Starship | SN9 | High-Altitude Flight Test

51 002 Áhorf 5 m.
Vísindi og tækni

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. J.M.P.
    J.M.P.
    35 mínútum síðan

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

  2. asm
    asm
    Klukkustund síðan

    💖 from India.

  3. Salcius Linas
    Salcius Linas
    2 klukkustundum síðan

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

  4. shahada tamima
    shahada tamima
    3 klukkustundum síðan

    absolutely crazy

  5. Æthelwulf
    Æthelwulf
    5 klukkustundum síðan

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

  6. Matei Popescu
    Matei Popescu
    5 klukkustundum síðan

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

  7. Starhopper
    Starhopper
    6 klukkustundum síðan

    "Do a flip"

  8. Qvest777
    Qvest777
    7 klukkustundum síðan

    Молодцы. Супер.

  9. Damp was not
    Damp was not
    8 klukkustundum síðan

    11:52 boom baby

  10. Brett DeLong
    Brett DeLong
    9 klukkustundum síðan

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

  11. Rod Bike Vlogs
    Rod Bike Vlogs
    10 klukkustundum síðan

    Space x don't give up keep reaching your dreams

  12. Codey Misanchuk
    Codey Misanchuk
    12 klukkustundum síðan

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

  13. ceerw buty
    ceerw buty
    12 klukkustundum síðan

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

  14. Andy Long
    Andy Long
    12 klukkustundum síðan

    So cool!

  15. Akhtar Danish
    Akhtar Danish
    14 klukkustundum síðan

    yes rico, kaboom

  16. Reframer
    Reframer
    15 klukkustundum síðan

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

  17. Shabbir Kezar bugadwala
    Shabbir Kezar bugadwala
    17 klukkustundum síðan

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

    1. Brent Smith
      Brent Smith
      11 klukkustundum 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.

    2. ceerw buty
      ceerw buty
      12 klukkustundum 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

  18. ASHWANTH S
    ASHWANTH S
    20 klukkustundum síðan

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

  19. gölge adam
    gölge adam
    20 klukkustundum síðan

    of course you will succeed . ❤️

  20. mim _bw
    mim _bw
    Degi Síðan síðan

    I want to go into space😭😭💔

  21. Alex
    Alex
    Degi Síðan síðan

    05:16

  22. rap box music
    rap box music
    Degi Síðan 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...🤔🤔

    1. Brent Smith
      Brent Smith
      Degi Síðan 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.

  23. oiuet souiu
    oiuet souiu
    Degi Síðan síðan

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

  24. COPIED COMMENT
    COPIED COMMENT
    Degi Síðan 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.

    1. TimePro
      TimePro
      Degi Síðan síðan

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

  25. COPIED COMMENT
    COPIED COMMENT
    Degi Síðan síðan

    Elon: rockets go big boom!

  26. CrystalNP
    CrystalNP
    Degi Síðan 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.

    1. CrystalNP
      CrystalNP
      Degi Síðan síðan

      @oiuet souiu LMAO

    2. oiuet souiu
      oiuet souiu
      Degi Síðan síðan

      Maybe time to scrap the idea of flying grain silos.

  27. Mike Jayson Saba
    Mike Jayson Saba
    Degi Síðan síðan

    #AcrobaticTechnology ( #AcroboTeX ) #Safetyfirst

  28. The Chad Pad
    The Chad Pad
    Degi Síðan síðan

    This thing is gonna land on Mars someday...

  29. ZIDAGO SAKO
    ZIDAGO SAKO
    Degi Síðan síðan

    Job well done!

  30. projekt6
    projekt6
    Degi Síðan síðan

    Oopsie.

  31. Eugene Cat
    Eugene Cat
    Degi Síðan síðan

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

  32. Eugene Cat
    Eugene Cat
    Degi Síðan 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.

    1. TimePro
      TimePro
      Degi Síðan 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)

  33. Victor Kauê
    Victor Kauê
    Degi Síðan síðan

    F

  34. BobEvans
    BobEvans
    Degi Síðan síðan

    Sn10 you got this!!!!

