What Exactly Happened On SpaceX's Second Starship Launch Attempt!
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 14 июн 2024
- What Exactly Happened On SpaceX's Second Starship Launch Attempt!
Last Video: The Truth About NASA's New Space Capsule! (Starliner)
• The Truth About NASA's...
►The Space Race Merch Store Is Live! Shop our first release while quantities last: shop.theteslaspace.com/
► Join Our Discord Server: / discord
► Patreon: / theteslaspace
► Subscribe to our other channel, The Space Race: / theteslaspace
Mars Colonization News and Updates
• Mars Colonization News...
SpaceX News and Updates: • SpaceX News and Updates
The Space Race is dedicated to the exploration of outer space and humans' mission to explore the universe. We’ll provide news and updates from everything in space, including the SpaceX and NASA mission to colonize Mars and the Moon. We’ll focus on news and updates from SpaceX, NASA, Starlink, Blue Origin, The James Webb Space Telescope and more. If you’re interested in space exploration, Mars colonization, and everything to do with space travel and the space race... you’ve come to the right channel! We love space and hope to inspire others to learn more!
► Subscribe to The Tesla Space newsletter: www.theteslaspace.com
Business Email: sean@creatormill.com
#Spacex #Space #Mars 
Наука
What do you think, was Starship flight test #2 a success or failure? Let us know below!
How was this comment made 37 minutes ago
But it was a success
@@FlyingandGamescan comment before it’s fully uploaded
Definitely a success
It is progress even if it is not a huge step forward.
Can we change the thumbnail pleaseee it's very misleading
Yes, I agree that's not what happened. I saw the live stream myself
For real.
That's just the type of image that gets clicks unfortunately
I don’t know why the put up things like that. Is it just to get people to look at a falsehood/lie
Horrible thumbnail for reporting facts
Some of that footage you used of the hot staging was a CGI render, not actual launch footage, you probably should have made a note of that.
If you can tell then he didn't need to.
@@filonin2 You CAN'T tell them, that's the point.
@@filonin2 I agree all CGI should be labelled as such. The average person seems to have very poor ability to tell the difference between CGI, AI generated etc.
Getting all 33 Raptor first-stage engines firing and functioning flawlessly was an amazing success, as you mentioned in your report!!! 👋👋👋
That's setting the bar down at the Mariana trench isn't it?
That launch was exciting to watch.
Firing all 33 booster engines for full duration is something that the Soviets failed to accomplish during four launches of their giant N1 moon rockets
Cool story bro
Either way, the launch was spectacular. Hope for success on the third launch.
👍🏾👍🏾👍🏾👍🏾👍🏾
😅😅
I see it as a success.
All the problems that were identified on the first launch were fixed. Thats what you call 100% progress.
Lets hope they can repeat that feat with the 3rd launch.
Just for the record.
They could not improve the raptors enough...
If you don't destrey the launchad you have smaller chance to damage the engines.
If you don't damage the engines there is a higher chance to work until you shut it down.
If you want to reignite the raptors that was still a failure.
There is a bigger question what happened with the second stage.
Yep.
This had twice as many new problems as the first launch. Some of you guys need a reality check. This was a fail less than 4 mins into a 90 minute mission.
I agree… although not a total success… more of a major improvement. Flight 3 should fix the issues
Is "The Space Race" and "The Tesla Space" the same channel? xD You'll both have very similar logo's and both released videos at the exact same time.
@Smallpie_guy Ahh yup. They mention this channel in The Tesla Space's latest video. So confirmed.
Thanks for sharing. 😉👌🏻
The thumbnail is exceptionally misleading, as all 33 engines ran perfectly from liftoff to stage sep. You could instead use a picture of the booster in its final few seconds, ejecting massive plumes of gas from its engine compartment. That would be much better.
thanks dawg, that was super informative
Impressive amount of new info!
Awesome video but you might want to fix the spelling of February.
Thx for sharing. With the booster I recon that it will only be the sequence of the flip and relight that might have to change. The relight of the inner ring might have to wait for a few seconds longer until after the flip maneuver have been completed and the fuel have settled at the base of the tanks. As for one of the center engines that went out, maybe an auto relight system or feed from the header tanks during the flip maneuver. At the ship, only data will tell what the issues were.
I agree. Or it don’t flip at all. But explain why it has to flip? Or they just can’t prevent it from flip? Explain why it can’t separate and free fall and boost back burn land
Excitement was guaranteed. Excitement was delivered!
