Starship | SN9 | High-Altitude Flight Test

On Tuesday, February 2, Starship serial number 9 (SN9) completed SpaceX’s second high-altitude flight test of a Starship prototype from our site in Cameron County, Texas.
Similar to the high-altitude flight test of Starship serial number 8 (SN8), SN9 was powered through ascent by three Raptor engines, each shutting down in sequence prior to the vehicle reaching apogee - approximately 10 kilometers in altitude. SN9 successfully performed a propellant transition to the internal header tanks, which hold landing propellant, before reorienting itself for reentry and a controlled aerodynamic descent.
The Starship prototype descended under active aerodynamic control, accomplished by independent movement of two forward and two aft flaps on the vehicle. All four flaps are actuated by an onboard flight computer to control Starship’s attitude during flight and enable precise landing at the intended location. During the landing flip maneuver, one of the Raptor engines did not relight and caused SN9 to land at high speed and experience a RUD.
These test flights are all about improving our understanding and development of a fully reusable transportation system designed to carry both crew and cargo on long-duration, interplanetary flights and help humanity return to the Moon, and travel to Mars and beyond.

Ummæli

  1. Mohammod Hussain

    Mohammod Hussain2 klukkustundum síðan

    Please just add a giant parachute 👻

  2. Jack Whitlock

    Jack Whitlock44 mínútum síðan

    How would that work on Mars?

  3. Nathan Lindsay

    Nathan Lindsay3 klukkustundum síðan

    "Gonna have to work on that landing a little bit." :):):) Too funny. But seriously, Great flight guys! Good test!

  4. ray_ trilits_

    ray_ trilits_5 klukkustundum síðan

    I like how people who said that Elon couldn’t land falcon are the same ones saying that starship won’t land like they didn’t say that about falcon9 years ago

  5. Ben Stein

    Ben Stein7 klukkustundum síðan

    This was an Another Great Test flight gretings from germany

  6. Stick Mann

    Stick Mann7 klukkustundum síðan

    Next time, please have no narration

  7. Pedro Henrique Menegoli Tamaso

    Pedro Henrique Menegoli Tamaso13 klukkustundum síðan

    Should have learned from sn8 light the 3

  8. logitech4873

    logitech48732 klukkustundum síðan

    @Pedro Henrique Menegoli Tamaso I'm not American.

  9. Pedro Henrique Menegoli Tamaso

    Pedro Henrique Menegoli Tamaso2 klukkustundum síðan

    @Jack Whitlock wouldn't it be better if they had the other one lit to compensate and just turn off the one with the problem?

  10. Pedro Henrique Menegoli Tamaso

    Pedro Henrique Menegoli Tamaso2 klukkustundum síðan

    @logitech4873 different problems surrounding ignition but it consist of ignition problems, omg you americans lost the all known "American ingenuity" with that airplane fetish and the idea to put one into space

  11. Jack Whitlock

    Jack Whitlock3 klukkustundum síðan

    @Pedro Henrique Menegoli Tamaso SN8’s engines performed normally, but one lost thrust due to low fuel pressure

  12. logitech4873

    logitech48734 klukkustundum síðan

    @Pedro Henrique Menegoli Tamaso They both had different problems surrounding ignition. They did learn from SN8, but then faced another problem.

  13. Joseph Ajman

    Joseph Ajman19 klukkustundum síðan

    Looks amazing but for the missing 2 balls below..

  14. Kelvin Perkins

    Kelvin Perkins21 klukkustund síðan

    Why not build a runway then throw some wheels on the starship and land it like a regular plane?

  15. Jack Whitlock

    Jack Whitlock6 klukkustundum síðan

    There’s no runways on Mars

  16. logitech4873

    logitech487312 klukkustundum síðan

    It can't glide like that.

