Thanks for emphasizing the testing aspect here. The major media lack the nerd cred to grasp the importance of finding out where the failure points are by pushing to the point of failure and that getting further along every time is success.
As a Pilot, Film maker, Musician I can tell you after much humility 😅😂😂😂 that in all seriousness “you’re commentary is outstanding and I’ve seen almost all of your videos that’s why I hope you’ll forgive this old customer for being so humble! Just felt like making an awsome bro watch content of another bro since your flight sim incident/accident investigation videos are just wonderfull to watch! Btw your voice and control and execution of it is simply perfect I believe! Great job as always keep it up! 👍🏼
Just a note: While the Raptor is the first full flow rocket engine to actually be used on a vehicle, it is not the first such engine. The RD-270 was the first, developed and tested by the Soviets in the 1960s for (simplifying here) a much larger variant of the Proton rocket, but was never used in flight. Similarly, the US developed the Integrated Powerhead Demonstrator in the late 1990s, which was just the turbo pump machinery for a full flow engine engine. And just as an interesting sidenote, all three engines use different fuel mixtures. The RD-270 used the hypergolic mixture of UDMH (unsymmetrical dimethylhydrazine) & N2O4 (dinitogen tetroxide), The IDP used H2 and O2, while the Raptor (and a couple of other in development engines) use methane (CH4) and O2. So unlike in the video, "Full Flow Staged Combustion" does NOT mean that it runs on methane and oxygen. In simple terms, full flow means there are two pumps on the engine, each powered by the "full flow" of either the oxidizer or fuel moving through the associated turbines, with the fuel turbines.
They blew it up! I do believe that the improvements to stage 0 will prevent a repeat of the first launch failure. I strongly suspect that the failure was caused by flying debris wrecking havoc with the conduits in the bottom of the booster.
In many ways, SpaceX and its rockets are like the Titan submercible. Someone who doesn't really know what they're doing, ignores all the precident and regulations (that were written in blood), so that they could make money off of their cobbled together technology. And just like with the titan submercible, no one was surprised when multiple things (that have already been mastered by other craft in the industry) went wrong, such as the failure of failsafes and the destruction of their launch pad. Like, the launch pad one in particular is so mind boggling to me, because all the measures to protect the launch pad weren't in place, like the water supression! Like what did they think would happen??? And if this endeavor manages to make it to a point where they are 'reusing' the entire rocket, they are going to learn another seemingly obvious lesson the hard way: Rockets get put under stupid amounts of strain, where even tiny imprefections can and will destroy an entire craft. This entire situation is like the biggest perpetual 'I told you so' ever, and I find it so infuriating. This concudes my rant
"Someone who doesn't really know what they're doing" Pfffffffff! Someone who doesn't really know what they're doing cannot design, test, and fly rockets whose flights, by number and load, amount to way more than all the rest of the world conjointly, even including China, and does that for a tiny fraction of the cost the others spend. It is the way they got it that you don't like: trial and error correction instead of long decades of assuring nothing will fail. It is you that knows nothing of this business, obviously.
The irony is that sx hasn’t even gotten to the “HARD” bits yet, this was them turning “known, knowns” into a cluster ….”!! Soon they will start on “known, unknowns” that they will have to work through!! Then the fun starts with … !!
In no way do SpaceX resemble the titan disaster in any way. Elon, asshole that he is, is in fact a rocket engineer. He hires engineers and they run a successful space program, maybe you've heard of it? SpaceX is NASA's ride to space. They know what they are doing. You opinion based on twitter astrotrurfers isn't worth the pixels.
@@Mentaculus42 You seem to share some of the frustrations I do, like this is feels like looking at a car, saying 'lmao thats amateur hour', and then presenting a car with... no wheels. Then it crashes or blows up or doesn't go anywhere at all or fails in some other unimpressive and completely predictable way, and the masses are like 'wow! look at the innovation!!! The next car will be even better!!!!!'
I have to say I was expecting an ai generated band wagon piece SpaceX with some hyperbolic thing about the FAA somewhere. I'm pleasantly surprised. You took the time to explain the scene to outsiders, hung a hat on that, and told a good story. You earned a sub from another rocket nerd.🚀
7:55 The actual information presented by sensors was wrong, at least two other engines had failed but telemetry failed to signal this fact. No matter how many engines failed the rocket should not have slipped off the vertical. You question as to why it took 40 seconds to destruct is of vital importance. It should have terminated within less than 1 second at the outside most! Breakup is ordered so that it is BEFORE the projected flight path intersects an out of bounds area! That it took 40 seconds is simply quite criminal.
The flight termination system did fire immediately when ordered, it was just that the explosives used were not strong enough. They underestimated how strong the stainless steel body was. It took 40 seconds from when the explosives went off, until starship finally crumpled due to it coming back into thicker air. All that was needed for flight 2, was to increase the amount of explosives, to make larger holes.
Part of this test flight was to test the FTS in real world conditions if necessary. In that respect, the test was successful because it provided badly needed data to improve the next iteration. It's impossible to fully model all the dynamics involved prior to a launch. Don't forget that all the ground tests of the FTS were successful and the FAA approved it. We all learned a lot from the test, a big lesson being that steel rockets simply need more explosives to fully break apart.
It didn't explode "over Texas" and it didn't come down in the Atlantic Ocean. It blew up over the Gulf of Mexico and it came down in the Gulf of Mexico.
Dude this comment section is flooded with npc speak. Bots calling the flight a failure weren't around when the Falcon 9 was being developed. I might have to go back and watch that crash compilation now I think about it.
My unofficial forecast for the second flight: They'll get past staging, though the booster likely will suffer an oxidizer tank overpressure from the hot staging and rupture (like the Titan's first stage did on every flight), and I have no clue how far the upper stage will get. But I'm pretty confident in them getting past upper stage ignition and booster jettison before any critical failure occurs. (There. That's not just an honest opinion, it should nicely piss off both the stans *and* the haters!)
I wonder if Starship will end up like the Space Shuttle - promising routine, safe and cheaper spaceflight and ending up doing exactly the opposite. The bigger the rocket, the more complicated and difficult it is to fly safely and reliably. SpaceX has done a great job with Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy, but they may be child’s play compared with Starship.
It will be years and much, much stricter test regulations before this becomes productive if ever. The engines are melting in minutes and they were supposed to be re-flown 2-3 times a day.
I expect that the upgrades to Stage 0 will address most of the issues with the first launch. Having said that, SpaceX has yet to do a full duration, full throttle burn with all the engines lit. I would think they have to achieve that before even considering another launch attempt.
