My father was a NASA engineer (Gemini, Apollo and Shuttle at E&D [Engineering and Development]) and frequently complained about how everything was structured to cost the most and fund contractors at the expense of progress. Thanks for the boiled down concentrate on this issue.
Sci-fi writer Jerry Pournelle was commissioned to do a study on NASA. He coined the concept the Iron Law of Bureaucracy. Basically there are 2 kind of people in any given organization. The ones interested in the stated mission of the organization. And the bureaucrats that's interested in continuing the organization regardless of what the mission is. The law states the 2nd group will always gain control,
Holy Ravioli Elon has NEVER placed ANYTHING ahead of progress. He has shown time and again that he will invest everything he has to further progress, even if it seems likely he will fail.
@@dyingearth Back then there were mostly 'true believers' down in the trenches. I can remember backyard BBQs where they hashed out lots of stuff, month after month. By the time the Shuttle program was mature most of the old guys had retired and all that was left were people there to collect a paycheck. I still know people at Clear Lake NASA but there's no fire in their bellies not spirit of being part of an adventure. Note my Dad bought a color TV when most were B&W and lots didn't even have one. One of my best memories is each week a dozen NASA engineers would come to our house to watch the latest episode of Star Trek and disect it. Sitting in the corner being seen but not heard while they talked if the future made some amazing memories.
The thing I still find most amazing is, well, the Saturn V used literally visible magnets as it's memory for the guidance system programming. This memory was a wire grid sewn BY HAND with iron rings as memory bits. The fact that the Saturn V and lunar module running on magnetic core memory, with only a few kilobits of memory, made it to the moon is astounding. That is still being compared to modern completely digital guidance systems.
Magnetic core was still being used as primary memory in many new computers into the 1970s. It just didn't scale as well as semiconductor memory, which is why it eventually died.
@@bricefleckenstein9666 it’s just so amazing to me (a millennial) that my phone has GB of memory but only KB were needed to guide us to the moon. That’s why I got into engineering, I wanted to know how it worked! Thanks for the response!
"As they stand today, SLS is big, really big! But Starship will be...huge!" This is the science I can understand. Great work, quality is amazing at every level.
Starship is a huge money pit. SLS has already built and tested The Orion spacecraft and SpaceX hasn't even shown credible designs on a crew cabin .. and may be a decade or more away from making this thing safe for humans.
@@ericmatthews8497 Money pit? 1-10 billions according to Elon. But most of the money came from starlink, NASA just gave them 135 millions, that's nothing.
I don't agree, the ludicrous amount spent on SLS could have been used to greater efficiency and innovation, shortening the time scale by investing in various ways in the private sector. The problem is by the time this was realizes the rocket was to big to kill like the JSF program which will become obsolete really soon with the Advent of UAVs that can perform ACM.
@@ickbar11 You want more government handouts to private companies that cannot otherwise survive? Looks like I found another leach. All the private company does it better and more efficiently stuff is nonsense. Especially when you're asking for government to pick and choose private company winners by awarding them massive long term contracts, paying for any overruns, etc... You guys might also want to note that Starship is coming up on 8 years now, they are not that far behind SLS in time and I don't think they're where SLS was even on day one yet. So... I don't think Starship will end up working ever. As for Elon... he throws around a lot of numbers I don't believe even remotely. I'm pretty confident it will be more expensive than SLS when all is said and done if it ever reaches completion, it may fail while still being cheaper.
5:50 - What makes a vehicle a super heavy lift launcher 9:00 - The history of SLS and orion 18:05 - The history of starship 22:30 - The progress and inventory of sls/orion and starship 27:30 - The philosophies of starship and sls 34:55 - Startship vs sls 41:50 - Conclusion
CubeCraftGalaxy Thanks for the timestamps, very much appreciated. Also (no hate or anything), on the “The philosophises of Starshop and SLS” you misspelled starship. Again no hate
Don't say that yet, politics is what ended up creating the law. Given enough pressure and people agreeing on it I'm sure they can also amend that law. But it definitely makes it harder to kill the program.
@@pcuimac - Not a Musk Fanboy But Private Companies can do ANYTHING that governments do, BETTER AND CHEAPER, that is not an opinion, that is a FACT. "but government do this and that that private sector dont do" 1 - See if the Government dont prohibit the private sector to operate in the area 2 - Research if the thing is on a FREE MARKET, government injecting stupid amounts of money on something completely destroys the market. 3 - if it worth the cost, if people need, they will pay for it, that is why Prices exists.
@@brianfhunter sure, but just because a private company can do it cheaper doesn't mean that it'll sell you the product for less. If you need it now or there is no real competition (and I do mean need when I say it, they can't go too bananas on wants) they can set whatever price they want, so careful with your point number 3
@@brianfhunter there's a place for both. Only government will do the research that is not initially profitable. Once that research has practical, profitable applications then the private companies jump in.
LOL you missed the ones that blew up evidentially. Now can you tell me what the gaskets are made of that they can reliably withstand rocket engine in reverse heat. LOL you have no clue
I'd trust work by water tower makers. When dealing with anything that contains massive pressures, "failure is not an option", so they have the right mindset for spaceflight vessels.
Litterally, the wright flyers flew their powered plane after decades of careful preparation, Louis Bleriot crossed the channel by using the cheapest engine he could buy, that had so much play that it wouldn’t jam when overheating. Space-X is the next phase waiting to happen.
That's the difference between scientists working in the public sector and engineers in the private sector. One plans all day and wastes money in a bureaucracy the other actively works and wastes money on constantly upgrading due to their failures. The scientists will have less failures, but the engineers will learn more real world information.
@@Apersonnamedme Most of science is empirical (i.e. requires real world data), and most of the people building rockets at NASA are engineers. Bureaucracy is not about science vs engineering. Bureaucracy exists because they're using taxpayer money, approved by (democratically) elected public officials. The only way I see NASA doing something closer to SpaceX is if the US becomes an authoritarian regime led by technocrats. The next best alternative is just to let SpaceX do their thing, then copying ideas from them.
I'm actually glad the NASA Boeing Artemis SLS project and Orion Spacecraft are under development! Hope to see them fly soon! As you once said, I cheer them all on!
Vivek Patel In this case (comparing Space X vs. SLS/SLA) bias is needed if you want to see movement in the space program. US politicians (bless their corrupt hearts) are biased against Space X. Fact!
You see, performing Ice Bucket Challenge on most outrageous claims and ideas is not 'hate' regardless of what Musk-infatuated snowflakes think. That's why Common Sense Sceptic, Thunderf00t and Pressure Fed Astronaut and few others are necessary.
Are you an everyday astronaut at this point? You’re a human encyclopedia of knowledge in rocket and space exploration technology. Not everybody has the ability to do what you do and deliver the information as well as you do. Dude, it’s impressive. Keep up the great work.
"Why do both rockets exist?!" They don't. Not yet, as fully assembled, functional vehicles, anyway. SLS has been in development longer and is much closer. But the folks at SpaceX are very talented. I wish them both well. And am a big fan of having multiple, independent, launch systems. Better for redundancy concerns, and cost concerns.
This is simply national security imperatives; it was very strange for the USA to let it manned space flight capacity slip and they are just making sure that from now on there will be two or three companies that can simply these services the same way there are 2 or 3 companies that can produce aircraft, ships, tanks, etc etc .
"and cost concerns". A little late to put cost pressure on SLS. Too bad Starship wasn't around 5 yrs ago, and do to SLS what they have done to the LEO rocket industry and to Boeing's manned ISS program.
@georgio m IDIOT! SpaceX are the only ones that can land their rockets! They ALREADY own the game! Boeing is in it STRICTLY for the money....which is why they will milk NASA for as long as they can and never upgrade their CRAPPY OLD TECH! You also conveniently forget that EVERY space agency has had setbacks! While SpaceX has had it's share of failures, their innovation and progress is still AMAZING! Now go away you sad little hater.
@georgio m you mean the rocket which managed to go from paper to hot fire in a few weeks, compared to the SLS which uses parts developed over 30 yearsand still hasn't been completed
I've moved from Argentina (dropping out from Electronics Engineering) to Spain, to keep studying Engineering. Hopefully I'll strat Telecommunications engineering (applied to aerospace) on next September. A huge change in my life with the only hope of maybe putting my grain of sand in all this. All the way here, you were, and keep being a source of inspiration, and I thank you so much for all the work you do. You're really the best. Greetings Tim! Loved this video. I just wathed it all in one sitting. Thank you!
So SLS just launched a moon mission recently and it was successful despite delays with launch, all while starship is still waiting for it's first orbital test flight. Personally, i'm very happy nasa didn't scrap SLS like a lot of people have suggested here on youtube. Otherwise artemis would have been delayed by months if not years waiting for starship to get built.
@@danielsobowale9496 Its due to them not being afraid of failure. NASA was more like this in the past, and then people died and NASA lost a lot of that drive (and funding)
Everyday Astronaut yesterday: It would be crazy if NASA chooses spacex starship as one of their Landers Nasa: We choose spacex as one of our landers Who thinks the the everyday Astronaut is a future teller
Why does SpaceX even exist if we already have the GPS Guided 9 Liter Turbo Diesel Powered 4 Trek 8RX 410 John Deere Tractor with an infinitely variable transmission and 85cc deplacement integrated hydraulic pump with 227 Liters per minute of hydraulic flow, air conditioned and heated, 10 inch touch screen displays and digital monitoring
1 minute in: "What can this guy tell me I don't know?" 45 minutes in: *flipping to my third page of notes* "How does he get all this information?! And, where can I get more?"
@@ricardorola509 but what you are forgetting is that skylab was the hollowed-out second stage fuel tank of the Saturn v so was a bit different from say putting the ISS or other stations in space.
Watching this again after IFT 5. All 33 raptor engines flying to make almost 17 million pounds of thrust and in this video SpaceX barely had 30 even made. Unreal 🤯
Excellent video!! although I'm more "Team Starship" I was surprised to see how much SLS hardware is already done, and I liked the explanation on NASA's philosophy behind it ;)
"I'm showing my Iowa again". Seems like a disproportionate amount of astronauts and even space-related scientists and engineers come from agriculture-heavy states. Maybe clear star-filled skies while growing up are the inspiration for it.
