Starship & Superheavy Become The Biggest Rocket In Space.... Before Exploding

SpaceX finally got to fly their second integrated flight test of the fully reusable Starship & Superheavy system, the launch was spectacular, excitement had been guaranteed and excitement was delivered. The reusable part however remains elusive for now, but I look forward to seeing the next launch be even more successful.
Follow me on Twitter for more updates:
/ djsnm
I have a discord server where I regularly turn up:
/ discord
If you really like what I do you can support me directly through Patreon
/ scottmanley

[@ErikBongers]

The reason everyone in the SpaceX control room looked puzzled after the test flight completed, was because they were still waiting for Scott Manley's video to explain what exactly had happened.

[@maxonheadrick9339]

THIS

[@RedHair651]

😂

[@LinKongDa]

In the end, the Plumbing did the rocket in. Nobody cares about water hammer until it ruins their day. If Mario is on the team, I bet you this would not happen. But plumbing is NOT rocket science until it IS. hire a freaking Plumber spaceX.

[@DeathValleyDazed]

@@LinKongDaHow about hiring the Culligan Man😂

[@thePronto]

"They didn't reach orbit, so it's a failure. Just passing the Karman line doesn't qualify as 'getting to space'. Amirite?" - Jeff Bezos

[@markusrobinson3858]

Why are we not surprised that the best analytical video put out early is yours Scott! We're lucky you have such a good handle on the science of space flight! Thanks!

[@magnushem5130]

I was about to write the exact same comment! Thanks for giving us a prelimary analysis so quickly Scott!

[@Splarkszter]

Yeah, his years of experience and shear passion is what makes him so efficient at this, i love it.

[@bewilderbeestie]

It's not offical until the Scott Manley analysis comes out.

[@cube2fox]

That sleep is well deserved now 😴

[@tinto278]

Scott works for the PRC and gets data live from CCP analysts. 😂 Chicom assets all over KZbin with different accents.

[@ocker2000]

This technical analysis is what sets your KZbin channel apart from the other space enthusiasts. Thank you. I love it.

[@kurtiskuchcinski2628]

Agreed. Knowledge bombs. i love it.

[@GeomancerHT]

You can't beat knowledge with enthusiasm, that's why I stopped watching other channels.

[@jesusf.castillo9564]

yep

[@the80hdgaming]

Seeing all 33 engines working perfectly was awesome to witness...

[@rickyfitness252]

You didn't see anything

[@Olivia_Bennet]

We invite you to a vital event on December 2 at 17:00 GMT: *"Global* *Crisis.* *The* *Responsibility"* (international online forum). There will be voiced the information on which the fate of each of us and the entire civilization depends.

[@JoshStPierre]

@@rickyfitness252lol

[@Jackstermax]

Was definitely a relief!

[@JtM8292]

​@@rickyfitness252lol you must not have even watched then ! Cuz it was beautiful 🚀🤘💯

[@downshifthard]

It's amazing how you were able to watch the launch and flight and then create such a great analysis and theory all in one day. You're a machine. Great video as always sir!

[@cuisinartOH1]

I came here to comment on how great this video was but then I read this person's post... I couldn't do it justice . Great comment, sir! 🙂

[@trails3597]

@@cuisinartOH1 Yep, I learned a lot.

[@livethefuture2492]

probably started working on this immediately after launch, just to get his initial thoughts in while the experience is still fresh in his mind.

[@seahorsecorral]

@@livethefuture2492 He was sharing draft analysis with EDA on his livestream at 8:56:00 in only 86 minutes.

[@MTDucas]

i love the fact that the booster had all of its engines lit all the way to hot staging...so big improvement there....and the ship separating

[@Stormcrow_1]

I suspect that was aided by the engines not eating stage 0 this time. :)

[@futurespace2380]

@@Stormcrow_1i believe its more about the electricle TVC instead of hydraulic

[@iamaduckquack]

​@@futurespace2380I believe it's quite a lot of both.

[@CountryLifestyle2023]

I'm happy we got a launch 😅😅😂😂

[@oldfarthacks]

This is of course due to many things. First as Stormcrow said, it is easier to not blow up your engines if you are not throwing high energy rocks at them. Also, as futurespace said, the electric TVCs are far simpler and more reliable than the hydraulic ones. Also as we all know, the vibration profile on the bottom of the rocket was softer due to the deluge system. All in all, a well done must be said to SpaceX. They actually have a working Stage 0, an almost working Stage 1 and an almost working stage 2. This is massive. Looking forward to the third launch before Christmas. The really nice thing about this launch is that the only government agency that will be involved is the FAA and that should be simple. SpaceX already knows what happened, they have already discussed the needed fixes and will just need to implement them. This may be just a software issue on the main booster, change the way the turn and boost back is done. The Starship may also be a software fix, time will tell there.

[@ryanhamstra49]

NSF’s zoomed out view of the explosion was absolutely breathtaking. It looked like a nebula

[@Noxx55]

Can I ask for a link?

[@LordVilmore]

Thansk that was amazing. Just search for spacex NSF its a 4 min video

[@-108-]

It actually was, technically speaking!

[@vlakieste]

and they didn't even notice it

[@Olivia_Bennet]

We invite you to the vital event on December 2, at 17:00 GMT: *"Global* *Crisis.* *The* *Responsibility"* (international online forum). There will be voiced the information on which the fate of each of us and the entire civilization depends.

[@metallicamadsam]

the fact they didnt lose any engines, and then had a sucessful deluge and hot disconect, very impressive

[@Malc2169]

Could be argued they lost 39 engines…

[@metallicamadsam]

haha touche@@Malc2169

[@SwordQuake2]

Wow, the most basic task in rocket science is "impressive"...

[@zipz8423]

@@SwordQuake233 engines with consistent reliability - until the booster attempted to reorient is pretty impressive. Even then we really don’t know what was supposed to happen regarding actual shutdown order versus scheduling. Do we know how the FTS system works on the booster? Where are the pyrotechnics for example.

[@giovannifoulmouth7205]

@@SwordQuake2 lol clown the most basic task in rocket science is designing an engine with positive thrust ratio that works long enough to reach space

[@paulthepilot5]

I think the fact that 100% of the engines remained lit during the ascent and with no signs of engine rich combustion is a massive improvement and showing how much the raptors have progressed. They will definitely get some good data from this. If it turns out to have been a fuel supply issue on the booster during separation I wonder if a higher thrust on the booster at they stage will help.

[@MattyEngland]

Thrust is way too high as it is!!!! WHAT ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING?? 😢😢 These things should only be allowed to run on electric power... This madness has to stop before all the stray kittens end up drowning.

