Will the Falcon 9 actually be reusable or just refurbish-able like the Space Shuttle?

[@gordontyler9317]

Somebody start a petition to get this guy a SpaceX prototype space suit to wear

[@KendrickMan]

i honestly dont even understand the shirt today. vaguely orange with fake binoculars?

[@mowhat]

But for him to have not to wear 😭 the audio is so much better now

[@ChrisBrengel]

@Gordon Tyler LOL! What a great idea! The Russian space suit he wears is significant for him (and these video series) for historical reasons.

[@omniryx1]

Somebody persuade him to take that suit off and never wear it again.

[@thethirdman225]

Gordon Tyler SpaceX is not the only show in town.

[@EverydayAstronaut]

Before commenting, yes, I accidentally said “prograde” instead of retrograde for some stupid reason 🤦‍♂️ I’m sorry. Please forgive me 🙏 I’ll never do it again 🤞promise 🤞

[@armctec3531]

The orange tank from the Space Shuttle is recovery?

[@drkjk]

10 lashes with a wet noodle.

[@drkjk]

No

[@cdav]

armctec Orange tank always burned up in the atmosphere.

[@gergc4871]

Fool me once..

[@chickenspaceprogram]

2:34: " It's a good thing rocket delivery isn't the standard here on Earth." _Starship has entered the chat_

[@mountainbikingwithlogan6163]

Underrated

[@Ethan.YT.]

Starship sn15 has entered the chat It was 3 days to get it back on the launch pad maybe even 4 just to be removed from the launch pad lol

[@chrisofnottingham]

I think we can safely say they are reusable now.

[@glenkeating7333]

A lot has happened since Tim did this video!

[@slayer_san9114]

@Alpha Centauriwdym it "still takes 2 months" like the shuttle took a month to refly?

[@KayJune]

@@slayer_san9114 the turnaround time is about 50-70 days

[@keco185]

@Alpha Centauri 1 month and 8 times. No booster has stopped flying because it’s too old

[@stonegamessm1598]

Yes

[@Teddy-bg3bo]

5:36 “Or another name, prograde” every ksp player ever : *Confused screaming*

[@bee5440]

Like just say retrograde lol

[@starcatcherksp1517]

Should be retrograde

[@cm01]

It might've been a poor choice of words but he obviously wasn't actually confusing terms.

[@benjaminmontenegro3423]

@@cm01 why?

[@sickly300salt3]

@@benjaminmontenegro3423 hes saying this direction of travel/prograde, aka direction of travel = prograde

[@michaelhillson9801]

It’s actually incredible how good these videos are

[@scottslotterbeck3796]

This guy is a natural presenter.

[@coreyford3556]

He doesn't deserve what he has. He deserves more

[@nicosmind3]

Space X have already made it worth while flying. And they've reflown more rockets this year than new rockets!

[@mr.boomguy]

And now, after a Starlink mission, a booster has flown for the 5th time, for the 1st time!

[@rzero21]

but is it really reusable or just refurbish-able?

[@janpenner2002]

Actually, SpaceX already flew a booster for the fifth time back in march. However, back then the booster didn't make the landing on the droneship. On this Starlink launch, they managed to both fly AND LAND a booster for the fifth time for the first time.😁

[@cursedcliff7562]

And now the 6th time!

[@RedBlueGamez]

6th！！！

[@CursedSouthwest]

6th time

[@YuriYoshiosan]

"Vehicle assembly building" KSP players: *Yeah I know that.*

[@mintygames945]

hell yea! I am a KSP player myself

[@SenneCools]

i literally bought the game 10 min ago

[@bobbywatson942]

senne1009 How do you like it?

[@SenneCools]

@@bobbywatson942 i haven't played it much had school but it looks cool

[@toppatblue]

Now, go land on Tylo. No buts.

[@squiffer2024]

"Due to the curvature of the Earth" Flat Earther has disliked this video.

[@epicolimeo961]

idiot mario Olol

[@cantthinkofnameyeah7249]

The earth is flat technically read the definition of the word. Something can be curved and flat at the same time if you know your definitions.

