Hey thunderfoot! NASA estimated in an official report that it will take at least 15 starship launches to refuel the lunar starship! Figured you’d enjoy that number.
It is simple math, if it can bring 100 tons to orbit and a starship needs 1500 tons to fuel up, then its going to take 15 flights, not counting boil off and ullage use. If its 200 tons to orbit its still going to be 8 launches at least.
@mamamheus7751 the main difference is the orbit around the moon. The Artemis missions will be polar orbits. I think that requires a bit more fuel and supplies.
They pretty much have these things on an assembly line now. I saw footage of their assembly area, you can see a bunch of starships lined up each in different stages of assembly. I find it odd though, because if the one they launch has a flaw, that means they have to correct the flaw on many copies down the line. Which seems really resource-intensive. "At this point I think I know more about manufacturing than anyone currently alive on Earth" -Elon musk
They have been retro-fitting changes onto the ships for the last two launches, it's actually not hard to do. These things aren't being made by factory robots as you might imagine, it's still very human-labour intensive, and as such they can easily add or subtract things from the design. For example - baffles in the tanks, hot staging rings, CO2 injection cylinders, engine covers. Each of the last 3 launches has had lots of changes
This is elons way of saying. You never went to the moon before and if you don't want me to come out and say it, keep paying me. It's smart but expensive. The govt will never admit it lied about anything. Because it didnt....
No matter what ends up happening with this project, that exhaust plume on ascent is fuckin' gorgeous. The color, and the mach diamonds, it's just spectacular. Some sci-fi shit.
that's the point. Elon's technology is like a JJ abrams film. Designed to look cool, nothing more. It wasn't made for quality, or to serve a purpose, or even to entertain people, it exists solely to look cool.
At this point, even after Elon established a city on Mars, this guy would be like "Elon told people this would happen 10 years ago, he's such a liar and bad bad person." 😂
At this point, even after Elon established a city on Mars, this guy would be like "Elon told people this would happen 10 years ago, he's such a liar and bad bad person."
At this point Musk could be sitting in prison for fraud,SpaceX,Twitter and Tesla all seized and liquidated,with only a few Model 3s and Ys on the road to remember him by and incels like you would still be praising him saying he was pulling off a genius 5d chess move 😂
Nice to hear you mention "Common Sense Sceptic". I am so grateful to have BOTH channels, voices of reason in a world otherwise deafened by the screaming of lunatics.
All I see and hear is hate and jealous spewing from you against famous scientist, science communicator, and RU-vid influencer Dr Phil Mason. But NOT A SINGLE REFUTATION, NOT A SINGLE DISPROOF, OF ANY OF HIS POINTS! GKY until you come back and disprove a single thing Thunderf00t says.@@Jean428
Agreed, evry. The ONLY thing CSS said that was wrong, colosally stupid, was an attack on a company that made high protein vegan meat. And Thunderf00t NEVER studied NEVER researched NEVER read the history of alien abductions, contact, and UFOs/UAPs. But they are 100% right about Musk and other scammers and fraudulent ideas. They do the MATH to back it up.
CSS is a total nutcase and idiot. He literally predicted that the booster would blow up on the pad "just cause". This dude is basically a clone of that idiot.
The most common argument i see is "they're just testing" yet they forget how quickly they made progress in the 60's. and they had non of the simulation and design software like we do today. they could be nailing LEO launches if they weren't skillchecked and restricting themselves to ridiculous design goals.
This is a new type of rocket.... They aren't trying to land people on the moon, they're trying to get bigger payloads into space with a massive, reusable rocket... Both stages are meant to go into space, drop off the payload, and get back to the earth, and land to be able to be 100% reused. Those rockets that carried our astronauts to the moon weren't as massive and were not reusable. If this is fully developed, it reduces the cost of going into space....I don't understand why people expect a brand new technology to work 100% flawlessly on it's 3rd test flight. the first and second test flights were also suborbital.
