SpaceX Starship has a serious problem that no one is talking about!
Vložit
- čas přidán 1. 04. 2024
- In the aftermath of IFT-3, a serious problem has developed with Starship. Or, specifically, with the damage that Starship continues to wreak on Starbase. Is Starship too powerful? How will this affect Artemis?
#space #spacex #nasa
Merch tagged in video! Starship or SLS? YOU DECIDE!!
Please support my trip to Space Symposium! EARLY VIDEO RELEASES, DISCORD MEMBERSHIP AND EXCLUSIVE CONTENT PLUS 15% OFF MERCH!
/ angryastronaut
www.paypal.com/paypalme/Angry...
Follow me on twitter:
/ astro_angry - Zábava
The OLM legs at the LC39A in Florida are currently being removed. I think this is evidence that SpaceX recognise that the first OLM at Starbase isn't good enough and future Starship launch pads will be designed to be robust enough to handle the Superheavy exhaust plume and support the required cadence. These developments will all take time though.
So nice to have an operations tested platform to make adjustments from. It might take extra work, but this is the best way to also acccomodate the stretched versions of Starship.
Stage 0 is as much a prototype as the rest of starship. There will come a time, even with getting updates, it will be superceded by newer OLMs.
As routine launches are likely to be done from sea (from land is just too loud in a too large area), I think SpaceX should seriously consider testing launching from the water, as in float the whole rocket in the ocean like Seadragon was designed to do (Ever seen "For All Mankind" ? ) and just launch it that way. It would not require a robust launch mount, that's a fact.
Yeah, the more routine future flights of Starship will be happening at Cape Canaveral which will have a much more robust and time-tested flame trench design. So, if Starship does get to the point of refueling flights, the condition of the launch pad at Boca Chica should not be an issue anymore.
Sea Launches the problem is the environmental BS about it you kill sea life etc
I don't think the OLMs at Starbase are for anything other than R&D. Once Starship goes into full service I would assume new permanent facilities would be built that meets all demands that were identified during testing.
Exactly, they innovate, they experiment, if it doesn’t work, they try again.
Especially that SpaceX tend towards going for plan minimum, and improve parts that need improvement. Launch pads in style of cape are immensely expensive because of this over engineering, and still need some improvements during useage, like we saw with SLS launch.
I mean, we already see them taking sections of the mount at 39a down. Obviously they know the current design needs worj
@@just_archan But SLS wrecked its launch pad, how the hell is SpaceX supposed to keep the launch pad intact if its unwilling to invest in the necessary infrastructure instead of coming up with "innovative solutions" i.e. doing everything on the cheap.
@@BPJJohnthat’s the thing though if you can make a launch pad yourself that does everything a launch pad at the cape does and then some,that cost way less I don’t see what the problem is , there is a reason that the Star ship pad at the cape isn’t completed they are constantly putting in the improvements and innovations that they learned about from their Test pad in Texas and they are also building a second pad in Texas that will be way better than the first one
3:27 Ships, including Ship 29, never static fire on the main launch pad, only boosters.
They are learning how to harden everything during these tests. It's literally what all of these tests are for. Once operational, you're going to see MULTIPLE towers at KSC, BOCA, and probably Vandenberg. If you put up three towers at each, you have the capacity to launch NINE refueling ships at once, or within an hour or two. These could go to an orbiting fuel farm.
To be fair, a Starship HLS has the same orbital mechanics as the ISS: One instantaneous launch window every 23 hours or so, each window about one second long.
All they have learned is what the rest of the industry has been telling them for years. But apparently that's the iterative process.
Multiple launches is a pipe dream at the moment. They aren't even close to succeeding with 1 yet. Until both craft can land successfully and prove reusability, design an escape system, get it human rated, design and prove the elevator, design the refuelling tech & plenty more, all before you will see multiple launches. That realistically could be a decade away.
@@mervstash3692 so only a few years behind? beyond amazing by Nasa and other Old Dogs standards.
@nonya-bizness a decade is a bit more than a few years champ. A decade is also being generous. How long has it been now & we still don't have the reusable capsul for Falcon yet.
NASA and the other old dogs would have been shut down if they exploded that many rockets.
@@mervstash3692 the capsule is reused though? C206 (Endeavour) has 5 crew flights
The work on the OLM is not just repairs. It is also upgrades and improvements.
Mr. Angry, you bring much needed critical thought and honest assessment to the CZcams space launch community.
Yes, it's a pitty that fanboys cannot take anything critical about their beloved company/Elon even when it is completely warranted. They have failed to meet even their basic contract requirements for the billions of dollars of tax payers money they were entrusted with. These people should see how failing to keep contract obligations work for them in their actual life and see how people feel about that maybe give them a pass because they were trying to find a revolutionary way to meet their obligations like a lemonade stand with a soda stream outside their house to try cover their mortgage payments?
They are probably still developing the necessary requirements and processes…I’m confident they will be able to figure it out. 🤔
Got to admit if Jeff's team would help this could happen. Instead he just sits in the background waiting for his turn what a waste.
@@Humanwitpenismaleas in Bezoz?
Thank you Jordan. The proposed 2026 Artemis 3 landing mission is purely NASA applying pressure on Congress to adequately fund. I can't imagine any serious NASA engineer who considers 2026 to be viable.
