Starship Reached Space. What Now? 

😂

lol, you're good. It happens

its pie day come on. couldnt be easier to remember

You had me wondering if you were some sort of time traveler or something.

Lolol! Just came to say that 🤣

Yeah. It's your fault. Why buy a Miata? Just buy a real convertible. 😂

​@@Tod_oMalalso a mx5 MK1 owner here (UK don't call it Miata) but what exactly is a "real convertible" given the mx5 is THE convertible

​@@Tod_oMal MX-5 is THE convertible. You should watch Jason Camissa's Revelation about Miata.

@@swivvy3037Just a joke, don't bother too much.

@@swivvy3037Just a joke, don't bother.

Why did the Miata finally d3cude to kick you out?

Miatas are terrible. You should feel attacked lol

If you own a Miata then you deserved it 🤣

@@hvp685 Once a miata dude asked me if I wanted to try driving it, that it was really fun. And I was like "You couldn't catch me dead in that thing."

@@LarsLarsen77 at what point does the anti-miata ego become larger than the miata ego?

I mean it should. It’s a lighthearted joke

except they always pretend it was done on purpose

@@namenloss730 they literally said BEFORE the first flight they didn’t expect the vehicle to go far. For flight 1 they said they’d be happy with some ascent data (“clear the pad” so to speak), for flight 2 they said they’d be happy with staging and for flight 3 they wanted the prop demo and entry data but didn’t expect it to survive. Again they said this BEFORE the flights. They quite literally outlined why they didn’t expect or need it to go all the way, gave almost to the tee what they expected the vehicle to do and what they hoped to gain and learn. Ignoring this isn’t an argument it’s denial and acting like it was a reactive spin is too

@@weekiely1233 talking to sycophants is never interesting... yes, they did announce those things before the flights, just before. after promising much much more than the last second announcements. How many rockets did bezos blow up on tax payer dime? is it zero rockets and 0$? meanwhile musk does his stupid f*ing design that makes no f*ing sense at billions of tax payer dollars obtained through obvious corruption of kathy luders

​@@weekiely1233this is nonsense. They have not said any such thing until after the accidents occurred. They have wasted billions upon billions of dollars relearning things we already knew. This company is never going to be capable of safely launching anything into orbit. The idea that they're going to have humans on board. This death trap is insane.

It does have infinite vertical storage

Mazda

Fun fact: A Miata is also statistically unlikely to carry testicles as well!

It's theoretically capable of carrying more than 1 person

more likely than you think. you might often find a father with their son, or a son with their girlfriend

and LIVE!

It was a surprisingly long time. I knew the ship was tumbling, and I fully expected a quick RUD. But I was blown away by how tough Starship seemed.

Probably the most used term in describing Elon’s shenanigans is insane. With good reason.

And the miracle of the cameras! They kept going until they stopped! Pure genius.

That was one of the coolest moments of my life.

It held for only so long though. Both craft still eventually broke up, but it is interesting to see how long it takes them to do so.

​@@jaydonbrown617 everything can break... not everything can hold together to within spec

@@matthewspencer2094 Well with a space craft, you generally want it to stay together for the most part

@@jaydonbrown617 what no good kinda fireworks don't explode a little from time to time eh?

@@matthewspencer2094 Spaceships =/= Fireworks At least not under normal circumstances

IFT-3 didn't quite make it to orbit. The perigee was about -50km, so inside the Earth, as opposed to the 50km planned for IFT-1 and IFT-2, which would have been above the Earth's surface but still inside the atmosphere. Apparently the planned engine relight actually would have accelerated it rather than decelerated it, and should have been enough to lift the perigee above the surface, but since it didn't happen it doesn't really matter.

@@lazarus2691 Quite correct, good call. As a trained Kerbonaut, I must acknowledge that a circularization burn at apogee would have been required to create an actual "orbit" and if that didn't happen, and perigee was still

I didn’t even know this launch was happening and I followed the stuff pretty well. What the hell is going on with RU-vid?

@@tapep225 SpaceX only livestream on X now. RU-vid can hardly give you notifications for livestreams that aren't happening.

