Raptor BAD! SpaceX revealed Starship Third Launch Engine TROUBLE...
Вставка
- Опубліковано 28 тра 2024
- Raptor BAD! SpaceX revealed Starship Third Launch Engine TROUBLE...
===
#alphatech
#techalpha
#spacex
#elonmusk
#starship
===
00:00 Starship's Third Launch Raptor Engines Problem
02:39 So why are rocket engines so difficult to reignite like that?
04:36 The difficulty is there, but the human brain is infinite, and engineers still have methods to restart the engine when landing or in vacuum conditions.
07:01 So how does it manage to ignite?
===
Sources of thumbnail:
John Kraus: / johnkrausphotos
Sources of image & video:
Cosmic Perspective: / @cosmicperspective
Everyday Astronaut: / everydayastronaut
LabPadre Space: / labpadre
TheSpaceEngineer: / @thespaceengineer
C-bass Productions: / cbassproductions
Starship Gazer: / starshipgazer
Callum: / hisdirtremoves
RoBossBomb:
ua-cam.com/channels/ViT.html...
Greg Scott: / gregscott_photo
Project Road to Mars:
/ @projectroadtomars
===
Raptor BAD! SpaceX revealed Starship Third Launch Engine TROUBLE...
Starship's Third Launch Raptor Engines Problem
Rocket engines are the heroes of every space exploration journey, serving as the propulsion force to propel spacecraft beyond Earth's atmosphere. Their significance lies in their ability to generate the immense thrust needed for liftoff and their precision and reliability throughout the mission. Therefore, having a powerful and efficient operating engine for their vehicles is crucial. SpaceX is a company that highly values this aspect. They have opted to build the most powerful engines for the largest rocket ever constructed - the Raptor engine for the Starship.
However, achieving flawless operation for the Raptor, as desired by SpaceX, has not been entirely straightforward.
Not to mention the hundreds of successful individual Raptor engine tests, let's take a look at how 33 Raptor engines standing together performed in the recent third launch of the Starship.
===
Subcribe Alpha Tech: www.youtube.com/@alphatech496...
=== - Наука та технологія
Can you please stop making clickbaits like this
Everybody does it to attract eyes
The title was not good but the info was worthy.
Made you click though
I second
And
Three
That
Career rocket propulsion system engineer here. At a high level, your discussion of the various rocket engine types was pretty good. There are lots of details that you glossed over that could be a treatise unto themselves. One correction though. You said that hypergolic propellants are injected into the combustion chamber in their gaseous phase. That is incorrect. The two mainstay hypergolic propellants are monomethylhydrazing (MMH) and nitrogen tetroxide (NTO - however, NTO is usually subclassified by the level of nitric oxide in a composition of mixed oxides of nitrogen, such as MON-3 where the 3 is 3% NO in the mixed oxide solution). Anyway, MMH and NTO (or MON) are injected into the chamber as liquids, and the heat generated by their mixing initiates the phase change and combustion process.
Thank god someone can call @AlphaTech's BS.... I wonder if @velikjoxtnik thinks "Raptor BAD" lmao
BS
@@user-ln9bk7mo3l, I don't understand your comment to me. I only corrected a statement about the combustion of hypergolic propellants. I didn't say anything about the Raptor engines.
I'm going to guess the problems with relighting the engines for both stages was not being able to supply fuel to the engines. The booster was spinning and dropping to earth, and the starship was just tumbling, all that fuel would have been sloshing around and most likely no where near the bottom of the tanks.
there are explanatory videos you dont have to guess, cuz its wrong
SpaceX will almost certainly solve the problem of restarting engines in the next tests. Let's wait and see how successful it is.
Only an insane person would ever fly on that son of V2. It has failed its primary mission to land safely, 0 for 3. In a word: KABOOM!
So did Falcon 9 some 300 flights ago🤣
Raptor Engines had never experienced the reentry forces before. Pretty sure they'll figure it out. So far SpaceX hasn't repeated a failure in 3 launches.
Yeah!
Yes i think the roll tumbling that the booster makes sloshes the fuel around and preventing the engines to get fed with fuel . and next thing is what i think is the force of the wind at over 2000kmh that blasts in to the nozzle also could be a problem .
