@@Oznz-m5c neither of them were failures so I’m not sure what you’re talking about. They’re prototypes, so multiple test flights need to happen to perfect things. It’s all about flight data collection at this point.
@@atvrider391 Well they would qualify as failures yes as they were not planned. Also on IFT1 you had multiple engine failures, TVC failure, FTS failure and launchpad failures etc so even on tonys metrics, this was a huge success. Can't wait to see how IFT3 goes and if they can bring booster to soft landing to water. Starship making through atmosphere on first try seems bit unlikely as tiles keep falling off still but - I wouldnt bet on it as i didn't expect hot staging to go as smoothly as it did
@@tapio83getting past the pad on flight 1 was not planned either. Getting further than separation was not planned either for flight 2. I mean I guess they did have a plan assuming all things went well. But their goal was to at least reach the steps I mentioned. Which they succeeded and exceeded each time.
I like how the first ship technically lasted longer but the second ship was still more than double the distance away and didn’t lose engines until after the staging event. Not the complete success we were hoping for but comparing it to the first launch really shows huge improvements pretty easily
Really shows the tyranny of the rocket equation. With "only" 3 engines down, Superheavy looks like it's crawling off the launchpad. IFT-2 picks up velocity way faster.
Very true, but also some incredible compensation of the entire system on the first try. But wow did they get higher and faster on the second when it worked properly. In comparison the first really does look like my first attempts at a rocket design in ksp before perfecting the design.
@@nt78stonewobble I'm obviously a little older than you... When I was making (extremely dangerous, I now see) early attempts at rocketry in my childhood, I did it for real, somehow managing to wiggle between the cracks of overlapping supervision that several different adults had that should have stopped me, and only by the grace of Providence not seriously injuring myself! Lol
The first one used the old raptor engine, old hardware design(TVC, pipe, wiring, etc). So, the weight of both Starship and Booster was higher. The thrust power of engines was lower. Sadly, booster can't re-ignite and lost all engines for return. I believe they trigged FTS on booster as well. Starship looked fine when they can burn almost propellant but not sure why they lost the control and had to use FTS.
@@johnm8224 Well, it wasn't just you or SpaceX, entire countries have had wobbly and questionable (early) rockets since the 40's. I've seen the recordings :D
Agreed. One major issue is launchpad. It's not sufficient and can't be upgraded to re-use quickly like they expected. The production pace is great now. They can have ship and booster for testing every two months. I hope they will have a 100% successful launch at the 4th or the 5th IFT. They must re-design the launchpad and upgraded it properly for testing and launching.
The next flight will be before Christmas (depending on the FAA). That one will be fully successful. In late Feb, early March the real test of Starship will occur. The RTLS mission 1 Booster returns & is caught by the copsticks ....Strarship retruns & lands on pad at Starbase. Then both vehicles are refurbished and reflown again. Proving the concept. At that point the manned version goes full steam ahead. First manned flight 1 yr from now. Dear Moon in 18 months. If we don't have World War III, Mars by the end of the decade. What was once science fiction will become reality. I hope I will still be alive to see it.
@@openwrtguru247 Do you have a reference regarding the launchpad? It was upgraded extensively after IFT-1. What makes you think the current design is not adequate?
@@WG-tt6hk You are naive to think they will land any booster within the next year, without a second launch tower they would not even attempt this as it could destroy the launch infrastructure and cause significant delays to the program. People come up with funny time estimates all the time even when constantly disproven. Is being realistic not satisfying? That this stack will be able to land in the next few years is by itself impressive, isn't it?
It looked so much more healthy lifting off with all emgines running. That first launch just looked like it was so labored and barely able to lift itself being down so many engines
Looking back at IFT-1 through the lens of IFT-2, IFT-1 looks like a failure. Barely getting off the pad and immediately losing control of the rocket, destroying the launch pad, and on top of it all the failure of the FTS to do its job definitely are things that should not have happened and made the IFT-1 launch incredibly dangerous and borderline reckless. IFT-2 was completely safe: they were in control of the rocket all the way through, and when they lost control of each stage, the FTS worked as designed. Plus the pad is intact. IFT-1 got the basics wrong while IFT-2 actually revealed either design or operational flaws that need to be tweaked. IFT-2 wasn't a success but it wasn't a failure: it was somewhere in between. IFT-3 I don't think they'll get to Hawaii, but they will make it to re-entry.
The ignorance of commentors. Iterative improvements is how this game gets played. This launch was significantly better than the first. Over time, each launch will get better until it becomes routinely successful. That's how this game gets played, folks. Falcon 9 and Falcon heavy are perfect examples. They blew up all the time at the beginning, now they are the most reliable, successful, and least expensive launch vehicles in history.
I think people expect rockets to work like consumer electronics or cars. Usually when you see them they’re ready for market. But even those products go through multiple iterations before we see them. Rockets launch tests just can’t be done in private.
@@angryox3102 I mean, they kinda used to be done in private, what we are seeing with the transparency in the test process is unprecedented. Back in the 40s-60s, almost all rocket tests were classified SECRET or TOP SECRET and you couldn't be within miles of the launch site, let alone broadcast it to the world. And there were a LOT of failures (search for USAF_ICBM_and_NASA_Launch_Vehicle_Flight_Test_Successes_and_Failures). By the time of Saturn I and Saturn V, most of the bugs were worked out.
It’s crazy seeing people act like spacex and musk failed when these flights don’t go all the way. They’re literally the best in the world at what they do and rockets are insanely hard. I’ll take SpaceX’s approach of rapid iteration and blowing stuff up along the way then NASA’s make everything perfect and take 2 decades to make something
So much better this time!!! I was at the first flight and it was incredible but this looked so much smoother!! 3rd time will get us to "almost" orbit!! The acceleration was so much better this time - not even comparable.
