would love to see someone address this phenomenon -- that youtube comments are heavily biased towards people who don't bother to view the video at all, and just comment straightaway.
Yes -- this time there was only a "little burn-through". We're six test flights and many years into Starship's development, but it has yet to: 1) carry a payload to orbit (or even show that it is capable of doing so), 2) be refueled in flight, 3) relight its engines in microgravity, or 4) be recovered intact and reused (though the Raptors on IFT-5's booster should be). How long can Starship fail to achieve any of these critical goals but the program continue?
FYI, it's already been shared the catch abort and diversion was triggered by health checks on the catch tower. The booster was good up until that point.
@@enoughofthisif they had a tower in the water it could only ever be a backup the whole idea of water launchs or landings is absurd with starship because their ultimate goal is rapid reusability
What struck me the most was we don't see engine-outs anymore. Granted this is just Ift 6 but it seems like they got most of kinks out. Maybe I can finally peel my eyes away from the graphic engine indicators on the bottom of the screen.😅
The engines can be regulated, but not THAT much, so you shut down engines to lower thrust. This would be standard procedure in many cases, possibly also here. You wouldn't want the spacecraft to start gaining altitude at this point :-)
@@Yggdrasil42 I think they programmed the Ship to land with only 2 engines since the left out one was used for space re-light test and it could have gone wrong or not work properly after
Also, as another space RUclipsr mentioned, not all engine failures are catastrophic and shutdown isn't always mandatory. When you have a ton of redundancy, its smart to shut down an engine if something doesn't seem right instead of running it till something major breaks. So the engine out on the previous launch could've been something minor.
Me too. With over 200 Raptors launched now, they are starting to feel pretty reliable. Of course v3 will be out soon, and I expect a few teething issues with that, but overall it's damned impressive.
Out of all the people I follow for SpaceX news ( WAI, Everyday Astronaut, Matt Lowne and Marcus House) I really find your post analysis on all of these flight tests, the most informative and easy to understand. Especially with your narrative over the matching video edits. Top Notch for the layman! Thank you!
Worth mentioning they were doing a stress test of the aft flaps where they would maintain control through the bellyflop by intentionally doing small nose dives to see how strong the flaps hold up.
@@curiousuranus810 No, but they have enough common sense to know they need to test everything multiple times during the research phase. It's why testing is one of the core principles of the engineering design process. No aerospace engineer ever just went off calculations and said "meh, good enough"
Calculation without testing? 😂 That's why in school they thought us to use a checking method to our mathematical equations. It be dumb not to test it @@curiousuranus810
I’m surprised you hadn’t noticed or checked Everyday Astronaut which had a camera atop a 28-story building and so was able to maintain view of the booster after landing. There was a fuel explosion but the booster appeared to remain intact and floated on the surface throughout the rest of the Starship flight, at least.
TD most likely licences out his video content and holds back some for his channel. Other people who smaller or just enthusiast's are easier to approach. As for the explosions, id guess the engines would take a moment to spin down and while underwater the build up of gas fuel would reach a critical point where it exploded.
Intact is a stretch! Judging by the chines, I'd say the common dome was liberated. You could see it venting flame and gases from the hole, and then drinking gouts of sea water before settling at a ~50° angle and bobbing around for the remainder (? - I had to step away) of the stream!
What's crazy a out that too is it actually pulls less G force doing that flip then the booster does on landing burn last I hear flip in burn was ~ 3G and the booster landing is about 5-7G
@@Grandremone Not a brilliant comment, as you've not explained your (likely irrational) rationale, but if you want to be taken seriously, learn to spell.
Catching it again would add very little prestige. Soft landing in the ocean takes away very little prestige. Crashing on the launchpad would remove a lot of prestige. If landing isn't 99% likely, don't force it.
@maasicas Watching the video with a factory line of Starships being prepared is just mindblowing and SpaceX aren't sending up just to watch them crash into the ocean. It's try, try again to perfect all stages in development with precious data being collected in every flight which bears no resemblance to the Boeing Starliner failure......
The best view of Booster landing, explosion, and a big intact booster half floating for a long time after landing was on Everyday Astronaut stream. They had cameras high on 28th floor, this height was enough to see landing point directly, and their cameras are super.
and Explosions! (When I first read this, I thought it said space explosions which is why I gave it a thumbs up.) But you are quite right, Elon with SpaceX made space cool again. Hopefully it gets somewhere compared to the 90s/00s with the Space Shuttle. We really need someone who is passionate about this, and not a bureaucracy. (Sorry, not a fan of NASA; they move way too slow.)
14:15 If you look at the graphic in the lower right, you can see the moment when they pitch the nose down to test control authority of the forward flaps. It's was pretty brief!
crazy how after one catch everyones expecting perfect catches. way too many people can understand how "failures" just help improve the next one. i mean we are getting less and less burn through on the tiles. we are walking before we run
Well my conversation with a lot of people went: Me: “That landing plan sounds very high risk, you’d have to land there *repeatedly*, I don’t think it’s going to work” Other person (after seeing the previous launch): - “See!! It worked! You’re such a disbeliever!” Me: “I said *repeatedly*” Everyone has lucky one-offs, but for Starship to reach the moon (let alone Mars) the current plan involves launching more than 10 boosters in a very short sequence. For this idea to be workable they need to show repeatability, and these tests are not cheap!
День назад+8
What do you mean by we? What have you contributed to this?
13:00 i was a hobby blacksmith for spme rime when i wasnt living in the city. Seeing the beautiful color of the stainless made me immediately worried that it was becoming brittle
When we weld stainless steel it changes colors like that but doesn't become brittle. You can see all the same colors from a TIG weld on structural components and high pressure pipes
That's the same colors that a car's exhaust manifold--also made of stainless--turns when the engine is tuned properly and running with a "happy fire." Hell, many exhaust manifolds start visibly glowing from blackbody radiation, and they don't suffer embrittlement or softening in operation. (Yes, I've seen test stand footage of racing engines running at full power, too. Their exhaust manifolds *glow white hot* while the engine's running, but survive intact for multiple races, so...)
@rdfox76 tbf exhaust manifolds aren't load bearing. Also, no matter what, the engineers need test data to prove repeated reentry heating won't affect mechanical properties. But that is a good point.
