What Actually Happened to Starship Flight SEVEN!

[@TheSpaceRaceYT]

Check out CyberGhost VPN at www.cyberghostvpn.com/TheSpaceRace and you will get 84% off CyberGhost VPN. That's $2.03/month and 4 months free! It's risk-free with their 45-day money-back guarantee. Thanks to CyberGhostVPN for sponsoring the video!

[@beaumershon3066]

ads baked into the videos make me hate whoever being advertised. stuff em at the end so we can all click oak after the video

[@rivas97]

It was a sabotage from Marduck Mafia!

[@matthewwakeling4978]

We have had 40 years of computing security specialists telling us that any company throwing phrases like "military grade security" around is likely to be peddling utter trash snake oil.

[@ShonMardani]

A simple parachute and soft landing in the water can do a much better job than the stuppid catching it. All those heavy control wings and fins increases the weight and drag as well as aerodynamic negative effect. You will need lot more fuel for landing and the rocket exhaust gas burns and damages most or all of the engines (we see fire every time). And the most problematic is that parachute has only a few points of failure but rocket landing has thousands of points of failure and much less chance of success.

[@BeachinRC603]

@@ShonMardaniI see the point your trying to make but from my point of view this seems to be the best part of this new age spaceship that for a minimal amount of extra weight and fuel the booster comes back to point A less the aggravation of going out to retrieve being a whole other can of worms then another can of worms refurbishment of said Booster 🤔🤷‍♂️but think they’ve got it under control 😂

[@SilverMachine-bm4sj]

You really outdid yourself with this video. Perfect balance of technical and accessible, to the point and vivid. There are a lot of people making space-themed reports these days, but this one shows how it's done.

[@code066funkinbird3]

Vivid eh vivy

[@ronschlorff7089]

it is quite simply the "standard"!. : )

[@kellyrobinson1780]

I wish I could agree. I came here to get hard information on the failure, which was certainly delivered in the 2nd half of this video; But I could have done without all the fluff and chatter of the first half.

[@jimbo32234]

Appreciate your video. A lot of the videos covering SpaceX like to pad around 20 minutes of history into the footage but this was bang on. No lengthy intro, well explained, nicely summarised and interesting. Subscribed.

[@captjack2112]

Ty for doing a good job at keeping your vids short and sweet and to the point. So many drag them out when these actually get you better results in the algorithm

[@doodocina]

to the point? its about 10 minutes when he starts talking about cause of failure and he just repeats what musk tweeted

[@ronschlorff7089]

@@doodocina a reasonably "good source" that! LOL

[@John429-n7q8q]

Yep.. Year 2525 here, Still haven't fixed the bubble, sorry ice/debris poblem I see?, let alone video trik, sorry exploding knobnode at the tip? We have the same problem even with better graphic editors. Either way our people still have questions about 'trickery'. Most disenterz have been removed by 2525. Makes it so much easier to believe ourselves. 😮

[@John429-n7q8q]

​@@ronschlorff7089😂🤣🤣 hope he's not watching?😮 😬 I'm sure he's got it under control, explosion & all. Just hedging reality there🤥👍

[@ronschlorff7089]

@ yup, this reminds me, as a kid growing up in the "first space race", watching lots of rockets going "flume" on TV as I often skipped out on school that day to watch a launch. LOL. That's why it was such a "miracle" about the Saturn V booster and its flawless launch record, from tests to moon missions. The only "flume" was something similar to this, on the Apollo 13 command service module, on the space craft, an oxygen tank explosion. Fortunately, not fatal though, thanks to the then NASA and astronaut courage and ingenuity to bring them back home. : )

[@dcavanau1021]

Ellie in Space interviews a commercial airline pilot on the FAA processes, notifications, and re-routes of planes around restricted airspace. The pilot’s conclusion is that the current systems of notification and avoidance worked as they should and this was no big deal with no planes or passengers ever being in danger.

[@quicksesh]

yes, the system of rapid area clearance worked .. but the system shouldn't have to have been used in the first instance - the various ATC's and UK Space agency have a bit more to say than the political shills at the FAA.

