How many Falcon 9 block 5 first-stage boosters have been built starting in 2020 and are still active? 30 have been built, 12 have been expended after launch, 4 have malfunctioned and been destroyed and 8 more are planned. Space X only has 14 active block 5 first-stage boosters. Only 7 of them have launched 10 or more times, only once has the same booster relaunched in 21 days most take over 2 months of refurbishment and some take 6 months! Zero Data on booster refurbishment has ever been released to the public, Why? It's because no part of any booster that has launched 10 or more times is an original booster other than fuselage. The Falcon 9 block 5 first-stage boosters is not a truly a reusable rocket it's just a refurbished fuselage with possibly all new engines and parts.
space travel isnt going to make anysense until we find a way to make a complete ship without having to detach parts every single time. to the point to where were playing monkey in the middle with it and actually landing them on end. lol.
3:29 Of course we knew von Braun was a Nazi rocket scientist. That was the reason the US government got him and his V2 rocket expertise before the Soviets could. How ignorant is the person running this UA-cam channel?!
What does he mean by "we didn't really find out about the nazi thing after was dead?" Like didn't Werner von Braun surrender to the Americans and say that his brother made the v2?
With respect to Wernher von Braun - "We didn't really find out about the NAZI thing until after he was dead" This is NOT TRUE. Everybody knew about it.
The Inventor of the rocket Warnher Von Brauns tombstone says. Psalms 19.1 The heavens declare the glory of God & the firmament showeth his handiwork. He quoted the final card. A fabricated Alien invasion. The moon landings are laughable. It's all a satanic trick Heliocentric system solar system. Hell io sin trick system soul lure system. 23.4 globe tilt from required angular measurement of 90.0 degrees leaves you 66.6. The moons diameter in miles is 2,160. The globes circumference in nautical miles is 21,600, 6×6×6=216. The amount of luciferian symbols in the soul lure system are innumerable. The globe lie violates thermodynamics 2nd law of entropy, Centrifugal forces, Water fundamentals & leveling, Parallax shift in the constellations, In regards to the fact the soul lure system has never pasted another system. We see the same stars they saw thousands of years ago. The world's not a rotating Globe that violates all that is natural science. We do not tell you these things to argue. But to enlighten you to the lies & consequences of them. We tell you the truth out of the love in our hearts in hope's to wake you from the luciferian matrix so your not lost to the nihilism & Godlessness that this all creates. Truth about Antarctica. NOBODY is allowed to independently explore there without U.N & their homeland governments permission. If you try Navi vessels will turn you around. Every single treaty in history with any country gets breached eventually. Yet Over 50 countries have a treaty with the United Nations whom physically guard Antarctica. No coutry Dares violate the treaty either. Strange inconsistency when other treaty's are always broken. There is a colossal reason for this. Antarctica is not what we have all been told. It's no continent but a ring. Aka the Artic Circle. The U.N has a map of this ring in their main embassy. Interestingly enough. Past this ice ring there's more continent's. A few in fact & about as large as Central America. Which in fact collaborates the Information that Admiral Richard E Byrd had given the world publicly. & The story of The Iron Republic Captain James Cooks story of having Found a way through the Artic Ice Circle. & Exploring 1 of these continent's in the 1890s or give or take. There's more then enough evidence to support this theory of a flat None rotating world & that everything the establishments are pushing is all a fallacy. Heliocentric system solar system. Hel io sin trick system soul lure system. Remember Condemnation without investigation is the epitome of ignorance. Do the research you won't regret it. If you want the real information I have it in my lists.
Everyone? Not the public. Pre-internet this type of information could be controlled and trust of government was very high. The Internet shined a light on many awkward truths the government would have preferred to keep quiet and definitely less widely known.
I NEVER get tired of watching the boosters come down and land. Every time is like the first time! And, when it’s a double, like with a Falcon heavy, OMG!
@@giacomotognoni9865 They are reusing the rockets though? "what is the point of landing if it means more fuel is needed" well for starters you don't DUMP THE ENTIRE ROCKET AND NEED TO BUILD IT FROM SCRATCH. Did you even think for a second before you posted that comment? Or do you know nothing about rockets in the first place? Not to be a dick but I see these kinds of comments all the time and it infuriates me how utterly uninformed and stupid they are.
One point about the shuttle: 136 missions, 2 failures, BUT the shuttle never failed: in both instances the launch system (first the SRB and then External Fuel Tank) destroyed or damaged the Shuttle.
The Shuttle _Orbiter_ never failed. Two SRB's, one external tank, and one Orbiter equals one _Shuttle Transport System._ There were _two_ STS failures.
@@johnstout5767 A 30 year run for a single design, deliver-payload-to-orbit capability, 7 person crew who deplaned down stairs on an airport tarmac, mini space-station, cargo-hold modular laboratories, repair and refurbish platform, and 100% reusability of the orbiter, designed and built in the late 1970s... a FAILURE? Not a single space agency on the planet ever got past cramped single-use splash/crash-down capsules. As for cost? It is 2023 and the SLS costs $ 4.3 billion per launch, THROWS AWAY the reusable Shuttle RS-25 engines and has a launch cadence of 1 : 1.5 years. Are you kidding me? You should kiss the ground the shuttle landed on!!! 40 years ago, man! 40 years ago!
@@lawrenceallen8096STS failed to meet its cost and safety goals, and as a related effect, failed to meet its launch rate goal. It was a tremendous technical success, however, and did deliver a capability to do things in space that no other system could do before or since. All in all, I think that for a first of its kind, it wasn't as bad as its critics like to whine about. NASA always had ideas to improve the system but it never was able to get the up front cash it takes to implement those ideas. And instead of building a Shuttle 2.0 which built on the earlier system and corrected its flaws, NASA had to cave to the critics and shifting winds of politics when STS was finally retiring, sticking NASA with SLS and hiring SpaceX for Uber rides to the ISS.
@@bwasjeCalling him a nazi is a little much. He was a german rocket scientist and innovator that lived during the nazi time, yes, but I also wouldn’t call russian rocket pioneers commies just because they worked under the communist regime, which they of course did, it’s where they lived. So to get funding, of course they’d have to interact with their state.
@Icetea-yg3br he built rockets that got people killed making them, then develop them to land on cities with 2000lb bombs inside, yep but he only helped the nazis because he like rockets so much...
"If things are Not failing, you are Not innovating enough!", is THE definition of Research & Development. I was one of those "do All" mechanics in a Very Large Seafood Company in SE Alaska. One day I'd be building custom Can Tracks that twisted & rerouted their direction or setting up the programming for their "in-motion" weigh machines to Diving for an inspection of a Company Fishing Vessel that had struck bottom. I was a Millwright by definition but I Really began to learn and expand my thinking when the Company hired a R&D group out of Seattle to re-invent their 1930's vintage Salmon Canning machines. There were only 5 in the Group, the Mad Scientist Genius Inventor at the head of the group and a Very Talented group including a mechanical draftsman, a Machinist, an Electrical Engineer and we stole a Boeing Systems Program chief engineer. I was the Fabricator and Operator. But I must say, That was one of the Best learning experiences of my life !
I worked for 9 years in industrial automation. My favorite client was a small business in Livono Italy. The first times I hated those guys. They always pushed things over the limit. I ended up loving to be called by them for a new project. A Classical meeting about a new project was like ,, we want do do this" and me saying,, that's not possible" and they would reply with ,, we know that's why we want to do it, help us find a way "
12:02 The "jellyfish" in the video is on launch, while the audio says it is a descent. The video shows 9 engines firing during launch, and the exhaust trailing downward from the rocket. On re-entry, the re-entry burn only fires 3 of the booster's Merlin engines, and the exhaust trail is soon above the descending booster.
The modern reaction to von Braun always confuses me. It's not like his previous employment was ever a mystery. Nor was the reason he was spared serious consequences, he could be put to useful work. But hey it's the 21st century and feelings are what's important. After all we happily used RD180s despite their Soviet origin.
Also we use medical information from the horrific experiments the Japanese did on living people during WW2, but they weren't "not sees" so they get a pass.
I believe your legacy aerospace companies, Boeing, Lockheed/Martin and Northrup Grumman are not interested in reusable rockets and why should they? These companies were and still are making a fortune off government cost plus contracts. Look at the Boeing and ULA SLS rocket they have taken about a decade to build and received about 23 billion for US government. This 23 billion does not include the capsule which another 20 billion. And to top it off, SLS will cost about 4 billion per mission. So question is why would these legacy aerospace companies be interested in a reusable rocket when they are making BILLIONS by not designing one.
Agreed. These half-hearted private/public partnerships have a dismal history of waste, graft, inefficiencies and worst of all, safety. I think the time has come to either make NASA properly funded so they can design and produce their own ships or defund NASA completely and allow private enterprise to pursue profit and market share in a free and competition driven economic framework. Go SpaceX!
The legacy aerospace companies will build another ISS, like Northrop Grumman. That’s worth more than a reusable rocket. SpaceX is creating the transportation in space with their reusable rocket engineering capabilities. E.g travelling to and from Mars and the moon base to ISS to a manufacturing spacesite, to eo satellites. The new space economy is industrialist and busy, hence the Astra Carta.
