Why won’t Starship have an abort system? Should it?!

[@fiveoneecho]

“Revert to launch” is the only abort system I need. Okay, after a year, I will finally confirm that this was about KSP, but it can be about SFS as well, if you like :P

[@willies545]

I'd just be sitting at the control center spamming F9 ^^

[@monad_tcp]

yep, we need better cloning tech, so that 98% of failures isn't a problem, just revert to a cloned human

[@rahulsawant_pikachu]

@@monad_tcp or we can just use robos ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[@Kadekuru]

kerbal 101

[@mrkeogh]

Maybe a big red REVERT button in the middle of the console to make it easy to punch?

[@robinjac4322]

The fact that we live in a time where two youtubers can have regular engineering conversations on twitter with the head engineer and CEO of a major rocket company is just astounding to me...

[@prof.m.ottozeeejcdecs9998]

It is indeed, and probably for the first time in history as well!

[@dingledooley9283]

It's very cool, but it's not the first time in history Tim just does a better fairer job than any news paper/broadcaster who would have covered the great rail/ocean liner builders many years ago

[@jovangrbic97]

Musk is not an engineer and neither is Tim... that's the reason

[@Kpop-eye-f7t]

@@jovangrbic97 lol

[@thedarksecrets-official]

@@jovangrbic97 then what is he? your mom?

[@coolmadmike]

1919: "I'm not going to fly until planes are as safe as cars." ... 2019: "I'm not going to space until rockets are as safe as planes." ... 2119: "I'm not teleporting until transporters are as safe as rockets."

[@theambergryphon4266]

To be honest even if I had odds of the Saturn v with a one way trip on starship/falcon heavy I'd love to go to mars, I'd love to die there, just not on impact.

[@Thomas_Acharya]

Planes are already safer than cars...

[@theambergryphon4266]

@@Thomas_Acharya that's not the point

[@theambergryphon4266]

@@kollanata.620 I'm pretty sure I'll have life support

[@davidanderson4091]

"1919: "I'm not going to fly until planes are as safe as cars." 2019: "I'm not going to space until rockets are as safe as planes." Preceded by 1885: "I'm not going to ride in a car until its as safe as riding a horse"

[@quaxenleaf]

Don’t apologize for the amount of content you include in your presentation... it’s a lot of work and very thorough...I love your in-depth approach!

[@jarno_de_wit]

**Me in KSP putting an "abort abort abort system" for if my "abort abort system" fails, and at the same time thinking if I need another level of abort systems to save me from possible "abort abort abort system" failures.**

[@bingusaerospace]

Jarno de Wit all of my aborts in KSPis basically just the tower yeeting my capsule away

[@jarno_de_wit]

@@bingusaerospace I generally like to design every single part myself, including the escape system. The downside of this approach is that it often takes more than half an hour to get a nice working LKO manned rocket. I almost always use part of setting to make everything look nice.

[@t65bx25]

1. Smack and LES on the top for 1st stage aborts 2. Put sepatrons around the top of the service module or upper stage for any aborts after LES is jettisoned 3. Done

[@imeakdo7]

Lmaooo

[@Krakenslayer23]

And then fails and just immediately reverting to launch

[@Ramash440]

"It's like putting a Cessna inside of a 747 just in case the 747 fails." Boeing, please hire this man.

[@ericw.1620]

could have worked for the 737 Max

[@tma2001]

Trump sees this quote, picks up phone to Boeing: "About AirForce One ..."

[@ComingInHotPink]

Belkan tactics

[@lashedandscorned]

@@syaondri Incase the Antonov fails, you get the Boeing, and if that fails you get the Cessna. big brain time

[@lashedandscorned]

@@syaondri thank you kind sir

[@StormRiordan]

Your long form content is basically unmatched. thanks for all the effort you put into all of these videos!

[@writemeyers]

Storm Riordan truth 👆🏽

[@sawspitfire422]

With KZbin being the way it is, seeing someone who doesn't give in and make every video 10-20 minutes long is really refreshing

[@SB-xt5jk]

Agreed. I'm always "where the hell is he?!" and then he releases a video like this that obviously took time/money/effort and I'm like "oOoOoO".

[@XimCines]

These are the type of subjects that needs to be done in a large format, besides his followers (us) are people who loves detailed information.

[@hwinangkoso]

I would prefer a two-part 20 minutes though

[@g96bento]

I'd love to see a short video going over these older videos where you address Starship questions/problems, and how they've evolved up to the last successful(ish) landing of SN10.

[@travishunter8573]

Hi reliability engineer here(although I work on robots). Some things to think about when looking at reliability are the difference between system and component reliability. Basically what component reliability is would be your 99.88% reliable engine but your system reliability takes into account all failures. With most systems they have components that are in series with eachother meaning if one thing fails the system fails(similar to series circuits vs parallel circuits) now you can stack components in series and in parallel. Your fuel tank would probably be a single thing so there is no redundancy but your engines are in parallel with one another so one can fail but your system will still work successfully. Now you can consider a more complex model for the engines since if you lose more than maybe 2-4 engines your rocket will stop flying up which is a failure, basically you enter that as a threshold of the failure of those redundant parts. In general anything in series can have it's reliability multiplied to the rest of the system to calculate the system reliability. Your subassembly with the parallel parts has a different equation to calculate that subassembly but then that can now be factored in like anything else in series. Also what should be considered is what you consider a failure. Like you said in the video landing the rocket is not necessary for success so failures that only impact that won't be considered when determining primary success, but you could have a system reliability that is just for landing but that would include failures up until stage separation and down to landing and ignoring failures on the second stage and beyond. Hopefully this is interesting to someone!

[@tfletch4756]

Travis Hunter it was really interesting actually enjoyed reading it being able to sort of understand it Thank you

[@prof.m.ottozeeejcdecs9998]

You are right, and I concur. Nothing is perfect, ever. Probability of success to achieve a set goal is what counts, and to try to improve on that!

[@johncrowerdoe5527]

What about the success of secondary missions. Such as the mission of not having to pay for more rockets because the previous one can be used again.

[@travishunter8573]

@@johncrowerdoe5527 so basically with any reusable system you create a reliability goal based on what you want, so for something that has a critical primary mission SpaceX would probably target reliability% of let's say 98% reliable at 20 uses. They do that so that at 10 uses(their target with falcon 9s I believe) they should have effectively 100% reliability. With some redundant components they can allow for more failures without it causing issues because having multiple less reliable things let's you get a higher likelihood that that action will be preformed even when 1 or more break. Also what happens is since 10 uses is high reliability and after that it starts to drop off you can stop failures from happening but just retiring that rocket. The aspects of landing a rocket can be weighted in the reliability model based on severity of the failure(total loss vs damage etc) the detection of the failure(if you can detect it before it happens then maybe you can switch the part being used before it fails, and occurance (just how often it is likely to happen) you can use engineering judgement to determine the priority of what either needs to be improved, eliminated or just lived with. So a fuel tank exploding is very severe and you can only detect it after it happens and hopefully it isn't likely, but something like the hydrolics that they added more of in the grid fins maybe is only detectable when it happens but the severity is not as high because now there is an extra pump to perform that function and the occurance of 2 failing at the same time is much lower

[@johncrowerdoe5527]

@@travishunter8573 My question was about goals with a lower priority outside engineering calculations. For example loosing reusability of a particular booster would have a well defined economic cost calculated by economic professionals. Modeling such external goals as engineering calculations seems like a classic case of seeing everything as a nail.

