No the Stardust in 1999 was broadcast on live TV. This is by far the best camera angle and video quality tho.

Well we only saw the start of the reentry. Once that plasma forming around the ship gets hot enough you can not get any sort of signal through it sadly

​@@glenchapman3899Maybe yes, maybe no. For something as large as Starship that is as yet to be determined.

Just few weeks ago we had a reentry video of a private satellite - Varda W-1.

​@@glenchapman3899 True for ground stations due to the wake around the reentry vehicle. Satellites above a reentry vehicle however don't have this issue. Thus by taking a corner it shouldn't be an issue. Even though it requires tweaking.

I got tingling sensation on my foot watching this...

Bahahahaha fairy tales

@@tonymackenzie9282 Saw this launch from my house east of Brownsville, these are some damn real fairytales!

What I could never understand is, if we lose communication at these heights,how was it possible to stay with communications when men apparently went to the moon, can anyone answer that? Old technology great communication with Apollo, newer tech we lose communication, makes we wonder!! Lies and more lies???

​@@Benjamin-ir6oc Проблема не в высоте, а в том, что плазма не пропускает радиосигнал, отгораживая корабль от земли. Спутники Старлинк находятся выше корабля, им плазма не мешает принять сигнал. Вас в Америке (или откуда ты там) вообще в школе ничему не учат?

I am 100% with you on this. Beautiful, ethereal, frightening, wondrous and amazing.

So what are you flat Earthers going to say now

Lol too bad you plebs will never go to space

Imagine thinking you are being told the truth about this. You are not.

Stop crying. You’re 35 and almost an adult.

It was out of control and blew up lol.. SpaceX fails to do properly what we have done already some 60 years ago

@@wh0586 When the wise man points at the moon, the self-indulgent fool critiques his finger.

@@Muonium1why is there not some kind of light or visible indicator to prove to all men that humankind made it to the moon. It would’ve been so easy considering the level of importance. I call TOTAL BULLSHIT. You go to the moon in your mind; right?

@@wh0586 remember that it's the heaviest spacecraft ever. Isn't testing their rockets a good way to ensure everything will be safe in the future use?

@@noobes The spacecraft had zero tonnes of cargo on board lol. Look into it, it was utterly hollow with no payloads of any sort. Elon isn't just facing with his 3billion dollar Nasa grant (they are not happy), but his other business ventures are failing. He will likely be imprisoned within the next 5 years due to fraud anyway. Good luck

Crossing the Karman line in all its glory

hotest

hottest i would argue ;)

I kept my mouth open for like 3 minutes, I couldn't believe what my eyes were seeing!!

​@@nicolascorre1eryes I recall reading this in a Dan Dare comic in the 1950s 😊

People, please don’t forget to take a moment out of your busy schedule to donate plasma, it’s desperately needed as you see it being burned faster than it can be regenerated

@@STV-H4H idiotic

3:18 that was amazing

@@STV-H4H For just a few ounces of plasma donated you can change the life of a Starship in need.

I am a regular plasma donor but I thought they used it to make big screen plasma t.v.'s...🤔 I really think they should be giving more $ to the donor. Without them there is nothing... Don't be so greedy! please. Thank you.

Really? They failed again ! What about those footages? And without failure unlike Elon X kzfaq.info/get/bejne/i55od92LyNnZkqc.html

@@fabr5747 And so what, they will try again as always. They failed plenty of times with their Falcon 9 rockets and nowadays they land them perfectly. It's called progress kiddo.

@@tgstudio85 And it was a new technology, justifying failures... Not the case here. No need to launch a rocket to check if all engine get turned on for example...

@@fabr5747 bruh what are you on about? the entirety of starship is new technology. The thermal tiles, the hot gas thrusters, the reentry regime, the staging. Literally everything. This test was a success because they gained data, they literally have 4 more rockets lined up ready to go. They are disposable, each rocket probably costs less than ONE engine on the SLS/space shuttle.

@@moonasha It's funny how Musk lovers are finding him to be such a genius. - the tiles are basically the 1996 EATB coated with what coated the last years of the shuttles. And they are right to use it, it's already demonstrated and understood. But nothing new here. Calling failure a success is ridiculous. He should already be on Mars according to his 2016 declarations. P.S. How many flights for the shuttle? Isn't also Musky trying to sell reusable? So now he is a genius because he is crashing reusable rockets?