[@twistedyogert]

A few people may have soiled their pants though.

[@ronschlorff7089]

@@twistedyogert Have you ever experienced a rough airliner landing? Yup, that is "brown trousers" time for sure, but this would have been awesome to see from the air. : )

[@ronjon7942]

@@ronschlorff7089It would have been, a once in a lifetime experience. Keep the stool sample. :)

[@chrismantonuk]

This was a really good insight into the flight. You pointed out lots of little details I’d missed on the first watch! Thanks 🙏

[@306champion]

I'm so glad it had a rapid disassembly and not an explosion! LOL.

[@neale3871]

Yes apparently it was actually a total success.

[@hunterkudo9832]

​@@neale3871yeah they caught the booster and saw how well their rapid dissambly worked.

[@emerj101]

😂

[@ronschlorff7089]

@@neale3871 yes, bottom half. ;D

[@Fooney1]

It's a joke from Kerbal Space Program. URD = Unplanned Rapid Disassembly.

[@unbannablebob395]

Excellent breakdown without a bunch of fanboying. I'll look out for further videos from you.

[@tidan4575]

Being a new version of starship, I kinda expected something like this to happen. A lot of new systems were being tried and tested and sometimes things don't always workout the way they're supposed to. A setback sure but they've already proven it can be done. Now it's just perfecting a workhorse version of the vehicle that will soon start sending massive amounts of cargo to orbit.

[@talon532]

Is that before or after they blow another hole in the ionosphere?

[@jakobusswart1376]

To be fair, it tears a hole each time it comes back to earth...but that hole instantly closes...afterall that's pretty much how we get the data feeds on re-entry

[@talon532]

@jakobusswart1376 Even so, not Ines that big and not one's that takes days to close. On top of that, more holes kept piping up days after the inital explosion. Musk needs to finds something else to invest in like mental Healthcare for his supposed "autism." Ecspecially after his Nazi stunt.

[@jackprier7727]

Lotta cheers for the blunt-end catch!! The pointy end fared less cheerfully-

[@neale3871]

Is the pointy end where the people and payload go?

[@jackprier7727]

@@neale3871 maybe next time-coulda, woulda, shoulda- pilot musk?

[@neale3871]

@jackprier7727 that'll be the day.

[@jackprier7727]

@ or he could hide in the booster, the part that didn't blow up, and rappel down to cheers from the crowd when they catch it!

[@ronschlorff7089]

@@neale3871 yup, there will be some "cheap seats" for sure. ;D

[@peppeddu]

You did a pretty good job with the limited amount of public data available.

[@richmaniow]

Great video, I did wonder about that flappy piece of material during the launch, needs a bit more glue lol.. Easy to forget as well that re-entry is such a brutal process, makes you appreciate the 1970's engineering of the Space Shuttle orbiter even more.

[@MervynPartin]

Excellent production. Straight in with the details and no waffling.👍

[@nullptr6650]

the "one big chunk" after explosion is most likely just the nose cone. we saw the same with other starship FTS explosions the nose cone always survives it is just too big.

[@danwhiffen9235]

Also, the nose cone doesn’t really have anything to explode (except for relatively small spherical header tanks) Having said that, they may need an additional FTS on those tanks…

[@i-love-space390]

And it has a heat shield, so it would likely partially survive re-entry, endangering people on the ground.

[@ronschlorff7089]

@@i-love-space390 yes, space debris falls all the time, for billions of years, but no one has been hurt by it as reported, ...........except maybe the dinos!! LOL ;D

[@sc1784]

These videos are great. Nice, concise and through explanation of what transpired. Thanks for posting.

[@jt9602]

Greg Scott made a great fast forward view of the tanks. It shows more detail of the depletion of the tanks.

[@loudelk99]

Failures are to be expected, in the late 50s and early 60s we had more rockets fail than we had successful launches. That is why we have test flights.

[@neale3871]

But NASA were transparent. Somehow SpaceX and Musk as BS artists. And the 50's were 75 years ago.

[@jackprier7727]

Back then rockets were quite new. Failures are to be expected NOW because musk is throwing NASA taxpayer $$ around to soothe his ego.

