Get an exclusive Surfshark deal! Enter promo code FELIX to get up to 6 additional months for free at surfshark.deals/felix What do you think? Where will SpaceX put the second tower? Please let me know in the comments!
@bryanillenberg10 ай бұрын
Suborbital Pad. As soon as the Masseys test stand is ready, Pad B and the suborbital tank farm will be going. Once that's done, work will begin on OLIT-2
@sushicraves10 ай бұрын
What is the maximum amount of g force that a human can withstand for long duration space flight? By long duration i'm talking week to months
@tim_peaky10 ай бұрын
Hi Felix, is there some news about what went wrong with the booster on the second flight? Some engines lost power and it exploded… will there be header tanks in the boosters to?
@LukaArtelj10 ай бұрын
it cost 5000€ to fix your crocket teeth
@bryanillenberg10 ай бұрын
@@tim_peaky There is a LOX header tank in the booster already
@riparianlife9770110 ай бұрын
It's finally time to take Blue Origin semi-seriously, now that their engines worked well on Vulcan.
@riparianlife9770110 ай бұрын
@@JoeShmoism I didn't say I was particularly impressed, but I've tentatively stopped mocking them as not a rocket company.
@ErikSaidWHAT10 ай бұрын
It's a good thing Blue Origin is working out. They all need to. Competition always makes things better and better. 🎉
@riparianlife9770110 ай бұрын
@@ErikSaidWHAT Oh, absolutely. I want to see Boeing recover, too, and ULA find a good home. It would be fun to see Stoke Space become at least a reliable smallsat carrier with full reusability.
@KiRiTO7298710 ай бұрын
@JoeShmoismn Imthought they had already been delivered?!?
@SpartanMaicky30010 ай бұрын
They don't need to take blue Origin seriously, it's not all about engines how many times they test their engines the way space X does ... Not once , it's Kool to know they are up for the mission and stuff but Space X its on another ball game ... My opinion👍🏽👍🏽
@TheSrSunday10 ай бұрын
It is nice to stress the fact of V2 ships, not V2 rockets. 😁
@fast-toast9 ай бұрын
"I aim for the stars.... but sometimes i hit London"
@EvilDaveCanada9 ай бұрын
@@fast-toastGrown...
@piercestomoto9079 ай бұрын
@@fast-toast ... and explode even more effectively!
@zlejablko9 ай бұрын
fueled by fanta
@protorhinocerator1428 ай бұрын
Correct. The Star Ship is an SS, not an R.
@meldroc10 ай бұрын
I'm surprised SpaceX didn't put a mass-simulator in Starship for flight 2. Normally, the practice is to try to make the test flights as close as possible to regular flights.
@Jtretta10 ай бұрын
Yeah, they could have made something on the cheap just to be a boilerplate load for the test. They could have even just made a metal box and put pad debris from IFT 1 in it.
@robertkesselring10 ай бұрын
I think they were more interested in testing the heat shield and reentry, which is going to be done without payload for now. If they took a mass up, they'd need a way of offloading it before reentry, which would add complexity.
@roiq526310 ай бұрын
@@robertkesselringgood point
@Nathan-vt1jz10 ай бұрын
@@robertkesselringAgreed.
@CMVBrielman10 ай бұрын
They ran out of sports cars.
@brianforman151610 ай бұрын
SpaceX could make the 2nd tower more versatile with various versions of boosters and ship lengths by making the fuel disconnects-primarily the ship QD adjustable by letting it slide up or down the tower much like the chopsticks.
@ericdickinson363910 ай бұрын
My wife and I took the Redline helicopter tour this past weekend .... It was AMAZING!!!! Thank you for the recommendation!
@Whataboutit10 ай бұрын
You're very welcome, Eric! Greetings to your wife as well! :)
@zandermcmullon511210 ай бұрын
love your videos! best of the spacex / space industry update video channels!
@Whataboutit10 ай бұрын
@MrGaborseres10 ай бұрын
Love the animations Felix 👍👍good job on putting all of it together..... 😊
@Rekuzan10 ай бұрын
18:55 ~ DEFINITELY getting some serious Outlaw Star vibes on the design!
@erichter6610 ай бұрын
Wow, that solid motor rocket is pretty cool. That means it can be transported and launched from just about anywhere without building a complex ground infrastructure.