Actually, NASA's original Artemis timeline under Obama had the first crewed Moon landing - still too optimistically, IMHO - projected as being in 2028. Then Trump became president in 2016 and decided that NASA had to land on the Moon by the end of his second term (which he fully expected he'd get) - i.e. in 2024 - because ... well, the usual Trumpian narcissism, and stuff. Of course, Trump never actually funded NASA adequately to deliver on such drastically accelerated deadlines. Ever since, NASA has been slowly walking back that pure-fantasy schedule toward its original, somewhat more realistic, delivery dates. Which they are still likely to miss, even so, IMHO.
@@Spherical_CowObama cut the moon program, saying that it would cost too much and wouldn’t get us to the moon until 2028 or 2030.
Which he was right, the Constellation program was a wreck.
But Obama set NASA on the path to go to an asteroid and then Mars, it was a sort of directionless mission that was far beyond our capability. Trump’s renewal of the Moon as NASA’s primary focus was a great thing, I mean we are actually going to put people on the moon this time.
@@zachb1706ah, you're right - I got my recollections somewhat mixed up. Trump advanced Artemis III from 2028 to 2024, back in 2019, 2 years after pivoting from Constellation to Artemis.
@@Spherical_Cow Constellation was cut in 2010 or 12. Well before Trump.
@@zachb1706 it wasn't cut, exactly - more like, pared back and reoriented. Orion was retained, and some other elements were repackaged into the SLS, etc.
Stage 0 is as much a prototype as anything else in the Starship development program. Test and iterate is always the basis of Spacex development. Far from seeing what is going on as a downside it actually appears to be a great example good progress. These lessons learned will become much more apparent as the second tower goes up. They are extracting as much data each use as they can off an old prototype. Once the second tower rises we should see a rebuild of the first pad of some extent just as we are seeing in Florida.
Who is going to pay for all the mistakes and failures???
@@professorg8383 Increasingly Starlink. Just as with any expanding business development costs are part of the budget and included in the price charged to customers. Spacex is with Starlink its own biggest customer now.
@professorg8383
Elon.
It's easy to say "oh that's the iterative process" every time someone fails. Everyone else in the industry seemed to know though. All these failures were predicted years ago. If this was any other company, there would be criminal investigations over the torching of investor cash. If this was a funded branch of the government, it would have been shut down
@@judedornisch4946it's literally impossible for Starlink to turn a profit. It's a nonsensical business model for garbage internet only useful to the 0.001% of the 1st world population too remote to connect to traditional internet.
They array is already over 2000% overcommitted with the small number of customers they have now. It's also cost them in the tens of billions to deploy so far. Times that figure by 2000% just to cope with the current number of users.
It's the equivalent of relying on a few million dollars in blue checkmarks, to cover the loss of tens of billions in lost advertisers.
You implied that S29 had to use another stand because launch pad was being repaired. I don't know if that was a slip , but you know ships can't use OLM for test firings.
🫣 Mr Angry tou said "the American people will be excited to a permanent space station around the earth". A slip I'm sure, is there anyone who can proof watch your videos for you?
Yeh i am watching it and enjoying
@NAKEDGARDENER I ment watching it before publication
Who is shocked that volcano in a can is destroying the launch mount? . Musk said not building a proper lunch pad with exhaust trenches might be something he'd live to regret. And here we are.
the problem isn't the light it's the time when the rocket leaves the mount. they harden and repair after every test. they will soon have it finished.
@@martehoudesheldt5885to put it into perspective, falcon launches still require a large window before the next launch. That's after X amount of years now & how many hundred launches.
You have to be realistic about the amount of time it's going to take SpaceX to "harden" the mount enough for Starship to relaunch within the window needed for Artemis
"Volcano in a can" - That made me lol - Good one : - )
Those tiles flaking off like a ripe dandelion at every occasion is what will ultimately prove to be the most difficult engineering hurdle to overcome.
To Angry: How long do you think it takes when a new problem shows up does it take to - find out what caused, solve issue, order parts, time to get parts, schedule install time and finish. You sound like it should be done in a day.
I've been watching space launches since the 1960s, but I just cannot get my head around the complexity of the Artemis programme.
Indeed. If you can't do a "quick and dirty" lunar landing with TWO launches of a Saturn V class vehicle, it just seems dumb. Taking up to 12 or more launches for a single landing mission is far more Rube Goldberg than LOR ever was for Apollo.
18-20 orbital refuelings is totally ridiculous.. Werner Von Braun and the NASA team rejected that approach 70 years ago, but Musk insists on landing a massive rocket vertically on the moon which would waste an insane amt. of fuel. Blue Origin's plan also involved orbital refueling, but far less fuel is needed to get their lander there and back again.
Destin (on his Smarter Every Day channel) spoke at a symposium where he personally gave a 'pep talk' to an audience that included some leading NASA personnel... He didn't hold back in criticising the project's complexity.
@@razeezar That's a great video.. I hope common sense wins out in the end.
They're surely spending extra time not just mending damage, but adding preventative measures to prevent future damage.
The reason I subscribe to Angry Astronaut is because of his honest, unfiltered opinions, even though I don't always agree with what he says. His passion is clearly evident in every video and it's great to see. As far as SpaceX goes, I think that orbital refueling, orbital storage of cryogenic liquids, and the shear number of refueling flights required just to get 1 Starship to the moon will be the far bigger logistical challenge than post-flight damage to the OLM.