You must be slow It is towards reusable rockets. Look at Falcon Heavy and boosters. Routinely reused - one of them has like 19 missions already. The moon missions - fly once and throw away at massive massive cost. Starship booster and Starship will be like Falcon Heavy and that is a game changer. Having twenty starships and starship boosters blowing up and achieving reuse and then getting ten flights per Starship and booster is a massive leap forward in terms of cost. The rocket engines is miles ahead of everyone else already. The payload, routine flights will become common and not one other company will get close.
It's funny that so many people believe that the "iterative/hardware rich development" method is something new and innovative, while the "old space" method is something traditional and outdated. The truth is completely the opposite. US space program used the iterative method since its early beginnings, then they abandoned it sometime in 70s or early 80s, for very good reasons. They found out that it would be a lot safer, faster and cheaper to develop systems with a streamlined ground testing method that has been in wide use for decades now. It was also pointed out that there are risks of lulling into a false sense of security when using the iterative method. The industry purposefully switched to what delusional SpaceX cultists think is something inferior and outdated, when in fact the method they use for Starship is the old fashioned and inferior one. If anyone's curious you can read more about this from Tory Bruno on his blogs, very insightful from a knowledgeable engineer who worked on development of such systems.
Soviets used the iterative method, which costed them their spaceport, when their moonrocket falled back on them. NASA always launched its rockets in a way that they were 99% sure it will fly on its first launch.
So... this approach was used back when we used to actually make revolutionary rockets? That sounds to me like SpaceX is using the correct approach and meanwhile most skeptics are either finding the idea laughable or don't understand the concept... what's your point here exactly?
@@TheNheg66 Iterative method didn't apply to literally all projects and systems back then, and even when in use, it wasn't taken to the extreme like this is going, there were still prototypes and test flights, but they didn't half ass things and make rookie errors while constantly lowering expectations. My point was that the method they're using right now for Starship is the same concept that the industry intentionally switched from back in the day because they realized there is a better and safer way to do it overall.
@@gaborrajnai6213 That isn't exactly true, there is more nuance to it, read my other reply here, you can also read what Tory Bruno eloquently explained in his blog writeups to get a full understanding.
@@gaborrajnai6213 Actually, the N1 rocket wasn't supposed to fail, they expected it to succeed. If only there was Musk to tell them that they actually succeeded.
Tried to stay awake, had to come back and finish watching, totally worth it. No inane cheering, sensible critique, why would you watch it with anyone else
@@BlodhelmYou seriously shocked that there was no footage of the rocket exploding... that has the cameras onboard? like no shit the cameras were blown up too
The launch before this one was hilarious. Every time a new plume appeared out the back of the 2nd stage, there would be a 5-second pregnant pause, then the presenters would start nervously rambling about something/anything. Then when all telemetry ceased and even little old ladies knew this thing had started raining debris all over the Atlantic, "OK, looks like we're done here! Join us next time...."
@@Skank_and_Gutterboy have you ever worked on anything space related? Clearly not. When you're seeing your prototype go through some testing it's just super exciting and even if it might fail you are just cheering for it. It's like if you make your own firework and test it, even if it's just blow up at the end of the day you're happy and now you learned something on how to make them better. Welcome to engineering bozo.
@chaoticmoh7091 Such a brave intellectual, you know the truth that countless scientists have been lying about for centuries, and all ot took was watching a couple weirdos ranting on RU-vid. Brilliant
I really liked the SpaceX marketing voice over as Starship returns to earth. In a beautiful shot, the starship is dumping thermal protection tiles like a maple tree dumps leaves in a windstorm, as the curvature of our incredibly rare oblate spheroid paints the back drop... The commentary was, "hey look at that beautiful picture of earth". No mention of all of the stuff falling off of starship just before it goes plasmic.
I know I'm commenting on a anti-spacex channel and I'm a pro-spacex person but I have to ask and I'd really like a real answer. The falcon series of rockets failed on its first 3 missions and look at it today; So why does Starship failing 3 times warrant all the hate towards it? Do you not think spacex learns from failures and will just keep failing forever?