[@jlvandat69]

Those early failures are the reason went on to build rockets with a very high success rate, e.g., Saturn 5. Musk is reinventing the rocket and constantly introducing new technologies, so his failure rate will remain very high until he "gets it right" or Space X goes bankrupt. In the latter case, DJT (taxpayers) may bail him out.

[@jukeseyable]

really so 70 yrs of tech and engineering improvment counts for nothing. by the time of the appollo missions, the rockets stopped failing

[@Jebediah1999]

​@@jukeseyablepretty expensive way to do your failure.

[@aizukanne]

If it was an Oxygen leak, why was the methane running out faster according to the gauge?

[@Hungary_0987]

It might have been both, idk

[@thehound5794]

Elon is lying or clueless. Elon and his engineers can’t even make a car that doesn’t self-destruct. Supposedly Elon has some form of autism and OCD so of course he’s going to make things more complicated and more stupid than they need to be. By the way, Elon has an invented anything but he’s taking credit for a lot of stuff that’s been around for five decades.

[@_FightForYourFreedom_]

Excellent job explaining this! I had watched three or four videos on the topic before yours and it was still a little bit fuzzy. Yours is even more to the point and detailed than Scott Manley's, and that is saying a lot. Keep up the great work!

[@corvetteguy2629]

Very well explained better than all the others,thanks

[@harrymacdonald858]

IT'S A CARTOON LOON MAN ON THE MOON OoPS SORRY MARS.

[@ronschlorff7089]

@@harrymacdonald858 old liberal media (they thought it was "a waste of money that could better go to feed the poor", LOL) saying from the 1960's, it reminds me of it, "shoot a buffoon for the moon by June". But it was July 20th, first time, so they missed by a month, thus it was a "failure". LOL ;D

[@MorrisonLee-wt2jp]

Great commentary, spare, and relevant to the point without complicated (specialist) language for us non-tech guys. New subscriber. Australia

[@MrPossumeyes]

Thankyou. Shame about the explosion but that's what testing is about. And the booster catch was wonderful to watch! Glad no-one was onboard, and no-one on the ground got hurt (or worse).

[@maxmusterman6030]

I dont know man, So many starships going up, always new goals like the catching of the booster (which is nice, sure) but it feels like thats just distracting from the fact that we have a starship V1 which barley fly and lands (i mean i wouldn't want to fly with it at the moment, i guess you too), almost no payload capacity and now we get V2 which has a questionable payload capacity as well and the problems still occur. We all joked about Boeing but slowly SpaceX reminds me a bit if it.

[@i-love-space390]

OK. Let's see. You can add fire suppression in the area of the engine bay and increase the vent capacity. That will prevent immediate explosion risk. However, the leak is the more dangerous problem. If you don't fully understand why you had a leak in the first place, you are just putting a Band-Aid on the problem. The leak would eventually starve the engine, and that would cause the inability to de-orbit or land safely anyway ....... which would necessitate activating the destruct system and creating...... an explosion. So, since the FAA is wiser and less "optimistic" than Elon, expect the Starship to be grounded until a definite cause and mitigation has been implemented. And if there was any property damage on the ground, we may have to see a change in future trajectories, or maybe improvements into how small of pieces the flight termination system breaks the Starship into.

[@bpshaw8899]

I'm sure rocket engineers are desperately searching for your input

[@mymusicaccount1456]

Mecha Zilla needs a head and a hat. Absolutely crucial. Possibly paint the top half so it looks like a t-shirt.

[@ronjon7942]

You are so right!

[@pipersall6761]

Great report! Thanks for the clarification about the piece of metal that was flapping.

[@danielamic1236]

Yes Rico, now we go boom!

[@FrankRicchio]

So frickn' humbling! "What the mind of man can conceive and believe, it can achieve."

[@audistik1199]

I like this channel and have subscribed because it presents facts in a clear and effective manner. No endless fanboy stuff in sight. That’s what I’m looking for!

