Watch: SpaceX’s Starship Successfully Completes Re-entry and Splashdown | WSJ News 

We already know that hot plasma can damage or destroy spacecraft.

that flap is at the bottom pf the Indian ocean right now, it pains me to report

@@rdbchase obviously, but what's impressive is how star ship didn't tumble and break up during reentry from that and it still managed to vertically land as planned too.

@@user-jh6ik1qd7p Neither Starship nor its booster landed successfully; a relatively soft splashdown isn't the same thing.

@@rdbchase i think NASA knows better than you

It nearly burned off -- do you suppose it's fully reusable?

@@rdbchaseObviously not, especially since they were not even recovering starship. Seems like they may had expected this.

@@KevinNguyen1 I don't think that either of us have much insight into fwanknmt's thinking processes, but lauding the fact that the winglet didn't actually break off in flight sure seems like avoidance of the fact of the failure of the thermal protection system to me. Starship's test flights can be deemed successful if relatively tiny goals are set for them, but the fundamental design goals for the system as a whole clearly have not been met and I am very dubious that they will be. If Musk and SpaceX are so confident in Starship, it seems to me we should have heard about their plans to improve performance so that 100-150 tons of cargo can be carried to orbit already and we haven't.

It was likely all 4 that melted. If it happened to one, it happened to all of them.

​@@rdbchaseEl problema de las losetas térmicas en las bisagras ya se sabía pero aún así se decidió lanzar y se probó otro sistema térmico, el lanzamiento fue un total éxito se obtuvieron grandes cantidades de información qué beneficiarán al desarrollo acelerado de spacex y se cumplieron los objetivos de lanzamiento qué se consideraban imposibles la versión final de la Starship podrá transportar hasta 150 toneladas de carga útil a órbita

How did they catch that giant things. And the most expensive is changing all the heat tiles

Augurer?

@@ariewijaya1679if the stainless steel alloy they use tolerates a giga press to recess the tile inserts, it might help with tile retention. Even the Space Shuttle was prone to tile loss. A single-use ablative material between seams might help too, but the SpaceX team far smarter than me.

Man the little flap that could.

"I think I can... I think I can... I think I can... I think I can... Ooh, Owch Make it stop! Oh, it BURNS!"

First one that didn't explode. So if NASA blew up 3 rockets in a row what would the headlines be?

Yup, every itiration get a lot better. as always with space X, lucky number 4.

​@@moejoe1863different design philosophies create different expectations. SpaceX does a rapid iterative process. Build a rocket, test it, fix the problems, fly the next rocket. The rocket that flew yesterday was Ship 29 and Booster 11. SpaceX already has built Ship 31 and Booster 13. Nasa, or rather the manufacturers that build for NASA, use a more traditional design process. Completely design a finished rocket, build it and if all goes well it works on the first try. In the same time frame that SpaceX build 31 Ships and 13 boosters Boeing build 2 SLS rockets. That's why the headlines would be different. Because the expectations are completely different.

A museum of engineering failures, perhaps. The winglets would have to suffer no damage (as opposed to nearly burning off) if Starship were to be reusable at all; with the loss of all Starships and boosters (with their 144 Raptor engines) so far launched, there is zero cause for optimism that the goal of full reusability will be attained.

@@rdbchaseyou do realize these are test flights of a new generation of super heavy lift capable rockets right?

@@rdbchase It's called progress. It was the same with Falcon only smaller scale. Computer simulations only go so far. They literally have to fly to find every weak point. Seriously, why do we have so many losers in this world that cannot understand this?

@@rossh2386 I realize that four test flights in, the system has not demonstrated that 1) it can transport its claimed 100-150 tons of payload to low Earth orbit, 2) it can be refueled in orbit, 3) it can relight its engines in microgravity, or 4) it can be recovered intact -- Starship has yet to achieve any of its primary design goals, so fanboys' wild enthusiasm is unwarranted.

@@rdbchase Were you one of the people who said "there's no reason to think this will ever succeed" when Falcon 9's were blowing up?

Every failure is inverted by the fanboys -- winglets that nearly burn off cannot be part of a fully reusable rocket!

@@rdbchase It's called progress, genius. It's obvious you aren't involved in anything meaningful or difficult.

@@jamescarter8311 Abject ad hominem, not reasoned disagreement -- meaningful or difficult enterprises are certainly capable of failure.

@@rdbchaseI know it’s a failure, but at the same time the flap still manage to actuate even if plasma ate a hole through it during the bellyflop maneuver.

​@@rdbchasestick to the comment dude. That's why it's called the one that could.

who said it was still functional?

@@alanmay7929 It was still able to guide the ship.