Its kinda sad the amount of people in this comment section that talk about SpaceX not knowing what they're doing. I agree that parts of what was done was rushed, even stupid in some cases, but don't go saying it was a failure. Thats not how engineering works. I am happy that this channel is spreading its wings but this comment section is depressing to me.
I disagree that it was any type of success and may have doomed the entire program. Mainly because it did so much damage to the launch pad, which was wholly insufficient to withstand the force of the engines. With no flame diverter, those engines blew through 5' of concrete and rebar because the ground beneath the pad compressed and shredded the concrete, causing a 'concrete tornado'. The 'concrete tornado' launched pieces of concrete, some weighing 100's of lbs, 100's of feet into the air. All that concrete and steel rained down on the protected wetlands and communities 4 miles away. Now both the FAA and SpaceX are being sued by environments and the Fish and Wildlife department has to review the approval of the Programmatic Environmental Assessment that authorized the flight and determine if a Full Environmental Assessment is required. If so, that process will take years. And why did they have to launch on 4/20 even though they knew the pad would be destroyed, however, not to the extent it was because of the ground compression? Because, like an adolescent boy, Elon has this fascination with the numbers 420 and 69.
You mean the pad that is as of now fully operational with a deluge system? Did you forget the deadline of 120 days the FAA gave to fish and wildlife for their inquiry? Go home chicken little the sky isn't falling today.
The 4/20 launch date was their second attempt to launch, the date had nothing to do with the decision to launch when they did. I have my share of concerns about the whole thing. But the decision to launch had nothing to do with ego stroking.
I can't believe you're parroting that "great success" narrative. It destroyed the launch pad and valuable nature around it. The flight termination system did not work. They started the rocket with already dead boosters. Nothing there was a success. They only said that they expected it to clear the pad and everything else was a bonus to save face.
they said that about clearing the pad BEFORE launch, not after. it didn't destroy the pad either, it did dig a giant hole, but the actual launch mount was mostly fine.
@@g2g591 It absolutely destroyed the launch pad. And even if they said it before the launch, they had 3 non-functioning boosters on starship and a good amount of old ones. It was forseeable that it wouldn't go well and they launched anyway because it was 4/20 and Elon needed his ego stroked.
SpaceX was saying they expected the flight to not fully succeed for weeks in advance of the flight. Many many times, SpaceX said their primary goal was to have it get off the pad without blowing up. So he is absolutely correct, that this was a success. It was definitely not a total success, but it left the launch site intact, other than the concrete under at the pad, which they were going to dig up any way to install this new water system (many of the parts of which were already on site ready to be installed, so that was planned as well). Concrete was not raining down on people miles away. Beach Sand was raining down on people miles away, in a Beach town. If they had waited a few months for the water system to be installed, they would have not learned many of the lessons they did learn from this flight, it was extremely valuable information.
He also said it exploded in the skies over Texas. He doesn't seem to understand that the launch site was chosen specifically so that Starship would not overfly land.
There is no wildlife in Boca Chica that is unique (only exist) to the launch area. Between 2 and 12 out of ~5,500 known world population of female Kemp's ridley sea turtles nested at Boca Chica Beach , The numbers post SpaceX are generally higher but have been attributed to more volunteers monitoring the area. SpaceX should fund a project to relocate the wildlife that can be. Then the government should condemn the works and create an area or zone open to developers of experimental air an space craft with out wildlife concerns.
@@gregb1599 The 'Town' WAS a village of 2000. The nearest house is 2 miles away. The furthest is 2 1/2 miles. SpaceX has purchased over 112 homes in Boca Chica, Texas, according to the Cameron County Appraisal District. The company has also acquired land that was previously owned by the Boca Chica State Park. SpaceX is offering to reimburse residents for the cost of moving expenses, including packing, transportation, and storage fees. The company is also offering to pay for any closing costs associated with the sale of a home. SpaceX is offering to provide temporary housing for residents who need it while they are looking for a new home. The company is also offering to help residents find new homes in the area. Job assistance: SpaceX is offering to help residents find new jobs in the area. The company is also offering to provide training and education programs to help residents develop new skills.
@@gregb1599 Yes relocating the village is the plan and it is nearly finished. SpaceX tried to purchase all of the homes and businesses in the village, offering three times the fair market value. SpaceX has purchased most everything in Boca Chica. Hard to get a number but there are about 11 building in Boca Chica not owned by SpaceX at this time. This is far far more generous that the US Government is when it wants or needs your home.
I'm not really clear on what exactly was actually accomplished with this launch, beyond identifying several layers of poor design practices and manufacturing quality, nor on why the launch went ahead to begin with. We already have a good deal of foundational rocketry knowledge, and this launch didn't really add to that. We already have good modeling of performance for boosters. Given what we knew of the reliability of the individual rocket engines, a simple back-of-the-envelope calculation would show that it was virtually inevitable that enough of those engines would fail on any given launch attempt to prevent anything like a full mission profile from being flown successfully. It seems to me, in that context, there is no clear reason to proceed with a launch at all. Instead, better to focus on improving the reliability of the engines to the point where you have something a lot more like a 95% probability of getting enough engines to light, run, and not catastrophically fail on a given launch before you even consider doing a full-scale launch test. And that's not even talking at all about the ridiculously underprepared launch platform. It's all just a sad, senseless waste. Little better than setting money on fire. Why this company gets so much attention and so much investment when it fails at basic and well-understood construction engineering, I don't understand.
And you showed exactly how poorly you understand the how and why of everything SpaceX does by your extended rant. Obviously you are enamored of the design forever and then still build problematic rockets style of how rockets have been built by all the "big" players for the last several decades which resulted in severe stagnation and extremely costly launches. I could tear your rant apart but I'll just challenge you to open your eyes because you failed to see how effective this approach truly is, but as an example take your criticism of the destruction under the launch pad. Despite the destruction it was all repaired before all the other "hold launches" issues found during that launch were resolved and a system that had already been in progress prior to that launch was put into place to ensure that such destruction would not be repeated, Elon Musk admitted that they had calculated that the concrete would be damaged but they had expected it to last through one launch. Had this been in Boeing's hands for comparison it would take YEARS to resolve all the issues. However for SpaceX it was a resounding success as their goal was simply having the rocket clear the launch tower, every bit of progress the rocket made after that was bonus.
@@roycsinclair What was gained by this launch that was not already known, or could not be readily predicted through well-understood modeling? In other words, what was the actual purpose of conducting the launch?
