The Disappointing Truth About The Blue Origin BE-4 Rocket Engine!

The Disappointing Truth About The Blue Origin BE-4 Rocket Engine!
Last Video: How NASA & SpaceX Plan To Send Humans To An Asteroid!
• How NASA & SpaceX Plan...
►The Space Race Merch Store Is Live! Shop our first release while quantities last: shop.theteslaspace.com/
► Join Our Discord Server: / discord
► Patreon: / theteslaspace
► Subscribe to our other channel, The Space Race: / theteslaspace
Mars Colonization News and Updates
• Mars Colonization News...
SpaceX News and Updates: • SpaceX News and Updates
The Space Race is dedicated to the exploration of outer space and humans' mission to explore the universe. We’ll provide news and updates from everything in space, including the SpaceX and NASA mission to colonize Mars and the Moon. We’ll focus on news and updates from SpaceX, NASA, Starlink, Blue Origin, The James Webb Space Telescope and more. If you’re interested in space exploration, Mars colonization, and everything to do with space travel and the space race... you’ve come to the right channel! We love space and hope to inspire others to learn more!
► Subscribe to The Tesla Space newsletter: www.theteslaspace.com
Business Email: [e-mail]
#Spacex #Space #Mars

[@michaelfink64]

There are quite a few errors in this video. The video states that a liquid methane fuelled rocket has never reached orbit but in fact, a Chinese company achieved this recently (before the publication date of the video). The images show failures in engine testing for many engines other than the BE4 when he is talking about BE4. The graphic shown when chamber pressure are being discussed highlights the nozzle, not the chamber. LNG is not exactly the same as methane. LNG contains hydrocarbons other than methane. Autogenus pressurisation is not unique to methane rockets. Methane fuelled rockets are not the only ones that are "relatively clean burning". The product of combustion of hydrogen fuelled rockets is water. Hydrogen has its own issues, of course, including low density, requiring large tanks and easy leakage.

[@trololo_zhirnota]

i would like to add that RD engines were not Russian engines, but Soviet.

[@markuskoivisto]

@@trololo_zhirnotathe later RD designs are Russian

[@markuskoivisto]

Self-pressurization isn’t enough for a methalox engine because you are burning away mass, meaning you won’t have enough methane in the tank to provide pressure once you start using it. This should be self-evident. SpaceX was attempting to use partially burned methane from the turbo pump exhaust to create a pressurant, but they’ve since gone back to helium.

[@adub1300]

Allegedly. You people seem to trust the CCP quite a lot.

[@sycodeathman]

​@@markuskoivistoWrong and wrong. SN8 flew with autogenous pressurization. Sloshing during the attempted landing flip caused the vapor to crash back into liquid due to mixing with the cryogenic methane, so SpaceX switched to using helium for the next few tests. They then switched back to autogenous pressurization for all prototypes subsequent to the success of SN15 in 2021. Autogenous pressurization uses heat from the engines to boil a small amount of liquid propellant which is then blown into the tanks as hot vapor to provide pressure, no combustion is involved except for what is happening inside the rocket engines. Autogenous pressurization of methane works.

[@jefffhaynes]

Saying the starship failure was troubling and dangerous is a weird take. SpaceX more or less expected Starship to fail and were mostly hoping to clear the launch stand.

[@dosadnizub]

Stuff fell and damaged properties around, no?

[@thotmorgana]

@@dosadnizub Yeah that was also kind of expected. Building rockets just includes some occasional explosions and damage. It is like a bakery that occasionally spills some flower while baking.

[@T1hitsTheHighestNote]

They did not, however, expect concrete to rain down miles away.

[@LaughingOrange]

@@dosadnizub That was mostly the pad failing, not the rocket. The rocket itself performed slightly better than expected, and didn't cause any unexpected damage due to failure.

[@theriot617]

@@T1hitsTheHighestNoteconcrete did not “rain down” miles away. Some dust did however.

[@blakedsm]

Didn’t China just recently make it into orbit with a methane engine? 🧐

[@OBTX91]

Yes

[@sander915]

You are correct, either this was filmed before then or he wasn't aware.

[@nesseihtgnay9419]

or china just lied as they always do

[@gagelamka2381]

Yes, though the TQ-12 is a generator cycle engine and non reusable(tq-12a is but has not flown) relativity space also has aeon 1 which runs well. LNG is not a big deal, FAR more finicky LH2 has been used since the 60's.

[@northviking76]

Correct sir🚀👌💯 not first time facts are wrong in this chl, i'm sorry to say. Spacebucket or ofc nasaspaceflight is way way more correct.. It might have got better thought, not following anymore due to to much incorrect facts. Its importen to to real good reseach before releasing stuff like this. Anyways - fly high n fast🖖✌️

[@paulwilhelm6976]

Love your videos. However, a methane powered rocket (Zhuque-2) did make it to orbit last month (you said in your video that no methane powered rocket has flown to orbit). Also, the white cloud you see coming off the Starship when it is fueled / being fueled is not methane as you state, but is primarily water vapor (that has condensed from the air due to the cold temperature of the Starship).

[@foggiertiger535]

he did state that the methane was being vented which I'm pretty sure is actually correct, I was about to mention Zhuque-2 as well : )

[@s3cunit]

I also enjoy the channel, but the guy is prone to hyperbole and absolutely is all up Musk's SpaceX-ass. Every single thing this channel says about BE is negative and often, it stretches the truth or just ignores contradictory evidence. SpaceX, BE, ULA, they're all chasing different business use cases. SpaceX wants to volume, ULA wants to cater to the government and three-letter-agency launches, etc.

[@johnrmcclure1]

@@foggiertiger535 No, they have a vent line that leads back to the tower refuel arm. The only gas they vent to atmo from Starship is now O2 as far as I know.

[@foggiertiger535]

@@johnrmcclure1 ah, okay thanks for clearing that up for me

[@helderafonso2609]

usa is not the fucking world

[@RodneyGraves]

Ah no. The clouds of vapor coming off of the Superheavy booster is atmospheric moisture (Boca Chica is incredibly humid) changing state from vapor to droplets in the very cold conditions of the outside the the tanks of cryogenic liquids. Vent gases are recaptured and used for either autogenous pressurization or shunted to the pool on the side of the launch tower. Small amounts of LOX and Liquid Methane are vented from the engine compartment via purge with liquid nitrogen (to prevent potentially explosive accumulations).

[@wadewilson524]

I’ll take Blue Origin seriously when they actually get something into orbit. “Fully reusable” assumes something has been used…

[@leonardgibney2997]

While l admire these efforts to get into space, when will it happen? I'm sceptical

[@terryfish6900]

SpaceX ALREADY has fully reusable down to a science.

[@asper8164]

They do NOT have a fully reusable vehicle.They reuse a lot, but as of recently, the 2nd stage as well as any interstage between vehicle and spacecraft is not reused.@@terryfish6900

[@bricefleckenstein9666]

@@terryfish6900 SpaceX is not fully reusable - but they ARE partly reusable and reliable at it. Stoke Space is AIMING to be the first FULLY reusable - and look to be at least as far along at it as Blue Origin in a LOT less time with a LOT less money spent.

[@GntlTch]

@@bricefleckenstein9666 And a LOT more interesting and innovative system.