  17. Rokket designer

    Rokket designer22 klukkustundum síðan

    WRONG approach procedure DESIGN, is what we really saw here. The 2 engines RESTART needs to happen SOONER in the descent, HIGHER, and it needs to be with THREE ENGINES, NOT TWO, WHICH means a more stable and reliable power source is needed. SO, IN ANY CASE, RESTART HIGHER UP AND WITH AT LEAST THE SAME NUMBER OF ENGINES AS IT TAKES TO TAKE OFF, or in any case the same power available (per weight, of course). It takes MORE POWER to safely decelerate THAN to safely leave ground. Re-design !

  18. TimePro

    TimePro3 klukkustundum síðan

    Ayy Kai is back!

  19. Jack Whitlock

    Jack Whitlock6 klukkustundum síðan

    The thrust-to-weight ratios are too high to do that. Honestly, how many times do I have to tell you?

  20. BillyBot3000

    BillyBot30006 klukkustundum síðan

    But, if they relight all three engines higher up, they might begin to fly back UP.

  21. logitech4873

    logitech487312 klukkustundum síðan

    As long as they light properly, the current method will work just fine. And why spam your comment several times?

  22. Rokket designer

    Rokket designer22 klukkustundum síðan

    I say they need a more stable re-light, spaceX knows it; and they need more time to relight safely, hence they need to relight sooner, higher up, with more engines and more power available. SpaceX knows more time adds time for more safety but they will see if they can make it with the bare minimum of time and only add more reliability. My opinion here is that the latter priority is unethical.

  23. Jack Whitlock

    Jack Whitlock6 klukkustundum síðan

    Just because you say something, doesn’t mean you are right. You know nothing about Thrust-To-Weight ratios

  24. Rokket designer

    Rokket designer22 klukkustundum síðan

    More time (height) and more readily available power is evidently the task they are working on currently.

  25. Jack Whitlock

    Jack Whitlock6 klukkustundum síðan

    Just stop complaining

  26. Rokket designer

    Rokket designer22 klukkustundum síðan

    When the relight begins HIGHER there is more TIME TO insert procedures that involve securing more than enough power and NOT have to crash.

  27. Jack Whitlock

    Jack Whitlock6 klukkustundum síðan

    How many times do you have to replete your self?

  28. Rokket designer

    Rokket designer22 klukkustundum síðan

    WRONG approach procedure DESIGN, is what we really saw here. The 2 engines RESTART needs to happen SOONER in the descent, HIGHER, and it needs to be with THREE ENGINES, NOT TWO, WHICH means a more stable and reliable power source is needed. SO, IN ANY CASE, RESTART HIGHER UP AND WITH AT LEAST THE SAME NUMBER OF ENGINES AS IT TAKES TO TAKE OFF, or in any case the same power available (per weight, of course). It takes MORE POWER to safely decelerate THAN to safely leave ground. Re-design !

  29. Jack Whitlock

    Jack Whitlock6 klukkustundum síðan

    Clearly you don’t know anything about Thrust-to-weight ratios

  30. Brian Rhodebeck

    Brian RhodebeckDegi Síðan síðan

    Let's fly about 10 of them up there and join them all together to make one starship enterprise

  31. Rokket maker

    Rokket makerDegi Síðan síðan

    WRONG approach procedure DESIGN, is what we really saw here. The 2 engines RESTART needs to happen SOONER in the descent, HIGHER, and it needs to be with THREE ENGINES, NOT TWO, WHICH means a more stable and reliable power source is needed. SO, IN ANY CASE, RESTART HIGHER UP AND WITH AT LEAST THE SAME NUMBER OF ENGINES AS IT TAKES TO TAKE OFF, or in any case the same power available (per weight, of course). It takes MORE POWER to safely decelerate THAN to safely leave ground. Re-design !

  32. TimePro

    TimePro3 klukkustundum síðan

    You are such a low person to have to make even more accounts LOL

  33. Jack Whitlock

    Jack Whitlock6 klukkustundum síðan

    Your comments are boring

  34. Rokket maker

    Rokket makerDegi Síðan síðan

    I say they need a more stable re-light, spaceX knows it; and they need more time to relight safely, hence they need to relight sooner, higher up, with more engines and more power available. SpaceX knows more time adds time for more safety but they will see if they can make it with the bare minimum of time and only add more reliability. My opinion here is that the latter priority is unethical.