@@PersonalityMalfunction NASA has been properly funded many times with the same dysfunctional results. Government just sucks at running things. It always has. It always will. It doesn't matter what country. All government suck at running things. This was the reason why your wiser descendants knew that government needed to be limited in their responsibilities. NASA is fine as a research and regulatory body. Just like the FAA and the FCC does. These are positions where government can best serve the public, and their incompetence is restricted. It no longer needs to be a rocket builder.
@@NEPTUNENEWSPACE The difference between older contractors like Northrop Gruman and Space X is that Gruman, Lockheed, Rockwell have got into the habit of allowing NASA to run the show. When NASA makes the designs, owns the designs and controls the program, the private contractor is reduce to being a slave operation. There isn't much for them to license out to other private contractors for profit. They have limited control of the programs. Not to mention, there administrators and engineers get use to the Bureaucracy method of building rockets which is "Don't launch it until its perfect." This cost a lot more money and more time, and it doesn't make a better rocket. Also, Bureaucracies are controlled by congress who try to spread government contracts across different states to create jobs and satisfy their constituents. This means the contractors have to spread out their own operations, building different pieces of the program. Space X entered the picture as an independent contractor creating and funding their own programs, and simply asking NASA, "What are your needs?" Space X controls their own designs, they own the patents, they own their own license, and they own the program and lease it to NASA. This is partially because government has finally allowed more openness and private investment in the space industry. Other industries are slowly adapting the same model. It's the difference between the government hiring you and five other contractors like you to make a piece of a building they design and own, and them simply leasing a building that you designed and own and implementing some easy changes to accommodate them. You can also lease some of that building to other private organizations too. Which do you think is more efficient?
Hard to expect from someone hating and severely misunderstanding von Braun. I mean this guy didn’t even know that it was public knowledge that von Braun was in charge of Germany’s rocket program in WW2 and you want this guy to "teach" you about him?
The development of microelectronics is essential. Microprocessors were in their early stages of development when the Shuttle was designed, let alone earlier missiles.
"No one else has even tried" there's several companies that have tried, many unsuccessfully and even the chinese government has gotten into that game as well, likely from spaceXs own data
Thanks for this. I learn more every time even though I've been following SpaceX for a while. But I was disappointed you didn't say more about the "Hover-slam" landing. The problem with F9 is that the minimum thrust from even a single engine is MORE than the F9 weighs when it lands. This means that even at minimum thrust, if it's not on the ground when its downward velocity gets to zero, it's going to start accelerating up! It can't hover, mainly because the Merlin engine can't be throttled back to less than the F9's weight. So the timing on the landing has to be pretty perfect.
YES! Please do a video about this rocket, engines, stages, staging, pad, intent, size, load capacity..etc.. Thanks for another great episode! Stay Space! - NOM
there has always been rocket engineers who wanted to do reusable rockets, but the companies they worked for didn't want to know because they thought the gravy train would end. Elon comes along with the idea that rockets should be reusable and those engineers flock to him, and low and behold we have reusable first stages and soon completely reusable rockets. i would have loved to hear those exit interviews where they were told they would fail and lose their jobs, only to see them succeed.
bit different with Elon, he gets the talents because he isn't just selling a job, but a vision for the future. Talents will always flock to the leaders that will sell a vision.
The Shuttle was designed to take payload up to orbit, 7 passengers, and bring down satellites for refurbishment and updates. The problem is, the "bring down satellites" thing never materialized. I think they did it once or twice for proof of concept purposes. What ended up happening was technology advanced so rapidly it was more practical just to build and launch newer, more exponentially advanced satellites. That said, the repair to the Hubble Telescope could have only been done by the Shuttle.
Hubble service missions could had very well being handled with much, much safer shuttle. If some 3 core heavy Delta (an semi truck) delivers Hubble. Then, 2 years later, you need maintenance, you won't get same semi truck and crew who installed the thing, but one or two smaller truckloads of specialists and spare parts. Hubble was almost exactly same as Lockheed/NRO KH-11 Crystal/Kennen spy satellites, just looking up, instead of down. Just 15 years later when KH-11 first flew. None of the KH-11s were launched on Shuttle.
NRO KH-11 had lifetime of 5+ years without maintenance. After that just replace the old one with new satellite with better ground resolution and higher bandwith to earth. As an example Obama administration looked in real time TV the attack on Osama bin Ladends killing in his hideout in Pakistan.
@11:29 The biggest breakthough which allows Falcon 9 boosters to land with it's engines is MEMs Gyroscopes, the kind which orients your phone, and can also control the booster accurately enough to land which prior rocket developers simply didn't have. Early gyros and computers were never sophisticated enough to do this.
Really? The DC-X flew and landed successfully a handful of times starting in 1993 with gryos and computers of the time. SpaceX didn't do it first, just better and cheaper and faster at ths point. but the DC-X made like 5 flights before a mishap. the flights were similar to the SN-15 scope.
The purpose of space exploration is the "go" part ... when it's time for the humans to come back home alive, we prefer dunking them safely in the ocean. Imagine being a crew that has been away from Earth for a year or more, and all they have to do to get back to their families is to survive a risky vertical landing on a barge.
Today’s breakthrough is private enterprise innovation, efficiency, spirit vs government/Nasa uncaring sloth, irresponsible waste & incompetence. Both Falcon 9 & Starship were possible as Saturn V follow-ons with then technology. Instead NASA wasted 50 years & $500+ billion on dead-end boondoggles: STS, ISS, Constellation & SLS.
WRONG!!! The The McDonnell Douglas DC-X was the first rocket to do a vertical take off and landing back in the 90s. It is the first orbital class rocket to do a vertical take off and landing though, and Blue Origin is apparently trying, it's hard to tell though. Also the Venture Star also tried, but was cancelled because they couldn't get the carbon fibre tanks ready in time even though the aluminium tanks they had prepare in this case actually made the ship lighter because the centre of mass worked out better and it was only a matter of time until the carbon fibre tanks were sorted because carbon fibre would be better for the final version as this was just a sub scale test article.
That's a good point about the DC-X. In 1990, I was working for a different division of McDonnell Douglas, when the DC-X flew test flights for NASA. That was very inpressive. Our division launched air vehicles with solid rocket boosters, but didn't want them to come back. I was at Boeing, when they merged with McDonnell Douglas. I saw both McDonnell Douglas's President and Boeing's CEO in a tent in at Boeing's Huntsville, Al location. From 1996 to 2001, I worked on a couple of payloads that flew on the Space Shuttle Atlantis to the International Space Station, the US Lab and the Airlock for Boeing at NASA's Marshal Space Flight Center. Ten years prior, in 1989, I had watched the Space Shuttle Discovery launch on the third flight, after the return to flight, following the Challenger explosion, from just outside the Kennedy Space Center. Awesome doesn't describe what we saw and felt that day. Our photos don't do it justice. A month later I saw Atlantis fly out over the ocean from about 70 miles away south of KSC. I do not understand why Boeing & NASA didn't pickup some of the DC-X technology for the SLS after Boeing Aquired North American Rockwell, the Shuttles, main contractor and also McDonnell Douglas. PS. In 1987, I also worked on the propulsion system for smaller flight vehicles for Morton Thiokol, after the Challenger Accident in 1986.
I remember seeing pictures of Wernher von Braun's giant three-stage rocket (fueled with alcohol and LOX, if I recall) during the 1950s. He also had a plan for a Mars mission that involved a fleet of spacecraft.
Absolutely great job. Would be slightly better if you had also discussed or noted the timeline and more detailed process SpaceX uses for preparing a booster 9 in-between successive launches. Granted, details on the process may be classified, but certainly the schedule and average delay inbetween successive booster launches is public. Again, bravo for a terrific and well done video!
its mainly that spacex is a private company, it relies on success to live, nasa has a huge budget funded by the government which means they dont need that much innovation to stay afloat
While it is true Falcon 9 has the fastest turn time yet, there is still quite a bit of refurbishment. Due to the fuel on F9, those engines and rockets are checked pretty thoroughly between flights. I know this sounds like splitting hairs but if Starship can truly meet its design goals, space launches will become a daily occurrence.
for that some very important part missing: need for daily launches. we do not have 100 tonnes stuff waiting in line to be launched. (heck, already the stuff you launch is the bigger cost, a big sat launches for somewhere between 100-200 million (and not for the 62 million for the booster), while it could easily cost over a billion for the sat itself.)
@@thorin1045 true. However, my point is that F9 still undergoes some refurbishment between launches. When or if SpaceX gets the Raptor engine perfected and reliable then they will truly have a reusable rocket. When this happens, the cost of launches could drop significantly. We will definitely have to take a look at launch costs versus disposable rockets. Here's another question. Should SpaceX perfect the Raptor engine, can they scale it? Why you may ask. While the Raptor has a fantastic thrust to weight ratio, the BE4 does generate more thrust. What size Raptor would be required to match this? What's the point of my question? Competition in the market place. This is what drives innovation and reduces the cost of launch services. From what I understand, SpaceX is driving the launch market. They are undercutting almost all competitors on launch cost and making a very good margin per launch. That is how the free market works. Blue needs to get their collective poop in a group and catch up. IMO, the difference between SpaceX and BO is at the top of each organization. Musk is an engineer, Bezos is a businessman. Musk has an understanding of what's involved with launching rockets and Bezos doesn't. Musk can get in with the engineers and help find solutions. Bezos is definitely the better businessman but doesn't understand what's involved and therefore can't get in with the engineers and help find solutions. IMO.
