SpaceX Is Launching Starship To Orbit In February!
Vložit
- čas přidán 9. 05. 2024
- Visit brilliant.org/TheSpaceRace/ to start your 30-day free trial, and the first 200 get 20% off their annual subscription!
Last Video: The Real Reason SpaceX Developed The Falcon 9!
• The Real Reason SpaceX...
►Become a member today: / @thespaceraceyt
►Support the channel by purchasing from our merch store: shop.theteslaspace.com/
► Join Our Discord Server: / discord
► Patreon: / theteslaspace
► Subscribe to our other channel, The Space Race: / theteslaspace
Mars Colonization News and Updates
• Mars Colonization News...
SpaceX News and Updates: • SpaceX News and Updates
The Space Race is dedicated to the exploration of outer space and humans' mission to explore the universe. We’ll provide news and updates from everything in space, including the SpaceX and NASA mission to colonize Mars and the Moon. We’ll focus on news and updates from SpaceX, NASA, Starlink, Blue Origin, The James Webb Space Telescope and more. If you’re interested in space exploration, Mars colonization, and everything to do with space travel and the space race... you’ve come to the right channel! We love space and hope to inspire others to learn more!
► Subscribe to The Tesla Space newsletter: www.theteslaspace.com
Business Email: sean@creatormill.com
#Spacex #Space #Mars - Věda a technologie
I can’t wait to see the results. Good luck SpaceX
Good luck SpaceX I hope all goes well!
It’s nice all these different creators release their updates on different days of the week so I can watch them all and stay super updated
Ooo I want this experience too! Who else are you watching?
Oh come on ;•) there's maybe 1, maximum 2 new bits of information between most of them. But never mind. Go ahead having fun & sooner or later find out which to leave on or remove from the _recomendations_ list.
🚀🏴☠️🎸
@@Mcbuzzerr Marcus House is my other main one but I also watch NASASpaceflight, Everyday Astronaut (who does not do weekly updates to my knowledge,) what about it (can be a little clickbaity,) and sometimes Scott Manley.
Whataboutit... thats the one with that transgender little Twerp I made the mistake of watching the second starship launch on that channel and all those guys were screaming like little girls at a Beatles concert. They completely ruined the experience, I was at work and had to turn off the volume. I hate those guys.
Cool update. Thanks for keeping us posted on the latest updates 🚀 🌕
I’m sure that a ride on Starship will feel epic and insane. I can’t wait for Orbital test flight 3!
My tip :•) Better to wait for the Orbital Test Flight 1. Thats comming much sooner.
🚀🏴☠️🎸
In case your wondering :•) there was not one orbital launch yet with Starship.
@@MichaelWinter-ss6lxIFT-3=OFT1
I was sad when I heard about the delay for Artemis 2
It's a government (jobs) program. Expect it to get delayed (again and again).
You’re not alone, I’m just as disappointed too! Having it being delayed by a year feels like forever as though we may never see it happen in our lifetime
@@AdelaeRThis. We could’ve gotten to the moon sooner, cheaper and generally more easily decades ago, but politics is politics.
@@oberonpanopticon I think it was a safety thing
@@oberonpanopticon Artemis II was pushed back due to safety concerns with the Orion crew capsule, safety is NASA’s #1 priority, especially after the challenger disaster. Gone are the days of the space race when winning and planting a flag was the priority.
Will watch the launch live!
I remember in 2019 Artemis I was supposed to happen in 2020, Artemis II was supposed to happen in 2023, and Artemis III was supposed to happen in 2024. Artemis I actually happened in 2022 and the other missions are also 2 years off from the date set back in 2019, so I’d say things will go well by then as the hardest part is the first 2 crewed missions, then the yearly missions from 2028 to 2035 won’t be as challenging so they could build the Gateway and Artemis Base Camp alongside it.
You gotta just accept that humans will be back to the moon by 2030. It's only being ahead of schedule to go back before
@@Yuhyuhmuhmuh
If you ask me I’d say 2026 seems pretty realistic. It’s 2 years off from the original goal, just like Artemis I was. Sure it could get delayed again but I’d say 2026 will give both NASA and SpaceX enough time. China plans to send their own Taikonauts to the Moon around 2030, if not slightly earlier.
Thank you. Great channel 👍
good that they are doing that kind of testing ahead of time. being able to vent without blowing up could be important lol
SpaceX greatest delays seem to come from permit issues.
That is right nobody else is subject to their tyranny . It's not their business anyway
Getting rid of their meddling will save a lot of money and previous time. Where they even present for the launch of New Shepard, let alone giving a piece of paper : launch license
@@arturoeugster7228 Yeah right, why can´t just anybody launch tons of explosive in to the air?
Get rid all the barriers. This is communism!"!!!!!!!!!!!
