What Went Wrong With Starship's Third Test Flight?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 4 июн 2024
- Another Test of SpaceX Starship Superheavy combo, another analysis of the flight with Scott Manley and Marcus House!
📺 Scott Manley:
/ @scottmanley
📺 Marcus House:
/ @marcushouse
🚀 IFT-2 Analysis: • What Does Starship Lau...
🚀 IFT-1 Analysis: • Starship First Flight:...
🦄 Support us on Patreon:
/ universetoday
📚 Suggest books in the book club:
/ universe-today-book-club
00:00 Intro
00:44 The plan for IFT-3
02:18 Liftoff and hot staging
04:34 Booster return
10:38 Starship in orbit
17:26 Starship's re-entry
28:22 More interesting stuff
33:25 What's next
36:58 Artemis 3 plans
43:18 Scott and Marcus
45:11 Final thoughts
📰 EMAIL NEWSLETTER
Read by 70,000 people every Friday. Written by Fraser. No ads.
Subscribe for Free: universetoday.com/newsletter
🎧 PODCASTS
Universe Today: universetoday.fireside.fm/
Astronomy Cast: www.astronomycast.com/
🤳 OTHER SOCIAL MEDIA
Mastodon: astrodon.social/@fcain
Twitter: / fcain
Twitter: / universetoday
Facebook: / universetoday
Instagram: / universetoday
📩 CONTACT FRASER
frasercain@gmail.com
⚖️ LICENSE
Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0)
You are free to use my work for any purpose you like, just mention me as the source and link back to this video. 
Наука
Thanks for the invite yet again, and for the chat Fraser and Scott. It has been extremely exciting watching this mission play out.
You, Scott, Tim and now Felix too each have very different presentations and you each compliment so well. I'm in for more collabs
Marcus, there’s not an “FCC investigation”. There a SpaceX investigation that’s overseen by the FCC.
Probably a slip of the tongue, but it’s important to get this right.
You mentioned 200 tons for Starship. Elon announced the next version will be capable of 400 tons. More than a fully loaded 747.
@@ryanmcgowan3061 Really only referring to the current version for now, but these next gen stretched ones, sheesh... you have to wonder how tall and skinny the rocket can be before you need to start going wider.
@@MarcusHouse I imagine it's a big increase in mass only, not so much volume. Unless I'm unaware of what the next gen has in store.
This is the best cross-over episode yet! Three of my most trusted and favorite youtubers all together! :)
Can we have a frank conversation about Elon still saying Starship will go to Mars. It's not even going to the moon. It's never going to be human rates This is a starlink truck.
This trio really makes for the best launch system coverage on planet earth. Frasier asks the best questions. Scott has the most refined presentation of technical expertise. Marcus knows the history of the project better than anyone. If you only have time for one video about any launch, and you see this trio on the thumbnail, then that's the one to watch.
Also Everyday Astronaut and WAI are good channels too =)
you got it
The SpaceClonws are super delighted by the immense environmental pollution caused by the bigoted billionaire, not to mention the spoiling of the night sky for astronomy
You're forgetting me. I'd deliver a very thorough presentation but really dry as I'd be reading Wikipedia. Possibly not even about rockets.
Best coverage is by Common Sense Sceptic and Thunderfoot.
“The second kind of radio blackout” “ when your antennas are turned to plasma” 😂
The third kind is when it passes behind my mother-in-law.
"The third kind is when it is shredded into confetti!
„The third kind of radio black-out, when your vehicle is entering the litho-braking stage“
Nice
@@ChatGPT1111 🤣🤣🤣
Three of my favorite reporters on RUclips. Keep up the amazing work gentlemen.
Thanks for the collab...Three minds - single focus.
These three guys huh??? *These* three guys! Just wow.... they should be a regular thing.
...and that focus is SpaceX apologetics, using their only source, SpaceX. What a circle jerk.
@@kennethc2466 Yeah, they should have talked about the other reusable rocket that is the same size as starship and flez the same week, year....
A Canadian, a Scotsman, and an Aussie walk into a bar...
@@kennethc2466 Why are you so interested in Starship? Or are you here solely for the vitriol and trolling? In it for the endorphin hit?
I have been desperate to find another space ship news outlet. You bring in the only two space junkies I trust and that makes you the 3rd. Good luck new friend, I hope we have a bright future!