@dthomas02110 ай бұрын
It would make sense to me to have the second tower much further away from the first to prevent damage in case of a catastrophic failure during a landing capture attempt. I'm thinking the massey site for the second tower.
@iamaduckquack10 ай бұрын
It definitely won't be Masseys.
@Mattguyverr10 ай бұрын
It will be built between the current tower and the mouth of the Rio Grande river south of Boca Chica beach
@Whataboutit10 ай бұрын
It would help with damage during an anomaly, no doubt! I'm not sure about the launch license, though. It might count as a separate launch site.
@yourguard410 ай бұрын
Especially for practicing "catching" in the future.
@Mattguyverr10 ай бұрын
Alternative idea. A launch tower on a floating platform at sea.
@StaticFirePress10 ай бұрын
Another great video by the WAI team. Thanks for your hard work.
@kahantboy9 ай бұрын
I HAVEN'T BEEN HERE FOR A FEW DAYS AND ALREADY STAR SHIP V3??
@JoyMadrugada9 ай бұрын
crazy ,,, i start searching space topics one week ago and i just realized how advanced things can go ... i Became nerd again and i love it
@jeremiefaucher-goulet336510 ай бұрын
With Falcon 9 launching so often... Can you imagine how big the impact would be to grounding the fleet if a mishap were to happen? What are the chances rules will be flipped around, and falcon 9 keep flying during investigation, similarly to most plane crash?
@mauricegold937710 ай бұрын
Surely the bottleneck in flight-cadence is the lack of barges.
@plainText3849 ай бұрын
Planes do not keep flying during a post crash investigation. When the door plug flew off of the Boeing and they needed to make an emergency landing (not even a crash), the FAA still grounded over 170 similar aircraft until they were inspected and repaired. When Boeing had multiple crashes caused by the faulty MCAS system on their 737 Max planes, the FAA and 51 other regulators from around the world grounded all 387 aircraft that were in service for more than 20 months. It is simply not true that commercial aviation faces less oversight or safety regulations than satellite launch providers.
@jeremiefaucher-goulet33659 ай бұрын
@@plainText384 I did not mean "less oversight or safety". I meant more flexibility and common sense being applied. How come there were "multiple" 737 MAX crashes if they were all grounded after the first crash? How come there were still Boring 777s flying in the days and weeks while they were still searching for the plane of flight MH370? You are incorrect. There isn't a systematic grounding of all planes when a crash occurs. But only when there's a serious enough belief that a flaw exists which could affect other planes.
@robertheinrich299410 ай бұрын
18:40 the text insert says 500KG instead of 6500KG. you might want to correct that one. because you are saying the correct value.
@schrodingerscat18639 ай бұрын
Although the reason for IFT2 Starship loss is LOX dumping, if it had not exploded at that point re-entry is unlikely to have been successful as it had lost a hell of a lot of heat shield tiles on the way up. Hopefully losing tiles will have been addressed in IFT-3, I know it can survive losing some tiles but it had lost a hell of a lot even before staging.
@geraldscott43029 ай бұрын
There seems to be no solution to tiles falling off, other than not using them. The space shuttle lost tiles on every flight, and that is what destroyed Columbia and killed 7 people. SpaceX has not been able to solve the problem either. I think it is time to accept the fact that tens of thousands of separate little tiles is simply not the answer.
@MrAntice9 ай бұрын
@@geraldscott4302 Could use the mass reserved for the tiles with a thicker hull that can spread the heat around to non exposed parts of the ship to be radiated away, or even some heat pipes filled with a high thermal capacity fluid. the fluid. (likely water), could then be ejected to dump heat.
@schrodingerscat18639 ай бұрын
@@geraldscott4302 Columbia was down to tiles being knocked off by foam falling off the propellant tank at takeoff. It was actually losing a part of the carbon-carbon leading edge of the wing that was the issue. The shuttle could stand for losing a couple of tiles but the leading edges of the wings were a critical point that had to be intact. Unfortunately due to the energy involved ceramic tiles are the only option, though due to its stainless steel construction Starship is a lot more heat resistant than the aluminium shuttle and can deal with losing many tiles as long as they are not in large continuous patches.