[@paulruemmele]

KZbin needs to add a love button so I can adequately show my adoration of the videos from Everyday Astronaut.

[@citizenblue]

There's always Patreon... 😎 Tim does a fantastic job with his channel. A real gem here on KZbin.

[@buttonasas]

Add to your Favorites playlist. Share with friends. Do it again after 5 years

[@HiroNguy]

I'm buying merch - when he gets my SIZE in

[@paulruemmele]

Mark Stach I have to wait until after Christmas. 50% of my Christmas wishlist is “anything Everyday Astronaut”.

[@martir.7653]

The irony is that only Tim has a "love" button to appreciate commenters.

[@pepsidoggo1598]

Agree or disagree SpaceX should name a Droneship "Flamey end down"

[@M33f3r]

Yeeeeessss.

[@merylschultz9234]

Agree

[@DrFiero]

Along with it's sister ship... "pointy end up"

[@FenderBridge]

@@DrFiero r/yourjokebutworse

[@TheWheelTurns]

or maybe pointy end up

[@jn1547]

38:50 "so only about half a percent of flights would see any benefit from a launch escape system"... my KSP contraption, lets just round that one up to 100%

[@linuxgeex]

He should instead have said "of the 3 incidents where an abort system could have been used, only 33% were successful." That puts the value of it in much clearer perspective since it would raise the bar from 99% to 99.3% and that's not insignificant.

[@dongurudebro4579]

Kids you always have to remember that this video was just a "bridging", cause the other video he is working on was to complex to finish in time. Shows you how much effort and love that man puts into his videos.

[@techmantra4521]

*Flies away in Cessna* "The rest of the passengers didn't like that..." --

[@jwadaow]

YOLO

[@charadremur333]

Bill.

[@techmantra4521]

@@charadremur333 Lemme heal ya' up.

[@a64738]

LOL ;)

[@matrixarsmusicworkshop561]

lul

[@starbomber]

43:00 "Put more rockets on it" This is a very VERY Kerbal answer to the problem.

[@monkeypants6764]

starbomber facts

[@matrixarsmusicworkshop561]

yes i know. .-. -.-, its also how real life works : ))) but ok XD

[@vallabhkavi1477]

moar boosters!

[@giovannisimionato1262]

The more fuel, more boosters technique

[@xsn1p3r8]

YES

[@messerschnitt7943]

"Rapid unscheduled disassembly" ... LOL I love that term 😄

[@pugs6357]

Also know as explosion

[@ccm2059]

@skeet or RUD

[@vadymvv]

Only if it doesn't used on humans

[@executivesteps]

Would you love the expression if you were on board and had no way to escape?

[@djdansumners8645]

@@pugs6357 ollllnllp no

[@TaeSunWoo]

It’s crazy how he makes consistently good almost hour long videos.

[@fernandoabril8726]

Arguable

[@GaryNumeroUno]

What's not arguable is how cute Tae Sun Woo is!

[@GeoFry3]

Need escape pods for droids and the secret plans they are carrying.

[@sebione3576]

How this comment only has 13 likes in as many hours is beyond me.

[@jv-lk7bc]

You weren't on any mercy mission.

[@joelsilvaamorimdonasciment1089]

LOL!

[@joelsilvaamorimdonasciment1089]

@@sebione3576 Absolutely! genius! :-)

[@InventorZahran]

That escape pod in Star Wars had a very earth-style design aesthetic, with the simple cylindrical frame and visible RCS thrusters... It almost looked like a module from the ISS!

[@hollisbishop6890]

There was a person who said: “An engineer knows that he has achieved perfection, not when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away.”

[@lexwaldez]

German engineers typically have a lot of trouble with this concept. Now Russian engineers...

[@criticalevent]

Yes, the term "over engineered" is one of the the most often misused terms. It actually means to make something as cheap as possible.

[@kurtblackwell7752]

@@criticalevent well that's not true. To over engineer something means exceeding the required specifications by too much. If your requirement is to make it cheap you could make it too cheap, but you could over engineer something by making it unnecessarily strong and so too expensive.

[@criticalevent]

@@kurtblackwell7752 No, that's what to over build something means. Engineering is where you come up with the specifications in the first place. I'm a product engineer for a major OEM parts manufacturer. My job is literally to take parts and figure out how to make them with the fewest steps and the cheapest materials possible while still meeting the engineered design criteria.

[@pegleg2959]

@@criticalevent I don't know where you've heard that (I have a feeling you've made it up off the top of your head), but you're wrong. Over engineered means to make something unnecessarily complicated, or to add features that aren't needed for its intended use. Like if you designed a suburban car to have the armour of a tank, its over engineered. Or if you put an LED screen with a password on a household fridge, it's over engineered. What you're talking about is a cost effective or economical design.

[@JohnDoe-jh5yr]

I'd like to see you revisit this video now that you're going to the moon (unbelievable and congratulations!). You seem to be cool with going to the moon on a largely untested vehicle without an abort system. I'm still not convinced. My main concern is a RUD on the pad given that Raptor is a newer more complex engine, and the vehicle has so many points of failure. Please convince me that Starship is a human-ready spacecraft. I'm sure you wouldn't agree to flying on it otherwise. The illustration in the thumbnail gives the impression that the escape system in the Starship nosecone is possible. Edit - Just watched your dearMoon announcement video and I came to the realization that the only way this particular artistic mission profile could be accomplished is using Starship because of the giant window, as shown in the drawing. I suppose there are inherent risks involved. Imo, seeing you go up on a Crew Dragon would be equally exciting and it does have a viewport and a launch abort system, but would certainly not offer the same ability to grab footage in the same way as if you had the giant cabin space that Starship offers. You could probably fit your van in the Starship with plenty of room to spare! Anyway, congrats again, and godspeed. I'm happy for you. Have been watching from the beginning, and just want to see you return to Earth safely!

[@trambinvestment3563]

Agree, there's a lot of new data to be analysed since when this video was first published: e.g. Starship prototype tests, F9 better than ever booster landing streak, and the New Shepard in-flight abort this year. NASA still seems very reluctant to trust Starship, by not having humans on Starship HLS during launch and landing. Also, if we think, the major sins that caused accidents with the Space Shuttle were things that were specifically new to the SS concept: SRBs in human-rated vehicles, and vehicle side mounted on the fuel tank. Both these are properly addressed in Starship. But Starship itself has one thing that is new: propulsive landing with humans, and that's by far the phase of flight with the most "unknown" risks that cannot be properly calculated at this time...

[@michaelarbach]

Me to!! This was the first thing I thought of after the news (outside of dear moons crazy timeline lol)

[@maxv9464]

Worth noting that dear moon won't be happening for at least 5-6 years, at which point the HLS will have been used to land and shown a much more risky mission off. And neither will happen unless starship is launching and landing super reliably for refueling.

[@Blaze6108]

I was thinking the same. This video spends a lot of time comparing it to the Shuttle situation, but in reality crew escape systems are necessary even for classically-designed rockets, and in general for all rocket vehicles due to their inherent safety issues (namely, sitting on top of hundreds of tons of highly-explosive propellant). In fact, it was the STS which was unusual - and unsanfe - in not including one due to its weird shape and stacking arrangement.

