The Real Reason SpaceX Developed The Falcon 9!
Вставка
- Опубліковано 12 тра 2024
- The Real Reason SpaceX Developed The Falcon 9!
Last Video: How SpaceX Will Land On Mars
• How SpaceX Will Land O...
►Become a member today: / @thespaceraceyt
►Support the channel by purchasing from our merch store: shop.theteslaspace.com/
► Join Our Discord Server: / discord
► Patreon: / theteslaspace
► Subscribe to our other channel, The Space Race: / theteslaspace
Mars Colonization News and Updates
• Mars Colonization News...
SpaceX News and Updates: • SpaceX News and Updates
The Space Race is dedicated to the exploration of outer space and humans' mission to explore the universe. We’ll provide news and updates from everything in space, including the SpaceX and NASA mission to colonize Mars and the Moon. We’ll focus on news and updates from SpaceX, NASA, Starlink, Blue Origin, The James Webb Space Telescope and more. If you’re interested in space exploration, Mars colonization, and everything to do with space travel and the space race... you’ve come to the right channel! We love space and hope to inspire others to learn more!
► Subscribe to The Tesla Space newsletter: www.theteslaspace.com
Business Email: sean@creatormill.com
#Spacex #Space #Mars - Наука та технологія
What topics would you like to see us cover next? Let us know below!
Why Starship changed over the years
PEREGRINE 1
The future of the falcon 9
What those 4 things are that stick up on all 4 sides of every launch of anything at Canaveral.
How about why you have @ssholes running your discord?
What an incredible company SpaeX is. They reshaped the space industry so much over the past decades.
SpaceX is setting the standard for work performance and productivity globally!
I wonder what the company is worth now. 🚀
Somewhat. I'm surprised the legacy rocket companies aren't trying harder to produce similar reusable designs to the Falcon 9R.
(ツ) ☕☕(ツ)
@@jokerace8227that’s what Chinese companies are doing I also think Russia is building a reusable rocket and blue origin is also building a reusable rocket but the legacy space industry hasn’t stepped up and they will lose
Decades?
@@vincep1c156decade=10yrs, space x been around for 20 sum years now
When considering the ambitious goals that SpaceX is still pursuing, it is easy to overlook the immense achievements they have accomplished in the past few years!
Thanks for another great video!
We are doing everything humanly possible to shut down this planet the irony.
@@BjayawesomeBlackDudewhat? Sorry I don’t understand what you mean
@@ObamanableSnowman Wars but maybe not Taiwan this year.
Love these history lessons! Thank you for this in depth overview of the Falcon 9.
Thanks for carring about all.
governance overdose then, affordable or not its not really their decision is it, but then they're not supposed to be allowed to make laws themselves either , and so here we are
Elon Musk and SpaceX has reinvigorated my child like fascination with spaceflight
We just need some sick space missions or even landers. I am sure Elon wouldn't mind spending a few billion to get some rock samples or a decent few images of the out solar system.
@@trojanhorse6029Wee need to get as many landers with rovers onto the moons in the outer solar system
Same. The moment i saw a recommended 1 month old clip of falcon heavy landing the 2 boosters side by side my jaw dropped and i just couldn't stop watching space related content, especially rockets development and launches.
JWST, Hubble, Voyager 1 and 2 are reinvigorating imaginations of young and old. Musk had nothing to do with those.
I hope Jeff and Blue Origin can get it up (into orbit). My popcorn for the the next starship launch is ready.
Thanks for the history lesson. I didn’t follow them until I saw a video of two boosters landing side by side. Amazing! I enjoy your videos very much
@@elonmuskceospaceX I am now in Oregon, but originally I came from Delaware ( south of Philadelphia).
@@markhollingsworth3262 welcome to the west coast
Another very well done video! Really like the channel. Keep up the good work!
Excellent history lesson! The best I've seen from the ten sites I follow. A bit early perhaps but a Falcon Heavy history would be welcome.
