@@anisdjerrab it is kind of wild how they managed to exceed seemingly unrealistic goals. I never doubted they would have a functioning booster, but I don't think many people expected 100% this early :P.
@@anisdjerrab indeed. I still sort of don't understand it given how they seemed to have trouble even static firing all 33 full duration. Maybe they had stricter parameters and learned a lot though :).
It's beyond wild that this guy who I have been watching for almost a decade has gone from wearing a silly flight suit to getting fitted for a real space suit. No one on youtube deserves it more than you!
@@Laminar-Flow what a rude comment. Tim has spent years learning about rocket science, from the perspective of an average Joe. He may not be a degreed engineer, but that in no way lessens his ability to teach the masses about aerospace. I say this as an engineer myself.
N1 was a brutal tragedy. They had three improved rockets assembled, when management changed and he ordered all of them destroyed. Hopefully, they managed to save some engines, and they fly to this day on Zenit
Wrong, the Zenith used RD-171 engines, which were developed from the more recent RD-170( it's what the boosters of Energhia used in the 1980's) , not the old NK-15 like you suggested.(also Zenith don't fly today, was flying like 20 years ago! )
Thirteen Saturn V Launches with 65 F1s used and they never failed. Not a single one. Things were done so quickly to get to the moon that documentation took a back seat. Yes, we would have to start from scratch to build F1s today. The Apollo program was our "Great Pyramids".
It truly is! I still can't help but to find it funny that people woo over a company chasing to be more effective than a 60 year old rocket, when computers were room sized
@AntiangelRaphael "Saturn was so impressive that we LOST ability to make ones today." That's not how things work. We didn't lose the ability to build them due to technological changes. We lost the ability to build them because the factories that built them were shut down and there is no reason to spend the incredible amounts of money to restart that production. It's like saying we lost the ability to make old carburetor engines because technology changed. No, we just won't make them again because there isn't any point. The Saturn V was extremely expensive and wouldn't pass any safety standards required today.
Your thoughts on the Soviet program were extremely enlightening. Like many Americans, I thought the N1 was conceptually flawed, but now I agree with you that it is a pity the N1 rocket wasn’t allowed to fully mature.
the Soviet engine designers really got it right. Everythingnin the world ia iterative. Only people deluded by MBAs thinks there is such a thing as a turnkey solution. The world is always iterative.
@@michaelwilliams3104 They're still commies, I don't think who lands on the moon first would change that much. They made it to space first, and sent the first man up.
@@kokokaification huh? For what purpose? Appreciating great engineering transcends petty tribal nationalism. Unless some anti-science weirdos think the entire space program is propaganda 😁
At this time SpaceX has eight Falcon 9 boosters which have launched more than ten times. The two oldest boosters have been expended after 11 and 14 flights. Two have reached the current limit of 15 launches and are awaiting to be certified to twenty. Two others were launched for the 14th time in May 2023 while the last two launched for the 11th time in May 2023.
It really looks like 100 plus launches is possible in the near future. They should have paid as much as it took to keep the Merlin engine inventer and engineer. (I'm not sure what his official title was)
@@Bryan-Hensley Don't worry, Elon has a talent for finding the best people and also for getting them to work for him. And not just that, but once they are onboard, the company culture highly encourages the sharing of knowledge, so nobody is irreplaceable for long (that includes Elon himself, although it takes a lot longer).
@Bryan Hensley 100 launches that all include an expendable second stage. I am amazed that no one talks about what it takes to produce that number of second stage engines.
The one thing not mentioned in the video. There has been some development in the past 55 years in fields of metallurgy, and production technology. This imho with computers makes for a vast difference in the probability of success of Starship. Since I had just the one thing to add, you obviously made a great piece comparing 2 of the craziest rockets ever made. Thanks Tim
@@jamesjellis But also the less effect that individual failure will have. Arguably they should be more reliable as there is more testing done to find & eliminate design/manufacturing flaws as well. Ultimately is it better to have 4 engines where a single failure loses 25% of your available thrust, or one with 33 where a failure only loses 3%? Or to put it another way, 33 where you would need to lose 8 engines to almost lose the same thrust?
@James Ellis The loss of a few engines doesn't affect the capability of the craft as much. The engines are super lightweight as it is and it seems worth it to mount a lot of them. I'm sure SpaceX will radically improve the reliability as the engines mature over the years
It works for Falcon 9, sure it'll scale up. I consider the first test a huge success, and as Tim pointed out, the one failure was the Flight termination system. Starship is built like a good old brick wall
I just realized: If all goes well, Tim will literally become an everyday astronaut - he's going to actually fly in space, an everyday person actually flying in space. It's incredible!
A true testament to the Engineering prowess and sheer skill of SpaceX engineers and technicians. They are almost at TWO HUNDRED FREAKING first stage return landings.
And the fact that people already ignored and forget how many failure falcon 9 have in it's development phase really prove early failure is much better than failure on the finished product. I'd rather fly on a rocket that have blown up in it's early phase of development than a rocket they spend billions hoping it doesn't blow up because they can't afford failure
It's worth remembering that one of the few landing failures in recent years was caused by one of the two Merlin engine failures on the upward leg of the flight (the primary payloads being successfully delivered to orbit in each case).
Wow, kinda depressing SpaceX is still using mostly the same engine design from the 1960's, can you imagine just how disappointed a space enthusiast would have been if we told then where we were today.
So they claim. Given events surrounding Tesla's FSD, its reliability and that of various Tesla physical builds I'm inclined to be dubious about those claims.
Don't forget the vibration environments. Rocket motors make a lot of acoustic and structural vibration. Even today this is rather difficult to predict (probably the main reason SX flew was to capture these real environments to anchor their finite element models), but it was impossible to do back in the 1950's. Without understanding the physical vibration environment it is very hard to know if your components will not just shake apart.
That's what I always understood was the main issue with all those engines on the first stage of the N1. But that said, it is very well possible this would have been solved if more time had been available.
@@hoebare the fact that elon dont use a flame trentch create standing waves and enigen ""stuffing"" gases cant go no where.. and the new water system is a joke som retardo tell us that the rocket only press what is 17bars at water plate .. but no it preses 100 upon 100 of bars... simpel math -- and newton 2 law if the rocket weight is 500ton.. pressiur is 600ton or the rocket will not lift off ..
Yes, but without analytics you determine things empirically - in this case by either taking lots of time for a lot of rocket engines shake themselves apart on the test stand or taking lots of money for lots of "testing by flying". The Soviets had neither the time nor the money.
@@Danuxsy I don't think you know what the N1 was. It flew 4 times, with each ending in failure before making it to space. The second launch failure was the largest non-nuclear explosion, if I remember correctly. Starship has already gone to space twice now, though only once when you commented. They were suborbital test flights as well, so not even planned to get fully into orbit, which the N1 did plan on while still not going as far.
I enjoy a bunch of different channels, but this is one of the few I actually look forward to. Always excellent information presented in a fun and engaging manner. Keep ‘em coming, Tim!
IFT-3 was just launched today. In less than a year starship has gone from failing to reach stage separation and suffering multiple engine failures on accent to being fully capable of orbit with no launch anomalies to speak of. Granted there are still plenty of areas to improve in but If the launch today proved anything it’s that SpaceX and Starship have what it takes! Rest in pieces Booster 10 and Ship 28🎉
I feel like something that goes underappreciated with the whole philosophy of "test it early" is that it avoids you solving problems that don't actually exist. I've never met a good engineer who was an optimist, and a room full of us can convince each other that it just won't work without [X]. Would be a neat question to ask in your Elon interviews what things they've found over the years that fall in this category.
This. When you must not fail you plan in so much safety margin and overengineering and redundancies that the whole performance and price tag suffers. Not to mention that you can’t plan for unknown unknowns.
I’m not sure how true this is, you can’t just hope that you’ll find all the failures in your testing. Just because it doesn’t fail in the early testing doesn’t mean that it isn’t a potential issue.
@@stclairjm Exactly. The Soviets were getting desperate and so had to launch and pray it worked. SpaceX its their own money, no outside pressure. So hey lets launch and enjoy the show.
Lots of great points. You mentioned lots of advantages of many small engines, but there's one that I don't think you included (unless you did and I missed it). Having small engines allowed commonality between lower and upper stages. If you have bigger engines, they will be too big for your stage, so you'll probably need to have dedicated engines for each stage, requiring additional development and testing.
Indeed, which is also true of Falcon 9 and Electron... one-to-nine seems to be a convenient ratio between a single engine with a vacuum nozzle up top, and fitting in many of the same engine with a sea-level nozzle on the booster.
commonality as an argument is stupid, sea level engine and zero atmosphere engine require very different ratio, it why space program INTENTIONALLY design different engines. so this is more of a stopgap argument than it actually being a good idea. even the raptor has 2 design so it doesn't SUCK in orbit. this is not that important during testing, but if you want to get to mars, your space performance will have a major impact... as high as 30% difference in what you can carry to mars.
@@lagrangewei what you say is somewhat true but you are not at all taking into account the complexity, cost, and management challenges of maintaining multiple engines.
@@lagrangewei and yet SpaceX and Rockets Lab have both been doing it very successfully for some time now... it might be suboptimal physics, but using the same engine for both stages is a huge benefit cost-wise.
@@lagrangewei The difference is mainly in the nozzle, a rather straightforward item, and recently Space X has even begun occasionally using a mid-size nozzle on the MVAC. Since both the 1D and MVAC are designed to be multiply re-ignitable in vacuum or near-vacuum, there probably is little else that is different.
Whatever achievements still to come, seeing the two boosters land together for the first time was a thing I'll remember for the rest of my life! 😲 The red & white Tintin Space Rocket finally becoming reality, I was so happy, excited and amazed - a real thing of beauty. 😛
Totally, agree! seeing what looked like a synchronized dance when the two rockets landed together was totally stunning to me and left me with the impression of having witnessed one of the greatest technical triumphs of human history. I certainly will never forget that moment as long as I live.
totally - i put that right up with landing on the moon. A breathtaking bit of history that will be known and rewatch for as long as humanity is still around
Another thing worth mentioning was that the Soviet's N1 program was short on both time and funding, things that SpaceX, to the contrary, has had plenty of.
Not really. It's haemorrhaging tens of billions per year. The commercial side is a flop. The entire commercial industry is worth roughly a few billion per year split between 100 different companies. Starlink was meant to be their new plan for a source of revenue, but without Starship to launch them in bulk, the company is spiralling towards bankruptcy. Clearly starship isn't anywhere near the point where it's going to be able to deploy satellites yet. Unless they get a hold of some serious funding soon, the end is near.
English-speaking people often get confused between "designed" and "planned". Starship is *planned* to be reusable but not *designed* to be reusable. The design is flawed and has to be fixed first.
N1 never succeeded but it actually proved a lot of concepts to be viable. It was also insanely cool and that engine family could've powered the soviets space rockets for decades. Its really cool to see Starship and hope it succeeds. Really SpaceX is only doing something because other players became too complacent
SpaceX is doing this to flatter Musk's ego and nothing more. It's not a realistic business proposition it is a vanity project and doomed to failure because Musk is neither the engineer he thinks he is nor going to stay rich for too much longer. China will emasculate Tesla to steal its market share and twitter will continue to bleed money forever.
