Why have SpaceX, Boeing & Blue Origin ditched abort towers?

Want an article version of this video? Here you go! everydayastronaut.com/abort-t...
There’s a new trend going around in the commercial space industry when it comes to launch abort systems. All three commercial companies who are putting abort systems on their crewed vehicles have ditched the classic launch abort tower we’ve seen dominate abort systems in the past.
Previous vehicles like the Mercury capsule, the Apollo capsule and even the Soyuz all used an escape tower that sat on top of the crew module, capable of pulling the vehicle away from a failing rocket in a hurry.
And to make this topic even more interesting, we’re seeing another trend in abort systems... SpaceX’s Crew Dragon and Boeing’s Starliner capsules both are using liquid fueled abort motors instead of solid rocket motors.
So today we’re going to talk about the design considerations that have made SpaceX, Boeing and Blue Origin ditch abort towers on their crewed vehicles and we’re also going to evaluate why the heck Boeing and SpaceX are going with liquid motors instead of solid motors.
And with both Boeing and SpaceX having experienced serious setbacks and complications with their liquid fueled abort systems, including the loss of a test vehicle, it raises the question… is it even a good idea?....
------------------------------
"How SpaceX and Boeing will get Astronauts to the ISS" - • How SpaceX and Boeing ...
"Why aborting from Gemini may have likely killed you " - • Why Aborting From Gemi...
"Why does SpaceX's new Dragon 2 have fins on it?" - • Why Does SpaceX's New ...
Show your support by becoming a Patreon member - / everydayastronaut
This video had four "Moon Walkers" who helped make this possible - Blake Jacobs, Mac Malkawi, Eli Burton and Ole Mathias Aarseth Heggem.
The best place for all your space merch needs!
everydayastronaut.com/shop/
All music is original! Check out my album "Maximum Aerodynamic Pressure" anywhere you listen to music (Spotify, iTunes, Google Play, Amazon, etc) or click here for easy links - everydayastronaut.com/music
I'm the cohost of an awesome podcast where we talk all about current technologies and how they shape our future! ourludicrousfuture.com or here on KZbin / ourludicrousfuture

[@Awol991]

Rocket Science: Pointy end up. Flamey end down.

[@cloverdove]

If not, you will not go to space today.

[@HiThere-lt9qu]

1:31

[@malte1984]

But which way is... down?... (Vsauce music starts)

[@KingBobXVI]

@@malte1984 - The enemy's gate is down

[@northlandgaming7913]

Clonos ah, that must be where my father went

[@HPD1171]

4:20 this is such a kerbal solution. "well does it get the capsule away from the boom?" "er yes... but.." "then so what if it wobbles a bit"

[@InventorZahran]

*Laughs in quick-save*

[@docnathan3959]

InventorZahran 327 Me, an intellectual: *Revert Flight*

[@zerg9523]

Eclipse538 - as a curious question, what training can one do in order to resist more g’s?.... back in i think the 60s a guy took 50gs on a rocket sled... he lived.

[@jacko4932]

nice

[@zokonjazokonja]

What if it turn over and speed up to ground?

[@maxcchiru]

I bet that Orion Attitude Control Unit was tested by someone sitting there like with KSP just pressing WASD

[@nonilo1]

oh yeah I guess

[@nonilo1]

I play kerbal space program

[@MrGeforcerFX]

i wan to say it a copy of the pc-3 missile stearing system.

[@Schoolship.]

reminds me of using the xbox 360 controllers in the submarines

[@arneladubinovic9278]

O yeeeeeah

[@icbmrick6514]

Him: “15 g’s” Ksp players: “you gotta bump those numbers up, those are rookie numbers”

[@marrakesh_3589]

I've hit 100 gs before

[@ms.fish1238]

Trash Beats Only what the hell happen for things to go sooo wrong

[@marrakesh_3589]

@@ms.fish1238 umm flip outs and like 1000 boosters

[@fronker7581]

Someone made a rocket that reached orbit that took less than a minute

[@stupidgenius42]

I’ve gotten 200 g’s before (with help from the kraken)

[@Sphere723]

Just use the "Revert Flight" button.

[@plant5875]

yeah

[@iciclefox9901]

Quicksave

[@sigmar4251]

Ikr smh...

[@Fred_the_1996]

But if you go to the ksc and back to the ship you can't revert anymore :(

[@Gabriel-yd4bq]

Just quicksave begor and then load if something goes wrong.

[@CreamyYT]

Tim Dott 2019: The Crew Capsule will never been reflown for Crew SpaceX 2021: Uses for Crew 2 the same Capsule as for Demo 2

[@kermit5948]

True for crew 2

[@samageetdutta9781]

Yeah, I was going to say the same, actually, back those days, info on Dragon wasn't as much guaranteed as we have today

[@SkyHigh_xx]

Crew 1 and Inspiration4

[@zachjester3903]

Meanwhile Starliner never gets reused since it never gets used in the first place

[@cosmicwarrior1]

This is what spacex was saying at this time

[@alekseishuvalov111]

I' surprised, that talking about "abort towers" your never mentioned Soyuz T-10/1. That time when abort tower actually saved lives.

