Starship Launch SYNCED: IFT1 vs IFT2 vs IFT3 vs IFT4 

Only on fly 3,also on fly 2 thers is no ring between starship and the booster,whitch means less mass.

​@@aleksandurmilanov8840flight 2 was the first that used hsr

@@aleksandurmilanov8840 its definitely lose of 1 raptor, HSR also attached IFT-2 IFT-3 flight computer decreasing power of the opposite engines for balance. So rocket actually loses more power than 1 engine

is there any probability for space x to shut off one engine intentionally to check the difference with full-engine flight?

@@misoramen99 no

Absurdly great how i saw IFT4

Although the fact IFT4 was a "complete" success remain to be seen, but I doubt SpaceX will communicate precisely on that. Basically that will define IFT5 goals. First, the starship survived miraculously the reentry. It's great news but given the part which failed, it still was a critical failure (obviously not for a test run). It will be a necessity to fix that. How much this issue affected starship navigation control, and it's ability to aim and "land" where they wanted remains to be seen. Regarding superheavy soft splashdown, the precision at which it aimed to the coordinate target remains also to be specify. Since obviously one want it to be able to grab those by the tower, the precision for the return is insane. Landing on a droneship (precision required, but a loss will cost less) or on landbase (less precision is required, but a failure might cost much more) is much easier, since now, we are aiming to higher precision than droneship, with much more risk. Looking forward to ITF5. I hope they'll aim to catch a superheavy, but they might not dare yet, since crushing a tower would cost as much if not more than a whole entire flight. A landing of the starship might be a goal too, but since it's much more difficult to estimate how bad the failure of the shielding was, they might also have to postpone that.

@@huyxiun2085 I agree, seems like too much too soon with the booster catch. And with the second tower rising, why attempt the catch until there's a backup? A drone ship landing would be great, but I don't think the booster has landing legs, even the tiny ones like the ship... still, a tower catch would be insane!

Dont forgot IFT3's inflight engine relight that was not preformed

well, tbf, it also took a lot of testing of parts separately, but yeah, very impressive.

yeah, considering how much luck is involved - this is simply mindblowing!

@@alcoholrelated4529 thats not luck! thats people working extreamly hard for the future!

The first launch of Saturn 5, Apollo 4, reached orbit, then re-lit engines in orbit to achieve a high apogee, then returned the capsule for successful recovery. The first launch of the Space Shuttle, STS-1 had astronauts onboard and carried a mock payload. It orbited 37 times before returning for a landing at Edwards AFB without any significant damage to Columbia, being reused many times afterwards. The only comparable rocket program that has had so much vehicle loss without achieving orbit or having any recoverable equipment is the failed N1 rocket. American Rockets have traditionally been held to a much higher standard of success.

​@@MarcStollmeyerIt certainly isn't impressive that it took four attempts, but it also isn't necessarily a bad thing either. As I'm sure you've heard, SpaceX uses an iterative development process. This allows them to manufacture many rockets at scale and at a much lower price, meaning losing several isn't a big deal.

Definitely possible but it sounds more like a steam lag to me.

@@hvip4 Nah. SpaceX set up two side mics in addition to their normal mono mic and they were using them to provide a little better (if not strictly true-to-life) stereo spatiality. They were not situated absolute left or absolute right, but between center/left and center/right, which makes sense, since it wasn't a true stereo soundscape. The one on the left got cratered immediately by the excessive input. Not only is that intermittent buzz more or less what you'd expect, but there was absolutely nothing wrong with the mic prior to T-0. It was picking up the scream of the deluge system just fine, for example.

Well, the reality is that Spacex has abandoned some plans/projects (there are some good videos on YT on this topic), but nevertheless, SpaceX is in the history books (chapter 'legends').

@@GoToSpace_GTSpriorities are important to have. Seeing how efficient and effective they are, I think they abandoned projects that were not aligned 100% with their ultimate goals since they weren’t considered a major priority. Saves burning money and resources on stuff that won’t get them anywhere much

@@weiSane Exactly. Spacex never falls victim to the sunk cost fallacy.

@@weiSane 💯

Significant progress each time!!!

a little better? dude they went from ift1 reaching nothing to ift4 reaching everything in that short time, seems like they were a lot better each time

@@Nuke-MarsX Yeah.. when I wrote it I realised that's not right, that's why I put "a little" in quotes

@@YevhenSavchuk ok..