That's why they're building two launch towers. When one's being repaired the other ones launching
I’m all for iterative approaches but if looks like SpaceX didn’t address fundamental requirements which could have been discovered and resolved much earlier. I’m confident they will resolve these issues but it’s very reactionary
How?
@@jamskinner the amount of heat generated by liftoff, duration and tolerance of the metals are well known
@@jamesp5301It's almost like their first priority is saving money, isn't it?
The original OLM was never going to be the final one. Enough to carry out the test flights.
If they had to try to design a perfect OLM, we wouldn’t be getting the IFT flights. 🤷🏻♂️
I wonder what Artemis 2 will do to the launchpad since Artemis 1 beat the shit out if. Starship is definitely way behind in its schedule to get to the moon; but I know they will eventually figure it out. I have more faith in SpaceX than I do in Boeing… 😂
Boeing is headed for disintegration, the stinky stories are starting to leak out. More problems with flight hardware, and lawsuits piling up against them. Boeing turned evil over 20 years ago. Any 'good' engineers still working there better get the hell out before the ship sinks.
I hardly think SpaceX needs chewing out over this. It's not like they didn't notice. But there are only so many hours in day. They'll get around to fixing everything given time.
He's old
@@Humanwitpenismale I'm older than he is
Thank you for saying that. Elon and SpaceX know what they are doing. How could they have gotten this far if they didn't?
On top of old no offense but most of his audience are regular Joe's which attract a lot of attention easy way to sum it up is this is more of a reality tv show being done for money to people that don't know the difference
@@Humanwitpenismale this channel didn't used to be like that. But I've noticed that many CZcamsrs will tend to follow their audience right down the drain if that's where the audience they found is going.
He's not old btw. I'm older than he is.
Angry - Enjoy listening to this episode. I appreciate your skeptical observations. They are a good counter to overly enthusiastic commentary.
However, as you briefly mentioned, it seems the key to the issue is the ability to use multiple OLM sites, spread out between Cape Kennedy and Boca Chica. Even if OLM damage requires 2 weeks to refurbish, the geographically distributed OLMs could keep up the required cadence. Also, ULA has bee criticized for their boil off estimate of 1% every 3 days. I've seen estimates of about 1/2 of 1% per week by others using fairly simple sunshield approaches without active cooling.
It is a race against time I agree. The race is made worse by the overly complicated Artemis mission architecture.
I thought the elephant in the room was the fact that Starship tumbled uncontrollably during re-entry. Frozen thrusters, design issue? That's what we don't know! Hopefully SpaceX does!
Lots of work to go.. they just have to try to solve the current problems and repeat for any new ones that get revealed.
The fact they have got this far this fast.. I think they will be fine.
My take on this is sticking oxygen valves. They are contaminated with H2O & CO2 from the autogenous pressurization system. Probably need to centrifuge out the icy contaminants during flight.
@@imconsequetau5275Starship and SuperHeavy autogenous pressurization does not pump combustion products into the propellant tanks. It diverts some of the pure propellant before it enters the preburner, and then uses heat exchangers to gasify if before sending the resulting warm - not hot - gas back into the top of the respective propellant tank.
The “elephant in the room” is the obvious thing NOT being discussed. Only Zack Golden has been closely analyzing Stage Zero, the OLM, and I haven’t seen a video from him since IFT 4, so yeah, Stage 0 kinda is the elephant- you, me, and everyone are talking about the loss of attitude control of the Starship during re-entry. (I think it was probably a whole series of things, but all need to be fixed and performance dialed in ASAP if SpaceX will continue in the Artemis Program… They can do it if anyone can, but it’s a near-impossible timeline expectation.
@@Spherical_Cow
The methane autogenous pressurization system is heated by heat exchangers, so pure hot methane gas. But the hot O2 is from the precombustion burners.
I hope this is solved with Raptor v3.
The problem with boil-off is that when you vent the overpressure you're not just venting gas. In zero g you have a frothy mixture of liquid and gas, so you vent liquid as well. In the original Artemis Project in the 90's we proposed using a centrifugal separator on the vent to ensure only gas was vented. Minimal hardware, significant reduction in boil-off losses.
They may do that buy why on a prototype
@@HumanwitpenismaleWell, it'd be a bit of an embuggerance to put it on the real thing and find it doesn't work...
I believe Spacex will eventually have to build a launch system with a proper flame trench etc. I think if they really are going to catch the boosters and Starships, then they have to build a catching tower that is well away from all of the other infrastructure, to practice with until they bring the catching operation to 100% perfection. Trying to catch one right in the middle of Starbase on the first attempts is utter madness. There is too much cost and time at stake. One booster crashing on its first attempt will be a massive setback to Spacex and a huge economic blow.
Until the landing burn begins, the booster is aiming at a crash site. The booster needs to succeed at hovering in the Gulf of Mexico and do so with great precision (with respect to some reference platform). The greatest danger is engine failure at the last minute, for example during hovering.
the first launch had the same effect, the problem with catch only towers is you have to get the fuel out of the booster after it's caught and have somewhere to put it down before anyone can get close.
Lol, why would they need a flame trench? They already fixed that problem and it only took one iteration. And it works flawlessly.
@@DorkJelly I dont why you should scorn me with your “Lol”. I guess you didn’t watch the video very closely. What they have isn’t a perfect solution according to the video and needs many days, if not weeks of refurbishment. When the rocket is perfected and launches on a very regular basis, a new a new launch platform would be better with a purpose built flame diverter to deflect some of the heat, instead of the “fix” they now have.