The Starship booster has a massive requirement not levied on N1, Saturn V, or SLS: using the same engines to return to earth while maintaining a high degree and range of thrust control. It is my understanding that engines must be run at certain levels of energy to avoid combustion issues, thus larger engines cannot be throttled back to a low enough thrust level to allow the gentle hover into the chopsticks (or landing legs). Smaller engines must maintain certain levels of thrust in order to run reliably, but since there are many of them you can shut down most of them and run only the ones you need to produce a lower amount of thrust, which can be then run within their optimal combustion parameters. You could use a few big engines for launch and stuff smaller engines in around them for landing, but then you’re hauling around dead weight in both directions, you now have the complication of multiple types of engines with different types of plumbing and controls …and you still have several engines to coordinate. Having more smaller nearly identical engines that can that can be scaled in both number and thrust to the power requirements on over the entire range of the booster’s flight probably is the most sensible strategy. Not to mention the economic benefit.
Historically we've only had visibility to the finished product; Mercury, Gemini, Apollo, STS... As a result our expectation became binary: It works or it doesn't. We never saw the development process, the failures that led to the success. The marvel of SpaceX is that we are able to see this process as it unfolds. We saw it with Falcon and Dragon, and we are seeing it with Starship and Superheavy. That system absolutely will fly, will reach orbit, will be reusable, and will meet the milestones that have been set for it. It will absolutely NOT do that in a single step, and that's just how the process works. In August of 2008, the third Falcon 1 failed to reach orbit and SpaceX was on the brink of bankruptcy. Less than four years later the first Cargo Dragon docked with the ISS. Progress happens fast. I can't wait to see where this system is in five years.
We have full visibility to the past space programs and I expect we had that back in the 60's too to the Apollo development program. Successes and failures.
All the NASA vehicles were full thrust, full duration ground tested - including the Saturn V. The Russians didn’t have the facilities to test the N1 at full thrust - and neither did SpaceX. That is another similarity between SpaceX and the Russian failures.
@@Axel_Andersen I don’t think that ordinary folks in the 1960s had access to the Apollo test program status. It may have been available, but I don’t think it got news coverage, and the internet wasn’t even a gleam in DARPA’s eye, so unlike today, we only saw the finished product.
@@John_Freas NASA wasn't the military, you couldn't hide rocket launches/explosions from public awareness, as they can bee seen/felt for miles. Everyone was watching in those early days as it was a matter of national pride. Much of it was televised or reported on. The video footage has been public knowledge longer than I've been alive.
Always keep in mind that the Soviets (in fact no-one) at the time of the N1 had the availability of computing power necessary for the level of computational fluid dynamics needed to successfully operate such a large number of engines together.
Actually, their computational ability was fairly limited - their best machines were copied IBM designs, and I don't think they even were taken from the System 360 Mainframe but rather a previous generation (perhaps as old as the *1401* series) and may have been TUBE based designs. More akin to what we designed the Titan II or AT BEST the Saturn I with (which design was FROZEN in the early 1960s).
It’s mindblowing how this guy built all of this over 60 years ago. Today with computers billions, even trillion times more powerful, it’s a challenging process. Even today, just a few nations domain, this technology.
From the way you worded that, it looks like you're saying the Russians DID have computers which could model that rocket, but from the "in fact no-one" I think you meant that they did not, which is more accurate for a time when computers were still being wire wrapped together out of TTL logic and bit slice chip sets, and the soviets were even behind on that, they never really kept up with Western computers, not that we had anything in the late 60s that could do it either.
@@tristan7216 Yeah, probably badly worded by me there. The problem with computers back then is that they simply did not work fast enough - insufficient computational speed to cope with the fluid dynamics. Also, I read somewhere that the Soviet Space program at the time of the N1 was still using RTL, not TTL.
@@rafaelcferraz 60 years ago, there were *2* nations even working on this level of rocket. Today, there are several - and some of them aren't all THAT big (cough North Korea, cough Iran)....
In my opinion the amount of "Impossible" goals that SpaceX has made something not only possible but normal is enough reason to say that the Starship will not repeat the history of N1. Thank you so much for this nice video!
I agree, they went from a stainless steel ship that they couldn't keep from blowing up to a stainless steel ship that does flips above mach 1 and they can't blow it up on command.
As someone who watched the original Apollo lands as I kid I think that this is the most exciting project since. I still marvel at the regular booster landing and have every confidence that spaceX / starship will succeed
They landing was something NASA did in the 70s. Also maybe look at the Artemis II project? Way more reasonable And just to be honest, I don't see them getting starship working anytime soon.
@@captainseyepatch3879 I highly doubt Starship will ever carry humans into space. No rescue system and a suicide burn to land on a planet; those are things that simply wont allow it to carry humans.
@@xXYannuschXx Yeah this is my problem with SpaceX' approach to progress at all costs. Like... it's okay to delay things if it keeps our human astronauts safer. I might not see humanity go into space, but that's better than seeing a rocket full of people explode, or hearing news of the first men of mars being condemned to die there.
@@captainseyepatch3879I fully agree. I’m putting my money with NASA. Elon Musk has a bad habit of taking short cuts in order to achieve goals faster. Artemis worked beautifully the very first time. It was practically flawless. You certainly can’t say that about Starship. I noticed right when it failed that the desired goal post for that mission changed from splashing down near Hawaii in the Pacific all the way back to just “CLEARING THE TOWER.” That’s a massive change in the goal posts location. And with that change, SpaceX called the launch a success. I call that BS. LETS BE REALISTIC. IT WAS A FAILURE OF EPIC PROPORTIONS. Furthermore, it lifted off the pad very slowly. That indicates that the spacecraft itself is far too heavy. It weighs MORE than the Oliver Hazard Perry class frigate I was stationed on in the Navy. And this craft had NO cargo or crew on board. I’m wondering if a fully loaded Starship will even lift itself up off the pad.
Tim, you've seriously earned your ride into space and a WHOLE lot of our appreciation for not just your knowledge but how you can spell it out in a way even those who are new to spaceflight (etc) can understand.
I feel like they'll get to orbit pretty quickly, but it's the rapid reuse part that might get tougher. However, when they get it right there's nothing that will stop the system.
@@KristianBjotvet may not take as long as we think. I was watching a Scott Manley video the other day, where he talks about the tiles. In footage of the launch it appears that the tiles are handling launch and Max Q. They don't start falling off until around the time they begin loosing control. If I had to speculate, do to the rocket tumbling in the manor it did it probably began bending in a way it wouldn't encounter during normal flight. On launch day I think I recall someone mentioning the rocket no longer looked straight shortly before failure. While I know the tiles are not directly glued to the tank walls, imagine how you might remove one object glued to another. Pulling the object off all at once may be difficult or near impossible. But if you can bend and peal one of the objects away from the other a little at a time it gets easier. In this case I'm guessing the tank probably deformed enough to pull it away from the tile mount. As long as the tiles make it to orbit I'd imagine most of the tiles will survive re-entry. There you have the tiles being pressed towards the tank. Plus stainless handles re-entry heating better then something like aluminum. If I'm not mistaken a shuttle lost some tiles and survived because it happened to have a stainless plate where those tiles fell off. If this amount of tiles fell off somewhere else it would have burned through aluminum. Definitely fact check me on this one however. I remember someone talking about it on UA-cam. I'm not saying the first re-entry will be successful but I wouldn't be utterly surprised. Still will probably workout relatively quickly.
@@garreth629 It was space shuttle atlantis, it happend to have an antenna array mounting structure underneath that was steel that saved the flight. there was also damage to about 700 tiles they reported. Its to be noted that the heat the tiles faced on the shuttle was around 2300 F , and the melting point of stainless steel is 2500-2700 F, so its quite likely starship has a higher survival rate if it loses tiles.
agreed. These things take time, but step 1 is a functional rocket - reusability will come later, and only then can they really work on rapid reusability.
Time is on their side. They don’t need the Starship to be at multiple launches a day in the next year, they just need to be faster than the competitors. Even if Starship is only being reused at the rate of the falcon 9 they will be way cheaper than other rockets meaning they will not run out of money from contracts.
Living near Vandenberg Space Force Base I actually see how quick Space X puts things into space I used to see a launch every few months, now I see a launch every few weeks.. It's awesome every time...
remember the Shuttle was a failure. It was meant to fly every few DAYS, but took MONTHS between launches. It was a technological marvel, but never lived up to its intended potential.
@@jwenting I believe with the shuttle the cadence originally was anticipated to be something like 50 flights a year. I think 1985 was the year with the most shuttle launches, which amounted to nine.
@@michaeldunne338 that's 1 flight a week, and I believe that was per shuttle, not for the entire fleet. So yes, they wanted the maintenance in between flights to be a few days, not months or years.
The more complex a system, the more points of failure that can lead to disaster. I'm amazed the N1 was able to accomplish so much. I was remembering the N1 while it was going up and once Starship went into the spin after a few engines either didn't fire or flickered out, it was a good thing that the difference in fuel and build allowed the Starship to stay together for so long and maybe not as much damage after it went boom. That poor launch pad.. {Just made it to 7:30 and nice to hear similar thoughts}
100% over engineered. It needs to be minimum amount of parts as possible. I remember watching a podcast from one of the designers talking about how they cool the Engines down with the fuel before igniting it, and they talked about how to get the nozzle for the cooling system right. And all I could think amazing another part that could fail.
@@soppybottomboys1195What was over engineered about it? I'll add that the only reason today's commercial airliners are so safe is because of the complex systems that have evolved over decades to provide redundancy. SpaceX's vision is for their rockets to have similar reliability and longevity. It's easier to build and replace a couple of failed engines than it is to build and replace a whole rocket.
You are so good at explaining all this stuff so that people like me understand it and still find it interesting without falling asleep. I bet you would have made an excellent teacher.
Yes, back to his highly technical quality video's. It bums me out that this isn't the best way to make money on youtube, instead short clickbaity videos are money makers.
SpaceX's situation is nothing like the late Soviet Moon program. Their funding is so far from being in doubt, it's literally the best-funded space program in dollar-for-dollar effectiveness in all of history. It's also not a political entity that has to answer for factory jobs or design bureaus, so they can change absolutely anything they want about the rocket at any time. And the state of technology is far more ready to handle a large number of engines, thanks to software and electronics.
I would have loved to have heard a discussion of the complexity that high numbers of engines produce upstream like the fuel and oxidizer manifolds, valving, control issues, etc
N1 indeed had issues there. Shutting down engines caused the '"waterhammer" effect and kerosene piepes were destroyed. I think SpaceX is aware of this.
That does not matter. The U.S. has lost the industrial base that allowed them to produce the F-1 engines of the Saturn V. so Space X is stuck with what they have. You do have plenty of socialist idiots chanting MIC is Evil wanting to eliminate what little you have.
Remember, N1 flew in 1969. If it was built nowadays, with modern technologies, it would fly without problems, no doubts. 50 years of advancing technology is no joke
Sorry, but I have to disagree here. The Saturn 5 is one of the most badass rockets to ever fly and theSea Dragon would have been the most badass rocket of all time if they had actually built it. If you have never heard of it: it had one gigantic 15 meters or so diameter engine and would launch from a swimming position.
I bet those Russians that laughed at Elon wanting to buy a rocket from them, wish they had sold him the missiles. Because that investment used to start SpaceX would have went to them. Instead it went to putting them out of the rocket business. I see no way Russia will be a major player in rocketry in 20yrs. Between the war, sanctions, thus the brain drain Russia is speeding down a dead end road. Honestly 20yrs is being generous
I respectfully disagree. The F-1 is one of the coolest rocket engines ever, and the Saturn V will never be dethroned as one of the greatest rockets of all time. Starship is cool because it is basically an N1, Saturn V and Space Shuttle mashed together with 50 years technological advancements. Can't wait to see people land on the Moon again!
