Go to ground.news/everydayastronaut to take the rocket science out of staying informed on what's going on up in space and down on Earth. Subscribe through my link for 40% off the Ground News unlimited access Vantage Plan this month.
Thank you for sharing our mission Tim! If anyone's interested in getting the full picture of stories like the one in this video, check out the link in the description and let us know if you have any questions.
Love these shorter format deepdives! The longer ones are great when I have time to sit down, but the shorter ones are nice for fitting in with my daily stuff. Maybe I'll see you in Boca for IFT-4! :D
I remember when Tim was at 40k subs. I don’t watch all his videos anymore but check in every now and then learnt all I know about space flight from his videos. Deserves every single follower. Well done Tim.
Wait what? When did Tim say he's getting another Starbase tour?? I've been hoping he gets a chance to go back and see all the updates since the last tour with Elon. I would absolutely love for him to be there while Starship is stacked too.
@@DarkNightDreamer Elon said on Twitter that he will tour Tim at Starbase prior to Flight 4, and take the opportunity to explain why he (Elon) is pessimistic about the heat shield tile problem.
Just so you understand, if there was full Nuclear exchange war tomorrow with all Nuclear weapons used, Earth would STILL be vastly more inhabitable than Mars as its a complete hell hole. There are no planets or moons in our solar system that humans can create a real colony on, maybe a mining operation.
Hey Tim. Our household has been your fans since you first got on the air. Other outfits have outspent and outorganized you, but you were the first. My "norminal" shirt says no differently. Your insight comes from not being part of the mold, and being an outsider, and seeking knowledge without assuming you have it. That's why you're great, and that's why we keep watching. It takes a lot of effort to reinvent oneself and particularly in a "hobby interest" that later becomes in depth understanding. Kudos, amigo!
SpaceX is doing everything it can to get Flight 4 to the flip and burn splashdown. No engine relight, no payload bay door opening, a couple of extra thrusters. It will be fun to watch that's for sure 😄
I don't understand your reasoning on why not doing those things would allow them to attempt a belly flop? They didn't do a belly flop on flight 3 because they didn't have any prop in the header tanks after doing the cryogenic propellant transfer test for NASA.
@dr4d1s I would imagine because there's less oppertunities of failure. Something could go wrong during payload pay door testing or an in-space relight that wouldn't cost them at a chance at re-entry.
@@ThePentosin fixing this problem alone gives then a lot more capability to adapt and achieve a safe landing if this and headshield tile issues get solved
Thank you for another video Tim. Ive watched you go from a new starter CZcamsr to an absolute Star. Much as I love your channel I appreciate you have much more exciting thing to do. So pleased for you. Well done mate
The reason they did not plan to do a belly flop on flight 3 was because on that flight they did that propellant transfer demonstration, where they moved some methane from the header tanks into the main tanks while the ship was in zero-G. So there was not enough methane left in the header tank to even attempt the belly flop. Now that the transfer demonstration has been successfully completed, and SpaceX has collected the corresponding grant money from NASA, they can from now on use the header tanks for their actually intended purpose, which is to fuel the engines during the flop.
@@otpyrcralphpierre1742 That's not info, that's cope. They didn't do the belly flop because their ship was completely falling out of control, and the flop doesn't even work anyway. It doesn't slow the ship down enough. This ship design is doomed to failure.
“Propellant transfer.” That money was supposed to be for demonstrating inter-vehicle propellant transfers, but once again SpaceX cons taxpayers by failing to deliver and getting paid anyway 😒
Great job Tim. Thanks so much for your time and effort into creating your content. Sometimes it goes unnoticed and underappreciated by some, definitely not by me, I love it. Keep up the good work, you are remarkable. Can't wait for Flight 4. 👍👏🚀👨🚀
I think the other way round. I think 13 engines were needed for boost back and landing burn, but most of them cut off early even during the boost back. That’s a lot of engines needed We saw starship was fine with the plasma when it was facing the right way- if they can keep orientation then I think starship will be fine
@@craigfjay they had bled of just a small fraction of the orbital velocity when feed cut so i wouldn't base too much on that performance, we'll see what happens. Also as this is new design with still lot of unknowns its always possible that next flight goes worse than previous if they have some hidden issues that have not been yet discovered during flights (like CRS-7 incident)
I think that super heavy has a very high chance of completing its landing burn, however I am not that certain about the ship. It has a decent chance of making it through reentry, due to the fact that they were working so much on the heat tiles. I guess we have to wait and see on that one. But it if does make it through reentry successfully without tumbling or having any other issues, then a relight of the raptors engines is almost guaranteed.
Fixing the tumbling is more important than fixing the tiles. Hitting the upper atmosphere in the wrong attitude or turning requires thrusters to fix, not the flaps. The definition of the Kármán Line is that inertial forces exceed aerodynamic forces.
super heavy has failed 3 times in a row pretty spectacularly, why would you think it has a high chance of completing its landing burn. id say theres a near 100% chance of it failing that actually.
@jebes909090 Saying that it failed 3 times in a row is a bit misleading. Superheavy managed to get significantly further each launch. The first time it lost multiple engines and then a bit later the control of the flight. While the second time it had a fully nominal ascent and stage separation. Then due to the fast flip and fuel sloshing, it exploded. On the third attempt it also had a perfect launch and stage separation, but it survived the boost back burn. However it did have some problems with some of the engines, so it couldn’t relight them properly. However it did survive all the way until it crashed into the ocean. On the fourth attempt they put a lot of work into the engines and fuel system which will make a relight very likely. Seeing the progress on each attempt, a successful relight of the engines to simulate the landing over the Mexican gulf seems very likely
@@Imagine_Beyond it actually lost engines all three times. the 3rd time it actually ascended slower than the second time. i dont know if there was more weight or there was a problem with the engines on ascent. it crashing into the ocean and more than the speed of sound is a significant failure. they have to catch that thing
@jebes909090 the 3rd launch had a slower ascent since they where trying to avoid fuel sloshing and to help keep the g-forces stable and not wild during the flip, they add a few seconds to the flip. So that wasn’t an issue. I am not sure why you claim that it lost its engines all 3 times? Since it didn’t. The ascent of super heavy during the second and third launch went very well without any engines failing
With each of the previous launches they have taken some pretty big steps forward each time. I cannot see why this launch will not follow that pattern. I think they stand every chance of achieving all of their goals for this flight.