How long till they figure it out though? 5 months wait after each failed launch. 1 more fail & we are into 2025 before ITF5. With only a year before Artemis 3 & a mountain still to climb even if they have successful landings of both craft.
@@mervstash3692 6 more flights this year
@@Ingo3112 please.... where you getting that from? FAA investigation takes months.
misleading title
At what point does spacex reveal engine trouble in the third launch. Clickbait title😢
I'm my opinion it was the lack of reentry burn. They were being clobbered by a lot of very high intensity wind. This is all still in the prototype stage. SpaceX will get there, eventually.
If you pump a cold gas into a hot gas then you will cavitate the fuel to ignition. You could use a nuclear heater as well to increase temps of the hot gas for reaction cavitation. You could theoretically do this with a rotating detonation engine.
After reading the comments, most people are seeing through your clickbait title. Good to know... "Don't Recommend Channel" - use the three dots....
This video assumes the problems with igniting the raptors are caused by the raptors. We don't know that. It could simply be that they did not get the propellants they need, due to sloshing caused by cross winds or some other reason.
I wish UA-camrs would refrain from publishing such speculations as if they are facts.
As the booster sinks with engines in a downward direction the fuel should also be at the bottom of the tanks due to air resistance. Crosswinds can be ignored as the orientation within the air is important.
@@gottfriedheumesser1994 Assuming the computers allow the engines to ignite and run if the orientation of the booster is not within limits.
@@knowledgeisgood9645 You know everything!
@@gottfriedheumesser1994 When have I ever said that. I simply point out weaknesses in other's arguments if I see them.
In this video, at 1:40 as the relight is discussed, the LOX indicator appears to show an empty tank. Did the booster run out of oxygen?
So, why isn't the Raptors kicking out that pretty blue flame?? Every other Methane engines are blue...
I'm even going to watch this. Thanks all for warning me of clickbait . . .
SpaceX may need to open up the shroud area around the engines to allow much of the trapped air around the nozzles to flow outward through the side of the rocket and reduce the effective net back pressure against the inner nozzles.
that's a good idea
Well, or as an option, start the engines in the upside down position, and then carefully turn the rocket into the desired position
You kinda glide over the issues with restarting the turbo fuel pumps. The fuel pumps are powered by a gas turbine of around 100,000 horsepower. Starting that from a cold start is not easy. Starting them a second time, under time constraints, while coming down, that is much harder to pull off. At that second, the turbine parts are all at various temperatures, some still very hot, some already cooling off. All it takes is a little differential temperature gradient and the bearings or turbine blades can bind up and fail to start up. Perhaps they can keep the turbines running at a very slow speed? Looser mechanical tolerances? Dynamically adjusted clearances? Metals with smaller expansion coefficients? Separate warm-up pre-burners? Many possible ways to fix this, but each method also has its disadvantages. This should all have been figured out years ago. Now it's probably too late unless there are large amounts of time and money available.
Despite the clickbait title it was an informative video. Didn’t really address possible causes for the relight instability though.
CLICK BAIT and "didn't really address possible causes...." Poor Form...
it was mostly misinformation just like their other posts
Really fun video! Surprised those little flint like campfire starters weren't mentioned. Grind up some of those and suspend in a peroxide slurry and you got an igniter; no?
Click bait title bye...
Unfortunately VERY misleading title. Description of TEA-TAB is incorrect. It does not require oxygen to ignite the engine...or how would it work in orbit?
not saying you are wrong, i know almost nothing about rocket science. But i do know a typical rocket brings its own oxygen with it on the trip.
SpaceX has to figure out how to stop the fuel from rising to the top of the tank when the booster is free falling at mach speed! Maybe introducing foam to stop sloshing like in race car fuel tanks if the foam can handle the extreme cold temps! HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ENGINES, THEY ARE STARVING FOR FUEL WHEN FREE FALLING!
Your assertion is plausible to me; but I'm not an engineer. Just a long ago auto mechanic. I think those old flax fiber cigarette filters hold a clue to stop the sloshing. They essentially make a sort of capillary/baffle that have very little mass so they shouldn't take up too much fuel space in the tanks. Maybe some kind of carbon fiber sponge like baffle?
