Starship | SN9 | High-Altitude Flight Test

2 feb 2021
5 178 183 Áhorf

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.

  • a wonder of the free market

    Mr. SkeletonMr. Skeleton9 mínútum síðan
  • 🇹🇷elon musk🇹🇷 türkiye🇹🇷hedefin senin gibi olmak elon musk🇹🇷

    Rey MysterioRey Mysterio3 klukkustundum síðan
  • So I take it the landing burn malfunctioned? Came in hot all sideways...

    Johnny GizmoJohnny Gizmo7 klukkustundum síðan
  • U can do it !!!! ♥♥♥(go to mars)

    陈东陈东7 klukkustundum síðan
  • It confused me light is faster or sound ??

    Kumud RanjanKumud Ranjan7 klukkustundum síðan
  • Another reason to use anti gravitics technology

    JoL DidjeridoosJoL Didjeridoos9 klukkustundum síðan
    • Okay, why don't you make it then?

      TimeProTimePro8 klukkustundum síðan
  • I wonder they even Saying to everyone that don't even expect that this will land!

    HITESH KUMARHITESH KUMAR10 klukkustundum síðan
  • not failure.... they were testing high altitud, flaps and rotation.. not landing

    Patricio LoboPatricio Lobo12 klukkustundum síðan

    Jerzy LangeJerzy Lange14 klukkustundum síðan
  • 5.20

    песз смердляввйпесз смердляввй15 klukkustundum síðan
  • Well done, on mars your landing is stable

    shahan sha Muhammedshahan sha Muhammed18 klukkustundum síðan
  • Falcon 9 was harder than this.

    Mugiwara MugiwaranoMugiwara Mugiwarano18 klukkustundum síðan
    • @Jack Whitlock 🤑

      Mugiwara MugiwaranoMugiwara Mugiwarano11 klukkustundum síðan
    • Does the Falcon 9 do a belly flop?

      Jack WhitlockJack Whitlock13 klukkustundum 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

    Vikas VermaVikas Verma20 klukkustundum síðan
  • This is the most expensive fireworks I've ever seen.

    J.M.P.J.M.P.22 klukkustundum síðan
  • 💖 from India.

    asmasm22 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 🌱

    Salcius LinasSalcius Linas23 klukkustundum síðan
    • BRO DO YOU HEAR YOURSELF. To get to another planet, we dont have to get onto a rocket, we have to go vegan!

      TimeProTimePro8 klukkustundum síðan
    • I am NOT going vegan

      Jack WhitlockJack Whitlock13 klukkustundum síðan
  • absolutely crazy

    shahada tamimashahada tamimaDegi Síðan síðan
  • atleast they show the failures, I feel more respect the fact they show it then hide it.

    ÆthelwulfÆthelwulfDegi Síðan síðan
  • I saw this live and when it crashed i was like ......... Well shit

    Matei PopescuMatei PopescuDegi Síðan síðan
  • "Do a flip"

    StarhopperStarhopperDegi Síðan síðan
  • Молодцы. Супер.

    Qvest777Qvest777Degi Síðan síðan
  • 11:52 boom baby

    Damp was notDamp was notDegi Síðan síðan
  • We gotta work on that landing a little bit...

    Brett DeLongBrett DeLongDegi Síðan síðan
  • Space x don't give up keep reaching your dreams

    Rod Bike VlogsRod Bike VlogsDegi Síðan síðan
  • Awesome, I think #spacex should build the first SPACECITY, in orbit. While the whole world watches.

    Codey MisanchukCodey MisanchukDegi Síðan síðan
  • If theres anything I learnt from kerbal space program, this is a nominal landing

    ceerw butyceerw butyDegi Síðan síðan
  • So cool!

    Andy LongAndy LongDegi Síðan síðan
  • yes rico, kaboom

    Akhtar DanishAkhtar DanishDegi Síðan síðan
  • "and again we just got to work on that landing a little bit" this was so funny XD

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

    Shabbir Kezar bugadwalaShabbir Kezar bugadwalaDegi Síðan 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.

      Brent SmithBrent SmithDegi 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

      ceerw butyceerw butyDegi Síðan síðan
  • Keep going we are waiting for 1 day that day we will travel to mars

    ASHWANTH SASHWANTH SDegi Síðan síðan
  • of course you will succeed . ❤️

    gölge adamgölge adamDegi Síðan síðan
  • I want to go into space😭😭💔

    mim _bwmim _bw2 dögum síðan
  • 05:16

    AlexAlex2 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...🤔🤔

    rap box musicrap box music2 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.

      Brent SmithBrent Smith2 dögum síðan
  • 5:29 to 5:43 all of a sudden the noise of starship scared the hell out of me 😂

    oiuet souiuoiuet souiu2 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.

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

      TimeProTimePro2 dögum síðan
  • Elon: rockets go big boom!

  • 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.

