What Exactly Happened On SpaceX's Third Starship Launch Attempt?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 18 พ.ค. 2024
- After only 117 days since the last full Starship flight, the third attempt just took place and was by far the most impressive. Here we saw significant improvements from the past flight with a successful hot-stage separation, booster reentry, an upper-stage coast phase, and even upper-stage reentry. They even managed to complete a host of other tests related to future Starship operations. Here I will go more in-depth into what happened on this third flight test, where some issues arose, what went well, and more.
For more space-related content check out - thespacebucket.com/
Credit:
SpaceX - / spacex
Chapters:
0:00 - Intro
0:27 - Third Launch Attempt - วิทยาศาสตร์และเทคโนโลยี
![🔴 [TRỰC TIẾP] U20 VIỆT NAM VS U20 THÁI LAN | Cúp VTV9 - Bình Điền 2024 | JET STUDIO](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/tdmZlw-XJJI/mqdefault.jpg)
that camera was a god damned beast
If they didn’t adjust it back out I think it would’ve last longer
and the star link
@@ToneOFTheGods 🤡
@@ToneOFTheGods nice bait bruv
@@expozure360 I think the camera was permanently bolted to front fin. Any time you saw the camera moving relative to the body of the ship, the fin was turning.
Gave me chills seeing the plasma grow and wrap around the ship. I don't think anyone has ever been able to watch that live due to the blackout period. I bet the 4th launch is going to check the splash down box.
Have to keep the tiles on better than this…
Was like a sparkler
@@MakaiMauka The heat shield tiles have always been the second biggest issue besides the engines themselves.
@@MakaiMauka im not sure how big of an issue the tiles actually were
Would you volunteer to ride in the next one?
@angryhairpeice Nope, but give them a few more launches to work out the bugs, and payloads will start going up. What was seen today was an amazing accomplishment.
Best summary of IFT-3 that I could find by now. Thank you for that.
Old-school NASA: failure is not an option
SpaceX: don’t expect this to work
Actually incorrect. Early nasa had a very similar approach to rapid destructive iteration. Look at the early Apollo history. Many many many destructive test launches led to the wild success of the Saturn V. Google is your friend.
@@alexberry4758 Early NASA tests didn't have 60+ years of successful heavy vehicle and space flight launches behind them. Google is your friend too my man. ;)
@@rotorbob88 I didn’t realize that there was an equivalent to a solid stainless steel fully reusable upper and lower stage that spaceX has the ability to use as a reference point for their program.
Linda Ham was the BEST example: As a woman I can demand unnecessary beauty insulation! Never mind the consequences!
"... First, they went to the moon, then they build a space station and all it did was go around the earth endlessly. Then, nothing"- Elon musks comment on NASA's history.
I don't think I've ever seen the reentry of a spaceship LIVE before. It's only possible through satellite relays since terrestrial antennas lose signal due to the plasma.
Hells ya, that was pure awesomeness!
Those plasma shots were mind blowing. It was crazy we could see it live.
The most astute reportage. Very informative!
😂😂😂😂
The improvement was extreme. I hope this allows the next launch come much sooner.
Two steps forward .. and then realizing your destination was two steps further away than you originally thought.
It failed. This will trigger another investigation delay. July or August for the next one.
Approval timing will depend mostly on how rapidly SpaceX can implement the corrective actions that they *_set for themselves._*
@@hawkdsl How did it fail,when they achieved far more than they expected to do,it was only in the last bit that there was trouble,every thing else went very well.
@@terryharris1291What color is your Kool-Aid? It failed every test item for this flight! That's OK though, it's a prototype. It needed to fail so they can fix those problems. The boost back failed, it failed to light the engines for soft landing. It failed to open the doors. We don't know if fuel transfer worked yet. It failed to renter. It did fly though!
Great summary. Thanks for getting good content out fast!
4:50 "Issue with attitude control and general orientation."
That's an understatement!
I watch it live, and Starship was rotating for a while before re-entry, I got dizzy from the footage.
It basically re-entered sideways.
it was facing engine first into the plasma at the end if i remember correctly.
