Space Force missile-warning satellite launches atop Atlas V rocket 

Very thumbs up. Whoever thought we'd be seeing this in our lifetimes. They are making magic happen. I just hope to stay alive long enough to see the first Americans on Mars establishing an American colony...or maybe it's the opportunity to solve man's tribal problems by establishing a multi-national colony, or will they fight and kill each other. Have we advanced beyond tribal warfare?

We had a "space force" it's called NASA.

@@Mozart1220 NASA is civilian. The Space Force is military. NASA explores space. The Space Force defends American interests in space. Huge difference.

Wish you many more years! It’s truly a time to be alive!

@@dalesajdak422 Yes, but I am disappointed I have not see Space Force in action yet. I think they are still making their ray guns and still being measured for their space suits.

No one is great as George diller!

And we only had to hear the word "Nominal" once, at the end.

ikr feels a bit weird

SpaceX*

It's a new standard. The rest lack behind.

This method is so 80,s

@@drutalero2962 Depends on what your goals are (rate of launches and what the cargo will be). :) Reusable only makes sense when you launch very often and only saves you around 10% at double the risk. If you want the math : SpaceX said they can reuse a rocket at ~45% of the cost of a new one (this is if they reuse the whole rocket, which they don't, but lets say they do to put things in their favor). A reusable rocket can take 30-50% LESS of the KG to LEO compared to a non-reusable. (due to being more heavy and the need of fuel for landing). Falcon9 (reusable) 15.500kg (to LEO). Falcon9 (expendable) 22.800kg (to LEO) This means you have to launch ~twice for the same payload. So if you would save 50% on reusing it, it's the same cost as 1 non-reusable (KG to LEO). So they save ~10% on reusing the rockets (payload to orbit wise). Assuming the COO of SpaceX was honest about being able to reuse the rocket at less than 50% the cost of a new one. (Gwynne Shotwell - COO SpaceX, does seem to have the habbit of exaggerating a bit) With a non-reusable rocket (which is 10% more expansive) you only launch 1 time. With a reusable rocket, you need to launch 2 times and perform 2 landings (so, way more risk involved). If 1 reusable rocket crashes in 10 launches, it would have saved them nothing compared to using non-reusable. If 1 reusable rocket crashes in 20 launches, they only saved 5%. etc Average crashes with rockets are 1 out of 100. (if reliable rockets are being used) And the above doesn't take into account, the *first/new* reusable rocket you have to build (which is 100% the cost and not 45%) and the increased risk damaging your launch/landing pad/site. (or the double amount of fuel required) etc So if you plan to do a lot of launches in the upcoming decades and are positive you can make take-offs and landings very reliable (The convidence Elon/SpaceX has), reusable is the way to go. (if we assume reusable is actually a couple % cheaper). If you launch a Mars-rover or satelite once in a couple year (spent over years / a decade and billions on a telescope), the decision to use a non-reusable at 10% higher cost to heavily reduce risk, makes way more sense. And that is why those companies/agencies who use non-reusable, are NOT behind, but just choosing the type of rocket that makes most sense. :) What SpaceX is doing now (VTVL rockets), was already tested decades ago. Not something new. Simply not interesting / lucrative enough (and perhaps still isn't. Time will tell. :)

clever, I like it.

Feel it. How? Get into a roller coaster.. press speed x3 Gravity is not your friend..😬

No, it Literally makes your day 🤦‍♂️.

@@-TheMaskedMan- That was his point...except he is too intelligent to have to hit people over the head with it....then it is not funny any more.

@@erepsekahs I know. I don’t know why I added the facepalm though because I knew it was a joke. Guess I better facepalm myself 🤦‍♂️.

Saw the launch plume from St Augustine today.

May I ask where is the "out of control" first stage of this rocket? I can not see a word from the news of any of medias.

@@feihuo7874 it’s not out of control...

@@Default012 Do you means the first stage of this rocket has been return to earth? and then can be used again like Falcon 9？ So, it's much different from the Long march 5B rocket?

innit, that go-pro is going places.