@@don_5283 They "modeled" that the special concrete they used would hold up through one launch so they didn't hold the launch until the water deluge system was ready. Also modeling cannot and will not tell you how all the systems in the rocket will work together in a real launch. Modeling cannot accurately predict systems of mild complexity so expecting it to be able to understand a system of high complexity is asking for trouble. There's nothing in the world as good as creating a prototype and testing it which is exactly what SpaceX is good at. That way they learned vital information like the fact that the Flight Termination System was not up to the task of breaking their steel shelled rocket up like it was supposed to so they ended up waiting for aerodynamics to destroy it. That is something they found out on the very first test launch of the full stack so by testing a prototype where success was defined as "clearing the launch tower" they learned many things that modeling would never have told them. Understand that they fully expected that the rocket might explode while still on the launch pad, if you think that the destruction was extensive because of the hole dug under the launch tower imagine the work they'd need to fix up after a launch pad explosion and yet they took that risk because they needed the knowledge that modeling would never provide.
@@roycsinclair Right, my overriding point is that they either should have already known (pad failure, Raptor unreliability) or been able to readily figure out (self-destruct system) the things you're claiming were important discoveries from this launch, using information we already paid for decades ago, and what we already know about modeling and materials science, and using individual component testing, rather than spending the money on a full-scale operational test. If you're defining "success" as "leaves the pad without exploding," I would say given our current understanding of rocketry, your definition of success is flawed, your rocket is not ready for launch, and you'd be better off proofing the individual components until there is something that both requires and justifies a full-scale test launch. It's much cheaper, after all, to stand-test and improve Raptors until they have a better than 99% reliability (which still leaves the chances that all of them will fire properly at only about 70%), and build a proper pad, and optimize other readily knowable factors. The time for a full-scale test launch is when you think you've already solved all the problems you know about, and so the only way forward is to see how it all actually works together, and reveal the problems you didn't know about, or prove the vehicle is ready for work. This launch was conducted with a number of problems known but not solved, which at best is a merely wasteful expenditure, but more importantly will likely result in unknown problems being masked by known problems, and therefore requiring subsequent expensive test launches. Simply defining success as clearing the tower without making a good case for why is vapid and manipulative, and I'm still waiting for something concrete and specific that you think necessitated this launch.
@@don_5283 You're claiming that the approach Blue Origin is using is superior to the approach SpaceX is using. That's pure nonsense as B.O. has been around for two years longer than SpaceX and have yet to have even a piece of their development actually reach orbit. Meanwhile SpaceX developed the Falcon rocket, the Falcon 9 rocket, the Falcon 9 heavy rocket AND showed the world that rockets can be re-used and has gone on to launch so often that they will surpass the number of launches of the Soyuz rocket in just a few more years while they've already made the Falcon 9 rocket the most reliable rocket ever. And oh yeah, despite following your proposed path B.O. has lost all but one of it's sub-orbital rockets and the only reason they haven't lost that one is that they stopped launching it. That's why I scoff at your idealized and slower than molasses "This is how it ought to be done" criticism. You are wrong, what's right in front of your eyes is how it ought to be done but you want them to stop all progress and turn into the kind of sluggish non-performers that have plagued NASA since the Apollo program ended. SpaceX knows that the best way to wring out the problems is by flying prototypes and fixing the failures as they occur. That's why they are successful and B.O. remains a joke.
I disagree with your assessment that the vehicle that reaches orbit will not return. SpaceX has done wonderous innovations. I don't have any doubt about its safe return. The booster is my concern. It is threading the needle.
It will take hundreds of people around the world in 30 mins. or Moon or Mars. Give it 10 years before it's routine. There's been 265 launches of Falcon 9 so far, some reused 15+ x's.
I found this video relatively factual about how the first launch went. What would you consider less biased? Parroting the line of Musk hating union funded ‘activists’ about how Starship is the end of human civilization?
@@shouryabose5943 “Relatively Factual” covers a large territory of the “Bias Swamp”!! His normal videos are expected to be extracted from sparse sources of information. Once he adventured into sx fanboyism, he was literally completing against 100s of other videos and channels whose single reason of existence is to promulgate the same line. The issue is that there are some channels that are reasonably information based giving an opportunity to “filter” fact from the “Fool-Aid” drinkers. So he foolishly ventured into an area where “fact checking” was highly probable due to the volume of sources and the high level of interest. HIS FILTER WAS SIGNIFICANTLY BIASED!! If you are of the opinion that any information that doesn’t march-in-step with the Fool-Aid drinking tribe’s “Weltanschauung” due to being aligned with unions, is rather “interesting”.
Dismissing everyone who disagrees with you as "crazy" and a "hater" reflects very poorly on you as it makes it seem like you have no argument and thus must resort to name-calling.
@@EvanBear Whilst true there's absolutely a hardcore element that hate on space x no matter what just because it's owned by Elon Musk. He's a douche but that has bugger all to do with space x on a technical level.
Mini Air Crash hearted a comment calling people crazy for not agreeing with the commenter. Yeah people can be biased against Elon Musk but clearly they can also be very much biased for him. Also, Elon Musk does have something to do with SpaceX, he for example made them launch on 4/20 for the memes. They weren't ready, obviously. That rocket should've never left the ground to begin with.
Yeah, the inability to do what the government did 60 years ago, and littering the orbit with tens of thousands of small satellites is inspiring. It tells me that anyone can be the richest man in the world
@@TroyRubert "Elon Musk ordered his Starlink satellite communications network to be turned off near the Crimean coast last year to hobble a Ukrainian drone attack on Russian warships, according to a new biography." I think us poor people are fine without his "help".
The Russians failing at it doesn't really have any bearing on anyone else doing it. I would think in the current year you'd be aware of Falcon Heavy, which has 27 first stage engines, and has been flying since 2018.
Starship has yet to demonstrate usability. Forget re-usability since Starship has never took off and landed intact. Its failure is due to it being a backwards design. It was based on childish 50s concepts of how an interplanetary ship landing on Mars would LOOK like and then tried to cram all technology into that napkin design. Proper mission planning starts with mission goals and then tries to develop the best technology to fulfill those goals. The wrap around look of a spaceship should be the last consideration and not the first! Before the Muskrats say 'innovation requires iteration! NASA blew up lots of rockets when it was in development' was an excuse one could use in the 1950s and 60s. Over half century later we know how rockets and their launches work and even SpaceX has demonstrated this with their awesome Falcon 9 rockets! There is no excuse to repeatedly keep blowing up hundreds of millions of dollars' worth of hardware on each test! Imagine if it was NASA directly developing these rockets and blowing them up! NASA's budget would be cut to obliteration by the third failure! I wouldn't mind the so-called 'visionary' efforts as much if they weren't at the expense of taxpayers (oh right most people ignore the fact that most of SpaceX budget depends on heavy subsidies from the government including all of their R&D budget drawn from NASA) and trampling on municipal rights of local residents in Texas.