[@char2c584]

@Mino St.Lucas also the Recent Soyuz Flight M-10 i think

[@Fred_the_1996]

@@char2c584 ms10

[@tiberiusmagnificuscaeser4929]

The Soviet/Russian space program has a good history with launch escape systems.

[@augustineeronde3076]

Yeah

[@glasslinger]

Caeser: Of NEEDING escape systems?

[@eatham2261]

My reasoning would just be, “An abort tower doesn’t look as cool”

[@lucasstevens5337]

Yes

[@disrespecc9678]

My reasoning would be: I like drinks more than food (Liquid = drinks) (Solid = Food)

[@ethanthegamer2020]

Elon musk would say that

[@mister_damian]

thats always the reason, heh

[@gasparemaggio4511]

Hi. I happen to be the person that did the analysis and gave Elon the presentation that recommended what I called at the time “the integrated side-mounted engines” and you are right - one of the reasons was that Elon thought this made the capsule look Super cool! Congrats! The fact that it eliminated the need for a dedicated propellant system as well as allowed for full ascent trajectory abort coverage were also major factors :)

[@arun3151997]

"pointy end up flamey end down" I want that on a shirt

[@ilyapopov823]

Looks like a reference to "Up goer five" XKCD: "Lots of fire comes out here. This end should point toward the ground if you want to go to space. If it starts pointing toward space, you are having a bad problem and you will not go to space today."

[@shatterpointgames]

I want "I want that on a shirt" on a shirt

[@whitslack]

Personally I wish he'd stop saying that. It makes my skin crawl. It's not funny; it's condescending. It detracts from an exposition that otherwise respects the viewer's intelligence.

[@Diggnuts]

Matt Whitlock.. Awwww.. How cute you are!

[@brianofphobos8862]

@@whitslack No. It's funny.

[@trippydrew8492]

Man am I on a massive space video binge. The past few days have really re-ignited my interest in space. thank you for playing a part in that bro!!

[@Nowhereman10]

Some interesting history that you didn't cover here is that the Space Shuttle orbiters were originally supposed to have a LES of their own and that design was kept well up until when the vehicle was to go into production, but like other features it was dropped to save weight, complexity, and most importantly money. The system was referred to as the Abort Solid Rocket Motors or ASRM. It could be described as a pusher-type since it was comprised of twin rockets attached to the sides of the orbiter's aft fuselage and when fired would carry the orbiter away from a malfunctioning stack. The ASRM's weight was initially considered acceptable since when the Shuttle reached a point where it was no longer usable, it could be fired off, the thrust boosting the stack and countering the dead weight, then jettisoned. So what's the big deal? Aside from cost there was another problem that kept rearing its ugly head; an abort scenario where the ASRM was used invoked heavy stresses on the orbiter airframe and so to keep the vehicle from breaking apart due to the aerodynamic load, the frame had to be beefed up structurally to the tune of a whopping 9 metric tons! In addition, this would not save the orbiter or its crew and payload in the advent of an exploding SSME, so its usefulness was limited to failures of the ET or SRBs. Since NASA was under a great deal of pressure to make the Shuttle meet the DoD, CIA, and NRO's payload requirement of 65,000 lbs (29 tons) to LEO, and with costs for the program rising, ASRM was deleted from the design. Skip over two decades later and the design of the HL-20 lifting body that was the inspiration for SNC's Dream Chaser was also going to use a pusher type abort system. However this was a separate system not directly integrated into the craft and was a part of the cone-shaped launch vehicle adapter. The crewed variant of Dream Chaser, HL-20's successor, uses an integrated pusher system that also doubles as the orbital maneuvering system. Cargo Dream Chaser could in theory use this, but being stuck under a fairing makes its use impossible.

[@squirlmy]

you should make your own video! Just read that out loud.

[@capridream]

Cool stuff, unfortunately many people commenting here have no basic knowledge to understand what they see and hear...

[@devindorton6650]

One year later SpaceX just launched our first humans from the us in 9 years

[@benbovard9579]

Such a cool sight to see

[@mikek9352]

very exciting!!

[@GewelReal]

@@kumarsajal8400 no

[@maryamkaita2529]

Russia was chilling those 9 yrs earning money from Soyuz Rip money

[@jacko4932]

orbital*

[@colonelstriker2519]

11:30 now my life is complete. I now know how that anti ballistic missile steers with those plenty of holes on the side. I thought those are mini solid rockets stitched together

[@RockinRobbins13]

You aren't the first to report on this issue, but you are the best, most balanced, most thoughtful treatment. Looking forward to details of the SpaceX anomaly. Don't do it fast, do it WELL!

[@ITTechHead]

"Anomaly", you mean the explosion and destruction of the Crew Dragon Capsule.