@@tapep225 Even RU-vid is tired of ElMo's BS...

Its the Corvette people we should be hating on

@@rogerrinkavage but Corvettes destroy Miatas in just about every performance metric...

@@superbarnie they are also 8x more likely to be owned by a balding man in the middle of a midlife crisis

I know. And it wasn't even a short joke, that was like a 5-minute rant

​@@superbarnie We get more smiles per gallon, though.

Good one

I will give you ONE like

Comment of the year😂

The world needs to break up with Elon.

Take my like and get out.

Yes sir

Look, I am making an effort to not hide my accent as much. If I say turd instead of third more, so be it 😂

Haha, same!

@@RealEngineeringThe accent is a feature, not a bug, in more ways than one. Thanks for the laugh and keep on pronouncing turds however you please. We’ll all smile more for it. Thank you!

I choose to believe it was on purpose

How about you learn proper pronunciation of words? You can still have an accent but you are not speaking english if you say "turd" instead of "third".@@RealEngineering

And queue the theory is just another clever roose to convince us Earth is not flat. Of course it is CGI, Earth is flat and they never got to space, star link is just regular towers maskarading as trees and rocks.

​@@fulconandroadcone9488not true im in space right now

@@fulconandroadcone9488 But star link doesn't use towers? Its direct from satellite to your starlink receiver..

I am over here wondering what the camera is made out of that it didn't melt...

​@@mercerwing1458it's on the forward flap, looking straight down.

They are in Texas. There must be plenty of Mexicans who build "low riders" (jumping cars) to help them move those car sized fins so quickly.

I feel personally attacked

​@@noahhastings6145100%

Did the jab kick you off your high-horse?

Leave the Miots alone!

That jab was a near miss for me, I own an MR2 Spyder

If that guy from a movie can catch a fly then real world iron man can catch a space stick

​@@fulconandroadcone9488 iron man without all the morals, at least

Give it a year

@@weekiely1233 I like the optimism

it's just landing a Falcon 9 booster, with a few more, extra fancy steps

It’s a lighthearted, jokey way of describing it since it really doesn’t matter that they blow up

This s PR speak. Three words where one would do and provides no details to the reader other than it exploded. Science communication want to be clear and concise with details. It is thought at university. You are not writing a novel.

@@nickl5658 it’s a ✨Joke✨ Because these are tests and, has been repeatedly stated, it really doesn’t matter if they blow up because the aim is to find weaknesses in the vehicle during testing

​@@weekiely1233 it does matter if it blows up. Having leftovers is vetter for diagnosing issues and demonstrating the validity of the core engineering. Most 5hings in life don't get to catastrophically die a couple of times before it is "done right". Even in rocket science, it's an embarrassment to all but the spectacle crowd if your rocket blows up because it means you screwed the primary design, testing or assembly stage and didn't even know it.

@@whiteerdydude it doesn’t. That’s kinda the whole point of these flights. To push the vehicle past its current design and see ways that it should be improved. There’s no need to have “left overs” the data is transmitted and recorded on the ground. This is simply a DIFFERENT type of development as has been repeatedly stated before and after the program started. These are TESTS. Not demonstrations. Literally every rocket will need some kind of explosive testing on the ground unless it uses pre existing but slightly modified hardware. This happened with the Saturn V that had many many explosions on the ground But what’s different is SpaceX is taking an iterative and incremental development cycle in flight. Flying vehicles in a hard to simulate and realistic environment and making changes based on how far they got. And it’s evidently working. They’re currently matching the dev time of the saturn V with 1/10th the resources. The last 3 flights have progressed significantly and both SpaceX and NASA agree they have been successful. The progression has gotten to the point they’re attempting a never before seen flip and landing from orbital velocity this year and have already flown 3 tests in a year which is remarkable given the challenges in cadence and regulatory factors. It genuinely seems like the only people who think this approach is bad or that it’s not going to work are either rabid musk haters, people who don’t know a think about spaceflight engineering or pessimists who just don’t like it

Yeah dude my thoughts exactly!

all thanks to tesla motors lol

@@elon69420nah. Not fast enough, not big enough, ship gone.