No, it's because AG people know how to not give up. People in the city want everything handed to them on a silver platter by the government. The mentality makes the difference.
Many astronauts come from Ohio, because that's where wright pat airforce base is. The skies here are utter garbage, nearest dark sky spot is like 8 hours away in west Virginia.
@@willimnot that's just impossible. It's the senate's rocket. Unless Starship starts to fly and make the SLS looks bad in front of the US public, then maybe.
@@807800 I just don’t understand the point of sls. If SpaceX can land a starship on the moon they could just as easily put one in orbit as a command module. So why are Orion and sls needed?
@@decentish8546 like i said, it's senate rocket. Sls created so these senators could keep the job in their state after the shuttle retirement, NASA never asked for it. So, even if the sls program becoming the most ineffective, the most inefficient program ever, it wouldn't be canceled. But, if starship becomes operational and make sls looks stupid in front of everyone in the US, with enough pressure then maybe, maybe the senate would think twice about it.
It makes sense that rocket engineering done by NASA would be so timid in its approach. Everything is at the mercy of the politicians. SpaceX's approach to rocket engineering reminds me of how Skunk Works did things back in the day when they were developing fighter jets, spy jets, etc jets....
Kelly Johnson was never so cavalier. Musk's South Padre Island operation is a maker space in the worst sense, just fools with tools and no adult supervision.
'member the X-33/VentureStar? Also by Skunk Works and 98% complete before congress just refused to sign the budget for the remaining 2% (TWO PERCENT!!). The US would have been flying on a really futuristic spacecraft by now if it hadn't been for that. Either way designs like the SLS will continue to exist likely forever, as governments consider space access a strategic asset, which means it's never going to be left entirely to privates, much like we still build military or national guard vehicles even though commercial cars and ships exist.
Tim you're a star. I'm always so excited when you upload because I know for the next hour or so I'm going to be soaking up a bunch of space stuff like a sponge. Thanks for all the effort you put into these!
Hey, Tim!... Concerning Iowa- Remember, James Tiberius Kirk also grew up there. So... Being from Iowa is not necessarily a bad thing! GREAT VIDEO! Cannot wait for 'The rest of the story'!!
Yes, he dang near killed me with the John Deere comparison and added the Iowa remark. Although the John Deeres I grew up on only had two cylinder motors. Which I drove on an Iowa farm that was only a half hour drive from Riverside, Iowa which is the future hometown of Captain Kurt. I wonder if Elon would paint Starship green and yellow? Thanks for the Iowa and John Deere usage. Gave me a chuckle.
Grew up in Iowa, could not be more proud. The State is a gem and often overlooked. I've always enjoyed meeting Iowans because they are naturally, sceptical and intellectually stubborn. Keep being Iowan and questioning everything. Be sceptical and be an Iowa bastard. It will serve you well.
I learned a lot but I had already came to the same conclusion you did. I get so sick of arguing with the NASA haters. People don't realize how much NASA helps spacex
it's just a shame how much politics corrupts the science. they were focusing on all these oldspace projects for the longest time, and they keep changing their plans to the point where nothing gets done. It's good that there's infrastructure for supporting companies like SpaceX, though.
Omg I was just sitting here having a bit of a sad evening (due to tons of plans being cancelled because of the pandemic) and trying to cheer myself up with some of your old videos and then I see the notification for this video. Day saved!
I just watch this for the first time and find it illuminating. I have followed Starship and SLS through various sites including this one and NSF and others. Thanks for the time you put into this project. It will interesting to see where we are say in a year or even 6 months after both SLS and Starship have tested.
It was Heinlein, or Pournelle who said, “once you’re in LEO, you’re halfway to anywhere. It strikes me that shipping components to LEO, and doing assembly and fuel transfer would be the most straightforward process. But, they’re not asking me. . . Thanks, Tim, for another great video.
It's quite difficult to rendezvous in space, though. And assembling in space might result in a lot of debris. So, assembling in LEO might not be a good idea. _Refueling_ in LEO is more sensible though. Just one rendezvous (between the waiting Starship and the refueler Starship) instead of many rendezvous-es (between the Assembly station and lots of supply vehicles). That's why SpaceX's proposal for landing on the moon involves at least 1 LEO fuel transfer.
@@PanduPoluan You speak as if we hadn't been doing this for the past 20 years with the ISS... We've got it down to a T, automated rendezvous and 8hr EVAs for component assembly/maintenance. Building a LEO assembly station + fuel depot would probably pay for itself, given enough time. Even become a sprawling hub. At some point we're going to need ships bigger than Starship.
@@armr6937 the issue is how many billions that 2 man EVA costs, to do the work that would take a few minutes with a big crew on earth. That's why ISS used the largest subsections they could fly and had minimum work designed to be done on orbit. If you want something larger for interplanetary missions, you send up the largest chunks you can fly, and have them designed to be able to be joined together with the least human touch, possibly even roboticlly. Humans are VERY inefficient with no gravity, and very limited in motion in bulky suits. So don't expect to see ANY construction in leo, just possibly assembly of quick connect sub sections. And there is also no need for a fuel depot. Instead of launching a big empty tank then launching tankers to fill it, and having to maintain the cryo in a liquid state for long periods, you just launch as many tankers as needed, dock them together, and then pump it over.
@@armr6937 As you have yourself said, it took _decades_ to build the ISS. And every addition had to be meticulously planned and executed. Then after adding a component, hours upon hours of EVA to connect the bits, not to mention hours upon hours to test the integration (electrical & otherwise) of the new modules. Refueling is much simpler: Align the ports, dock/connect, and pump until the refueler is empty. No need for electrical connections, leak tests, contaminant test, etc. All the necessary components are self-contained -- and _ruggedized_ -- in the first vehicle. The ruggedization is actually quite important: It's hard to ruggedize things (especially components) in microgravity. But if the things are rugged enough to survive liftoff from Earth, then it should be rugged enough to survive interplanetary travel which will likely employ much less thrust / force / acceleration.
@Shem Casimir Because lobbying is legal and effective. So if nothing else shareholders will demand it, at some point. Cost+ plus contracts are not unique to NASA or government aerospace as a whole. The fix would involve making lobbying illegal and ineffective, which in turn would probably require deep campaign finance reform, including budget caps. Which would be fine with me. The current system is corrupting, and hostile to democracy.
@@thimkful Out of genuine curiosity. What way could you make lobbying "illegal" that doesn't obviously fly in the face of the right to petition? As far as "budget caps" same thing, how can you place limits on the ability of someone to advocate for themselves?
@@thimkful Maybe reducing the size and the power of the government to a bare minimum could be an even more effective fix? Corruption and money from private donators will always find their way into Washington, there's not much you can do about that! But what you CAN do, is limit the negative outcome of that corruption by eliminating the government's ability to do certain companies/industries a huge favor. Big private donators would still exist then but they wouldn't donate nearly as much, cause the investment risk would be much higher for them. They'd only support policies that are generally helping the economy - Policies that are not just helping themselves to make more profit, but also smaller companies and entrepreneurs, which are no less important for the future of our economy.
I’m very late watching this one but it was interesting. I was a contract negotiator for the Air Force earlier in my career and then went to defense contractors. Your observations on keeping a big, complex project going across administrations was spot on. Secondly, I feel validated finally to hear somebody else but me say SpaceX is following the Soviet development model. I was 9 when I watched Neil walk on the moon. Very disappointed in the massive lull in manned exploration. It’s great to see so many young people so excited. Keep up the good work.
Two years later , an obervation. Tim has deserved his flight on Dear Moon more than any body else, His dedication to accuracy, understanding, and presentation is.... like no other , unique. ... !
NASA: Wastes more money than created by God and man in the history of time with no results. Still calls it a success. SpaceX: Builds a rocket bigger and more capable than the Saturn V in 1/10th the time, with 1/1000th the money. Also provides great entertainment along the way. "Haha. Water tower go burr." indeed!
@@HelloNotMe9999 "1/1000th the money" suuuuuure... more like 1/2 or 1/3, and that's *WITH* the benefits of not having to play politics. You think blowing up rocket after rocket is cheap? It's fast, sure. But it's not cheap.
Me too... To be honest, I didn't realize they had so much done already... I'm glad it has not been a total waste... and it will have some interesting capabilities... Starship is a bit different.. It's a More People Bus, and That's Good.. but SLS will have major capabilities for Non Human Massive things.. and who knows.. Maybe Nasa will become a believer in re usability and modify SLS, but my hope is that Nasa Gets out of the Rocket Building Business, and gets deeper into the Rocket Buying Business.. the advancements for the planet will be MUCH better... Not unlike the advent of Airline Travel.
@@wizardnetwork I mean nasa has a lot of employees and many of them people who have already built many rockets in their time, they definitely have the capability to make something reusable 100% come true I just hope they make it sooner rather than later
@@emilianozamora399 I know it sounds strange, but I would rather Hope they get out of the rocket building business because the commercial sector develops more, and better rockets so they have plenty of rockets to choose from to launch the missions that they want to launch... Nasa's much better at science than developing spacecraft.. In my Opinion...
@@wizardnetwork I mean how do commercial sectors have "better" rockets than nasa? Nasa is capable of definitely making good rockets it's just that they are limited by what the government wants and that is providing jobs to various parts of the country, not making one rocket in house
@@emilianozamora399 I think that's exactly the point. From the knowledge standpoint, Nasa could definitely build amaing rockets. Nasa is just limited by politics. Funding companies like Spacex to develop rockets, wil be better. Nasa should focus on things like exploration satellites, like James Webb or Clipper. That's i think the way Nasa should go.
Sadly it is the existing "money before work with no guarantee" culture in Congress that is the root of this evil. Congress will hold the money source for ransom until All their favorite legacy contractors have had a taste. Then demand that they be kept in the system, all the while not demanding they achieve anything in the way of progress.