@@Nuke-MarsX Still not in orbit yet. Still have not shown they can economically turn around starship and be significantly cheaper than a single use rocket. It takes only 1 SaturnV rocket to go to the moon. It is take 15 refueling launches to fuel one Starship to get to the moon. The real challenge has not come yet.

@@nickl5658 it could get to orbit easily if it needed to, and where did you get that crap with 15 starships to moon

That landing burn on the booster was phenomenal, it even hovered for a little time. And Starship doing a controlled splashdown in the Ocean after fighting the intense plasma was amazing. I would love to see Starship's state after all this.

I mean.. we have a chance to see the flap washed up somewhere since it broke off after splashdown

Come back in 1h30 ;)

It's done 😁 ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-0xOxuii84c8.html

The future is bright ;)

Upside-down triangle, fighting the "powers" 🤫

I think its because the flap cam was on the other side this time.

@@Diddibobbowas it though?

@@LSF17 i think that because space was on the other side on ift 4 than ift 3

@@Diddibobbo the ship could’ve just been rotated

No.B11 had 32 healthy raptors while B10 had 33.

@@dangorneanu9616 Healthy going up. Waiting to see the data on the raptor engines state after the soft landing, it's crucial that they are in good condition.

maybe they did, but did not share these (on line)

They will NOT recover them they either blew them up after splashdown to pieces or let them sink in whole but i do believe they took the first approach

The ship landed in the Indian Ocean. It is so deep and the waters notoriously rough. It is highly doubtful they will use resources to try and recover. I do not believe they or anyone else even has the capability to recover the starship from the sea floor.

There are other videos you could look for. Id recommend one of the recent videos by Scott Manley.

Ive been told its around 8.

As far as I know they can lose 3 from the start and still launch or they can lose even more further in flight of course. Booster won't be able to return though.

I’m sure it can loose many and still launch. Reaching orbital velocity is another story.

But it costed much more than this, and Starship is a entirely different system that is more advanced and designed to be fully reusable + it has 2x the thrust of the Saturn V.

Saturn V was 2x less thrust, and the Saturn V development is 10x more expensive when counting for inflation, and doesn't have to land.

And also the fact that the Saturn V, as the name implies, is not the first vehicle in the Saturn family of rockets. All the systems used on the Saturn V were tested on these previous launch vehicles or on the ground over and over and over again before they ever even got integrated with the Saturn V. The same thing isn’t happening with the starship because other rockets aren’t built to carry skyscrapers to orbit. It’s also more cost effective to use the affectionately named “Kerbal approach” to design and engineer rockets. Especially when you’re not making a disposable one.

Discounting the three astronauts that burned to death, sure.

Yeah, it only cost 40 billion dollars. SpaceX is making a bigger, more powerful, cheaper and more ambicious rocket with 10 billion

Yes

Flight 2 had the hot staging ring

Also the flight 4 were alot more reinforced than flight 1,23

IFT-1 is the only Starship ever flown without the hotstage ring.

not elon the engineers

Entire SpaceX, no just Elon Musk, we must thank the company's employees.

Visionary is the correct word

He’s certainly good at public relations. Mostly

Not really it the engineers that make Elon look good!! He the visionary! He has fantastic true geniuses who actually make it possible!

I'm sure glad people much more intelligent than you are working on it, otherwise you would be right. It would never have reached test flight 1.

@rushfast1339 Russians rocket engineers are smart, too.

It's called testing, and these are interplanetary, fully reusable rockets. These could make Moon landings something trivial.

@@davidstinger1134 moon landings? With those? Roflmfao 😂 😂 😂 😂 😂 😂 😂 😂 😂 😂 😂 😂 😂 😂

@davidstinger1134 why testing when you had working capable rockets 6 decades ago? Forget the technology that was as strong as a calculater?

@davidstinger1134 not to mention humans cannot survive the suns extreme radiation so it is physically impossible for humans to reach the moon...even with tinfoil...

lol your beloved company took 14 years just to send 2 people into space, meanwhile SpaceX send 50 by their reusable rockets. Comparing a LEO-only spacecraft with a interplanetary spacecraft is just dumb

Hopefully the 5th test flight of Angara A5 will go alright, right? I'd be nice after 30+ years of effort finally have a successful launch.

You mean billions of Rubles, it's not worth billions of dollars.

What happened to the N-1 again?