My bet is still on New Glenn and blue moon lander for the first lunar landing. It is soo much more straightforward. No 12x launch and in orbit refueling required. Just direct single launch towards Gateway.
Totally agree!
Blue Moon will require refilling with propellant in orbit around the Moon, last time I checked...
But if usa wants to make a base on moon then starship is by far most important
@@Spherical_Cow Yup. Since its not huge like Starship there's no need for 10-12x launch for propellent refueling. Propellent can be transfered to Gateway directly using a variety of existing launch vehicles such as Falcon Heavy, Vulcan Centaur, JAXA's H3. May be 2 such launches is enough to fully fuel up Blue Moon Lander at the Gateway.
If using SLS block 1B Cargo version, a fully fuelled Blue Moon Lander can be delivered to Gateway in a single launch.
New Glenn hasn't even had so much as a static fire of the first stage yet. My guess is that Starship will have multiple successful orbital launches before New Glenn has one. Since Starship is the lander, the tanker, and the depot itself, you're left with proportionally smaller engineering challenges (compared to propulsion, avionics, manufacturing, operations) left to solve. Not sure they'll make Q326, but I could see Starship having done 100 launches (or more) by then.
I love your opinions.
You are spot on with criticizing SpaceX's ridiculous timeline projections
The launch turn around time cannot be properly estimated right now. Plus SpaceX engineers will be addressing each issue as it is encountered. This whole controversy is premature.
I like your ufo videos a lot better. Keep up the great work.
All of your estimates are based on SpaceX using only one launch tower. I believe by the time they are ready to make their first attempt of an HLS landing on the moon they will have at least 3 operational launch towers ready to go which completely negates much of your time line assumptions. Not to mention I would also bet on SpaceX to address and fix a majority of their wear and tear issues concerning launches from each tower. My money will always be on SpaceX to bring game changing solutions to the table.
At present they are working on 4 towers, the active tower at starbase along with a second being staged there. 39a is being rebuilt more than likely with all the upgrades he's expecting and another in planning paperwork.
Plus they are working on increasing thrust and mass to LEO for starship
You know, once we are actually launching people on Starship, we should probably have two built so that we could mount a rescue mission in the event that one is needed
SpaceX could have several starships fully tested and ready to go in starbase, the FAA could issue the necessary paperwork to allow multiple launches after a quick paint job of the OLM. As long the pad is further designed to increase its robustness.
Its my impression that you assume that ALL the work is repair. You don't think that much of the work is improvements?
I live in a house from 1923. Most of my work are improvements, not repair!!
There are people who have set up cameras around Starbase, and watch SpaceX's activities there 24/7. They are quite certain - and have exhaustively documented - that nearly all the work has indeed been repairs, with only a small fraction amounting to minor reinforcements.
You assume incorrectly
@@Spherical_Cowif you watch other channels, they actually talk about how they have improved something that has happened. Not just repairs. Maybe they should hide everything like all other space companies. Then we wouldn’t have people crying about repairs.
Heat tiles is a big problem and no your just realistic:)
Yeah, the heat tiles are probably a much harder problem to solve than the OLM which have many possible solutions.
#Truth The Starship tile situation will be far easier to solve than was the Shuttle dilemma (due to relative simplicity of the new vehicle's shape), but...
Stainless flexes. Good luck with that.
@DCGreenZone
The shuttle was aluminum. Does that not flex?
@@jamskinner They left the crayola crayons in the box, yuge difference. How may did you see rain down in pieces upon launch. I counted one in all those years and that was due to extreme cold and engineers that didn't understand what that meant for rubber seals.
Well, I do agree SpaceX does "swarm" Stage One, but I think that is to find even the most minute problem and one that they haven't seen to this point. So, I'm not too concerned about the couple of hoses that need replacement, and the hoses probably needs a bit more protection in the near future from what I've seen. Strangely enough, I'm not seeing the hubbub at this time. Yes it's aggressive, but this is SpaceX and Musk we're talking about. And if it takes more time, it's time well spent.
Completely agree on most point. The OLM is a big problem for now. A complete redesign is inevitable. But also the idea for what Artemis III should be - this is a terrific, sensible, and inspiring goal.
If only they started with the commonly used flame trench, diverter, and sound suppression water system from day 1. They would not be spending all of this time on repairs, redesign, trying new systems, etc. This need to reinvent the wheel is what is going to further delay instead of speed things up.
Exactly. 👍
Of course, that's what they are doing right now. I saw pictures of the new flame trench design and presume they have delayed finishing other towers until they come up with the right plan. I think they need to have landing towers as well. At some point they can catch the Starship if they like but there is really no purpose for it. Catching on the launch tower doubles the chances for a problem. SpaceX can quickly move a rocket from location to location without much of a problem in a short period of time. A landing tower solves a whole host of problems.
You think you know everything don’t you in case you didn’t realize that a common flame trench wouldn’t have worked just because of how long it would have taken to build up the ground because they are literally sitting Sea level plus a even longer environmental review which would have been out right denied or constantly getting push back from environmentalist , SpaceX obviously thought of everything they are not dumb
On the other hand, perhaps their solution is cheaper? You have try in order to know.
When you reinvent the wheel, you can then say that it's "your" wheel, it's an ego thing.
