to make a video on Mazda Miata

[@maverick114e9]

Who’s here after starship splahed down with a burned up fin?

[@BruceMartin-hi4of]

Yes sir

[@rkramer5629]

SpaceX could, right now, build expendable Superheavies for commercial payloads. It's basically what IFT-3 achieved. As much as I want to see both stages land successfully, I also REALLY want to see what kinds of crazy massive single payloads people can come up with! I believe Starship V3 expended is estimated to do 400 tonnes? As a baseline comparison, I think the ISS masses something like 420 (nice) metric tonnes...? Insane! And I'm here for it!

[@fulconandroadcone9488]

they could build much bigger ISS in only 2 launches? I want to see that

[@russianbear0027]

​@@fulconandroadcone9488that would make me feel loads better about it being decommissioned - if there was something to replace it

[@Wurtoz9643]

@@fulconandroadcone9488Remember that that is only mass-wise. You also need more volume to do that.

[@fulconandroadcone9488]

@@Wurtoz9643 still, that capacity is mighty impressive, can't wait to see someone launch something big soon

[@petef.4361]

One thing I would eventually like to see them use the payload capability for, is another space-based telescope. When telescopes like Hubble and Webb were designed, every last bit of weight added was heavily scrutinized, plus it had to fit inside of whatever was launching it. Even with those constraints just look at what Hubble and Webb has ALREADY given us, which is incredible. Now take those past size and weight constraints, and being limited only by Starship's capabilities, think of how much greater resolution, detail, and scientific data we could capture with a telescope that is exponentially more capable than ever before. The telescopes up there right now have identified planets in the "goldilocks" zone of habitability, but to gather more evidence or even proof of life on them, we just might need to stuff something inside the Starship capable of making such detections. We still might not find any extra evidence or proof, but the thought is tantalizing enough to spend the time, money, and effort to try.

[@kshaw90]

Can't wait to have The Expanse become real life

[@death00124]

I sure as hell don't.

[@TheLovescream]

Without the intense cold war, massive social inequalities and environmental destruction Im sure.

[@LuisSierra42]

The Expanse is the prequel to Dune

[@adidibrani]

​@@LuisSierra42and For All Mankind was a prequel for the Expanse

[@dahu0du0peuple]

Maaaaaaaaaaa😅 the show was not only good news haha

[@AudioThrift]

I had to pause at the end and reflect on how clean that transition into a sponsorship was. Genuinely impressed by that; not making fun. That’s exactly how we should do it as script writers.

[@aussie2uGA]

Sigh, you're young and think "slipping into a marketed spot" is clever. Advertising should always be intentional, not deceptive.

[@jasonwalker9471]

@@aussie2uGAThe best advertising starts by putting you in a frame of mind to consider whether the product being advertised is something you're interested in. This did that very, very well. Good advertising can help connect a person to a product or service that they need or want. The result won't be for everyone (no matter how well you frame it, you're not going to get me to consider an F150 class truck, because I don't want or need one), but it got the people who might be interested in the product to give it a good thinking-about, which is the best an advertiser can hope for. And it was clearly marked as a sponsored segment, so I don't think it was deceptive. Compare this to bad advertising, which tries to be clever to get people to pay attention to a brand name, thereby cementing the brand in people's heads whether they want it there or not. Things like the infamous "jingle" that advertisers often use, or any other form of viral marketing. Those aren't trying to connect a service or product with people who genuinely want it, they're trying to tickle people's broken brains in just the right way to get them to open up for a moment so the egg of idea can be forcibly implanted, Alien style. That's a terrible thing to do to someone's mind, and it's a source of amazement to me that that kind of psychological assault is tolerated (and praised!) in our societies. This video didn't do that.

[@AudioThrift]

@@aussie2uGA I also write KZbin scripts all the time and making a clean transition between segments is literally the job... so, no it's not a youth thing; It's a script writer to script writer thing.

[@HammerOn-bu7gx]

FYI: There is video out there of the Space Shuttle during re-entry when a TDRS was in the correct position. One can get it from NASA with a FOI application.

[@andrewparker318]

I've seen the shuttle footage before and it's practically unusable. It was all shot in standard definition on what appears to be an old VHS camcorder, and you only get small looks at the plasma field through the shuttle's windows. You don't at all see any of the heat tiles or how they react to the plasma, and it was all shot from the seat that was furthest away from the windows.