Common Sense Skeptic bringing the hard truth:
STARSHIP IFT-3 LAUNCH Post-Mortem
ruclips.net/video/3EwrtKNoxmY/видео.html
Also: Thunderf00t
Marcus and Scott are the two best to listen to as far as space talk
I would add Zack Golden (CSI:Starbase) and the two guys who do "What About It?" (WAI, the one with the logo that looks like AWAI). WAI can be a bit silly but delivers solid info and insight, but nobody goes deeper into the Stage Zero and launch support systems than Zack Golden. But if you follow Zack, settle in for some good looooong videos, and don't be mad if you don't have the engineering background to keep up! ;-)
I've been looking forward to this, thanks Frasier, Scott and Marcus.
The 3 tenors of space!
Love these recaps!
lol perfect ❤ please you 3 sing more 🎤🚀
Elon better save some seats for these OG’s 🤙🏽
Common Sense Skeptic bringing the hard truth:
STARSHIP IFT-3 LAUNCH Post-Mortem
ruclips.net/video/3EwrtKNoxmY/видео.html
Also: Thunderf00t
The shuttle generally had communication all through entry after the TDRS constellation was complete. When I started at JSC in the late 80's. I didn't understand this and asked my supervisor about it, because I thought there was always a blackout. I was told that because the antennas were on the top side of the shuttle had a clear view of TDRS, with no plasma in the way. Blackouts happened before because the plasma was in the way or the ground antrennas.
That was my understanding of how the Starship livestream worked before I heard that "it punches a hole in the atmosphere"
SpaceX loves to reinvent the wheel. Elon says he's doing it different. They try. They fail. They copy successful strategies from other companies. They succeed.
Regarding that debris being shed on the start of re-entry. I think Scott and Marcus were again trying to play down a serious issue. We can't see everything behind the camera but my suspicion is that the rolling was presenting the edges of the tiles to the air stream and it was tearing pieces off the edge, including bits of the under-layer (which is more fragile). It is a pity that Starship had a roll issue because I would have liked to see how it handled the more severe heating (and actual high pressures) further into re-entry. It had already lost a couple of tiles on launch and this is a serious problem for the same reason. Air catching the edge of a (missing) tile, and tearing it off, leading to a zipper effect. The other thing that Scott has never discussed is the interaction between Starship's structure and its tiles. The tiles don't like sitting on a surface that has flexure. As Starship descends deeper, the plasma becomes turbulent in some places. That turbulence shakes the underlying steel plate and drives it into vibrational modes. Worse, those vibrations can interact with the plasma, with a potential positive feedback. Add to this the fact that the entire structure is being torqued by the forces on its flaps and their mounting points and you've got a structure that wants to buckle and flex. In short I'd be surprised if this system doesn't suffer a cascading failure. Maybe SpaceX will come up with even more robust tile fixtures. Maybe it will stiffen the overall structure. But all of this adds mass. And the thermal protection system may have to be rethought.
Tiles definitely came off later during re-entry, but that first round looked like ice or maybe a coating of some sort.
I suspect they haven't properly accounted for the expansion and contraction of that large hull. Especially as parts without thermal coverings are exposed to plasma.
@@ddelv1601 There were at least 2 tiles visibly missing on ascent, from the view of that one camera. On descent there was both ice and a black material. Quite likely tiles disintegrating.
They licensed the tiles from NASA. Next they will also license the mounting system.
I'm just surprised how long it lasted piledriving ass end through the atmosphere before the structure finally gave up! 🤣
Marcus and scott again! Keep up the Great work frasier. been waiting for Part 3 Since launch day, Best you tube analasys on Starship launches. Hope this series continues.
Marcus and Scott, 2 of my favorite people! Thank you both for all the great stuff you do.
Because it was a tumbling piece of debris from SECO to burn up. The RCS failed, the door failed, the Fuel transfer failed, the engines didnt relight (there was no fuel left, it all vented hence it tumbled and burned up) The mission was a failure.
Exactly. This junk heap will never succeed.
Resounding success in Musk speak.
It’s only the largest flying object ever made. Give it time.
Oh this. It was the biggest flying object ever nonsense. Any speculating company cpuld create the biggest flying object if you re just going to blow it up in the air.
It all comes down to payload and so far it has had none. Stop drinking the koolaid and look objectively.
It will never land on the moon, let alone Mars 😂
This collaboration has become a highlight from each test flight. Love the ideas bounced back and forth. Thanks guys.