[@605dave]

I almost spit out my coffee with the rich people/penis rocket joke. Well played.

[@TallinuTV]

My biggest nitpicks are with the phrasing in some parts of this. Saying that SpaceX is "having trouble with the Raptor," particularly on the first test flight (which, by the way, was not even expected to reach orbit, just to gather some flight data to guide work on the next prototype which, no, _also_ is not really expected to reach orbit), and going "oh, they used this prototype version of this engine that they're still in the process of _deliberately_ pushing to its limits to see just how far they can go and is nowhere near a locked-down full production run, on a prototype version of this rocket for an early test flight that they knew full well was not likely to go to orbit and, as expected, there were problems, which was the whole point, they wanted to see the problems so that they could gather data and learn from them"... and then waving hands in the air going "Oh no, this is a huge problem"... Uh, no. No, it _really_ isn't. (Sorry if this seems like an overreaction, but this kind of knee-jerk reporting on Starship is _everywhere,_ it's outright false, and that annoys the crap out of me.) It's still early development. SpaceX just does a lot of their development in _physical hardware,_ rather than on paper like most previous rocket companies. You really can't look at issues with development prototype hardware and then make any worthwhile claims about how well the final production hardware will work. And SpaceX has proven that they are capable of making rockets that are not just reliable, but reliably _reusable_ as well, which is something many people in the space community literally thought was never going to happen. Additionally, you are incorrect about no methane-fueled rocket having reached orbit. China actually leapfrogged to it first, not long ago (July 11). Quoting Elizabeth Howell article on the website Space: "Zhuque-2 is the first 'methalox' rocket to successfully reach Earth orbit."

[@11moonshot]

Well spoken! Fully agree...from Germany

[@pintail120]

sadly youtube is infested with these new podcast type videos bolstered with crappy clips all stuck together, its awful

[@331SVTCobra]

These videos about "disappointing truth" and "the [insert hardware name] is critical to America "... Some guy wanting to convert wikipedia pages to monetized youtube videos need only add some hyperbole.... "Chevy Bolt CRITICAL to America's economy and security!!!!!!"

[@GntlTch]

Not just "many PEOPLE in the space community" but so-called EXPERTS in the space community!

[@pintail120]

@@powrplaya3266 in the first place I dont want to watch dumb a$$ podcasts made to look like video snippets stuck together from AI, youtube should have a button you can click to filter this BS out, eg. would you like to excluded all AI videos tick this box - yes please thank you.

[@haydenwatson7987]

So let me get this straight. The Atlas-5 is a spectacularly successful rocket with 97 launches over a 20-year span. Isn't that how many Falcons launched last month? ;>)

[@adub1300]

100% success rate. How is falcons?

[@peterfireflylund]

@@adub1300same, but for 200 missions straight?

[@marcoantoniopadillaorozco3591]

@@adub1300 99.2 over 250 launches ;)

[@sycodeathman]

​@@marcoantoniopadillaorozco3591 Falcon 9 Block 5 has never failed a launch

[@JRHaley]

@@adub1300the Atlas isn’t 100 percent successful either. Atlas V is. Just like Falcon 9 Block 5 is.

[@tazerface8659]

Man… I wish some private American company would build orbital rockets. This is a crazy thought but maybe they can land the boosters and reuse them! Novel idea, I know. It would just be great if an American company besides Blue Origin could revolutionize spaceflight. They could name something simple yet catchy like… the Space Exploration company or something.

[@paullangford8179]

Ummm... Isn't Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy "orbital". At least, they put things into orbit. Blue Origin are trying to catch up.

[@tazerface8659]

@@paullangford8179 I know. I was just being sarcastic because the first half of the video seemed to be implying that the future of American space flight hinged upon blue origin’s success. Spacex’s original name was Space Exploration Technologies Corporation.

[@TaranAadarsh]

Yeah, but that name sounds a little too long... Let's shorten it to something simpler. How about we just use the X from Exploration instead of the whole word "Exploration"? And we can instead have long fancy names for say if they use something like boats to land the boosters that can't come back to the land...

[@tricky1992000]

I think Nasa wants competition, giving it all to one company on a plate isn't that.

[@Vindictus67]

@@tricky1992000 Competition is great - but, it helps to have something to compete WITH...

[@josephastier7421]

I am soooo glad that the Vulcan flight succeeded.

[@user-fr3hy9uh6y]

NASA has released images of SpaceX new, larger, fairings. There is now nothing that Delta Heavy / Atlas could launch that SpaceX can't. The big question is, how did ULA get the largest share of government launches, in the last cycle, if they didn't have an operational rocket that would be available for the period of the contract?

[@knowledgeisgood9645]

They fear that SpaceX would get a monopoly. The competition is more important than the cost and sub-par choices. But I think that could be too late - SpaceX has already won. It will just take them time to get it. I wish the rest of the space industry had reacted faster to the reusable camp. Now, after mocking it for years, they are trying to catch up. I wish them luck. Competition is needed.

[@nononono3421]

The competition ro SpaceX will ultimately only be China. China has the willingness and money to do what SpaceX will do, for cheaper, even if trailing. SpaceX is taking all the risks. NASA is making pointless missions to learn things we could learn in a year or two if we could send stuff to space for cheap, as if one sent a raft tied to a rope across the Atlantic to get samples back in the 16th century, while China is planning for colonization (probably with robots ultimately). The private US program will have been an overall major failure, this will be obvious by the end of the decade when China takes the lead. But ultimately the failure will not have been the private sector’s fault, it will have been the US government who let NASA guide it, the private sector other than SpaceX will have just taken the path of least resistance NASA created instead of charting their own.

[@knowledgeisgood9645]

@@nononono3421 If China or any one else is offering to compete we should be fine with it. We need more competition, not less. The one with the best, fastest and cheapest methods will win. No way to stop that in the long run. So the only way to win is to be faster than the rest. SpaceX has done that up to now. If China is twice as cheap then be better. But China is not as cheap as it was 20 years ago. And there are limits to what they can copy. It is not as easy anymore to steal IP as it once was. But then again, Elon does not believe in patents...

[@paullangford8179]

@@knowledgeisgood9645 If you're at the front of the race, anybody who copies you is behind.

[@knowledgeisgood9645]

@@paullangford8179 Exactly

[@schrodingerscat1863]

BE4's main problem appears to be complexity of manufacture, it is taking insane amounts of time to build each engine and even then there can be problems like the one that exploded on the test stand. It is also quite a lot more expensive than BO originally planned meaning they are currently losing money on every engine they supply to ULA. SpaceX having so many iterations of their engines means they can design out problems after the engine is tested meaning that not only are they constantly improving reliability and performance with each iteration but also reducing cost. Raptor 2 currently costs about $500 thousand per engine to build compared to $14million for a BE4 with Raptor 3 set to halve the cost again to £250 thousand. While BO is taking months to build each engine SpaceX is currently producing one engine a day on average showing the benefit of design changes to simplify manufacture.

