Thats funny! Plot twist, NASA help make KSP2 so they can use it too! Edit: Plot twist 2: NASA Owns KSP and they are making a less advance version for public and the advance for engineering.
Idk why people hate it when you play KSP. It's a great tool for demonstrating basic concepts of spaceflight and engineering. I'm all for KSP in your videos
It's not like he has any actual competition so there's no point in keeping anything secret. The real secret is not in the visible design anyway but in the flight computer.
I think the biggest result of his transparency and social media interaction has been the number of kids in the US going to school for aerospace engineering & related fields. He has, IMO, single-handedly done what no man or woman has accomplished before- revived a fading STEM program across the US and, one might argue, across the world 🌍!
@@gildedbear5355 *laughs in main character* ha you're technically wrong since it was actually the engineers and builders that work for Elon Muck that built the ship
I did love the 3 fin design a lot. Especially the half-white one. All-Shiny was cool too. But hey, anything that gets us to mars is a beautiful piece of machinery!
I actually flew a mini Starship in KSP with three steerable rear fins. I couldn't believe how stable it actually was. The vehicle stayed on a glide course until I pulled the nose up for final descent over a landing field.
@@thunderbird1921 did you? Good for you! So tell me what you know about the number of children in America that go to bed hungry every night? How about the number of Americas Veterans that are homeless and forgotten today? Ever wondered how many elderly Americans are forced monthly to make the decision to buy groceries for the month, or buy the medication they need? All the problems in real America today, and you think it's a great idea to fund this 'space' nonsense with even MORE FUNDING? Sure pal, that makes sense... You must live in a very narcissistic existence! Good for you, I guess...
@@nicklausgutknecht6226 Let's see, 401k six hours ago, 402k 33 minutes ago, so we;re gaining about 4000, every 24 hours, or 167 an hour. Not too shabby as an old prof of mine used to say.
I’ve been told jets are largely computer controlled many times but you are the first person who has actually told me what that means and it only took a couple sentences. Thank you so much you get my subscription
Use this as a: “Tim is an amazing individual who takes so much time becoming a mini expert on every topic just so he can help little rocket fans like us. He deserves so much support and I can’t wait to see how successful he will be in the future” button
You aren’t nearly “the last person” to invited on Rocket design team. I don’t know your background, but you sure seem smart enough and have enough subject matter knowledge to be a worthy contributor.
I have met quite a few people that have had no idea that SpaceX was landing falcon 9 like this. While still awesome to me it's cool to see their reactions.
What about us old farts? Buck Rogers and Flash Gordon serials on television and Space Cadets on the Dumont network. Listening to Scott Shepard sitting on his roman candle built by the lowest bidder, or watching the first moon landing with my one year old on my lap. I have been fascinated with the space program all my life. It’s never been boring.
@@jackburns6403 Check your eyesight, it is not that "deep" a "fake" even. (Why do this anyway? The low-q deep-fake (in a recent video there is a real person))
I'm not sure how comfortable and shock absorbing the landing can be if the fins are doubled as landing gears. Also, like you mentioned, landing legs and navigation fins are huge dependencies. Maybe it's safer to have dedicated landing legs that don't go through the same stress as the fins might? Safety might be a major factor i guess.
Not to mention the fact that the hydraulic controls would have to be much heavier to control the surfaces if they had to carry the extra structural weight to reinforce the fins as legs
But then how do you suggest a slower reentry without the use of more fuel that's needed for the final burn. Not trying to argue in fact I halfway agree. I just have trouble seeing a way around that issue
Good discussion, if the position of landing legs and fins line up then i can see how the mechanism could be enclosed into two fixed fin. If the whole fin needs to move to control reentry then they are likely to need separate structures.
Hi@@joshr1074the reentry "burn" can happen anytime before you reach your destination, in the case of small ion thrusters this starts about half way there... kinda change of subject from the parent comment tho
I love how the SpaceX team is so confident in their design engineers and their fab team that they can make seemingly major changes on the fly. This is like a rapid prototype methodology or agile software development which allows for rapid evolution of the concept. I'm sure we will see many more changes as success builds on continued success.
I think another of those "plausible but not really" reasons that 2 wings are preferable to 3, is this: It's known that reentry bow shocks, if detached from the main body, can help protect the vehicle from reentry heating. As you've mentioned, this is why capsules try to have as blunt a windward edge as possible, to reduce reentry heating. Well, in the 3-fin design, the 2 wing roots of the body flaps would have been jutting forward into the stream, and might not have received the full protection of the bow shock. Even worse, they might have generated their own shockwaves that impinge on various parts of the structure, creating localised hotspots leading to burnthrough of the structure. With only 2 wings, the wing roots are situated more further back relative to the airstream and generally fit the contour of the body and the deflected body flaps a lot better. That probably served a lot to simplify thermal protection. Also, not gonna lie, I like how Starship looks now much better than the Tintin version. Sorry retro-sci-fi fans. :(
Well, I didn't even notice I have only put two fin on my KSP Starship replica attempt, looks like I unconsciously dislike Tintin :D That being said, my manual control skill sucks, three fins will probably lead to more burn up/RUD on pad.
Having 6 legs adds to redundancy and safety. Imagine if one of the 3 legs failed on landing? Critical to protect crew and cargo along side flight certifications. Although the 3 fin/leg design looks truly amazing, the physics aligns well with the new design. Can't wait to witness this evolution and exploration milestone!
Oh, come now, Tim, you're ahead of at least 99% of humanity on the list of who should be allowed to work on rockets. Not literally the last. This is an excellent video. Just the right level of explanation.