  35. Jack Whitlock

    Jack Whitlock6 klukkustundum síðan

    Stop thinking your are smarter than everyone else

  36. Rokket maker

    Rokket makerDegi Síðan síðan

    It needs more heigth (time) and more power from a reliable, stable and sufficiently variable source.

  37. Jack Whitlock

    Jack Whitlock6 klukkustundum síðan

    You don’t have a clue do you?

  38. Carl Dominic Santos

    Carl Dominic SantosDegi Síðan síðan

    So that's why sn9 fall because he fell from his chamber

  39. Devendra chitriv

    Devendra chitrivDegi Síðan síðan

    Starship how to make in space flight simulator

  40. Rokket maker

    Rokket makerDegi Síðan síðan

    WRONG approach procedure DESIGN, is what we really saw here. The 2 engines RESTART needs to happen SOONER in the descent, HIGHER, and it needs to be with THREE ENGINES, NOT TWO, WHICH means a more stable and reliable power source is needed. SO, IN ANY CASE, RESTART HIGHER UP AND WITH AT LEAST THE SAME NUMBER OF ENGINES AS IT TAKES TO TAKE OFF, or in any case the same power available (per weight, of course). It takes MORE POWER to safely decelerate THAN to safely leave ground. Re-design !

  41. Jack Whitlock

    Jack WhitlockDegi Síðan síðan

    Another Kai Soerfjord

  42. Actu Des Etoiles

    Actu Des EtoilesDegi Síðan síðan

    for sn10 , I would like to see the same angle view of sn8 because on sn9 i see not very things for exemple wee not see the motor raptor or the flap on the landing thanks if you see this coment and congratulation for starship programe !

  43. SuNeil Aryan

    SuNeil AryanDegi Síðan síðan

    Why to land vertically ?? Isn't horizontal landing like aeroplane possible ?? Can't we use automatic wheel and land it like aeroplane??

  44. logitech4873

    logitech487312 klukkustundum síðan

    It can't glide like a plane.

  45. SuNeil Aryan

    SuNeil AryanDegi Síðan síðan

    @TimePro you're right ..but I am telling about the booster main engine

  46. TimePro

    TimeProDegi Síðan síðan

    That wouldn't work on mars now would it?

  47. 윤성

    윤성Degi Síðan síðan

    Wow........!!!!!!

  48. Mr. Skeleton

    Mr. SkeletonDegi Síðan síðan

    a wonder of the free market

  49. Rey Mysterio

    Rey MysterioDegi Síðan síðan

    🇹🇷elon musk🇹🇷 türkiye🇹🇷hedefin senin gibi olmak elon musk🇹🇷

  50. Johnny Gizmo

    Johnny GizmoDegi Síðan síðan

    So I take it the landing burn malfunctioned? Came in hot all sideways...

  51. TimePro

    TimeProDegi Síðan síðan

    Yep. Engine failed to re-ignite correctly causing the flip to fail.

  52. 陈东

    陈东Degi Síðan síðan

    U can do it !!!! ♥♥♥(go to mars)

  53. Kumud Ranjan

    Kumud RanjanDegi Síðan síðan

    It confused me light is faster or sound ??

  54. Abhay Agarwal

    Abhay AgarwalDegi Síðan síðan

    Obviously light

  55. JoL Didjeridoos

    JoL Didjeridoos2 dögum síðan

    Another reason to use anti gravitics technology

  56. logitech4873

    logitech487312 klukkustundum síðan

    Yes let's use technology that doesn't exist and will never exist.

  57. TimePro

    TimePro2 dögum síðan

    Okay, why don't you make it then?

  58. HITESH KUMAR

    HITESH KUMAR2 dögum síðan

    I wonder they even Saying to everyone that don't even expect that this will land!