Starving for fuel would explain the reignition events. Why did it explode? My understanding is that it was not due to the flight termination system.
@@appliedfacts I have no info on that. Can only speculate that the fuel transfer may have not gone perfectly sealed, as it should have.
@@appliedfacts Not sure why it exploded, but possible that there was fuel in the supply piping that was left over from the initial burn, that's what burned during the re-ignition then the engine fizzled out. Then with fuel re-entering the hot system sporadically from the tanks after the second burn could have led to the explosion?
there are videos that explain everything you dont have to come up with nonsense ideas
@gottfriedheumesser1994 Could be because the booster was plunging butt-first through a dense atmosphere faster than the speed of sound and the back pressures against the middle engine nozzles was huge. Has SpaceX ever tested reigniting rocket engines against such high nozzle back pressures?
This shouldn't be an issue. The pressures generated by air pressure are still small compared to the pressure generated by the turbopumps.
Ad Booghie Knife Company: Customer "I cant decide what knife to get..."
Me: "All them knifes look like trash, you dont need them sh*tty knives, get you a set of Mercer Knives..."
Problem comes from tanks, from snow and icebergs inside! Did anybody there, can think at all!
To solidify liquid methane or oxygen they have to cool to temperatures even colder than -270 deg (the liquid temp). How could that happen?
i think the only who cant think is you and this channel here
@@appliedfacts No metan and oxygen are the problem, but CO2 and H2O that they use for compensation! They freeze to ice inside.
@@The1QwertySky I mean SpaceX! And this is obviously joke!
@@kirilivanov-ba6 compensation for what? What are you talking about
Analysis Mr Spock?
"Fascinating".
Sorry but this is mis-informed. For IFT2 ad IFT3 we have seen 39 raptors per launch perform flawlessly. Raptors on IFT2 let go due to bubbles/cavitation caused by fuel slosh during the boostback flip manoeuvre. IFT2 starship raptors worked perfectly until the vehicle was detonated due to LOX driven fire caused by the LOX dump they deliberately performed. On IFT3, once again starship raptors performed flawlessly and once again, the 3rd set of booster re-lights for the landing burn (launch (flawless) = 1, boostback burn (flawless) =2, landing burn = 3) didnt work as intended. I would put a lot of money on this being due to fuel slosh caused by an entry profile which was too violent. I expect they will tone it down for IFT4 and we will see the raptors relight for the landing burn. However we dont know the findings of the FAA report yet, so the cause of the 3rd relight issues are still speculative.
it musk be hard to re-ignite any engines when your free falling at +100 mph with the air rushing around the bell shaped engine. nigh on impossible.. i guess. ignition should be sought at much slower speeds unless you had a kind of fool proof ignition that was protected by the wind velocity. failing that ,face the way your travelling so the wind does'nt buffet the engine whilst trying to ignite! 💣💣💣
i have no doubt these issues will be solved. the military wants yheir BFR real soon!
Great video! Very informative and well explained!
It’s hard to get 33 of anything to sync up and work together. I must say the NASA SV might have been a better was to go than a 33 barrel Russian Roulette. By the SV’s third flight it was flying astronauts to the moon on Apollo 8. No, it wasn’t reusable, but so far neither is Starship or Booster.
4.1 bln per launch for SLS, 1.5 bln of today dolars for SaturnV.
100mln for Starship .
raptors until now have never failed because of their design
@@The1QwertySky actually, raptors 1 were pretty bad. Hydraulic gimbal on early ships/boosters also wasn't reliable.
But current gen of raptor 2 is pretty damn reliable (failed to reignite on ship on space because on board systems refused to ignite on tumbling ship, so nothing to do with engines itself, on booster for touchdown they had to ignite against supersonic airflow. Still ONE was able to ignite.
And engine that is more powerful than RS-25, half of it's size , way lighter, and costs less than 1 million against 140mln for used RS. With production rate on current lines 1per day.
@@just_archanlol $100M just to not reach orbit and blow up 😂😂😂🤡🤡🤡
@@lookinaturmom 100 mln for test of all elements. Bargain compared to tests conducted by SLS. Green run require refurbishment of rs-25. Only 140mln per one engine. So test of SLS is MINIMUM 0.6 bln.