[@chriscolace6976]

@@cantthinkofnameyeah7249 i think quarintine got to your head

[@catothecensor]

Cant think of name Yeah demonstrating that someone can be learned and naive at the same time, flatearthers are an example

[@khoralis6458]

when did they ever like it xd

[@IbakonFerba]

You know, the Spaceshuttle had is problems... But darn, was it beautiful! I don't even know why, I just really like how it looks, it is so iconic ^^

[@BlueCyann]

I never liked the Shuttle's looks. The more I learned about the engineering, the more I'm amazed by it, though.

[@CarFreeSegnitz]

Bricks with wings... and even worse glide ratios.

[@stuartyoung4182]

IMHO, it was only iconic because the U.S. flew it for 30 freakin' years. I wouldn't have minded that so much (Shuttle was meant just to be a "space truck," after all) if we had ever sent humans beyond low-Earth-orbit since 1972. The Shuttle's expense to operate - plus OldSpace's way of doing things - plus the ISS, ate the human spaceflight budget. 3 wasted decades - again, IMHO.

[@AZOffRoadster]

Always thought of it as the VW Bus of space.

[@wierdalien1]

Stuart Young i mean yeah you right it is 30 wasted years. But at the same time its only thirty years

[@publicshared1780]

I love how you include metric measurements, thanks for that.

[@KillroyX99]

"Reinforced Carbon-Carbon". Is that like Pizza-Pizza? Extra good?

[@Mosern1977]

Killroy it's like cheese and cheese.

[@TheMhalpern]

basically its something like graphite or graphene, probably reinforced with bonding agents and some form of mesh, I am not going to bother looking it up because no mater how it was made it would be a really good thermal conductor that can survive really high temperatures.

[@Thorgon-Cross]

@ Michael: CRC is in short Carbon Fiber with pure Carbon, Graphite, used as epoxy and is then baked into one solid part. While is is not as strong as Carbon Fiber it is still around the strength of tempered glass. CRC is what he call RCC, less accurate but still correct and commonly accepted name.

[@KillroyX99]

Baked like a Pizza? ;). Thanks for the info.

[@starshot5172]

Mosern1977 cheese and cheese is my favorite

[@jimbultas]

Tim, your dedication, enthusiasm and willingness to step up, step out and shout out why a space fairing civilization, and the people who make it happen, is awesome is commendable and appreciated! In a slight bit of constructive criticism; there was a gratuitous bit of leg slapping that started after the sitting transition at 23:30. I also encourage you to raise your lights higher to allow shadow below the chin rather than a head on light. Keep on keepin’ on and thanks for all that you do!!!

[@green7449]

Wait so you're telling me that I can debunk flat earthers by just telling them to look at the space shuttle runway. Aww yea.

[@maxace1078]

Green yep

[@americankid7782]

No they will just say it is the atmosphere. That’s the response upon looking at objects that are partially behind the curve.

[@dranupmadubey5605]

I can see the hardwork you put in all your videos!

[@mikaxms]

1:12 Wow Tim without his spacesuit, it must be really warm over there.

[@starshot5172]

Mika de Grote whether you are in a warm or cold place, these suits are extremely hot

[@sickbailey21]

The drift lmao! thanks for another upload bro you had me chuckle a few times in this :)

[@sokolum]

5 years later.. Falcon 9 has blown away every competition…

[@knoblauchhusten]

Booster 1062 just had its 20th reflight.

[@darcytrafalgar3340]

Jeez, amazing effort put into this almost half an hour worth of content.

[@trm7782]

Rocket delivery is not the standard on earth Elon Musk:hold my beer

[@xiserhoff]

trm Screw you Amazon!!!

[@green7449]

This made me imagine sitting at the computer and ordering something, then 20 minutes later a small rocket comes flying down and lands on the street or driveway delivering said package in record time. Then taking off again.

[@brainmind4070]

Green If you try ordering explosives and live in a Middle Eastern country, that dream is already a reality. Same day explosive delivery via rocket courtesy of the US military.