  59. Patricio Lobo

    Patricio Lobo2 dögum síðan

    not failure.... they were testing high altitud, flaps and rotation.. not landing

  60. Jerzy Lange

    Jerzy Lange2 dögum síðan

    m.isboth.info/total/26iuZJ6lZaiXu7M/v-deo

  61. песз смердляввй

    песз смердляввй2 dögum síðan

    5.20

  62. shahan sha Muhammed

    shahan sha Muhammed2 dögum síðan

    Well done, on mars your landing is stable

  63. Mugiwara Mugiwarano

    Mugiwara Mugiwarano2 dögum síðan

    Falcon 9 was harder than this.

  64. Mugiwara Mugiwarano

    Mugiwara Mugiwarano2 dögum síðan

    @Jack Whitlock 🤑

  65. Jack Whitlock

    Jack Whitlock2 dögum síðan

    Does the Falcon 9 do a belly flop?

  66. Vikas Verma

    Vikas Verma2 dögum síðan

    but why !!! yes we know technologies never end but we have not enough fuel even we find on mars then also its huge disappointment in my point sorry for that can u think if we are testing the spacecraft even we have to find out how to make possible think without any disturbance

  67. Abhay Agarwal

    Abhay AgarwalDegi Síðan síðan

    Let them do their thing , they know much more than us ,even if won't succeed it will lead to technological advancements which will help future generations develop more powerful things to actual make it all possible.

  68. J.M.P.

    J.M.P.2 dögum síðan

    This is the most expensive fireworks I've ever seen.

  69. asm

    asm2 dögum síðan

    💖 from India.

  70. Salcius Linas

    Salcius Linas2 dögum síðan

    If we want to start traveling to other planets as humans we have stop harming other species and learn how to eat vegan 🌱

  71. logitech4873

    logitech487312 klukkustundum síðan

    @Jaydev Pillai Environmentally it's absolutely better, but I'm not a fan of vegan cuisine.

  72. Jaydev Pillai

    Jaydev PillaiDegi Síðan síðan

    Veganism is bs

  73. Jaydev Pillai

    Jaydev PillaiDegi Síðan síðan

    @TimePro lmao

  74. TimePro

    TimePro2 dögum síðan

    BRO DO YOU HEAR YOURSELF. To get to another planet, we dont have to get onto a rocket, we have to go vegan!

  75. Jack Whitlock

    Jack Whitlock2 dögum síðan

    I am NOT going vegan

  76. shahada tamima

    shahada tamima2 dögum síðan

    absolutely crazy

  77. Æthelwulf

    Æthelwulf2 dögum síðan

    atleast they show the failures, I feel more respect the fact they show it then hide it.

  78. Matei Popescu

    Matei Popescu2 dögum síðan

    I saw this live and when it crashed i was like ......... Well shit

  79. Starhopper

    Starhopper2 dögum síðan

    "Do a flip"

  80. Qvest777

    Qvest7772 dögum síðan

    Молодцы. Супер.

  81. Damp was not

    Damp was not2 dögum síðan

    11:52 boom baby

  82. Brett DeLong

    Brett DeLong2 dögum síðan

    We gotta work on that landing a little bit...

  83. Rod Bike Vlogs

    Rod Bike Vlogs2 dögum síðan

    Space x don't give up keep reaching your dreams

  84. Codey Misanchuk

    Codey Misanchuk3 dögum síðan

    Awesome, I think #spacex should build the first SPACECITY, in orbit. While the whole world watches.

  85. ceerw buty

    ceerw buty3 dögum síðan

    If theres anything I learnt from kerbal space program, this is a nominal landing

  86. Andy Long

    Andy Long3 dögum síðan

    So cool!

  87. Akhtar Danish

    Akhtar Danish3 dögum síðan

    yes rico, kaboom

  88. Reframer

    Reframer3 dögum síðan

    "and again we just got to work on that landing a little bit" this was so funny XD

  89. Shabbir Kezar bugadwala

    Shabbir Kezar bugadwala3 dögum síðan

    I would suggest stop fliping the rocket , thats where the problem is , let it come back the way it head up.

