lol these reporters do zero resreach before reporting on SpaceX. Look at some pictures or video and draw a conclusion not based on nothing. Thank you Chris for letting em' know!
Leave it to the actual astronaut and engineer to tell it like it is, everyone else is just an armchair expert but this guy lived it. Chris is a phenomenal science communicator
Are you kidding me. There's no ship. Just a HUGE model rocket that will run out of fuel and then plunge into the ocean. That's why they turn it to a horizontal position so it flys out of sight of the human eye and then they switch it to a Computer Generated Imagery for your television. You Big Dummy
Chris Hadfield is such a rockstar. I'm glad he spoke up about this. There has been so much in the way of negative commentary and he is categorically setting the record straight. Love it.
A 10 year old knows better. Damage control! It is literally ridiculous, to intentionally destroy an "intact" multi-million dollar craft rather than implement a parashoot marine/recovery "soft landing," for hands on hard data analysis. The blackbox, telemetry, physics data is already preserved in flight.
The fact a 40 story building was doing cartwheels with propulsion and didn’t seem to effect the structure is mind boggling. Also was travelling over 2000km and still managed all the pressure
@@rooramblingon895 failure was 100% due to damage from chunks of concrete hitting engines and one of the hydraulic systems. They let it fly until stage 1 was out of fuel. Due to engine damage that was too low, too slow, and too unstable for stage 2 to even start it's mission. Main engine cut off was never commanded, stage separation was never commanded. Once stage 1 ran out of fuel they hit the self destruct.
Great coverage. Everyone else is painting the explosion as bad; probably for click bait. The Falcon 9 exploded multiple times, and it's now the most reliable rocket in history
And so many don't mention it exploded because they self detonated it after loosing control from the liftoff damage to the booster. Even after all the damage the booster was intact and pushed through maxQ.
Absolutely. More than likely the engines lost was caused by the massive crater blasted out from the bottom of the rocket mount. Huge chunks of the concrete pad were flung up into the engines and out into the surrounding area. Some space reporters parked their vehicles in the exclusion zone and they were destroyed from the flying concrete. Elon is going to need a flame diverter and much more of a massive water deluge system. An absolute success.
Very refreshing to have Chris Hadfield clear the air on this. I think the biggest issue discovered today (or at least potentially the most time consuming) is the damage to stage 0. We all knew that concrete was in for a bad morning one way or another though lol. Hopefully water deluge helps but I wouldn't be shocked to see them go more in depth than that after seeing the crater under the olm.
UT looks like the blast effect from 33 engines made there own flame trench. after all that money spent on making a reusable rocket ,, now they need to figure out how to make a reusable launch pad!🤔
@Al Wenke trying to go without a flame diverter was definitely a little cavalier. Would be helpful to know what strength of concrete they used and if they can improve on that. Perhaps a stronger pad paired with water deluge could have been a better attempt.
A rocket so tough it kept flying with multiple engine failures, stayed in one piece while corkscrewing at over 1000 mph, and totally obliterated it’s own launch site
The footage of the launch site and surrounding area was astounding. And the fact that despite all that debris flying around on launch it still made it up to the edge of the atmosphere is pretty incredible.
@@Dimitris_Half Well they were expecting it to explode, in fact they did that on purpose. That's just a given, i can tell you how it was a success, and not a failure. You wouldn't believe me though, because you hate Elon Musk too much to have an open mind regarding this.
@@Dimitris_Half Elon : i really think it's highly probable this thing blows up, but doing tests to gather data is inevitable, i just hope it clears the launch pad. Starship, clears pad, sends data from a million sensors of a prototype, and explodes. Simp npc's: it failed.
I know that area and I’ll bet the town shook! I just hope there isn’t a petition going around now from the Long Island resort to shut the launch pad down!
@@williamgreene4834 If only the masses would think things through before issuing demands… Thanks for the info. Makes sense the final launch operation would migrate to the cape. Eliminates the “omg it could crash into Florida” argument as well.
You assume that it wouldn't have eventually - I saw enough stuff coming off the hull to know it wasn't a matter of if but when. Also the launch basically blasted their own concrete pad ballistically up at the launch tower and the rocket which likely caused the failure of some engines and damage which caused the later separation to fail. Way to go guys 😂
@@mnomadvfx So your saying a 40 story (essentially) tower flipping over about 5-6 times (as I remember from the launch stream) isn’t a huge achievement? On top of that they gathered invaluable information you couldn’t get with current simulations.
@@mnomadvfx " way to go guys " lol you say this asif the united states military doesnt rely on elon & his rockets, starship is the future like it or not.
Absolutely and indicates that structurally its SUBSTANTIALLY overbuilt. Refinements will mean dropping mass and increasing performance! What surprised me the most is how SuperHeavy withstood the launch and actually completed its full burn duration! Stage 0 was underwhelming though but that's why you fly them!
IKR? I might not be an engineer, but I've studied Aerospace engineering just out of the love for the craft. Hearing someone who knows their stuff correct possible misunderstandings always makes me smile
As an engineer, if you demonstrate your product, and your product subsequently explodes in a gigantic fireball during the demonstration - Would that demonstration be considered a success, or a failure? (Assuming your project was not intended to BE a gigantic fireball)
@@Reelix It was a test of an early version of the vehicle, not a demonstration of the full capabilities of the final product. The fact of the matter is that such rocket launches are inevitably noticed by the public, so that's why SpaceX hosted a webcast. And is it not obvious that if the engineers themselves clearly state that anything after clearing the tower is a success, then that this flight was a success?