[@richtigmann1]

*if space shuttle used solid fuel* *transporting to launch field* *accendently ignites* TURN IT OFF TURN IT OFF

[@JohnDoe-vz7ff]

Elon Musk: but first I need to accuse an innocent man who rescued children of being a pedophile because he called my idea stupid! Oh; and I need to get sued by him. And get fined 40 million dollars for lying on twitter about Tesla. And get sued again over that. And get sanctioned for smoking weed on a public live-stream.

[@nitestryker7]

I like the shirt better than the entire space suit.

[@lsmjudoka]

I like the shirt except for the faux binoculars on it. I think shirt + real binoculars would be great combo

[@aonodensetsu]

yeah that's what I thought as well

[@KryptoKiddi]

They are real.. at least at the beginning

[@TheAmateruAstronomer]

nitestryker7 I like the suit better

[@kaijuuARH]

same

[@pjchris90]

The shuttles turned out to have very different air frames and internal systems. Maintenance of each was a unique project as a result. The engineering drawing library for each was on paper and a nightmare to keep current. I worked on a bid to digitize the libraries and it was eye opening how complex the support effort was for each of the ships.

[@caarjunkushwaha8769]

Thanks for using two alternatives measurements like miles and km and feet

[@mahiyajesi6437]

Hello, You don't want to wait 30 years.....I can't (: I was 14 at the first moon landing...then SK 2001..even Thunderbirds !!!.... Where did it all go.. Cordialement,

[@robertsuhren3543]

Wow You Put a Lot of Work in your vids 👍

[@starshot5172]

I'm surprised that the space shuttle only failed a few times

[@221b-l3t]

At the end of the Shuttle mission failure probability was calculated at 1/90. Then years later they did another more detailed study, knowing what they hadn't known before and they came up with the number 1/9. 1 in bloody 9. By that figure we should have lost 15 Shuttles. We got super lucky and the engineers took good care of them. And once Challenger happened everybody became pretty conservative. Still I would have flown on it knowing that. 1/9 chance of a fiery death with the payoff of riding the Space Shuttle to orbit? What a way to go. By my luck I'll probably die getting run over by car, so it wouldn't be so bad.

[@Br3ttM]

@@221b-l3t The 1/9 was before all the changes they added to refurbishment. Going over each tile helped the odds a lot, but at a huge cost.

[@somebodyontheinternet8257]

@@221b-l3t The 1/9 figure was for the FIRST 9 SHUTTLE FLIGHTS get your facts right Edit: It wasnt even the first 9 flight the first 9 flight had a LOCV probability of 1/12 so that 1/9 figure is total bs

[@virginiahansen320]

Great video! Really glad you aren't wearing the high altitude suit for the full video, I got sympathy heat-stroke watching that! Keep up the good work!

[@ErenAlpErtem]

9:04 6 years later "Hello guys from the moon"

[@HowToSpacic]

one of our boosters is currently at 9 re-uses, we've done it, boys!

[@Headwind-sw9eh]

One of your best episodes!!! Thank you, Man!!! I use your videos with my Grade 9 science students. You make the space program so relateable to them. Thank you!

[@clayman0430]

i see Knews helped you with animation it's great to see people working together

[@EverydayAstronaut]

Lukas is so great! I can’t wait to work together more!!!

[@KingDeDeDe111]

One slight issue though, for number 7 (at kzbin.info/www/bejne/fneZaqGnjpiHkNUm42s) we appear to see double on the Falcon 9 first stage

[@mattcolver1]

The aft skirts and frustums were reused. The frustum is the conical nose. I know, I used to build aft skirts and frustums back in the 80s at McDonnell Douglas, Huntington Beach, Ca.

[@starshot5172]

mattcolver1 that's awesome:)

[@odysseusrex5908]

@Charles Yuditsky A B-1 could never get anywhere near Mach 2.

