I think The Flame Trench is going off the rails. This has always been a highlight of my week with the banter and the in depth rocket related conversations. But this seemed to be a photographers convention and poor Sawyer and EJ just sat looking bemused. I agree that the photographic team are amazing and we would not have a channel without all their hard work but PLEASE do a dedicated members photography stream and get back to rockets. I asked about TPS and there was a short mention of another system but this was not expanded on and I have no idea what it is. Come on NSF you are THE channel for space flight news and do an amazing job. What about the chines, the BQD on the booster not catching fire this time, The minimal burn through on starship, the only amazing thing was the footage for the Buoy showing the flip and burn but it was only drooled over by the photographers and no real details or suggestions from the team Ok I've had my rant but I hope you take this on board you all do a fantastic job, just please don't let the quality slip
Very surprised and ngl a little bit annoyed that you guys didn't talk about last week's interview that Spaceflight Now did with NASA's Kent Chojnacki about Starship. If you missed it (in which case whoever's responsible for getting you your list of subjects for the flame trench needs to take a walk of shame), some pretty interesting and encouraging stuff was said in those 10 minutes that wouldn't have taken that long to cover (at least imho). (If they did talk about it and I skipped over it, someone please give me a timestamp so I'll eat some humble pie and apologize)
So theres really bad lists online about the tallest water tower so Jeff was a bit mistaken. His water tower is 351 feet tall, but there are much taller towers, theres many dual use towers upto 800 feet tall, but the tallest water only tower i can find is the Ginosa water tower in Italy which is 426 feet tall. The second tallest is Blues tower. Many of the tallst ones are chimneys with a water tabk or wind turbines with a water tabk, or antennas with a water tank. Also the manhattan project had a 382 foot tower that was demolished in 2013. Many of those dual use towers do have more capacity than Blues.
1:09:56 - okay EJ's argument about fixed price contracting is kind of driving me insane here. Even ignoring money, look at TIME, the biggest cost driver is going to be schedule overruns, so if the people making this stuff are literally incentivized to drive up costs the easiest way is to DELAY things. I just feel like NASA has been way, way, waaaaayyyyyy too lax with their deadlines and it's extremely annoying. You can say like "oh we have a deadline" but unless that deadline is absolute then people are going to get lazy. (Also this is not a 'fixed price contract' but rather an internal NASA project with a budget/schedule - And anyway it should have been planned with a realistic schedule/budget, maybe some items could have been designated as 'bonus items' that could be cut to keep on budget)
Oh I've been saying this for a while. Just like in the airliner industry, eventually SpaceX will be commissioned to either build a completely custom variant (already technically has happened with HLS), or they'll provide a stripped down "empty" version that can be customized to the clients desire. I'd love to see NASA purchase 7-10 ships to outfit with full sensor suites and lander platforms and send them out to every planet in the system and have a couple extra for other missions. Even at a billion a piece, that's well within NASA's budget to make happen over the next decade.
I completely agree the Superheavy booster is not necessarily "Starship". To assume this is to assume that it will never carry anything else but Starship variants. I guess you could call everything that will ever fly on top of the Superheavy booster a "Starship", but I have little doubt there will be expendable upper stages eventually designed for Superheavy that can carry payloads directly out of earth's orbit without refueling like the Saturn 5 or SLS upper stage. It would be a stretch to call this a "Starship", but I guess if one wanted to die on that hill as well, they could. Buy why?! Starship is basically just Shuttle 2.0. To die on the hill of insisting the Superheavy booster can only carry Shuttle 2.0 seems kinda absurd to me. If the next administration enlisted SpaceX to use Superheavy to launch the exploration upperstage with Orion so that SLS can be retired, I'm sure they would be more than happy to take that contract. Is it still "Starship" at that point? Of course not.