@@rdfox76 There's a reason that actual performance engines have inconel or titanium manifolds, and its because steel can't the heat cycles and corrosion. Stainless steel corrodes when it gets hot enough, don't get it twisted
4:05 I’m always amazed that the booster is capable of surviving the hot stage manoeuvre, suddenly turning sideways at Mach whatever. All through rocket history that kind of thing has meant structural failure and big explosion.
@@yakirfrankoveig8094 It's not just that. Look at IFT1... the full stack was doing somersaults at about 30km, they blew holes in it with explosives, and it kept going for a while. Those things are *tough*.
We are too used to Nasa and many of the spacw agency babying their hardware and communicated to us that those are fagile things. Then SpaceX comes alongs and build those things out of stainless steel and can all take a heavy beating and still works.
@@DoctorMandibleThat would depend on the banana, I would think. Your typical Gros Michel and Cavendish bananas have had their seeds bred out of them for edibility; they can't reproduce and the trees they grow on are clones of each other (making them vulnerable to a fungal infection called Panama disease). Wild bananas, on the other hand, sure, those can reproduce.
Keep in mind a diversion isn't a fail to catch. A fail to catch would have been much more Firey and would have been considerable more destruction. A diversion due to tower signal fluctuations outside of comfortable parameters is just a good safe call. There will be many more flights and chances to test catch procedures.
Also, note that crashing into the ocean is the default case. It doesn't divert away from the tower if there's a problem - it diverts *to* the tower if given approval to land.
While that is true, I think it brings up interesting questions when it come to redundancy and safety for future manned operations. It's all well and good to crash-land a booster in the ocean if there's a problem with the tower, but the same can't obviously be said for a starship filled with people. Presumably that means they need to have several backup towers available in close proximity just in case of a failure. And what to do if the ship itself is deemed unfit for a catch attempt during final approach ? Honestly the idea of spaceship as a manned reentry vehicle seems very sketchy to me. Don't get me wrong, it's an awesome concept and flight profile. But it seems very hard to make adequately safe for people, especially considering how many could be onboard.
@@arthurvilain7270 We've seen three times now that a ship can make a relatively soft landing in the open ocean, even with large chunks of the control surfaces missing in some cases. I don't think these landings are *much* less survivable than an airliner ditching at sea... it's not going to be fun, but the cargo (or in future, crew) section is mostly intact. And if they're ditching just offshore like the boosters do, rescue teams will presumably be on the scene quickly.
@@MrMoon-te5xw Mostly not. Yeah, there's some fireworks down at the engine section, but as I said, the cargo section has been mostly intact (consider how the booster was still floating happily offshore for an hour after landing, despite an impressive explosion or two). And if they can do that with the test articles, it doesn't seem unreasonable that a crewed variant _designed_ for survivability should do okay. Crewed variants will be carrying much less mass than most ships, so they'll have plenty of margin to support safety measures.
To date there's no hard evidence that the Banana bought it. It's pure speculation on Scott's part. This baseless rumormongering about the banana's demise needs to stop.
it's kinda amazing how much of a beating Starship can take, but at the same time it's basically single-use at this point because you will basically need to refurbish the whole thing before a second launch.
Determining how a final product will function based off an early prototype is misleading at best. I am willing to bet quite a lot of money that the only reason they're trying this difficult catch maneuver is because of the turnaround time they want for starship, they likely have a backup plan in place should this mid-air catch prove too difficult, but it has only been attempted twice which isn't enough times to determine if it's viable or not
@@the_undead China rushing to make their own is quite the nod of approval though. I hope we get to see that in action in anything like the detail of SpaceX's launches.
@@ClayMann I think that's my favorite thing about SpaceX, You can point out all kinds of flaws with musk and his business practices or whatever. But those are mostly if not entirely in relation to Tesla as far as I can tell, he basically just let SpaceX run itself Which is amazing because then we end up with more detailed information now when their shuttle is still in quite frankly early development, then we likely would know it all about a finished product of a company like Boeing
@@danilooliveira6580 "at this point" even refurbishment isn't going to fix Starship. It is not clear to me (but I am nobody) that they have a proper plan in place to make Starship really reusable. But I will be very happy to be proven wrong by SpaceX. If they succeed, I will not be the one to say that it was all obvious and trivial.
Theres Thousands of things being checked by computers on these vehicles and the computer said there's a problem with the hand that would have caught the returning ship so it was called off. This mission was a test mission and many things were possible to go wrong. This was a small failure compared to what they thought could go wrong.
@@rogerphelps9939 Every manned vehicle have had test campaign failures, that includes NASA, every single rocket, Soyouz, SpaceX, Chinas long march family of rockets and so on. Also, only SpaceX can land orbital class boosters, no other company has had a successful attempt. If a booster is lost on recovery, it makes 0 difference except for future flight cadence.
I just love the new renders we got of HLS. Now the landing engines actually look like engines instead of a ring of gas jets. Honestly they look like the right size for AJ-10s lol, and it would make sense to use them here anyways, which would be hilarious.
Experiments like IFT6 are an essential part of developing space technology. Without trial and error, advanced technologies like Starship would not have reached their current level of maturity. Continued testing and improvement is a testament to SpaceX’s long-term commitment to advancing space exploration and achieving big goals like sending humans to Mars.
blowing billions of tax payer dollars and still not being able to keep their wings on during reentry on a vehicle that needs to fly 100 times just to refuel itself to do a single planned mission is not the advancement of space technology you think it is
@@artemkras it's confirmed it wasn't booster related something got damaged on the Tower during liftoff and it sent an auto abort signal, we don't know specifically what failed but theirs some speculation that the antenna on the top had hardware on it for the booster and tower to communicate that got damaged
I'm wondering if SpaceX might be better served having 2 towers. If an error on the tower can cause you to lose a lot of material, then it might be cheaper to have two towers. They are mass producing rockets at this point, but the they will need more towers as well.
The banana was not a real fruit, but a stuffed toy one, if I remember well to their broadcast, they said something like this. Which makes sense, as I do not believe the cargo bay was pressurised, a real banana might have been exploded or changed its appearance due to vacuum and cold.