Considering 28 was tumbling on re-entry and didn't explode when the ships unprotected part were exposed to the plasma just shows you how well made and sturdy starship actually is.
Yep, and MANY people says sh*t about how Starship design is horrendous, and bla bla bla, with the lack of knowledge and self-awareness (Dunning-Kruger effect really comes to play). They KNOW that many other rocket design, including Falcon, is treated the same way as Starship currently is. And then, boom, Starship actually became a huge sensation because of how revolutionary it is, and then what? Those haters gonna go back to the cave, waiting for a new opportunity to send hate? They're pathetic, and idiotic.
I agree, while I am sure that IFT 4 will be better than 3. Simply this and next few test will be aimed toward identification of issues. But we will see LOT of misshaps during "optimisation" phase. Simply put, they will try to remove as much as possible, either by making lighter/weaker parts, like ie heatshields, less stringers etc or removing parts completely (like ie engine shielding. Also there will be issues during testing new generation of hardware (raptor 3/4) .
The bar must only be low enough then everything is a success. Imagine NASA launching the Saturn V and calling "not exploding on the ramp" a success. They had no failure of the Saturn V rocket. Why is this not possible nowadays?
@@brainforest88 Single use design is to be expected to be much simpler therefore more reliable. You are comparing boat to an arcraft carrier. Reusability demands different methods and technologied some of which have not yet been tested in real conditions. Just the fuel tank that is meant to undergo hundreds of pressurisation cycles is very different from tank that is pressurized only once.
When the video is only 12min long, 2 min of selling a sponsor + also selling your own merch later in the video, is a LOT imo. It means 25% of the video is you asking us for money... I like the video, but c'mon...
For the virtual catch of booster, I wonder if it will include the Mechzilla Arms opening and catching it, though the booster will be many miles in the Gulf. Test both the booster, while also test the tower at same time.
I think it will go better not sure by how much TBH. The issues of attitude control at different phases by ship and booster looked quite hard to fix in one iteration. But I’m not sufficiently expert to judge what info they have to diagnose, debug and simulate fixes of these issues
Attempting to utilise a fluid in free fall still sounds amazing. It'll be great to see the explanation of the fluid flows around multiple relight attempts during ship manouvers , rotation and flips.
Honestly I don’t think that’s a bad idea there waiting to perfect the technology on earth however sending a few starships to mars orbit would give them the data needed for upcoming missions spacex has no data on landing on the moon or mars yet
That would require 12-16 flights for orbital refueling to have enough prop to throw Starship to Mars. Starship is a big girl and Mars requires a lot of delta v to just get there plus more to drop into orbit.
@@dr4d1s For Mars missions, current estimates are said to be 8 flights for refueling. However, they could go on an exploratory mission with no payload, which would in that case reduce that number significantly. Starship model 3, which would have larger tanks, then with raptor 3's which are in development would reduce the number of refueling launches even further, assuming no payload.
one key change is the tank farm that now fills the ship up in half the time. This is super important as the last failure was due to ice build up in the filters. With less time for ice to form the ship has a far better chance of avoiding that major issue.
@@brainforest88 Because he will clearly mention/show many things which SpaceX hadn't mentioned/shown before? Isn't that bit of information is already worth it?
My main issue with this whole thing has always been the launch pad. It would have taken longer but an in-ground flame diverter like on pad 39-A or ULA's pad would have been the way to go. no risk to the tank farms and no need to repair after every launch.
@@truegrit1860 while that is true, the 39a and b are designed for the idea of the Nova rocket (enlarged saturn v), right? Either way, SpaceX is very space limited in Boca Chica, so it is very difficult to envision anything but what they have down there right now.
Why do you think flame diverter trenches and associated pads do not require repair? I read every post-launch report I could find online at NASA for the Saturn V and the Space Shuttle, which are the closest US vehicles to SuperHeavy/Starship in thrust. The pad infrastructure required repair after every launch. Doors and ancillary equipment were blown away. Protective steel plate, especially edges, were eroded and led to gaps. The Space Shuttle tossed 1500 fire bricks out of the flame trench. No one outside the programs paid any attention to this because so much else about the launch vehicles had to be replaced and refurbished. By comparison the pad damage was low level noise. With other rockets like F9 the thrust and resultant damage are relatively small, so it’s much more manageable. By contrast to Apollo/Shuttle, SpaceX has rapidly leap frogged to the low damage solution. They went from a big hole in the ground to relatively small repairs in one launch by implementing a solution that was already in the works before the big blast. Likely the repair bill will be even smaller and faster after IFT 4. Given that it’s the biggest blow torch in the world they will still have to hammer down a some loosened nails as they go, but it seems they are on right track.
Could SpaceX start flying payloads soon? Since Starship can make it to orbit I don't see why they can't start flying payloads and keep testing the reusability on the backend.
if I understand correctly, they have to show that they can make a de-orbit burn in space first, but why they have that restriction when it seems like others don't have it makes me quite uncertain.
@@snuffeldjuret no others have gotten to the stage of attempting a propulsive landing with crafts of this size from orbital velocity, this is untested territory
I doubt that SpaceX will put payload on V1. Maybe few starlinks in one of IFT. For sure they will not try before assuring that relit of engines in orbit is sure.
These comments are so overused, old, unoriginal, and frankley quite stupid. Come up with something new. But no, you're like "Hey, why dont I comment the thing that has been said in the comments of every single video in the history of youtube, that'll get me some likes."
great video and thanks for the updates! perhaps they would be much further along with reentry if they used hot gas thrusters ? I'm def no expert but just curious what you think?
The easiest solution is often not the lowest cost. The point of iterative design is to push the limits of engineering & material science to not only be successful but to do it while minimizing cost. All while developing a mass production system and manufacturing facility. This is all about dramatically lowering the cost of launch services.
@@Doritoman92 ? I was talking about the 2 min ground news ad a 3rd of the way in and not the CZcams ads. Yes, you don't get to choose what ads CZcams plays but you still get paid for people watching.