Cold gas thrusters may have been clogged up with ice. That debris was done all white. It would explain the list of control. We will see if they will conclude if that was cause of the tumble
Nice summary. Thanks. Here's a comment for the Algo.
Thank you for this summary of the test!
thanks for the summary, to the point
The speed the grid fins move is phenomenal when you realise they are HUGE!
The flight was incredible. The re-entry footage is unbelievable.
Yes very unbelievable 😂
SpaceX : Rocket Explodes
SpaceX : "It's icing on the cake"
fantastic video and commentary
Congratulations SpaceX!! Job well done🎉
That launch was amazing, the booster and vehicle performed well, reaching space and accelerating to near orbital speeds. I'll be happy to read more about the booster crash at high speed, and the vehicle's disintegration during reentry.
great recap. shared with friends/family who need the cliffs notes
Excellent summary and analysis @TheSpaceBucket Although your frequency has been less recently, the quality and content has gotten even better. ❤
Thanks for this vid.
Excellent informative video! Thanks!
Great summary, with out any fluff.
The most astute reportage. Very informative!
Rumor has it the onboard computer refused to open the pod bay door.
Nobody at Space X thought there was any problem naming the one ard computer Hal.
I watched the video feed of this launch and the whole mystery of what happened to Starship was up where with where's Princess Kate. No one seemed to know. Both missing in action
Impressive progression.
Thank you for your fast video making skills
Agreed. It was a great summary.
Look at T+0:45:00 to 0:47:00 -- It looks like the lack of attitude control resulted in her settling into a tail-first reentry making whatever happened to the heat-shield tiles at T+0:44:30ish pretty much a moot point.
The bird wasn't configured to survive a reentry tail first.
Both, booster and ship seem to have failed on reentry attitude control. The booster at 6km height when it began to swing, the ship throughout orbit and reentry. Ship rotated all the way through orbit which was a strange sight to start with. Delivery vehicles do not spin ... Upon reentry, the ship had no controlled attack vector either. It seems that SpaceX's hypersonic fluid simulation capabilities are lacking. Hypersonic fluid dynamics is considered hard although there are solvers like Star-CCM+ which may be suitable or not. Nevertheless, given their Falcon9 expertise, they should be able to solve this.
@@falklumo Totally agree, i just argued with someone who (oddly) claimed it wasn't actually spinning on re-entry, lol. I was hoping the spin was some sort of test, but starting re-entry still spinning told me that it most certainly wasn't. Awesome to see the plasma forming though, still a great day with great progress!
@@BarrGC The spinning was not a test. The Starship had a lot of leaks on the engine part and that caused the spin that resultet in a tumbling.
@triage2962 I know, I was just being overly optimistic at the time, lol. Still though, they were displaying telemetry data for alot longer than I thought they would be getting it, based on its screwed up re-entry. VERY curious to know what it looked like on impact, 316 SSTL can take a real beating, the chunks mighta been prerry big still, lol
@@BarrGC The booster hit water but what hit Starship?
Nice. thanks
Amazing things happened. That’s what! Great vid!
Considering the 1st launch had so many engine failures, the fact the engines worked so well on only the 3rd flight is a real testament to all concerned 😎👍
As enthusiastic as SpaceX and its fans are about this flight I expect that NASA was less so. The failures that we saw broadcast were more fundamental than "iterative."
No, NASA understands what's going on.
@@TheEvilmooseofdoom So that's why the contracted Blue Origin? I guess you didn't read the GAO report.
It’s way too early to tell, before the data is analysed. It’s worrying that the booster engines appear to have failed to relight, but that could be due to other factors. Including a control issue that sent the booster outside the acceptable envelope, triggering an abort.
It took quite a while before SpaceX managed to land its Falcon 9 rockets, and every time people (including nasa) had more doubts about the whole thing. Now it’s routine.
@@Miata822 It's about progress not perfection. Regardless of any GAO report. NASA understands this. Progress is slowest in the phases of testing and yet Space X made a big step forward with improvements from the last flight to this one.
@@kaasmeester5903 The engines weren't fired on orbit because of the vehicle's uncontrolled spin (per SpaceX)
Great summary! I just hit subscribe.