I really enjoyed this video, Tim. You lend such style and sharp clarity to explaining the very complex history of spaceflight. Thanks so much from Down Under!
great analysis; you deliver as always. There's "fanboy" and then there's "flyboy". I'm so glad you're going. I feel like a good friend is getting a ride (which is why you're selected: you make this whole thing personal and emotionally intimate.).
Such an informative video and a nice comparison to what has gone before. It's an incredible age we live in and it's exciting to see these developments come thick and fast.
I, for one, am expecting mundane. That is my ultimate hope. I WANT this to happen and I think SpaceX has the corporate will to make it happen. Great video Tim!
Another similarity between starship and N1 is the use of grid fins - the N1 has grid fins at the bottom of the first stage and the starship booster has grid fins at the top. Just recently the starship is switching to double hot staging and the N1 also used hot staging. Starship now has an open interstage connection like the N1 stages had.
I haven't see one of your videos in a long time. I forgot just how enthusiastic and hopeful you are in your videos. It fills my heart with joy seeing how positive you are. You were one of the people to help rekindle my love of aerospace. Thank you for being amazing.
@@Toonhai LOL!...You nailed that one right on the head, buddy!...We've ALL heard about NASA! THAT's the problem, right there! I watched NASA kill three perfectly good Astronauts in 1967 by being double-stupid. Rest the souls of Grissom, Chaffee, and White. There's plenty sources of audio, and some video, from that day, give a listen. I heard that audio after the Congressional hearings on the whole affair. Grissom summed it well, "How are we supposed to go to the Moon, if we can't communicate between three buildings on the ground?". The fire started later...all kinds of already-flammable stuff in the capsule, add a pressurized raw oxygen atmosphere, one little spark...and the nail in the coffin...the hatch opened inward. The existing pressure held the door shut, the combustion pressure made sure those poor men ro...um...could not exit the spacecraft, even with the help available just outside the window. I've watched NASA piss away money as if those contracts are candy off a float at your homecoming parade. Apollo 13...square vs round CO2 scrubbers, a prime example of NASA's 'too many chefs in the kitchen' approach to building a rocket. They damned near killed "Tom Hanks and the boys" with that one! The Shuttle...Miracle that they only lost two of them and "only" 14 crew...rest their souls. SLS...Pffttt! HOW much MONEY did it cost to refurbish old shuttle engines, just to use them once and throw them away in the ocean? They could've rebuilt the tooling and made brand, spankin', new ones for less! Thats just one little part of the SLS-MESS Boeing Starliner capsule for NASA...THIRTEEN years development and, "There's too much wrong with it to let it fly again at this time."! Nice! Now, on the other hand, SpaceX developed the most reliable launch system known to humanity...going from idea to human rated in 9 years. Not all that recently, The Falcon 9 took the lead as the orbital rocket with most successful launches in human history. AND...the number of consecutive, "You'll never land that thing on its tail!", landings is fast approaching that previously held the record for most launches. Yeah, SpaceX has backed its rocket into the shed almost as many times...in a row...as the previous most reliable rocket managed to launch...throwing itself in the garbage bin as it went, BTW! That all said...though NASA suucks horribly at building rockets...there is a huge space for them...NASA has been doing amazing research since they were called NACA. They've helped civil aviation immensely! Heck, I've used NACA airfoils on my model planes a bunch of times over the decades! NASA is needed as our move outward, away from Earth really begins. A government agency is perfect for research and testing the nuts and bolts, as it were, of space travel, because not every big corporation is like SpaceX...willing to spend a LOT of money developing stuff. Most businesses are averse to huge initial outlays without a return in the next quarter. OR...SHOULD we let the competition just go? Those companies willing to risk busting a few rockets to develop better ones, get the rewards of truly winning?
@@gingerman5123 Yeah there was no way I was missing that launch. The first one is always the best one, followed by the first successful launch, then after that all the milestone things happen beyond observable range.
I think Starship will fly again and fly well. Look how the early Saturn program went from the Snake Killer to our Apollo and Skylab lifter. Now, as you said, we have 50 years of experience to back us up in development.
The Apollo programs were led by competent men. This poor thing is in the hands of the conman, so I wouldn't really put my money on it being too successful
@@fensoxx I, personally, liked the Apollo 6 Test shot that made it to orbit, though the "pogo-ing" combustion instability would've turned human occupants into Astronaut frappe! Just another laughably errant example of how, "It was so much better back when...Yadda-yadda-yadda!".
Coming back to this video, and reading the comments predicting either total failure or success, is pretty fun. Obviously, the naysayers have less and less to say every successful flight, and the expectations of the optimistic have actually been surpassed, for example, SpaceX's 20th landing of a Falcon 9 booster.
Oh yeah, Tim is pretty invested in this. Been watching these video's for so many years I totally forgot he was chosen for Dear Moon until the very end.
Great video, great research, thanks a lot for making this video and teaching us all more and more about these mavels of engineering. Its so fascinating to see all this
I was really hoping you would cover this. The complexity of fueling and controlling this many engines is a huge challenge by itself let alone the shear size of the rocket.
Thank you for your work and thank you for giving complete, comprehensive information on rocket technology, as well as paying attention to Soviet technology and achievements! I am happy to watch your releases and broadcasts ! Good luck and prosperity to your channel and to you personally !
One of the best things that happened in the world we live in is Tim getting a chance to fly on Starship on a moon mission. If that is not an inspiring story, I don't know what is. Thank you Tim, for your wonderful study of rockets and the videos. Btw the Starship thermal tiles inspired coffee mug which I got a couple of days ago is just awesome. One thing I don't know about it is whether it is microwave safe.
I'm convinced people who say spacex was dumb not to use a flame diverter or water suppression don't understand that thw rocket isn't the goal... the infrastructure is.. the best part is no part it'll be extremely difficult to set up an entire launch site on another world if it includes not only chopsticks and a platform but also an entire water storage system and having to excavate trenches for diverters.. if the concrete they had did work it would have been the best case ..
Well.... it's two for two failure and that's in the year Musk said there would already be two successful landings of freaking Mars, so no, that is far from any kind of certainty.
I think there's a chance they'll manage to master booster landing/catching but I don't see a way they'll manage with the ship. Booster at least has the 2 'hooks' that stick out but the ship doesn't and it has the very delicate heat tiles.
Falcon heavy has 27 engines, so no problem here. Plus, these engines and technology is way more advanced than the N1. Not to mention the Space X track record. Fantastic! I love these videos.
Yeah, but consider that the Falcon Heavy isn't an entirely new rocket from the Falcon 9 - it's more or less just a derivative with two extra first stages tacked on, able to yeet more than twice as much as the F9 into space. And all the parts of the FH were proven reliable in service by the F9 by the time it rolled around. The N1 and Starship on the other hand were, or are, plagued with masses upon masses of design issues since the design hasn't been properly thought through. Now I can't say much about the N1, but the Starship? They didn't even use newbuild Raptors, so the rocket ended up losing over 10 engines in that launch. The launch pad? Obliterated, plus a huge amount of nature reserve in Boca Chica gone. The FTS? That didn't work at all. And one more thing, when your stated mission is to launch, make 3/4 orbit around Earth then splashdown off Hawaii, then how is having a rocket disintegrate just 4 minutes after launch considered "successful", when it never went faster than the Concorde of all things?
@@nerd2814 the stated goal was to clear the launch pad and pass MaxQ. Everything else was IF those and stage separation were successful. Information gathering is the important/successful parts they are focused on.
@@jonathanbranyon No, the stated goal was to take the vehicle on a 3/4 orbit around Earth and splash down north of Hawaii. That was the official mission plan submitted to NASA. Re "information gathering": that is a very wasteful way to do it, don't you think? Computer simulations exist for a reason - to crunch the numbers and see if it can be done. You never see NASA launch a rocket just cuz "it's for R&D!" They test everything meticulously, destructively and non-destructively, before building a rocket - why do you think Artemis' first launch (to the Moon, may I add) was perfect in almost every way?
@@nerd2814 jeez man. The launch pad wasn't obliterated, none of the nature reserve is gone, the FTS did eventually work. You can make plenty of genuine criticism of the way starship is being developed, there isn't much point in misrepresenting things for dramatic effect
@@nommchompsky jeez man. The launch pad was obliterated, some of the nature reserve is gone, the FTS did not work. You can make plenty of genuine criticism of the way starship is being developed, there isn't much point in misrepresenting things for dramatic effect
Thanks, Tim, great video! I was born a few years before Sputnik, and I've been on the edge of my seat for all of it! And thanks to SpaceX's vision and drive, I think I'll actually see the human spacefaring adventure get properly underway. I'm rooting for you and the team! ("Have Spacesuit, Will Travel!")
Once upon a time I was in school. There were televisions in all the rooms and I'm not sure where they came from as there weren't any there before or after. Apollo 11 launched and completed it's mission. At a school outing to Cape Kennedy I found myself in a small room where they demonstrated the Space Shuttle Tiles. Allen Been had a tile for the Shuttle and heated it with a torch, handing it out to us, it was cool by the time we touched it. Such an amazing moment and imagine that we shook the hand and talked to a man that had been on the moon. It's been 50 years or so since then and there aren't cities on the Moon or space ways to Mars like in the movies. Space travel has been on the back burner. Just imagine if Earth had that same ambition to go just a little further over that time. The world was so busy taking care of itself that our past achievements were never equaled or bested. Lets do that soon, ok? Don't be too harsh please. Stroke and coma survivor.
You nailed it. I think people in general doesn't have a clue what kind of engineering milestones those guys are doing since 2017 Falcon Heavy and with Starship. At the moment the only thing and philosophy that is keeping us as humans on the higher level to go one step beyond of exploring
Love your vids. Especially these dives into the technical aspects and history of spaceflight. The way I see it SpaceX had already tested everything else, which really left one thing to try out: a full test launch. I do think the pad is the big sticking point here. With that said I think they’re trying to see how simple they can make the pad for frequent use. Edit: I just realized does Elon/SpaceX like to post random memes on new raptor engines!? I swear I saw a surprised pikachu face on one of the engines and random scribblings on the others.
The pad is a sticking point? Measures to prevent acoustic and thermal damage to launch pad infrastructure and surroundings caused by the plume have been common sense for decades. You can readily find information on launch sites that are repeatedly used without massive damage from every flight. For example, SpaceX itself currently leases pad 39A from which Apollo missions were launched, including the deluge system. There was zero reason for them not to take those common sense measures (such as a deluge system) for starship other than rushing the test in time for the utterly asinine 4/20 meme. The fact that they launched starship this haphazardly bricked the test. Frequent use of starship is a non-starter since they knowingly sacrifice so much of its thrust at launch. Never mind that bombarding rocket engines with shrapnel makes them not very reusable. Such a preventable failure in an otherwise unprecedented, unique and impressive test launch should make any engineer worth their salt feel shame. When ego and shitposting take priority over results, the entire incredible track record of Falcon, Dragon, Raptor and all the people who do the actual work at SpaceX gets squandered.
Well after IFT-2 I think its we can say they figured out the problem. All 33 lit and stayed operational up to stage separation. Once they figure out the boost back I think it'll be safe to say they've overcome the N1
One the BEST channels on UA-cam. All the facts, NO click bait or hiding the "hook" somewhere in the video. You layout the timestamps with all the topics, upfront and honest. A true gem of knowledge of all things rockets 👍
Where are the facts? His narrative is "I'm sure they'll figure it out. I'm sure re-building launch pad is not the problem. I'm sure Elon will never die. I'm sure Soviets would eventually figure that out. I'm sure SpaceX finances are safe and sound." Where you have those facts you speak of? The fact is that he is not even astronaut. The only thing he said is right is that he is a "fanboy". Also it vexes me how he glosses over ultimate problems the design of this program is facing only to dissmiss them with a silly chuckle. Is this scientific reasearch according to you? Where are those facts? I recommend you all taking a good look at Thunderf00t take on what this entire program is worth.