@plainText3849 ай бұрын
@@geraldscott4302Stoke Space and possibly BlueOrigin project Jarvis (though they are less public about this) are looking to go with an actively cooled heatshield for their reusable upper stage. It's an interesting concept that avoids the use of heatshield tiles, but it'll probably require extra LH2 to be used as coolant during decent. It'll be interesting to see how this works out.
@brianhowe2019 ай бұрын
Is there any reason that the tiles can't be connected to each other in addition to the three mounting bolts they currently have? Or possibly stuck to some kind of high temperature fabric or mesh that holds them together?
@MichaelJohnAnthony10 ай бұрын
"Freedom Units" is not official nomenclature. In the U.S. the official term for Imperial units is "customary units" but this is not in the vernacular. The commonly used term is "standard", ie. "standard units", "standard measurements". That said, you have a good platform to communicate that metric is used in the rocket business.
@EMichaelBall9 ай бұрын
He’s subtly mocking US imperial measurements for not being metric. Sort of, “freedom fries” or “Look at all of that Iraqi oil. Looks like they need some freedom.”
@scottbillups457610 ай бұрын
Has Elon given any hint at sending 2x TeslaBot robots to the moon on their first few Artemis landing attempts? Might as well try it. If it fails, then nothing lost. If they work, then imagine the experiments / learning they can do. I'd love to see 2 TeslaBots walking around the moon. What would they do? 1) Inspect the SpaceX landing unit (putting cameras where engineers want them 2) Test & tune Tesla engineers' low-gravity model on TeslaBot's control expectations. 3) Try using tools 4) [later] assemble solar panels
@waynemapp63339 ай бұрын
Starship started development in 2012, so also 12 years in development. Of course SpaceX has actually launched Starship, even if not fully successfully. Blue Origin is developing New Glenn like NASA. The first flight is expected to be a complete success. So it is possible that at the end of 2024, both companies will have got to orbit. However Starship will be a LEO ship for the next couple of years (they need to do orbital refuelling to go further) whereas New Glenn will be able to to do deep space missions from the get go.
@Zripas9 ай бұрын
Thing is that if successful New Glenn will have one successful launch which could have been a fluke, while SpaceX could have at that point 4 launches, with one or two successes, which would mean that Space X actually have actual launch experience and already flushed out most issues over several launches. Competition is good, but Blue Origin needs to speed up its process as they yet to reach any type of orbit with any type of their rocket.
@sander91510 ай бұрын
Great work as always!
@andysharp2110 ай бұрын
Maybe Spacex should call the 2 towers "Twin Peaks" as these will be seen from a long distance. Keep up the good work.
@awuma9 ай бұрын
That all-solid fuel Chinese rocket looks a bit like a miniature version of the Nova, NASA's monster moon rocket concept of circa 1960, replaced by Saturn 5 when it was realised that lunar orbital rendezvous was much more efficient than direct ascent and could be done with a smaller launcher. The Nova was also all-solid, at least in the first booster stage.
@apocraphontripp47289 ай бұрын
Hey, I have a crazy question. Why not use the heat in space ships for power generation instead of using ir radiators?
@michaelimmell972810 ай бұрын
I really like the decisions that SpaceX is making. It is much better to load the rocket up and stress it now than find out when it has an expensive payload. Great explanation and keep up the great content!
@Wurtoz964310 ай бұрын
Agree with you 100% especially when that payload is squishy and made of meat
@cellfloam10 ай бұрын
Or a human payload.
@tiredoldmechanic179110 ай бұрын
Seems like water would be a better choice for a test weight.
@vapoet9 ай бұрын
@@tiredoldmechanic1791 Can't dump water into open space.
@HomerKM19149 ай бұрын
Need to change your TDB to TBD on your launch lists.
@mattgaming87179 ай бұрын
I had faith #2 was a good build. Great to hear confirmation as the why it blew up. Nice
@KCdurt9 ай бұрын
@9:23 "freedom units"
@lourdessilva64429 ай бұрын
Maravilha de documentário conhecimento e vida nos liberta sucesso no aguardo dos próximos
@Winkkin10 ай бұрын
Blue Origin is vaporware. Those are the same mock-ups they've been shopping around for more than a year. Its a studio prop.