Love the channel. I would love to see an in depth update on ULA's successful launch of it's new Vulcan rocket. Too bad about the lunar lander, would like to see an update on that as well. Keep up the great content!
It was and still is crazy to think that SpaceX was able to land a rocket. It was a game changer in launching things into space. Even more amazing is that they continue to improve the design rather than remain stagnant with a working reusable rocket.
Very true and still amazing at every flight 😊
Incredible episode! You rock.
B1058 has my signature on a grid fin following a successful landing sequence burn test I collaborated in.🎉
Thank you for sharing this
Really nice and thank you nice to see and appreciate all there work
Thank you for supporting us and becoming a member! We really appreciate the help
Really interesting and informative video but, at 8:36, are you sure that's a reentry burn? Looks like all 9 engines running and plume expansion shortly before MECO. Boost back and reentry use three engines, don't they?
You’re probably right. The graphics on this video are not 100% accurate
Don't worry, I'll be right behind you all the way rooting you on.
Excellent information. "countless setbacks". More like a handful, all of which were overcome very quickly by the SpaceX engineers and technicians on the way to Falcon 9 Block 5, the SpaceX launch vehicle masterpiece. Falcon 9 met and won two of the most important challenges for the SpaceX Mars enterprise: Supersonic retropropulsion and vertical landing of an orbital class launch vehicle, i.e. the F9 booster. Those milestones were accomplished over eight years ago (22Dec2015).
They've learned a lot more from their failures than anyone else has from not even attempting things in the first place.
Really great presentations. Thank You!🙏
NASA experimented with the idea of reusable rockets decades ago, but they were never successful in landing the rockets. I believe that the US space program had devolved so much that until SpaceX came along, we were resorting to the use of Russian rockets for many/most of our launches. Great video!
Amazing video dude. xx
The photo at 0:31 is not SpaceX, this looks like Stoke Space to me.
You are correct
What a strange oversight by the channel
Thanks for the historical review.
Beste Grüße aus Deutschland und danke für die News! ;-)
Thanks for the update. How do you secure the payloads &. Satolites?
Awesome Video 😊
I follow alot about SpaceX and you still provided lots of new cool information about their changes of the Falcon 9. Thanks
where/what do you use to stay up to date with this info
“What about it” he’s really into it
Fascinating indeed!
Great video...👍
This is very interesting and infinitely exciting ! 😮❤
Great initiative, great invention. Cheers
Great vid, thanks for all the great info!
Well done.
i messed with this in kerbal. adding parachutes and other recovery systems adds weight and reduces delta v meaning the rocket wont go as far and it can be drastic and also more expensive. the most efficient thing to do is strip it all down bare then do a little burn close to the surface.. youll have more fuel to do it because you saved it by cutting weight. adding a couple parachutes could be the difference of not having the fuel you otherwise would have had.
Keep it going,out standing,keep us informed.
The excitement of growth in this country,what ,
What progress we've have made🎉
Its amazing and fantastic what the will to succeed can invent!! Would love if any developments being explored along the lines of Silent Running.
Wonderful history lesson !!!
So far so good. I walk around listening.
Awesome video. Thanks for sharing this. Space X really is an incredible company.
Very very informative
Space x is amazing!
Correction, turbopump micro-cracks would actually happen on the test stand. It wasn't the flight that caused the cracks.
This is sooo awesome 👍
Love It!!!
There is an error on the video at 0:33. That is not a photo of the Spacex team. Since I'm making this comment I take the opportunity to mention that sometimes you put footage of things that don't totally match the news or event you are mentioning. For example, reporting on a present event but putting old footage of the people involved. The script is usually higher quality than the footage representing it, but in the aspect of matching things. Anyway, thanks for the content you are great.
Yeah I was wondering why Andy Lapsa was working at SpaceX with a Stoke T-shirt.
0:30 Falcon 9 did not launch 96 times in 2023. Falcon 9 launched 91 times and Falcon Heavy launched 5 times.
