SpaceX Preparing to Fully Stack Booster 11 and Ship 29, But Ship 31 Sees a Serious Electrical Fault!
Vložit
- čas přidán 12. 05. 2024
- Lots to discuss today, from flying sparks on SpaceX Starship Ship 31, the rise of NASA’s Mobile Launcher 2, SpaceX revealed its sleek EVA suit, Boeing Starliner unfortunately faces more delays, Starlink expands by almost 90 satellites, China debuted its Long March 6C rocket, and it’s second ever lunar sample return mission has reached the moon, and much, much more! Enjoy!
👕Buy my Merch!!.............►bit.ly/3fM2BKs
😎Join the Channel!..........►bit.ly/3sPu0ld
🐱🏍My Subreddit.................► / mattssubreddit
📷Instagram......................► / mattlowne
🔥Twitter............................► / matt_lowne
💬Discord...........................► / discord
💕Patreon...........................►goo.gl/lLDt79
🚀Second channel.............►goo.gl/cww3Ik
Full Space News Playlist:
• Space This Week
Starship, Starbase, and all other rocket Photographers:
📷 NASASpaceFlight ► / @nasaspaceflight
📸 Starship Gazer ► / starshipgazer
📸 LabPadre ► / labpadre
📸 Starbase Surfer ► / cnunezimages & www.cnunezimages.com/
📸 Mary ► / bocachicagal
📸 Sean Doherty ► / @nasaspaceflight
Chapters:
00:00 The video - Věda a technologie
As people have correctly pointed out, I got my numbers a bit mixed up, Ship 31 is for **flight 6**, not Flight 5 🤪🤪
silly man😜😜
I was like “but ship 31 is for flight 6 😐”
That electrical fault reminds me of all the times in Star Trek when the ship consoles just blow up everytime they get seriously attacked by an enemy vessel...... let's hope at least this starship will have seat belts
Clearly, Starship’s starboard power coupling is DOWN.
OK, so take a second and explain to us all here the history that brought about and then the current reference of your seatbelt comment. Because it makes no sense as it relates to either the topic of an electrical fault on Starship OR Star Trek. Thanks!
@@NorthernChev
A common occurrence during battles in Star Trek The Next Generation is that the control consoles on the bridge would explode, often throwing a crewmember out of their seat. There are many times in the show where that tumble to the floor is more life threatening than the malfunctioning console. One starship captain fell off her chair and a piece of metal got lodged into her skull, killing her.
I mentioned seat belts because they would've saved a lot of lives in those shows
@@ReiseLukas Ah! ...ok. So, you're saying the massive blast of plasma to the body (because remember, the ship's power systems are plasma based) when the consoles explode and the force and instant burning of that explosion (to their bodies) is not what kills them, but rather the fall to the floor. --> AND, that seatbelts forcing those bodies to remain in full blunt force of said explosion would increase their chances of surviving. OK, got it. I do want to thank you for clearing that up for us. Respect.
@@NorthernChev Yeah, pretty dumb, but that's what I get for rationalizing TV logic
Every Monday is a good day, but when Matt Lowne uploads is an especially good Monday. No need to apologise for last week, it is a pleasure to see a video no matter when.
no Monday is a good day, except when Matt Lowne uploads, that's a great Monday.
1:02 flight 6*
Oops
Womp womp. Everyone will point that out...
oop
@@MattLowneoop moment
1:47, isn’t ship 31 for IFT-6 and not 5?
Yes lol
Starships 31 new name will be *Sparky*! 🌩
Thanks for the updates Matt! Hopefully the issue with S31 isn’t too major…🤞
I love your Space This Week episodes Matt, Please keep them up !! =)
The helicopter edit was awesome. Really cool that everyone is trying to do smth with the moon again, seems like after the space race all the hype for that sort of stuff was lost.
P.s. First for the first time!
According to NBC the problem with Starliner was a valve issue on one of the SRBs 😂
you gotta shut off these solid propellants somehow...
thats what you get for watching NBC lol
Thank you for discussing the subject of the thumbnail right away, instead of tacking it on just before the end like some clickbaity channels do.
Great vid to watch while I eat lunch. Thanks Matt!
Yay another space week to watch
I love helicopters too!
I love helicopters 5:08
How do they work? Nobody knows!
I'm glad to see that SpaceX have kept their existing design language for the new suits. Nothing says dignity and technical accomplishment more than flying into space wearing wellies.