The "tiles" coming off were no tiles. The majority of them appeared at ~114km altitude where there is still little air drag but temperature starts to raise. At ~100km (Karman line) where air drag is more noticeable, no more "tiles' were to be seen. From this I conclude ice crust, maybe one per frozen-over tile indeed.
Nah.. once they got deeper into Mach 25 air stream the light tiles stopped floating away .. they were ripped off and shot in the other direction away from this camera.
At 110km there's a fair bit of molecular O2 and it doesn't take much when you're reentering at 4-5 miles per SECOND.
You're over here commenting as if the thermosphere doesn't exist.
@@asdfjoe123 You ignore the Kármán criterion: at higher than 100km and even at orbital speed, atmospheric lift becomes increasingly negligible. If the tiles withstand the weather at 0m, then they also withstand orbital speed at 114km. At 114km, there only is 1/5 the drag force of at 100km.
it was also venting LO2 or LCH4 for quite some time which has a tendency to form ice crust that breaks off and floats around - see current SpaceX launches for reference.
Thanks
as someone that grew up with Mercury, Gemini and Apollo - was around 10y when man first walked on the moon (carried live on all tv stations back then - a whole 3 of them lol) - I'm so glad i'm alive to see this now -
Today was a great flight. Next up get the vehicle under control through entry interface and diagnose what kept b10 from sticking the soft splashdown. The pace really needs to ramp up, but for the most part a great test.
This is crazy yo
I remeber the times when they were still testing SN-5
I've been here since starhopper
Sick
Cool summary
Awesomeness
Awesomesauce.
First retrospective about IFT3 that I've seen. 🙂
Scott Manley came in a little later, but way better.
Even with the cargo door failing, this launch is a massive success
As long as they got enough data about the door, the door failing to open may have been better than it working because now they have something to improve.
@@MikkoRantalainen I agree. If something is going to fail, it better fail now during testing
@@janderson1036 Absolutely, it's better to have door failing now instead of when the cargo bay has been filled with $100M worth of satellites.
@@MikkoRantalainen It opened they just couldn't get it to shut again. It looked like it buckled.
Really? Not.
Thanks for the reporting. I saw a vid showing the booster get caught but thought why is this the only vid with that because it would be such big news.
Hazygreyart produces simulations.
My family used to work with NASA to coat the quick disconnects for the cryogenic fuel for the moon flights and other components. Now, we are helping build this bad boy. Crazy how things progress.
Loved the straight forward, just-the-facts summary of what is known or thought to have happened in the mission. Effective reporting. Kudos 😊!
Scott Manley took this to another level.
Great summary. Hopefully the next launch is in 80 days! Around the world...
These are defining edge cases
The claimed tests were a door opening, which we never saw fully opened, the propellent transfer was claimed to happen but the uncontrolled rolling makes it highly unlikely this actually completed, and then the engine restart was outright skipped. Hadly a compelling set of 'tests'. This rocket itself failed on the Booster during atmospheric entry when it lost control and looks to have induced an ossilation which prevented engine restart, and the upper stage failed on engine shutdown when an uncontroled leak occoured which doomed the vehicle.
Its insane to me that all of these tests are unilateral failures, and Elon/Spacex receives so much undeserved praise for them. To be generous there may be some silver linings but I think they're all easily negated by other dumb shit that SpaceX does. Buts nice to see in a sea of comments glazing Elon, someone's able to precisely dismantle the test and isn't afraid to criticize it.
Do you have any space channel or source recommendations that cover this? I keep looking but its hard to find, the closest is Scott Manley but it feels like he caved to the mob and is only able to point out things in a roundabout way. Theres CSS but hes more of a space channel by proxy from his coverage of Musks' antics
I am happy with it, it doesn't need to have reuse functionality in order to be ready for the Artemis mission, just reach orbit and it proved it could do that. Next thing it needs is a refueling demonstration
They actually did an initial refueling demonstration on this flight while Starship was in orbit. (Without a counterpart of course)
They spun the Starship in a specific way to see if it would push the fuel around the way they anticipated.
Man they are so far away from an HLS it's not even funny.
