Propellent Leak Ends SpaceX's Launch Record
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 11 июл 2024
- Last night a Falcon 9 Launching Starlink Group 9-3 out of Vandenberg managed to get to the initial orbit, but failed before reaching the target orbit.
This is the first SpaceX launch failure in over 300 launches, a record that nobody else in the launch business can claim.
Follow me on Twitter for more updates:
/ djsnm
I have a discord server where I regularly turn up:
/ discord
If you really like what I do you can support me directly through Patreon
/ scottmanley 
Наука
"As you have probably heard by now"
To be fair, space news reaches me by virtue of having the bell on on your channel exclusively these days.
Indeed. If I do come accross such news elsewhere it's usually badly reported or massively biased and I will look to see if Scott has done a video.
Yeah lol, I wouldn't have heard about this for months if it wasn't for Scott!
Ever since spacex stopped livestreaming on youtube, same.
@@Andrew_Fernie I bet the talking heads will try to use this out of context and out of proportion to try to smear Elon somehow soon..
TBH, saw shorts and AI channels, and thought, I'll wait till Scott, Felix and Marcus report on it.
So 1 failure in a little over 300 launches would be about a 0.34% failure rate.
That’s honestly pretty good for a giant science tube full of incredibly explosive materials.
Best percentage in the history of space flight (minimum 25 launches)
That's an incredible failure rate.
Mishap investigation is probably going to be quick considering those statistics.
Guessing SpaceX most likely allready have a good understanding what potentially caused the failure.
Plus hopefully they find out what happened and fix it so it never happens again.
Don't forget that Blue Origin has a 0% failure rate going into orbit. 🤔😇😂
There is something mesmerizing in watching the ice hitting the exhaust plume and shooting away.
It's like being a kid and watching bits of snow fall off your parents' car while driving... times a hundred.
I thought the scene in For All Mankind where stuff (and people..) hitting the exhaust plume of a rocket engine was a little overblown, but whoa no. It really is a crazy environment.
like stars being born from the fiery breath of the rocket. Each fragment, a fleeting comet, dances momentarily in the cosmic ballet before vanishing.
@@nmrnm137 Spoilers!!
Shooting away at a tangent too.
I demand we reclassify all thrusters in terms of mouse farts
"This engine has a theoretical maximum impulse of thirty-eight kilomousefarts...."
I think we've hit on the Starliner issue. The manufacturer was rating the thrusters in newtons of force, while Boeing had issued the RFP specifying kilomousefarts. 🤣
@@TheRogueWolf🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
mF replaces kN.
@@williamnancarrow2584 Wouldn't it be Fm? As in, "Farts(of mouse)"?
Every single early report I saw about this included a comment to the effect of "let's see what Scott Manley says" 😄
You da man!
So true. When I first found out about this by reading a headline somewhere, I told myself, "I'm sure Scott will shed some light on what happened."
I love this, it highlights how renowned a sage Scott Manley has become in aerospace news.
It reminds me of the time some commenter claimed that Scott Manley was an amateur and not talking about news because "he's not a journalist."
🙄🤭😆🤣
🤩👍
Indeed, everytime after a launch or especially when sth happens, i'm waiting for Scott Manley to explain and talk about it. :D So glad that we have him!
@@HuntingTarg It is true, though. Scott isn't a journalist - he actually knows what he's talking about.😁
Having this happen with their own payload is perfect.
There's an issue they get to fix without disappointing a customer.
But insurance rate can go up a bit.
To be fair, they are their main customer.
Yeah, no, don't ask me how that works.
It just doesn't.
Agree, starlink,just some money tragic if it was some long delayed science satellite or probe.
And a benefit if starlink outside of the service it hat the rocket fly often so more likely to catch bugs.
Now its weird that Ariane 6 and Falcon 9 both had an second stage engine restart issue so close.
@@huyxiun2085 Biggest profit margin in the industry lets them get away with that.
@@user-hb7py7xy7b Why would spacex insure the craft or payload for their own launches?
The space gods have not smiled upon upper stages this month. Ariane 6? APU problems led to a failed relight. Hyperbola-1? Undisclosed problem led to the loss of fourth-stage. Falcon 9? Well, we all know…
the ariane 6 got much further than the 5 did at the first launch. the 5 literally exploded seconds after launch.
I blame the Russians.
Ariane - Failed relight to deorbit(destroy) the stage. Beware of sinorussian disinformation!