[@Oldskoolflair]

Charles Yuditsky ppp0

[@marzapan9029]

A more useful comparison would be based on capacity. The shuttle could lift 7 astronauts and ~20 tons+ of cargo to the ISS comfortably. Cargo could be enclosed or open in the bay depending on what it was and how packed. Now crewed dragon will be hauling I think only 3 people to the ISS (because thats all NASA wants on it) but can of course haul seven. So a valid comparison would be between 1 shuttle flight and 1 crewed dragon PLUS 4 cargo dragon flights to achieve the same cargo. So now you are talking about "refurbishing" and/or "reusing" 5 dragon first stages, 1 crewed dragon capsule and 4 cargo dragon capsules (all of which have gone for a swim). AND, on top of that you have jettisoned 5 falcon upper stages and 5 trunks (compared to 1 External Tank for the shuttle flight). AND you have had 5 times the launch/range overheads and potentials for issues (the more times you fly, the more chance of failure no matter how good the machine) Yes the shuttle was way more expensive and complex probably to refurbish. But the difference is not as large as you think when you look at the capacity capabilities of both system required to reach a given goal.

[@bftjoe]

Still cheaper/safer to run multiple SpaceX flights than the Space Shuttle.

[@johncherish7610]

The SpaceX company is more innovative than NASA the design will change in the future with new technology and materials much more rapidly than the space shuttle could.. The shuttle was a 1970 design with no innovations allowed. The military made it more expensive to refurbish by demanding such a huge cargo bay that made it heavier, where as if it were smaller and lighter it would have taken less to refurbish it and could have achieved its goal. Less weight on re-entry = less heat generated and probably less complicated. Material sciences of the time and computers back then also contributed to a less than optimal design. That said at the time it was state of the art but by today's standards was obsolete by the 80's and 90's. The real problem was NASA's lack of innovation and management, this is how it's done so don't question the methods used and come up with a better way. NASA a government agency is a bureaucracy and not prone to innovation.

[@TroySavary]

@@johncherish7610 How can you say SpaceX is more innovative than NASA when SpaceX is just building on research that decades of previous launches from various space agencies gave us?

[@johncherish7610]

@@TroySavary Does NASA have or ever used a metha-lox rocket engine the answer is NO SpaceX does the raptor engine uses it. This technology didn't exist before SpaceX developed it. Further the development cycle is way faster than what NASA's bloated bureaucracy can produce. NASA has for most part abandoned manned flights out of LEO. SpaceX is developing their star-ships to eventually be interplanetary manned flights so who is more innovative certainly not NASA

[@marksmovies6191]

@@aphenioxPDWtechnology What is a Mg ? And how much does the Falcon Heavy lift ? Nice analysis, the re-usability does brings the cost down significantly.

[@stephengnb]

13:40 - 13:43 Probably my favorite part of this video. The knee-slap "what?!" is great. 😅

[@nitestryker7]

Salt water is bad for rockets, m-kay?

[@Dave5843-d9m]

It will wash off.

[@kindlin]

@@Dave5843-d9m Salt water corrodes (steel) substantially. What degrades telecommunication towers the fastest is bearing near the ocean, with just having the salt spray wash over them. Now imagine sinking something entirely below the salt water, it's going to need massive refurbishment.

[@kindlin]

@LotusLambo Well, the NASA engineers have. And the SpaceX engineers are hoping to avoid that.

[@littledrummergirl_19]

kindlin I’m pretty sure they’re both just messing with you my guy 😂

[@ashtonsenko536]

kindlin r/MEGAWOOOSH

[@paulF60m23]

Fantastic video Tim! Loved the data presented, your humor( aka the Elantra power slide...definitely love 2 c more of that.) and the graphics. 👍🏻

[@LukeRanieri]

I love these extended videos, Tim! Since I’m used to 10 minute videos, you should see my big grin when I realize there are 20 minutes of awesomeness left! 😄 Thanks, brother! #TeamElon 🚀

[@kindlin]

You think _this_ is extended, you better get ready!

[@DarkNemesis25]

Seriously awesome video!, The whole time i was glued to the screen hoping it didn't end because i wanted to know moooree and it kept going!

[@joshuaklipsch4728]

Great content. I regularly watch your videos to get my space fix. Always stimulated. Bringing these topics "down to earth" is a worthwhile mission and ya'll are doing well.