[@Azyx90]

I needed an abort system for this video... Just watched the whole thing in one sitting and didn't even notice my launch window coming and going (missed my bus).

[@jeffvader811]

oof

[@pmj_studio4065]

Nyyppis you can always have a backup launch window a few days later. Need a Video Abort System? Power button:)

[@wezleyjackson9918]

Abort to work...

[@InventorZahran]

Buses, just like planets, move in a continuous orbit around their route. However, their trajectory is influenced by road layout rather than spheres-of-influence...

[@mrkeogh]

Kerbal Solution: rely on the exploding booster to blow the crew capsule part clear...

[@Ensign_Cthulhu]

The difficulty is in making the crew capsule tough enough, while still sufficiently light that the rocket isn't crippled by its own payload.

[@TonboIV]

@@Ensign_Cthulhu Don't worry. Kerbals bounce.

[@everettlwilliamsii3740]

... without turning the occupants into jello from the g-forces involved.

[@kathrynck]

Hey, it worked the the Challenger ...err wait...

[@johannson1980]

@@everettlwilliamsii3740 Kerbals are very durable.

[@dghohens]

"My car engine died 4 seconds before I got to my house, but I was close enough to walk the rest of the way. I call that a success!" - RD-180 engineers, apparently

[@laiserfire]

The difference is they have enough money to throw away a rocket, while you probably wanna keep your car :)

[@anonymm3152]

Yeah, but the car would probably be able to roll home

[@wolfvale7863]

No rapid unscheduled disassembly either. That is a good car.

[@SirThreepio]

@@anonymm3152 Only because you can get out and push it :)

[@akshaygowrishankar7440]

@@fridaycaliforniaa236 the Reliant Robin army is nervously perspiring about now

[@michaelpetty8867]

Revisited this video after SN8's flight. Essentially I still feel there is several things that can happen just in the landing sequence that can justify an abort system. Something that is obviously unique in space flight. Fuel pressure, fuel amount, wind conditions, flap control, engine thrust vectoring, engine relight (especially after a return flight from say Mars or landing on Mars). All of this happening correctly in a few seconds. So I think the nose cone section of Starship should have a push away abort system. So as to limit the size needed to pull away. Yes, starship will loose payload and personal capacity because of extra parts but people wont ride without it.

[@knightfromjupiter]

Exactly, that's why comparing starship to other launch vehicles isn't the best approach. Starship has a lot more opportunities to fail when an abort system could be of help since it has to land itself propulsively. The fact the abort system wasn't useful in, for example, the apollo program doesn't mean anything for exactly this reason.

[@eannamcnamara9338]

​@@knightfromjupiterexactly. Abort systems are there in case for emergencies, we were just lucky the Saturn 5, got away with it, the soyuz and shuttle both needed one, and we'll only one of those two systems had one, and only one is still flying

[@CLipka2373]

43:00 - "You're solving the problem of rockets by sticking more rockets on them": Well, we all know that's the way to go. Kerbal engineering FTW :)

[@HaydenManka]

Yes

[@AFuller2020]

You are correct, that what happens in Civil engineering projects.

[@quelorepario]

"Hello, I am Everyday Astronaut, and this is my masterclass"

[@PrograError]

"welcome to my ted talk"

[@johncrowerdoe5527]

I'm getting those "Masterclass" ads too.

[@outboundprojectworkshop1270]

@@johncrowerdoe5527 yooo me too lol

[@InventorZahran]

"If you want to fly a rocket ship, you gotta be an optimist." -Chris Hadfield's MasterClass trailer

[@robik1009]

I looove Gordon Ramsay!!

[@2nd3rd1st]

"Designing a rocket to be as reliable as an airliner is the goal" *Boeing 737 Max has left the chat*

[@Jehty_]

The Boeing 737 Max has a safety record of around 99,9996% (2 accidents in over 500,000 flights)

[@2nd3rd1st]

@@Jehty_ Alright, but when those 00.0004% cost 346 people their lives that's nothing to brag about. Besides, in its time of service the 737 series killed over 5000 people in 90 crashes. Maybe that's peanuts overall but it's still pretty bad.

[@DARisse-ji1yw]

It's " Boeing" not Boing ....

[@2nd3rd1st]

@@DARisse-ji1yw You'd hope the planes go Boing rather than Crash though

[@dozodub]

They crashed as a result of greed and dishonesty. It's not a failure of competence so much as a failure of integrity. A very big black mark on the history of Boeing and the story is far from over. All deaths were preventable and they took multiple steps along the way where they could have changed the outcome but acted otherwise.

[@HeadsetHatGuy]

Soviets: *puts lots of engines on the N1 rocket* Elon: Write that down, write that down!

[@JackMacLupus]

Why is the "Write that down!" making me thing about the scene of Howard Stark in Captain America? *Howard gets blasted through the room* "Write that down..." XD

[@karlmarx1423]

Good on

[@dezekpl7485]

And look where we are today

[@kbg990]

"That would be like putting a Cessna prop plane inside of a 747 in case the 747 fails you can fly away on the Cessna." In the early 1900's the consensus was that life rafts on the Titanic was a waste of space and that they were better off just making the Titanic itself safer.

[@Ensign_Cthulhu]

The idea was that the Atlantic was full enough of ships that help could be called for; the boats were there for transfer, not survival. If the Titanic's distress signal had actually been picked up (if the radio operator in the nearest ship hadn't gone to bed for the night), there would have been a liner there in enough time to assist - including sending out its own boats. The death toll would have been far lower.

[@miscbits6399]

jsm666 That, and Titanic was a double hull design ("it's own lifeboat" in the parlance of the times) Incidentally it was _NEVER_ advertised as unsinkable and the designers wanted to add enough lifeboats for all passengers but were ordered to remove them by White Star lines as they would unsettle the passengers. The primary failing was that the watertight compartments..... weren't. The bulkheads on each deck didn't go all the way to the ceiling and the segmentation didn't extend properly into the double hull structure either. What that meant was that whilst the watertight doors between sections were watertight, once the water level overtopped the bulkheads in each compartment it was able to flow into the next. Even with the sheer number of breached compartments on that ship, if they'd been properly watertight the vessel would have taken _much_ longer to sink (if it had sunk at all - although it would still be dead in the water due to the engine room flooding) - long enough for rescuers to arrive (remember the vast majority of victims died of hypothermia, not drowning) Ironically, if the Titanic had _less_ warning and hit the iceberg had-on, the bow structure would have crushed and absorbed the impact at cost of the lives of ~130 crew in their sleeping compartments at the front but the ship itself would have remained afloat. The fire in the coal bunkers was well known and the weakened metal that resulted definitely played into the ease in which the berg ripped open the side of the vessel, but the fatal error was designed in from the outset and there in a lot of contemporary designs.

[@longjingshen5473]

That's rubbish.. the titanic had life rafts🤦‍♂️..

[@kbg990]

@@longjingshen5473 for how many? ;)

[@100videosandnosubscribers3]

Titanic (actually the Olympic) was the epitome of _user error_ In addition to the various ridiculous design flaws mentioned above.

[@ERPP8]

Tim, I love you for making these long, in-depth videos. I absolutely agree with you about diving deep into a topic to really understand it, and nowadays there's a lot more content on youtube that only gives a 5 minute overview for beginners and is mostly just paraphrasing wikipedia.

[@jackmack1061]

This. 100% this.