@@blackhatfreak surviving hot staging and testing the launch pad was the primary goal of this flight, testing how long the rocket can endure re-entry is the only other important part of this test.
My observation: looks like the booster engines were fuel starved in the flip. One side engines stopped as if the fuel flowed away from them and they stalled.
Yeah, I'm not sure if they have confirmed this, but this definitely seems like the case. They did say that the booster was terminated with the FTS so that may act as a confirmation until they give an official analysis.
Thanks for this video. Just shows a direct reason for rapid iteration. What a difference in speed, altitude, engine failure... So much more. Thanks for this video so quickly.
Thank you so much for this comparison. It just goes to show how much progress was made between IFT-1 and IFT-2. IFT-1 was completely plucked from the moment it blew up the base of the launch pad. I can't wait to see IFT-3 launch Soon™
There was no attempt at stage separation during IFT-1. The whole stack simply went out of control well short of that mark when the fire in the engine bay finally severed the control lines between the flight computer and the engines.
Also, B7 did not make it far enough into its programmed flight profile, Per Elon. Basically the FC knew it wasn’t high enough for staging, so it literally wouldn’t allow it to separate. Resulting in the spinning stack. Separation events, as well as others, are not based off a countdown like it may suggest. Instead, certain events are programmed to happen, if and only if, the preceding programs are completed, and the flight profile has reached a certain performance/stage in the mission.
One of the things that makes this so exciting is the speed at which they will be able to turn around and try again. I am really curious to hear what they discover from the data of this flight. To see what they implement and how quickly to address the things that went wrong. While it may not have been a complete success, this was by no means a failure. The whole reason for these tests is for things to go wrong now, so they can design and engineer a fix. - Many of the engines are still early prototype engines as well. A channel I follow has some excellent videos following SpaceX's progress with some great drone footage and images. The channel discussed how the numbers on the engines in this Booster were just starting to break 100 I think and they have Raptors engines in the 300s or almost 400s? I'm not sure of the exact number. As I understand, however, the latest engines off the line have benefited from manufacturing improvements and such. This is where I really respect the infrastructure SpaceX is building for keeping a steady production. Each test now, even if not a complete success, is never a failure if they learn and improve from it. That high production allows them to quickly send arrange the next test flight. - Oh, and I am VERY curious to see the drone footage or images of the launch pad and see how it has held up. The water deluge system was awesome. Does this mean the launch pad gets a steam clean during every launch?
I believe after the first stage separation the first stage rotated too aggressively for the "burn back" maneuver causing the remaining fuel to "slosh" around in the mostly empty tanks which caused fuel supply problems to the "burn back" engines which then cause them to drop out one by one or more, once that happened the onboard fight controller knowing it could no longer control the rocket with most or all of the engines out terminated the rocket...
@@Mandrak789 They have plenty of cameras on the vehicles, for their own "engineering/monitoring purposes", but just now is the first time I realised that they didn't seem to share any of those this time.... Mind you, they are under no obligation to, and most of their competitors either don't, or do so reluctantly. SpaceX's openness to date has spoiled us to expect it. Anyway, check out some of the beautiful full-native 4k footage from UA-camrs like Everyday Astronaut (both in hindsight this time, or live for future launches.)
At 3:07, the time index whatever, is way too low, MECO, stage separation should have occurred at 100km or 63 miles above sea level. Traveling 5 times the speed of sound at 48 miles above sea level in the mesosphere, a layer extending from approximately 30 to 50 miles (50 to 85 km) above the surface, ripped the top off of the booster like an exploding beer keg, pop. It may have survived if separation had happened above 70 miles up.
To someone who knows nothing about how rockets are developed, this still looks like a failure. First stage destroyed, second stage not communicating. But to someone who knows a little something about the development of orbital-class rockets - especially the early ones whose development model SpaceX is following - this is an incredibly optimistic launch. They got through staging and the second stage made it into space before they lost contact! That's huge! All 33 fist-stage engines stayed lit until they were commanded to shut off! That's even bigger! To put it into perspective: this is way further than the N-1 ever got, and it's the only rocket that's had a similar number of first-stage engines.
If they don't try to return back for testing vertical landing, it's 100% successful like the other expendable rockets from the other companies/countries, e.g. SLS. Blue Origin and ULA can't event make their rocket engines working properly on test standing for years.
O progresso acontece diante de nossos olhos, foi uma evolução notável!! Se for nesse ritmo, o próximo teste teremos o Starship caindo no mar e o super haver voltando para o solo. Espero que sim 🙌🙌 Também quero destacar, o fato de que todos os motores funcionam e fizeram a diferença, tanto na velocidade como altitude. Ciência é isso tentativa e erro,o próximo ano promete mais lançamento 😈😈😈
I paused it at 2:58 and it showed 2 at 70km and 1 at 35km altitude. So the 2nd flight in the same time, got *double* the height of the 1st. I didn't realise just how badly Flight 1 was suffering from it's engine troubles until I saw this!
Great comparison! I still feel like the pulverized pad, and flying chunks of concrete took out those engines. And what a difference, less than half the altitude and speed, at the same time mark of 2:25
This was really cool to see thanks. Watching a side by side you can really see the improvements and progression. At this rate they will landing on the moon in the next 2 years.
For initial development, they don't want to release those things in public. They do have a lot of them for reviewing with FAA and NASA. They just don't release them for public.
I've watched two different "perfectly synced" launch videos and they've both sort of casually ignored the countdown clocks, which should have been the easiest and most obvious way to actually sync the videos.