  35. Sarah Perrigo
    Sarah Perrigo
    Degi Síðan síðan

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

    1. Fink
      Fink
      Degi Síðan síðan

      What bottom design?

  36. Mr26Bjumper
    Mr26Bjumper
    Degi Síðan síðan

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

  37. Маруф Шукуралиев
    Маруф Шукуралиев
    2 dögum síðan

    SpaceX make our History

  38. GamerBoy13 L
    GamerBoy13 L
    2 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?!

    1. Fink
      Fink
      Degi Síðan síðan

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

    2. Chitrak Aseri
      Chitrak Aseri
      2 dögum síðan

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

  39. Hoot Hoot!
    Hoot Hoot!
    2 dögum síðan

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

  40. Hello Kitti
    Hello Kitti
    2 dögum síðan

    The sound (⊙_◎) is scaring me

  41. leokimvideo
    leokimvideo
    2 dögum síðan

    Maybe time to scrap the idea of flying grain silos.

    1. Brent Smith
      Brent Smith
      Degi Síðan 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.

    2. leokimvideo
      leokimvideo
      Degi Síðan síðan

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

    3. Brent Smith
      Brent Smith
      Degi Síðan 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.

    4. Jack Whitlock
      Jack Whitlock
      2 dögum síðan

      Why?

  42. lightfangshadowwolf
    lightfangshadowwolf
    2 dögum síðan

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

    1. TimePro
      TimePro
      Degi Síðan síðan

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

    2. Jack Whitlock
      Jack Whitlock
      2 dögum síðan

      No

  43. asioe kiou
    asioe kiou
    2 dögum síðan

    The SN9 is dead, long live the SN10!

  44. Khair Mirza
    Khair Mirza
    2 dögum síðan

    Space x winner blue origin looser

  45. mrdarklight
    mrdarklight
    2 dögum síðan

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

  46. omor abedin
    omor abedin
    2 dögum síðan

    Musk said these rockets are meant to fail.

  47. CodyROC Chai
    CodyROC Chai
    2 dögum síðan

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

    1. asioe kiou
      asioe kiou
      2 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.

  48. Aero StartMs
    Aero StartMs
    2 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

  49. Опробовано руками Gi
    Опробовано руками Gi
    2 dögum síðan

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

  50. Asturian Cetorix
    Asturian Cetorix
    2 dögum síðan

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

  51. Jedrzej Majko
    Jedrzej Majko
    2 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.

    1. Brent Smith
      Brent Smith
      Degi Síðan 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.

    2. Jack Whitlock
      Jack Whitlock
      2 dögum síðan

      This is why you test. The first planes crashed

  52. John PhiliP delaGente
    John PhiliP delaGente
    2 dögum síðan

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

  53. spagettipoika36
    spagettipoika36
    3 dögum síðan

    was there pilots ?

    1. Brent Smith
      Brent Smith
      Degi Síðan 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.

    2. Jack Whitlock
      Jack Whitlock
      2 dögum síðan

      No

  54. Kayzu
    Kayzu
    3 dögum síðan

    *Shot on iPhone* by Linda H.

  55. Adnan
    Adnan
    3 dögum síðan

    Try try again

  56. benm wright
    benm wright
    3 dögum síðan

    Hmm yes pointy end up flamey end down I concur.

  57. sehhi vooty
    sehhi vooty
    3 dögum síðan

    the horizon 👀

  58. John Thorres
    John Thorres
    3 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

  59. Morgan Johansen
    Morgan Johansen
    3 dögum síðan

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

  60. Bernard Danev
    Bernard Danev
    3 dögum síðan

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

    1. Chitrak Aseri
      Chitrak Aseri
      2 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

    2. Obby Gobbi
      Obby Gobbi
      3 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.

    3. sehhi vooty
      sehhi vooty
      3 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..)