[@raffaeledivora9517]

​@@andrewparker318 If you actually read his comment you'd understand he's talking about a different one. 'Your' footage was shot from inside the spacecraft with an handheld camera and recovered after reentry, the one he refers to was recorded by a camera on the tail fin of the spacecraft and relayed back in real time during reentry (when alignment with the few relay satellites they had then made it possible).

[@andrewparker318]

@@raffaeledivora9517 Oh shit really! Goddamn I want to see this footage

[@andrewparker318]

@@raffaeledivora9517 Please if you have a link share it, I'm now dying to see it lol

[@andrewparker318]

@@raffaeledivora9517 Do you have a link?

[@brabecjakub]

I really hope SpaceX will share maximum quality footage from re-entry. I need to print it on the wall. Seeing plasma from livestream was incredible.

[@sebastianorye2702]

Knowing them, it'll come out. Remember, the team behind it is just as excited about all of this as we are.

[@bensharpe64]

I love seeing a channel with 4+ million subscribers talking about Starship, I'm sure it'll be mainstream eventually but so few people know about it right now other than "that rocket that blew up 3 times"

[@Pskpsi]

Hopefully not! The tone of the mainstream news sites I’ve read that covered the two most recent launches largely put them down as qualified successes, so my guess is most people that heard about it probably took that away from it. Granted, if you don’t follow this stuff semi closely and just read the first few paragraphs of an article before getting to the analysis bit, or just skimmed or saw headline on tv, then “it blew up again” could easily be the takeaway. I’m also an optimist so 🤷 For context I read about it on the BBC and Washington Post, so I don’t actually know if any 2-5 minutes of tv coverage that you might get on a CNN or Fox included the type contextual analysis you’d get from even a mainstream media article written by someone on the science/tech beat.

[@maciejzamecznik3146]

That will change. In few years Starship will be known as a rocket that bankrupted SpaceX.

[@MaticTheProto]

Lmao. „Mainstream“… as in what? Their dumb passenger transport proposal? 😂

[@bensharpe64]

@@MaticTheProto I feel like a big shiny mars lander will be pretty iconic

[@bensharpe64]

@@maciejzamecznik3146 LMAO 🤡

[@IsaacNewtongue]

That Miata analogy.. that's the first time a KZbin video made me cry.

[@nonenowherebye]

Towards the end, the shuttle didn't go into blackout. There was enough of a hole in the plasma cloud behind it that they could uplink to TDRSS the whole way down.

[@markzanetti6228]

of all the synopsis and analysis on this third flight, this is the best written one I have listened to. congratulations! keep up the quality work.

[@JigilJigil]

Fully reusable Starship will be the beginning of a new space exploration era.

[@SebastianWellsTL]

No joke! Full reusability is basically the holy grail of rocketry.

[@blackoppsman702]

​@@SebastianWellsTL The holy grail of rocketry SO FAR...

[@nedflanders4158]

Lol hardly reusable when the booster explodes or crashes.

[@dphuntsman]

I’d put it a different way; since the term space ‘exploration’, is misused. It becomes the start of an entirely new space Development era. - Dave Huntsman

[@billhartsford4820]

@@nedflanders4158 JigilJigil likely assumed that people would be intelligent enough to understand the "once fully operational" implication. I guess he/she was being overly optimistic lol

[@Lord_Merterus]

2:08 The shuttle didn't have blackouts after TDRS became operational

[@bryanttspross1456]

And what were they talking about middle-aged men in divorce cars

[@gulfy09]

Fake CGI

[@averiWonBTW]

@@gulfy09as opposed to real cgi?

[@kaiperdaens7670]

6:21 the exhaust gas can also be used to cool the engine/to keep it cool.

[@unotechrih8040]

A Real Engineering video about Starship? Don't mind if I do.

[@gulfy09]

Fake

[@tristanedwards1413]

June?

[@dogteam6178]

he's a time traveler

[@TheSlazzer]

nice!! 10:35, I was really hoping someone would stabilize this footage to show how much it was tumbling. You did it! Thanks!

[@aero_park]

Love the videos man. Keep it up!