Now we are not allowed to call Space X launches failures because after Starship 1 I had Space X fans crying in their Coke Cola, and threatening me with bodily harm when I said that. So we will use their own terminology. Saturn V 14 launches, no failures, no rapid disassembles. Starship 2 launch attempts two rapid disassembles.
Stupid comparison. If they didn't try to test the returning and vertical landing and use like a expendable rocket, it's totally successful. Besides, how long to test and make a simple Saturn V to work like that? Don't said anything if you're not working on R&D before. We don't work and innovate by your stupid, outdated way (like 90s). Shut your mouth up if you're a at high-school level :))
Failures are what made falcon 9 the most reliable rocket in history, by the way the saturn V project costed 36 billion $ USD and was not reusable at all (if it was cheaper it would still be used you know;). The way spacex work is by iterative design wich is the opposite of most of the industry, its a practical way of constantly improving uppon "failures" .
Explain apollo 1 the crew died to fire Explain apollo 11 they almost got stranded in the moon Explain apollo 13 they didn't made it to the moon How about do some research before commenting Apollo got no failures.
Saturn 5 cost about 100 times as much, and had plenty of issues. They lost 3 astronauts before they even launched it, and every other flight had problems. They were lucky, it’s a bloody miracle they made it to the moon.
@@blue_ish4499 Great comment. As my checking now, it's $50B in 2020 price. So, it should be 60B for 2023 price tag. Right now, Artemis project with SLS cost those stupid numbers. They're building another mobile launchpad for those outdated rockets. NASA is joke right now when comparing when private companies or China, India. What's a shame.
In the future when Starship is launching weekly and reliably, do you think anyone is gonna give a flying fuck if it failed a few times in the beginning vs having a near perfect launch record? There gonna get to the same point anyway and people will forget about these early launches, just like with the Falcon 9. I'd rather fly on a perfectly reliable rocket that failed a few times at the start, then a perfectly reliable rocket that has never failed, and thus, has probably never had its failure modes properly tested and fixed.
They proved they can fly to the space. Still speed and altitude was not enough to lanch satellites. They didn't prove they can be returned/reused. We still don't know how "reusable" is launchpad. But they should know ).
@@yurijmikhassiak7342 Two launches, two failures. You know that NASA expects between 15-17 successful flights before it gets a sniff at Artemis. So, the timeline is now further delayed, and it is nought for two so far. Perhaps the third time is the trick. The new addition to the system which may or may not be reusable, flies in the face of musk's inane, "the best part is no part" rant. You couldn't make this up. 🤣
It's interesting how only 5 engine losses cut the speed of the first one by half. You'd figure half the engines being gone would equal half of the speed is lost.
It's the rocket equation, but just think of it this way... when fully fueled MOST of the engines are just canceling out the force of gravity. Only the 'extras' get it to accelerate up. To simplify, lets say you had a rocket with 20 engines, but at full load, 15 are needed just to give thrust equal to weight. So you have 5 'engine-ups' of force pushing up. If you lose 3, now you only have 2 'engine-ups' of force... so a Rocket with 17 engines burning has 85% of the engines going, BUT.... only has 40% of the acceleration up as a rocket with all 20 going.
Cause you have to fight a constant number, gravity. Just imagine using 1 engine, you wouldn't get 1/33 of the speed, you'd get 0 speed cause you can't even overcome gravity. The force you need to produce has to be higher than 1g to go up. Let's say all you have 20 engines and together they produce 2g of acceleration, you'll be going up with an acceleration of 1g. If you lose 1/4 of them you'll have 15 engines and 1.5g, going up with an acceleration of 0.5g, you basically lost half of your acceleration by losing a fourth of your engines. And if you lose a half of them you can't even go up
Do you even know what you are looking at? A rocket doesn't do stuff just because it wants to. A rocket will not just do stage seperation until it reached a very specific speed and altitude. IFT-1 never got there, because it was flying waaaay slower. But they wanted to see how far it could get, so they let it fly (and the flight termination system wasn't working properly) as far as they could. Then it was blown up. IFT-2 got to stage seperation, it did it's flip manouver, it re-lit it's engines and only then it got into trouble and it blew up. But it wouldn't have been terminated (or exploded as you stated) for longer, if they let it fly as long as IFT-1 without doing stage seperation. So you can't compare the times of when they blew up at all, they were under completely different circumstances and were terminated because of different reasons.
Someone clearly wasn’t looking at the numbers. IFT-1 one exploded at an altitude of 38 km with a speed of 1744 km/h while IFT-2 exploded at an altitude of 90 km with a speed of 3818 km/h. This means IFT-2 was moving over two times faster than IFT-1 and reached almost thrice the height. That’s not even mentioning the fact that IFT-2 had a successful booster separation.
@@Roover8138 Yes. You did watch the side by side you can also look at the clock. IFT-2 met a rapid unscheduled disassembly faster. IFT-1 met it's rapid unscheduled disassembly slower. IFT-1 did damage itself faster.
@@anthonylipke7754 Agreed lol the improvements they made to the abort system was definitely needed. The first one tumbled way longer than I remembered…
For everyone who cares about their future and the fate of their loved ones, there will be a live broadcast *"Global* *Crisis.* *The* *Responsibility"* (international online forum) on December 2 at 17:00 GMT. There will be unique and vital information.
We have the Great Responsibility to get rid of psicho ambientalist fake narrative and send kids to school to learn philosophy, literature and science, not genderism, wokism, marxism and catastrophism.
@sid3wind3rfpv94 The information that will be voiced on the forum has nothing to do with Greta's stories. Carbon taxes and limiting emissions will do nothing. It will be about the future of humankind and the entire planet in the next 5-7 years. And whether we will have this future at all.