@@disgruntledwookie369 And there is a proper timestamp to easily skip it, too, unlike many other channels. And when I see the insane amount of work hours, equipment, and more that goes into this channel, I cannot be mad for an easily skippable sponsorship segment.
a theory i heard about why they're planning on landing starship this time is because they doubted it will make it through reentry before, and theres no way it will make it to landing. so all that would do is extend the mishap investigation further since more things went wrong, or something like that
There is an elephant in the room here - a heavy one! Every time SpaceX has a problem they meet it by welding on more steel. Steel is heavy. There is a real danger they get to a working ship, but the payload is insufficient for economical operation. It is beginning to seem worryingly like the iterative development process of the British R101 airship of the 1930s: add mass to address every problem, then add size to compensate for the extra mass. The thing ends up so fragile and unwieldy it crashes on its maiden flight. I hope I'm wrong, but the fact that everybody is working so hard to avoid mentioning mass makes me worry ...
With V2 Ships and Boosters they'll get rid of Raptor shielding and containment bays, that will easily offset all these changes and will make the whole stack even lighter than it is right now.
Agreed, that is a lot of extra steel. No wonder payload is only 40-50 tons. There is a lot riding on Raptor V3 performance and reliability. Would be a good topic for Tim to delve into…
@@RakietomaniaI think it will be quite a while before that occurs. Can’t imagine NASA accepting that, which means it’s there for HLS and all those tanker flights. 40-50t tanker payload means 20-30 flights. That doesn’t make sense, so fingers x’d that Raptor 3 works well.
@@marksinclair701 The usual EM promisses. Wasn't it 100-150t in the beginning? If they want to refulel in orbit, how many supply flights do they need, 20? And we don't have seen a successful relight of the engine. Guess after all refueling missions the engines are in space for a month or so.
I said a day or two ago on X I believe the booster will complete everything including the soft landing/virtual catch & that I think the ship will make it to & through re-entry but that it will have a re-light issue & thus may not complete the soft landing. I think that would be a terrific set of accomplishments for Flight 4. Super excited for June 5th!
Love the vid Tim! I remember years ago when you were first geeking out over the first booster tests and the beginning of starship. Heck we’ve come a long way since star hopper. Hopefully the electrical cord doesn’t go haywire like the booster that just got tested. I saw they looked over this boosters cord
Jettisoning the HSR will remove 10 tons off the top off the booster ! This should make it much more controllable and stable ! And yes the HSR can be reused !
Hi Tim, great video. I think they will probably need at least two more flights to achieve this goal, but will be very excited for sure. My expectation is to see both booster and ship reentry in IFT-4, and soft splashdown for both in IFT-5. We might see starlink satellites payload in IFT-6. Greetings from Argentina!
I think (don't know) jettisoning the hot stage ring will make the booster easier to control. There's a lot of extra weight up there, making it top heavy, so harder to maintaining the correct orientation. Remember originally it was designed NOT to have a hot stage ring... Jettison for now, perfect the re entry / landing, then rethink with the hot stage still attached later.
@EverydayAstronaut Any comment on the cause of the filter blockage and prevention? I’ve seen unsubstantiated speculation that they deleted the LOX heat exchangers and are using preburner output for autogenous tank pressure. This caused ice and solid CO2 which clogs the filters, and maybe also the thrusters. If true (big if), more filtration seems like a partial fix at best.
I'm confused about these "filters" too. What are they filtering? It's supposed to be pure LOX, no? Your comment possibly answers my question, maybe the cold temp creates solid ice to filter...
@@aldunlop4622 Normally they shouldn't be doing much, as the LOX should be very pure and there shouldn't be much debris in the tank. The tanks are supposed to be pressurized by hot pure gas. CH4 comes from cooling passages around chamber etc. LOX isn't used for engine cooling (super hot O2 gas = bad) so they use a heat exchanger to provide "warm" O2 back to the tank. Story is that they deleted the LOX heat exchanger (best part = no part) and are tapping the staged combustion LOX preburner (LOX + bit of LCH4) output to get autogenous pressurization gas. This has a bit of CO2 & H20 in it, which freezes in the tank. The ice floats so mostly the problem doesn't become apparent until the tank nears empty, when the filters get overwhelmed, which shuts downs the engines. The next Raptor version might solve this problem somehow (integral heat exchanger?), but meantime the answer is "more filtration". I have only seen all this speculated, but it does seem to match with what SpaceX have said about filter problems on IFT2 and IFT3, the engine shutdowns, and maybe also the thruster problems. Hopefully Tim gets the whole story from Elon.
Dropping the ring probably improves the center of mass as well? (At least compared to the center of lift). - Reorientation is easier while balanced, but staying at a certain attitude is easier while the heavy end points down… - especially with the turbulence of reentry. - From a Kerbal Space Program perspective, being top heavy makes it hard to land “flamy end down”: speaking from “experience”.
Wish you well and hope you get a different opportunity to go to orbit. I appreciate all your work over the years - I have learned a lot about rocket science (or more importantly, realized how little I knew). As Starship inevitably marches towards success, I am sure getting people to orbit will lose its exclusivity and be more approachable for a lot of folks. Temperemental billionaires will no longer have a veto on who goes to space
If they can demonstrate a potential landing even just simulated it will be a huge leap forward but even if they just fly this thing and keep everything under control it will prove reliability of the system as is. Best case scenario it's a huge win, worst case scenario the heatshield can do with some more improvements. I'm going to be looking at the booster more so then the ship, I pray they can actually catch it and just keep using the booster to keep sending up ships.
Could you ask Elon if they are working on film-cooling for the turbine blades like modern jet engines do? This would allow them to significantly raise the temperature inside the turbopump, they might not even need preburners at all and put the turbine inside the throat for LEET-1337 The higher delta-T would in theory allow them to reach 2'000 bar in chamber pressure for LEET.
Sorry man about the moon loop, but if it happened once, it'll happen again man: Tim Dodd to the Moon!!! (rooting for you from Kenya, love your work, love SpaceX)
Surviving reentry with all systems working is, in my opinion, the most important milestone. They will figure out the rest, with some tries, but reentry....
Speculation is they are using LOX preburner output for autogenous tank pressurisation having deleted the heat exchangers. This causes ice and solid CO2 that clogs the filters and maybe the vent thrusters. Have not seen anything more than speculation/rumor.