@@hawkdsl How so? HLS would never have to re-enter earth's atmosphere and landing on the moon is easy af relative to earth and Starship has already(barely) proved out it's flip maneuver
refueling will most definitely require reuse
@@BarrGCHow so? Are you kidding? How long do you think it'll be before the first test flight (and landing) to the moon is going to be now? It's been 5 years already from hopper to the latest failed flight..they are not even close to an HLS yet.
Not..’a massive success’..but undeniably ‘progress.’ These are test flights. You hope for complete success..but it’s typically it’s a step by step by step process. Hoping next one shows further progress.
Once again the cameraman never gets hurt.
looking good to me. relighting the engines, the pez dispenser, and the heattiles are all areas they can work on now
Also probably the thrusters.
Launch was good, Seperation was good, reaching orbit was good, everyting else was more or less failed.
Starship ❤❤
Great job, Space X
🎉🎉🎉
🫶🫶🫶
🍾🍾🍾
🥂🥂🥂
They did a fuel transfer of about 1,000 kgs between the nose tanks and the main tanks...
I know they attempted it but do we actually know if it was successful? On the NSF feed they mentioned it was fast.
Im not saying it wasn't successful but im really interested to see if it moved all or even the majority of the fuel. Or if they encountered an issue that stopped things early.
I know SpaceX announced the fuel transfer test was completed but they didn't mention if it was actually successful on the live stream.
1000kg extra fuel in the main tanks over the header tanks probably didn't help re-entry controllability. That would be sloshing around, and would be weight further back. There is a reason the header tanks are where they are.
@@agsystems8220 They never fired the engines up and the re-entry was not controlled but they did ty to control it with the flaps but with no effect at that altitude.
@@triage2962 "the re-entry was not controlled" - why do you think so? I didn't see anything spinning without control.
@@MikkoRantalainen It was never supposed to spin and while spinning in can not perform a reentry.
The achilles heel has always been heat shield failure upon re-entry. Fascinating to watch though. 😁
It seems the reaction control thruster weren't firing to maintain attitude as it hit atmosphere, I think that doomed it
How cool is space X
Very
The ship seemed to want to stay rotated 90 degrees counterclockwise from what I would have expected. I would have loved to see the camera on the other side of the ship to see if both those control surfaces were working. If not, problem identified. If so, It might be as simple as a programming error or something very hard to pin down.
What about the launch pad. Did the upgrades do their job after getting blasted to pieces by the first launch?
Great video, but why still use tiles that fell off the space shuttle, and they're still using them on this vehicle and detach and fall . off ?
No tiles at 114km altitude - still space!
The ship was tumbling backwards, sideways, upside-down, etc. Not a valid criteria for testing tiles, and re-entry.
@@imconsequetau5275 so I guess if this ever happened on reentry and they managed to recover the ship were just burned up right
The ship needs working reaction thrusters to re-enter, for sure. Maybe another back-up system is required for crew flights. After a few dozen successful re-entries, the engineers can assess the reliability numbers.
@imconsequetau5275 ok, I keep thinking about the shuttles' tiles that came off and killed the crews, l suppose if some do come off, they do a space walk and repair it be reentry .
These were not heat tiles, it was ice build up falling off, from venting... the bottom flap stopped responding, it seems
I agree!! Clearly ice.
Tiles
Some look like flakes. Some look hexagonal. The biggest chunk was clearly a few hex stuck together.
Some awfully square ice chunks.
Altitude too high for tiles - no air drag!
I NEED to know the camera they used
Ship 28 is now the favorite child out of like 30
At least until S29 has its chance.
the fact that it made it to space is pretty huge and going from test 2 to 3 then improvement is huge. at this rate test 4 will be even better
Well done Space X. cameras on flight very good placement. Need more cameras. Issues heat tiles need to stay put. Need to complete another in orbit burn along with complete de-orbit burn, fix issue with booster flight controls and engine controls, need get a solution for loss of signals. Next launch in less than 75 days or sooner.
Signal loss is inevitable during reentry.
@@TheKianykinNot inevitable. SpaceX explained that Starship is so big that it cuts a channel through the plasma that might be enough to keep a link with Starlink. We got quite far this time. No one has ever managed live footage of reentry plasma before,
Nice! Now all they need is a better method of adhering the heat shield tiles. Perhaps some Gorilla Glue and / or some attachment pins for each tile.🧐
Pins will need to suffice. The ship’s constant rolling doomed it regardless of heat tile condition.
