LIVE: SpaceX attempts third Starship launch 

I was honestly shocked at how long those cameras kept up. It was stunning

And its the first live onboard of reentry as far as i know!

It didn’t make it through re-entry…It burned up while spinning out of control. An abject failure again!

@@fldiggerI can understand how an ignorant person might see this extremely successful test flight as a failure. I’d try and explain it to you but I seriously doubt you’d understand.

​@@fldigger Agreed, this was the most successful Starship failure yet!!!

can't believe they did the elevator type low bidding turntable music for starship that sounds like Musk idea.

At what minute mark does that happen?

@@neohamsters wake up and smell the roses! The whole thing is a Musk idea

The music reminded me of music played during "The Love Boat" TV series from the early 1980s.

Lift music 🎵🎶

i had an aneurysm reading the live chat... people are so ignorant these days.

Sad but true

and starship desintegrated in reentry

Did it?

Ha ha…3 total mission losses = a fantastic job!! How many total losses did Saturn 5 (~60 years ago) and Space Shuttle (>40 years ago) have before the first human launches….that’s right ZERO. Starship is a monumental failure…Total loss of booster and starship in all three test flights is not something to be celebrated. It’s been a $3B loss of tax payers money so far and will never make it to the final mission goals. Go look at SmarterEveryDay’s presentation to the combined NASA “experts” where he’ll point out that learning from our predecessors is the most important first-step which has been totally ignored by a corrupt NASA buyer (who now works for SpaceX) and a bunch of group-think MuskTards.

​​@@fldigger tax payer's money? SpaceX is a private company and privately funded. Which rock do you live under. How many Astronauts died during the Apollo program? How many Astronauts died during the shuttle program? It's better to lose billions and get it right than to lose previous lives. Your ignorance is amazing.

⁠​⁠​⁠@@fldigger this flight was a success, the booster did exactly what it should during ascent and only failed at the end of the decent. Even if it blew up right after stage separation it would have been a success and just done what every expendable first stage has done. The ship performed its burn flawlessly and if they were aiming for an orbit and to not test reentry, that launch could have put 200 metric tons in to LEO. They did have control issues at the end meaning they had an unstable reentry but they still would have gotten valuable data from it. The way that spacex are developing this vehicle is not the same as the SaturnV or Space shuttle were developed. SpaceX aims to push the limits of a not fully fleshed out vehicle in order to get real data about its characteristics. The way the SaturnV and space shuttle were developed is to design something to work right away. Also, did you forget about what happened to Colombia and Challenger?

So that makes you a Blaspheming fool...!!!!!!

And the fact they got as far as attempting landing (in the ocean) provides invaluable data on how to land correctly

Every test shows the improvements.

Yes everyone gets a ribbon!

@@andrewwilliams9419 - Go SpaceX!

Me

not much

@@Awaken2067833758it’s probably too complicated for you to understand. Hence the saying “it’s not rocket science”. Don’t feel bad, it’s a lot for some people.

Absolutely.......... Just came up to point out that strange headline of "Space X attempts third Starship launch" Obviously requires some proof reading.

I should clarify, they can actuate to steer, no need to fold though

The idea is that instead of having heavy hydronic pistons to raise and lower the fins, which could be a point of failure, they instead have them fixed to the body of the craft and pointed in a way to cause minimal drag.

Pushing over 10 million pounds straight up means the drag from them is negligible at best. The best part is no part, so a massive mechanism to bring them into/out of the body would be an awful deal, both in complexity and payload.

​@@qwerty112311 Not having the heavy hydraulic components (to extend folded-in fins) also reduce weight. SpaceX has mentioned the drag on the extended fins are negligible during liftoff.

"Best part is no part" -- Elon Musk

At this rate it will be a usable space ship by 2060.

@@heathwirt8919And any other company would take 4X longer. You have absolutely no clue. You’re commenting on things you no nothing about.

@@heathwirt8919 And yet Starliner will still be useless by then, with NASA still trying to get SLS to the moon. How's your rocket company coming along?

@@toadsauce8091 Fanboys have to fan.

The reason is X (Twitter)

They stream on twitter now.

Twitter is dead in the water.