Boeing is used to getting more and more money due to the cost-plus way the federal government does business. It's always been a criminal way of doing things. It appears Boeing doesn't make any of it's employees answer for mistakes made, particularly it's engineering department, i.e. the Starliner capsule that didn't know what time it was among other things. I hope Musk and SpaceX continue to make leaps and bounds progress over everyone else.
@@myfavoritemartian1 This can be short circuited by firing enough of Congress and replacing them with people who aren't compromised by the military industrial complex
Dark 074 As nouns the difference between shiny and shinny is that shiny is (informal) anything shiny; a trinket while shinny is (canada) an informal game of pickup hockey played with minimal equipment: skates, sticks and a puck or ball or shinny can be moonshine (illegal alcohol).
@@erikincph The grammar police are allot like the Spanish Inquisition.. NO ONE EXPECTS THE SPANISH INQUISITION!!! Anyway.. bless their hearts for trying.
At $2000/kg you could very easily have university (or even high school) teams working on small payloads that hitch a ride on starship. That's absolutely amazing to think of! In some cases, the launch wouldn't even be the main cost.
Everything about Starship sounds ludicrous. But, just a few years ago, reusing an orbital booster, by landing it back on its butt, sounded ludicrous too.
The concept of landing a rocket was never quite so ludicrous, because the way I saw it, all they needed to do was add more fuel and legs, sacrifice payload weight to do so But reusing a Megarocket? It seems easier to reinforce a smaller rocket for reentry than reinforcing a large rocket, maybe space x will learn this, maybe they won't, starship might have a far final smaller payload weight than elon envisioned
If that be the case, he might find it easier to build an orbital ship with starship and leave reentry to the smaller rockets, it's a pretty dicey game, the bigger it is, complexity goes up but starship looks so flimsy
You do know vertical rocket landings were done before in the 90's? The only thing space x did that wasn't done before was doing it with a rocket coming from orbit. But vertical rocket landings within atmosphere were done decades ago...
@@bkreativepainting7461 It depends how you see reentries. Lets's say you fire bullets into the water but you want them to land on the ground of the pond , without getting deformed. What do you do? You reenforce them, harder bullets, More resisting meterials, optimized shape for penetrating the water surface &c. But there is also another way to get your "projectiles" safely to the ground of the pond. You can reduce their density and increasing their volume in order to have them floating, in hobes over the ponds water surface only haveing short contact with the water. The projectile would rotate so there is no wear on one place but the "work" of hitting the water surface and jumping off of it would be equaly distributed on a large part of the projectile. Once the hobs over the water surface reduced the speed enough the projectile would endup like a floating tank on top of the pond and slowly sink to the ground. A realy cool way to reduce the density of your space vehicle is to keep the empty tank! And use it to hob and float in the surface of the atmosphere. The idea is a way slower entry into the gas and having way more speed bled of in the zone where atmosphere and space meet.
Just finished watching Tim. Very well made video, highly descriptive and very informative. As an ordinary person who loves Space you smashed the presentation of information for the general mind and I respect the time you put into these videos. Truly opened my eyes to the two programmes. And to anybody else reading this comment, please watch the whole video from start to finish, it deserves all your time.
Twice the price? Worst case scenario for StarShip vs best case scenario for SLS (Block 1B): SLS costs 10 x as much per kg TLI. Therefore the question should be "Why build one, when you can have two at 11 times the price?"
@@thegouse im pretty sure (unless they changed it) that starship is supposed to go from 45ish angle to facing the opposite way for a bit to no miss the target to finally landing
This is so fantastic Tim. Honestly so so glad I found you on RUclips. You and Scott Manley have truly sparked an interest in space with me I'm obsessed with the USA space program ( I'm from the UK)
Tim, you should seriously consider sending your videos to the National Film Preservation Board! Cos these definitely deserve a place in the archives and need to be preserved for generations to come! ❤️❤️❤️
"The upcoming Europa Clipper... is legally mandated to fly on SLS." Nasa: looks at SLS Nasa: looks at SLS again Nasa: looks at Falcon Heavy Nasa: "has selected Space Exploration Technologies Corp. (SpaceX) of Hawthorne, California, to provide launch services for Earth’s first mission to conduct detailed investigations of Jupiter's moon Europa."
@@eekamak A large portion of that dust (and pieces a lot larger than dust) will reach escape velocity. That means everything in Lunar orbit is going to get scrubbed by the exhaust. Many pieces will end up flying towards Earth. As much as I'd like to see Starship on the surface, as cool as it would look, I'm hesitant.
I'm absolutely amazed as when I first see the length of the video I'm like oh this is long, but when the video ends I'm like why did it end so fast. Not a second is wasted here. And I can't get enough of the info. MOAAR PLS
@@marshallwebber9682 Yes, I'm aware of what he said in Star Trek IV. In Star Trek TOS Season 1 "Tomorrow is Yesterday", Kirk: I'm a little green man from Alpha Centauri. A beautiful place, you ought to se it. Of course, he might have been lying to the Air Force Colonel who was interrogating him.
Glad you said "Team Space" I seriously LOVE renewed energy in development of vehicles for lunar and further landings. It is VERY exciting to me. The more people on this earth we have doing it, the cooler it is going to be.
ha ha, until about 36 hours ago this video might have been over an hour ;-) Some footage is deferred to a follow-up video as Tim kind-of hints in the conclusion.
Felt like 20 min. Incredibly entertaining and interesting, event though a lot of content weren’t new to me. Dont think you could bore me with a 3 hour video, even! Great work!
This channel blows my freaking mind it's just so high quality compared to the usual youTube videos. Man it's a great time to witness not only a new age in space exploration, but the ability to turn on my phone or PC, watch this channel and get excited is just so wholesome in these times! Thank you alit for giving us this content!
You've changed my perspective on SLS, I thought it was just a cash cow for Boeing & co. but now I'm a fan, it sounds like a great rocket. Regardless I was already excited to see it fly but now I'm doubly enthusiastic. Go space!
I'm hyped up for all of the rockets. I love the diversity in their design especially with SpaceX's over the top futuristic outlook on space travel and design and NASA's simple familiar design that reminds you of Saturn V and the Space Shuttle program. 👌
42:32 seriously, that tractor analogy was hilarious! Btw, this is one of the best videos that I've seen you do so far. Very informative, easy to understand, and just keeps getting me more and more excited about Starship!
Zazon you have blue origin making the Integrated Launch System, or ILS launching on either the New Glenn or Vulcan, and Dynetics (never heard of it before) making the Dynetics Human Lander System or DHLS, launching on the Vulcan.
Quite smaller landers. ;) Seriously smaller. The cargo version of Starship could land both of the other landers on the Moon by itself. (Unfueled.) Of course they'd have to be squashed in. (By dry mass, 5 Orion capsules can be landed; these landers can't weigh more than that.)
@@carljohan9265 Starship hopper parts. Anyone who thinks these little hoppers are anywhere close to an orbital booster (let alone a reusable one) is delusional. The engines might be the same. But those stainless tanks certainly not.
Great problem, is the uniting of the. pieces. Given the rates of stacking shown by SpaceX: SpaceX will be orbiting Mars, before these other parts can be shipped to a common staging area !
6:55 With the Europa probe a few days ago, (10-14-24) where only the fairings were retrieved, I guess it's officially a "Super Heavy-Lift Launch Vehicle" now.
If the shuttle has taught us anything, we need a backup. We shouldn’t have to rely on Russia if there’s a problem with our spaceship that requires the entire fleet to be inspected.
Well hopefully the next test flight of Starliner is a success this time. Dragon and Falcon 9 are now certified for crewed flight and starliner will hopefully be the backup.
I mean, I'm not opposed to more rockets because I like rockets, but why is it bad to have Russia be the backup? As far as I know, Russia has been a good partner when it comes to space.
Huntracony We’ve been lucky, but if we can avoid relying on ANYONE, let alone a country that we’re only just now realizing is still engaging in a cold war with us, we should. If we could rely on ESA or JAXA for human launches I’d still prefer a different model backup for regular missions. We can work together with Roscosmos and CNSA, collaborate with them, accept their help in emergencies, but we need to be able to maintain our own launch capabilities for continuous regular missions. All agencies should have such backups, and to provide assistance to the other agencies in emergencies.
I do think so. ELon himslefs said that he is not good in time estimation. But even if it will take 3 times longer and will cost 20 times more, it will be revolution
So, Tim... Everyone talks about the progress on Starship (just the spacecraft). But no one talks about the progress of Super Heavy. What is the progress on the actual Super Heavy booster? Without that, Starship is just a pretty spacecraft that's not going anywhere.
@@alexv3357 I don't disagree with anything you said. Nevertheless, from a historical perspective, these simple "just-scale-it-up" problems have usually turned out to be anything but simple. Falcon Heavy was supposed to be "Just slap 3 Falcon core stages together and off we go". It turned out to be anything but simple, significantly delayed, and ending up with a final design that was significant departure from the original concept. The SLS core stage was "just use 4 SSMEs instead of 3". But that also lead to significant design issues that ending up causing delays and cost overruns (along with a host of other things). A booster that big has never been built, Saturn V and N-1 not withstanding. There are bound to be unforeseen "gotchas" that will create challenges, cause delays, and incur cost overruns. N-1 had 30+ engines on it and the Russians could never get it to behave quite right. While I'm sure that technical advancement has reduced the risk of that problem, it still has never been done (that I know of). Falcon Heavy was close (27 engines) but the arrangement was quite different as they were clustered in 3 separate cores instead of all in one core. Besides just building the booster itself, there are also the issues of constructing the launch pad, ground support equipment, transportation to the launch site, vehicle integration, landing the booster, and after-flight turn-around (and many more, I'm sure). Sure its all been done before, but at the scale of Super-Heavy, it needs to be done all over again virtually from scratch. While Super-Heavy may not be the critical-path, it is still the most critical piece -- without it Starship is going nowhere. And it is still a significant enough design challenge that some work should be going on now to reduce risk, and to meet Elon's (admittedly) aggressive timeline. And even more so now that Starship has been selected by NASA as one of the finalists for manned lunar landings.