@@MaticTheProto And they got plenty more to test with each one inching a lot closer to success. So what's your point?

@@elon69420 my point is they have a really bad track record so far for something that’s supposed to go to mars

Personal responsibility talk.

Grow a pair!

You sound kinda desperate.

I don't have Mazda, but I found that part pretty stupid for an engineering video. A divorced dude with a Mazda slighted this nerd.

Project DX was doying ti decades before

@@The_North_Star_of_Wall_Street no it wasnt, because it was sub orbital nothing near what spaceX is doing, btw, its really stupid to use that card because it says that they were making it and then just gave up, spaceX didnt.

you beat me to it.

He's from the future

Hey now, some of us have gone crazy this winter. Wishes have become truth.

He meant march, read the top comment

Yup. Have you been will be watching it? 🤔

Not really, because the second stage was rotating uncontrollably, which would prevent it from reaching the target orbit

@@brokenautomap6645 It started rotating when attempting reentry. If its purpose was a single use rocket it would be a huge success.

@@brokenautomap6645 it wouldn’t prevent it from deploying a payload

@@willrsan define success. there is not a big market for that large a payload. if it even makes it to the moon, other than NASA, none actually. this thing is one hell of a long way from orbital refueling and off to the moon and back. the Mars BS from Elon DBag Liar Musk is a complete pipe dream like just about every other scam he is running. Having said that, I have a '22 Model 3 Performance and it is an awesome car- you know Tesla, the company he did not start!

@@willrsannah it started rolling earlier. the attitude control on s28 was obviously flawed - but it should be fixed for s29.

It also had a thermal imaging pod in the tail tip on some flights, however the footage was never released

Aparently its to stop the _momentum of the fuel_ flying backwards and slamming into the plumbing and tearing the rocket to pieces. (several tonnes per second).

@@Mallchad Water hammer is a bitch in rockets. You shut off the valves all at once and you have several tons of fuel in those pipes travelling at 60 mph coming to a complete halt instantly. Like a Ford F150 hitting a brick wall from highway speeds. Would blow out all the pipes all at once.

@@wally7856 Yeah, you have all of the weight and momentum of that cryogenic liquid propellant to account for and I imagine it is not an easy feat to try and compensate for that when powering down the engines.

@@L33tSkE3t Watch a fire fighter shut down a hydrant. They close off the valves slowly. Shut them down too fast and you'll get a pressure spike that'll cause blowouts on the adjacent houses water lines.

@@Mallchad i love rocket science because every legitimate problem sounds insane when you try to explain it

Tim is the man

@@RealEngineering Tim is nice, he is also a musk sycophant. He slobbers over musk, even when musk says ridiculous stuff straight to his face

Surprise surprise SpaceX engineers knows what they're doing

This is especially silly when you consider SpaceX already operates Falcon Heavy, which has 27 engines, and so far has never had a failure in years of operation. Your friend isn't alone though; you still see this kind of opinion all over the place.

@@DontThinkSo11 Falcon heavy has 3 separate systems so only 9 going at once for each system. 30 at once is a big deal as resonances can build up and shake the rocket apart.

@@DontThinkSo11SpaceX has had engines fail in flight, just like the N1 did. But it has advantages that the N1 didn't have, partly due to hindsight about what went wrong with the N1. Two of the big issues with the N1 were that they couldn't properly test the engines before launch, and that if an engine exploded it would take down the rocket. Thanks to poor quality controls on the initial run of engines, debris in the engines made the RUD of a single engine - and therefore the whole rocket - relatively likely. These were both solvable problems, but they didn't get a chance before the program was terminated. It was never really the number of engines on the N1 that was the issue. SpaceX has mitigated the worst issues the N1 had, which is lack of quality control during assembly, lack of test firing before launch, and lack of shielding between engines that allows even a multi-engine-out scenario to be potentially survivable.

@@jasonwalker9471I also think more sophisticated computers and therefore control systems allow for faster adaption to various thrust changes via gimbaling and throttling.