A good summary of IFT-2 and its context. Thumb up!
Nice video...
Much better assessment this time around. I wouldn’t exclude completely the possibility of an IFT-3 by sometime in January. The rate of improvement in design and performance is only going to *_continue_* to accelerate. The volume of work needed to fix the issues from this flight is a small fraction of what was needed to fix the issues laid bare by IFT-1. And that pattern is only going to continue.
Even though it wasnt perfect, watching this behemoth just split in half and have the lower section turn around mid flight is just insane. I cant wait to see it work correctly.
Still the launch was a much better success than last time i get some things didnt go well but we got our promise that it didnt destroy the pad and such
Btw booster fueling started around 2hrs before 8am est, and only 1 engine failed to lite at hot staging, 11 more engines failed until only 1 one was left running and then fts activated
Definite success even tho the thumbnail was meant to mislead. The thumbnail is from the first launch in case the author didnt know.
Stage Zero looked like the Wreckage of Chernobyl after IFT no.1. Mad Props to the Engineers, Contractors, & Construction Crew for their hard work in preparation of IFT no.2. Super Mad Props to them bad-asses!
And how fast they designed it and then implemented it. NASA would have taken 2 years to engineer the new Stage Zero and another year to build it, for a lot more money.
@@DSTsucks I'd give NASA a little more credit, but...
I had my doubts about that fancy douch system but I’m good now
Well as long as "you" are good
Great Video on the OF2 Starship launch. SpaceX enthusiast, Greetings from Europe.
Your thumbnail says "What went wrong" but your video, even though informative did not answer that crucial question...
Because it’s a hook, little fishy, a HOOK!
Hello can I please ask in your video you see the booster rotates in two different ways down and up and over . Can you talk about this .
I as future new owner and Tesla and SpaceX CEO,this is called raptor steering.A system in which a rocket engine uses automated in-flight steering system to steer the rocket to any direction 60° to 180° while landing.👍👍🤔👌🚗🚗🚀🚀🚀🇰🇪🇺🇲
When the Hot Staging occurred, there was a natural, resultant deceleration of the Super Heavy. I was wondering if that deceleration caused the fuels to float away from the stern and fuel starved the engines. What do you think?
If you agree, I wonder if it's possible to use some of the header tanks' fuel to provide continuous pressure during the flip maneuver while relighting the other engines.
Obviously, we can't say if that's what happened or not, but it's an intriguing idea. What keep the fuel flowing to the engines when it is, for a period of time, weightless? I don't know what types of pumps are in the onboard tanks or how many there are. Now I want to research that. Thanks!
@@DSTsucksthere are no pumps on the starship the fuel is pumped in to the combustion chamber by the turbo pumps on the raptor engines and because the fuel tanks are pressurized during the flight by taking a little bit of fuel and super heating it with a heat exchanger and putting it in the tanks it is very possible that because of the deceleration of the super heavy the engines ingested the gas and because the raptor is not designed to run on super heated gas it will fail as scott manley said in this video using the header tanks while the flip is a possible solution but it will take the re-designing of the super heavy fuel tanks as well as the header tanks to store more fuel the header tanks as the header tanks only have enough fuel for the landing burn but i think they can get away by just tweaking the hot stage and flip maneuver
@@MFaiqVaince I agree with your theory, perhaps a less aggressive flip maneuver, and instead more of a shallow arc might help keep the fuel in a more stable orientation? I heard baffles being mentioned but that they might interfere with the fuel flow. Definitely need to keep pressure to the shutdown raptors, or enough to reprime them after separation.
What I’d like to see is where on a map each unscheduled disassembly happened? One channel mentioned the staging happened near Puerto Rico but I’m a visual guy and it would be neat to see… hint hint. 😁👍
Ok so the staging wasn’t anywhere near PR but rather that is around where the ship debris ended up.
I was amazed at all the success with technical complexity... explained in great detail. Then at 12:52 the schedule displayed FEBUARY. Ouch.
12:51 You have written "Febuary"
interesting, during hot-staging the vacuum raptor engines are gimbled outwards and then gimble to the "normal" position once the ship is far enough away... visable at 1.55 and 10.00
Didn’t trash the pad, all engines fired. That right there is a HUGE achievement. The rest is just icing on the cake.