@@Reelix you are failing in one point: they are not demonstrating their product. They are testing a prototype version. Quick prototyping and fail faster mindset is completely nominal for almost everything being developed. But just because something is being made public it doesn't mean it's a demonstration. They are testing their build.
If Chis weighs about 170lbs, then his worth would be a bit over $5mill. Based off of his contributions to science, he's worth a hundred times that, at least.
Mêmber when the nasa killed its pilots to test rockets ? No yeah it because blowing up billions of dollars when u can simulate on pc makes no sense Gréât success We r robbing the USA blind Mission success
The anchor didn't like it. He crossed his arms and put his hand to his face. Gestures that indicate being defensive and angered. But he shouldn't have been talking smack about something he knew nothing about.
@@darkwood777 he's a tv personality. he almost certainly didn't write what he was saying. so it's not like he had any investment in that position. he was probably just irritated that his writers and producers didn't have the story straight.
As a kid who grew up reading Tom Swift novels - yesterday's launch was awe-inspiring and I felt as though I was watching the real-life Tom Swift in action. Nice hearing Chris's analysis today.
@@derekflegg2670 new rocket new boosters new fuels... they far exceeded what they were expecting so id say going better then expected, the small spacex rockets started out the same... now they send them up weekly it seems, then land them and reuse them like its routine.
@@EaglePicking It was just after that and it throttled-up was when it started to tumble (was just supposed to flip around), so I'm guessing something may have 'rattled off'. I think they'll solve that for the next flight. Re-entry will be the big test.
Props to the news channel for interviewing the right person. Saw too much coverage focusing on the explosion without taking into account how many things had to go right for them just to get to that point. Love Chris 🎉
Yes. Moronic questioning. But Chris immediately disagreed and set him straight. Instead of trying to sensationalize, he could have tried to learn a thing or two before shooting his mouth off.
Anyone who thinks that this was a bad outcome is totally uninformed. This was remarkably successful and was, actually, pretty dang close to perfect. The Raptors were the main problem. But the HBUs do not even exist on the next two vehicles, so thrust vectoring should be improved. The timeline for Artemis has always been extremely ambitious. This might cause a delay from the official timeline, but not from the realistic one.
@@ge2623 You just compared an operational vehicle at the time (the space shuttle) with actual crew members on board failing during ACTUAL MISSIONS, compared to a super experimental test vehicle PROTOTYPE that's already severely outdated, was meant to be destroyed, with multiple newer iterations already built and ready to go. You may as well compare a Doctor to a High Schooler for fuck's sake
@@ge2623 Context ist important here. If you have a spacecraft that you NEED to work perfectly? -> Explosion is a failure Expect it to explode anyway but lets see how far we get and collect as much data as possible -> Every explosion occuring after clearing Stage 0 can’t be considered a failure
@@ge2623 They we’re certified operational vehicles, this was a test vehicle. You think no one tested your car before they certified it for road use? Grow a brain.
Thank you Chris, for setting the record straight. For giving a great explanation and letting them know this is a PROCESS. Design, test, learn, iterate, redesign, test, learn, iterate etc.
If you think all it had to do was just clear the tower, what if it had blown up 1000 feet above the tower? Would that still be a success? 100 feet? 10 feet? Why didn't they expect it to survive liftoff? That means it wasn't ready. Claiming that it succeeded simply by clearing the pad is like saying your brand-new car is great because you were able to back it out of your garage before the engine seized and the wheels fell off.
This was a test flight of a booster that otherwise would have been scrapped, since it was already an obsolete design as of yesterday's launch (there are already 3 fully stacked boosters with more mature designs, almost ready for launch in a few months, and 5 more under construction). Even the raptor engines attached are not the latest iteration. I'd say this was a huge success.
I almost cried when I saw the rocket clearing stage 0. That is its own feat. Elon stated that there was a 50% chance of failure well-before the launch.
Chris was so on point, this wasnt a failure, but a huge success, and the data they got from that test flight will pave the way for future successful flights
They forgot to add the fact there have already been major upgrades like over 100 to the next starship anyway, which was not on this starship. taking off. I think they only wanted the data to see what would happen with this launch.
Exactly. Might as well use what you’ve got. They have their construction facilities ready to go anyway, so it’s not like they don’t have the means to crank out more of these vehicles pretty quickly (by spacecraft standards).
Elon did say they were desperate to get this thing off the pad and move on to Booster 9, which has massive improvements. The main concern right now is the launch infrastructure though. The exhaust blasted a crater into the reinforced concrete below the launch mount and flying debris decimated the surrounding area. That’s gonna keep them on the ground for a while.
If you think all it had to do was just clear the tower, what if it had blown up 1000 feet above the tower? Would that still be a success? 100 feet? 10 feet? Why didn't they expect it to survive liftoff? That means it wasn't ready. Claiming that it succeeded simply by clearing the pad is like saying your brand-new car is great because you were able to back it out of your garage before the engine seized and the wheels fell off.