Way to go away to go away to go away to go away to go away to go squeak squeak squeak

lol

I am the same as you. I too never thought I’d live to see such amazing space engineering. Seeing the plasma form was ethereal and beautiful.

Old FKR here, same, loving me some plasma also, until today it's been like bigfoot, heard of it, never seen it. I try to watch as many launches as I can, I'm ready for whatever it is that comes next. The future that was predicted for my generation is finally happening and I'm down for it.

Probably more........ of the same nonsense. AI is BS.

@@charles_preston NPC?

@@Bright_Light_Love Garbage.

Is it normal to congratulate one three complete failures in a row?

Sever propellant leakage leading to uncontrolled tumble and atmospheric breakup after a failed loading bay test and failed in flight engine ignition? Mmm great success.

​@@jeffhaggarty9879Most companies can't even get their rockets to land and mind you, this is the most powerful rocket in human history. If it were so easy as you imagine 😂😂

​@@jacobd1432Other completed milestones and valuable data...

@@jeffhaggarty9879 “Failure is success in progress.” -Albert Einstein

same here pal. lets celebrate the smal wins life gives us!

Man I saw a tornado for the first time today, INSANE! Nobody got hurt. But seeing this reentry is pretty damn awesome.

@@crono3339 damn, that makes two firsts in a single day!

It lit up S28 as well :)

Pun intended? 😅

freakin the HOTTEST haha

Right? It's like a bunch of kids watching an automatic door for the first time. 🤣

@@paulis7319 Yes! These kids make the end of the world bearable. Laughing until I die.

Yes

Which movie/s are you referring to?

@@rleriche5044 There are many films which accurately depict the effects of friction burn upon re-entry into a planet’s atmosphere : APOLLO 13 • GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY • STAR TREK : GENERATIONS • STAR TREK : BEYOND • STAR WARS : REVENGE OF THE SITH • LIFE • MAN OF STEEL • AD ASTRA

I see it as an example of risk aversion hampering progress. NASA is very risk averse. SpaceX took the risks of losing rockets on landing that would've otherwise been disposed of on reentry anyway.

We did this in the 50's 60's 70's 80's 90's 2000's etc. Fantastic to see it happening live though. Views we've never had before.

Not at anywhere near this scale. And not reusable, minus shuttle, which was only slightly reusable

​@Chris-bg8mk you call "landing" a booster at 3x speed of sound and subsequently exploding upper stage a "reusable" rocket ?

@@Antagon666 It's only the 3rd attempt. SpaceX lost 18 rockets before landing the first. They now have 283 landings in 294 attempts with many boosters now approaching or exceeding 10 landings. Patience, Grasshopper.

Fast track? They are delayed by A LOT ! According to December 2020 goals: - 2022 Q4 Propellant transfer test, Q4 2022, still hasn't happened - 2023 Q2, long duration flight, still hasn't happened - 2024 Q1, uncrewed lunar landing www.reddit.com/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/qujnsi/proposed_spacex_hls_schedule_source_nasa_oig/ Come on, don't say "fast tracked" when it's delayed like crazy !

There was nothing great about a massive failure of technology that was already proved before most fan-boys were born.

Where? Booster STILL can't return or be controlled. Couldn't control vehicle once it reached orbit properly. Couldn't control it during re-entry. It is still amateur hour.

@@jeffhaggarty9879 Where? In my Rocket Engineering career and experience of 25 years. There are some very good Engineering degrees available at some Universities......

@@jeffhaggarty9879 I agree with you. They had a fuel leak, and because they have no solution to control it in those situations, that's the result. Tiles facing the stars during reentry was funny. I wish you to not be American, cause that's your tax money going into smoke.

Сейчас набегут свидетели секты "Адептов небывания американцев на Луне" и заявят, что это Маску в Голливуде сняли! )))

Some of those 3d animations were pretty spot on, which is amazing itself.

And you know that how?

@@jeremywallis1960and that is the first step to insanity. "Nothing is real" is a deep hole to hades.

@@hawkdslthe one with purple plasma from a while back was SPOT ON

its fake

@@coryleblanc​​⁠​​⁠mmm I’m afraid it’s not. It’s widely documented. Also, I’ve worked in VFX since early 90s.. I’m usually on the sceptical side. But not here.