"All the facts" ... wow. Do you honestly think that? I agree that some of the videos Tim made about rocket engine history were informative and interesting, but only a fool can't see that Tim is very much a fanboy and PR channel for SpaceX and Elon. Tim avoids to criticize or even question simply because he would lose access and even his ticket to the moon. Better to shut up and throw Elon some softball questions and keep woooing and wowing at exploding rockets. If you really want to get the whole picture you have to actively seek sources that provide opposing arguments, but most people don't really seem to care. Making up your own mind is an exhausting business.
@@EnnoMaffen If you had been following Tim all these years, he is an everyday guy explaining rockets the best he can in terms us everyday people can understand. He is on the front lines jumping up and down at launches while we are at home jumping up and down cheering on launches with him. You just don't get it and is a bummer.
A couple things that might fit well into this video: A big reason for large numbers of engines in the Starship is the need to catch and reuse both stages. When the stages are landing they are nearly empty and very light. A large engine cannot throttle down far enough to have less thrust than the weight of the vehicle. With smaller engines you can bring the vehicle all the way down to a hover which makes catching much easier. The Falcon 9 cannot hover so it uses the "suicide burn" where it has to time the engine burn perfectly so that it reaches zero velocity exactly when it reaches zero altitude.The Starship will need to hover (or descend very slowly) for a short time as it moves laterally to align with the catching arms. A suicide burn would be nearly impossible. Second comment is about the N1. The N1 was rushed to a launch because the Apollo 11 flight was very close to happening. The soviets had run out of time for testing. I also have one question that I'd love to have answered: With Raptor 3 engines coming, what does Space X do with all the Raptor 1 and Raptor 2 engines?
The N1 was never a failure. It was just cancelled prematurely. Priorities had changed in the mid-70s and going to the Moon after the race was lost meant the N1 was not needed anymore. They always planned at least 12 launches before ever putting humans on the top of it. And yes, a 5th launch would have used the NK-33 engines instead of the NK-15.
@@hippomormor When did Elon ever say that they would put humans on Mars by 2022? And what is the point in quoting Elon's predictions when he notoriously overly optimistic or just wrong?
@@michaeldeierhoi4096 if you follow the conversation you can easily see what I’m responding too and how it fits in the context of the conversation. Weird question
Seeing you at the Demo 1 launch brought back my memory of that event. I took my brother and mother to see that launch. The scene was absolutely wild out there at Space View Park…then the launch was scrubbed because of potential rain. I was _pissed._ My brother wasn’t too mad because he was more interested in just getting out of the county for a day, but I could tell my mom was disappointed. I vowed to take her to see Starship launch no matter what! She died last year to stage 4 lung cancer. Watching Starship launch was simultaneously the most exciting, and most depressing thing I think I’ve ever experienced. I didn’t go to see it in person, but I did watch it live at work. I’m not sure if I’ll ever try to see a launch in person again, but I will keep watching SpaceX as they master Starship, and I look forward to the eventual Starship Heavy. You just know it’s going to have 69 Raptors and will be exactly 420m tall when stacked 🤣 I honestly don’t think you’ll need it, because I already know everything will be to script, but I wish you luck with your trip around the moon, Tim. I still think it’s friggin bonkers that an Everyman is about to get their astronaut wings. These are interesting times to be alive!
Love the video. I've shared with a few friends who are also space fans since this question gets brought up a lot. Your arguments and presentation of the differences in technical design are what seals the deal for me. Keep up the content!
Thanks for an objective view of both programmes. It's especially good to hear a thoughtful view of the N1 programme. Given the Soviet's practice of keeping boosters, the ISS might have looked very different today, if the N1 had been allowed to become operational.
This video has been up for 4 months, but then again things have been going relatively slowly at SpaceX at least in regards to Starship, and so I haven't felt the urge to watch it with any urgency. I expected I'd skim through it for the sake of time but I have to admit that Tim does such a great job that it's just not a lot of filler and promotion. Good info and no fluff. Thanks Tim. Keep 'em flyin'.
My main issue with the 'silly numbers of engines means you're more safe' approach is cascading failures. There are many engine failure modes that are localized, sure, but there are many engine failure modes that are nowhere near as contained. Consider e.g. an engine turbopump grenading - similar failure modes in aircraft are generally a case of 'pray that it doesn't hit another engine'. And yes, there are approaches to help mitigate this somewhat... but again I come back to areospace. Uncontained engine failures happen, and by and large aircraft don't even _try_ to protect against high pressure turbine failures because the mass cost is prohibitive... and aerospace is far less weight-constrained than rocketry.
Each rocket engine is surrounded by blast shielding to mitigate such a scenario, also control systems and sensor arrays are now so sophisticated that engines are shut down well before a failure becomes an explosion. In aircraft too there is shielding to contain catastrophic engine failure to that single engine which is why the famous blade off and frozen turkey tests are conducted simulating two of the most catastrophic modes of failure. If the engine does not contain the resulting explosion then the design is considered a failure, there is no prayer involved.
SpaceX has made science fiction seem almost mundane! The fact that we take it for granted now that a Falcon ROCKET will land itself back on a ship or terra firma for re-use is mind-blowing! I've got faith in SpaceX engineers and their business model. Spaceship's success is more important than most care to realize. Rock On SpaceX 🖖
I do think that however you simulate and engineer things in the lab, a real life test will always show something completely unexpected. This is why, even though Indian space research organisation had GSLV and GSLV mk 3 as their most powerful Rockets, they still rely on PSLV for most of their important launches . It's because of this experience... That PSLV had a lot of launch experience, that made them do this.
We had a saying at the CMU robotics lab that the problem with simulations was that they were doomed to succeed. It looks like that's attributed to Rodney Brooks actually, a Stanford and MIT guy.
Great and very informative video! I would love a video on Energia too, as i believe it had a lot of potential, that sadly never got used due to the fall of the soviet union. Especially the modulary, as there was plans for a even bigger rocket (Vulcan) by simply strapping on more energia boosters to the core.
rip all the people who said many engines = fail. Now we have two launches in a row with 33/33 engines running 100% of the time.
9 months later, what Tim was saying proved to be true.
Two consecutive flights with all 33 Raptors operating perfectly.
@@anisdjerrab it is kind of wild how they managed to exceed seemingly unrealistic goals. I never doubted they would have a functioning booster, but I don't think many people expected 100% this early :P.
@snuffeldjuret I was also a little worried about the engine's reliability before IFT-2, but SpaceX exceeded all our predictions !
@@anisdjerrab indeed. I still sort of don't understand it given how they seemed to have trouble even static firing all 33 full duration. Maybe they had stricter parameters and learned a lot though :).
if you look at both stages its actually 39 engines
It's beyond wild that this guy who I have been watching for almost a decade has gone from wearing a silly flight suit to getting fitted for a real space suit. No one on youtube deserves it more than you!
Looks like he has lost weight.
EA better bring his OG spacesuit with binoculairs with him for a video on the other side of the moon.
@@davidbeppler3032 I imagine there might be some training going on.
He’s not an engineer yet he masquerades as one. Lol.
@@Laminar-Flow what a rude comment. Tim has spent years learning about rocket science, from the perspective of an average Joe. He may not be a degreed engineer, but that in no way lessens his ability to teach the masses about aerospace. I say this as an engineer myself.
N1 was a brutal tragedy. They had three improved rockets assembled, when management changed and he ordered all of them destroyed. Hopefully, they managed to save some engines, and they fly to this day on Zenit
n1 was a comedy of incompetence and basic math failings.
@@mezmerya5130such as?
now imagine the economy of an entire country run with centralized moneyburning decisions like that.
actually NK-33 engine still operational on Soyuz 2.1v and it was used on Anteres rocket
Wrong, the Zenith used RD-171 engines, which were developed from the more recent RD-170( it's what the boosters of Energhia used in the 1980's) , not the old NK-15 like you suggested.(also Zenith don't fly today, was flying like 20 years ago! )
This makes the Saturn 5 seem even more impressive from an engineering steandpoint. The fact that it was done in the 1960 is 🤯
things that make you go hmmmm
Thirteen Saturn V Launches with 65 F1s used and they never failed. Not a single one. Things were done so quickly to get to the moon that documentation took a back seat. Yes, we would have to start from scratch to build F1s today. The Apollo program was our "Great Pyramids".
It truly is! I still can't help but to find it funny that people woo over a company chasing to be more effective than a 60 year old rocket, when computers were room sized
@@DesertRat332 Well no launch failed , thats true, but at least one F1 stopped firing during Apollo 13 launch.
@AntiangelRaphael "Saturn was so impressive that we LOST ability to make ones today." That's not how things work. We didn't lose the ability to build them due to technological changes. We lost the ability to build them because the factories that built them were shut down and there is no reason to spend the incredible amounts of money to restart that production. It's like saying we lost the ability to make old carburetor engines because technology changed. No, we just won't make them again because there isn't any point. The Saturn V was extremely expensive and wouldn't pass any safety standards required today.
Your thoughts on the Soviet program were extremely enlightening. Like many Americans, I thought the N1 was conceptually flawed, but now I agree with you that it is a pity the N1 rocket wasn’t allowed to fully mature.
Honestly it was probably a blessing! We'd all be communists by now if they had beaten us to the moon most likely..
the Soviet engine designers really got it right. Everythingnin the world ia iterative. Only people deluded by MBAs thinks there is such a thing as a turnkey solution. The world is always iterative.
propaganda my boy
@@michaelwilliams3104 They're still commies, I don't think who lands on the moon first would change that much. They made it to space first, and sent the first man up.
@@kokokaification huh? For what purpose? Appreciating great engineering transcends petty tribal nationalism. Unless some anti-science weirdos think the entire space program is propaganda 😁
At this time SpaceX has eight Falcon 9 boosters which have launched more than ten times. The two oldest boosters have been expended after 11 and 14 flights. Two have reached the current limit of 15 launches and are awaiting to be certified to twenty. Two others were launched for the 14th time in May 2023 while the last two launched for the 11th time in May 2023.
It really looks like 100 plus launches is possible in the near future. They should have paid as much as it took to keep the Merlin engine inventer and engineer. (I'm not sure what his official title was)
@@Bryan-Hensley He retired, I doubt he would be pursuaded to stay working for more money when he is already very wealthy.
@@Bryan-Hensley
Don't worry, Elon has a talent for finding the best people and also for getting them to work for him. And not just that, but once they are onboard, the company culture highly encourages the sharing of knowledge, so nobody is irreplaceable for long (that includes Elon himself, although it takes a lot longer).
@@andrasbiro3007 he has a talent for hiring 20-somethings fresh out of school and for making friends with the chinese communist party
@Bryan Hensley 100 launches that all include an expendable second stage. I am amazed that no one talks about what it takes to produce that number of second stage engines.
The one thing not mentioned in the video. There has been some development in the past 55 years in fields of metallurgy, and production technology. This imho with computers makes for a vast difference in the probability of success of Starship.
Since I had just the one thing to add, you obviously made a great piece comparing 2 of the craziest rockets ever made.
Thanks Tim
Those are fair points.
The more engines you add the more chances for an engine failure.
@@jamesjellis But also the less effect that individual failure will have. Arguably they should be more reliable as there is more testing done to find & eliminate design/manufacturing flaws as well.