To add to the above, calling Superheavy "Starship" would be like calling the Space Shuttle's solid rocket boosters the "Space Shuttle". Think about it. The Shuttle's boosters is it's first stage, just like Superheavy is to Starship (Shuttle 2.0). And what do you know, we have virtually the same boosters as the first stage to SLS. Does this mean the SLS is the Space Shuttle?! Of course not. Same goes for Superheavy when it's not carrying Shuttle 2.0 (Starship).
I completely agree, in particular with regard to a potential near-term, brute-force way to completely get rid of the SLS for Artemis. Forget even about reusing any existing expendable second stage; SpaceX could probably design and build one in-house, faster and cheaper than it would take to integrate and qualify the SuperHeavy and the launch pad for any third-party second stage integration and launch (even setting aside that all other candidates are hydrolox at the moment). Longer term though - once Block 3 starts flying - there might never be a real need for expendable mid-stages. At least, not within the remaining lifetime of Starship/SuperHeavy as an operational system. Once you can lift 200+ tonnes to LEO and release that payload out of a generic 'cargo' Starship variant with a sufficiently large payload door, then Starship just becomes a reusable second stage of what could be in effect a 3- or even 4-stage deep-space transporter (with the 'kick' stage(s) integrated and deployed together with the payload). And then you can even go further when needed, to refuel that second stage in orbit, and expend it on a deep space burn before deploying the cargo with any additional kick stage(s) attached... An expendable Starship variant could further improve performance by shedding the mass and costs of the TPS, flaps, and header tanks and associated systems as well as landing propellant reserves. The body frame could also be lighter, as it no longer would need to be built to cope with the transverse and torsional stresses of a bellyflop reentry, descent, and landing.
@@Spherical_Cow I completely agree with all of the above but you're forgetting one thing. What if what Stoke Space is building becomes the new "iphone" for second stages like the Falcon9 did for the first stage? It's not inconceivable that we'll see a Stoke Space derived vehicle on top of Superheavy, perhaps even replacing the traditional Starship with flaps and tps altogether. Would it then still be called "Starship"? It would not surprise me to see this happen in the coming years at least when it comes to crew vehicles.
I've seen people on another social media platform yapping about governmental overeach but in reality it's BO's fault for not acquiring the correct permits.
@osirisapex7483 BO are so late to get to testing that you would like to think that they had all the required paperwork done long ago 🙄 no hating on BO just saying that seeing as they were soposed to be testing years ago that their paperwork should have been done.
New Glenn... As EJ mentioned, 3 is better than 2 but honestly, the fact that its a NON-SpaceX rocket is frankly the bigger deal. The rest of the industry/world is 10-20 years + behind SpaceX at this point. To see someone at least maintain that gap vs falling further behind is nothing short of historical.
So sure, BO prob shouldn't have fired without the proper permit but at the same time it shouldn't take 4 months to get a freaking water discharge permit. Especially in an area of Florida where this kind of thing is not unprecedented. Come on now...
Rain falls as freshwater. By the time it gets through the sewers to the wastewater treatment plant, though, it'll have picked up a whole bunch of contaminants. That's why major metropolitan areas collect and treat the runoff first, rather than just discharging it untreated into the nearest body of water. The same considerations apply to deluge water sprayed at rocket exhaust and surrounding pad infrastructure.
Ah EJ and Viper. We know what happens to over-budget NASA missions because the dirty laundry gets aired in Congress. Do we know what went over budget and was scrapped at SpaceX or Blue Origin? We have a slight idea with ULA, because they've also had dirty laundry aired in Congress, as part of the Defense Department budget.
you have BO who are subject to tax law and defense contractor partners probably with different rules who may not be planning along the lines BO has been operating under and their owner seems to be competent doing
Eating BABYS!. O>M>G. I come back into my home and the team is eating babies! THE ACCENT IS FANTASTIC. BABY MEAT IS GREAT AND TENDER! WHAT IS GOING TO BE NEXT?GREAT WORK 🤣
This video is unwatchable in the first 20 min I had over 5 adverts that's more than one every 5 min. On a 3 hour video. Please put a sensible limit on RUclips adverts.