@@r.terrylessly1877 To be fair, one reason why the Falcon Heavy took so long was because SpaceX was still iterating on the Falcon booster. If the Heavy was built when it was "supposed to be", meaning it used block 1 or block 2 hardware, then it would have ended up inferior to a single Falcon 9 using the block 5 hardware.
The reason why nobody is talking about the progress of the super heavy is simply because there is no progress, or at least nothing visible (they might be doing software simulation and refining the design). Right now spacex is focusing on producing the starship and the raptor engines, they never built even a single prototype of the super heavy.
Step one before step two. Get the starship finalized and then they'll have accurate information for what the booster is lifting. And by then they'll have the production methods and testing procedures nailed for the tanks and engines.
Dr Taylor “let me guess, you’re from outer space” Everyday Astronaut “no I’m from Iowa, I only work in outer space” Living the dream there, great video!
It is very satisfying to see references to Aerojet. Dr. Theodore von Karman was my Godfather and was a founder of JPL and Aerojet. My father worked at the Aerojet Azusa plant and my mother worked on Lee Edison’s biography, “The Wind and Beyond”. Dr Von Karman had such an impact on the fields of Aerodynamics and Astronomics that he received the first National Medal of Science from President Kennedy in 1963. The divider between the earth and space is referred to as The Karman Line. We used to visit him at his home in Pasadena, CA when I was just a young space enthusiast. He passed when I was eleven and remember his funeral service and seeing many of the giants of the world of jet propulsion. Again, thanks for bringing back a lot of good memories.
![Seungmin "그렇게, 천천히, 우리(As we are)" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/kAzmhLHePqU/mqdefault.jpg)
I just turned 60. I witnessed the moon landing when I was 8 years old, you young people will witness unbelievable things, I envy you
I have this urge to say okay boomer but i respect you i always wished i could see the moon landing.
I wish I was born in those times to witness that kind of amazement.
@bullsballs okay boomer
@ covid19?
@@pickleism253 or conflict with our friends in china
Seriously Tim, this series of in depth documentaries are easily the highest quality content on the internet today about space engineering.
Be fair to Scott Manley!
Too long, I have a life.
@@MrRubenkl Yeah, no disrespect. Scott makes really awesome and original content too :)
@@zoidburg2975 I doubt
I wholeheartedly agree!
My father was a NASA engineer (Gemini, Apollo and Shuttle at E&D [Engineering and Development]) and frequently complained about how everything was structured to cost the most and fund contractors at the expense of progress.
Thanks for the boiled down concentrate on this issue.
Welcome to america, i dare you to say one government or private institution that doesn't do this. Even musk is guilty of this.
Sci-fi writer Jerry Pournelle was commissioned to do a study on NASA. He coined the concept the Iron Law of Bureaucracy. Basically there are 2 kind of people in any given organization. The ones interested in the stated mission of the organization. And the bureaucrats that's interested in continuing the organization regardless of what the mission is. The law states the 2nd group will always gain control,
Holy Ravioli Elon has NEVER placed ANYTHING ahead of progress. He has shown time and again that he will invest everything he has to further progress, even if it seems likely he will fail.
@@dyingearth Sad, but True... Because most of the real talent tends to be in the first group.
@@dyingearth Back then there were mostly 'true believers' down in the trenches. I can remember backyard BBQs where they hashed out lots of stuff, month after month. By the time the Shuttle program was mature most of the old guys had retired and all that was left were people there to collect a paycheck. I still know people at Clear Lake NASA but there's no fire in their bellies not spirit of being part of an adventure.
Note my Dad bought a color TV when most were B&W and lots didn't even have one. One of my best memories is each week a dozen NASA engineers would come to our house to watch the latest episode of Star Trek and disect it. Sitting in the corner being seen but not heard while they talked if the future made some amazing memories.
The thing I still find most amazing is, well, the Saturn V used literally visible magnets as it's memory for the guidance system programming. This memory was a wire grid sewn BY HAND with iron rings as memory bits. The fact that the Saturn V and lunar module running on magnetic core memory, with only a few kilobits of memory, made it to the moon is astounding. That is still being compared to modern completely digital guidance systems.
*cough* mars climate orbiter
Magnetic core was still being used as primary memory in many new computers into the 1970s.
It just didn't scale as well as semiconductor memory, which is why it eventually died.
Magnetic core memory is still used in certain applications, for very good reasons.
@@foobarmaximus3506 that’s amazing!! Can you elaborate on where it’s used today? And like why? There must be a good reason. Thanks for the response!!
@@bricefleckenstein9666 it’s just so amazing to me (a millennial) that my phone has GB of memory but only KB were needed to guide us to the moon. That’s why I got into engineering, I wanted to know how it worked! Thanks for the response!
"As they stand today, SLS is big, really big! But Starship will be...huge!"
This is the science I can understand. Great work, quality is amazing at every level.
Starship is a huge money pit. SLS has already built and tested The Orion spacecraft and SpaceX hasn't even shown credible designs on a crew cabin .. and may be a decade or more away from making this thing safe for humans.
@@ericmatthews8497 Money pit? 1-10 billions according to Elon. But most of the money came from starlink, NASA just gave them 135 millions, that's nothing.
I don't agree, the ludicrous amount spent on SLS could have been used to greater efficiency and innovation, shortening the time scale by investing in various ways in the private sector.
The problem is by the time this was realizes the rocket was to big to kill like the JSF program which will become obsolete really soon with the Advent of UAVs that can perform ACM.
@@ickbar11 You want more government handouts to private companies that cannot otherwise survive? Looks like I found another leach. All the private company does it better and more efficiently stuff is nonsense. Especially when you're asking for government to pick and choose private company winners by awarding them massive long term contracts, paying for any overruns, etc... You guys might also want to note that Starship is coming up on 8 years now, they are not that far behind SLS in time and I don't think they're where SLS was even on day one yet. So... I don't think Starship will end up working ever. As for Elon... he throws around a lot of numbers I don't believe even remotely. I'm pretty confident it will be more expensive than SLS when all is said and done if it ever reaches completion, it may fail while still being cheaper.
Eric Matthews yay, space x crew demo
Imagine the high school reunions.
10 year reunion, water tower construction.
20 year reunion, rocket scientist
Thats funny, and thats from a rocket scientist who now controls water towers.
*Rocket Engineer
20 years? It hasnt even been 5.
@@zilfondel whoosh.
yea imagine thaat haha
Starship + Superheavy will now be known as "Starship on the cob"
Squid on a cob
yes
Cob on a cob now
RUclips zeigt die falschen Filme wieder. Auch eine Form von Ausgrenzung.
Revisiting this episode after 2+ years. Great to realize what’s changed!
What has changed is that Elon s¡mps arent coping but seething.
@@janeydoe7417 Wah wah elon bad :'(
@@Epicurus0 Starship go boom
@@paurodriguezriera7979 I like that reference
@@paurodriguezriera7979 more like nasa go round the moon, starship go boom
It's so much more fun to have a "teacher" that is genuinely excited about their own subjects.
Thanks Tim!
Nice profile pic. I can't wait for that car to come out
5:50 - What makes a vehicle a super heavy lift launcher
9:00 - The history of SLS and orion
18:05 - The history of starship
22:30 - The progress and inventory of sls/orion and starship
27:30 - The philosophies of starship and sls
34:55 - Startship vs sls
41:50 - Conclusion
wow pinned so quickly, thanks tim
@@cubecraftgalaxy5973 just dont edit thr comment or you will lose the pin
why is your Icon a screenshot from spaceflight simulator
CubeCraftGalaxy Thanks for the timestamps, very much appreciated. Also (no hate or anything), on the “The philosophises of Starshop and SLS” you misspelled starship. Again no hate
Yo i play sfs too, how many stations do you have up yet?
I like that framing: the hardest part of SLS isn't designing a rocket that works, it's designing a rocket that politics can't kill.
Don't say that yet, politics is what ended up creating the law. Given enough pressure and people agreeing on it I'm sure they can also amend that law.
But it definitely makes it harder to kill the program.
Another "private companies do it better" Musk fanboy.
@@pcuimac - Not a Musk Fanboy
But Private Companies can do ANYTHING that governments do, BETTER AND CHEAPER, that is not an opinion, that is a FACT.
"but government do this and that that private sector dont do"
1 - See if the Government dont prohibit the private sector to operate in the area
2 - Research if the thing is on a FREE MARKET, government injecting stupid amounts of money on something completely destroys the market.
3 - if it worth the cost, if people need, they will pay for it, that is why Prices exists.
@@brianfhunter sure, but just because a private company can do it cheaper doesn't mean that it'll sell you the product for less. If you need it now or there is no real competition (and I do mean need when I say it, they can't go too bananas on wants) they can set whatever price they want, so careful with your point number 3
@@brianfhunter there's a place for both. Only government will do the research that is not initially profitable. Once that research has practical, profitable applications then the private companies jump in.
Anyone else here after SN10 bottle flipped itself, landed and then RUD'ed itself to glory?
yup
👋. Crazy they're on SN19 (though they skipped a few)
@@sly_cooper393 They skipped 12, 13(good choice) and 14. So they have 11, 15, 16, 17, 18 and 19. So 6 prototypes
The madman literally made a backflip, landed on his feet and then proceeded to explote, what a legend
LOL you missed the ones that blew up evidentially. Now can you tell me what the gaskets are made of that they can reliably withstand rocket engine in reverse heat.
LOL you have no clue
Can’t wait to hear “You are go for TLI” in a couple years, insane!
Yes, and also a good camera live feed
or TMI
Trans-moon injection?
Live HD feed and everything. I can’t wait to hear that in real time.
Yeah
Tim seeing starships numbers. "Eh, let's just round up to 100 million."
"Let's normalise it a bit" :D
At the $2 million price tag a dozen normal people could reasonably save enough money to launch themselves into space.
tfw it's more reasonable to assume a 5000% markup than work with the sticker price.