The fact that you think we know everything about building a good rocket is hilarious. We don't. the reality is rockets operate right at the limit of what is possibble to build. Anything that attempts to improve on that is going to run into issues it has to solve. Also NASA is blowing it's rockets up, thats what non-reusable amounts to. Everything bar whatever the crew comes back in gets thrown away. And they're doing it at many times the cost of the entire starship development program. No Space X does not receive subsidies. They receive contracts to do work for the government, in exchange for that work they get paid. Just like everyone else who works for a government.
Everybody is worried about the carbon footprint of my car, but what is the carbon footprint of a methane burning rocket of that size? NASA used hydrogen for their main engines and it's exhaust was pure new water.
I wonder if SpaceX actually paid carbon taxes, like common people have to, included in airline fares, gasoline and what not, nowadays. Besides the CO2, they also released a huge quantity of unburned methane, which is supposed to have 80X the impact of CO2. Did the EPA fine them for that? I mean, we the people will all be driven out of our ICE cars and into EV's within the next 10 years and SpaceX is still allowed to do this? I have changed my incandescent bulbs for LED! My car has less than 100 hp! So, please cut it out and leave me alone, environmentalists. Go after the big ones if you really care for your cause. Go tell the people in South East Asia that they're not supposed to throw their trash in the rivers and let me have my disposable plastic bag that I reuse until it rips and then throw away in my trash that I have to pay for to get rid of it responsibly. How many airline passengers would be able to travel how many miles if we used the amount of fossil fuel SpaceX wasted in a modern aircraft?
That this launch was a 'success' is a lie! That was a retcon only announced a few weeks before launch (as Musk finally listened to some engineers instead of immediately firing them for contradicting him) despite the clearly stated goal that this should have been an orbital mission. But sure meeting an arbitrary deadline of 4/20 instead of accepting this design is not capable of delivering on pretty much any of the goals of spaceflight is more important... Muskrats will call it an amazing success no matter what.
I remeber seeing people mocking Elon about the rocket blowing and i wanted to smach them. Idjits. This was an incredible achievement, are you really that blind with pettiness? Yes, apparently.
This is supposed to be the rocket that'll take us back to the moon, but no Saturn-V rocket ever failed to reach orbit or blew up, so it's hard to celebrate something like this as a success. I question whether or not Starship can even be ready for the Artemis 3 mission when we know the SLS rocket at least works and can be used an alternative.
Absolutely uncritical acceptance of SpaceX's reports without addressing the very likely source of the problem (outside of the Musk Ox's hubris): blowing the launch pad to smithereens and causing a bunch of debris to run amok in the engine bay.
Play War Thunder now for free with my link: playwt.link/maci and get a massive bonus pack including vehicles, boosters and more!
You hearted a comment calling people crazy for disagreeing with the commenter. I really thought better of you. I'm very disappointed.
Dude! This vid only got 8k views. That was a month ago and you haven't released anything since then. Are you OK?
Thanks, this was actually a nice accurate accounting of what happened, not the sensationalist stuff you see on so many other channels
Man's going from Air crash to Space crash🤙
Happened at 42 kilometers in altitude so still technically air crash 😂
I remember when it was mini bike crash investigation. Those were the days 😆
I don’t think she identifies as a man… just saying 🤷♂️
@@Nick-EmeryAre you sure it's this channel? 🤔 Chloe is on a different channel 👍🏾
Lol
Everything going okay? Been a month since you last posted. Hope it's nothing serious.
I’ve been looking for him too
Same and it’s now December 19th. I hope everything is ok.
Thanks for emphasizing the testing aspect here. The major media lack the nerd cred to grasp the importance of finding out where the failure points are by pushing to the point of failure and that getting further along every time is success.
Can't say I expected this being covered, but I am pleaseantly surprised
As a Pilot, Film maker, Musician I can tell you after much humility 😅😂😂😂 that in all seriousness “you’re commentary is outstanding and I’ve seen almost all of your videos that’s why I hope you’ll forgive this old customer for being so humble! Just felt like making an awsome bro watch content of another bro since your flight sim incident/accident investigation videos are just wonderfull to watch! Btw your voice and control and execution of it is simply perfect I believe! Great job as always keep it up! 👍🏼
Just a note:
While the Raptor is the first full flow rocket engine to actually be used on a vehicle, it is not the first such engine. The RD-270 was the first, developed and tested by the Soviets in the 1960s for (simplifying here) a much larger variant of the Proton rocket, but was never used in flight. Similarly, the US developed the Integrated Powerhead Demonstrator in the late 1990s, which was just the turbo pump machinery for a full flow engine engine.
And just as an interesting sidenote, all three engines use different fuel mixtures. The RD-270 used the hypergolic mixture of UDMH (unsymmetrical dimethylhydrazine) & N2O4 (dinitogen tetroxide), The IDP used H2 and O2, while the Raptor (and a couple of other in development engines) use methane (CH4) and O2. So unlike in the video, "Full Flow Staged Combustion" does NOT mean that it runs on methane and oxygen. In simple terms, full flow means there are two pumps on the engine, each powered by the "full flow" of either the oxidizer or fuel moving through the associated turbines, with the fuel turbines.
Aloha, I have been checking daily for new videos. I’m worried, please let us know that you are all right. Mahalo🌺
Oh man, I’ve seen other analysis’s, excited to see what you think!
where you disappeared off to bro??
No new videos 😢 are you okay?
Wondering the same thing
Hope all is well. We miss you!
Very interesting video! You made it really nice and kept me for the full length of it!!
Where are you bro ..... no nee videos
They blew it up!
I do believe that the improvements to stage 0 will prevent a repeat of the first launch failure. I strongly suspect that the failure was caused by flying debris wrecking havoc with the conduits in the bottom of the booster.
Been checking for new content hope all is ok
4:24 "The raptor uses methane" So, what you are saying is that the raptor farts.
Lots of armchair rocket scientist here...
You should do one for the flight 2 as well!