Pausing Scott at 1:03, new wallpaper. Btw these series with these two after every launch is excellency.
That's a rather odd pic of Scott.🤔 Is he secretly flipping off someone or did he stand too close to an atomic pile and fried his brain? 😅 [edit: how about @44:12 as an alternate? 🤪]
@@sandytrunks 😂, even better. I think he's trying to tell us something.
*lol* :D
23:54 isn't that bad either. 😃
@@perpetualbystander4516 The neighbor is driving by with his new and bigger car of his.
Excellent collaboration report. Thank you!
What an amazing trio to discuss this exciting topic! I subscribe to all three but this 3-in-1 package is a gift! Thanks guys. 🙏❤️😊
I absolutely LOVE this format. Three knowledgeable guys collaborating.
I thought Starship broke apart because they weren't very good after they dropped the Jefferson from their name.
Boo.
Too funny! Very witty, my friend!😂
SHOUT OUT TO THE BOCA CHICA HOME DEPOT FOR SUPPLYING THE THE HARDWARE FOR THE PEZ DISPENSER DOOR !
Two of the best to help us understand what went on. Thanks for bring them both on to share their insight.
Best summary discussion of the third launch. Thank you all for doing this.
The dream team is back!
THat is what I thought too. It was so funny to see the three guys together the last time!
Great discussion
Love the variety of accents too
@charleslivingston2256 I am not an English native speaker so I don't hear anything Canadian in Fraser Cane, but I definitely recognize "Moikus Hois" is that British?
@@Enkaptaton Canadian is similar to US (other than the South) - just a few differences. Marcus is Australian. Scott has Scot accent.
I strongly agree
I don't think enough credit has been given for "stage zero" performing so well. SpaceX did a tremendous amount of work and reworking on stage 0 and all that ground support equipment worked well enough to get the rocket off smoothly. Refurbishment requirements and needs will tell the full story as to how well it performed for reusability needs, but there was little obvious damage.
Well, this is something relatively basic and they disrespect it on the first launch, spent a bunch of tax payers money to have 6(?) engines gone from the start. Also, they do not respect landing on the Moon and kicking off rocks all around. Getting off the Moon will be really challenging when you destroyed few engines during landing.
You have invested quite a lot of time in a lie. Have you invested as much, or more, time in to your spiritual development? The time is now.
@@mehck-gk9ynWait there’s a lie? You can make tons of money with lies. I know a church in the city I work in that rakes in millions
There shouldn't have been any refurbishments needed in the first place -Elon had about 70 years' worth of data telling him a water deluge system was needed before he destroyed the pad
@@samuelpeterson7043 How much money have you invested in SpaceX?
Yes! The collaboration we all needed!!!
Finished the episode. Watching some of the greats all together is amazing, and so much info. Keep up the great work and "Clear Skys!"
My 3 favorite Space Junkies! This should happen on Weekly Basis. Epic Collaboration guys 🇺🇸☮️👽
I think we got weekly podcast and news channels. Fraser is good interviewer and would be waste of opportunities.
Thank you Scott Manley for clarifying for others, just because the FAA accepts a report does not mean they have confirmed it. If space is to be commercialized, like all other types of travel, it cannot be self regulated or self policed, especially if it were to become competitive, companies have investors/share holders that look at profit margins.
Footnote : Yes for blue Origin the tanker has to be sent to lunar orbit somehow, but would you rather have something go wrong in lunar orbit or something go wrong in LEO given the number of times it would have to be done?
The entire Starship HLS contract award is so bizarre Musk is on record with his dislike of the additional lander idea, when Blue Origin was given option B eventually, why on earth did SpaceX apply for the contract in the first place knowing that was part of the Artemis program?
Well said FAA need to hold the line or another 737 MAX will happen.
@@LeonAust, Yes this is true, but also when you have a CEO that has a reputation of bending the truth for investments and higher share value, that layers their companies in NDA's backed up with threats of expensive lawsuits.
0-60mph
Great collaboration. Best analysis I have seen yet on this.
I really enjoy these deep dives! Thank you Fraser for facilitating this and the experts you pull in. Good job!
I love these video with the 3 of you intelligent men doing incredible indepth analysis from 3 different backgrounds and expertise. Thank you for the time
I vote the official name for the door should be Payload Egress Zone.
You got my vote. But, after the "Boaty McBoatface" fiasco, perhaps we should avoid the risk inherent in internet naming.