@@darelvanderhoof6176they ve got myriad of problems of their own, like that time during iss docking when 3rd stage thrusters didn't stop firing and rotated the whole friggin iss 400 degrees.
@@SimonBauer7 Even all orbital payloads on Ariane 6 first flight were successfully deployed in the correct orbit The problem began when A6 is about to perform deorbit burn and also planned to bring two payloads return to Earth which are now stranded in space
I think it’s hilarious that the booster that’s flown potentially over a dozen times (not sure which booster it was), re-entered the atmosphere, and landed each time was perfectly fine, and it was the shiny and fresh upper stage that actually had issues
Nothing hilarious about that. Every engineer knows that a newly manufactured device is more likely to fail than a proven, but not overly aged, specimen.
Besides, SpaceX can study the boosters they recover in great detail and improve weaknesses without ever having a failure. They can't do this with upper stages, so I would expect even a new booster to be more reliable than a new upper stage.
Another way to think about it is, it wasn't the thing that's worked over a dozen times already that failed, it was the thing that hasn't worked once.
Reliability bathtub, baby. If it's going to break, it's probably going to do it right at the start, or way down the line
You don't have much experience in manufacturing, am I right?
At some point, an idiot is ALWAYS going to claim that "now that we have enough experience, we can built more efficiently for less expensive".
That idiot usually never built anything by himself. But somehow, somewhere, someone think "yeah, it makes sense. Also, I love money, so, definitely makes sense".
That's usually when shit hit the fan. And brand new shiny things are just that: shiny.
@@w0ttheh3lltrue, I've heard that merceties used to build race engines using the engine blocks of used motors. On the idea that if there was something that would cause it to fail. Would have broken it already.
watching the physics of the 'ice chunks' interacting with the thrust is fascinating, thinking of the dynamic force of a mouse fart is just plain fun.
@TheRogueWolf made a new scientific measurement by noting kilomousefarts for boosters. 🤣
Especially a constant one, referring to the fart
Do mice even fart? A quick web search didn't reveal any studies.
Yes, mice fart. It's incredibly tiny and you'll likely never experience one unless you hold a mouse close to your nose. Even then, you're more likely to discover the smell and taste of their urine.
@@MartyrPandaGaming eww
the image of the ice crystals growing and hitting the exhaust gas is mesmerizing. at least those Space X failures are giving us amazing images that we would never be able to see otherwise.
Who knew that rocket science could double as cosmic entertainment?
the growing ice channel looked almost like a brinicle. Different mechanism in many ways, but alike in being a self-building pipe made of ice.
My hats off to the rocket scientist that determined the amount of propulsion from a mouse fart.
I'm just imaging mice sckooting around in some future docking bay propelled by farts.
Given how the rest of the imperial unit system was developed, I’m guessing they measured an elephants fart, a human fart, traced a thrust to avg weight line and extrapolated to the mouse
Yeah, the new guy always gets the mouse fart analysis. :)
@@1revlimit and the apprentice gets the elephant fart...
Imagine the experiment: "Gentlemen, we need precise data on rodent flatulence for our space missions!"
I'm glad I checked out this info from Scott, so many other channels are suddenly spouting doom and gloom about spacex. This Chanel gives you some of the clearest info on the space industry and the technical information is spot on.
Yeah I saw a head line about this and tapped it, by the time it loaded I realized Scott will make a video about this pretty quickly and I’m better of just waiting for that lol
Same lol
Trying to deflect from Boing’s disastrous performance
@@hunterreeves6525 100%, thank you Scott for this update.
I'm also imagining that the religious Elon haters are already absolutely losing their sh** because they for once don't need mental gymnastics for their narrative.
The worst type of fool is the person who is a fool by choice
The comparison to the mouse fart made my day. :D
What is more, a mouse fart or a mouse click?
Mine as well
Crazy shocked when this occurred. Also, everyone on yt and X was counting down for your vid, funny honestly
When I first saw the ice falling off, I thought “I hope Scott makes a video of this. Even though he probably won’t as it’s just another starlink launch.”
I guess I got my wish, just not in the way I intended
You'd think that by now the launch companies would realise that when anything interesting happens they should just email a bunch of raw engineering footage to Scott.
Thanks Scott Manley! You're the go - to RUclipsr for this kind of reporting. Your channel is one of the best for us aerospace nerds!
Tory Bruno has one accurate sniper rifle.