  61. Jose Reyes
    Jose Reyes
    3 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.

  62. Joseph Martin
    Joseph Martin
    3 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.

  63. Surreal Engineering
    Surreal Engineering
    3 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!

    1. Obby Gobbi
      Obby Gobbi
      3 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.

  64. Sketch
    Sketch
    3 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

  65. francisco gonzalez
    francisco gonzalez
    4 dögum síðan

    @elonmusk you guys should take trees to grow in mars all over it

    1. Brent Smith
      Brent Smith
      3 dögum síðan

      Funny you should say that. Elon's original plan for SpaceX was just to send a small greenhouse to Mars and grow things in it as a stunt to get more support for NASA.

  66. Dylan Kopff
    Dylan Kopff
    4 dögum síðan

    Sorry not a starship..that's still just a fancier bottle rocket

  67. Efka e
    Efka e
    4 dögum síðan

    DC-X did this 28 years ago, but successfully.

    1. Brent Smith
      Brent Smith
      3 dögum síðan

      DC-X did nothing like this. DC-X's 'swandive' was a brief sideways jaunt under power, that at no point was fully perpendicular to the airstream. SN9 performed an unpowered sideways freefall, controlled using only aerodynamics, and then attempted to relight it's engines and return to vertical. One of which did start, and SN8 was 2 for 2. DC-X at no point in it's testing performed a midair relight or freefall; it's engines always ran for full duration. It's also worth noting that DC-X was far smaller, didn't go nearly as high, or stay airborne for nearly as long, and had far simpler engines (expander vs FFSC).

    2. Jack Whitlock
      Jack Whitlock
      4 dögum síðan

      It did a bellyflop?

  68. yasio bolo
    yasio bolo
    4 dögum síðan

    I'm just so happy that we have someone who is perfecting this technology! SpaceX will crash more rockets than everyone to have rockets that perform better than anyone's.

  69. Initial G
    Initial G
    4 dögum síðan

    you can start to record from origin of the solar system, wasted so much time.

  70. Phil
    Phil
    4 dögum síðan

    7.5° 20 ft rampart?

  71. octan grim
    octan grim
    4 dögum síðan

    Anytime some amazing updates are done on these vehicles, unless you want a landing ignition that wants to be called "master-landing-flip-no-altitude", this new bird that wants a such angle attack optimizes the rudders in weightlessness accelerometers of the (fuel-axis-force) in the turbines so that the vertical landing, inversely of time equal to the vertical-ignition- reaction and take-off, is activated in the famous starlink-cargo 4in1 self-guiding landing altitude of the mixture itself, so the mixture drop avoids. Remember who cares about a bird's shadow outside of itselves that only a true navigator operates with their eyes closed, whatever the first flights, the most beautiful are inevitably future, great success to all , which are on the way ...

    1. Brent Smith
      Brent Smith
      3 dögum síðan

      @yasio bolo What's special about the F-22's take-off and landing technology? AFAIK it's fundamentally no different than aircraft from a century ago. Also, even if fitted with rocket engines, it still has an abysmal mass ratio. It would struggle just to make the Karmen line, let alone orbit.

    2. yasio bolo
      yasio bolo
      4 dögum síðan

      Excuse me Elon Musk, but there is already the take-off and landing technology of the F 22 raptors, if they get bigger and adapt with oxygen engines you will have a modern an

  72. Crazy_clay78YT
    Crazy_clay78YT
    4 dögum síðan

    would be awesome if we could get telemetry

  73. Hakan Karaduman
    Hakan Karaduman
    4 dögum síðan

    Mesmerizing work. What's a good news source to keep up with space exploration related progress?

  74. Aorus Mini-ITX RiG
    Aorus Mini-ITX RiG
    4 dögum síðan

    I am sorry but I little bit chuckled but in good way and then I made face impression that am with him. It is really nice he is trying hard, these things but same time it is really silly.. Talking about mars and living there and playing GOD just becuse an american has tons of money.. It, it is just silly for me, if I have to be honest. Why on EARTH someone would wanna go on mars and live there??? That is ABSOLUTELY NOT habitable for humans ! There is no oxygen, different atmosphere different pressure far away from the sun.. aaagrrhh... I know .. I know it would be fantastic.. but. No .. we can't .. We didn't created the universe and its suns/stars and planets in it... It is just not ours.. We are just poor humans.. I think elon musk living his dream ...