Hardware-rich is a real term in engineering. It's when you constantly produce new prototypes. This allows you to test frequently, be creative, and even blow things up. You move quickly, do lots of experiments, and solve problems along the way. The motto here is that, "A test is worth a thousand theories." Hardware-poor is when you make very few prototypes. Because of this, you don't get to do much testing, so you have to be super careful while designing. You have to go very slowly, think of everything, and protect your prototypes very carefully. Here, the attitude is more like, "Failure is not an option."
Many seem a bit misinformed about the heat shielding. They removed a few sections on purpose to see stress to failure. Heat shielding didn't 'disappear'... I can't see any unintentional failures during the actual starship decent... I will say i could have sworn i saw something popping on top of the booster after hot staging... But people trying to make the Starship reentry sound like a failure are clearly just stirring.
Well the ship has to become reusable first. And the heatshield isn't preventing structural damage. The waves in the body of the ship during reentry isn't a good aswell. This ship couldn't have flown again. You could have salvaged parts but definitely not a reflight. So reusability definitely not there yet. Then rapid reusability is even way more of. The heatshield is far from reusable so far. Let's hope the new design makes a big difference. If you think otherwise let me know you seem well informed.
@@alexandermascini9500 I think you need to keep in mind that this was, in essence, basically a test to destruction. It was not meant to be reusable - the design is, yes, but most of that reusability comes from heat management countermeasures that all work together to provide a safe reentry. During the first 15 min of the SpaceX stream, right after they went live, they mentioned that this particular flight had differences, not least of which was that sections of the heat shielding had been completely removed. This was apparently done to gather additional data on essentially a destructive test. My hunch is that they already knew that they were going to be making fairly fundamental changes to some of the heat countermeasurs (heat shielding retiling with perhaps different tile layouts and shapes etc.) so a second flight would never really have been useful as a second 'successful' flight since the ship would be changing anyway. I suspect it worked out to be more time efficient to rather gather data like at what temps the ship starts experiencing structural failures and what signs can be expected under such conditions so that even in future iterations, that data can be usefully applied. I think the fact that the ship can survive reentry and then handle the mechanical loads of a flip maneuver under deceleration without imploding shows that the ship is pretty solid; I really don't think that's really a point of concern for SpaceX anymore, don't think it has been for quite a while...
@@alexandermascini9500 Of course reusability isn't there yet, that's literally the final stage of development. They are still testing flights and engines, reusability testing is many years away, so commenting on it in relation to current flights is like commenting that a wheat grain isn't a good slice of bread yet. This is even Starship V1, we're going to be well into V3 or even V4 by the time we start reusability testing.
@@Sundablakr why would you say that? Catching the booster is all about reusability. Landing in general is a part of the reusability testing. The engines are being tested over and over again for hundreds of uses. The heat shield has been designed from the start to be easily reusable. So everything is reusability testing.
If you get a chance to listen to Space X's launch commentators, they said that they removed over 2,100 heat tiles for this flight, as well as substiuting a few different kinds of test tiles, including steel-faced ones. Pretty interesting.
...there you have me, who waited the whole night to have this debrief from Scottie (yup, in France, it was 11.00 pm when the thing launched, and now it's 8.00 am) ^^
Yeah, Tim had a perfect view of that fireball. But he left the camera on screen for the whole flight, so the pictures from starship were only half the screen
On the official stream you can actually hear the SpaceX crowd loudly reacting to the explosion. But NSF (NASASpaceFlight) had a perfect view of that fireball.
Scott, I rarely if ever comment on RUclips videos, but I just wanted to say that you are *the* person I go to, straight away, whenever I want a fair, accurate, no-nonsense review of anything space-related, since I often don't have the time to watch entire missions, or to listen to 50 min-long videos from people who can barely translate to the general public what went on with a mission. Thank you for your great work! Fly safe!
I don't understand why their operating procedure isn't to make the booster hover right over the water until it depleted all of its fuel, and then let it fall into the water. It would prevent explosions and give them information about how much excess fuel they have.
It wouldn't prevent explosions, because "empty" tanks are still entirely filled with gaseous propellant. As for excess fuel, they surely know that already from all the performance data they're gathering.
Hovering in place is a lot harder than changing your speed and passing the point in time where you're essentially not moving for just a moment. To remain there would mean retaining a very well dosed thrust, never mind that you're also needing to balance tons and tons of steel broomstick. It's impressive how they can direct the booster to a specific place and have it end up at 0 speed to catch it, but it would be a LOT harder still to have something that big hover. Remember that even the Falcon 9 (which is tiny by comparison) can't do it - remember the "hover slam"?
@@JaapvanderVelde the whole point of testing it over water is that it’s hard to do, but should be possible. The booster is theoretically capable of a full hover, unlike falcon 9 which is required to do a hover slam.
@@AJGoff110 The booster can maintain a hover for a bit longer thanks to its very powerful group of engines, but a sustained and balanced hover of many seconds (let alone long enough to empty out the tanks) is far outside its capability. Where the Falcon 9 has to be more precise, the booster still needs to be caught really quickly, before it starts tilting or drifting too much. You're right that they try to get it to a stable upright position over the water within a narrow range of positions (like they would in the chopsticks), but then they have to drop it. Truly hovering is also not a capability that would really make sense at this scale and on Earth - over the water you'd be OK but on the tower, running the engines for a sustained period could do serious damage even if there's no circumstances (like wind) to contend with. The *point* of doing it over the water is exactly that it's so hard and likely to go wrong in any of many ways.
I realised while watching this that someday I’ll be glad to have in-depth understanding of the evolution of this rocket and its systems, once it gets a foothold as a mode of transport and begins to change the world. Important to understand how things work and how they come to be
To actually answer your question: a banana should be better able to cope with short term vacuum exposure than a person would. The difference in pressure is only about one atmosphere, and most fruits have skins thick enough to deal with far worse. There's also much less air and fluid in a banana than in an animal, so embolisms probably won't be a problem for a good while.
We had a killer watch party on the KSP Discord. I was the first to spot the engine bay cam and the thermal warping crease, I think the whole chat went crazy every time something new happened. The mod who streamed it perfectly timed all his music choices. No Time for Caution ended 5 seconds prior to starship splashdown.
That "Aggressive landing" or Steep entry seems to do less heat damage to the StarShip. I think because it slows it down faster. It will be interesting to see how fast they can slow it down with a steeper angel of attack since there are defiantly benefits to this. I think the catch was aborted due to an issue on the tower...