@@Adamas97 alright, so... This is not an "anti-SpaceX channel", that's ridiculous. In fact, I really like the Falcons. Starship's design, however, is fundamentally dumb, not to mention incomplete on the inside. And they're running out of money exceptionally fast. Next time it may fly. One day it might even reach orbit. But it has no purpose. No job requires such a vehicle. And with all those refueling sessions it's never reaching the Moon, let alone Mars.
Havent seen that clip but long ago felt like much of of what Musk has touted and promised over the years was strongly reminiscent of Holmes' bs. From the Matrix like promises about Neural Link to the "Its really not that difficult" to build & create Hyperloop.
@@HelloTosho Hey it's still funny they ever let that happen at all. Really shows how their process is purely the shotgun method of "why don't we try this for the hell of it?"
@@HelloToshoHo yes ! They evolved. With a pad equiped with deflector and water ... Like the other ones ? And "Bro", you know what is "old jokes" ? Mars by 2024. (other pads had been fine for decades)
@@malebetegrrr5793 The pad is nothing like other pads, it's far more advanced and so far proving to be quite revolutionary. So yes, it is indeed a great success
Name any company that can compete with Falcon 9. Vile liar.
6 месяцев назад
@@LucaNapo- Artemis is leagues ahead of Musk's junk. I only come to these comments to laugh at you simps every time one of phoney stark's rocket explodes 👍
To put this in context, if you compared Earth to Mars like a trip from London to Glasgow, what Space X managed here was to step off the front doorstep. Yes they still managed to stub their toe and drop one of the suit cases but at least they didn't blow the front door to bits this time.
And spend at least a couple of billion dumping aerospace hardware into the gulf of mexico. I think we should put Elon in row boat out in the gulf for the next launch.
Step off the front door step, but without your coat, your car keys, your wallet or even your shoes. Like, step off the front door just to show off that you can, not as a general preparation to go further.
@@L8ugh1ngm8n1 to be fair, the plan was to send the car up to Mars orbit, but since it was outside of the proper launch window, the thing never had a chance to reach Mars to begin with.
I think SpaceX engineers cheering don't understand the gravity that they meant to be strapping PEOPLE on to these. I'd be super concerned when every single test has been a "who knows what's going to happen" situation, and have expectations that it SHOULD work barring some fluke thing. Apollo did all of this testing without NEARLY as much tech (sensors, simulators, etc), and SpaceX just is making a rocket with minimal thought into what they are doing. It's sad really to be out shown by people who did all of their learning from books and professors they had to hunt down, and all of their calculations and drawings with pen and paper, when today you have the entire world's collective knowledge at your fingertips and all sorts of additional tech to make things easier...
@mipmipmipmipmip that is an amazing analogy... This clown show might be acceptable if it was a North Korean space program, but it is just pathetic that American tax dollars are funding this...
It's also raining debris all over the place and risking a Kessler event ( sustained satellite collisions with debris, making more debris and more collisions) it's dangerous to let Elons engineers make these. NASA did this SO much better in 1969. Even Yuri Gagarin way back in 1961 SUCESSFULLY did what this was attempting to do ( mostly ) this is like me programming the game pong... except my version crashes, can't keep score and sometimes burns the house down.. and then saying how amazing it is but by today's date... when there's vr... you get my point :) respectfully 😊
@mipmipmipmipmip "... we are thinking octagon, hexagon ... something that sounds technical but really isn't. We might even just use a circle but call it an 'acceleration ring' instead.... " -Felon Musk
This flew just barely short of orbital velocity, so no risk of Kessler syndrome created by this flight test. All debree made its way back to earth. Also as far as I can tell all the debree it released while it was outside of the atmosphere was frozen oxygen/methane, which would sublimate into gas quickly. Respectfully, stop spouting off nonsense.@@MrDmadness
@@Cara.314 I think that guy may be a bot account, I saw him making similar Space X centric comments in the chat the whole time. Like mocking that it "never blew up" when we know the booster definitely did. Or laughing that the lower cost for launching will make a market for more satellites, but that didn't work with the Falcon 9 or heavy so why would this be any different?
