I agree. They proved that they could do it without causing any harm to the public which is the most important thing. The water landing also seemed to look better than the catch on flight 5 in some respects. Less flames coming from the qd and no pieces of chine flying off. Maybe it was the mast atop the tower which was too much of a risk. I wouldn’t be surprised if that was the case.
@@fernandoferraz4146 i guess my question is actually, was it elastic deformation or plastic deformation, and is it actually a structural concern. Those are the things i would like to hear from space x
I'm really curious what real moon landing legs will be used by Starship. The pointy F9-style ones shown on all of the renders don't seem adequate considering the landing surface and the height of the ship.
I have a question, is the ship fully or partially fueled? I mean, how is it almost empty when landing without truly reaching orbit and without a payload??? How is it supposed to reach orbit with a payload then, if it is?
The current iteration of Starship is barely able to reach orbit fully fueled with no payload. Next version has bigger fuel tanks and the generation after that will be stretched. It's like Falcon 9. It was barely able to put Dragon in orbit with a couple hundred kilograms of payload at first and that was fully expended, but then they stretched it and upgraded the engines and now it's capable of putting 18 tonnes to orbit.
it is not going to Mars. Starship can't even go to the Moon without being refueled by at least five other Starships, by current specs and ignoring boiloff.
Thank you! I honestly see no way two stages with full readability can possibly get to mars on a reasonable time and tech frame as per the Tsiolkovsky formula
The refueling is a little ridiculous, I agree. However, larger variants are being made, which will allow for increased payload capacity, plus Raptor 3 is more efficient, more powerful, and lighter than Raptor 2, which will increase the available ∆V for these missions once they begin mass production. Even if they take more launches, it'll still likely be cheaper and maybe even faster due to not having to expend and rebuild massive rocket stages.
Honestly I am personally of the opinion that the refuel is just a way to try to circumvent Tsiolkovsky’s equation. There is still a much easier way which is to make a small, cheap, expendable 3rd stage for as much mass fraction as possible. Literally just have a small 3rd stage attached to Starship, nothing fancy, just a methalox 3rd stage that’s so cheap it doesn’t need to be reusable. And watch the delta-v boom.
@@Photostar625 this is also true, but they'd have to make a specific starship variant for that kind of purpose, since the current payload bay door design would make that difficult.
Hopefully next time around we see Starship V2 fly Also imo they shouldn't have launched a banana since it is food and it has been wasted. They could've launched a dummy payload that was small but not edible.
@@Hungary_0987 There was no CO2 being emmited. It was methane, CH4, and the other gas, "LOX", meant "Liquid Oxygen", O2. Not harmful. Besides, once the methane reacts with the oxygen, it decomposes into less dangeorous sideproducts. And anyways, if you're gonna chase after Elon for "dangeorous rocket fuels" then you should chase after the entire goddamn rocket industry. Most rockets have what you'd call "dangeorous fuels".
Thing number 7 - Spacex definition of tested is "worked once, might work again". Thing number 8 - You'd have to be bananas to get on board a starship. Thing number 9 - Starship still hasn't conducted a single orbit. Thing number 10 - If you think this isn't success, you don't know what you are talking about. Sure Shadowzone, sure. PS - The 6th flight of the Saturn 1 lobbed a 9,000 Kg dummy CSM into orbit with 60 year-old technology. But sure, Starship 6 is a success.
As much as I agree that the landing was a failure, this is much closer to a success than IFT 1-3. Had the tower comms not been knocked offline Superheavy probably would have been caught again. What gets me is the nature of the failures. Like for landing on this one, I hope it wasn't because the thrust plume bent the 'lightning rod' all the comm equipment was attached too. Elon prides himself on building the rockets faster than the FAA can assess launch licenses, but they're basically worthless because they can't iterate on them. Like after IFT-4 they knew they'd have to change the flap position, why wasn't that done for IFT-5 and 6? It's because they had those rockets built without regard to the 'iterative design process'.
How to tell people you know nothing about iterative testing or spaceflight without saying you know nothing. 7. Tell that to Falcon 9. 8. Or you could just be sour grapes like playtime here. 9. Orbit was never in the mission plans for 1 to 6. It's called iterative testing. 10. It achieved all but one of it's mission goals, and that was because of an issue with the tower, not the vehicle. The Starship landed and took less damage than any previous one despite them deliberately pushing it to a more agressive re-entry profile, specifically to gain flight data on the performance envelope. Yes, compare a 500 ton, expendable spacecraft that was based on a long series of testing with the previous Jupiter series with a fully reusable vehicle that is literally breaking new ground in size, performance and mission complexity. That's fair.