[@dylanwastakenwasalsotaken]

@@MattyEnglandman i hope this is sarcasm 😭💀

[@HelipOfficial]

​@@MattyEnglandlol

[@otpyrcralphpierre1742]

@@dylanwastakenwasalsotaken Makes about as much sense as all of the other global warming B.S.

[@Edax_Royeaux]

How considerate for the rocket to disassemble itself after use.

[@TrayTerra]

Watching the booster engines cut off cluster by cluster looked so awesome. Such a beautiful piece of technology.

[@andrasbiro3007]

The world's most powerful light show. 33 Raptors is about 100GW.

[@toolkit71]

Scott's explanation was worth a lot more about why "tank sloshing, etc." amazing analysis.

[@AFuller2020]

They went to the Moon 50 years ago with rockets built in Alabama and a guidance platform built by a lingerie company, are we that desperate for a win to call this awesome?

[@kkuhn]

But it doesn't work, kinda lame

[@aco2518]

Well if they didn't attempt to reuse anything this would be a thousand times easier lolol.

[@boyo2012]

Love my NSF and EDA channels but damn…no one gets right to the point with such class as Scott. Amazing work and breakdown 🎉

[@Connection-Lost]

I find the other channels to be scatterbrained and WAY too long. They intentionally bloat the videos to 20-25 minutes for extra revenue.

[@rrajcan]

Exactly. Scott is way better, or better say completely other level of analysis.

[@bearlemley]

Sir Scotty is such an accomplished speaker compared to NSF. He doesn't say "UM" three times in one sentence. NSF just slowly gives you speculation rather than facts asking the audience "what do you think? write it in the comments below"

[@rcpmac]

Those other channels are like high school rocketry clubs. Totally absurd.

[@falconeagle3655]

Amateur vs Pro. That's the thing

[@BobtheBuilder115]

The way you extrapolate details from simple video footage is astounding. 11/10 hands down the best description of this starship’s flight test.

[@Paul-ng4jx]

The one thing I can’t wait to hear about is how well the deluge system worked if there’s any damage at all from the launch

[@PromptCriticalJello]

There is a new dent in the tank farm.

[@XShadowAngel]

There are some overhead drone shots on reddit floating around, pad looks good. Scorched and dirty and wet, but no real damage.

[@ASAVSP]

​@@PromptCriticalJelloThat was from the shockwave from the booster! Damage didn't actually affect the tanks though, so its not an issue

[@patpierce4854]

@@PromptCriticalJello😮😮😮

[@logicbugs9452]

i do still think they should move those tanks a lil further back@@ASAVSP

[@markanderson1088]

Bro. How do you deliver such quality so quickly? I get excited every time Scott Manley posts, especially on days like today when big events happen. Thank you, sir.

[@rcpmac]

Because he’s an actual engineer observing events and developing a scenario. Stop watching those amateur sophomoric KZbinrs like NSF EDA.

[@ge2623]

Bro.

[@markanderson1088]

Lol I don’t. Scott Manley is my main source along with a couple other good quality KZbinrs. Still, his ability to discern and breakdown things and then relay them to his audience is incredibly impressive, even when you consider his background and expertise.

[@douginorlando6260]

In my book, the biggest milestone success is all raptor engines worked perfectly through separation. And Starship raptors worked great for almost the whole duration including first time in a vacuum. Raptor reliability is key.

[@oregonsbragia]

It mean’s nothing if the reentry system is a complete failure. All it would be good for is possibly an unmanned orbital refueling system.

[@paull3278]

@@oregonsbragia One thing at a time. Would have been nice if everything just worked, but at least the engine reliability and pad destruction issues were solved this flight. We can solve a couple more issues on the next one.

[@AndrewBlucher]

​@@oregonsbragia Too many extra unnecessary superfluous redundant apostrophes makes your meaning completely unclear. I'm guessing that you are a glass half empty person :-)

[@oregonsbragia]

@@paull3278 lol. They have know that the tiles are a problem for literally years now. If they had a better solution, they would have utilized it by now. I’m not holding my breath.

[@liwojenkins]

@@oregonsbragia NASA solved a lot of deadly problems with space flight after manned space flight was already a reality. That's the trajectory engineering takes.

[@timsullivan4566]

Thus far the most comprehensive and comprehensible early report of the test flight - Kudos and thank you, Scott! 👍👍👍

[@TubbyJ420]

i like to imagine the SpaceX team watch these videos and are like 'yup, scott came to the same conclusions as us, we're good.'

[@hyperthreaded]

Scott's post-flight analyses still manage to exceed my expectations every time. I should be smarter at this point lol. Truly amazing work there Scott, astounding really.

[@JuanVillamizarSC]

No shade on the other streams, but it's incredible how you manage to see and say so much in an 11 minute video. . Fantastic stuff.

[@pashabiceps95]

Exactly, watched everyday stream didnt hear anything apart from thanks and ads

[@ryanhamstra49]

To be fair, they are trying to do it all live. He also has the benefit of all of their video to go over. But yeah, he has the best engineering breakdowns.

[@JogBird]

the other streams sound like an NFL or NASCAR broadcast

[@LaughingOrange]

Scott spent 8 hours analyzing, while they were still streaming. They had to entertain the audience during all this time, and couldn't focus on the analysis like Scott could.

[@sandbridgekid4121]

Scott doesn't have to fill-up hours like the other space flight channels who were live.

[@Viracocha711]

As always, Scott delivers the best post launch coverage on KZbin!! Thank-you!!!

[@johaarup]

This is how rockets evolve at SpaceX. Journalists calling this a failure should watch the SpaceX compilation video of falcon 9's first landing attempts on a droneship.

[@kennethc2466]

Muskrat, please see the Apollo program for how spaceflight is done. Starship is a sardine can toy.

[@mlmmt]

@@kennethc2466 The Apollo program killed a crew, so far SpaceX has not, I would say SpaceX is doing better... Not to mention the fact that the apollo system was far far simpler and had much fewer things to go wrong (it was also smaller, and weaker).

[@viliamklein]

The whole thing was pretty successful, definitely better than the first flight. But there were clear failures of both the booster and Starship. I've seen fan boys claiming it's an overwhelming success, but I think that's too optimistic.

[@fed0t38]

So if it's a success are they moving on to the next milestone, like payload delivery or fuel transfer demo? Or are they repeating IFT until they achieve it's goal of successful flight? I don't get that obsession with sugarcoating.

[@mlmmt]

@@viliamklein Agreed, its more of a "well, we got further this time, and hopefully next time we get further still" until its doing the whole flight correctly.. since its unmanned, you can just keep refining the design each time until it works perfectly.

[@powang4073]

Always amazed by how much you can infer from just the official video footage!

[@drfirechief8958]

Having a scientist and a rocket nerd geeking out on space for all of us is priceless. You're always spot on with your after action analysis. A true blessing to us non scientist geeks. Thanks a bunch and keep up the great observations.