@@thorin1045the lack of stuff to send up there is due to the fact that space has been very inaccessible until now, mainly because of cost and payload capacity or both. SpaceX in particular is changing both of those factors as we speak. When the capability is available at an affordable price tag the industry will follow. The amount of stuff we send to space now was unprecedented just a few years ago. The increase is precisely because cost has gone down significantly. Also, SpaceX is capable of creating its own reasons to fly frequently, like they do currently with Starlink. In the process they showcase how good and reliable their rockets are. What works for them is that they create a need for their rockets to exist, then create those rockets to fulfill that need. So far it has worked perfectly. Also, there are lots of plan from lots of startups that aim for space economy. Something that would not have made sense a few years ago. Space tourism is a thing and it doesn't show signs of slowing down yet, which is a good sign.
@@GB-zi6qr not sure if that ever arrives, the raptor eats itself and fail to start regularly in the few second tests. sadly the rocket engines are not something that can work long time, too much pressure, too much heat, too much thing that needs to work at the edge of its capability. Not sure where the bo rant come, but it is true, they need to step up. the idea of the be4 engine is much better than the raptors, make them work under the specifications, so much less stress on everything, that may be the key for long lifetime for rocket engines.
It's the Boss's willingness to pay for it. Most engineers want to try to push the edge and get crazy, but they can only do it if the management is willing to pay for it. Musk was young and new to the industry, while the older companies were much more risk-averse, unlike the days post-WWII when those same companies were pushing limits themselves.
@@realnapster1522 except they have a better landing record than most launch records. have made launching cheaper than any other provider and are getting billions in government contracts. I think you have a higher chance of bankruptcy than spacex mate
@@RCAvhstapeYou make it sounds like you can throw money at any problem at het results, i.e., the only reason x hasn't been solved is bcs nobody threw money at it. Which is obviously not the case.
Thank you! This is fantastic information. Can you do or have you done a video on the economic impact of each of these changes? How the cost per kilogram to LEO has been altered thru these efforts.
It always bothered me that "kilo" was an exception to the capitalization being uppercase factors of 10 or more. (...nobody seems to use 'deka' much either...)
My figuring (a long time ago, 90s I think) was that a genuinely reusable 'shuttle' replacement would ditch the wings & look like an oldschool rocket. It'd have three of the shuttle's solid boosters recovered in the ocean. The upper stage would have an inflatable heatshield around its engine. The front end/emergency escape capsule would be a geodesic sphere with an aerospike/escape rocket - that aerospike would be the only thing disposable on it. It'd re-enter rocket engine first, with the inflatable re-entry shield around it and an exhaust plume protecting it. Parafoils would guide the upperstage/capsule to a 'landing pond' that would be 2 meters deep, football field sized, at its spaceports. Then airbags would inflate, splashdown, and the ship would be towed to 'dock' at an airbridge off the side of the shallow landing pond.
I wouldn't call myself a fan of Elon Musk at all, but the perfection of upright landing a rocket as well as quick turnaround & reuse of Falcon 9's is hardly a "parlor trick." Engines are complicated, pricey, use a lot of fairly exotic alloys & take a while to build. So their reliable reuse is a huge win for the launch system.
Delta clipper did all the proving ... All Elon did was come along years later with better tech that had developed over the years to make what had already been done in parts all into one system. Not nothing but he didn't think that far out of the box.
Although since 2015 Jeff Who's Blue Origin has been one failure after another in 2015, before SpaceX, he did in fact manage to recover his New Shepard rocket using rockets to brake the fall on landing. And yes, New Shepard is not an orbital rocket - it justs flies up to the Karman line and falls back to earth. But still...
I believe that thay can and will make starship fully reusable given time and allowing the FFA gives them the freedom to operate more than 5 times a year.
@@TheEvilmooseofdoom Yeah, I don't imagine Boca Chica ever becoming an actual spaceport. The biggest question is will there be a market to fill that huge capacity.
Thanks for that very well produced and informative breakdown of how SpaceX has practically reinvented the orbital space business. I realize SpaceX has revisited other companies’ and nations’ plans, but regardless, their innovation has reignited (yeah, sorry for the obvious pun 🙄) the space race 👌
I think it's important to understand that we shouldn't accept a private company occupying this role. The only reason we are in this situation is because we as a nation have decided to stop generating revenues that fund the sciences since Reagan. For those who say private industry is necessary: A: The Soviet Union did this stuff first. B: The Soviet Union had no private industry and had a larger GDP than the US.
@@gg-gamers The USSR's GDP and GNP were always lower than the US'. They had a brief period from 65 where the GNP growth rate was higher than the US' but that's it. Since 75 we've also had a higher growth rate every single year. The reason the USSR even collapsed is due to their dysfunctional economy. Also, yes they got into orbit before us but we've been ahead of them since the moon landing. There was a brief period after we retired the shuttle program and had to rely on Russia for satellite launches but the emergence of SpaceX has even taken that away This magical idea of government being more efficient than private industry doesn't reconcile with reality. Just look at the last 20 years of Venezuela as another example.
Great video and content as usual ... Yes...I certainly believe that Space X will for sure make StarShip the most important rocket so far... until whoever can invent "warp speed"...
I think it is worth mentioning the Buran shuttle, the USSR's counterpart to the US space shuttle, did have plans to be reusable as well. The Energia was not initially designed to be reusable but there were plans for the boosters to have deployable gliding wings to have them carried back to an airstrip in the USSR for later refurbishment and reuse.
Awesome video but would love to see some detail on refurbishment procedures, man hours required, cost estimates, etc. if you're going to make a true comparison to the Space Shuttle system.
Warner, Von Braun was not a Nazi by choice. All he wanted to do was to make rockets. He said just after the first successfulV2 rocket launch “ the rocket performed perfectly It just fell on the wrong planet.”
Starship has two roles. Fully reusable are a cargo carrier into LEO. We see this being tested now and it will ultimately work. However, for deep space missions (Moon and beyond) Starship should be used like Falcon 9. A reusable first stage, but a disposable second stage to LEO. Carrying a third stage and payload for missions beyond LEO. That would mean the third stage and payload would be around 400 tonnes. A true deep space craft able to handle missions to the Moon, Mars and the asteroids. There would be no issues with difficult multiple refuellings in LEO. It would mean Starship would be able to replace SLS within 2 or 3 years. It would also mean Starship would not need to man rated. Crew would go up in Crew Dragon and transfer to the Deep Space craft.
You're making an assumption: that orbital refueling will perpetually remain difficult. SpaceX does tend to keep iterating on things until they make it work. I would not bet against them, we've already seen them turn something which everyone said was impossible into a reliable, almost daily routine after all.
This is a very interesting video! I never knew that Werner Von Braun had designed a reusable rocket. The history of the Falcon 9 success speaks for itself, the best booster available today and the only one reusable in the world. F9 flight costs significantly less than any other disposable rocket out and Starship will raise the bar of success much higher.
“For all man kind” on Apple TV is an alternative version of the space program that has a lot of actual facts in it. It is really good and goes over the time. When Werner von Braun was the head of NASA.
The STS has reusable boosters. SpaceX cost savings are nowhere near the fantasies of the authoritarian Musk. Starship is just big and doesn't work yet.
Von Braun wrote a series of articles for Colliers magazine in the 50s where he laid out his ideas for space exploration, with illustrations included. That's where all the space ferry stuff mentioned in this video comes from. Von Braun's early ideas had multiple flights to LEO to build a large moonship which would fly to, land on, and return from the lunar surface with a crew of about 30 guys, and IIRC it would return to LEO to be refueled and reused. All of this meant a huge amount of up mass, lots of launches, and a large infrastructure, the kind of thing commonly dreamt about in the 50s and 60s. Apollo-Saturn was big but it was kind of a compromise compared to the earlier ideas.
@@RCAvhstape Von Braun outlined fantasies. Reality is not a compromise for fantasy and to denigrate Apollo in this fashion is so messed up. It's crazy how Elon Musk's lies & promises have created this bizarre "Where's MY spaceship?!" brattiness.
@@David-wc5zlOh please, I just laid out the facts about von Braun's magazine articles. All the rest of that shit you're laying on me is your own projection. Go troll someone else dickbag.
The things our species is doing in regards to analysing the universe and innovating off-world technology, would surely bring admiration and hope to some of those lost alien civilizations that may be out there right now, alone and wondering.
With reusable boosters we should revive the shuttle type return vehicle. It proved very useful with it's bay door opening. This type seems more modern than a capsule coming down. Maybe do a 3D print of most of it.