Ultimately is it better to have 4 engines where a single failure loses 25% of your available thrust, or one with 33 where a failure only loses 3%? Or to put it another way, 33 where you would need to lose 8 engines to almost lose the same thrust?
@James Ellis The loss of a few engines doesn't affect the capability of the craft as much. The engines are super lightweight as it is and it seems worth it to mount a lot of them. I'm sure SpaceX will radically improve the reliability as the engines mature over the years
It works for Falcon 9, sure it'll scale up.
I consider the first test a huge success, and as Tim pointed out, the one failure was the Flight termination system.
Starship is built like a good old brick wall
Who’s here after starship launched and had all 33 engines fire the entire burn??
Yup
🙋🏻 lol
me
bingo!
At least during the first burn 🫢
I just realized: If all goes well, Tim will literally become an everyday astronaut - he's going to actually fly in space, an everyday person actually flying in space. It's incredible!
Beautiful how thoughts can become reality, isn’t it?
Dear moon program
He's not an everyday person anymore tho...
@@potatosalad68 about to be an everyday astronaut.
don't
Having just witnessed the 2nd IFT this morning. its safe to say that starship will not suffer the same fate and the N1.
Yessir!
We're WAY past that.
The N1 would only work if the US built it
Looks like the engines weren't much of a problem after all.
@@man-from-2058 The boostback burn failed, but that was probably more of a plumbing issue. No news on what destroyed the second stage.
Wow it's kinda impressive they've only had two Merlin engine failures on ascent out of 228 launches with a total of 2052 engine-launches.
A true testament to the Engineering prowess and sheer skill of SpaceX engineers and technicians. They are almost at TWO HUNDRED FREAKING first stage return landings.
And the fact that people already ignored and forget how many failure falcon 9 have in it's development phase really prove early failure is much better than failure on the finished product.
I'd rather fly on a rocket that have blown up in it's early phase of development than a rocket they spend billions hoping it doesn't blow up because they can't afford failure
It's worth remembering that one of the few landing failures in recent years was caused by one of the two Merlin engine failures on the upward leg of the flight (the primary payloads being successfully delivered to orbit in each case).
Wow, kinda depressing SpaceX is still using mostly the same engine design from the 1960's, can you imagine just how disappointed a space enthusiast would have been if we told then where we were today.
So they claim.
Given events surrounding Tesla's FSD, its reliability and that of various Tesla physical builds I'm inclined to be dubious about those claims.
Don't forget the vibration environments. Rocket motors make a lot of acoustic and structural vibration. Even today this is rather difficult to predict (probably the main reason SX flew was to capture these real environments to anchor their finite element models), but it was impossible to do back in the 1950's. Without understanding the physical vibration environment it is very hard to know if your components will not just shake apart.
Hello Mr Engineer
Also it's tricky to detect resonant frequencies in models or on a test stand.
That's what I always understood was the main issue with all those engines on the first stage of the N1. But that said, it is very well possible this would have been solved if more time had been available.
@@hoebare the fact that elon dont use a flame trentch
create standing waves and enigen ""stuffing"" gases cant go no where.. and the new
water system is a joke som retardo tell us that the rocket only press what is 17bars at
water plate .. but no it preses 100 upon 100 of bars... simpel math -- and newton 2 law
if the rocket weight is 500ton.. pressiur is 600ton or the rocket will not lift off ..
Yes, but without analytics you determine things empirically - in this case by either taking lots of time for a lot of rocket engines shake themselves apart on the test stand or taking lots of money for lots of "testing by flying". The Soviets had neither the time nor the money.
One thing the N1 has over Starship is those beautiful lattice-like interstage trusses. So stylish!
Well, since Starship is now hot staging, the interstage will definitely get some openings. Probably not quite as open as N1
@@Raptor2 Starship's mesh interstage is much closer to those used on the Titan rockets!
@@Danuxsy What? Last I checked, the N1 never got into space, but Starship has.
@@Danuxsy I don't think you know what the N1 was. It flew 4 times, with each ending in failure before making it to space. The second launch failure was the largest non-nuclear explosion, if I remember correctly. Starship has already gone to space twice now, though only once when you commented. They were suborbital test flights as well, so not even planned to get fully into orbit, which the N1 did plan on while still not going as far.
Well good news! Looks like starship block 2 and 3 will be getting similar trusses.
I enjoy a bunch of different channels, but this is one of the few I actually look forward to.
Always excellent information presented in a fun and engaging manner.
Keep ‘em coming, Tim!
IFT-3 was just launched today.
In less than a year starship has gone from failing to reach stage separation and suffering multiple engine failures on accent to being fully capable of orbit with no launch anomalies to speak of.
Granted there are still plenty of areas to improve in but If the launch today proved anything it’s that SpaceX and Starship have what it takes!
Rest in pieces Booster 10 and Ship 28🎉
I feel like something that goes underappreciated with the whole philosophy of "test it early" is that it avoids you solving problems that don't actually exist. I've never met a good engineer who was an optimist, and a room full of us can convince each other that it just won't work without [X]. Would be a neat question to ask in your Elon interviews what things they've found over the years that fall in this category.
This. When you must not fail you plan in so much safety margin and overengineering and redundancies that the whole performance and price tag suffers. Not to mention that you can’t plan for unknown unknowns.
I’m not sure how true this is, you can’t just hope that you’ll find all the failures in your testing. Just because it doesn’t fail in the early testing doesn’t mean that it isn’t a potential issue.
I have one -- the ship QC "grabbers". Elon: "The best part is no part."
People don't like to see their tax money blow up in flames.
That's one advantage Elon has over NASA.
@@stclairjm Exactly. The Soviets were getting desperate and so had to launch and pray it worked. SpaceX its their own money, no outside pressure. So hey lets launch and enjoy the show.
I just realized that Starship weighs 2x more than an entire turret assembly from an Iowa class battleship (only 2000 tons)!
yeah i never thought of that till you said something
I say we mount one and put it in orbit! 😉😉
@@jim2lane Like the Michael from Footfall!
@@jim2lane The russians beat you to it :D
Space Cruiser Yamato 2.0?
Lots of great points. You mentioned lots of advantages of many small engines, but there's one that I don't think you included (unless you did and I missed it). Having small engines allowed commonality between lower and upper stages. If you have bigger engines, they will be too big for your stage, so you'll probably need to have dedicated engines for each stage, requiring additional development and testing.
Indeed, which is also true of Falcon 9 and Electron... one-to-nine seems to be a convenient ratio between a single engine with a vacuum nozzle up top, and fitting in many of the same engine with a sea-level nozzle on the booster.
commonality as an argument is stupid, sea level engine and zero atmosphere engine require very different ratio, it why space program INTENTIONALLY design different engines. so this is more of a stopgap argument than it actually being a good idea. even the raptor has 2 design so it doesn't SUCK in orbit. this is not that important during testing, but if you want to get to mars, your space performance will have a major impact... as high as 30% difference in what you can carry to mars.
@@lagrangewei what you say is somewhat true but you are not at all taking into account the complexity, cost, and management challenges of maintaining multiple engines.
@@lagrangewei and yet SpaceX and Rockets Lab have both been doing it very successfully for some time now... it might be suboptimal physics, but using the same engine for both stages is a huge benefit cost-wise.
@@lagrangewei The difference is mainly in the nozzle, a rather straightforward item, and recently Space X has even begun occasionally using a mid-size nozzle on the MVAC. Since both the 1D and MVAC are designed to be multiply re-ignitable in vacuum or near-vacuum, there probably is little else that is different.
So, here we are now. Must feel pretty good to get your opinions not only validated but even surpassed in the very next flight of starship!
Whatever achievements still to come, seeing the two boosters land together for the first time was a thing I'll remember for the rest of my life! 😲
The red & white Tintin Space Rocket finally becoming reality, I was so happy, excited and amazed - a real thing of beauty. 😛
This! Starship HLS really needs to come in the Syldavian red & white checkered livery.
Totally, agree! seeing what looked like a synchronized dance when the two rockets landed together was totally stunning to me and left me with the impression of having witnessed one of the greatest technical triumphs of human history. I certainly will never forget that moment as long as I live.
totally - i put that right up with landing on the moon. A breathtaking bit of history that will be known and rewatch for as long as humanity is still around
that is what got me interested in rockets for sure :)
Another thing worth mentioning was that the Soviet's N1 program was short on both time and funding, things that SpaceX, to the contrary, has had plenty of.
You aren't aware that SpaceX is rapidly burning through money and relies entirely on government subsidies and contracts to break even?
He did mention both.
He said that but nevertheless true
Not really. It's haemorrhaging tens of billions per year. The commercial side is a flop. The entire commercial industry is worth roughly a few billion per year split between 100 different companies. Starlink was meant to be their new plan for a source of revenue, but without Starship to launch them in bulk, the company is spiralling towards bankruptcy. Clearly starship isn't anywhere near the point where it's going to be able to deploy satellites yet. Unless they get a hold of some serious funding soon, the end is near.
worth emphasizing let's say.
English-speaking people often get confused between "designed" and "planned". Starship is *planned* to be reusable but not *designed* to be reusable. The design is flawed and has to be fixed first.
N1 never succeeded but it actually proved a lot of concepts to be viable. It was also insanely cool and that engine family could've powered the soviets space rockets for decades.
Its really cool to see Starship and hope it succeeds. Really SpaceX is only doing something because other players became too complacent
SpaceX is doing this to flatter Musk's ego and nothing more. It's not a realistic business proposition it is a vanity project and doomed to failure because Musk is neither the engineer he thinks he is nor going to stay rich for too much longer. China will emasculate Tesla to steal its market share and twitter will continue to bleed money forever.
The Starship booster has a massive requirement not levied on N1, Saturn V, or SLS: using the same engines to return to earth while maintaining a high degree and range of thrust control.
It is my understanding that engines must be run at certain levels of energy to avoid combustion issues, thus larger engines cannot be throttled back to a low enough thrust level to allow the gentle hover into the chopsticks (or landing legs). Smaller engines must maintain certain levels of thrust in order to run reliably, but since there are many of them you can shut down most of them and run only the ones you need to produce a lower amount of thrust, which can be then run within their optimal combustion parameters.
You could use a few big engines for launch and stuff smaller engines in around them for landing, but then you’re hauling around dead weight in both directions, you now have the complication of multiple types of engines with different types of plumbing and controls …and you still have several engines to coordinate. Having more smaller nearly identical engines that can that can be scaled in both number and thrust to the power requirements on over the entire range of the booster’s flight probably is the most sensible strategy. Not to mention the economic benefit.
Historically we've only had visibility to the finished product; Mercury, Gemini, Apollo, STS... As a result our expectation became binary: It works or it doesn't. We never saw the development process, the failures that led to the success. The marvel of SpaceX is that we are able to see this process as it unfolds. We saw it with Falcon and Dragon, and we are seeing it with Starship and Superheavy. That system absolutely will fly, will reach orbit, will be reusable, and will meet the milestones that have been set for it. It will absolutely NOT do that in a single step, and that's just how the process works. In August of 2008, the third Falcon 1 failed to reach orbit and SpaceX was on the brink of bankruptcy. Less than four years later the first Cargo Dragon docked with the ISS. Progress happens fast. I can't wait to see where this system is in five years.
We have full visibility to the past space programs and I expect we had that back in the 60's too to the Apollo development program. Successes and failures.
All the NASA vehicles were full thrust, full duration ground tested - including the Saturn V.
The Russians didn’t have the facilities to test the N1 at full thrust - and neither did SpaceX.
That is another similarity between SpaceX and the Russian failures.