@@tron3749 yes but NSF have said previously they don't set it at all or at least very low. I didn't get a single ad so you got unlucky for whatever reason.
Great stuff all, as usual. Just wondering, at this point, tho… with all the free publicity you give to Elon and SpaceX , did any of you receive a $1M dollar check? 🤨🤔 maybe y’all should move to Pennsylvania 🤨🤷♂️🫡
![Jack Harlow - Hello Miss Johnson [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Q86_nlRoIGw/mqdefault.jpg)
Another 3 hours. We keep eating great. NSF, keep this up.
Thanks Alex, EJ , Sawyer and NSF team for another interesting flame trench.
Awesome Flame Trench EJ, Sawyer, & Alex! Thank you & NSF!
Always fun, guys. You're the best or BEST!
Hope you like the THRUST! from the flame trench 😂
I think The Flame Trench is going off the rails. This has always been a highlight of my week with the banter and the in depth rocket related conversations. But this seemed to be a photographers convention and poor Sawyer and EJ just sat looking bemused. I agree that the photographic team are amazing and we would not have a channel without all their hard work but PLEASE do a dedicated members photography stream and get back to rockets. I asked about TPS and there was a short mention of another system but this was not expanded on and I have no idea what it is. Come on NSF you are THE channel for space flight news and do an amazing job.
What about the chines, the BQD on the booster not catching fire this time, The minimal burn through on starship, the only amazing thing was the footage for the Buoy showing the flip and burn but it was only drooled over by the photographers and no real details or suggestions from the team
Ok I've had my rant but I hope you take this on board you all do a fantastic job, just please don't let the quality slip
You have given me so much joy lately.
Very surprised and ngl a little bit annoyed that you guys didn't talk about last week's interview that Spaceflight Now did with NASA's Kent Chojnacki about Starship.
If you missed it (in which case whoever's responsible for getting you your list of subjects for the flame trench needs to take a walk of shame), some pretty interesting and encouraging stuff was said in those 10 minutes that wouldn't have taken that long to cover (at least imho).
(If they did talk about it and I skipped over it, someone please give me a timestamp so I'll eat some humble pie and apologize)
I watched live tonight hoping they'd talk about it but nah...
I LOVE THE FLAME TRENCH
So theres really bad lists online about the tallest water tower so Jeff was a bit mistaken. His water tower is 351 feet tall, but there are much taller towers, theres many dual use towers upto 800 feet tall, but the tallest water only tower i can find is the Ginosa water tower in Italy which is 426 feet tall. The second tallest is Blues tower.
Many of the tallst ones are chimneys with a water tabk or wind turbines with a water tabk, or antennas with a water tank. Also the manhattan project had a 382 foot tower that was demolished in 2013. Many of those dual use towers do have more capacity than Blues.
1:09:56 - okay EJ's argument about fixed price contracting is kind of driving me insane here. Even ignoring money, look at TIME, the biggest cost driver is going to be schedule overruns, so if the people making this stuff are literally incentivized to drive up costs the easiest way is to DELAY things. I just feel like NASA has been way, way, waaaaayyyyyy too lax with their deadlines and it's extremely annoying. You can say like "oh we have a deadline" but unless that deadline is absolute then people are going to get lazy. (Also this is not a 'fixed price contract' but rather an internal NASA project with a budget/schedule - And anyway it should have been planned with a realistic schedule/budget, maybe some items could have been designated as 'bonus items' that could be cut to keep on budget)
Nice perspective on the thumbnail making new glenn look as tall as starship even if it is not
It's rather close tho, 94m tall
Oh I've been saying this for a while. Just like in the airliner industry, eventually SpaceX will be commissioned to either build a completely custom variant (already technically has happened with HLS), or they'll provide a stripped down "empty" version that can be customized to the clients desire. I'd love to see NASA purchase 7-10 ships to outfit with full sensor suites and lander platforms and send them out to every planet in the system and have a couple extra for other missions. Even at a billion a piece, that's well within NASA's budget to make happen over the next decade.