[@photohotjock]

YES this

[@DecemberGalaxy0]

I know, there's just so much things distracting, world is great, every field is, but it's time to have more useful speciality

[@wuddadid]

The timestamps are very much appreciated

[@jrockerstein]

"The best part is no part. The best process is no process." -Elon

[@sarahutch6413]

These videos always feel like 5, maybe 10 minutes at most.

[@ChrisBrengel]

Great line!

[@Joesolo13]

You can really tell he's not an engineer sometimes

[@amir.u.qureshi]

The best rocket is no rocket

[@michaelprice3031]

@@amir.u.qureshi You're right, it's a space elevator or orbital loop!

[@NolanO]

Space X employee: hey Elon I took out the engine so there is no failure Elon Musk: good job Edit: man, why did this get soooo many likes. It doesn’t even sound correct XD

[@tiefensucht]

Yeah why not, use a slingshot.

[@huihuihuihuihuihui1]

Yes, they actually used a trampoline recently instead as advised by the head of Roskosmos.

[@квадратя]

@@huihuihuihuihuihui1 russians are there

[@huihuihuihuihuihui1]

@@квадратя где именно?

[@fabianmayer]

Nice one

[@jmr5125]

21:44 Two comments here: 1) The in-flight RS-25 failure resulted in mission success, so if the standard is mission as you propose here, then... 2) It should be pointed out that the failure of the RS-25 here was caused by a short in either a sensor or the engine controller (I don't remember which). Either way, the engine shutdown was erroneous -- and, in fact, mission control recognized this and order the crew to disable the automatic system for the other two engines, which turned out to be the right call (within seconds of cutting out the automatic shutdown system the same problem requested a second engine shutdown).

[@tinldw]

In other words, there were actually 2 engine failures with mission loss not happening due to some unrelated circumstances (including lucky timing)

[@nixie_chan]

It was a fault in the fuel turbine temp sensor that caused the center engine to shut down. Edit: This is in response to "The failure of the RS-25 here was caused by a short in either a sensor or the engine controller (I don't remember which)." Overall the point of the video was to address the need and effectiveness of abort systems though which makes the exact cause of failure in the center RS-25 during STS-51F a moot point.

[@donjones4719]

In discussing abort success, I just count crew survival. Even if 2 or all engines shut down, the crew is OK if have enough altitude for a fly-back abort to the mid-Atlantic (Azores Islands, etc). But that short could have occurred earlier. There are figures somewhere about a "black zone" when a fly-back abort can't work.

[@aBoogivogi]

He basically showed those black zones in the charts. They are shown in relation to how many seconds into a flight the shuttle is. Effectively NASA made a whole lot of them gray via the "just jump out attached to this tube here" solution they came up with. That being said since no separation of the orbiter was doable in a catastrophic event it would have been useless then. For a lot of the other scenarios where it was supposed to work it also relied on getting the shuttle into a relatively stable glide position. That was not easy to do as it handled very poorly and it also required a certain height to even be doable as the shuttle generated very little lift and would come down fast even in a stable glide.

[@tomgidden]

By the criteria given, the “100%ish” concession should really be given to the RS-25 and arguably Merlin as well. The RD-180 shut down early but was compensated for and resulted in a successful mission, but the same’s true of the RS-25, which shut down early - okay, many _minutes_ early - but the ATO resulted in a replanned but still successful mission. So, how’s that different from the RD-180’s “100%ish”? Merlin on CRS-1 did shut down early (and a little destructively) but the primary mission still succeeded, and the secondary payload only failed due to contract terms that were an accepted risk, ie. the secondary customer was taking a gamble on it anyway, and paying a lot less as a result. The secondary mission had a >95% chance of success if they’d been allowed to do it anyway. In other words, it could’ve been compensated for (just like RS-25 and RD-180) but safety rules said not to try. So, 100%ish-ish, maybe? (putting aside the much earlier Merlin 1A failure) I get that the RD-180’s failure was less severe, being just a couple of seconds early, but that’s not a great metric. Ariane 501’s RUD happened due to an issue that wouldn’t have been a problem had it happened a couple of seconds later, for example. And, saying the Atlas V’s RD-180 shut-off wasn’t a problem because the Centaur could correct for it? With the RS-25 and Merlin anomalies the other engines _on the same stage_ compensated too. The only difference with the RS-25 and Merlin anomalies were that the missions were revised somewhat due to procedures, while with the Atlas, it wasn’t necessary. Merlin, RS-25 and RD-180 all either failed (shutting down early) or didn’t fail. I just think the “100%ish” concession is a bit bogus, unless also applied to the other two.

[@SuperSMT]

Can you really say the F-1 is more reliable than Merlin? Sure, it's at 100% success vs Merlin's 99.88%... but it's only flown 65 times vs Merlin's over 800. Not really a fair comparison

[@johncrowerdoe5527]

If we allow an error of one half flight, F-1 achieved 99% with not enough data to add decimals.

[@capo_di_capi]

There are, realistically, no confirmed ways to compare such intricate works by engineers and scientists who can say "This way is better" because the outcome intended MUST BE "This must work all the time 100% of the time, which is a literal impossibility at the moment when dealing with orbital mechanics.

[@oferkrupka]

It's like deciding which F9 toy for kids to buy, should I go with: 5 stars and 13 reviews *OR* 4.4 stars and 420 reviews.

[@Fenrir7]

@C A Condescending, insulting, and completely off-topic. A great way to end any sort of dialogue, which is, shall we say, rather infantile

[@FSchloss]

He gives current data, i'm Shure one version will beat 99,98 %

[@SajjadFilms]

Time stamps: 00:00 - Intro 3:05 - How abort systems work 5:25 - Space Shuttle Safety Margins 10:40 - What Made the Space Shuttle so Dangerous? 16:00 - How Starship Will Differ from the Space Shuttle 21:00 - Engine Reliability 30:25 - Starship Abort Options 34:30 - Do Abort Systems Actually Make a Rocket Safer? 38:55 - How to Improve Rocket Safety Without an Abort System 41:50 - Are Launch Abort Systems Necessary for Human Spaceflight For smartphone users.

[@wesleylook16]

27:55 Minor mistake: Airliners are actualy able to deploy it's landing gear even without any hidraulic power using only gravity to do the work.

[@EverydayAstronaut]

That’s why I said “can’t deploy them normally”, since they can operate without hydraulic pressure 👍

[@sonnyburnett8725]

Most can but some, maybe not.

[@__-fm5qv]

Most can gravity drop, but a lot also use blow-down bottles to give a big whack of pressure to the hydraulic system to get the gear down and locked. As well as having redundant hydraulic lines for control surfaces and landing gear.

[@psdaengr911]

They can drop them, but on the larger planes, without mechanical assist can not reliably lock them .

[@williamgoode9114]

There was that recent crash in Pakistan, so the first thrust landing with astronauts will be in October with Doug

[@hoedoe5981]

36:59 cosmonauts : blyat we could've died Rescue crew : relax comrade , take this vodka

[@DmitryKiktenko]

Vodka? Kidding me? Pure 98% alcohol!