Remember the space shuttle?

Singularity is possible in this era, escape velocity of life span is possible in this era, AI sentience is possible in this era. It is ineed a wild time to be alive.

So easily fooled by CGI you are...

You missed the 50 years ago Hollywood moon landing .... LOL

​@CHMichael lowering the cost per kg to launch material in space will be the game changer.

Yeah, they added that in the CGI to keep you sheep entertained...

​@@jeremywallis1960 I think they've added your brain in CGI brother

Did no one ever put an SD card in the camera on prior flights and look at it later?

@@jeremywallis1960 Houston we have a flat-earther here.

@@beayn Not the same thing. Also, all previous ships were too small for that, and having a bulky, termally-protected camera on the outside would cause more harm than good. The closest we had were the views from inside Soyuz's windows (tiny views of brief flashes) and the Orion's return (also from a window, but looking back to the tail).

It was an immense failure. Why celebrate it?

Kind of like the fake moon landing when Nixon was talking on his phone. lol...

Been there, done that... In this reality.

At least one expensive leap for the taxpayers. 1 billion dollars for Elons failing toys, that could have been spent on welfare instead

Money should never be spent on people who don't want to work.@@thoos192

​@@user-tb5lw9fb7kthey used unified s band radio frequency using independent satellites, not hard, do better 👍

I don't think it's that much force at that height. Such a thin atmosphere. I think that's why they had trouble controlling the ship.

They aren't that powerful. The atmosphere is so thin at 100km it would be considered a pretty good vacuum on the ground.

@@DVSFish At 80km altitude air density is only 0.00001846kg/m^3. At 7200 m/s that results in an aerodynamic pressure of 0.132 N/m^2 which is equivalent to 0.1 m/s at sea level. Not even a gentle breeze.

Grow up ffs lol

@@stargazer7644Apologies, I used a completely wrong value for density at that altitude. This is much closer to correct (I ended up with 7km/h with revised calc)

I know what you mean, I was pretty choked up too. Also Incredible video tech that we could see all this without any video glitches. Oh and the Falcon 9 landings on their pads never get boring either 😃

Same!!! ❤❤

Easier when your Internet service (Starlink) is Above; and you have NASA TDRS at geostationary orbit as backup/primary. They also had the SpaceX Falcon 9 ground stations. I heard a call-out for the African ground station.

It was the light jazz in the cruising phase that was super lovely in my opinion. Totally fitting and calming.

Yawnnnnnnnnn

No, the signal is fine. We placed a phone call to the moon in 1969. We have signal. Follow the science.

​@@bradmcduffie947 It's reentry, are you dense?

@@ZFilms11 do you have a question about density?

@@bradmcduffie947 Of you, yes.

@@ZFilms11 the density of plasma?

Really good at polluting!

​@@Minnesota.Highlander😢 aww

@@Minnesota.Highlanderboohoo

@@Minnesota.Highlander Bro thinks heat is pollution 🤡, bro definitely skipped classes

​@@Minnesota.HighlanderAverage ragebaiter:

And United Snakes said they went to the moon 50 years ago back and forth many times ....LOL ....

​@@blackknight4996 How's that even related to this? 😂😂

@@tonywood3660 If you have never left earth, you could stay alive quite easily.

@@aryankuhar1171 50 years later today you still fail you want us to believe you did go to the Moon... LoL 🤣🤣

@@blackknight4996 when did they failed?? Can you enlighten us.... Edit : give me one valid & proper reason for not believing in the moon landings

Anyone with eyes could clearly see the spacecraft was tumbling uncontrollably the entire time.

​@@stargazer7644 This was not his point. Due to the tumbling the unprotected side of the ship got all the plasma for quite a long time without breaking up. Truly fascinating, but they still have to fix the tumbling of course. Looked super wrong from the very beginning.

@@mrsbelcherThe plasma had barely started in the part we could see. 70-80km up the air is still basically a vacuum, and it isn't going to damage anything. When the plasma got serious, that's when we lost the spacecraft.

What!?

Proves that the Earth is flat

@@timothyandrewnielsenhow so?

​@@timothyandrewnielsen you're joking... Right???