Yea it usually is. Environmental things usually
@@JeremyMasters87 why is it different from Bezos manned rocket, new Shepard, a lot more wildlife out there, no it's punishment for upholding the first Amendment. X it is
huh, yeah… no
I love watching those engines cut off and reignite. All the telemetry burns, the small directional jets are just so cool to see.
I believe the reason they carried fuel, that they eventually dumped was to simulate actual launch weight with a payload
can you make a video all about mars rovers now and in the future
5:35 I see you spliced in the mars curiosity / opportunity rover landing on mars when you were talking about the Orion crew capsule descent to earth. Nice try, but they do look totally different.
I LOVE the Competition! That's what drives technological progress...
It's pretty cool that an entire influencer and tourism industry popped up around space related events. It helps to keep the public interested. NASA didn't have that during the space race and the public lost interest fast.
That's right, there was no space propagnda whatsoever at the time. Not even in comics
@@mircopaul5259 Right, so a comic selling a few thousand copies is now the same as the information age where millions of people read about and watch videos about space projects every day.
4:32 LMAO Yeah NASA doesn't mess around with safety. It only took them Apollo 1, for Nasa to be like, "maybe we should make these more quality. Then the Challenger disaster to say, "you know what, we should listen to engineers when they strongly suggested that we not launch below 50 degrees".
And then 18 years later, the Columbia disaster, and the close call mission, to be like, "maybe we should take our astronauts word that the tiles are getting severely damaged, so that they quit dying".
Refuelling in orbit is required for lunar operations and mars journey
I just wonder why more rockets dont use colours like the vulcan
But i admit the iconic black and white also look great
Sometimes there is a technical reason like the material might not be paintable or it would conduct heat worse or theres no reason to spend money and time on it but the rockets still look really cool but a flamingo pink Starship would be really funny to see 😂
Paint ads weight.
@@patricklewis7636Yea, but not that much, especially if it’s only a decal.
@oberonpanopticon it adds a lot of weight. The rockets have a lot of surface area.
@@nigelhungerford-symes5059 It depends on how you define “a lot” I guess.
We'll see about that.
They should have a "gas station" always between earth and the moon replenished regularly so flight crew can dock to it and fill up and continue on their way.
Nah, that would be completely pointless and would take even more fuel than just going directly.
Read up on the Oberth Effect, it’s way more efficient to just launch from Earth on a free-return trajectory.
@liquidsnakex, you mean to directly launch from Earth orbit. You need to get to orbit first anyway, but to refuel in orbit is most efficient, 'cause its the hardest part to get to orbit.
@@MichaelWinter-ss6lx that's what I said, have a station between earth and the 🌙
LETS GOOOOO
I hope the challenges are solved as fast as possible, but if they need an extra year to ensure a successful mission, so be it.
Same here. However I am ok with the 2026 launch anyways as that way it’s basically a guarantee that I will see the launch/ landing live. As supposed to the 2025 timeline where school could have messed with my plans instead of actively showing them.
The concern with crew safety is quite correct. We should not rush things when crew lives are at stake. As seen from Europe competition with other countries like China can easily lead to a dangerous race. Cooperation would make more sense.
We should use a capsule with a abort mode to get up to starship.
@@pricelessppp NASA astronauts aren't launching from earth on Starship. They will be sitting in an Orion space craft launched from earth on an SLS rocket. The Orion space craft has an Launch Abort System (LAS) which is like an escape pod that shoots out with engines on it.
When the Orion gets to the moon the astronauts will transfer over to a Starship. The Starship will land on the moon then bring the astronauts back up to the Orion when the moon landing is done. The Orion will then take them home. That's the plan anyway.
No surprise to hear this from spacex
Pure oxygen is very neutral especialy in vaccum.
9:48-52 Limiter/compressor/whatever eats parts of words in a trendy way.
The difference between Earth Orbital Operations and Cis-Lunar operations is probably an order of magnitude. Since the Chinese never say anything about problems they have encountered, we really have no good idea about the reliability of their systems. Systems that go to the moon need to be VERY reliable. The Chinese have never seemed to be as impulsive as the Russians. It took them many years to go from their first human flight to the cadence of flights they have now.
And the level of expertise that the Chinese are showing now is about where we were with Gemini or maybe Skylab. They have yet to send a man-rated vehicle around the moon. We have done so many times in Apollo, and once now with Artemis. We are at the point of ironing out fairly minor problems for the actual manned-flight out of an abundance of caution.
To beat us to the moon, the Chinese would have to gamble much more than we did in Apollo 8, since in 1968, we had at least tested the spacecraft manned in Earth orbit. I do not think that the current Chinese manned capsule system is lunar rated for reliability, radiation hardening, fuel load, etc.