14:57 Sugoi! It looks waay better than the previous one. Now need to make sure the chopsticks function properly. Hope they beat their milestones. Project managers can be very antsy when these are not met.
Amazing how many people miss the 'lol no' on the thumbnail......
I think most people watch your videos on a mobile phone, so the thumbnail ist to small to see it
🤡: scOtT sHouLD WoRk fOr LegACy MEdiA!!!
would love to see someone address this phenomenon -- that youtube comments are heavily biased towards people who don't bother to view the video at all, and just comment straightaway.
Yes -- this time there was only a "little burn-through". We're six test flights and many years into Starship's development, but it has yet to: 1) carry a payload to orbit (or even show that it is capable of doing so), 2) be refueled in flight, 3) relight its engines in microgravity, or 4) be recovered intact and reused (though the Raptors on IFT-5's booster should be). How long can Starship fail to achieve any of these critical goals but the program continue?
I am watching from a phone and I didn’t notice it
FYI, it's already been shared the catch abort and diversion was triggered by health checks on the catch tower. The booster was good up until that point.
Thank you for the update
It's probably the comms tower which fell off or the chopsticks
They need to have a backup tower for this reason
They need a tower in the water where the booster landed
@@enoughofthisif they had a tower in the water it could only ever be a backup the whole idea of water launchs or landings is absurd with starship because their ultimate goal is rapid reusability
Let it be known that SpaceX is now the first commercial rocket company to successfully deliver a banana to a fish across the globe in under an hour
Maxing out early as interest wanes, still it wasn't enough. I'm rooting for catastrophic failures from here on out.
A *roasted* banana, no less.
What struck me the most was we don't see engine-outs anymore. Granted this is just Ift 6 but it seems like they got most of kinks out. Maybe I can finally peel my eyes away from the graphic engine indicators on the bottom of the screen.😅
I am wondering about that 2 engine splashdown of Starship though. Was that by design?
The engines can be regulated, but not THAT much, so you shut down engines to lower thrust. This would be standard procedure in many cases, possibly also here. You wouldn't want the spacecraft to start gaining altitude at this point :-)
@@Yggdrasil42 I think they programmed the Ship to land with only 2 engines since the left out one was used for space re-light test and it could have gone wrong or not work properly after
Also, as another space RUclipsr mentioned, not all engine failures are catastrophic and shutdown isn't always mandatory. When you have a ton of redundancy, its smart to shut down an engine if something doesn't seem right instead of running it till something major breaks. So the engine out on the previous launch could've been something minor.
Me too. With over 200 Raptors launched now, they are starting to feel pretty reliable. Of course v3 will be out soon, and I expect a few teething issues with that, but overall it's damned impressive.
Out of all the people I follow for SpaceX news ( WAI, Everyday Astronaut, Matt Lowne and Marcus House) I really find your post analysis on all of these flight tests, the most informative and easy to understand. Especially with your narrative over the matching video edits. Top Notch for the layman! Thank you!
Same here each one has great information but each also has a different perspective all great to watch
Worth mentioning they were doing a stress test of the aft flaps where they would maintain control through the bellyflop by intentionally doing small nose dives to see how strong the flaps hold up.
These engineers are so dumb they can't trust their own calculations?
Yeah, SpaceX engineers are real dumb. 🙄
@@curiousuranus810 No, but they have enough common sense to know they need to test everything multiple times during the research phase. It's why testing is one of the core principles of the engineering design process. No aerospace engineer ever just went off calculations and said "meh, good enough"
@@curiousuranus810 I'm very happy you're not an engineer.
Calculation without testing? 😂 That's why in school they thought us to use a checking method to our mathematical equations. It be dumb not to test it @@curiousuranus810
I’m surprised you hadn’t noticed or checked Everyday Astronaut which had a camera atop a 28-story building and so was able to maintain view of the booster after landing. There was a fuel explosion but the booster appeared to remain intact and floated on the surface throughout the rest of the Starship flight, at least.
TD most likely licences out his video content and holds back some for his channel. Other people who smaller or just enthusiast's are easier to approach. As for the explosions, id guess the engines would take a moment to spin down and while underwater the build up of gas fuel would reach a critical point where it exploded.
Yes, Nasaspaceflight showed us that there was a fire going on after Starship landed in the Indian Ocean.
Intact is a stretch! Judging by the chines, I'd say the common dome was liberated. You could see it venting flame and gases from the hole, and then drinking gouts of sea water before settling at a ~50° angle and bobbing around for the remainder (? - I had to step away) of the stream!
Yes, I saw that, wonder if the booster is towed back, would be good if they could fly it again 🌀
Also NSF had a good video
Omg that flip and landing maneuver looks so good in the daylight
What's crazy a out that too is it actually pulls less G force doing that flip then the booster does on landing burn last I hear flip in burn was ~ 3G and the booster landing is about 5-7G
imagine calling scott manley and he answers the phone how he opens up his videos
and ends them with "Fly safe!"
Halloo thus is Scott Manley, speaking to you from where T's become D's.
Underrated comment
Halloooow this is Scott Manley, certified hippocrite
@@Grandremone Not a brilliant comment, as you've not explained your (likely irrational) rationale, but if you want to be taken seriously, learn to spell.
Catching it again would add very little prestige. Soft landing in the ocean takes away very little prestige. Crashing on the launchpad would remove a lot of prestige. If landing isn't 99% likely, don't force it.
Catching it again adds a LOT. Landing in the ocean is basically same as just crashing back down.
@@maasicasthat's a ridiculous take... nothing like a fireball & pad damage to really trigger the critics
@@maasicas Are you nuts? Do you have any idea the amount of damage and work it would create if it just crashed on the launch site?
I’ve got to agree here.
@maasicas
Watching the video with a factory line of Starships being prepared is just mindblowing and SpaceX aren't sending up just to watch them crash into the ocean.
It's try, try again to perfect all stages in development with precious data being collected in every flight which bears no resemblance to the Boeing Starliner failure......
It's nice the fins have warning lights for over heating.
Press to reset
Press F11 to enable temperature gauge/highlight
I wonder why they're using incandescent lights instead of energy-efficient LEDs?