[@adamrezabek9469]

@@DmitryKiktenko that some serious vodka right there

[@jonnyfranke300]

Dear Tim, since nearly two years I am watching your videos. Those are awesome and i like your style. Fresh music, nice pictures. But the best thing is how you present facts about a simple question without prematurely judging or presenting something unilaterally and then weighting the facts, re-evaluating them and giving a properly thought-out answer. Just like in this video, at first I thought "Launch Escape System .. stupid question ... of course everytime." But after 48:43 the world was different again. Smarter. That is true science. To your question: Would I am going on a rocket without a launch escape system? Since I am a father ... No. But Yes. But ... NASA would laugh at me if I wanted to be an astronaut :). So please do more videos and keep your style. Now I have to sign up at patreons ... Geatings from germany.

[@pmj_studio4065]

So true 🙂 Only 2 likes...😕 Tim and me?

[@HaydenManka]

@@pmj_studio4065 10 now

[@Trashbag-Sounds]

8:02 What is going on with the screen?!! the windows is slowly shifting up und down and left to right xD

[@markgalamiton391]

Where?

[@solidmilk6034]

the computer on the side

[@solidmilk6034]

Up left

[@KatieGray1]

Screen saver most likely

[@Trashbag-Sounds]

@@KatieGray1 that’s a solid window. And it’s slowly shifting in the timelapse

[@ClemensAlive]

Like just for the amount of work that was put into this! Good job, Tim!

[@ReganMarcelis]

...why did OBAMA think it was a good idea to park our space shuttle and just GIVE-UP for so long?

[@murphythelen]

Dang, 50 minutes... Dang, It’s over already!?!

[@timmzahn]

"Hopefully the pointy end is up, and the flamey end is down" That made me laugh harder than it should have....

[@TROLLDETECTIVE2]

And me 🚀

[@felixs9722]

This is the question I got wrong during my NASA job interview.

[@pepsidoggo1598]

and the explodey area away from you

[@timblack6422]

Same here😂😂

[@giggleherz9491]

That Arrogant Russian boss-man that demanded a chair to watch the launch from outside and wound up a pile or charcoal.

[@NOM-X]

In all actuality, with all concerns in perspective, Starship is the abort system. I would like to think that once an anomaly is detected in the booster, the clamps for SN would release and lift to a height that would safely bring the crew back to the ground. I hope you watch this video again and again after signing up for Dear Moon".. These are all topics that were all discussed even prior to the development of the ship. CONTINGENCY is the #1 rule in aerospace. SpaceX has it, and is already applied. Great video Tim. Please keep up the great work! - NOM

[@NFSHeld]

This reminds me of the electricity backup system in my former employer's building. It was one of the kind where you'd have to route the whole power through that backup system in order for it to be able to uninterruptedly take over power supply in case of a grid failure. The problem was that the probability of a failure inside the backup system itself was higher than the chances for a grid outage are in Germany. So by including the backup system into the power supply system, that would've actually increased the likelihood of a power outage in the building. That's why they decoupled the system and detached the backup system from power supply completely.

[@mennol3885]

Thanks for giving an actual case of this. (even though it is in a YT comment). I have been wondering about the wisdom of having requirements that specify an implementation like that instead of just specifying the required level of safety. In my opinion non engineers, or engineers who haven't been engineering for a long time should be kept away from the specifics.

[@w0ttheh3ll]

@Temple of Ridicule it's relevant. an abort system could directly cause a failure as has happened before. also, having an abort system makes the rocket more complex and heavy, so handling the complexity of the overall system design is harder, corners are likely to be cut to bring the weight back down. all this possibly leading to failure indirectly caused by the presence of the abort system.

[@eliharman]

Everyday Astronaut is one of the only youtubers I’ll block out an hour for.

[@douginorlando6260]

Eli Harman this one is a comprehensive mini course!

[@XimCines]

Same here... 1:30am totally worth it.

[@MachtPlays]

Luke Thomas ( an MMA Analyst / MMA Media ) is about the only other one for me lol but that’s because analyzing MMA fighters styles / fight break downs takes atleast an hour.

[@hammadsheikh6032]

Add Isaac Arthur :-)

[@likestoparty]

I turn the sound down so I can really dig into those KZbin hand movements.

[@basbosloop]

This might be the best youtube documentary i've seen to date. Realy interesting thanks for the effort!

[@uku4171]

Tbh I still think a launch abort would be a good idea. A 99.5% success rate would be very bad and unacceptable. If not, maybe it would be best if it had a detachable reentry module so that the people could land the good-old way. That, or the crew could transfer to a Dragon capsule (delivered by a Falcon) for reentry.

[@seanbaskett5506]

I love these videos. Everytime I have a ques...oh wait, he just answered it. And then anoth....hold up, he just answered that one too. Good journalism is a dying (if not already dead) thing, If I could nominate Tim for a Pulitzer Prize, I would. My understanding of rockets and spaceflight is 3 orders of magnitude greater than it was 3 years ago, because he actually takes TIME to explain things in detail. I never thought anyone could challenge Scott Manley's abilities to explain this to the common man, but he does.

[@capo_di_capi]

Good Journalism is not vanishing, you just have to know where to look for it, try spending less time on Pornhub.

[@charpsteve36]

41:20 Unfortunately the paper airplane safety record still lies well short of 50%

[@felizarchez5229]

“A rapid unscheduled disassembly” 😂😂

[@wellsharris8256]

Feliz Archez RUD

[@noremorsewoodworking2258]

I think that would be what The Chieftain calls "a significant emotional event".

[@ReikiBuddha]

We could have had robotics to every planet in the solar system by now for the obscene amount of money spent on getting people up there. Let's get rid of the abort systems and wait another 10 years for astronauts.

[@robinsuj]

@@ReikiBuddha Don't we already have (or at least had) probes in most planets of the solar system? Or at least in orbit of them?

[@majorphysics3669]

@@robinsuj Yea I'm pretty sure the only bodies we haven't been to are the vast amount of moons around Jupiter and Saturn. I found a date here that says ALL the planets had been explored by 1989 except for pluto, and that was done just recently.

[@leeoflincoln7062]

Hello Tim, Not sure if you’ll see this but I’d like to congratulate you on producing such an amazing post. Excellent research, clear explanations and confident presentation. You rock, man!

[@FlightRecorder1]

I think comparing it to airplanes is quite accurate. Airplanes don't have parachutes for all passengers because their reliability is great. I would consider parachutes on airplanes to be the equivalent of abort systems on rockets.

[@MouseGoat]

but why tho? why cant i decide to take the parachutes out when plane goes down? Seems to be a lot of flights where a lot of lives could have been saved, as once the plain comes crashing down you chances of suval inside a big metal brick are close to 0.

[@plainaviation]

Freedom Phoenix Goat parachutes are very heavy.

[@joaoolivo1815]

@@MouseGoat Parachutes require training and skills to be properly used, also, you can't use them in 30,000ft, the parachute fails. In addiction, most of the accidents happens on landings or take-offs. Summarazing, parachutes ara usuless in take-offs, landings and cruising altitudes. And if even so you want to use one, good luck finding any space or window to make a jump in a desoriented airplane.

[@sebastianochoa5385]

Planes can glide. Rockets fall.

[@Veldtian1]

@Robert Slackware Exactamundo, I hate when people argue the weasally financial accountant pov on these issues that relegate a human life to a series of economical compromises. It's evil.

[@KristianPletten]

I happened to witness the Soyuz MS-10 launch and abort last year in Kazakhstan. Just glad to see that Nick and Aleksey survived that incident.

[@johnpignatelli3148]

This man knows his stuff, he is committed to stars.

