The Ship29 reentry drama was suspenseful and amazing. It was still horizontal at 1km, then flipped to vertical and fired up for a perfect water landing.
Starship is important to the USA military. This is what is keeping Elon Musk out of trouble with this administration despite his actives with Twitter/X that this administration is not so fond of.
Just wait for Bezos... As soon as his New Glenn rocket is operational, the government/agencies/army will abandon SpaceX and things will become very difficult for Musk.
Dude! Can't you get someone to proofread and actually READ your stupid copy?!! "however, this incident cannot prevent The Landing burn attempt the of braving ship".... really? Not only are some words wrong, but there is also no logic here! Maybe "this incident did not prevent the landing burn of the Ship"? Damn, just pay someone a few bucks and read the damn copy!!
Congratulations! But check my prediction in few years - this will not be rapidly reusable ship, as long as there are thermal tiles on it. They will always need to be checked, some will need to be changed.... Etc...
NASA wasn't in the least bit 'shocked' and instead congratulated SpaceX who are partners in our endeavors to reach both the moon and Mars. I am over the kind of youtube video that seeks to sensationalize the relationship of NASA to SpaceX. Understand that NASA is primarily focused on science and exploration, but is mandated by Congress to work on projects not of its choosing. In most respect we regard launch systems as 'whatever is the best solution within the current timeframe'. That's why Webb was launched on an Ariane 5 (which was a spectacular success). Believe me, we'd much rather explore the moons of Jupiter or investigate the origins of the Universe rather than waste time on Mars (or even the moon) but we are victims of our paymasters. If SpaceX can help us achieve the Congress established goals, then believe me, we absolutely want and need SpaceX to succeed. As for Starliner, well that was mandated too. Starliner does have capabilities we can leverage, but for the most part I would let SpaceX do the lifting rather than waste time and effort on an alternate, human-rated launch system, that is essentially redundant. Thank Congress, not NASA, for that waste of tax dollars!
Why is the FAA been a future farm in FFA? I don’t remember now whatever the acronym is federal aviation. Been trying to ground SpaceX and keep them from launching. Doesn’t sound like they were really working with. SpaceX is trying to shut it down.
@@gregkelmis2435 Big money speaks in the federal government. Boeing had the money and used it to lobby congress which in turn put pressure on the FAA, that's why the FAA was always dragging its feet when it came to approvals for SpaceX. Boeing wanted to to be ahead of SpaceX but Boeing was simply too inept even with help from the FAA to stay ahead. It will be interesting to see whether or not the Boeing crew comes home in the Starliner or in a SpaceX capsule. The Starliner appears to be having the same problems the previous unmanned one had.
Just a note. NASA “requires” a long strings of success before they put live Astronauts on board. Sound reasoning. However I am puzzled, the Boeing Starliner did not have “1” successful launch prior to this last launch, so what gives?
@@TheCNYMike Wow, did you mean the Starliner capsule that is four years late in taking crew to the ISS......... SpaceX put that to bed a long time ago and are presently working on something a lot bigger.
Hi. Thanks for your videos. I have no knowledge whatsoever of space and rockets but a question always comes to me. why is it not possible to avoid the entry burn instead of doing something like Falcon 9 booster dose? is it not possible to slow the ship down before it enters the atmosphere and to avoid the high speed that the ship going into the atmosphere?
It IS possible, although using the "braking action" of the atmosphere means that it is not necessary to use valuable fuel for braking. However, the engines will be used for Lunar landings, since there is no atmosphere there. Since the moon has much less gravity it will use less fuel than IF IT WERE done on Earth!
@@daninflasixth9737 It's actually NOT possible. It took all the fuel to accelerate the ship to 27000kms/hr, it would take an equal amount to slow down. The ship is empty when it reached orbit, there's no fuel left to slow down.
From the beginning it was obvious, The flaps are the most sensitive element in the starship creating a weakness point at the joint axis, even if they placed those small plasma shield at the front & base of the flap the plasma heat still entering that area , those moving flaps are a design problem that need to be Re Engineered...