Just sayin...
Lol @PEZ - I would vote in favor
Pezy McPezface@@bobbarclay316
Jon Edwards, VP of Falcon Launch Vehicles at SpaceX, said though that: "We also have a strict No Acronym Policy or NAP as we like to call it."
@@snuffeldjuret The man has a sense of humor. Not all that common among science and technology innovation professionals, or SNIPS as I like to call them.
Really like these collabs...my favourite of the great podcasts you do.
Fraser, great job! I would like to see you have Marcus and Scott together on a monthly basis. Their insight and commentary is immensely valuable and entertaining!
I can't agree more ,Fraser please try and have Scott and Marcus on more often,thank you 😊
I'd love to see a semi-monthly analysis from these three on the cool stuff happening in our time. Thank you all for noodling about the important and noteworthy bits of modern spaceflight stuff.
13:01 on Apollo 11 moonlanding the Eagle had a similar problem with opening the hatch!
they vented the interior gases through a valve, but the door still wouldn't open! Only after Buzz Aldrin pulled the rubber-sealing of the door a little bit, the remaining gas went completely out and the hatch-door could be opened easily! Vakuum is tricky.
Vacuum in space is HARD…
@@allangibson8494Usually You don't imagine it, that the vacuum inside the ship isn't the same as outside!!
I discussed with a mechanic who made vacuum equipment. He told me! Even if there is some grease inside a vacuum tube, You are lost, You never get a sufficiently perfect "High-" vacuum.
And diameters of tubes need to be unexpectedly large, seals be perfect. Hydrogen diffusion!! Even glass-tubes do release a little oxygen slowly.
@@konradcomrade4845 Whilst SOME grease is a problem (they do make hard vacuum lubricants).
Vents are however a solved problem - using a single big door as your primary vent isn’t a good idea from a force and asymmetric thrust perspective.
The dozens of tiles being shed on reentry weren’t good either.
Great recap! What a flight. Those views... Can't wait for the next go. 🤘
Your mean the next dismal failure like all the others!
@@batcollins3714 must not have watched the video 😂
@@stuartreed37He either has *no understanding* of rapid iterative development and how SpaceX's Falcon launch system has become the most successful rocket in human history; or he's just another hater who has a brain filled with horseshit. 🤷♂
@@stuartreed37 I did and the flight live with thunderfoot it was a complete disaster lol
Excellent video. Love the collab. Thank you!
Always awesome to have these 3 on together !
The stabilized to Earth's perspective footage floating around Twitter/X of Starship re-entry really highlights the roll of the ship and was just amazing to see!
Brilliant. The best analysis of latest starship 3 flight. Thanks!
"latest starship 3 failure"
My 3 favorite youtubers on one screen. THANK YOU!
Great job. Thank you so much for conducting this.
"Hot prototyping" is basically
1. Build
2. Test
3. Figure out what went wrong
4. Redesign
5. Go back to step 1.
When you reach your final design you have the added bonus of having an operational production line that can create these things faster and cheaper than an airliner.
1. Build
2. Test
3. Miscellaneous Failure
4. Redesign
5. Fail Forward
Insert a bogus comment to justify the repeated failures.
0. Think.
0.5 Design
0.6 Think again and adjust design.
1 ...
2...
...
yeah, it's about 6 years late now. just make a working one. still no payload to orbit, no booster landing, no ship landing, no refueling
@@themodfather9382 Blue Origin was supposed to launch 4 years ago.
...? ok? @@glennchartrand5411
Hey Marcus!! Good to see you on here. I check you vids every week. 👋👋👍I know the booster came down quite fast. But it would have been interesting to see that splash. 😉
you three are the trio extraordinary. Keep at it as a group guys. And keep the individual shows. Love it.
Love this episode, great depth and info. Will be visiting this channel lots more
love this trio!
It's always a much better interview when Scott is sober. At least this time he didn't berate Marcus in front of everyone.
So does this mean that there exists a video of a drunk Manley berating Marcus? That sounds like it could be really fun or really bad, but either way I have to see it lol
@@seionne85 Yeah, in their first collab with Fraser, Scott is lit and there's a few moments where he talks over top of, interrupts and flat out berates Marcus for being wrong a couple times; all while downing beer the entire interview. The look on Marcus's face is of frustration and embarrassment. So, I was REALLY REALLY surprised when I saw Marcus came back a second time to do another interview with the three of them, and now a third.