That was an excellent and really extensive explanation, but then not everyone watching is an actual engineer. Overexplaining is not inherently a bad thing. Great video. Also, for me there is nothing about watching a booster landing that has gotten old -- It's as beautiful as a ballet and still makes me tear up, every time.
You've come along way Tim! not gonna lie, I commented some pretty harsh stuff a few years ago when you were fudging/dodging engineering terminology. But now, your knowledge is incredible, and your explanations are detailed yet concise. Keep it visual and keep up the good work!
Excellent video, Tim. For a guy who is not an engineer, indeed, whose technical background is entirely self taught, your grasp of and ability to explain complex technical matters is superb. Starship does not an abort system for the same reason airliners do not have ejection seats.
More like the 1930s. In the 1950s, they were imagining flying saucers. The humans in the 1956 sci-fi movie "Forbidden Planet" use a flying saucer, not a fire-spitting rocket.
Spacex should sponsor your channel in a way that maintains your integrity but improves your ability to provide your content and improve your access. Great show
3 fins version were much cooler too look at tho, but thanks for explaining why 2 fins may be a better or safer way for the starship to enter the atmosphere :)
This makes more sense than the three-fin design. I think folks look at the space shuttle with its three fins/wings as the prototypical landing body, but they forget that the shuttle was an unpowered glider, and needed to operate aerodynamically in the thicker atmosphere for steering and landing. Whereas Starship will operate like a landing body only in the upper atmosphere and will use engines to steer and slow down during final descent and landing,. The fins only need to operate as air brakes during initial reentry until the excess speed is bled off. Great presentation and super graphics. Thanks!
The engines have only been tested for 185 seconds. The mission to the airport you propose is much more difficult than LEO, requiring hours of extreme low thrust and 1000's of engine restarts.
@@richbyrne no, he is saying that as long as it is faster to get to the other side of the world, than to actually drive to the airport, he would be happy. You misread it
Tim starts by saying "just gonna quickly throw together this easy video" then says he is the last person you would want working on a spaceship. give yourself some credit, you're so smart. this video seems like it would have taken so much time and effort for some people
3:50 in a event of a damaged Starship on Mars/Moon and flying it back to earth: Would it not be wiser to rendevouz in earth orbit with a totally intact Starship, transfer passengers and cargo and THEN try to land the damaged one?
If that were to happen, probably yes, depending on the extent and nature of the damage. But even as cheap as Starship is supposed to be to launch, that's still a lot of added cost, and a LOT of added complexity. Still better than risking lives inside the damaged one, but still hardly ideal.
The problem is that they need to slow down when arriving to Earth. And it will likely require more fuel than the ship can carry to slow down without aerobraking.
Do you have enough fuel to get into earth orbit? If your craft is not safe to re-enter in then it is not safe to aerobrake in either. From mars you could probably to a lunar gravity capture, but you are not exactly in LEO after that.
@@anthonypelchat Right. Aero-braking is needed to land even from LEO, not possible to -reach- enter any Earth orbit (from Moon, Mars, etc) without aero-braking to dump energy. [If the sea-level Raptors were the only problem, then a ship-to-ship transfer would make sense.]
"Finnie, flappy, air breaky things". This is why as someone like me with little book knowledge on this subject, but a deep wide-eyed fascination, you are so approachable and informative. I've been a fan for a while. Thank you. ❤
I think that two fins is more stable. If you put the third fin behind, it does little for control. If you put it in front, it will be fine until a slight roll. This will greatly increase drag to one side, and increase the tendency to continue rolling. I noticed on the Starhopper test that with three fins in a stiff wind caused a roll. It wasn't bad but it was there. Thankfully a slight roll didn't pose a problem for the test. But landing a Starship will be much more demanding. I also play KSP. Thanks for the informative video.
@@munmunhazarika5247 Sorry this isn't the right channel to throw out accusations and claims without evidence. A profitable orbital vehicle and an upcoming revolutionary change to broadband is how they're going to bring in money. It's fine to be skeptical but a lot of people go full on contrarian with anything Elon is connected to.
munmun hazarika Ah, which would be the reason SpaceX refuses to sell stocks, even though there are an extreme demand for them? A few of the large chunks of stocks currently externally owned are occasionally sold (in part) by their current owners, and they are always ripped away, even on ridiculous terms. You litteraly see people pitching a "Transparent Investment Vehicule (TIV)", owning stock in another TIV, owning stock in another TIV, 5 layers deep before you get to one which owns the real spacex stock - every single TIV on the way claiming management fees on this - and STILL they get RIPPED away! The markets are *screaming* to get SpaceX, but they refuse to sell in open trade. They could raise 20 billions tomorrow if they wanted without breaking a sweat.
@@FizzBhaal Nasa sent man on moon in 1969 with a budget of 40 billion ie inflation adjusted to 160 billion in today's time...... Abandoned it for its cost.... Now a private , for profit organization venture to Mars ....just makes no sense.... It's a bubble.....
Ahh yes, the retractable third leg. Also my nickname....lol Also, the dynamics you were referring to and how you can control a falling object with opposing surfaces. This is a knock-on effect of the aerodynamic property referred to as "Shuttlecocking."
You do a great job man! I have always "liked" space, but you do such a good job explaining the technical in an interesting way that makes me want to follow space, not just check in every once in a while. (Kerbal does a great job too!)