Id still like to see the payload integration facilities for these starships. Will that work be done in an expansion of the high bay?
I have watch both videos now and you did a very very good job in the interview and I appreciate you taking the time to finding people like that we need more historians in gaming thank you again
Big Macs are just so much easier than Tons. 🤷♂7:50
hi matt lowne sorry for being late 🙏 but dont worry S31 has a lot of time infront of them for it since they still have 2 flights with S29 and S30
A teathered life support kinda makes more sense... they already require a teather so make it the life support hose😅
Yeah, a tethered EVA suit is a good step between the existing flight suits and a future self-contained EVA suit.
Cool Sky Crane - need a Matt Lowne sky crane helicopter KSP Vid :)
(PS: Masseys is pronounced to rhyme with Sassy, not Macy).
Great vid Matt.
Better to find the problem during testing than during a flight
I hope whatever you decide for your channel, I hope you continue to do these updates for space news. You have a smashing vid series.
It is my birthday and you are my favorite CZcamsr🥳🎉🎉
I never thought about how much electrical power is actually run through the ship to work all the components, and then by extension the amount of power siphoned from the engines to charge the batteries; if that is how it works.
Much prefer the rapid summary of all the falcon-9 launches
Saturn V was three test builds and 15 flight capable. But here we are on starship 30 still trying to get it to work.
different development strategies. the fast iteration is also why starship is being developed a lot faster.
Quite naive comparison. Saturn V was "just" bigger, Starship is bigger and more importantly is supposed be fully reusable. (and like above, different development approach)
Besides what the others said, a lot of numbers were also skipped.
That's why they call them prototypes. I don't think the FAA will have to do an investigation.
Hey Matt can you tell us how the Chinese reuseable vehicle is progressing?
I’d turn any of the discarded starships into apartments. I got to see a converted water tower and it was really cool. A Starship turned into a pad would be next level. The view would be awesome.
Shame about the Starliner Launch. I was looking forwards to it.
Next attempt is NET May 17th, so should roll back to SLC-41 this week.
Me too Matt, I love helicopters
🔥I Love Helicopters🔥
Me too Matt, Me too
i genuinely hope that the devs find a better place for KSP2. because i hate the idea of such a masterpiece to be sold to T2 because they will screw the game over.
T2 already owns the IP, squad sold it to them years ago. that is why all the clusterfuck with the game.
@@danilooliveira6580 i hope they are gonna keep updating KSP2 and not abandon it.
I too love helecopers and dont know how they work
Rotor blades shove air down, helicopter goes up. Angle the roter blades down in the direction you want to fly and you move that way. With one rotor blade, the small vertical blade in the back keeps the helicopter from spinning out of control and controls the left to right rotation.
Nice G-Man reference
I may just be stupid but I'm pretty sure you mixed the Ships up. Ship 30 is going on flight 5, right? Because at the beginning where you talk about Ship 31 and the bright flashes, you mention that it will be going on flight 5
no im stupid lol
At least the Starliner scrub wasn’t Boeing’s fault this time?
nah, it is an issue with a supplier..
Matt: Ship 31 will fly on IFT-5
Also Matt: Ship 30 will fly on IFT-5
No they’re gonna build OLP-b really fast and launch them at the same instant so that both are IFT-5
Ship 31 will be stacked on Ship 30
Did you go to velocity lake!!!
@5:02 same
why are they doing a full orbital flight to test the catch arms? wouldn't it be simpler to do the same "hops" the first starship prototypes did but for the booster to the tower?
They have more to test than just catching the booster, they also need to get the ship through reentry so do the two in the same launch saves time and fuel.
@@shaung949 And saves time, especially time.. Starship has a lot of development to go, before they are ready for Artemis III in 2026. And they have to do an unmanned test landing roughly 6 months to a year before the manned landing. Getting to orbit and transferring 1,200 tonnes of propellant is more important than the catch landing for Tanker Starships, for Artemis.
Maybe rethink making the heat tiles REMOVABLE?
Technology of those tiles makes them fragile, removable tiles are needed for quick fixes.
There WILL be damaged tiles on lot of flights, they need "only" be sturdy enough to survive re-entry. Missing few tiles is not an issue (we saw that many times with shuttle), except specific places. Danger is when it's just too many in one place is missing.