About the propellant boil-off: I heard in some podcast that SpaceX might try capturing boil-off gases and recompress them into small robust high-pressure tanks to use for hot gas manoeuvring thrusters. The same system could also dump excess boil-off back into the tanks.
Such a plan would require an energy source, compressors and radiators to get rid of the excess heat in order to re-liquefy the gas. Not available in the closed environment of Starship.
@@Winkkin What makes you think that? Starship has its own on-board power supply (Tesla car battery) for the onboard flight systems and the engine gimbaling motors, and can easily be upgraded to deliver more power / capacity. Sure there's a payload penalty, but the engines are constantly being improved to compensate (to a high degree but not completely) for the payload loss with every upgrade that causes it. Radiators aren't hard to install, either. The unshielded part of the hull is a huge radiator, having the medium with the excess heat pass over the inside of the outer hull would be enough. In the future Starship will also have solar panels as an extra power source for charging the batteries in-flight.
@@paulmichaelfreedman8334 I dont think a Starship will ever have chillers to recapture boil-off. Musk has already said that he doesn't see boil-off on orbit as a huge problem. The steel is a pretty good insulator and with no atmosphere to carry away heat radiators dont work that well.
@@Winkkin Musk's motto is "Best part is no part" so I suppose he's going by that rule.
@@Winkkin I dunno, but they're called radiators for a reason. Atmosphere only carries away molecule collision heat. Radiators do primarily what they do: Radiate infrared. Without atmosphere (that has temperature and thus radiates its own heat into the radiator) they actually work optimally (provided they are not oriented directly towards the sun).
I think the first problem is the Artemis heat shield and the several other problems that were noted today. The second problem would be the Starships capacity to orbit - a little more than half of what was planned. Third problem, those pesky heat tiles.
Great update, thanks for your hard work!
Every launch is more data and each launch they learn more about how to build a Starship quality OLM. They will learn a lot with the remaining flights in 2024 and even more next year. Late 2026 may not be that far off for a moon landing as long as they dont have any large disasters between now and then.
They'll sort the issues we are seeing today, no doubt. Once olm is bulletproof and theyre able to land the boosters back on the olm i doubt turn around time will be much more than time taken to stack and fuel up
I think angry likes to look at the issues of today, and forecasts out as if they're almost insurmountable. But like falcon 9, it has changed in every possible way and there have been failures but what has been developed is darn near perfect. Starship started closer to the finish line than the falcon 9 imo. I don't think engine amount, placement, fuel ratio, material. the only thing that change will be engines and height. The main issues there are currently are engine relights, control thrusters, and landing.
As Elon musk is fond of saying, the best part is no part. To solve the immediate refueling problem, do away with in orbit refueling altogether. When stacked and fully fueled, SH Booster & Starship has a mass of approximately 5,000 t (11,000,000 lb). Strap 2 solid rockets to the booster as they do with falcon heavy. Using SLS size boosters that produce Sea level: 3,265 (per 2) Tons thrust, more than enough to offset the entire Starship weight with payload at 85 Tons dry + 100 Ton payload and 1200 Tons of fuel, all up 1385 Tons. If it's OK for SLS to dump it's boosters in the ocean I see no reason why SpaceX cant do the same.
Well thought out. Thanks for the video.
In my opinion SpaceX is fully focused on Starship program development. It is a huge breakthrough in terms of delivering heavy, large volume cargo to LEO. This will alter our perception on what space industry was prior starship capability. Huge space telescopes, large space stations, etc. This is a game changer and really a revolution. The problem with this is that it looks like Artemis program is really a secondary thing for SpaceX.
Basically my opinions
An operational starship is the most important part of the Artemis program. Without it there is only a taxi to tli and a tiny space station.
I totally agree!! Perhaps SpaceX just think that it's a good exercise to land on the moon before landing on Mars.
Strange how the previous “largest rocket ever” Saturn 5 flew successfully on its first flight (as did Artemis) and after a year and 3 attempts, Starship still fails spectacularly every time.
Your observation is flawed, sir. The late, great Saturn 5 was a single use, throw away vehicle, period. Starship is going to be a reusable platform like the F9 1st stage is now. All brand new technology and purpose. "Fails spectacularly" is a relative term. Compared to what? There is nothing to compare with Starship. Other rocket companies are trying to copy SpaceX. They must be doing something right. Cheers
I think that the assumption here is that the development is always going to be linear. Based on what we have seen with how Musk's companies work, the development would on an exponential curve. They can absolutely meet the deadlines.
yeah a really great example is falcon 9. just look at the launches per year, its crazy the amount it increases every year, even this year its already at 32 launches for q1.
Not good to extrapolate while looking in the rearview mirror.
Surely they will spin off multuple sub divisions to develop sub systems like life support, refueling, tankers, etc. They may even sub contract stuff out to the traditional aerospace conpanies and just provide an integration document showing the physical there is to work within.
This effectively already is happening with the heat shield and engines.
@@imconsequetau5275 Then does one extrapolate?
It seems they are iterating and figuring out how to solve all the problems of the Launch Tower (stage zero) faster after each launch. I'm far more concerned they either havent figured out a proper way to secure the heat shield tiles or the tiles are too brittle. And that could take quite a bit longer to test and iterate.
They have made a lot of improvements made, it's only from flight 3 that they have been making a serious effort to esure the tiles are properly attached as before that re-entry was not expected.