@@quwaz11 LEDs don't like high temperatures
Design Failure? ❌
Design Feature? ✅
Task failed successfully? ❎
The best view of Booster landing, explosion, and a big intact booster half floating for a long time after landing was on Everyday Astronaut stream. They had cameras high on 28th floor, this height was enough to see landing point directly, and their cameras are super.
Watch the flat earthers claim that is evidence the Earth is flat.
I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Starships on fire off the shoulder of Australia.
I've watched a banana glitter in the dark near the pez-dispenser gate.
All those moments will be lost, like... Liquid oxygen in the ocean...
HA! very good :D
Klingons on the starship bow.
@@karlwest437 Well done, all three of you.
love how they compared the size with the banana but also used the milennium falcon during their presentation
Everyone has seen a millenium falcon in real life so it makes sense to make that comparison. ;-)
And conveniently, comparing the size of a Millennium Falcon and a SpaceX Falcon...
@@RaXXha pictures of the real size exterior being constructed have been around for half a century
Musk named Falcon 1 and Falcon 9 after the Millennium Falcon. You know how he loves sci fi.
@@RaXXhaI saw one in Florida, they are quite big tbh
Millions tuned in to watch it lived, spaceX has reignited peoples interest for space exploration
and Explosions! (When I first read this, I thought it said space explosions which is why I gave it a thumbs up.) But you are quite right, Elon with SpaceX made space cool again. Hopefully it gets somewhere compared to the 90s/00s with the Space Shuttle. We really need someone who is passionate about this, and not a bureaucracy. (Sorry, not a fan of NASA; they move way too slow.)
14:15 If you look at the graphic in the lower right, you can see the moment when they pitch the nose down to test control authority of the forward flaps. It's was pretty brief!
Thank you for getting this up so quickly! I always look forward to your recaps.
crazy how after one catch everyones expecting perfect catches. way too many people can understand how "failures" just help improve the next one. i mean we are getting less and less burn through on the tiles. we are walking before we run
If spacex was fr then IFT1 would’ve reached mars. Smh my head.
I guess some people don’t know what the T in IFT stands for.
Well my conversation with a lot of people went:
Me: “That landing plan sounds very high risk, you’d have to land there *repeatedly*, I don’t think it’s going to work”
Other person (after seeing the previous launch): - “See!! It worked! You’re such a disbeliever!”
Me: “I said *repeatedly*”
Everyone has lucky one-offs, but for Starship to reach the moon (let alone Mars) the current plan involves launching more than 10 boosters in a very short sequence. For this idea to be workable they need to show repeatability, and these tests are not cheap!
What do you mean by we? What have you contributed to this?
I'm still expecting it to go pop at the launch tower at some point
I can’t believe SpaceX left that perfectly good banana at the bottom of the ocean
Don't worry, in the future the banana will be reused.
Have we fully investigated the environmental impact of introducing a non-native banana into that deep ocean environment?
@@737smartin It passed the shark and whale studies, but still looking into what it does to the itchy slime molds.
I think there was a (very) short mention on the Twitter live stream that it wasn't a real banana but rather some kind of plushy or the like.
@@737smartinwe did so since the second world war. Seems like ocean life loves our bananas.
Great video as always mate!
Request: Could you please add arrows to point out what you’re describing on certain parts of the vehicle?
13:00 i was a hobby blacksmith for spme rime when i wasnt living in the city. Seeing the beautiful color of the stainless made me immediately worried that it was becoming brittle
Yeah, it's very concerning. Even more so when thinking about reuse and repeated heat cycling.
When we weld stainless steel it changes colors like that but doesn't become brittle. You can see all the same colors from a TIG weld on structural components and high pressure pipes
That's the same colors that a car's exhaust manifold--also made of stainless--turns when the engine is tuned properly and running with a "happy fire." Hell, many exhaust manifolds start visibly glowing from blackbody radiation, and they don't suffer embrittlement or softening in operation. (Yes, I've seen test stand footage of racing engines running at full power, too. Their exhaust manifolds *glow white hot* while the engine's running, but survive intact for multiple races, so...)
@rdfox76 tbf exhaust manifolds aren't load bearing. Also, no matter what, the engineers need test data to prove repeated reentry heating won't affect mechanical properties. But that is a good point.
@@rdfox76 There's a reason that actual performance engines have inconel or titanium manifolds, and its because steel can't the heat cycles and corrosion. Stainless steel corrodes when it gets hot enough, don't get it twisted
4:05 I’m always amazed that the booster is capable of surviving the hot stage manoeuvre, suddenly turning sideways at Mach whatever. All through rocket history that kind of thing has meant structural failure and big explosion.
Considering its at that speed but also at 65 km the atmosphere is probobaly just thin enough for it not to be a big deal
@@yakirfrankoveig8094 It's not just that. Look at IFT1... the full stack was doing somersaults at about 30km, they blew holes in it with explosives, and it kept going for a while. Those things are *tough*.
@@simongeard4824 im not saying it isnt tough im saying how the speed its going at that altitude is not indicative of that
We are too used to Nasa and many of the spacw agency babying their hardware and communicated to us that those are fagile things.
Then SpaceX comes alongs and build those things out of stainless steel and can all take a heavy beating and still works.
New unit of velocity after Mach Fuck: *_Mach Whatever_*
Scott! The Banana was foam! So it might have been outgassing, but I’d not expect an explosion.
Foam! I've been bananaboozled!
I'm both slightly disappointed by it not being real and amused that technically this makes even the banana a reusable part of the system, haha.
@@FuzzWoofreal bananas also reusable because they reproduce
@@DoctorMandibleThat would depend on the banana, I would think. Your typical Gros Michel and Cavendish bananas have had their seeds bred out of them for edibility; they can't reproduce and the trees they grow on are clones of each other (making them vulnerable to a fungal infection called Panama disease).
Wild bananas, on the other hand, sure, those can reproduce.
Not even the bananas are real at spacex...
Keep in mind a diversion isn't a fail to catch. A fail to catch would have been much more Firey and would have been considerable more destruction. A diversion due to tower signal fluctuations outside of comfortable parameters is just a good safe call. There will be many more flights and chances to test catch procedures.
Also, note that crashing into the ocean is the default case. It doesn't divert away from the tower if there's a problem - it diverts *to* the tower if given approval to land.