Im a very important part and need to configure the ship and probably with interstellar mobile Hotspot
you did a pretty good job with this video, my only comment is that in the beginning you start talking about the liquid oxygen fuel dump, which is actually an oxidizer not a fuel but you're not showing when the oxidizer is vented like the other channels do. i don't know about others but i like to see what it looks like when the venting happens. if you did show it then i don't know which it was because it was just a whole bunch of random clips when you were talking about it. all in all good job though.
It was showen how the leaking "fuel" spread behind the rocket. Was preaty much and obviously not through a broken fuel pipe, as was previously assumed.
Oxygen is not a fuel, although it is a propellant, oxygen is an oxidizer. Methane is a fuel, as well as being a propellant. Methane will ignite in an environment with oxygen.
Just about ANYTHING will ignite in an environment with pure oxygen.
Scheduling Artemis 3 landing attempt in 2026 is not feasible but was floated out there merely for funding reasons. IF ALL of the technical hurdles are accomplished successfully, 2028 is more likely.
Nah. They will go faster than that now that space companies no longer have incentive to mess around.
At this rate china might actually start thinking they can get there first.
A fuel dump would not have been necessary if they had the additional mass of a payload to use up the oxygen.
Since it didn't have one, they had to vent the Oxygen that ignited.
Reach the moon? Let's get it in orbit!
Cant wait to find to hear why the super heavy booster didn't make it officially according to space x. Since the FAA investigation must conclude before the next flight I think its safe to assume we will know soon 😀
I thought it was a combo of fluid hammer and jerk (v cubed or the change in acceleration) on the fluid in the tanks leading to structural boomness.
@@patricklewis7636 indeed I’ve seen a lot of that I was really just looking for a official confirmation from SpaceX and the FAA the other stuff was more speculation
So, not a criticism of what was presented, but I think you've got it backwards on Artemis. Artemis 3 was delayed, simply because the date wasn't realistic. There are a dozen factors that would not have been ready for the former date. Artemis 2 will be delayed because Artemis 3 is delayed. There is little point in going early with Art2, when Art3 would be years later. Might as well hold off on the test-run mission until it is a little closer to the actual landing mission.
No. Artemis 2 was delayed because more of the heat shield was ablated than expected, and there were some electrical issues that presented themselves. Sure, Artemis 3 is delayed because its hardware isn't even a thing yet, but Artemis 2 was delayed itself anyway for its own reasons the video stated.
I was glad when I heard abt the delay for Artemis 2
Are we really sure they will try to aim for orbit this time and not aim for their free return suborbital trajectory used the last two flights?
That’s what Space X said.
I often wonder why Space X doesn't use Heat shield tiles to line the launch pad to lesson the damage ! Is it even feasible ?
They are really very fragile and bonding them to a substance with very different thermal expansion characteristics is a bit of a challenge hence they used to fall off the space shuttle for a pass time.
The pad is solid now. They just use lots and lots of water.
"We know nasa by now to know they do not mess around when it comes to safety concerns" ahem- challenger
Columbia, apollo
"It wasn't handled so smoothly" means it wasn't designed is such a way to make fuel dumping safe. Another corner-cutting, time-saving measure in design that proved to be disastrous in real life.
i told you man, you said it was because of self-destruction and i told you it was because of inner stuff with its fuel. Same with the booster... because of how it moved most likely it blow up because of internal fuel disruption
It was them pumping fuel to the outside that caused the boom.
as it goes for HLS. starship is built for mars, not the Moon. On Mars they can make methane. I think they need more orbiting refueling to the moon than mars. :-p
👍👍👍
If starship was carrying a payload it wouldn't explode.
That capsule is a death trap just like the space shuttle.
I'm waiting for the REAL spaceships.
🎉
We need to orbit in early and come back, and then we can go to the moon. That's what I've been hearing.
Thank you for acknowledging that the two test flights of Starship last year that ended in explosions were a setback. All musk fans are quick to point out that these tests were successful....which is hilarious !
They were successful as in they were learning experiences which could’ve gone worse and accomplished the goals they set out to do.
They blew up a lot of Falcon boosters etc, and now they have launched and landed Falcon 9 300 times. I think the successful outcome proves blowing up test rockets is a valid methodology.
They weren’t set backs, and they were successful. Space X uses an iterative design process, which has shown very clearly that risking a rocket blowing up has a significantly faster design process due to the data gathered. Last year Space X launched 80% of all payload to orbit by weight. Blue Origin, which is a couple years older than Space X still hasn’t put ANY payload in orbit.
It’s completely obvious which design philosophy is faster. It’s clear you just don’t like Musk.
@@nigelhungerford-symes5059 Blue Origin espoused the traditional philosophy in rocket making. They spent a lot of time developing their engine but it worked flawlessly on its first flight.
That's good for the environment and the planet. Our resources are finite; let's not blow things up just for the sake of learning...especially if there is another way!