@@TroyRubert The forum will present reliable facts that the media, official science and governments are not telling you. Your life depends on this information.
Once they reach their target speed (they were very close before the Starship RUD), they shot down the engines and burn no propellant at all. Starship coasts around the earth and comes back into the atmosphere near Hawaii. Because it flies around the earth outside of (almost all of) the atmosphere, it doesn't really slow down, and doesn't need to keep it's engines going. Satellites in orbit stay up for years or even decades without constantly using propellant... a stable orbit means it is essentially in permanent free-fall, falling around the Earth. Starship almost reached those speeds today :)
2 launches, two failures that never made it to orbit. That's not SpaceX. The first failure was the booster that doomed the Starship, but this second attempt failure fell squarely on Starship. I fully expected orbit and splash down off Hawaii. SpaceX is in danger of failing at wresting the SLS funding away from failed primes Boeing and Northrop Grumman. Yes, Elon's been given $5B as a "backup" to any failure of Boeing & Northrop Grumman while ULA has muddied the funding waters to hide the nearly $93B in "2025 dollars" language and how much of that has gone down the SLS end of the sewer hose, but It's beginning to look like Elon may have already spent the $5B without getting to orbit... I hope we see see IFT-3 success on December 26th. Bill Nelson will be eating crow for New Years at his retirement party.
Genuinely shocked at the difference between the two. The speed and stability of 2 compared to 1 is amazing.
so is two failures compared to one.
@@Oznz-m5c neither of them were failures so I’m not sure what you’re talking about. They’re prototypes, so multiple test flights need to happen to perfect things. It’s all about flight data collection at this point.
@@atvrider391 Well they would qualify as failures yes as they were not planned. Also on IFT1 you had multiple engine failures, TVC failure, FTS failure and launchpad failures etc so even on tonys metrics, this was a huge success. Can't wait to see how IFT3 goes and if they can bring booster to soft landing to water. Starship making through atmosphere on first try seems bit unlikely as tiles keep falling off still but - I wouldnt bet on it as i didn't expect hot staging to go as smoothly as it did
there is something else. launch 2 has an equal consumption of LOX and LCH4, launch 1 has a higher LOX consumption and ran out of it.
@@tapio83getting past the pad on flight 1 was not planned either. Getting further than separation was not planned either for flight 2. I mean I guess they did have a plan assuming all things went well. But their goal was to at least reach the steps I mentioned. Which they succeeded and exceeded each time.
I like how the first ship technically lasted longer but the second ship was still more than double the distance away and didn’t lose engines until after the staging event. Not the complete success we were hoping for but comparing it to the first launch really shows huge improvements pretty easily
Really shows how much the first launch struggled to compensate and how much efficiency was wasted as compared to when the launch is smooth.
Hoping third times a charm..
Fascinating to compare the speed and height values between the two to show just how much trouble the booster had on IFT-1!
Really shows the tyranny of the rocket equation. With "only" 3 engines down, Superheavy looks like it's crawling off the launchpad. IFT-2 picks up velocity way faster.
Very true, but also some incredible compensation of the entire system on the first try.
But wow did they get higher and faster on the second when it worked properly.
In comparison the first really does look like my first attempts at a rocket design in ksp before perfecting the design.
@@nt78stonewobble I'm obviously a little older than you... When I was making (extremely dangerous, I now see) early attempts at rocketry in my childhood, I did it for real, somehow managing to wiggle between the cracks of overlapping supervision that several different adults had that should have stopped me, and only by the grace of Providence not seriously injuring myself! Lol
The first one used the old raptor engine, old hardware design(TVC, pipe, wiring, etc). So, the weight of both Starship and Booster was higher. The thrust power of engines was lower.
Sadly, booster can't re-ignite and lost all engines for return. I believe they trigged FTS on booster as well. Starship looked fine when they can burn almost propellant but not sure why they lost the control and had to use FTS.
@@johnm8224 Well, it wasn't just you or SpaceX, entire countries have had wobbly and questionable (early) rockets since the 40's. I've seen the recordings :D
SpaceX made some real progress this morning. Sure, there’s work to be done but it was a STRONG step forward for SpaceX.
Agreed. One major issue is launchpad. It's not sufficient and can't be upgraded to re-use quickly like they expected. The production pace is great now. They can have ship and booster for testing every two months. I hope they will have a 100% successful launch at the 4th or the 5th IFT.
They must re-design the launchpad and upgraded it properly for testing and launching.
The next flight will be before Christmas (depending on the FAA). That one will be fully successful. In late Feb, early March the real test of Starship will occur. The RTLS mission 1 Booster returns & is caught by the copsticks ....Strarship retruns & lands on pad at Starbase. Then both vehicles are refurbished and reflown again. Proving the concept. At that point the manned version goes full steam ahead. First manned flight 1 yr from now. Dear Moon in 18 months. If we don't have World War III, Mars by the end of the decade. What was once science fiction will become reality. I hope I will still be alive to see it.
@@openwrtguru247 Sure they'll do upgrades on the Kennedy Space Center launch site
🚀
@@openwrtguru247 Do you have a reference regarding the launchpad? It was upgraded extensively after IFT-1. What makes you think the current design is not adequate?
@@WG-tt6hk You are naive to think they will land any booster within the next year, without a second launch tower they would not even attempt this as it could destroy the launch infrastructure and cause significant delays to the program. People come up with funny time estimates all the time even when constantly disproven. Is being realistic not satisfying? That this stack will be able to land in the next few years is by itself impressive, isn't it?
It looked so much more healthy lifting off with all emgines running. That first launch just looked like it was so labored and barely able to lift itself being down so many engines
Test 2 was much better, not only stage seperation but more than twice the speed and height
The progression here is incredible. Anyone who says IFT-2 was a failure has no idea what they're talking about.