Absent actual data, I’m still wondering - since they are clogging filters in BOTH booster and ship- if they just don’t have a general cleanliness issue at Boca Chica. Let’s face it: we haven’t exactly seen clean-room operations- hardly ever. (Ever?). In fact, I’ve been shocked at the photos of workers at the pad opening the tanks and in work clothes just going inside. - Dave Huntsman
@@dphuntsman while it isn't cleanroom conditions, its likely similar to airplane production facilities (when done by intelligent manufacturers, so, not Boeing).
How well is the fuel and oxidizer filtered prior to fueling the vehicles? How much contamination is introduced during fueling/ de-fueling? Inquiring minds want to know!
Your question is pertinent; since they have contamination problems with BOTH ship and booster, i.e., it’s generic to, well, starbase operations, which don’t seem to have good contamination control. - Dave Huntsman
The clogging issue is not from debris in the methane or oxygen tanks. It is methane and oxygen ice in the fuel tanks. When fuel is consumed some pressure is lost in the tanks If fuel is consumed fast enough and the pressure drop in the tanks is fast enough the fuel will cool off possibly enough to for ice. Not water ice but solid oxygen and methane.
Maybe they want to jettison the hot staging ring not for reducing mass for the burns and fins to control, but to reduce force on the chopsticks? Obv not for this flight but you’d want to demonstrate the capability. Chopsticks were definitely not specced for the added weight of that ring and that’s not something you can adjust for by just throttling up.
With the massive hot staging ring that far up on the booster it throws off the center of pressure of the vehicle making it more unstable and harder to control when coming in for its landing burn.
Keep in mind, the plan was to jettison the hot staging ring on IFT-3 as well; it’s just that the ring decided to, er, leave, earlier than was scheduled. This model of booster was Never designed for controllability with a hot staging ring in mind; it’s an add-on- and an uncomfortable one. Expect SpaceX to eventually get to a booster Block where the booster structure, software, integrated control system including TVC/grid fins, & refined hot staging ring, are all optimized, so that it is not nominally separated and everything is ‘fully and rapidly reusable’. But not today. - Dave Huntsman
Spacex definitely wants to do a capture of super heavy sometime this year, to be able to showcase the possibility of recapture after launch. When that happens who knows, but they are usually very aggressive with expectations and timelines. I would be surprised if they try it for flight five, I guess it comes down to how successful flight four is.
I think the hot staging ring jettison will have a significant positive impact on the centre of gravity of the booster with it moving much closer to the mass of the engines at the bottom of the booster. This should make control easier for them.
Go to ground.news/everydayastronaut to take the rocket science out of staying informed on what's going on up in space and down on Earth. Subscribe through my link for 40% off the Ground News unlimited access Vantage Plan this month.
Thank you for sharing our mission Tim!
If anyone's interested in getting the full picture of stories like the one in this video, check out the link in the description and let us know if you have any questions.
Ok
No
Nope, I don't think I shill.
Love ur music Tim!!
Missed opportunity to call the shirts "orbital velocitees" 😂
Never too late
You get the Cleaver and Cheeky award for this one. Nice!
😂10 dad points! 🏅
How about max-Q-tees?
Yes!
Love these shorter format deepdives! The longer ones are great when I have time to sit down, but the shorter ones are nice for fitting in with my daily stuff. Maybe I'll see you in Boca for IFT-4! :D
I remember when Tim was at 40k subs. I don’t watch all his videos anymore but check in every now and then learnt all I know about space flight from his videos. Deserves every single follower. Well done Tim.
learned 😂
ABSOLUTELY STOKED about the upcoming the Starbase Tour!!! can we get a date?
Wait what? When did Tim say he's getting another Starbase tour?? I've been hoping he gets a chance to go back and see all the updates since the last tour with Elon. I would absolutely love for him to be there while Starship is stacked too.
@@DarkNightDreamer Elon said on Twitter that he will tour Tim at Starbase prior to Flight 4, and take the opportunity to explain why he (Elon) is pessimistic about the heat shield tile problem.
I'm most excited to see the inside of starfactory
Just so you understand, if there was full Nuclear exchange war tomorrow with all Nuclear weapons used, Earth would STILL be vastly more inhabitable than Mars as its a complete hell hole. There are no planets or moons in our solar system that humans can create a real colony on, maybe a mining operation.
"Rapid Unscheduled Discount" was a good one.
"By Grabthar's Hammer, What A Savings!"
How about Unplanned Meteoric Fireshower
That is on my bingo card.
@@manofsan just an ordinary part of our quest to explore the galaxy.
I think you missed the context @@Feefa99
@everydayastronaut I saw the news about Dear Moon. Really hope you get another chance to go to space. Rooting for you
😂😂😂
Super happy with these shorter and informative vids! Awesome job Tim!
Hey Tim. Our household has been your fans since you first got on the air. Other outfits have outspent and outorganized you, but you were the first. My "norminal" shirt says no differently.
Your insight comes from not being part of the mold, and being an outsider, and seeking knowledge without assuming you have it. That's why you're great, and that's why we keep watching.
It takes a lot of effort to reinvent oneself and particularly in a "hobby interest" that later becomes in depth understanding.
Kudos, amigo!
Thank you so much for this wonderful comment. I take it to heart and appreciate the feedback! Cheers!
SpaceX is doing everything it can to get Flight 4 to the flip and burn splashdown. No engine relight, no payload bay door opening, a couple of extra thrusters. It will be fun to watch that's for sure 😄
I don't understand your reasoning on why not doing those things would allow them to attempt a belly flop?
They didn't do a belly flop on flight 3 because they didn't have any prop in the header tanks after doing the cryogenic propellant transfer test for NASA.
@dr4d1s I would imagine because there's less oppertunities of failure. Something could go wrong during payload pay door testing or an in-space relight that wouldn't cost them at a chance at re-entry.
@@dr4d1s They didnt do a bellyflop because they lost attitude control and entered the atmosphere in the wrong orientation.