[@KsNewSpace]

Great video Tim Dodd the Everyday Astronaut! Totally unbiased review of course! ;P

[@ulysisxtr]

Wait, you have different color eyes? :o

[@EverydayAstronaut]

Yup!!!

[@ulysisxtr]

I've watched so many videos of yours and only noticed now!! That's so cool! The first astronaut with different color eyes (that I know of)... :)

[@biska131]

Aliens, aliens, aliens.... All that advanced technologies and you can't even copy a human properly. What a shame.

[@AZOffRoadster]

He had one infant failure, and a matching unit was not available at the time the order was placed. Supply and demand.

[@haroldinho9930]

ulysisxtr my Dog Does Blue And Brown!

[@wareshubham]

Nice shirt though.. I actually thought that binacular was real

[@starshot5172]

It was so non obvious that you didn't even notice that it has been in a couple of other videos as well (:

[@wareshubham]

Space duck to be true I haven't watched his videos from a month.

[@haroldinho9930]

Shubham Ware wait is it not real

[@alvianchoiriapriliansyah9882]

Shuttle had only 5 orbiters ever produced which makes refurbishments time much more impactful. Falcon still continues the booster production after the first reuse and block iterations in a short time instead of 30 years old vehicle definitely helps

[@davianmangual2461]

9:00 that aged like wine

[@giganetom]

Tim, please start a revolution in space talk and call the shock heating upon reentry "shock heating" instead of "friction" ;)

[@erikboehm8210]

Or compression heating (the air is compressed near the shockwave/boundary layer).

[@neilsober3048]

Your content is fantastic. Please keep up the good work!

[@larrysteele6199]

Knee slappin at the end got me laughing. Great video sir!

[@garrettanderson7265]

I will always have a special place in my heart for the shuttle. The image of that orbiter has feelings attached to it that i can not explain. It has "burnt" its place in my heart.

[@talltayls21]

Hahaha @ 11:43 my mans says “#7- Salt water is bad, mmmmkay”😂

[@sarran1955]

Hello, You don't want to wait 30 years.....I can't (: I was 14 at the first moon landing...then SK 2001..even Thunderbirds !!!.... Where did it all go.. Cordialement,

[@sank9039]

sarran1955 wuts a thunderbird ?

[@multi-colorman5952]

The thunderbirds are a advanced team that uses F-16’s. The thunderbirds are named after- The bird, thunderbirds. Thunderbirds use retired F-16’s Just search up: Thunderbirds on google 😀

[@sank9039]

CSA - Corgi Space Agency thx

[@FFeelliixxxx]

@@sank9039 hi

[@sparkequinox]

Cool graphics, no doubt some serious work but they really improved the video!

[@randomVHStat]

lots of thigh slapping from 23:47 onwards, I counted 14. Some lederhosen would go well with that shirt

[@scottvandezande5874]

Haha I'm not the only one who noticed that

[@primaryaccount7626]

Lol I got 19 times

[@h8GW]

Can't unhear now. Thanks a lot you sunavabitch.

[@dayeeoliver]

Exactly 😂 you ruined your long informative video by doing that buddy

[@vincent4396]

I counted 21

[@impguardwarhamer]

An interesting consideration after this is how reusable will the BFR be? With a likely more complex booster and a spaceship that may have to reenter at space shuttle velocities.

[@m26pershing67]

Space x: *lands a booster with engines* Me in ksp: *using parachute and propulsive landing*

[@thulyblu5486]

2:00 Trailer for Fast and the Furious: Hyundai Tire Fire (starring Tim Dodd the everyday drifter)

[@innsj6369]

I really like KNews and Everyday Astronaut channels, really happy to see a cross-over :)

[@Cyberspine]

It took me embarrassingly long to realize you're not wearing binoculars...

[@JohnFrumFromAmerica]

Cyberspine I only found out when I read your comment haha

[@SideshowMorgan]

I really appreciate the km/h conversion in this video, thank you Tim :)

[@jochen_schueller]

conversion? lol

[@AmericanCrusader222]

Hey guys I’m from the future to answer your question: they reused one 20 times.