@@12pentaborane It isn't a Lego model. You can't simply move bits around on a ship that's already built. They'd have had to wait for one of the V2 Starships to be ready to teast the new flap position. This one was ready to go, and did provide useful data. There's more to iterative testing than just bolting new bits on. They tested a modified flight path deliberately designed to stress the vehicle and give them more data on its performance envelope. Even though the V2 will have a different (hopefully even better) performance envelope, seeing what happens at boundary conditions will carry over. They tested fewer heat shield tiles (one of the few features that could be changed without rebuilding the thing from scratch, probably guided by previous flight data, to see if they could reduce dry mass and provide locations for the catch pins. All this could be done on a vehicle that was already built and ready to go.
@@user-jp1qt8ut3s I'd agree with you but SpaceX keep doing the seemingly impossible so now I am on the side of "it hasn't been tried yet, and we shall see"
Technically since the booster did the water landing, you can count the divert system a success
Bound to happen sooner or later..
I agree. They proved that they could do it without causing any harm to the public which is the most important thing. The water landing also seemed to look better than the catch on flight 5 in some respects. Less flames coming from the qd and no pieces of chine flying off. Maybe it was the mast atop the tower which was too much of a risk. I wouldn’t be surprised if that was the case.
I think no one expected a banana as a cargo
I had to pause the live footage for a solid 5 minutes. I was laughing too hard. Suddenly, the bananas on the booster made sense.
I know! It was totally BANANAS 😂 that banana was strapped in like some sort of sacrifice to Diablo too 🤣
i was especially not expecting a pressurized interior
It was not a mere banana, it was the first banananaut
Do you have any more news about the KSP2 situation with the anonymous buyer?
Not yet. Once I know, I will immediately publish it.
@ ok, thanks!
Next they'll send a grape
No, they send BIGGER BANANA! 🍌
With Trump back in office, a Big Mac seems like the logical next step
WATERMELON GANG WE NEED WATERMELONS
First we do surgery on a grape, then we send a grape into space lol
For scale
I will from this point forward refer to that camera as Banana Cam
A Banana during IFT-6 gives you a perspective of how Big STARSHIP looked like from the inside.
Oddly I prefer Banana Space Program over Kitty Space Agency somehow...
I can't wait for the unveiling of the crew cabin ! The life support system, insulation and radiation protection are going to be state of the art !
Also the hull got derformed because of the heat while reentry.
Is that confirmed by Space X or Elon?
By our eyes@@applesaregoodeatings
@@fernandoferraz4146 i guess my question is actually, was it elastic deformation or plastic deformation, and is it actually a structural concern.
Those are the things i would like to hear from space x
@@applesaregoodeatings If you watch the reentry in timelaps you can see the hul change shape.
@@applesaregoodeatingsI think it's only the outer hull, the structure inside was likely just fine.
Media always report so poorly on space related news 🙄
I liked your kerbal style narration, although there weren't enough "Again!" for my taste.
A banana. All those poor minions crying for their loss...😅
the launch was so successful that it caused a major cyclone to invade intercept games in Seattle
i think they should add a floating drone neer the ship re entry to investigte the ship and to give the viewer some awesome shots!
I'm really curious what real moon landing legs will be used by Starship. The pointy F9-style ones shown on all of the renders don't seem adequate considering the landing surface and the height of the ship.
I have a question, is the ship fully or partially fueled? I mean, how is it almost empty when landing without truly reaching orbit and without a payload??? How is it supposed to reach orbit with a payload then, if it is?
partially fueled because not lifting full payload capacity
Fuel can be pumped out too.
@@CIBERXGAMING same question on another video and a guy said it's fully fueled, what now lmao
The current iteration of Starship is barely able to reach orbit fully fueled with no payload. Next version has bigger fuel tanks and the generation after that will be stretched. It's like Falcon 9. It was barely able to put Dragon in orbit with a couple hundred kilograms of payload at first and that was fully expended, but then they stretched it and upgraded the engines and now it's capable of putting 18 tonnes to orbit.
@@AnkardTan search for the facts.
Note that it was not a real banana, but a stuffed one.
New buisness proposal for Elon... Load Starship up with bananas then land it in Thailand to sell them fried 😂
Cool
🍌🍌🍌🍌🍌🍌🍌
🤔🤔🤔💥💥✌👍👍👍👍
101st view. zamn
it is not going to Mars. Starship can't even go to the Moon without being refueled by at least five other Starships, by current specs and ignoring boiloff.
Thank you! I honestly see no way two stages with full readability can possibly get to mars on a reasonable time and tech frame as per the Tsiolkovsky formula
prepare to be proved wrong. dont you think they know about boil off and refueling?