@@JeffRL1956 build-test-fail repeat methodology. Used all over the world and is taught in engineering curriculum. Even if it blew up right away, data would be collected and the next iteration improved. You can only do so much “preparation” before a launch, because you’ll never know how it will react in the actual scenario.
Also, for note, this really wasn't terribly different from the 2nd and 3rd launches of the Saturn 1 Both didn't have upper stages, but their dummy stages were filled with water and deliberately blown up to see how high altitude terminations would behave
Are you incapable of understanding the difference between that and the low expectations -- which were never stated until it failed -- that all they hoped for was to clear the pad? The Saturn V aborts were scheduled and planned. This failure was not. it was not ready to launch.
@@JeffRL1956 I was talking about the Saturn 1 launches. Not the Saturn 5 test launches. The Saturn 1 launches were designed to fly the exact trajectory that Starship ended up flying. I.E. also a launch where the only real metric was 'leave the pad: yes/no' Saturn1 worked without incident because it was assembled with proven technology, but had it been terminated, it would still have been just as successful Edit: also the low expectations were announced before launch since the 24/7 stack was an older generation of ship booster than is next on the line. Perhaps by rigerious NASA standards, it wasn't ready for operational flight. But the flight it did take was worth the asking price in flight data and operational experience alone.
@@TheErockaustin A 50% chance of exploding on the pad plus 100% chance of destroying the pad plus 99% chance of getting destroyed in the process of destroying the pad makes about 249% chance of total failure.
Your news anchor should look into how SpaceX develops rockets. Their policy has always been to iterate as often as possible, setting smaller goals that are easily achieved but that further development of the rocket. This of course means more explosions, but rapid development. Far more effective for developing a new technology than spending decades planning something before ever building it, in the hopes that you can account for every problem.
it's clear that Starship SN11 experienced a pogo oscillation failure (31 -33 ) raptor engines firing at once vs (SLS) Artemis 1 rocket which has a total of four engines. this and its apparent Disposable launch pad will be a huge hurdle for SpaceX as Multi-engine rockets are much more susceptible to pogo oscillation phenomenon than single-engine rockets. it took Nasa many years of R&D and is the reason why SlS Artemis 1 chose to use tried and true rocket "boring" technology Pogo was in fact the main cause of the soviets (30 ) engine N-1 rocket failure Pogo oscillation is a phenomenon that occurs when there is a feedback loop between the combustion process of the rocket engines and the rocket structure. The vibration caused by the combustion process can cause structural oscillations in the rocket, which in turn can feed back into the combustion process, leading to a potentially dangerous cycle of vibrations. In multi-engine rockets, there are more engines that can contribute to the vibration, which increases the likelihood of pogo oscillation occurring. Don't be so Salty Spacex fanboys! its ok! lol Cheers from Park City Utah!
Think about all the public displays of the falcon rocket exploding. Now, it is the most proven and safest vehicle ever flown and is now carrying astronauts to space. We are seeing the fantastic engineering of future space flight in front of our eyes. What's happening now, is what we didnt get to see the Apollo days. This is worth celebrating!
Considering that the concrete underneath the rocket was exploding all over the place, the rocket still flying was an incredible success, the rocket performed, it was what was underneath that didn't
I was hoping that they would get a successful stage 1 separation. But as an engineer, I say this was a success. Aircraft and spacecraft are very complex and it takes time to work out all of the bugs.
Well, since Spacex said before hand that they just hoped it wouldn't explode on the pad because it would cost a lot in infrastructure, the bar was pretty low.
If you think all it had to do was just clear the tower, what if it had blown up 1000 feet above the tower? Would that still be a success? 100 feet? 10 feet? Why didn't they expect it to survive liftoff? That means it wasn't ready. Claiming that it succeeded simply by clearing the pad is like saying your brand-new car is great because you were able to back it out of your garage before the engine seized and the wheels fell off.
@@JeffRL1956 Nobody knew what it would do, but they hoped it would clear the tower so they wouldn't have to rebuild "stage 0" You can claim something is a success by stating your goals ahead of time and achieving some of those goals in your attempt.
At least they can improve on the possibility of a successful flight, but there is still a long way to get starship to a place when it can be called reliable and that's just the reality.
Thank you Chris for setting the record straight
lol these reporters do zero resreach before reporting on SpaceX. Look at some pictures or video and draw a conclusion not based on nothing.
Thank you Chris for letting em' know!
Agree all these news outlets the headline is explodes....
He needs to straighten his moustache next.
@@bcwestcoast It did explode though, and naturally with the news "if it bleeds, it leads".
Nasa spends billions to do this- Spacex does not - it was Success test
What impressed me was the fact that despite the massive corkscrewing going on in the latter stages it still held together structurally.
Totally agree. Can't wait to see the next test.
Me too! That is structural stability right there!
@@KOxHARxMORNY You must mean structural strength. Stability was non-existent, from the moment it cleared the tower.
I thought the same thing! Usually when rockets go sideways like that the structure fails.
Impressed me too, i guess a lack of payload + pressurized tanks + being above max Q + being designed to do belly flop may have helped
I've watched a 50+ videos today on this and Chris is by far the best on Starship
Haha me too, yeah Chris always has based takes
@@volleybrawl1 True, can't keep my mind off this next-generation rocket!