[@tonyfield5407]

Nice job! Love the level of detail. Do keep the heavy suit for the lead-in but they shirt is perfectly hilarious for the rest of the video. Interesting note. The first ad that popped up was during your crash sequence, and the ad that popped up was a Toyota ad showing a family slamming on the brakes to avoid a crash. (Starting with a flashing red brake light). It was perfect ;-)

[@nathanjohnson9911]

he wore the shirt because wearing his space suit for 30+ minutes is extremely hot, he said that before in one of his live streams

[@tonyfield5407]

Yup, and he asked for feedback. As if we're going to tell him he should be tortured in the heat... ;-)

[@MichaelMohrVideo]

I love the little animations in this video

[@starshot5172]

Me too

[@fraserhenderson7839]

I suppose I could have tracked down most of this info, if I had asked myself this question. But, I don't have to because this is much more fun and no work at all. Thanks Mr Dodd! So... the biggest difference in the respective programs is that one of them was predicated on potential profit from a private enterprise and therefore eschewed wasting money. One system was developed by 100,000 engineers without financial constraints and cast in stone, worshiped by NASA, a kind of shrine to bureaucracy. The other was developed by an unsatisfied visionary who put his money where his mouth is and, with the help of a small group of similarly minded co-workers, re-invented space launch technology with a budget in mind. The story of the beginning of SpaceX (caused by rude Russians) is a mind boggling example of how differently Mr Musk sees a problem.

[@wheresmycar9559]

Fraser Henderson I may be reading your comment wrong, but it seems like you're bring hostile towards NASA. SpaceX is largely a Launch Vehicle company (with some house made experimental satellites here and there), while Nasa has much broader goals. Nasa deals with probes, rovers, Landers and the ISS. Yea, NASA is being pretty wasteful with their spending on their own launch vehicles, but the misconception of rockets = space seems to be causing all of this hate for NASA

[@phil4826]

Tegan Cee. It's not hate, it's frustration morphed into exasperation at the failure to advance affordable space transportation technology. Yes of course NASA is much more than rockets, nobody disputes that. And they have a duty and second to none ability to conduct basic research that cannot immediately return the investment. But they are saddled by a huge standing army beholden to politicians that throttles them to the point that those politicians now specify how they build their rockets (hello Senate Launch System!) SpaceX, Blue Origin and the rest of NewSpace has finally given hope to those of us who witnessed what an unencumbered NASA could do back in the 60s.

[@phil4826]

Tegan Cee It would be a very good thing if NASA could exclusively focus on science and leave the development of launch vehicles to commercial industry. That's how it worked before the Saturn V.

[@TheMhalpern]

Actually they aren't funded by NASA, certain very specific SpaceX projects may receive NASA funding, but SpaceX isn't NASA funded, all money from CRS missions, for instance is payment for services rendered, to be "funded" by NASA would imply NASA giving them money without receiving services in return, which simply isn't the case, even CCdev milestones the service is getting crew dragon to a certain milestone, for which NASA pays them for.

[@TheMhalpern]

Its all right some anti-spacex trolls like to claim SpaceX is NASA funded so I am quick to correct that...

[@PaddyPatrone]

great video, as always

[@ChrisBrengel]

I LOVE THE SHIRT! IT'S EVEN BETTER THAN THE SPACE SUIT! "The booster gets to hang out in space for a couple of minutes. Lucky! I want to go..."

[@commandersalamanders1225]

Splashing down is bad, mkay . . . I didn't know you watched South Park. I laughed so hard at that point I almost died no joke. Lol

[@EverydayAstronaut]

We’ll wait, doesn’t EVERYONE WATCH SOUTH PARK?!?! 😂

[@itsmikoton]

@@EverydayAstronaut no i dont

[@JakeBiddlecome]

I'm so jealous of that case of Falcon 9/Heavy models. All I have is a paper model 9 from the Zuma mission - and i'm crap at building models so it turned out looking like one of those missions that exploded...