Well, good you come to the same conclusion SpaceX engineers came to (at least) a several months ago. With the upcomming starship prototype V2 the flaps have a new design and will be mounted higher on the ship's body, so the hinges will no longer be directly hit by the plasma on reentry. The first batch of these new flaps and covers arrived at starfactory a few weeks ago.
@@Tunguska357 > good you come to the same conclusion SpaceX engineers came to (at least) a several months ago And yet, this giant metal sparkler fire still took off, did it?
@@troffleObviously it did. But thats not the point here. I have been following the development of Starship for several years now, and i have not yet seen any comment after a testflight that does state something that wasn't already known for at least weeks. What most don't get is that SpaceX is well ahead of many of the problems we see in these test flights. When the pad dissolved during ITF-1, version two of the pad (the water cooled plate) was already in production for months. They expeced the pad to get damaged - well, perhaps not how badly it would get damaged - but flew anyway to get that flight data now, instead of waiting several months for the new pad to be ready. Same here, they had that ship, knowing the flaps are weak points, but still flew to get data (mostly) about the heatshield out of it instead of scrapping it and waiting for V2 to be completed. Pretty much every thing they fly is already outdated, but still can give them data for improvements in future iterations. Most people simply don't understand how SpaceX is testing, instead complaining about "failures", pointing out weaknesses, or making obvious pointless statements that are completly outdated, like the one the OP made.
@@Tunguska357 > What most don't get is that SpaceX is well ahead of many of the problems we see in these test flights. And in spite of all the knowledge gained since Tsiolkovsky designed rockets in the late 19th century, in spite of us having reached the moon in the 1960s, Elon "I know more about manufacturing than any person on the planet" still can't crank out a good flight system. NASA put lots of design and development into their work causing leaps in their program steps and built ships, but you think SpaceX testing incrementally with each $67M launch is "don't understand how SpaceX is testing" hahahahahaha. Brilliant. Genius. Both of you equally. Zero still equals zero.
@@troffleWhen the "leaps in their program" result in rockets that need severl engines with each costing more than an entire Starship fullstack...uhm...not a leap in the right direction. Granted - NASA is only doing it due to political reasons. Also, please, show me the NASA heatshield that is working better than the equivalent SpaceX heatshield. You cant - Dragon's heatshield just works, Artemis heatshield got damaged that badly that they can't use it for manned flight - and they have no idea why it suffered that extreme damage. If only they had some sensor data from a testflight, then perhaps they could figure it out. To bad such a testflight would cost them around 2.5 billion...and that they'd need to wait one and a half years just to get the engines... Perhaps they could ask Spacex for a Booster, costs less than 60 million and takes a month to build... All of this "but exploding rocktes and tests are bad" is just a reapeat from Falcon. But yeah, you are right, iterative design is sooo bad, it only resulted in the most powerful and cheapest rocket ever made - ignore the landing part, and you have 100+ tons to LEO for about 100 million. Show me a competitor. But i guess you are a really the real genius here, a billion times brighter than the engineers at SpaceX. Thats why they fly rockets, and you write clueless posts.
What a joke! I grew up in a literate society. I do not live in a literate society. Y'all should have let the grammar nazis do their thing when they still had a chance.
Ok, maybe (just maybe) reconsider use of flaps on Starship; they are heavy, bulky, require strong thruster mechanisms, and are very difficult to heat protect the flap joints (that partly melted/disintegrated on test flight-4 reentry). What about consider possibility of multi bow and stern thrusters using on-board cryo gas (for Starship only, not Booster); yes is expensive, loses some potential payload, etc. But thrusters should be very easy to control and be as effective as flaps (without flap drag/problems).
@@JedFord 1/5th gravity on the moon makes landing fairly easy & parachuting a capsule back to Earth is not so hard! Active propulsive landing of a booster or space ship has only been achieved by ONE company/nation SpaceX!