@@stickiedmin6508 Hey Stikie ... Stew ... Stukup ... The same rockets that blew up sending astronauts to the Space Station? That resupply the Space Station? Boeing and Starliner could have done so much better!!! Oh, wait. The rockets that Dmitry Rogozin from Roscosmos called "American candle sticks"? Yeah, those rockets by that darn useless SpaceX that represent the cheapest and only way for the Defense Department, the US Space Force and anyone else in the US (and most of the western world) which always fail ... and never come back for a soft landing to be used again. Those rockets that blow up right. Humph, humph ... you are sure nasa was doing that 60 years ago, right? It is comments like yours that bring me and my wife back to Thunderfoot video comments time and again. Just to remind ourselves that there are people in the world who would probably fall over and pass out if they didn't receive continual instructions to breathe - and how to breathe. You are not an engineer, you are not in to rocketry, and you are here - because why - because you hate someone attaining success f it isn't you? What exactly? Be specific. At what level is SpaceX (ignore Musk) not the most successful space launch company in 40/50 years ? Answer that with a reasonable argument - and I will take you seriously. otherwise - I LOVE your comments - keep up your stellar work in rocketry and the space industry.
@@llewellynjones1115honestly, besides raptor engines and booster stage recovery. i don't see anything too different from what we are doing now with public money and public development.
Yea the top half without the heat tiles it’s a shame as much of a waste of money this thing is I was looking forward to seeing the re entry the whole way down that plasma looked cool af 😂
In case you don't get the joke; Starship 3 was tilted 90 degrees hitting the atmosphere. The "plasma" was hitting the unprotected part of the ship. That's probably why it blew up when it hit higher aerodynamic loads.
I hate when they compare it to the shuttle, putting the shuttle in a negative light. Sure the shuttle wasn’t flashy, but it got the job done. What differences are there for this thing from the shuttle? There aren’t any (except the shuttle flew +130 times)! Every version of this ship looks closer and closer to the shuttle. I can hear munsk screaming from Texas “it looks like the shuttle, change it to look like a starship now!” “But lord and master munsk, this design works, your star ship design….***choking sound***
I think the reason why Starship does propulsive landing and I may be wrong is that it's much heavier than the shuttle. The shuttle was essentially a flying brick, and Starship is basically 50k lbs heavier.
@@GoldenTV3emphasis on FLYING brick. Starship doesn't "fly," it's not an aircraft like the shuttle. I think we missed the boat when we decided to go back to rockets, then intentionally ignored proven designs just to make matters worse. We should have went with a better space PLANE.
@@Blodhelm As far as I'm aware the contracts are only awarded by completion of tasks. SpaceX should receive ~60 million for successful testing of propellant transfer today. And I saw somewhere a maximum estimate for each launch is somewhere around 200 million.
Every elon fanatic "You'll have a lot of failures for a new rocket" Me "Rockets aren't new and have been reliable since the 60s. Space X fails at making rockets" Fanatics "REEEEEEEEEE"
@@TheGuruStud we all know that it's gonna work in just a few more launches right? Every issue they're getting is gone by next launch. Once they reuse it what will be your comment? And have you ever looked at stats for new rockets? Many failures, from everyone. USSR which was really good was not able to make the N1 work and ran out of funding. You guys are just looking at progress and being like "booo it's Elon, baaaad". "SpaceX fails at making rocket" bro they have Falcon 9, they could sit on that and get cash as they are 10 years in front of their competition, why do you think they are pushing hard with this one?! My god, and keep in mind that I really dislike Elon, but if you look past your feelings toward him it's hard to seriously talk down on Starship.