[@warrensawatsky8272]

I was on my sailboat in George Town, Bahamas and we watched the actual explosion directly above us. We saw the ship disintegrate and the debris streaks heading toward Turks and Cacos. I seen videos of the debris but none of the actual explosion, we then heard the sonic boom. Another boat anchored beside us videoed the entire event. From normal flight, exposion, debris, really amazing have watched it many times already.

[@SamanthaHough-i1z]

starship is called the worlds biggest firework :)

[@heartsky]

Excellent coverage.

[@ptp79]

Hey man, really liked the commentary. Very precise and brief. I subscribed and liked it too.

[@SihAza]

Great review. Only question I have is if that space above the engines over-pressurized from leaking and combusting gases, why don't we see burning flow coming out that opening by the flap (center of the video). It could be flowing out and just not obvious visually since very low pressure up there so a weak flame.

[@ralphgriffin2785]

Nice video bro. One of your best yet! I love your channel…you make technical information accessible to the masses:)

[@TheCiardellas]

4:05 doesn’t matter how many times I watch this it’s outrageous every time Mind blowing tech Never thought this was going to work Great job SpaceX!

[@AA-vs9kh]

“through Artemis” is the biggest load of BS tweeted.

[@HenryWong22]

Can't wait for Leon-Tusk to be on board

[@sumithwarnasuriya1896]

Good narration. Thank you

[@crotaflyingsolo4759]

With all the camera views available on the ship why aren't they showing the views up to and including the Disassembly?

[@talon532]

Because they didn't want the public to know what really caused the explosion. Classic cover-up by the government and billionaires.

[@curtisgrogan6106]

The only problem with this is can we trust that if a similar event is to reoccur that the debris won’t be falling in huge chunks into habitable places?

[@kellyrobinson1780]

The short answer is no. Nothing's ever assured, especially not where space travel is concerned. But every known precaution that CAN be taken, IS taken. The launch path is planned with "what if" in mind. To the extent possible, the path goes over uninhabited areas. All downrange areas are warned and cleared to the extent possible. Still, there are no guarantees. Some person or persons in the future may be affected by falling space debris, anywhere from property damage to multiple deaths. And the only thing for it is to respond to the particulars if and as they arise. "Not going to space" is not an option. SOMEbody is going to do it. It's in our DNA as humans. We've been to the moon, and we're going back. We WILL go to Mars, and possibly to some of the more interesting moons of other planets. And if it's at all possible, perhaps in a couple of centuries, some of us may go to other star systems. But for now, THAT remains impossible.

[@McMega33]

Great video. Such a smooth catch!

[@swainscheps]

“Take note of this scrap of metal, as it won’t be the least bit important later” 😕

[@peacecosmonaut176]

Great breakdown of what happened. Thanks!

[@AD-hr4is]

It did a Tesla boom.

[@FunkySpaceLord]

Just like a CyberTruck 😂😂😂😂

[@GVWOLF11]

Yes the cyber truck that had explosives in the trunk bed

[@michaelburnham4293]

300M tax money blown in a few min. Nobody doges better.

[@GVWOLF11]

@@michaelburnham4293you seem to forget that spacex is a private company not publicly funded, so no, not our tax dollars. Can’t say the same with blue origin as I don’t know.

[@Hungary_0987]

​@@michaelburnham4293no taxpayer money used, fully funded by elon and nasa

[@peted5217]

Pretty Kool how well developed 2,000 yo Chinese Fireworks Technology is 2day.

[@tonyportcullis488]

Glad we have so much space stuff going on. Exciting 🚀

[@ness8802]

Where does all the debris end up and surely it doesn't all burn up. Could it fall onto anything on the ground? Or sea

[@infantryrecon101st]

It’s all a learning experience and after all it was a test, I guarantee they won’t have issues after testing is complete.

[@sciencewarsveteran6424]

You guarantee 😂

[@infantryrecon101st]

@ Yeah, they haven’t had any issues in a real mission. Nasa can’t even say that, they’ve killed way too many people in their space missions. So yes spacex actually takes the time testing until that ship is 100% ready to fly safely with humans aboard. No one else in the industry actually cares like they do about safety. Boeing almost killed their crew if it wasn’t for spacex saving them. Do some actual research before commenting something so stupid.