[@DerekWarner-m3q]

As usual, the calmest and most helpful analysis of this historic event, thanks Scott.

[@522549]

I got to see this launch today in person. Definitely was the most rewarding experience of my life, and thanks Scott for getting this analysis up so fast! Feels like you know more stuff then even spacex

[@xiaoka]

I hope some day you have kids. 😀

[@leonardothefabulous3490]

An explosion/complete disaster was "rewarding" to you???

[@LeutnantJoker]

@@leonardothefabulous3490 You are aware what a "test flight" is right?

[@leonardothefabulous3490]

Oh, didn't realize, "'test flight" means "explosion"? @@LeutnantJoker

[@donmalo2904]

​@@leonardothefabulous3490 Most often, yes. Please read a book.

[@AlexSchendel]

Incredible, well-made, and rapid analysis as always!

[@Posocogo]

Great analysis, Scott. I wonder if the starship created an extra fast flip - the booster really flipped quickly.

[@iamaduckquack]

It had to, right? The ship blasted it almost point blank in the dome.

[@jamesogden7756]

Completely dependent on the gas thrust used to push it away from the same trajectory. Too much? Maybe. Internal liquid propellants shifting in a water hammer effect? No idea. I don't have the data.

[@jwstolk]

The booster is designed to fly and land in worse weather than the Falcon 9 limits, and will eventually need tower-catch accuracy, so it must have plenty of maneuverability. Maybe they should not use 100% of that fro the booster flip.

[@ferdievanschalkwyk1669]

@@iamaduckquack correct, even a very small deviation off the centre, will exaggerate lateral forces. I think the flip was way more violent than intended and resulted in some of the internal plumbing being damaged, which is why they had engine relight problems. They will either need to reinforce it in some way, and/or have a really responsive RCS program.

[@Tsudico]

SpaceX added header tanks to Starship to help with the flip maneuver they want to perform while landing, perhaps they will add header tanks to the booster to reduce the amount of sloshing that can occur during the boost back flip.

[@WolfJustWolf]

That would make a lot of sense.

[@m0rtez713]

I had the exact same thought. They already have experience with it, so the implementation probably wouldn't be too challenging and it seems to work well.

[@Ahmar-kaleem1]

Well said and make sense

[@SlartiMarvinbartfast]

The boosters already have header tanks, they are just different from the header tanks in the ships (in the ships the tanks are in the nosecone, in the booster they are much lower down and consist of the methane downcomer and a surrounding vessel which is the LOX header).

[@Tsudico]

@@SlartiMarvinbartfast Could you direct me to a source that shows off the booster internals? I know about the methane downcomer (which might not have the capacity for the boost back) but don't know about the surrounding vessel for the LOX portion. I admit, I haven't been keeping up to date on the changes from one booster to the next, so it'd be great if you could direct me to some place that has such information.

[@lewishudgens]

WOW Scott, what a mad scientist you are! (MAD RESPECT!) You are the ONLY one to notice the accelerating Oxygen loss and figure out what actually happened! BRAVO!!! Keep up the great work my friend! We're lucky to have you!

[@livethefuture2492]

That Purple Jet of flame and those perfect mach diamonds coming off all 33 raptors firing perfectly in unison was the most beautiful sight i've ever seen! Congrats to SpaceX for this incredible launch spectacle! Can't wait for the next test flight. GO SPACEX!

[@cynvision]

for me I think Starship is always going to be the big purple rocket in my mind.

[@sirseven3]

Yeah one of the last crashes was pretty diassapointing because you could see and hear it breakup. This burn was a LOT better! I'd say there was an issue when unpairing that caused failure this time.

[@stephennelson4954]

@@cynvisionI hate you now. Because I read that and my internet degen mind said. _Thanos Cocket_

[@barnett25]

@@sirseven3 IMO it would have taken a miracle for everything to go right in the hot staging and burnback process of this launch. The complexity of that operation is insane. I suspect that portion of the launch profile will be more challenging to get right than the actual landing and catch process.

[@DibzNr2234]

I'm surprised how well it held up through it all, would never in a thousand years have expected all 33 engines to make it to stage separation, plus minimal ground damage this time too, can't wait for IFT-3

[@pawelczech133]

Scott never disappoints with the amount of imformation he can pull from such videos :)

[@YearsinSeason]

Man… the shockwaves coming off of stage zero at liftoff was insane! It would be interesting if they ever tested the atmospheric pressure at take off. I’m certain that it’s crazy.

[@danielpassigmailcom]

IIRC each shuttle launch hit the maximum/minimum vacuum pressure possible in Earth atmosphere. The sound waves produced by the shuttle launches were so loud they were literally clipped by the ambient air around the pad

[@ThatOpalGuy]

Launch pad*

[@texasforever7887]

It was also at the same frequency that male alligators use to growl at each other when challenging for territory and mating. Each shuttle launch cucked every male gator within 1000 miles.

[@danielpassigmailcom]

​@@texasforever7887 i wasn't joking that is literally true what i said. At 194 dB, sound waves create vacuum regions in Earth's atmosphere and the Shuttle launches were 204 dB

[@olecranon]

Thank you for this analysis. It's pretty cool that we can see the propellant levels during a livestream with enough accuracy to notice rate changes like that.

[@ClayMann]

This brought tears to my eyes. The sheer scale of the thing is truly stunning and I can only imagine what it must be like to get anywhere near that monster. I know nothing but it felt like a success to me.

[@FTW3152]

I can tell you that being there this morning, tv or computer monitors do not do any justice whatsoever for how bright the exhaust plume is. You could clearly see the shock diamonds but it was much brighter to look at in person than I would've thought. The rumbling of the engines when it got to my location five miles away was beautiful and everything I hoped it would be. I had two friends with me who put up with my love for astronomy and they were wide eyed the entire time and just said "Holy shit that's beautiful" when the first stage exploded.

[@ClayMann]

Of course I'm super jealous and hate you lol Thanks for sharing that though, I felt more of the emotion from the reaction other people were having and I got swept up along with it. @@FTW3152

[@andrasbiro3007]

@@FTW3152 33 Raptors is about 100GW of power. That's a medium size country's total electricity consumption.

[@dirtypure2023]

​@@andrasbiro3007Is that jiggawatts??

[@MattyEngland]

​@@andrasbiro3007How many dead polar bears does that equate to? 😢I think we should only have Electric engines in rockets, these ones are going to push global warming over the edge and we will all boil in our own sweat 😢😢

[@danbreyfogle8486]

Your channel Scott is my go to for fantastic analysis and replays of what happened. Thank you for all your work on the launch.

[@stevecrye]

Excellent, thorough, brilliant analysis! Exactly what we've come to expect from you Scott.