*Me:* _well that's not very fair, why are you nuking starship's cost economy_
*Me seeing the $/kg:* jfc guess not
Still too low
Nasa: Rockets are very delicate pieces of engineering
SpaceX: Look at my water tower, it can fly LOL
Nasa: ....
I'd trust work by water tower makers. When dealing with anything that contains massive pressures, "failure is not an option", so they have the right mindset for spaceflight vessels.
Litterally, the wright flyers flew their powered plane after decades of careful preparation, Louis Bleriot crossed the channel by using the cheapest engine he could buy, that had so much play that it wouldn’t jam when overheating. Space-X is the next phase waiting to happen.
That's the difference between scientists working in the public sector and engineers in the private sector. One plans all day and wastes money in a bureaucracy the other actively works and wastes money on constantly upgrading due to their failures. The scientists will have less failures, but the engineers will learn more real world information.
@@Apersonnamedme Most of science is empirical (i.e. requires real world data), and most of the people building rockets at NASA are engineers. Bureaucracy is not about science vs engineering. Bureaucracy exists because they're using taxpayer money, approved by (democratically) elected public officials. The only way I see NASA doing something closer to SpaceX is if the US becomes an authoritarian regime led by technocrats. The next best alternative is just to let SpaceX do their thing, then copying ideas from them.
@@JuanCamiloGamboaHiguera all i can say is patents is chasing to them.
I'm actually glad the NASA Boeing Artemis SLS project and Orion Spacecraft are under development! Hope to see them fly soon! As you once said, I cheer them all on!
I'm really glad that there is such a high quality channel that is non-biased. Some RUclipsrs idolise Elon, and others hate him
Vivek Patel In this case (comparing Space X vs. SLS/SLA) bias is needed if you want to see movement in the space program. US politicians (bless their corrupt hearts) are biased against Space X. Fact!
IMO, this channel is "biased to neutral". He is always traying to picture that everythink is at the smae level.
You see, performing Ice Bucket Challenge on most outrageous claims and ideas is not 'hate' regardless of what Musk-infatuated snowflakes think. That's why Common Sense Sceptic, Thunderf00t and Pressure Fed Astronaut and few others are necessary.
@Sherlock Whole mess oh, surely convention is debatable, but he makes reasonable case on most ocassions.
Please tell me where that non biased channel is? I'm currently on Everyday Astronauts channel.
The SLS looks retro and very cool. The starship looks more modern and is also very cool
It actually is a close rendition to an old black n white movie that had a rocket that used water to propel it.
@@MLOCharmer Are you talking about the sea dragon?
@@G_Diddler I don't know it was an old black n white movie on tv I saw as a kid.
in other words, both rocket look cool in they're own way :D
@@G_Diddler she is probably talking about the sea dragon
Are you an everyday astronaut at this point? You’re a human encyclopedia of knowledge in rocket and space exploration technology. Not everybody has the ability to do what you do and deliver the information as well as you do.
Dude, it’s impressive. Keep up the great work.
No but he's successfully time traveled from the future... Shhhh
There should be an option to give a second like when re-watching this kind of videos 5 months later
What?
agreed, even now with all the new stuff that happened it's still sooooo relevant
I liked your comment twice.
See what I did there? Time to start double liking these videos.
....hold my wine 🍷
@@lillyanneserrelio2187 Wine f***
@@lillyanneserrelio2187 and how did you double like?
"Why do both rockets exist?!"
They don't. Not yet, as fully assembled, functional vehicles, anyway. SLS has been in development longer and is much closer. But the folks at SpaceX are very talented.
I wish them both well. And am a big fan of having multiple, independent, launch systems. Better for redundancy concerns, and cost concerns.
This is simply national security imperatives; it was very strange for the USA to let it manned space flight capacity slip and they are just making sure that from now on there will be two or three companies that can simply these services the same way there are 2 or 3 companies that can produce aircraft, ships, tanks, etc etc .
Aka SLS is gonna be canceled at 98% progress and be years behind schedule while starship will be on mars
"and cost concerns". A little late to put cost pressure on SLS. Too bad Starship wasn't around 5 yrs ago, and do to SLS what they have done to the LEO rocket industry and to Boeing's manned ISS program.
@georgio m IDIOT! SpaceX are the only ones that can land their rockets! They ALREADY own the game! Boeing is in it STRICTLY for the money....which is why they will milk NASA for as long as they can and never upgrade their CRAPPY OLD TECH! You also conveniently forget that EVERY space agency has had setbacks! While SpaceX has had it's share of failures, their innovation and progress is still AMAZING! Now go away you sad little hater.
@georgio m you mean the rocket which managed to go from paper to hot fire in a few weeks, compared to the SLS which uses parts developed over 30 yearsand still hasn't been completed
I've moved from Argentina (dropping out from Electronics Engineering) to Spain, to keep studying Engineering. Hopefully I'll strat Telecommunications engineering (applied to aerospace) on next September. A huge change in my life with the only hope of maybe putting my grain of sand in all this. All the way here, you were, and keep being a source of inspiration, and I thank you so much for all the work you do. You're really the best. Greetings Tim! Loved this video. I just wathed it all in one sitting. Thank you!
Muy cheto amigo 🗿
@@_KillerD_ Gracias crack!! En mi canal voy mostrando el proceso. Date una vuelta si querés 😊🚀
De ley lo vas a lograr! Saludos de Alemania
I hope you get a chance to work on some of the exciting and a bit missions!
Te deseo lo mejor crack!
So SLS just launched a moon mission recently and it was successful despite delays with launch, all while starship is still waiting for it's first orbital test flight. Personally, i'm very happy nasa didn't scrap SLS like a lot of people have suggested here on youtube. Otherwise artemis would have been delayed by months if not years waiting for starship to get built.
Couldn’t agree more and that was half the point of this video!
My point exactly
more spaceships more fun :)
Spacex was delayed for 6 months because of woke environmentalists in the FAA
Now we know. ;)
Seeing this just 4 months later is crazy, there are already 5 more starship prototypes, 2 of which have flown
I know right the rate at whick spaceX is producing prototypes is truly astonishing
Very very crazy and true!
ikr
Was just thinking the same thing... and now we're building the booster!
@@danielsobowale9496 Its due to them not being afraid of failure. NASA was more like this in the past, and then people died and NASA lost a lot of that drive (and funding)
Everyday Astronaut yesterday: It would be crazy if NASA chooses spacex starship as one of their Landers
Nasa: We choose spacex as one of our landers
Who thinks the the everyday Astronaut is a future teller
HE IS A MARTIAN FROM THE FUTURE
i hope you still remember the time he said "it would be crazy if they put a tesla on the falcon heavy test flight"... just saying
@@Berndy true
Clairvoyant?
I'll put down my vote... Tim the Space Prophet!!!
Why does SpaceX even exist if we already have the GPS Guided 9 Liter Turbo Diesel Powered 4 Trek 8RX 410 John Deere Tractor with an infinitely variable transmission and 85cc deplacement integrated hydraulic pump with 227 Liters per minute of hydraulic flow, air conditioned and heated, 10 inch touch screen displays and digital monitoring
Finally someone asking the real questions
Put the jokes aside,
Because human never satisfy.
Huh?
Because it “isn’t environmentally friendly” as the hippies would say
I wonder if Elon will buy one of them tractors to use on his first Martian farm.
20:55 talking about "Dear Moon." Oh how far we've come, so excited for you Tim!
Rip dearmoon, I hope Tim is not to sad
1 minute in: "What can this guy tell me I don't know?"
45 minutes in: *flipping to my third page of notes* "How does he get all this information?! And, where can I get more?"
He spends years on his videos I swear😆. Kinda like Scott Manley, but Scott seems to not even have to do any research, he just knows
@@Formula1st well I guess Tim tries to be more “professional” but Scott is just more chill about it and doesn’t have to worry about everything as much
@@adamkerman475 and Tim does this full time - Scott has a day job and as he points out - just does his videos in his spare time
Well the landing legs
Landing PAD on the moon!!
reddit spacex, lot of usefull information
disappointed by the lack of Buzz Aldrin punching a flat earther in the face footage after that statement.
I'd like to see a video of him paying the one dollar in damages to that a-hole. Pay him in pennies.
@@TonyNalagan Pay him with a fist-full of dimes. You know where.
He punched a moon landing denier.
This made me love the Saturn V even more, so many decades ago still the king of them all
Saturn V is so powerfull its put a entire space station in orbit in one launch its amazing
@@ricardorola509 but what you are forgetting is that skylab was the hollowed-out second stage fuel tank of the Saturn v so was a bit different from say putting the ISS or other stations in space.
@@benjamindavies1188 Skylab weight 170,000 pounds(77,000 kg) put in orbit in one launch and this is not the limit for Saturn V its amazing
@@benjamindavies1188 Skylab replaced the third stage.
It is the Great Pyramid of Giza (tallest building) of rockets. though it probably won't be the king for 4000 years like the pyramid was.
Watching this again after IFT 5. All 33 raptor engines flying to make almost 17 million pounds of thrust and in this video SpaceX barely had 30 even made. Unreal 🤯
Excellent video!! although I'm more "Team Starship" I was surprised to see how much SLS hardware is already done, and I liked the explanation on NASA's philosophy behind it ;)
SLS is pretty much go. Starship still looks like a sylo.
Now I'll always call the Starship/Super Heavy combination "Starship on the cob"!
We have falcorn heavy and starship on the cob now haha
😹👍
"I'm showing my Iowa again".
Seems like a disproportionate amount of astronauts and even space-related scientists and engineers come from agriculture-heavy states.
Maybe clear star-filled skies while growing up are the inspiration for it.
No, it's because AG people know how to not give up. People in the city want everything handed to them on a silver platter by the government. The mentality makes the difference.
they just wanna get out of iowa lol
Many astronauts come from Ohio, because that's where wright pat airforce base is. The skies here are utter garbage, nearest dark sky spot is like 8 hours away in west Virginia.
"I'm from Iowa, I only work in outer space"
I'm lucky.