@@TheGuruStud My brother in Christ, the idea of a rocket isn't new and has been reliable since the 60s. The ACTUAL DESIGN of a SPECIFIC rocket is however new and needs R&D. It's true for SpaceX, It's true for NASA, It's true for ESA, It's true for JAXA and any other rocket company. And on that note: Apollo 1 killed 3 people before it even left the pad. Apollo 13 canonically failed its scheduled mission because the oxygen tanks burst on the way to the moon, the only reason it's a (deservedly) celebrated mission is because NASA managed to bring the crew back alive. The space shuttle flew 135 times, but it still killed 14 people. A bunch of new, and old, rocket designs have also suffered from failures and explosions since then. So I would have probably put "reliable since the 60s" as a not totally correct statement. Criticize Elon however much you want, the guy is indeed a bitch. Just don't bastardize rocket science while you do. There is a very thin line between a simplified remark and an ignorant comment.
I remember the days when Thunderf00t was all about secularism and the wonders of science and engineering, but now I only see someone gleiing at the prospect of a marvel of engineering going boom. How far as the mighty fallen!
Honestly I'm more impressed with the camera feed than anything haha. That was actually really cool, imagine if we could get a feed like that on a functional rocket. Honestly that stabilization ALMOST did the trick. If it wasn't rotating uncontrollably that was actually pretty cool to see.
Seems safe enough. Can't wait for Elon and some of his followers to get on one of these rockets. Anyway, 60 years ago man walked on the moon and now this?
More like 100-200 million ish.. The launch site is 2-3 billion from what i remember but that is not accounted for launches. the stainless steel for it is like 50-60 million maybe?, 2-4 million for fuel, 750k per engine so about 20 million there. And im trying to be quite pessimistic with some of that.
@@JaivianDean how much taxpayer money has been spent out front (which clearly, even by your calculus above, has been all used up) to get these 3 launches? I think that's how Thunderf00t is looking at it when making that smartass statement.. I mean, sure, if SpaceX becomes a great success and you amortize it across the life of the Starship launch platform, the math looks more like what you suggest (perhaps even better because of reuse -though I don't feel we have yet come *anywhere* near showing that the newer raptors don't eat themselves and can be reused, given that, to my knowledge, none from the three tests have been recovered and inspected). However, *for* *now* , 6 years after Starhopper, Starship is a project still engaged in its initial baby steps and good at blowing up rockets.
@@cosmicaug His numbers are a tad overblown. Fuel for example only costs about $950k (its probably less than that now because they're making LOX on site). The steel cost per metric ton is at most $2k. Meaning for the entire 300 ton dry mass of the vehicle is only about $600,000. It's been a while since Elon gave us an updated ballpark for the production cost of the Raptor, but at the rate they're pumping out engines now there's no chance its still as high as $750k. Even if it is, $28.5 mil for the engines brings the total to roughly $30 million for the material cost. Add in engine transport from Hawthorne, labor, material wastage and all the fiddly bits they need and we're still talking sub $100 milllion per prototype. Probably less than $50 million now that they've streamlined processes and built out more production facilities. Its certainly faster and cheaper than the way NASA runs their programs these days. Also SpaceX only gets paid by NASA when they reach Milestones. For example they will get paid $50-some million for the on orbit propellant transfer milestone. SpaceX and their private investors are footing the vast majority of the bill until the HLS Starship is operational. Even then, what NASA is contracted to pay them for the HLS Starship won't even cover 25% of what SpaceX has spent up to this point. So no, the taxpayer isn't funding Starship as directly as you seem to think. Government/Military Falcon 9 launch contracts certainly don't count. As for how long its taking; things happen. The Wildlife service and the FAA delayed the first launch for what, like 6 months? You can argue SpaceX wasn't ready either, that may be true. But they could have pushed to try a pared down launch sooner if they hadn't been delayed by bureaucracy. The second launch also would have happened faster if the first launch hadn't annihilated the concrete under the launch pad. Besides, you can't expect things to happen on the ideal timeline. Elon is unabashedly optimistic. Its a fault of his for sure. But that also means that we get cool stuff. If it wasn't for SpaceX, ULA would run the launch industry as a near monopoly and the taxpayer would by *really* getting scammed.