The Falcon 9 is already a legend and among the greatest rockets ever made. The Big Fat Rocket or Starship was too much hyped but it's the first which got over 5000 tons. Rockets will change once we get far beyond 5000 tons because more mass means less surface, means less air resistance, means more payload ... The real genius move was changing a sick launch market. So again nothing which relates to rocket but had a deep impact.
Maybe Elon should move Starbase a few miles down the Gulf of Mexico coast. I have a hunch Mexico would welcome the business with open arms and fewer regulations.
on the one hand, they were designed to be weapons delivery systems first, therefore they didn't need to be designed for reusability; on the other hand, the more expensive they are, the more they are preferred by industry because they can charge more for them to the governments that want them
Agree on the military mindset. There’s a probably apocryphal story about the ‘gun’ style A-bomb developed for the Manhattan Project. They asked a naval gun expert to design the ‘cannon’ inside the bomb. The problem was that the design for the bomb was too heavy to carry. They went to the designer for rework, when he was made aware of what he was really designing he was able to get the weight down as the gun only needed to fire once.
3:33 Uhh, no. We knew. Tom Lehrer even wrote a song all about it. A damn good song, I might add. And everyone knew. People were generally not comfortable with it, but held their nose and went to the moon.
The big Starship failure earlier this year inspired me to get back into playing Kerbal Space Program. I finally cracked reusability, which gave me a great sense of achievement (and made a huge difference to my progress in the game).
It wasn't a failure from a mission perspective. SpaceX's goal was to clear the launch pad, it did. Whatever happened afterwards is extra. The way they develop is different from other rockets. They accept losing their rockets while in development as they're more concerned about quickly learning and iterating from launches.
Think about a rocket engine nozzle. It has to take extreme heat on the way up, with the higher the efficiency of the engine the higher the heat. Falcon 9 (and Starship) opted for the considerable extra expense of niobium alloys to get that fuel efficiency (as reusability will spread the purchase expense over lots of launches). Then thay saw that having such heat resistant nozzles means you can make them part of your heat shield arrangement.
Great episode, I subscribed as I liked your to the point presentation full of actually interesting information instead of regurgitating old well known info like many other sites.
I remember watching their first successful boat landing live on TV. I was in an after school program but the teacher in charge was busy with meetings and stuff so we would wait in the engineering teacher’s classroom and he put it up on the projector for us to watch.
Excellent video! It's clear to me that Starship development is following the same pathway, and will achieve many, most or maybe all of it's promised capabilities.
Oh man! I thought you had already watched starship 5 get caught. Oh well. This is well done. Now maybe you can make an addendum with that victory catch.
Lot of untruths in this video... such as no one had even tried... NASA was involved with the DCX Delta Clipper self landing rocket in the 1990s. I'M SURPRISED YOU OMITTED THIS!
One approach just might be to explore those 'crazy' ideas coming from the engineers and see whether you can make them work, instead of 'but we've always done it this way!'
With respect to SpaceX, DARPA was able to accomplish the act of rockets landing back vertically in the early 90’s. Elon’s talented teams perfected an existing technology, not invented a new one.
Landing an Airliner is "more of a parlor trick than an innovation". That kind of thinking save weight on wheels and carefully planned runways. Just issue everyone parachutes and I'm sure they'll pay more attention to the Stewardess information briefings. "Place your mask over your face like this. Pull the cord when the dial says 5000 feet. Oh yeah, please try to avoid the debris from your falling aircraft. And those visiting Florida, please avoid the lakes -- they're infested by gators. Any Questions?" Did you sign your Liability Waiver or buy Passenger Death & Dismemberment Insurance? Welcome to the "Friendly Skies" (its the ground that's unfriended)
Sounds like sour grapes to me. Everything SpaceX has done, a host of other organizations could have done, if they'd had the will. I'm not very sympathetic. But we need competitors for SpaceX on its own level.
Can you prove that von B. was ever a party member? If he had stood up to the SS he would have conveniently disappeared. Many people in Germany were in the same boat, including one of my former flying students. Do yourself and us a favor; don’t throw the German National Socialist Party thing around so carelessly, thanks.
Von Braun was a party member for one reason and one reason only. Not joining would have meant no funding. He was always more interested in rockets as modes of travel than politics. After the first V2 hit England, he said that "the rocket worked perfectly, it just landed on the wrong planet".
@@Cmdr_DarkNite Lol, "I'm sure", It takes 20 seconds to look thru the uploads and realise they've not uploaded nothing about, thanks for letting everyone know you're lazy
I was skeptical of private industry taking over the space program. I thought "surely they can't do better than NASA." I was wrong ... this has been amazing to watch.
One year after this video is released and the number of recovered and landing boosters has doubled to 400! That’s a robust. advanced and reliable system with boosters first boasting 5 uses, then 10, now 20!
One key fact about the shuttle: 136 missions with 2 failures, yet the shuttle itself never failed. In both cases, it was the launch system-first the SRB, then the External Fuel Tank-that caused the damage or destruction
NO. You're wrong. Its the ability to manage a cluster of engines as well as surface controls that allows reusability Landing is more complex than a lunar mission and could never be created for the V - the V it already existed. PLUS the Saturn engines are one use only. Its proven to be cost effective starlink has more than 1billion in recurring revenue. . Wrong on so many points.
Get PIA VPN today with an exclusive discount and 30 day money back guarantee: PIAVPN.com/TheSpaceRace
How many Falcon 9 block 5 first-stage boosters have been built starting in 2020 and are still active? 30 have been built, 12 have been expended after launch, 4 have malfunctioned and been destroyed and 8 more are planned. Space X only has 14 active block 5 first-stage boosters. Only 7 of them have launched 10 or more times, only once has the same booster relaunched in 21 days most take over 2 months of refurbishment and some take 6 months! Zero Data on booster refurbishment has ever been released to the public, Why? It's because no part of any booster that has launched 10 or more times is an original booster other than fuselage. The Falcon 9 block 5 first-stage boosters is not a truly a reusable rocket it's just a refurbished fuselage with possibly all new engines and parts.
space travel isnt going to make anysense until we find a way to make a complete ship without having to detach parts every single time. to the point to where were playing monkey in the middle with it and actually landing them on end. lol.
3:29 Of course we knew von Braun was a Nazi rocket scientist. That was the reason the US government got him and his V2 rocket expertise before the Soviets could. How ignorant is the person running this UA-cam channel?!
Space flight simulator you added space flight simulator the game😂
What does he mean by "we didn't really find out about the nazi thing after was dead?" Like didn't Werner von Braun surrender to the Americans and say that his brother made the v2?
With respect to Wernher von Braun - "We didn't really find out about the NAZI thing until after he was dead" This is NOT TRUE. Everybody knew about it.
Agreed.. no secret there
He benefitted from the holocaust but I doubt he was a proponent.
Totally correct- WvB was a Nazi and everyone knew it. He was more valuable to US alive than dead.
The Inventor of the rocket Warnher Von Brauns tombstone says. Psalms 19.1 The heavens declare the glory of God & the firmament showeth his handiwork. He quoted the final card. A fabricated Alien invasion. The moon landings are laughable. It's all a satanic trick Heliocentric system solar system. Hell io sin trick system soul lure system. 23.4 globe tilt from required angular measurement of 90.0 degrees leaves you 66.6. The moons diameter in miles is 2,160. The globes circumference in nautical miles is 21,600, 6×6×6=216. The amount of luciferian symbols in the soul lure system are innumerable. The globe lie violates thermodynamics 2nd law of entropy, Centrifugal forces, Water fundamentals & leveling, Parallax shift in the constellations, In regards to the fact the soul lure system has never pasted another system. We see the same stars they saw thousands of years ago. The world's not a rotating Globe that violates all that is natural science. We do not tell you these things to argue. But to enlighten you to the lies & consequences of them. We tell you the truth out of the love in our hearts in hope's to wake you from the luciferian matrix so your not lost to the nihilism & Godlessness that this all creates. Truth about Antarctica. NOBODY is allowed to independently explore there without U.N & their homeland governments permission. If you try Navi vessels will turn you around. Every single treaty in history with any country gets breached eventually. Yet Over 50 countries have a treaty with the United Nations whom physically guard Antarctica. No coutry Dares violate the treaty either. Strange inconsistency when other treaty's are always broken. There is a colossal reason for this. Antarctica is not what we have all been told. It's no continent but a ring. Aka the Artic Circle. The U.N has a map of this ring in their main embassy. Interestingly enough. Past this ice ring there's more continent's. A few in fact & about as large as Central America. Which in fact collaborates the Information that Admiral Richard E Byrd had given the world publicly. & The story of The Iron Republic Captain James Cooks story of having Found a way through the Artic Ice Circle. & Exploring 1 of these continent's in the 1890s or give or take. There's more then enough evidence to support this theory of a flat None rotating world & that everything the establishments are pushing is all a fallacy. Heliocentric system solar system. Hel io sin trick system soul lure system. Remember Condemnation without investigation is the epitome of ignorance. Do the research you won't regret it. If you want the real information I have it in my lists.