@Anwesh-oo4tw10 ай бұрын
Second!!!! Thanks for the team to provide the information hopefully IFT 3 is a big success
@davidboyle19028 ай бұрын
If the V3 Starship ends up even close to the depictions, it will need some very fancy landing legs to eliminate the possibility of toppling over when landing on the moon or mars… or anywhere else. Considering that the only Starships that will be returning to the catch arms don’t go anywhere except round and round, putting off designing strong, lightweight, and increasingly lengthy landing legs seems curiously shortsighted. Kinda like: “I don’t need no friggin’ flame diverter!” Wonder which is the most terrifying, landing with legs, or without? Do hope Tim can provide an answer.
@ald114410 ай бұрын
A ship every 72 hours. That's the rocket equivalent of WWII Liberty ship production.
@blackstealth81689 ай бұрын
I'm pretty sure the Cape side LC40 will be upgraded with a Starship launch tower eventually. Still working on LC39A tower though.
@phenomagator10 ай бұрын
I am beyond excited for the Polaris Dawn mission. A private company performing spacewalks is the kind of progress we need in order to make life multi-planetary. NASA can't be expected to colonize space all by themselves. It's going to take major multinational corporations and millions of workers to make this dream a reality!
@Dave5843-d9m10 ай бұрын
NASA’s design and build model means they can never achieve anything significant in Space. Everything is designed and redesigned to death then the start building until they find errors and unknowns that stall progress. If a vehicle ever does get built, the costs are hyper galactic. $1 billion per launch of SLS is ridiculous by any standard.
@peterlongprong752110 ай бұрын
maybe stop looking for other planets to trash, when we should prove we are responsible to take care of the one we are already on.
@realulli10 ай бұрын
@@peterlongprong7521 And then a large asteroid hits the planet. End of humanity. The point of becoming multiplanetary is not about finding another planet to trash, it's about creating a backup when stuff really hits the fan. But yeah, let's stay down here, come up with draconic birth control laws and stop multiplying. Because, if we manage that, progress will automatically become more eco-friendly (digging crap out of the ground becomes more expensive than recycling long term anyway) when less people are a drain on resources.
@tunkunrunk10 ай бұрын
Mars colonization is not for this century . We are in 2024 , in 76 years we will be in the next century that is 2100 . Today's children aged between 0 and 10 will see that century and the first human to orbit Mars
@iamaduckquack10 ай бұрын
@@peterlongprong7521 Too much damage done here already.
@magnemoe110 ай бұрын
19:30 you can cut trust on solid rocket motors using blow out panels to kill the trust. ICBM uses this to hit targets accurate Solid fuel is also dense so rocket looks small and yes its look Kerbal
@bn1__10 ай бұрын
In your background your gonna need a second ship and tower soon
@skeelo6910 ай бұрын
Felix....I hope you get an invite to the next Astro Awards ... Your absence was a shame...would have loved to see you there👍
@smavtmb21969 ай бұрын
If SpaceX extends the ship for a V3 the current hot staging ring would definitely be too small to vent the thrust of 9 raptor engines at separation.
@cacogenicist7 ай бұрын
They won't be using the current hot-staging ring. I believe you can see the difference in the V2 illustration even.
@smavtmb21967 ай бұрын
@@cacogenicist Yes I've seen the V2 and V3 planned updates. I'm definitely not suprised SpaceX is planning changes to the hot staging ring.
@cacogenicist7 ай бұрын
@@smavtmb2196 - That was such a crazy fast pivot to hot staging. It's hard to imagine any other rocket manufacturer doing that (save possibly for upstarts like Relativity).
@kstricl10 ай бұрын
Methinks the Orienspace launch is relying on simply having enough Delta-V from the solid boosters to reach a minimum orbit vs being as precise as a North American or European launch. Sending weather satellites implies geostationary orbit, they may simply have planned on changing burn time on the transfer as a compromise over having super precise control over the launch.
@brandonmusic971210 ай бұрын
What is a freedom unit?
@bobh94929 ай бұрын
Any imperial Measurement used by Americans/United states as opposed to metric… Europeans are so fucking proud of metric.
@templartone51819 ай бұрын
Why aren't there external cameras on both ships? This would be interesting to watch!