The second test flight was amazing. Nearly flawless until stage separation. Although hot staging appeared to go off without a hitch, I suspect that the failure of the booster engines may have had something to do with the combination of hammering caused by the shutdown sequence of engines and the effects of the 6 engines being started atop the booster. Either way, I am excited about the third launch.
This narrator's voice is so much better than the other guy's. Successful flight test--got further along and passed some new milestones. 👍👍
We haven't found out if the hot staging damaged the grid fins on the booster. Does SpaceX have any data on that? Were there any sensors to determine if any damage was done?
Scott Manley noted that Starship's LOX had started plummeting faster than the CH4 which was not the case beforehand. Indicating a possible leak. I think we only saw a couple plumes from the tracking camera which is probably the engine cutoff before the FTS - since we couldn't see the rocket anymore.
All in all, major success. The hot staging was great. So was the deluge system.
This is not a failure but we learned a lot and hopefully next time it will all work fine! Interesting video 😊
im just wondering what OS are they using in their mission control center?
If they want starship to achieve it's goal they will have to fix the LOX quick disconnect which leaked significant LOX during flight making the goal impossible; this happened on both IFT1 and IFT2 !! So, where everything else seemed to improve; this one problem was either ignored or not fixed properly. I also believe that too many engines were shut down on the booster for separation. We also need to keep in mind that this flight HAD NO PAYLOAD, so every propellant efficiency needs to be optimized! Another goal is refueling and that can't happen unless both booster and starship are recoverable and reusable!!
If it was the Starship QD leaking that caused the sudden increase in LOX consumption then It wont be difficult to fix things for a second and successful flight to reentry.
Booster fuel supply problems can probably be fixed by relight timing changes.
They have no chance of making the Dec 2025 moon mission.
It would have to all be basically ready now so they can begin all their real test launches.
They should try the “hoof GP” green glue!
That is why I love Sea dragon rocket it's solve all the problem long time ago
The velocity of the booster dropped and actually decreased at separation, likely causing slosh in the tanks, which would've caused bubbles in the lines, which leads to hammering at extreme high pressure, which would've destroyed components
Pogo
acting like fake news with that thumbnail
The problem with the damaged chopsticks is that they'll be needed to catch the booster. Maybe the catching pad needs to be separate from the launch pad.
Informative video even if your title is misleading. You did not tell us "what exactly" happened on the 2nd launch because from the boosters boost back maneuver on, exact information has not yet been released by SpaceX. Cheers
Not to mention the stupid thumbnail.
I think the booster failed due to flow instabilities caused by the separatation and flip maneuvers. Some part failed on ship 25 that caused a cascade of failures destroying the ship.
Ship 25 is more of a mystery, since we couldn't see hardly anything after separation. I agree with your theory about the booster though, it's fun being armchair engineer sleuths. I'd love to be part of their team, I applied but I'm sure I'm not up to snuff, as well as being an old fart. LOL
FTR S25 was still using Hydraulic TVC (Thrust Vector Control/Gimbaling) I believe it was the last test article that didn't have Electric TVC
It seems that the timing for firing the booster engines needed to happen sooner. I'm guessing the booster engines lost fuel pressure during the flip.
they should do a 6 inch hover catch with super heavy off the OLM while they wait for FAA approvals
I feel like they could use more water. They should have water flowing over the hardware like they did for the Space Shuttle & do for the Falcon 9
In my opinion we will not know until the third launch. When we see what was learned from launch 2 and if this information could be applied to launch 3.
I think the Starship needed to reach 27K kph, as it only reached 24K kph before SECO, but there didn’t seem to be enough fuel for that, so Kaboom!!
Source?
A small fuel chamber is required at the fuel inlet with a flap check valve allowing inflow only. The speed of this inflow must be limited by a Tesla flow clutch. In this small fuel chamber there should be a tank that absorbs pressure surges (e.g. a rubber balloon with gas). That's it to put it simply.
Excellent distraction!
I’m waiting to see when the Raptor 3 version of the rocket engine will be installed in Starship. It’s so much more powerful!
100% SUCCESS
Where is it stated that the FTS took out the booster?