Falcon heavy's are 3 Falcon 9 engines strapped together. But yes, technically Falcon heavy's were launched 5 times. Still tho, 91 times for Falcon 9 and 5 Falcon Heavy's is an insane number of launches
@@snakevenom4954 I wonder what they are doing with all these launches. We all know going to mars aint it
@@donpage2161 Falcon 9 launches are for sattellites and getting equipment and resources to the space station
@@donpage2161SpaceX to Mars was a PR campaign to get federal funding for Musk to build rockets to launch and maintain Star Link. Everything else is just freight hauling to the Space Station. I don’t think Musk was ever serious about going to Mars. Don’t hear him talking about it anymore do you? No. The radioactive atmosphere and the cancer causing dust everywhere on Mars make it a fools errand.
👍🚀👍🚀👍
THEY can’t trivialize the brilliant pursuit of ‘economical’ space access. Kudos SpaceX!
This is an historically important tutorial!
Thanks!
Good job
Why can’t the landing legs also be made of Titanium and shaped as additional Grid Fins? Wouldn’t this help slow and stabilize the Rockets reentry if extended at start of reentry?
That would be expensive to an ungodly degree, not to mention that the design of the legs would have to be quite different
Third reason why parachutes wouldn’t work with the F9 compared to the Space Shuttle’s SRB’s: the SRB’s didn’t have complex engines but just nozzles from the solid rocket fuel. Hence, these type of engines could much better deal with salty ocean water…
Nice!
Geniale,e sono convinta che riuscira ,in quello che sie foccussatto, Mille Auguri🎉🌌
Great innovative, great technology
Slight correction of the landing process.
In the final burn for landing, its not "the engines", last burn is the single central engine.
And its a single engine, because even at minimum thrust, its still too high to hover.
Great story!
Space Shuttle was $10,000/kg 10 Years ago but what are the other CURRENT rockets charging per kg???
It’s at @17:00
@arthurmiller-vl6sw No it is not. He only says Falcon 9 at $2,700 vs Space Shuttle at $10,000 10 Years ago...
What are the other CURRENT rockets charging??? meaning - What is Falcon 9's ACTUAL competitors charging?
@@LifeMyWay007 you may want to edit your original post to ask that
I thought the jellyfish was the last part of the flight up, when the air is so thin and ends at MECO. THEN the flip & back-burn.
bro i'm not kidding a portion of this video is literally the exact same script as on their other video called how spacex reinvented the rocket
I know!! I thought I was rewatching the same video
I love everything you just did about the analyzation of how it works.. maybe instead of dumping my ashes into the sea maybe I'll eject them into space I mean how much does 1 lb of ashes cost to dump into space
John Carmack and Armadillo helped to pioneer computer controlled vertical landings
The heat shield comment appears erroneous. The first burn of the stage 1 on reentry bleeds of speed to about Mach 8. This is at about 60k altitude. Then it reduces its speed to about Mach 3. It is a combination of speed and atmospheric density that causes the serious re-entry heat. So if you re-enter at a slow enough speed it is possible to avoid reentry burnout. The maths are also that after the top stage is lost and the most of the fuel spent, the total mass needed to deaccelerate is a lot less.
Thanks very much for this nice overview. The question is not whether using falcon 9 is cheaper than the space shuttle, which was notoriously expensive, but rather how well it compares to older NASA (or even Russian) single use rockets. Can you comment on that?
As far as I know one order of magnitude less
Henry Ford would be proud... can't wait for the windshield wipers!
Cool story!😊
So ozone hole insurance survival plan is ?
Awesome
Please cover how the decision is made, to only use turbo pump fuel pumps; and not consider some other means of rocket fuel delivery, to the engines. Are other means even being studied?
What alternative designs for superheavy booster and spaceship recovery, besides Mechazilla, have been considered?