@@castortoutnu There is NOTHING that SpaceX is doing that NASA hasn't done decades ago, including relanding a rocket (and I don't mean the Space Shuttle).
@@frbe0101While he is continuing to serve up a dish of under cooked lamb in a source of burnt leeks and shallots on youtube on a regular basis he deserves to share Tylar's fate
It’s certainly concerning at first glance. However given the scope of the project and diversity of stakeholders on the project my assumption would be his role requires more applied financial and social context understanding.
@mipmipmipmipmip Are you referring to the program where people died because they rushed the launch? Do you not realize that building a safe rocket is radically harder than building a rocket that gets to the moon? Same way the model-T was easier to build than a modern car, the amount of cost, testing, and investment required is probably 100x what was required in the 1960s. This is obvious to everyone with eyes.
@@Cheepchipsable No he isn't. You can be critical, but fair. Phil is only critical. You can laugh and point, but the reality is this is a completely new rocket design, the largest ever made, launched into orbit, by a private space company. The approach you all are taking is: "HAHA - it they didn't get it right the first time like NASA did 70 years ago!!! What a loser" I mean, it's an utterly insane, privileged, unhinged, out of touch take. Here you have someone that has renewed American interest in the moon, building reusable rockets, and doing it far, far cheaper than the original moon missions and there is nothing good for you to say at all? Be honest - it isn't impartial. Thunderfoot gets views from being an Elon hater. That's all it is. He can't possibly acknowledge anything Elon does as having succeeded, even if it is a monumental, human victory.
Thank you ThunderF00t for producing this video. That way I don´t have to sponsor X by following their stream myself. I will never sponsor Musk with a single cent
@@CitySeventeen17 Maybe get the booster back? Or not getting Starship grilled? Rapid prototyping works fine with software, but obviously not with hardware (neither rapid nor cheap). Funny how low expectations can be set to make everything a success …
Does anyone honestly think the Starship program is redeemable? If you do think it is, how much US Govt. taxpayer $ would it require? Keeping in mind today was culmination of 3B. Thanks for keeping us so well informed, greatly appreciate your efforts!
SLS has cost US$23.8 billion so far and has launched only a single time. A single rocket costs 2 billion. NATO countries together spend 100s of billions on Eastern European genocide.
SpaceX is a $100B+ company and has been regularly raising money. It is also profitable with $10B annual revenue. Starship was being self-funded until NASA contracted it for Artemis. SpaceX bid for NASA to pay half of the expected cost for Artemis. SpaceX is still self-funding the other half for Artemis + all the rest: they have several crewed and cargo missions already booked and all the Mars stuff.
*laughs in $50B and 15 years of SLS/constellation development* Starship is already just a few tiny steps behind LEO capabilities of SLS for a fraction of the cost and development time. If it didn't aspire to be reusable it would already be a massively succesful launch system and everyone is laughing at it and calling it a grift just because it wants to actually achieve something groundbreaking.
@@TheNheg66SLS/Constellation: Successfully got Artemis to lunar orbit. And it returned to Earth in one piece. Starship: Successfully spread debris over the Gulf of Mexico (again) AND the Indian Ocean. Yep. SpaceX is just a wee, tiny bit behind.
If this was just a normal disposable rocket, this test would be considered 100% successful. It was the reuse efforts that failed. In expendable mode, Starship is already more capable and cheaper than anything else flying. Once they get full reuse working...
Well, no, it would cost 10 times more than a regular launch, and it would be incredibly dangerous to have a 100 ton hunk of metal waiting in orbit to hit someone's house.
Well done Thunderf00t, a fantastic audience turnout. Great number of viewers and likes! I didn't watch your live feed but I will definitely watch your VOD.