  90. Brent Smith

    Brent Smith3 dögum síðan

    The sideways descent is the whole point of this. By falling sideways, it exposes a lot more surface area to the airflow, and hence create a lot more drag. This means it falls a lot slower than a rear-first rocket like Falcon 9 does (220km/h vs 1100km/h), and so needs a lot less fuel for the final landing burn. This will be particularly useful in the thin air of Mars, but also helps for Earth reentry by slowing the ship down sooner and spreading the reentry heat over more area. It needs to withstand far more heat than Falcon 9, since it reenters 5-7x faster and since heating scales roughly with the cube of velocity, that's 120-350x more heat.

  91. ceerw buty

    ceerw buty3 dögum síðan

    The third test is still the main one, you don't want to crash. Firstly, they are weak maneuverable, they do not hold in an upright position for a long time. Secondly, when landing

  92. ASHWANTH S

    ASHWANTH S3 dögum síðan

    Keep going we are waiting for 1 day that day we will travel to mars

  93. gölge adam

    gölge adam3 dögum síðan

    of course you will succeed . ❤️

  94. mim _bw

    mim _bw3 dögum síðan

    I want to go into space😭😭💔

  95. Alex

    Alex3 dögum síðan

    05:16

  96. rap box music

    rap box music3 dögum síðan

    4rm my guessing it can fails in earth becaz of more gravity... but in Mars it’s some how possible 4r safe landing due 2 less gravity...🤔🤔

  97. Brent Smith

    Brent Smith3 dögum síðan

    The lower gravity on Mars helps, yes, but the thinner atmosphere actually makes it harder overall. Also, a ship that could land on Mars but not return to Earth safely would not be very useful.

  98. oiuet souiu

    oiuet souiu4 dögum síðan

    5:29 to 5:43 all of a sudden the noise of starship scared the hell out of me 😂

  99. COPIED COMMENT

    COPIED COMMENT4 dögum síðan

    Cyberpunk failed. People: shit company, couldn't do anything. They lied to us. Rockets failed: don't worry elon, try till you succeed. No wonder elon musk still loving cyberpunk despite its mess.

  100. TimePro

    TimePro3 dögum síðan

    Didn't Elon on twitter say he put Cyberpunk on a Tesla car at one point?

  101. COPIED COMMENT

    COPIED COMMENT4 dögum síðan

    Elon: rockets go big boom!

  102. CrystalNP

    CrystalNP4 dögum síðan

    A failure is not just a failure It's Making it Better and Better. - Nah IDK who said it just came to my mind or I forget who said lol sorry.

  103. Dale Sajdak

    Dale SajdakDegi Síðan síðan

    @oiuet souiu Scrap it? After two less-than-perfect test flights? If that’s your outlook on life I don’t think you’re destined for great things.

  104. CrystalNP

    CrystalNP4 dögum síðan

    @oiuet souiu LMAO

  105. oiuet souiu

    oiuet souiu4 dögum síðan

    Maybe time to scrap the idea of flying grain silos.

  106. Mike Jayson Saba

    Mike Jayson Saba4 dögum síðan

    #AcrobaticTechnology ( #AcroboTeX ) #Safetyfirst

  107. The Chad Pad

    The Chad Pad4 dögum síðan

    This thing is gonna land on Mars someday...

  108. ZIDAGO SAKO

    ZIDAGO SAKO4 dögum síðan

    Job well done!

  109. projekt6

    projekt64 dögum síðan

    Oopsie.

  110. Eugene Cat

    Eugene Cat4 dögum síðan

    Judging by the first test, you need more distance to brake the weight is heavier than during takeoff.

  111. Eugene Cat

    Eugene Cat4 dögum síðan

    The third test is still the main one, you don't want to crash. Firstly, they are weak maneuverable, they do not hold in an upright position for a long time. Secondly, when landing on a horizontal position, three engines must work to reach the initial state of the thrust weight during landing. In the third, to reduce the weight of gravity, go earlier to the landing position.

  112. TimePro

    TimeProDegi Síðan síðan

    @Jaydev Pillai they will still turn off one engine for a nominal landing burn

  113. Jaydev Pillai

    Jaydev PillaiDegi Síðan síðan

    @TimePro what if all 3 engines perform nominally?