I didn't understand the 'tucked-in' thing at _all,_ and he must have mentioned it 20 times at least. Tucked-in... _where?_ He even says it in synchrony with the simulation, which is showing no tucking-in, or untucking-in for that matter.
I really liked the 3-fin design, but your aero explanations were super clear and so I agree that the 2-fin design will be more stable. And thanks so much for your many exceptional videos. Have fun at Boca!
Aw, but I loved the three fin/landing leg config. It looked so Tintin. Also, with the fins pulling double duty as landing gear, the Starship would've had a wider base of support.
I literally just turned on SimpleRockets, about to work on my Starship replica, I was like "hmm I wonder if Tim will release a video about the new design", and the notification literally came up as I clicked on Play god bless
Loved the retro design of the three-fin design but oh man! Two fins look like business on completed rendering in your thumbnail! It does detract largely from that retro look but makes the whole thing look more cutting-edge and purpose built. And then those aero and structural engineering challenges it overcomes! As an aerospace engineering student, that’s exactly what I want to hear!
I think...I really like that I don't need to set aside other interests and hobbies in order to follow along and be entertained by rocket geeks. This is fascinating. Thanks for the upload. -Jake
Great video Tim. The other advantage with 2 fins is that it makes it so much easier for cargo access. The third leg was right where you would want to unload by crane so they had to split cargo doors. Now they can go a full 'space shuttle' like cargo door solution.
I'm tired of seeing amazing rocket renderings that never exist. For me it is better a project with 2 fins in the real world. I'm with you and elon in this
Interesting that on the SN8 test flight, on ascent the fins stayed out the whole time. Is this because it was a hop and wasn't going fast enough to reach orbit?
I actually liked the finless first version better, but this does seem more efficient, and less reliant on propulsive control. Thanks for the explanation and visuals.
Congrats on the invite to the Boca Tim! You always know the best question to ask Elon! Also super exited to see the aerospike video you’ve put so much hard work and time into! Thanks for being so awesome!
What version do I like? I like the version that completes a Successful Flight. Success is a Beautiful Spaceship! (and would make a good name for a future mission)
I used to be a Military Free Fall Paratrooper, and I can see where the new two wing is coming from, we however have large canards on the top, we call them arms, which to achieve airfoil we sweep back and close to our fuselage, Body trunk and legs (Undercarriage), and we do create an airfoil effect, resulting in stalling and buffeting as well as horizontal flight, it all comes down to management!
I use to enjoy watching your videos along with several others for reference. But now your videos are all marathons! Who has time for 2-3-4 hour videos?!?!?=÷×+? You're nuts!
So many thanks to you for learning more and more, and so be able to understand, then explain very clearly what happens. Plus experinmenting many kinds of things (jumpsuit), and using all useful means to display and share. THANK YOU !
I like the 2 fin version. Pretty much everything about it seems to be better. I think it definitely looks better too. But I think what is most important is what performs the best. And from what I can tell assuming it's implemented correctly. The 2fin version performs better. Unless they find reason for 3 fins. But even if they use 3 fins. It's better to have more landing surface area. Giving you angular and directional stability. On touchdown. Something you don't have with three rigid fins. So landing struts is definitely the way to go. Also he's using the landing struts as a sources of drag. Which does have some flaws. But it seems like an efficient use of available weight and space on board. One device performing two functions. However these are fairly critical systems. And if you lose one you may very well lose both. I guess it's good that they have 8. I would go ahead and even try to put 16 on there. In fact it may very well lower the weight. And increase structural rigidity. Not to mention the added benefit of redundancy and increase stability. Because there is a greater number of landing struts to spread the load. Each individual landing strut can be made from lighter materials. Not to mention the actual size of each landing strut will be physically smaller and take up less individual space and wait. So even though they're would be more individual pieces. It would overall weigh less. And due to the increased number of landing struts. They can apply more physical Force. You might even consider 32. landing struts. Because that would also give you a higher degree of control using them as drag during reentry. And with that kind of redundancy. The issue of having one damaged is mostly nullified.
1. Two fins / aerobrake flaps seems much more sensible. 2. And separating the function of aerobrake flap from landing leg seems more sensible as well. It is a lot of engineering to make a big fin / flap support the weight of the space ship. 3. As for whether they will tuck in on ascent, my guess is that they will not articulate that far. Sticking straight out will not be any worse aerodynamically than sticking slightly out but nearer to the cylindrical hull.
Why do you youtubers always upload right before school anyways I'll watch later because this is a question I had I mean why 2, 3 looks cooler and might be better for landing stability Edit: Star hopper also had 3?
I agree, 3 gives more stability, like airplanes vertical stabilizer. The 3rd leg/flap/fin, if it was aerodynamically useless it would not have had that similar shape as the other 2 in starhoper and last year ship version. I remember Virgin Galactic feather system which changes overall ship geometry pointing those feathers upwards. Similarly, this makes the center o pressure away from the "belly" of the starship or of the superheavy booster and closer to that 3rd flap. The opposite happens with the center of gravity which is found closer towards the "belly" and away from the 3rd flap. As EverydayAstronaut explains in the video this provides vital stability.
no actually exactly not... when it comes to physics 2 fins are definetly more stable and it's also more redundant since the two systems are seperate, makes it easier to develope and also to maintain i guess, and to be honest, with 2 fins it can still look as awesome as 3...
Sure, the 3 fins were an awesome throwback to Futurama and Tintin, but thank you for the awesome demonstration on why fin pairs is much better for weight, cintrol and structural integrity!