Senate launch system is just a workplace program for NASA money.
And btw. SLS uses Delta 4 second stage. Developed in 1998. Failed two times before reached orbit. DESPITE very extensive ground testing.
A poster child for selecting “don’t recommend channel” in the upper right corner of the thumbnail.
The problem with the raptor engines is they are built in a shed by auto mechanics..
Thanks for proving you don't know what you're talking about...
@@Garryck-1 😩😅😆😂😄
The question is why the engines reignited after staging, and why most of them failed to reignite for the landing burn. Could be because the engines were hotter at the first reignition.
during hotstaging 3 engines were still on so there was always engines on until landing burn
Yup..too much pressure on the nozzles entering aymosphere to overcome fuel delivery ignition....bumm....definte reason to pump like hell or add start the cenyers while horizontal.??
Than how come falcon9 booster reignite in landing?
Maybe SpaceX should put a few small solid rocket engines on the booster so when it starts it's descent they can be lit so the fuel in the tanks will be forced to the bottom so the main engines can get enough fuel to start up properly...
SpaceX doesn’t want ullage motors because that’s an additional complication when refurbishing the spacecraft for its next flight. That’s why they switched the upper stage to hot staging. The relight looks like it’s supposed to happen when the booster is undergoing aerodynamic drag from the grid fins, so there should be enough force to pull the fluids down to the pumps.
dense comment
Raptor GOOD! Booster dancing left to right rapidly and sloshing the propellant BAD! I doubt they'll have to throw away all the engines they produced so far, but I guess we'll see.
Thank you for your comment! Raptor is very good but to be honest still needs to be considered more in the next launch
WHEN LANDING SIMPLY USE THE INCOMING AIR TO PRESSURIZE THE FUEL TANKS
type louder
🤣
go apply at spacex if youre so smart XD
@@The1QwertySky it like reverse braking for a plane. So simple. Incoming air goes through tubes and pressureizes the fuel tank and increases drag 😮😁 simple.
@@esecallum except its not plane
The best part is no part the best engine is no engine
❤Raptors Rule ✨
Just clickbait
Elon has gotten this far. His team will figure it out. Might end up being something old or something entirely new that will be incorporated onto the engines. But either way, the Raptor engines series are here to stay.
it is possible to press fuel with a piston
add more engines in the restart then shutdown the ones u don,t need
That was the exact strategy that worked to land the Starship during its test hops a few years ago. I think it was their strategy this time, too, but something prevented all but three from lighting and two of those quickly shut down. It's my understanding that the booster did not explode from the flight termination system but from a malfunction.
Not every engine got hardware for it, another thing, that probably every engine was slightly different. I don't know if that was a case in recent ift, but that was confirmed with b7 and b9.
Change t sparkplugs more often.
Simple, why not choke the engine to restart it?
No kidding !
I think his techies know what they are doing. I don't think their that dumb that this post makes out.
I'm afraid their IQ his far more higher than the people that created this post.
AMEN.... some people choose CLICK BAIT over facts or reason...
Clickbait!
Alpha Tech, stop trolling us.
@AlphaTech -- "Don't Recommend Channel" - Just click the 3 dots, and bye-bye!
Starship is the most incredible machine on the face of the Earth !
🤣🤣🤣
?@@chaosengine3772
Totally bizarre that you talk about 'significant' electricity to power a spark plug or glow plug. Utter nonsense.
Title is bull shit
I still say: Too many engines. Too many possible points of failure.
Starship’s Many engines allows redundancy… one or more engines can fail but launch still succeeds… so more robust & reliable. In contrast any SLS engine failure is loss of mission.
My concern is more along the line of catastrophic failure of a single unit and a cascade event after. A chain is only as strong as its' weakest link.@@wrwhiteal
@@raydunn2582 How many Falcon 9 (light or heavy) launches have been successful.