Everyone? Not the public. Pre-internet this type of information could be controlled and trust of government was very high. The Internet shined a light on many awkward truths the government would have preferred to keep quiet and definitely less widely known.
I NEVER get tired of watching the boosters come down and land. Every time is like the first time! And, when it’s a double, like with a Falcon heavy, OMG!
Exactly!!!
What is the point if they are not actually reusing the rockets and if landing them actually means much more fuel is needed?
Indeed, this is just another clown channel!@@giacomotognoni9865
@@giacomotognoni9865 They are reusing the rockets though? "what is the point of landing if it means more fuel is needed" well for starters you don't DUMP THE ENTIRE ROCKET AND NEED TO BUILD IT FROM SCRATCH. Did you even think for a second before you posted that comment? Or do you know nothing about rockets in the first place? Not to be a dick but I see these kinds of comments all the time and it infuriates me how utterly uninformed and stupid they are.
@@giacomotognoni9865 The whole project stinks of corruption/deception, agreed!
One point about the shuttle: 136 missions, 2 failures, BUT the shuttle never failed: in both instances the launch system (first the SRB and then External Fuel Tank) destroyed or damaged the Shuttle.
135 flights, not 136. Not certain why that’s not clear, but your right about the STS never failing. Cheers
The Shuttle _Orbiter_ never failed. Two SRB's, one external tank, and one Orbiter equals one _Shuttle Transport System._ There were _two_ STS failures.
The system certainly did fail, and cost over a $BILLION per launch - another failure. The lessons learned were quite valuable.
@@johnstout5767 A 30 year run for a single design, deliver-payload-to-orbit capability, 7 person crew who deplaned down stairs on an airport tarmac, mini space-station, cargo-hold modular laboratories, repair and refurbish platform, and 100% reusability of the orbiter, designed and built in the late 1970s... a FAILURE? Not a single space agency on the planet ever got past cramped single-use splash/crash-down capsules. As for cost? It is 2023 and the SLS costs $ 4.3 billion per launch, THROWS AWAY the reusable Shuttle RS-25 engines and has a launch cadence of 1 : 1.5 years. Are you kidding me? You should kiss the ground the shuttle landed on!!! 40 years ago, man! 40 years ago!
@@lawrenceallen8096STS failed to meet its cost and safety goals, and as a related effect, failed to meet its launch rate goal. It was a tremendous technical success, however, and did deliver a capability to do things in space that no other system could do before or since. All in all, I think that for a first of its kind, it wasn't as bad as its critics like to whine about. NASA always had ideas to improve the system but it never was able to get the up front cash it takes to implement those ideas. And instead of building a Shuttle 2.0 which built on the earlier system and corrected its flaws, NASA had to cave to the critics and shifting winds of politics when STS was finally retiring, sticking NASA with SLS and hiring SpaceX for Uber rides to the ISS.
Make a video about Von Braun's reusable rocket idea. Also, it would be interesting to have one about his Mission to Mars idea.
What like max verstappen?
@@WhittletonbloodWhat has a dutch f1 driver to do with a Nazi rocket scientist (Werner von Braun)
Make a whole video about "Das Mars Project", and you could talk about the reusable gliders and other mechanics behind the mission.
@@bwasjeCalling him a nazi is a little much. He was a german rocket scientist and innovator that lived during the nazi time, yes, but I also wouldn’t call russian rocket pioneers commies just because they worked under the communist regime, which they of course did, it’s where they lived. So to get funding, of course they’d have to interact with their state.
@Icetea-yg3br he built rockets that got people killed making them, then develop them to land on cities with 2000lb bombs inside, yep but he only helped the nazis because he like rockets so much...
"If things are Not failing, you are Not innovating enough!", is THE definition of Research & Development. I was one of those "do All" mechanics in a Very Large Seafood Company in SE Alaska. One day I'd be building custom Can Tracks that twisted & rerouted their direction or setting up the programming for their "in-motion" weigh machines to Diving for an inspection of a Company Fishing Vessel that had struck bottom. I was a Millwright by definition but I Really began to learn and expand my thinking when the Company hired a R&D group out of Seattle to re-invent their 1930's vintage Salmon Canning machines.
There were only 5 in the Group, the Mad Scientist Genius Inventor at the head of the group and a Very Talented group including a mechanical draftsman, a Machinist, an Electrical Engineer and we stole a Boeing Systems Program chief engineer. I was the Fabricator and Operator. But I must say, That was one of the Best learning experiences of my life !
I worked for 9 years in industrial automation. My favorite client was a small business in Livono Italy. The first times I hated those guys. They always pushed things over the limit. I ended up loving to be called by them for a new project. A Classical meeting about a new project was like ,, we want do do this" and me saying,, that's not possible" and they would reply with ,, we know that's why we want to do it, help us find a way "
12:02 The "jellyfish" in the video is on launch, while the audio says it is a descent. The video shows 9 engines firing during launch, and the exhaust trailing downward from the rocket. On re-entry, the re-entry burn only fires 3 of the booster's Merlin engines, and the exhaust trail is soon above the descending booster.
You took the words out of my mouth. Otherwise, this is a good update!
I was scolling the replies to see if anyone commented on that!
The modern reaction to von Braun always confuses me. It's not like his previous employment was ever a mystery. Nor was the reason he was spared serious consequences, he could be put to useful work. But hey it's the 21st century and feelings are what's important. After all we happily used RD180s despite their Soviet origin.
Also we use medical information from the horrific experiments the Japanese did on living people during WW2, but they weren't "not sees" so they get a pass.
You better watch yourself bud the commies are gonna explode
Right, this, followed by some other signs of being a shit video, is what made me click off.
I like the fact that the video shows the LEGO Saturn V instead of the real one at 2:14 !
lol was wondering why it looked off
I believe your legacy aerospace companies, Boeing, Lockheed/Martin and Northrup Grumman are not interested in reusable rockets and why should they? These companies were and still are making a fortune off government cost plus contracts. Look at the Boeing and ULA SLS rocket they have taken about a decade to build and received about 23 billion for US government. This 23 billion does not include the capsule which another 20 billion. And to top it off, SLS will cost about 4 billion per mission. So question is why would these legacy aerospace companies be interested in a reusable rocket when they are making BILLIONS by not designing one.
Agreed. These half-hearted private/public partnerships have a dismal history of waste, graft, inefficiencies and worst of all, safety. I think the time has come to either make NASA properly funded so they can design and produce their own ships or defund NASA completely and allow private enterprise to pursue profit and market share in a free and competition driven economic framework. Go SpaceX!
The legacy aerospace companies will build another ISS, like Northrop Grumman. That’s worth more than a reusable rocket. SpaceX is creating the transportation in space with their reusable rocket engineering capabilities. E.g travelling to and from Mars and the moon base to ISS to a manufacturing spacesite, to eo satellites. The new space economy is industrialist and busy, hence the Astra Carta.
If SpaceX didn't take it upon itself to develop economic reusable rockets we still wouldn't have any serious plans for them
@@PersonalityMalfunction NASA has been properly funded many times with the same dysfunctional results. Government just sucks at running things. It always has. It always will. It doesn't matter what country. All government suck at running things. This was the reason why your wiser descendants knew that government needed to be limited in their responsibilities. NASA is fine as a research and regulatory body. Just like the FAA and the FCC does. These are positions where government can best serve the public, and their incompetence is restricted. It no longer needs to be a rocket builder.
@@NEPTUNENEWSPACE The difference between older contractors like Northrop Gruman and Space X is that Gruman, Lockheed, Rockwell have got into the habit of allowing NASA to run the show. When NASA makes the designs, owns the designs and controls the program, the private contractor is reduce to being a slave operation. There isn't much for them to license out to other private contractors for profit. They have limited control of the programs. Not to mention, there administrators and engineers get use to the Bureaucracy method of building rockets which is "Don't launch it until its perfect." This cost a lot more money and more time, and it doesn't make a better rocket. Also, Bureaucracies are controlled by congress who try to spread government contracts across different states to create jobs and satisfy their constituents. This means the contractors have to spread out their own operations, building different pieces of the program.
Space X entered the picture as an independent contractor creating and funding their own programs, and simply asking NASA, "What are your needs?" Space X controls their own designs, they own the patents, they own their own license, and they own the program and lease it to NASA. This is partially because government has finally allowed more openness and private investment in the space industry. Other industries are slowly adapting the same model. It's the difference between the government hiring you and five other contractors like you to make a piece of a building they design and own, and them simply leasing a building that you designed and own and implementing some easy changes to accommodate them. You can also lease some of that building to other private organizations too. Which do you think is more efficient?
It is not true that no one else has tried reusability. Rocket lab has been working on that as well, for instance.
I think an episode on Werner Von Braun and his concepts would be an interesting idea.
Hard to expect from someone hating and severely misunderstanding von Braun. I mean this guy didn’t even know that it was public knowledge that von Braun was in charge of Germany’s rocket program in WW2 and you want this guy to "teach" you about him?
2:15 - lmfao. Gotta give props to the LEGO Saturn V model.
The development of microelectronics is essential. Microprocessors were in their early stages of development when the Shuttle was designed, let alone earlier missiles.