Great video, very good explanation of the situation. Super stoked to hear about the next moon mission. More important than and essential to any future mars mission. Hope they look into our moons surprisingly low density.
I think that nuclear power once in orbit is the best action for every use case. It would provide power and propulsion to mars the moon and beyond. Nuclear could be used for transit landing and launch on any other celestial body other than earth. Also all this is really NASA and the governments fault. You can't just say one day I want it tm. NASA can't even come close to the progress speed SpaceX does.
They should just make elongated elonerons and add landing gear... For ship.
Omg another sane person lol
Something to discuss:
The “Achilles heel” of Starship that no-one is talking about: The Human Factors element of riding Starship to a retro-rocket landing. Going to be a terrifying ride every time. Even when everything goes right.
I think that Spacex is doing an awesome job with Starship, but there are many issues to resolve before the vehicle is operational. I am of the firm belief that they will engineer past their issues including rapid reuse of the OLM. We as Texas Tank Watchers, just have to have some patience and faith!
You seem to ignore the fact, that service time not only shortened between IFT-1 to IFT-2, but also it did between IFT-2 and IFT-3...
Also, math of two launch pads seems... irresponsible, to say the least, giving the fact that even right now there is work going on on THREE of them (two towers in Boka and, so far, one in Cape). What will third one be doing, you reckon?
Sometimes it's so obvious you're not a real astronaut or even an engineer.
Maybe but some of it is simply CZcams's algorithm that says "publish or perish." So, some have to grasp at straws for content while waiting on something "real" to come along. It is the nature of the beast.
I watch a lot of stereo equipment and speaker reviews and those guys do it too, sometimes "revisiting" a piece of equipment they've already done just to keep putting out a video on a schedule to please CZcams.
He is a fraud. Clickbait BS and that's all it is.
True...I hold a BSEE and MSEE and I would not qualify to comment on rocket engineering. Grumpy sounds like a huntsville local, so his buds need jobs .
@@damilareowosangba7864then why are you watching? LOL. He's not an engineer, never said he was. He's just a concerned citizen who wants robust government and commercial space programs around the world to move the ball forward into the future we should have had after Apollo. Nothing wrong with that.
His UFO videos are perhaps clickbait, but he's said they often get more views than his "real" space videos, and if they help pay the bills no harm.
I am an aerospace engineer, nearing retirement, and I find his videos mostly informative and fun to watch, especially the interviews and visits to aerospace companies showing their facilities and hardware.
You often don't get that level of detail subscribing to Aviation Week & Space Technology.
He's part of a group of CZcamsrs I watch, from Scott Manley, Tim Dodd, and Elle In Space. They all have an audience and provide pertinent coverage.
@@damilareowosangba7864 Unfortunately, if you don't use clickbaits, youtube won't recommend your videos; it's a matter of surviving.
Hoped you would not just dis what is going forwards. Glad to see that what you talked about was accurate and informative. Good work!
I'm not too worried. SpaceX has done a great job solving problems. They'll figure this out.
Does SpaceX have a lander yet? Landing a tall rocket upright on an unprepared surface on another planet is a disaster waiting to happen. Surfaces will need to be prepped and checked before risking the crew and rocket trying to emulate 1950s sci-fi.
That top heavy POS is the complete opposite of what you want in a lunar lander. Elon gump has deeep pockets to play rocket man all he wants.
Calculations indicate that Lunar Starship would topple if inclined more than 20° off-centre. The Southern Pole has very rough terrain and NASA does have signed contracts for 3D printed landing pads but those are for Artemis 5 (2030), and beyond.
You assume olm turnaround time will not decrease in the coming year and the amount of launch pads will not increase im confident starship will maintain at the very least 1-2 launches a month by the end of the year its only exponential by then
Even if there was zero damage to OLM there's not enough capacity. They need to improve the design to be more durable... then build at least 6 of them.
What a pleasure it to listen too a grownup talk maturely about this complicated subject..Such a change from the excited children talking to excited children.
I wonder if anyone will have the guts to discuss just how overweight Starship//Heavy is and the payload shortfall
And why why why are they not sending star ship up 15k ft, on its own, then caputuring it with the Chop sticks ??? Makes no sense
Just sending it 200 meters up and capturing it again would be interesting.
Or perhaps they should wait until they have a tower to offer.
Possibly because the trajectory would be very different from the booster trajectory after stage separation. They may figure they won't learn enough to justify a low-altitude test.
the rocket is a prototype why would they attempt to catch it when they haven't even propulsively landed the full scale ships yet
IMO The first attempt at catching could result in major damage to the OLM stopping tests of the starship and stopping tests of the booster. Get a second OLM operational before trying to catch something. IMO.
Stop looking at the launch site as static the design continues to evolve. The flexible cryo lines will be made more robust. The hood can be redesigned to deflect Heat but I'm sure pressure could be a factor as well. The entire dock may need to be completely redesigned since the pressures and heat exceed what NASA needed for Apollo. Water Deluge was added and they got it right the first time. I understand you need a problem or drama to get the clicks but I'm not buying it on this video.
Risk - SpaceX failing to have an OLM Design enabling rapid reuse
Severity - very High
Probability- 0.00001% 😂😂😂
@The Angry Astronaut. The sunshield is only shown over the Liquid Hydrogen Tank. A cryocooler should be able to handle the liquid oxygen even without significant shielding, just some simple insulation. Cheap cryocoolers have been liquifying oxygen from the atmosphere for a long time. Liquid methane is a higher temperature so it will be even easier to maintain, although by weight it's boiloff is kind of trivial.