Leave it to the actual astronaut and engineer to tell it like it is, everyone else is just an armchair expert but this guy lived it. Chris is a phenomenal science communicator
Yes, it's weird to explain, but i'm still having some buzz in my body from the launch, just epic.
Are you kidding me. There's no ship. Just a HUGE model rocket that will run out of fuel and then plunge into the ocean. That's why they turn it to a horizontal position so it flys out of sight of the human eye and then they switch it to a Computer Generated Imagery for your television. You Big Dummy
Chris Hadfield is such a rockstar. I'm glad he spoke up about this. There has been so much in the way of negative commentary and he is categorically setting the record straight. Love it.
Chris is definitely a rockstart. 😂
Rocketstar
A 10 year old knows better. Damage control! It is literally ridiculous, to intentionally destroy an "intact" multi-million dollar craft rather than implement a parashoot marine/recovery "soft landing," for hands on hard data analysis. The blackbox, telemetry, physics data is already preserved in flight.
@@jamie.gilbertlmaooooo
@@jamie.gilbert 🤣🤣
The fact a 40 story building was doing cartwheels with propulsion and didn’t seem to effect the structure is mind boggling. Also was travelling over 2000km and still managed all the pressure
Right? It should have collapsed on itself immediately.
This rocket is insane
Absolutely bonkers
I wonder was the failure due to the Starship not detaching, the loss of engines, or the spinning?
Whichever way, as you say, it seems super strong.
But in 1969 it all went smoothly you guys. ;)
@@rooramblingon895 failure was 100% due to damage from chunks of concrete hitting engines and one of the hydraulic systems.
They let it fly until stage 1 was out of fuel.
Due to engine damage that was too low, too slow, and too unstable for stage 2 to even start it's mission.
Main engine cut off was never commanded, stage separation was never commanded.
Once stage 1 ran out of fuel they hit the self destruct.
Great coverage. Everyone else is painting the explosion as bad; probably for click bait.
The Falcon 9 exploded multiple times, and it's now the most reliable rocket in history
For click bait and because "Elon bad" 😂
Well, it exploded, so yeah, that’s worth reporting, right??
@@aquaticborealis4877 It launched. _That_ was worth reporting.
@@UncleKennysPlace Right, that was reported. And the failure was also reported.
And so many don't mention it exploded because they self detonated it after loosing control from the liftoff damage to the booster. Even after all the damage the booster was intact and pushed through maxQ.
Most powerful rocket ever built. These guys are raising the bar.
Absolutely.
More than likely the engines lost was caused by the massive crater blasted out from the bottom of the rocket mount.
Huge chunks of the concrete pad were flung up into the engines and out into the surrounding area.
Some space reporters parked their vehicles in the exclusion zone and they were destroyed from the flying concrete.
Elon is going to need a flame diverter and much more of a massive water deluge system.
An absolute success.
And will be reusable. We are getting true AI at the same time the gateway to the solar system is opening. What a time to be alive.
Engines failed it lost control and was blown up. The bar is in a trench.
@@melsuggs3389 I wonder... what have you built lately?
@@Jay-eb7ik I built my recreational aircraft (aeronautical engineer) and it takes off, lands and doesn't explode. You?
Very refreshing to have Chris Hadfield clear the air on this. I think the biggest issue discovered today (or at least potentially the most time consuming) is the damage to stage 0. We all knew that concrete was in for a bad morning one way or another though lol. Hopefully water deluge helps but I wouldn't be shocked to see them go more in depth than that after seeing the crater under the olm.
UT looks like the blast effect from 33 engines made there own flame trench. after all that money spent on making a reusable
rocket ,, now they need to figure out how to make a reusable launch pad!🤔
@Al Wenke trying to go without a flame diverter was definitely a little cavalier. Would be helpful to know what strength of concrete they used and if they can improve on that. Perhaps a stronger pad paired with water deluge could have been a better attempt.
@@Dimitris_Half what makes you say that?
@@Dimitris_Half You speak gibberish
You have no clue what you’re talking about. Chris knows more about rockets than you ever will. Yet you claim you’re right and he’s wrong? Arrogant pos
Finally some intellectual honesty. Thank you for bringing an actual expert on to get critical insight on the flight test.
A rocket so tough it kept flying with multiple engine failures, stayed in one piece while corkscrewing at over 1000 mph, and totally obliterated it’s own launch site
And also survived the impact of concrete chunks flying at the start.
It's nothing Chuck Norris could do.
That is a wonderful discripton of what happened!!!
The footage of the launch site and surrounding area was astounding. And the fact that despite all that debris flying around on launch it still made it up to the edge of the atmosphere is pretty incredible.
@@Matyanson those chunks were flying everywhere but towards the ship, that's why lol
Amazing guy...always great to see and hear from him!
giant baby who breaks everything he plays with
But The Young Turks' Cenk Uygur said its a failure.
@@Dimitris_Half explain to me how it was a failure.
@@Dimitris_Half Well they were expecting it to explode, in fact they did that on purpose. That's just a given, i can tell you how it was a success, and not a failure. You wouldn't believe me though, because you hate Elon Musk too much to have an open mind regarding this.
@@Dimitris_Half Elon : i really think it's highly probable this thing blows up, but doing tests to gather data is inevitable, i just hope it clears the launch pad.
Starship, clears pad, sends data from a million sensors of a prototype, and explodes.