[@HectorTerrazas-iq6ig]

“We like the rockets, the rockets that go BOOM” 🎵 🎼 💥 🚀💥 🚀😂😂😂😂

[@mikes7707]

Very nicely done 👍. No muck, just the news as it happened.

[@t.a.r.s4982]

6:09 About the sea level raptor of the s33, it's not exactly a raptor boost, which is the name given by spaceX to the 20 raptors of the outer ring on the booster. The 3 sea level raptors of the ship are gimballing raptors, same as the 13 engines in the center of the engine bay of rhe booster.

[@neale3871]

Is that revelant to the explosion?

[@Hungary_0987]

​@@neale3871doubt it

[@stevesloan6775]

Beautifully summarized!

[@Urufu-san]

The water on launch is not primarily for cooling but for sound and shockwave suppression

[@shrewm]

I thought it was so they don't destroy the launchpad like they did before.

[@Urufu-san]

@ Well, what destroyed the most was the pieces of concrete being blasted out of the foundation. The steel plate takes care of that now, and also the evaporating water helps dampen the impact of the thrusting motors and the shock and sound waves. Cooling is a nice side effect, but it’s relatively negligible compared.

[@jackprier7727]

@ glad you caught that. The certainty of that incorrect statement bugged me. First is the noise-suppression.

[@Urufu-san]

@ Yup, one of the great misunderstandings when it comes to a rocket start of that magnitude 🙂🫡

[@ianandalisonlord2051]

Oh yeah', And Wow Congrats to SpaceX on their 2nd gigantic baseball catch!! In Happy Hands!!😅😅

[@ronjon7942]

Wow - an extra 300,000kg of fuel for the test mass accommodation? How much did the payload weigh? Or rather, what was its mass? Edit - wow again: you did a really good job on this episode. Nice work. Edit again: The debris trails WERE spectacular. Beautiful. And terrifying. RIP Columbia crew.

[@karimblix4378]

It blew up, that's what happened.

[@FunkySpaceLord]

Ooooooooooo wasn't elons money

[@MichaelDavis-zu2ko]

You have heard of the concept of cause and effect, right?

[@FunkySpaceLord]

@@MichaelDavis-zu2ko Cause: Bad engineering Effect: Big boom

[@SirCavas]

Yeah, that's what you take away from this video if you don't care about the technology behind it.

[@dougaltolan3017]

In other news: Bang, faff about, heat death. History of the universe.

[@kumisz2]

excellent and concise explanation

[@forureyesonly]

Great information. What happened? It can be self termination or it can be out of control explosion. We don't really know. It could be the leak that eventually built up enough pressure and went boom. Thanks smart guy.

[@rogeredrinn4592]

This was well done, thank you.

[@eaglegrafix02]

Best video explanation of the event including #7.

[@ianandalisonlord2051]

Let's hope it goes better for SpaceX and all its hard working employees, for Flight 8#. Go SpaceX!!

[@djbennyboy1986]

Just notice at 2.23-2.25 you can see a tile fly off

[@lamarw7757]

💯

[@raydunn2582]

Holy Crap??? You saw that? I had to go over it 4 or 10 times to spot it.

[@johankriel8883]

Imagine being the tech who fit that tile.

[@danwhiffen9235]

Are you sure that’s not ice from the nose cone / header tank frost?

[@inqwit1]

There are very good details and pictures in this video. Do you realize that the name "Super Heavy" is used twice. This rocket is not the "Super Heavy", which y'all know is a combination of 3 Falcons linked together. Get your nomenclature together.

[@ronin7645]

This is why we test and develop. Rocket development suppose to fail until the bugs are worked out. Better now than when it goes live.

[@zagreus5773]

SpaceX is the only rocket company that fails this often and needs so many tests. Don't act as this is normal.

[@neale3871]

Who is we?

[@ronin7645]

@neale3871 - Any one who develops and test rockets. Duh. Rockets will explode when testing AND after testing while in service. You do recall 2 space shuttles exploding that wasn't in development, right? Or even recently, New Glen a couple of days ago not getting the booster back. Or the other countless rocket mishaps. It doesn't matter from what country or business, rocket development, and also rockets in service will experience issues. This is when you want problems to arise, in development.