Starship need big giroscope stabilize system, that 4 flap's is bad idea. Flap's need work like tuna fish flap's, in space flap's are hide in body, and giroscope control stability. After pas the plasma and hipersped the flap's enter in stability role. The dor need be 2 role have: robotic arm and dor. If dor close no role, is ship structure. If dor open You have instant one robotic arm that can operations make. so need make ship more advanced. My noob opinion. The old not reuse ideea need forget. Old style roket Principe: use, blow up it no need more, use and drop. Old principle not working on spacex ships. The reuse and multi role principle need. My noob opinion.See GITAI team .
Not a bad over view..
My guess is the analogy I have used in other writs here, that your are trying to light your propane torch pointing at a several hundred mile an hour fan....
Might be good to have systems set up to not do that... as chances of success are probably not good.
With the raptor's preburner to run pumps, and the left/right systems, I would suggest keeping more flame on, especially the fuel rich side, and having your firing happen higher in less air, and reducing velocity earlier rather than later.
Also you might commit the blasphemy of sacrificing a bit of performance to get glide ratio on both booster and ship. so you can coast in more and burn less fuel in return stages, and reduce velocity using air resistance rather than trying to fly bass ackwards and light engines runnin' against the wind.
Y'all need to start thinking more passively like you are starting to think more simplified...
With things like the Raptors we dont need to be as neurotic as Von Braun... we still are producing Rocket Nazzis, when we have climbing power and efficiency stats... relax! have a home brew! this isn't your grandfather's rocket limitations.
Also building in stainless means higher density to air resistance ratio, more cannon ball than feathers, and you need to adapt your methods to that new paradigm.
They are gonna fall faster, and need more paladins in the form of better designs than crude tube rockets and thinking you can just use engines to do everything, instead of getting Zen-esque in design and softening up the concepts some.
Quit slamming rockets you are trying to slow down... think softer slower responses...
Going up, is definitely Yang thinking required, but going down wants more Yin engineering...
Maybe be guy heavy on the going up engineer team, and apply more Gals on the coming down side?
Sounds silly I know, but think about what I am pointing out.... launching rockets should have a hard and a soft side perspective... its a zero back to zero cycle, cant be dick heads for all of it, gotta lighten up coming home...
Just sayin'
And I am the parts count guy... give me some credit, Trying to get you'se guys to think again...
Do alittle focus group, contemplate the hard and soft sides of rocket hajiras.... zoom in on that concept...
🤭
POOR overview ... please use your critical thinking for why they posted that TITLE....
@@user-ln9bk7mo3l
I care about titles I care about content and getting results in Space endeavours.
And their video wss really about a problem, which is why I posted potential sulutions... Blatering about lighting systems doesnt address the problem, it was just giving a decent background to work from.
So I pointed out what I thought the problems were.
Minimalism results in efficiency.
Its a big sea to cross...
Are you suggesting that the booster come down on its side in order to use wind resistance and also keep engines running through our the decent to avoid relight problems? Maybe a flip maneuver close to touch down? More like a Starship landing?
@@appliedfacts Thats one option I thought about, and maybe even giving it some glide ratio via airfoils etc.
What they are doing is trying to play magic rockets and use fuel and power to do everything.
Meanwhile the same types of jobs have been done with zero energy input.... i.e. use the altitude and trade it for distance. Like coasting to a stop in a car rather than accelerating before braking.
Its rocket nerds, everything has to be a rocket... ditto on the starship, they try using the engines rather than flight profile. Then they dive it into the atmosphere plunging rather than gliding high in thin air and slowing down from near orbital velocity.
Its their mental approach, every thing a tube, everything powered,
on the side of the equation you want to reduce speed and altitude.
And flying wine bottle aerodynamics model, saw it justified because the ship was light coming in empty.... what happens if you have a load? or what happens if a space force Starship doesnt want to land in a hot LZ and just wants to fly over it?
Basically they have been continually self entrapping via entrenched engineering mindsets.
They beat the gravity well side of the problem, But are getting beat up by the kinetic energy side of the flight cycle. they are not using the free energy... wouldnt take much airfoil to get those boosters back to the starting point, look at glide bombs, or hypersonic designs.
Basically they are still locked in by water tank construction thinking. and they built several ships ahead.... Of a design thats dysfunctional.
And these arent lightweight tubes, steel is roughly 2x of aluminum strength to weight. so they have more kenetic energy, and the Falcon tech isnt working....