You busy? Take care
I've watched 2 aircraft incidents & this explosion this morning. Literally all of them occurred in Texas!
In many ways, SpaceX and its rockets are like the Titan submercible. Someone who doesn't really know what they're doing, ignores all the precident and regulations (that were written in blood), so that they could make money off of their cobbled together technology. And just like with the titan submercible, no one was surprised when multiple things (that have already been mastered by other craft in the industry) went wrong, such as the failure of failsafes and the destruction of their launch pad. Like, the launch pad one in particular is so mind boggling to me, because all the measures to protect the launch pad weren't in place, like the water supression! Like what did they think would happen??? And if this endeavor manages to make it to a point where they are 'reusing' the entire rocket, they are going to learn another seemingly obvious lesson the hard way: Rockets get put under stupid amounts of strain, where even tiny imprefections can and will destroy an entire craft. This entire situation is like the biggest perpetual 'I told you so' ever, and I find it so infuriating. This concudes my rant
"Someone who doesn't really know what they're doing"
Pfffffffff!
Someone who doesn't really know what they're doing cannot design, test, and fly rockets whose flights, by number and load, amount to way more than all the rest of the world conjointly, even including China, and does that for a tiny fraction of the cost the others spend. It is the way they got it that you don't like: trial and error correction instead of long decades of assuring nothing will fail.
It is you that knows nothing of this business, obviously.
The irony is that sx hasn’t even gotten to the “HARD” bits yet, this was them turning “known, knowns” into a cluster ….”!! Soon they will start on “known, unknowns” that they will have to work through!! Then the fun starts with … !!
In no way do SpaceX resemble the titan disaster in any way. Elon, asshole that he is, is in fact a rocket engineer. He hires engineers and they run a successful space program, maybe you've heard of it? SpaceX is NASA's ride to space. They know what they are doing. You opinion based on twitter astrotrurfers isn't worth the pixels.
@@Mentaculus42 You seem to share some of the frustrations I do, like this is feels like looking at a car, saying 'lmao thats amateur hour', and then presenting a car with... no wheels. Then it crashes or blows up or doesn't go anywhere at all or fails in some other unimpressive and completely predictable way, and the masses are like 'wow! look at the innovation!!! The next car will be even better!!!!!'
I just realized after commenting this that I failed at punctuation. I have a sinus infection right now and typing my thoughts out is hard lol
Hi buddy, is everything ok?😊
Thanks for covering this I never heard of this
Sarcasm?
I have to say I was expecting an ai generated band wagon piece SpaceX with some hyperbolic thing about the FAA somewhere. I'm pleasantly surprised. You took the time to explain the scene to outsiders, hung a hat on that, and told a good story. You earned a sub from another rocket nerd.🚀
7:55 The actual information presented by sensors was wrong, at least two other engines had failed but telemetry failed to signal this fact. No matter how many engines failed the rocket should not have slipped off the vertical. You question as to why it took 40 seconds to destruct is of vital importance. It should have terminated within less than 1 second at the outside most! Breakup is ordered so that it is BEFORE the projected flight path intersects an out of bounds area! That it took 40 seconds is simply quite criminal.
The flight termination system did fire immediately when ordered, it was just that the explosives used were not strong enough. They underestimated how strong the stainless steel body was. It took 40 seconds from when the explosives went off, until starship finally crumpled due to it coming back into thicker air. All that was needed for flight 2, was to increase the amount of explosives, to make larger holes.
Part of this test flight was to test the FTS in real world conditions if necessary. In that respect, the test was successful because it provided badly needed data to improve the next iteration. It's impossible to fully model all the dynamics involved prior to a launch. Don't forget that all the ground tests of the FTS were successful and the FAA approved it. We all learned a lot from the test, a big lesson being that steel rockets simply need more explosives to fully break apart.
It didn't explode "over Texas" and it didn't come down in the Atlantic Ocean. It blew up over the Gulf of Mexico and it came down in the Gulf of Mexico.
Great video! I Love the format you use!
Dude this comment section is flooded with npc speak. Bots calling the flight a failure weren't around when the Falcon 9 was being developed. I might have to go back and watch that crash compilation now I think about it.
"NPC speak"... Do you hear yourself?
I'm not quite old enough to remember it personally, but Bob Hope had a running thing about NASA's submarine program. 😉
What has happened to our friend?
My unofficial forecast for the second flight: They'll get past staging, though the booster likely will suffer an oxidizer tank overpressure from the hot staging and rupture (like the Titan's first stage did on every flight), and I have no clue how far the upper stage will get. But I'm pretty confident in them getting past upper stage ignition and booster jettison before any critical failure occurs. (There. That's not just an honest opinion, it should nicely piss off both the stans *and* the haters!)
Not a chance, we will have two soft landings that day. One in Boca Chica and one off the coast of Hawaii. Calling it now.
You are not an engineer are you? That's the dumbest comment I have ever read
I suspect they'll be too many engine failures on the booster to get to orbit.
This was very well done.
I wonder if Starship will end up like the Space Shuttle - promising routine, safe and cheaper spaceflight and ending up doing exactly the opposite. The bigger the rocket, the more complicated and difficult it is to fly safely and reliably. SpaceX has done a great job with Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy, but they may be child’s play compared with Starship.
Starship could fail, but it won't fail as miserably as the shuttle did. Promised $10 million to orbit. Actual cost: $1.5 billion.
You mean why was it "rapidly disassembled" over Texas... 😏
Mini Space Crash Investigation
Big space crash investigation.
Cant wait to see the second launch on 4/20/2024
You mean the second crash, right?
5:34 i was packed and ready weeee 😉
The booster would have been a lot more "leakproof" if they weren't throwing chunks of the launchpad at it.
mini rocket termination investigation
It will be years and much, much stricter test regulations before this becomes productive if ever. The engines are melting in minutes and they were supposed to be re-flown 2-3 times a day.
I expect that the upgrades to Stage 0 will address most of the issues with the first launch. Having said that, SpaceX has yet to do a full duration, full throttle burn with all the engines lit. I would think they have to achieve that before even considering another launch attempt.
Thanks for covering this event. Missed the live launch and was waiting for a great breakdown.
Yeah same here.
lol they blew it up on 420 🤣
And we could have space elevators if not for religion.
Baloney.
Its kinda sad the amount of people in this comment section that talk about SpaceX not knowing what they're doing. I agree that parts of what was done was rushed, even stupid in some cases, but don't go saying it was a failure. Thats not how engineering works. I am happy that this channel is spreading its wings but this comment section is depressing to me.