It will be interesting to see if and when NASA will utilize this space vehicle. Right now NASA's manned space program plans seem very nebulous with no plans to use the SpaceX Starship. Elon Musk may have to go it alone.
I’m always happy to see Space-X thumb their nose at the rest of the critics. I suppose since many of the materials for spacecraft didn’t exist 60 years ago but I think that had there been some competition 60 years ago humans might have gotten to the moon much sooner.
> I suppose since many of the materials for spacecraft didn’t exist 60 years ago In 1964, there were 83 successful orbital launches. 3 deep space rendezvous missions. Those launches done by the US, the Soviet Union and Italy. What drugs exactly are you taking so I know to avoid them?
@@namei8967 Because I couldn't use Musk-levels of money to draw on all of the world's running expertise especially since Tsiolkovsy's 1898 running, 1919's Goddard running or all of the successful Soviet Union or American walking designs. Also I didn't have the Musk-level genius of knowing more about manufacturing than anybody else in the world ahahahahaha. You think you can ask smart questions when you back somebody like Musk? Really?
@@troffle what? You don't musk's money and genius? Then you better to shut up to let Musk define what is his success. As for me, you are right, I do support Musk doing his wonderful things.
Wrong. NASA will never put astronauts on a Supeheavy or a Starship. They don't have to. All Superheavy and Starship has to do is demostrate that it can likely fly half a dozen times without blowing up. That will be enough to refuel a Lunar Starship in orbit and get it to the moon and back. Thedre is no need for the Starship and Superheavy to be safe enough to be man rated.
@@techmap9 No, it is not. The HLS is a derivative of the Starship which has:- (1) No heat tiles or thermal shielding, no fins and hence no re-entry ability. (2) No payload bay for satellites, but accommodation for a moon landing crew and their equipment. (3) A special thrusters to land on the moon with since the Raptors are too powerful and located too close to the ground with short legs. -- HLS is basically a totally different vehicle which at most will share the Starship's outside diameter and maybe a similar external profile. It is functionally and internally a totally different vehicle. And, most importantly, NASA does not require the Starship or Superheavy to have a perfect or man rated launch and recovery record, because the HLS will not re-enter the atmosphere and no astronaut will be on the booster, starships or HLS during launches. They will go to it AFTER the HLS has already safely made it to orbit. Based on the current (stupid) plans the astronauts will actually go to the Lunar Gateway station on an Orion where they will transfer to the HLS for the landing.
All that money spent for a landing and a burnt wing, uses 10x more fuel than nasa and still havent landed on the moon and hasent achived any targets of yet
NASA spent more money on Apollo program. SpaceX will go to the moon/mars with or without government subsidies. much more tax money are spent on social programs and green (under the table) energy partnerships comparing to subsidies to SpaceX. go big or go home.
The Ship29 reentry drama was suspenseful and amazing.
It was still horizontal at 1km, then flipped to vertical and fired up for a perfect water landing.
It's great, right?
Just like it was supposed to & just like the 10km drops of Starship did!😊
The Starship maneuvered successfully, even with a half melted fin. An awesome test flight.
who designed that fin desevers bonus
It would be cool if, when they build a booster in Texas, they put it on a pad, launch it, and recover it on a pad in Florida.
IThey will do it, next year
Who says that they cannot do this !😅
It would be cool if they could recover a booster.
Excellent stuff bro, Go Elon
thanks a lot, have a nice day
CONGRATULATIONS ELON❤❤❤
goooooo
Why should NASA's teams be shocked when something works as expected? Stop these crazy titles or go for treatment!
because they failed 9 out of 10 times after spending billions.
This sounds like AI generated crap to me
Why , because Boeing is a total disgrace to the United States and NASA. I’m guessing you guys work for Boeing.lol😂😂🎉
@@clarencehopkins7832 Total disgrace ?
It's another shameless "Elmo" Musk propaganda AI generated infomercial. wtf..