[@doitbeforeyoudieful]

ye dude knows his things

[@MikeOxlong-]

This was easily and by far the most detailed and best summarized commentary and analysis of this launch (and by a long shot)!! Thanks Scott! 👍

[@sleepdeep305]

Insane looking, I had my alarm set but I overslept! All of the engines lighting for the ascent perfectly, the insane Mach diamonds, the successful hot stage of starship, it’s all so much better than last time. Let’s see if they can relight those raptors more reliably!

[@my3dviews]

I woke up just by random luck and it was about to launch. Didn't even know that was happening today. But lucky that I got to watch it live. Way more exciting that way. 😂

[@Freak80MC]

I literally couldn't sleep because I was excited for the launch. I woke up and caught Everyday Astronaut's stream about 20 minutes before launch.

[@johnm8224]

Thank you Scott for pointing out that a lack of TOTAL success does NOT mean it was in any way a complete failure.

[@LeeJamison100]

Nor even a failure at all. SpaceX is finding things out in flying that can't be found out in computer simulations. This is especially true on a vehicle built so close to the raggedy edge of what is possible.

[@cantinadudes]

It wasnt even a failure. The goal of these missions is to collect as much data as possible. Aside from re entry they got every data points they aimed for

[@iamaduckquack]

Why does everyone lack nuance these days? There were both successes and failures in this attempt.

[@MyKharli]

Total fail , the launch should have been sorted on first launch as that`s the easiest bit by far . You be saying if they crashed with a hundred souls on board it would be a partial success as all the engines lit .

[@WayneBagguley]

This thing will never fully work, they've already failed.

[@OldMan_PJ]

It's worth noting that even before it lifted off they stated that they were only hoping the hot staging to succeed which it did; the flight was a success.

[@tiredoldmechanic1791]

I believe it's what con men call lowering expectations so success can be claimed in failure.

[@bob456fk6]

The commentators didn't sound totally confident. "Maybe it will....maybe it won't...we'll see"

[@rizizum]

@@tiredoldmechanic1791 I mean, you can't make the biggest and most reusable ever made in the first try

[@steveharrigan7811]

I recall the first booster recovery didnt go well either........Now it's foolproof.......Same here....This was a successful test.....( Space-X is so far ahead of NASA, it's embarrassing )@@tiredoldmechanic1791

[@AnonD38]

@@tiredoldmechanic1791No, it’s what engineers tell lay people when they test a prototype, because lay people only see an explosion and think it’s a failure. In conclusion, if you believe the flight was a failure, skill issue.

[@dewayneblue1834]

Note that for any other company, or any other country engaged in heavy lift launches, the booster would have deemed to have been 100% successful, as only SpaceX cares about re-use. The booster delivered its payload exactly the way it should have.

[@WilhelmImperatorRex]

Note that, until they are not able to fix this, they are just like everyone else...

[@dewayneblue1834]

@@WilhelmImperatorRex Cool story, bro. Name anyone else who has ever launched 250+tons into space as SpaceX did today.

[@deth3021]

​@WilhelmImperatorRex no they aren't, as no one else is even trying to do this. But nice cope bro.

[@steppahouse]

​@@WilhelmImperatorRexGood...good...let the hate flow through you...

[@WilhelmImperatorRex]

@@deth3021 Honey, i hope the succeed, but until now, they have along way to go...

[@smavtmb2196]

Anyone calling that launch a failure doesn't know what their talking about. IFT-2 was a fantastic improvement over IFT-1 and Starship actually made it into space. I hope SpaceX got lots of very helpful data to make nessassary improvements and launch again asap.

[@MegaLoquendo2000]

We're getting closer to interplanetary flight asap and we still fight over what fking rocket made it faster made it what over more stable towards earth orbit than what made it pretty fast

[@SlartiMarvinbartfast]

Unfortunately most people don't know what they're talking about, particularly the casual observers, because they are fed lie after lie after lie by the media.

[@autodidact7127]

Its become a political issue. The media hates musk now becuase he represents sanity and sane views. Thus anything attached to him will be subject to literal double speak titles. Its completely political now and annoying.

[@a_kazakis]

To be fair, the bar was set extremely low with the first attempt. The only way it could be worse is to explode on the pad.

[@offdagrid877]

For once I was glad of the launch delay so I wasn’t at work to miss this. Fully successful test as far as SpaceX were concerned from what they said the objectives of the flight. Test it break it and rebuild better.

[@marcusrauch4223]

Pretty much same for me. If it would have happened as planned on friday, I would have missed it, because I was on my way home.

[@rwfrench66GenX]

I have no doubt the SpaceX consider this a success. It’s certainly job security! Inventing rocket science could be monumental for human kind. Oh wait, space agencies around the world have been doing this for decades, my bad. But SpaceX is using the biggest rocket, fueled by methane, a gas that is 80 times worse for global warming than CO2 according to the EPA. Burn baby burn! 🔥 Yeah, the heavy booster exploded, the second stage exploded, but the engineers keep getting a paycheck! That is a success by Millennials standards!

[@AthosRac]

That's the soviet way.

[@Supraboyes]

its a joke

[@tzkelley]

I love how massive explosions are always a huge success for SpaceX. It's a theme for Musk.

[@clytle374]

On night shift and rushed home to watch the launch, then too excited to sleep. I was very revealed to to see all 33 engines run the whole launch, the shock diamonds in the whole plume was awesome. Great analysis and breakdown as always!!!

[@LoserInChief]

Same!

[@Jonasastrophotos]

Kinda odd we didnt get a single onboard camera view this time

[@hudsonsimpson4122]

Ik right

[@alexhajnal107]

They posted them to Twitter but there was no-one there to see them. (JK)

[@CountArtha]

Honestly, the fact that all 33 engines finished the stage 1 burn and the launch pad survived liftoff makes this a successful test.

[@vicroc4]

Had this been an expendable rocket, this would've been considered just shy of a complete success. The only milestone that wasn't accomplished was reaching orbital velocity. So, yes, SpaceX has a lot of work to do, but this was so very close to getting there.

[@TheGrunt76]

@@vicroc4it failed as the mission didn’t go as it was planned and vehicle was destroyed prematurely, so I don’t understand how this can be touted as a success. Biggest rocket in the world didn’t even reach Freedom 7 level of apogee. And it seems to be very expendable rocket, because launches tend to end in a massive explosion. This thing should be operational, including crew rated second stage, for Artemis in two years. So far SpaceX hasn’t delivered anything which even remotely shows that they can indeed deliver. Even if they get this candle doing basic rocket things, they haven’t even scratched the refueling or anything relating this to be useful for manned missions. This is incredibly embarrasing situation for Nasa.