Looking back at IFT-1 through the lens of IFT-2, IFT-1 looks like a failure. Barely getting off the pad and immediately losing control of the rocket, destroying the launch pad, and on top of it all the failure of the FTS to do its job definitely are things that should not have happened and made the IFT-1 launch incredibly dangerous and borderline reckless. IFT-2 was completely safe: they were in control of the rocket all the way through, and when they lost control of each stage, the FTS worked as designed. Plus the pad is intact. IFT-1 got the basics wrong while IFT-2 actually revealed either design or operational flaws that need to be tweaked. IFT-2 wasn't a success but it wasn't a failure: it was somewhere in between. IFT-3 I don't think they'll get to Hawaii, but they will make it to re-entry.
How IFT-1 even made it off the ground is a miracle lmao
Pure spite
The ignorance of commentors. Iterative improvements is how this game gets played. This launch was significantly better than the first. Over time, each launch will get better until it becomes routinely successful. That's how this game gets played, folks. Falcon 9 and Falcon heavy are perfect examples. They blew up all the time at the beginning, now they are the most reliable, successful, and least expensive launch vehicles in history.
Iterative improvement and big booms isnt the only way to play this game but it is the fast and cheap way to do it
I think people expect rockets to work like consumer electronics or cars. Usually when you see them they’re ready for market. But even those products go through multiple iterations before we see them. Rockets launch tests just can’t be done in private.
I expect them to expel 100 ton of black carbon per launch and mess up our ozone layer. The explosions are just the icing on the cake of destruction.
@@angryox3102 I mean, they kinda used to be done in private, what we are seeing with the transparency in the test process is unprecedented. Back in the 40s-60s, almost all rocket tests were classified SECRET or TOP SECRET and you couldn't be within miles of the launch site, let alone broadcast it to the world. And there were a LOT of failures (search for USAF_ICBM_and_NASA_Launch_Vehicle_Flight_Test_Successes_and_Failures). By the time of Saturn I and Saturn V, most of the bugs were worked out.
It’s crazy seeing people act like spacex and musk failed when these flights don’t go all the way. They’re literally the best in the world at what they do and rockets are insanely hard. I’ll take SpaceX’s approach of rapid iteration and blowing stuff up along the way then NASA’s make everything perfect and take 2 decades to make something
So much better this time!!! I was at the first flight and it was incredible but this looked so much smoother!! 3rd time will get us to "almost" orbit!! The acceleration was so much better this time - not even comparable.
Congratulations Team SpaceX. Amazing progress in such a short amount of time!!
Agree 👍
Progress? What so instead of blowing up 3 mins, it blows up 8 mins in? Give me a break.
@@blackhatfreak its called development test flights, anything that completes mission goals is a success
@@blackhatfreak surviving hot staging and testing the launch pad was the primary goal of this flight, testing how long the rocket can endure re-entry is the only other important part of this test.
@@XxX-ww Spacex told you their primary goals ?😮.
My observation: looks like the booster engines were fuel starved in the flip. One side engines stopped as if the fuel flowed away from them and they stalled.
Yeah, I'm not sure if they have confirmed this, but this definitely seems like the case. They did say that the booster was terminated with the FTS so that may act as a confirmation until they give an official analysis.
@interstellarol. hope the camera in the tank worked.
Thanks for this video. Just shows a direct reason for rapid iteration. What a difference in speed, altitude, engine failure... So much more. Thanks for this video so quickly.
I wish we had some onboard views, hopefully they did put some cameras on there and they can release the footage soon!
Thank you so much for this comparison. It just goes to show how much progress was made between IFT-1 and IFT-2. IFT-1 was completely plucked from the moment it blew up the base of the launch pad. I can't wait to see IFT-3 launch Soon™
The difference in speed is insane, its crazy that IFT-1 attempted to stage at 33km when IFT-2 staged at 90km
There was no attempt at stage separation during IFT-1. The whole stack simply went out of control well short of that mark when the fire in the engine bay finally severed the control lines between the flight computer and the engines.
Stage separation on IFT1 was aborted due to the incorrect altitude and loss of control.
Also, B7 did not make it far enough into its programmed flight profile, Per Elon.
Basically the FC knew it wasn’t high enough for staging, so it literally wouldn’t allow it to separate. Resulting in the spinning stack.
Separation events, as well as others, are not based off a countdown like it may suggest. Instead, certain events are programmed to happen, if and only if, the preceding programs are completed, and the flight profile has reached a certain performance/stage in the mission.
One of the things that makes this so exciting is the speed at which they will be able to turn around and try again. I am really curious to hear what they discover from the data of this flight. To see what they implement and how quickly to address the things that went wrong. While it may not have been a complete success, this was by no means a failure. The whole reason for these tests is for things to go wrong now, so they can design and engineer a fix.
-
Many of the engines are still early prototype engines as well. A channel I follow has some excellent videos following SpaceX's progress with some great drone footage and images. The channel discussed how the numbers on the engines in this Booster were just starting to break 100 I think and they have Raptors engines in the 300s or almost 400s? I'm not sure of the exact number. As I understand, however, the latest engines off the line have benefited from manufacturing improvements and such. This is where I really respect the infrastructure SpaceX is building for keeping a steady production. Each test now, even if not a complete success, is never a failure if they learn and improve from it. That high production allows them to quickly send arrange the next test flight.
-
Oh, and I am VERY curious to see the drone footage or images of the launch pad and see how it has held up. The water deluge system was awesome. Does this mean the launch pad gets a steam clean during every launch?