I am glad the "ULA sniper" memes are still alive and well.
tory trooper bruno
bro got aimbot
Scott, you cannot reference a mouse's fart and then not bring up the numbers of it! There's little mice, big mice, starved mice, bloated mice, mice with dry farts, mice with mass ejection, ... and don't forget the nozzle parameters!
Mice with mass ejection 😂
Just imagine some grad student somewhere tasked with investigating and characterizing mouse fart nozzle parameters...
Engineering subculture just expanded a wee bit 😂
@mrflippant finally a nozzle that automatically adjusts throat diameter based on combustion chamber pressure.
We need a video on that
Thanks for your continuing coverage of space news and explaining everything in a way that is accessible to everyone. I don't normally comment but something tonight made me want to take a moment to express my appreciation. I'm really grateful that you're here on RUclips and I wish you the best, Scott!
The fascinating video shows the expansion of the hot gases at near 90degrees to the bell. Pretty cool to see the frozen O2 drop down and then get blasted outward. Pretty cool!!!
No matter what happens, I always wait for Scott Manley to get us the complete story.
SpaceX will have to track down a manufacturing flaw in this particular upper stage. It's incredibly unlikely they'll find a design flaw that's been hiding all these years. Once they determine the flaw is limited to one item they can to back to normal. Was it one batch of bad bolts, etc?
Probably a human factor involving an employee screw up.
@@donjones4719 I'd say someone in assembly got too causal. It happens with too much success.
@@Bryan-Hensley I just watched an MIT news report about the Apollo 11 onboard computers, and the reporter got a tour and step-by step rundown on how they make the computer parts.. It was SO OVERWHELMING that I am dumbfounded that it even worked without a catastrophic failure. One little memory block that fits in your hand was hand-wrapped in something like 67,000 wires that all connected to individual nodes.. BY HAND. And there were dozens upon dozens of these blocks. We've come so far that it's hard to even comprehend in such a short timeframe.
Im thinking the same. It doesnt sound like a design flaw. It sounds like a flaw that came from the factory that made the engine of it. It will put a hold on the other engines in the same batch, as to make sure they are all fixed.
Kinda the same idea of let us say, a Ford engine having a malfunction by just one bad bolt. Ford would need to track down the other engines in the same batch as to make sure the said bolt would be replaced or wouldnt go bad. We already had seen some of that for car brands. Like with Toyota with the problem they had with an airbag I believed it was
@@StrangeScaryNewEngland I've seen videos on that too. They're amazing - and what they could do is dumbfounding to us. Those workers knew the high stakes involved. Plenty of money was available for quality control and checking and rechecking everything. Only a relative handful were made so no one had a hum drum workday.
I've no doubt the quality of SpaceX manufacturing is very high but when workers are making 2 of these per week the same concentration inevitably can't be maintained.
As for those Apollo computers - the programming was just as amazing. It had to be elegantly, intensively simple. Today's programmers get to be metaphorically fat and lazy.
someone broke the jiffy pop bag
Wow!!! I'm so grateful Scott, I would've missed this footage of ice chunks getting blasted by the rocket as they broke off, that was some of my favourite space x footage in ages!
The first thing I thought when this happened was: "I can't wait for Scott's video!" Love your breakdowns as always.
It is wild how reliable Space X and others have made spaceflight! Just, amazing really!
Yeah. Before everyone would think a rocket would go "BOOM" on the pad and now you dont even have to think about that
SPACE X SUX
Soyuz has been pretty reliable for decades?
so it show hidden weakness that wasn't fixed, it ask how many weakness this is still hidding, becau its only frog jump, 150 kms alt, is ridiculous, low cost and space, the unreliable equation!
They're a leading figure in the industry, with a track record of both reliability and quickly correcting course when needed. I'd imagine they're going to get ahead of this issue with a quickness.
Bigly said.
Explaining Starlink orbit manouver as "half a year long mouse fart" is both hilarious and surprisingly accurate.
Nowadays I tend to ignore other posts, and wait for Scotts superior coverage. Thanks, and always a good job.
A rare event indeed.
Is that the Scott Manley Dressing Gown of Doom? Poor Falcon never had a chance.
Including the Kerbal little green men shirt underneath. Clearly stagin' must be checked!
I'm not familiar with Manleysian garmentdynamics, but that sounds dire.
Was anxiously awaiting this vid as soon as I saw the news, thanks Scott!!!
