Scott is so reliable. Of course, he has already done the „pixel count exercise“ to prove that the rocket had negative acceleration after the incident. That‘s why we love him. You just know, you will get a thorough analysis. Thank you!
@@PSPMHaestros Given that the objective of "reporters" these days is deceit, manipulation and demoralization, that isn't hard to do. Not to detract from Scott of course.
It's so awesome to me that my confidence in Scott yesterday was so well rewarded. The quality of his content and the fact that he's so reliable at this cadence makes him a true legend.
4:00 "if you are a nerd you would pixel count" "I did some pixel count" "I have a spreadsheet" Conclusion is pretty clear Scott. Well Done, fellow pixel counting, spreadsheet toting nerd.
Tell me about it. I just wasted one hour checking Elon’s statement that “air mass is not trivial” from Tim’s interview part two. By my book, it _is_ trivial or I’d love to be explained otherwise by fellow nerds. (comment in the video).
Instead, once the fairing is popped, the parachute will deploy and rip the cube sat to parts, cause the rocket to veer violently and destroying a perfectly good launch! On the other hand, in all situations where a parachute might help, it will burn up first. And since all you launch is a cube sat shell full of parachute stuff, you may as well not bother ... :-)
Scott, thanks for featuring my footage of the explosion & debris! I want to clarify that I was in front of the Mashallia Ranch golf course (not Ocean Ave), about 4.4 miles from SLC-2, along with many Firefly employees. The carbon fiber fairing debris landed between 10-12 minutes after the FST while the heavier objects definitely fell faster and much closer to the pad
@@johndododoe1411 Many people watching at the site were Firefly employees but what you saw was a free-for-all, not any kind of formal recovery. Several USAF Security Force personnel were on hand and eventually confiscated the big pieces from those people.
For real. When I was watching the stream live and it exploded, I was thinking "well not sure what happened there but Scott Manley will definitely have the scoop tommorow" here I am. Great guy
Scott has gotton more professional, since the curb of Kerbal gaming and CGI dwelling plays. Before he use to rant non-technical explanations, dising space program engineers, that wasn't traditional to rocket flight ways.
Captain Scarlet would give that a thumbs up. "They crash him, and his body may burn. They smash him, but they know he'll return, To Live Again." Captain Scarlet and The Mysterons vocal theme song.
"... I'm sorry for your loss but take some comfort in the fact your baby didn't die in a fireball but instead, just fell ... you know because no one likes to burn to death, right?" lmao Scott, I know this is a long shot but if you could find the time to speak at my funeral that'd be great
Captain Malcom Reynolds to Saffron: “Someone ever tries to kill you, you try to kill ’em right back!” From "Our Mrs. Reynolds", the sixth episode of the science fiction television series Firefly created by Joss Whedon.
5:38 "This end should point toward the ground if you want to go to space. If it starts pointing toward space you are having a bad problem, and you will not go to space today."
I'm just gonna remind everyone of one of Elon's maxims: on a first launch, getting high enough that the launch pad survives the explosion is a win in and of itself. Anything beyond that is just gravy.
Honestly, why did they have a payload on the first launch? That's one of the stupidest things i've ever heard, at this point i'd rather risk my satellite on the next starship launch and musk has essentially already written that bad boy off as 'please explode over there instead'
Rocket companies are like the jump program in The Matrix. "You have to let it all go, FireFly. Fear, doubt, and disbelief. Free your mind." "What if they make it?" "No one's ever made their first launch." "No, I know but what if they do?" "They won't." "Okey dokey, free my mind....BOOOOM!" "What does that mean?" "It doesn't mean anything. Everybody blows up their first time."
Whenever someone does finally make it on first try, they'll be sent back to square one and told to make a second first try. They will have to do that until their first try blows up. You don't want to hire an engineer who hasn't learned from things going wrong.
Pieces are everywhere. I've got a 3' triangular gore of insulation material out in my yard that was blowing around in Orcutt and I'm waiting for their debris recovery team to call me back. Hoping to ransom it for one of their sweet logo t-shirts, or at least a mission sticker!
@@tylerrobbins9614 that is incorrect, that is theft by taking by literal definition. you dont need permission or even a denial of permission. if it is not yours, DONT TOUCH IT. possession is 9/10ths the law in the US. someone i know did this after a failed launch and was caught on a random CCTV Camera and got his face run through facial recognition. the next day, local Sheriffs were pounding on his door demanding the item back. when he said he discarded it, they detained him until he gave them a general location where he discarded the object. when it could not be found, he was charged with theft by taking. he made bond and it was a misdemeanor as the object was determined less than the law stated value for it to become a felony. he paid the company the cost and was cleared of his wrong doing by out of court settlement. i assure you, you CAN be charged for just touching and taking the object.