Besides which, setting up a working methane plant extracting the "plentiful carbon dioxide" from a near-vacuum atmosphere (0.6% PSI of earth sea level, or earth atmospheric pressure at 35 km altitude), using solar power on a planet receiving about 44% solar radiation of earth's. Given the most reliably detected source of water is at Mars's south pole (beneath the frozen carbon dioxide cap!), the time, energy and expense to mount an expedition and extract CO2, frozen H2O AND collect enough solar radiation to perform the Sabatier conversion.. we're looking at many trips to deliver enough equipment, nickel reaction mass.. which multiplied by the dozen or so Starship trips required to fuel one Mars-bound Starship.. When finally we do establish a colony on Mars, Musk's attempt will be thought of as just that, the first attempt. I believe we won't get there until portable fusion power is available. Mr. Fusion!

Sigh, you're young and think "slipping into a marketed spot" is clever. Advertising should always be intentional, not deceptive.

@@aussie2uGAThe best advertising starts by putting you in a frame of mind to consider whether the product being advertised is something you're interested in. This did that very, very well. Good advertising can help connect a person to a product or service that they need or want. The result won't be for everyone (no matter how well you frame it, you're not going to get me to consider an F150 class truck, because I don't want or need one), but it got the people who might be interested in the product to give it a good thinking-about, which is the best an advertiser can hope for. And it was clearly marked as a sponsored segment, so I don't think it was deceptive. Compare this to bad advertising, which tries to be clever to get people to pay attention to a brand name, thereby cementing the brand in people's heads whether they want it there or not. Things like the infamous "jingle" that advertisers often use, or any other form of viral marketing. Those aren't trying to connect a service or product with people who genuinely want it, they're trying to tickle people's broken brains in just the right way to get them to open up for a moment so the egg of idea can be forcibly implanted, Alien style. That's a terrible thing to do to someone's mind, and it's a source of amazement to me that that kind of psychological assault is tolerated (and praised!) in our societies. This video didn't do that.

@@aussie2uGA I also write RU-vid scripts all the time and making a clean transition between segments is literally the job... so, no it's not a youth thing; It's a script writer to script writer thing.

The grid reduces or eliminates Mach dependent movement of the aerodynamic center. So the forces remain concentrated at the rotational axis. Meaning it only has to overcome the subsonic, lower torque value. An F-22 horizontal stabilizer at mach 2 is probably going to experience just as much, or more force, due to rearward shift of Aerodynamic center from the MAC/4 to C/2 position.

The issue is the weight. Musk has publically admitted that Starship needs to be less heavy. We don't really know it's actual payload to LEO right now, all the tests so far have been done without any payload.

⁠@@TheOwenMajor Correct (believe it or not, but metallurgy student here), but despite its weight, stainless steel is: Compared to aluminum alloys: Considerably more resistant to high temperatures, it has a higher melting point, it maintains its mechanical properties at much higher temperatures, it does not expand and contract as much when heated and cooled (all important traits during reentry) and it is less conductive, meaning that less fuel is likely to evaporate when the exterior of the spacecraft is at ambient temperature. Compared to CFRPs : Considerably cheaper, better at handling extreme temperatures (both the extreme cold of the fuel and the extreme heat of reentry) as CFRPs can simultaneously become very brittle when cold and degrade when heated, it’s easier to use when building large components (no need for an autoclave, plus stainless steel is relatively easy to weld and to machine). Compared to titanium: Cheaper and easier to work with as it is easier to weld and to machine. The stainless steel alloy that they’re using is actually quite ductile while titanium is quite hard and low in elasticity. This is great for strength-to-weight ratio, but not for machinability (yes, that’s a word). If you haven’t already, I recommend watching this channel’s video on why SpaceX opted for stainless steel: m.ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-6AcE7hBhpYU.html

@@globetrotter7778Thanks for that write up!

@@TheOwenMajor It's relatively minor right now. The steel is only ~6% of the fueled weight of the vehicle right now. and they haven't even attempted to start shaving off weight in some areas yet. The stainless steel grid fins are super crude and just welded plate metal right now.