They are falling too fast to relight.. The problems are building up on them, crappy concept grid fins, to thinking solve every problem with a motor.
its gonna get embarassing if they dont wake up.
I'm waiting to see what they do with the remaining ships? I'd be changing things in attempts to get a start solving the problems.
And what I saw on Starship was an open centered spin, like low wing WW2 fighter aircraft in an unpowered crash dive, same spin happens to arrows with three fletch that loose one fletch, you get an out of round effect
that causes that type of spin.... its their flaps on Starship being to one side.... it went unstabile and started to tumble.
Basically like adding drags to one side of a bullet....
They dont have the physics right, you cant just do whatever you want and it will work.
Realities are sets of limits. They exibit impractical engineering.
And I want things to work, thats why I try to critique and offer suggestions.
Like their Spaghetti monster motors that would have bankrupted SpaceX.....
This is like that too....
its not working....
They need new think....
WHOA!.... After the multiple ways you outlined the challenges of getting fuel to a rocket engine, why in the WORLD would you post "Raptor BAD" in your title??? -- You realize NOTHING you reported indicates a Raptor 3 engine is bad, problematic, poor, less than ideal..... But your drive to put some kind of CLICK-BAIT phrase is CLEARLY too strong for you to use common sense. POOR FORM @ALPHA TECH..... disappointing....
8 minutes and 30 seconds to tell us nothing of value, and noting new.
This channel used to be good. Now you just fill posts with old news, or just multiple repetitions of the same thing stated multiple ways, just to put out posts. Sad, for what was once a relatively informative channel.
when will you stop posting missinformation allready, it feels like this chanel is run by a bad AI
As I have attempted to get SpaceX to listen, their water deluge system only protects the launch pad but does NOT protect the vehicle from reflected
harmonic and inharmonic frequencies which are likely causing critical material failures.
A flame deflector such as an upside down pointed cone will lesson the damaging frequencies from reflecting directly back up to the booster engines and Starship space vehicle likely damaging the heat tile system causing plasma to breach into Starship with catastrophic results.
🤣
Right? Love the internet weirdos that think they know more than all the engineers at SpaceX.@@kc5402
lol love these youtube engineers. you should put in an application instead of pointless UA-cam comments lol
@@christianhunt7382 I have over 25 years of advanced material reinforcement, testing and forensic failure engineering experience and have emailed my designs to SpaceX. They responded with a vender application.
@@christianhunt7382 Am in active discussions with SpaceX.
Unsubscribed. Sick of the click bait. Used to be a good channel now just junk for the views.
exactly
I allways downvote clickbait BS like this.
Two things we do know. Firstly its a design issue. Secondly given all the static fires and other failures, its not a simple design issue. My suspicion is that at the end of this SpaceX will be forced to dial down the engine and stop over-stressing it.
Is that an Ai voice ?
Nooooo!
When dropping out of the sky, the liquid fuel would go to the top of the tank. How do they ensure fuel gets to the engines when in free fall? I wonder if whatever method they are using to deal with this did not perform well.
Gravity works on the fuel also.
The fuel and the booster are all falling at the same rate.
And in fact the booster is experiencing air resistance so is actually falling slower than the fuel. So the fuel will automatically settle to the bottom of the tanks. (As long as the booster is engine side down).
It's not in free fall. It has some air resistance which pushes up against the rocket and therefore down against the fuel.
@@Fogmeister I'm not sure it reaches terminal velocity by the time they re-ignite the engines. Until terminal velocity, the fuel feels less than one full G of gravity whereas on ascent, the fuel feels one G of gravity plus the g-force of the rockets acceleration. So the fuel delivery system must work with a wide range of g-forces. I was just conjecturing whether the problem could have been related to fuel delivery as opposed to ignition. I think some rockets have an inflatable bladder at the top of the tank that takes up the volume as fuel is expelled as a solution to this. BTW, I live 30 miles as the crow flies from the Florida launch pads and watch the launches from my backyard. When the boosters land, they are falling faster than the speed of sound and create sonic booms. They fall much faster than any aircraft I have ever seen in the sky. If they have reached terminal velocity, I bet it wasn't for very long.