And all of this, all test flights, the whole Boca Chica operation was estimated at roughly what that one SLS launch did cost... (well, that one was a glorious success though on first try)
Solid Recap.
*Edit: it's amazing how many will come out of the woodwork to bash "fans" and "Musk rats". Obviously this is going to cost loads, but it's the notion of it all being wasted money that gets me. This was a fantastically useful test, but it doesn't matter because of who owns the company. A guy starts tweeting the "wrong" opinions and suddenly the darling of the green movement is hated. Stay salty my friends.
Not fast enough. SpaceX has deadlines to fullfil. With this failure Artemis will most likely be pushed till mid 2030's if it isn't cancelled by the government
@@AP-qs2zf
AND the problem issues left are getting more “interesting and complex” to deal with as they are firmly rooted in “initial design decisions” that require more than bandaids to “Bondo” over. This continues to be “entertaining” and follows a “predictable Musk methodology progression”!! I wonder what happens when a significantly major rethinking of the tile system has to be instigated ¿
@@AP-qs2zf Artemis 3 will probably happen with NASA's second choice provider Blue Origin, years later than planned but still ahead of SpaceX. Once SpaceX was taken by the "that'd be cool!" approach to engineering, its success prospects diminished a lot.
Blue Origin is way behind SpaceX. The ideal scenario for both of them to succeed.
it doesn't? Pretty sure this rocket costs many millions, like in 10s of millions def
Door didn't close ( being stuck half open : you can see the exterior light ) and SS not in "line" with atmospheric flow on re entry, so it melted and become destroyed because of the incorrect orientation of the belly, it re entered with not covered by thermic tiles half body exposed to heat.
4:30 I remember seeing the same thing but that could have been ice that had formed on the spacecraft after degassing and that started flaking off.
Remember that the craft had yet to start heating up do to reentry.
Also Spacex commentators did say that the tiled don't flake off.
On her ascent friction would have provided enough surface heating to have ablated away any ice that accumulated on the pad.
In space, however cold it might be, there's not much matter up there to accumulate into ice. I strongly suspect it was heat shield tiles being blown off as the craft made reentry at the wrong AOO/Attutide. From T+0:45 you can see she's spinning instead of keeping her heat shields aligned prograde.
Edit: Missing a word
Altitude 114km too high for dragging tiles off.
Is it possible to synchronise speeds and just float down, avoiding the destructive heat of re-entry?
No
You’d need to double tyour delta V which means you would needlike, a super heavy heavy heavy to get that fuel up.
If you could magically have enough fuel to slow down from 26000 km/h on the orbit. If you check the original burn, you'll find that the ship used all its fuel to get from around 12000 km/h to 26000 km/h. To slow down the ship without using atmosphere as the brake you would need similar amount of fuel for braking. And if you had that much fuel remaining on the other, you would have needed A LOT more fuel to get to the orbit.
And what exactly happened remains a mystery. Just a rehashed video of what we've all seen before.
Scott Manley has far more thorough analysis.
It was incredible thanks. I also watched a comparison video between IFT2 vs IFT3. The capability of spaceX to replicate the mission with almost no differences in time, height and speed when all is well gives a clear picture that spaceX is on the right track to achieve its goals.
telemetry lost at altitude 0 - booster hit the ocean at high speed
yea the engines didnt relight
The engine issue with the booster not re-lighting for the landing burn is an easy one to solve. As for the Starship failed re-entry, something must have failed within the flight control system. Maybe the rolling could have been controlled if they fired up those engines and put it in a nominal position for the re-entry. Tiles for me is not a major issue at this phase. Even if a couple hundred fall off it should still go through re-entry.
Either it was a control issue with the avionics, or the fuel is still sloshing around. you can see it rocking side to side as it fell like a leaf in the direction of the plasma. not to mention all the tiles coming off.
up in flames like a tesla during a storm surge
If early Falcon is anything to go by, it won't be long now until even Starship is perfectly flawless during each and every subsequent flight. As today proved, rapid iteration works best.