@windmilldoc10 ай бұрын
It seems past the time to have developed a fully solid-fuel powered rocket. Congrats to its developers. I would like to see one developed and used for cargo flights to the ISS. Maybe even for Dream Chaser.
@dextermorgan110 ай бұрын
What are the advantages of solid fuel rockets?
@Wingnut35310 ай бұрын
@@dextermorgan1 Really the only advantage is low per unit cost... compared to single use liquid fueled rockets, compared to reusable rockets flying 2-3 or more (19 and counting times) they don't make any sense at all. So basically there is no reason to develop a new SRB... they are VERY dirty also. Ironic that the shuttle had to use SRBs because they are the dirtiest type of rocket, and the main engines were the cleanest hyrolox.
@Kloppin4H0rses9 ай бұрын
We've had completely solid fueled rockets for a long time. See Scout. I don't know what this Chinese propaganda about "Breakthrough here!" And "World's first THIS" is here lately but don't believe it.
@terminalterry86289 ай бұрын
While solid fuel rockets are very powerful and cost effective, they work best in conjunction with liquid fueled boosters, as they complement each other very nicely. One of the cons of a liquid fueled booster is cost at scale and complexity, but a pro is control of the thrust at any time. One of SRBs cons is an unalterable thrust curve, but a pro is simplicity and cost. When you combine the two, you can greatly reduce cost, as well as control the thrust at any time to a certain extent. The uncontrollable thrust curve is especially a problem in upper stages because of the precision that is required in payload insertion. +/- 30 m/s in delta v is the difference between missing the iss completely and stranding an astronaut in space and smacking the ISS so that it kills everybody.
@dextermorgan19 ай бұрын
@@terminalterry8628 Wow. Thank you. That's really interesting. I appreciate you taking the time to explain it.
@DavidSiebert9 ай бұрын
On the solid-fueled rocket yes you can terminate thrust with them with good precision. The storage option would make a lot of sense for some type of rapid launch. Say you want to put a satellite in a particular orbit on short notice. Maybe to get coverage of an area after some kind of natural disaster or for military reasons.
@EveryoneWhoUsesThisTV9 ай бұрын
Orion's rocket is a compact little beast! :D Thanks for not giving us the 'did youtube unsubscibe you' speech! I generally replay all the space news videos on a Saturday for my friends, but they've been boycotting your channel because of too many digressions from aerospace, so... this was a step in the right direction in that regard, thx!
@Spartacus-42979 ай бұрын
I will consider Star Factory fully operational when they have on-site; a power plant, a desalination plant and fuel production. Self-sufficient operation is essential for the rapid operation of a space port.
@Space_Kade10 ай бұрын
Amazing job as always 🎉
@renesoucy344410 ай бұрын
I’m pretty sure that hot staging caused damages to junction of the LOX tank and the inner skirt of the orbiter, venting LOX directly into the engine’s space.
@LordDustinDeWynd10 ай бұрын
Thank you, Felix and WAI crew, for the fantastic updates! YOU R O C K !
@Whataboutit10 ай бұрын
Thank you for watching!!!
@toddpruett577210 ай бұрын
Pornhub will take you down before you even started.
@Adak203010 ай бұрын
Space X should put Polaris missions on steroids. Use Dragon to bring up astronauts and Starship to bring up practice materials. Not just space walk, but learn to weld, manufacture, build robots to assemble structures. Our number 1 goal should be a very large rotating station/fuel depot where transfer ships can be assembled. Launching a transfer ship from a space station is 10X easier than launching from Earth. To get to the Moon & Mars, way quicker to have a large rotating orbital space station first.
@AMeierhoefer10 ай бұрын
Felix, the point about full fuel load for Starship 25 would indicate that it also should have had some dummy load. I was actually wondering if they had a tank with something ventable in the payload section. If ITF-3 is not going to use Starlinks, I wonder what they will use for the mass simulation. Any ideas?
@Whataboutit10 ай бұрын
I do think that the extra LOX was the dummy payload. That was used to make the rocket heavier.
@neildotwilliams10 ай бұрын
My guess will be a cyber truck.
@Andrew-1357910 ай бұрын
@@WhataboutitThat would be the simplest load, wouldn’t it? No extra structure to support it. No harm to the atmosphere. Can’t come crashing down to Earth somewhere. A heavy chunk of metal would probably splash in the ocean somewhere. A load of water would require extra hardware.