[@multiio1424]

27:15 The Apollo missions didn't rely on propulsively landing on the moon. There was an abort option. They could abort the landing at any time, fire the ascent engine, dock with the command module, return to earth and land there -- non-propulsively. Starship won't have that option. It absolutely *has to* land propulsively, and it must work on the first try, no abort possible.

[@pavelboico9283]

In-depth documetary quality review. That's why I like youtube.

[@toomuchrandomthings]

I love how awkward elon looks whenever he's in front of an audience

[@Maximus-k1]

"Just delete it, that's the best thing......yeah."

[@shampooner]

Casanova Frankenstein You’re obviously misinformed.

[@Saturnares]

@@shampooner actually he's not, elon doesn't want people to know he is an alien from 2 weeks into the future and different universe

[@mirarman]

Hahaha

[@tylerdruskoff9689]

He isn’t a millionaire for his speaking abilities

[@TimFerber]

The qualitiy of your videos is awesome, keep up the great work for us, great Christmas days from Germany.

[@jeanfelixlaflamme]

Your vids are soooo long, I need to plan time in my schedule to watch them. But they are sooo thorough and filled with knowledge its insane! Keep these vids going and I'll keep a time slot in my schedule to watch them!❤️

[@rodrigogomes6086]

I like Everyday Astronaut videos so much that I was watching something else and I came here right away when I got the notification

[@scjohnk]

Nicki Minaj summed it up nicely: "Starships were meant to fly". Thanks Nicki.

[@powerfulduck]

I was the 69th like

[@davez5201]

A prophet of the modern age.

[@stoneyhigh05]

She's a genius

[@carameltherelorian2544]

Hands up, and touch the skyyyy

[@realzachfluke1]

Elon secretly fangirls over Nicki confirmed.

[@quinnreierson]

It baffles me that you don’t have at least 1 million subs Keep doing what you’re doing :)

[@RAiNfORAiNbOW]

Maybe when he learns to speak and stop repeating actually every 10 seconds

[@b0mby1]

@@RAiNfORAiNbOW mmmm, so nice speaking of a rushed video that is intended just to not make a big cap between tge videos like before the aerospike one.

[@mbaxter22]

@@RAiNfORAiNbOW Odd, I hardly ever noticed Tim doing that, and I tend to be very picky about listening to people. I find a lot of people too annoying to listen to, but I can't say I've ever found Tim Dodd objectionable at all.

[@RAiNfORAiNbOW]

@@mbaxter22 are you a native english speaker?

[@jeffvader811]

@@RAiNfORAiNbOW I don't hear that at all.

[@zizhdizzabagus456]

I remember one astronaut from shuttle program mentioned that there was a guy with a button that would just self destruct the shuttle inflight if it leans off the proper trajectory so it will not fall on the city. What an interesting job that guy had

[@Christian-zv2em]

I would choose a Scott Manley instead of an abort system: Fly save! I meant "safe":-)

[@youngThrashbarg]

Fly save and reload.

[@kazsmaz]

@@hans-joachimbierwirth4727 aye alright you scrawny fuck

[@markhorton3994]

@@hans-joachimbierwirth4727 Research what a Scottish piper did on D-day. Standing up playing his bagpipes under fire for pride (his commanding officer's) and moral. That man had balls bigger than your whole body. Incidentally while I may have a few Scottish ancestors I identify as German and English.

[@hans-joachimbierwirth4727]

@@markhorton3994 What makes you think i did less than that? Projections!

[@markhorton3994]

@@hans-joachimbierwirth4727 With current media saturation if you had stood up under fire for morral purposes the world would know it.

[@BHBalast]

Rapid unscheduled disassembly, I love this one. :D

[@carterbrown7513]

A bomb with a nozzle -EverydayAstronaut 2019

[@DagarCoH]

Watch out J.C., a bomb!

[@calebshonk5838]

A guy my dad used to work for worked on the team that designed the engines for the shuttle; including the Challenger. He said that even after the shuttle exploded, those systems were still working to regain control of the craft and were performing at some 600% of their maximum designed capability.

[@divedevil985]

the failures of the shuttle were management not engineering. The flew the vehicle with known problems outside of safety margins. Any vehicle will fail in that scenario.

[@DragNetJoe]

25:00 perfect examples of why this is so hard. All those failures had simple fixes, but those fixes were not specifically anticipated. And that's where Murphy's law comes in. There is always something you didn't think of. No matter how good your FMECA is there is always something you missed.

[@vinos1629]

Ikr . He is basically saying nothing else will fail bcs these simple fixes won't happen now

[@mduckernz]

Yeah, this is a significant part of why testing individual parts and concluding that when they're put together that their safety in isolation means that they will have safety in combination too (highly flawed assumption!) is so bad. At least when you test systems all together you are much more likely to produce the conditions where unexpected failures due to unanticipated interactions can occur. Also - by adding a full abort system you will significantly lower the performance margins due to the large amount of weight and necessarily redundant systems (especially propulsion). This has its own implications for safety, and the increased system complexity will, too. As you say, it's complicated. There is no single answer. Personally I tend towards a perspective that basically says "space is inherently dangerous, and so is system complexity and reduced performance margins. Prefer a solution that minimises complexity and maximises performance margin, and redundancy if this can be achieved with minimal additional complexity" IMO, the engine redundancy makes me feel significantly better about the safety of the vehicle. In future, if the cabins can be fitted with a means to turn the crash couch into a self contained ejection capsule (no propulsion, just hope that the capsule emerges from a vehicle failure intact) with a parachute system maybe this can be a good compromise. It would be nowhere near as good as a full abort system but it's also far simpler, nowhere near as heavy, and you'd think still much better than having nothing at all!

[@kedrednael]

I feel like you maybe missed one thing. When there are more people on the spaceship the abort system has to become much larger. It wouldn't even be like putting a Cessna on in 747 (can't fit all the passengers of the 747 on the cessna), but it would become closer like putting a 747 in a 747. Try creating an abort system for three large passenger cabins in ksp and you just end up designing the entire space shuttle, with a slightly higher thrust to weight then necessary.

[@thefitzthewitz]

Good point. SpaceX envisions flying up to 100 for interplanetary flights and even more than that for Earth point to point flights, so there is no realistic way to design an abort system for such a large spacecraft.

[@aBoogivogi]

And that would be a perfectly valid abort system in it's own right as long as the engines can survive the actual explosion. It's like a helicopter. It doesn't have any means to make glide so instead you add auto-rotation to at least soften the impact and give some directional control because the alternative would be building a small rocket ship or an airplane.

[@donjones4719]

By the time they get to 100-person flights Starship will have accumulated many cargo and crew flights to find and eliminate as many problems as possible.

[@CLipka2373]

@@aBoogivogi Technically you don't add auto-rotation to a helicopter; it's an inherent feature of this type of aircraft.

[@aBoogivogi]

@@CLipka2373 I assumed there were ideal angles for the rotor to maintain and possibly some gears linking it to the rear rotor. I figured you would need to flip these. Sort of like how any prop plane has a feather setting where the prop is effectively producing minimal drag to increase your maximum glide distance.

[@dongurudebro4579]

I love your "short" videos!

[@walterhuff3483]

2 long

[@b0mby1]

@@walterhuff3483 2 short 4 me

[@sawspitfire422]

@@walterhuff3483 forget your ADHD meds or something?