Space is directly over my house.
You guys can come over and look at it, if you want.
Here to see how well this aged. Given what appears to be NASA making the award today to SpaceX
I'm predicting SLS will get cancelled this year.
@@willimnot that's just impossible. It's the senate's rocket.
Unless Starship starts to fly and make the SLS looks bad in front of the US public, then maybe.
@@807800 I’m thinking that’s a real possibility. Musk says he wants starship in orbit by July.
@@807800 I just don’t understand the point of sls. If SpaceX can land a starship on the moon they could just as easily put one in orbit as a command module. So why are Orion and sls needed?
@@decentish8546 like i said, it's senate rocket. Sls created so these senators could keep the job in their state after the shuttle retirement, NASA never asked for it.
So, even if the sls program becoming the most ineffective, the most inefficient program ever, it wouldn't be canceled.
But, if starship becomes operational and make sls looks stupid in front of everyone in the US, with enough pressure then maybe, maybe the senate would think twice about it.
It makes sense that rocket engineering done by NASA would be so timid in its approach. Everything is at the mercy of the politicians.
SpaceX's approach to rocket engineering reminds me of how Skunk Works did things back in the day when they were developing fighter jets, spy jets, etc jets....
Kelly Johnson was never so cavalier. Musk's South Padre Island operation is a maker space in the worst sense, just fools with tools and no adult supervision.
@Daniel Roig well, better crash now than crash when there's human in it
'member the X-33/VentureStar? Also by Skunk Works and 98% complete before congress just refused to sign the budget for the remaining 2% (TWO PERCENT!!). The US would have been flying on a really futuristic spacecraft by now if it hadn't been for that.
Either way designs like the SLS will continue to exist likely forever, as governments consider space access a strategic asset, which means it's never going to be left entirely to privates, much like we still build military or national guard vehicles even though commercial cars and ships exist.
... and there go *my* afternoon's plans.
Micah Tischler Only 49:20 🙄 I was kind of hungry but maybe the food can wait 😬
it's only 50 minutes, it's an episode of Better Call Saul, nothing more
What plans do people have anymore
Well, it's good to know I'm not the only one....
@@giovannifoulmouth7205 19 hours later.....
Tim you're a star. I'm always so excited when you upload because I know for the next hour or so I'm going to be soaking up a bunch of space stuff like a sponge. Thanks for all the effort you put into these!
I hope you will become fully moist by the end.
As a fellow Iowan I appreciate the analogy you made between Starship/Super Heavy and Corn/Cobb. Truly we are a highly cultured and sophisticated state
Hey, Tim!...
Concerning Iowa-
Remember, James Tiberius Kirk also grew up there. So...
Being from Iowa is not necessarily a bad thing!
GREAT VIDEO! Cannot wait for 'The rest of the story'!!
He missed a perfect opportunity to say "I'm from Iowa, I only work in outer space."
Yes, he dang near killed me with the John Deere comparison and added the Iowa remark. Although the John Deeres I grew up on only had two cylinder motors. Which I drove on an Iowa farm that was only a half hour drive from Riverside, Iowa which is the future hometown of Captain Kurt. I wonder if Elon would paint Starship green and yellow? Thanks for the Iowa and John Deere usage. Gave me a chuckle.
Plus Radar O'Reilly was from Ottawa, Iowa
Grew up in Iowa, could not be more proud. The State is a gem and often overlooked. I've always enjoyed meeting Iowans because they are naturally, sceptical and intellectually stubborn. Keep being Iowan and questioning everything. Be sceptical and be an Iowa bastard. It will serve you well.
Ok corn boi
I learned a lot but I had already came to the same conclusion you did. I get so sick of arguing with the NASA haters. People don't realize how much NASA helps spacex
Exactly
it's just a shame how much politics corrupts the science. they were focusing on all these oldspace projects for the longest time, and they keep changing their plans to the point where nothing gets done. It's good that there's infrastructure for supporting companies like SpaceX, though.
Omg I was just sitting here having a bit of a sad evening (due to tons of plans being cancelled because of the pandemic) and trying to cheer myself up with some of your old videos and then I see the notification for this video. Day saved!
I just watch this for the first time and find it illuminating. I have followed Starship and SLS through various sites including this one and NSF and others.
Thanks for the time you put into this project. It will interesting to see where we are say in a year or even 6 months after both SLS and Starship have tested.
It was Heinlein, or Pournelle who said, “once you’re in LEO, you’re halfway to anywhere. It strikes me that shipping components to LEO, and doing assembly and fuel transfer would be the most straightforward process. But, they’re not asking me. . .
Thanks, Tim, for another great video.
It's quite difficult to rendezvous in space, though. And assembling in space might result in a lot of debris. So, assembling in LEO might not be a good idea.
_Refueling_ in LEO is more sensible though. Just one rendezvous (between the waiting Starship and the refueler Starship) instead of many rendezvous-es (between the Assembly station and lots of supply vehicles). That's why SpaceX's proposal for landing on the moon involves at least 1 LEO fuel transfer.
Yeah, orbital refueling is the way to go. Google the ACES orbital refueling concept. Very cool idea from about a decade ago.
@@PanduPoluan You speak as if we hadn't been doing this for the past 20 years with the ISS... We've got it down to a T, automated rendezvous and 8hr EVAs for component assembly/maintenance.
Building a LEO assembly station + fuel depot would probably pay for itself, given enough time. Even become a sprawling hub. At some point we're going to need ships bigger than Starship.
@@armr6937 the issue is how many billions that 2 man EVA costs, to do the work that would take a few minutes with a big crew on earth.
That's why ISS used the largest subsections they could fly and had minimum work designed to be done on orbit.
If you want something larger for interplanetary missions, you send up the largest chunks you can fly, and have them designed to be able to be joined together with the least human touch, possibly even roboticlly.
Humans are VERY inefficient with no gravity, and very limited in motion in bulky suits.
So don't expect to see ANY construction in leo, just possibly assembly of quick connect sub sections.
And there is also no need for a fuel depot.
Instead of launching a big empty tank then launching tankers to fill it, and having to maintain the cryo in a liquid state for long periods, you just launch as many tankers as needed, dock them together, and then pump it over.
@@armr6937 As you have yourself said, it took _decades_ to build the ISS. And every addition had to be meticulously planned and executed. Then after adding a component, hours upon hours of EVA to connect the bits, not to mention hours upon hours to test the integration (electrical & otherwise) of the new modules.
Refueling is much simpler: Align the ports, dock/connect, and pump until the refueler is empty. No need for electrical connections, leak tests, contaminant test, etc. All the necessary components are self-contained -- and _ruggedized_ -- in the first vehicle.
The ruggedization is actually quite important: It's hard to ruggedize things (especially components) in microgravity. But if the things are rugged enough to survive liftoff from Earth, then it should be rugged enough to survive interplanetary travel which will likely employ much less thrust / force / acceleration.
"Why does SLS still exists"?
Translation: "Why is BOEING still a NASA contractor?"
@Shem Casimir Because lobbying is legal and effective. So if nothing else shareholders will demand it, at some point. Cost+ plus contracts are not unique to NASA or government aerospace as a whole. The fix would involve making lobbying illegal and ineffective, which in turn would probably require deep campaign finance reform, including budget caps. Which would be fine with me. The current system is corrupting, and hostile to democracy.
@@thimkful Don't get your hopes up LOL. Would be a true fix for sure. You have my support on all of that.
@@thimkful Out of genuine curiosity. What way could you make lobbying "illegal" that doesn't obviously fly in the face of the right to petition? As far as "budget caps" same thing, how can you place limits on the ability of someone to advocate for themselves?
@@thimkful Maybe reducing the size and the power of the government to a bare minimum could be an even more effective fix? Corruption and money from private donators will always find their way into Washington, there's not much you can do about that! But what you CAN do, is limit the negative outcome of that corruption by eliminating the government's ability to do certain companies/industries a huge favor. Big private donators would still exist then but they wouldn't donate nearly as much, cause the investment risk would be much higher for them. They'd only support policies that are generally helping the economy - Policies that are not just helping themselves to make more profit, but also smaller companies and entrepreneurs, which are no less important for the future of our economy.
@@gtafreak73 lol crazy has entered the chat
I’m very late watching this one but it was interesting. I was a contract negotiator for the Air Force earlier in my career and then went to defense contractors. Your observations on keeping a big, complex project going across administrations was spot on. Secondly, I feel validated finally to hear somebody else but me say SpaceX is following the Soviet development model. I was 9 when I watched Neil walk on the moon. Very disappointed in the massive lull in manned exploration. It’s great to see so many young people so excited. Keep up the good work.
Two years later , an obervation.
Tim has deserved his flight on Dear Moon more than any body else, His dedication to accuracy, understanding, and presentation is.... like no other , unique. ... !
no
@@xephael3485 you mean: no, never heard of every day astronaut.
Tienes que vivir detras de la luna, pibe.🇦🇷
" we will likely see explosions."
Starship SN8 high altitude test
" he he"
Well, *technically* it landed
Just not in one part
Nah, it was just a rapid unscheduled disassembly
Or Kaboom🔥
No its not called explosion! You have to call it "rapid unscheduled dissassembly"
“If your design is taking to long your design is wrong”
-Elon Musk
Right as I commented this it showed the clip
Too
crew dragon took 5 years to be developed,so.....
@@kuartz. yes, BUT it is not a failure design.
@SHIRIL I said, Failure DESIGN, not a failure LAUNCH.
...lol, Crew Dragon design is wrong??
Starship is epic, just thinking about watching that launch makes me optimistic about the future
nasa: makes rockets using specialized engineers
spacex: haha water tower go brrr
I laughed too hard at this....
NASA doesn’t want the SLS. It’s the senate.
NASA: Wastes more money than created by God and man in the history of time with no results. Still calls it a success.
SpaceX: Builds a rocket bigger and more capable than the Saturn V in 1/10th the time, with 1/1000th the money. Also provides great entertainment along the way.
"Haha. Water tower go burr." indeed!