So it was with Apollo -- integrated circuits were new at that time... but they were still using ferrite core memory (something like a whopping 4K)
"No one else has even tried" there's several companies that have tried, many unsuccessfully and even the chinese government has gotten into that game as well, likely from spaceXs own data
Jeffs dildo booster has landed back a couple of times why does it not count?
Check out the DC-X. It is the first rocket to land vertically on earth.
Literally nasa made on successfully in the 90s. These musk dick riders are willfully ignorant
Blue Origin landed their New Shepard rocket BEFORE spacex did.
@@kevinpetow4070 Their rockets were all low earth orbit and jacket capability
They Catched the Booster with Mechazilla today!!!!
Thanks for this. I learn more every time even though I've been following SpaceX for a while.
But I was disappointed you didn't say more about the "Hover-slam" landing. The problem with F9 is that the minimum thrust from even a single engine is MORE than the F9 weighs when it lands. This means that even at minimum thrust, if it's not on the ground when its downward velocity gets to zero, it's going to start accelerating up! It can't hover, mainly because the Merlin engine can't be throttled back to less than the F9's weight. So the timing on the landing has to be pretty perfect.
YES! Please do a video about this rocket, engines, stages, staging, pad, intent, size, load capacity..etc..
Thanks for another great episode!
Stay Space!
- NOM
I first heard about the ferry rocket a think in a Disney documentary that was made during the space race
there has always been rocket engineers who wanted to do reusable rockets, but the companies they worked for didn't want to know because they thought the gravy train would end. Elon comes along with the idea that rockets should be reusable and those engineers flock to him, and low and behold we have reusable first stages and soon completely reusable rockets. i would have loved to hear those exit interviews where they were told they would fail and lose their jobs, only to see them succeed.
bit different with Elon, he gets the talents because he isn't just selling a job, but a vision for the future. Talents will always flock to the leaders that will sell a vision.
Who’s here after the super heavy booster catch??
Lolz, Musk went on to use his "parlour trick" to dwarf all other launch providers combined in the orbital launch arena. That's some freakin trick!
But I read in the news that we must all hate Elon because he said things.
The Shuttle was designed to take payload up to orbit, 7 passengers, and bring down satellites for refurbishment and updates. The problem is, the "bring down satellites" thing never materialized. I think they did it once or twice for proof of concept purposes. What ended up happening was technology advanced so rapidly it was more practical just to build and launch newer, more exponentially advanced satellites. That said, the repair to the Hubble Telescope could have only been done by the Shuttle.
The Shuttle ferried the Hubble to its orbit to begin with. That, along with carrying the beginnings of the ISS justified that big cargo bay.
Hubble service missions could had very well being handled with much, much safer shuttle. If some 3 core heavy Delta (an semi truck) delivers Hubble. Then, 2 years later, you need maintenance, you won't get same semi truck and crew who installed the thing, but one or two smaller truckloads of specialists and spare parts. Hubble was almost exactly same as Lockheed/NRO KH-11 Crystal/Kennen spy satellites, just looking up, instead of down. Just 15 years later when KH-11 first flew. None of the KH-11s were launched on Shuttle.
NRO KH-11 had lifetime of 5+ years without maintenance. After that just replace the old one with new satellite with better ground resolution and higher bandwith to earth. As an example Obama administration looked in real time TV the attack on Osama bin Ladends killing in his hideout in Pakistan.
@11:29 The biggest breakthough which allows Falcon 9 boosters to land with it's engines is MEMs Gyroscopes, the kind which orients your phone, and can also control the booster accurately enough to land which prior rocket developers simply didn't have. Early gyros and computers were never sophisticated enough to do this.
Really? The DC-X flew and landed successfully a handful of times starting in 1993 with gryos and computers of the time. SpaceX didn't do it first, just better and cheaper and faster at ths point. but the DC-X made like 5 flights before a mishap. the flights were similar to the SN-15 scope.
The purpose of space exploration is the "go" part ... when it's time for the humans to come back home alive, we prefer dunking them safely in the ocean. Imagine being a crew that has been away from Earth for a year or more, and all they have to do to get back to their families is to survive a risky vertical landing on a barge.
Today’s breakthrough is private enterprise innovation, efficiency, spirit vs government/Nasa uncaring sloth, irresponsible waste & incompetence. Both Falcon 9 & Starship were possible as Saturn V follow-ons with then technology. Instead NASA wasted 50 years & $500+ billion on dead-end boondoggles: STS, ISS, Constellation & SLS.
@@Deploracle russians landind safely.
lol, DC-X did it in 1993.
WRONG!!! The The McDonnell Douglas DC-X was the first rocket to do a vertical take off and landing back in the 90s. It is the first orbital class rocket to do a vertical take off and landing though, and Blue Origin is apparently trying, it's hard to tell though. Also the Venture Star also tried, but was cancelled because they couldn't get the carbon fibre tanks ready in time even though the aluminium tanks they had prepare in this case actually made the ship lighter because the centre of mass worked out better and it was only a matter of time until the carbon fibre tanks were sorted because carbon fibre would be better for the final version as this was just a sub scale test article.
That's a good point about the DC-X. In 1990, I was working for a different division of McDonnell Douglas, when the DC-X flew test flights for NASA. That was very inpressive. Our division launched air vehicles with solid rocket boosters, but didn't want them to come back.
I was at Boeing, when they merged with McDonnell Douglas. I saw both McDonnell Douglas's President and Boeing's CEO in a tent in at Boeing's Huntsville, Al location.
From 1996 to 2001, I worked on a couple of payloads that flew on the Space Shuttle Atlantis to the International Space Station, the US Lab and the Airlock for Boeing at NASA's Marshal Space Flight Center.
Ten years prior, in 1989, I had watched the Space Shuttle Discovery launch on the third flight, after the return to flight, following the Challenger explosion, from just outside the Kennedy Space Center. Awesome doesn't describe what we saw and felt that day. Our photos don't do it justice. A month later I saw Atlantis fly out over the ocean from about 70 miles away south of KSC.
I do not understand why Boeing & NASA didn't pickup some of the DC-X technology for the SLS after Boeing Aquired North American Rockwell, the Shuttles, main contractor and also McDonnell Douglas.
PS. In 1987, I also worked on the propulsion system for smaller flight vehicles for Morton Thiokol, after the Challenger Accident in 1986.
I remember seeing pictures of Wernher von Braun's giant three-stage rocket (fueled with alcohol and LOX, if I recall) during the 1950s. He also had a plan for a Mars mission that involved a fleet of spacecraft.
Absolutely great job. Would be slightly better if you had also discussed or noted the timeline and more detailed process SpaceX uses for preparing a booster 9 in-between successive launches. Granted, details on the process may be classified, but certainly the schedule and average delay inbetween successive booster launches is public. Again, bravo for a terrific and well done video!
On my projects at Boeing in the 1980's I had several technicians that worked on the x20 dyna-soar in the late 1950's and early 1960's
Wasn't the shuttle's purpose to employ 20k people?
its mainly that spacex is a private company, it relies on success to live, nasa has a huge budget funded by the government which means they dont need that much innovation to stay afloat
While it is true Falcon 9 has the fastest turn time yet, there is still quite a bit of refurbishment. Due to the fuel on F9, those engines and rockets are checked pretty thoroughly between flights.
I know this sounds like splitting hairs but if Starship can truly meet its design goals, space launches will become a daily occurrence.
for that some very important part missing: need for daily launches. we do not have 100 tonnes stuff waiting in line to be launched. (heck, already the stuff you launch is the bigger cost, a big sat launches for somewhere between 100-200 million (and not for the 62 million for the booster), while it could easily cost over a billion for the sat itself.)
@@thorin1045 true. However, my point is that F9 still undergoes some refurbishment between launches. When or if SpaceX gets the Raptor engine perfected and reliable then they will truly have a reusable rocket.
When this happens, the cost of launches could drop significantly. We will definitely have to take a look at launch costs versus disposable rockets.
Here's another question. Should SpaceX perfect the Raptor engine, can they scale it? Why you may ask. While the Raptor has a fantastic thrust to weight ratio, the BE4 does generate more thrust. What size Raptor would be required to match this?
What's the point of my question? Competition in the market place. This is what drives innovation and reduces the cost of launch services.
From what I understand, SpaceX is driving the launch market. They are undercutting almost all competitors on launch cost and making a very good margin per launch. That is how the free market works.
Blue needs to get their collective poop in a group and catch up.
IMO, the difference between SpaceX and BO is at the top of each organization. Musk is an engineer, Bezos is a businessman. Musk has an understanding of what's involved with launching rockets and Bezos doesn't. Musk can get in with the engineers and help find solutions. Bezos is definitely the better businessman but doesn't understand what's involved and therefore can't get in with the engineers and help find solutions.
IMO.
@@thorin1045the lack of stuff to send up there is due to the fact that space has been very inaccessible until now, mainly because of cost and payload capacity or both. SpaceX in particular is changing both of those factors as we speak.
When the capability is available at an affordable price tag the industry will follow. The amount of stuff we send to space now was unprecedented just a few years ago. The increase is precisely because cost has gone down significantly.