[@walterhuff3483]

@@sawspitfire422 no just 2 long of a video I prefer 2 watch videos of the shorter time scale

[@sawspitfire422]

@@walterhuff3483 can always just watch half the video now and half later, that's why he put timestamps in the description

[@ben.vision236]

22:57 I would really love to see how the raptors have done in the years since this data was put together, now that we have a few flights in. It definitely isn’t as reliable as it should be, but let’s hope the R3 figures some stuff out

[@Luke-jo4to]

Any Hardcore History fans will notice the parallels between Dan’s and Tim’s content style, and their habit of letting topics get out of hand (in the best way possible).

[@citizenblue]

Thanks for mentioning Hardcore History. I just found that channel and it's great!

[@kalxite]

just love the way you explain rocket science, wish i was a kid and had all these to help with choosing a career

[@oliverr710]

Why do you not have millions of subs!?! You put so much effort into each video and I love it!!!

[@KrustyKlown]

dude has one of the better space channels going ... unfortunately people today care little about science and space, they are too busy working on getting likes on their iPhone socials.. the dark side of technology, causing brain death.

[@KrustyKlown]

@skem thanks for reinforcing my claim of "brian death" with your elaborate well thought out response

[@KrustyKlown]

@skem an "Incel"?? .. I wish!! .. would have saved me at least a a Million bucks on 2 divorces. So, what were you saying about that mirror in front of you??

[@ovehansen1084]

As usual a highly professional approach to the subject. Your reflections are really enjoyable. Even in the pioneer days of passenger flights, there were no abort systems. It was not feasible to have 50 passengers jump out with a parachute :) Some passenger trains are really really fast. If they fail, people dies. There is no abort system. With new technology for passenger travel, we will have to accept, the only way to ensure safety, is failure. Or said in a different way,- that people dies for future safety.

[@SammyPro820]

Pray that someone with a rational state of mind puts a stop to this

[@kokofan50]

FAA regulations are written in blood, and aircraft have become much safer because of those regulations. Rockets are going to have go through the same thing to be as safe.

[@mikee368]

There will be less blood luckily with rockets... but yhea :/

[@TraditionalAnglican]

JackSpeed 439 - There’s also “ETOPS” which means “Engines Turn Or Passengers Swim”, which is used when certifying aircraft to take passengers over water further than where a plane could conceivably glide to shore from cruising altitude.

[@TraditionalAnglican]

M. de k. - Boeing’s problem is with those making the decisions (upper management) about what’s important & what isn’t.

[@WillArtie]

One thing space flight may have over air travel - environment predictability. Planes have to handle a huge range of conditions in weather, wind, storms, temperature, visibility, run way conditions etc etc. Rockets are out of atmosphere in a minute or two, then are in a known and very predictable environ (space) for the majority of there trip, then they have a few minutes of hell and atmosphere again for a few minutes. And they don't launch if they don't like the winds/storms. Having said this space craft also have to handle more speed, pressure, temperature etc. Do you think this environment thing is a plus in any way, or just wishful thinking on my part?

[@Ugly_German_Truths]

Technically rockets ARE going through the process... every accident is meticulously analyzed and investigated to try and prevent it from happening ever again. Models are grounded when it seems the production process has basic flaws and all the other steps, but as Tim said there are orders of magnitude less starts for Rockets than for airplanes or even Zeppelins and Balloons, so the process takes a much longer time.

[@mcarlin15]

told ya i was refreshing! ill see you this afternoon for launch!

[@Imustfly]

You sir, are AWESOME !! Well researched and equally well delivered ! I really enjoy watching ALL of your videos. Keep up the great work !!

[@jevoneFernando]

Everyday Astronaut videos are very informative...they deserve to get more views than 2.4 million.

[@molinkie]

"This caused a rapid unscheduled disassembly." It's the first time I've heard that euphemism, and I'm really really old!

[@revenevan11]

I've heard it as "rapid unplanned disassembly" before, I think it comes from Scott Manley (I could be wrong, but he at least helped popularize it within the "Kerbal Space Program* community which is where it grew and broke into population space culture in general through people like Tim Dodd)

[@ExzcellionGamma]

Hmmm, even Elon had used that when SpaceX uploaded their Falcon-9 landing experiments and attempts compilation.

[@j.jasonwentworth723]

@@ExzcellionGamma I think Elon Musk invented the term RUD (Rapid Unscheduled Disassembly). In model rocketry, we have a rather similar term, "re-kitting," for a rocket that breaks apart in flight (which is usually due to the builder having built the kit poorly, by not using enough glue [or the right kind of glue], etc.).

[@v8pilot]

I was amazed back in 1981 when the first flight of the Shuttle with crew on board (which was its first flight ever) succeeded.

[@lexwaldez]

The astronauts on board were probably pretty surprised as well.

[@fnordpol]

Minute 23:00 the problem with F1 engines is that so little of them have ever flown that its relieability data might not be representative.

[@hoghogwild]

65 F-1 were launched aboard 13 Saturn-V rockets. The F-1 is the second most powerful rocket engine ever use operationally. They were not throttled so that would help their reliability.

[@sgusapling8770]

44:40 Oh this aged like fine wine

[@Allotmenting_Plot15]

This comment aged like wine too.

[@leak-proofchugwaterbottle2594]

Idk why, but I’m pretty sure the reason for having an abort system, aside from the whole “It’ll save you life” thing, is that it makes the crew feel safer. You said your self, you wouldn’t want to go on a rocket not knowing how safe it is. Even with all the stats, you still get stressed by thinking about the fact that if one thing goes wrong, it all goes wrong. A stressed crew is *never* a good crew.

[@dozodub]

In that case they would also know with total clarity whether it was actually useful or not. They study everything. They know their own craft.

[@erittainvarma]

@@dozodubYes. Point is not to fool them, point is that while improving crew survival changes you can also improve mission success rate through a crew that aren't so stressed

[@reconnaissance7372]

"Imagines 10g's" *ribs begin cracking*

[@kennethschultz6465]

No Only if you are sick And lack kalcium

[@reconnaissance7372]

@@kennethschultz6465 I don't think calcium is going to help much against 10 times your own weight being pressed on itself.

[@arachnid83]

"Maybe if it was 500 times gravity you might have an advantage. But 10? I don't even feel it" - Vegeta

[@brunoleal5123]

Recon if you’re playing basketball and dunk the ball on a full court fast break you exert around 10x your body weight on your ankles an knees so I think you’d be ight

[@cayden2744]

@@brunoleal5123 Wrong comparison

[@charlie15627]

When it comes to flying into space and back with rockets, solid or liquid fueled, I believe abort systems are a must. The real problem Is having the right abort system.

[@Jaqen-HGhar]

abort systems are expensive they made this thing look like a tin can to save cost so of course they are scrapping an abort system. This is the entire problem with private space travel.

[@1960ARC]

It's amazing anyone still believes this stuff.

[@juvenilesiren6918]

Jaqen H'Ghar so much naivety. I honestly can’t be bothered trying to correct you

[@_MaxHeadroom_]

I can easily imagine them sending people up to Starship exclusively in Dragon capsules

[@Silverspoon74]

Hey Tim, When a spaceship goes BOOM, it seems to happen instantaneously (ok challenger had a heads up window of a few seconds). Question: Can an abort system really "always" get away from the explosion? Tx for the upload.