@@HelloNotMe9999 Saturn V??? That was made 50+ years ago lol
Do you mean sls?
@@HelloNotMe9999 "1/1000th the money" suuuuuure... more like 1/2 or 1/3, and that's *WITH* the benefits of not having to play politics. You think blowing up rocket after rocket is cheap? It's fast, sure. But it's not cheap.
Sls's progress is actually giving me hope for it
Me too... To be honest, I didn't realize they had so much done already... I'm glad it has not been a total waste... and it will have some interesting capabilities... Starship is a bit different.. It's a More People Bus, and That's Good.. but SLS will have major capabilities for Non Human Massive things.. and who knows.. Maybe Nasa will become a believer in re usability and modify SLS, but my hope is that Nasa Gets out of the Rocket Building Business, and gets deeper into the Rocket Buying Business.. the advancements for the planet will be MUCH better... Not unlike the advent of Airline Travel.
@@wizardnetwork I mean nasa has a lot of employees and many of them people who have already built many rockets in their time, they definitely have the capability to make something reusable 100% come true I just hope they make it sooner rather than later
@@emilianozamora399 I know it sounds strange, but I would rather Hope they get out of the rocket building business because the commercial sector develops more, and better rockets so they have plenty of rockets to choose from to launch the missions that they want to launch... Nasa's much better at science than developing spacecraft.. In my Opinion...
@@wizardnetwork I mean how do commercial sectors have "better" rockets than nasa? Nasa is capable of definitely making good rockets it's just that they are limited by what the government wants and that is providing jobs to various parts of the country, not making one rocket in house
@@emilianozamora399 I think that's exactly the point. From the knowledge standpoint, Nasa could definitely build amaing rockets. Nasa is just limited by politics. Funding companies like Spacex to develop rockets, wil be better. Nasa should focus on things like exploration satellites, like James Webb or Clipper. That's i think the way Nasa should go.
Public: "Yo Boeing why the rocket taking so long?"
Boeing: "Money!"
The ULA is the worst.
Sadly it is the existing "money before work with no guarantee" culture in Congress that is the root of this evil. Congress will hold the money source for ransom until All their favorite legacy contractors have had a taste. Then demand that they be kept in the system, all the while not demanding they achieve anything in the way of progress.
Elon is a good example of independence from handouts / bailouts. *drops mic*
Boeing is used to getting more and more money due to the cost-plus way the federal government does business. It's always been a criminal way of doing things. It appears Boeing doesn't make any of it's employees answer for mistakes made, particularly it's engineering department, i.e. the Starliner capsule that didn't know what time it was among other things.
I hope Musk and SpaceX continue to make leaps and bounds progress over everyone else.
@@myfavoritemartian1 This can be short circuited by firing enough of Congress and replacing them with people who aren't compromised by the military industrial complex
Orange rocket: good
Shinny rocket: Too good
Dark 074 As nouns the difference between shiny and shinny
is that shiny is (informal) anything shiny; a trinket while shinny is (canada) an informal game of pickup hockey played with minimal equipment: skates, sticks and a puck or ball or shinny can be moonshine (illegal alcohol).
@@erikincph calm down its a single n
@@erikincph The grammar police are allot like the Spanish Inquisition.. NO ONE EXPECTS THE SPANISH INQUISITION!!! Anyway.. bless their hearts for trying.
Orange rocket still bad
I like pink
At $2000/kg you could very easily have university (or even high school) teams working on small payloads that hitch a ride on starship. That's absolutely amazing to think of! In some cases, the launch wouldn't even be the main cost.
Not quite how it works.
@@bear3616 Exactly how it works since spaceX already sells "hitchike seats" on rockets for somewhat "cheap"
Everything about Starship sounds ludicrous.
But, just a few years ago, reusing an orbital booster, by landing it back on its butt, sounded ludicrous too.
The concept of landing a rocket was never quite so ludicrous, because the way I saw it,
all they needed to do was add more fuel and legs, sacrifice payload weight to do so
But reusing a Megarocket? It seems easier to reinforce a smaller rocket for reentry than reinforcing a large rocket, maybe space x will learn this, maybe they won't, starship might have a far final smaller payload weight than elon envisioned
If that be the case, he might find it easier to build an orbital ship with starship and leave reentry to the smaller rockets, it's a pretty dicey game, the bigger it is, complexity goes up but starship looks so flimsy
Yeah it was. It was science fiction and hadn't been proven.
You do know vertical rocket landings were done before in the 90's? The only thing space x did that wasn't done before was doing it with a rocket coming from orbit. But vertical rocket landings within atmosphere were done decades ago...
@@bkreativepainting7461 It depends how you see reentries.
Lets's say you fire bullets into the water but you want them to land on the ground of the pond , without getting deformed. What do you do?
You reenforce them, harder bullets, More resisting meterials, optimized shape for penetrating the water surface &c.
But there is also another way to get your "projectiles" safely to the ground of the pond. You can reduce their density and increasing their volume in order to have them floating, in hobes over the ponds water surface only haveing short contact with the water. The projectile would rotate so there is no wear on one place but the "work" of hitting the water surface and jumping off of it would be equaly distributed on a large part of the projectile. Once the hobs over the water surface reduced the speed enough the projectile would endup like a floating tank on top of the pond and slowly sink to the ground.
A realy cool way to reduce the density of your space vehicle is to keep the empty tank! And use it to hob and float in the surface of the atmosphere. The idea is a way slower entry into the gas and having way more speed bled of in the zone where atmosphere and space meet.
Just finished watching Tim. Very well made video, highly descriptive and very informative. As an ordinary person who loves Space you smashed the presentation of information for the general mind and I respect the time you put into these videos. Truly opened my eyes to the two programmes.
And to anybody else reading this comment, please watch the whole video from start to finish, it deserves all your time.
Totally Agree with your last statement.
imagine a starship painted like a HUGE corn on the cob, that would make Tim's day
name stage 1 to cob.
@@williamarmstrong7199 elon is a genius
Cydonius1 if only that wouldn’t mess things up
Paint would burn up
A half eaten one. Only the portions with ablative tiles painted like intact kernels
Simple answer: "Why build one, when you can have two at twice the price?"
and then make first contact 😎
its not a question,its the government first law.
or, in this case, 12 times the price.
Twice the price? Worst case scenario for StarShip vs best case scenario for SLS (Block 1B): SLS costs 10 x as much per kg TLI. Therefore the question should be "Why build one, when you can have two at 11 times the price?"
SLS is a billion dollar a flight waste
I'm not sure Starship will ever be reliable enough for human flight so I think SLS is the better option!
That crazy flip spin Starship has to do in order to separate from the booster completely prevents human flight in my opinion.
@@gracialonignasiver6302 bro theres no flip it has to do
@@thegouse im pretty sure (unless they changed it) that starship is supposed to go from 45ish angle to facing the opposite way for a bit to no miss the target to finally landing
Really loving your long form videos. You put so much effort in and it’s really appreciated. Thanks Tim
This is so fantastic Tim. Honestly so so glad I found you on RUclips. You and Scott Manley have truly sparked an interest in space with me I'm obsessed with the USA space program ( I'm from the UK)
*It is here!* Great job Tim, I haven’t even watched it yet but you get my like!
Can we get a 4 year follow up to this video??
Fail often and fail fast. That's the way to learn fast and innovate.
Yea but when NASA did that in the earlier years, many astronauts died without having even left the ground. Technology has changed so it's possible...
Eggsn Bakon I think these days they test without people you know do they don’t die
Commercial airliners got the the point they are today by flying often enough. Starship aims to do the same thing.
Whereas Boeing follows a more advanced strategy. Fail fast, often and always, learn nothing, collect money, delay and repeat.
@@fisterB The beauty that is cost plus contracts at work. You can thank Boeing's political buddies for that btw.
Tim, you should seriously consider sending your videos to the National Film Preservation Board! Cos these definitely deserve a place in the archives and need to be preserved for generations to come! ❤️❤️❤️
Finally we are really entering 21 Century. Been waiting 50 years for this. Glad to be living in these times.
"The upcoming Europa Clipper... is legally mandated to fly on SLS."
Nasa: looks at SLS
Nasa: looks at SLS again
Nasa: looks at Falcon Heavy
Nasa: "has selected Space Exploration Technologies Corp. (SpaceX) of Hawthorne, California, to provide launch services for Earth’s first mission to conduct detailed investigations of Jupiter's moon Europa."
“Space cowboys” makes me so happy. It kind of describes SpaceX pretty well. The Yeehaw is returning to space(hopefully on Saturday the 30th).
Oh well... Space X is a joke
@@SadisticNinja how
Done :)
That my friend is called bait
@@GlarityHD starship test launch failed once again
Petition to send MKBHD and a few RED's to Moon and Mars
MKBHD and Everyday Astronaut for the first RUclipsrs to the Moon!
MKBHD "so I been living on mars for a week now".
@@jamesrwinters Tim and Scott Manley deserve to go to space more than most in my opinion.
F*ck Reds. Send him with some arri alexa LF’s 😍
@@linecraftman3907 Oh yeah, big time.
Starship as a lander? Imagine they would put a whole starship on top of SLS
If we rip off fins and change fuel to hydrolox, yes
SLS couldn't physically lift it.
P Kelly or fit it the diamter is different
Every time the Starship lands there is going to be Starship mass amount of lunar dust all over the place. I love it! :D
@@eekamak A large portion of that dust (and pieces a lot larger than dust) will reach escape velocity. That means everything in Lunar orbit is going to get scrubbed by the exhaust. Many pieces will end up flying towards Earth.
As much as I'd like to see Starship on the surface, as cool as it would look, I'm hesitant.
Would love to see an updated version of this video soon! Like after Artemis 2 or after starship starts hauling payloads to orbit
I'm absolutely amazed as when I first see the length of the video I'm like oh this is long, but when the video ends I'm like why did it end so fast. Not a second is wasted here. And I can't get enough of the info.
MOAAR PLS
Just remember Tim, James Tiberius Kirk IS from Iowa.