Moving fuel in orbit will be a huge challenge. So far they have been able for move pounds of fuel. For Starship, it's going to be 1,000s of tonnes. How long do you think it would take to move the volumes SpaceX will need to make Starship viable?
all problems for engineers to solve
@@Miner-zn4lt Yep, there are 6 methods, and I'm sure the engineers at SpaceX have been exploring them all, as this is key to using Starship beyond LEO.
Once satellites can be refuelled, it will save a lot of space junk from old satellites and we will be doing orbital refuelling every day.
It’s something like eleven Starship launches to fully refuel a Ship for a flight to the moon, iirc.
It will be cool once we have mosquito-like drones that can fly between a depot and each satellite. Could even see some valve/engine standardization to support refuel docking
I’m confused. For Starship’s engines to work the tanks have to be pressurized. Why would Elon vent oxygen before it is in orbit? That would reduce pressure which would be bad. If there was too much oxygen to get to orbit then they shouldn’t have fully filled tanks without a payload. Venting oxygen above running rocket engines seems like they wanted a fire. I am the biggest Spacex fan and attended first Falcon Heavy and first Starship flights. I just wish Elon’s explanation had been better.
The tank would have been mostly full of oxygen gas at the end of the flight so dumping the liquid wouldn't lower the pressure that much. You can verify this with P1·V1=P2·V2. If there's a lot of residual propellant it has to be dumped under acceleration because after MECO the liquid will form free floating globules that may not evaporate before re-entry
The tanks weren't topped up as it was. It had JUST enough propellant to reach orbit but not enough to reach a high/circular orbit, to slow down FROM that orbit, or land itself. They wanted to vent the propellant so the tanks would be empty when it reentered the atmosphere, probably so fewer things could go wrong with that part of the test.
Not a great idea in hindsight. Definitely the kind of thing NASA would have figured out after an 18 month, $45 million engineering review involving 2 supercomputers and 60 hours of wind tunnel tests. Frankly, I like SpaceX's way better.
The Space Shuttle dumped propellant after every MECO and doing so never caused a failure
Yes, but a piece of foam took out a shuttle. This won't cause a failure with Starship either, will it?
It also killed 14 people because it was a terrible screwball design in general.
@@helifanodobezanozi7689 No, that bcwas from the insulating foam on the outside of the big orange external tank, there is no such foam on Starship.
@@liquidsnakex Yes, exactly my point professor!!! 😆
We’ve been promised so many times that this, or that is going to happen, only to be disappointed, or see the starship blow up, that I am skeptical about the planned starship launched to orbit in February. I’ll believe it when I see it.
Not sure who has been promising you... Goals may have been stated. You don't solve world-changing problems without goals and learnings (failures)
You do realize that timelines change right? Especially in one of the hardest engineering fields in the world. Sure, that February launch could be pushed back. I doubt it, but it’s certainly possible. You need to grow up and learn the difference between a target date and a promise.
11:10 why is there a logo of a German shipping service on a fucking satellite?
Kein Satellit , sondern ein Mondlander ;-). Und da ist eben auch eine "MoonBox" von DHL drin, da konnten Leute Andenken zum Mond schicken, das war mal eine Aktion. Ich kann hier keine Links posten sonst wird der Kommentra geblockt aber es gibt einen Wikipedia artikel "Peregine Mission One" über diese Mission, da sieht du bei Nutzlasten auch DHL aufgefüht. Kannst auch sonst mal nach "DHL" und "Mond" googlen, es gibt da eine Pressemittelung von DHL und ein paar News-Artikel.
Elon send me to space if I blow up I blow up!
They can keep dummy payload correct ?😂
Bill’s right, the Chinese won’t beat us to the moon because we went there in 1969. We’re just going back.
I bet you its gonna either blow up or not achieve orbit. Something even more basic than the Saturn rockets in the 60s achieved with amazing success...
After many, many failures. Including the failure of Apollo 1, which killed 3 astronauts. Apollo 6, which was unable to fire its 3rd stage engines. And Apollo 13, which was unable to land on the moon.😂
@@helifanodobezanozi7689 Apollo 1 didn’t even launch, Apollo 6 achieved orbit despite failing (but still surviving double the intended G load…) and Apollo 13 was one of humanities greatest rescue missions, successfully visiting the moon. You are not really comparing failing to LEO with visiting the moon manned and returning alive?
And again, those were the 60s. Musk doesn’t even achieve what NASA did over 5 decades ago. Or for a more accurate comparison: How many failures did Artemis I suffer and did it achieve a lunar fly by and return?
Cause Musk is a mentally challenged 5 year old in the body of a grown up.
(What Hyperloop doing? Or the solar fraud, or the FSD fraud, or the man in the spandex suit, or the vegas loop, or the Tesla truck, etc.)