It's an amazing planet, maybe the only one on Earth 😂🤣😃😄😅😆😆 One must remember that to Martians Mars looks just like home.😀

i agree

This payload has NO offensive capabilities. This is an early warning satellite to that has enhanced infrared detection capabilities to provide better early warning of launching of ballistic missiles. When you have dictators like Kim-Jong Un over in North Korea with the ability to lob missiles towards targets in the Pacific and potentially the western US--this capability is a vital component of our national defense.

Thank goodness not all humans are content with sticking their heads in the sand. We'd have never made it to space if so.

I think the same, space should never allow any kind of military activity, just scientific and economic exploration, it is a sacred place for this type of thing.

@@danielpava What is ideal is not realistic. Space will be militarized regardless (you think China wants to keep space civilian?) and we need to be part of it to secure our interests and national security.

What does a non-great lift off look like....🤦‍♂️ anything that doesn't blow up is a great lift off...🤦‍♂️

My guess is its the 1st stage

It split off from the Air Force, but maybe they still use the same recruiters.

It's not out of control, that's why.

No point in changing what works 😉

I believe the ejection force is enough to throw it off trajectory and ruin the following burn.

My assumption was it was to ensure they land in the designated area of the ocean and have not chance of falling back onto land. I don't really know though

No. As far as I know only the space shuttle had solid rocket boosters that were recovered.

That shadow is from the payload fairing being jettisoned.

I know that the satellite stays up there

Boing, boing, splat

Ikea Flat-pack rocket booster....only put up once!

no thanks. I personally don’t think space force is a good idea. It’s a lot of money to solve a problem that doesn’t exist.

@@jakemckee2005 It’s a problem that will likely exist in the near future. It’s better to be prepared. If war ever breaks out between the US and China LEO will be a battleground and satellites will have to defend themselves/destroy enemy satellites. The US military is a behemoth but if it doesn’t secure it’s interests in space we’re at a disadvantage. The few billion dollars the Space Force gets annually are necessary in my opinion. Better safe than sorry.

@@dalesajdak422 well, destroying sats is not a good a idea. It just creates more space junk. And it won’t be worth losing our expensive sats too.

@@dalesajdak422 I personally think SF should be a subset of Space Command that only gets pulled out when needed.

@@dalesajdak422 so that way we would be safe and not sorry.

lens flare

Controlled (or maybe "aimed" is a better word) de-orbit into the ocean

Always wear a helmet

Aimed towards ocean, that’s one of the reasons they launch over large bodies of water.

No. Spacex is the only one to ever land a 1st stage ever.

No

Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy are both certified to carry defense payloads. The Atlas V was used here because the satellite was built to fit into the Atlas V 4 meter payload fairing. The Atlas V used today was in the "421" configuration--4 meter fairing, 2 strap on boosters, and a one engine Centaur upper stage.

There are actually a lot of payloads not suitable for falcon heavy, simply because the size/shape of them doesn't fit into the fairings, which are the same size as from a regular falcon 9. Which means that falcon 9 heavy is sort of limited to only launching DENSE payloads to LEO or regular payloads to GEO.

@@KingCosmo7 thank you for confirming. And I’m guessing the fairing size isn’t something that can be easily changed?

Looks like SBIRS GEO-5. Still need to detect the launch to retaliate. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space-Based_Infrared_System

Now go watch the delta 2 rocket failure. It's most certainly the most spectacular explosion/firework you'll ever see. Edit: Here's a link to it ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-z_aHEit-SqA.html

@@nagarjunkashyap5987 Did that. Was the rocket launched on the 4th of July by any chance?

@@nagarjunkashyap5987 jajajajajajajja seen that.

the rocket flies over the ocean during stage separation and the 1st stage splashes into the atlantic

This wasn’t launched in China

@@shinyy187 Right. You don't want to live down range of the Chinese launch pad. LOL

They're probably a little more concerned about getting the payload into space, the job they're being paid for.

The first military satellite was launched in 1959. So, it has been militarized as long as they had the capability to launch large enough satellites.

@@my3dviews It's a little different when we have weapons orbiting the Earth, which is where things will end up.

@@midesti First, they are part of the Outer Space Treaty, which banns weapons in space. Second, there isn't much of an advantage to having weapons in orbit, other than for destroying other satellites. For weapons with ground targets it is a disadvantage as it limits where the weapon could be targeted as the orbit would need to line up at the given time for where it would need to be deployed. Whereas a weapon that is not already in orbit can be sent to any location on Earth within an hour or so.