Or at least will be :-)
And in another episode he said he was from Alpha Centauri.
@@surferdude4487 "No, I'm from Iowa. I only work in outer space." Kirk, Star Trek IV
@@marshallwebber9682 Yes, I'm aware of what he said in Star Trek IV. In Star Trek TOS Season 1 "Tomorrow is Yesterday",
Kirk: I'm a little green man from Alpha Centauri. A beautiful place, you ought to se it.
Of course, he might have been lying to the Air Force Colonel who was interrogating him.
@@surferdude4487 he was not lying, he was exercising sarcasm :)
When you have grownup on a farm in Texas, go to college for agriculture and completely understand his tractor reference.
Glad you said "Team Space" I seriously LOVE renewed energy in development of vehicles for lunar and further landings. It is VERY exciting to me. The more people on this earth we have doing it, the cooler it is going to be.
Yay, a new documentary from Tim!
Still under 1 hour tho.. all jokes aside I love those in depth videos! so much to learn!
ha ha, until about 36 hours ago this video might have been over an hour ;-) Some footage is deferred to a follow-up video as Tim kind-of hints in the conclusion.
Felt like 20 min. Incredibly entertaining and interesting, event though a lot of content weren’t new to me. Dont think you could bore me with a 3 hour video, even! Great work!
This channel blows my freaking mind it's just so high quality compared to the usual youTube videos. Man it's a great time to witness not only a new age in space exploration, but the ability to turn on my phone or PC, watch this channel and get excited is just so wholesome in these times! Thank you alit for giving us this content!
Can’t wait for more videos! You do great research, make great content, and I’m happy to call you one of my longest subscribed creators on YT!
You've changed my perspective on SLS, I thought it was just a cash cow for Boeing & co. but now I'm a fan, it sounds like a great rocket. Regardless I was already excited to see it fly but now I'm doubly enthusiastic. Go space!
Just so sad for these amazing RS-25 engines.
@@Markus-zb5zd I know especially when you consider the history of some of them. At least they are also commissioning new engines to be built.
Truly, the SLS is the result of engineers trying to make something Congress won't shoot down.
A hydrolox first stage with SRBs is not a great rocket.
@@Djinnilord why not?
The necessary width provides a big fairing size, and the expandable SRBs solve a lot of the Hydrolox problems.
I'm hyped up for all of the rockets. I love the diversity in their design especially with SpaceX's over the top futuristic outlook on space travel and design and NASA's simple familiar design that reminds you of Saturn V and the Space Shuttle program. 👌
Starship looks like something out of 1930s pulp scifi
19:45 Going from conference questions to personal interviews! Amazing work Tim
42:32 seriously, that tractor analogy was hilarious!
Btw, this is one of the best videos that I've seen you do so far. Very informative, easy to understand, and just keeps getting me more and more excited about Starship!
Im curious to see what the smaller competitors will come up with.
Zazon you have blue origin making the Integrated Launch System, or ILS launching on either the New Glenn or Vulcan, and Dynetics (never heard of it before) making the Dynetics Human Lander System or DHLS, launching on the Vulcan.
Quite smaller landers. ;)
Seriously smaller. The cargo version of Starship could land both of the other landers on the Moon by itself. (Unfueled.) Of course they'd have to be squashed in. (By dry mass, 5 Orion capsules can be landed; these landers can't weigh more than that.)
My biggest takeaway:
I had no idea how many parts were already in the warehouse for the first Artemis launches.
And yet, SPaceX has made more starship parts in the last 6 months.
@@carljohan9265 Starship hopper parts. Anyone who thinks these little hoppers are anywhere close to an orbital booster (let alone a reusable one) is delusional. The engines might be the same. But those stainless tanks certainly not.
Same. And yet as far as I know they aren't planning their first flight anytime soon?
@@danieljensen2626 First flight of SLS is "no earlier then late 2021"
Great problem, is the uniting of the. pieces.
Given the rates of stacking shown by SpaceX: SpaceX will be orbiting Mars, before these other parts can be shipped to a common staging area !
6:55 With the Europa probe a few days ago, (10-14-24) where only the fairings were retrieved, I guess it's officially a "Super Heavy-Lift Launch Vehicle" now.
If the shuttle has taught us anything, we need a backup. We shouldn’t have to rely on Russia if there’s a problem with our spaceship that requires the entire fleet to be inspected.
Agreed.
Well hopefully the next test flight of Starliner is a success this time. Dragon and Falcon 9 are now certified for crewed flight and starliner will hopefully be the backup.
I mean, I'm not opposed to more rockets because I like rockets, but why is it bad to have Russia be the backup? As far as I know, Russia has been a good partner when it comes to space.
Huntracony
We’ve been lucky, but if we can avoid relying on ANYONE, let alone a country that we’re only just now realizing is still engaging in a cold war with us, we should. If we could rely on ESA or JAXA for human launches I’d still prefer a different model backup for regular missions.
We can work together with Roscosmos and CNSA, collaborate with them, accept their help in emergencies, but we need to be able to maintain our own launch capabilities for continuous regular missions. All agencies should have such backups, and to provide assistance to the other agencies in emergencies.
This totally caught me up on what's going on with the space race.. i've been out of it since the 90's.
thanks, love your sanity and clarity.
Orange rocket bad shiny rocket good.😂that got me good
Orange rocket bad.
@Daniel Michael Who would make a good shiny man? Jeff Bezos?
Sneaky george Orwell animal farm reference there - 4 legs good, 2 legs bad. Haha gold
Orange rocket bad. Shiny rocket bad.
_GREY AND GREEN ROCKET GOOD._ *Soviet Union’s National anthem starts playing*
Sharkcraft but soyuz 2 has pretty shiny fairings
Successful SLS launches: 1
Successful Starship launches: 0
this aged well
@@sven8866 any thing on board?
1 to 1 right now
@@LITTLEgiiant did starship have a successful launch?
@@veselekov yeah, starship launch 4
It's amazing to me how quickly you can put out high-quality videos like this. Thank you!! 💖
I think starship would take longer to get into service than announced. But when it gets into service it would change spaceflight.
I do think so. ELon himslefs said that he is not good in time estimation. But even if it will take 3 times longer and will cost 20 times more, it will be revolution
yesss
mkbhd in space: so iv been in space for 2 years now, and hears what I think.
I wonder, do you still feel the same after yesterday's SN8 launch? Don't get me wrong, i had/have my doubts, i'm just curious....
@@feenstma can you elaborate?
@@feenstma Well how do you feel now after sn10's close to perfect landing?
So, Tim... Everyone talks about the progress on Starship (just the spacecraft). But no one talks about the progress of Super Heavy. What is the progress on the actual Super Heavy booster? Without that, Starship is just a pretty spacecraft that's not going anywhere.
@@alexv3357 I don't disagree with anything you said. Nevertheless, from a historical perspective, these simple "just-scale-it-up" problems have usually turned out to be anything but simple. Falcon Heavy was supposed to be "Just slap 3 Falcon core stages together and off we go". It turned out to be anything but simple, significantly delayed, and ending up with a final design that was significant departure from the original concept. The SLS core stage was "just use 4 SSMEs instead of 3". But that also lead to significant design issues that ending up causing delays and cost overruns (along with a host of other things).
A booster that big has never been built, Saturn V and N-1 not withstanding. There are bound to be unforeseen "gotchas" that will create challenges, cause delays, and incur cost overruns. N-1 had 30+ engines on it and the Russians could never get it to behave quite right. While I'm sure that technical advancement has reduced the risk of that problem, it still has never been done (that I know of). Falcon Heavy was close (27 engines) but the arrangement was quite different as they were clustered in 3 separate cores instead of all in one core.
Besides just building the booster itself, there are also the issues of constructing the launch pad, ground support equipment, transportation to the launch site, vehicle integration, landing the booster, and after-flight turn-around (and many more, I'm sure). Sure its all been done before, but at the scale of Super-Heavy, it needs to be done all over again virtually from scratch.
While Super-Heavy may not be the critical-path, it is still the most critical piece -- without it Starship is going nowhere. And it is still a significant enough design challenge that some work should be going on now to reduce risk, and to meet Elon's (admittedly) aggressive timeline. And even more so now that Starship has been selected by NASA as one of the finalists for manned lunar landings.
@@r.terrylessly1877 To be fair, one reason why the Falcon Heavy took so long was because SpaceX was still iterating on the Falcon booster. If the Heavy was built when it was "supposed to be", meaning it used block 1 or block 2 hardware, then it would have ended up inferior to a single Falcon 9 using the block 5 hardware.
The reason why nobody is talking about the progress of the super heavy is simply because there is no progress, or at least nothing visible (they might be doing software simulation and refining the design). Right now spacex is focusing on producing the starship and the raptor engines, they never built even a single prototype of the super heavy.
Step one before step two. Get the starship finalized and then they'll have accurate information for what the booster is lifting. And by then they'll have the production methods and testing procedures nailed for the tanks and engines.
@@cyruspalmer98 Yep. Learn from the simpler case (Starship), then iterate (Super Heavy). Egg first, then chicken.
Thanks!
I rarely comment on RUclips videos. This sort of content is amazing
Dr Taylor “let me guess, you’re from outer space”
Everyday Astronaut “no I’m from Iowa, I only work in outer space”
Living the dream there, great video!
Yes, it did change my opinion on SLS. Although it isn't a super good rocket, I now think SLS is worth keeping and going forth with.
It is very satisfying to see references to Aerojet. Dr. Theodore von Karman was my Godfather and was a founder of JPL and Aerojet. My father worked at the Aerojet Azusa plant and my mother worked on Lee Edison’s biography, “The Wind and Beyond”. Dr Von Karman had such an impact on the fields of Aerodynamics and Astronomics that he received the first National Medal of Science from President Kennedy in 1963. The divider between the earth and space is referred to as The Karman Line. We used to visit him at his home in Pasadena, CA when I was just a young space enthusiast. He passed when I was eleven and remember his funeral service and seeing many of the giants of the world of jet propulsion. Again, thanks for bringing back a lot of good memories.