But remember that THIS generation of tiles is already obsolete. They just need to survive this re-entry to gather data. Next gen tiles are smaller, and got one larger steel plates instead 3 small ones like current gen. We saw test rigs for those few months ago.
IFT-3 revealed a number of things that trouble me with the program. First, neither the booster nor Starship appears to have had enough propellant remaining to complete there tasks and given that IFT-3 did NOT include a 150t payload the lack of performance is worrying. Second, both stages appeared to be venting a substantial amount of propellant which might explain the lack of sufficient propellant, but perhaps highlights that the launch environment is more damaging than they figured. The lack of a true flame diverter and flame trench and the obvious sea of shockwaves that bathed the rocket on the pad might very well result in plumbing damage and that could explain both the obvious venting and the lack of propellant at the end of the mission. The water cooled plate they installed after IFT-1 and the damage that did to the pad and the area around the pad might have suggested it did the trick, but the obvious swarm of shockwaves evident in the video of the launches and the venting and lack of propellant perhaps highlight the failure of the water cooled plate as it isn't really a flame diverter and instead reflects the shockwaves right back to the rocket.
My guess is Ship 31 will never fly.
I think measuring everything’s weight by McDonalds Big Macs is a viable unit of measure and should be used more frequently.
7:06 ufo 👽
Gordon Cooper... Now there's a story.
That electrical fire is not going to just buff out.
I would be not surprised if Elon goes to Boca Chica, and will start kicking some bits and we end with V2 ship for IFT 6. He likes drama.
Yep. Will probably cause delays. That is a serious issue that needs to be heavily investigated.
@@motokid6008 naaah, it's SpaceX. Will be fixed on next Monday, or scrapped. Depends on damage. S31 is already obsolete, so no big deal. And because they have this ship they will see weak point pretty quickly to avoid that issue in future.
@@just_archan - I hope your right.
ship 26 is hls mock up
Can you please do a video on the opt space planes mod, I just got it and I want to see what plane you can make with it cause your a much better designer than me, if you don’t want to that’s ok to
Is it wrong to say that I'm scared for the first space test of SpaceX's new suit, I know they have tested it thoroughly but I'm still scared for the astronauts, what are some of the safety precautions that they have if there are any problems, what happens if the life support system fails then what do they just close the hatch and then rapidly bring back pressure because wouldn't that cause a problem for the astronauts, I know I'm probably over thinking this but I'm just worried
Jared Isaacman said that the EVA suits have been vacuum tested already. SpaceX is working with NASA on the suits, so SpaceX has their knowledge of EVAs at hand.
Big Macs😂😂😂 alright buddy calling us fat? 😆
Another Space X hollow tube ready for launch !
At the pace of NASA government contracts, the crawler 2 should be ready around 2040.
The NASA OIG has said in the past, that it would be NET 2027. With Artemis III currently set for 2026 due to Starship and the xEMU suits, NET 2027 for ML-2 for Artemis IV won't be that far off the current schedule.
@@steveaustin2686 How much you have to bet on that?
@@TheJimtanker 🙄 Got evidence? Or just guessing.
@@steveaustin2686 Evidence based on decades long track record of missing deadlines by decades.
@@TheJimtanker ALL space launch companies miss deadlines, usually when they are developing hardware. The ML-2 isn't under development, as it is a copy of ML-1 with the service arms in a different location. It's already behind schedule and the NASA Office of the Inspector General has ALL the experience needed to determine a timeline. Maybe 2030, but no way it takes to 2040. Sounds like you are pulling info out of thin air. Or a dark place you sit on.
Supposedly, ship 31 is the latest and greatest - yet it has a serious 'electrical fault' !!!
Save Ship 31!
Correction Matt. Ship 31 is scheduled for IFT6
For my fellow Americans who can't visualize 5m Big Macs, it's about 600 Pickup Trucks or 2.5 Fully-Loaded-747s.
good it happens on ground by testing, so it NEVER will happen again 👍
is artimes 3 or 4 landing astronauts on the moon
Artemis II is just lunar orbit and Artemis III is the HLS Starship landing. Artemis IV is Gateway construction and a HLS Starship landing. Artemis V is a Blue Moon landing and Gateway construction.
THERE will not BE A "CATCH" ATTEMPT UNTIL THE NEW TOWER AND PAD ARE COMPLETE.
Elon, can you buy ksp 2 pls?
Up
SpaceX preparing for fourth explosion. Its called testing.
what happens when the Boeing starliner's door falls off in LEO?
