SpaceX Starship Reentry Reaction 

100t satelite telescope or space station modules would be nice!...the space shuttle could only do about 1/5th the capacity! up to 150t reusable..and 250t expendable...

I fell asleep watching the stream 😂 Missed all of the action had to watch it this morning by replay 😂

Depends where you weigh the satellite.

@@WacKEDmaNand the ability to re-fill propellant on orbit. the Space Shuttle could bring somewhat heavy things to LEO, but that was it. Starship could take a whole ~100T satellite/telescope to whatever orbit they wanted, including lagrange points.

can only do that payload to very low earth orbit

They often filmed the plasma at re-entry from inside the Space Shuttle.

@@Okurka. He is in this case talking about live streaming. There are indeed a couple recordings of the plasma out there from several vehicles and objects (a couple months ago some awesome shots from a F9 fairing for example). That they are able to show this stuff live is incredible!

They were venting propellant and oxygen on purpose. Engines were chilled down to test that and all systems were go however spacex decided not to light them. Might have something to do with the orbit it was in after SECO.

They were venting oxygen on purpose, they did this on Flight 2 as well. Computers likely didn't activate boost because the ship was out of control.

@@GoldenTV3 oh, I thought the intentional venting was just the pulses, there also seemed to be a steady stream at a much lower flow rate. Have they said why they think the computer decided against it? That 1min per revolution spin rate didn’t seem like enough for it to have trouble and it did manage to reorient itself for reentry. The commentary people said it could have burned in pretty much any direction without it affecting its “landing” spot much.

@@GoldenTV3 the rolling did look intentional to me as it was constant. There are more spacecraft that intentionally roll to help with thermal control preventing the sun from heating up the tanks to much that otherwise cause excessive boil-off of the fuel. But without more conformation from SpaceX its pretty much educated guesswork.

@@samuraidriver4x4Yeah, while it was coasting but it looked like it was struggling to stop it to prepare for re-entry. But yeah we'll just have to wait and see for official confirmation.

Totally was lol, no attitude control whatsoever since the prop transfer test

​@@capybara5494i think the cold gas thrusters froze

I think it was. Started renetry sideways and I think it ended up on its back by the time we lost video

Still much better progress than flight 2! Elon has promised for possible another 6 flight tests in this year, so hopefully in flight 4.we might see a successful booster slow splash down and a successful controlled re-entry of starship!

I might wear that one like a name badge.

In fairness , thw F35 was 3 planes with similar parts. And that money was actually to be spread out to 50 years. So it actually is close to many jets. F35 is also now cleared for mass pro so not exactly a problems (though they could have managed it better.

@@shaider1982 they could have done a fair few moon missions in the last 50 years with that sort of money since they are supposed to be doing this whole moon shot with something like 15 billion aren’t they?

What do you mean? We did. It only lost telemetry when it had a RUD.

@@user-kn7jb3gz3z I don't see the telemetry during entry in this video, do you?

@@Okurka. camera is covering it

@@ufloc Like I said in my original comment: It would be nice if we could see it.

@@Okurka. was assuming you meant it didnt exist

I don't think you understand how Starship's rapid iterative development works.

@@SeanChYTYou first gotta get all the failures out of the way to be successful, amirite?

Spacex is incredibly unusual compared to traditional aerospace. If you think about the [done quickly, low cost, high quality] triangle, then traditional aerospace is high quality, high cost, long development process, and spacex is done quickly at low cost (lowish). The fact that spacex managed to do all of this in 2 years for a few billion dollars is absurdly efficient. A nice comparison is blue origin who have spent almost a decade on New Glenn and are only about to launch their first flight sometime at the end of this year, but have relatively high confidence it will work first time around.