  114. TimePro

    TimePro3 dögum síðan

    Using 3 engines would be too much for landing because the raptor engines can only go from 40-100% thrust. Elon already stated they are trying to lower the flameout risk so that the raptor engines can go below 40%. The landing flip is done at the perfect time and it is done at that time because of the amount of fuel it has. Elon also stated that with SN10, They will begin the landing flip with 3 engines and shut off the damaged one and conduct the landing with 2 engines (as normal)

  115. Victor Kauê

    Victor Kauê4 dögum síðan

    F

  116. BobEvans

    BobEvans4 dögum síðan

    Sn10 you got this!!!!

  117. Sarah Perrigo

    Sarah Perrigo4 dögum síðan

    your design wont land safely.. the bottom design has to go

  118. Fink

    Fink4 dögum síðan

    What bottom design?

  119. Mr26Bjumper

    Mr26Bjumper4 dögum síðan

    Hey guys why don't you use a 3D gyroscope PS; I didn't get enough sleep last night.

  120. Маруф Шукуралиев

    Маруф Шукуралиев4 dögum síðan

    SpaceX make our History

  121. GamerBoy13 L

    GamerBoy13 L4 dögum síðan

    If there was life on Mars wouldn’t there be remains even footprints or something. Couldn’t you equip the drone with thermal imaging and make it so that it can scan the inside of the planet like we have on earth now for the oceans and stuff?!

  122. Fink

    Fink4 dögum síðan

    @Chitrak Aseri And if there was life it would most probably not be multicellular, so no Footprints

  123. Chitrak Aseri

    Chitrak Aseri4 dögum síðan

    Even if there was life on mars it was billions of years ago, how can footprints stay there all the time

  124. Hoot Hoot!

    Hoot Hoot!4 dögum síðan

    5:29 to 5:43 all of a sudden the noise of starship scared the hell out of me 😂

  125. Hello Kitti

    Hello Kitti4 dögum síðan

    The sound (⊙_◎) is scaring me

  126. leokimvideo

    leokimvideo4 dögum síðan

    Maybe time to scrap the idea of flying grain silos.

  127. Brent Smith

    Brent Smith4 dögum síðan

    ​@leokimvideo If SpaceX had 'cut their losses' with Falcon 1, they wouldn't be in business at all. If they'd 'cut their losses' with the Falcon 9 landings, they would not have launched as many times as they have today, or for as much profit, and Starlink would be a pipedream instead of already halfway operational. Bad business is giving up on a high-reward project that that your engineering predictions say will work when you've already funded the vast majority of it's initial investment. The Boca Chica build and launch sites, as well as the design work for Starship and Raptor, has cost SpaceX maybe half a billion dollars. They are not getting that money back. Meanwhile, each prototype costs them maybe 10 million, or about 1/50th as much. This is what they stand to lose with each attempt. Not to mention they already have two more complete prototypes. Launching those at this point will cost them almost nothing. Now Elon Musk is no fool when it comes to the sunk cost fallacy, but he's also not a fool enough to think that all sunk costs necessarily invoke said fallacy. And in this case, the reward is high, the expectation for success is decent, and the penalty for continuing is low, so 'honoring' the sunk costs still makes sense.

  128. leokimvideo

    leokimvideo4 dögum síðan

    @Brent Smith There is a time when you need to cut your losses, thats just good business.

  129. Brent Smith

    Brent Smith4 dögum síðan

    If SpaceX were the sort of company to give up after only two failures they'd be a footnote in history, not the world leaders in spaceflight that they are today.

  130. Jack Whitlock

    Jack Whitlock4 dögum síðan

    Why?

  131. lightfangshadowwolf

    lightfangshadowwolf4 dögum síðan

    We're there people in that?????

  132. logitech4873

    logitech487312 klukkustundum síðan

    You are not there people in that. (???)

  133. Jaydev Pillai

    Jaydev PillaiDegi Síðan síðan

    Yup there were 100 people in it and it had ejection seats so all of them got out safely.