[@vicroc4]

@TheGrunt76 Yes, of course, the mission didn't go as planned. I want you to watch the footage from the first attempt, though, and still somehow deny that significant progress was made. Let's also remember that for every test flight - which, yes, this was a test flight - there are a list of objectives that need to be achieved. For this one, you had: 1. Light all 33 first stage engines. 2. Liftoff without destroying the pad. 3. Pass Max-Q without breaking up. 4. Hotstage without damage to Starship or Super Heavy. 5. Land Super Heavy. 6. Starship attains orbital velocity. 7. Starship survives re-entry. Their first flight didn't achieve any of those objectives. This flight achieved 1, 2, 3, and 4. And once they get the data analyzed from this flight, they'll be much closer to achieving 5, 6, and 7. That's how iterative design works - Build, Fly, Analyze, Modify, Fly Again. Every time it fails, you look at what went wrong and change it so that it won't fail the same way. Maybe not the most efficient way of doing things, but it's a good way to absolutely guarantee that the end product works. Now, as for why it's taking so long, I want to ask you something. When did SpaceX have the whole vehicle stacked for the first time? That was quite a while ago, yes? Why didn't they fly then? Oh well, they were waiting on regulatory approval. Now, what entity has to provide regulatory approval? Oh yes, the same government that runs NASA. Which seems to insist on shooting itself in the foot. Edit: Oh, and as for it not attaining "Freedom 7 level of apogee..." Go watch Everyday Astronaut's video on suborbital vs. orbital spaceflight. Freedom 7 was downright easy compared to what Starship accomplished here. So easy that Blue Origin and Virgin Galactic are doing it on a fairly regular basis. This is several orders of magnitude more difficult. And SpaceX already goes way beyond Freedom 7 on a regular basis with the Falcon 9, so they know a hell of a lot better than you what it actually takes.

[@NotOurRemedy]

@@TheGrunt76NASA has already embarrassed itself plenty with SLS and Orion being 6 years late. 100% over budget. For a rocket that was obsolete when it hit the blueprints. SLS uses engines from the fucking 70’s. If NASA congress wanted a lander by 2025 it shouldn’t have waited till 2021 to give a fuck. It was a success it’s successfully getting data to the builders and it’s progressing from its first test.

[@Overt_Erre]

@@TheGrunt76 afaik they're cleared for 5 launches per year. Do you reckon they need more than 10 launches from now to have a workable result? The engines hold up. The stage separation works. The mars-fit water-cooled launch platform works. As Scott says they likely have an issue with the their tank and fuel management systems not coping with stresses. And the heat shield needs touch ups. This could be fixed by changing the 1st stage burn parameters to take longer and lower the stresses on the 2nd stage, plus changing the chemical formula for a sealant/binder a little. I fully expect this to be "fixed" in 2-3 launches tops.

[@EvanPang-w4i]

0:52 Me too, I think this was a successful test flight: it got further than ift-1 and there were many noticeable improvements too! (All engines running, successful stage separation)

[@alexturnbackthearmy1907]

First one would`ve been just as good if they didnt feed it full with fresh concrete.

[@scottcox9108]

It looked like a normal launch compared to the last one. The last one just didn't seem as erect

[@DanStaal]

Importantly, all failures look to be in systems not previously flight tested. With SpaceX’s launch philosophy, failures in systems that haven’t been flown previously are to be expected.

[@Edax_Royeaux]

They wont be able to see that hot staging did to the booster because the booster blew up so that's already a huge setback.

[@DanStaal]

@@Edax_Royeaux If they *expected* the booster to make it back to the ground, they're idiots. I fully expect they have enough telemetry data to have a good idea what happened, and how to fix it next time. Will they be 100%? Probably not - since that's not how SpaceX operates. They get something that they're 80%+ sure will work, then test it to see what goes wrong.

[@clevergirl4457]

What an amazing launch! so much better than IFT-1, they really showed their iterative design philosophy at work. Scott you just have to be there, on location, for IFT-3!

[@kennethc2466]

What an utter failure, showing the 'design philosophy' is hot garbage.

[@ricksimon9867]

"iterative design philosophy" ... aka lame excuse that only silly people buy

[@NuclearFalcon146]

@@ricksimon9867 Are you smoking something or are you a bot maliciously designed to sow cynicism?

[@clevergirl4457]

@@ricksimon9867 what’s the most prolific launch vehicle in the world? The one that’s landed over 200 times? I wonder how they learned to do that? 😃Overnight perhaps…a fluke maybe.

[@ricksimon9867]

@@clevergirl4457 That's like praising a super reliable car as if the manufacturer invented cars. Falcon is progress, not revolution.

[@wadewilson524]

That was an absolutely spectacular first stage explosion! It it was the flight termination system… good test!

[@Widestone001]

I hope you slept safe, Scott! Thank you for another great analysis - it was exciting to watch this one being so much more successful than the first, and I am reminded of Falcon 1 flights 1 and 2. They didn't get very far either, but each further than the last and we all know how that ended, so I am honestly hopeful for Starship! 😀

[@robertstuck3214]

This is why I watch your channel. Great analysis. No one else is close to the technical reviews you give. Keep up the great job.

[@HarryNicNicholas]

what a great second go, i have to say having spent the last 50 years wishing i could get into space i found the fact this went so smoothly a little emotional. i might actually see a base on the moon, and a human on mars. i remember as a kid getting a little plastic spaceman carrying a UN flag out of a box of cornflakes - it's taken us way too long to become interplanetary.

[@jasonpatterson8091]

And it's going to be a truly horrible compulsive liar who controls the company that decides how we get there because we've given up our government's ability to get into space in favor of purely private enterprises. Super.

[@odysseusrex5908]

A UN flag? That's interesting.

[@Thatonepersonyouheard]

​@@odysseusrex5908*Conspiracism intensifies*

[@GeekyBrian96]

​@@odysseusrex5908can sell it more areas? Idk

[@AnonD38]

@@ThatonepersonyouheardHonestly I‘d rather the first human planted flag on Mars be a flag representing all of humanity, not just any one country.

[@Targus28]

The video we've been waiting for. You can always trust Scott Manley to come to the rescue.

[@richardwarren449]

Thanks Scott. Yours is by far the best summary and analysis of the flight. This is the kind of detailed information I like. Not a failure at all!

[@TheJttv]

Well worth getting up on a saturday! I can't believe all the engines worked!

[@jonahcovarrubias8132]

love hearing your analysis Scott!