Simp npc's: it failed.
I live in Brownsville so as soon as it went up the whole city shook. What an amazing time to be alive!
I know that area and I’ll bet the town shook! I just hope there isn’t a petition going around now from the Long Island resort to shut the launch pad down!
@@nohrtillman8734 They are building a launch pad at the cape so if Brownsville wants all that money and jobs to fly away then they can go for it.
@@williamgreene4834 If only the masses would think things through before issuing demands…
Thanks for the info. Makes sense the final launch operation would migrate to the cape. Eliminates the “omg it could crash into Florida” argument as well.
Cool!
I'm from Harlingen, Harlingen was smoky afterwards too
The fact that it didn't break apart while tumbling is huge achievement.
They WILL look into THIS the next time!
You assume that it wouldn't have eventually - I saw enough stuff coming off the hull to know it wasn't a matter of if but when.
Also the launch basically blasted their own concrete pad ballistically up at the launch tower and the rocket which likely caused the failure of some engines and damage which caused the later separation to fail.
Way to go guys 😂
@@mnomadvfx So your saying a 40 story (essentially) tower flipping over about 5-6 times (as I remember from the launch stream) isn’t a huge achievement? On top of that they gathered invaluable information you couldn’t get with current simulations.
@@mnomadvfx " way to go guys " lol you say this asif the united states military doesnt rely on elon & his rockets, starship is the future like it or not.
Absolutely and indicates that structurally its SUBSTANTIALLY overbuilt. Refinements will mean dropping mass and increasing performance! What surprised me the most is how SuperHeavy withstood the launch and actually completed its full burn duration! Stage 0 was underwhelming though but that's why you fly them!
"You have it COMPLETELY wrong Todd!" 😂😂😂
Love me some Chris Hedfield!
😑*Hadfield 😖
@@robertpayne696 it’s hedley
@@richardwainwright507 Hedworth right?
As an engineer, this discussion did not go in the direction I expected. Made me smile.
IKR? I might not be an engineer, but I've studied Aerospace engineering just out of the love for the craft. Hearing someone who knows their stuff correct possible misunderstandings always makes me smile
You a beaver?
As an engineer, if you demonstrate your product, and your product subsequently explodes in a gigantic fireball during the demonstration - Would that demonstration be considered a success, or a failure? (Assuming your project was not intended to BE a gigantic fireball)
@@Reelix It was a test of an early version of the vehicle, not a demonstration of the full capabilities of the final product. The fact of the matter is that such rocket launches are inevitably noticed by the public, so that's why SpaceX hosted a webcast. And is it not obvious that if the engineers themselves clearly state that anything after clearing the tower is a success, then that this flight was a success?
@@Reelix you are failing in one point: they are not demonstrating their product. They are testing a prototype version. Quick prototyping and fail faster mindset is completely nominal for almost everything being developed.
But just because something is being made public it doesn't mean it's a demonstration. They are testing their build.
Chris, you're worth your weight in gold. Thank you for being a voice of engineering reason.
If Chis weighs about 170lbs, then his worth would be a bit over $5mill. Based off of his contributions to science, he's worth a hundred times that, at least.
He's worth his volume in gold
Chris is amazing! Nothing but respect for him. Spot on of course also.
@@Dimitris_Half And I'm sure Chris will lose sleep over your decision.
@@Dimitris_Half He was shilling for space travel and a great leap forward. You let your politics taint your world view.
@@Dimitris_Half tell me you are blind from politics without telling me you are blind from politics...
Bless Chris foe steering them clear that this wasn't a complete failure but in fact a major milestone and sucess
hope Chris will remain straight.
Mêmber when the nasa killed its pilots to test rockets ?
No yeah it because blowing up billions of dollars when u can simulate on pc makes no sense
Gréât success
We r robbing the USA blind
Mission success
Doesn't matter which way he steered them. They will always
find their way to the brick wall of stupid and pointless questions.
Was definitely a failure if didn't go on as planned
@@Dimitris_Half Hadfield* was most assuredly not paid anything to defend SpaceX. It's common sense that it was a win.
I love how Hadfield told him straight that he was completely wrong!
The anchor didn't like it. He crossed his arms and put his hand to his face. Gestures that indicate being defensive and angered. But he shouldn't have been talking smack about something he knew nothing about.
@@darkwood777
he's a tv personality. he almost certainly didn't write what he was saying. so it's not like he had any investment in that position. he was probably just irritated that his writers and producers didn't have the story straight.
If Hadfields rocket was as successful, he wouldn't be around to talk about it :p
As a kid who grew up reading Tom Swift novels - yesterday's launch was awe-inspiring and I felt as though I was watching the real-life Tom Swift in action. Nice hearing Chris's analysis today.
launch went better than they had hoped, anything after leaving the launch pad was considered a success
Says a lot about how the project is going..
@@derekflegg2670 new rocket new boosters new fuels... they far exceeded what they were expecting so id say going better then expected, the small spacex rockets started out the same... now they send them up weekly it seems, then land them and reuse them like its routine.
@@putz173 Yes but imo the concept is not proven yet.
Especially going through max-Q was very nice and will give them lots of usable data
@@EaglePicking It was just after that and it throttled-up was when it started to tumble (was just supposed to flip around), so I'm guessing something may have 'rattled off'. I think they'll solve that for the next flight. Re-entry will be the big test.