Anytime Tim shows a tweet Elon responded to I think about Joe Scott in the OLF live podcast poking fun at Tim, "Oh Elon just got back to me and he said..." then Joe just being like What the Actual F**K! It just makes me laugh and smile to know that we live in a time where a space enthusiast has a direct line to one of the most influential minds of our time and they can just casually have a Q and A session online. Pretty amazing time to be alive!
I love the 2-fin idea. It's so radically different. Aesthetically, they can still do something crazy cool, such as turning part of the flappy wings into a grid fin style structure. Or even curve them to tuck in tightly against the fuselage.
spaceXcentric, Scott Manley and Everyday Astronaut the spaceX news trifactor Petition for them to have regular private interviews with Elon, bc they have much better questions compared to mainstream media.
![Noob To Max With DRAGON REWORK In Blox Fruits [FULL MOVIE]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/LnBMOinoOvA/mqdefault.jpg)
Tim: "Kerbal Space isn't an engineering tool"
NASA engineers: nervous laughter
Thats funny!
Plot twist, NASA help make KSP2 so they can use it too!
Edit: Plot twist 2: NASA Owns KSP and they are making a less advance version for public and the advance for engineering.
hahah yea somthing like this... i was amazed by the fact that people even complane about this one! Ohh my Good somtimes i just dont get it ^^ LUL
That is very funny!!
Space shuttle parts worked to get the space shuttle up. Why not? XD
Prototyping then?
Idk why people hate it when you play KSP. It's a great tool for demonstrating basic concepts of spaceflight and engineering. I'm all for KSP in your videos
Be happy, before long deepfakes will become perfect. (in politics, not here...)
@@nickymoloney4218 dame dane memes
I like how transparent Elon musk is about his designs. So cool
It's not like he has any actual competition so there's no point in keeping anything secret.
The real secret is not in the visible design anyway but in the flight computer.
AdelaeR Ik haha. Even if someone wanted to catch up they don’t have the resources or architecture to surpass him. I love this man.
Industrial espionage is irrelevant because they keep changing everything all the time.
I feel like this way is better because he can get feedback easier from a bunch of unemployed engineers.
I think the biggest result of his transparency and social media interaction has been the number of kids in the US going to school for aerospace engineering & related fields. He has, IMO, single-handedly done what no man or woman has accomplished before- revived a fading STEM program across the US and, one might argue, across the world 🌍!
Engineer: "Honestly, its impossible."
Jeff Bezos: "Elon Musk was able to built this in a cave! With a box of scraps!"
Engineer: I'm sorry! But, we're not Elon Musk...
*adjusts glasses* um, excuse me... but Elon actually built it in a field out of sheet metal... (just having fun, no disrespect intended)
@@gildedbear5355 *laughs in main character* ha you're technically wrong since it was actually the engineers and builders that work for Elon Muck that built the ship
@@kitkatwizard LOL! That rare case where everybody is wrong!
Jeff Who?
The change to less but much higher quality videos was the right one.
Well done Tim!
The change to real Elon (a recent video) over the silent, undisclosed, fake-kerbal-musk is for the better.
I really love how distinct the two fin design makes Starship look.
yeah me too. When I first saw the two fin design, I imediately thought: well this is new and intresting *proceeds to spend hours looking it up*
I did love the 3 fin design a lot. Especially the half-white one.
All-Shiny was cool too. But hey, anything that gets us to mars is a beautiful piece of machinery!
Prefer 2.
Awesome but impractical vs boring but practical
ITS was and is still my favorite rocket design ever. Watch the animated video spaceX released, "Interplanetary transport system"
nothing on mars we dont have on earth. mars is just a desolate dump.
@@esecallum ye its so he can test his new tesla race cars without speed regulations
Elon: "Fly my beautiful starship"
Starship: "This isn't flying, it's falling with style!"
I actually flew a mini Starship in KSP with three steerable rear fins. I couldn't believe how stable it actually was. The vehicle stayed on a glide course until I pulled the nose up for final descent over a landing field.
@@thunderbird1921 did you? Good for you!
So tell me what you know about the number of children in America that go to bed hungry every night?
How about the number of Americas Veterans that are homeless and forgotten today?
Ever wondered how many elderly Americans are forced monthly to make the decision to buy groceries for the month, or buy the medication they need?
All the problems in real America today, and you think it's a great idea to fund this 'space' nonsense with even MORE FUNDING?
Sure pal, that makes sense...
You must live in a very narcissistic existence! Good for you, I guess...
@@stillperfectgenerations5852 Chill dude those things have always been a problem and always will.
Africa has no space program at all...
@@WarriorNinjaCat I disagree. It's called Priorities friend!
Humanity should take precedence over space exploration.
Can you honestly disagree?
Congratulations for reaching *400.000 subscribers!*
401K*
Well deserved.
402k**
@@nicklausgutknecht6226 Let's see, 401k six hours ago, 402k 33 minutes ago, so we;re gaining about 4000, every 24 hours, or 167 an hour. Not too shabby as an old prof of mine used to say.
And blowing past that mark by an extra 2000 in a day.
I’ve been told jets are largely computer controlled many times but you are the first person who has actually told me what that means and it only took a couple sentences. Thank you so much you get my subscription
Use this as a: “Tim is an amazing individual who takes so much time becoming a mini expert on every topic just so he can help little rocket fans like us. He deserves so much support and I can’t wait to see how successful he will be in the future” button
You aren’t nearly “the last person” to invited on Rocket design team. I don’t know your background, but you sure seem smart enough and have enough subject matter knowledge to be a worthy contributor.