"Weaker than a mouse fart". You come up with some of the most amazing analogies! 🤣🤣
6:01 - "Their thrust is weaker than a mouse-fart ... so ... yeah, that's not great."
Thanks Scott, we now have a new unit of thrust. How many mouse-farts is your thruster ? 😀
One mouse fart is equivalent to 0.0441N
@@stargazer7644I doubt that. 0.0441 N would give a 15 gram mouse a thrust to weight ratio of about 0.3. If it was a 2 gram African pygmy mouse, the TTW would be greater than 2, meaning if it farted, it would accelerate at more than 2G.
@@phizc It's 4.5g, and that's the official ion jet equivalent thrust in mouse farts.
@@phizc Best thing Ive seen on the internet in ages
referring to "your thruster", when asking a human, seems like a personal question
The thrust of the satellite is smaller than a mouse fart 😂😂😂
I was waiting for your explanation. I watched it live, Thanks!
This was the video I was waiting for since I saw this yesterday!
“Less powerful than a mouse fart”. Is that technical talk? 😂😂
The average thrust of one common mouse fart is technically 0.0441N
@@stargazer7644 um, 0.441N is about a pound. You be testing mutant rats.
@@shoitah Well we both made a mistake and slipped a decimal place. A pound is 4.4N A mouse fart is 4.5g
@@stargazer7644 Yep. I thought 1 kg was a newton in earth's gravity, turns out it's 9.8.
Look up the units "barn" and "shake", so why not?
Absolutely speaking, the more launches you have, the more likely one failure will happen. Who else has hundreds of launches in their roster?
NASA did 135 with the shuttle and we all know about the two failures. One on launch and one on reentry.
Soyuz. Even more if you count the R7 family as a whole
@@sparkeyjames which were entirely avoidable which still makes me angry to think about even now ... god knows how the relatives feel.
@@tma2001Columbia arguably wasn't avoidable their was no way a rescue shuttle could've been sent in time and they where on too different an inclination too the ISS to try to go to the ISS and wait for rescue completely agree though about Challenger they completely ignored safety advice saying not to launch and murdered 7 people as a result
@@KiRiTO72987 aye I'd forgotten Columbia wasn't an ISS mission but had the SpaceHab module.
Love this footage and your explanation Scott.
Fascinating! Thanks, Scott! 😊
Stay safe there with your family! 🖖😊
That stuff is in very inclination orbit, basically the entire population of the planet should keep an eye on the skies if they want to stay safe 😅
First failure for a block 5 too iirc, they're track record is still stellar, and that at least some if not all of the satellites could still achieve orbit is great so that it's just a partial failure. Nice work SpaceX, hope issue doesn't take too long to diagnose
As usual, high quality informative content!
Scott Manley never disappoints to report on relevant events! Thank for your great work!
Great job as usual Scott
Warp 9? More like "thrusters only in spacedock"
Bollox - I am flying to Florida to see any and all launches from there in about 2 weeks and was looking forward to seeing Polaris Dawn 😢. Fingers crossed the Atlas V launches as planned on 30 July or I might not see anything go up despite being on Merritt Island for a week!
Had that issue last year. Booked a US Holiday in 2019 with 3 days at NYC, 3 days in DC and 3 days at Cocoa Beach with a Launch of a Falcon 9 in the middle of the three days in Florida. 10 days before we flew, travel agents went bust. Got the majority of the money back on the insurance. Covid stopped any plans in 2020-22, but booked a trip for Sep/Oct 2023 with 4 nights at each location. Trip was planned around a Falcon Heavy launch which got put back a week just as we got to NYC. My brother then tells me, Atlas V going up on our last full day in FL. Had booked to do the KSC visit on the first full day in FL and paid to see the FH launch from the Saturn V Centre on the following day. While in the Rocket Garden, got talking to another Brit and found out that a Falcon 9 was going up that night from SLC-40. Back in the Hotel on Cocoa Beach and the first two windows for the Falcon 9 were scrubbed due to thunderstorms. Was absolutely knackered so fell asleep and the next window they launched the thing. Got to see the Atlas V go on the last day though. Couldn't get a refund for the cancelled LC-39 FH launch though.
the ice flying to the exhaust ploom is awesome.
I love that you can see how quickly the exhaust expands outwards in the vacuum of space, with the ice being smashed to pieces.