@@globetrotter7778 Thanks for regurgitating the SpaceX fanboy rhetoric, which I already am familiar with, while ignoring my actual comment. It’s amazing how many words you dedicated to 100% ignoring my comment. Of course I know the benefits of steel. Steel has been long used in aerospace and rockets. And it’s been proposed for similar massive rockets as Starship many decades before. Still doesn’t change the fact it’s really heavy, and that drawback is why most rockets don’t use it.

fuck thr imperial system

400km vs 250km, the velocity difference is not that much so it is still quite close

@@davidajayi1207 not that much as in? Only an extra 50%?

@@namenloss730 nah not even that

@@namenloss730 maybe like 500-1000km/hr more in terms of velocity

Everyday Astronaut already did a very comprehensive video about it

So you're saying, after 5 billion dollars in development cost, Starship has almost achieved what's been par for the course for other rockets for 50 years (notwithstanding the minor detail of tumbling uncontrollably after reaching orbit)? 👏👏👏

@@richardmetzler7909Well, other rockets with nearly that payload capacity (non reusable it would be even higher for Starship) always costed 2 bn $ per launch (Saturn 5, SLS). Starship is estimated to reach launch costs of under 100 million $ very soon. SLS had development costs of nearly 12 bn $, and most of the technology they use even existed before and was used for the shuttle back then

@@richardmetzler7909on it's third TEST flight. Spacex learn fast and each flight gets more sucessful so by the end of the year they should be well past other rockets.

@@richardmetzler7909Much longer than 50 years.

now I want to see someone mix liquid methane and oxygen

@@fulconandroadcone9488Starship does that. It’s called the engine.

@@fulconandroadcone9488 You have seen it. They mixed in the booster engines and it lifted off.

@@fulconandroadcone9488 You did. That's what made the fireball coming out of the ass end of the rocket.

Or engine-rich exhaust :P

They had a decent quality video downlink, but it was absurdly secure/encrypted. This almost resulted in an inflight breakup in the 1990s. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-3nk7qSvOaLo.htmlsi=bZW98gu6mCd2IpCw

No joke! Full reusability is basically the holy grail of rocketry.

​@@SebastianWellsTL The holy grail of rocketry SO FAR...

Lol hardly reusable when the booster explodes or crashes.

I’d put it a different way; since the term space ‘exploration’, is misused. It becomes the start of an entirely new space Development era. - Dave Huntsman

@@nedflanders4158 JigilJigil likely assumed that people would be intelligent enough to understand the "once fully operational" implication. I guess he/she was being overly optimistic lol

Hopefully not! The tone of the mainstream news sites I’ve read that covered the two most recent launches largely put them down as qualified successes, so my guess is most people that heard about it probably took that away from it. Granted, if you don’t follow this stuff semi closely and just read the first few paragraphs of an article before getting to the analysis bit, or just skimmed or saw headline on tv, then “it blew up again” could easily be the takeaway. I’m also an optimist so 🤷 For context I read about it on the BBC and Washington Post, so I don’t actually know if any 2-5 minutes of tv coverage that you might get on a CNN or Fox included the type contextual analysis you’d get from even a mainstream media article written by someone on the science/tech beat.

That will change. In few years Starship will be known as a rocket that bankrupted SpaceX.

Lmao. „Mainstream“… as in what? Their dumb passenger transport proposal? 😂

@@MaticTheProto I feel like a big shiny mars lander will be pretty iconic

@@maciejzamecznik3146 LMAO 🤡

I sure as hell don't.

Without the intense cold war, massive social inequalities and environmental destruction Im sure.

The Expanse is the prequel to Dune

​@@LuisSierra42and For All Mankind was a prequel for the Expanse

Maaaaaaaaaaa😅 the show was not only good news haha

Fake

It reached space yes, but the distinction here is the velocity. It wasn't really made clear in the video, but IFT-2 was well short of orbital velocity, whereas IFT-3 was within a pubic hair of orbital speeds and just held back intentionally.