[@MaxStax88]

We are building about 2-3 be-4 every week. Goal is 1 a week. Its not SX figures but 1 a week is plenty enough for the be-4. And they work really well. Its high production on a very reliable and well built engine

[@schrodingerscat1863]

@@MaxStax88 Yeh right 🤔

[@MaxStax88]

@@schrodingerscat1863 the engines just launch into space with no problems. Just now, the other day you idiot. Hahahahah, look it up, BO is in space finally and all you SX fanboys cant ever say that BO hasnt even been to space because as of monday they are in space. And the launch had no problems what so ever unlike SX starship hahahahaha. And guess what i work at BO and yes they are building those engines like crazy you moron hahahahahahahahahahaha

[@-danR]

9:00 "... methane is nothing new, it's been around since the beginning of the universe..." I think you mean hydrogen. Methane depends on carbon, which hadn't been around until the first cohort of stars formed, grew up, got old, and blew up... spreading their elemental guts into the first galaxies.

[@DerrickBommarito]

You make several errors in this video. The stand explosion you keep showing and calling an exploded engine test (like at 8:40 and several times earlier) was just a ULA pressurization test of their upper stage; no engines involved and is what is currently gating the first Vulcan flight test. Paired with other mistakes mentioned by others I'd recommend some more due-diligence and maybe getting some fact checkers involved in the scripting and editing process.

[@GntlTch]

That's putting it kindly!

[@Starshipsforever]

Showing video of the Centaur V failure is just dishonest. Also, there are two test cells at the XEEx facility in Texas, if one is damaged, the other can take its place. There's also a third test cell at Marshall Spaceflight Center that just came online at the old 4670 test stand with a test firing recently of a full with extended nozzle BE-3U.

[@BrettMontgomery-yg8cd]

If the Spacex Starship and Super Heavy Booster vented excess methane from the airframe, there most likely would be a giant fireball at launch, rather than a rocket lifting off. Super cold liquids (liquid methane and liquid oxygen) reacting to a high humidity environment is more likely the cause of the white vapor you claim is methane venting. Also, it may also have some boiled off liquid oxygen vapor. Venting methane would also contribute to the greenhouse effect which would be lousy for public relations.

[@Roddles]

Lost my subscription with poorly researched info 😢

[@surferdude4487]

Sure, SpaceX has blown up plenty of their raptor engines, but at least they have built lots of raptor engines to blow up. What's more, with everything they have learned from those destroyed engines, they are on their third iteration or the Raptor 3 engine now. How many BE4 engines have been built so far?

[@rbrtck]

That's right, SpaceX can build about a Raptor a day, currently, and this is not even the beginning yet.

[@Vindictus67]

Spacex blows up Raptor engines, pushing them to see how far they can go. BE-4 blows up, running within design specs...

[@justindixon7441]

BE-4 is still in development. There's a difference. Also, Raptors simply fail for no apparent reason. Haven't you been paying attention? Apparently SpaceX isn't all that great with plumbing... or pumps... or control mechanisms... or self destruct systems... or building stable rockets beyond the Heavy, which is essentially just three normal boosters using technology that has been perfected for a minute now - not using engines still in development. The Raptor is simply further into its development. Literally nothing else to it.

[@blengi]

​@@justindixon7441 in the 5 belly flop tests how many old spec raptors failed during the multi minute ascents?

[@ChristLink-Channel]

Yup. That's the way Elon does things. His philosophy is that if you aren't blowing things up, then you aren't innovating enough! Each explosion teaches them new things that allow them to make it better and better. Fortunately, he can turn out dozens of Raptors each month, and has hundreds in stock, ready to fly... SpaceX has already flown dozens of Raptors (with varying degrees of success!) On the other hand BO has only managed to produce a handful of engines over the past decade or so, and none of them have ever left the ground. The difference are, indeed, glaringly obvious.

[@jessepollard7132]

still better than BO @@justindixon7441

[@jedhansen3390]

I actually got some insiders scoop on it and it was a manufacturing flaw. Design is sound.

[@jeffreymelton2200]

Not to mention the BE4 has virtually the same thrust (for now) as the raptor but like 2.2-2.5 times the mass of the raptor, and its pretty huge, which means the mass flow must be much greater than a raptor, which also means that it is not as efficient as a raptor either.

[@davidhuber6251]

I'm a huge SpaceX fanboy, but I hope, once the BE-4 matures they can start increasing the chamber pressure and become competitive with Raptor. I doubt that will happen, but competition is important for price control.

[@sycodeathman]

Being bigger at the same thrust output really just means it's operating at a lower chamber pressure with less power-dense pumps

[@uazuazu]

As soon as it works reliably, it will have its place and a job to do. Having an alternative to SpaceX is good, even if it is more expensive and less efficient by some margin. Monopolies can end up being abused. Even if SpaceX is cooperative and innovative right now, there are no guarantees about how things will look in 20-30 years. A boring but solid engine is not a bad thing, if the BE-4 can evolve into that.

[@jackdbur]

​@@sycodeathmanThe BE-4 is all ready having major issues with its turbo pumps so running higher pressures isn't likely without serious redesign work.

[@sycodeathman]

@@jackdbur Yeah I didn't mean to imply otherwise, BE-4 is certainly more limited in its future upgrade path than Raptor for example.

[@michaelbaribeau]

Yes a BE-4 due to be installed into the Vulcan exploded but the video footage you showed I think was the explosion of the Vulcan rocket's upper stage pressure test. I haven't seen any footage of that BE-4 explosion yet.

[@justindixon7441]

The BE-4 explosion was during validation stages prior to shipment. It was a quality control test and it failed. It happens.

[@michaelbaribeau]

@@justindixon7441 yes but the video footage they show was of the upper stage test not the engine.

[@ChristLink-Channel]

Right. There's no publically available video of the BE4 explosion. The video show here was of a different explosion, unrelated to the BE4.

[@shaunfitzgerald7181]

That clip shown was the centuar tank explosion next to the 4670 test stand in Huntsville that was under construction/refurb by blue. Completely unrelated to be4 testing. Tank failure on a test article is what was shown here. ULA hardware

[@briangodfrey7424]

It did have a caption stating that it was video of a different explosion. Problem is, the explosion is so captivating that the caption is easy to miss.

[@lorenbrown3150]

ok, the first flight of Starship did not have a "raptor blowing up in flight." Rather the gimbal system broke causing the rocket to tumble, then it was destroyed by SpaceX remotely.

[@mathewferstl7042]

the flight termination system didn't work either, the rocket only broke up due to aerodynamic forces

[@Dumbrarere]

@@mathewferstl7042 And that was only after a sizeable chunk of pressure had been relieved from the tanks. The rocket was simply sturdier than it needs to be, which isn't exactly a problem in the industry (in fact, it's actually kind of a boon). They have since rectified the issue with the flight termination system, and we are hoping for a flawless second attempt.

[@mathewferstl7042]

@@Dumbrarere I just correcting him on what actually destroyed the rocket, and that the FTS was also a failure in the test. Also the rocket was barely past mach 1 at high attitude due to poor acceleration thanks to 11 total engine failures events

[@Dumbrarere]

@@mathewferstl7042 This is true, I admit. I was just adding onto what you said.

[@toddtrowbridge5135]

Sorry sir, but while there is some venting during the LOX & LNG filling process, the vast majority of the clouds you see coming off the rocket is just the moisture vapor from the ambient air around the rocket. If that was all methane as you stated, it would be a very dangerous situation.