I noticed Manley seemed quite hyper.
@@NorthernChev I'm frankly more surprised about Scott coming back, with Marcus on at the same time. I wouldn't have if I were Scott.
@@mytube001 why?
Great discussion . Thanks fellas . I love Marcus Houses use of the word “ stuff”
🥁🙏🏼⭐️
Holding pressure (apparently in the PLF sep regime) then outgassing == BAD. You never wanna see that in a payload insertion environment.
I think it is trouble at point of the hot separation ring; we are causing damage in the form of leaks in both the booster and the Star Ship which cause control gases and perhaps fuel (and even perhaps grid fin operations to some degree) to leak away causing the inability to restart engines (in the booster) or "control" thrusters on the Star Ship in its trajectory.
If one recalls, there was way too much gaseous venting after the Star Ships main engines shut down. At first she was able to keep her profile trim...but as time passed one could see the ship was turning, apparently without the ability to realign itself properly. Thus, later, she was on a wrong approach to reentry...as one could see by the "brushing" away of so many tiles as that side of the ship hit the atmosphere incorrectly. The slow tumble which followed was uncoverable, though I did hold out hope the "wings", as the atmosphere thickened, might be able to save the day!
Alas it looked that without the inclusion of those thrusters gasses, it was a lost cause.
THAT RE-ENTRY WITH THE PLASMA COMPRESSION WAVE WAS BEAUTIFUL & SPECTACULAR ! ! !👍👍👍👍👍👍👍
Marcus and Scott are like night and day when it comes to their understanding of physics
What an awesome collaboration. Nice work guys.
My feeling is that the pez door didn't close like it should have as well so that with the rotation that starship was doing the plasma probably burned into that bay as well which would have cause massive forces from the inside out that probably would have cause structual failure.
On the booster return, it looked like the heavy oscillations started immediately after passing a cloud layer. Is it possible there were strong sheer winds that could have forced the booster out of it's flight envelope?
The heavy oscillations started when the engines failed to light for the landing burn. “Hoverslam” requires the three central engines to light and only one did.
@@allangibson8494 I dunno, it looks like the oscillations started 7 seconds before first engine start. It seems to match up with venting from down there though...
Great show and commentary ! Keep up the awesome work and excited for next Starship 4 launch !
great episode fraser awesome to see your great guests very insightful
Also worth saying this is a true International collaboration: Marcus from Australia (Tasmania), Scott from California (but you can never take Scotland out of him!) and Fraser from Canada (Vancouver). How wonderful is that?
I think you guys are missing the issue here.
Spacex would definitely have intended for the payload bay to vent almost instantly as it ascended.
The payload bay is NOT built to hold atmospheric pressure.
The payload bay has an internal surface area of roughly 700,000sqin at sea level pressure of 14.7psi, that comes to, strangely, 10,000,000psi, the same force produced by the 33 raptor engines.
I think someone either misinstalled the payload bay bleed valves, or they froze, or just broke.
If the air pressure inside the payload bay cannot be equalised fast enough, then ultimately you'll get an explosive decompression.
I've been in a plane that explosively decompressed at 42,000ft, and it was fcuking terrifying.
By my reckoning, if the payload bay still had 0.2atm inside it at the Karmen line. Then the payload bay's circumference would have increased by 12in. The payload bay's length would also have increased by 12in.
I feel this stretching of the payload bay's structure, destroyed the integrity of the tiles.
I saw at least 15 tiles fall off together, still fastened to the underlying structure.
I also think this stretching, made it impossible for the Pez dispenser to work.
Great video! 👍
Better than the second.
They said the PEZ door did work. But not how well it worked. We all saw it open and close. If the Payload area stretched as much as you calculated, then it's possible one of the forward flaps mechanism's was damaged and that may be what caused the rotational instability.
Tell me how you figured the payload bay stretching 12 inches…. It’s 4 mil stainless, not a balloon….
No, that's 10,000,000 POUNDS distributed over the whole bay hull, not 10K PER SQUARE INCH.
Love this content! Hoping for IFT-4 sometime in May.
Thank you Frasier for having two fantastic guests here. They clearly brought all the facts to light. (Like 1000x)
Did you notice the free floating steel bar flipping in the cargo bay?
Yep… wondering too…
Who said it was a steel bar. It may have been a transparent seal, because it had a transparent and reflective quality to it.