[@RockinRobbins13]

@@ITTechHead a-NOM-a-lee: Explosion and destruction of Crew Dragon Capsule. Webster's Dictionary! That would about cut it. lol It was also the word used to mean "explosion and complete destruction" (RUD) of the Challenger Space Shuttle, by the way. "Obviously, we have a serious anomaly." The word has a long and historic usefulness.

[@michaelwoodhams7866]

There's a time to do it fast, and a time to do it well. Grasshopper blew up, and that was OK, because it was a time to do it fast. (Reminder: Grasshopper was SpaceX's test vehicle doing small hops to practice propulsive landings.) The DM-1 Dragon 2 capsule was a time to do it well, so that blowing up is a much bigger deal. (Best case is it was a fault with the testing apparatus, but even that will cause months of delay while they really really convince themselves that that was all there was to it.)

[@PHeMoX]

@@RockinRobbins13 Lol, but you have no idea how big of a deal these issues are if you think 'anomaly' covers what happened. SpaceX may not be in trouble in terms of shutting down, but you can bet this is going to cause a lengthy delay for manned missions. I doubt these are the risks NASA / SpaceX would want to bet actually human lives on.

[@RockinRobbins13]

@@PHeMoX The jury is still out and you're trying to explain the verdict. How about we wait for facts before deciding what's likely to happen? I gave two examples of consequential failures that did not result in long delays: Apollo 6 and the aborted Soyuz mission. Both were as spectacular as this one and men were on board then. We can't know anything right now. This is when smart people are silent and wait.

[@handlebarfox2366]

4:20 *watching that thing spin and imagining the amount of vomit flying around the cabin*

[@dave8191]

Not the cabin, inside their helmet... Then long wait to be recovered...

[@rickmanley9650]

Imagine how full their Depends would be too!

[@scottwillis5434]

I'll bet some of you would pay money to take that ride in an amusement park. Of course, some of us might pay money to *not* take that ride...

[@declan9876]

Imagine drowning in vomit...

[@tedthetreertc1219]

They might be knocked out before they have time to vomit

[@alexiscannon9618]

how am i just now realising the two different colored eyes

[@themonolithian]

I would be super proud of having two different colors

[@jaco5five6six]

Because it isn't something to really "FOCUS" on

[@709mash]

Oh good, it's just different colours. I'm watching on my phone and thought he had a stroke and was super dilated in just one eye. Phew lol.

[@Waffen-id9gn]

Shiny Pokemon

[@MrGrandure]

@@709mash I thought the same thing. Lol

[@GiovanniEsposito5]

The video I was waiting for! Thank you for your research, as always you answer all the questions I was asking, and more!

[@AthanImmortal]

I love deep dives like this. Great editing, well written script, very clear, you're doing great, Tim!

[@venkataramanan4622]

I like the falcon heavy in the background

[@kalleklp7291]

This is one of the most informative videos I've seen about the subject. It's plain and easy to understand without a ton of engineering terms etc.

[@crazed357]

Watches a rocket video on KZbin: “Abort capsules...liquid cooled abort ejection... feels like being hit by a semi truck for a continuous 15 seconds...” Gf: “What the f### are you watching?!”

[@Megalomaniakaal]

"Oh, just researching ways to escape..."

[@BleakVision]

Lol women are not even ashamed of their ignorance

[@TheInterestingInformer]

BleakVision a lot are pretty fricking smart tho

[@aqimjulayhi8798]

Being single for so long, it took me awhile to understand the joke.

[@gatsingtv8671]

i feel you bro even i have no gf for so so long im pathetic!!

[@HylanderSB]

How to create an evergreen video? Refer to an event that took place a week ago as being in '2019'.

[@SolarWebsite]

I'm sure that was deliberate, and actually very smart.

[@sakadabara]

Do you mean the Sri Lanka bomb blasts ?

[@DoakyDoaky]

@@SolarWebsite I assume he is future proofing the video

[@xeigen2]

@@DoakyDoaky Yeah, that's what evergreen means... Always seeming fresh, without references that date the video.

[@shatterpointgames]

@@xeigen2 lol thank you idk why no one replying seems to understand what the original comment meant

[@Jwaltonp]

I like the way your voice sounds Everyday Astronaut! It is very clear and easy on the ears, even after long periods!

[@Bazahrian]

Love your videos man. Thank you for continuing to ask the interesting questions at press conferences as well, doing what every reporter SHOULD be doing and not asking the same monetary related questions.

[@dongurudebro4579]

Great explanation, great cuts, great paceing- in short great Video! :) You keep getting better and better.

[@mancubwwa]

One tuning he missed: in fact Soyuz Has both tractor and pusher systems. In addition to the tower there are motors mounted on the faring, which are used in case of emergency in later stages of the flight after the tower is ditched. As demonstrated last year.

[@dongurudebro4579]

@@mancubwwa Yeah, he knows that. But its a little thing which he probaply thought wouldnt fit in.