It's the ULA orbital sniper
More like boeing
The ULA Sniper strikes again
@@pricelessppp boeing's black ops team is still stranded on the ISS
I have a higher failure rate getting out of bed than this rocket does getting to space
Fantastic as always
I watched this last night right as the news was posted online. One of the comments was "Scott Manley video in 3, 2, 1,......" lol. I knew this video was coming soon.
You're my go-to-guy in all matters space rockets 🚀
Blame the foggy weather at the launch site last night :)😂
That is some really spectacular footage
YAY! The Dressing Gown of Doom is back! Thank you. The world thanks you. ❤
Hi Scott!
Fly safe!
Falcon 9 has an amazing track record, compared to other records, like the Atlas series, that had a far higher failure rate back when it was used as massively as the Falcon 9.
That's not true. The Atlas V has had ONE partial failure on June 15, 2007. The Atlas series of rockets has been carrying payloads since 2002. One failure is not a "far higher failure rate." While you may have your own opinions, you don't get to make up your own facts.
@@buckhorncortez Since 2002?
The Atlas series is going on since 1957.
And only in the 60s it was comparatively heavily used as the Falcon 9 is today.
You should have shown some humility, now you just look like some jackass.
@@buckhorncortez Answering again because RUclips just loves to remove my comments.
You are making up the facts here. Before you make look yourself like a moron, you should have informed yourself properly, so you would have known that the Atlas series has been in service since 1957, with the 60s hosting the most intense usage of this series of rockets, which is still fairly small compared to the Falcon 9.
@@susangoaway Well, there was a lot of pioneering going on then, so I'd hope more modern attempts have a higher track record.
@@susangoaway While technically rockets reusing the name "Atlas" have been launched since the 1950s, the Atlas V only shared a modest amount of heritage with them. Most of that was in the upper stage. Atlas III was a very different animal than the Atlas V a few years later.
Atlas V was an impressively successful rocket, given how many of its systems were new, and the fact that was one of the first rockets to integrate Russian and American technology in a big way. Of course it helped that significant parts of the upper stage had a lot of flight heritage behind them, and that the engines were the result of 70 years of iterative design work and material science advances by the Russians. Regardless of all of that, it worked very well.
It's interesting to actually see the ice impacting the exhaust which exits the nozzle about 90 degrees immediately upon exiting the nozzle in the rarified atmosphere at those great altitudes eventually flowing forward in front of the rocket. Thank you as always Scott, Ken
Scott, Thanks for this update to the Space-X Falcon 9 launch status.
Great, here comes another TF Busted video.
Yep, just you wait. I bet TF was jumping up and down giggling and squealing when he heard a spaceX rocket had a minor failiure.
@@benzene_sandwichtbh, it's a major failure, but TF is just deranged at this point.
Why do you care?? You have to be in a cult of some sort to care that a rando youtuber criticises Elon. I dont care if he makes a video or not and I dont care is a Spacex rocket rails or not - COS IM NOT IN A CULT
Love that guys work.
@@benzene_sandwich An explosion like this is not a minor failure.
Right on queue
Thanks Scott!
As soon as I heard about this mishap, I couldn't wait to hear your "take" on it.
Scott Manley subscribers eating good with the amount of space failures rn
At least it was their own satellite versus a customer's. Could have been worse
Good video as per usual Scott. If you think about odds and calculate the reliability of something like the Falcon it is something like 99.998% reliable. Clearly amazing. However, given the literally huge number of flights SpaceX have undertaken with this platform odds begin to favor a once in several hundred launch failure. As is often said, space is hard. Achieving this level of repeatable success should be considered one of the best engineering, manufacturing and logistical successes in human history. Odds are a funny thing and we can easily forget that if you repeat something enough times, even something approaching but not quite 100% reliable, we will eventually see a failure. Thanks for your constant presence, well done science, and great communication.
Best spaceship news channel on youtube.
Shame about the lost payload.
Given these boosters already worked so well in the past, and it's a brand new one that failed, likely it's a manufacturing flaw rather than a design one, although changing the design might reduce the likelihood of manufacturing flaws affecting performance.
Telsa got on top their earlier quality control issues pretty quickly so they know how to do it.
All the 2nd stages are “brand new”.
Who is Tessa?
@@jnawk83- Probably our old "friend" spell check screwing up Tesla, one of Elon's other companies?
as long as it's only off-the-shelf starlink and not a unique scientific satellite...