[@KimmyJongUn]

The heating/combustion of methane in rocket engines does in fact produce coke/solid carbon deposits in the engine and the cooling channels due to pyrolysis (albiet less than longer chain fuels), this is commonly known and very easy to test.

[@prahalyaandprakalad6859]

Hey Kimmy

[@sycodeathman]

Coking from methane is extremely minimal due to the 4:1 ratio of hydrogen to carbon atoms and the fact that CH3, CH2, and CH radicals are all gasses that don't stick to anything. Even if carbon does start depositing out due to pyrolysis, the abundance of hydrogen radicals causes that carbon to form CH radicals which release and exit the rocket.

[@KimmyJongUn]

@@sycodeathman you can give all the chemistry you want but the methane engines I've tested have exhibited significant coking

[@keithb7981]

FYI: both methane and oxygen are invisible. The so-called large white clouds emanating from the side vents on the rocket are produced by venting the very cold and vapor excess oxygen and methane, the only reason there is visible White cloud is because vapors being released are extremely cold causing large volumes of moisture or water vapor in the ambient atmosphere around the rocket to condense and cause clouds similar to clouds in the atmosphere. This gives the false impression of extremely large amounts a methane fuel or oxygen being vented into the atmosphere around the rocket.

[@alexfodor8066]

The white cloud you see coming off the side of the starship is NOT vented methane. The sides of the rocket are the sides of the fuel tanks and the methane inside that tank is very very very cold. What you are seeing is moisture from the air moving across the sides of the rocket being condensed into water vapor by the very cold methane and lox inside the rocket.

[@Dumbrarere]

There was some gas being vented during the early stages of the loading process. And before you accuse me of anything, no it's not methane. It's nitrogen, which is inert. They use it to purge the tanks of any impurities like water droplets prior to loading (and to supercool them and the methane and oxygen in preparation for loading).

[@R0bobb1e]

I thought China got to Orbit a couple of weeks ago using Lox and LCH4!?!?!

[@markb2773]

You thought correctly.

[@billotto602]

Doesn’t Elon make some really great rocket engines ? I mean he has the best track record of anybody making & flying rockets.

[@justindixon7441]

Not in the early days of SpaceX. They had a bad record. That's what happens when you're trying to develop new tech. ;)

[@ChristLink-Channel]

Yup. He's had close to 300 successful flights of Falcon, Falcon 9, and Falcon Heavy, and getting close to 200 successful landings. Each of those rockets has several engines (27 of them on Falcon Heavy, for example). So yes, he sure does make some really great engines! And he sure does have a top-notch track record. The Raptor engine development is following the same path as the Merlin, and Starship is following a similar path to Falcon, so hopefully it wont be tool long before they iron out all the final wrinkles, and we start seeing some even more awesome launches.

[@billotto602]

@stuartallsop550 I'm with you ! Go Elon !

[@adub1300]

Not even remotely true lol Atlas has a 100% success rate, how does the Falcon stack up?

[@adub1300]

@@ChristLink-Channeltop notch track record? I’m not sure if you’ve been tracking the same spacex as the rest of us but they’ve had quite a few failures, spectacular ones at that.

[@i-love-space390]

Our biggest mistake was not building the capability to manufacture the RD-180 under license (as we could have done). But ULA was too cheap to invest in that capability and we became dependent on a Russian State that can rapidly swing back into its old authoritarian "adversary" mode as we have seen it do over the course of Putin's rule. (Personally, I think the fools that believed Russia would always be our friend were f'ing idiots. Work with them where possible and advantageous, yes. Trust them, hell no!) Perhaps it is good that our leaders have finally gotten a clue that it is bad for our interests to rely solely on capitalism to meet our national security or civilian security needs. Capitalism in pure form does not care about the welfare of the country. It is only a system to make as much money as possible and keep the highest profits. It yields a boom and bust economic cycle and will outsource ANYTHING if it increases profit margin. As Texans have seen this system is bad for your power infrastructure, and the military sees that it is bad to rely on foreign countries to manufacture the Computer chips in all your weapons systems. And launching your top secret military satellites on boosters using rocket engines build by the very people you need to spy on, is not a good strategy. So even though we love to laugh at BO, we better be rooting for them to create a very reliable rocket engine or else give AJ-Rocketdyne a shitload of money to build another engine in record time.

[@dbreardon]

As part of a rocket engine contract was the requirement that it be certified. That is why it was being tested prior to it's delivery to the customer as per the contract.

[@GntlTch]

All engines are tested before flight, even the Merlins and Raptors.

[@jamescobban857]

You must do better research. None of the Raptor engines on Starship IFT1 blew up. They automatically shut down when their control systems detected they were operating out of limits. The already obsolete hydraulic gimballing system caught on fire, but still did not explode. One of the biggest failures in IFT1 was that Starship did *not* blow up when instructed to. Even while gyrating madly because of the failure of the *already obsolete* hydraulic system it retained extraordinary structural integrity. The SpaceX engineers watching this were probably thinking "Maybe we could trim another half-millimetre off the thickness of the walls which would save 100kg of steel?" Liquid natural gas is the standard way that methane is transported. It is transported at essentially the *same* temperature as liquid oxygen, liquid nitrogen, and liquid air. Indeed the fact that both fuel and oxidizer are kept at the *same* temperature means that methylox rockets can separate their tanks using only a thin sheet of metal. If you tried this with a kerolox rocket the kerosene would freeze solid. If you tried it with a hydrolox engine the liquid oxygen would freeze solid! IMHO after sixty years of studying space technology the *only* reason that methylox was not explored until very recently was an insane obsession with hydrolox by NASA and ESA. Hydrolox requires *five times* colder temperatures than methylox. Making seals an plumbing that works at that insane temperature is almost impossible. Liquid Hydrogen can literally leak straight *through* most metals because the molecules are so small. The incredibly low temperatures require the thick orange insulation which I remind your audience *KILLED* the crew of the shuttle Columbia and almost killed the crew of the shuttle Atlantis! ULA had the humility to purchase *Russian* rocket engines for the launcher which it calls Atlas but is really just a Russian Proton rocket in a slightly different form factor. You do not explain why ULA cannot similarly have the wisdom to kick an unreliable business partner to the curb and buy much cheaper, and obviously more reliable, engines from a different *American* supplier. The Raptor 2 uses the same methylox fuel as Vulcan. The Raptor 2 has the same thrust as BE4. The Raptor 2 is more efficient in its use of fuel (higher ISP) because of the higher chamber pressure. The Raptor 2 has only half the mass of the BE4, and every kilogram taken off the mass of the launcher is another kilogram of payload. And the Raptor 2 costs less to manufacture than BE4 because it is produced on an assembly line which produces 365 engines a year while BO seems to be having difficulty producing *four* a year. The manufacturing cost of a Raptor 2 is less than that of a Merlin engine, and probably about *one tenth* the manufacturing cost of a BE4. So SpaceX can undercut the price of any competitor, just as Tesla can undercut the price of Eve from their competitors. How about performing a service for American taxpayers and other American customers and find out what blackmail evidence Jeff Bezos has on ULA which prevents Tory Bruno from seeking the best economic advantage for his company and his customers by switching rocket engine suppliers? Why would *anyone* buy rocket engines from an online *bookstore*? As you point out the West genuinely needs competition in the medium to heavy launch market. The blind obsession with maintaining existing supplier chains means that at the moment: Vulcan-Centaur will not have its first launch until 2024, and will not be a reliable alternative before 2025 at the earliest. Ariane6 will not have its first launch until 2024, and will not be a reliable alternative before 2025 at the earliest. The Neutron will not have its first launch until 2024, and will not be a reliable alternative before 2025 at the earliest. The Northrop-Grumman Antares rocket is no longer in production and the successor, from Firefly, will not have its first launch until 2025, and will not be a reliable alternative before 2026 at the earliest. And meanwhile Falcon 9 has launched more than twice as often as Atlas 5 and may achieve *three hundred* successful launches by the end of 2023, and SpaceX has launched one Starship and has *four more* under assembly at Boca Chica which it will, FAA permitting, launch by the end of 2023. Do you really believe that the same company which has lost *only one* Falcon 9 in 253 launches since 4 June 2010 will not be ready for external customers by the end of this year with that track record. If that works out then the SpaceX *Super-heavy* launcher will be operational before ULA, or Arianespace, even test fly their next generation medium to heavy lift boosters.