[@ezekielteklaking]

I agree that the issue is with the fuel feeding system. I brought this issue up when SpaceX first did their belly flop maneuver and the tanks didn't have enough pressure to get fuel to the engines at the rate they needed. Then comes the introduction of the header tank and a fuel pressurizer. I know SpaceX is used to to thinking out of the box, I think it would be cool to see some sort mechanism that forces air into another tank in the booster which is used to pressurize the fuel tank, or some some sort giant pump in the tank. The issue is there is a lot of high velocity physics happening and the thrusters being starved for fuel and air at the rate they need it. Realistically 'we' need a solid mechanism for fuel delivery to the engines. The changing of speed, direction, weight, mass, fluid and pressure dynamics all are working against each other.

[@iamcomcy]

Header tanks in booster specific for the flip maneuver? Or just shut down after Starship engine ignition, followed by a Falcon-type flip and reignition.

[@gordonstewart5774]

If they waited until the 3 engines settled the tanks, then restarted the rest, it would have been less of a shock.

[@u1zha]

I bet that they have cameras in the tanks and they'd be able to see where there was sloshing or cavitation, and fine-tune the staging sequence...

[@ryanhamstra49]

⁠@@gordonstewart5774except one of the middle 3 was out pretty early, so either it was damaged by the other one failing or it also ingested bubbles. I’m wondering if once the hot staging starts,kill all engines let it coast through the flip then relight. With the ship firing literal feet from the booster it flipped a lot faster than a falcon does

[@KnugLidi]

@@ryanhamstra49 Massive forces at work to flip a 70 m long 200+ ton object that fast

[@empdisaster10]

In all honesty, you’re probably one of the only channels i actually Trust to give me unbiased facts about space and rocket details when it comes to things done by companies. A lot of KZbinrs who cover this either are obsessed with Elon and say he does nothing wrong ever or hate his guts and refuse to acknowledge anything

[@s.cottrill]

I can not fathom for the life of me why the News media is calling this a failure. It by far was a success as it went way further than before and SpaceX got so much data from this launch with minimal damage to the launch pad. This was an awesome morning seeing a 400ft rocket take off hit stage sep and get close to space well technically in but not orbital. WAY TO GO SPACEX can't wait for the next.

[@Khronogi]

They dont understand the engineering cycle.

[@Edax_Royeaux]

The Artemis 3 mission is now in jeopardy, there's plenty of reasons to call it a failure. Good on SpaceX for collecting data, they may have just doomed their moon shot exploding their rocket to see what happens.

[@acidtreat101]

And who do you think is going to produce a new moon lander at this point? haha @@Edax_Royeaux SpaceX is going to have another 10 launches of Starship before another provider could finish one example of the lander.

[@stephenfidler1005]

They thrive on controversy. Bangs = bucks

[@GlutenEruption]

A lot of journalists and media in general has a bit of a hate boner for Elon and are just looking for any reason to revel in schadenfreude even if it’s a complete lie. I mean I lost a ton of respect for Elon over the last few years as he’s gone further and further off the deep end and I’m especially disappointed reading the stories of how he has essentially stopped deferring to the advice and expertise of others who know better and now just fires or cuts off anyone who dares to tell him he might be wrong about anything, but rooting for SpaceX to fail out of spite is the definition of childish.

[@rodgerraubach2753]

Good engineering analysis, Scott! Propellant sloshing is a good candidate for the RUD.

[@StoneUSA]

Rewatching the relight sequence in slow motion has me thinking if they would have had the same problem had they just waited until the three center gimbling engines slowed the vehicle down enough to stabilize any sloshing. Because if you'll notice those three engines stayed lit until they tried firing up the other ten.

[@LeifurThor-qu2bz]

The heaviest object to ever leave a launch pad, what is it 5 times the weight of the Saturn 5 rocket, all rockets successfully lighting, not 5 rockets but 39 rockets!, a successful separation, I personally am continually awestruck at the never ending successes SpaceX continues to produce which if the media fails to mention is light years ahead of everyone else…

[@davetremaine9688]

On the second time the full stack left the ground it got to 90% orbital velocity. The improvement from the first test to the second is crazy, for literally every system involved. Launch pad is still there, launch was held less than a minute, ALL 33 engine lit and ran perfectly for it's first job, successful light of all engines on the second stage and hot separated. There's like over an hour and half of engine running time worth of data to learn from.

[@oregonsbragia]

Did you see the heat shield tiles falling off like dominoes? I have said from the beginning that it is going to be the Achilles heel of the whole operation. Without a viable reentry, this is all just a very very expensive pipe dream.

[@danmacgowan8242]

Everyone trying to diminish Boosters success. If Elon wasn't trying to make it re-usable, it already would be a hugh improvement over SLS/SaturnV/Shuttle.

[@oregonsbragia]

@@danmacgowan8242 except that is the whole point of this design. If it doesn’t work, it’s a failure. Moving the goalposts closer doesn’t make you a success.

[@davetremaine9688]

@@oregonsbragia Yea and I bet in April you were saying "Yea but did you see the crater in the ground? The programs done for this time"

[@olasek7972]

@@danmacgowan8242no, contrary to Starship SLS actually achieved both orbit and trans lunar injection

[@firewing1319]

So they have to nail the turn rate of the rotation of the booster and also the vector turn rate of the booster to maintain some amount of downward pressure on the fuel. The flip would pull some fuel/oxidizer from the upper tanks away, plus the overall change in direction of the booster with inertia of the fuel would also pull fuel away from the motors until the flip is completed.

[@gajbooks]

I'm guessing it's something as simple as them not throttling the core engines up after the hotstage leading to negative Gs because Starship was pushing SuperHeavy the wrong direction. They probably went with min throttle possible for SuperHeavy to let Starship get away as fast as possible but that seems to have been a bad idea. Clearly they knew there would be an issue with settling after the flip because they instantly lit all the center engines to try and get as many positive Gs as possible, but it wasn't soon enough. There might be something they can do with their piping as well.

[@adamsteinhardt6393]

Excellent analysis of this launch. They are so close! Amazing what they’ve accomplished, but the last 10% is gonna be the toughest. Still, I bet they will learn from this, it’s conceivable that they already know exactly what failed. Personally, I think the heat shield will be the most difficult thing to solve

[@tonyduncan9852]

After that, traveling at one G*. But those tiles will have to stay on, no matter what. * It takes 2 ships and a rope with a hook at each end..

[@lukekambic3536]

​@@tonyduncan9852It's not clear if 100% tile coverage will be necessary. Temps on the broad sides of the ship may stay well below the melting point of 304 stainless and the refractory fiber blanket that underlies the tiles will provide some insulation. Hope we find out soon.

[@barnett25]

@@lukekambic3536 True, although keep in mind just like with 9/11 the melting temp of materials is not the only thing to worry about. The physical properties of metals begin to degrade well below their melting temperature.

[@DisorderedArray]

@@lukekambic3536 maybe 'warm' gas would sit in a pocket made by a missing tile and help protect the surface underneath?