Elon Musk: I bet it blows up
Everybody who wasn't paying attention: omg it blew up
Elon's shooting blanks, no one's surprised
@@AshleyShieff the only one that shoots blanks is you at this time...
@@nfnworldpeace1992 Is it hard to accept your hero Elon is a giant loser? lmao
Go back to washing the dishes
@@AshleyShieff Elon has 15 kids.
Props to Cmdr. Hadfield for clarifying it!
Props to the news channel for interviewing the right person. Saw too much coverage focusing on the explosion without taking into account how many things had to go right for them just to get to that point. Love Chris 🎉
Love Chris, he's such a nice person. Canadians should be proud.
Honest words from Chris Hadfield🤙
do you know what the word honest means ?
@@Atheist66644 With that username it's a little obvious that you're trolling.
@@DaveJ188 your name is common with trolls my name is truth for those that seek it
Thanks for the great interview, much more informative than many other news channels as a result! Chris Hadfield is awesome!
Rockets are hard. It is literally rocket science! Well done SpaceX team!!
Well done indeed! 😆
Saturn V. 13 successful launches. No failures. 50 years ago.
@@BadBrucey this is such an ignorant reply.
@@BadBrucey the Saturn V was clearly witchcraft and not rocket science lol
It's not the rocket science that is hard, it's the rocket engineering.
So great to have Chris H. on the channel to give clarity to the broadcasters who only see rocket go boom, dat bad.
Chris Hadfield thank you for correcting sensationalism and clickbait journalism!
perfect explanation Chris, well done 🙂
yes more mind control
Hadfield... more like Chadfield. Always a champ speaking truth.
lol
He's a shill for Elmo.
I'm grand somebody with knowledge is able to give context
What i also love about Chris is that he can explain simple and complex rocket science in therms that anyone can understand.
Chris Hadfield was indeed the right guy to go to for clarification on these matters.
The reporter is ignorant. But, hey, journalism isn't what it used to be.
Yes. Moronic questioning. But Chris immediately disagreed and set him straight. Instead of trying to sensationalize, he could have tried to learn a thing or two before shooting his mouth off.
@@rjk471 I've noticed a lot of news anchors being schooled by space experts today. I love it.
Neither is what's considered a success.
SpaceX can't get to space 😂😂😂😂😂
@@Big_Yin you must be a flat-earther....
Praise to the Canadian space rep, Chris Hadfield. I appreciated his input.
Anyone who thinks that this was a bad outcome is totally uninformed. This was remarkably successful and was, actually, pretty dang close to perfect. The Raptors were the main problem. But the HBUs do not even exist on the next two vehicles, so thrust vectoring should be improved.
The timeline for Artemis has always been extremely ambitious. This might cause a delay from the official timeline, but not from the realistic one.
I remember thinking the shuttles explosions were a failure. Guess I was just "Uniformed." Totally.
@@ge2623 You just compared an operational vehicle at the time (the space shuttle) with actual crew members on board failing during ACTUAL MISSIONS, compared to a super experimental test vehicle PROTOTYPE that's already severely outdated, was meant to be destroyed, with multiple newer iterations already built and ready to go.
You may as well compare a Doctor to a High Schooler for fuck's sake
@@ge2623 Context ist important here. If you have a spacecraft that you NEED to work perfectly? -> Explosion is a failure
Expect it to explode anyway but lets see how far we get and collect as much data as possible -> Every explosion occuring after clearing Stage 0 can’t be considered a failure
@@ge2623 They we’re certified operational vehicles, this was a test vehicle. You think no one tested your car before they certified it for road use? Grow a brain.
@@t.p.7320: Exactly.
Thank you Chris, for setting the record straight. For giving a great explanation and letting them know this is a PROCESS. Design, test, learn, iterate, redesign, test, learn, iterate etc.
Every automobile you've ever ridden in was crash tested.
It flew for over four minutes before being detonated, not bad.
Got into the air!! Not bad at all.
If you think all it had to do was just clear the tower, what if it had blown up 1000 feet above the tower? Would that still be a success? 100 feet? 10 feet? Why didn't they expect it to survive liftoff? That means it wasn't ready. Claiming that it succeeded simply by clearing the pad is like saying your brand-new car is great because you were able to back it out of your garage before the engine seized and the wheels fell off.
@@JeffRL1956 did you pay attention to anything Chris said?
@@HypersonicWyvern My bet is on no, just someone who wants to appear to have a vast set of knowledge 😂
@@JeffRL1956 wtf
This was a test flight of a booster that otherwise would have been scrapped, since it was already an obsolete design as of yesterday's launch (there are already 3 fully stacked boosters with more mature designs, almost ready for launch in a few months, and 5 more under construction). Even the raptor engines attached are not the latest iteration. I'd say this was a huge success.
Starship was supposed to send cargo to Mars in 2022, they are far behind schedule. 🥱
I almost cried when I saw the rocket clearing stage 0. That is its own feat. Elon stated that there was a 50% chance of failure well-before the launch.
Well, he is our favorite, genius corporate overlord.
Me too I was super choked up, then it rose through the dust cloud and I felt elated beyond reason. It was very emotional.
Congrats to the actual engineers and scientists behind it, screw Elon tho
@@RSFGman22 No Elon, no manned space travel.