@nihalbhandary1629 ай бұрын
@@Whataboutit Could it be possible that this would also a test for later resupply missions which would carry fuel to LEO. We know they are going to test ship to ship transfer. So what bettery payload than extra fuel that could test the resupply missions.
@richard--s9 ай бұрын
They have done the "too much fuel dump explosion" earlier - during ground tests. Why did they repeat that error in space? Did they think, it would dissipate quickly and would be no problem? Or did they not think about it at all, just like "unused fuel, so then dump it"? What did they really think? (fuel or oxygen. You mixed it up in the video, talked first about too much fuel, then too much oxygen, and so did I in the comment. Sorry for the nerds, I might be off. It might have been a fuel dump, an oxygen dump, a fuel and oygen dump, who knows, I didn't get the info out of this video).
@samrobinson261410 ай бұрын
Very excited about the future, I can imagine multiple launch towers up the entire coast, multiple launches per day and an expansion of civilisation!
@tunkunrunk10 ай бұрын
what an excitement !! but we are miles away from that multiple launches per day , they even might never happen at all
@BarriosGroupie10 ай бұрын
It's a pipe-dream
@iamaduckquack10 ай бұрын
@@BarriosGroupie having ambitious dreams mean you'll get further than playing it safe.
@garyc138410 ай бұрын
Child
@CorkyMcButterpants10 ай бұрын
Tell us you're six years old without telling us...
@rosedruid10 ай бұрын
Why no mass simulator payload? The extra fuel to match real use would only make it the same flight path if it had extra mass for payload.
@davidmasalu809310 ай бұрын
Satisfied with the explanation for why the ship exploded, but now I'm curious about why the booster exploded too. Can someone please clarify if I'm overlooking something?
@appliedfacts10 ай бұрын
The best speculative analysis that I have found is that during the booster flip the fuel sloshed away from the fuel pump intakes. That left the pumps with no fuel to slow them down so they way over sped. When the engines started to fire and the fuel in the tank hit the over sped pumps that shock blew out the pumps and destroyed the engines. Lastly, the flight termination system stepped in to finish the job. Maybe a slower flip of the booster will allow the fuel to stay in the end of the tank with the pump intakes. Also, leaving more engines firing during the flip would keep the acceleration sufficient to keep the fuel in contact with the pump intakes. Also, it would be GREAT if SpaceX would share what their analysis shows!!
@Whataboutit10 ай бұрын
The "Slosh Theory" is the most common one, but I have heard from SpaceX internal sources that this is wrong. Sadly I have no other information.
@caty86310 ай бұрын
@@appliedfacts that's the same failure experienced by the first starship that attempted the landing maneuver. It would mean SpaceX didn't learn from the mistake... which is bad news!
@davidmasalu809310 ай бұрын
@@appliedfacts Thanks for this,,,well explained! 😎
@davidmasalu809310 ай бұрын
@@caty863 Hope they take a really good look into it
@tm5020109 ай бұрын
Disagree with all the changes without flight tests. Starship is supposed to be reusable - so fly it and reuse it! Get hard flight time and numerous successes under their belt, and make changes built on solid experience as they go along. For something with such vast dreams behind it, we just aren’t seeing the most important thing: *ACTUAL SUCCESSFUL FLIGHTS!*
@mustang60710 ай бұрын
It's good that business minded people got into building rockets since governments do not seem to be very motivated to maximize the savings of costly resources.
@gmancolo9 ай бұрын
It's like um... rocket fuel has been injected into the space industry. At long last.
@AE_Sub10 ай бұрын
Filling the tanks to simulate realistic flight conditions seems like a cop-out to me, or are they telling me that a ballast is unheard of in spaceflight 🤔
@shikyokira306510 ай бұрын
I'm interested in the gravity 1 rocket given that it has so many debris being released and how "dirty" the smoke it produces, makes me wonder about the environmental cost, and makes a lot of sense for them to set it off from a ship. And also the cost side, how much they actually saved given that the rocket and boosters are most likely unrecoverable
@markuskoivisto10 ай бұрын
It’s a solid rocket, they are dirt cheap. They are also fairly toxic.