    1. Aorus Mini-ITX RiG
      Aorus Mini-ITX RiG
      Degi Síðan síðan

      @Fink Humans will never create any atmosphere ..Humans will create metal machines .. And machine robotic world.. Artifical robo-electronic planet and create robo-humans trying to bond it with human's mind.. where no oxygen would be necessary so no breathing willbe needed and to withstand -300 degrees of Celsius to fully keep working.. Or +1000 degrees of celsius. Depend of the metal used to create robo-human. Titanium melts at 1600 C or Tungsten melts at 3400°C

    2. Fink
      Fink
      Degi Síðan síðan

      @Aorus Mini-ITX RiG With the current atmosphere yes, but if we are able to create a denser atmosphere there very well could Liquid water.

    3. Aorus Mini-ITX RiG
      Aorus Mini-ITX RiG
      Degi Síðan síðan

      @Fink Why it wouldn't be life somewhere else same like here ? The water is everywhere in universe in crystal form so solid state, falling on the planets, but it depends of the temperature of the sun and planet and its atmosphere how it will handle and keep it in liquid state. For mars there could be water inside as mars core melted water but once water reached surface it just gone vaporized as during day there can be 100C degrees Celsius and during night -100 . We are not 100% sure that those lines on mars were made by water.. It could be cores lava in early stages.. In mars poles you will see ice as it is water in solid where is always -200 or even more degrees of Celsius.. It is basically impossible to keep water element liquid on mars it will either vaporize during day and during night freeze to ''death'' 🙂

    4. Fink
      Fink
      Degi Síðan síðan

      @Aorus Mini-ITX RiG Earth has the exact proportions for Life as we know it, you can’t know if there is other life out there. Also, Mars had flowing water, why couldn’t there have been life? There also is a lot of CO2, which plant based life on earth use. Who says we can’t melt the Mars ice again?

    5. Aorus Mini-ITX RiG
      Aorus Mini-ITX RiG
      Degi Síðan síðan

      @Fink I know, but on mars there is no possible to create ignition due to oxygen , hydrogen , not present in mars atmosphere. There are billions other planets in our galaxy where the life is present! But we are about to discover once webb telescope will be launched and deployed! Which I am fan of and admire. On mars there is no life becuse there was missing the RIGHT amount of the elements and properties to nature to work ! The earth has the EXACT proportions to deploy ''life-stream'' to get working. Life in universe is something extraordinary, something magical , yet for us it is normal, we are born in IN it. For creating life on an planet you need basic properties: 1.Energy, not too much and not too low, just right enough. That means planet needs to be positioned in exact distance from the star. 2.you need heavy elements , carbon ,oxygen ,sulfur and other chemicals. and 3. Mainly Liquid so water to mix chemicals and bond atoms and mix together. On mars there will be ice forever becuse not right amount of heat from the sun. can defrost it.. Don't go always with wiki as it is not right on 100% It is good site but there are other sites specific ones . I read about mars here : airandspace.si.edu/exhibitions/exploring-the-planets/online/solar-system/mars/surface/volcanoes/#:~:text=Mars%20today%20has%20no%20active,and%20piles%20of%20thick%20ash. And if you want to know about life more watch this : I loved these episodes perfectly made.. ispulse.info/video/t4jGpJmLk12HnHg.html ispulse.info/video/uJulkZiym6CihIA.html You will have more better imagination what life is... What all needs to be done and Pandora's box is open.....

  75. GOOD WIN
    GOOD WIN
    5 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..)

    1. Obby Gobbi
      Obby Gobbi
      3 dögum síðan

      Somebody posted this exact sentence after you. They either copied you or your bots. @sehhi vooty posted it

  76. TAMIL RAK
    TAMIL RAK
    5 dögum síðan

    💓💓💓

  77. White_ Vitamin
    White_ Vitamin
    5 dögum síðan

    "와"

  78. Conquista G0Y
    Conquista G0Y
    5 dögum síðan

    So why do they have to do all this testing for high altitude when we supposedly have been in space several times?