@@my3dviews Militaries have already designed weapons systems intended to attack ground targets from orbit. www.businessinsider.com/air-force-rods-from-god-kinetic-weapon-hit-with-nuclear-weapon-force-2017-9

@@midesti I know all about that weapon and it is not very useful. It can only hit a target that is in line with its orbit, which is a huge limitation. It could take several hours for it to pass over its intended target. Here's a quote from the site you linked "The project as seen as prohibitively expensive". Launching a very heavy tungsten rod into orbit is not cheap. Quote "The cost of $230 million a rod was unimaginable during the Cold War." Today that would be much higher. You would need dozens of these weapons in various orbits to have one ready to hit the necessary target within a short enough time. So, not a very efficient way of doing things. You are much better off with a sea launched weapon or an ICBM which can be directed at any target. The only good use of space for the military is spy satellites, which they already use.

i thought the same... what is up there that is that big..?

Everything space related that the original branches did has been put into one branch. Kind of like how the Air Force separated from the army

you will be saying that when we have to shoot down incoming missiles since we have such a weak bastard in office

@@evrydayamerican Thanks to the current president, we still have allies who have our backs so people DON'T shoot missiles at us.

They're in a corner shaking their heads, covering their ears, and mumbling: "Not real. Not real. Not real."

They'll as always state that it's a "fish eye" lense. LOL!

They’re crying that so many people are smarter than them

The also claim that it is just CGI.

Fisheye lens

Payload fairing jettison. You can see them in the rear after the shadow passes.

might have been a fairing half or something

it was a fairing

an alien...

@@Michael-kp7cq An Alien race known as "The Fairing". :-)

Fortunately they are gonna replace it asap!!!

This one has updated sensors. Ground based radar can’t pick up launches as they occur, only when the rocket is already in flight

Never mind awesome 🙌👏🙌👏

Yep. All nations on the earth are peaceful, passive, benevolent, and true to their word. None of them pursue dominion over others. It's just human nature. History agrees.

@@everenigmatic5805 Space is different. Countries do actually work together for the most part.

@@jakemckee2005 That’s a result of the unipolar world we lived in for the last thirty years and are now leaving. Before the fall of the USSR we did not cooperate in space (besides the publicity stunt that was Apollo-Soyuz). As China becomes more powerful space will be like it was then: just another theater of cold war.

@@dalesajdak422 Mir.

@@dalesajdak422 well yeah, we’ll be competitive with China. But I don’t think that will be knocking each other’s satellites out, it’ll be the first man on Mars.

Unfortunately, a lot of payloads can't fit into the fairings of falcon heavy, which are the same size as from a regular falcon 9. Which means, until starship is operational, falcon heavy is really limited by the payloads that 1. Actually fit into the fairings and 2. STILL need a lot more force than a regular falcon 9.

Also, monopolies are not good.

@@KingCosmo7 This actually would have for on a falcon heavy, but they went with this due to it having a bigger track record

NO!NO!NO!FISH EYE LENSE!LOL! Gawd! The flat earth's will be out soon. It's almost dark here!😁😁😁😁

No, sir. Its the shadow of fairing

When the fairing was ejected it blocked the sun as it passed by.

@@my3dviews Thanks!

@@jasonanders7003 You're welcome. :-)

It makes sense. Air Force for the air, space force for space.

Google is your friend: en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space-Based_Infrared_System

No landing. It’s a disposable rocket. SpaceX spoils us ;)

hhhh

right? we are spoilt ^^

This isn't SpaceX 🚀 !!

This rocket isn’t from nasa either

@@wazda6488 yep

What's your point? They're not going to accelerate a payload at 100's of G's like a weaponised missile, it won't survive. These rockets are also much heavier.

@@Ethan_Roberts - perhaps they just land into the ocean to drop off supplies. Whats goes up must come down!

@@ithinkthonkthunk5333 No, the satellite goes into orbit.

@@Ethan_Roberts perhaps on a big balloon - what goes up must come down!

@@ithinkthonkthunk5333 except when it’s attained an orbital velocity