Thank you for this extremely good sync video. Very surprising to see the speed differences in the two launches. Well done!
sooo fast IFT-2! thanks for this video, really appreciate !
I believe after the first stage separation the first stage rotated too aggressively for the "burn back" maneuver causing the remaining fuel to "slosh" around in the mostly empty tanks which caused fuel supply problems to the "burn back" engines which then cause them to drop out one by one or more, once that happened the onboard fight controller knowing it could no longer control the rocket with most or all of the engines out terminated the rocket...
they are many things that changed, but the worst thing they change is the video quality, from 4k to 720p
That's the best X (formerly Twitter) can do.
But Elon is gonna Elon.... Lol
and no cameras on the rocket and inside of it
@@Mandrak789 They have plenty of cameras on the vehicles, for their own "engineering/monitoring purposes", but just now is the first time I realised that they didn't seem to share any of those this time....
Mind you, they are under no obligation to, and most of their competitors either don't, or do so reluctantly.
SpaceX's openness to date has spoiled us to expect it.
Anyway, check out some of the beautiful full-native 4k footage from UA-camrs like Everyday Astronaut (both in hindsight this time, or live for future launches.)
In x/ twitter the live streaming is very bad. Even there has no quality change option
IFT-3 is going to be wild
It was!
GREAT JOB !!!!!!
LOOKING GREAT !!!!!! CANT WAIT TO SEE WHAT THE DATA SHOWS
Thank you for this comparison. The differences are stark. All hail the engineers.
When that telemetry graphic unfolds it gives me the same thrill i felt when KITT's dashboard was shown starting up on Knight Rider 😎
At 3:07, the time index whatever, is way too low, MECO, stage separation should have occurred at 100km or 63 miles above sea level. Traveling 5 times the speed of sound at 48 miles above sea level in the mesosphere, a layer extending from approximately 30 to 50 miles (50 to 85 km) above the surface, ripped the top off of the booster like an exploding beer keg, pop. It may have survived if separation had happened above 70 miles up.
To someone who knows nothing about how rockets are developed, this still looks like a failure. First stage destroyed, second stage not communicating. But to someone who knows a little something about the development of orbital-class rockets - especially the early ones whose development model SpaceX is following - this is an incredibly optimistic launch.
They got through staging and the second stage made it into space before they lost contact! That's huge! All 33 fist-stage engines stayed lit until they were commanded to shut off! That's even bigger! To put it into perspective: this is way further than the N-1 ever got, and it's the only rocket that's had a similar number of first-stage engines.
Didn't the N-1 have a hard time clearing the pad before it went boom !
@@alwenke212 IIRC the furthest it got was to just before first stage cutoff. So yeah, it had trouble getting off the pad.
To be fair, for almost every other rocket the booster is considered successful the moment it stages successfully.
If they don't try to return back for testing vertical landing, it's 100% successful like the other expendable rockets from the other companies/countries, e.g. SLS.
Blue Origin and ULA can't event make their rocket engines working properly on test standing for years.
@@toukoaozaki You're not wrong.
Thanks for putting this together, most interesting!
最好的祝福送给spaceX，祝愿他们成功！
Best regards for spaceX, hopefully !
That looked professional. Well done, SpaceX.
O progresso acontece diante de nossos olhos, foi uma evolução notável!! Se for nesse ritmo, o próximo teste teremos o Starship caindo no mar e o super haver voltando para o solo. Espero que sim 🙌🙌
Também quero destacar, o fato de que todos os motores funcionam e fizeram a diferença, tanto na velocidade como altitude. Ciência é isso tentativa e erro,o próximo ano promete mais lançamento 😈😈😈
Amazing how 3 more engins burning can make such a different at liftoff.
Unreal, twice the velocity in the same time. This is a big big improvement and it's gonna be amazing after they make this routine.
I paused it at 2:58 and it showed 2 at 70km and 1 at 35km altitude. So the 2nd flight in the same time, got *double* the height of the 1st. I didn't realise just how badly Flight 1 was suffering from it's engine troubles until I saw this!
Great comparison!
I still feel like the pulverized pad, and flying chunks of concrete took out those engines. And what a difference, less than half the altitude and speed, at the same time mark of 2:25
This is a great perspective...
The difference those few extra engines staying on is amazing
Was IFT2 even running above 90% throttle? On average it was twice as far and twice as fast as IFT1.
No it was still at 90%, that's just how much of an effect losing the engines that IFT1 lost had on the rocket
One step closer to success.
This was really cool to see thanks. Watching a side by side you can really see the improvements and progression. At this rate they will landing on the moon in the next 2 years.
Is that launch 2 slight angle out of the of on purpose ?
The second one flies at double the speed because 4 engines are off.
Why weren't there cameras onboard IFT-2??
There probably were quite a few cameras on it, they just haven't released the footage yet.
For initial development, they don't want to release those things in public. They do have a lot of them for reviewing with FAA and NASA. They just don't release them for public.
you stole my video idea but you included the telemetry so I'll give it to you
Thank you
How much is the pad to blame for the difference between those two launches? 90%? more?
Those missing 5 engines make a big difference. No 1 was only going half speed. Looking forward to #3.
this is so Kerbal!
Только в перёд! К звёздам!
It was a perfect launch 👌 👏
It exploded!
@@AthosRac Yes it did but the launch was a success by far
@@AthosRac He was most likely talking about raptor engines. Which were pretty much perfect this time.
I am overjoyed! What a day!!
The explosions were caused by outoegnition, compression heating and engine coking in ift2.
Wow, thanks for the comparison!
the white suff coming out of attempt one is unignited fuel because you can see, the liquid oxygen is at zero.
First test failed at begining as egines most likely got damaged by flying concrete, the lauch pad was a problem not the rocket.