50% chance of failure just getting to orbit. Reentry presented another huge challenge.
Everyone laughed at SpaceX when they were initially trying to land the falcon 9. Now they have landed 189 times so far.
You are being fooled
@@kfm908
Elaborate
@@kfm908 Fooled how exactly?
I'm still laughing. A million colonists on Mars by 2050? Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!
@@larky368 Their initial plans were by 2018....
Great answer, Explosion of rocket in the midair is "Enormously successful"
Of course it would have to be Chris to set the record straight. HUGE success!
Chris was so on point, this wasnt a failure, but a huge success, and the data they got from that test flight will pave the way for future successful flights
They forgot to add the fact there have already been major upgrades like over 100 to the next starship anyway, which was not on this starship. taking off. I think they only wanted the data to see what would happen with this launch.
Exactly. Might as well use what you’ve got. They have their construction facilities ready to go anyway, so it’s not like they don’t have the means to crank out more of these vehicles pretty quickly (by spacecraft standards).
Elon did say they were desperate to get this thing off the pad and move on to Booster 9, which has massive improvements. The main concern right now is the launch infrastructure though. The exhaust blasted a crater into the reinforced concrete below the launch mount and flying debris decimated the surrounding area. That’s gonna keep them on the ground for a while.
If you think all it had to do was just clear the tower, what if it had blown up 1000 feet above the tower? Would that still be a success? 100 feet? 10 feet? Why didn't they expect it to survive liftoff? That means it wasn't ready. Claiming that it succeeded simply by clearing the pad is like saying your brand-new car is great because you were able to back it out of your garage before the engine seized and the wheels fell off.
@@JeffRL1956 build-test-fail repeat methodology. Used all over the world and is taught in engineering curriculum. Even if it blew up right away, data would be collected and the next iteration improved. You can only do so much “preparation” before a launch, because you’ll never know how it will react in the actual scenario.
@@urhot The only way to truly get to know your vehicle is to actually fly your vehicle, otherwise it's just estimations on the ground
Glad Chris Hadfield who actually knows this stuff put the anchor in his place. What a tremendous journey SpaceX is on and their progress is amazing.
Thanks Chris for putting these so-called news reporters in their place it's so frustrating when they haven't got a clue on what they are talking about
Great guest to have on the show.
Nice to hear from someone intelligent
Great interview! so on point.
Huge success!
I just started the Apollo Murders book and I love it so far.
This rocket will change everything and will be remembered as one of the major moments in rocket history for centuries to come
No. It won't.
Are you talking about Saturn V?
Yeah it raised absolutely zero concerns for nasa.
Also, for note, this really wasn't terribly different from the 2nd and 3rd launches of the Saturn 1
Both didn't have upper stages, but their dummy stages were filled with water and deliberately blown up to see how high altitude terminations would behave
Are you incapable of understanding the difference between that and the low expectations -- which were never stated until it failed -- that all they hoped for was to clear the pad? The Saturn V aborts were scheduled and planned. This failure was not. it was not ready to launch.
@@JeffRL1956 I was talking about the Saturn 1 launches. Not the Saturn 5 test launches. The Saturn 1 launches were designed to fly the exact trajectory that Starship ended up flying. I.E. also a launch where the only real metric was 'leave the pad: yes/no'
Saturn1 worked without incident because it was assembled with proven technology, but had it been terminated, it would still have been just as successful
Edit: also the low expectations were announced before launch since the 24/7 stack was an older generation of ship booster than is next on the line. Perhaps by rigerious NASA standards, it wasn't ready for operational flight. But the flight it did take was worth the asking price in flight data and operational experience alone.
@@JeffRL1956 Musk has been saying for months that there was a 50% chance it would just explode on the pad.
@@TheErockaustin A 50% chance of exploding on the pad plus 100% chance of destroying the pad plus 99% chance of getting destroyed in the process of destroying the pad makes about 249% chance of total failure.
@@hans-joachimbierwirth4727 thats not how math works...
Great encouragement by Chris Hadfield to space X and space X fans 👍
Can you imagine being the person who hits the "Destroy" button?
I'm guessing it was automated, like when Starship Superheavy abnormally drops below 30km, go boom, and boom again.
Range Safety Officer has strict criteria to follow.
I don't think it was a difficult decision to make today. The final trajectory was very much not norminal.
@Steven Veldt I know. It wasn't a criticism. I just thought that even with the learnings, it could be sad to destroy it.
@@naordrums Or awesome! 😂
Your news anchor should look into how SpaceX develops rockets. Their policy has always been to iterate as often as possible, setting smaller goals that are easily achieved but that further development of the rocket. This of course means more explosions, but rapid development. Far more effective for developing a new technology than spending decades planning something before ever building it, in the hopes that you can account for every problem.
Chris Hadfield is my hero. I don't like to aspire to be someone else but he is just so incredibly admirable.
When he said it looks like a failure to the untrained eye what he really means is " morons ".😁
It exploded, look carefully, " genius ".
@@jemirandavit was supposed to explode… “genius”🤡
@@jemirandav Do yourself a favour and Google " flight termination system".
@@jemirandav Honestly... it was going to explode in the air or in the ocean it was how much data they could get out of the flight that mattered.