[@Charmlethehedgehog]

I remember YEARS ago my friend didn't think SpaceX could pull off the >30 engine idea claiming that "the soviets tried and failed" (not the best argument, imo, but go off ig). It's great to see that they actually got them all to cooperate and not shake itself to pieces! This is unironically a HUGE leap forward for space flight as it means we can put MASSIVE (relatively) objects into space with so much more ease; we just need to get the actual starship under control during flight!

[@alvianchoiriapriliansyah9882]

Surprise surprise SpaceX engineers knows what they're doing

[@DontThinkSo11]

This is especially silly when you consider SpaceX already operates Falcon Heavy, which has 27 engines, and so far has never had a failure in years of operation. Your friend isn't alone though; you still see this kind of opinion all over the place.

[@wally7856]

@@DontThinkSo11 Falcon heavy has 3 separate systems so only 9 going at once for each system. 30 at once is a big deal as resonances can build up and shake the rocket apart.

[@jasonwalker9471]

@@DontThinkSo11SpaceX has had engines fail in flight, just like the N1 did. But it has advantages that the N1 didn't have, partly due to hindsight about what went wrong with the N1. Two of the big issues with the N1 were that they couldn't properly test the engines before launch, and that if an engine exploded it would take down the rocket. Thanks to poor quality controls on the initial run of engines, debris in the engines made the RUD of a single engine - and therefore the whole rocket - relatively likely. These were both solvable problems, but they didn't get a chance before the program was terminated. It was never really the number of engines on the N1 that was the issue. SpaceX has mitigated the worst issues the N1 had, which is lack of quality control during assembly, lack of test firing before launch, and lack of shielding between engines that allows even a multi-engine-out scenario to be potentially survivable.

[@geoffreygoffman3222]

@@jasonwalker9471I also think more sophisticated computers and therefore control systems allow for faster adaption to various thrust changes via gimbaling and throttling.

[@bexterollie]

This video is so much better and more accurate than all the other surface level starship videos. Major kudos.

[@leandroq1217]

As an aspiring future aerospace engineer, All I gotta say is, "space shipyard make funny ship hehe"

[@HuntingTarg]

YES. As Montgomery Scott might say, "That's the ticket laddie." kzbin.info/www/bejne/b2HImJKbp7SVetEfeature=shared&t=232 I've long held, and only recently run across, the view that the proper way to do interplanetary travel is to build things that don't have to deal with escaping surface gravity wells or reentry aerodynamics. Starship can be the first link in an interplanetary, intermodal supply chain. Which is why I think it should never have been called Starship to begin with. Now we'll have to think up something else...

[@Chuck.1715]

2:51 being able to put up more than anything before Starship is an understatement. The comparison is not my building is bigger than yours because of 1m longer antenna, in world of skyscrapers the comparison would be building Burj Khalifa while others are building at size of Empire State Building at best.

[@anthonypelchat]

It's a much bigger difference than that. Starship expended is expected to have a max payload of over 250t. The nearest competitor today is SLS at 95t followed by Falcon Heavy at 65t. There is nothing else at all in the SuperHeavy Launch class. The next most powerful that is in operation is the Vulcan Centaur (and only its most powerful and expensive version) and China's Long March 5. If Starship also achieves full reusability, it will be the cheapest of these options to fly as well. Its already cheaper than the SLS.

[@fulconandroadcone9488]

@@anthonypelchat I was at a construction site and saw a crane that has some 200t lift capacity, you can't describe it to people how massive it is. 250t going to space on a broom stick must be quite an experience, hope to get a chance to see it in person.

[@anthonypelchat]

@@fulconandroadcone9488 and just realize that even that is light. The full stack of Starship with it full of fuel is around 5,000T!!! It's also taller than the vast majority of buildings out there.

[@Chuck.1715]

@@anthonypelchatso what you are saying is that Starship can bring about 2,6x more than the best of anyone else (SLS) can do, so really I should have searched for random 318 meters high building, instead of 380 meter icon (Empire State) that anybody in the world could have seen the comparison between those two, where the height difference is 2,1x? Yeah, i know even my comparison is still not accurate, but at least it is imaginable for some people that likes Skyscrapers, and don't ask me why Skyscrapers when I cannot say I ever seen one.