The refueling is a little ridiculous, I agree. However, larger variants are being made, which will allow for increased payload capacity, plus Raptor 3 is more efficient, more powerful, and lighter than Raptor 2, which will increase the available ∆V for these missions once they begin mass production.
Even if they take more launches, it'll still likely be cheaper and maybe even faster due to not having to expend and rebuild massive rocket stages.
Honestly I am personally of the opinion that the refuel is just a way to try to circumvent Tsiolkovsky’s equation. There is still a much easier way which is to make a small, cheap, expendable 3rd stage for as much mass fraction as possible. Literally just have a small 3rd stage attached to Starship, nothing fancy, just a methalox 3rd stage that’s so cheap it doesn’t need to be reusable. And watch the delta-v boom.
@@Photostar625 this is also true, but they'd have to make a specific starship variant for that kind of purpose, since the current payload bay door design would make that difficult.
3,058th veiw🎉
100th
Hopefully next time around we see Starship V2 fly
Also imo they shouldn't have launched a banana since it is food and it has been wasted. They could've launched a dummy payload that was small but not edible.
It was a toy banana.
@@1mariomaniac Oh.
Thats your biggest concern? Not the co2 and dangerous gases but the banana? Lmaooo 😂
I need to know your logic
@@Hungary_0987 There was no CO2 being emmited. It was methane, CH4, and the other gas, "LOX", meant "Liquid Oxygen", O2. Not harmful.
Besides, once the methane reacts with the oxygen, it decomposes into less dangeorous sideproducts. And anyways, if you're gonna chase after Elon for "dangeorous rocket fuels" then you should chase after the entire goddamn rocket industry. Most rockets have what you'd call "dangeorous fuels".
@@Hungary_0987bananer
Thing number 7 - Spacex definition of tested is "worked once, might work again".
Thing number 8 - You'd have to be bananas to get on board a starship.
Thing number 9 - Starship still hasn't conducted a single orbit.
Thing number 10 - If you think this isn't success, you don't know what you are talking about. Sure Shadowzone, sure.
PS - The 6th flight of the Saturn 1 lobbed a 9,000 Kg dummy CSM into orbit with 60 year-old technology. But sure, Starship 6 is a success.
As much as I agree that the landing was a failure, this is much closer to a success than IFT 1-3. Had the tower comms not been knocked offline Superheavy probably would have been caught again.
What gets me is the nature of the failures. Like for landing on this one, I hope it wasn't because the thrust plume bent the 'lightning rod' all the comm equipment was attached too. Elon prides himself on building the rockets faster than the FAA can assess launch licenses, but they're basically worthless because they can't iterate on them. Like after IFT-4 they knew they'd have to change the flap position, why wasn't that done for IFT-5 and 6? It's because they had those rockets built without regard to the 'iterative design process'.
How to tell people you know nothing about iterative testing or spaceflight without saying you know nothing.
7. Tell that to Falcon 9.
8. Or you could just be sour grapes like playtime here.
9. Orbit was never in the mission plans for 1 to 6. It's called iterative testing.
10. It achieved all but one of it's mission goals, and that was because of an issue with the tower, not the vehicle. The Starship landed and took less damage than any previous one despite them deliberately pushing it to a more agressive re-entry profile, specifically to gain flight data on the performance envelope.
Yes, compare a 500 ton, expendable spacecraft that was based on a long series of testing with the previous Jupiter series with a fully reusable vehicle that is literally breaking new ground in size, performance and mission complexity. That's fair.
You don't know much about engineering do you?
@stainlesssteelfox1 If it was about 'iterative testing' they'd have delayed IFT-5 to move the forward flaps on Starship.
@@12pentaborane It isn't a Lego model. You can't simply move bits around on a ship that's already built. They'd have had to wait for one of the V2 Starships to be ready to teast the new flap position. This one was ready to go, and did provide useful data. There's more to iterative testing than just bolting new bits on.
They tested a modified flight path deliberately designed to stress the vehicle and give them more data on its performance envelope. Even though the V2 will have a different (hopefully even better) performance envelope, seeing what happens at boundary conditions will carry over.
They tested fewer heat shield tiles (one of the few features that could be changed without rebuilding the thing from scratch, probably guided by previous flight data, to see if they could reduce dry mass and provide locations for the catch pins.
All this could be done on a vehicle that was already built and ready to go.
But it’s not reusable
Non reusable banana 🍌
Yet
you forgot a key word, "yet".
And it will never be reusable
@@user-jp1qt8ut3s I'd agree with you but SpaceX keep doing the seemingly impossible so now I am on the side of "it hasn't been tried yet, and we shall see"
For the 1st orbital flight of Dragon V1 the put a wheel of cheese in orbit.