[@ChristLink-Channel]

Well said! ^^ Yes!

[@cheetahjab]

pretty sure ALL of them blew up ya know.. cause the rocket did LOL

[@jamescobban857]

@@cheetahjab the ONLY explosion I observed was of the methane and oxygen mixture surrounding the rocket which took 35 seconds to ignite after the FTS smashed open the tanks of the two stages. There was absolutely NO evidence that *anything* on the craft itself blew up. Would you claim that the *engine* of your car blew up if the fuel in your tank was ignited? To claim that an engine has blown up the explosion *must* come from within the engine. The objective of the flight termination system is to ensure that no pieces large enough to cause damage to an innocent bystander reach the ground. That failed as the assembly maintained too much structural integrity, indicating that it is over-built for its job. Perhaps you lack the necessary training in engineering to understand what is involved. If so there are many excellent books and KZbin videos.

[@SyntheticSpy]

There were certainly engine failures on the first flight, it is incorrect to claim otherwise. I don’t, however, think it is a problem, as raptor is under development and the engines on that flight were a mishmash of slightly different engines from different stages of their development. As time goes on we will get more and more consistent and mature iterations of the raptors

[@jamescobban857]

@@SyntheticSpy But you wrote "blew up". When an engine shuts itself off as a safety precaution it is highly misleading to describe that as blowing up. There were no explosions on board the Starship.

[@DG-wo8fx]

If lawyers could launch payloads to space, Jeff Bezos would be the most successful entrepreneur in the space race!

[@Dumbrarere]

I mean... Blue Origin has been somewhat more successful with launching lawsuits into court than they have at launching payloads into orbit. And even then, they can't get that right 🤣

[@NathanRae]

Argh. So many glitch transitions makes my brain hurt. It's almost like they are designed to make it difficult for our eyes to follow.

[@dorbie]

I think you meant to say "The BE-4 engines are blowing up under standard certification testing AND are years late."

[@THX..1138]

Nope the US does not need the BE-4. Falcon9/Falcon heavy with it's merlin engine can do everything BE-4 can and do it cheaper. ULA needs the BE-4 to have any hope of surviving as a company and if Starship meets it's design goals not even BE-4 can save them.

[@Yutani_Crayven]

The US needs it for redundancy. BE-4 is the closest thing to getting that, for the moment. Doesn't help that ULA doesn't use engines of its own making and just buys them from Russia/Blue Origin.

[@Starshipsforever]

@@Yutani_Crayven They've always done this, even when Atlas V and Delta IV were run separately under Lockheed Martin and Boeing. The RL-10s are by Aerojet Rocketdyne, for example.

[@THX..1138]

@@Yutani_Crayven The US didn't have redundancy before SpaceX took over the market. I see no reason why it should need redundancy now. In fact ULA got into this mess because they continued using Russian engines without any plan for what to do once those engines weren't available anymore. What the market needs is competition, but the BE-4 isn't economically competitive even with Merlin and it cost 40x more than Raptor. Giving them launch contracts even though they refuse to offer competitive solutions just rewards incompetence.

[@knowledgeisgood9645]

@@THX..1138 They fear a SpaceX monopoly. With an owner that is not the most stable person around (sometimes they price of brilliance).

[@THX..1138]

@@knowledgeisgood9645 Yeah there's some truth there. ULA is a collision of defense department contractors that pretend to be a rocket company to get corporate welfare from the government . Whereas SpaceX is a rocket company that does not make weapons. However though people may not realize it Musk cannot refuse to launch government payloads. SpaceX is considered a munitions manufacturer they fall under the the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls. They have the power to compel SpaceX to provide launch services to the government. Honestly the government has a lot of say in everything SpaceX does. They say who SpaceX can and can't hire can and can't do business with. Even what information about their rockets SpaceX is allowed to share with the public. Even if Musk wanted to sell the company they'd have to approve the sale. Which is why contrary to what many enthusiast think if SpaceX ever builds a Mars colony that colony will have to be an American colony governed under American law. Because there's no way in hell the US government will allow SpaceX to set up a foreign government on Mars.

[@joelpiva1541]

I hope Amazon gave you guys some free stuff for making this puff piece.

[@ninehundreddollarluxuryyac5958]

Who is the pretty lady who appears in exactly one frame of the video at 4:11? Use the "step forward one frame" button in the video editor to move forward a single frame past where you remove a clip from the timeline, to make sure you don't leave "dangling frames".

[@rodrigogavino2188]

Hello Haters!! Just passing by so you can congratulate the BE4 for the successful launch of Vulcan. It also reached Orbit before the Raptors. Also, it sending to the Moon the first US lunar lander post Apollo. Thank you for your doubts and lack of support. Just made this moment sweeter.

[@psycotria]

Your script was going along pretty good until you derailed here at ~ 10:25. The vapor coming off the side of Starship is atmospheric water vapor condensing around the uninsulated stainless steel propellant tanks. Try again!

[@r_rumenov]

The US already has a pair of very reliable heavy lift rockets for LEO/GTO and GEO - the SpaceX Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy. It's certainly less than critical for the country to have another rocket for the same purpose, especially having in mind that its non-reusable design is already obsolete, before it has even flown yet. And we're not even talking about Starship.

[@rbrtck]

Yes, but in the event they are grounded for any reason, it's good to have dependable alternatives, as well.

[@timboatfield]

@ 10:20 *The big white cloud coming from the side of the rocket is **_NOT_** methane being vented, it is fog created as the humid air is chilled by the cold fuel tanks.* This level of misunderstanding brings in to question everything else you say.

[@knowledgeisgood9645]

How many engines has BO produced to date? How many has SpaceX? What are the power, size, weight and price specs of each? If BO continues on this path they will get nowhere. They need to start on a new engine now, and work fast as hell to have any hope of making it a contest.

[@justindixon7441]

When was development started on each so we can adjust for that? BE-4 is a fine engine and is rapidly approaching full deployment. This guy is a total dumbass.