    1. Brent Smith
      Brent Smith
      4 dögum síðan

      This was about testing the landing, not reaching high altitude. The high altitude was just a byproduct of needed enough room to fall back down and properly test it. This type of landing has never been tried before. There's not much point sending the ships higher and faster if they can't even do a basic landing yet.

    2. Tuuminshz
      Tuuminshz
      5 dögum síðan

      Because this uses different methods and technology never tried before

  79. S
    S
    5 dögum síðan

    giant waste of money Get reked Elon.

    1. Fink
      Fink
      4 dögum síðan

      It has been a successful test, so money well invested

    2. Tuuminshz
      Tuuminshz
      5 dögum síðan

      Sneed

    3. Jack Whitlock
      Jack Whitlock
      5 dögum síðan

      Planes and cars are also a waste of money

  80. EROL ATALAY
    EROL ATALAY
    5 dögum síðan

    hello Elon, I may have found a different way of traveling between stars and the known technologies, spacex rocket models, I hope you can take my stitches into consideration, so I am writing to you. because you have everything to make these ideas come true. I would like to say this for a start. Have you ever thought? Allegedly sighted spacecraft ufo are always in circle shape? We can start with the answer to this question. I just want you to listen to give me a chance Maybe we can reach beyond everything known until now, together we may have taken the first steps to reach interstellar galaxies from the earth ... Or will be full of my ideas with me ... I'll wait, hoping to see you.

  81. Evgeny_RM
    Evgeny_RM
    5 dögum síðan

    Вообще то был Знак - Как всё закончится .. (запуск можно было перенести).

  82. CHINGARI APKA APNA
    CHINGARI APKA APNA
    5 dögum síðan

    So sad try again better next time

    1. Pol Valls
      Pol Valls
      5 dögum síðan

      well, this went better than sn8 in so many things

  83. Pushpraj Singh
    Pushpraj Singh
    5 dögum síðan

    We can manage to have a elevator or tunnel from earth to moon only 3.8 lakh km we have to build it up having rest stations in it . #elonmusk

    1. Pushpraj Singh
      Pushpraj Singh
      5 dögum síðan

      Pol Valls its means pipe like structure

    2. Pol Valls
      Pol Valls
      5 dögum síðan

      @Pushpraj Singh tunnel on what? there is nothing to tunnel :(

    3. Pushpraj Singh
      Pushpraj Singh
      5 dögum síðan

      Pol Valls yes ryt but we can make a elevated tunnel like that revolution or movement don’t affect .

    4. Pol Valls
      Pol Valls
      5 dögum síðan

      but earth rotates faster than moon orbits

  84. ee Dr
    ee Dr
    5 dögum síðan

    SN10: Hold my beer.

  85. Pascal Fokx
    Pascal Fokx
    5 dögum síðan

    hi Space x, i think some parachute or a new engine (4x more powerful) could solve the landing problem :) yes we can Mars