[@orisher5735]

Don Guru de Bro I saw your account 2 times on KZbin today on vitasiams channel

[@Annepanne4ever]

Don Guru de Bro totally agree!

[@timbo-ob6gh]

...The sheep commenting on how the wolf is eating them...that's original man...

[@embain269]

Tim, you killed it, everytime I got ready to ask a question out loud you were already answering it! Nice script!

[@simont3686]

4:00 Does that mean that when it fires you can cook an egg on your table?

[@jakobha3768]

I think it would instantly freez the egg because of the rapid decompression.

[@yert5679]

If you can even hold down the egg in space.

[@sorenchristensen2149]

I’m guessing it would be insulated so people wouldn’t burn themselves but... that would be cool

[@FrVitoBe]

comes with fancy dining in space, teppanyaki any 1?

[@xxoan.1613]

@@yert5679 i bet 15 Gs can hold down an egg

[@grandetaco4416]

I can't imagine the research you have to do to get all of this. Thanks for your work.

[@StreuB1]

Likely your best and most technically accurate video to date. Very well done and very well explained. I am not sure I could find something else to add. Hats off to you. The Dragon anomaly was likely due to a valve sequencing issue or an issue during vent or purge. Thats when NTO rears its ugly head and bites.

[@mr.cliffordjohnson6304]

Good stuff Man, Good stuff, nice video, learned a lot from your video, history, technology, and rocket science.

[@benclarke5914]

extremely well researched, must have taken him ages, this is great youtube content thakyou

[@Omega0850]

12:36 Polar lights from space Easily one of the most beautiful things i have ever seen!

[@georgelewisray]

PROPULSIVE LANDING by SpaceX: My guess is that P-L is their long term goal and what happens in short run (i.e. parachutes) is just whatever it takes to keep NASA happy without compromising what they believe to be the best ultimate path.

[@HiyuMarten]

There are a couple issues with propulsive landing such a capsule: 1. It's important to have a central centre of mass when the engines are active, but during reentry, the opposite is true - having a controllable, offset centre of mass is required to steer the vehicle during its unpowered descent. 2. Is it worth the development cost? It's clear from some renders and talks that SpaceX intended to scale up Crew Dragon's landing system for use with BFR (later Starship), but when Starship's reentry profile changed to an improved design, developing it for Crew Dragon wouldn't have as much R&D benefit anymore. Development on Starship is now in full swing, so you're right that propulsively landing crew is their goal - it's just that it's shifted to their new vehicle. That said, it's been hinted at by Elon that Crew Dragon is still capable of propulsive landing in the astronomically rare event that all of its parachutes fail.

[@DairyLife]

I'm not sure that NASA (and probably SpaceX's enigneers) are incorrect in being circumspect about Crew Dragon's propulsive landing, since it relies on 8 engines and the landing legs properly operating after being subjected to a full flight regimen. How many of those can fail (and in what configuration)? And is there enough time to deploy backup parachutes if there is a failure? If a skycrane crashes landing a rover on mars because of an engine failure, it's an expensive embarrassment . If a capsule with a full crew crashes because of an engine failure, it's a horrific tragedy.

[@tippyc2]

SpaceX is already developing a different propulsive landing vehicle, Starship. So I doubt at this point Crew Dragon will ever get that feature.

[@dotnet97]

@@DairyLife the issue wasn't with engine reliability, but with the landing legs. NASA wanted additional verification that it'd be safe to have holes in the heat shield for the landing legs to pop out of. SpaceX decided it wasn't worth pursuing because they had determined Dragon to be a dead end anyway, choosing instead to focus on Starship/Superheavy.

[@filmgimix4728]

I think if space x played more KSP then they could get to mars..

[@braeeee_]

U mean Duna?

[@Monarch_Prime]

With rss mods

[@Monarch_Prime]

@@georghe4229 yep

[@Monarch_Prime]

@@braeeee_ duna is technically mars

[@braeeee_]

@@Monarch_Prime I was joking. Because we are on about KSP

[@lsudx479]

I just happened upon a video of yours randomly. After watching a few it's already one of my favorite channels.

[@connormagnuson6361]

Me too

[@1mmickk]

The best and most informative video you have posted on your journey. I hope one day some organization takes you on board and pays you for your most excellent work mate.

[@lordtoast2743]

I always forget how huge these things are and when I see people beside them I’m still amazed at the size

[@PsychicThursday]

Great video, Tim. I watched this when it came out, and decided to rewatch it having just watched Demo-2 (congrats Bob and Doug). Imagine my shock when I realized I hadn't commented or liked the video. Anyway, very informative video. Hope you're staying safe.

[@fanbutton]

It's all fake...all of it.

[@zacharyfuller5621]

I truly thank you everyday astronaut for another great video. Every time I see one of your videos it puts a smile on my face. I appreciate that people,like you for example, produce informational but fun space exploration videos.