Also, SpaceX is capable of creating its own reasons to fly frequently, like they do currently with Starlink. In the process they showcase how good and reliable their rockets are.
What works for them is that they create a need for their rockets to exist, then create those rockets to fulfill that need. So far it has worked perfectly.
Also, there are lots of plan from lots of startups that aim for space economy. Something that would not have made sense a few years ago. Space tourism is a thing and it doesn't show signs of slowing down yet, which is a good sign.
@@GB-zi6qr not sure if that ever arrives, the raptor eats itself and fail to start regularly in the few second tests. sadly the rocket engines are not something that can work long time, too much pressure, too much heat, too much thing that needs to work at the edge of its capability.
Not sure where the bo rant come, but it is true, they need to step up. the idea of the be4 engine is much better than the raptors, make them work under the specifications, so much less stress on everything, that may be the key for long lifetime for rocket engines.
@@thorin1045I mean they’re still building prototypes. Spacex’s strategy is to blow shit up until they figure it out
Innovation, no problem is unsolvable!! There is a lot of talent!!
I think one other reason spacex does this while others don't is because they have the balls to attempt things everyone else thinks is mental
It's the Boss's willingness to pay for it. Most engineers want to try to push the edge and get crazy, but they can only do it if the management is willing to pay for it. Musk was young and new to the industry, while the older companies were much more risk-averse, unlike the days post-WWII when those same companies were pushing limits themselves.
@@RCAvhstape seems reasonable
They have the investors money to burn. Until they go bankrupt… 😂
@@realnapster1522 except they have a better landing record than most launch records. have made launching cheaper than any other provider and are getting billions in government contracts. I think you have a higher chance of bankruptcy than spacex mate
@@RCAvhstapeYou make it sounds like you can throw money at any problem at het results, i.e., the only reason x hasn't been solved is bcs nobody threw money at it. Which is obviously not the case.
wait till this guy hears about how they were able to catch a even bigger booster
The proposed video on the ferry rocket / reusable rocket would excellent. Please go ahead with that !
Thank you! This is fantastic information. Can you do or have you done a video on the economic impact of each of these changes? How the cost per kilogram to LEO has been altered thru these efforts.
Kilometer short form is km both the prefix kilo and the main word meter are small “K”= Kelvin and “M”= Mega
It always bothered me that "kilo" was an exception to the capitalization being uppercase factors of 10 or more. (...nobody seems to use 'deka' much either...)
My figuring (a long time ago, 90s I think) was that a genuinely reusable 'shuttle' replacement would ditch the wings & look like an oldschool rocket.
It'd have three of the shuttle's solid boosters recovered in the ocean.
The upper stage would have an inflatable heatshield around its engine.
The front end/emergency escape capsule would be a geodesic sphere with an aerospike/escape rocket - that aerospike would be the only thing disposable on it.
It'd re-enter rocket engine first, with the inflatable re-entry shield around it and an exhaust plume protecting it.
Parafoils would guide the upperstage/capsule to a 'landing pond' that would be 2 meters deep, football field sized, at its spaceports.
Then airbags would inflate, splashdown, and the ship would be towed to 'dock' at an airbridge off the side of the shallow landing pond.
Why a thumbnail showing a starship blueprint when the entire video only contains a brief mention of starship at the very end?
I'm watching this as I'm waiting for Starship Flight 5 to launch in a couple of hours. Great content!
I wouldn't call myself a fan of Elon Musk at all, but the perfection of upright landing a rocket as well as quick turnaround & reuse of Falcon 9's is hardly a "parlor trick." Engines are complicated, pricey, use a lot of fairly exotic alloys & take a while to build. So their reliable reuse is a huge win for the launch system.
Delta clipper did all the proving ... All Elon did was come along years later with better tech that had developed over the years to make what had already been done in parts all into one system. Not nothing but he didn't think that far out of the box.
I would also expect he has nothing to do with any of it is just a source of funds and the Ceo
lmao, all these haters in the comments that have no idea what they're talking about
18:25 I know the game ( Spaceflight Simulator ) and the man who create this F9 mod, he is Skyride Space on youtube !
and if space x did have to refurbish starship its simple design will be much faster to do so
Although since 2015 Jeff Who's Blue Origin has been one failure after another in 2015, before SpaceX, he did in fact manage to recover his New Shepard rocket using rockets to brake the fall on landing. And yes, New Shepard is not an orbital rocket - it justs flies up to the Karman line and falls back to earth. But still...
I believe that thay can and will make starship fully reusable given time and allowing the FFA gives them the freedom to operate more than 5 times a year.
It's not the FAA holding them back, that's what they asked for which makes sense since it's R&D site.
@@TheEvilmooseofdoom Yeah, I don't imagine Boca Chica ever becoming an actual spaceport. The biggest question is will there be a market to fill that huge capacity.
@TheEvilmooseofdoom 5 flights a year isnt enough. not for SpaceX test flights.. unless ther RUD stage 0
@@robertmiller9735 bro what? a market? are you high?
Thanks for that very well produced and informative breakdown of how SpaceX has practically reinvented the orbital space business. I realize SpaceX has revisited other companies’ and nations’ plans, but regardless, their innovation has reignited (yeah, sorry for the obvious pun 🙄) the space race 👌
I think it's important to understand that we shouldn't accept a private company occupying this role.
The only reason we are in this situation is because we as a nation have decided to stop generating revenues that fund the sciences since Reagan.
For those who say private industry is necessary:
A: The Soviet Union did this stuff first.
B: The Soviet Union had no private industry and had a larger GDP than the US.
@@gg-gamers The USSR's GDP and GNP were always lower than the US'. They had a brief period from 65 where the GNP growth rate was higher than the US' but that's it. Since 75 we've also had a higher growth rate every single year. The reason the USSR even collapsed is due to their dysfunctional economy.
Also, yes they got into orbit before us but we've been ahead of them since the moon landing. There was a brief period after we retired the shuttle program and had to rely on Russia for satellite launches but the emergence of SpaceX has even taken that away
This magical idea of government being more efficient than private industry doesn't reconcile with reality. Just look at the last 20 years of Venezuela as another example.
Have you or has anybody else done a video on how SpaceX gets the boosters ready to launch again?
They caught a booster!!!
Great video and content as usual ... Yes...I certainly believe that Space X will for sure make StarShip the most important rocket so far... until whoever can invent "warp speed"...
I think it is worth mentioning the Buran shuttle, the USSR's counterpart to the US space shuttle, did have plans to be reusable as well. The Energia was not initially designed to be reusable but there were plans for the boosters to have deployable gliding wings to have them carried back to an airstrip in the USSR for later refurbishment and reuse.
Awesome video but would love to see some detail on refurbishment procedures, man hours required, cost estimates, etc. if you're going to make a true comparison to the Space Shuttle system.
Warner, Von Braun was not a Nazi by choice. All he wanted to do was to make rockets. He said just after the first successfulV2 rocket launch “ the rocket performed perfectly It just fell on the wrong planet.”
Starship has two roles. Fully reusable are a cargo carrier into LEO. We see this being tested now and it will ultimately work. However, for deep space missions (Moon and beyond) Starship should be used like Falcon 9. A reusable first stage, but a disposable second stage to LEO. Carrying a third stage and payload for missions beyond LEO. That would mean the third stage and payload would be around 400 tonnes. A true deep space craft able to handle missions to the Moon, Mars and the asteroids.
There would be no issues with difficult multiple refuellings in LEO.
It would mean Starship would be able to replace SLS within 2 or 3 years. It would also mean Starship would not need to man rated. Crew would go up in Crew Dragon and transfer to the Deep Space craft.
You're making an assumption: that orbital refueling will perpetually remain difficult. SpaceX does tend to keep iterating on things until they make it work. I would not bet against them, we've already seen them turn something which everyone said was impossible into a reliable, almost daily routine after all.
Very cool and well explained. You went above and beyond for the research on this one. Great video
Totally agree.
This is a very interesting video! I never knew that Werner Von Braun had designed a reusable rocket. The history of the Falcon 9 success speaks for itself, the best booster available today and the only one reusable in the world. F9 flight costs significantly less than any other disposable rocket out and Starship will raise the bar of success much higher.
“For all man kind” on Apple TV is an alternative version of the space program that has a lot of actual facts in it. It is really good and goes over the time. When Werner von Braun was the head of NASA.
The STS has reusable boosters. SpaceX cost savings are nowhere near the fantasies of the authoritarian Musk. Starship is just big and doesn't work yet.
Von Braun wrote a series of articles for Colliers magazine in the 50s where he laid out his ideas for space exploration, with illustrations included. That's where all the space ferry stuff mentioned in this video comes from. Von Braun's early ideas had multiple flights to LEO to build a large moonship which would fly to, land on, and return from the lunar surface with a crew of about 30 guys, and IIRC it would return to LEO to be refueled and reused. All of this meant a huge amount of up mass, lots of launches, and a large infrastructure, the kind of thing commonly dreamt about in the 50s and 60s. Apollo-Saturn was big but it was kind of a compromise compared to the earlier ideas.