While that is true, I think it brings up interesting questions when it come to redundancy and safety for future manned operations. It's all well and good to crash-land a booster in the ocean if there's a problem with the tower, but the same can't obviously be said for a starship filled with people. Presumably that means they need to have several backup towers available in close proximity just in case of a failure.
And what to do if the ship itself is deemed unfit for a catch attempt during final approach ?
Honestly the idea of spaceship as a manned reentry vehicle seems very sketchy to me. Don't get me wrong, it's an awesome concept and flight profile. But it seems very hard to make adequately safe for people, especially considering how many could be onboard.
@@arthurvilain7270 We've seen three times now that a ship can make a relatively soft landing in the open ocean, even with large chunks of the control surfaces missing in some cases.
I don't think these landings are *much* less survivable than an airliner ditching at sea... it's not going to be fun, but the cargo (or in future, crew) section is mostly intact. And if they're ditching just offshore like the boosters do, rescue teams will presumably be on the scene quickly.
@@simongeard4824 yea but the whole thing explodes after the splashdown, you forgot about that part 💀
@@MrMoon-te5xw Mostly not. Yeah, there's some fireworks down at the engine section, but as I said, the cargo section has been mostly intact (consider how the booster was still floating happily offshore for an hour after landing, despite an impressive explosion or two).
And if they can do that with the test articles, it doesn't seem unreasonable that a crewed variant _designed_ for survivability should do okay. Crewed variants will be carrying much less mass than most ships, so they'll have plenty of margin to support safety measures.
Hah! You used my recording of the ISS livestream I sent to you on Twitter. Thanks Scott 😊
Ellon on X: Lost comms to the launch tower computer. Catch would probably still have worked, but we weren't sure, so erred on the side of caution.
Thank you so much for your entire channel as a whole existing
Saw very little of the flight due to work - THANK YOU for a quick video summary
You didn't miss anything.
Thanks for giving an explanation as to why they waved the booster off.
Great video Scott, thanks for matching up the speeds for IFT5 and 6's booster landings.
2:41 Bottom left, a structurally efficient X logo...
Good eye! Some engineer probably had a field day designing that part.
Omg you're right. Good observation.
RIP Banana…..thank you for your service. You will not be forgotten.
lol. you will be forgotten in the bottom of the school backpack
O7
@@GerardHammond 🤣🤣 you, my friend, deserve a 🍌 of your very own… and a 🍪
I had already forgotten by the time I read this comment.
To date there's no hard evidence that the Banana bought it. It's pure speculation on Scott's part. This baseless rumormongering about the banana's demise needs to stop.
I’m so glad someone else noticed the music and plasma syncing…I felt like I was back in college
it's kinda amazing how much of a beating Starship can take, but at the same time it's basically single-use at this point because you will basically need to refurbish the whole thing before a second launch.
Determining how a final product will function based off an early prototype is misleading at best. I am willing to bet quite a lot of money that the only reason they're trying this difficult catch maneuver is because of the turnaround time they want for starship, they likely have a backup plan in place should this mid-air catch prove too difficult, but it has only been attempted twice which isn't enough times to determine if it's viable or not
@@the_undead that is why "at this point"
@@the_undead China rushing to make their own is quite the nod of approval though. I hope we get to see that in action in anything like the detail of SpaceX's launches.
@@ClayMann I think that's my favorite thing about SpaceX, You can point out all kinds of flaws with musk and his business practices or whatever. But those are mostly if not entirely in relation to Tesla as far as I can tell, he basically just let SpaceX run itself Which is amazing because then we end up with more detailed information now when their shuttle is still in quite frankly early development, then we likely would know it all about a finished product of a company like Boeing
@@danilooliveira6580 "at this point" even refurbishment isn't going to fix Starship. It is not clear to me (but I am nobody) that they have a proper plan in place to make Starship really reusable. But I will be very happy to be proven wrong by SpaceX. If they succeed, I will not be the one to say that it was all obvious and trivial.
Thanks Scott. Your attention to deal is unparalleled. 🤓🚀😎
The banana was the reason Ship couldn't land in Australia, wouldn't have got through biosecurity 🍌🌏
It was foam.
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Theres Thousands of things being checked by computers on these vehicles and the computer said there's a problem with the hand that would have caught the returning ship so it was called off. This mission was a test mission and many things were possible to go wrong. This was a small failure compared to what they thought could go wrong.
For a manned vehicle nothing should go wrong ever.
the booster is never manned so no clue why that would matter.
@@rogerphelps9939 Every manned vehicle have had test campaign failures, that includes NASA, every single rocket, Soyouz, SpaceX, Chinas long march family of rockets and so on.
Also, only SpaceX can land orbital class boosters, no other company has had a successful attempt. If a booster is lost on recovery, it makes 0 difference except for future flight cadence.
@kondenkor $$$$
@@kondenkor imagine in the future the computer said starship can't be caught with the hands when it's already halfway into the atmosphere 💀
Awesome, you are quick like lightning
Booster was in great shape. Tower is the one that caused the diversion.
Oh my gosh!!! I didn't realized they nailed it soo close to the target buoy! (O_o)
Wow! Very nice!
Always the best report of a starship launch, Scott sees things nobody else sees!
I just love the new renders we got of HLS. Now the landing engines actually look like engines instead of a ring of gas jets. Honestly they look like the right size for AJ-10s lol, and it would make sense to use them here anyways, which would be hilarious.
10:22 I really miss the KSP like Heat-Indicator-Bar on each relevant component 😂
Where?
I guess booster 13 ended up unlucky just like Apollo 13.
Yeah Exactly
But just like Apollo 13, it came back...
Mostly...
Wasn't even the booster at fault either
Also Flight number 6
Yeah, no one ever said anything about it being a prototype, did they?
Scott Manley debriefs are ESSENTIAL viewing for Starship launches! 🤓
Thank you Scott. You are my go-to for hot-wash post-mission reviews
Experiments like IFT6 are an essential part of developing space technology. Without trial and error, advanced technologies like Starship would not have reached their current level of maturity. Continued testing and improvement is a testament to SpaceX’s long-term commitment to advancing space exploration and achieving big goals like sending humans to Mars.
blowing billions of tax payer dollars and still not being able to keep their wings on during reentry on a vehicle that needs to fly 100 times just to refuel itself to do a single planned mission is not the advancement of space technology you think it is
So quick! Thank you! I was waiting for this )
The weather satelite footage was cool. Thanks for finding the stuff I would not find by myself.