Or maybe an inanimate carbon rod.
One word, tiles. That debris was black tiles and the white backing. The loss of those tiles led to breakup during re-entry, in conjunction with loss of attitude control. Those two together are bad news.
I’m not a rocket scientist, but I think you point the shieldy bit toward earth.
I watched the video like everyone else. That is not what Scott said. He said the pressure build up from the re-entry being rotational, caused it to exceed it's design and THAT is what caused the Starship to break up. So it was the inability of the Starship's systems to control it's // (Oblique) approach through the atmosphere that caused the failure. Neither Marcus or Scott could agree on the 'objects' floating off, being tiles. In fact Scott alluded to it being a stuck valve bleeding ice. He did say that maybe the rotation led to some tiles on the edges being blown off. But that is not a Tile failure, that is a result of the control failure.
@@David-yo5wsI watched the re-enty myself and came to my own conclusions before I watched this video. Here is what I posted on the 14th. Days before the launch I watched a video on the tiles and it showed the white backing under the black ceramic tiles. Sames as we saw being shed before the failure. --- I've started this re-entry video at 1 min 38 in, at the point that tiles are being lost along with other debris before they lose contact. That stuff that looks like ice is most likely part of the tiling, as you can see in the image above. ruclips.net/video/JX1LTw48ymQ/видео.htmlsi=_RF0Liw10t4AVj3J&t=98
@@buddypage11Thanks for the link. I watched from pause and used the > key to advance 1 frame at a time. The white particles that float near the camera, when you compare it to the physical tile size, are much smaller. Also the shapes are not changing to black and white, only white when they reflect the sunlight. Tiles are # shaped not square. So I am not convinced that that debris we are seeing, are tiles. It seems to be condensed ice coming off the Starship.
Just a shame we do not have footage from a camera looking up to the forward flaps.
@@David-yo5wsWhy would ice still be on the rocket at this late stage? It would all fall off during the launch and especially after they are going many times the speed of sound. What I think is happening is those tiles and the white backing are shattering and splintering so we never see a whole tile. Also, what other debris is on that stainless steel body, except those tiles.
How fantastic to see the three of you discussing this together!
Congratulations to all of you and : EXCELENT Presentation and Analyses , realy VERY GOOD!
Excellent, delighted to listen to this analysis.
BTW, the views of the glowing plasma on re-entry were awesome.
Hope you guys do this on every Starship launch as I'm sure there is going to be more surprises each time they launch until they get it worked out, I remember the Falcon 9 landings it took a while and many failed attempts. I'd call this flight a failed success, or a successful failure depending on how you look at it. Flight #3 for sure did better than flight #2 on both booster and ship but both of them having flight control issues there is something they assumed that did not work as they planned, something is going to have to change if it is something common to both.
I would not be surprised if the problems for starship came from the propellant transfer test, something that they won't do next test (I presume), so it might be a non-issue. They might have chosen to just sacrifice starship to meet that goal.
If… if they get it sorted. Elon has a history of not living up to promises.
@@jennybeard6341 you are not mistaken.
Great video love hearing from you all!
Scott Manley is amazing!
He certainly knows his boats
He's so...manly. I would say that even if his last name was Jones.
The instability of the booster seemed to have started when it went through that cloud layer - seems there was some kind of aerodynamic upset that the grid fins didn't seem to be able to dampen out.
Well done to all three of you! These are excited times to be around after decades of drought in space exploration. History is written and were all here to see it!
12:45 shows you a really good demonstration of what it's like to get spaced.
I'm quite sure the cargo bay door broke, fell off tracks. Did it effect the re-entry though...?
Doubt it…. The door isn’t big enough that it would affect aerodynamics if it was open….
Black hexagonal chunk of ice nested in group of 3 or5 at 18:40 ? yey right. Those are tiles, a whole lot of them!
They don't look thick enough and are not straight edge shapes.
Thanks Fraser, as always. That was a LOT of fun. That was so cool.
Love to see my three favorite space channels all on one screen!
The triumvirate is back. Great job guys; Thanks!👍🏻
That's the word!!
This is the space illuminati incarnate. 😮
@@ChatGPT1111 Perish the thought! As an AI celebrity you ought to be spreading conspiritual disinformation. 🫵🏻
Thruster effect of the payload bay depressurization?
Interesting!