Fake

If you want CGI you should check out flat earth content.

Wrong, it's all CGI

Nope..it's fake. What a waste of resources. 2/3 of the world is starving

Just because it's on the TV doesn't mean it's real. It's called programming for a reason

No George Lucas 😩?

Agreed! Spacex is working outside of known engineering. I'm excited to see the next try!

duh, it wasn't under proper control for a long time during its coast phase. That's something to be fixed for the next time. I did hear during the stream they had problems with the attitude control system.

True you can see it tumbling even in re-entry at first it wasnt that bad but when it started to go lower the atmosphere was so strong that probably exploded it

​@@RC_Engineering😂

​@@arcaipekyun4232 DUH

Yea it seems like that. Maybe they couldn't stop the spin after propellant transfer test, because as far as i saw they spun it up for that test. Maybe their RCS thrusters aren't powerful enough for the ship this size, at least that's what it seems to me ( a total layman ) on a glance. I mean it it seemed like it tried to correct its position but too slowly, and when it started heating up shield held up fine but the ship simply turned over to unshielded side towards the wind... If it entered a bit on its side ( towards the atmosphere and the ground ) and at one point accidentally tipped on the other ( unshielded ) side there is no way it can be flipped back around because the flaps will keep it in that orientation.

@@DreamskyDance The flaps has tried it best but it no use since Starship was too much on it side. They will do it better next time

The reason why it didn't survive is because they couldn't start the engine to reduce the speed, so StarShip ended up going down faster than it had anticipated, so it couldn't stand, let's hope that in the next launch it can start. the engine and we can see how it ends up in the sea

You're right, the directional thrusters were icing up from the everyday astronauts observations. It looked like it was right. It was tumbling quite a bit through the flight. That's probably why it was a little bit Tumblyier than normal. Either they have to come up with a de-icing method for those thrusters or they run out to switch to hot thrusters if they are going to expect them to stay clear and be usable. Booster may be the only one that can actually use those things without having to worry about icing up like it did.

@@mateogomez8413 that's not what happen

its fake

Where's the CGI

Yup. Good job. you cracked it. now the world is yours and you are sure to be very successful.

Defcon 1 Stupidity

Possibility of america becoming a dictatorship

Just about everything else

What could be more important than a failed rocket launch that had no payload or people on board? I dunno, The Kardashians?

apparently taylor swift ..... fakenews was never just about fake, but also omission .

Uncle Joe and Hunter having a sniffing competition.

It's an out of control tumbling spacecraft burning up and about to break apart.

You know that there was a time where they would do it successfully ? They are delayed like crazy on the schedule and contracts for the HLS. They will need 20 rockets to go to the moon...

Agreed, amazing progress and looking forward to the next launch!

@@liquidpatriot4480 You mean delay?

@@fabr5747 what's wrong My salty butterfly 🦋?

@@fabr5747There wasn't? They failed on pretty much all the new stuff they tried to build, until it didn't fail anymore. And Starship is trying a whole lot of new stuff

Actually, we have.

I don't remember deeming Columbia's reentry a success, yet somehow this is.

It's because it's fake and they're paid to do it

Yawn…

History???? This was all done and more 50 years ago.....Amazing how people forget the moon landings.

They really got you huh? CGI is powerful..

​@@jeremywallis1960 And you believe in CGI. The government really got to you, didn't it? Ah well, not everyone has what it takes to keep the real truth...

That they did. Also showed off the failure point while they were at it; there was a leak somewhere in the rocket's systems. That's why there was outgassing even after MECO happened.

@@kennyholmes5196 that's no leak. They are dumping excess propellant overboard. It is intentional. The failure is somewhere else, about the attitude control system. Reaction control thrusters didn't work properly maybe? The fins did, but weren't enough obviously.

@@arcaipekyun4232 Dumping excess propellant overboard wasn't supposed to happen until the Propellant Unload Test. That stuff was leaking even before MECO, it just wasn't obviously visible until MECO happened. You know how the booster slammed into the gulf at mach 3 or so? It was low on oxidizer and couldn't reignite its' engines in time to save itself as a result. That being low on oxidizer fact was caused because of a leak somewhere in the system. Look at the upper stage, and you see that it was losing oxidizer in the EXACT SAME WAY!

lel?