Falcon Nine landings are not ho hum to people who have waited for them since Mercury space capsules came in their cereal boxes. :)
Totally agree, of course for me it was Apollo, but nope, it'll never get old👌👍
Agreed. I still find them spectacular and exciting.
YOU HAD MERCURY SPACE CAPSULES IN YOUR CEREAL BOXES????
I have met quite a few people that have had no idea that SpaceX was landing falcon 9 like this. While still awesome to me it's cool to see their reactions.
What about us old farts? Buck Rogers and Flash Gordon serials on television and Space Cadets on the Dumont network. Listening to Scott Shepard sitting on his roman candle built by the lowest bidder, or watching the first moon landing with my one year old on my lap. I have been fascinated with the space program all my life. It’s never been boring.
"KPS isn't an engineering tool"
Elon Musk in his free time:
Kerbal Program Space
GOTCHA!!... Elon doesn't have free time...
Nope, Everyday Astronaut was playing with pic-in-pic in his free time.
@@jackburns6403 Check your eyesight, it is not that "deep" a "fake" even. (Why do this anyway? The low-q deep-fake (in a recent video there is a real person))
@@nickymoloney4218 What?
KSP is great!
There is no reason to feel bad when you are using it in your videos, @Everyday Astronaut
Try Principia mod for extra hard realistic physics
Agreed, I'm betting Elon uses it to test his theories.
If someone gets triggered by KSP they must have a serious heart deficiency.
Supersonic Tumbleweed and RSS/RO
@@fladder1 This actually might be true
from MK1, to SN8 and even SN9 on the pad right now! This is a really cool throwback.
I'm not sure how comfortable and shock absorbing the landing can be if the fins are doubled as landing gears. Also, like you mentioned, landing legs and navigation fins are huge dependencies. Maybe it's safer to have dedicated landing legs that don't go through the same stress as the fins might?
Safety might be a major factor i guess.
Not to mention the fact that the hydraulic controls would have to be much heavier to control the surfaces if they had to carry the extra structural weight to reinforce the fins as legs
But then how do you suggest a slower reentry without the use of more fuel that's needed for the final burn.
Not trying to argue in fact I halfway agree. I just have trouble seeing a way around that issue
@@thecheaperthebetter4477 they could've "locked" the fins to take stress off of the hydraulics maybe
Good discussion, if the position of landing legs and fins line up then i can see how the mechanism could be enclosed into two fixed fin. If the whole fin needs to move to control reentry then they are likely to need separate structures.
Hi@@joshr1074the reentry "burn" can happen anytime before you reach your destination, in the case of small ion thrusters this starts about half way there... kinda change of subject from the parent comment tho
I love how the SpaceX team is so confident in their design engineers and their fab team that they can make seemingly major changes on the fly. This is like a rapid prototype methodology or agile software development which allows for rapid evolution of the concept. I'm sure we will see many more changes as success builds on continued success.
I think another of those "plausible but not really" reasons that 2 wings are preferable to 3, is this:
It's known that reentry bow shocks, if detached from the main body, can help protect the vehicle from reentry heating. As you've mentioned, this is why capsules try to have as blunt a windward edge as possible, to reduce reentry heating.
Well, in the 3-fin design, the 2 wing roots of the body flaps would have been jutting forward into the stream, and might not have received the full protection of the bow shock. Even worse, they might have generated their own shockwaves that impinge on various parts of the structure, creating localised hotspots leading to burnthrough of the structure.
With only 2 wings, the wing roots are situated more further back relative to the airstream and generally fit the contour of the body and the deflected body flaps a lot better. That probably served a lot to simplify thermal protection.
Also, not gonna lie, I like how Starship looks now much better than the Tintin version. Sorry retro-sci-fi fans. :(
Well, I didn't even notice I have only put two fin on my KSP Starship replica attempt, looks like I unconsciously dislike Tintin :D
That being said, my manual control skill sucks, three fins will probably lead to more burn up/RUD on pad.
I loved the old look, but honestly I kind of like the new look as well!
It's actually 4 fins if you count the top ones, there's basically a top-half and a bottom half. can't wait for version 2.0 :)
Finally an actual video, not just another livestream or slow motion clip
Video starts.
Tim: "We're less than a week away ..."
Me: "From the Aerospike engine video?!"
Having 6 legs adds to redundancy and safety. Imagine if one of the 3 legs failed on landing? Critical to protect crew and cargo along side flight certifications. Although the 3 fin/leg design looks truly amazing, the physics aligns well with the new design. Can't wait to witness this evolution and exploration milestone!
So it bellyflops like a sky diver, but I see Starship soaring gracefully through the air like a penguin.
belly flop like a penguin do sound rather fantastic :).
That's a great analogy.
@@karlwest437 That's a great visual! well done!
Lol can't wait to see one painted like a penguin
Oh, come now, Tim, you're ahead of at least 99% of humanity on the list of who should be allowed to work on rockets. Not literally the last. This is an excellent video. Just the right level of explanation.
That was an excellent and really extensive explanation, but then not everyone watching is an actual engineer. Overexplaining is not inherently a bad thing. Great video. Also, for me there is nothing about watching a booster landing that has gotten old -- It's as beautiful as a ballet and still makes me tear up, every time.
It is a message from humanities future; our eventual expansion into the universe....
You've come along way Tim! not gonna lie, I commented some pretty harsh stuff a few years ago when you were fudging/dodging engineering terminology. But now, your knowledge is incredible, and your explanations are detailed yet concise. Keep it visual and keep up the good work!