It should not be a problem... unless the RCS system is not fully operational (clog), then the non-planned "leaks" of weak internal atmosphere gases will cause random motion & torsion.
Terrific job, guys! Thanks so much!
19:20 It was also my understanding that it could NOT be the thin atmosphere what took them out, because the same pieces that broke up were not also "pushed out" (accelerating away of the ship, relatively speaking), but instead just remained "in place" following the orbital trajectory [given their low surface profile] while the Starship still kept turning around and shaking because of the RCS activity.
I wonder if there was a re-entry black box. That was highly insulated. With a radio transponder so space X can find it at sea.
Why would they need it they are getting a constant stream of data until the last milliseconds?
It'll be miles down at the bottom of the ocean.
Sitting next to MH370’s black boxes…
It is possible ONLY for the booster. The Starship´s reentry is too extreme to design anything that could survive while being both cheap & mostly weightless (it also has to float & send a "beep" signal to be located).
2:50 Learning from the Space Shuttle disasters, I hope SpaceX doesn't put schedules above safety in the weather, unlike Challenger and Columbia.
when it comes to launching humans they're very conservative with launching along with nasa having the final say in launching as well.
Let me just say this - 1st launch was on 4-20 'cause Musk thought it'd be funny!
@@timpointingturned out he was right, it was pretty funny watching Super Heavy putting a huge crater in the ground and creating an insane debris cloud, not to mention the total lose of vehicle with ground control being unaware for minutes after. But they’ve come a long way from that debacle.
Thank you - excellent video!
Thoughtful coverage, thanks.
Three of my very favorite presenters altogether! Thank you
How many crashes will be ok? Is there any limits set?
I think until people start to die, lots of fans will be in denial of any "success"
Why would there be? Its literally bolts and metal specifically being tested to the limits of its capabilities with the intent of going faster and further and taking all of the risks while there is no consequences.
The STS lived all its life in the fear of long identified faults that were not corrected because humans were already flying. The shuttle accidents were both predicted and acoidable.
This is just burnt metal, why set a limit?
@@mobiuscoreindustries No consequences? Space X should work on HLS already, they have almost 3 billion USD for that. If they don't fulfill contract why they bother now with satellite carrier which failed anyway. Just look at tests for Starship from IFT-1 to IFT3 look at what was their objectives, there were not fully successful yet, only partially, every time something breaks that doesn't give much confidence to use it. Musk already promised too much.
@@Feefa99 except it further shows that you have no clue what you talk about.
HLS, just lile the prior crew and cargo program, are millestones driven contracts. Meaning spaceX only gets money following specific accomplissements of milestones in term of mission objectives and capabilities leading to the successful delivery of the HLS vehicle and its supportive systems. Meaning that as it stands most of the money remains firmly locked in the coffers of the state. That being said, contrary to your drivel. IFT-1 to 3 have been very specifically aiming at knocking down specific milestones for the program. These split the reward into many, many sections. Most that were locked tight for a long time even after their obtention due to their freeze in the blue origin lawsuit. However on top of techology based milestones (such as engine, launchpad and vehicle integration) very specific milestones were demonstrated and satisfied, such as testing of the HLS elevator system, and of course the successful internal transfer of propelant in orbit during IFT-3.
This is not a cost plus contract offer like the one for SLS, the USG is not paying ahead of time and not paying for delays and missions, they only pay the agreed upon amount when milestones are reached. The interim is funded by SpaceX themselves, who were well started before HLS was even a thing, and clarrified that they were going to make starship happen for their own resons anyways, HLS or not.
And so, no, there is no limit upon which SpaceX's starships can be built and launched. They are paid for by SpaceX's own finances and private funds, and if they do not reach the milestones, they simply don’t get paid by the government. Just like how boeing’s starliner has been withheld payment due to it being unable to complete its missions.
If you want an example of a system that milked cost+contract and the taxpayers, look no further than SLS and literally its dozens of billions of paid cost overruns.
But that does not carry quite the same ring to it, doesn't it?
As a viewer of both these guys, watching them altogether talking about this amazing launch was so awesome!!
Thanks Frazier for an informative interview with @Scott Manley from Oakland, California and @Marcus House from Tazmania, Australia. The topic and evaluation nof the Starship IFT3 launch was excellent 👍
I think they should look at putting a diaphragm inside the fuel tanks to stop fuel slosh
completely. It wouldn't add much weight and it could be synchronized,
to lower with the fuel consumption.