@@sodaaccount You're missing the point. He just gave you several examples of failures that happened along Apollo's journey to show you that things can and usually will go wrong with space, but then you go on a tangent about Elon bad because untested rocket isn't yet proven ready for the upcoming artemis 3 mission. You know how many test flights the space shuttle went through before it even went up into space? Thirteen just to see if they can land the craft, despite normal planes doing that regularly for decades at that point. And I'm sure we all know of the Challenger disaster. I hear the Russian space agency also recently failed at landing a probe on the moon, despite the Soviets doing that successfully decades prior.
@@CapitalTeeth Things usually DONT go wrong with space. Its the exception. Or what happened to Apollo 2-5? Exactly, nothing. How many catastrophic failures? None. How many consecutive failures? None.
Sure, things CAN go wrong, but not that often.
And ruZZia didn’t land on the moon, the soviets did. You can’t compare those two at all. They were sh*t before and they didn’t improve by being sanctioned and hacked, etc.
But most important: I just measure that muppet by what he says. Didn’t his original timeline claim we’d be living on mars already? As long as he grifts his stans I don’t care, but when he screws up NASAs plans I do care. I mean he would already be broke several times over if it wasn’t for NASA.
Or look at launch prices. NASA is still dramatically overpaying and has done so basically forever.
He’s not ONLY a conman, but one that likes to take control and feel helpful. Problem is he is anything but helpful.
The decision to go with that many nozzles is crazy on its own.
I mean it worked for the soviets, right? /s
@@sodaaccount The notion that Elon Musk would be broke if not for NASA is the most absurd thing I've ever heard.
Ok then. But doing what ?
Maybe get a wireframe space station up there ?
(that's spin gravity through a wireframe with a small cabin attached on one or both ends)
It would be neat and much more useful than doing a space deploy of a Tesla car.
Maybe like 20 tonnes or such, deployed mass.
It wouldn't be functioning like that yet, but on a secondary launch that could be achieved.
The basics, plant life like a pot with carrots growing in it, some CO2 and watering
automated, pretty simple. A solar panel for power, thin foil heatsink. (thin, not tin)
Ultraviolet lamp from the solar panel. (easier than radiation semi permeable glass.)
Ah, wait, burnable gas as a source for the CO2, since that will keep oxygen buildup
from exceeding the tolerance of the carrot.
I'm still hoping Elon will get a real space station done, even if he thinks that's small fries.
A real space station with spin gravity is a huge step forward.
It will also allow for space tourism, which is where the big bucks come in.
Better tech yields lower prices over time, and soon thereafter everyone can go into
space for a measly $100.000 or such, and stay at a comfortable spacestation.
Better yet, he can start crowdfunding, where each buck payed will yield
a discount of $2 for a future space travel to said station.
This will also tell the amount of people that are wanting to go into space.
If games about space can get near $1B crowdfunding, what can factually going into space yield.
Go Stark, not Hammer.
Btw, commercial applications of rental in space, well, enormous.
It can also involve ion engine testing, to prevent orbital degradation,
which in turn will yield the tools for reaching Mars, with such in under 3 months travel time.
(with the right ion engine design that is, not NeXT or NEXIS or such, but a real one.)
(cyclotronic application)
The space station can also be used to refit Star Ship for long range (Mars) transportation.
That is, removal of unneccesary stuffs that are required for landing take-off's from Earth,
to be fitted with long time range (ion-engines) acceleration stuff.
It can even be sent there and back without crew, just to see how it will hold up
under those circumstances, making any crewed attempt more viable.
Also, don't underestimate the power of foam.
Much like the Chinese use foam to print housing with in space, having zero natural gravity,
any structure can be pre-shaped using foam. It can also be used as a testing ground for future
foams that are then also radiation existent and may also include anti-ballistic properties.
These future foams can the be used as the basis to build harder materials on, if and when
required for whatever purpose. The uses of general foam that has much if not all abilities,
may even obviate for any other materials in any construction, and can then also be applied
if and when any repairs are a neccesity. Ofc for a true commercial space station, you'd
want people to have something solid to walk upon, for the sake of the feeling of personal safety.
But..
That does negate the fact that any foam used in construction can certainly only be considered
useful for any in space or colonization in space operations. Once these are developed,
using non homogenous printing of multiple foams may then either yield a single foam,
or with multiple heads create multi foam layer, that have the ability to fend of most radiations,
but also fend of micrometeors and possible even have solar coating, that can then function
as a solar voltaics device for the power onboard.
Ofc, the first step is factually building a space station where all these things can then easily
be tested, by the use of either the station itself as testing ground, or low powered drones
fitted with high efficiency ion engines that can be set for short trips into outer space,
just for the purpose how the new material holds up against the factual circumstances,
instead of testing them Earthbased in simulated environments where some parts
of any such simulation would not reflect the factual situation in space.
Imagine a lab in space, where the testing is as simple as attaching the new substance
to a drone, letting it fly an automated course, and returning with the results,
using the same drone again and again, with very little effort, which can then also apply
for newer better ion engine designs.