[@paullangford8179]

Blue is doing their best. SpaceX is running out of storage space for their hundreds of rocket motors. But once they get the Super Heavy going, they'll use them up!

[@ChristLink-Channel]

Last time I heard, Elon was churning out Raptors at a rate of several per week. BO seems to have a tough time handling half a dozen each century...

[@knowledgeisgood9645]

@@paullangford8179 Use them up? Only sometime in the future, but the boosters will be reusable, so they will only keep producing Raptors at the pace they need for the ships and boosters they want to build. It is not like they are done with producing just 200-300 Raptors. BE-4 will never be a mass-produced engine like Raptor.

[@jackdbur]

@@ChristLink-Channel Didn't a couple of BO's engine design team quit and apply for jobs at SpaceX.

[@antibrevity]

10:17. The footage combined with the narration gives the impression that the "white cloud" is excess methane gas when actually most of the cloud being shown is water vapor. Methane tends to shoot in short, directional bursts from a side vent during this process and you can't actually see such venting in the video clip as the moisture is dominant. Boil-off is being vented during and after fuel-loading, but the video footage is primarily showing the fog that condenses around such cold, conductive bodies in the tropical air. Moist air comes in from upwind and fog bleeds off of the leeward side.

[@zzubra]

The video starts off with an unsupported premise that “Blue Origin is one of the largest and most well-funded aerospace companies in the world.” A list of the top 100 aerospace companies by revenue as of 2021 doesn’t even mention Blue Origin. Though, maybe it was omitted because they don’t make aircraft? I suppose it could be true on a valuation basis? Is there quantitative information to support the claim?

[@justindixon7441]

Nope, there isn't. I work there, it is only well funded on specific programs because of their Artemis deal. This dude is just clueless, that's all. He didn't even know about the Chinese METHLOX launch the other day.

[@WesleyDart]

I thought I read somewhere recently that their workforce is roughly the same size as SpaceX. Around 14k to 15k people. Surprising lack of progress in Blue when comparing the two companies.

[@justindixon7441]

@@WesleyDart Not really. That increase is very recent. I'm a part of it. We're ramping up only now after acquiring the budgetary requirements to do so.

[@edwardkuenzi5751]

The raptors exploding during flight was likely do to impact with debris from the launch pad at liftoff.

[@TheEvilmooseofdoom]

None were hit by debris and none exploded.

[@edwardkuenzi5751]

@@TheEvilmooseofdoom So the failure of the launch pad is unrelated to the failure of the rocket? Seems weird that the one thing they have been focussed on improving the launch pad more than the improvement in engine reliability.

[@camf7451]

Looks like they delivered.

[@steveo6034]

Oxygen rich engines ain't easy!

[@rbrtck]

True, although they are relatively easy in comparison to full-flow engines like the Raptor. Keeping the chamber pressure of the BE-4 fairly modest also makes development easier, while the Raptor works at record-setting chamber pressures. Yes, the BE-4 has been rather hard to develop, no denying it. I'm just adding how crazy SpaceX are.

[@takanara7]

Uh, methane wasn't around in the beginning of the universe, only hydrogen, helium and lithium were present. Carbon wouldn't form until the first stars got to the carbon burning phase, then only after cooling would methane be able to form, so after some supernova.

[@jessepollard7132]

The BE-4 is also not critical - except to ULA and Blue Origin. NOBODY else. as for having a heavy lift rocket, SpaceX has been doing that for almost 10 years now and is approaching with a heavy lift more capable than SLS even.

[@floydbertagnolli944]

Please provide regular updates on NASA Chapea Mars 1-year simulation program.

[@wingsley]

Why can't I save this video to one of my KZbin playlists?

[@seekerstan]

The big cloud blowing away from starship is condensed moisture from the atmosphere, caused by the freezing cold fuel tank. Any methane boil off is returned to the launch comp,ex tanks.

[@ethercreatures]

Bezos is about pride, Elon about achievement. Both produce results, one a longer term game than the other.

[@knowledgeisgood9645]

One wins the game, the other gets to the court when the game is over and all gone home. 🤣

[@w9gb]

Elon is also about taking credit for work … he did not do. He’s been called out on it, but does get angry (and reportedly vindictive).

[@knowledgeisgood9645]

@@w9gb He might or might not, but it has no importance. What is important is what results they achieve.

[@justindixon7441]

@@knowledgeisgood9645 Not really. Think about the result of someone like Musk being essentially the king of space infrastructure and, as a result, Earth. Think about that ego for a moment and consider the consequences. At lease Bezos is literally aiming to make space flight AFFORDABLE and available to the average person in the long run. Musk is not. Musk's overall mission is Mars, not LEO, HEO, or Lunar orbit. His infrastructure will primarily push toward that goal - not the goals of Earth as a world.

[@SyntheticSpy]

@@w9gb practically every time Elon talks about what his companies have achieved he thanks the team for their incredible work. He constantly sings their praises, which is pretty far off from taking credit. You’ve likely heard this from the same people who try to claim Elon doesn’t actually work hands on with his engineers, but engineers from both Tesla and SpaceX say that he truly does contribute to the engineering

[@DireW0lf0]

Technically Blue Origin have gotten to space with New Shepard crossing the Karman line! But what they haven't achieved is getting to Orbit (which Elon says is a lot harder)! This is why the target for the next Starship launch is separation and anything more will be a bonus!

[@GntlTch]

It's not "Elon says" it is "Physics says"!!! Orbital speed for LEO is over 7 km/sec. That is HORIZONTAL speed, some TEN TIMES FASTER than a rifle bullet and is IN ADDITION to lifting a mass to the orbit's height. New Sheppard is just a glorified yo yo: up and down, ad nauseam.

[@Stubby0266]

Check your information. The clouds coming off of Starship is condensation and far as I know SpaceX recaptures the methane during fueling.

[@saumyacow4435]

My main problem is that the video ultimately said "we don't know".

[@jamesolson9498]

This video is out of date. Blue Origin just put up two BE-4 engines into orbit with ULA earlier this month.

[@antibrevity]

11:28. It's understandable that you used New Shepard footage, but this sequence may give an inaccurate impression that it uses methane. A clip of SN15's landing or an on-screen disclaimer such as "not methane" might have been helpful . Thanks for the video!

[@pipersall6761]

Good report. Didnt the chinese just put a methalox rocket into orbit? The Zhuque-2. But we havent yet. (sigh) Anyway, I enjoy your videos, well done and informative.

[@thorin1045]

who cares, they always just copy everything, for this they even used time travel to copy the obviously 'true' first american rocket...

[@nirbhayatiwari5425]

SpaceX will be the first to get the world's most powerful methalox powered rocket to orbit ... Don't worry bro as China don't know how to make a heavy lifter like the SLS or Saturn V Or even Falcon heavy or Delta 4 heavy or Ariane 5

[@thorin1045]

@@nirbhayatiwari5425 high quality copium, good.

[@pipersall6761]

@@nirbhayatiwari5425 Yet...

[@nirbhayatiwari5425]

@@thorin1045 ?

[@BradAkersphotography]

Vulcan center upper stage is powered by RL 10 and the engine isn’t what went up. There was a leak in the tank because it’s hydrogen which is also stupid. Still many good points in here though. 🚀

[@tomhoffelder4535]

Since there wasn't any carbon at the beginning of the universe, there wasn't any methane then. Other than that, great vid!