@@Axel_Andersen I don’t think that ordinary folks in the 1960s had access to the Apollo test program status. It may have been available, but I don’t think it got news coverage, and the internet wasn’t even a gleam in DARPA’s eye, so unlike today, we only saw the finished product.
"We never saw the development process, the failures that led to the success. "
objectively false
@@John_Freas NASA wasn't the military, you couldn't hide rocket launches/explosions from public awareness, as they can bee seen/felt for miles. Everyone was watching in those early days as it was a matter of national pride. Much of it was televised or reported on. The video footage has been public knowledge longer than I've been alive.
Always keep in mind that the Soviets (in fact no-one) at the time of the N1 had the availability of computing power necessary for the level of computational fluid dynamics needed to successfully operate such a large number of engines together.
Actually, their computational ability was fairly limited - their best machines were copied IBM designs, and I don't think they even were taken from the System 360 Mainframe but rather a previous generation (perhaps as old as the *1401* series) and may have been TUBE based designs.
More akin to what we designed the Titan II or AT BEST the Saturn I with (which design was FROZEN in the early 1960s).
It’s mindblowing how this guy built all of this over 60 years ago. Today with computers billions, even trillion times more powerful, it’s a challenging process. Even today, just a few nations domain, this technology.
From the way you worded that, it looks like you're saying the Russians DID have computers which could model that rocket, but from the "in fact no-one" I think you meant that they did not, which is more accurate for a time when computers were still being wire wrapped together out of TTL logic and bit slice chip sets, and the soviets were even behind on that, they never really kept up with Western computers, not that we had anything in the late 60s that could do it either.
@@tristan7216 Yeah, probably badly worded by me there. The problem with computers back then is that they simply did not work fast enough - insufficient computational speed to cope with the fluid dynamics. Also, I read somewhere that the Soviet Space program at the time of the N1 was still using RTL, not TTL.
@@rafaelcferraz 60 years ago, there were *2* nations even working on this level of rocket.
Today, there are several - and some of them aren't all THAT big (cough North Korea, cough Iran)....
Turns out the Starship has already made it through stage separation successfully
nasa sent a rocket to the moon last year, and then managed to bring it back home... this thing is an absolute failure
not really impressive though, didn't even make a full suborbital flight yet
successful as it blew up? or in that it wouldn't have made it back, s it lost 70 plus heat shield tiles?
@@rickb.4168 Specifically stage separation, not everything.
In my opinion the amount of "Impossible" goals that SpaceX has made something not only possible but normal is enough reason to say that the Starship will not repeat the history of N1. Thank you so much for this nice video!
I agree, they went from a stainless steel ship that they couldn't keep from blowing up to a stainless steel ship that does flips above mach 1 and they can't blow it up on command.
And Falcon Heavy seems to be doing just fine with 27 engines on launch.
Don't forget that past achievements are not a guarantee for future success, they can be an indication though. I do tend to agree with you.
@@dropshot1967 Right. Im not sure, but I heard that different people work on Starship and Falcon.
As someone who watched the original Apollo lands as I kid I think that this is the most exciting project since. I still marvel at the regular booster landing and have every confidence that spaceX / starship will succeed
They landing was something NASA did in the 70s.
Also maybe look at the Artemis II project?
Way more reasonable
And just to be honest, I don't see them getting starship working anytime soon.
The SLS launch is far more impressive tbh. It actually orbited the moon and didn’t blow up in the atmosphere.
@@captainseyepatch3879 I highly doubt Starship will ever carry humans into space. No rescue system and a suicide burn to land on a planet; those are things that simply wont allow it to carry humans.
@@xXYannuschXx Yeah this is my problem with SpaceX' approach to progress at all costs. Like... it's okay to delay things if it keeps our human astronauts safer. I might not see humanity go into space, but that's better than seeing a rocket full of people explode, or hearing news of the first men of mars being condemned to die there.
@@captainseyepatch3879I fully agree. I’m putting my money with NASA. Elon Musk has a bad habit of taking short cuts in order to achieve goals faster. Artemis worked beautifully the very first time. It was practically flawless. You certainly can’t say that about Starship. I noticed right when it failed that the desired goal post for that mission changed from splashing down near Hawaii in the Pacific all the way back to just “CLEARING THE TOWER.” That’s a massive change in the goal posts location. And with that change, SpaceX called the launch a success. I call that BS. LETS BE REALISTIC. IT WAS A FAILURE OF EPIC PROPORTIONS. Furthermore, it lifted off the pad very slowly. That indicates that the spacecraft itself is far too heavy. It weighs MORE than the Oliver Hazard Perry class frigate I was stationed on in the Navy. And this craft had NO cargo or crew on board. I’m wondering if a fully loaded Starship will even lift itself up off the pad.
Success or not, they should hide some Raptors in an abandoned warehouse for good measure.
NK-33 be like ...
And 50 years later NASA would use them for a new SLS
Tim, you've seriously earned your ride into space and a WHOLE lot of our appreciation for not just your knowledge but how you can spell it out in a way even those who are new to spaceflight (etc) can understand.
I feel like they'll get to orbit pretty quickly, but it's the rapid reuse part that might get tougher. However, when they get it right there's nothing that will stop the system.
Might have some problems with the heat tiles but hopefully they figure it out
@@KristianBjotvet may not take as long as we think. I was watching a Scott Manley video the other day, where he talks about the tiles. In footage of the launch it appears that the tiles are handling launch and Max Q. They don't start falling off until around the time they begin loosing control.
If I had to speculate, do to the rocket tumbling in the manor it did it probably began bending in a way it wouldn't encounter during normal flight. On launch day I think I recall someone mentioning the rocket no longer looked straight shortly before failure.
While I know the tiles are not directly glued to the tank walls, imagine how you might remove one object glued to another. Pulling the object off all at once may be difficult or near impossible. But if you can bend and peal one of the objects away from the other a little at a time it gets easier.
In this case I'm guessing the tank probably deformed enough to pull it away from the tile mount.
As long as the tiles make it to orbit I'd imagine most of the tiles will survive re-entry. There you have the tiles being pressed towards the tank.
Plus stainless handles re-entry heating better then something like aluminum. If I'm not mistaken a shuttle lost some tiles and survived because it happened to have a stainless plate where those tiles fell off. If this amount of tiles fell off somewhere else it would have burned through aluminum. Definitely fact check me on this one however. I remember someone talking about it on UA-cam.
I'm not saying the first re-entry will be successful but I wouldn't be utterly surprised. Still will probably workout relatively quickly.
@@garreth629 It was space shuttle atlantis, it happend to have an antenna array mounting structure underneath that was steel that saved the flight. there was also damage to about 700 tiles they reported. Its to be noted that the heat the tiles faced on the shuttle was around 2300 F , and the melting point of stainless steel is 2500-2700 F, so its quite likely starship has a higher survival rate if it loses tiles.
agreed. These things take time, but step 1 is a functional rocket - reusability will come later, and only then can they really work on rapid reusability.
Time is on their side. They don’t need the Starship to be at multiple launches a day in the next year, they just need to be faster than the competitors. Even if Starship is only being reused at the rate of the falcon 9 they will be way cheaper than other rockets meaning they will not run out of money from contracts.
Living near Vandenberg Space Force Base I actually see how quick Space X puts things into space I used to see a launch every few months, now I see a launch every few weeks.. It's awesome every time...
Sheesh, people don't even care. Barely anybody shows up to the launches anymore.
@@efone3553 I still bars. But I'm not a note person.
remember the Shuttle was a failure. It was meant to fly every few DAYS, but took MONTHS between launches.
It was a technological marvel, but never lived up to its intended potential.
@@jwenting I believe with the shuttle the cadence originally was anticipated to be something like 50 flights a year. I think 1985 was the year with the most shuttle launches, which amounted to nine.
@@michaeldunne338 that's 1 flight a week, and I believe that was per shuttle, not for the entire fleet.
So yes, they wanted the maintenance in between flights to be a few days, not months or years.
Good job Tim and kudos to your team. Just the right amount of tech without being overwhelming. Thank you kind sir, and thanks to your team
The more complex a system, the more points of failure that can lead to disaster. I'm amazed the N1 was able to accomplish so much. I was remembering the N1 while it was going up and once Starship went into the spin after a few engines either didn't fire or flickered out, it was a good thing that the difference in fuel and build allowed the Starship to stay together for so long and maybe not as much damage after it went boom. That poor launch pad.. {Just made it to 7:30 and nice to hear similar thoughts}
100% over engineered. It needs to be minimum amount of parts as possible.
I remember watching a podcast from one of the designers talking about how they cool the Engines down with the fuel before igniting it, and they talked about how to get the nozzle for the cooling system right.
And all I could think amazing another part that could fail.
@@soppybottomboys1195What was over engineered about it?
I'll add that the only reason today's commercial airliners are so safe is because of the complex systems that have evolved over decades to provide redundancy. SpaceX's vision is for their rockets to have similar reliability and longevity. It's easier to build and replace a couple of failed engines than it is to build and replace a whole rocket.
You are so good at explaining all this stuff so that people like me understand it and still find it interesting without falling asleep. I bet you would have made an excellent teacher.
He IS an excellent teacher.
Well, it's not like it's rocket science. Oh, wait.
@@iDuckman
He’s too good to be a teacher, I learn more from good UA-camrs than what I learn in school.
Yes, back to his highly technical quality video's. It bums me out that this isn't the best way to make money on youtube, instead short clickbaity videos are money makers.
SpaceX's situation is nothing like the late Soviet Moon program. Their funding is so far from being in doubt, it's literally the best-funded space program in dollar-for-dollar effectiveness in all of history. It's also not a political entity that has to answer for factory jobs or design bureaus, so they can change absolutely anything they want about the rocket at any time. And the state of technology is far more ready to handle a large number of engines, thanks to software and electronics.
I would have loved to have heard a discussion of the complexity that high numbers of engines produce upstream like the fuel and oxidizer manifolds, valving, control issues, etc
Exactly.
I think that is insider info..
Exactly that why the n1 failed 4 times.
N1 indeed had issues there. Shutting down engines caused the '"waterhammer" effect and kerosene piepes were destroyed.
I think SpaceX is aware of this.
That does not matter. The U.S. has lost the industrial base that allowed them to produce the F-1 engines of the Saturn V. so Space X is stuck with what they have. You do have plenty of socialist idiots chanting MIC is Evil wanting to eliminate what little you have.
Starship has had 4 tests now and 1 met all its objectives IFT 4 was a complet sucsses so starship has now a higher succsess rate then N1.
Remember, N1 flew in 1969. If it was built nowadays, with modern technologies, it would fly without problems, no doubts.
50 years of advancing technology is no joke
50 years of advancement in Russia is like 3 years of America 😂. There has been quite alot of bad happen to Russia since then 😂
You forgot the fact that the more engines, the more badassery. Which is a clear pro. And yes, badassery IS the scientific term I believe
Sorry, but I have to disagree here. The Saturn 5 is one of the most badass rockets to ever fly and theSea Dragon would have been the most badass rocket of all time if they had actually built it. If you have never heard of it: it had one gigantic 15 meters or so diameter engine and would launch from a swimming position.
Nah, less but very big engines would be more badass :P
More pointy, more scary too!
I bet those Russians that laughed at Elon wanting to buy a rocket from them, wish they had sold him the missiles. Because that investment used to start SpaceX would have went to them. Instead it went to putting them out of the rocket business. I see no way Russia will be a major player in rocketry in 20yrs. Between the war, sanctions, thus the brain drain Russia is speeding down a dead end road. Honestly 20yrs is being generous
I respectfully disagree. The F-1 is one of the coolest rocket engines ever, and the Saturn V will never be dethroned as one of the greatest rockets of all time. Starship is cool because it is basically an N1, Saturn V and Space Shuttle mashed together with 50 years technological advancements. Can't wait to see people land on the Moon again!