Yes, I see foams as the way of the future, since they are lightweight, expand
in volume and yet can have also excellent anti-ballistic properties.
Imagine a spider's web, by equivalent millions of spiders, 40 meters thick,
stopping even micrometeors in their tracks, leaving little to repair save
the application of some new foam.
And most people don't know this, but using a foam shape printer, that can shape
foam into certain shapes, with each block being separate, those blocks can then
be glued into position, with some other material, which could be as simple as
a thin layer of plastic, which can then be removed again,
if and when a different shape is desired. That way you can use simple blocks to
create any shape in space, that is capable of retaining that shape and serve
as a sort of foundation for anything else applied, but also easily altered.
(I got that idea after wanting to make a boat out of similar blocks, from games
like Empyrion and Space Engineer, amongst others, which is funny because
it's factually possible, although Earth gravity overmatches the stiffness a little,
which is not an objection in space, unless you want to make it so big it starts
generating it's own signficant gravity, but that would be megatonnes of mass.
When space stations become that large, I'm certain people will know by then.)
If not for government bureaucratic incompetence, SpaceX could have completed at least one more Starship launch in 2023. Getting to the moon later than planned will be the fault of government and NASA, not SpaceX. If Artemis is not ready by the time SpaceX is, then SpaceX needs to go it alone.
Wow all that info about everything else that has nothing to do with the title.
Killen me
Artemis is what you get when Congress orders NASA to use cost-plus contracts.....
NASA even told Congress, after billions in overruns, that it wasn't working, and the cost of the launches wasn't sustainable.
Congress told NASA to keep using cost-plus contracts...... 🤷♂️
Artemis has the most already existing parts of any rocket, AND it's also going to cost far more than any other rocket....
Artemis needs to be cancelled, and the companies sued for most of the money back.
SpaceX is kicking ass for way less money and time.
Am I the only viewer who feels that "Starship" is a slightly over-hyped name for vehicles which never leave Earth orbit?
Yes you are the only one.
Yes you are. Especially since the they are most definitely going to leave Earth orbit.
@@nigelhungerford-symes5059 Always glad to be a maverick x
@@UpperDarbyDetailing That's quite good then :)
"Astronaut" is just as bad
Starship must absolve 20 flights to obtain certificate for HLS. Assuming all goes well from now: would be 5 flights in 2024. Current license doesn't allow more. Building 2nd launch tower this year plus obtaining extended license, gives 10 flights in 2025, total flights being 15. Leaving 5 flights left for certificate. This should be achieved by mid 2026; even if the next one still goes south, theres still 2 months left for NASA to catch up.
Does anybody still believe that NASA is ready in 2026? Thats 3 years between Artemis 1 and 2. Never will they get Artemis3 ready in only 1 year. NASA still hasn't realized yet what is comming. Neither have they recognized the potential of Starship.
NASA want to cram 4 Astronauts in this tincan ORION for 3 days to Moon. There, 2 will board Starship, where 100 people have enough room, for landing on the Moon. The other 2 stay in a tincan without even a toilet. I'm not sure how long they stay on the Moon, but will they have enough time there to unload 100t of cargo that fit inside of Starship?
🚀🏴☠️🎸
Vented LO2. OK, but there's nothing to burn or explode. Sounds like BS.
You missed the point.
The LO2 is incredibly flammable, getting into the engine bay it caused unwanted burning that triggered the flight termination system.
A company that makes montages out of their own explosions, isn't going to make shit up
@@HellHoundsInc OK, so what did the oxygen oxidise? It wasn't explosive combustion with methane.
@@michaelreid2329..It didn't oxidize anything, it caught fire. Oxygen is extremely flammable.
@@Oxurus that is what "catching fire" is. It is a chemical reaction. What do you think caught fire.
@@Oxurusoxygen is an oxidizer
It needs something to burn
Sebanyak mungkin satelit garuda Jarkasi also pesan satelit garuda Jarkasi 2024
I am trying to understand why we are racing the Chinese to the moon. We already went to the moon. I understand that Mars is hard but going back to the moon, as part of some kind of a race, just supports the stupid idea we never went there in the first place. Lets do Mars. That is the real win. Anyway, food for thought.
Bill Nelson. Wasn't a good Senator, don't expect much.
Downvoted. Peregrine is the first **US** commercial lander to ever sat down on the moon. Interesting to see a channel calling space race doesnt know a space race himself
What's the first successful commercial lander then?
@@ChrisSchaffAFAIK no one has been succeed. At least Japanese commercial lunar lander HAKUTO has touched the moon compared to Peregrine flying in the space while claiming it “first ever”?
la nasa ya dio las nalgas para ir a la luna
6:14 I blame the FAA for holding back the starship launches, and thanks to them, other nations around the globe are slowly catching up to us!