It was from the ISS.
@@EditioCastigata There was also weather-satellite footage (6:05) of the launch plume and a tiny spot of smoke at landing.
@@Pranav_Bhamidipati Indeed, thanks!
Great video. Just came across it and was going to go on but stayed and I am glad I did. Best video on the launch by far.
Corection around 2:45 it was a banana plushy, not a real banana, from what i recall from the pre launch breifing
Love you Scott!! In a Manley way.
When is Elon playing Diablo again? I'm curious about what happened to the booster.
Tower damage confirmed. The antenna tower up top
@@artemkras it's confirmed it wasn't booster related something got damaged on the Tower during liftoff and it sent an auto abort signal, we don't know specifically what failed but theirs some speculation that the antenna on the top had hardware on it for the booster and tower to communicate that got damaged
@@Jaker788it was confirmed then tower had issues. It isn't confirmed it was the mast on top.
If the problem was in the tower, couldn't they use the second tower to perform the catch?
@mmicoski second tower doesn't have arms yet but I wouldn't be surprised if that is a capability once it's ready
I'm wondering if SpaceX might be better served having 2 towers.
If an error on the tower can cause you to lose a lot of material, then it might be cheaper to have two towers.
They are mass producing rockets at this point, but the they will need more towers as well.
They are building a second tower, it's like 80% done.
Fascinating! Thanks, Scott! 😊
Stay safe there with your family! 🖖😊
It was awesome! Took me 4 hours to get back home 22 miles away boca chica...puro 956
I’m sure someone has mentioned it but you can catch good video of the boom on Everyday Astronaut’s feed of the launch
The banana was not a real fruit, but a stuffed toy one, if I remember well to their broadcast, they said something like this.
Which makes sense, as I do not believe the cargo bay was pressurised, a real banana might have been exploded or changed its appearance due to vacuum and cold.
Hardware-rich really amused me. Thanks for the vid Scottish Astroman!
Hardware-rich is a real term in engineering. It's when you constantly produce new prototypes. This allows you to test frequently, be creative, and even blow things up. You move quickly, do lots of experiments, and solve problems along the way. The motto here is that, "A test is worth a thousand theories."
Hardware-poor is when you make very few prototypes. Because of this, you don't get to do much testing, so you have to be super careful while designing. You have to go very slowly, think of everything, and protect your prototypes very carefully. Here, the attitude is more like, "Failure is not an option."
@@xitheris1758 In other words: SpaceX vs Blue Origin
As usual I always look forward to your shows to make sense of the things that happen during a launch. Thanks, Scott. Fly safe!
Very nice report/overview of the latest flight. I love your channel, thanks so much.
Perfect timing for my morning coffee
European/african spotted?
Cheers, drinking my morning tea
@@anitahk787bri’ish?
excellent summary - thank you
Congratulations Banana, welcome to our new Republic.
His name was Banana Forscale. Long may he be remembered
Nice
👌👌👌 Impeccable reporting and debrief as always. Thanks so much Scott.
Scott, thanks for the rapid review and summary of the flight, filling in the details that were not obvious during the actual event.
Many seem a bit misinformed about the heat shielding. They removed a few sections on purpose to see stress to failure. Heat shielding didn't 'disappear'... I can't see any unintentional failures during the actual starship decent...
I will say i could have sworn i saw something popping on top of the booster after hot staging... But people trying to make the Starship reentry sound like a failure are clearly just stirring.
Well the ship has to become reusable first. And the heatshield isn't preventing structural damage. The waves in the body of the ship during reentry isn't a good aswell. This ship couldn't have flown again. You could have salvaged parts but definitely not a reflight. So reusability definitely not there yet. Then rapid reusability is even way more of. The heatshield is far from reusable so far. Let's hope the new design makes a big difference. If you think otherwise let me know you seem well informed.
@@alexandermascini9500 I think you need to keep in mind that this was, in essence, basically a test to destruction. It was not meant to be reusable - the design is, yes, but most of that reusability comes from heat management countermeasures that all work together to provide a safe reentry. During the first 15 min of the SpaceX stream, right after they went live, they mentioned that this particular flight had differences, not least of which was that sections of the heat shielding had been completely removed. This was apparently done to gather additional data on essentially a destructive test.
My hunch is that they already knew that they were going to be making fairly fundamental changes to some of the heat countermeasurs (heat shielding retiling with perhaps different tile layouts and shapes etc.) so a second flight would never really have been useful as a second 'successful' flight since the ship would be changing anyway. I suspect it worked out to be more time efficient to rather gather data like at what temps the ship starts experiencing structural failures and what signs can be expected under such conditions so that even in future iterations, that data can be usefully applied.
I think the fact that the ship can survive reentry and then handle the mechanical loads of a flip maneuver under deceleration without imploding shows that the ship is pretty solid; I really don't think that's really a point of concern for SpaceX anymore, don't think it has been for quite a while...
@@alexandermascini9500 Of course reusability isn't there yet, that's literally the final stage of development. They are still testing flights and engines, reusability testing is many years away, so commenting on it in relation to current flights is like commenting that a wheat grain isn't a good slice of bread yet. This is even Starship V1, we're going to be well into V3 or even V4 by the time we start reusability testing.
@@Sundablakr why would you say that? Catching the booster is all about reusability. Landing in general is a part of the reusability testing. The engines are being tested over and over again for hundreds of uses. The heat shield has been designed from the start to be easily reusable. So everything is reusability testing.
If you get a chance to listen to Space X's launch commentators, they said that they removed over 2,100 heat tiles for this flight, as well as substiuting a few different kinds of test tiles, including steel-faced ones. Pretty interesting.
They said on the SpaceX stream that the payload was a stuffed banana, not a real one.
It's good they didn't try to ship produce.
...there you have me, who waited the whole night to have this debrief from Scottie (yup, in France, it was 11.00 pm when the thing launched, and now it's 8.00 am) ^^
Yes, it's not over until Scott has posted!