    1. Pascal Fokx
      Pascal Fokx
      23 klukkustundum síðan

      Good job Elon Musk And Crew Im praying for SN10

    2. Reagan K.
      Reagan K.
      Degi Síðan síðan

      @Brent Smith Thanks for that. I learned some stuff

    3. Brent Smith
      Brent Smith
      4 dögum síðan

      ​@Pascal Fokx SpaceX have landed 74 Falcon boosters from space. They know how to run the math for these kind of landings. But since you seem to think that a team of some of the brightest engineers on the planet could have made a basic calculation error, let's check: The ship weighs ~120 tonnes. One engine can produce up to 200 tonnes of thrust, which gives an acceleration of ~16.7m/s^2, or ~7m/s^2 when subtracting gravity. That allows it to decelerate from it's terminal velocity of ~70m/s in around 10 seconds and 350 meters. Since the flip was initiated at 550 meters, that seems quite reasonable. So even one engine with the current thrust is sufficient to land it, provided it can complete the flip, which requires two engines. Two engines is more than enough; almost too much. They can accelerate the ship at ~23.5m/s^2 when subtracting gravity, enough to stop the ship in 3 seconds and ~100m. 3 seconds instead of 10 gives a lot less time to correct for any mistakes, and 100m instead of 350m means flipping a lot closer to the ground. But what you're proposing is that the engines should be four times as powerful. So 800 tonnes of thrust to land a 120 tonne ship. That's an acceleration of 66.7m/s, or 56.9m/s after subtracting gravity. This reduces the landing time to 1.2 seconds, and distance to just 43 meters, less than the ship's own height, making the margin for error incredibly small and requiring a flip very close to the ground. To make matters worse, the ship will no longer be capable of hovering to make corrections. It has to land perfectly on the first try or not at all. The engines have a minimum 40% throttle. So a single engine can go as low as 80 tonnes of thrust. At 60% it will make 120 tonnes, just right to hover. Two engines have a combined minimum thrust of 160 tonnes, too much to hover, which is why SpaceX plan to shut one down partway through the landing and finish on just one. However, if a single engine was four times more powerful, it would have a minimum thrust of 320 tonnes, far, far too much to hover a 120 tonne ship. Even at minimum thrust, the ship will only slow to appropriate landing speed for about a tenth of a second. After that, it will launch upwards faster than a hypercar does horizontally. So like I already said, the current engines are powerful enough. Making them four times more powerful would make a landing near impossible.

    4. Reagan K.
      Reagan K.
      4 dögum síðan

      @Pascal Fokx dude, one of the engines that was supposed to turn on, didnt turn on. thats engine failure. also, this vehicle is way too heavy for chutes. It would snap in half

    5. Pascal Fokx
      Pascal Fokx
      5 dögum síðan

      hi may be it's just a calculation error , bcs gravity on Earth is added to SN9 return speed, the engine must be powerful anough to reverse the landing speed i think :)

  86. Truth channel - En busca de la verdad oculta
    Truth channel - En busca de la verdad oculta
    5 dögum síðan

    Excuse me Elon Musk, but there is already the take-off and landing technology of the F 22 raptors, if they get bigger and adapt with oxygen engines you will have a modern and excellent autonomous ship, or for example a hybrid between the plane that you yourself He proposed vertical take-off and that when it reaches the edge of the atmosphere it can turn on its oxygen engines. you have to be more practical.

    1. Brent Smith
      Brent Smith
      5 dögum síðan

      What's special about the F-22's take-off and landing technology? AFAIK it's fundamentally no different than aircraft from a century ago. Also, even if fitted with rocket engines, it still has an abysmal mass ratio. It would struggle just to make the Karmen line, let alone orbit.

    2. Pol Valls
      Pol Valls
      5 dögum síðan

      they are working on it

  87. Truth channel - En busca de la verdad oculta
    Truth channel - En busca de la verdad oculta
    5 dögum síðan

    Disculpeme Elon Musk, pero ya existe la tecnologia de despegue y aterrizaje de los F 22 raptor, si se vuelven mas grandes y se adaptan con motores de oxigeno tendra una nave autonoma moderna y excelente, o por ejemplo un hibrido entre el avion que usted mismo propuso de despegue vertical y que cuando llegue al límite de la admosfera pueda prender sus motores de oxigeno. hay que ser mas practico.

    1. Pol Valls
      Pol Valls
      5 dögum síðan

      algo así es mucho más difícil y caro de hacer que lo que estan haciendo ahora en SpaceX

  88. CPH4
    CPH4
    5 dögum síðan

    Wish you all the best ❤️ from Bangladesh ❤️

  89. Aysion.
    Aysion.
    6 dögum síðan

    I think spacex going to Mars will be a failure I don’t know why I’m saying that but I feel somehow it’s gonna fail hopefully I’m wrong

    1. Jack Whitlock
      Jack Whitlock
      5 dögum síðan

      People said that planes will fail. Stay positive

    2. Pol Valls
      Pol Valls
      5 dögum síðan

      yeah, but that first flight will be a test flight with minor important cargo and by then the flip maneuver will be easy-peasy to do on Earth

  90. Dave
    Dave
    6 dögum síðan

    Spectacular fireball 😁 I really hope they get it right on SN10, because it's about time that IA learned it's descent speed and sticking a landing. Good luck Elon sir.