Better to be safe than sorry, in my country we have a space administration which is more efficient than a combined aviation and space faa. I think it’s the best of both worlds
FAA is actually moving very quickly, if they’re delaying launches it isn’t by much. They can certainly be insanely slow, but they’re clearly making this a priority.
...that is indeed true...there is always something new to learn...and 🇨🇳 to steal!
Does anyone believe anything Elon has to say anymore?
second lol
N space refuelling for such a large craft is dumb
What do you propose? Should they use infinite rocket fuel glitch 2024 working?
@@oberonpanopticon at least for the short term use a light lander like the Apollo missions. Starship will require 12 refuellings which is insane and introduces a lot of possible failure points for their lander. While it allows for a large payload deployment it’s absolutely not economical at least in the shorter run (just for Artemis goals)
@@portcybertryx222That’s literally what they’re doing with SLS. Which costs between 2 and 4 BILLION dollars per launch, throws away 99% of the launch vehicle, AND requires a separate REUSABLE launch vehicle. Like I don’t know… STARSHIP?! You people are extremely ignorant and display it very clearly. Are you a flat Earther too?
@@portcybertryx222 But this isn’t a short term plan
Starship is intended to enable long term missions to the moon and mars
first comment?
FIRST
Any bets February test flight will cancelled. At least 2 to 3 times maybe a year.
What? Why on Earth would it be delayed longer than the second test was delayed after they had to rebuild and redesign the orbital launch table? You’re clearly just pulling shit out of your ass. I can see it being pushed back to March maybe, but I doubt it.
@@UpperDarbyDetailinghey… it asked for bets. Take its money.
@@stormysyndrome7043 good point
I’ll put down $10,000 US
👇 if your a young rocket nerd like me!
…Elon said it…press to doubt 😑
1:08: Musk is known for lying for years (like for example every year about FSD), but THIS time, he definitely telling the truth! **slow clap**
That is absolutely ridiculous.
Yeah I think he is lieing. Let's be serious here he does that sometimes.
He’s a people’s person, good at knowing what to say to progress his agenda. Sometimes.
@@oberonpanopticon Yeah, and I was a bit deceiving. More correctly, I think he is lying by omission.
@@CocolinoFanStarship actually got hit by the blue Hawaii lasers...
It blew up and burnt up. excuses are like a..holes, everyone has one.
We need to stop wasting time now ! Let's get 10 enthusiastic volunteers from SpaceX and put them on top of the next launch ! What's the worst thing that could happen ! R.U.R.T.C.B.M. ! RAPID UNSCHEDULED RETURN TO CARBON-BASED MATTER !
Why on Earth would we put humans on a prototype test vehicle? That’s just plain idiocy.
@@UpperDarbyDetailingbecause the SpaceX haters pretend that Starship test flights are the same thing as the Vulcan Centaur flight.
@@MrAlbertaSurfer exactly, and even then, no one would be stupid enough to put humans on the damn thing until it was well proven.
Musk's Maniac Rush , Hasty building and Launching ... Is leading to more Mistakes than Necessary ... And don't forget , this BF Rocket is a MOAB ! ... I also Don't think all the Hype , or Elon Time , helps either .... Nor , is there a Need for Rushin ... since when has NASA been on time ? ... But 6 months for each Launch is going take a lot of Fixes Elon's Way , to make up for needless Rushed Mistakes ... Catch 22 :-/
Space X is literally the most successful launch program in human history. You can’t even format a paragraph. I think I know which side I’ll listen to about rocket science.
SpaceX is developing the Starship for itself, not for NASA. NASA has commissioned it for Artemis 3, but SpaceX has its own reasons for building it in the first place. NASA can delay Artemis 2 and 3, but SpaceX is going to continue launching Starship to get it sorted regardless. It's the same business model that has made them wildly successful in getting payloads to LEO.
I really hope the Astrobotic footage you showed is from like 2020 because they all still have masks on. If it is in fact recent, it could be an indicator of why the probe was shotty... LMAO
Shoddy*. How is wearing a mask going to screw up a probe?
There brain is soft 😅@@UpperDarbyDetailing. C'mon you didn't get that?
It will be another failure.
I don’t think you understand how the design process works.
What failure? They could design rocket the same way BO does. How much payload have they put in orbit by the way? Oh right, none whatsoever. Whereas a Falcon 9 is the most successful launch vehicle in human history. The iterative design process obviously has merit. That willingness to blow up a rocket to get data is why Space X is blowing every other launch program out of the water.
Just tell me when they finally land in the moon....; sorry, my bad, forgot that we are not allowed to go back..., just stop giving us facked dates ...
😢😢😢🎉🎉😢😢
Hick ups....?, stop sugar coding it....
🤣🤣😂
Orbit?
The guy can barely get off the pad most times, and can barely achieve sub orbital trajectories.