It seems that, by SpaceX fans metrics, the Saturn V rockets were a failure because they never used the flight termination system. [This is sarcasm for those who can't tell]
In the earliest days of space flight and in science fiction before space flight was possible, it was thought that spaceflight would be accomplished using re-usable vehicles like mankind had used from the first travels by floating on water. As rockets were developed, the amount of energy required made it obvious to many that single use vehicles would be much simpler and bringing a small part of the rocket back from space would be much easier than bringing the entire vehicle back. A vehicle that could be re-used has to be made stronger = heavier= needing more thrust to launch = more fuel = more weight = even more power = more weight = even more power needed and it goes on in and endless loop. Early on there was also much debate about multiple engines. An engine can have multiple points of failure. A second engine increases the chances for failure. Every engine added increases that chance. It isn't just losing thrust in one engine. A failure of one engine can cause failures in other engines which can lead to a cascading failure.
When the US Congress decided a re-usable vehicle was needed to save money and pretty much forced NASA to go the re-usable route, there was much disagreement among scientists but the only way to secure funding was to build the re-usable Space Shuttle. It was developed but it was only useful in Earth orbit. The multiple parts of the space shuttle increased the possible modes of failure.
Who pushes the termination button? That has to be a tough call...
So, what is believed to be the cause of booster and starship failure after separation?
I don't think we really know about the booster, yet. I haven't heard anything concrete along those lines. As far as Starship, or second stage, I believe the Flight Termination System was triggered by the loss of signal.
@@DSTsucks Somewhere I had heard that when the first stage flipped around there might have been a hydrodynamic issue with the fuel getting to the booster engines for the restart, but of course all speculation.
"Space X needs to nail down a good adhesive and attachment procedures just like NASA did with the old shuttle."
Uh... No one told him about the Columbia shuttle incident.
Also and cost and long length of time spent on the heat tiles what helped contribute the death nail for the NASA shuttle program.
Great content
I really worry about the heat shield system. Based on the desired launch frequency, I think this system is going to present continuous problems. I’d love to see them find a whole different method.
Yes it was evident that the heat shield came off in large chunks in this recent launch so who knows
The heat shield has already been upgraded on the newer versions of starship
Been following development since the beginning and this is the thing I worry about the most at this point. Everything on the booster is basically a previously solved problem but larger. But Starship and especially its heat shields are the biggest question mark
@@serronserron1320 Yes, that seems to be the weakest link and the most challenging to solve. The shuttle had continuous issues, they're real lucky more shuttles didn't fail catastrophically.
One other thing I noticed while watching your recap videos is that the after the hot staging, (using the vacuum engines) the starship shut those down and shifted seamlessly to its three primary engines. Very impressive. On question I did have is when does starship shift back to its vacuum engines? Could that have been what caused the anomaly?
I am cofusion. If you look at telemetry you can see that the vacs are active for all of ship flight ALONG with the seas
it kept all 6 running till its FTS activated
@@foggiertiger535 Yes, not much info on Starship itself. Can't wait to hear more.
@@foggiertiger535there was no FTS. On either stage.
@@EnzoFerenczyowell it did split in half
Trust 2 weight ratio below 1
The FAA will be recruiting a Lead Investigator in the new year.
FAA want 60 test launches before they put crews on it - that is hypocritical since Artemis has only lunched twice with crew planned for third launch in 24!!
The thumbnail is actually very misleading.
🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥
One more thing that went wrong in your video 7:04
SpaceX confirmed that FTS was activated on the *Starship* only.
They never said the FTS was activated on the booster. The official statement said that the booster experienced “rapid *unscheduled* disassembly”
If FTS was activated, it would be “rapid *scheduled* disassembly”
Kind of. It wasn’t in the flight plan so it wasn’t *sheduled* but rather unexpected
And yet SpaceX clearly stated that the FTS on Starship was a rapid UNSCHEDULED disassembly. You can’t mix your terms, you’re flat out wrong saying that.
@@robertfousch2703 Here I copy & paste straight from SpaceX:
“• Following separation, the Super Heavy booster successfully completed its flip maneuver and initiated the boostback burn before it experienced a rapid unscheduled disassembly. The vehicle breakup occurred more than three and a half minutes into the flight at an altitude of ~90 km over the Gulf of Mexico.
• Starship's six second stage Raptor engines all started successfully and powered the vehicle to an altitude of ~150 km and a velocity of ~24,000 km/h, becoming the first Starship to reach outer space and nearly completing its full-duration burn.
• The flight test’s conclusion came when telemetry was lost near the end of second stage burn prior to engine cutoff after more than eight minutes of flight. The team verified a safe command destruct was appropriately triggered based on available vehicle performance data”
Lying wanker…
@@Wurtoz9643 It is a part of their contingency flight plan procedure so yes, it was planned and it was scheduled when they activate their contingency procedure.