I wish I'm still alive when spaceX and NASA landed again on th eMoon and on the Mars. Congrats!
You will, don't worry
I agree. The story is good without the hyperbole. Focus on what happened and next steps. “NASA IS VERY SATISFIED…”
I noted it, thanks a lot
Please get a human to read the script!
Bezos complains that SpaceX gets a lot of KUDOs, Well, Jeff, you need to get New Glenn off the ground. Oh, you need to get it to the launch pad first?
Not another taxpayer penny to Boeing. Replace Boeing with others.
After CFT, do u think it will service Nasa's program?
4:00 What the heck kind of unit is a "degrellin"?
❤😂🎉 congratulations Great SpaceX
Good job Team SPACEX🤘
Starship is important to the USA military. This is what is keeping Elon Musk out of trouble with this administration despite his actives with Twitter/X that this administration is not so fond of.
Just wait for Bezos... As soon as his New Glenn rocket is operational, the government/agencies/army will abandon SpaceX and things will become very difficult for Musk.
yeah, lets all wait for Glenn.. and see where SpaceX will be, by then?
Dude! Can't you get someone to proofread and actually READ your stupid copy?!! "however, this incident cannot prevent The Landing burn attempt the of braving ship".... really? Not only are some words wrong, but there is also no logic here! Maybe "this incident did not prevent the landing burn of the Ship"? Damn, just pay someone a few bucks and read the damn copy!!
dose the computer want to try saying degree again
it is totally under the control!
Congratulations!
But check my prediction in few years - this will not be rapidly reusable ship, as long as there are thermal tiles on it.
They will always need to be checked, some will need to be changed.... Etc...
Is spaceX going to recover flight 4 booster and ship?
reuse not recover, my guess
Was only one flap effected or both?
Only one
We only got vision of 1 flap you would need access to the whole of SpaceX's telemetry stream to know what other video streams saw!😊
NASA wasn't in the least bit 'shocked' and instead congratulated SpaceX who are partners in our endeavors to reach both the moon and Mars. I am over the kind of youtube video that seeks to sensationalize the relationship of NASA to SpaceX. Understand that NASA is primarily focused on science and exploration, but is mandated by Congress to work on projects not of its choosing. In most respect we regard launch systems as 'whatever is the best solution within the current timeframe'. That's why Webb was launched on an Ariane 5 (which was a spectacular success). Believe me, we'd much rather explore the moons of Jupiter or investigate the origins of the Universe rather than waste time on Mars (or even the moon) but we are victims of our paymasters. If SpaceX can help us achieve the Congress established goals, then believe me, we absolutely want and need SpaceX to succeed. As for Starliner, well that was mandated too. Starliner does have capabilities we can leverage, but for the most part I would let SpaceX do the lifting rather than waste time and effort on an alternate, human-rated launch system, that is essentially redundant. Thank Congress, not NASA, for that waste of tax dollars!
Why is the FAA been a future farm in FFA? I don’t remember now whatever the acronym is federal aviation. Been trying to ground SpaceX and keep them from launching. Doesn’t sound like they were really working with. SpaceX is trying to shut it down.
@@gregkelmis2435 Big money speaks in the federal government. Boeing had the money and used it to lobby congress which in turn put pressure on the FAA, that's why the FAA was always dragging its feet when it came to approvals for SpaceX. Boeing wanted to to be ahead of SpaceX but Boeing was simply too inept even with help from the FAA to stay ahead. It will be interesting to see whether or not the Boeing crew comes home in the Starliner or in a SpaceX capsule. The Starliner appears to be having the same problems the previous unmanned one had.
the computer speech is way goofy on this
It's another shameless "Elmo" Musk propaganda AI generated infomercial. wtf.. gagging tripe!
@@WJSpies Elon is a true American hero. and you're not
What actually happened is amazing technology equipped rocket took off flew to space returned AND LANDED
yesss
Boeing is embarrassed in the swamp
Lol, Starship stole the show
Boeing got too comfortable instead of pushing limits
Simply avoid any video with "shock" in the title.