I disagree that it was any type of success and may have doomed the entire program. Mainly because it did so much damage to the launch pad, which was wholly insufficient to withstand the force of the engines. With no flame diverter, those engines blew through 5' of concrete and rebar because the ground beneath the pad compressed and shredded the concrete, causing a 'concrete tornado'. The 'concrete tornado' launched pieces of concrete, some weighing 100's of lbs, 100's of feet into the air. All that concrete and steel rained down on the protected wetlands and communities 4 miles away. Now both the FAA and SpaceX are being sued by environments and the Fish and Wildlife department has to review the approval of the Programmatic Environmental Assessment that authorized the flight and determine if a Full Environmental Assessment is required. If so, that process will take years. And why did they have to launch on 4/20 even though they knew the pad would be destroyed, however, not to the extent it was because of the ground compression? Because, like an adolescent boy, Elon has this fascination with the numbers 420 and 69.
You mean the pad that is as of now fully operational with a deluge system? Did you forget the deadline of 120 days the FAA gave to fish and wildlife for their inquiry? Go home chicken little the sky isn't falling today.
The 4/20 launch date was their second attempt to launch, the date had nothing to do with the decision to launch when they did. I have my share of concerns about the whole thing. But the decision to launch had nothing to do with ego stroking.
@@darthkarl99 If you read his tweet on 4/14 he stated, 'I wouldn't be a bit surprised if the 4/17 launch date slips 2-3 days 😉'.
@@disturbed4733That was in reference to a weather system that moved into the area
Gulf of Mexico not the Atlantic Ocean...
Elon must get the idea of converting ICBM to rockets from watching the movie Star Trek First Contact😄
What do you think NASA'd first rockets were? What do you Launch the first American into space and the second and third all the way through gemini?
@@stevewhite3424 Basically yeah. But Redstone wasn't an ICBM. It was a short-range ballistic missile.
I can't believe you're parroting that "great success" narrative. It destroyed the launch pad and valuable nature around it. The flight termination system did not work. They started the rocket with already dead boosters. Nothing there was a success. They only said that they expected it to clear the pad and everything else was a bonus to save face.
Don’t you know that with sx, no matter how bad the results are, they and the “Fool-Aid” drinkers pronounce it a SUCCESS‼️
they said that about clearing the pad BEFORE launch, not after. it didn't destroy the pad either, it did dig a giant hole, but the actual launch mount was mostly fine.
@@g2g591 It absolutely destroyed the launch pad. And even if they said it before the launch, they had 3 non-functioning boosters on starship and a good amount of old ones. It was forseeable that it wouldn't go well and they launched anyway because it was 4/20 and Elon needed his ego stroked.
SpaceX was saying they expected the flight to not fully succeed for weeks in advance of the flight. Many many times, SpaceX said their primary goal was to have it get off the pad without blowing up. So he is absolutely correct, that this was a success. It was definitely not a total success, but it left the launch site intact, other than the concrete under at the pad, which they were going to dig up any way to install this new water system (many of the parts of which were already on site ready to be installed, so that was planned as well). Concrete was not raining down on people miles away. Beach Sand was raining down on people miles away, in a Beach town. If they had waited a few months for the water system to be installed, they would have not learned many of the lessons they did learn from this flight, it was extremely valuable information.
@@GreenEnvy
IfUSāSō, go for fail forward, never a question as it is impossible to fail since it is always sx’s opinion that it is a success.
The movement from Elon trying to buy an ICBM to war thunder was funny 🤣
Time for a new mic bro
Did you say the ship crashed into the Atlantic Ocean, I thought this thing was launched from Texas?
It crashed into Mexican territorial waters in the Gulf!
He also said it exploded in the skies over Texas. He doesn't seem to understand that the launch site was chosen specifically so that Starship would not overfly land.
Cool to see your thoughts on Starship ITF1 ❤
There is no wildlife in Boca Chica that is unique (only exist) to the launch area. Between 2 and 12 out of ~5,500 known world population of female Kemp's ridley sea turtles nested at Boca Chica Beach , The numbers post SpaceX are generally higher but have been attributed to more volunteers monitoring the area.
SpaceX should fund a project to relocate the wildlife that can be. Then the government should condemn the works and create an area or zone open to developers of experimental air an space craft with out wildlife concerns.
So should they relocate the town as well? As they were affected as well. Just kick them all out, just so Elon can play with rockets
I assume you want the same thing for cste canaveral and for vandenberg, right?😊
@@gregb1599 The 'Town' WAS a village of 2000. The nearest house is 2 miles away. The furthest is 2 1/2 miles. SpaceX has purchased over 112 homes in Boca Chica, Texas, according to the Cameron County Appraisal District. The company has also acquired land that was previously owned by the Boca Chica State Park.
SpaceX is offering to reimburse residents for the cost of moving expenses, including packing, transportation, and storage fees. The company is also offering to pay for any closing costs associated with the sale of a home. SpaceX is offering to provide temporary housing for residents who need it while they are looking for a new home. The company is also offering to help residents find new homes in the area.
Job assistance: SpaceX is offering to help residents find new jobs in the area. The company is also offering to provide training and education programs to help residents develop new skills.
@@gregb1599 Yes relocating the village is the plan and it is nearly finished. SpaceX tried to purchase all of the homes and businesses in the village, offering three times the fair market value. SpaceX has purchased most everything in Boca Chica. Hard to get a number but there are about 11 building in Boca Chica not owned by SpaceX at this time.
This is far far more generous that the US Government is when it wants or needs your home.
@@gregb1599 "Play with Rockets" Are you on the picket line LOL
This is something new! I like it! I love Elon and SpaceX!!!
I'm not really clear on what exactly was actually accomplished with this launch, beyond identifying several layers of poor design practices and manufacturing quality, nor on why the launch went ahead to begin with. We already have a good deal of foundational rocketry knowledge, and this launch didn't really add to that. We already have good modeling of performance for boosters. Given what we knew of the reliability of the individual rocket engines, a simple back-of-the-envelope calculation would show that it was virtually inevitable that enough of those engines would fail on any given launch attempt to prevent anything like a full mission profile from being flown successfully. It seems to me, in that context, there is no clear reason to proceed with a launch at all. Instead, better to focus on improving the reliability of the engines to the point where you have something a lot more like a 95% probability of getting enough engines to light, run, and not catastrophically fail on a given launch before you even consider doing a full-scale launch test.