The Chinese- not sure if it’s government or private- have plans for recovering boosters via catching them with an array of cables suspended above a platform. Rocket lab has experimented with helicopter capture, and ULA with the Vulcan will just try to recover and reuse the blue origin BE4 engines from the booster (dumped in the ocean)
@@EntropyConcept Really like the multiple tactic approach. Have seen the helicopter attempt. Looked really dangerous. Still a drone copter with a dedicated design might work. A semi submerged swimming pool, so to speak, of ionized and filtered seawater may have some merit for saving an entire booster.
It's too bad that there's a limit on the number of qualified technicians to execute all the plausible ideas !
When you need to pump fluids the best tool is .. a pump. Then you can implement it with different methods, but turbine cycles are more thermodynamic efficient. Then there is the choose for throwing away part of the fuel and exhaust or reuse them (open vs close cycles). The second considerably more tricky. Then after launch options open for more propulsion methods in cruise phase, such as ion or thermal nuclear. But that’s another chapter completely
@@youerny I like this reply. TY. Your ion allusion is most interesting though. If you could negatively charge both tanks and positively charge the fluid being transferred as it enters the empty tank, would that create a substantial push-pull effect on the fluid that could be electromagnetically pumped and accelerated from full tank to empty one?
The entire concept that somehow moving humanity to mars was going to be EASIER than fixing the problems on earth is just insane. completely insane.
Because it makes a cooler story. 😆
Thanks frrom Brazil
SOOOO INTERESTING!!!!!!
I honestly think space x should expand on the Alcubuars warp drive system as well as this.
Great 🎉
Thanks
Freer minds and competition has resulted in the most reliable, reusable and cargo efficient rocket-ship on the planet.
❤this is sooo awesome !? 💥💕❤️💕❤️💕❤️💕❤️
Nice video. So much so that for Artemis I would have opted for Falcon heavy, maybe two launches with one earth orbit rendezvous and then a lunar (or gateway) one. Much more solid and viable than 15 launches. Moreover mars I am convinced will require nuclear cruise, not just CH4. Just my opinions, I think spacex people are great, but I feel confused about that. SLS doesn’t deserve a word!
A good book on how to frugally colonize our solar system is Second Exodus Colony. Located at the Internet Archives.
@12:00 NASA had already landed a verticle rocket landing. It was not thought impossible.
Without SpaceX I wouldn't be in a bachelor's program to become an Aerospace Engineer now. I can't wait to work on projects like this and get the EU up to speed.
At 0.31 that was the proud folks at Spoke Space.
Rendezvous, docking and fuel transfer? You can build anything with Legos and liquid storage and transfer.
I'm curious why for the landing on either land or their sea platforms to have poles with cable mesh between them like a screen to flip up during a booster landing to act as hollow containing walls and to have cables strung up to hold the rocket body in place to ensure it doesn't fall over and is safely transported back? Use this concept correctly and it wouldn't even need the legs reduces the dry mass even more. I doubt they would try this and really dont expect any one to, but it is an interesting thought experiment of engineering. Also this method could also have been used for the upper stage for true full responsibility before starship was.
The Chinese- not sure if govt. or private, though- are trying to go that route with the cables.
@EntropyConcept really, never heard of them doing that. Care to share how you know that? Is their an article or video I can see for that? Also, why do you suppose spacex hasn't done this method yet?
@EntropyConcept Also by doing this with a falcon 9 you could also use starship tech in 1 too and use this instead of a large and unnecessary rocket when you could have many smaller ones making it safer and easier to work with.
@@mr.ackermann807 unfortunately I can't find the source. I saw it either from Marcus house or Scott Manley.
@@mr.ackermann807 F9 would need a full redesign to accommodate for starship tech (methane design for rapid reuse, stainless body, etc). That would require an extensive RnD and flight certification campaign. Plus, starship is designed for oversized payloads (starlink v2/v3, earth-to-earth transport, mars missions), so the profile is different
Please show me more,but I can't request. Very interested Thanks
❤😂🎉
Awesome! Thank you to Elon and all the SpaceX team.
The jellyfish effect is from a boost back burn. The 1st and 2nd stages are pointing at each other causing the exhaust to interact.
Go elan! All reasons were as I would hope them to be.