  134. TimePro

    TimePro4 dögum síðan

    Yes there was, 20 people sadly died in this *PROTOTYPE TEST* there was no one inside its a TEST.

  135. Jack Whitlock

    Jack Whitlock4 dögum síðan

    No

  136. asioe kiou

    asioe kiou5 dögum síðan

    The SN9 is dead, long live the SN10!

  137. Khair Mirza

    Khair Mirza5 dögum síðan

    Space x winner blue origin looser

  138. mrdarklight

    mrdarklight5 dögum síðan

    2021: SpaceX Crashes another Starship. 2021: Still wondering what Blue Origin is planning.

  139. omor abedin

    omor abedin5 dögum síðan

    Musk said these rockets are meant to fail.

  140. Cody Cody

    Cody Cody5 dögum síðan

    U can do it space X!!! U CAN DO IT!!!!!!

  141. asioe kiou

    asioe kiou5 dögum síðan

    esfuerzo sea mayor y con eso reimpulsar la devolucion en posicion vertical. ejemplo spin de un avion para retomar el control. solo ideas... si les sirven saludos.

  142. Aero StartMs

    Aero StartMs5 dögum síðan

    A altitude que ele tentou pousar foi muito baixa para seu peso por isso ele não conseguiu pousar tenho certeza se foce mais alto o preparo para o pouso ele pousaria normalmente

  143. Опробовано руками Gi

    Опробовано руками Gi5 dögum síðan

    Зачем садить на твёрдую поверхность? Надо исследовать мягкие. Как нож сквозь масло

  144. Безногий Джо

    Безногий ДжоDegi Síðan síðan

    На твёрдые садят и получается нормально. Не получается тогда, когда на твёрдые падает, а не садится

  145. Asturian Cetorix

    Asturian Cetorix5 dögum síðan

    You are going make it, keep up the good work!

  146. Jedrzej Majko

    Jedrzej Majko5 dögum síðan

    People will die because your incompetence. You have no working engine (it's main designer just left the company!), overweight vehicle and obviously you don't know what is wrong with your own hardware... Soyuz 1 in making.

  147. BillyBot3000

    BillyBot30006 klukkustundum síðan

    It's called a test flight. They TEST it so they can fix the problems, before anyone actually flies on it.

  148. Jim The thing

    Jim The thing11 klukkustundum síðan

    And the Soyuz is the most reliable thing in the world

  149. Brent Smith

    Brent Smith4 dögum síðan

    Tom Mueller was not the main designer of Raptor. He did some work for the early versions prior to 2016, but was only an advisor on the new redesign. And Raptor is working fairly well. So far six engines have all worked flawlessly on ascent and 3/4 have restarted correctly on descent. Also, by all indications from the Texas tank watchers, the current prototypes are actually underweight compared to the planned design.

  150. Jack Whitlock

    Jack Whitlock5 dögum síðan

    This is why you test. The first planes crashed

  151. John PhiliP delaGente

    John PhiliP delaGente5 dögum síðan

    Can we create a giant magnifying glass to amplify sunlight towards Mars?

  152. spagettipoika36

    spagettipoika365 dögum síðan

    was there pilots ?

  153. Brent Smith

    Brent Smith4 dögum síðan

    Aside from it being far to dangerous to risk a human pilot, there would be no point, because no human could fly these ships anyway. This landing maneuver requires precision, timing, and coordination beyond that of human abilities. Only a computer can fly them.

  154. Jack Whitlock

    Jack Whitlock5 dögum síðan

    No

  155. Kayzu

    Kayzu5 dögum síðan

    *Shot on iPhone* by Linda H.

  156. Adnan

    Adnan5 dögum síðan

    Try try again

  157. benm wright

    benm wright5 dögum síðan

    Hmm yes pointy end up flamey end down I concur.