Bladders for cryogenic propellants are difficult but not impossible! :)
Some kind of liquid crystal fabric bladder could work.
For a ship spending a lot of time in space I would probably just switch to room temperature propellants and use regular bladders, but for getting to orbit cryogenics are pretty tempting!
@@EveryoneWhoUsesThisTV
Thanks for clearing that one up for me. I didn’t know you couldn’t do it with cryogenic fuel.
That was a lot of sugar coating.
Three attempts to get an empty ship into orbit, three failures.
Call it what it was.
Great informative video-thx for sharing
Wow! Scott Manley and Marcus House in the same video? My two favorite space experts. We dont deserve such great guests and content. Thank you for bringing it to us.
Sycophant
To be a nerd about American rockets, you must understand both metric and Imperial units of measurement. As an American with a scientific education, that's not a problem. But why must we deal with the third system of nautical miles and knots? Why do ships and planes still use them? (I'm not criticizing Scott.)
Americans would rather measure stuff in the weight of an elephant or size of a large stone, than using SI units, and you think there is any hope to get rid of nautical measurements?
I measure my rocket efficiency in leagues per hogshead.
@@doncarlodivargas5497 Yeah, yeah, Americans are weird because we don't use much metric. But aviation and ocean shipping are international, so it's not just us. By the way, it's the UK and possibly Commonwealth nations that measure weight in "stone" (14 pounds). The Brits use both systems. I noticed the same visiting in Canada: metric for long distances, speed limits, temperatures, weight of food and other goods; Imperial for short distances (length, width, height), weight of people. Americans, at least those of us who are no longer children, do not often measure weight in "elephants!"
@@hugegamer5988 LOL! The volume of a hogshead changes depending on what it contains (see the Wikipedia page). This might be the most nonsensical of all the Imperial units.
@@JPMadden - it is not possible to post links in RUclips, but just "Google" Americans using elephants as measurements or something like that and you will get hits
Made a huge mistake watching nasa spaceflight commentary during launch.
Great analysis! Even the Space X commentators were oblivious to what was happening. They saw nothing wrong with Starship’s inability to control its attitude as it was reentering. It was obcviously a problem abd they were talking about the splashdown when you knew it was in the process of burning up.
Good job, guys! Three of the best RUclipsrs online!
It would be nice if you had conversations with engineers who are more skeptical of StarShip.
Me, for example:
- Re-igniting the SHB from free-fall velocities hasn’t been successful yet and is a huge engineering challenge. I don’t think SpaceX is capable of fixing this problem, which will hinder the reusability of this rocket segment.
- It is my belief that the design of Starship is FLAWED from the beginning. It doesn’t have enough surface area as a glider to survive re-entry in the proper orientation. This can be seen in how it was destroyed in its first attempt. It barely slowed down at all, and burned up in the atmosphere.
- The design should’ve been tested to calculate how much velocity could be reduced from air friction and rocket burns. As far as I know SpaceX hasn’t done this.
- The Starship design is inadequate for landing on the moon due to the high center of gravity, increased weight, and increased fuel requirements. This is a FACT that has been known since 1919, when it was devised by Ukrainian engineer Yuri Kondratyuk.
- The amount of refueling this rocket system requires to reach the Moon or Mars is basically insane. This is a big reason why Earth-Orbit rendezvous was discarded in favor of Lunar-orbit rendezvous back in the 1960s.
There are more reasons than this, by the way.
In conclusion, Starship is a failed design from the beginning and will have to be completely scrapped if SpaceX wants to visit the Moon or anywhere else outside of LEO.
That's funny. I remember people saying the exact same thing during Falcon 9's infancy.
@@QuietEscapism K. So what?
Edit: I never said that about Falcon 9.
Starship IS fundamentally flawed based on its FAILURES. This is a much larger rocket that Falcon 9, and thus the problems will be much more challenging and likely impossible to fix.
So believe what you want, but I think it will continue to be a failure based on all of its recent failures.
@@jeffw8218 You guys said Falcon 9 and reusable rockets wouldn’t work. Even experts said it wouldn’t happen. Now its by far the most efficient rocket ever made. Thats the story of SpaceX. People doubt them and they prove them wrong.
Im just saying maybe you’re making a mistake by saying Starship is fundamentally flawed? Like the same top engineers that previously worked on falcon 9 wouldn’t notice these problems but some random guy on youtube has it all figured out? Give me a break.