Oh gosh, here we go again! At least the European space agency will save the day
LoL
"let's not get into that right now"...Elon on the actual details of this insane proposal. I'm happy to see that you're beginning to deal with the actual realities of this "program".
It is actually much easier to protect probellents against heat in orbit than it is on the ground
OLM gets repaired and better each launch. OMG with only 6 more launches to go this year, they will NEVER get it right. YAWN. Seems like click bait to me.
agreed. I only dip in now and then due to click-bait headlines.
It’s quite shocking to me that you can be so biased as to ignore the iterative process that SpaceX follows and thereby assume that we’ve seen the final form of everything from stage zero to the fuel depot and even the HLS itself. I expect vast changes even to the form of the Rockets, but you seem to think that we have to judge it… That you are allowed to judge it… Based on its current in process form. That is foolish.
Duh dude didn't you know that's how it works model t to dodge viper no wiggle room cause we have a deadline
Time to consume some content outside of the Elon bubble champ. Might be hard to believe, but SpaceX isn't all it's cracked up to be.
@@mervstash3692 - what’s happening with Stokes?
@@mervstash3692 like the border
@@guyjordan8201 stokes?
In addition to the damage from launch the olm is getting used so things will experience wear and fail over time and need to be replaced. “Hardening” such a structure against such an extreme environment is absolutely an iterative process. There’s only so much you can know to do at the outset. Over time they will only getting faster at turnover with less repair needed each time.
The task of making the lauch mount reusable is just as ongoing as starship, but it also has to be rebuilt after every mistake. Futhermore change that is comming from other factors, tank farm and rocket have to be worked with.
I don't know how to say this more clearly. Artemis is inconsequential to the importance of Starship development. Once Starship is operating nominaly and as intended, No other system will come close to it's capabilities.
Starship could also turn out to be quite useless. Orbital business isn't that big for now and probably won't be also in the future. You have to make money from space in space. Otherwise you end up with 100 tanker ships and no oil to move around. Mars is bs. Maybe robots will build there something. In 50+ years. Maybe. And then maybe another decade or two later a few people will move. Mostly dumb or greedy men. Good luck with that. Mars sucks for living.
@@vensroofcat6415two things. Firstly, Tanker and Depot ships will be moving and storing liquid methane and liquid oxygen, not oil. Liquid oxygen and liquid methane are the propellants that Starship rockets use.
Secondly, Starship's primary business case is Starlink 2+, for which the Falcon 9 is too puny (and thus will be obsoleted by Starship). The secondary business case for Starship is just massive and cheap launch capability for hire, by anyone from the Pentagon to international, academic, and commercial clients.
Beep beep bobo baba bubu zulu hulu
C'mon Angry stop bashing Spacex ! Keep it legitimate criticism !
Grumpy as buds at MSFC, huntsville and why he is hormonal.
You call that bashing? I can show you how to "bash" them properly with only a bunch of exterior economic problems and i suspect you'd come at me completely triggered, wanna try?
Elon gump
How did NASA think that a strategy that requires 16 launches to refuel a lunar-bound vehicle would ever work? It's just crazy.
Dude... thank you. I was trying to talk to people over at "N"SF. They hate you now as much as they hate CSS. I had no love/hate for spaceX either until they got in on artemis. I just want to get back to the moon too. anyway, gentlemen can disagree about isru but anyone willing to ask tough questions about potential artemis delays is worth hearing out in my book. subscribed.
I've been saying from the beginning that Starship is a dead end. A 100tn steel tube with enormously complex logistics. SpaceX have a proven reusable heavy lift vehicle, use it to send a lunar lander and fuel tanks to lunar orbit. Just because not everything is reusable doesn't mean it's not the best option. The Earth has a deep gravity well, only small manned craft (Dragon, Dream Chaser etc) need to return.
I don't think it's a dead end tho. Just land it on legs not chopsticks
Using the so called "chopsticks" to catch the booster is a ridiculous improvised piece of crap imho
I'm thinking spoon and fork.
Yeah chances are first attempt would distroy the whole facility. They should make "mockups" out somewhere else. Oh what am I kidding. its all so ridiculous innit?
so was landing falcon 9. and think about it, it saves weight complexity on the rocket and moves it to the ground plus it saves massive amounts of time and money for recovery, its not as crazy as you might think. if they can get the faliure rate down to what the falcon 9 is at, then i dont think its a problem. same with not having a launce abort system. if the ship is realiable enough you wont need parachutes for every passenger on the airliner.
Maybe if they redesigned it to have reusable side boosters the Starship would still have fuel onboard when it reach orbit? Or at least carry a cargo…
Starship Ultra Heavy - Do it similar to Falcon Heavy
@@ccarts2567 Or Blue / ULA will do it. «New Armstrong»
Let's assume for a minute they can't launch star ship for any refuelings ( I think they will figure it out, but stay with me here.) Then they could use super heavy where they can re-use all three boosters, and do it again. If they needed to, they could build several super heavies and get the job done. I don't see this as a show stopper, just keep moving forward, fix one problem (or more) problems at a time, and keep moving forward.
Artemis just needs to be canned at this point, it’s a complete waste of time and money. It’s an over complex way to get to the moon when we already know how to do it.