I like how Elon somehow responds to every Post of Tim :D
Especially the KSP Vids.
Best Buddys ;D
That is great, but I don't like the fake part with Elon Musk. Real video is available already. (when they shake hands, but Musk keeps on talking...)
Excellent video, Tim. For a guy who is not an engineer, indeed, whose technical background is entirely self taught, your grasp of and ability to explain complex technical matters is superb.
Starship does not an abort system for the same reason airliners do not have ejection seats.
Elon Musk is from the 21st century as imagined in the 1950's.
More like the 1930s. In the 1950s, they were imagining flying saucers. The humans in the 1956 sci-fi movie "Forbidden Planet" use a flying saucer, not a fire-spitting rocket.
Spacex should sponsor your channel in a way that maintains your integrity but improves your ability to provide your content and improve your access. Great show
3 fins version were much cooler too look at tho, but thanks for explaining why 2 fins may be a better or safer way for the starship to enter the atmosphere :)
Spaceship having two or three flaps is not important to me. What blows me away is the applied physics. I can't wait for the presentation.
This makes more sense than the three-fin design. I think folks look at the space shuttle with its three fins/wings as the prototypical landing body, but they forget that the shuttle was an unpowered glider, and needed to operate aerodynamically in the thicker atmosphere for steering and landing. Whereas Starship will operate like a landing body only in the upper atmosphere and will use engines to steer and slow down during final descent and landing,. The fins only need to operate as air brakes during initial reentry until the excess speed is bled off. Great presentation and super graphics. Thanks!
2 fins or 3 - as long as that thing gets me to the other end of the globe faster than reaching from Brooklyn to JFK/LGA/EWR, I am happy ;-)
The engines have only been tested for 185 seconds. The mission to the airport you propose is much more difficult than LEO, requiring hours of extreme low thrust and 1000's of engine restarts.
@@richbyrne no, he is saying that as long as it is faster to get to the other side of the world, than to actually drive to the airport, he would be happy. You misread it
Tim starts by saying "just gonna quickly throw together this easy video" then says he is the last person you would want working on a spaceship. give yourself some credit, you're so smart. this video seems like it would have taken so much time and effort for some people
3:50 in a event of a damaged Starship on Mars/Moon and flying it back to earth:
Would it not be wiser to rendevouz in earth orbit with a totally intact Starship, transfer passengers and cargo and THEN try to land the damaged one?
If that were to happen, probably yes, depending on the extent and nature of the damage. But even as cheap as Starship is supposed to be to launch, that's still a lot of added cost, and a LOT of added complexity. Still better than risking lives inside the damaged one, but still hardly ideal.
The problem is that they need to slow down when arriving to Earth. And it will likely require more fuel than the ship can carry to slow down without aerobraking.
Do you have enough fuel to get into earth orbit? If your craft is not safe to re-enter in then it is not safe to aerobrake in either. From mars you could probably to a lunar gravity capture, but you are not exactly in LEO after that.
@@agsystems8220 rendezvous with a fresh Starship around the moon maybe.
@@anthonypelchat
Right. Aero-braking is needed to land even from LEO, not possible to -reach- enter any Earth orbit (from Moon, Mars, etc) without aero-braking to dump energy. [If the sea-level Raptors were the only problem, then a ship-to-ship transfer would make sense.]
"Finnie, flappy, air breaky things". This is why as someone like me with little book knowledge on this subject, but a deep wide-eyed fascination, you are so approachable and informative. I've been a fan for a while. Thank you. ❤
Tim, your knowledge of aerospace engineering has become quite impressive. Keep up the good work.
I think that two fins is more stable. If you put the third fin behind, it does little for control. If you put it in front, it will be fine until a slight roll. This will greatly increase drag to one side, and increase the tendency to continue rolling. I noticed on the Starhopper test that with three fins in a stiff wind caused a roll. It wasn't bad but it was there. Thankfully a slight roll didn't pose a problem for the test. But landing a Starship will be much more demanding. I also play KSP. Thanks for the informative video.
I think Tim or someone mentioned somewhere that The roll on starhopper was intentional by way of the acs thrusters.
Haha I saw he released a video and I thought he finally finished the aerospike engine video!! 😂
I thought the same and another great video waited for me.
I love what he does.
Space x whole Mars thing is all hype in order to get investment.......
@@munmunhazarika5247 Sorry this isn't the right channel to throw out accusations and claims without evidence. A profitable orbital vehicle and an upcoming revolutionary change to broadband is how they're going to bring in money.
It's fine to be skeptical but a lot of people go full on contrarian with anything Elon is connected to.
munmun hazarika Ah, which would be the reason SpaceX refuses to sell stocks, even though there are an extreme demand for them? A few of the large chunks of stocks currently externally owned are occasionally sold (in part) by their current owners, and they are always ripped away, even on ridiculous terms. You litteraly see people pitching a "Transparent Investment Vehicule (TIV)", owning stock in another TIV, owning stock in another TIV, 5 layers deep before you get to one which owns the real spacex stock - every single TIV on the way claiming management fees on this - and STILL they get RIPPED away! The markets are *screaming* to get SpaceX, but they refuse to sell in open trade. They could raise 20 billions tomorrow if they wanted without breaking a sweat.
@@FizzBhaal Nasa sent man on moon in 1969 with a budget of 40 billion ie inflation adjusted to 160 billion in today's time...... Abandoned it for its cost.... Now a private , for profit organization venture to Mars ....just makes no sense.... It's a bubble.....