First of all, the Flight Terminatiin System is automated, not an 'on demand' function. Second, they didn't trigger it, as the stainless dildo lost signal right before they even knew something was wrong.

The flight termination system was triggered long after it had already blown up. This has been shown and proven several times. Like many things with Musk that was a lie to try and save face.

​@@JohnVanderbeck it was an elliptical orbit and could have easily been orbit. Scott Manley already did the calcs and the perigee was -50km with a apogee of 234km if you centre that orbit on Earth it worked out to be an orbit or ~115km

@@JohnVanderbeck "It reached space yes, but the distinction here is the velocity." The claim in the video is 'reached space for the first time', and it is factually incorrect. The claim is not 'orbital velocity'. THAT is the point being made by Suppise152. Timestamp 0:14

I've seen the shuttle footage before and it's practically unusable. It was all shot in standard definition on what appears to be an old VHS camcorder, and you only get small looks at the plasma field through the shuttle's windows. You don't at all see any of the heat tiles or how they react to the plasma, and it was all shot from the seat that was furthest away from the windows. All other reentry clips have either been shot from the ground, or are from engineering cameras meant to observe how the parachutes deploy (meaning you are looking backwards into the plasma trail being left behind from the spacecraft). The only other good high quality reentry footage we have besides Starship is that of the Varda capsule entering the atmosphere, and even that footage was only released a few weeks ago.

CGI

The vesta capsule released hd footage of reentry before starship

​@@gulfy09 are you serious my brother

@@notjebbutstillakerbal I know, and I was stunned when I saw it!

I remember seeing video of a falcon 9 fairing re-entry

@@Alex-lc1bv While that footage was cool, those engineering cameras lacked the infrared filter that all normal cameras use. This means that the colors were wildly inaccurate, especially in the first clip in which the plasma field appeared purple.

I've seen that footage from the shuttle I think. Its kind of flashing or pulsing irrc as its buffeted

The 'other' footage he's alluding to is... awesome. It'll be cool when more people get to see it.

@@tehllama42 What's this "other" footage you're talking about?

they could build much bigger ISS in only 2 launches? I want to see that

​@@fulconandroadcone9488that would make me feel loads better about it being decommissioned - if there was something to replace it

@@fulconandroadcone9488Remember that that is only mass-wise. You also need more volume to do that.

@@Wurtoz9643 still, that capacity is mighty impressive, can't wait to see someone launch something big soon

One thing I would eventually like to see them use the payload capability for, is another space-based telescope. When telescopes like Hubble and Webb were designed, every last bit of weight added was heavily scrutinized, plus it had to fit inside of whatever was launching it. Even with those constraints just look at what Hubble and Webb has ALREADY given us, which is incredible. Now take those past size and weight constraints, and being limited only by Starship's capabilities, think of how much greater resolution, detail, and scientific data we could capture with a telescope that is exponentially more capable than ever before. The telescopes up there right now have identified planets in the "goldilocks" zone of habitability, but to gather more evidence or even proof of life on them, we just might need to stuff something inside the Starship capable of making such detections. We still might not find any extra evidence or proof, but the thought is tantalizing enough to spend the time, money, and effort to try.

A truly masterful gambit of 5d chess

Knowing them, it'll come out. Remember, the team behind it is just as excited about all of this as we are.

YES. As Montgomery Scott might say, "That's the ticket laddie." ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-90eg_erObDo.htmlfeature=shared&t=232 I've long held, and only recently run across, the view that the proper way to do interplanetary travel is to build things that don't have to deal with escaping surface gravity wells or reentry aerodynamics. Starship can be the first link in an interplanetary, intermodal supply chain. Which is why I think it should never have been called Starship to begin with. Now we'll have to think up something else...

he's a time traveler

when was the "re entry burn"? I saw the ship that was going to slow to be in orbit fall back into the atmosphere after leaking for 15 minutes

@@namenloss730 This is exactly what I said, but in the form of a question.

Why would that be necessary? To claim them before aliens? Or maybe China? Do you know about Voyager 2's Grand Tour? Or is there some reason I don't understand for wanting to 'send everything everywhere right away'?