@@georgegonzalez2476 Yes, I know. It's only in free fall (vehicle and fuel uniformly accelerating from Earth gravity) until it hits the thin upper atmosphere. Until then the fuel would be at zero g and sloshing around everywhere due to its kinetic energy. Once the booster starts hitting atmosphere, the fuel would move to the bottom of the tank but it would not be experiencing a full one g Earths gravity until the vehicle has reached terminal velocity. I'm not sure it even reaches a terminal velocity, being so heavy.
@@markstipulkoski1389 iirc with the booster you can see the velocity drop as it reenters the atmosphere. So that would suggest it has reached terminal velocity and is in fact slowing down due to the atmosphere.
Good info, thanks.
They learned more about Raptor in flight, good test.
Thank you so much!
BOOOOOooo - Poor info and CLICK BAIT!
Clickbait. Gonna Blocked!
Your narration sounds and reads like it was written for grade-school children. It needs editing and the use of proper technical terms for rocket engine functions. You would do well to remember that a large portion of your audience does not need or require a refresher course in fundamental rocketry.
Jeebus man… You okay?
Move your body today, go for a walk, just do something today to better yourself please buddy iv been there!
I guarantee an even larger portion of their audience is just learning about rockets. For them, the narration was top notch.
@@icey_b1562 I am intelligent enough to know when I am being talked down to. Pity I can't say as much for others watching this kinder spiel.
I enjoyed that learning experience a great deal👍
Thank you so much!
Awesome! You rock. Now I'm up to speed. Feels like I'm in the meetings with the engineers!
Nope... @Danielspacex you're misinformed, and bought the CLICKBAIT and FUD....
Load of crap
Hey ClickBait FUD again!
Unsubbed.
Alpha Troll
clickbait
You dont know what you saying! Waste
Just another poor , uninformative video with 0 new content, might be ok for 10 year old kids 👎
Lmao Well said!
In other words: After all this time and exhaustive and endless testing these Raptors are still not flight worthy as intended. Got it.
There are no big questions about the launch and flight. The problem is at the landing stage of the steps. There is a difference. I admit that the next test launches will be devoted to solving this particular problem.
LMAO... only if you listen to @Alphatech
Bad video. Diction is dreadful. Thumbs down.
Nothing said
Video was wasted.... FUD too.
fucking clickbait.
Well said
See ya. Un-subscribing
wait... how did you subscribe to an obvious bot channel in the first place?
This is either some "indian/chinese" young adult trying to make money online with generated spam content on trending topics or Elon grinding attention with the help of a few IT guys. Not sure which one is worse and doesn't really matter.
@@vensroofcat6415 this chanel did make good videos long time ago, now theyre jsut clickbait missinformation channel
Who the heck would put their trust in the reliability of a system so complicated and dependant upon high pressures. Its an accident waiting to happen.
Rockets are just too dangerous and primitive to be used reliably for inter planetary travel. Unless you have a repair shop on Mars the coming home might not happen.
What we need is a massive shift away from combustion to elctro gravitics but I am sure this tech is locked away. Lets hope congress makes some progress in getting this out so we can all safely get too and from space. At the moment were so primitive.
Grid fins are fully extended on the launch, whereas not so on Dragon launches. The potential for grid fin damage during launch phase (i.e. departing heat shield tiles) and particularly at hot staging seems to be highly risky for such an important component expected to reliably function to a very high degree of accuracy. I know very little about the workings of the grid fins, but in the last few seconds of video contact it appeared that the fins were rapidly deflecting through their full range of movement. I would really appreciate any info as to why the grid fins were so active and whether such rapid deflections could have affected the descent profile, if at all? Thanx
DUHQ @Alpha Tech is NOT skilled at this level of reasoning.... Let's hope they stop FUD tactics, and celebrate SCIENtiFIC METHOD thinking....
The grid fins are effective but only with in limits. The crazy movements of the booster were being effected by the fins, just not sufficiently to maintain control. Some speculate that one of the fun controllers stopped working. Others suggest that a strong wind shear threw the booster out of control because control was lost right at the point when the booster passed through a cloud layer. SpaceX has not offered their opinion, yet.