[@markb2773]

100% correct

[@matsv201]

I would claim that probobly the main advantage of methane fuel is the relativly high impulse while not being as compicared to use as hydrogen. Its sort of a swetspot between hydrogen and RP1 in terms of ease to use and impulse.

[@GntlTch]

More worse than that. The boiling point for hydrogen is so low that there is a danger that it will freeze the liquid oxygen! This requires special handling and extra insulation. Liquid methane is near the same temperature as liquid oxygen so a far better match.

[@gregculverwell]

Methane and LNG are not same. LNG is mostly methane, but also contains variable amounts of other gasses, such as propane and butane. Since these proportions are variable and require different proportions of oxygen to combust corectly, wonder if part of the problems with the BE4 is due to that.

[@Hoopaball]

Contact Bezos if you need toilet paper. Not a rocket engine.

[@josephforrest3713]

I think it is important to note, that it lis looking more and more like the SpaceX launch only failed, because the rocket damaged the launch platform on take off, by throwing up debris. The flaw wasn't in the rocket. It was in the launch platform. The launch would more than likely have been a complete success, if the deluge system had worked as advertised. They have since fixed this issue, so their next launch SHOULD be a great success. But you're right. Blue did go for what on paper should be a much easier design to complete and perfect... Yet they are still having issues. Once again, it is also important to note just how flipping hard it is to design a rocket engine that is 100 percent reliable. You're working with volatile explosive chemicals, at stupid pressures, with a butt load of moving parts, that can go wrong at any time lol. I think in the next few years, both systems will be perfected, and we will enter a new age of space travel. This is just teething issues. They will both get there.

[@michaeldeierhoi4096]

Even the Falcon 9 in its latest iteration is not 100%, but it is still better than the competition when it comes to reliability.

[@Dumbrarere]

It's worth pointing out that SpaceX have since repaired the launch platform and made some much needed upgrades. That in comparison to how quickly it takes Blue Origin to ship out one BE-4... there's just no contest.

[@rbrtck]

​@@michaeldeierhoi4096 Nothing is perfect, but when has the Block 5 Falcon 9 failed? I do remember exactly one Merlin 1D engine cutting out a bit early, but that was the result of trying to clean it. Someone did something wrong, like leaving a foreign substance behind after the experimental cleaning, and that's what caused the problem, but the mission was still a 100% success. It wasn't because the engine itself was defective or failed on its own.

[@rbrtck]

I'm pretty sure there were other problems, including with the older Raptors 2s that were used. There were issues during the static fire test, which was cut short, and three of the engines failed to start during launch. Maybe, just maybe, there was damage to some of the engines and/or one of the hydraulic pumps from the pad explosion afterward, as well, but the engines that kept going were also throttled down, presumably out of necessity, just to keep the test flight going for as long as possible, even though the Starship stack was clearly not going to even get close to stage separation. Watch the side-by-side video of the two test flights, especially their telemetry data. That first flight, as a flight, was a bust and was always going to be, whether the pad exploded or not, although it was also a success because it did not explode on the pad and SpaceX ended up learning a lot from the data it provided.

[@T1hitsTheHighestNote]

Starship will fly cargo missions before the BE-4 is ready.

[@torbjornhagstrom4543]

Please Elon! Offer Jeff some consulting help with BE4. We need them too!!

[@dylanwhite3383]

Ok that penis joke at the beginning of the video had me rolling 😂😂😂😂

[@RalphEllis]

The white gas around Starship, is actually condensing water vapour. R

[@jmbauer68]

2 issues. 1. 10:27 your video shows almost all water vapor condesning around the cryogenic tank. Not venting. 2. 12:57 Blue origin has been to space. Just not orbit.

[@AndyOO6]

The Zhuque-2 rocket A methane-fueled rocket just reached Earth orbit for the first time ever. The Zhuque-2 rocket, developed by Chinese company Landspace, successfully soared to orbit after launching from the Jiuquan Satellite Launch Center in the Gobi Desert on Tuesday (July 11) at 9 p.m. EDT (0100 GMT or 9 a.m. local time on July 12).

[@kend6693]

I do like your videos. I do learn from them. You do a great job. I do like to see Mr. "Slow with Ferocity" fail though. I know it is hard to wait for him to fail again but Dr. Evil is so good at it. ... The only Problem again with being Fifth is there is no comments to read.

[@justindixon7441]

We aren't failing at anything. We're just taking time to develop stuff properly so we don't waste a billion or more dollars on a single failure. There's a difference.

[@parktheforg]

Love the videos man. Keep up the work

[@44R0Ndin]

The Raptor is ALSO a medium-performance version of a high performance architecture. They set the design point of the Raptor for 300 Bar. But they DESIGNED it to be capable of withstanding far higher pressures. And besides, the pressure's not what kills engines. Heat is what kills liquid fueled rocket engines, it always has been and always will be the key constraint. Pressure is just "design a pressure vessel capable of withstanding X pressure at Y temperature", a simple thing for most mechanical engineers, not just rocket scientists. Temperature on the other hand has a compounding effect on the (lack of) strength of metallic alloys used in making rocket engines. Beyond a certain point, the hotter you make a rocket engine's insides, the faster it's going to break. The path towards fast reuse of the Raptor is by only using roughly 80% of the performance of the engine as a whole. However, you'll never say they're setting the throttle to "full 80%". Instead, you'll hear them saying they have the throttle at "100%" and not say that they left the other 20% on the table so that the engine lasts longer. This is nothing new, airliners have been using what's sometimes called "flex takeoff" thrust settings for takeoff for a long time now. What's that? It's where the auto-throttle system intentionally sets the takeoff thrust to less than 100%, usually when the aircraft is lightly loaded or not fully fueled, in order to make full use of the available length of the runway while significantly saving wear and tear on the engines, rather than putting additional stress on the engines by operating them at their full rated takeoff performance every single takeoff and taking off in 1/3 of the runway that's available (or less). The SuperHeavy booster from SpaceX can do this because despite the "need" for so many engines, it still has a fully loaded takeoff TWR of something like 1.4 to 1, which is quite "sporty" for a super-heavy class rocket. The Saturn V had a liftoff TWR of just 1.1, if memory serves. That's why it looks so photogenic in the slow-motion camera footage that NASA has, it's barely moving off the pad so you get to see the flames for a relatively long time. Because of that high TWR, SpaceX can do something interesting. If all the engines work at liftoff, they can throttle them all back slightly to save wear on them. If some of them fail to light, they can throttle back less to maintain the desired performance. If more of them fail, they can choose to not throttle back at all. This is all handled by the engine controllers on each engine talking with each other. What failed on the recent SuperHeavy test flight was Stage 0 (the launchpad). Because the launchpad became a crater, that material that was dug up had to go somewhere. And it chose to go up instead of sideways. Which meant that the bottom of the first stage, where all the sensitive engines are, got hit with a bunch of high velocity gravel and dirt and concrete chunks (BIG concrete chunks, not small ones, you'll see them if you watch the launch footage in slow-motion). Needless to say, this causes problems for the rocket. Problems like losing more than one Hydraulic Power Unit, which caused the SuperHeavy booster to eventually loose the ability to control its course with thrust vectoring, or to shut down or throttle the (also hydraulically actuated) engine fuel valves. The launchpad has been repaired and seems to be able to withstand the blast of the SuperHeavy booster now, and the new SuperHeavy booster is not using Raptor engines that use hydraulic control actuators, the thrust vectoring and everything else is all operated by electrically powered actuators now. Besides, SpaceX met its goal for testing SuperHeavy, which was "we hope it clears the pad". The only thing I have a problem with for Vulcan and New Glenn isn't the performance or quality of the engines. It's the production rate of those same engines. If they can't crank those engines out at a rate of something like 50 a year, they won't be able to keep up with demand. THAT, the production rate problem, is the true "disappointing truth" about the BE-4. Not anything that was said in this video.