[@trek98597]

First off, I REALLY like your channel!! I was born during the early years of the Apollo missions. You are very well informed, you do your research, and relate easily to any age. I would really enjoy a chat with you, talk about the Apollo era, share my thoughts and experience coming from a military family . On related topic, do you have any links you can recommend for buying some nice Apollo mission models (Easy to put together) to include SPACEX models. My grandson (3rd grade) is very interested in science & space. Thank you for listening.

[@mohamedconteh284]

You seems to have a larger idea about space exploration thank you so much for given us a good news about this happening

[@Sean2002FU]

My father was an mechanical engineer. He was responsible for the design of the escape tower on the mercury/ redstone rockets!!.......I know I'm biased, but he was really smart..later he worked on the hose couplings on the space suits for Apollo!

[@circusmime]

Wow

[@MrJonang13]

Because, they can shut down a liquid fuel rocket.

[@amirabudubai2279]

You don't want to shut down an abort system.

[@manicmute9440]

@@amirabudubai2279 - The liquid fuel motors can have other uses instead of just being an abort system.

[@amirabudubai2279]

@@manicmute9440 Yea, that was covered in the video. The biggest advantage, in my option, is being able to use the abort fuel as RCS later. You are not carrying around as much dead weight.

[@Skywalker8562]

You don't really want a parachute descent system that could prematurely deploy while the escape tower is still burning off its fuel setting the parachutes on fire.

[@Shrekfromthehitmovieshrek]

Amir Abudubai can’t you just eject if it was a tower

[@EthanWilson]

I normally can't watch videos like this without getting bored, but your pacing is incredible.

[@mitchellbarnow1709]

When I used to watch the Apollo Missions on TV, I couldn't figure out how the astronauts were going to have time to crawl up and get inside of the escape vehicle! I don't recall ever being told that the tower had rockets and was attached to the crew module. How amazing to learn this today! Thank you so much, Tim

[@lymancopps5957]

SpaceX should keep developing propulsive landing. It will pay big reusability dividends eventually.

[@zach1023]

That’s their plan, actually. They want to land starship propulsively, so they’ve been training to do that via F9 and FH launches.

[@Kaffe23]

Or just use SSTOs theyre way cheaper and theyre reusable

[@nicholasharvey4393]

FBI SSTO as in "rocket that has only one stage", or SSTO as in "spaceplane"?

[@thinfourth]

If the propulsion system goes tits up then you have a really big splat instead of your astronauts So you need to fit a parachute back-up in which case Why not just use the parachutes in the first place?

[@kenleyokamoto4577]

@@thinfourth More options.

[@Patchuchan]

The HL-20 and Russian Kliper were to use a pusher solid abort system. Kliper could use it's abort motors for part of orbital insertion by firing them in pairs vs all eight at a once.

[@mastershooter64]

12:47 but there are already solid rocket motors on the iss,the soyuz capsule uses solid rocket motors just a second before they touch down

[@KOZMOuvBORG]

2:21 15 g's doesn't sound like fun... consider the alternative (here), incineration. And the Space Program is going Kerbal!

[@stevenf1678]

One thing not mentioned in this video is that you can adjust the thrust to minimize g loads on the crew.. If the rocket blows up on launch you probably want high g's to get away fast. But later in flight you don't need high g's. For example if the second stage motor fails to ignite after separation You only need one g to save the crew.

[@AngDavies]

@@stevenf1678 dunno if this is what you meant, but this is only really true of the liquid systems, solid rockets are difficult to throttle reliably

[@Ryan-qq8se]

Not ideal but also not necessary if solvable

[@Wyld1one]

Please realize the difference between stress vs strain. Football players constantly deal with up to 150g's during tackles. It was a a study during which they were testing why airplane wings wings sheared off during high G turns in simulations. Air force pilots can deal with about 9g's of ''sustained'' force before blacking out. however; you can deal with higher g/s as long as it's for a very short durations. see: www.popularmechanics.com/adventure/sports/a2954/4212171/

[@ronschlorff7089]

@@Wyld1one I think you meant 15 g's not 150 g's. If the latter, I want that guy on my team; put the fear of God in the Q backs from being sacked by that "hit"!! Would not only be season over, but "game over"!! :D

[@dongurudebro4579]

Glad you asked Tim, i have a question - what caused the SpaceX Crew Dragon capsule "anomaly"? ;-)

[@MrDeath2094]

Come back In a month and we may know the answer. SpaceX and NASA won't know the exact cause yet.

[@dongurudebro4579]

@@MrDeath2094 Thats why i asked now, part of the "joke"! ;-)

[@zeyadashraf6396]

@@MrDeath2094 Scott Manley said it might be because of a failure in the COPV tanks which might be because of corrosive salt water damaging the tanks

[@km5405]

ah interesting. in any case we will learn a lot about it think. the fact it blew up is not a negative per se .... that's why its a test vehicle.

[@badtrekee4348]

The Ocean landing messed things up I bet. They are still investing what caused the explosion. Noone knows why yet.