The best part about the SpaceX rocket program is that absolutely no investment or infrastructure is required for re-entry or landing of their spacecraft 😂 🚀💥
At 3.45 you saw some kind of rupture. All the oxidiser and virtually all the fuel vented and the engines died at once. From that point forward the first stage was in free-fall. So that's a third first stage failure in a row, only without an explosion this time. At 8.24 you saw a second rupture and fuel venting at the moment the three outer engines on Starship shut down and seconds later a large scale uncontrolled tank depressurisation from the tail-end of the rocket, which then began to slowly tumble. From ten minutes onward, you were looking at a dead machine. Space X says the propellant transfer test was completed. BULLSHIT. So big progress for Space X. This time the craft waited until it got all the way into space before failing.
I think the issue with the first stage is mainly due to the gridfins.. as the booster get's more unstable, the fuel started to slosh generating instability in the engines... and it actually exploded, 200 m off the ground. For the ship, I don't think it that it had any significant leakage.. actually it look's like the actuator lines froze up, if you look closely the debris are mostly ice. I'd think that there's an design flaw they didn't accounted for (at least not enough), I mean the heat trasfer of steel in the cold of space.
@@andersonlucas1951 The ship visibly had significant leakage. That is very evident in the video as it tumbles out of control. Same for the booster. The gridfins had very little influence on the crash of the first stage.
Love it that when you already pick one of the most difficult engineering problems we know of to solve - getting stuff into space - then make it way more difficult by doing in space re-fueling and need with 10, yes 10 ~tanker launches???
Yeah - at an estimated launch cost of $100m when fully operational. Say 15 launches needed - that is still only $1,5bn compared to SLS at $4,5bn per launch. Development costs of SLS $90bn. Development cost of Starship so far - $5bn and counting. SpaceX changed the launch paradigm with Falcon 9, and it would be a very brave person to bet against them doing it again given what they have already achieved so far. Perhaps you should go and re-watch Thunderfoot's rant about how rockets would never, ever be reusable and Falcon 9 would be a hopeless failure. Oh, wait.
Falcon has been a failure. One stage is reused. No one cares. That doesn't actually make it cheaper. How many 10s of billions were spent on development to achieve slightly reduced cost? Virtually no one is using falcon heavy. It finally had one payload in YEARS that wasn't starlink space trash. WHAT A SUCCESS! Huff in more of that copium. You don't increase complexity 10 fold and call it cheaper (remains to be seen anyway). Maybe after several corpses in space, astronauts will just quit NASA if they start using starship lol. All of it's irrelevant, anyway. The US is beyond bankrupt. Incoming massive depression. The only reason any of this crap gets funding is to enrichen their friends. It'll be cancelled before you know it.
It's the same command structure: one incompetent guy at the top, undermining all his engineers with his need to look good. The only difference is you don't go to Siberia when you disagree, you're simply fired and lose your Twitter account.
2:03:00 Sometimes I find more joy listening to Phil's excitement over the little things, like seeing Africa from a tumbling video streaming platform bleeding out.
I remember.... When the NASA had a minimum of mishap they all were CRYING with REAL TEARS 😭😨😭🤬😭😭😭 AND HERE.... they are cheering while they BURN DOWN BILLIONS OF DOLLARS...... WHAT'S WRONG HERE.......?
But you see, that was on government money, which is very very bad. What makes Starship's door so innovative, modern and exciting is that it uses absolutely no government money and... err, hum, never mind, forget what I said. 😅
@@Jean428 starship has accomplished maybe 10% of it's objectives with 80% of the money and is years behind schedule. Most of said budget is government money, of coursesm. I'd avoid this line of argument if I were you... 🙄
@@leparfumdugrosboss4216 SpaceX have money to continue operating the program for many years. It's not just government contract money, they make money from Falcon 9, Starlink, and so on. It is indeed behind schedule, welcome to the rocket industry
@@leparfumdugrosboss4216 Why avoid that line of argument? Thunderfoot was saying exactly the same thing about Falcon 9 - and look where we are now. You should go back and take a look at his video about how reusable rockets would never, ever work. Oh, wait.
What's funny to me is how the guys with the headsets are spinning what's happening. So the booster failed to light its engines and all those very expensive engines hit the water at the speed of sound destroying them. And then the rest of it burned up on re-entry after leaking and pieces of it flaking off before re-entry. Rather then telling the viewers what they are seeing, they are lying by omission by staying silent even they know what's happening is not supposed to happen. I consider that deceiving the viewer who doesn't know what should be happening.