[@anthonypelchat]

@@Chuck.1715 I was trying to think that, but really couldn't get a good comparison with skyscrappers. Probably the easiest comparison for people to visualize would be most rockets being the size of El Caminos or smaller, some the size of F150s, Falcon Heavy as an F250, SLS as an F350, and Starship as the Tesla Semi. lol

[@patrikd6769]

2:15 actually... the shuttle DID have a satellite relay system for communicating with the ground during reentry. it was called TDRS, and it generally worked pretty well. the shuttle had a transceiver on the top of its tail, which allowed the shuttle to communicate with the TDRS satellites above it during reentry.

[@papyrus_13]

I did not expect this video, But I am here for it💯

[@johnm8693]

My understanding is that at some time in Shuttle program there was no comms black out because there were enough geo stationary sats to communicate with it from the top side...

[@archierush868]

Starship uses starlink, SpaceX’s own satellite constellation system, which other companies, individuals and nations use to get high speed internet. Theres around 5,400 operational satellites in orbit, with a final goal of around 40,000 satellites, most of which will have satellite-to-satellite communication which allows for very low latency. It also allows SpaceX to get better reentry data for the Starship since they’re closer to it and theres a lot of satellites which could allow them to hopefully connect with one during reentry and not experience a blackout.

[@notjebbutstillakerbal]

​@@archierush868 those 40k satellites are in low orbit and may contribute to kessler syndrome, 8 think a better way to approach starlink is to put 3-6 geostationary satellites, and boom, whole world communications with fewer sats

[@archierush868]

@@notjebbutstillakerbalThey haven’t gotten the 40k satellites yet, they’re only at 5,400, and a geostationary orbit wouldn’t work that well for low latency and high speed internet. It would work, but not at the speeds SpaceX wants to give to companies and individuals. Theres a reason why they chose this and not geostationary orbit

[@AcdcTheRunePure]

@@notjebbutstillakerbalthat’d be ridiculously high latency. other companies already have GEO constellations too and the satellite internet performance shows the results.

[@johnm8224]

Minor correction at 00:40 - The second stage of IFT-2 also reached space (148km is well above the line), even if it didn't survive the full ascent.

[@Jason-gq8fo]

We gotta be sending probes to every single planet and moon as soon as possible using starship. Whether by refuelling it in orbit or by sending up a big kick stage and probe

[@HuntingTarg]

Why would that be necessary? To claim them before aliens? Or maybe China? Do you know about Voyager 2's Grand Tour? Or is there some reason I don't understand for wanting to 'send everything everywhere right away'?

[@EPGeoMetrica]

I imagine a time when spaceX makes a general mass production space probe that they sell to scientists, launched by starship and we can finally swarm the solar system with data gatherers

[@gulfy09]

They don't go anywhere. Firmament

[@Cara.314]

@@EPGeoMetrica dumbest idea ever.

[@EPGeoMetrica]

@@Cara.314 which one? Care to elaborate?

[@StarkRG]

For most of the Space Shuttle's operating life, it _did_ have the ability to communicate with mission control. It was low-bandwidth, though, so they weren't going to get video through the link, let alone high-definition video, which wasn't really a thing yet.

[@Triple_J.1]

They had a decent quality video downlink, but it was absurdly secure/encrypted. This almost resulted in an inflight breakup in the 1990s. kzbin.info/www/bejne/aZ_OaKSJq7SUgtEsi=bZW98gu6mCd2IpCw

[@hanschristianben505]

the Shuttle, on later missions, also didn’t had to contend much with radio blackout thanks to the Tracking & Data Relay Satellite (TDRS) system, enabling mission control to have continuous telemetry and comms with the Shuttle crew during reentry…

[@phakyou]

Those grid fins are the size of a truck and are of steel. And those actuators move them like they're made out of cardboard.

[@Triple_J.1]

The grid reduces or eliminates Mach dependent movement of the aerodynamic center. So the forces remain concentrated at the rotational axis. Meaning it only has to overcome the subsonic, lower torque value. An F-22 horizontal stabilizer at mach 2 is probably going to experience just as much, or more force, due to rearward shift of Aerodynamic center from the MAC/4 to C/2 position.

[@yazanalj1975]

Will you ever make a video dedicated to the Stealth Bomber ? I feel like it's one of the few remaining iconic aircrafts you didn't cover yet

[@weekiely1233]

Which one?

[@yazanalj1975]

Northrop Grumman B-2 Spirit

[@akkkbn]

The B-2? B-21? F-117?