I completely agree the Superheavy booster is not necessarily "Starship". To assume this is to assume that it will never carry anything else but Starship variants. I guess you could call everything that will ever fly on top of the Superheavy booster a "Starship", but I have little doubt there will be expendable upper stages eventually designed for Superheavy that can carry payloads directly out of earth's orbit without refueling like the Saturn 5 or SLS upper stage. It would be a stretch to call this a "Starship", but I guess if one wanted to die on that hill as well, they could. Buy why?! Starship is basically just Shuttle 2.0. To die on the hill of insisting the Superheavy booster can only carry Shuttle 2.0 seems kinda absurd to me. If the next administration enlisted SpaceX to use Superheavy to launch the exploration upperstage with Orion so that SLS can be retired, I'm sure they would be more than happy to take that contract. Is it still "Starship" at that point? Of course not.
To add to the above, calling Superheavy "Starship" would be like calling the Space Shuttle's solid rocket boosters the "Space Shuttle". Think about it. The Shuttle's boosters is it's first stage, just like Superheavy is to Starship (Shuttle 2.0). And what do you know, we have virtually the same boosters as the first stage to SLS. Does this mean the SLS is the Space Shuttle?! Of course not. Same goes for Superheavy when it's not carrying Shuttle 2.0 (Starship).
I completely agree, in particular with regard to a potential near-term, brute-force way to completely get rid of the SLS for Artemis. Forget even about reusing any existing expendable second stage; SpaceX could probably design and build one in-house, faster and cheaper than it would take to integrate and qualify the SuperHeavy and the launch pad for any third-party second stage integration and launch (even setting aside that all other candidates are hydrolox at the moment).
Longer term though - once Block 3 starts flying - there might never be a real need for expendable mid-stages. At least, not within the remaining lifetime of Starship/SuperHeavy as an operational system. Once you can lift 200+ tonnes to LEO and release that payload out of a generic 'cargo' Starship variant with a sufficiently large payload door, then Starship just becomes a reusable second stage of what could be in effect a 3- or even 4-stage deep-space transporter (with the 'kick' stage(s) integrated and deployed together with the payload).
And then you can even go further when needed, to refuel that second stage in orbit, and expend it on a deep space burn before deploying the cargo with any additional kick stage(s) attached... An expendable Starship variant could further improve performance by shedding the mass and costs of the TPS, flaps, and header tanks and associated systems as well as landing propellant reserves. The body frame could also be lighter, as it no longer would need to be built to cope with the transverse and torsional stresses of a bellyflop reentry, descent, and landing.
I don't get why people care so much. Everything needs a label, apparently.
@@Spherical_Cow I completely agree with all of the above but you're forgetting one thing. What if what Stoke Space is building becomes the new "iphone" for second stages like the Falcon9 did for the first stage? It's not inconceivable that we'll see a Stoke Space derived vehicle on top of Superheavy, perhaps even replacing the traditional Starship with flaps and tps altogether. Would it then still be called "Starship"? It would not surprise me to see this happen in the coming years at least when it comes to crew vehicles.
When Bacon Jack metal print? 🤣
😆😆 something a future alien can think of… was this their god. Bacon jack god shrine
If Blue doesn't have a permit to use its deluge system then they cannot do their main static fires = not going to launch any time soon. 😊
I've seen people on another social media platform yapping about governmental overeach but in reality it's BO's fault for not acquiring the correct permits.
When BO does launch NG you haters will just move the goalposts. Why can’t we just enjoy things?
@osirisapex7483 BO are so late to get to testing that you would like to think that they had all the required paperwork done long ago 🙄 no hating on BO just saying that seeing as they were soposed to be testing years ago that their paperwork should have been done.