And that's not even talking at all about the ridiculously underprepared launch platform. It's all just a sad, senseless waste. Little better than setting money on fire. Why this company gets so much attention and so much investment when it fails at basic and well-understood construction engineering, I don't understand.
And you showed exactly how poorly you understand the how and why of everything SpaceX does by your extended rant. Obviously you are enamored of the design forever and then still build problematic rockets style of how rockets have been built by all the "big" players for the last several decades which resulted in severe stagnation and extremely costly launches. I could tear your rant apart but I'll just challenge you to open your eyes because you failed to see how effective this approach truly is, but as an example take your criticism of the destruction under the launch pad. Despite the destruction it was all repaired before all the other "hold launches" issues found during that launch were resolved and a system that had already been in progress prior to that launch was put into place to ensure that such destruction would not be repeated, Elon Musk admitted that they had calculated that the concrete would be damaged but they had expected it to last through one launch. Had this been in Boeing's hands for comparison it would take YEARS to resolve all the issues. However for SpaceX it was a resounding success as their goal was simply having the rocket clear the launch tower, every bit of progress the rocket made after that was bonus.
@@roycsinclair What was gained by this launch that was not already known, or could not be readily predicted through well-understood modeling? In other words, what was the actual purpose of conducting the launch?
@@don_5283 They "modeled" that the special concrete they used would hold up through one launch so they didn't hold the launch until the water deluge system was ready. Also modeling cannot and will not tell you how all the systems in the rocket will work together in a real launch. Modeling cannot accurately predict systems of mild complexity so expecting it to be able to understand a system of high complexity is asking for trouble.
There's nothing in the world as good as creating a prototype and testing it which is exactly what SpaceX is good at. That way they learned vital information like the fact that the Flight Termination System was not up to the task of breaking their steel shelled rocket up like it was supposed to so they ended up waiting for aerodynamics to destroy it. That is something they found out on the very first test launch of the full stack so by testing a prototype where success was defined as "clearing the launch tower" they learned many things that modeling would never have told them.
Understand that they fully expected that the rocket might explode while still on the launch pad, if you think that the destruction was extensive because of the hole dug under the launch tower imagine the work they'd need to fix up after a launch pad explosion and yet they took that risk because they needed the knowledge that modeling would never provide.
@@roycsinclair Right, my overriding point is that they either should have already known (pad failure, Raptor unreliability) or been able to readily figure out (self-destruct system) the things you're claiming were important discoveries from this launch, using information we already paid for decades ago, and what we already know about modeling and materials science, and using individual component testing, rather than spending the money on a full-scale operational test. If you're defining "success" as "leaves the pad without exploding," I would say given our current understanding of rocketry, your definition of success is flawed, your rocket is not ready for launch, and you'd be better off proofing the individual components until there is something that both requires and justifies a full-scale test launch. It's much cheaper, after all, to stand-test and improve Raptors until they have a better than 99% reliability (which still leaves the chances that all of them will fire properly at only about 70%), and build a proper pad, and optimize other readily knowable factors.
The time for a full-scale test launch is when you think you've already solved all the problems you know about, and so the only way forward is to see how it all actually works together, and reveal the problems you didn't know about, or prove the vehicle is ready for work. This launch was conducted with a number of problems known but not solved, which at best is a merely wasteful expenditure, but more importantly will likely result in unknown problems being masked by known problems, and therefore requiring subsequent expensive test launches. Simply defining success as clearing the tower without making a good case for why is vapid and manipulative, and I'm still waiting for something concrete and specific that you think necessitated this launch.
@@don_5283 You're claiming that the approach Blue Origin is using is superior to the approach SpaceX is using. That's pure nonsense as B.O. has been around for two years longer than SpaceX and have yet to have even a piece of their development actually reach orbit. Meanwhile SpaceX developed the Falcon rocket, the Falcon 9 rocket, the Falcon 9 heavy rocket AND showed the world that rockets can be re-used and has gone on to launch so often that they will surpass the number of launches of the Soyuz rocket in just a few more years while they've already made the Falcon 9 rocket the most reliable rocket ever.
And oh yeah, despite following your proposed path B.O. has lost all but one of it's sub-orbital rockets and the only reason they haven't lost that one is that they stopped launching it.
That's why I scoff at your idealized and slower than molasses "This is how it ought to be done" criticism.
You are wrong, what's right in front of your eyes is how it ought to be done but you want them to stop all progress and turn into the kind of sluggish non-performers that have plagued NASA since the Apollo program ended.
SpaceX knows that the best way to wring out the problems is by flying prototypes and fixing the failures as they occur. That's why they are successful and B.O. remains a joke.
I disagree with your assessment that the vehicle that reaches orbit will not return. SpaceX has done wonderous innovations. I don't have any doubt about its safe return. The booster is my concern. It is threading the needle.
MINI!
It will take hundreds of people around the world in 30 mins. or Moon or Mars. Give it 10 years before it's routine. There's been 265 launches of Falcon 9 so far, some reused 15+ x's.
For a new booster with all this new technology to reach orbit on it's second attempt is not a 'finally' but very good.
waR THUNDER RUSSIAN GAME - YOU RECIVE MONEY FROM NOT REAL ARCADE FROM COUNTRY OF KILLERS
This makes you seem pretty biased in favor of SpaceX. Kinda dissapointing tbh
I was disappointed as well. Had to unsubscribe, I can't take any of his work seriously anymore if he's that biased.
@@EvanBear
That makes three, plus a bunch of factual errors. He should have “Stayed in his Lane”! Can’t take him serious now!
I found this video relatively factual about how the first launch went.
What would you consider less biased? Parroting the line of Musk hating union funded ‘activists’ about how Starship is the end of human civilization?
@@shouryabose5943 What are you even talking about.
@@shouryabose5943
“Relatively Factual” covers a large territory of the “Bias Swamp”!! His normal videos are expected to be extracted from sparse sources of information. Once he adventured into sx fanboyism, he was literally completing against 100s of other videos and channels whose single reason of existence is to promulgate the same line. The issue is that there are some channels that are reasonably information based giving an opportunity to “filter” fact from the “Fool-Aid” drinkers. So he foolishly ventured into an area where “fact checking” was highly probable due to the volume of sources and the high level of interest. HIS FILTER WAS SIGNIFICANTLY BIASED!! If you are of the opinion that any information that doesn’t march-in-step with the Fool-Aid drinking tribe’s “Weltanschauung” due to being aligned with unions, is rather “interesting”.
Sad that this UA-camr clearly is pro Elon when he only likes the pro Elon comments!