I imagine a time when spaceX makes a general mass production space probe that they sell to scientists, launched by starship and we can finally swarm the solar system with data gatherers

They don't go anywhere. Firmament

@@richardlasamarchitect dumbest idea ever.

@@Cara.314 which one? Care to elaborate?

And what were they talking about middle-aged men in divorce cars

Fake CGI

@@gulfy09as opposed to real cgi?

I've seen the shuttle footage before and it's practically unusable. It was all shot in standard definition on what appears to be an old VHS camcorder, and you only get small looks at the plasma field through the shuttle's windows. You don't at all see any of the heat tiles or how they react to the plasma, and it was all shot from the seat that was furthest away from the windows.

​@@andrewparker318 If you actually read his comment you'd understand he's talking about a different one. 'Your' footage was shot from inside the spacecraft with an handheld camera and recovered after reentry, the one he refers to was recorded by a camera on the tail fin of the spacecraft and relayed back in real time during reentry (when alignment with the few relay satellites they had then made it possible).

@@raffaeledivora9517 Oh shit really! Goddamn I want to see this footage

@@raffaeledivora9517 Please if you have a link share it, I'm now dying to see it lol

@@raffaeledivora9517 Do you have a link?

You don’t need fire to produce heat. Do you get confused on how toasters work?

Well if you really wanted a fire on Mars, you could use solar power to split water into hydrogen and oxygen, and then burn the hydrogen and oxygen. It would be substantially more efficient just to use the solar power to directly heat whatever it is you want to heat though. Particularly if you can use focused solar, rather than solar PV.

Starship uses starlink, SpaceX’s own satellite constellation system, which other companies, individuals and nations use to get high speed internet. Theres around 5,400 operational satellites in orbit, with a final goal of around 40,000 satellites, most of which will have satellite-to-satellite communication which allows for very low latency. It also allows SpaceX to get better reentry data for the Starship since they’re closer to it and theres a lot of satellites which could allow them to hopefully connect with one during reentry and not experience a blackout.

​@@archierush868 those 40k satellites are in low orbit and may contribute to kessler syndrome, 8 think a better way to approach starlink is to put 3-6 geostationary satellites, and boom, whole world communications with fewer sats

@@notjebbutstillakerbalThey haven’t gotten the 40k satellites yet, they’re only at 5,400, and a geostationary orbit wouldn’t work that well for low latency and high speed internet. It would work, but not at the speeds SpaceX wants to give to companies and individuals. Theres a reason why they chose this and not geostationary orbit

@@notjebbutstillakerbalthat’d be ridiculously high latency. other companies already have GEO constellations too and the satellite internet performance shows the results.

Well it was the first that was livestreamed, idk

Thats just the plasma trail, we have never seen the actual boundary layer irl. Plenty of other videos show the plasma trail, such as the Artemis 1 reentry and the F9 fairing re-entries. Fascinating stuff

It's hard to stage that footage in the studio😅

@@CoffeeMonster12 If you take a look at the actual IFT-3 broadcast, you can indeed see a boundary layer forming in front of the left-aft flap. Pretty cool!

@@CoffeeMonster12 Fair point.

Not false...

​@@thomasreese2816**larger variants of starlink

Starshipception

Equivalent to: "The sky is blue because our eyes' cone cells process the different wavelengths, making said sky to appear blue

Everything is goddamn star something in spacex. Starship, starlink, starfactory, startracker, startiles... Try to say all these correctly in a sentence without mixing up anything😂

Nah that’s PR / RU-vid speak. Engineers would just say it blew up.

@@rickytibbits5971Specifically it came out of the Kerbal Space Program community, atleast AFAIK.

@@rickytibbits5971 Nah I'm pretty sure its just a joke.

@@rickytibbits5971RUD is an engineering joke that has existed since the 70s It’s used as a light hearted way of describing explosive outcomes when it really doesn’t matter

​@rickytibbits5971 if you watch everyday astronaut, you'd know it's a joke

Yes but do you have a partner? Because that matters more then driving that awesome car.