[@neale3871]

@@ronin7645 none of what you say in dispute or answers my question. Who is 'we'? meaning do you work for SpaceX is all I'm asking.

[@ronin7645]

@@neale3871 - No, I do not. You should have just asked that directly.

[@IblameBlame]

I think Artemis V with Blue Moon will happen before Artemis III with Starship HLS, assuming 15 refuelling flights are required for HLS and Starship launches will be as close as 1 month apart. Only Blue Moon, the lunar gateway and the Cis-lunar transport haven't been flight tested in orbit yet. I won't make a prediction on whether Lanyue or Starship HLS will first land on the Moon.

[@atlantasailor1]

This is why we need a space elevator soon.

[@trickeruniverse1979]

Never happeninh

[@FunkySpaceLord]

A stargate would be nice.

[@youtubeisapublisher6407]

We will need rockets as big and bigger than Starship, flying more often than Falcon 9 for it to get done. Space elevators are not built from the ground up, they’re built from the equilibrium point at GEO down to earth and out to the counter mass, which will need to be about a million tons of metal, concrete, or some other relatively compact mass.

[@bridgetstoli2347]

How much does a 100+ mile cable capable of supporting it's own weight and cargo weigh? What would we make it out of? Anchoring the bottom would increase the stresses so you would need an even bigger cable. Not anchoring it might lead to wandering. Tidal forces bring even more stresses into play. A breakdown would be catastrophic.

[@aaexo6468]

A space elevator on the Moon would be much more realistic than on Earth. Cheap reusable rockets is the way to go for a gravity well like Earth today and in the foreseeable future.

[@JamesMcGillis]

Great analysis. No fluff or fanboy bs.

[@PDLM1221]

That wasn’t stainless steel flapping in the wind on assent, maybe covering of some kind but the stainless wouldn’t be that thin and flexible so that maybe Flexable heat shield ??

[@DavidHarris-qn7em]

From the engine location on the booster , my hypothesis is propellant starvation due to the rapid change in orientation.

[@PurpaFur]

I'm hopeful that they'll bounce back quick. Here's to hoping no lengthy drawn-out paperwork woes like we saw before flight 5!

[@ronfullerton3162]

A new sheriff will be in town come Monday. I think the FAA will be more business like and less political now. We know that Space X will have plenty of evaluation data on the FAA desks first thing Monday, and it will be on the bureaucrats backs at that point.

[@Rosatodi2006]

Oh yes, let’s rush to putting more debris in low earth!

[@neale3871]

With Musk involved in the government its more political now, it wasn't before it was all about safety. Would you fly in one of these?

[@jakobusswart1376]

​@@Rosatodi2006 to be fair, none of the test flights stabilize their orbit, so if anything does go wrong, the debris never has enough velocity to orbit so everything must come down...

[@ИванХристов-е1ы]

Thank you for the great video and explanation! You are the best! The most reliable and summarized information about this historic rocket! Starship will rule the space very soon!

[@johnwythe1409]

Is there any official report of debris falling on land or outside the debris zone. Flights being diverted so they don't pass through the debris zone is "in my opinion" a very safe move. Why risk the possibility of debris taking out an airliner. Go around, delay or return to the airport. I could imagine the FAA allowing them to fly under the the IFT7 flight path, with a warning/notice sent out once S33 blew up. I would think the FAA would consider anything under the flight path a possible debris zone until the ship reached orbit. If not then maybe they need to amend there policies.. I would think the no fly zone would be much closer to the launch site due to the time it would take to warn any aircraft. I would think at some distance the no fly zone would end and turn into a warning zone. "You can fly here, but be warned you might have to divert at short notice" Since all aircraft are in constant contact with ATC, should not be hard to warn planes in advance of any possibly danger. I guess all depends on how long it would take for debris to come down low enough to the level of airliners once the explosion was known. I guess we may find out in the coming days. When was the last time a rocket launch failed so far into the mission before reaching orbit. If large junks hit the ground or ocean maybe they still need to beef up the FTS.