Like 60 years ago
.
Now been me up scoty
I'm not sure if you have ever explained it, but I'm really curious, how on earth is it viable to send that extra fuel which is necessary for slowing down from 8000 km/h of kinetic energy plus 100km of potential energy of that huge booster which is pretty much a metal rod falling back down from the orbit? How much of the total fuel is left (in percentage and mass) for the reentry and landing? The rocket equation is cruel, how is it possible that it doesn't kill this idea?
Lol troll
First, it's not a metal rod, but more like a hollow metal balloon, and as such it uses the atmosphere for braking as well as the engines. This reduces the amount of propellant required, though it can still be 50 or more tonnes depending on flight profile. What doesn't kill this idea is the simple fact that propellant (fuel and oxidizer) is the cheapest thing on a rocket. They trade a lower potential payload and reduced overall performance for getting the rocket back.
Potential energy doesn’t matter much when air resistance exists. The atmosphere does the majority of the work in slowing the vehicle down- you can it clearly in any F9 webcast. No idea on how much fuel is required (Google says 6-10% of propellant) but it’s a small fraction of wha it takes to get it up. The re-entry burn only lights up three engines for a brief period, while the landing burn only takes one.
@@Lemurion287 Well, I get your point, but it is no less a metal rod than it is a "balloon". ;) The crossection that creates the resistance is pretty minimal in comparison to the overall size. Fuel might be cheap but you still need fuel to get that fuel into orbit in the first place and that costs $2700 per kg as was mentioned in the video. That does not sound "cheap". ;) I get it that it MUST somehow add up, or they wouldn't do it, but would still like to see a detailed breakdown of the economics and the slowing down mechanics.
@@erykczajkowski8226 you can dig all the numbers out on the NASA Spaceflight forums. Also, the air resistance doesn't just apply to the cross section because it's not coming straight down. So what you have is mostly empty propellant tanks, with a very low overall density. It's also important to remember that you don't need to get that fuel into orbit because the first stage doesn't reach orbit.
Can somebody pls provide a short summary of the video?
1:39 Put your what, where?
Isn't the script in this video the exact same from the one you made a year ago?? Or I'm just going crazy 🤪
Great great great video. Thank you...
The crazy jellyfish looking cloud of smoke and fire ist not the entry burn! It’s the main burn bevor meco.
IMPRESSIVE🙏❤️🔥❣️INDEED❣️🙏❤️🔥
I'd like you to list the ten most important things necessary to get SpaceX Mars, make a colony there and get humans there. Then I'd like you to simple and very briefly say why. Just a paragraph then move on to the next item. Lastly, rank them in order of importance.
After that you can extend the reasons to fuller explanations in some other videos if you want. I'm only interested in my test to you set in my first paragraph.
If you can't then I know you don't know and have nothing to offer me who can do that and more already.
Do martians have the plataform in good working conditions ready to be used at a moment notice....?🎉
$10,000 per kg, that's insane.
Winged booster that caries a spacecraft in a cradle, launched at 35° they separate while all the burners are burning.
No more rockets blowing up on their way to space, land back on a lake or the sea with a hydrofoil system.
During the "Space Shuttle Days", the cost to LEO was NOT (!) 10k$.
Yeah, you're right, now that I searched it, it was around $55k per kilogram, thanks for the correction. According to wikipedia, a single space shuttle launch cost about $1.5B and could carry ~27 tons. Convert these two and divide them to get a ratio of ~$55,000 per one Kg. Geez!
Though, humanity has developed a lot in the aerospace industry... With Soyuz coming at around five and a half thousand dollars per kg and the falcon 9, with not much difference, at ~2.5K dollars per Kg. All these are cargo to Low Earth Orbit just to be clear...
@@konkam744 That's for STS. The cost to LEO in 2005 was $5000/kg for Ariane 5.
@@odril well yeah, but since we are referring to it as "Space Shuttle days" I thought I might ass well put the STS cost... It just made sense to me
Wish I could go