The less starlink trash we get up there the better.
@@Ataman Cry more.
@@iamaduckquack No matter how exciting you find it, they are essentially littering
@@NOLNV1- No. They are not. Littering would assume trash. These are active satellites that provide a service to a lot of people.
@@motokid6008 they are a commodity for $$$ at the cost of the upper atmosphere, astronomy and maybe more
"Mouse farts" - I haven't heard that term since my friend was working at the rocket lab at the 'hill' at Edwards in the '80's. Thanks for that memory jogger of fond memories.
First we were measuring rocket lengths in bananas, and now we are measuring thrust in mouse farts...🤭
{Great video, Scott...👍}
This is incredible! A testament to how there is always improvement in even the most beautifully engineered rockets.
Laughed out loud at the thrust comparison to a "mouse fart."
A mouse fart!! You had me giggling Scott!!!!
Damn I didn't watch cos thought it would be "standard" operations as normal, Murphys law 😂
Same.
Nothing to watch because the feed was ended before the RUD. All you can see is ice chucks.
Good thing that Starliner isn't as "stranded in orbit" as the mainstream media likes to say it is.
The OMAC thrusters on it are fine, those are the deorbit engines. There are only 5 vernier thrusters that failed during docking, and they're not arranged in a way that prevents the SM from maintaining control during OMAC firings.
So the SM can get the capsule home safely, that much we're certain enough of that NASA hasn't said "You have to bring them back right now".
On the other hand, now we've lost the "Rescue the Starliner crew by using Crew Dragon with only 2 astronauts on board" option, at least until they figure out what happened to this MVac.
It might help smooth out relations with Russia if they had to rescue them.
It may not be the case, maybe this failed second stage is not considered the same as the human rated one.
There may be enough diferences to be able to be considered a "different ship"
@@Bryan-Hensley
It might help somewhat, but I think that the sun has set on that option.
Besides, I think that would have about as much effect as a band-aid helps someone who's been stabbed with a kitchen knife. In other words, not much.
@@Bryan-Hensley If Putin offered to help get them back, that won't make the world forget about what he has been doing. It's too late on that. It would certainly be helpful, but I think there's zero chance of that happening right now.
If I was in need of rescue from the iss, I would still put my faith in dragon over Soyuz.
Thank you, keep working.
Love seeing the lumps of O2 hitting exhaust. Great visualisation of underexpanded nozzle flow as they zip radially outward.
So, some other reports have described this as an "engine explosion". What I'm seeing, and what I'm hearing here, is that there was a propellant leak which did not seem to effect the performance of the engine, followed by the engine "failing to relight" - presumably because the stage has lost its propellant. So not so much an "engine failure" as a "fuel leak" (or O2 leak). Speaking of which, any chance that @scottmanley can get enough spectra off of the vaporizing ice to verify that it is O2?
It’s thought that the engine destroyed itself in attempting to relight. If you try to start an engine with one of the propellants missing, that’ll usually destroy the engine’s insides
Musk stated specifically in his tweet that the second stage engine "suffered an RUD" when the relight was attempted, and an RUD (Rapid Unscheduled Disassembly) is by definition an explosion. All that we saw in the publicly released real-time feed was the suspected LOX leak, which started at T+4.08 and persisted throughout what we saw of the first stage 2 burn. The explosion happened later, and was not livestreamed. I'd love to see a recording of what they saw in Hawthorne, though!
@@mistertagnan I mean, the preburner wouldn't light, so the turbopumps wouldn't ramp up. Might have had enough to light, but the leak introduced gaps in the flow? that would do it.
@@DougVanDorn Honestly doubt the cameras would have a chance to see the explosion, record the data of seeing it, and get it sent off. Like in the 2nd last starship launch the booster camera didn't actually record its final plunge into the ocean because before that data was processed and transmitted everything required to do that was destroyed. Those cameras seem mighty close to the engine, and a brand new mylar bag full o' boom juice. Would be mighty impressive if there was footage of it.
As Scott said, they haven't released any footage of the RUD.
The dressing gown of doom is back ... unfortunately.
Did not even notice.
Thank you so much for your play-by-play analysis , the world loves it when SpaceX messes up, but they will always forget their amazing track record, and let alone they were trying a new engine and had to sacrifice a few starlink satellites, at least they experiment with their own in house gear, and not with fragile people payload , I'm not saying anything
Thanks Scott.