@@horatiobeaker Lol, keep telling yourself that. Threads is gonna take over any day now.... 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

SpaceX has an official website and video of important launches streams there. Afaik it's a higher resolution than on X.

They did it, crash and burn.

@@heathwirt8919 once again they saved themselves the trouble of clean up.

@@intheshell35ify As was the plan from the start

They didn't bring it back. It fell back, out of control. Things do that from heights. You will only see the "cool pics" that they want you to see. For example SpaceX cut the video stream that showed the door test had failed.

Also Starship is a 200T payload reusable lander vehicle. In comparison, all other (non-SpaceX) rockets in the world are expendable (non-reusable) and currently only average/less than 10T payload.

Yessir. In a very short time frame Space X has surpassed NASA in rocket technology.

Yet people still believe the moon landing🤣

@@drippyjayyy134 Only an idiot wouldn't believe we went to the moon. - you know 400,000 engineers employed by NASA, 800KG of recovered moon rock, laser reflectors we left the surface we still use today, the flyovers and photographs of the landing sites from the Japanese orbiter, the list goes on fool.

@@drippyjayyy134 Drip!

They did not "succeed and surpass". The door opening failed, and the landings of both the booster and the Starship, which were supposed to be "soft", also failed. Both parts fell out of control, and had run out of fuel needed for a soft landing anyway, despite there being no payload. Some engines failed to relight when they should, probably because the fuel had run out, although there were signs that some burned up.

@lexlayabout5757 that's why they call it a prototype. Failure is expected, next one will be a little better.

@@superzentredi No I would not expect failure. I've been involved with many engineering prototypes and they have been for fine tuning, not for gross failures. Things like that door that didn't work (prob. because of vibration) should have been tested and ironed out on a hired ground based shaker table. But Musk think's he above normal engineering methods, just like the Titan sub guy.

@@lexlayabout5757 teen angst

"We this...we that".. Your just desk jockeys...

Hilarious is what it is xD

3 of the songs are: Sueno Feliz Charlie Steinman Caribbean Cruise Werner Tautz Snowing Down South Werner Tautz

thanks you!@@fav1886

It is not, we still get telemetry for a bit of time after the camera is cut off

Thanks for your love and support…. Where are you from?

Most of the test was failure - soft landings were intended but both parts fell out of control. Door opening, which should have been been simple, didn't work (SpaceX hastily stopped that camera stream) like it was designed by amateurs. Many of the engines failed to re-ignite when they should. It is Musk playing with rockets, basically.

that would be ice!

And here I thought it was gremlins...

What's the name of the song?

They're not, yet at least, just some Falcon launches so far

Most probably FTS has been triggered and the booster experienced RUD.

the first stage heard the "we'll try hard landing" words of the reporter and obeyed :D

@@Un0rdin4rYPr0gr4mmeRnope it did crash into the sea

Hit the sea at Mach 1. Not FTS as far as I could tell, given the altitude of 0km.

the poor sucker was falling at 1100 km/h at 1 km above sea level. It basically evaporated on contact with the water :)

It isn’t flat. No where in the world is proof the earth is flat, and never has

You do realize that spaceX is at least two years behind schedule and has spent more money to this point than was budgeted for the entire completed project.

Imagine NASA launching a couple of RUDs on this scale.. Would they see any more funding from Congress? NASA pays for most of this anyway and they also shared all their know-how freely with SpaceX.

You can tell who doesn't work in aerospace by the audacity of their comments

@@stupidas9466 You do realize NASA spends $2.5 billion on each SLS launch, of which there has been only one so far. NASA spends more taxpayer per engine on SLS than it would cost to build and fly a new Falcon Heavy. Also, NASA has been developing SLS since the 2000's.

@@_pehash Well, NASA doesn't really launch at all, do they? They've launched SLS once and it cost $2.5 billion.

That's not what happened. The ship came in at a bad angle that didn't dissipate the heat properly and likely lost many heat tiles before entering as well. SpaceX is well aware of the pressures inside the ship.

oh wow

They do float. They've been showing up on eBay. Picked off of beaches.

26,000 km/h or about 16,000 mph.

We still use hammers and there 1000s of years old

@@TheKianykin Maybe they should Hammer them shields on seeing how many were missing

We have been sending rockets to space since before my lifetime.