Best one yet Tim Dodd. I've watched quite a few of your productions in the last year. This one may be your best effort yet. Well Done Sir.
Ahh yes, the retractable third leg. Also my nickname....lol
Also, the dynamics you were referring to and how you can control a falling object with opposing surfaces. This is a knock-on effect of the aerodynamic property referred to as "Shuttlecocking."
1:22 I like how your concept of a nice easy video is a 20 min, well thought out essay on a vehicle still in development
As Elon said of the Starship during re-entry - "This is not flying, this is falling, with style"!
I just noticed how good that intro is
Gosh, you are getting so, so, so good at this Tim!
Dude, you make RUclips look good. Never gonna watch TV again so long as great creators like you are around. 👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻
You do a great job man! I have always "liked" space, but you do such a good job explaining the technical in an interesting way that makes me want to follow space, not just check in every once in a while. (Kerbal does a great job too!)
I didn't understand the 'tucked-in' thing at _all,_ and he must have mentioned it 20 times at least. Tucked-in... _where?_ He even says it in synchrony with the simulation, which is showing no tucking-in, or untucking-in for that matter.
@@-danR watch the wings, they "flap" back, moving out or into the atmosphere for more or less drag.
I really liked the 3-fin design, but your aero explanations were super clear and so I agree that the 2-fin design will be more stable. And thanks so much for your many exceptional videos. Have fun at Boca!
Aw, but I loved the three fin/landing leg config. It looked so Tintin.
Also, with the fins pulling double duty as landing gear, the Starship would've had a wider base of support.
As some who does risk analysis for a living, simplicity and redundancy are the best way of reducing failure.
I literally just turned on SimpleRockets, about to work on my Starship replica, I was like "hmm I wonder if Tim will release a video about the new design", and the notification literally came up as I clicked on Play
god bless
DerekSP glad to see sr2 getting some love
While its unlucky that you dont upload very often, the work you put into every video is greatly appreciated. Amazing work you do!
Who is here after the sn8 launch?
I’m here soon before the oft
Here again after the oft was a great boom was so scared till it cleared the tower NGL!
I’m here after OFT it went boom 💥
Me
Me ift3
Loved the retro design of the three-fin design but oh man! Two fins look like business on completed rendering in your thumbnail! It does detract largely from that retro look but makes the whole thing look more cutting-edge and purpose built. And then those aero and structural engineering challenges it overcomes! As an aerospace engineering student, that’s exactly what I want to hear!
Thanks Tim. Great video and explanation! I'm glad you are here to help guide others thru this.
Two fins for the win! I personally never liked that super retro concept of three. Keep up the amazing coverage.
I think...I really like that I don't need to set aside other interests and hobbies in order to follow along and be entertained by rocket geeks. This is fascinating.
Thanks for the upload.
-Jake
Hey Tim, I was thinking you'd died making the aerospike vid. Glad you are back. Fantastic video bud. Am now sold on being a patron 🙏
And it's done sir. Keep us informed as always. Good times.
Love your videos. Missed you the last couple of weeks
Gunna be honest, this got me a lot more excited about the 2 fin model. It's so exciting to see all this progress happening so fast!
Just curious, what do you do for a living? You have a very good grasp on the aerospace industry and have really good videos.
Nice Job.
This is his living
He does a lot of research
He's a professional RUclipsr.
@@ASLUHLUHC3 Well, know it is... but what about before RUclips?
Great video Tim. The other advantage with 2 fins is that it makes it so much easier for cargo access. The third leg was right where you would want to unload by crane so they had to split cargo doors. Now they can go a full 'space shuttle' like cargo door solution.
It’s so amazing that Elon always takes his time to answer to your tweets!!!
I'm tired of seeing amazing rocket renderings that never exist. For me it is better a project with 2 fins in the real world. I'm with you and elon in this
Reporter: So they decided to do away with the spaceships third leg?
Spaceship: gulp
Awesome. You're only getting more clear and to the point with every new video, Tim!
14:42: "as late as possible" *does it at 10km*
we're talking about a lot of inertia, yes? Is it not as late as possible?
I don’t know what the final configuration will be, but the retro version does look sooo cool! Keep on keepin’ on. Great show
Interesting that on the SN8 test flight, on ascent the fins stayed out the whole time. Is this because it was a hop and wasn't going fast enough to reach orbit?
It was for stability
I actually liked the finless first version better, but this does seem more efficient, and less reliant on propulsive control. Thanks for the explanation and visuals.
Accursed aerospikes taking all your time! We've been missing you!
I love you Tim! Your work is EXCELLENT! 3 find definitely! But two fins practically.
Thanks for your informative video on Starship, Tim. Hope you're beyond excited as we all are on Starship! 😁
🍾🍾🍾🍾🍾 Wow!! BRAVO!! Congratulations to the Starship team on their fifth successful test! 🥂🥂🥂🥂🥂
Musk himself said "Tin Tin design".
This makes me happy.
Congrats on the invite to the Boca Tim! You always know the best question to ask Elon! Also super exited to see the aerospike video you’ve put so much hard work and time into! Thanks for being so awesome!
What version do I like?
I like the version that completes a Successful Flight.
Success is a Beautiful Spaceship! (and would make a good name for a future mission)
I used to be a Military Free Fall Paratrooper, and I can see where the new two wing is coming from, we however have large canards on the top, we call them arms, which to achieve airfoil we sweep back and close to our fuselage, Body trunk and legs (Undercarriage), and we do create an airfoil effect, resulting in stalling and buffeting as well as horizontal flight, it all comes down to management!