At least it was a Starlink and not a Paying customer. Thankful for that.
I’ve been waiting for this video
Awesome ! So even the very latest technology still needs good Plumbers.
Job done !
Scott-
First thank you for all of the videos, I have enjoyed them.
Question: Can I talk you into doing a video on Nuclear electric power units for our current space craft and for the new nuclear tech needed to take us to Mars. I am interested in understanding how we will create the power units, how we will keep them safe in flight, and the power units we will need to build for Mars. Using Soler may be problematic on the moon depending on the landing location, so it would be cool to get an idea of how we plan on keeping the lights on.
D-
i don think that's insulation , that frozen fuel right?
The silver foil is insulation, the ice is from freezing oxygen as it is leaking out.
I don't know if that is frozen kerosene (RP-1) or solid oxygen. My leaning is toward oxygen.
Either the fuel or the oxygen, not exactly sure which here.
@@emanwe01 Oxygen. Musk confirmed a LOX leak...
It wasn't ice. It was the Protomolecule.
What?
@@benzene_sandwich The Expanse.
The idea of Musk having access to the Protomolecule is absolutely terrifying.
Plus, he'd call it the X-molecule.
@@drewrussell8531 I know, and we ALL know that X is the Shaving Cream Molecule!
@@drewrussell8531 Protomolecule is called that way because the company was named Protogen who isolated it and played with it first, so I second that, it would be X-molecule.
Space Snow looks awesome!!
Was watching this live last night, thought it was very odd for that much ice to form and break away as we were watching. I still have 100% confidence that Space X will tackle the issue and get it fixed.
With more than 250 successful launches it's very unlikely there even is an issue to fix. Probably just a faulty small part that slipped through quality control.
9:47 Even if ALL the Starlink Sats thrust their way into a usable orbit, this mission was a fail. The goal was to put the satellites into orbit with YEARS of fuel available. If they have to use most of their fuel to correct to their planned orbit, it’s a delivery fail.
No one said its not a fail. Its simply not a COMPLETE fail.
These were a batch of test sats...with the cellular ability. They likely would be replaced in a couple of years by revised production hardware anyway so the 'shortened life' thing is likely moot....if they can boost them to a usable orbit.
@@parajerrynot to mention being replaced by the big boys when Starship becomes operational. They definitely lost some money, but given SpaceX' MO, they'll probably take it as a win since they get to analyze a new failure mode. Except for maybe lost contracts and the delay of course. That's going to be the worst part.
@@phizc I really doubt they will lose any contracts over this as they are still, by far, the safest and cheapest method to orbit. I doubt there will be any delays either. They have a Florida launch scheduled for Sunday...if it goes on schedule, they are business as usual.
@737smartin
I'll bet you're fun at parties.
Things aren't black and white in the real world buckshot.
Not a good time for upper stages trying to relight their engines
Le notizie in Italia lasciamole perdere , questo video spiega in modo dettagliato e realmente quello che e' accaduto , senza quelle notizie disastrose su SpaceX.
It was fun to watch live. I knew it was a leak pretty quickly.
Its hilarious how continual success is ignored, but just one failure brings all the critics out from under their flat rocks!
The haters are both pathetic and desperate.
It's a 1000:1 ratio. 1000 Atta boys/girls is negated by 1 Dammit! It's basic math.
so very true
Waiting for the mainstream press headlines to read "Elon Musk rocket failure! SpaceX proven to be unreliable." 🙄
It’s not even only US media, even across Europe every „failure“ (which in most cases are expected results in rocket testing) is treated like proof for spaceX being a failure. I don’t get why a company that single handedly revived humanity space exploration gets so much bad press….
All in all a spectacular success!
Please, Please, Please keep an eye on this situation and hopefully make another video letting us know when we can (possibly) watch the starlinks and upper stage re-enter the atmosphere.
How the fuck is this a bad thing? It's amazing! OF COURSE there would be mishaps. This is rocket science. It's time to stand slack jawed in awe at the seemingly impossible run of success and applaud. Well done SpaceX crew for the longest string of homeruns in human history!
It’s a bad thing because it might be a production problem. It has to be IDENTIFIED if possible.
Bad weld, out of spec parts, human error.
They don’t want it to happen again especially if it’s a manned mission.
@@executivesteps I think they'll figure it out OK. I still believe it's dwarfed by the success that made us think launching rockets was as complex as driving to work.