@markuskoivisto10 ай бұрын
The solid rocket stages combined cost less than a Falcon second stage
@shikyokira306510 ай бұрын
@@markuskoivisto Interesting. Does that mean if we combine both solid and liquid, a lot more cost can be saved? Oh but it is most likely not feasible to go any further than our orbit, since you can't shut the engine down after ignition.
@shaeby81239 ай бұрын
@@shikyokira3065 I mean, yes. Plenty of rockets use a combo of solid and liquid fuel. Including Vulcan, the new ULA launch vehicle.
@markuskoivisto9 ай бұрын
@@shikyokira3065 yes, rockets have used SRB boosters to augment liquid engines since forever. You may have heard of the space shuttle?
@oeliamoya97969 ай бұрын
The 2 double ad breaks (if you don't hit Skip after 5 seconds) are almost as long as the video, wow
@Ronolein10 ай бұрын
Na ja, ob Blue Origin ihre New Glenn noch mal in den Orbit bekommt, sehe ich noch nicht. Was Bezos da gezeigt hat war doch nur eine leere Hülle. Eine komplette Raketenstufe sieht irgendwie anders aus.
@Whataboutit10 ай бұрын
Es war definitiv eine komplette stufe. Ohne interstage und Triebwerke, aber ansonsten komplett. Ich bin mir sehr sicher, dass Blue Origin New Glenn ins All senden wird. Sie sind langsamer als SpaceX. Jeder da draussen ist das. Das bedeutet allerdings nicht, dass sie keine Ahnung haben.
@Ronolein10 ай бұрын
@@Whataboutit Na gut, ich nehm Dich mal beim Wort mein Bester! Wir Beide behalten das im Auge, ok? ;-)
@gooddaysunshine702510 ай бұрын
Can they make the upper stage longer so venting of fuel is further from possible ignition
@tm5020109 ай бұрын
Maybe he should complete *ONE SUCCESSFUL MISSION/FLIGHT* first! Starship is becoming one giant make believe vanity project! How about some RESULTS. Musk told us he would be flying several times a week by now… 😂
@Chrisnickhill9 ай бұрын
I don’t think you understand how this works.
@tonywhite81628 ай бұрын
@@Chrisnickhill I do believe your correct Sir.
@MrNote-lz7lh8 ай бұрын
Without political red tape he would be. But anyways if Falcon is any example then Starship would probably fail a handful of times before it's perfected than it launches will massively ramp up.
@Psi1059 ай бұрын
Starfactory will be able to pump out a new ship ever 72 hours. Let that sink in. The number of ships SpaceX is gearing up to do cargo runs to mars and fuel runs to orbit is insane
@lindyhoppingfool10 ай бұрын
It blew up because of big Big, BIg, BIG engineering mistakes.
@russellhays49829 ай бұрын
another great video! why did they build sooo close to the water ?
@aalhard10 ай бұрын
Felix Felix Felix. You are from Europe, be better than the idiots that say "freedom units" don't be a bigot.
@RocketPal10 ай бұрын
True, why are Europeans so allergic to other units
@iamaduckquack10 ай бұрын
You're absolutely right. It should be Freedumb Units.
@realulli10 ай бұрын
@@iamaduckquack Kindergarden units.
@RebeccaHowell-o6e9 ай бұрын
If we are facing in the right direction, all we have to do is keep on walking.
@stephenbrickwood16029 ай бұрын
If you can release the main booster rocket when the rocket reaches the 1st stage point, then the 2nd stage can do its job. I could imagine 4 boosters being explosively pushed away at the same time.
@lolitotiti10 ай бұрын
What do you think? Are V3 prototypes gonna be part of the new starship tower?
@xfreDDersx_969 ай бұрын
With the new production cadence, what are the thoughts on "highway 4 & Boca beach"?? Just from transport back N forth they would be spending more time closed rather than open.
@xfreDDersx_968 ай бұрын
I know testing at Masseys is going to help, but when it's all said and done and even launching on 39A at the same time (like with Florida N Vandenberg) for the amount of launches per day that's the final goal......... What will they do???
@rudivandoornegat237110 ай бұрын
The second one will be next to the first tower, a little further of the road. Strange that they didn't start filling that area with sand.