[@flazerflint]

well explained !!👏

[@flazerflint]

but are u aerospace engineer or something

[@44R0Ndin]

@@flazerflint I don't get paid for it, but I am quite competent in RSS/RO/RP-1 mod pack for Kerbal Space Program (that's the mod pack that tries to make the game as realistic as possible, bascially it takes most of the "funny green aliens blow up rockets" out of the game and turns it into a proper sandboxed space simulator with a model of the IRL solar system to explore). And if you re-create a rocket from IRL in RSS/RO/RP-1, it performs the same as the one IRL would. The BE-4 is a good engine. The problem is the production rate of new engines (aka they need a better factory), not some fatal unsolvable design defect in the engine itself (which would require a better or different engineer to take a look at it). This video isn't the best at describing that very critical difference.

[@flazerflint]

Do u think the next orbital launch of the New Glenn achieve reusability straight off @@44R0Ndin

[@TheEvilmooseofdoom]

There is no evidence at all that any debris managed to swim up stream of all that rocket exhaust and strike any part of the booster. It's a silly notion to begin with.

[@badhippo]

With any claim by BO, the channel host should put "allegedly" in the script.

[@donscheid97]

I thought they announced the last Delta had already flown earlier this year.

[@markb2773]

That was the second to last one. Last one tentatively scheduled for Feb. 2024.

[@darrenorange2982]

You kind of ignored the fact that it could have easily been a ground support issue rather than a rocket engine issue.

[@user-hs4it2zs7j]

Build a deep water port south of Starbase to allow landing pad ships and add more launch towers in the best place to launch rockets from! Grow Texas!

[@user-hs4it2zs7j]

Land/recover 1st stage rockets offshore till we get them fully recoverable like Falcons.

[@Oldman5261]

9:23 “No one has been able to get a liquid methane rocket into low earth orbit “. That is not correct. My understanding is that a Chinese rocket manufacturer has successfully done this a few weeks ago. 9:40 autogenous is pronounced “aa-tow-jee-nuhs”, not “auto-geenous”.

[@lennyjames8457]

Yup! Launched in July

[@justindixon7441]

and a Russian, and an Indian rocket too.

[@NoobOnTrackpad]

I think blue origins is actually underrated and their philosophy, development process, and goals are different than spacex. Like the saying comparing apple to orange. I like any space development so I like many companies not just spacex but also rocketlab, ULA, firefly, and etc. real joke is boeing starliner that should of been cancelled years ago.

[@thotmorgana]

It is good to have this open and positive mindset. More people like you would make the scene less toxic for Blue Origin. And you are right, all space developments are good, that includes BO. That being said I don't like Jeff Bezos screwing over his employees and I also kind of enjoy the banter on BO. But I definetely appreciate your mindset!

[@Adamas97]

People don't like BO because they are slow, expensive and boring. Most SpaceX 'fans' are pro space flight. Most people love SpaceX because they are trying, and we see them trying. Rocket Labs is great too. BO seems like it is all talk and making no progress. People just got sick of it over the years. The New Glenn is a great machine but it feels like it will never fly, or if it does fly it won't be for another 7-10 years. People don't hate BO because they are not SpaceX, people hate BO because they don't do anything.

[@jonn566]

The zhuque 2 is a methane rocket that made it to orbit on July 12th.

[@Glen.Danielsen]

Brother, launch and test failures are part of development, and always have been.

[@gregorycoogle7621]

I say we should launch… Mr. Bill Nelson into deep space and have him radio back. Any discoveries! 😂👍

[@chrisstevens2]

Looking forward to seeing all the splodeys in the near future!

[@toddtrowbridge5135]

Your info is I correct sir. The white cloud and the white frost on the Star Ship during the fuel tank filling is NOT frozen Methane or OXYGEN, it is the super cold freezing the moister in the ambient air. That’s what cryogenic liquids do to un insulated tanks.

[@cheapscotsman]

If Amazon cannot deliver who can??

[@rickschroeder9012]

The privatization of space is showing some cracks. When profit is the end, short cuts are inevitably taken.

[@perthmadbloke]

That intro 👌💯

[@jbkabss]

Methane is a component of natural gas primarily: Methane, ethane, butane, and propane. There is a difference.

[@Winkkin]

Quietly is the operative word here. The BE-4 is vaporware.

[@tricosteryl]

Be4 seems to be based on old school over intricated plumbing, looks very big. So heavy and expensive...

[@duncanidaho9153]

The video of the Vulcan exploding in the test stand was NOT a rocket engine test - nothing to do with engines or BO.

[@Sammy-wq9hj]

Let's convert all cars into Jetplanes and let's all fly into space! SOS

[@Sammy-wq9hj]

Let's convert all cars into jetplanes and we all fly in space! SOS

[@seanmarshall7529]

THE REAL ADVANTAGE OF CH4 IS THE HIGH SPECIFIC IMPULSE AND LOW COST!

[@sylvainfrenette6664]

lol love the timing of showing a blonde assembling rocket parts with the narration that says "Poor workmanship, basely it wasn't put together properly. Now Obviously an error on the production line"

[@theflyingcandleguyme6144]

The space industry is NOT holding its breath for blue origins. They give Blue origins token contracts so Jeff doesn’t feel left out😌

[@kiwigurn]

Methane isn't vented to atmosphere in cryo. Recondenced

[@tomtxtx9617]

Desperately needs? Insert enormous rolleyes here.

[@KieranHolroyd]

There are like a half dozen really obvious mistakes in this video. For one, a chinese firm recently successfully launched a methalox rocket into orbit, the gasses on the superheavy body are not from venting but from water vapour being superchilled on the outside of the rocket due to the extreme cold inside the rocket, the venting is different, also spacex doesn't vent methane, it's sent back down to the propellant farm to be reclaimed to reduce the risk of ignition. Also while Blue is clowned on a lot, there are hundreds of very talented engineers working there, they just show almost none of their development work in public, and while they haven't reached orbit, the fact their booster can land is still very impressive. The Starship RUD on the IFT was basically what was expected, if not a little quicker than most anticipated, and I don't think it's super fair to blame the explosions from individual engines on the engine itself as there was quite a lot of debris at launch which was unexpected, and it's quite specifically not dangerous since there were massive exclusion zones setup around the launch site and potential splashdown point near Hawaii, which were sent out days before the launch. Just some of the issues I spotted, could go on but it's late.