🙄🤡 The Boeing space division and the division that makes planes like the 737 Max are separate divisions. NASA admitted that they were not watching Boeing as closely as they should have before the Dec 2019 OFT-1 flight. Since then NASA and the astronauts themselves have kept a close eye on the fixes to the two Starliner capsules. A much easier proposition than watching the maintenance on thousands of planes.
@@steveaustin2686-- It the systems that Boeing builds that we're worried about. If one division was allowed to be sloppy enough to have critical production and design issues on multiple different products, what flawed systems are allowed in the other, less public divisions?
@@TlalocTemporal 🙄🤡 What part of this did you not understand?
"Since then NASA and the astronauts themselves have kept a close eye on the fixes to the two Starliner capsules. A much easier proposition than watching the maintenance on thousands of planes."
The Centaur's issue with the buzzing pressure valve needs a thorough investigation. ULA's description of the issue sounds incomplete.
Per CEO Tory Bruno, resetting the valve usually fixes the issue. Since this was a crew flight, they are replacing the valve. Small problems like this is WHY the countdowns are long and ALL boosters have minor problems like this.
Like nr 1000 🎉
But tHe bOOstEr iS foR fLIghT 6
I think after the first 50 comments Matt got the message
6:04 - I can't imagine why people would say that. What a mistery. Can't be because he's a pathological liar.
The SpaceX haters are as bad as the 'rah, rah, rah SpaceX rulz' fanbois. Matt provides balanced coverage, so it not at either extreme.
NO. ...no. SpaceX will NOT make a catch attempt on OFT5 if OFT4 goes "OK". I don't care WHAT Elon said it isn't going to happen with OFT5. Even though I'm OK with being wrong, I'm 100% confident it will NOT happen with OFT5. Why, you ask? Three simple words --> Ground Service Equipment.
I think that they will want at least two successful soft water landings on target, before risking the GSE, as you likely agree.
@@steveaustin2686 Yes. I agree.
Again, Macy's is a department store, not a test site.....
It Massey's is the test site SpaceX has been setting up near the Massey's Gun range.
@@steveaustin2686 No kidding. It is the original Massey's Gun Range. I know that - my issue is the pronunciation. The way Matt and other Brits say it is like the department store. Mass is not pronounced like 'Mace'
@@michaelmergens1424 Sorry, I didn't know you knew. Not everyone does. Matt is from the UK, so could just be an accent variation.
Flight 5 is so far away, they could begin construction on the vehicle today and almost certainly have it finished _and_ fully tested in time.
6:07
Matt, I get that the whole sales pitch that he did years ago about the progress he will make was very convincing.
but with how things are going I do not think that an actuall succesfull mission will happen via SpaceX. Half the budget is blown out the window without any sort of serious return, His other businesses are faultering and fluttering like an engine on a N1 first stage, He is cosntantly Posting memes in response to serious accusations about his companies without any elaboration or answer to the critique, not even mentioning the build quality of the other products.
The Nasa official that approved the whole involvment of SpaceX now works at the firm.
The whole thing just smells of bad money and failure. I hope that there will be some recovery to the program but think it will definitely not come under Elons watch.
You think SpaceX, the most prolific launch provider with a rocket that lands more than most rockets ever launch, is faltering? I wonder if the astronauts they keep sending up feel the same lol
@@robyn051 not specifically SpaceX, but tesla Is failing, mostly due to bad build quality and failing promises.
While Space X is so far profitable, but the issue I pointed out is that half the money is gone, most previously set deadlines are missed, and failed launches due to fuel leaks and bad decisions are shoved under "rapid prototyping"
@@hanscooks3027 First of all, everyone misses deadlines in space projects. NASA missed the Artemis 1 deadline by a full 5 years, and SpaceX had nothing to do with that.
Second, development is very front-heavy on cost. Over half of the total Apollo budget (which was ~$250B btw!) was spent before the first Saturn V even left the ground.
Third, the money SpaceX got from NASA is not the entire Starship budget. SpaceX have spent ~$6B on Starship to date, with the NASA contract only contributing about $2B.
It was never meant to pay for the entire Starship program - the reason SpaceX were able to offer NASA such a low price was that they intended to pay for most of it themselves.
