Starship | SN9 | High-Altitude Flight Test

Birt 2 feb 2021
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

  • Should have learned from sn8 light the 3

  • Looks amazing but for the missing 2 balls below..

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

    • It can't glide like that.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Starship how to make in space flight simulator

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

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

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

    • It can't glide like a plane.

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

    • That wouldn't work on mars now would it?

  • Wow........!!!!!!

  • a wonder of the free market

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

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

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

  • U can do it !!!! ♥♥♥(go to mars)

  • It confused me light is faster or sound ??

  • Another reason to use anti gravitics technology

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

    • Okay, why don't you make it then?

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

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

  • m.isprofile.info/pac/sKmuYpl2aKCZjoc/v-deo.html

  • 5.20

  • Well done, on mars your landing is stable

  • Falcon 9 was harder than this.

  • 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

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

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

  • 💖 from India.

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

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

    • Veganism is bs

    • @TimePro lmao

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

    • I am NOT going vegan

  • absolutely crazy

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

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

  • "Do a flip"

  • Молодцы. Супер.

  • 11:52 boom baby

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

  • Space x don't give up keep reaching your dreams

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

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

  • So cool!

  • yes rico, kaboom

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

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

    • 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.

    • 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

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

  • of course you will succeed . ❤️

  • I want to go into space😭😭💔

  • 05:16

  • 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...🤔🤔

    • 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.

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

  • 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?

  • 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.

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

    • @oiuet souiu LMAO

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

  • #AcrobaticTechnology ( #AcroboTeX ) #Safetyfirst

  • This thing is gonna land on Mars someday...

  • Job well done!

  • Oopsie.

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

  • 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.

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

    • @TimePro what if all 3 engines perform nominally?

    • 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)

  • F

  • Sn10 you got this!!!!

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

    • What bottom design?

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

  • SpaceX make our History

  • 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?!

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

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

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

  • The sound (⊙_◎) is scaring me

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

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

    • 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.

    • Why?

  • We're there people in that?????

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

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

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

    • No

  • The SN9 is dead, long live the SN10!

  • Space x winner blue origin looser

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

  • Musk said these rockets are meant to fail.

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

    • 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.

  • 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

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

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

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

  • 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.

    • And the Soyuz is the most reliable thing in the world

    • 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.

    • This is why you test. The first planes crashed

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

  • was there pilots ?

    • 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.

    • No

  • *Shot on iPhone* by Linda H.

  • Try try again

  • Hmm yes pointy end up flamey end down I concur.

  • the horizon 👀

  • 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

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

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

    • 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

    • @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.

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

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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!

    • 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.

  • 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

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

    • 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.

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

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

    • 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).

    • It did a bellyflop?

  • 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.

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