[@lxtures]

i’ve been recommended so many space videos since the dragon capsule docked with the iss

[@HensleyTG1]

Hey, Just found your channel excellent. I subscribed, ive been interested in soace since the late sixties with Apolo. Im now in to my late fifties. Easy to understand . Im hooked. BTW what is ur educational background in brief. Thank you

[@Lecxlez]

That's so cool you uploaded i've been waiting. Love your epic videos so intresting

[@dfdgfdgf0000]

Offer : I am willing to go to space without an abort system. My life sucks anyway. And I'm ok with being paid, let's say, 12$/hour.

[@CallMeAshen]

Declined. Sir youve wasted our time to tell us this? You failed nearly every single test both physical and mental. Please leave the building and do not come back.

[@mancubwwa]

Sorry, shuttle not flying anymore...

[@marcoseduardocastro781]

Sorrry,shuttle was retired in 2011

[@gregblastfpv3623]

WIth this Dragon you may make $1 to your family/heirs:).

[@ronschlorff7089]

@@CallMeAshen LOL, LOL, (goes on for about 10 solid minutes). Reminds me of an old TV show, talk show from the 60's (when such were actually watchable). There is an old guy, dying of cancer, but still smoking, while he was interviewed by, Jack Parr I think it was. His name was Oscar Lavant, an actor and great piano player from the musicals movies era. Jack asks him: "Well, Oscar, welcome to the show; how are you doing"? Oscar answers: "Thanks Jack,...well, I can tell you this: I'm very promising astronaut material"! LOL.

[@Spee2k12]

Looking forward to the next dragon launch attempt this Saturday good luck Bob and Doug!

[@willinwoods]

Great content as always, Tim. So the Crew Dragon won't even drop the extra fuel on/before reentry? If they keep it, could the tanks and their contents be used when the capsule flies again?

[@jacksnake2443]

Tim, Dragon 2 uses helium tanks to pressurise the super draco system. The hypergolics are not self-pressurised.

[@halamkajohn]

what was the pressure supposed to be? salt water in the regulator? so baking soda would not have stopped an explosion? vent holes would not help? double the tank thickness? use 500 pounds less?

[@halamkajohn]

the regulators resonated?

[@halamkajohn]

reentry heat damaged the regulators?

[@halamkajohn]

electronic pressure regulator soldered in with pge 24,000 volt soldering iron "?

[@halamkajohn]

8:45 one tank blew up the other tank? tank should blow out the side?

[@chriskoutounidis7183]

2 years later and the same dragon capsule is about to fly a 3rd time with people on board

[@kermit5948]

Maximum reusability

[@BrianK04]

very informative, great presentation, good work

[@theweirdsquid]

I love the new intro. It may have been around for awhile but it's the first time I’ve seen it.

[@andrashajdu7846]

where did you buy the Falcon Heavy model that is in the background?

[@carterrissmiller2510]

Buzz Space Models

[@andrashajdu7846]

@@carterrissmiller2510 thanks

[@carterrissmiller2510]

andras hajdu np

[@susananavarro3452]

The great thing about this is because now I know that the Starliner has an abort system

[@vincentvalentin117]

Excellent summary, thanks for the details

[@edfou5]

BRAVO, TIM. Just a BRILLIANT video! I'm so ancient (67) that I remember the news bulletin announcing that the Soviets had put a man in space. I've been a rabid space junkie since that day, (I know my stuff) but I'll tell you... your video just taught me four things I never knew! Guess I'm not as smart as I thought I was...

[@prational]

Great video thanks so much! After the SpaceX anomaly I had questions about why they were using the hypergolic fuels and this type of abort system. Your video certainly answered all of my questions. Thanks again keep up the great work up

[@smimoma5930]

"Abort to orbit" Sounds badass

[@MrFranklitalien]

love your content, keep it up

[@Psiberzerker]

The thing is Apollo et al were Disposable. So, it made sense that the LES could be dropped as soon as it wasn't needed, there's no reason to carry that to orbit, and back. Sticking it on the nose, where it can easily be ditched even helped aerodynamically as it broke the sound barrier on launch. Dragon (For example) is re-usable. In fact, the plan was to use the LES as landing rockets after it came back. So, the Abort rockets are also re-usable, and therefore, it makes just as much sense to integrate them into the airframe. So they can come back with the airframe, and be re-used. That's the main reason why the Abort Rocket was on a tower-up front: So they could ditch it, without separating the crew cabin from the support module.

[@NishantSoniTV]

2:50 Man can you please do a video on China and India's Crew vehicles and the rockets they are gonna be using for their upcoming manned missions to LEO?

[@kb3116]

You're the absolute BEST! I so look forward to your vids!!! Its my morning coffee background noise. Informative and fun! Thanks!!

[@user-yt2xv1gs7l]

Definitely in love

[@kb3116]

@@user-yt2xv1gs7l Me too. This is a great channel..

[@msimon6808]

To insure normal operation designs are stress tested. Aircraft get a 1.1X stress test. Bridges get more. Buildings more. The extra stress accounts for imperfections in construction and maintenance. I once tested an aerospace black box at 1,000 X the expected input frequency. I found some problems. I fixed them.