[@lukekambic3536]

@@DisorderedArray Yes that could help too depending on positioning. The Shuttle survived reentry with damaged tiles on multiple flights despite having a low melting point aluminum-lithium frame.

[@rkellerbe]

I have watched a few of the post flight videos and as expected yours has been the best. Please keep up the awesome work.

[@craigdeandean4036]

Scott I thoroughly enjoy your clear and concise debrief of these launches keep up the great work thank you very much!!

[@michaellee6489]

I liked that cheeky "3 phases of Starship:" 1) Launch 2) Staging 3) R.U.D. Thanks for your intelligent and thorough breakdown lol.

[@CraziFuzzy]

This was my immediate thoughts on the booster's flameout on restart - fuel delivery - whether from reverse g's from starship's kick-back, or from too aggressive a flip maneuver - or most likely a combination of both.

[@WarttHog]

I was wondering if the aggressive flip was in part because of the kickback. It looked like a rough ride!

[@CraziFuzzy]

@@WarttHogI think the flip rotation rate was intentional, trying to get that return burn as quick as possible to minimize return fuel usage (the longer they wait, the further downrange the booster coasts). Think it is likely a bit too aggressive, however.

[@Kr0noZ]

@@CraziFuzzy I wonder if they should just not have the booster running during staging, then use cold gas thrusters to initiate the flip and stop it (while having the kickback from ship give it some extra power), use thrusters again to stabilize the fuel before relighting the engine. I can't imagine it would be easier to reinforce the plumbing to take fluid hammer from several tons of propellant or gas ingestion over waiting a couple seconds longer. Sure you increase fuel use for the return trip, but stronger plumbing likely increases weight which impacts fuel use during ascent as well.

[@WarttHog]

@@CraziFuzzy Could very well be true!

[@CraziFuzzy]

@@Kr0noZThat would be the exact opposite of what they want. If they stop thrusting the booster, they would remove all inertial 'gravity' from the liquid fuel and oxidizer tanks, causing an unpredictable shift in fuel levels. I think they need to keep the center three burning after separation, as the much higher thrust to weight of starship would still easily separate away, , and have booster's cold gas just slightly nudge the booster off of it's previous course to quickly get out of starship's plume, then make it's rotation back towards the launch site under the center three alone. Once stable in that trajectory for long enough to stabilize fuel liquid levels, then they can throttle back up to boost back towards a landing - yes, more fuel use, but FAR more fuel stability. As it is, throttling back up to 'power slide' is just WAY too dynamic.

[@chrismaverick9828]

I can't help but feel that there are retired NASA and JPL engineers looking at this and saying "Yeah... That's why we didn't do powered rapid flip maneuvers of fueled large-body rockets."

[@BeckOfficial]

I'd still say that the heat tiles will be the biggest challange with this rocket. I've been skeptical from the start, but I really hope they figure it out. But this launch was so much better than the first one. The fact alone that all raptor engines fired and kept fireing up till stage seperation, and that stage seperation went well is a huuuge success!

[@ryanhamstra49]

Agreed. I’m curious how many it can miss considering it was originally supposed to not even use tiles. I’m wondering if the propellant will work as a coolant if there is a few missing, kinda like if you take a paper cup and fill it with water then stick it in a camp fire, the bottom of the cup won’t burn because the water cools it. Although I can’t remember if there will be any liquid left in the main tanks or only in the headers. If there isn’t any liquid then it wouldn’t work.

[@GBR9794]

Starship is a waste of money. Buran and Reusable Energia rockets (Energia II) are the proper way. There will be no fancy flipping maneuvers, just booster-flying-like aircraft returning to the airfield.

[@Mole.mp4]

@@GBR9794waste of money my ass, how is old heavy technology we havnt proved somehow better the relatively light tech we know works. Dumbass grandpa stuck in the past

[@M167A1]

​@@GBR9794well good luck with that..

[@Zonkotron]

@@M167A1 if Russia had not started to return to a nerostalinist cleptocracy post 2000 and USA to a right wing idiocracy post 2001, we might have well seen such technology eventually evolve......if you check Buran II out, it is one of the sanest concepts i have ever seen.

[@drshoe8744]

That was Beautiful, the Mach Diamonds, the Hot Staging, even the Booster "Sploding" that kind of looked like a Nebula, that thing was well worth the wait, now hopefully they can get ready for the next launch faster without having to rebuild the Launch Site and the government agencies can work a little faster doing whatever it is they do.

[@Deathven1482]

Based on how the launch went, likely they won’t have to do too much to the pad! So happy that deluge system worked as intended

[@revbem141]

The booster flipping that fast definitely caused a lot of sloshing.

[@Martinit0]

Not only that, but it also slowed down, which means that propellant likely sloshed to the front end and engines might have ingested gas.

[@Kr0noZ]

@@Martinit0 not to mention all that liquid going forward means it's impacting the internal bulkheads with quite a bit of force.

[@i-love-space390]

Glad SpaceX made it further and avoided destroying Stage 0. But it looks like we have a long way to go on Raptor reliability. I wonder why SpaceX didn't ignite all the engines required for boost-back BEFORE they started rotating and sloshing all those propellants around? Why don't they have these problems on Falcon 9? Do the thrusters do ullage burns to settle the propellants on Falcon 9 before boostback?

[@KsNewSpace]

For me it was an absolute win when I saw all the engines lit on ascent. Just beautiful! World record!

[@user-mc6lv7mu9p]

Great job Scott! Never stop doing what you do! xxx

[@enoughofthis]

Spacex should hire him as an observer and RUD analyst

[@2meters2]

Very good observations on the failure of both the first and second stage, Scott. Makes total sense.

[@nigelwilliams7920]

I hope that SpaceX gives us a few videos from the dozens of cameras they had on board. These would all have been running and sending data until RUD. Over 60 cameras in the booster engine area along. A closeup of stage sep would be great to see.

[@mgabrysSF]

02:00 - Flashes coincident with flashes. That's like. so deep...

[@Noel_Jaco8]

😅

[@Clark-Mills]

Well it was also a thorough test of the FTS too! :) All in all, a major step up; let the Starships now please form a queue.

[@df1ned]

Its so cool the way the shockwave is visible during the initial engine ignition

[@LuMaxQFPV]

Yeah... I have never seen clouds quiver like that before. It was very cool to witness.

[@catbertz]

This test was glorious to watch. So futuristic to see that sleek giant with 33 raptors blazing away. Looking forward to the next test in the new year!

[@alexhajnal107]

N1 has entered the room.

[@Creapture]

I cant tell if the video at the start is a mockup or the actual footage. What a time to be alive. EDIT: I think it was the clean footage stabilization and the jerky lag like motion at 0:18 that made it feel almost game like, and the last time i watched this channel was my Kerbal days yeaaaars ago. The first thing I thought of was "Man Kerbal nailed down their smoke physics".