Yeah, they definitely hit the "bye-bye" button once it started flying sideways. But, credit where it's due, the tanks and surviving engines held up astonishingly well to such severe lateral loading. Hopefully the second try is a bit more successful!
If Elon thinks about flying to Mars some of these decades, with some confidence it's not killing everybody onboard, they better be ahead of the game. Losing an engine on a 2 year trip may be a unsolvable problem.
You love to know more about these things, and we love to listen as you tell us what happened. thanks for another wonderful video, Scott! It's really impressive how you went through the available video evidence to figure out details of the flight.
The blatant use of a Firefly reference is what got me to notice this video in the first place. I would have noticed it sooner or later if it had a different name given I love the videos here, but that reference made me laugh right off the bat. edit: changed flagrant to blatant for better clarity
Ahh yes, one of my favorite youtubers for anything space related, although I’ve only been watching your content for about a year, it has taught me a lot of things and boosted my every growing want for more information about space. Just wanted to let you know that I’m joining the United States Air-force and won’t be able to watch your content for a couple months. Wish me luck please!
Thanks Scott. I jumped on this when it popped up as I've learned in a short time your ability to break down these things into understandable elements for those of us who aren't rocket scientists. Highly appreciated.
Two things: 1. I have never understood the space shuttle. Specifically, why it was built so large. 2. There will never be any large scale exploration of space until an alternative to chemical rockets exists. Great video!
Sadly Tim isn't such an infrared camera fan as I am. They had 2 very high end cameras (+lens/telescopes attached) available and only uses them for like 20 seconds without making a comment - you were able to see the cold propellant tanks for example.
@@nikmathews555 Pretty sure the cameras used are from the base itself. But it was at his control to call up a camera and talk about it. The producer with him would do the actual switching. They only mentioned a short blackout period for engine cams during gimbal sequence before the flight.
@@Veptis Don't understand why Tim didn't have other cameras not on site. Other ppl got great footage without having the access like he did, could've put in more effort than the lagfest streams he had.
Damn, being 70 years of age I have followed NASA and the manned program from the beginning. I sometimes fall into that lull of "oh, shooting rocket's? easy!" Shame on me I know in my heart that is not right.. it is hard to get a rocket to space.. I hope these guys and all the other small companies don't give up yet.. Every shot has something to learn from it and we are still in the learning stage of human flight.. Carry on and thanks Scott!
If space was easy, everyone would be doing it. Is it a setback for Firefly? Hard to say - they probably took a few lost rockets into account in their program. But I'm hoping they got a lot of data on the flight. Thanks for the explanation, Scott!!
@@mfaizsyahmi you'd still need a rocket to get into orbit even if you had an elevator to take it into space. You dont just float in space. You're weightless in orbit because you're going so fast sideways gravity cant pull you back to earth, you're essentially free falling. If you made that elevator to space, if you stepped off the platform into space you would fall right back to earth.
Honestly, it is fantastic they even streamed it, and pretty cool to have Tim stream it. They are a startup so I don't think there was any issues with Tim's stream.
Not only is running to pick up recently exploded rocket debris potentially destroying evidence that would help in analysis, there’s a long and dangerous list of things in and around rockets that you don’t want to be around.
hypergolic propellent, radioactive waste, toxic materials, and they are dangerous to touch. The person who pick those up needs to be arrested and that segment needs to be taken to Vandenberg you don't go picking that stuff up.
@@geomodelrailroader Almost certain there was nothing radioactive on this rocket. Major risk of shooting radioactive material everywhere after an explosion like this. The only payloads that have radioactive things are things like RTGs that power the rovers on Mars and stuff which only NASA and like ESA have launched.
@@cacaokingdom3122 Are you positive there was no mmh on any of the payloads? They use RP-1 and LOX for first stage. How many of those people running out there know what they fueled the second or third stage with? Or if there even is a third stage? RP-1 and LOX are basically always used for stage 1 currently. After stage 1 tho, it varies. Also I believe the long list includes things in the build materials themselves. You are rapidly decomposing a lot of materials and coating that make up the rocket and all its components, some will become toxic/hazardous. Then there is the hydraulic fluids. Usually 2-3 of them on rockets and burning them leaves toxic residue on surfaces it contacts. Just because mmh/NTO4 or radioactive materials (the biggies) might not actually be on board doesn't mean there isn't other toxic/hazardous materials on board that can get all over the place when it goes sideways. There is indeed a long list of materials.
