@@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
The progression here is so satisfying! IFT 1 main goals: successful separation. Result: uncontrolled roll, resulting in RUD IFT 2 main goals: successful separation, orbit of starship. Result: successful separation, RUD for both rockets soon after IFT 3 main goals: soft splashdown of booster, orbit with starship, survive reentry. Result: booster crashed into the ocean, starship went orbital, did not survive reentry IFT 4 main goals: booster soft splashdown, starship survives reentry and soft splashdown. Result: Complete success!
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!
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.
@@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.
This makes it so clear how incredible spacex's innovation speed is. They never fail to learn something from a launch and make progress in the next one. I don't think I've ever seen a regression from spacex.
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
@@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.
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.
@@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.
Anybody knows if they’ll try to recover the ships from ocean? Or did they just let it go down for good? I would say to recover the ships would be important for next flights. At least to find out how damaged that was, maybe even getting submarine to study it, getting some pictures etc.
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.
Ift2 was out look at the accent on the booster and ship but damn…. In flight 4 they were being easy on the stack and they got higher with the booster and faster on the boost back burn v ift3
I wish SpaceX had deployed some drone cameras near the splashdown sites of both booster rocket and Starship. So, they wouldn't have to solely rely on on board cameras for data.
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.
A perda de um motor no vôo 4 deve uma perda de altitude e velocidade,mas como os outros 32 motores continuaram a cuspir propelente não teve muitos problemas. Melhor voo de teste, voo 4 Tenho que destacar aqui que desde o 2° voo, os motores a nível do mar no vácuo nao falharam nenhuma vez, desempenho de 100%
Ya kno, while flight1 was a huge success, in proving that it could work as promised. It kinda failed. And that is something great about how SpaceX is going about building and flying a giant rocket, with 33 cryogenic liquid fuled rocket engines, an equally giant Starship, with it own cryogenic engines, for people to goto space!!!! And not jus go and come back after a couple months, but togo and live off Earth!!! It is really amazing that we might actually be at the start of something bigger than Earth
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.
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.
This ship doesn't nothing though. It is empty, and it took 4 attempts to go to orbit and come back amd land in the ocean. Even boeing has rockets that do more, they put people in space....how much are you wasting for nothing?
@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
if you look at ift2, ift3 vs ift4, you can see how much one engine effects the acceleration of the rocket. IFT4 had a noticeable lower velocity
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
The progression here is so satisfying!
IFT 1 main goals: successful separation.
Result: uncontrolled roll, resulting in RUD
IFT 2 main goals: successful separation, orbit of starship.
Result: successful separation, RUD for both rockets soon after
IFT 3 main goals: soft splashdown of booster, orbit with starship, survive reentry.
Result: booster crashed into the ocean, starship went orbital, did not survive reentry
IFT 4 main goals: booster soft splashdown, starship survives reentry and soft splashdown.
Result: Complete success!
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
That's its only taken 4 attempts to essentially get this GIGANTIC BEAST to work....mindblowing. SpaceX is amazing.
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.
The mic recording audio for IFT4 sure couldn't handle it.
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.
highly appreciate the comfort of chance to study details of all first four flight tests. thanks a million. recommend to watch it in 0.25 speed ratio
This makes it so clear how incredible spacex's innovation speed is. They never fail to learn something from a launch and make progress in the next one. I don't think I've ever seen a regression from spacex.
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!!!
brilliant side by side - thanks
Its amasing how every time its just "a little" better. Step by step they are getting there!
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
Wow! This is amazing! How friggin cool is this!?!?
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
Excellent video.
@2:15 and @2:45 the differences are clear.
Cool video of starship launch 1-4 at the same time!
Thank you for making this!
2-3 are so in sync damn. 4 lacking just a tad behind in acceleration but saves fuel to get there in the end. Amazing piece of tech.
Great, thanks for the great compilation video of Starship IFTs mission comparison, GTS! 😊❤
Please make a comparison video between IFT3 and 4 for when Startship descends through the atmosphere
Come back in 1h30 ;)
It's done 😁 ua-cam.com/video/0xOxuii84c8/v-deo.html
This is so fun to watch, thanks!