Is he expected to be both pro Elon and anti Elon?
So what...he can like Elon...I like Elon too...
Ah I see a video about SpaceX has brought out the crazies and the haters.
Ignore them and carry on what you're doing. I enjoyed the video!
Dismissing everyone who disagrees with you as "crazy" and a "hater" reflects very poorly on you as it makes it seem like you have no argument and thus must resort to name-calling.
@@EvanBear Whilst true there's absolutely a hardcore element that hate on space x no matter what just because it's owned by Elon Musk. He's a douche but that has bugger all to do with space x on a technical level.
Mini Air Crash hearted a comment calling people crazy for not agreeing with the commenter. Yeah people can be biased against Elon Musk but clearly they can also be very much biased for him. Also, Elon Musk does have something to do with SpaceX, he for example made them launch on 4/20 for the memes. They weren't ready, obviously. That rocket should've never left the ground to begin with.
If people are not inspired by the incredible work that spacex has done over the last six years, I don't know what will.
Yeah, the inability to do what the government did 60 years ago, and littering the orbit with tens of thousands of small satellites is inspiring. It tells me that anyone can be the richest man in the world
@@feylezofriza lmao. You would have a problem with poor people getting internet.
@@TroyRubert Gotta give those poor people their bread and circuses!
@@TroyRubert "Elon Musk ordered his Starlink satellite communications network to be turned off near the Crimean coast last year to hobble a Ukrainian drone attack on Russian warships, according to a new biography."
I think us poor people are fine without his "help".
The fact it did not RUD when it was tumbling is a way way bigger deal than most realize. Most rockets fold like papier-mâché.
Exactly. Neither do they know the SpaceX saved the US goverment a huge amount of money in launch costs in 2022.
I see that Elon’s preferential drink is widely imbibed at this site. I guess this video sets the prorating standard for the rest.
Rule #1: Don't used the failed Russian moon rocket design of using many small rocket engines in the stages.
The Russians failing at it doesn't really have any bearing on anyone else doing it. I would think in the current year you'd be aware of Falcon Heavy, which has 27 first stage engines, and has been flying since 2018.
Still its bad that they did not lauch
Starship has yet to demonstrate usability. Forget re-usability since Starship has never took off and landed intact.
Its failure is due to it being a backwards design. It was based on childish 50s concepts of how an interplanetary ship landing on Mars would LOOK like and then tried to cram all technology into that napkin design.
Proper mission planning starts with mission goals and then tries to develop the best technology to fulfill those goals. The wrap around look of a spaceship should be the last consideration and not the first!
Before the Muskrats say 'innovation requires iteration! NASA blew up lots of rockets when it was in development' was an excuse one could use in the 1950s and 60s. Over half century later we know how rockets and their launches work and even SpaceX has demonstrated this with their awesome Falcon 9 rockets! There is no excuse to repeatedly keep blowing up hundreds of millions of dollars' worth of hardware on each test! Imagine if it was NASA directly developing these rockets and blowing them up! NASA's budget would be cut to obliteration by the third failure!
I wouldn't mind the so-called 'visionary' efforts as much if they weren't at the expense of taxpayers (oh right most people ignore the fact that most of SpaceX budget depends on heavy subsidies from the government including all of their R&D budget drawn from NASA) and trampling on municipal rights of local residents in Texas.
The fact that you think we know everything about building a good rocket is hilarious. We don't. the reality is rockets operate right at the limit of what is possibble to build. Anything that attempts to improve on that is going to run into issues it has to solve.
Also NASA is blowing it's rockets up, thats what non-reusable amounts to. Everything bar whatever the crew comes back in gets thrown away. And they're doing it at many times the cost of the entire starship development program.
No Space X does not receive subsidies. They receive contracts to do work for the government, in exchange for that work they get paid. Just like everyone else who works for a government.
"all of their R&D budget drawn from NASA"
Source?
Don't believe the SpaceX hype...but of course you will, til a disaster then you'll be ah🤔
13min of rambling to say that the fire ate the cables. Smh
Everybody is worried about the carbon footprint of my car, but what is the carbon footprint of a methane burning rocket of that size? NASA used hydrogen for their main engines and it's exhaust was pure new water.
I wonder if SpaceX actually paid carbon taxes, like common people have to, included in airline fares, gasoline and what not, nowadays.
Besides the CO2, they also released a huge quantity of unburned methane, which is supposed to have 80X the impact of CO2. Did the EPA fine them for that? I mean, we the people will all be driven out of our ICE cars and into EV's within the next 10 years and SpaceX is still allowed to do this? I have changed my incandescent bulbs for LED! My car has less than 100 hp! So, please cut it out and leave me alone, environmentalists. Go after the big ones if you really care for your cause. Go tell the people in South East Asia that they're not supposed to throw their trash in the rivers and let me have my disposable plastic bag that I reuse until it rips and then throw away in my trash that I have to pay for to get rid of it responsibly.
How many airline passengers would be able to travel how many miles if we used the amount of fossil fuel SpaceX wasted in a modern aircraft?
Primo
That this launch was a 'success' is a lie! That was a retcon only announced a few weeks before launch (as Musk finally listened to some engineers instead of immediately firing them for contradicting him) despite the clearly stated goal that this should have been an orbital mission.
But sure meeting an arbitrary deadline of 4/20 instead of accepting this design is not capable of delivering on pretty much any of the goals of spaceflight is more important... Muskrats will call it an amazing success no matter what.
The launch was supposed to happens days earlier, 4/20 date had nothing to do with the decision to launch.
a thumb 👍
Sounds like that Soviet Space Program cope when they claimed the N-1 lunar rocket was a great success because it cleared the tower.
I remeber seeing people mocking Elon about the rocket blowing and i wanted to smach them. Idjits. This was an incredible achievement, are you really that blind with pettiness? Yes, apparently.
Last time NASA had a rocket blow up they didn't consider it a success.
He failed at something the public sector did decades ago.
This is supposed to be the rocket that'll take us back to the moon, but no Saturn-V rocket ever failed to reach orbit or blew up, so it's hard to celebrate something like this as a success. I question whether or not Starship can even be ready for the Artemis 3 mission when we know the SLS rocket at least works and can be used an alternative.
Absolutely uncritical acceptance of SpaceX's reports without addressing the very likely source of the problem (outside of the Musk Ox's hubris): blowing the launch pad to smithereens and causing a bunch of debris to run amok in the engine bay.
That was easily fixed, wasn't it?
*RIP* to the dead Space X astronauts.