1. You did an all nighter, you didn't wait specifically for THIS video 2. If you did, you really need to re-evaluate your life.
For me it was a nice treat after waking up
Fascinating commentary ! Thank you so much for sharing !
The abort system working as intended is a good data point as well. Better to demo the abort than to have to rebuild the tower cause of a miscatch
This is all so fricking fascinating
Those thunderstorms are probably along the West Coast of Africa, where the HOT air from the continent meet the COLD air from the South Atlantic.
The only landmass between launch position and Indian Ocean on the earthboard anyway.
Man Ive been watchin the Manly Scott for 10 years 😢❤
The manly Scotsman Scott Manly, man!
Brilliant mission! Starship team, thanks for the 6th launch!!
No flight is complete until I get your update! Thanks!
The camera cutting away right before the explosion was absolutely infuriating. I was guaranteed excitement. Money back plz.
Watch Everyday Astronaut’s feed. They kept a camera on it.
Yeah, Tim had a perfect view of that fireball. But he left the camera on screen for the whole flight, so the pictures from starship were only half the screen
Just like the Mike Tyson fight! 😂😅
On the official stream you can actually hear the SpaceX crowd loudly reacting to the explosion.
But NSF (NASASpaceFlight) had a perfect view of that fireball.
@@HNedel They were expecting a second explosion, either due to the damage, or FTS activation, that's why they kept the other view up.
Scott, I rarely if ever comment on RUclips videos, but I just wanted to say that you are *the* person I go to, straight away, whenever I want a fair, accurate, no-nonsense review of anything space-related, since I often don't have the time to watch entire missions, or to listen to 50 min-long videos from people who can barely translate to the general public what went on with a mission. Thank you for your great work! Fly safe!
Really enjoy your informative break down videos of SpaceX with your take on them as well , great video , subbed !!👍🏻👍🏻
5:30 This is an improvement. Nothing is burning that is not supposed to be burning.
Nice recap!
Thank you for working all night to bring us this so fast.
I don't understand why their operating procedure isn't to make the booster hover right over the water until it depleted all of its fuel, and then let it fall into the water. It would prevent explosions and give them information about how much excess fuel they have.
It wouldn't prevent explosions, because "empty" tanks are still entirely filled with gaseous propellant. As for excess fuel, they surely know that already from all the performance data they're gathering.
Hovering in place is a lot harder than changing your speed and passing the point in time where you're essentially not moving for just a moment. To remain there would mean retaining a very well dosed thrust, never mind that you're also needing to balance tons and tons of steel broomstick. It's impressive how they can direct the booster to a specific place and have it end up at 0 speed to catch it, but it would be a LOT harder still to have something that big hover. Remember that even the Falcon 9 (which is tiny by comparison) can't do it - remember the "hover slam"?
@@JaapvanderVelde the whole point of testing it over water is that it’s hard to do, but should be possible. The booster is theoretically capable of a full hover, unlike falcon 9 which is required to do a hover slam.
@@AJGoff110 The booster can maintain a hover for a bit longer thanks to its very powerful group of engines, but a sustained and balanced hover of many seconds (let alone long enough to empty out the tanks) is far outside its capability. Where the Falcon 9 has to be more precise, the booster still needs to be caught really quickly, before it starts tilting or drifting too much. You're right that they try to get it to a stable upright position over the water within a narrow range of positions (like they would in the chopsticks), but then they have to drop it. Truly hovering is also not a capability that would really make sense at this scale and on Earth - over the water you'd be OK but on the tower, running the engines for a sustained period could do serious damage even if there's no circumstances (like wind) to contend with. The *point* of doing it over the water is exactly that it's so hard and likely to go wrong in any of many ways.
always best analysis from you Scott!
I realised while watching this that someday I’ll be glad to have in-depth understanding of the evolution of this rocket and its systems, once it gets a foothold as a mode of transport and begins to change the world. Important to understand how things work and how they come to be
Would a banana actually explode in a vacuum? Someone please follow up with a lab experiment.
A SpaceX stream host called it a stuffed banana.
To actually answer your question: a banana should be better able to cope with short term vacuum exposure than a person would.
The difference in pressure is only about one atmosphere, and most fruits have skins thick enough to deal with far worse.
There's also much less air and fluid in a banana than in an animal, so embolisms probably won't be a problem for a good while.
We had a killer watch party on the KSP Discord. I was the first to spot the engine bay cam and the thermal warping crease, I think the whole chat went crazy every time something new happened. The mod who streamed it perfectly timed all his music choices. No Time for Caution ended 5 seconds prior to starship splashdown.
This is so weird.
@@Dante-ki4ol ?
That "Aggressive landing" or Steep entry seems to do less heat damage to the StarShip. I think because it slows it down faster.
It will be interesting to see how fast they can slow it down with a steeper angel of attack since there are defiantly benefits to this.
I think the catch was aborted due to an issue on the tower...
It could also be because they applied the lessons from the previous reentry and beefed up some of the problem areas.
It would be interesting to compare the footage side by side, especially altitude and velocity. A job for one Scott Manley perhaps 😊
Perfect flight even without the catch. Both vehicle's perfect landings. I think a better view of the booster landing . Safety checks worked 👍🚀
Starship V2 is absolutely beautiful
Go SpaceX!❤
Scott, omg. I wasn't expecting this!! Thank you 🍻😎
14:57 Sugoi! It looks waay better than the previous one. Now need to make sure the chopsticks function properly. Hope they beat their milestones. Project managers can be very antsy when these are not met.
I completely forgot about this test flight yesterday. 😂😂
No disappointments for me with this flight. Small glitch with the tower but otherwise progress all round.
The tower gave a 'go'.
It drives me crazy:
Elon's advancements in space technology +100 points
Elon as a human being -200 points
Elon democratizing X - priceless 👍
almost like he plays an almost entirely hands off position at spacex while he's the only person responsible for himself as a human being
Why because he sided with 52% of Americans in a democratic process
@@johnfisher7143You mean driving twitter into the ground?
@@Jimmy_CV23.1%*
Curious, do you answer the phone like that in the intro aswell?
Including the intro jingle.
did the banana survive?
Great video Scott! You always see more than we did like the buoy and the wrinkling skin. Always love your videos.
I love that the starship flaps have what appears to be static wicks.