Two fins for the win.
Interesting that it now looks more like New Shepard than Tin Tin.
Blasphemy!
I use to enjoy watching your videos along with several others for reference. But now your videos are all marathons! Who has time for 2-3-4 hour videos?!?!?=÷×+? You're nuts!
I'll miss the 3 fins starship it looked so cool !
But its ok
FLO, again, there isn’t a solid decision for the final version of Starship. This is a prototype.
@@wyattb3138 well, a year later, and this is the final design pretty much
So many thanks to you for learning more and more, and so be able to understand, then explain very clearly what happens.
Plus experinmenting many kinds of things (jumpsuit), and using all useful means to display and share. THANK YOU !
I like how Elon Musk names his starships using the code name Mk, it reminds me of Iron man
It's sn now, and was when you posted your comment
@@Kasmuller it’s S now, and it wasn’t when you posted your comment
@@crippleddiego9226 your point is....?
I enjoyed that. Just the right length for me and liked the use of Kerbal as props for the explanation. Great work Tim and the team 📈🚀⭐️
I like the 2 fin version. Pretty much everything about it seems to be better. I think it definitely looks better too. But I think what is most important is what performs the best. And from what I can tell assuming it's implemented correctly. The 2fin version performs better. Unless they find reason for 3 fins.
But even if they use 3 fins. It's better to have more landing surface area. Giving you angular and directional stability. On touchdown. Something you don't have with three rigid fins. So landing struts is definitely the way to go. Also he's using the landing struts as a sources of drag. Which does have some flaws. But it seems like an efficient use of available weight and space on board. One device performing two functions.
However these are fairly critical systems. And if you lose one you may very well lose both. I guess it's good that they have 8. I would go ahead and even try to put 16 on there. In fact it may very well lower the weight. And increase structural rigidity. Not to mention the added benefit of redundancy and increase stability. Because there is a greater number of landing struts to spread the load. Each individual landing strut can be made from lighter materials.
Not to mention the actual size of each landing strut will be physically smaller and take up less individual space and wait. So even though they're would be more individual pieces. It would overall weigh less. And due to the increased number of landing struts. They can apply more physical Force. You might even consider 32. landing struts. Because that would also give you a higher degree of control using them as drag during reentry. And with that kind of redundancy. The issue of having one damaged is mostly nullified.
1. Two fins / aerobrake flaps seems much more sensible.
2. And separating the function of aerobrake flap from landing leg seems more sensible as well. It is a lot of engineering to make a big fin / flap support the weight of the space ship.
3. As for whether they will tuck in on ascent, my guess is that they will not articulate that far. Sticking straight out will not be any worse aerodynamically than sticking slightly out but nearer to the cylindrical hull.
Good explanation Tim! What are your thoughts on KSP 2?
Somehow your videos got even better 10/10 for this one, loved it :D
Why do you youtubers always upload right before school anyways I'll watch later because this is a question I had I mean why 2, 3 looks cooler and might be better for landing stability
Edit: Star hopper also had 3?
Now they're not using the fins as legs anymore. Legs and fins are separate things now
I agree, 3 gives more stability, like airplanes vertical stabilizer.
The 3rd leg/flap/fin, if it was aerodynamically useless it would not have had that similar shape as the other 2 in starhoper and last year ship version.
I remember Virgin Galactic feather system which changes overall ship geometry pointing those feathers upwards.
Similarly, this makes the center o pressure away from the "belly" of the starship or of the superheavy booster and closer to that 3rd flap.
The opposite happens with the center of gravity which is found closer towards the "belly" and away from the 3rd flap.
As EverydayAstronaut explains in the video this provides vital stability.
no actually exactly not... when it comes to physics 2 fins are definetly more stable and it's also more redundant since the two systems are seperate, makes it easier to develope and also to maintain i guess, and to be honest, with 2 fins it can still look as awesome as 3...
you know that the earth has a lot of time zones, true?
F9 and FH Booster/ Core landings are not "ho-hum" for me just yet. Keep those rolling! :D Lord I love watching this stuff too much.
9:50 this guys never heard of autostrut
Dafuq is that
Sure, the 3 fins were an awesome throwback to Futurama and Tintin, but thank you for the awesome demonstration on why fin pairs is much better for weight, cintrol and structural integrity!
Yaii finally a new video! But where is the aerospike engine video?
Sky Live Soon. It's over an hour long
Superb as always Tim!
When form follows function and compliments styling, then you've got a great design.
Anytime Tim shows a tweet Elon responded to I think about Joe Scott in the OLF live podcast poking fun at Tim, "Oh Elon just got back to me and he said..." then Joe just being like What the Actual F**K! It just makes me laugh and smile to know that we live in a time where a space enthusiast has a direct line to one of the most influential minds of our time and they can just casually have a Q and A session online. Pretty amazing time to be alive!
So 2 is better than 3...
That's why they always discard the core on the FH!
No, they once landed it on the barge. But it fell into the rough seas during transportation
I love the 2-fin idea. It's so radically different. Aesthetically, they can still do something crazy cool, such as turning part of the flappy wings into a grid fin style structure. Or even curve them to tuck in tightly against the fuselage.
spaceXcentric, Scott Manley and Everyday Astronaut
the spaceX news trifactor
Petition for them to have regular private interviews with Elon, bc they have much better questions compared to mainstream media.
Don't forget Jixian an Sabatian.
What about it? Is growing too