Not the case. Exhaust would have prevented any debris from reaching the engines
@@weekiely1233 How come that the deluge system solved this problem then?
I've watched two different "perfectly synced" launch videos and they've both sort of casually ignored the countdown clocks, which should have been the easiest and most obvious way to actually sync the videos.
Should definitely edit it to remove them talking in mute for the last 4 minutes.... after it blew up we don't need to see them on IFT-1
Was on SPI during the launch. Unbelievable!
Dude they didnt know what lenses to use for itf1
Ve os 33 raptors funcionando foi lindo demais
release more gas with less energy?
Now we are not allowed to call Space X launches failures because after Starship 1 I had Space X fans crying in their Coke Cola, and threatening me with bodily harm when I said that. So we will use their own terminology. Saturn V 14 launches, no failures, no rapid disassembles. Starship 2 launch attempts two rapid disassembles.
Stupid comparison. If they didn't try to test the returning and vertical landing and use like a expendable rocket, it's totally successful.
Besides, how long to test and make a simple Saturn V to work like that? Don't said anything if you're not working on R&D before.
We don't work and innovate by your stupid, outdated way (like 90s). Shut your mouth up if you're a at high-school level :))
Failures are what made falcon 9 the most reliable rocket in history, by the way the saturn V project costed 36 billion $ USD and was not reusable at all (if it was cheaper it would still be used you know;).
The way spacex work is by iterative design wich is the opposite of most of the industry, its a practical way of constantly improving uppon "failures" .
Explain apollo 1 the crew died to fire
Explain apollo 11 they almost got stranded in the moon
Explain apollo 13 they didn't made it to the moon
How about do some research before commenting Apollo got no failures.
Saturn 5 cost about 100 times as much, and had plenty of issues. They lost 3 astronauts before they even launched it, and every other flight had problems. They were lucky, it’s a bloody miracle they made it to the moon.
@@blue_ish4499 Great comment. As my checking now, it's $50B in 2020 price. So, it should be 60B for 2023 price tag.
Right now, Artemis project with SLS cost those stupid numbers. They're building another mobile launchpad for those outdated rockets. NASA is joke right now when comparing when private companies or China, India. What's a shame.
Thanks for not editing it.
To be fair, Booster 7 survived 40 seconds longer than Booster 9. 😂
Because FTS didn't work
@@FrankNoack67 Doesn't matter, B7 wins! lol, you know I'm just joking, right?
thanks for Comparison Video
In the future when Starship is launching weekly and reliably, do you think anyone is gonna give a flying fuck if it failed a few times in the beginning vs having a near perfect launch record? There gonna get to the same point anyway and people will forget about these early launches, just like with the Falcon 9. I'd rather fly on a perfectly reliable rocket that failed a few times at the start, then a perfectly reliable rocket that has never failed, and thus, has probably never had its failure modes properly tested and fixed.
rapid unscheduled disasembly
brilliant
Parts count matters!
Crazy how big the difference actually is
I think it was a successful day even though both stages go boom still got a lot of data. Neat seeing the side by side comparison. Thanks
They lost coms Stewart, no data.
@@IbnBahtuta They still have realtime data up to right before FTS, that's how these things usually work
@@mythrin Both were prematurely ended and the data from the soft landings never happened, that's how physics works.
They proved they can fly to the space. Still speed and altitude was not enough to lanch satellites. They didn't prove they can be returned/reused. We still don't know how "reusable" is launchpad. But they should know ).
@@yurijmikhassiak7342 Two launches, two failures. You know that NASA expects between 15-17 successful flights before it gets a sniff at Artemis. So, the timeline is now further delayed, and it is nought for two so far.
Perhaps the third time is the trick.
The new addition to the system which may or may not be reusable, flies in the face of musk's inane, "the best part is no part" rant. You couldn't make this up.
🤣
Where did ship 25 end up. I know the booster blew up. Did they blow up the ship aswel.
It looks like a big cover-up on that part
@@paulgonzalesjunior6098 is it still in space or on the way to the moon. Lol.
it self destructed after reaching orbital speed.
Think we'll get answers about exactly what happened over the next week.
It blew up after Seco
that is progress
Damn that’s a huge difference
Ift-1 was because the engine scrached the fuel tank.
Lmao and yall are telling me nasa was more advanced then 2023 space x...💀 We never went to the moon 😂
It's interesting how only 5 engine losses cut the speed of the first one by half. You'd figure half the engines being gone would equal half of the speed is lost.
It's the rocket equation, but just think of it this way... when fully fueled MOST of the engines are just canceling out the force of gravity. Only the 'extras' get it to accelerate up. To simplify, lets say you had a rocket with 20 engines, but at full load, 15 are needed just to give thrust equal to weight. So you have 5 'engine-ups' of force pushing up. If you lose 3, now you only have 2 'engine-ups' of force... so a Rocket with 17 engines burning has 85% of the engines going, BUT.... only has 40% of the acceleration up as a rocket with all 20 going.
FYI only 70% thrust in IFT-1 for booster 7, lifting off was the target.
Cause you have to fight a constant number, gravity. Just imagine using 1 engine, you wouldn't get 1/33 of the speed, you'd get 0 speed cause you can't even overcome gravity. The force you need to produce has to be higher than 1g to go up. Let's say all you have 20 engines and together they produce 2g of acceleration, you'll be going up with an acceleration of 1g. If you lose 1/4 of them you'll have 15 engines and 1.5g, going up with an acceleration of 0.5g, you basically lost half of your acceleration by losing a fourth of your engines. And if you lose a half of them you can't even go up
seeing this shows you how sick IFT-1 was ... that was such a dead ship.