[@straight-outta-jutta]

Well I mean there's always something that could go wrong, it's rocket science after all but in most cases of a failure, something (detectable) is going wrong before the hole rocket explodes. If a abort system is fast enough and designed to get higher acceleration than the rocket, your chances of survival are pretty good but definitely not 100%

[@jshepard152]

So far, yes. An abort system saved a Russian crew years ago on the pad, and saved a couple crews on the way up, most recently last year on Soyuz Ms-10.

[@Silverspoon74]

ok makes sense. Its probably all the triggered selfdestructs that makes it seem like they always fully explode mid-air. Tx for replies

[@cashuma5010]

@@jshepard152 . . . your explanation ("saved a couple crews on the way up") does not match the message/ Information transported by this video content . . . pls explain . . .

[@jamesburleson1916]

No, it can't, however the part the crew sits in has already been designed to resist a hell of a lot of heat and pressure, since it has to return through the atmosphere anyways, at least for the conventional capsules. The job of the abort system is to outrun the big chunks and get the capsule clear of any lingering pieces of debris or fire, so that the parachute can safely deploy without getting damaged. When SpaceX does their in flight abort test next year (February I think), they will trigger the demolition charge on the first stage right at max Q to test the capsule abort system. I fully expect to see fantastic shots of the capsule riding a pillar of fire as it bursts from the fireball of the exploding rocket.

[@wesleybantugan5604]

I'm those people who would fly early in the program with little testing.

[@Akeldama9]

Just prove that you *can* land the thing, then sign me up. Hell, even if I end up a smear on a cliffside on Mars, WORTH IT.

[@TexanUSMC8089]

I'm in.

[@221b-l3t]

I would have given my left nut just to ride DM-1 or any Shuttle flight. Everyone has to die sometime. If I die in a rocket climbing to orbit thats would be acceptable. Better than getting run over or lying in the hospital knowing the end is coming any day now.

[@Patrick1985McMahon]

@@221b-l3t and if you die who cares about the loss of there left nut. Lol

[@DouglasEKnappMSAOM]

Look at how many people will gladly and proudly sign up for the US Marines even during war times. I don't know a solders survival rate but if you are willing to get shot at why not take a chance of spaceflight? Also why do we make such a big deal about a few deaths. If we did that with cars, no one would drive. Last I checked 20,000 people a year died in the US from auto crashes. It is not like I think death is good or should not be prevented but there is something called acceptable risk. Astronauts are heros!

[@Quazgar_of_the_North]

"Simplify, then add lightness" -Colin Chapman of Lotus cars

[@TheLetsplaymine]

I am 2:44 in and I am liking and subbing because the production value you just showed me already is amazing sir.

[@DouglasJMark]

Just thoroughly enjoyed this for the second time. Well done Tim.

[@MilesB1975]

"We choose to NOT do these things, and the other things, Not because they are hard, but because they are easy..." "Spam in a Can."

[@Jst4vgApostle]

If this was reddit you would have gotten silver from me.

[@jwenting]

NASA has turned into "we choose to not do those things because someone might stub his toe leading to a multi billion dollar liability lawsuit"...

[@CLipka2373]

@@jwenting "U-S-A! U-S-A! U-S-A!" - Yeah, you got a great country over there... for lawyers anyway...

[@TonboIV]

@@jwenting The reason NASA doesn't do exciting things in manned spaceflight anymore is simply money. The funding they have now is a tiny fraction of what they used to go to the Moon. This stupid myth that NASA is too scared to go to Mars because "safety" just needs to die. Back in the Apollo days they were probably more careful about risk than during the Space Shuttle program, and they're still willing to accept risk. A trip to the ISS is still a pretty risky mission by civilian standards.

[@TheRabbitFear]

"soft" landing in the ocean when the booster is several stories tall

[@nathaliejegues4615]

It partially sinks in, and slowely topples over

[@sumdumbmick]

my daily driver is a '73 VW Beetle specifically because its simplicity makes it reliable. there is no radiator to leak and cause overheating, there is no computer to break down, no O2 sensors to clog, and it's small enough that I can push it up a modest hill by myself if I need to, and the manual transmission means I can easily and precisely control it down a hill without the engine, or start the engine with a dead battery or dead starter. and this is all apart from maintenance, which I can do myself all the way down to pulling and rebuilding the engine and transmission by myself without any special tools. the best part truly is no part, because it weighs nothing and breaks never.

[@mx2000]

Easiest option would probably be sticking a crew dragon on the top, flipping it around in-orbit to dock onto the main ship and land it separately.

[@Joesolo13]

I mean, unironically, it could make sense to just launch crew on a crew dragon to meet starship in orbit. I know there's a lot of people who seem to think caution is a bad thing these days, but astronauts aren't kerbals to be used like they're disposable. Cutting crew safety equipment isn't advancement, it's neglect for safety margins. Especially with how cheap crew dragon launches will become as rocket reuse improves.

[@andrasbiro3007]

In short, rocket science is like everything else, the only way to get better is practice.

[@donaldchasedgc4935]

@Dmitri Kozlowsky Apparently you never saw the movie Hidden Figures. In that movie you find out that even the mathematics wasn't all that easy. some of the things that they had to learn was completely new to us and I suspect that even today we are still learning new things that we still don't fully understand. Math and Physics may seem like easy subjects, but since we discovered with the space shuttle program we are learning new things all the time that we thought we understood. What we thought we knew is not always the truth. We thought we understood what would happen when a piece of foam from the insulation on a space shuttle fuel tanks would break off and strike the tiles on the shuttle wings, but we found out we didn't know. The foam was soft and the tiles were hard. How could the tiles be damaged by the soft foam? We found out that the foam insulation from the tanks takes on totally different characteristic when it hits the tiles on the shuttle at a high rate of speed. Surprise. The foam became to tougher and stougher than the tiles breaking through a hole into the wing allowing the hot gases to enter the wing on reentry. I guess we're not as smart as we thought we were. Same thing happened when they were trying to figure out the how to make the capsules re-enter the atmosphere from orbit. Learn from the movie Hidden Figures they had to resort to an older form of mathematics that had been forgotten how to make the change from one form of orbit relating to a different form of orbiting to get back into the Earth atmosphere again. So the mathematics wasn't all that simple. Theye had to go back school again.

[@mduckernz]

However, where it differs, is that during that practice, a lot of the equipment tends to blow up and you can often end up losing the data that the learning process really needs in a ball of fire 🔥 😔

[@tiger1962pr]

Hello Tim, I'm a big fan of space exploration and love watching Sci-Fi shows like Star Trek, it's fascinating to see how space travel may some day lead us to explore space just as they do in those huge ships, there is one thing that I always wondered , is it really possible to eject humans into space in escape pods in the event of a catastrophic ship failure as they do in these shows as you may see in several episodes of any generation of the Star Trek universe? I hardly think that would be possible since ejecting everyone in small pods to escape a disaster in space or in LEO would be more dangerous and life threatening than staying in a ship that may or may not explode and perhaps some lives can still be saved unless the ship suffers catastrophically in which case everyone still dies.

[@dndjxnskdbajd4561]

very interesting point - I imagine that rescue & recovery would be quite an ordeal too, with the “pods” travelling at random velocities in different directions

[@lavanderialoca7385]

Tim, you are a star! I have learnt SO much about rockets. Thank you for dedicating your time to educate us