@@RCAvhstape Von Braun outlined fantasies. Reality is not a compromise for fantasy and to denigrate Apollo in this fashion is so messed up. It's crazy how Elon Musk's lies & promises have created this bizarre "Where's MY spaceship?!" brattiness.
@@David-wc5zlOh please, I just laid out the facts about von Braun's magazine articles. All the rest of that shit you're laying on me is your own projection. Go troll someone else dickbag.
The things our species is doing in regards to analysing the universe and innovating off-world technology, would surely bring admiration and hope to some of those lost alien civilizations that may be out there right now, alone and wondering.
I would love to see a video about Werner's ferry rocket.
With reusable boosters we should revive the shuttle type return vehicle. It proved very useful with it's bay door opening. This type seems more modern than a capsule coming down. Maybe do a 3D print of most of it.
A 3D printed rocket 😂
But no, the Shuttle was a terrible design. Way too expensive
The Falcon 9 is already a legend and among the greatest rockets ever made. The Big Fat Rocket or Starship was too much hyped but it's the first which got over 5000 tons. Rockets will change once we get far beyond 5000 tons because more mass means less surface, means less air resistance, means more payload ... The real genius move was changing a sick launch market. So again nothing which relates to rocket but had a deep impact.
Maybe Elon should move Starbase a few miles down the Gulf of Mexico coast. I have a hunch Mexico would welcome the business with open arms and fewer regulations.
on the one hand, they were designed to be weapons delivery systems first, therefore they didn't need to be designed for reusability; on the other hand, the more expensive they are, the more they are preferred by industry because they can charge more for them to the governments that want them
Agree on the military mindset. There’s a probably apocryphal story about the ‘gun’ style A-bomb developed for the Manhattan Project. They asked a naval gun expert to design the ‘cannon’ inside the bomb. The problem was that the design for the bomb was too heavy to carry. They went to the designer for rework, when he was made aware of what he was really designing he was able to get the weight down as the gun only needed to fire once.
Yes, I would like to see a program about the farry rocket. It's a great concept.
3:33 Uhh, no. We knew. Tom Lehrer even wrote a song all about it. A damn good song, I might add.
And everyone knew. People were generally not comfortable with it, but held their nose and went to the moon.
Thank you!
Thank you for existing! ❤
The big Starship failure earlier this year inspired me to get back into playing Kerbal Space Program. I finally cracked reusability, which gave me a great sense of achievement (and made a huge difference to my progress in the game).
What failure?
It wasn't a failure from a mission perspective. SpaceX's goal was to clear the launch pad, it did. Whatever happened afterwards is extra.
The way they develop is different from other rockets. They accept losing their rockets while in development as they're more concerned about quickly learning and iterating from launches.
yes please! A ferry rocket episode would be awesome!
Christ that booster reentry using the engine as the heat shield is so so fucking gangster
Think about a rocket engine nozzle. It has to take extreme heat on the way up, with the higher the efficiency of the engine the higher the heat. Falcon 9 (and Starship) opted for the considerable extra expense of niobium alloys to get that fuel efficiency (as reusability will spread the purchase expense over lots of launches). Then thay saw that having such heat resistant nozzles means you can make them part of your heat shield arrangement.
The space shuttle should have never flown though...NASA engineers even admit that in retrospect. Completely unsafe accident waiting to happen
Well researched video. Thanks for taking the time to go through the history.
haha i like how you used the lego saturn V for all your visuals
Great episode, I subscribed as I liked your to the point presentation full of actually interesting information instead of regurgitating old well known info like many other sites.
16:29 i love seeing a dataplate on a rocket. 🤣
Excellent Bro. As a Rocket Nerd, that was a great introduction for newbies: If we can get them to sit still long enough from whinging about the costs.
I remember watching their first successful boat landing live on TV. I was in an after school program but the teacher in charge was busy with meetings and stuff so we would wait in the engineering teacher’s classroom and he put it up on the projector for us to watch.
Excellent video! It's clear to me that Starship development is following the same pathway, and will achieve many, most or maybe all of it's promised capabilities.
Oh man! I thought you had already watched starship 5 get caught. Oh well. This is well done. Now maybe you can make an addendum with that victory catch.
Really energy intensive to land the whole rocket and all the full needed to leave.
Our grandfathers figured it out right with the lunar module.
At 12:11 you are sadly wrong; The yelly fish pic you are showing is from right before stage sep
I love UA-cam, but honestly, The Space Race is my favourite of them all! The is for your awesome content ❤️❤️❤️❤️
Lot of untruths in this video... such as no one had even tried... NASA was involved with the DCX Delta Clipper self landing rocket in the 1990s. I'M SURPRISED YOU OMITTED THIS!
Incorrect. Wernher von Braun was known to be a Nazi in his lifetime, and Tom Lehrer even made a song about it in 1965.
So who cares.
Only a WOKE PUNK would say that.
One approach just might be to explore those 'crazy' ideas coming from the engineers and see whether you can make them work, instead of 'but we've always done it this way!'
So the Falcon 9 is NOT a "reusable" rocket either! So when is someone gonna design, build, launch, and land? Like the DC-X?! 😱😁👍👍🇺🇲
The falcon 9 is partially reusable while the starship will be truly fully reuseable.
@@codymalone2712 Yep, but we want the "holy grail" rocket, ... one stage to orbit and return like the SKYLON! 😱😁😝🤪🤣👍👍🇺🇲
Doesn't seem plausible at this point
@@TinyHouseHomesteadphysics just wont allow not on earth.
@@TinyHouseHomestead Yes, only the booster is reusable on F9.
With respect to SpaceX, DARPA was able to accomplish the act of rockets landing back vertically in the early 90’s. Elon’s talented teams perfected an existing technology, not invented a new one.
Landing an Airliner is "more of a parlor trick than an innovation".
That kind of thinking save weight on wheels and carefully planned runways. Just issue everyone parachutes and I'm sure they'll pay more attention to the Stewardess information briefings.
"Place your mask over your face like this. Pull the cord when the dial says 5000 feet. Oh yeah, please try to avoid the debris from your falling aircraft.
And those visiting Florida, please avoid the lakes -- they're infested by gators.
Any Questions?"
Did you sign your Liability Waiver or buy Passenger Death & Dismemberment Insurance?
Welcome to the "Friendly Skies" (its the ground that's unfriended)
exactly
Sounds like sour grapes to me. Everything SpaceX has done, a host of other organizations could have done, if they'd had the will. I'm not very sympathetic. But we need competitors for SpaceX on its own level.
You’re forgetting boosters don’t have people on them
R7/Sojus had many revisions over the decades of operation, although I don't know enough to compare to F9 revisions.
Can you prove that von B. was ever a party member? If he had stood up to the SS he would have conveniently disappeared. Many people in Germany were in the same boat, including one of my former flying students.
Do yourself and us a favor; don’t throw the German National Socialist Party thing around so carelessly, thanks.
Von Braun was a party member for one reason and one reason only.
Not joining would have meant no funding.
He was always more interested in rockets as modes of travel than politics.
After the first V2 hit England, he said that "the rocket worked perfectly, it just landed on the wrong planet".
He was OK with it, that more than 20.000 jews died in the facilities where he was in charge. Read some history books.
Another great video. Thanks.
Yes they did! If they continue like this, they may soon be able to do what NASA was doing....60 years ago...
Why are you guys not talking about the indian moon landing..??
Plenty of people talked about that and I'm pretty sure this channel has one as well.
Bruh
Elon musk didn't launch the mission 😂
@@Cmdr_DarkNite Lol, "I'm sure", It takes 20 seconds to look thru the uploads and realise they've not uploaded nothing about, thanks for letting everyone know you're lazy
@@scrotumjoe5030 Are you implying this channel are SpaceX fanboys lmao
3:30 I've heard people condemn him, and other say that he was a "reluctant Nazi" and was only "in" the party because he didn't want to be executed.
Great video😊
I live near Kennedy space center, the jellyfish cloud the first time i saw it, i thought it was an asteroid heading for earth😮
I was skeptical of private industry taking over the space program. I thought "surely they can't do better than NASA."
I was wrong ... this has been amazing to watch.
it's simply you hire young bright engineers and give them the resources to accomplish the goal !!!
One year after this video is released and the number of recovered and landing boosters has doubled to 400!
That’s a robust. advanced and reliable system with boosters first boasting 5 uses, then 10, now 20!
Yeah, but Space Race you have the Canadarm! Thats the greatest thing ever!
One key fact about the shuttle: 136 missions with 2 failures, yet the shuttle itself never failed. In both cases, it was the launch system-first the SRB, then the External Fuel Tank-that caused the damage or destruction
Are the rockets actually reusable? What has to be replaced before launch?
NO. You're wrong. Its the ability to manage a cluster of engines as well as surface controls that allows reusability Landing is more complex than a lunar mission and could never be created for the V - the V it already existed. PLUS the Saturn engines are one use only.
Its proven to be cost effective starlink has more than 1billion in recurring revenue. . Wrong on so many points.
I love how he uses a lego model for the picture of the Saturn V