@@lazarus2691 yeah, I do now understand the cost side more, but the choice of SpaceX for the contract, and the large deadline misses are still not a good showing, sure they might be doing it out of their pocket, but the quality of work is still very questionable. I have to state here that I have no problems with the people behing the **actual** work, but the sheer amount of misses with what Elons dates and predictions are pisses me and many people off.
what is important in the whole business of space is being transparent with people, else the funding just gets syphoned off to other projects and the proglam fails. After all majority of the game is PR, and the enthusiasm. That is how the space shuttles failed, and that is how I see the future of SpaceX currently. I'd preffer if the work would've been doon as meticulously as when the first missions happened. Sadly that is no longer an option due to the decrease in funding for NASA and other govt programs.
I am also aware that the whole of the delays are not the fault of SpaceX, but they are a major part of the process.
My anger about the whole issue is the lack of solid and stable funding for proper non-corporate orginisations. Space is not profitable apart from satelites, the endeavours that have to be undertaken for a big thing like landing on the moon, it is not a place for companies but for the whole of humanity to work and explore together while making sure each bolt on a spacecraft is fitted just right, not for penny pinching.
@@robyn051 The Falcon / Dragon success was the result of a close coop with NASA on every aspects of the program. Still, SpaceX did accumulate years of delay on it, for which then NASA admin Jim Bridenstine admonished man-child Musk to deliver, while he was parroting on Starship hops...
Not to mention the $900 millions of that very same commercial crew NASA contract Musk redirected to his now defunct Solar City scam. "LOL"
ship 31 launches like next year who cares
Screw ULA,!!!!
The scond comment!
Hmm
Go back to KSP 1 please....
Guh?
First
999 views in 10 minutes, bro fell off
This is why I could never work for an idiot like Musk. He's brutal in his idea of time, work and employment. It's only a matter of time before something terrible happens. You can't force people to work faster than proper safety concerns.
starliner and sls are both jokes.
🙄 NASA wants TWO Commercial Crew providers, so they are not stuck if one provider has a problem, like they were in the Shuttle era. Good thing too. Without SLS, there is no Artemis landing.
@@steveaustin2686 so cancel starliner and give it to blue origin. It will cost half the price instead of more than russia. and SLS is not a requirement. It's just a BS politics requirement. Even NASA never wanted this shitty rocket.
@@steveaustin2686 I like redundancy. What I would like to know is where is the redundancy for SLS+Orion?
NASA are getting redundant landers with Starship HLS and Blue Moon Mk2, so if one fails the other can fill in for it.
But what prevents the Artemis program from being grounded if SLS or Orion have issues?
@@lazarus2691 Funding via Congress is likely the biggest reason. Congress won't fund another provider. And
cost-plus vs fixed-price contracts would likely be another big reason. With a cost-plus contract there is no likelyhood of the contractor abandoning the contract until NASA does, as NASA pays for cost overruns.. With a fixed-price contract where ALL the profit is built in at the beginning of the contract, cost overruns paid by the contractor may reach a point where penalties for leaving a contract are less than the overruns for staying.
Boeing bid $4.2B in 2014 and weaseled another $287M out of NASA by preying on NASA fears about the CRS-7 and AMOS-6 Falcon 9 explosions. Per annual financial earnings statements, Boeing has taken charges against profits of $1.5B from 2018-2023 over Starliner. That likely wipes out any profit Boeing built into the Sep 2014 $4.6B CCP contract. Boeing is a large company and can run Starliner at a loss for future contracts. A smaller provider in a commercial contract likely couldn't and would fold.
Once Starship started flying prototypes in 2019, it may have been seen by NASA as a possible future alternative to SLS/Orion, if Starship got close to its goals. Starship is looking more like it will eventually work enough to be an alternative if Starship matures its launch cadence to be fast enough in the future.
Until then, if there is a problem that grounds SLS/Orion, then Artemis is grounded until it problem is fixed. The Orion heat shield histeria likely won't delay Artemis, as it was being delayed by Starship and the xEMU suits already. Crew Dragon had a similar heat shield issue in the Demo-2 flight and SpaceX just made the shield thicker where it abraded too much. NASA and Lockheed Martin will likely do the same, as well as some possible reentry profile changes. The NASA bureacracy will just take longer as there are valid reasons to triple check and more with human spaceflight.
Where is "Macey's" ? That deserves a thumbs down !
Massey's is east of the build site on the way to Brownsville. It's near a gun range and SpaceX bought the land as a test site.
It’s just his accent chill