@@ThePentosin fixing this problem alone gives then a lot more capability to adapt and achieve a safe landing if this and headshield tile issues get solved
The flip from bellyflop to landing orientation was never planned for IFT3 @@ThePentosin
Thank you for another video Tim. Ive watched you go from a new starter CZcamsr to an absolute Star. Much as I love your channel I appreciate you have much more exciting thing to do. So pleased for you. Well done mate
The reason they did not plan to do a belly flop on flight 3 was because on that flight they did that propellant transfer demonstration, where they moved some methane from the header tanks into the main tanks while the ship was in zero-G. So there was not enough methane left in the header tank to even attempt the belly flop.
Now that the transfer demonstration has been successfully completed, and SpaceX has collected the corresponding grant money from NASA, they can from now on use the header tanks for their actually intended purpose, which is to fuel the engines during the flop.
Thank you for that info.
@@otpyrcralphpierre1742 That's not info, that's cope. They didn't do the belly flop because their ship was completely falling out of control, and the flop doesn't even work anyway. It doesn't slow the ship down enough. This ship design is doomed to failure.
Thanks rocket scientist for your input! @@alexseguin5245glad you know more than spaceX
@@alexseguin5245mate the belly flop wasn’t even planned for flight three. They wouldn’t have done it even if it successfully made it through entry
“Propellant transfer.” That money was supposed to be for demonstrating inter-vehicle propellant transfers, but once again SpaceX cons taxpayers by failing to deliver and getting paid anyway 😒
Great job Tim. Thanks so much for your time and effort into creating your content. Sometimes it goes unnoticed and underappreciated by some, definitely not by me, I love it. Keep up the good work, you are remarkable. Can't wait for Flight 4. 👍👏🚀👨🚀
Thanks for this update Tim. I predict significant progress with the Booster landing burn. I'm less sure about Ship re-entry.
I think the other way round. I think 13 engines were needed for boost back and landing burn, but most of them cut off early even during the boost back. That’s a lot of engines needed
We saw starship was fine with the plasma when it was facing the right way- if they can keep orientation then I think starship will be fine
@@craigfjay they had bled of just a small fraction of the orbital velocity when feed cut so i wouldn't base too much on that performance, we'll see what happens.
Also as this is new design with still lot of unknowns its always possible that next flight goes worse than previous if they have some hidden issues that have not been yet discovered during flights (like CRS-7 incident)
@@tapio83the highest heating is usually way before the highest deceleration
Sorry for you that dearMoon is canceled! Must be a huge disappointment.
What really??
Bad news for you Mars colony and Starship Moon landing system will be cancelled also 😂
I think that super heavy has a very high chance of completing its landing burn, however I am not that certain about the ship. It has a decent chance of making it through reentry, due to the fact that they were working so much on the heat tiles. I guess we have to wait and see on that one. But it if does make it through reentry successfully without tumbling or having any other issues, then a relight of the raptors engines is almost guaranteed.
Fixing the tumbling is more important than fixing the tiles. Hitting the upper atmosphere in the wrong attitude or turning requires thrusters to fix, not the flaps. The definition of the Kármán Line is that inertial forces exceed aerodynamic forces.
super heavy has failed 3 times in a row pretty spectacularly, why would you think it has a high chance of completing its landing burn. id say theres a near 100% chance of it failing that actually.
@jebes909090 Saying that it failed 3 times in a row is a bit misleading. Superheavy managed to get significantly further each launch. The first time it lost multiple engines and then a bit later the control of the flight. While the second time it had a fully nominal ascent and stage separation. Then due to the fast flip and fuel sloshing, it exploded. On the third attempt it also had a perfect launch and stage separation, but it survived the boost back burn. However it did have some problems with some of the engines, so it couldn’t relight them properly. However it did survive all the way until it crashed into the ocean. On the fourth attempt they put a lot of work into the engines and fuel system which will make a relight very likely. Seeing the progress on each attempt, a successful relight of the engines to simulate the landing over the Mexican gulf seems very likely
@@Imagine_Beyond it actually lost engines all three times. the 3rd time it actually ascended slower than the second time. i dont know if there was more weight or there was a problem with the engines on ascent. it crashing into the ocean and more than the speed of sound is a significant failure. they have to catch that thing
@jebes909090 the 3rd launch had a slower ascent since they where trying to avoid fuel sloshing and to help keep the g-forces stable and not wild during the flip, they add a few seconds to the flip. So that wasn’t an issue. I am not sure why you claim that it lost its engines all 3 times? Since it didn’t. The ascent of super heavy during the second and third launch went very well without any engines failing
So glad to see you doing Space news again Tim, I've missed this.
Those changes paid off. Booster and Starship made their soft splashdowns.
With each of the previous launches they have taken some pretty big steps forward each time. I cannot see why this launch will not follow that pattern. I think they stand every chance of achieving all of their goals for this flight.
Considering 28 was tumbling on re-entry and didn't explode when the ships unprotected part were exposed to the plasma just shows you how well made and sturdy starship actually is.
Yep, and MANY people says sh*t about how Starship design is horrendous, and bla bla bla, with the lack of knowledge and self-awareness (Dunning-Kruger effect really comes to play).
They KNOW that many other rocket design, including Falcon, is treated the same way as Starship currently is. And then, boom, Starship actually became a huge sensation because of how revolutionary it is, and then what? Those haters gonna go back to the cave, waiting for a new opportunity to send hate?
They're pathetic, and idiotic.
Awesome stuff as always Tim!
Can't wait for the stream. Your launch streams are one of my favorite streams on youtube :)
Just heard about the Dear Moon Mission being cancelled. So sad :(
I think one year hence, Starship landings will be routine and people will start to forget just how awesome an achievement it is.
Progress is not always linear. (2 better than 1; 3 better than 2; 4 better than 3; etc) Just a caution on expectations.
Learning from mistakes usually does work that way though. Random things can happen but the odds of advancement are in their favour.
I agree, while I am sure that IFT 4 will be better than 3.
Simply this and next few test will be aimed toward identification of issues.
But we will see LOT of misshaps during "optimisation" phase. Simply put, they will try to remove as much as possible, either by making lighter/weaker parts, like ie heatshields, less stringers etc or removing parts completely (like ie engine shielding. Also there will be issues during testing new generation of hardware (raptor 3/4) .
Tim says there are a “few” noticeable tweaks and then spends the next 12 minutes going over the MANY new tweaks! ❤ We love you Tim!
hell yeah, starship video
Good luck tomorrow. Thanks again for all your great content.