Misleading thumbnail lol
I was like what!? All raptor engines on the booster were all fine during ascent.
FTS is flight termination not vehicle molecular disintegration system. there is no way for them to destroy the entire vehicle. the FTS worked as designed and ignited the fuel and oxidizer instantly. the header tank inside the nosecone only contains oxygen so there is nothing to ignite.
Didn't they just say that the FTS on the booster wasn't activated and that it was an over pressure event in the LOX tank that caused a rupture?
They just state "FTS activated" without evidence here
It was never used. Whoever he is quoting is full of sh1t.
The vide sertainly looks like the booster is destroyed by a rupture at the common dome consistent with a rupture or engine hammer. Given the consistent pattern of SpaceX simps lying about FTS activations as a copping mechanism each time a vehicle blows up I trust this videos claims are far as I can throw a StarShip.
Is starship loaded with weights, to simulate a load? Just curious..
For safety reasons and considering the FAA anal safety concerns, they made the automatic self-destruction system overly sensitive.
At 12:51 - February has two "r's" in it, not one.
Reported as spam because of the thumbnail
What about the missing tiles on Starship? I read up to 85 tiles were missing as seen from high resolution images of the ascent.
Also Starship was empty.
Its ascent clearing the tower would be much slower with a massive payload.
Finally why no onboard camera video released to the public?
Was not at full throttle.
The whole engine bay basically exploded in the booster before FTS was activated! No way it would have made it back!
My theory is that because starship is larger than falcon and begins its boostback at a lower altitude. The air is compressing behind the engines and causing issues on relight. I bet if they lit all the engines they intend to use for boostback before performing the flip then it would work better.
Man thinks he is smarter than space x💀💀💀
@@josefsaad9842 Nah dumbass its a theory. SpaceX doesn't know why yet and I'm just making an educated guess based on the circumstances. The people who told them the launchpad wasnt strong enough for the first launch totally weren't smarter than spaceX
Bruh this thumbnail. That’s what happened on the first flight. You should have put a image of the explosion of B9 or B9 in the flip maneuver with the bar at the bottom showing the engines not on.
You spelled February wrong in the graphic
Why is no body asking this.
Why in some videos does the booster turn down, and other videos the booster turns up?
Camera perspective. The footage is from the ground, and so it depends what angle the camera is at.
Maybe they should try just throttling back all booster engines to idle during hot stage separation, then they wouldn't have to worry about them possibly not restarting. It may be worth a try.
Rocket engines aren't jet engines - there is no "idle" mode. The engines can only throttle back so far - that's why F9 does a "suicide burn" on landing - even at their lowest setting the Merlin engines would push the empty rocket back up into the sky.
they can not, the reason for maintaining boost is if they turned them all off the fuel would slosh away from the pickup pipes and then when they try to relight they have no fuel, plus these engines are pumping 4000lbs of fuel per second and 'water-hammer' effect is a real concern, if aything those three center engines should maintain more boost than they did and the flip looked way to fast
@@PhantomHelix Yes, that's what I also noticed, it needs to be more of a graceful arc to keep things stable.
Misleading thumbnails. It's all the rage. In fact, it's what's for supper!
So Nasa wants at least 60 launches before crew is allowed. Does the same also apply to SLS? Probably not. Would be a wonder if they can even build 8 of those.
SLS worked first go buddy. Its already bee n around the moon and back. 60 launches of Starship and they might catch up.
If you watch the footage @Astronomy_Today released of S25 filmed from Florida its clearly going Kerbal I suspect given it was the last ship to have Hydraulic TVC I suspect it likely suffered the same fate as Booster 7 which if the HPU blew out might also have punctured the O2 tank which would explain why all 6 engines appeared nominal (In the telemetry released) but there was a visible plume for a couple of minutes prior to termination plus and increase in LOX usage as pointed out by @scottmanley though the Kerbal footage hadn't been released when Scott did his video analysis
So why did the SuperHeavy Booster engines begin such a progressive shutdown, beginning on one side and failing in sequence towards the other side ? Fluid dynamics is the first thing that comes to mind given the "flip" maneuver involved. Or did the Hot Staging event cause some fuel line plumbing failures ?
That wasn't a failure it was a planned shutdown, the relight is where the failure happened.