Just a note. NASA “requires” a long strings of success before they put live Astronauts on board. Sound reasoning. However I am puzzled, the Boeing Starliner did not have “1” successful launch prior to this last launch, so what gives?
Starliner has flown twice unmanned. It's docked to the station in the middle of CFT-1. I think you're confusing Starliner with Starship.
@@TheCNYMike Wow, did you mean the Starliner capsule that is four years late in taking crew to the ISS.........
SpaceX put that to bed a long time ago and are presently working on something a lot bigger.
@@fabianmckenna8197 Yes, I meant Starliner, because hcf1956 was in error saying it had not had any successful launches. It's had two.
@@TheCNYMikebut that's hardly a string of successful launches especially when the last one didn't even make it to its planned rendezvous with the ISS
@@stephenwood9703 The first Starliner flight didn't make it to the station. The second unmanned flight did. This is the third flight.
Safe for NASA, what? NASA put people on Booings' Starliner!
Are the booster and Starship being recovered?
Nope.
@@Pug71 That would make them legal salvage. I hope they are in deep water.
Do any of these things make use of real people?
SpaceX
Wondered what the other flap looked like.
Who is the Maine Lead or General Contractor for Artemis?
I watched all of 30 seconds, people need to stop with this ai voice over and do it themselves or get a proper job
They probably A.Id the script too, wide as an ocean deep as puddle.
Hi. Thanks for your videos.
I have no knowledge whatsoever of space and rockets but a question always comes to me. why is it not possible to avoid the entry burn instead of doing something like Falcon 9 booster dose? is it not possible to slow the ship down before it enters the atmosphere and to avoid the high speed that the ship going into the atmosphere?
It IS possible, although using the "braking action" of the atmosphere means that it is not necessary to use valuable fuel for braking. However, the engines will be used for Lunar landings, since there is no atmosphere there. Since the moon has much less gravity it will use less fuel than IF IT WERE done on Earth!
@@daninflasixth9737 It's actually NOT possible. It took all the fuel to accelerate the ship to 27000kms/hr, it would take an equal amount to slow down. The ship is empty when it reached orbit, there's no fuel left to slow down.
Good explanation, terribly AI voice at 4:01 thru 4:05. “Deon” really!
It's another shameless "Elmo" Musk propaganda AI generated infomercial. wtf..
From the beginning it was obvious,
The flaps are the most sensitive element in the starship creating a weakness point at the joint axis, even if they placed those small plasma shield at the front & base of the flap the plasma heat still entering that area , those moving flaps are a design problem that need to be Re Engineered...
Well, good you come to the same conclusion SpaceX engineers came to (at least) a several months ago. With the upcomming starship prototype V2 the flaps have a new design and will be mounted higher on the ship's body, so the hinges will no longer be directly hit by the plasma on reentry. The first batch of these new flaps and covers arrived at starfactory a few weeks ago.
@@Tunguska357 > good you come to the same conclusion SpaceX engineers came to (at least) a several months ago
And yet, this giant metal sparkler fire still took off, did it?
@@troffleObviously it did. But thats not the point here. I have been following the development of Starship for several years now, and i have not yet seen any comment after a testflight that does state something that wasn't already known for at least weeks.
What most don't get is that SpaceX is well ahead of many of the problems we see in these test flights. When the pad dissolved during ITF-1, version two of the pad (the water cooled plate) was already in production for months. They expeced the pad to get damaged - well, perhaps not how badly it would get damaged - but flew anyway to get that flight data now, instead of waiting several months for the new pad to be ready.
Same here, they had that ship, knowing the flaps are weak points, but still flew to get data (mostly) about the heatshield out of it instead of scrapping it and waiting for V2 to be completed.
Pretty much every thing they fly is already outdated, but still can give them data for improvements in future iterations.
Most people simply don't understand how SpaceX is testing, instead complaining about "failures", pointing out weaknesses, or making obvious pointless statements that are completly outdated, like the one the OP made.