Ive been waiting for this video for so long. this means we are getting close!! cant wait for the launch. great vid as always Tim
Looking forward to the next launch. It will be awesome to watch a launch with my Son some day.
If one thing is SpaceX known for, is improvement, and may I add, FAST improvement. I think Flight 4 will be better. Thanks for the video, Tim.
The bar must only be low enough then everything is a success. Imagine NASA launching the Saturn V and calling "not exploding on the ramp" a success. They had no failure of the Saturn V rocket. Why is this not possible nowadays?
@@brainforest88 Single use design is to be expected to be much simpler therefore more reliable. You are comparing boat to an arcraft carrier. Reusability demands different methods and technologied some of which have not yet been tested in real conditions. Just the fuel tank that is meant to undergo hundreds of pressurisation cycles is very different from tank that is pressurized only once.
Excellent overview! Thanks Tim D and the great Everyday Astronaut Crew.
When the video is only 12min long, 2 min of selling a sponsor + also selling your own merch later in the video, is a LOT imo. It means 25% of the video is you asking us for money... I like the video, but c'mon...
Sponsorblock has your back.
at least he put a sponsor chapter🤷🏻♂️
First world problems
SELLOUT EWWWWW
Sellout
For the virtual catch of booster, I wonder if it will include the Mechzilla Arms opening and catching it, though the booster will be many miles in the Gulf. Test both the booster, while also test the tower at same time.
Yes. More, give me moooreeeeee
I think it will go better not sure by how much TBH. The issues of attitude control at different phases by ship and booster looked quite hard to fix in one iteration. But I’m not sufficiently expert to judge what info they have to diagnose, debug and simulate fixes of these issues
I was SOOOO stoked to pick up an F-1 shirt. My favourite rocket engine by far and as I bonus it supports Tim!
Gr8t report Tim although, (minor point), the change in acoustics of voice mic didn't work for me. Looking forward to that next flight )))))
5:48 No!! We never talked a little bit more about it when you talked about expectations :(
You must have missed it. Check @7:10 and @7:35
You're welcome!
Attempting to utilise a fluid in free fall still sounds amazing. It'll be great to see the explanation of the fluid flows around multiple relight attempts during ship manouvers , rotation and flips.
Flight 6 - Just send a Starship to Mars, just because.
Flight 7 - Just send a Starship to Andromeda, just because
Honestly I don’t think that’s a bad idea there waiting to perfect the technology on earth however sending a few starships to mars orbit would give them the data needed for upcoming missions spacex has no data on landing on the moon or mars yet
That would require 12-16 flights for orbital refueling to have enough prop to throw Starship to Mars. Starship is a big girl and Mars requires a lot of delta v to just get there plus more to drop into orbit.
@@dr4d1s For Mars missions, current estimates are said to be 8 flights for refueling. However, they could go on an exploratory mission with no payload, which would in that case reduce that number significantly.
Starship model 3, which would have larger tanks, then with raptor 3's which are in development would reduce the number of refueling launches even further, assuming no payload.
@@Nidvard from what I read, 8 was for a Moon mission not a Mars mission. Much greater delta v requirements between Moon and Mars.
one key change is the tank farm that now fills the ship up in half the time.
This is super important as the last failure was due to ice build up in the filters. With less time for ice to form the ship has a far better chance of avoiding that major issue.
Can’t wait for the next Elon Musk interview!
Why?
@@brainforest88 Because he will clearly mention/show many things which SpaceX hadn't mentioned/shown before? Isn't that bit of information is already worth it?
Not interested about mumbling junkie
@@brainforest88 rocket man bad?
@@imviciously Rocket man is bad indeed.
This is all so exciting! Have been waiting for a long time since that water tank jump !!
Looking forward to the Elon interview
My main issue with this whole thing has always been the launch pad. It would have taken longer but an in-ground flame diverter like on pad 39-A or ULA's pad would have been the way to go. no risk to the tank farms and no need to repair after every launch.
@@truegrit1860 while that is true, the 39a and b are designed for the idea of the Nova rocket (enlarged saturn v), right?
Either way, SpaceX is very space limited in Boca Chica, so it is very difficult to envision anything but what they have down there right now.
Why do you think flame diverter trenches and associated pads do not require repair?
I read every post-launch report I could find online at NASA for the Saturn V and the Space Shuttle, which are the closest US vehicles to SuperHeavy/Starship in thrust. The pad infrastructure required repair after every launch. Doors and ancillary equipment were blown away. Protective steel plate, especially edges, were eroded and led to gaps. The Space Shuttle tossed 1500 fire bricks out of the flame trench. No one outside the programs paid any attention to this because so much else about the launch vehicles had to be replaced and refurbished. By comparison the pad damage was low level noise. With other rockets like F9 the thrust and resultant damage are relatively small, so it’s much more manageable.
By contrast to Apollo/Shuttle, SpaceX has rapidly leap frogged to the low damage solution. They went from a big hole in the ground to relatively small repairs in one launch by implementing a solution that was already in the works before the big blast. Likely the repair bill will be even smaller and faster after IFT 4. Given that it’s the biggest blow torch in the world they will still have to hammer down a some loosened nails as they go, but it seems they are on right track.
Could SpaceX start flying payloads soon? Since Starship can make it to orbit I don't see why they can't start flying payloads and keep testing the reusability on the backend.
Assuming this next launch goes well, it is indeed possible to add payloads very soon, and I guess they will within the next few launches, perhaps #6
if I understand correctly, they have to show that they can make a de-orbit burn in space first, but why they have that restriction when it seems like others don't have it makes me quite uncertain.
@@snuffeldjuret no others have gotten to the stage of attempting a propulsive landing with crafts of this size from orbital velocity, this is untested territory
@@Nidvard but the landing isn't really what that is about though, right?
I doubt that SpaceX will put payload on V1. Maybe few starlinks in one of IFT. For sure they will not try before assuring that relit of engines in orbit is sure.
12:15 words cannot describe how much I wanted to hear this from you orbiting the moon
feel like we're ramping up :D
Hi Tim. You have provided an excellent detailed and thorough update for starship 4. Very impressive. Thank you. Joe.