You know…. That’s impressive how it turned into the airstream twice in two very high-load events, but didn’t start coming apart until FTS triggered the explosives…. I’m not sure if that indicates unnecessary mass, but they clearly have built a good rocket. Let’s hope they can iron out the kinks of their engines quickly! Edit: I mean I booster stack didn’t come apart. Fairings are necessarily weaker structures due to how they typically mount.
@@WolfePaws it definitely ended too soon. It probably would have ran for too long had it launched in the age of streaming. You know what i mean, shows like The Flash, Agents of Shield, and Arrow that all have some great early seasons but have since "run out of ideas" and would be better off killed with a proper ending. (Something firefly was also robbed of)
@@jasonreed7522 Greg Berlanti is a huge fan of the Silver Age of Comics. There's all manner of material from The Flash he could draw from; hell, Julius Schwartz started the Silver Age with The Flash in Showcase #4 (cover dated October, 1956). Whatever your opinion, the 2011 Green Lantern movie Berlanti produced is all Silver Age-based.
Thanks for the great analysis Scott. It was awesome to be an observer for this flight. My first rocket launch to observe so I can't compare to much, but I was surprised at how slow it seemed to be climbing, with very little apparent acceleration. Kudos and congrats to the Firefly Aerospace team for having a tremendous first rocket first launch, all things considered. Wishing them major success in the months and years ahead!
I mean it's high school math... Elementary depending on what country / school you're in... Trig in Sweden right now starts in the senior year of the equivalent of high school (!!!) Very late if you ask me. Lots of less useful and more advanced concepts are introduced way before that.
@@larsalfredhenrikstahlin8012 That’s surprising. When I was in high school in California, Trig was standard track Sophomore year. But I was in the honors track and took pre-Algebra in 7th grade and Algebra in 8th. However, my Freshman year, taking Geometry, I sat next to some Seniors.
@scottmanley The person the picks up the fairing was me. I oversaw the payload segment for Alpha for that flight. We actually got told off by some of the MP, but nothing bad ever came of it.
I'm rooting for private rocket companies all over the world to be successful. Competition and private enterprise is better than governments controlling space. Hopefully if it was an engine failure, they are able to figure out what caused it and have a better second flight. I think Firefly is owned by a man from Ukraine. They have offices in Austin Texas and in the Ukraine. I think it would be a huge accomplishment for the people of Ukraine to join the space club. I know they had people working on rockets when they were part of the Soviet Union, but this is personal and will add the Ukraine flag to rockets going to space. Hopefully it'll give them something new to be proud of. Well done Firefly, and good luck on flight number 2. Great video Scott. Thanks.
I was also thinking that, but I guess it's to emphasise that it was more of a test flight with a lot of successful milestones that just didn't make it all the way rather than a failed full mission.
His first hand held opening rocket and sound effects told me he is not too full of hubris. I enjoy the progression the rocket open/close to a really high quality art. Keep up the great work. The meat of your videos included!
Scott is the #1 Space Physics Analyst, Explainer, Expert on RU-vid, his history of excellence is his credibility. I really wish he'd promote the math and the physics he is such an expert just a little bit more to those wanting to learn, just a mention of it, because, if you understand the math, you can understand the physics, then you know that something will work before it works and you can understand why it failed. Its the key to all successful engineering and he does it so well. Can you imagine Scott Manley and Laver Burton teaming up to teach math and physics. ??
Yeah probably not a good feeling, but I'm sure it wasnt unexpected. For your first launch theres a high chance of failure. Even SpaceX failed 3-4 times before they got into orbit for the first time.
This is probably one of the reasons why it is - I think at Vandenberg the 30th Space Wing - who owns the guy with the finger on the terminate button, rather than the launch company.
@@XxCreateFlowxX I cannot recall any entity that hasn’t had a failure on their first attempt with liquid-fueled rockets going back to Robert Goddard and his pen pal Werner von Braun. It seems that “standing on the shoulders of giants” doesn’t apply to advanced rocketry.
@@Markle2k It basically can't. While certain grievous design errors can be avoided by past mistakes, and mathematics can get a group a large way to completion, making the system work at the outset is practically impossible because very few rocket parts are standardized in any way. There's no supply chain to create a rocket such that everything is reliable and meets its specifications on the first launch for a new company.