@@aedanacheson6148 🐑🐑🐑🤡🤡
I wish we could have seen the separation, but it is insane still that this is like a flying sky scraper
True, the heat tiles weren't tested which unfortunately is an important objective that this test flight failed to test. Bittersweet.
Well said Chris! I clicked on this as soon as I saw Chris's face as I knew he would have the right perspective on this.
Great interview helped correct the initial tone of the announcer! Take "exploding" out of the title - you don't need that for click bait!
This is very impressive. I'm using this word very rarely: congratulations! Well done!
What a great guy and interview. You should be proud Canada 🇨🇦 Go SpaceX!!
The only way to find out what will happen if you launch a BFR is to launch the BFR and see what happens.
I wonder if Hadfield totally wrecks his car he would call it "Enormously repaired." 😄
Chris Hadfield is Canadian and went up in a rocket, and came down again. So he knows everything and is recognized, in Canada, for knowing everything.
He is such an incredible speaker, wow. Just so perfectly phrased and delivered.
Slight correction, the prototype F-14 Tomcat crashed on its 2nd flight due to some its hydraulic lines rupturing.
This RUD was better and more satisfying than a snickers🚀👏👏👏👏👏👏
With success like that who needs failure?
Honestly, an explosion in an unmanned test flight is one less explosion that could occur in a manned expedition flight.
Amazing to hear some balanced coverage. Thanks.
well said chris!
the world: it blew up
musk: it was a rapid unscheduled disassembly
And even then I would argue it was at least partly scheduled.
Wisely spoken. Huge leap forward and a steep learning curve.👍🏼
Thank you Chris. I always enjoy hearing from you. Also, Evan is doing great work. Thank you for him.
Rocket: Resounding Success
Launch Pad: Resounding Failure
Chris! If 6 engines of 33 didn't light at launch. This isn't acceptable in any case, if we expect to arrive in lunar orbit.
very well said! congrats to space x team!!
it's clear that Starship SN11 experienced a pogo oscillation failure (31 -33 ) raptor engines firing at once vs (SLS) Artemis 1 rocket which has a total of four engines. this and its apparent Disposable launch pad will be a huge hurdle for SpaceX as Multi-engine rockets are much more susceptible to pogo oscillation phenomenon than single-engine rockets. it took Nasa many years of R&D and is the reason why SlS Artemis 1 chose to use tried and true rocket "boring" technology Pogo was in fact the main cause of the soviets (30 ) engine N-1 rocket failure Pogo oscillation is a phenomenon that occurs when there is a feedback loop between the combustion process of the rocket engines and the rocket structure. The vibration caused by the combustion process can cause structural oscillations in the rocket, which in turn can feed back into the combustion process, leading to a potentially dangerous cycle of vibrations.
In multi-engine rockets, there are more engines that can contribute to the vibration, which increases the likelihood of pogo oscillation occurring. Don't be so Salty Spacex fanboys! its ok! lol Cheers from Park City Utah!
2040: "Starship explodes again in test nr 100"
Experts: "It was enormously successful!"
Todd, you are completely wrong. I love it.
"Rapid Unscheduled Disassembly"
Translates to the Frigging Thing Blew Up!
The ignorance and stupidity of the general public regarding anything to do with space is astounding.
Think about all the public displays of the falcon rocket exploding. Now, it is the most proven and safest vehicle ever flown and is now carrying astronauts to space. We are seeing the fantastic engineering of future space flight in front of our eyes. What's happening now, is what we didnt get to see the Apollo days. This is worth celebrating!
What about the R7?
Hadfield is a legend!
Considering that the concrete underneath the rocket was exploding all over the place, the rocket still flying was an incredible success, the rocket performed, it was what was underneath that didn't
We are elated to have seen this in our hometown, RGV ( Brownsville TX) Just amazing!
I was hoping that they would get a successful stage 1 separation. But as an engineer, I say this was a success.
Aircraft and spacecraft are very complex and it takes time to work out all of the bugs.
Well, since Spacex said before hand that they just hoped it wouldn't explode on the pad because it would cost a lot in infrastructure, the bar was pretty low.
If you think all it had to do was just clear the tower, what if it had blown up 1000 feet above the tower? Would that still be a success? 100 feet? 10 feet? Why didn't they expect it to survive liftoff? That means it wasn't ready. Claiming that it succeeded simply by clearing the pad is like saying your brand-new car is great because you were able to back it out of your garage before the engine seized and the wheels fell off.
@@JeffRL1956 Nobody knew what it would do, but they hoped it would clear the tower so they wouldn't have to rebuild "stage 0"
You can claim something is a success by stating your goals ahead of time and achieving some of those goals in your attempt.
From this they will know what not to do and what to fix for a successful flight
At least they can improve on the possibility of a successful flight, but there is still a long way to get starship to a place when it can be called reliable and that's just the reality.
You'd think by now the press would understand that rocket prototypes exploding are inevitable and a form of research.
Chris Hadfield, my hero since I was 5
Enormously successful? So was the Titanic!
Thank you for this. I'll remember this day forever
The Saturn V never exploded. It takes more than 3 Raptor engines to match the power of a single F1 engine.
You saying they didnt learn anything before going to MOON?
Great reporter. Asked short relevant questions and didn't interrupt his guest.
Great interview Mr. Hadfield! 👌💯