@@Tunguska357 > What most don't get is that SpaceX is well ahead of many of the problems we see in these test flights.
And in spite of all the knowledge gained since Tsiolkovsky designed rockets in the late 19th century, in spite of us having reached the moon in the 1960s, Elon "I know more about manufacturing than any person on the planet" still can't crank out a good flight system.
NASA put lots of design and development into their work causing leaps in their program steps and built ships, but you think SpaceX testing incrementally with each $67M launch is "don't understand how SpaceX is testing" hahahahahaha. Brilliant. Genius. Both of you equally. Zero still equals zero.
@@troffleWhen the "leaps in their program" result in rockets that need severl engines with each costing more than an entire Starship fullstack...uhm...not a leap in the right direction. Granted - NASA is only doing it due to political reasons.
Also, please, show me the NASA heatshield that is working better than the equivalent SpaceX heatshield. You cant - Dragon's heatshield just works, Artemis heatshield got damaged that badly that they can't use it for manned flight - and they have no idea why it suffered that extreme damage. If only they had some sensor data from a testflight, then perhaps they could figure it out. To bad such a testflight would cost them around 2.5 billion...and that they'd need to wait one and a half years just to get the engines... Perhaps they could ask Spacex for a Booster, costs less than 60 million and takes a month to build...
All of this "but exploding rocktes and tests are bad" is just a reapeat from Falcon.
But yeah, you are right, iterative design is sooo bad, it only resulted in the most powerful and cheapest rocket ever made - ignore the landing part, and you have 100+ tons to LEO for about 100 million. Show me a competitor.
But i guess you are a really the real genius here, a billion times brighter than the engineers at SpaceX. Thats why they fly rockets, and you write clueless posts.
What a joke! I grew up in a literate society. I do not live in a literate society.
Y'all should have let the grammar nazis do their thing when they still had a chance.
Ok, maybe (just maybe) reconsider use of flaps on Starship; they are heavy, bulky, require strong thruster mechanisms, and are very difficult to heat protect the flap joints (that partly melted/disintegrated on test flight-4 reentry). What about consider possibility of multi bow and stern thrusters using on-board cryo gas (for Starship only, not Booster); yes is expensive, loses some potential payload, etc. But thrusters should be very easy to control and be as effective as flaps (without flap drag/problems).
well it was first test that made it that far so have to see what they come up with
So you know more than the experts? Ok...
NASA has had very little impact on the development of Starship.
It's another shameless "Elmo" Musk propaganda AI generated infomercial.
But: Hey: None of these problems existed, or had been sorted out, (60-70 years ago) by Neil Armstrong, Buzz Aldrin & Co!
That's because back then, rockets didn't land.
And the likelihood of total mission failure & crew loss was a lower priority than in today's world!
So how did Neil Armstrong & Buzz Aldrin and the crews of the 5, 6, ships that followed, WALK ON the Moon?
@@JedFord 1/5th gravity on the moon makes landing fairly easy & parachuting a capsule back to Earth is not so hard!
Active propulsive landing of a booster or space ship has only been achieved by ONE company/nation SpaceX!
@@jackdbur Funny how with all of NASA's knowledge and so much money, Musk hasn't achieved that yet.
It will be interesting to see if and when NASA will utilize this space vehicle. Right now NASA's manned space program plans seem very nebulous with no plans to use the SpaceX Starship. Elon Musk may have to go it alone.
On the other hand, he will have much more freedom. Do u agree?
@@techmap9 Freedom to what? His most successful SpaceX was an unpressurised ship. He can't carry humans into space.
I’m always happy to see Space-X thumb their nose at the rest of the critics. I suppose since many of the materials for spacecraft didn’t exist 60 years ago but I think that had there been some competition 60 years ago humans might have gotten to the moon much sooner.
So great to having Elon Musk and the Whole SpaceX team.