[@arisliokis4796]

Thanks for another great video and the lightbulb moment for me, as to why we were getting reentry video from Starship! Such an obvious answer!

[@teguh.hofstee]

2:00 "first publicly available high-definition footage of a reentry plasma cloud" Varda in shambles

[@ryeb_]

Well it was the first that was livestreamed, idk

[@CoffeeMonster12]

Thats just the plasma trail, we have never seen the actual boundary layer irl. Plenty of other videos show the plasma trail, such as the Artemis 1 reentry and the F9 fairing re-entries. Fascinating stuff

[@bryanttspross1456]

It's hard to stage that footage in the studio😅

[@ryeb_]

@@CoffeeMonster12 If you take a look at the actual IFT-3 broadcast, you can indeed see a boundary layer forming in front of the left-aft flap. Pretty cool!

[@teguh.hofstee]

@@CoffeeMonster12 Fair point.

[@tonamg53]

Starship previous test flight did reach space. The karman line is 100 KM IFT2 reach around 140km-150 km when it blew up.

[@erinrizzo3004]

while NASA rockets orbit the actually fucking moon.

[@tonamg53]

@@erinrizzo3004 and SpaceX land their rockets on a barge in the middle of fucking ocean

[@notjebbutstillakerbal]

​@@erinrizzo3004 don't forget the viking missions and all the mars rovers

[@paulpease8254]

Excellent video, covered a lot in a concise way.

[@jochem1986]

How did you know I'm a sad, lonely person? Was it the popup headlights?

[@ankitnmnaik229]

Now they landed /splashed as well.

[@Darthvanger]

This is the most inspiring thing for me in this world. Thanks for the awesome video! ❤

[@xliquidflames]

Space X has also mentioned longer/taller variants of the Starship. They're going to be constrained by the height of the launch tower but right now the ship is 120m and they want to stretch it to 140-150m tall. That's just the ship, not the booster.

[@thomasreese2816]

The tower is multiple near-identical sections. Stretching future ones should be fairly straightforward

[@kittyyuki1537]

120m (or 121m with the vented interstage) is the total height of the stack, Ship + Booster. As of now Ship is 50m, Booster is 70m (71m with the vented interstage) Future versions of Ship might be 60-70 meters tall.

[@xliquidflames]

@@kittyyuki1537 Right. I should comment when I haven't slept for 2 days. Thanks for correcting that.

[@crf80fdarkdays]

​@@xliquidflamesget off the glass Harley mate

[@xliquidflames]

@@crf80fdarkdays I wish it were that. I have a painful disability so sleep can become difficult. If it were glass, at least I could quit. I can't quit pain. Wait. Glass Harley? Are you saying I ... I don't understand.

[@witchdoctor6502]

Starship is such a unique and briliant engineering project, many people don't even realize. Once operational the 100+ tonnes capacity and huge payload volume will change the space industry. Combined with New Glenn we actually could get space hotels, stations and infrastructure. Maybe not for the masses, but certainly more than few milionaires like now.

[@laujack24]

new glenn hasn't show anything worth its praise, space x already done over 300 flight with falcon 9 and 3 with starship. if any one think 1 single rocket from new glenn gonna cut it, they haven't been paying attention to how many rocket space gone through to perfect their falcon 9 and falcon heavy. I exspect starship to take similar number before they can clear it for commercial usage. until blue origin show something meaningful instead of empty words, they r not worthy putting next to space x in rocket engineering.

[@andrewparker318]

Once New Shepard and Virgin Galactic become more popular, there will almost certainly be sponsored giveaways of tickets that ordinary people can win or gamble for. It will still mostly be super rich people flying, but the masses will not be entirely excluded from participating.

[@witchdoctor6502]

@@laujack24 BO and SpaceX have wastly different approaches. BO is doing everything behind locked door, SpaceX goes for open field and fast iteration. BO is on track for thei launch in Q3 and the first launch is Mars mission, the way they work I expect them to nail it. Similar to the ULA and their Vulcan - not much info, then first launch and everything according to plan.

[@laujack24]

@@witchdoctor6502 not here to burst ur myth, but 1 single launch a year ain't going to do anything for its mars claim, get orbital first. the nasa/ULA approach to the current space landscape is the reason they will never be able to match space x.