No it dose not prove this in the slightest, the time and cost of Starship development already has been enormous and the total cost and total duration are not at all clear. Simply making SMALL incremental improvements is no guarantee that a destination will be reached even if time and money were infinite.
@@kennethferland5579 Oh shut up and go away with your defeatist attitude. It's people like you who've kept us from going back to space for all these decades.
@@kennethferland5579 They went from blowing up the launch pad to a 200 ton orbital class rocket in 3 launches. Those are not "SMALL" incremental improvements. Those are HUGE leaps each launch.
@@wally7856 and only 11 months.
The second stage seemed to be rolling at one point. Don't think that was supposed to happen. Ambitious project.I sincerely hope that it all works out.
You can see massive leakage after engine shut down and that caused the rolling that ended in a tumbling.
@@triage2962
That initial "leakage" was used to provide ullage direction and/or pressure differential for the propellant transfer. Then the excess propellant mass was supposed to be dumped.
After all that, the tumble was never cancelled, probably due to inadequate propellant vapor pressure. Perhaps a valve stuck open.
@@imconsequetau5275 We dont know but i think the Starship has no truster for flight control expect the main truster so after it startet rotating there was nothing they could do.
@@triage2962
Starship presently relies on the propellant vapor [pressure] in the main tanks to make orientation thrust. If the vapor pressure is released due to leaks, there is no thrust. If the liquid is all gone, there is no way to re-create pressure from slow boiling (from sunlight). Actually, the thruster efficiency also depends on vapor temperature, which is increased by operating the six Raptor engines.
At T+0:00:06 seconds everyone can clearly see the entire rocket wrapped in fire, and yet absolutely nobody dares to talk about it. The thing damn near explodes before it can clear the tower, nobody gives a damn. Stunning.
Because your imagination is working overtime
The Space X haters like to think they understand Starship so it's kind of amusing watching them flounder.
Take you're meds
It looked like the booster was low enough on LOX that it might not have been able to get enough of it pumped to the engines to relight all of them.
Lots of sloshing and bouncing before that.
Could have been the fuel acting like a pendulum on the booster once the top started swaying and the grid fins stalled when they went past a useful range of motion so they lost effectiveness.
IFT is gonna be the hardest...coz they have so much to over come... actually they have to succeed 💯
Congratulations to SpaceX
150-200 TONS TO ORBIT is already a profitable scenario even fully expendable.
Also my guess is that they will soon succeed in Booster reuse given their experience with F9 first stage landings.
It did not orbit professor
Makes you wonder whether or not SpaceX actually has a Plan B in their pockets to use Starship as a fully expendable rocket. A lot less complexity, no need for a heat shield, a lot more mass to orbit and all that.
@@LuciFeric137 Getting to Orbit is easy with a very little more delta V
@@stephanbergmann8373Not really, the entire point of Starship is reusability
@@LuciFeric137 It was a hair shy of orbit velocity (99%) such that it didn't need a reentry burn in case that would fail.
Im no rocket scientist, but I have put about 100 Hours into KSP and KSP2.
And this reentry was not stable at all. The Rocket was spinning like a top around and around, even when it was hitting the thick part of the atmosphere. At this point of reentry the only part of the ship that should be subject to these sort of forces should be where the Heat Tiles are. But we can clearly see from the direction of the clouds, and the plasma glow during reentry that the ship was in fact going sideways where there are no tiles on the other side to block the heat.
And if you look at the Data on the bottom right, you can see starship's heading pointing almost straight down at times of reentry when you can no longer view anything due to the plasma, leading one to think it's possible it was still not stable.
I think there is a good chance that the fins they put on to steer the ship are going to need to be reengineered because it did not seem like they did their job in stabilizing reentry, unless that was a computer malfunction.
I put my money on the next one getting at least close to landing, but would not bet my money that it will land both parts without issue next time. Closer and closer!
That makes perfect sense 👍
No control surface could have saved a vessel that is tumbling on re-entry. This re-entry basically did not tell us anything about the validity of the tiles or the control surfaces.
Still i would love to see the point from the ground good job elon next try landing on a drone ship
They have to get the soft landing at sea down first I would imagine, but maybe not.