  158. sehhi vooty

    sehhi vooty5 dögum síðan

    the horizon 👀

  159. John Thorres

    John Thorres6 dögum síðan

    é totalmente incorrecto lançar humanos a partir da superfície terrestre, pois a gravidade atrapalha a partida e consome muito alem de que pode ser muito perigoso. Seria ideal primeiramente a construção de uma nave estacionaria, (normalmente naves de grande porte, não entram ou saem de planetas, elas são pontes de acesso a eles e vice versa), localizada fora da terra assim como a estação espacial e a partir dai entao, construir-se astronave menores que partissem a partir dela em diante, o que não iria consumir tanto combustivel pela partida e bem menos perigoso e seria mais pratica a transferencia de materiais e equipamentos e a transição de pessoas humanas, alem de que, se caso precisasse, resgates mais rapidos e precisos. Ancoragens e motores propulsores não entram em contato com naves de grande porte. Funciona igual a barcos em mares e portos. Precisam raciocinar mais logicamente. Isso é muito facil fazer. rsrsrs ah outra coisa rsrsrsr, Possiveis astronautas, devem ser neutros, ou seja, não devem ter nenhum vinculos humanos e que não sejam capazes e não terem saudades de ninguem da terra, é uma viajem de ida. Outra seria importante que todos os astronautas tivessem o mesmo grupo sanguineo capaz de, que se precisar, doar e receber sem problemas. rsrsrsrs. StarShip é bem ilogico, talvez em muitos anos se aprimore tal utilidade de subida e descida, mas as mesmas propulsões a foguetes não devem ser usadas para descidas em nenhuma parte pois são explosivas. podem ser usadas para subidas mas não para descidas. rsrsrsrs

  160. Morgan Johansen

    Morgan Johansen6 dögum síðan

    Do another recap video of sn9!! The one with sn8 gave me chills!!

  161. Bernard Danev

    Bernard Danev6 dögum síðan

    What about a backup chute ? With cbon seperation incase the engine fails on landing, anyhoo.

  162. Chitrak Aseri

    Chitrak Aseri4 dögum síðan

    also SS is not meant for just landing on Earth, it will land on Moon, Mars and maybe elsewhere. Those conditions doesn't support parachute landings, over there only propulsive landing works

  163. Obby Gobbi

    Obby Gobbi5 dögum síðan

    @sehhi vooty Это Не государственная организация. Also parachute takes a bit too deploy, starship weighs a lot(would need several huge parachutes), and it would be easier to increase reliability of engines.

  164. sehhi vooty

    sehhi vooty5 dögum síðan

    вот так деньги налогоплательщиков и хоронят.. а лохи пусть и дальше платят.. это же святая миссия человечества (нах бы это надо было бы..)

  165. Jose Reyes

    Jose Reyes6 dögum síðan

    el diametro del cilindro, dista mucho el centro de gravedad, al estar todo los motores juntos la temperatura aumenta peligrosamente en los mecanismos moviles, deberian distanciar los motores al perímetro y dejar el motor de control independiente al medio solo para estabilización con eso podrían tener un tiempo de ventilación mayor y un respaldo al momento de frenar y dejar acostado el cohete, deberian pensar en un giro en el eje vertical al momento de girar para liberar la energia cinetica en el caso que el esfuerzo sea mayor y con eso reimpulsar la devolucion en posicion vertical. ejemplo spin de un avion para retomar el control. solo ideas... si les sirven saludos.

  166. Joseph Martin

    Joseph Martin6 dögum síðan

    What matters is that Starship is the first one , which is always the most difficult one , the one that really matters for Humanity , the first one going up & coming down.

  167. Surreal Engineering

    Surreal Engineering6 dögum síðan

    Great test, i hope you learned a lot. The government (FAA) gertting this close to a private company, as if they had anything to say on what they are doing is so wrong!

  168. Obby Gobbi

    Obby Gobbi5 dögum síðan

    It not wrong. Same thing as police getting close to citizens. The government has laws that need to be followed, both by private organizations and citizens.

  169. Sketch

    Sketch6 dögum síðan

    It is important to note that suddenly, and against all probability, a starship had been called into existence, several miles above the surface of an alien planet