[@Hope4Today9]

Hey, really loved this video... 3:48 the inside of the Blue Origin capsule 11:20 the "Orion" solid rocket attitude control test.

[@williamlewington3223]

Your Knowledge of engineering has definitely improved, I remember in your early videos You were dodging a lot of key terms. But now the Quality and depth of content is good. Keep it up. Keep it Engineeringy. Remember most people watching this type of stuff are probably into science.

[@JohnnyWednesday]

I second this - you know your demographics of course but you've done so much research - so much work - I don't know the exact qualification, but you've earned it :)

[@ddegn]

I'm just glad he dumped the orange suit with a vacuum cleaner hose attached. This was the first video I've watched on this channel for about a year. I watched the whole video and enjoyed it. I couldn't bear watching more than a few seconds of his early stuff.

[@MegaBrokenstar]

Duane Degn that suit is an actual soviet high altitude pressure flightsuit. It’s not fake.

[@ddegn]

@D.O.A. "I love the orange suit" The suit itself is great. It was the combination of the way hoses were left dangling and the way the information was presented in one of his early videos that turned me off. I may well have been too harsh and quick with my judgement.

[@smallerthanlife7664]

0:51 "liquid rocket motors" 😄

[@thehandleiwantedwasntavailable]

Awesome video. Really well explained and your presentation is enjoyable to watch. One question: is your left eye glass?

[@xxsome1randomxx315]

____________________ thats what i thought. I was looking for a comment like this

[@jayrod9979]

At least we got to see Blue Origin's abort system in action!

[@aljon5947]

@Everyday Astronaut Tim, make a video on all the calculations the Falcon 9 boosters do to land! It would be very helpful if other people want to make a reusable booster.

[@attackhelicopter3860]

These emergency thingy are useless... Just revert the flight, right? It works in ksp...

[@Sag05501]

yes, and then it sould work in real life. right?

[@winged]

They play on hard mode. No reverts here.

[@iciclefox9901]

That’s crazy. What are they, rocket scientists?

[@TheInterestingInformer]

I love this comment chain 😂

[@TruthNerds]

@@winged I've always admired astronauts for their bravery, but playing on hard mode is just a bit too crazy IMO.

[@supergrafxengine4620]

I have a question : Are the windows made in transparent aluminium ? What are they made of? Thank you!

[@albinoviper2876]

Diamond glass

[@jasonbecraft2358]

I would like to see SpaceX later on revisit and try to work on landing the dragon capsule. It would be a another frist.

[@iCazZiStronZi]

I’m just building a space ship in my backyard and I was wondering which design I should use to fly to Mars, this video was exactly what I was looking for thanks 👍

[@ramblerandy2397]

A point on hypergolic fuel engines - the Apollo 13 Lunar Module throttleable descent stage engine, designed entirely for landing on the Moon, was effectively adapted to get the three astronauts home by doing a timed burn to return to Earth. I'm not sure any other rocket engine category would have been capable of such adaptability.

[@KonstaKokC]

Last October when Soyuz MS-10 accident happened escape tower was already ditched and crew was saved using SRMs built into fairing

[@stupidburp]

Propulsive landing might be developed as a backup to the parachute. As an emergency backup method it might get away with less certification. Only used in the event the chute fails so the chute is the certified abort method. An experimental backup is just a kind of bonus option that might be able to remain unproven. Eventually at some point in the future it may get developed and tested enough to be certified. I would still want a parachute primary though, less that can go wrong. Propulsive landing might also be used in combination with a parachute if the vertical rate of descent is too fast or an unplanned landing on the wrong type of surface, such as land instead of water. In that case it could fire just for the last few seconds before landing.

[@roblock2835]

I love you so much and your content, but i never knew you have two different eye colours! You are one of a kind Mr Everyday Astronaut! Much love from the EU / The Netherlands

[@scottfw7169]

Re: "Want an article version of this video?" Yes, I do, thanks!

[@DavidWilsonsays]

One of the best well planed, well thought out, and well executed videos I have seen lately! (Even if your cap is experiencing a Boeing angle of attack issue along with a yaw trim misalignment.. :p j/k) Seriously, nice to hear some level headed discussion of why Engineers do what they do and less "OMG it blew up, huge setback to program". *Pats your back - Well done.

[@dr-sy1fs]

Im curious, why are the Falcon 9 landing legs not partially deployed to provide a little bit of extra drag on the way down? (would they risk braking apart, or destabilize the rocket, ?).

[@arctic-1878]

Excellent video dude!

[@alxchunlin5221]

14:28 - except now we are seeing humans in the dragon capsule!!

[@FSLTL]

Tim you should check out the video footage from Reds Rhetoric and Astronomy Live. They are the best amateur rocket filmers there is.

[@tiriaq2607]

Question, I didn't have a question. You put the question in my head but.... nice channel EA :) very solid sharp images and vids not cutting them dozens of times because they can't remember a single line to say it in once.