Writes "Perfectly Synced". Uploads a video with 0.6 second difference in sync.
This really shows just how much of a hot mess flight 1 was.
the second test flight is accelerating so much faster
Long gamma burst (LGB) before booster gone supernova 😮
Thats what im saying :O
literally x2 faster and all engine were on full force!!
Good Job !
Wow amazing
Mexican jets were patrolling their air space.
We lost starship?? trust me bro?
Did anyone see starship blow up? I sure didn't
Update: nevemind, Scott Manley showed it blowed up fo real
starship terminated itself at around t+ 8:05
and no one saw it.@@nadca2
It did but it was far too high in space too actually see any with naked eye
Mystery solved, scott manley shared debris from a weather satellite@@gamers-xh3uc
B9 exploded earlier in flight than B7.
Do you even know what you are looking at? A rocket doesn't do stuff just because it wants to. A rocket will not just do stage seperation until it reached a very specific speed and altitude. IFT-1 never got there, because it was flying waaaay slower. But they wanted to see how far it could get, so they let it fly (and the flight termination system wasn't working properly) as far as they could. Then it was blown up. IFT-2 got to stage seperation, it did it's flip manouver, it re-lit it's engines and only then it got into trouble and it blew up. But it wouldn't have been terminated (or exploded as you stated) for longer, if they let it fly as long as IFT-1 without doing stage seperation. So you can't compare the times of when they blew up at all, they were under completely different circumstances and were terminated because of different reasons.
@@NJKoopmeiners dude.. was just posting a fun fact. The FTS on flight one didn’t even work right, it should have exploded way earlier..
Greater success destroyed itself faster. Clearly IFT-2 is closer to a full success. Edited for clarity.
The sevond time you troed to walk on your own did you make it further then the first
@@426shelby426 dunno probably fell on my butt.
Someone clearly wasn’t looking at the numbers. IFT-1 one exploded at an altitude of 38 km with a speed of 1744 km/h while IFT-2 exploded at an altitude of 90 km with a speed of 3818 km/h. This means IFT-2 was moving over two times faster than IFT-1 and reached almost thrice the height. That’s not even mentioning the fact that IFT-2 had a successful booster separation.
@@Roover8138 Yes. You did watch the side by side you can also look at the clock. IFT-2 met a rapid unscheduled disassembly faster. IFT-1 met it's rapid unscheduled disassembly slower. IFT-1 did damage itself faster.
@@anthonylipke7754 Agreed lol the improvements they made to the abort system was definitely needed. The first one tumbled way longer than I remembered…
For everyone who cares about their future and the fate of their loved ones, there will be a live broadcast *"Global* *Crisis.* *The* *Responsibility"* (international online forum) on December 2 at 17:00 GMT.
There will be unique and vital information.
Is it Greater Thumberg 🤔
We have the Great Responsibility to get rid of psicho ambientalist fake narrative and send kids to school to learn philosophy, literature and science, not genderism, wokism, marxism and catastrophism.
Say good bye to the internet as we know it. You can't have people sharing facts, only misinformation from now on.
@sid3wind3rfpv94 The information that will be voiced on the forum has nothing to do with Greta's stories. Carbon taxes and limiting emissions will do nothing.
It will be about the future of humankind and the entire planet in the next 5-7 years. And whether we will have this future at all.
@@TroyRubert The forum will present reliable facts that the media, official science and governments are not telling you. Your life depends on this information.
Two failures side by side love it
You're Troll-Fu is weak, as it is clear you are trying too hard! :)
It looked like they burned too much propellant too fast. They never would have made it to Hawaii.
There was a propellant leak in the starship
Once they reach their target speed (they were very close before the Starship RUD), they shot down the engines and burn no propellant at all. Starship coasts around the earth and comes back into the atmosphere near Hawaii. Because it flies around the earth outside of (almost all of) the atmosphere, it doesn't really slow down, and doesn't need to keep it's engines going. Satellites in orbit stay up for years or even decades without constantly using propellant... a stable orbit means it is essentially in permanent free-fall, falling around the Earth. Starship almost reached those speeds today :)
Nope, not perfectly synced.
2 launches, two failures that never made it to orbit. That's not SpaceX. The first failure was the booster that doomed the Starship, but this second attempt failure fell squarely on Starship. I fully expected orbit and splash down off Hawaii.
SpaceX is in danger of failing at wresting the SLS funding away from failed primes Boeing and Northrop Grumman. Yes, Elon's been given $5B as a "backup" to any failure of Boeing & Northrop Grumman while ULA has muddied the funding waters to hide the nearly $93B in "2025 dollars" language and how much of that has gone down the SLS end of the sewer hose, but It's beginning to look like Elon may have already spent the $5B without getting to orbit...
I hope we see see IFT-3 success on December 26th. Bill Nelson will be eating crow for New Years at his retirement party.
I don't like those fake cheering !
I miss nasa's rocket launches, so professional !
I believe they're cheering because this is the most historic rocket launch that humans have achieved so far.
Never heard a nasa broadcast, huh?
@@Dountman nasa used to launch rockets before !
The cheering is most definitely not fake.
YOU REALLY SHOULD HOLD A DOLLAR EVERY COMMENT@@nadca2
👍
The system is also covering up words and stuff like that it's very few people even saying anything on here is something very wrong
My eyes just got confused by that sentence and my brain has a parsing error from reading that comment.
Room temperature IQ at display here folks, everyone take a moment to appreciate how healthy we've been born unlike poor Paul here.
Well, the mad cheering when the whole show exploded is eerily like a Trump rally. A good and dramatic show?
Don’t get excited. This is just a car company.
SpaceX is a car company?
Absolutely Trashed by the Dome