Damn I can feel how happy that made her
´love these video comparation
Thank you, I was looking for such a video
It’s gonna be awesome when Starships are launching weekly like Falcon 9/Heavy
Progress, evolution live!
Goes to show this method of iterating and learning from each launch really works.
Thanks for compilation, obviously improvement is happening but still some glitches need check 😅
i love how they sometimes use the same camera so you can really see a good comparison
6:39, You can see the hot-stage ring moving past the booster
Weird how the Starship engine diagram (lower right corner) is flipped on IFT4
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
Amazing starship video's i love starship i have been there before for ift-3
just insane how much progress has happened in ONLY FOUR FLIGHTS. I cant wait to see them attempt to catch a booster for IFT 5!!!
The ufo was super nice to let us see him
Congrats to IFT-4 for being the first truly successful flight mission for Starship.
what app did you used
Incredible!!
IFT-3 and IFT-4 it’s a twin brothers??
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.
It takes about 4 tries to make Leo, landing new rocket type takes many tries. They are able to make it in 4, 5 try is amazing!
Four test flights in one year. God, damn!
Anybody knows if they’ll try to recover the ships from ocean? Or did they just let it go down for good? I would say to recover the ships would be important for next flights. At least to find out how damaged that was, maybe even getting submarine to study it, getting some pictures etc.
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.
you can really see the difference that losing an engine or three does to the speed and the hieght
Starship Booster will truly become a powerhouse once Raptor 3 and Raptor 4 come online.
Ift2 was out look at the accent on the booster and ship but damn…. In flight 4 they were being easy on the stack and they got higher with the booster and faster on the boost back burn v ift3
I wish SpaceX had deployed some drone cameras near the splashdown sites of both booster rocket and Starship. So, they wouldn't have to solely rely on on board cameras for data.
maybe they did, but did not share these (on line)
I always feel so bad for IFT-1... spinning around in circles... 🥺
The future is bright ;)
Nossa IFT 4 subiu bem mais lento que o 2 e 3
I really wonder what is the minimum number of engines that Starship's booster can forego and still launch. Anybody know?
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.
still haven't seen footage of the ship splash down............... hmm.....................
There are other videos you could look for.
Id recommend one of the recent videos by Scott Manley.
A perda de um motor no vôo 4 deve uma perda de altitude e velocidade,mas como os outros 32 motores continuaram a cuspir propelente não teve muitos problemas. Melhor voo de teste, voo 4
Tenho que destacar aqui que desde o 2° voo, os motores a nível do mar no vácuo nao falharam nenhuma vez, desempenho de 100%
3 and 4 started the booster 2 seconds early, you should’ve put 1 and 2 a couple seconds forward
FUTURE ......
(+). Energy.
so ift 2 had the most powerful launch (most thrust and faster acceleration)
Ya kno, while flight1 was a huge success, in proving that it could work as promised. It kinda failed. And that is something great about how SpaceX is going about building and flying a giant rocket, with 33 cryogenic liquid fuled rocket engines, an equally giant Starship, with it own cryogenic engines, for people to goto space!!!! And not jus go and come back after a couple months, but togo and live off Earth!!!
It is really amazing that we might actually be at the start of something bigger than Earth
They are leaving and we clapping
This is a particularly unsatisfying definition of synced.
Incredible how, many decades ago the FIRST Saturn V was just perfect with a perfect launch, no many tries to get it perfect, just the first try.
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
IFT2 went much faster because of no inter-stage ring! it's a lot of extra mass! and 3 was faster than 4 presumably because of a missing engine?
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.
Eu vi a Terra plana , lata de leite subindo, cai logo
:)😊
elon musk is a genius
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!
This ship will never fly. Too many repeated fundamental mistakes
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.
This ship doesn't nothing though. It is empty, and it took 4 attempts to go to orbit and come back amd land in the ocean. Even boeing has rockets that do more, they put people in space....how much are you wasting for nothing?
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
Два куска обгоревшего металла за миллиарды долларов рухнувшие в океан.А соплей восторга море .
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?
Its like the 4 Whels on a Shopping Cart 🫡🫡🫡🤪