    CrystalNPCrystalNP2 dögum síðan
    • @oiuet souiu LMAO

      CrystalNPCrystalNP2 dögum síðan
    • Maybe time to scrap the idea of flying grain silos.

      oiuet souiuoiuet souiu2 dögum síðan
  • #AcrobaticTechnology ( #AcroboTeX ) #Safetyfirst

    Mike Jayson SabaMike Jayson Saba2 dögum síðan
  • This thing is gonna land on Mars someday...

    The Chad PadThe Chad Pad2 dögum síðan
  • Job well done!

  • Oopsie.

    projekt6projekt62 dögum síðan
  • Judging by the first test, you need more distance to brake the weight is heavier than during takeoff.

    Eugene CatEugene Cat2 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.

    Eugene CatEugene Cat2 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)

      TimeProTimePro2 dögum síðan
  • F

    Victor KauêVictor Kauê2 dögum síðan
  • Sn10 you got this!!!!

    BobEvansBobEvans2 dögum síðan
  • your design wont land safely.. the bottom design has to go

    Sarah PerrigoSarah Perrigo2 dögum síðan
    • What bottom design?

      FinkFink2 dögum síðan
  • Hey guys why don't you use a 3D gyroscope PS; I didn't get enough sleep last night.

    Mr26BjumperMr26Bjumper2 dögum síðan
  • SpaceX make our History

    Маруф ШукуралиевМаруф Шукуралиев2 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?!

    GamerBoy13 LGamerBoy13 L3 dögum síðan
    • @Chitrak Aseri And if there was life it would most probably not be multicellular, so no Footprints

      FinkFink2 dögum síðan
    • Even if there was life on mars it was billions of years ago, how can footprints stay there all the time

      Chitrak AseriChitrak Aseri3 dögum síðan
  • 5:29 to 5:43 all of a sudden the noise of starship scared the hell out of me 😂

    Hoot Hoot!Hoot Hoot!3 dögum síðan
  • The sound (⊙_◎) is scaring me

    Hello KittiHello Kitti3 dögum síðan
  • Maybe time to scrap the idea of flying grain silos.

    leokimvideoleokimvideo3 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.

      Brent SmithBrent Smith2 dögum síðan
    • @Brent Smith There is a time when you need to cut your losses, thats just good business.

      leokimvideoleokimvideo2 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.

      Brent SmithBrent Smith2 dögum síðan
    • Why?

      Jack WhitlockJack Whitlock2 dögum síðan
  • We're there people in that?????

    lightfangshadowwolflightfangshadowwolf3 dögum síðan
    • Yes there was, 20 people sadly died in this *PROTOTYPE TEST* there was no one inside its a TEST.

      TimeProTimePro2 dögum síðan
    • No

      Jack WhitlockJack Whitlock2 dögum síðan
  • The SN9 is dead, long live the SN10!

    asioe kiouasioe kiou3 dögum síðan
  • Space x winner blue origin looser

    Khair MirzaKhair Mirza3 dögum síðan
  • 2021: SpaceX Crashes another Starship. 2021: Still wondering what Blue Origin is planning.

    mrdarklightmrdarklight3 dögum síðan
  • Musk said these rockets are meant to fail.

    omor abedinomor abedin3 dögum síðan
  • U can do it space X!!! U CAN DO IT!!!!!!

    CodyROC ChaiCodyROC Chai3 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.

      asioe kiouasioe kiou3 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

    Aero StartMsAero StartMs3 dögum síðan
  • Зачем садить на твёрдую поверхность? Надо исследовать мягкие. Как нож сквозь масло

    Опробовано руками GiОпробовано руками Gi3 dögum síðan
    • На твёрдые садят и получается нормально. Не получается тогда, когда на твёрдые падает, а не садится

      Безногий ДжоБезногий Джо51 mínútu síðan
  • You are going make it, keep up the good work!

    Asturian CetorixAsturian Cetorix3 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.

    Jedrzej MajkoJedrzej Majko3 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.

      Brent SmithBrent Smith2 dögum síðan
    • This is why you test. The first planes crashed

      Jack WhitlockJack Whitlock3 dögum síðan
  • Can we create a giant magnifying glass to amplify sunlight towards Mars?

    John PhiliP delaGenteJohn PhiliP delaGente3 dögum síðan
  • was there pilots ?

    spagettipoika36spagettipoika363 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.

      Brent SmithBrent Smith2 dögum síðan
    • No

      Jack WhitlockJack Whitlock3 dögum síðan
  • *Shot on iPhone* by Linda H.

    KayzuKayzu4 dögum síðan
  • Try try again

    AdnanAdnan4 dögum síðan
  • Hmm yes pointy end up flamey end down I concur.

    benm wrightbenm wright4 dögum síðan
  • the horizon 👀

    sehhi vootysehhi vooty4 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

    John ThorresJohn Thorres4 dögum síðan
  • Do another recap video of sn9!! The one with sn8 gave me chills!!

    Morgan JohansenMorgan Johansen4 dögum síðan
  • What about a backup chute ? With cbon seperation incase the engine fails on landing, anyhoo.