@@janfrank3453 No, that is not correct. A successful test for SpaceX produces knowledge on what are the most valuable next steps, in order to reach the project goals. You can be sure their servers are now filled with terabytes upon terabytes with invaluable test data from a gazillion different sensors that now will be analyzed very thoroughly by massive computers, AI and some of the smartest people on the planet to steer their engineers in the right direction to further refine the technology for the next iteration. Testing things to destruction is in many situations a lot more helpful than a test where nothing breaks. You have to know where the limit is, and know how components react under extreme conditions to find the perfect balance. I am also sure they operate the vehicle in a completely different manner when testing, compared to when they are trying to complete an operational mission. For instance, for the first ever test of the grid fins in hypersonic conditions they probably ran it through the entire range of motion, just to see how the vehicle would react. The test data is in turn used to train the next generation of the AI model that steers the ship for the next flight. Of course they could have spent 10 years trying to simulate it, but the answer would still only be a guess. SpaceX priorities building a bunch of test vehicles quickly, testing what works, improve, rinse and repeat, over and over again with breathtaking speed. Falcon 9 is now dominating the industry, so their method works.

did not achieve orbit(close enough that it would not be a challenge to get orbit), although it was at orbital altitude. they need to test engine relight in space before they lock it into an orbit. as tim dodd(everyday astronaut) stated, they achieved something amazing showing that if they launched fully expendable starship would be able to put some insane mass into orbit(like an entire space station), even with what they only achieved in this test!

Don't want to speak for Dave, but he's been pretty consistently in agreement with TF about musk although regardless of how much of a vaporware salesman he is, SpaceX has some incredible engineers and what they're doing is damn impressive, even if the vast majority of musks claims and "vision" are complete nonsense.

@@GlutenEruption I agree about the brilliant engineering and it definitely isn’t their fault the company is running the way it is. It isn’t just Musk though all their upper management seems dedicated to pushing the vapourware as well as the go fast and break things mentally. I suspect entirely because that is what their shareholders like and they need the funds.

​@@GlutenEruption Dawg SpaceX would not exist if it wasn't for Musk

Musk is a businessman first and foremost. He’s made many categorically false or exaggerated statements to pump his stocks, as businessmen are prone to do. Does that mean all his statements are false? Of course not. He is a unique man regardless in taking the interest in modern technology and pushed for far wider adoption which is commendable. But he also lies a lot as Tf00t has pointed out. There’s not much room for an impartial opinion beyond that.

@@GlutenEruption Dave's a Musk fanboi.

Yet we've paid NASA billions for years now.. and where is the innovation?

A Starship launch is expected to cost about 10 millions. They blew up a handful of prototypes. Pretty much all the NASA missions ended up as space junk or in the ocean and cost billions each.

NASA can't take their own fucking astronauts to space without SpaceX 🤣🤣

The thing you are not seeing with NASA is the years of small scale testing, validations, reports, meetings, retests, medium scale tests, integration tests, more reports and meetings and validations. Those are done by large teams of highly skilled people who cost a lot of money to employ. The thing is you only most of those tests are only needed if you want to make as sure as you can that the thing will work the first time. If you don't care if you blow up a few prototypes as long as each one gets you good data then you can skip to full scale testing. The cost of all those small tests and manhours of work can easily be much more that a big welded steel tank with a bunch of rockets strapped to it. The crazy thing as well is that you are actually more likely to build something that works well as a whole when you test it as a whole. Integrating various different components is very difficult in a system this complex. Especially when your teams are all spread out across the country instead of just one spot in California and one spot in Texas.

Nasa spends a couple billion just to decide between 2 small screws. Not to mention the delays on projects like SLS guzzling tax payer money like it's nothing. What SpaceX is doing now is similar to what NASA was doing in the 50's and 60's.

They also have made more advancement in reusable rockets than anyone. Progress has a price.

Imagine not understanding what prototypes are. Does it hurt being so dumb?

@@joecola6415if SpaceX released more accurate reports and plans people wouldn't doubt them as much. Now it's pretty much guesswork what they are even planning to do.

@@DigitalDependance and that is called government funding.

SpaceX, a company currently holding the world record (209) for the most consecutive booster landings.

Where did Dave touch you?