@sagecoach10 ай бұрын
The animation of the fuel transfer is not realistic as it displays gravitationally influenced flow and dispersion within the tanks. 3:44 Unless some thrusters are firing gravity is muted by orbital speed.
@arthurwagar889 ай бұрын
Thanks for good reporting.
@cartercook5379 ай бұрын
What is the function of the vaporizers?
@Whataboutit9 ай бұрын
They vaporize. No joke. Some of the liquid propellant is needed in gaseous form. That’s how that is created if needed fast. Repressurization for example is done with gaseous propellant.
@physicswcccd9 ай бұрын
There was a lot of great content here, but what about version 3?
@getinthespace77159 ай бұрын
Interesting... starship is getting so big it's almost ready for a 3rd stage split. Could put a smaller, fully fueled statship in orbit without need for tanker refill and ditch a bunch of dead mass to increase performance. Hoping we see a good launch from New Glenn this year.
@rolfjacobson83310 ай бұрын
Felix a question. You said 6 to 8 Dragon launches this year. Is that Maned missions or cargo included? Interested in all Crew Dragon missions.
@flyinthebug3510 ай бұрын
I only have one question...WTF is a "freedom unit"?? Feet? It must be, but I have never heard of it until this video.
@bobh94929 ай бұрын
Any imperial Measurement used by Americans/United states as opposed to metric… Europeans are so fucking proud of metric.
@flyinthebug359 ай бұрын
@@bobh9492 I am Canadian and we switched to metric when I was in grade 8. I am almost 59 years old and never heard that term ever before. Very annoying.
@DonahueNicholas9 ай бұрын
The happiness that is genuinely satisfying is accompanied by the fullest exercise of our faculties and the fullest realization of the world in which we live.
@johnrday202310 ай бұрын
Ok, does Spacex intend to remove all 6 vertical storage tanks at the Launch site ?
@fenilkheni94949 ай бұрын
for people pointing out mass simmulator should have been placed, how were they gonna put it ??? rocket was ready a long time ago and it has no doors in payload bay, cutting it up and putting back would have put a structure weakness,
@Mattguyverr10 ай бұрын
The new new launch tower for Starship will be built south of the current tower along the beach.
@MrSwordfish99 ай бұрын
They definitely need to upscale the launch tower as well
@christophermaguire920610 ай бұрын
Another great episode Felix, you rock I’m starting to look kind of buff. Keep up the good work.
@EvilDaveCanada9 ай бұрын
So fill the cargo bay with fresh or salt water. If the test goes boom, it will just rain fresh or salt water. If they can carry liquid oxygen, they can carry liquid water. It's not like they don't have access to a large body of water.
@clarencehopkins783210 ай бұрын
Excellent stuff bro
@thomascharlton854510 ай бұрын
Hi Felix, Where is the launch tower segment that was shipped from Kennedy to Port of Brownsville?
@rooscow9 ай бұрын
what about this - How do they plan to onboard and offboard Starship before and after flight and hooking up to the ISS or Hubble for that matter since it's all been talked around?
@thechurchillband9 ай бұрын
What is the elevation of starbase? It is not unusual to have a 14' or higher storm surge when a hurricane come through. Can starbase survive a large hurricane?
@delillod10 ай бұрын
1:23 what was the cause of the Booster explosion?
@kevinjones66989 ай бұрын
Is the second tower going to be built to take version 3 starship straight away ie taller with the quick disconnect arm in the higher position?
@Andrew-1357910 ай бұрын
I can imagine a new thing, “hot padding”. A launch pad not completely cooling off before another launch is performed on it.
@brennencox5169 ай бұрын
10:50 A StarFactory with an all glass front? Never.
@michaelsauer912910 ай бұрын
Now Witness the production power of this fully tooled and operational Star Factory
@3DThrills9 ай бұрын
How about using less fuel but adding steel to compensate for the lost weight?
@scottdeeslcutusa811710 ай бұрын
Thanks for the update
@donaldstewart98739 ай бұрын
Thank you! 👍
@jot4p31010 ай бұрын
Why not using a mock-up payload? Venting is also not part of a real launch profile. 🤔
@NikosKakouros10 ай бұрын
Does anyone know what that really cool effect around the Starship is at 3:21?