Babe, wake up! Tim just uploaded a new video!
These comments are so overused, old, unoriginal, and frankley quite stupid. Come up with something new. But no, you're like "Hey, why dont I comment the thing that has been said in the comments of every single video in the history of youtube, that'll get me some likes."
@@jamesginger7504I have a problem with people using a comment people like to use a lot to get likes (that’s the whole point of the like button)
@@jamesginger7504 yeah James, the language has been spoken for centuries, time to reinvent language. Wow, so angry, your mom must be proud of you😆
great video and thanks for the updates! perhaps they would be much further along with reentry if they used hot gas thrusters ? I'm def no expert but just curious what you think?
The easiest solution is often not the lowest cost. The point of iterative design is to push the limits of engineering & material science to not only be successful but to do it while minimizing cost. All while developing a mass production system and manufacturing facility. This is all about dramatically lowering the cost of launch services.
What's with the ~2min ad on a 12min video Tim? Is all the Patreon supporter money and CZcams ad revenue not good enough?
You can’t control the type of ads CZcams uses on your videos
@@Doritoman92 ? I was talking about the 2 min ground news ad a 3rd of the way in and not the CZcams ads. Yes, you don't get to choose what ads CZcams plays but you still get paid for people watching.
@@Doritoman92 @shamaramyers1 was probably walking about the ~2 minutes-long sponsored segment between 3:27 and 5:17.
I don't know a single channel with more than 250k subs that doesn't have all three, ads, sponsors, and patreon. You know you can skip ahead right?
@@disgruntledwookie369 And there is a proper timestamp to easily skip it, too, unlike many other channels. And when I see the insane amount of work hours, equipment, and more that goes into this channel, I cannot be mad for an easily skippable sponsorship segment.
Hi from Greece. Nice informative video. Can't wait for the attempt.
Can’t wait for the next Elon Musk interview!!
a theory i heard about why they're planning on landing starship this time is because they doubted it will make it through reentry before, and theres no way it will make it to landing. so all that would do is extend the mishap investigation further since more things went wrong, or something like that
There is an elephant in the room here - a heavy one! Every time SpaceX has a problem they meet it by welding on more steel. Steel is heavy. There is a real danger they get to a working ship, but the payload is insufficient for economical operation. It is beginning to seem worryingly like the iterative development process of the British R101 airship of the 1930s: add mass to address every problem, then add size to compensate for the extra mass. The thing ends up so fragile and unwieldy it crashes on its maiden flight. I hope I'm wrong, but the fact that everybody is working so hard to avoid mentioning mass makes me worry ...
With V2 Ships and Boosters they'll get rid of Raptor shielding and containment bays, that will easily offset all these changes and will make the whole stack even lighter than it is right now.
Agreed, that is a lot of extra steel. No wonder payload is only 40-50 tons. There is a lot riding on Raptor V3 performance and reliability. Would be a good topic for Tim to delve into…
@@RakietomaniaI think it will be quite a while before that occurs. Can’t imagine NASA accepting that, which means it’s there for HLS and all those tanker flights. 40-50t tanker payload means 20-30 flights. That doesn’t make sense, so fingers x’d that Raptor 3 works well.
@@marksinclair701 The usual EM promisses. Wasn't it 100-150t in the beginning? If they want to refulel in orbit, how many supply flights do they need, 20? And we don't have seen a successful relight of the engine.
Guess after all refueling missions the engines are in space for a month or so.
@@marksinclair701 "only 40-50 tons" LOL
nice to see an actually good sponsor
Starship will land on the wreckage of MH370
I said a day or two ago on X I believe the booster will complete everything including the soft landing/virtual catch & that I think the ship will make it to & through re-entry but that it will have a re-light issue & thus may not complete the soft landing. I think that would be a terrific set of accomplishments for Flight 4. Super excited for June 5th!
Keep going Tim. Thank you for everything you do for us space fans.
I got that heatshield coffee mug... thing is awesome.
Keep these short ones coming :D
Love the vid Tim! I remember years ago when you were first geeking out over the first booster tests and the beginning of starship. Heck we’ve come a long way since star hopper. Hopefully the electrical cord doesn’t go haywire like the booster that just got tested. I saw they looked over this boosters cord
Jettisoning the HSR will remove 10 tons off the top off the booster ! This should make it much more controllable and stable ! And yes the HSR can be reused !
Looking forward to watching the launch with you Tim
whatever happens, excitement, entertainment and inspiration is guaranteed!
Great to have titles in the video! Thanks!
Good to see you again Tim!
ยินดีด้วยค่ะที่ประสบความสำเร็จ❤❤
Thank you, Tim, for this succinct report.
Hi Tim, great video.
I think they will probably need at least two more flights to achieve this goal, but will be very excited for sure.
My expectation is to see both booster and ship reentry in IFT-4, and soft splashdown for both in IFT-5. We might see starlink satellites payload in IFT-6.
Greetings from Argentina!
I think (don't know) jettisoning the hot stage ring will make the booster easier to control. There's a lot of extra weight up there, making it top heavy, so harder to maintaining the correct orientation. Remember originally it was designed NOT to have a hot stage ring... Jettison for now, perfect the re entry / landing, then rethink with the hot stage still attached later.
I also love it when the flaps do their job
Solidarity Tim 👍😎
@EverydayAstronaut Any comment on the cause of the filter blockage and prevention? I’ve seen unsubstantiated speculation that they deleted the LOX heat exchangers and are using preburner output for autogenous tank pressure. This caused ice and solid CO2 which clogs the filters, and maybe also the thrusters. If true (big if), more filtration seems like a partial fix at best.
I'm confused about these "filters" too. What are they filtering? It's supposed to be pure LOX, no? Your comment possibly answers my question, maybe the cold temp creates solid ice to filter...