I'm able to watch these launces from my front yard. I heard this one rumble and ran outside and watched as it took a dive. Interesting to hear about the details here!
As always Scott, we can always count on you to provide a comprehensive autopsy report within a solid 24 hours after a loved one is tragically lost physics. Personally. I really think these newer aerospace companies should fully embrace the crawl-walk-run method of R&D. They should be putting these newer engine designs through the grinder before even coming close to launching anything to orbit. SpaceX's Starship serves as a great example. They went from a flying beer can to flying a full-sized prototype. They did that because they are working with a brand new engine design. A design the United States deemed dangerous in the past, and for good reason. Not to mention the vehicle design and what/how it intends to fly. Regardless, I really hope to see Astra and Firefly bounce back from this. We are living in a very important point in human history here. If all goes well, we are going to see some pretty unbelievable things within the next few decades. Thanks for the great content Scott!
Happy for Tim he did a good job and Astra supplied so well done clips. I watched with great interest hoping the best for the flight. A lot of hard work went into the effort sad to see the termination. After the the call out not yet supersonic I thought they were just trying to get it down range. Scott is my go to guy for everything he explains results very well. You would think that folks who go to watch these launches would know enough not to pickup bits and pieces.
Falling at 125 mph actually has a survival rate… It helps if you hit something soft like trees, snow or swamp. It’s the sudden stop that gets you not the fall.
See, I personally disagree. I think it results in a weird conflict of interest (are independent space journalists gonna report fairly on companies that they collaborate closely with?) and, slightly less importantly, I think having someone's reaction in the corner of the stream as the default for how your putting out your launch coverage is a really weird move.
It was a good thing to do on this occasion, as Firefly clearly has much higher priorities to concentrate on than media relations. Such as getting the rocket 🚀 to not go 💥 boom. Once this new space enterprise has the core business working properly, then they can start developing these necessary peripheral things. But good to see the enthusiasts helping out at the beginning. I agree long-term having journalists working too closely with the likes of Arianespace, SpaceX or the Jeff Bezos operation gives rise to conflicts of interests --- but wait, doesn't Jeff own the Washington Post or something? Given that, I think we can cut Firefly and Tim some slack this time.
@@jethroreading7168 I would assume a company wouldn't hire coverage that is hostile to their company, sorry Angry Astro and 2theFuture, no Boeing coverage for you.
@@bbirda1287 Yeah of course. Moreover, though, I just think it's a bit weird to have the fan cam in the corner. Like, if you were watching a football match and in the corner there was just some guy going :0 the whole time that would be a bit weird haha.
To be fair to Firefly, it is a test flight. The point was to figure out what is wrong with the rocket, and if they get data on that it will allow them to improve the rocket and make it work. Space is hard, and as Tim said, "Simulation can only take you so far." We can say it failed successfully.
The company I retired from was working on the Reaver Rockets bells. The machining on those things was exquisite!! It would have been done on giant 5 axis machines!! They were solid copper and big enough that you picked them up with a forklift!
What about the "Abort" was called out 2 seconds from lift off. I think as the engine was spooling up someone noticed an issue. Watch the live launch again you hear an Abort called out 2 seconds from lift-off.
Great explanation Scott! Just one thing: in the first place do not tough any just exploded rocket debris. It could be very hot, you could get ugly burns!
I think Tim also mentioned something like the engine pairs having a single-axis capability only so an engine failure could probably have a bigger effect in controlling trajectory. Even before the flame out I noticed that the rocket seemed to have a slow acceleration (compared to Electron launches or even Falcon 9 launches). Jack Bayer's footage was brilliant.🙂
I know someone who found remains after columbia. He called it in as soon as he realized what he was looking at and didn't touch them for very obvious reasons, but I never understood why they got so weird about all the other debris not even being touched. Course several years later I got very interested in space(mainly thanks to Scott) again, and started learning more about the fuels that had been on board that thing, and why NASA had been so adamant about staying away from it! I remember at the time they had been very hush hush, very much downplaying the reasons, just yelling "NO!"
I live in vandenberg and I got to see this happen in real life!! I’ve seen probably hundreds of rockets launch here but never elsewhere one explode!!. It was so cool to see
Most rockets are mission killed if they lose an engine. There's an argument that the loss of control could be a safety concern, but I think they demonstrated that they have enough control to keep it from heading into populated areas.