They did. They gave it to Musk. Well, that lady that now works for Space X did. This will become mostly reliable & commercially sound as a starlink launch vehicle & all the prototype testing was paid for by the taxpayer. That's what this bullsh*t was about from the start. EVERY Musk project is a scam designed to fleece the public. He's successful in one field only, as a crook.
That is some iterative design. About 3 months between launches and now they might have achieved a somewhat uncontrolled re-entry phase. I am sure this ship is ready to go to mars in the near future with a living crew on it.
@@TroyRubertbecause when you’re above the atmosphere, you’re experiencing no drag from air. As you’re falling, you reach a speed that wouldn’t be possible to reach in our atmosphere, like multiple miles per second of speed. The reason you can’t hit that speed in the atmosphere is because the air particles create too much drag. When you’re going fast enough and you hit the atmosphere, all of a sudden you’re flying through what is basically a debris field, the debris is just air molecules. Because you’re going so insanely fast, you’re smacking into these air particles with so much energy that they generate enough friction heat to burn/melt most anything. Say a human could survive the vacuum of space and you dropped them from like 300k feet above the surface of the earth, for the first 250k of falling, the person would continuously gain speed, going faster and faster. Then, once they reached the atmosphere, they would rapidly start to slow down and heat up. The air would start to get “thicker” and more air molecules drag against their body, the more friction is created as they drag, and the more heat is generated. As far as the person getting dropped goes, by the time they made it to the ground, I don’t know if their bones would even be left, that’s how much heat this creates. You’re basically taking all the kinetic energy you have from falling at miles per second, and converting the majority of it straight into heat using friction. It can melt steel easily. Spacecraft are made with this in mind, it’s one of the tougher things about rocket science.
Jesus wouldn't it be great if this was CGI and not a phenomenal waste of time, money and energy. This lad is starting to make Elizabeth Holmes look like a genius
When one of Elons disintegrating dreams start making debris fields and taking out other orbiting items will be when His keys to the rocket get taken away
@@taxirob2248a procurement contract that was secured by Kathy Lueders, after she clearly broke all NASA's rules about call for proposals. A NASA executive at the time, now working for... SpaceX. 🙄 All normal 👌🏽
SpaceX is virtually "Amateur hour", individuals hired to construct the rockets whose prior experience was fabricating water tanks, individuals obviously uneducated in the disciplines of aerodynamics...that indifference most notable in the second stage profile...it's almost as if the same "team" that penned the Tesla Cybertruck, also drew up the Starship....seemingly with a crayon. Yes, those fanboys keep insisting that these are prototypes, but the entire series of Saturn rockets were also prototypes, but none of them blew apart like these. I wonder, just how many of these failures will NASA tolerate before they will "pull the plug" on Starship?
Only thing i dont know is how elon will found spacex for another few lost rockets? People cannot be so stupid to not see that elon valuation of spacex is pure vaporware, or they are?
He is doing what every professional fraud does if he is called out on his cash. He promise something even bigger, and the ferris wheel goes ahead all year long.
They already have 4 more rockets ready to launch. They’re really cheap, apparently they cost ~$35 million to make. So they can spit them out. It’s all part of SpaceX’s philosophy, it’s taken the Silicon Valley approach of “move fast and break things” to the space industry and it’s worked insanely well.
The footage of the booster dying was certainly fascinating to watch, unsurprisingly there's not so much point of view footage of space craft falling uncontrollably out of the upper atmosphere at supersonic velocities.
@@WilayWoodTrouble is that is muskrat fanboy whataboutism....musky big hero for dimwits....he makes all the promises....spends billions of tax payer dollars on failed enterprises and the mouth breathers praise him..
@@gmi109 ah yes, the famous "we've collected the valuable data". The valuable data of how screwed up all things really are. Why SLS didn't need so many failures to get "the valuable data"?