[@philb5593]

*heat is generated on reentry because the air is compressed to extreme levels* I'm sure you know this. but I noticed in your video you said friction Oh, then you said it right when comparing vehicles. Great work on the video. As always

[@elementus2857]

I have a name it's a combination of both friction and compressed air, when you compress a gas it heats up and if you rub against something it generates heat. So the shuttle is compressing the air heating it up but it is also rubbing against the compressed air causing friction

[@Strike_Raid]

It’s probably better to think of it in terms of stagnation temperature instead of a PVT comparison. Yes, I know that in this case, it’s the Shuttle moving instead of the gas, but the Shuttle sees it as the gas moving so it’s the same thing.

[@anand.suralkar]

Both

[@Cris22043]

Pretty sure it’s electrons splitting from the atoms causing plasma.

[@stephenlane9168]

Great visuals and helps tell the commentary nicely! Great Work team

[@Penta_NV_]

7:42 flat earthers: reeeeeee

[@sproket69]

I’ve been lucky enough to refurbish the shuttles and the falcon9. One day I’ll be a reusable rocket expert. Hahhaa

[@Werdna12345]

Great video. fantastic job I think it might be smart to include SpaceX and NASA in the title name to help get more visibility in youtube

[@the.starman]

Hey Tim! Great video as always! You are great :D Coud you please talk about the russian Space Shuttle, that kerbal style Buran? Keep going! And fly sa...oh wait XD

[@browsingweb9938]

11:43 I see you watch South Park...

[@alisioardiona727]

6:10 No. At hypersonic speeds heat is not generated by the friction but by the compression of the air ahead of the vehicle.

[@masonjia]

Your wrong

[@alisioardiona727]

@@masonjia nop

[@masonjia]

You nope

[@masonjia]

@@alisioardiona727 you nope nope

[@lewiseast]

Would it be appropriate to genuinely compared the Space Shuttle to the BFS seeing as both are orbital spacecraft and carry people? (I say "genuinely" seeing as we currently don't really know what it would take to refurbish and reuse the BFS juuuuust yet...)

[@sparkequinox]

Thats for another video ;) On a serious note, I agree with you, but when you consider the F9 vs shuttle as the only way to get astronauts into space then comparing them is appropriate.

[@alvianchoiriapriliansyah9882]

Michael "That's for another video..." It will be uploaded a few years later :p

[@lewiseast]

I would also note that perhaps BFS refurbishment might depend on the mission profile... Whether there might be more refurbishment coming from the Moon or perhaps Mars? Will they have to refurbish the BFS on Mars for the return trip? Does this limit the capabilities for the BFS? What about Earth to Earth transportation? There are LOADS of questions which could be covered in a video! :D

[@grungar3x7]

Sure, that's fair, as soon as it flies.

[@lewiseast]

Only problem is on reliable answers... There's not much information out regarding the BFR as a whole in terms of refurbishment!

[@Sammy-jg4xu]

Prograde? not Retrograde?

[@EverydayAstronaut]

I misspoke 😩🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️

[@agtshaw]

Yeah i wondered that too

[@coffeecatto3375]

Everyone makes mistakes

[@yanmorin5431]

4. Parachcutes at 11:13 :-p

[@OmerFlame]

Spoon as always :P But great content!

[@SquiddyyBoyy]

9:05 Boy do I have something to tell you, past Tim Dodd

[@rogerhazen3664]

A+ Video dude, perfectly explained all the important information and specifications and metrics. On top of that you explained it in a way people understand casually. Thanks, keep it up man. Subbed !

[@wilbobaggins1550]

Love the deep dive here Tim, but I couldn’t help but feel that you missed a key element and that is Dragon 2. In order to really explore SpaceX reusability, especially in comparison with the shuttle, it would be really cool if you could look a F9 and Dragon 2 together!

[@EverydayAstronaut]

The point was really to quell the people who say the falcon 9 can’t be reusable because the space shuttle was refurbishable. That was the main point and wasn’t to being up reuse efforts of Dragon 👍

[@wilbobaggins1550]

Totally understand and I really enjoyed the video! Thanks for keeping up the great content man!

[@AndrewSmoot]

The fact that the binoculars aren't centered on the Pumpkin Suit bugs me more than it should.