[@feynthefallen]

What you say about the impact on air traffic actually only paints half the picture. There were a number of stranded airplanes that eventually declared MAYDAY fuel, and were forced to traverse the exclusion zone to get to a reachable airport at all. My guess is that the FAA was having kittens, and SpaceX can kiss its launch license goodbye until a new plan is formulated that takes the effects of a repetition of this event into account.

[@JapanesePiano1]

You are overexaggerating and spreading misinformation. You sound like a journalist. Many planes did divert. There were no stranded planes. One flight had to declare an emergency, thus the MAYDAY call, because that was a requirement to divert to the San Juan airport due to the number of incoming diversions. There was never a serious risk of planes running out of fuel. It only indicated the plane would be landing below its reserves. This is a result of the antiquated NOTAM system and the sclerotic TFR system. The NOTAM marking the debris came out too late, and there was not enough reaction time or warning to pilots or air traffic control, which is why air traffic was so chaotic. This should be a wake up call to the FAA and SpaceX to develop better system, but lets not blow things out of proportion.

[@i-love-space390]

@@JapanesePiano1 And how exactly do you put out a NOTAM earlier on an EXPLOSION that happens unexpectedly? How soon did the FAA get notified that there was debris falling from space? I think perhaps you are another SpaceX apologist for whom nothing Elon and Company do will ever be their fault. And the "fixes" Elon mentioned would only be a band-aid on the problem. Unless the source of the leaks are found and mitigated, it will sort of be "explode me now, or explode me later in the flight". And the FAA has to know exactly why the explosion happened or they will not sign off on another flight. And to not agree with that is negligence. And BTW I am NOT a journalist.

[@feynthefallen]

@@JapanesePiano1 Thank you for clarifying those points. The planes were indeed not stranded by anything but the regulations, and in aviation, people almost never let things degrade to a point where the airplane is in any actual danger. I am also aware that the declaration of MAYDAY was done to get the spot in the queue, that is to say not due to an existing emergency, but to prevent one. I fully agree that SpaceX and the FAA should wake up and smell the smoke. They have in my opinion been dangerously optimistic in their assessment of the potential dangers. At the speed of a rocket upper stage, the time between a serious diversion from the set course and the activation of the flight termination system could move the trajectory of the debris cloud by hundreds of miles. I think a lot of that is due to the fact that there simply aren't any reliable precedents for that scenario. We've literally never had any ship that size, and we haven't had rockets made from steel in a significant time. Had the ship been made from aluminium instead, there wouldn't have been half as big a problem, because much more of it would simply have burned up.

[@DishNetworkDealerNEO]

There is no reason I see to not attempt to recover the next booster, as well as repeat the same test hopefully after some modifications, successfully!

[@neale3871]

Wasn't that the bit that spectacularly blew up?

[@DishNetworkDealerNEO]

@@neale3871 the lower stage landed fine, it was the upper stage, a new Block 2 version the had the fire and blew up.

[@conceptrat]

Im sorry but didn't they say that this was an 'rapid unscheduled disassembly' so not them triggering a termination.

[@buddhabeach9666]

Finally one channel that opens up...

[@hvanmegen]

-12dB for everything below 100Hz and you're not making my eardrums crackle..

[@audriusg1536]

for sure spacex will fix whatever happened... amazing progress as always.

[@talon532]

Lmao "progress" sure buddy.

[@johnwythe1409]

Has there been any official report of debris falling outside the debris zone. Just because they diverted planes doesn't mean that. Maybe that was a contingency that was planned for.

[@jensbang5923]

Go space x!! Elon is not a nazi!!😂❤

[@ronjon7942]

Agreed, but don’t dignify that bs propaganda garbage with your time. Whenever the far left see something being accomplished, their jealousy manifests in trying to degrade.

[@bladehartman4993]

Well done space race🎉

[@FunkySpaceLord]

🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉

[@leokimvideo]

Just so sad Elon does not name his rockets, we really have no idea what used multiple times like the Space Shuttle system.