@@wisemanofsorts6068 its actually the engines that did all if not most of the job lol!!! that flat has barely any capacity to do that

@alanmay7929 During the belly flop, the flaps are the only things that can orient the ship properly for the flip maneuver. The engines only ignite a few seconds before landing, and RCS is not strong enough at low altitudes to adjust orientation. That is why the flaps exist....

Toward the end of video you can still see it actuate a little.

Cuz they can't do anything about on how successful it was 😂

Not a fan of Elon, but he and SpaceX have done amazing things for space exploration.

Elon himself is terrible. SpaceX on the other hand, lovely almost every time.

​@@thekaempfer How is her terrible? Supports clean energy, space exploration, new healthcare products, and free speech. What's your qualms?

@@nowords7737his personality

The N-1 failed in all four test launches too, but engineering students should aspire to succeed rather than fail.

@@rdbchase What a stupid comment. None of Starships launches were failures. They were prototypes and each got further than the last. It was the same with the Falcon rockets. SpaceX pushes every part to failure. It's how they learn.

@@jamescarter8311 SpaceX has achieved none of the primary design goals for Starship in four test flights -- that is how far it's gotten. Debris in the Gulf of Mexico and Indian Ocean has been the result of both IFT-3 and IFT-4. I am perfectly willing to accept evidence of Starship's success as soon as it succeeds -- in carrying payload to orbit, in being refueled there, in re-lighting its engines in microgravity, in being recovered intact -- none of these have happened yet. Praising the fact that one or both winglets didn't actually break off in flight despite suffering catastrophic damage during re-entry is indicative of how warped fanboy's notion of success is.

⁠​⁠@@rdbchaseit has shown everyone that a fully reusable rocket is possible, but it clearly won’t be easy. All starship flights had a simulated payload weight of 50T by not filling it to 100% with the exception of IFT-1 i think, and they have also proven to literally everyone in the aerospace space that they can at least send a super heavy payload into space and soft land the booster in the water, just like what SpaceX did around a decade ago with the Falcon 9. Right now, they have proven that the Starship is “fully” reusable with the 4th test flight, minus parts of the flap but basically everyone already knew the flaps and placement of them will change with V2 ships under construction right now and which may fly later this year or early next year. What failed here was the flaps hinge cover which allowed plasma to seep into the internals of the flap. Newer ships will push the flaps more leeward so that plasma won’t be able to get within the flaps but for now, they’ll increase insulation in this spot for the last few V1 ships before V2 comes online. SpaceX also is gonna do all of the points you said, it’s just that proving starship can be fully reusable is much more important as they want to get that done first. After they have proven that they can reenter without any major damage, then they will demonstrate raptor relights in space, and only then will they demonstrate deploying a payload. This could all be done in 2 or so flights as Elon said that flight 5 is probably gonna attempt a booster catch with the tower arms however this could be pushed back to flight 6. Also, they did demonstrate a cryogenic fuel transfer from within the ship for flight 3, which was never done before in space before, and is a step towards ship to ship fuel transfers. They are working towards accomplishing all the goals that you said. A ship to ship fuel transfer should occur next year which means that all the other things said also should be done within a year. Another thing you don’t seem to mention is the costs. Starship costs around $5B. Not the rocket, the entire program, meaning literally everything starship related has costed SpaceX $5B which they are able to fund with revenue from StarLink raking in around $1.5-2B each year. If you funded SpaceX as much as NASA and give them the same amount of time as projects like SLS, there probably wouldn’t be as many failures and test launches but that also means that more money was spent in the program. Edit: look at how far they have gone from IFT-1 to IFT-4 in over a year and a few months. From spiralling out of control to successfully reentering and splashing down both ship and booster.

​@@rdbchaseIFT-4 soft landed in the Indian Ocean. Unlike the preceding 3 tests.

Cynical, understandably so 😂

Elon gave the middle finger to all the Elon hating liberals that pray for him to fail lol - Science > Feelings

grow up!!!!

@@originaloffical You don't know what 'liberal' means do you?

​@@ddandymannwhat do they mean?

War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.

​@@rdbchasebot is bot

Pure nonsense -- the system won't be "redefining our civilization" even if it can be made to function, very much an open question at this point.

It’s incredible how strong this beast is. When it was surviving doing cart, flips on its first flight, the length of a giant skyscraper, the toughness prowess had been set. They literally had to forcefully destroy it. I’m turning 50 this summer, I’ve watched this whole thing, it’s absolutely incredible. Anyone who was an alive it’s very hard to imagine Elon’s vision, and how impossible it was.

@@Ryan-mq2mi Yes the technology space X launches and then lands like bird is awesome to watch. With nasa it all just looked ugly. The payload capacity is going to alter the future In many ways

What amazed me is how often I thought the feed had stalled but it was actually live, it just was so stable.

@@Ryan-mq2mi It may well be impossible -- great job sabotaging your own case!

@@user-sf3dw2sm3b It hasn't landed at all yet.