@@aldunlop4622 Normally they shouldn't be doing much, as the LOX should be very pure and there shouldn't be much debris in the tank. The tanks are supposed to be pressurized by hot pure gas. CH4 comes from cooling passages around chamber etc. LOX isn't used for engine cooling (super hot O2 gas = bad) so they use a heat exchanger to provide "warm" O2 back to the tank. Story is that they deleted the LOX heat exchanger (best part = no part) and are tapping the staged combustion LOX preburner (LOX + bit of LCH4) output to get autogenous pressurization gas. This has a bit of CO2 & H20 in it, which freezes in the tank. The ice floats so mostly the problem doesn't become apparent until the tank nears empty, when the filters get overwhelmed, which shuts downs the engines. The next Raptor version might solve this problem somehow (integral heat exchanger?), but meantime the answer is "more filtration". I have only seen all this speculated, but it does seem to match with what SpaceX have said about filter problems on IFT2 and IFT3, the engine shutdowns, and maybe also the thruster problems. Hopefully Tim gets the whole story from Elon.
@@marksinclair701 Thanks for the good explanation!
Booster and starship are massive. Gaining control of them is a steep learning curve. Boost back will be a hard nut also.✌🏼
Dropping the ring probably improves the center of mass as well? (At least compared to the center of lift). - Reorientation is easier while balanced, but staying at a certain attitude is easier while the heavy end points down… - especially with the turbulence of reentry. - From a Kerbal Space Program perspective, being top heavy makes it hard to land “flamy end down”: speaking from “experience”.
We've seen massive improvements in each flight. I'm excited to see what flight 4 holds!
Wish you well and hope you get a different opportunity to go to orbit. I appreciate all your work over the years - I have learned a lot about rocket science (or more importantly, realized how little I knew). As Starship inevitably marches towards success, I am sure getting people to orbit will lose its exclusivity and be more approachable for a lot of folks. Temperemental billionaires will no longer have a veto on who goes to space
Your content is really good and just keeps getting better, I'll buy a t-shirt :) Keep up the good work!
Man I love it when you get patch notes for technology
Excited to listen to spacewalk. Thanks for letting me know
If they can demonstrate a potential landing even just simulated it will be a huge leap forward but even if they just fly this thing and keep everything under control it will prove reliability of the system as is. Best case scenario it's a huge win, worst case scenario the heatshield can do with some more improvements. I'm going to be looking at the booster more so then the ship, I pray they can actually catch it and just keep using the booster to keep sending up ships.
Starship flight 4 will definetly go better! Looking forward to it!
Thanks Tim 👍🏼🇿🇦 Knew you would have us covered for flight 4.
Tim and Everyday Astronaut, y'all rock! Peace
Could you ask Elon if they are working on film-cooling for the turbine blades like modern jet engines do?
This would allow them to significantly raise the temperature inside the turbopump, they might not even need preburners at all and put the turbine inside the throat for LEET-1337
The higher delta-T would in theory allow them to reach 2'000 bar in chamber pressure for LEET.
Sorry man about the moon loop,
but if it happened once, it'll happen again man: Tim Dodd to the Moon!!!
(rooting for you from Kenya, love your work, love SpaceX)
I wish you would talk more about software as well! It truly is a critical part of all of this, but I rarely hear it being mentioned
Surviving reentry with all systems working is, in my opinion, the most important milestone.
They will figure out the rest, with some tries, but reentry....
Good.
Question: *What* is getting clogged in the existing filters?
Speculation is they are using LOX preburner output for autogenous tank pressurisation having deleted the heat exchangers. This causes ice and solid CO2 that clogs the filters and maybe the vent thrusters. Have not seen anything more than speculation/rumor.
@@marksinclair701 No, they aren't. They use pure LOX and LCH4, the preburner exhaust would melt the tanks.
Absent actual data, I’m still wondering - since they are clogging filters in BOTH booster and ship- if they just don’t have a general cleanliness issue at Boca Chica. Let’s face it: we haven’t exactly seen clean-room operations- hardly ever. (Ever?). In fact, I’ve been shocked at the photos of workers at the pad opening the tanks and in work clothes just going inside. - Dave Huntsman
@@dphuntsman while it isn't cleanroom conditions, its likely similar to airplane production facilities (when done by intelligent manufacturers, so, not Boeing).
How well is the fuel and oxidizer filtered prior to fueling the vehicles? How much contamination is introduced during fueling/ de-fueling?
Inquiring minds want to know!
Your question is pertinent; since they have contamination problems with BOTH ship and booster, i.e., it’s generic to, well, starbase operations, which don’t seem to have good contamination control. - Dave Huntsman
The clogging issue is not from debris in the methane or oxygen tanks. It is methane and oxygen ice in the fuel tanks. When fuel is consumed some pressure is lost in the tanks If fuel is consumed fast enough and the pressure drop in the tanks is fast enough the fuel will cool off possibly enough to for ice. Not water ice but solid oxygen and methane.
@@stevenf1678 Do we know that for a fact? Seriously asking.
Maybe they want to jettison the hot staging ring not for reducing mass for the burns and fins to control, but to reduce force on the chopsticks? Obv not for this flight but you’d want to demonstrate the capability. Chopsticks were definitely not specced for the added weight of that ring and that’s not something you can adjust for by just throttling up.
It's not just about mass reduction. It's too about mass above the grid fins, changing the balance of the whole booster.
With the massive hot staging ring that far up on the booster it throws off the center of pressure of the vehicle making it more unstable and harder to control when coming in for its landing burn.
Keep in mind, the plan was to jettison the hot staging ring on IFT-3 as well; it’s just that the ring decided to, er, leave, earlier than was scheduled. This model of booster was Never designed for controllability with a hot staging ring in mind; it’s an add-on- and an uncomfortable one. Expect SpaceX to eventually get to a booster Block where the booster structure, software, integrated control system including TVC/grid fins, & refined hot staging ring, are all optimized, so that it is not nominally separated and everything is ‘fully and rapidly reusable’. But not today. - Dave Huntsman
Spacex definitely wants to do a capture of super heavy sometime this year, to be able to showcase the possibility of recapture after launch. When that happens who knows, but they are usually very aggressive with expectations and timelines. I would be surprised if they try it for flight five, I guess it comes down to how successful flight four is.
wow i loved that breakdown but im so sad dearmoon got cancelled.
Thank you Everyday Astronaut.
I think the hot staging ring jettison will have a significant positive impact on the centre of gravity of the booster with it moving much closer to the mass of the engines at the bottom of the booster. This should make control easier for them.
Thanks for this 🚀
Imagine the reaction to seeing the first successful catch of either the booster or starship. That would blow my mind.