I really enjoyed this video, Tim. You lend such style and sharp clarity to explaining the very complex history of spaceflight. Thanks so much from Down Under!
Hear hear!
Who is here after ift 4
Hello nerd 😊
I'm here waiting for IFT5
waiting for ift5
This is more like the good old videos.
Am glad YT algo recommended it to me!
Nice one, Tim!
Incredible how far the aoviet space program was 50 years ago already, they really had passion about this.
great analysis; you deliver as always. There's "fanboy" and then there's "flyboy". I'm so glad you're going. I feel like a good friend is getting a ride (which is why you're selected: you make this whole thing personal and emotionally intimate.).
Who is here after IFT3. We seen back to back 33 engine full duration burn. As Tim said, Starship will not be as N1. Its true. Love you.
This was a really well produced video @Everyday Astronaut! Thank you for all your hard work.
Such an informative video and a nice comparison to what has gone before. It's an incredible age we live in and it's exciting to see these developments come thick and fast.
I, for one, am expecting mundane. That is my ultimate hope. I WANT this to happen and I think SpaceX has the corporate will to make it happen. Great video Tim!
Corporate will does not ever overcome physical reality 😂😂
That’s what’s called delusional thinking
@@Astrogator1 Good thing that physical reality doesn't prevent spaceflight with reusable vehicles, then.
@@Cyberspine Truth. Dude actually came into the comments looking for a fight. I feel sorry for people like that
Another similarity between starship and N1 is the use of grid fins - the N1 has grid fins at the bottom of the first stage and the starship booster has grid fins at the top.
Just recently the starship is switching to double hot staging and the N1 also used hot staging. Starship now has an open interstage connection like the N1 stages had.
I haven't see one of your videos in a long time. I forgot just how enthusiastic and hopeful you are in your videos. It fills my heart with joy seeing how positive you are. You were one of the people to help rekindle my love of aerospace. Thank you for being amazing.
Are u in love with him or you haven't heard about NASA? ....
Multiple perspectives of the same thing is necessary for understanding different voices resonate better with different people love thy neighbor
@@Matt02341 ur right. thx for reminding me
@@Toonhai
LOL!...You nailed that one right on the head, buddy!...We've ALL heard about NASA! THAT's the problem, right there!
I watched NASA kill three perfectly good Astronauts in 1967 by being double-stupid. Rest the souls of Grissom, Chaffee, and White. There's plenty sources of audio, and some video, from that day, give a listen. I heard that audio after the Congressional hearings on the whole affair. Grissom summed it well, "How are we supposed to go to the Moon, if we can't communicate between three buildings on the ground?". The fire started later...all kinds of already-flammable stuff in the capsule, add a pressurized raw oxygen atmosphere, one little spark...and the nail in the coffin...the hatch opened inward. The existing pressure held the door shut, the combustion pressure made sure those poor men ro...um...could not exit the spacecraft, even with the help available just outside the window.
I've watched NASA piss away money as if those contracts are candy off a float at your homecoming parade.
Apollo 13...square vs round CO2 scrubbers, a prime example of NASA's 'too many chefs in the kitchen' approach to building a rocket. They damned near killed "Tom Hanks and the boys" with that one!
The Shuttle...Miracle that they only lost two of them and "only" 14 crew...rest their souls.
SLS...Pffttt! HOW much MONEY did it cost to refurbish old shuttle engines, just to use them once and throw them away in the ocean? They could've rebuilt the tooling and made brand, spankin', new ones for less! Thats just one little part of the SLS-MESS
Boeing Starliner capsule for NASA...THIRTEEN years development and, "There's too much wrong with it to let it fly again at this time."! Nice!
Now, on the other hand, SpaceX developed the most reliable launch system known to humanity...going from idea to human rated in 9 years. Not all that recently, The Falcon 9 took the lead as the orbital rocket with most successful launches in human history. AND...the number of consecutive, "You'll never land that thing on its tail!", landings is fast approaching that previously held the record for most launches. Yeah, SpaceX has backed its rocket into the shed almost as many times...in a row...as the previous most reliable rocket managed to launch...throwing itself in the garbage bin as it went, BTW!
That all said...though NASA suucks horribly at building rockets...there is a huge space for them...NASA has been doing amazing research since they were called NACA. They've helped civil aviation immensely! Heck, I've used NACA airfoils on my model planes a bunch of times over the decades! NASA is needed as our move outward, away from Earth really begins. A government agency is perfect for research and testing the nuts and bolts, as it were, of space travel, because not every big corporation is like SpaceX...willing to spend a LOT of money developing stuff. Most businesses are averse to huge initial outlays without a return in the next quarter.
OR...SHOULD we let the competition just go? Those companies willing to risk busting a few rockets to develop better ones, get the rewards of truly winning?
Watching starship lift off was a a moment of lifetime,
I won't be able able to forget it unless I see another one
SLS was second most awesome. Well Saturn 5 is within my lifetime too, coverage is much better now.
Looks like Starship will try to launch as early as this fall(SpaceX is saying as early as August, but I expect that to be pushed back)
I saw it too from S Padre... Amazing experience.
@@gingerman5123
I was hoping to watch it fly over Key West... unfortunately it did not get that far.
Hopefully the next one will make it to orbit.
@@gingerman5123 Yeah there was no way I was missing that launch. The first one is always the best one, followed by the first successful launch, then after that all the milestone things happen beyond observable range.
The unbothered cows really made me smile!
I think Starship will fly again and fly well. Look how the early Saturn program went from the Snake Killer to our Apollo and Skylab lifter. Now, as you said, we have 50 years of experience to back us up in development.
The Apollo programs were led by competent men. This poor thing is in the hands of the conman, so I wouldn't really put my money on it being too successful
@@WallJumpGaming oh lord...
I think the hot takes on starship don’t really understand how many failures NASA went through getting to the moon.
@@traegreenlee-dg4st
Christ 8...whichever one THAT was...it's right there in the name.
@@fensoxx
I, personally, liked the Apollo 6 Test shot that made it to orbit, though the "pogo-ing" combustion instability would've turned human occupants into Astronaut frappe!
Just another laughably errant example of how, "It was so much better back when...Yadda-yadda-yadda!".
First person here after ift-3
I might be alone but i think the UR-700 looked and would've worked better than the N-1
I am back today rewatching this video after watching IFT4. Let me tell you guys from the past ift 4 was something else.
Coming back to this video, and reading the comments predicting either total failure or success, is pretty fun. Obviously, the naysayers have less and less to say every successful flight, and the expectations of the optimistic have actually been surpassed, for example, SpaceX's 20th landing of a Falcon 9 booster.
After today"s flight I would say no problem
It blew up 😂
Oh yeah, Tim is pretty invested in this. Been watching these video's for so many years I totally forgot he was chosen for Dear Moon until the very end.
Great video, great research, thanks a lot for making this video and teaching us all more and more about these mavels of engineering. Its so fascinating to see all this
After Starship flight 4, this video definitely needs to be updated.
Great program - really enjoy the comparisons N1 vs Startship
I was really hoping you would cover this. The complexity of fueling and controlling this many engines is a huge challenge by itself let alone the shear size of the rocket.
Thank you for your work and thank you for giving complete, comprehensive information on rocket technology, as well as paying attention to Soviet technology and achievements! I am happy to watch your releases and broadcasts ! Good luck and prosperity to your channel and to you personally !
Who here after flight 4 of starship 😂😂😂
One of the best things that happened in the world we live in is Tim getting a chance to fly on Starship on a moon mission. If that is not an inspiring story, I don't know what is. Thank you Tim, for your wonderful study of rockets and the videos. Btw the Starship thermal tiles inspired coffee mug which I got a couple of days ago is just awesome. One thing I don't know about it is whether it is microwave safe.
Yes, it is.
musk is so desperate he recruited a youtuber. Imagine that!
@@BeachLookingGuy Wow, he created artificial haters to keep the comment sections interesting!
@@BeachLookingGuyyep, so now he can't be critical of space x without worrying he could be turned down
I'm convinced people who say spacex was dumb not to use a flame diverter or water suppression don't understand that thw rocket isn't the goal... the infrastructure is.. the best part is no part it'll be extremely difficult to set up an entire launch site on another world if it includes not only chopsticks and a platform but also an entire water storage system and having to excavate trenches for diverters.. if the concrete they had did work it would have been the best case ..
I would not be at all surprised by launch 2 making it to orbit. Booster 7 just kept trucking with engines blowing up and flaming out left and right.
Let's just say the N1 was too far ahead of its time and now Starship is just about time. It's not a matter of if but when it succeeds.
Well.... it's two for two failure and that's in the year Musk said there would already be two successful landings of freaking Mars, so no, that is far from any kind of certainty.
@@AltaMirage Wow. Stop commenting if you don't have any knowledge whatsoever. You don't seem to understand progress.
I expect them to get to orbit in the 2 or third attemp. But the landing of the booster and Starship will take at lot of trials
and those trials will blow up the base! The pad, the tower, the propellent tanks so close, everything! Just insane!
@@donosticopter9225 or you just build a tower without the hookups and practice till it’s perfect
I think there's a chance they'll manage to master booster landing/catching but I don't see a way they'll manage with the ship. Booster at least has the 2 'hooks' that stick out but the ship doesn't and it has the very delicate heat tiles.
Falcon heavy has 27 engines, so no problem here. Plus, these engines and technology is way more advanced than the N1. Not to mention the Space X track record. Fantastic! I love these videos.
Yeah, but consider that the Falcon Heavy isn't an entirely new rocket from the Falcon 9 - it's more or less just a derivative with two extra first stages tacked on, able to yeet more than twice as much as the F9 into space. And all the parts of the FH were proven reliable in service by the F9 by the time it rolled around.
The N1 and Starship on the other hand were, or are, plagued with masses upon masses of design issues since the design hasn't been properly thought through. Now I can't say much about the N1, but the Starship? They didn't even use newbuild Raptors, so the rocket ended up losing over 10 engines in that launch. The launch pad? Obliterated, plus a huge amount of nature reserve in Boca Chica gone. The FTS? That didn't work at all.
And one more thing, when your stated mission is to launch, make 3/4 orbit around Earth then splashdown off Hawaii, then how is having a rocket disintegrate just 4 minutes after launch considered "successful", when it never went faster than the Concorde of all things?
@@nerd2814 the stated goal was to clear the launch pad and pass MaxQ. Everything else was IF those and stage separation were successful. Information gathering is the important/successful parts they are focused on.
@@jonathanbranyon No, the stated goal was to take the vehicle on a 3/4 orbit around Earth and splash down north of Hawaii. That was the official mission plan submitted to NASA.
Re "information gathering": that is a very wasteful way to do it, don't you think? Computer simulations exist for a reason - to crunch the numbers and see if it can be done. You never see NASA launch a rocket just cuz "it's for R&D!" They test everything meticulously, destructively and non-destructively, before building a rocket - why do you think Artemis' first launch (to the Moon, may I add) was perfect in almost every way?