[@ryananthony8543]

🙌🏽dat drifting scene 🙌🏽

[@nakulmohansantpurkar2437]

This is an amazing video!

[@MrDavidfarris]

Really enjoy these videos. And I like the way everything is boiled down to “where the rubber meets the road” type scripting. Tim also brings an energy to the subject matter that keeps it fresh. With the pace that this technology is advancing, we are going to need this type of coverage to help us “laymen” keep up with it. THANKS!

[@omermagen824]

Very informative video. Thank you for your hard work, keep it up! Also, those kNews animations are awesome!

[@AstroRamiEmad]

"A Ton of Friction" ... Correction: "A hell of a *shockwave* pressure"

[@strategicthinker8899]

Nice pickup line.

[@jmstudios457]

People keep thinking its friction. It's p r e s s u r e

[@DarthMauldinOfficial]

ONG HE USED KERBAL SPACE PROGRAM TO MODEL IT!!! I freakin love that game.

[@pedrovicnt_]

He uses it sometimes,and that is good

[@dustinking2965]

Great video. Also the spinning globes on your shelf are cool. I wonder if it would be possible to make something that looked and worked like the space shuttle but wasn't a money guzzling death trap.

[@dustinking2965]

@@Mick_92 I have no doubt in SpaceX's ability to make it economical, at least. Time will tell about the death trap part. But I did notice during last week's launch that there's a certain similarity in that it comes in on a steep aerodynamic trajectory, flares, and lands.

[@ItsMrGoatAgain]

ok, so i just noticed you only have 128k subs... how is that so low? you're soo good!

[@PeterArnold1969]

Brilliant video, mate; well done. You've put in a lot of hard work, by the sounds of it. Looking forward to your next appearance on TMRO with the gang.

[@geoffmorrise2072]

Love your programs. You didn't mention (perhaps to avoid controversy) the politics involved in the Space Shuttle design and build. That added a great deal to costs, as certain politicians (politicians allocate the monies) pushed their agendas to get certain parts build in their home states. (Why do you think it's called the Jake Garn (UT) Training Facility? Utah is the home of former Morton Thyocol, the builders of the SRBs.) So a lot of red tape was involved, and not necessarily to the easy or cost efficiency of the project. Happily, as you point out Space X gets to avoid all that hoopla and just present a finished product (payload to orbit) to NASA at a set price.

[@EverydayAstronaut]

That’s a video all on it’s ok! “NASA VS SpaceX, is that a fair question” check it out!

[@TheNheg66]

Well, they're certainly rapidly refurbishable at this point.

[@vvvvvv-op7jb]

compered to space shuttle, they're lot more reusable now.

[@mayurvalvi13]

I love the intro music 😀

[@pontuslundstrom5831]

Great in-depth explanation. I can't help but nitpick on 6:13 though: "-- build up a ton of friction and therefore a ton of heat." Contrary to popular belief, friction is not the main source of heat during the hottest part of an atmospheric entry! It has more to do with shockwaves, compression and plasma. There's a great post on Quora under the title "Why does a spacecraft heat up during reentry?"

[@hurrdurrish]

Freaking love it, Tim. Truly, my hero. Some day I'll have enough for my suit. In the mean time, we spread the space love.

[@godagon97]

This aged well.

[@RobertCraft-re5sf]

I miss the space suit Tim Dodd

[@TBCTop7gear]

5:36 isn’t it retrograde?

[@EverydayAstronaut]

Yes 😩😩😩🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️

[@tiberiusmagnificuscaeser4929]

My dad worked at Lockheed Flight Test in the 80s and one of the things he worked on was vibration testing on the Space Shuttle. One of the checks they would do at NASA for the Space Shuttle was on the elevators at the back of the wings. They would strip off the heat shielding and check visually for any cracks forming. The guys at Lockheed had the idea of using vibration testing to check for cracks, checking the resonant frequency of the elevators in order to see if it had changed, if it changed the there were cracks and if it hadn’t changed then there were no cracks. I wonder what other innovations could’ve been used to bring down the cost of refurbishing the Shuttle.

[@dieselhead24]

You have a very good natural upbeat presentation style.