Something that NASA and Cosmodrome have been doing for over 60 years.
Elmo is a 🤡, and is doing nothing to further space exploration, nothing.
This is the dumbest thing I've read in a while. All flights of Starship up to this point have been test flights. They aren't trying to get into orbit and failing; they are running tests.
@@willoughbykrenzteinburg and testing poorly compared to their predecessors. Yeah NASA had a bunch of failures when they started out, but rockets have been around for decades. He shouldn’t be failing this bad at this point in time. There really is no excuse.
@@willoughbykrenzteinburgso, how many “test flights” are going to be needed before starships stop blowing up and failing? NASA certainly could have done better with Artemis. However, look what was accomplished with its first and only mission. And with a man rated space craft. Again, when will starship stop blowing up and make its first orbit? And please stop with the learning spin when it blows up. That’s a given, hopefully.
@jamesgoens3531 You act as if every Starship has exploded. You're just an observer making comments. Try looking into the causes of the explosions. It's an ambitious program. They WANT failures believe it or not. Any entity developing something like this will have failures during the testing phase; its just that the failures during testing on the scale SpaceX is on are grander.
If you're trying to construct the best paper airplane, you're gonna try different configurations until you find one that works well. You're gonna have many "failures" along the way. They just dont result in newsworthy catastrophic balls of fire. In rocketry, they do. That's the only difference.
In fact, if there is a point of failure that could cause a catastrophic explosion, you WANT that to happen during a test, so the cause can be addressed and fixed. You don't want some intermittent problem that doesn't materialize during a test, but then materializes when humans are on board.
Your complaint is sort of like watching crash tests of cars and concluding that the cars aren't safe because they all crash. No. They are trying to figure out how to make it safer. I'm not saying they are exploding ships on purpose, but the fundamental purpose of the test flights is precisely the same. If something CAN go wrong, they WANT them to go wrong. It's dramatic and newsworthy because it's just on a grand scale, but at the end of the day, it's good news because it allows them to address a point of failure that would be disastrous if humans were on board. It's a process. If an unmanned test launch has a catastrophic failure, what it ACTUALLY means is that they have something tangible to address that will only make it safer. It is literally the goal of a test flight. To seek out points of failure so they can be addressed. They don't want failure per say, but if there is a failure to be had, they want that failure to manifest during a test flight. It's
...........the POINT of a test flight, so when a failure occurs during a test flight, it is by all metrics - a SUCCESSFUL test flight. They've discovered a point of failure.
@@MadGoat Falcon 9 is super successfull and reliable, so SpaceX actually has sent hundreds and of rockets into orbit for years.
And their upcoming entirely new rocket has not been into orbit yet, but there were testflights with prototypes. So? And actually in the last test flights it already reached very high speed. How long does it take for NASA and Cosmodrome when they build an entirely new rocket between "First ideas on paper" and "First succesful orbital flight"?
The fact they have to refuel this monstrosity to get to the moon is silly. They should have built something of a more reasonable size for moon missions that would carry enough fuel on take off. The starship makes more sense for eventually Mars missions, which are 10+ years away.
You obviously just want to hate since you use negative terms like "silly" and "monstrosity" instead of accurate terms like "first fully reusable orbital rocket system ever".
The fact that you do not seem to know why orbital refueling is very interesting and clever, is your problem.
Anyone who understands the basics of rocket design, though, knows that orbital refueling is what you need to do to be able to carry large payloads efficiently and in reusable vehicles.
Theiir is a lot of miss information here i feel that what will eventually happen is a fuel depo put into space then spacex refuel that so that the Starship heading to the moon or mars or wherever can just refuel from the depo instead of 10 seperate ships.
I feel we will see starship fuel launches just like we see starlink launches
Do not agree
Wheres your degree in engineering? How are you so sure it "should" be like that. Btw, fuel is extremely cheap in rocket terms. Compared to the rockets fuel is pennys compared to the hardware. So it isnt unreasonable to refuel.
@@Simon-px8mi one more time, didn’t quite get that
Are you people kidding me, you people are 2 weeks behind on this information. Every other youtuber as already reported on everything in this video. GARBAGE!
Lmao, Space Karens claims and plans, HYPERLOOP IS OFFICIALLY DEAD, STARSHIP WILL BE TOO VERY SOON
😂😂😂 says the dumb ass with zero clue what they’re talking about. By the way, Hyperloop JUST closed a contract. Are you trying to display your ignorance?
Musk's spaceships explode just like his cars!
BLAH BLAH so much blah blah.
I don’t simply believe the explanation od the explosion due to o2 venting.
For an explosion you need oxidizer, yes, but you need also something to burn.
Learning by failure, is not rocket science, is just common sense.
Ummm… you DO know that LOX is extremely flammable all by itself don’t you? Separate fuel is not required.