Right, the fourth test flight of the system ended like the last three with the loss of both the Starship and its booster -- SpaceX had planned on landing it on the Moon already. More incredible than anything SpaceX has done are fanboys' inversion of failure into success.

@@rdbchase let's see you build a rocket. In reality, it was a huge success. The mission was to go to space and do a soft landing on return. It did that. Also if you pay attention, since the first flight SpaceX has been ready to launch more, but have had to wait for the FAA to clear it, so that slowed things way down, multiple times. Your assessment is wrong on every level.

@@rdbchase It's called progress. It was the same with Falcon only smaller scale. Computer simulations only go so far. They literally have to fly to find every weak point. Seriously, why do we have so many losers in this world that cannot understand this?

Yes they told us in 80 they will be on mars in 90 2000-2011-2022 and we didnt hit the moon 😂😂

This is a different rocket than Falcon 9. For starters it’s in development currently (these flights are to do that) and so they don’t want to risk hardware or endanger anyone by targeting a land landing Secondly it doesn’t have legs and instead will be caught by the towers arms. They don’t want to risk losing the tower so they wanted to simulate a landing at sea first to demonstrate the capability A recovered booster attempt will happen either next time or the time after depending on how it goes Ship is still a while away from a landing on land

No I can, but I can still appreciate the scientific advancements his money finances. People can have more than just 1 emotion. :)

Elon needs to stay in his lane, and keep his conspiracy driven politics to himself

Musk definitely is not doing anything of the kind.

There is no plan to do so -- all the data that can be gathered has been.

Right -- it's actually a video game.

Many rockets have already failed.

@@rdbchase None of rockets that "already failed" were brought back.

exactly we never get to see the landings

Because the camera on the other Fin got melted

@@sciencepowerpointsit was at night and the ship was a tiny bit off course by just 6 miles so there likely isn’t any footage from the water at the ship

Unlucky that the ocean on Mars is already dry

@@tx9ju there's water on mars at the poles or one of the poles, maybe even underground, there's a whole ocean inside earth's core

@@tx9ju cry more hater

The fanboys are oblivious of Starship's intended role as a lunar ferry and imagine that the first load of colonists are leaving for Mars any day now. There's zero reason to believe that Starship will ever land on Mars, by the way.

@@rdbchase cry harder

Do you have any idea of just how hot rocket exhaust is? There's a good reason nobody does it...the bird would explode!

@rickkolesar9163 I imagine it's not any hotter than reentry? Which wouldn't have fuel...but Icbm's are tube launched

@rickkolesar9163 there are missile silos here,there and everywhere. I would think they could utilize it? Same principle as a firearm....the energy behind the projectile

The “exhaust” you see is actually mostly water vapor, which is how SpaceX dissipates all the force, energy, and sound (those things are one in the same). To build a structure enclosing the engines would reflect all that energy and heat back at the ship, or create massive debris if it doesn’t hold.

@@pastorofmuppets22a rocket doesn’t work like a bullet. Bullets use the pressure of the gasses behind them to propel them forward. Rockets, on the other hand, use Newton’s third law by expelling gasses at extreme speed behind it so it gets pushed up. Essentially, bullets use pressure while rockets use gas flow speed. That’s why rocket engines are bell shaped; it reduces the pressure and turns it into speed. That’s why Starship and most other rockets are not tube launched. The ones that are (ICBMs) need them to protect them from the environment for decades on end.

Yes

U deaf?

@@Nasser-bp6qf temperory fix to help to reduce weight? any more details about that and what's the name of that device?

because it is unreal

@@sciencepowerpoints no it is sorry to tell you.

The camera was inset slightly into the ship and had some bulletproof glass in front to film it

No recovery of these vehicles. They were likely blown up using the FTS in order to sink them and not have a pressurized, floating tube with a little rocket fuel still inside.

They had no intention of recovering Starship from the Indian Ocean.

Starship splashed down out in the middle of the Indian Ocean. where it was night A lot of factors make it very difficult to be precisely where reentry is supposed to be in order to actually get decent footage of it. You’d have to be within a few miles at best to have a chance of spotting it. be smart

@@charlesyaryan6619 got it so the exact landing location is not planned at this test right

@@gofnek18484they landed the ship within i think 6 miles of the targeted coordinates

@@gofnek18484 Just for the Indian ocean somewhere basically. a small landing location but EXACT location for a film of landing not so much yet

The camera lens was burnt so you couldn’t see much but you could see the engine light up and it land perfectly

Government thinks big. The plan obtusely and try to test everything on paper all the way before doing anything. Musk is different. He knows things will fail in ways we can never anticipate. Better to test and fail in real life. Because there is t this giant bureaucracy and giant infrastructure, each rocket costs a fraction of what a NASA rocket costs. So they can be agile in their testing,