Whatever they tested it's probably proof of that, but such a small rocket and only 300 meters means that a lot of things were not really proven, because scale is a HUGE issue.
Just ask Elon Musk / SpaceX, the Falcon rocket is fine, but Starship is horrible. And the difference is scale.

Like how the 2018-2021 Honda Civics shipped with non functioning AC because they used the wrong type of refrigerant? They’ve also trained dealerships to deny the warranty!

It’s been in the 90s all week - I risk heat stroke in my fucking car going to work!

Now that's the real win.

What an ad. This is the second greatest YT video ever made.

That is not why starship fails. Starship fails because like everything that Elon does lately it emphasizes style over practicality. Starship is a very badly designed rocket that looks cool to Elon. Not unlike the Cyber truck which has been an abject failure in every way possible.

Well yeah, blue origin has already successfully orbited their rocket. Their rocket which has a 45 ton to low earth orbit payload capacity, about the same as the Saturn V (so actually impressive as fuck).

So the head start is what keeps Honda from out competing them. They're at least 10 years ahead of Honda (but likely more). And BO is solely focused on space, Honda on the other hand isn't going to prioritize that arm of development over others. So I can't really see Honda winning that sprint, if they're not totally committed to the race.

Hypothetically, we could terraform Venus. At the very least, it shares a lot of the issues that we're trying to fix on Earth, just dialled up to 11 - its main problems are that it's way too hot, the atmosphere has way too much carbon in it (96.5% vs Earth's 0.04%), and the atmosphere has way too much sulfur (0.015% vs Earth's 0.00000002%, making the atmosphere highly acidic). So if for example scientists had an idea for causing a chain reaction in a planetary atmosphere that rapidly sequestered all atmospheric carbon but were worried about unknown strength or side effects, instead of testing it on Earth where it could kill us all, they could test it on Venus where any failures would have no serious consequences. And if it worked, not only would it mean that we fix climate change on Earth but we partially terraform Venus into the bargain.

Venus has roughly similar gravity to Earth and has a ferrous core which could hypothetically be turned molten (and therefore ferromagnetic) to provide the same kind of magnetosphere that Earth's core does. Mars has neither of these things and would therefore never be able to sustain human life naturally - Venus potentially could. On Mars, the atmosphere is just one of many obstacles. On Venus it's THE obstacle. Solve the atmosphere, you solve Venus.

Well this wouldn't be that. It would be a competitor to space junk, so increase the number of satellites in orbit by say 25%.

Hypothetically, we could terraform Venus.

Mars is the best option we have, which is why I mentioned that. Venus already has selfenforcing runaway global warming, and we can't even land a probe there, because the environment is extremely hostile.
Mars is by far the easier option.

You are missing the point that size makes a difference. Obviously SpaceX has the technology to do what Honda did, but SpaceX can do ti with a real rocket.
But they can't do it with the bigger Starship rocket. Scale matters.

a rocket is a wingless airplane IMO

Edit: with oxygen tanks, as you said.

While what you said is true,

i guess that most people's motivation is rather the economic benefits. Think of it this way:

The 1960s space race created jobs all across the US and inspired a generation of scientists.

Mars settlement could do the same, but bigger. At least that's the idea.

Yeah, if by "going over", you mean accelerating in the horizontal direction, then you're right.

Just to illustrate this: Consider we want to put 1 kg of mass into orbit.

First, we have to raise it by 100 km. That requires 1e6 J = 1 MJ of energy (formula is m*g*h).

Then, we have to accelerate it sideways, to a speed of 8 km/s. The energy to do that is 32 MJ (formula is ½*m*v²).

So, most of the energy (97%) is actually in the sideways movement.

I suspect it's because the hydrogen molecules are bigger than a single helium atom, which doesn't form molecules (since it's a noble gas).

So the hydrogen molecule only seeps through if it's oriented right (since the hydrogen molecule is a stick-shaped molecule).

isn't that Hitachi?

The Top Gear Reliant Robin launch reached 3000ft / 900m, although they were unable to stick the landing.

Also with starlink even one company's constellation is causing issues with astronomers and launches.

How bad will it be if there are 5-6 different companies with their own network floating around up there. And then other countries with their own network.

Reusable rockets, in particular.

Imagine having a reusable car in a world where they were all disposable.

My buddy’s 2 million mile ‘95 civic says this is a sure bet

Size is only a proof of logistics. Not tech. Physics don't change fundamentally between 6 meters and 120 meters. You learn a lot from scale modeling without the added costs. Starship's real challenge is actually the logistics necessary to fulfill the desired specifications and experimenting with engineering to reach the scale. The most innovative aspect of Starship would be orbital refueling, and they aren't there since the thing hasn't reached orbit yet. SpaceX problem right now is insisting on high turnover engineering, which doesn't work at scale without heavy costs, because it is a logistic problem, not a engineering problem.