“(Static) Dah, we are T-MINUS 5 years and counting for touch down on Olympus Mons 💪!!!”
You didn't put me to sleep today. Well done!
Scott Manley’s analysis is way better than this. Fly safe
How many flight tests did FALCON go through? Why not get it right the first time?
They're following a rapid iteration and testing path. That's why they're building so many test articles. This is faster.
The Falcon 1 needed three launch attempts before it was successful. The Falcon 9 needed five launch attempts to landing the Falcon 9 landing established. The hardest tasks inevitably require several attempts to get it right. Who doesn't know that basic principle about life??
What actually was that falling debris? Tiles? Ice? Partially closed dispenser door disintegrating ?
The SpaceX hosts were silent on of the fuel transfer test and why was the reentry test-burn cancelled?
It seems like venting overpowered the RCS. I'm not sure how a propellant transfer could be demonstrated with the vehicle rolling that much.
They lost control thats why the reentry burn was canceled and at that time it was just tumbeling around.
@@triage2962 "it was just tumbeling around" - you keep saying that the ship lost control. Do you have any evidence to support it or is that just your personal opinion?
@@MikkoRantalainen You can see the tumbeling in the telemetry and that is never a good thing and everything went south with the reentry.
@@triage2962 Again, do you know what was the correct orientation? Or are you just assuming that you think how it should have been oriented?
I would say that the control was lost only if the spinning or tumbling was so fast that fins have no ability to control the movement. I didn't see such thing in the video.
Eliminating or segregating H2O & CO2 ices in the main LOX tank seems to me essential to maximize reliability in both booster and ship. Otherwise valves can jam (open or closed), filters can clog, engines can fail.
Thank you
It’s hard to find anything but videos posted by Rosy Karens that refuse to comment on the success and failures of these flights.
So many don't actually understand what is and isn't a success when doing rapid iteration using throw away test articles.
Phenomenal - great engineering. Concrats to Elon, and ALL of the SpaceX team; Never give up: SpaceX will put humanity back on the moon and on mars.
Terrific engineering. Except the part where it burned up and the booster hit the ocean at mach 6.
@@mclark42no it was only mach 1, roughly 1100km/hr
@@benjaminmontenegro3423 Only mach 1? I'm sure it's intact on the bottom of the ocean.
I’m happy it launched and separated successfully but not so happy that it seems to have failed the three planned tests.
That's a lack of understanding on your part. Each test is supposed to move things further along a little and find the flaws. Each test has done that and each test flight has gone further than the last.
The Falcon 9 failed its first four attempts at landing before succeeding on the fifth try. The Falcon 9 has completed over 250 landings since that first successful since that first successful one in 2015. Tell us who else has landed a booster the size of the Falcon 9 or any size for that matter?
Progress not perfection! Who hasn't learned that lesson at some point??
It seemed to have launched faster than The second launch.
🖖
The bay door was for spacex personal milestone. Fuel transfer was for contract for NASA and was successful, so they got paid 40 billion dollars today. That's a win in anybodies pocket book. Came close to finishing flight plan this time, so next time we should see soft landing for both vehicles. This put NASA timeline back on track for artimas 3 landing on the moon maybe even ahead to a private company landing humans on the moon.
Million, not Billion
No it didn’t.
Their is no way NASA would consider internall pumping some fuel between tanks on a single ship a validation of propellent transfer. And no this dose not put ANYTHING back on track, the next test will have to be a rerun of this one because basically nothing was validated other then stage seperation. A successful test is when you can do a more ambitious test next.
@@kennethferland5579
No, actually I think NASA will pay SpaceX *_$40 million_* for this transfer test contract. Admittedly, this is only ~1% of what is envisioned, but it is still unprecedented in scale.
SpaceX did GREAT!
Would you ride in the next one?
@@angryhairpeice It’s still being tested homie. They probably won’t send people until it works completely several times. This is why companies generally don’t sell prototypes. 😘
@@matthewbaxter1471 they did not great but they reached orbit at least.
They definitely did great. Even successfully did extra tests.@@triage2962
so was Vulcan, and they launched a payload first try.@@matthewbaxter1471