@@techmap9 so great to having"………….is not English
> I suppose since many of the materials for spacecraft didn’t exist 60 years ago
In 1964, there were 83 successful orbital launches. 3 deep space rendezvous missions. Those launches done by the US, the Soviet Union and Italy. What drugs exactly are you taking so I know to avoid them?
Nothing interesting said in the video! Useless information and made for clickbait only !
Downvoted those 9 minutes of time wasting
robo voice 👎
zero value script
Waste of time. Nothing new. Bad computer generated narration.
What takes NASA 40 years to do ,, Elon Musk can do in 3 days.
If only Putin had thought to ask Musk to conquer Ukraine.
... spend $67 million?
Cause BASA shite and a joke time it was scrapped
Neal Armstrong would have been upset… selfish man.
I can not forget his words, but look at Starship now 😁
Gotta love that rent a crowd 🤣
Where is the crowd?
@@namei8967 Are you blind?, did you not watch the video?...
@@MegaDirtyberty Do you mean the crowd in the spaceX office? Are they rented?
All that stupid cult like jumping and shouting 🤦♂️
Yes, that's really tough for someone to watch Musk success.
@@namei8967 What part of that ship was in any way reusable and how are you defining success?
@@troffle good question. Before you can run, why did you learn to crawl and walk? How do you define standing up of a baby a success?
@@namei8967 Because I couldn't use Musk-levels of money to draw on all of the world's running expertise especially since Tsiolkovsy's 1898 running, 1919's Goddard running or all of the successful Soviet Union or American walking designs. Also I didn't have the Musk-level genius of knowing more about manufacturing than anybody else in the world ahahahahaha.
You think you can ask smart questions when you back somebody like Musk? Really?
@@troffle what? You don't musk's money and genius? Then you better to shut up to let Musk define what is his success.
As for me, you are right, I do support Musk doing his wonderful things.
Wrong. NASA will never put astronauts on a Supeheavy or a Starship. They don't have to.
All Superheavy and Starship has to do is demostrate that it can likely fly half a dozen times without blowing up. That will be enough to refuel a Lunar Starship in orbit and get it to the moon and back. Thedre is no need for the Starship and Superheavy to be safe enough to be man rated.
I don't understand your idea. Is Starship HLS not Starship?
@@techmap9 No, it is not. The HLS is a derivative of the Starship which has:-
(1) No heat tiles or thermal shielding, no fins and hence no re-entry ability. (2) No payload bay for satellites, but accommodation for a moon landing crew and their equipment. (3) A special thrusters to land on the moon with since the Raptors are too powerful and located too close to the ground with short legs.
--
HLS is basically a totally different vehicle which at most will share the Starship's outside diameter and maybe a similar external profile. It is functionally and internally a totally different vehicle. And, most importantly, NASA does not require the Starship or Superheavy to have a perfect or man rated launch and recovery record, because the HLS will not re-enter the atmosphere and no astronaut will be on the booster, starships or HLS during launches. They will go to it AFTER the HLS has already safely made it to orbit. Based on the current (stupid) plans the astronauts will actually go to the Lunar Gateway station on an Orion where they will transfer to the HLS for the landing.
It's another shameless "Elmo" Musk propaganda infomercial
@@dwightlooi Okay, I got it, thanks a lot
All that money spent for a landing and a burnt wing, uses 10x more fuel than nasa and still havent landed on the moon and hasent achived any targets of yet
Not your money, so pipe down. Revolutionary stuff being tried
You still haven't learnt how to spell
It is tax payers money, my hard earned cash. Go do some research with you're primitive mind before you message in my presence
@@farleymarly2575how your hard earned money go to spaceX?
How spaceX use 10 x more fuel than NASA?
NASA spent more money on Apollo program. SpaceX will go to the moon/mars with or without government subsidies. much more tax money are spent on social programs and green (under the table) energy partnerships comparing to subsidies to SpaceX. go big or go home.
Who is the Maine Lead or General Contractor for Artemis?