@@nerd2814 jeez man. The launch pad wasn't obliterated, none of the nature reserve is gone, the FTS did eventually work. You can make plenty of genuine criticism of the way starship is being developed, there isn't much point in misrepresenting things for dramatic effect
@@nommchompsky jeez man. The launch pad was obliterated, some of the nature reserve is gone, the FTS did not work. You can make plenty of genuine criticism of the way starship is being developed, there isn't much point in misrepresenting things for dramatic effect
Thanks, Tim, great video! I was born a few years before Sputnik, and I've been on the edge of my seat for all of it! And thanks to SpaceX's vision and drive, I think I'll actually see the human spacefaring adventure get properly underway. I'm rooting for you and the team! ("Have Spacesuit, Will Travel!")
Till you meet the Mother Thing.
@@johngreen4610 From my elementary school library, I must've read that book and "Rocket Ship Galileo" a hundred times.
Once upon a time I was in school. There were televisions in all the rooms and I'm not sure where they came from as there weren't any there before or after. Apollo 11 launched and completed it's mission. At a school outing to Cape Kennedy I found myself in a small room where they demonstrated the Space Shuttle Tiles. Allen Been had a tile for the Shuttle and heated it with a torch, handing it out to us, it was cool by the time we touched it. Such an amazing moment and imagine that we shook the hand and talked to a man that had been on the moon. It's been 50 years or so since then and there aren't cities on the Moon or space ways to Mars like in the movies. Space travel has been on the back burner. Just imagine if Earth had that same ambition to go just a little further over that time. The world was so busy taking care of itself that our past achievements were never equaled or bested. Lets do that soon, ok?
Don't be too harsh please. Stroke and coma survivor.
You nailed it.
I think people in general doesn't have a clue what kind of engineering milestones those guys are doing since 2017 Falcon Heavy and with Starship. At the moment the only thing and philosophy that is keeping us as humans on the higher level to go one step beyond of exploring
Love your vids. Especially these dives into the technical aspects and history of spaceflight.
The way I see it SpaceX had already tested everything else, which really left one thing to try out: a full test launch. I do think the pad is the big sticking point here. With that said I think they’re trying to see how simple they can make the pad for frequent use.
Edit: I just realized does Elon/SpaceX like to post random memes on new raptor engines!? I swear I saw a surprised pikachu face on one of the engines and random scribblings on the others.
The pad is a sticking point? Measures to prevent acoustic and thermal damage to launch pad infrastructure and surroundings caused by the plume have been common sense for decades. You can readily find information on launch sites that are repeatedly used without massive damage from every flight. For example, SpaceX itself currently leases pad 39A from which Apollo missions were launched, including the deluge system.
There was zero reason for them not to take those common sense measures (such as a deluge system) for starship other than rushing the test in time for the utterly asinine 4/20 meme. The fact that they launched starship this haphazardly bricked the test. Frequent use of starship is a non-starter since they knowingly sacrifice so much of its thrust at launch. Never mind that bombarding rocket engines with shrapnel makes them not very reusable. Such a preventable failure in an otherwise unprecedented, unique and impressive test launch should make any engineer worth their salt feel shame.
When ego and shitposting take priority over results, the entire incredible track record of Falcon, Dragon, Raptor and all the people who do the actual work at SpaceX gets squandered.
Who’s here after the immensely successful third flight?
me! i am so glad the ship did not have a cockpit with astronauts in it. that is truly a success
14:13 the cows 🐄 don’t seem to mind the rocket 🚀 going off! 😂
Well after IFT-2 I think its we can say they figured out the problem. All 33 lit and stayed operational up to stage separation. Once they figure out the boost back I think it'll be safe to say they've overcome the N1
One the BEST channels on UA-cam. All the facts, NO click bait or hiding the "hook" somewhere in the video. You layout the timestamps with all the topics, upfront and honest. A true gem of knowledge of all things rockets 👍
Where are the facts? His narrative is "I'm sure they'll figure it out. I'm sure re-building launch pad is not the problem. I'm sure Elon will never die. I'm sure Soviets would eventually figure that out. I'm sure SpaceX finances are safe and sound." Where you have those facts you speak of? The fact is that he is not even astronaut. The only thing he said is right is that he is a "fanboy". Also it vexes me how he glosses over ultimate problems the design of this program is facing only to dissmiss them with a silly chuckle. Is this scientific reasearch according to you? Where are those facts? I recommend you all taking a good look at Thunderf00t take on what this entire program is worth.
"All the facts" ... wow. Do you honestly think that? I agree that some of the videos Tim made about rocket engine history were informative and interesting, but only a fool can't see that Tim is very much a fanboy and PR channel for SpaceX and Elon. Tim avoids to criticize or even question simply because he would lose access and even his ticket to the moon. Better to shut up and throw Elon some softball questions and keep woooing and wowing at exploding rockets. If you really want to get the whole picture you have to actively seek sources that provide opposing arguments, but most people don't really seem to care. Making up your own mind is an exhausting business.
@@EnnoMaffen If you had been following Tim all these years, he is an everyday guy explaining rockets the best he can in terms us everyday people can understand. He is on the front lines jumping up and down at launches while we are at home jumping up and down cheering on launches with him. You just don't get it and is a bummer.
@@EnnoMaffen I sort of agree with you here.
But tim is more than a PR channel for daddy elon. He actually is bringing space down for everyday people
A couple things that might fit well into this video:
A big reason for large numbers of engines in the Starship is the need to catch and reuse both stages. When the stages are landing they are nearly empty and very light. A large engine cannot throttle down far enough to have less thrust than the weight of the vehicle. With smaller engines you can bring the vehicle all the way down to a hover which makes catching much easier. The Falcon 9 cannot hover so it uses the "suicide burn" where it has to time the engine burn perfectly so that it reaches zero velocity exactly when it reaches zero altitude.The Starship will need to hover (or descend very slowly) for a short time as it moves laterally to align with the catching arms. A suicide burn would be nearly impossible.
Second comment is about the N1. The N1 was rushed to a launch because the Apollo 11 flight was very close to happening. The soviets had run out of time for testing.
I also have one question that I'd love to have answered: With Raptor 3 engines coming, what does Space X do with all the Raptor 1 and Raptor 2 engines?
Another awesome video Tim! Very clearly explained, good flow and pace and just the right length! Keep em coming! 😀
They also said he couldn't land boosters and yet here we are with spacex landing boosters after they detach.
The N1 was never a failure. It was just cancelled prematurely. Priorities had changed in the mid-70s and going to the Moon after the race was lost meant the N1 was not needed anymore.
They always planned at least 12 launches before ever putting humans on the top of it.
And yes, a 5th launch would have used the NK-33 engines instead of the NK-15.
Wrong. The soviets tried desperately to make it work, they had a lot of plans for it including carrying the largest nuclear weapin ever built.
@@bArthurt777 there was no nuclear weapon that would require even a fraction of a rocket like that. It could carry tsar bomb together with its bomber.
SpaceX are masters at going from impossible to late.
That's Tesla. SpaceX is the master.
@@paintedpony2935 Elon said they would put humans on mars in 2022. More like 2042
@@hippomormor When did Elon ever say that they would put humans on Mars by 2022? And what is the point in quoting Elon's predictions when he notoriously overly optimistic or just wrong?
@@michaeldeierhoi4096 if you follow the conversation you can easily see what I’m responding too and how it fits in the context of the conversation. Weird question
Seeing you at the Demo 1 launch brought back my memory of that event. I took my brother and mother to see that launch. The scene was absolutely wild out there at Space View Park…then the launch was scrubbed because of potential rain. I was _pissed._ My brother wasn’t too mad because he was more interested in just getting out of the county for a day, but I could tell my mom was disappointed. I vowed to take her to see Starship launch no matter what!
She died last year to stage 4 lung cancer.
Watching Starship launch was simultaneously the most exciting, and most depressing thing I think I’ve ever experienced. I didn’t go to see it in person, but I did watch it live at work.
I’m not sure if I’ll ever try to see a launch in person again, but I will keep watching SpaceX as they master Starship, and I look forward to the eventual Starship Heavy. You just know it’s going to have 69 Raptors and will be exactly 420m tall when stacked 🤣
I honestly don’t think you’ll need it, because I already know everything will be to script, but I wish you luck with your trip around the moon, Tim. I still think it’s friggin bonkers that an Everyman is about to get their astronaut wings. These are interesting times to be alive!
well this aged well it seems seeing that the second launch was succesful unlike the second launch of the n1
Aged even better now! IFT-3 put the N-1 to shame lmao
And a fews later after flight number 3, Tim's theory of a flawed design has proven to be wrong. ;)
Love the video. I've shared with a few friends who are also space fans since this question gets brought up a lot. Your arguments and presentation of the differences in technical design are what seals the deal for me. Keep up the content!
Thanks for an objective view of both programmes. It's especially good to hear a thoughtful view of the N1 programme. Given the Soviet's practice of keeping boosters, the ISS might have looked very different today, if the N1 had been allowed to become operational.
Not very objective. Tossing out strawmen left, right, and center to show how amazing SpaceX is.
@@pmman4232I think he meant " at least these guys aren't carnival bakers, crazy about white... I mean space x...
This video has been up for 4 months, but then again things have been going relatively slowly at SpaceX at least in regards to Starship, and so I haven't felt the urge to watch it with any urgency. I expected I'd skim through it for the sake of time but I have to admit that Tim does such a great job that it's just not a lot of filler and promotion. Good info and no fluff. Thanks Tim. Keep 'em flyin'.
I thought the engine failures were a result of debris from the launch pad, not defective engines.
Nope, that was only ever speculation and now it seems poor speculation at that.
If the N1 had raptors it would be a different story
Modern electronics and other technologies would help too! 🙂
My main issue with the 'silly numbers of engines means you're more safe' approach is cascading failures. There are many engine failure modes that are localized, sure, but there are many engine failure modes that are nowhere near as contained. Consider e.g. an engine turbopump grenading - similar failure modes in aircraft are generally a case of 'pray that it doesn't hit another engine'.
And yes, there are approaches to help mitigate this somewhat... but again I come back to areospace. Uncontained engine failures happen, and by and large aircraft don't even _try_ to protect against high pressure turbine failures because the mass cost is prohibitive... and aerospace is far less weight-constrained than rocketry.
Each rocket engine is surrounded by blast shielding to mitigate such a scenario, also control systems and sensor arrays are now so sophisticated that engines are shut down well before a failure becomes an explosion. In aircraft too there is shielding to contain catastrophic engine failure to that single engine which is why the famous blade off and frozen turkey tests are conducted simulating two of the most catastrophic modes of failure. If the engine does not contain the resulting explosion then the design is considered a failure, there is no prayer involved.
SpaceX has made science fiction seem almost mundane! The fact that we take it for granted now that a Falcon ROCKET will land itself back on a ship or terra firma for re-use is mind-blowing! I've got faith in SpaceX engineers and their business model. Spaceship's success is more important than most care to realize. Rock On SpaceX 🖖
What an awesome video! Thanks for all the insane amazing content tim!
Make the nessasary adjustments and send it up one more time! We need that Data!!!
I do think that however you simulate and engineer things in the lab, a real life test will always show something completely unexpected.
This is why, even though Indian space research organisation had GSLV and GSLV mk 3 as their most powerful Rockets, they still rely on PSLV for most of their important launches . It's because of this experience... That PSLV had a lot of launch experience, that made them do this.
We had a saying at the CMU robotics lab that the problem with simulations was that they were doomed to succeed. It looks like that's attributed to Rodney Brooks actually, a Stanford and MIT guy.
Great and very informative video! I would love a video on Energia too, as i believe it had a lot of potential, that sadly never got used due to the fall of the soviet union. Especially the modulary, as there was plans for a even bigger rocket (Vulcan) by simply strapping on more energia boosters to the core.
Ift3: all 33 running for the full duration, just like ift2!