Why does everyone assume that the 'human rating' comments have anything to do with Artemis?
All of the flight figures quoted for 'human rating' are based on flights with crew on board the Starship from launch through landing back on Earth.
HLS proves itself with a single unmanned landing on the Moon. The crew rendezvous with the HLS Starship using an Orion capsule for launch and Earth return. You do not need 100, or even 60 flights to 'prove' that.
You need to prove in orbit refueling and you need enough flights to fill an in-orbit tanker which then meets up with the HLS Starship after launch. Depending on how much mass the HLS is carrying, that's anywhere from 5 to 12 fuel launches to meet the tanker.
While I can conceivably see Starship having up to 60 flights under its belt by that point, it is not a requirement.
I wonder if SpaceX waiting a few more seconds for the liquids to settle back in their tanks before igniting the rockets for the return boost back would make a difference. 🤔
The test flight was a success. Wouldn't it be great to see a launch at or near midnight on New Year's Eve? NYC drops a ball. Georgia drops a peach. Alabama drops a peanut. SpaceX LAUNCHES the world's biggest bottle rockets! They could start a new tradition.
Put some astronauts on the next one of it such a success...
@@tylerdurden4006 They aren't ready to put astronauts on these flights. They need at least 20 successful flights before they will even consider it. They are testing systems with these flights. In this test the ship and booster are expendable. They were testing the engines before the flip maneuver to see if the improvements they made kept all the engines firing, then after, to test the engine restart after the flip and separation maneuver. They were testing the hot firing ring. They were testing the self destruct system. They were testing the launch site water deluge system. It all worked better than expected so it was a success.
@marthajohnson2775 just so weird you all forget you already have moon capable rockets for over 6 decades...
@tylerdurden4006 large, bloated, and inefficient single-use rockets at billions a pop. Yeah, why don't more profitable businesses build them? Why don't the American taxpayers or politicians want to fund this? 🤔
@@tylerdurden4006 The parts needed for the Saturn V aren't being produced anymore.
Fantastic video and analysis as usual, but please remove the low droning/hum sound in the background, it's quite distracting and painful. Use bg music with more chords or notes like your others.
3rd time the charm.
Hopefully the FAA doesn't hold back flight 3 like it did to flight 2
The question is. Does the booster have to flip?
Yes because it needs to make the boost back burn
@@NASADarth help me understand what position or orientation it has to be to do the back burn? 🤔 because I thought the back burn was slowing down that giant heavy booster from crashing and cause a tidal wave. So are you saying it should flip upside down and boost fast back to earth and flip again to land? Isn’t it suppose to land the same way it goes up?🤔 explain that boost back burn let me see if it make sense
Do we know how Artemis 3 will play out? Instead of using the Orion capsule they use starship HLS instead? But if that’s the case how are two astronauts going to go down to the surface of the moon and two staying up in orbit if there’s just one starship?
Because they….are using orion?
@@Wurtoz9643So they’re launching both starship and Orion? I heard that in Artemis 3 they’re only using starship and not the Orion capsule
@@slicedolives9902 so what I think happened here is that you might have misheard/misremembered that they are not gonna use the lunar space-station for Artemis 3. However Orion is used on every Artemis mission as it is the crew return module.
@@Wurtoz9643 Yeah alright I understand, we will see how Artemis 3 plays out
They will use Orion because it's rated for Human flight, and Starship is not and will not be. And frankly I'm doubtfull Starship will ever be ready for a moon landing and may cause the either the cancelation of the whole thing or allow a competitor to take the ring.
"posted on x" LMFAO
For the second flight test of the largest and most powerful rocket ever made
Success
They are down to solving a few issues and achieving orbit
Then re entry
Then a crew capsule
At number 2
SpaceX is moving quickly
Say, didn't nasa build a rocket capable of going to the moon 6 decades ago? How is this "progress"?
@@tylerdurden4006 NASA took a completely different approach. They aimed to nail it on the first go. Space X is doing incremental prototyping which is much cheaper and faster. It doesn't look good to the layperson to see things exploding but Space X is a private company so doesn't have to care what the public think. In the 6 decades you mentioned engineering has completely changed its approach for the better. We saw incremental results...progress.
@@tylerdurden4006 Seriously? How about actually comparing the two. It's pretty obvious.
@@jeffjeff4477 you guys regressed so much you even blew up the launch pad the first time...🤷🤣
Has anyone spotted the next hot stage ring?