New Glenn... As EJ mentioned, 3 is better than 2 but honestly, the fact that its a NON-SpaceX rocket is frankly the bigger deal. The rest of the industry/world is 10-20 years + behind SpaceX at this point. To see someone at least maintain that gap vs falling further behind is nothing short of historical.
Came here for the intro. 😁
So sure, BO prob shouldn't have fired without the proper permit but at the same time it shouldn't take 4 months to get a freaking water discharge permit. Especially in an area of Florida where this kind of thing is not unprecedented. Come on now...
Those bonuses for ML2 team... could have finished Viper mission?
Starship variants: they’re all Ford F-150 with different trim packages.
Releasing fresh water should never be controlled. The only reason why these areas are undeveloped is they are reserved for space launches.
Rain falls as freshwater. By the time it gets through the sewers to the wastewater treatment plant, though, it'll have picked up a whole bunch of contaminants. That's why major metropolitan areas collect and treat the runoff first, rather than just discharging it untreated into the nearest body of water. The same considerations apply to deluge water sprayed at rocket exhaust and surrounding pad infrastructure.
@Nasaspaceflight how will ship be caught? I say upper & lower catch points on leeward side (no tiles)!!
Ah EJ and Viper. We know what happens to over-budget NASA missions because the dirty laundry gets aired in Congress. Do we know what went over budget and was scrapped at SpaceX or Blue Origin? We have a slight idea with ULA, because they've also had dirty laundry aired in Congress, as part of the Defense Department budget.
Intense
I don't know how YT ads work these days, but I'm getting an ad every 5 minutes.
Long Stick 3 looks terrible, but Death Stick has it beat.
Why hasn't there been the launch of a GOES satellite to the moon? This of the science!!
Right!
Instead of Viper, NASA should cancel SLS, because it's way over budget.
GLENNY
That stream jail…🤣💀
you have BO who are subject to tax law and defense contractor partners probably with different rules who may not be planning along the lines BO has been operating under and their owner seems to be competent doing
Eating BABYS!. O>M>G. I come back into my home and the team is eating babies! THE ACCENT IS FANTASTIC. BABY MEAT IS GREAT AND TENDER! WHAT IS GOING TO BE NEXT?GREAT WORK 🤣
NASA pulling the plug on something because it went over budget is actually hilarious when you think about SLS.
BEST! is pronounced "best bang", right?
The SLS launcher went HUGELY OVERBUDGET!~!!!! And they aren't cancelling that one
This video is unwatchable in the first 20 min I had over 5 adverts that's more than one every 5 min. On a 3 hour video. Please put a sensible limit on RUclips adverts.
I have a landing site! 😅
WHO TOOK MY OTHER COMMENTDOWN? THE ONE BEHIND THE BOOSTER AND THE NY TOILET NY GIRL FLUSHING WAS A BIT DRASTIC!
maybe the square hole joke will die now 😂
Can you guys calm down on the ads? I get back to back ads every 5 minutes, it makes it unlistenable as a podcast
Blame RUclips, not NSF.
@@iamaduckquack uploaders can select their ad frequency
@@tron3749 yes but NSF have said previously they don't set it at all or at least very low. I didn't get a single ad so you got unlucky for whatever reason.
1.The Smarter every day video is silly.
2. SLS is expensive.
Dude takes over the stream and has the most ignorant and aggressive takes.
"Unprecedented," he says about Blue Origin. LOL. What a joke! Check the laptop of the guy in the hat. He's definitely a federal asset.
This show is so awkward without jack or dos.😬
Das. If you're going to be rude to the hosts at least spell their names correctly.
@@iamaduckquack Chill out bro.
Great stuff all, as usual. Just wondering, at this point, tho… with all the free publicity you give to Elon and SpaceX , did any of you receive a $1M dollar check? 🤨🤔 maybe y’all should move to Pennsylvania 🤨🤷♂️🫡