We know how to send people, we can do that with any rocket, what we can't do is bring large equipment out of earth nor bring rockets back to earth Wich reduces considerably the costs of everything... Reusability is the way. Why throw yourself to destination to never come back and lose your vessel when you can bring things with you on your way in and out
As long as NASA is more concerned about the gender and race of the astronauts than the technical details of the mission it is not focused on success.
Once they figure out reentry, perhaps the fuel depot should provide some of the translunar injection delta-v. It could boost up to a free-return orbit around the Moon and aerobrake on the way back. Empty tankers can even be returned from NRHO with as little as 140 m/s if aerobraking is possible
The problem with the lauch mount needing maintainance could be worked around though by using multiple units. That would be wise anyway just in case something goes wrong and you need to launch out of the intended schedule.
I think you are looking for issues where there arnt any. Yes it’s a work in progress… feels a little sensationalized. Personally not a fan of this kinda of coverage. Should note you have been up to this for a long time. I want your ch to grow, but don’t want to think you got the chicken little syndrome.
Trying to let you know without being rude.
Keep it real, that’s what I have liked about you.
Maybe one day, you will have a video that you don't bash spacex all the time. It really gets old. I hope they cancel the contracts and they just start over. Maybe if NASA could get all the funding they could realistically do it all themselves. I don't think we will get back to the moon by 2030 at the least.
Bash? If I'm not mistaken, he used to strongly support Spacex years ago. I'm not sure as to why he started to stop supporting them, but simple criticize and state possible ways to help. I'm still curious as to why he stopped.
Not to mention all the click bait titles.
And the little yellow three-eyed space aliens.
Perhaps pointing out the issues isn’t bashing. Let’s be realistic and maybe not have such “feelings” about what reality looks like…everyone needs to grow a pair and accept reality about this and all other issues. I’m a huge SpaceEx fan but this course does not seem like it’s the most durable or safe path forward. Seeing fault only allows for corrective action and perhaps a modified path…
Take the crayons away from Leon asap.
Repairs most likely lead to upgrades. And upgrades are not the same as a direct replacement. Redesign and a new build maybe takes longer. What takes more time? Replacing a lot of similar with similar or upgrading a few all new parts?
Easier to build a new olm with the upgrades already present. They have two new towers under construction at he moment, probably see the upgraded olm there first before they prace the current one.
I have thought for some time that starship needs to be broken up into 2 pieces, the booster and the payload bay, crew compartment, and assent stage. A refueling starship would consist of 2 boosters and a nosecone . The bottom booster would become the booster to return the starship assent stage to the moon and land.
Multiple launch sites (which I believe SpaceX is definitely planning - and I don't just mean the two at Boca Chica) would allow many launches in quick succession, which would mitigate this problem a lot, right?
17:54 "To put astronauts on a permanent space station----the first one ever to orbit the earth..."
Nasa has waited this long for SLS and James Webb.
They'll wait for Starship
I wonder if we will see a large flame trench to make sure as much heat as possible is directed away from the launch structures.
And then 2 days after this video was posted SpaceX rolled out the next Booster and did a full static fire on the OLM. Things are moving faster and faster.
SpaceX bomb factory
The FAA investigation continues...
The FAA investigation continues...
An intense heat trail of 100 yards or more. New solutions needed for the launch heat and force generated. Check, they are getting off the pad quicker; Check they have a new water deluge system; Check they are going to 4 legs instead of 6 for the launch pad; Check they are re-designing the quick disconnect. I think they are moving as fast as they can right now. Save the angst for the FAA who has set the whole program back a year or more. You can only identify and correct problems as they occur and you iterate hew solutions and implement new designs. GO SPACEX!
Totally agree, flame deflectors are the way to go.
I agree that Artimis should focus on the lunar gateway, sending Starship there multiple times.
There needs to be a much smaller version of Starship HLS. It would require far less refuelling propellant from the orbital fuel depot. That in turn would significantly reduce the amount of missions to fuel the orbital fuel depot, and also make boil-off gas less of a concern.
Dr zubrin agrees with this and told musk he should do it this way. But musk told him he wants to create one vehicle. Also you'd have to undergo another round of getting approval which would take years as starship has taken. Also why not just use the LEM or alpaca or any other Lander because they aren't sustainable. 100-250 tons with 1000 cubic meters of internal volume is what makes starship great.
@@Smiles10130 There could be 2 versions of Starship HLS. The smaller version would be phase one, which would prove out all the systems required for a lunar landing, the untold number of unmanned lunar landings required before a human mission is approved, and the first manned missions that don't require the "100-250 tons with 1000 cubic meters of internal volume is what makes starship great". Phase two would be when the current Starship HLS design would be implemented. Also, since it's obvious that it will be many years before Starship HLS is ready to support the Artemis missions, there will be plenty of time to get the necessary approvals you're referring to.
You forget how quickly SpaceX innovates.
I can't remember the last time you said anything good about Spacex and starship.
Because, togspots, SpaceX and Starship have yet to give AA anything good to talk about.
We "old-hands" understand that results are all that matters in the Space Age.
I'm sure there'll get it all working fine one day but when they do has any one considered what that belly flop maneuver will feel like for anyone inside? That doesn't look very human friendly to me>
I believe it is more practical to use Starship only to get 150T to LEO, the rest of it the payload itself has its own stages to get to a far flung destination.