[@mrtaztyz8759]

This is delusion

[@drfirechief8958]

I thoroughly enjoy your channel and the in-depth explanations given. I also enjoyed the Miata humor. But what I enjoyed most was the more positive tone of your episode than of many other channels that I've seen. They all seemed more excited about Starship failing then succeeding. Some of the details in your episode need a little clarifying. But I gave you license due to the rapidity of your production. I know you usually take more time to do your research. Still, I enjoyed it.

[@simonm1447]

It's hilarious how haters here try desperately to declare the launch to a failure - even if some things don't worked like planned it was never expected the reentry would work completely flawlessly at the first attempt. Compared to ULA who develop much longer Space X uses a different design philosophy with earlier launches, to collect data and improve the vehicle with the flight experience made with the prototypes. The success of Falcon 9 is a good proof how good this method works

[@madhoyen]

14:31 "Starship will allow Spacex to launch larger variants of Starship" 😂

[@thomasreese2816]

Not false...

[@meikhochakre3309]

​@@thomasreese2816**larger variants of starlink

[@planetsec9]

Starshipception

[@MarloSoBalJr]

Equivalent to: "The sky is blue because our eyes' cone cells process the different wavelengths, making said sky to appear blue

[@linecraftman3907]

Everything is goddamn star something in spacex. Starship, starlink, starfactory, startracker, startiles... Try to say all these correctly in a sentence without mixing up anything😂

[@JulianDanzerHAL9001]

12:00 well the main difference is the really blunt radius of starship keeps a lot of distance between stagnaito nand surface and thus basically buildds up an insulating balnket of stagnant air between the surface and most of the fresh airflow thats generally why spacecraft are nto designed to have pointy jetfighter noses or sharp jetfighter wings

[@hamzamahmood9565]

If SpaceX was like any other corporation, they would've doubled down on their Falcon 9 and continue to easily dominate the space industry with what is already the most efficient rocket on the planet. But no, whatever profits they make goes immediately towards designing the next generation of rockets and spacecraft, and this constant push for more innovation is what makes them very unique.

[@laststand6420]

Musk is a mad genius... Equal parts both.

[@erinrizzo3004]

They put all their eggs in one basket that’s pretty volatile and likes to explode? Seems like a great idea.

[@dryatish2102]

Every divorced middle aged billionaire 😂😂 got me..

[@pedrosantos4368]

AWESOME content as always!!

[@rickintexas1584]

My hat is off to the SpaceX team for creating this amazing technology. They are pushing the envelope in ways that were previously thought to be impossible. They have had some significant bumps in the road, but they will ultimately persevere.

[@tamboleo]

Oh boy you could see the sponsor seaway from outer space without any telescope needed

[@garylester3976]

The video clip you had of Starship rolling was better than any I've seen... And was able to get a clue as to the physics likely causing that particular roll style... it was an out of round effect, probably caused by the flappers being offsides and not being like three equidistant fins. You can get a demo of that effect in archery with an arrow thats lost one of its three fletch. Does that strange circular roll with an open center area. Suspect it might require going to three fins and keeping them mostly rigid and in line with center of hull. At least until less velocity. Personally I have my doubts about maintaining stability with the flying wine bottle aerodynamics. I throw knives, thats a hard effect to maintain in flight. Collapses into a tumble easily. I would suggest working towards passive stability....

[@TheEvilmooseofdoom]

The flaps and the fletching on arrows do very different things. I don't think you have any actual understanding at all.

[@garylester3976]

@@TheEvilmooseofdoom I know they do different things... but also know that effect when I see it.. Maybe you should think longer?

[@Mark_Bridges]

@@garylester3976 I think of it this way....Spacex is spending a bunch of money on this contraption, why the hell would you think they haven't done their homework on the aerodynamics? I'm no aero expert but even if I was, I wouldn't have enough ego to assume I knew better than them.

[@garylester3976]

@@Mark_Bridges I've watched them cobble stuff up since the beginning on Starship, and I've caused some corrections already. its not about ego, at least not from my direction. I do have to battle no small amount, just trying to help though... Proof is in the pudding... So far their re entry sucks. And they have several more similar ships in line, maybe we'll get to see a pattern if they dont change enough things. Funny aside: I've done writs online long term about the very stuff that seems to be problematic... Also predicted online days before that flight that I was confident in it going up, but expected problems on the coming down side... that it would not have an easy peasy re entry... Have counted coup on them fairly often....