[@MegaLoquendo2000]

Great use of what a time to be alive, you can't deny that history is being made as we speak

[@seabeepirate]

This was a triumph, I’m making a note here, “huge success”, it’s hard to overstate my satisfaction.

[@malloot9224]

The engine being near pure white at some point was so extremely sci-fi looking. Amazing launch, im sure the next one will be a large step forward again!

[@fensoxx]

The back end of that thing reminded me of all the ‘70s sci-if mock-ups of spaceships

[@Acklon]

This is pretty well following the first 4 Falcon launches in SpaceX's infancy. We will see if anything rears its ugly head in Flight 3 as it took until the 4th launch of Falcon 1 before it was able to fully complete the mission profile.

[@JBM425]

Plus, with 33 engines, there is only so much testing they can do on the ground. While NASA was able to perform a full 8-minute firing of SLS in a test stand, that was of a system with “only” 2 million pounds of thrust, whereas Starship’s first stage generates 14 million pounds of thrust… it’s almost impossible to perform a complete hot fire of that in a test stand. The only way to truly get data on Starship is to fly it.

[@mrobviuos74]

That shock wave at 0:05 when the rockets first ignite is AWSOME! It looked like a legit moderate sized high explosive went off. That is really cool imho. Sorry.

[@talktoyourself]

Wow, that's a hell of an analysis so quickly! I hope the SpaceX team sees this in case they overlooked anything. Awesome video, fly safe Scott!

[@michaeldeierhoi4096]

Since the Space X engineers are especially familiar with starships inner workings better than anyone I would be surprised if they diagnosed the problem after one look of the video. The remedy may be a bit more challenging, but I'm sure they'll figure it out.

[@ketelin4285]

@@michaeldeierhoi4096 Probably more fuel baffles .Anyway it was a glorious show .

[@Sonnell]

Again, your analysis is the best. Thank you Scott! :)

[@pseudononymouse]

Scott, your analysis is just fantastic. You are already on top of so many possible causes. So cool. Thanks!

[@vincewa2142]

This is always such a spectacle to watch. I wasn't born when the first rockets were launched into space or for the first man to land on the moon. But I feel like this will be what gets remembers the most about the space race during my generation. And of course landing rovers and drones on mars but this, this is on a whole different level. To watch a rocket half a football field long launched into the air is just breath taking.

[@jetblackstar]

I normally wait for your analysis videos to come out before watching anything else (bar the livestream ofc 😁). Usually the most detailed. Very surprised to see it come out hours after launch. Usually a day or so, and usually worth the wait 😊 Thanks for your speed on this occasion.

[@largesleepermadness6648]

As always, what a great explanation of events and the possible consequences of why things happened. Your definitely a gift for space enthusiasts.

[@BallisticDamages]

Stayed up all night until 5am to watch the launch. Managing to get past the hot staging was already a success in itself, and all in all, I feel They're going to gain a massive wealth of data from this flight. Looking forward to see what the team there improves next!

[@andret4403]

Did they get past separation successfully. It's too early to say that. Both booster and Starship failed soon after. Hot separation may have contributed to both failures.

[@BallisticDamages]

@@andret4403 I was more referencing the fact it didn't immediately explode, which in my unprofessional opinion implies that this is a viable strategy to improve efficiency with some more fine tuning. Either way, cautious optimism is my preferred stance, I love seeing them trying new things.

[@andret4403]

@BallisticDamages My only point was that it's too early to say hot separation worked as it could have caused some conditions or damage that started a chain of events to the failures. It was a gamble to increase payload. Space X seems to have deep pockets to afford such risks. But will FAA be kind to the risk? They had 2 vehicles exploding raining debris over two areas, which is no small matter, especially if it comes ear land near population which it should not.

[@4RILDIGITAL]

I totally agree with you, Scott. It's really important to focus on the improvements between the two missions. Yes, it didn't go as planned, but let's consider all the factors that went right this time around. It's all about learning and progress, not immediate perfection. Looking forward to the next launch. Fly safe.

[@karangohil203]

This was one of the most exciting launches of all times!!!🔥🔥🔥 (At least for me...)

[@kennethc2466]

Nothing like watching a POR PROFIT, PRIVATE CORPORATION, spend over $4billion tax payer dollars, for utter failures the Apollo program never had. You know, the guys who sent men to the moon via a spacecraft designed on slide rules and graph paper.

[@glomph]

Well, you never saw the Apollo/Saturn V launches. Much better than Elmo’s soup-can crotch rocket.

[@tatelyle1]

@@glomph. Oh, I think this was better than Apollo. Mind you, Elon has not roasted any astronauts yet… T

[@ekspatriat]

I watch Apollo and now Starship. They are both great. By the way you seem to be having issues. Can I help?@@glomph

[@kennethc2466]

@@glomphWatched 13 and 14 in person. The Saturn V was a real spacecraft, unlike the MuskRat's explosive sardine can 'starship'.

[@SimonWanner]

At T+0:07:01 part of the exhaust looked a little greener than I would expect. Maybe one of the engines began burning engine rich at that point. Of course it could also be possible that atmospheric effects just make it look green.

[@marksinclair701]

There is definitely a green spot there, but I think....it shows up earlier as well. I see it only on the top side.

[@alexhajnal107]

A color-corrected version of the video would be interesting. Use the average sky color as the grey point or somesuch.

[@KayKay0314]

This might be a crazy idea, but it may be far easier to do a complete shutdown at hot staging, flip and then use ullage motors to settle the fuel again and then relight the engines. Either that or reconsider landing on a oil platform. I have no idea how much they will have to modify the flight profile to get this all to work.

[@iamaduckquack]

Shutting down all the stage 1 engines wouldn't be hot staging, would it.

[@gajbooks]

Yeah, I think SpaceX is trying to cut costs a bit too hard vs putting a few ullage SRBs on each stage.

[@alexhajnal107]

@@gajbooks Ullage engines add mass. Using the primary engines doesn't.

[@KayKay0314]

@@iamaduckquack Why not? I'm saying don't pause and separate like Falcon 9 does. Just light up the Starship engines and shutdown the booster engines at the same time and flip as fast as you can, then use ullage motors to settle the fuel for about 5 seconds (I'm guessing) and fire up the engines for boostback. I have a feeling whatever they do to fix this issue is going to negatively impact the overall mass anyway.

[@bencarley6896]

this is really encouraging to see, I remember the very early days of the first starship mockup and seeing it come so far is so exciting! This has only been a few years, imagine the progress in the next 5-10 years! Look at the falcon 10 years after, what a beast, if starship can succeed in the same way imagine where this will put humanity. Awesome!