[@christotaku]

Congrats on 300k

[@carterrissmiller2510]

What if the Abort Tower Blows up While Aborting "Houston.... Um.. We Are Screwed"

[@ddegn]

One of many reasons space flight is still very dangerous. Still, I volunteer to test any new capsules myself.

[@carterrissmiller2510]

No kidding Edit: but the crew dragons abort can only blow up if the capsule is destroyed

[@ronschlorff7089]

Towers used solid rocket motor fuel, less chance of explosions with a non-volatile liquid fuel. They pondered that question back in the day cuz that system has to work "first time, every time, all the time",... "Failure", as they used to say in NASA, in the 1960's, "was Not an Option"!

[@simonrano8072]

what if the integrated booster blows up while aborting ?

[@carterrissmiller2510]

Houston We are screwed Again

[@Psi105]

Anyone know if the crew dragon flight computer will attempt a propulsive landing if it detects that the parachute failed to deploy? Or does the new design no longer have the fuel for propulsive landings?

[@brachypelmasmith]

well, if they are landing at sea (splashdown) then there is no land nearby to land on.

[@Psi105]

@@brachypelmasmith ? Not sure why that matters. Propulsivly landing on water is preferable to crashing into it at 200kph

[@brachypelmasmith]

but isn't the whole point of propulsive landing to enable soft landing on land. Because landing in water (propulsve or not) exposes capsule to salty water and damages it. Propulsive landing in water wouldn't fix that. By using parachutes they are coasting the capsule in water, so landing speed is not such a problem, water is. Anything that enters the sea is extremely hard to refurbish for another flight, moreso for human flight.

[@FactoryofRedstone]

I think they will, I mean the effort is rather small to configure the thrusters for that and I think the have like fuel to run theses thrusters a good amount of time. brachypelmasmith, I think you don't get the original question. It was can the flight abort systems original landing capabilities be used to emergency land when the parachutes fail. If that happens, the landing on land or the reusablity of the capsule is irrelevant. The only important thing then is to land the crew save.

[@brachypelmasmith]

in that case, I dont know. I am sad that NASA forbade them to go with that propulsive landing, so m sceptical about them proceeding with implementation of that system with all the hussle with approval/licencing process by NASA. It seems like a waste to design something that you aren't supposed to have or use.

[@michiunfried502]

There is another problem with the pulling-type abort systems is that as long as the engines are over the center of gravity, the rocket acts like pendulum whitch acellerates itselfes. That is why at the Apollo-Missions they filled the tower with depleted uranium (very heavy), which shifted the center of gravity towards the top. However, this makes the whole assembly a good amount heavier.

[@DigitalN8v]

Should do a video on the engines that came to the US from the cold war, the Nk-33/RD 180...

[@andersonfor2012]

I'm interested to find out whether SpaceX will use the abort motors as a secret back up to the chutes! I have a feeling that they're going to sneak in a command for it to propulsively land if the chutes dont deploy, two options safer than one?

[@1312_PV]

If they do I hope it can't trigger via software, only via the crew manually enabling it, otherwise it may trigger at unintended times. Also, it is probably not doable since they can probably not propulsively land on water safely enough, and the capsule would be heading towards a water body. Anyways, if they find the extra time, another option is always good to have, even if never tested and very risky.

[@neil7250]

@@1312_PV The F9s can land propulsively on the surface of water. The rocket topples over, obviously, but the touchdown is soft. I think Crew Dragon can do it as well.

[@1312_PV]

@@neil7250 Probably, I was thinking that water vapour hitting the capsule could be bad. I wish that, if the parachutes were to fail, propulsive landing succeeded, but without any testing it isn't all that likely.

[@Hyperus]

​@@1312_PV I dont think vapor would do bad to the Dragon, it should be able to sustain a lot of heat in the first place and it resists water since it lands on it.

[@1312_PV]

@@Hyperus Well, it handles water quite badly, I hope there is no problem as well, don't want to boil the astronauts off.

[@markiangooley]

Great video, and so refreshing to hear the correct phrase “raises the question” rather than the solecism “begs the question.” Well done!

[@Mcpwnt]

The metaphor being used is the same either way the only difference being the implied relationship between the questioner and the respondent.

[@bob19611000]

With a "pusher" a zero/zero abort makes booster go boom. A plus though is no need for dead weight above the motor required to keep the CG in front of the CP in the abort configuration.

[@jayestes-nsdistrictvice-ch8590]

great report. I felt like you left out a small detail on some of the modern abort towers that have reverse flow nozzles - putting the full abort solid between the capsule and the nozzle - which eliminate the need for the truss mounts. The orion abort test looks awful, but the skins of that test vehicle were simply painted 1/4in aluminum which barely got scorched,, so the separation makes a massive different in heat flux. One other tidbit - the abort level in that test was 16.2 G's, but it has been "dialed back" to a lower level for production use.