[@christopherkims]

A chance to relaunch in a better way ❤

[@TheRockIslandRock]

$100M light show! Thx Elon!

[@TheGalacticIndian]

Entertainment Guaranteed!🚀🚀

[@FunkySpaceLord]

Tax light show

[@Firebird762]

@@FunkySpaceLord it’s not tax money, and if you think that cost much, Americans spend 56billion a year on the Super Bowl

[@jackprier7727]

@ It's all part of a huge exclusive NASA contract (tax$$) and musk is failing timeline tasks constantly-

[@FunkySpaceLord]

@@Firebird762 SpaceX receives funding from the U.S. government to develop a lunar rocket. NASA awarded SpaceX a $2.9 billion contract in 2021 to build a lunar Starship for the Artemis program, followed by an additional $1.15 billion in 2022 for further development. This supports NASA’s goal of returning humans to the Moon. You really think Musk became the riches immigrant by paling for his own rockets?

[@johnrday2023]

This is great space info site - but why such long ads ???

[@Madhuntr]

only thing i think everyone gezs wrong is about the flappy piece. If that was some kind of metal it would have broken off pretty quickly due to metal fatigue. my bet is that it is some kind of rubbery or composite material.

[@Ale-bj7nd]

My opinion is that the first explosion was in the engine bay, the second one was the effective self-destruct. Regarding the debris and airline disruption, an explosion so late in the launch (almost orbital speed reached) was probably deemed improbable).

[@jimfoard5671]

Gort took out Blue Origin and SpaceX. Klaatu warned us and he's VERY MAD. This may not end well for Musk or Bezos.

[@alancoker1459]

Another video says it hit the firmament and broke part of it😂

[@lamarw7757]

They just got through cleaning it with Windex.

[@alancoker1459]

@lamarw7757 🤣🤣🤣

[@ronfullerton3162]

​@@lamarw7757If we sit outside the ice ring, the debris will not hit us!

[@FunkySpaceLord]

😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

[@dougaltolan3017]

😅

[@sepehragyt]

Short, sweet, and informative. well done

[@wpatrickw2012]

If there was no telemetry, how could they send a command for the second stage to self destruct?

[@danielreece8898]

Any info on that tear on the space ship ??

[@R0bobb1e]

How annoyed were you when you realised you'd left the L out of Aunched (Launched)?

[@ShonMardani]

A simple parachute and soft landing in the water can do a much better job than the stuppid catching it. All those heavy control wings and fins increases the weight and drag as well as aerodynamic negative effect. You will need lot more fuel for landing and the rocket exhaust gas burns and damages most or all of the engines (we see fire every time). And the most problematic is that parachute has only a few points of failure but rocket landing has thousands of points of failure and much less chance of success.

[@jakobusswart1376]

...and water landings defeat the whole point of the reusable rocket, Starships upper stage maybe but booster heavy won't be able to land on a barge like Falcon 9...

[@jakobusswart1376]

Also it doesn't damage the engines as a raptor from a previous flight was used in this flight, so they can definitely hold through the stress, especially where Raptor V3 is even more robust with even more power...

[@ShonMardani]

@@jakobusswart1376 : Parachuting in the water not powered landing.

[@ShonMardani]

@@jakobusswart1376 : They can not use those engines any more, they are burned and deformed.

[@fobbitoperator3620]

Answer to thumbnail question: "It done blowed up!"

[@nanovisty]

Looks like it’s much safer for the crew members to ride in the booster rather than in the starship. Lol

[@rantalbott6963]

I guess the people who signed up for the 2024 Mars landing the Elon has been promising for years are breathing a sigh of relief that that was postponed. Again. Although some may be worrying that they'll age out of the program before they get a chance to go...

[@garthbews4863]

self destroyed by tanks getting opened..leaves the noise cone to blast ahead but the "header tanks"would propel forward as burning out gasses for landing burn..speed+height mean its very minor traveling far..at that speed 1100 miles to surface contact,approx.

[@TheStarzzguitar]

Like I've said before they have not recovered any of the starships yet in one piece so what's surprising

[@jackprier7727]

NASA Taxpayer $$, easy for musk-