    1. Dave
      Dave
      Degi Síðan síðan

      @Reagan K. I was under the impression that the AI failed to start that engine, thus leading to this learning experience..

    2. Reagan K.
      Reagan K.
      4 dögum síðan

      The AI performed very well. perfectly in fact. the fault was that one of the engines failed to turn on causing loss of control, and high speeds which resulted in a loss of the vehicle

    3. Pol Valls
      Pol Valls
      5 dögum síðan

      maybe they are already using AI in a lot of works

  91. Floxit in game
    Floxit in game
    6 dögum síðan

    That was close SpaceX. GG. ;o)

  92. INFECTED
    INFECTED
    6 dögum síðan

    In thrust we trust😂😂

  93. Roblox Gamer
    Roblox Gamer
    6 dögum síðan

    5:28 your welcome

    1. Stevan Matejic
      Stevan Matejic
      Degi Síðan síðan

      *you're

    2. TimePro
      TimePro
      6 dögum síðan

      its 5 minutes. Not 1 hour.

  94. Arijit Goswami
    Arijit Goswami
    6 dögum síðan

    I think they should change the orientation from belly flip to normal at a greater height.

    1. Reagan K.
      Reagan K.
      4 dögum síðan

      no, that would mean less aerodynamic drag, and result in a waste of fuel. and also, if an engine fails to relight, your going to crash no matter what.

    2. Lmao.
      Lmao.
      6 dögum síðan

      it needs to touch down at zero velocity, flipping early would either waste fuel or have it go back up.

    3. Jack Whitlock
      Jack Whitlock
      6 dögum síðan

      But that still wouldn’t help if an engine failed to light

  95. Beefalo Bart
    Beefalo Bart
    6 dögum síðan

    Yeah really got to work on that landing lol.

    1. dolita windo
      dolita windo
      6 dögum síðan

      treelon husk

  96. Bogdan Niculescu
    Bogdan Niculescu
    6 dögum síðan

    I am curious about the damage received by the second one. I'm sure some debris hit it.

    1. Jack Whitlock
      Jack Whitlock
      6 dögum síðan

      Surprisingly, it wasn’t damaged

  97. Christopher Speck
    Christopher Speck
    6 dögum síðan

    Tip : 5mins of a rocket sat doing nothing doesn't make for a good video to share ... What's going on in the space x editing room ? Taken weeks to get a pretty poor video edit .

    1. Reagan K.
      Reagan K.
      4 dögum síðan

      this was a live stream. it has 5 minutes so people have time to get to the stream and watch

    2. Lmao.
      Lmao.
      6 dögum síðan

      it was live.

    3. Jack Whitlock
      Jack Whitlock
      6 dögum síðan

      This was a live stream

  98. future world
    future world
    6 dögum síðan

    🎃Мне кажется надо сначала научить ракеты starship летать в космос, а потом стараться их посадить на землю. Как это происходило с ракетами falcon 9. Иначе застрянете и потеряете много времени🚀🚀🚀🚀

    1. dolita windo
      dolita windo
      6 dögum síðan

      Why don't you just call it a crash instead of a "Rapid Unscheduled Disassembly", anyways keep trying spacex

  99. Ррр Мргг
    Ррр Мргг
    6 dögum síðan

    Илон, вы гений! Скорее бы вы направили ракеты на марс. Я понимаю, что это в данный момент невозможно, но попробуйте сделать 2-ю пару сопла(для приземления на планету, которая не имеет притяжения). Попробуйте сделать совместный проект с Россией. Я уверен, что они вам помогут. Удачи вам!

    1. future world
      future world
      6 dögum síðan

      Они это кто? Парни с лубянки?

  100. google account
    google account
    6 dögum síðan

    press f to the people who put their volume very high