    Bernard DanevBernard Danev4 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

      Chitrak AseriChitrak Aseri3 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.

      Obby GobbiObby Gobbi4 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..)

      sehhi vootysehhi vooty4 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.

    Jose ReyesJose Reyes4 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.

    Joseph MartinJoseph Martin4 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!

    Surreal EngineeringSurreal Engineering4 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.

      Obby GobbiObby Gobbi4 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

    SketchSketch4 dögum síðan
  • @elonmusk you guys should take trees to grow in mars all over it

    francisco gonzalezfrancisco gonzalez4 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.

      Brent SmithBrent Smith4 dögum síðan
  • Sorry not a starship..that's still just a fancier bottle rocket

    Dylan KopffDylan Kopff5 dögum síðan
  • DC-X did this 28 years ago, but successfully.

    Efka eEfka e5 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).

      Brent SmithBrent Smith4 dögum síðan
    • It did a bellyflop?

      Jack WhitlockJack Whitlock4 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.

    yasio boloyasio bolo5 dögum síðan
  • you can start to record from origin of the solar system, wasted so much time.

    Initial GInitial G5 dögum síðan
  • 7.5° 20 ft rampart?

    PhilPhil5 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 ...

    octan grimoctan grim5 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.

      Brent SmithBrent Smith4 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

      yasio boloyasio bolo5 dögum síðan
  • would be awesome if we could get telemetry

    Crazy_clay78YTCrazy_clay78YT5 dögum síðan
  • Mesmerizing work. What's a good news source to keep up with space exploration related progress?

    Hakan KaradumanHakan Karaduman5 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 ...

    Aorus Mini-ITX RiGAorus Mini-ITX RiG5 dögum 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

      Aorus Mini-ITX RiGAorus Mini-ITX RiG2 dögum 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.

      FinkFink2 dögum 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'' 🙂

      Aorus Mini-ITX RiGAorus Mini-ITX RiG2 dögum 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?

      FinkFink2 dögum 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. 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 :,and%20piles%20of%20thick%20ash. And if you want to know about life more watch this : I loved these episodes perfectly made.. You will have more better imagination what life is... What all needs to be done and Pandora's box is open.....

      Aorus Mini-ITX RiGAorus Mini-ITX RiG2 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..)

    GOOD WINGOOD WIN6 dögum síðan
    • Somebody posted this exact sentence after you. They either copied you or your bots. @sehhi vooty posted it

      Obby GobbiObby Gobbi4 dögum síðan
  • 💓💓💓

    TAMIL RAKTAMIL RAK6 dögum síðan
  • "와"

    White_ VitaminWhite_ Vitamin6 dögum síðan
  • So why do they have to do all this testing for high altitude when we supposedly have been in space several times?

    Conquista G0YConquista G0Y6 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.

      Brent SmithBrent Smith5 dögum síðan
    • Because this uses different methods and technology never tried before

      TuuminshzTuuminshz5 dögum síðan
  • giant waste of money Get reked Elon.

    SS6 dögum síðan
    • It has been a successful test, so money well invested

      FinkFink5 dögum síðan
    • Sneed

      TuuminshzTuuminshz5 dögum síðan
    • Planes and cars are also a waste of money

      Jack WhitlockJack Whitlock6 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.

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

    Evgeny_RMEvgeny_RM6 dögum síðan
  • So sad try again better next time

    • well, this went better than sn8 in so many things

      Pol VallsPol Valls6 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

    Pushpraj SinghPushpraj Singh6 dögum síðan
    • Pol Valls its means pipe like structure

      Pushpraj SinghPushpraj Singh5 dögum síðan
    • @Pushpraj Singh tunnel on what? there is nothing to tunnel :(

      Pol VallsPol Valls5 dögum síðan
    • Pol Valls yes ryt but we can make a elevated tunnel like that revolution or movement don’t affect .

      Pushpraj SinghPushpraj Singh5 dögum síðan
    • but earth rotates faster than moon orbits

      Pol VallsPol Valls6 dögum síðan
  • SN10: Hold my beer.

    ee Dree Dr6 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

    Pascal FokxPascal Fokx6 dögum síðan
    • Good job Elon Musk And Crew Im praying for SN10

      Pascal FokxPascal FokxDegi Síðan síðan
    • @Brent Smith Thanks for that. I learned some stuff

      Reagan K.Reagan K.2 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.

      Brent SmithBrent Smith5 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

      Reagan K.Reagan K.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 :)

      Pascal FokxPascal Fokx6 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.

    Truth channel - En busca de la verdad ocultaTruth channel - En busca de la verdad oculta6 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.

      Brent SmithBrent Smith6 dögum síðan
    • they are working on it

      Pol VallsPol Valls6 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.

    Truth channel - En busca de la verdad ocultaTruth channel - En busca de la verdad oculta6 dögum síðan
    • algo así es mucho más difícil y caro de hacer que lo que estan haciendo ahora en SpaceX

      Pol VallsPol Valls6 dögum síðan