[@arjundureja]

SpaceX caught the booster, what now!?

[@User122-ty]

Give me next billions

[@Alstrak]

There are no sad people driving mazda miata.

[@VishnuAi]

Yes but do you have a partner? Because that matters more then driving that awesome car.

[@humperlumper62]

Great informative video as per from yourselves 👍🏻👍🏻 Thankyou and a massive thumbs up for that👍🏻 keep up the good work.

[@andrewsus5411]

The F1 engines have always been a closed cycle engine, despite what the video says at 5:30. It redirects the exhaust gases from the turbine pumps into the central combustion chamber, as you can see from the distinct lack of the sooty side exhaust port off the side of each motor. Additionally it's mentioned that the turbine exhaust "doesn't produce any extra thrust in an open cycle engine", which is not the case; it's not a huge difference but there's a reason they're often on individual gimbles as it assists with small flight corrections

[@SpaceAdvocate]

It's open cycle. The exhaust gasses are not diverted into the main combustion chamber, they are diverted into the nozzle, where they are used for film cooling. If you see an F-1 engine firing, you see the exhaust plume exiting the nozzle surrounded in thick soot, and flames racing up along the sides of the exhaust plume, where the soot is combusting with the surrounding air.

[@bw_merlin]

The biggest advantage SpaceX has is that NASA has done so much of the hard work in the prior decades.

[@erinrizzo3004]

They still can’t figure out how to not make a rocket explode.

[@alexsiemers7898]

@@erinrizzo300496 Falcon launches in 2023 alone would beg to differ

[@netrox1345]

​​@@erinrizzo3004 look at falcon 9 how many times it blew up in the past. And look NOW how many launches had last year:) you are welcome! You will see the same thing happening with starship but the difference is that its more complex then falcon 9. Peace bro

[@erinrizzo3004]

The falcon nine mostly blew up due to trying to land the booster, but the starship has exploded each time due to problems that were solve decades ago@@netrox1345

[@erinrizzo3004]

I’m talking about the fucking starship.@@alexsiemers7898

[@scottymoondogjakubin4766]

I say we need to start focusing more on the progress of IFT4. !

[@OldRhino]

Rapid unscheduled disassembly. Engineering speak for it exploded. 😂

[@rickytibbits5971]

Nah that’s PR / KZbin speak. Engineers would just say it blew up.

[@WulfgarOpenthroat]

@@rickytibbits5971Specifically it came out of the Kerbal Space Program community, atleast AFAIK.

[@superbarnie]

@@rickytibbits5971 Nah I'm pretty sure its just a joke.

[@weekiely1233]

@@rickytibbits5971RUD is an engineering joke that has existed since the 70s It’s used as a light hearted way of describing explosive outcomes when it really doesn’t matter

[@OveranalyzingEverything]

​@rickytibbits5971 if you watch everyday astronaut, you'd know it's a joke

[@antonnym214]

No worries about Mars having enough water. There is plenty, right there on the surface; even near the equator. Just one example: At the west end of Valles Marineris is a feature called Noctis Labyrinthus, which is in the heart of the Tharsus region. The coordinates are 7°S, 93°W. There is a relict water ice glacier there which holds 36 billion tons or 8.7 trillion gallons of H2O; slightly larger than Lake Meade at the Hoover Dam near Las Vegas, Nevada.

[@Wurtoz9643]

And if you still need more you can make it from some of the fuel from the MAV

[@JulianDanzerHAL9001]

11:40 if you roughly calcualte the surface temperatures reached it actually popped abotu when they reached the point where steel tends to loose a lot of its strength

[@siliconhawk]

i am not the biggest fan of elon musk. but god damn i respect the engineers at spaceX

[@sizskie]

ikr at this point just hand the comapny to them. collective ownership > ceo cult of personality

[@weekiely1233]

@@sizskiethey’ve literally threatened mass walkouts if Musk gets ousted Like or hate his politics the guy knows his rockets and knows how to motivate and run his companies

[@erinrizzo3004]

I respect the engineers there, but I don’t respect their work because Jesus Christ it shouldn’t take you three attempts to get an orbit. Elon musk is generally a failure of a person.

[@lilcapz555]

No musk no space ex

[@prasanthp9159]

Why you don't like EM?? Curious