Starship vs N1: Is Starship doomed to repeat history? 

9 months later, what Tim was saying proved to be true. Two consecutive flights with all 33 Raptors operating perfectly.

@@anisdjerrab it is kind of wild how they managed to exceed seemingly unrealistic goals. I never doubted they would have a functioning booster, but I don't think many people expected 100% this early :P.

@snuffeldjuret I was also a little worried about the engine's reliability before IFT-2, but SpaceX exceeded all our predictions !

@@anisdjerrab indeed. I still sort of don't understand it given how they seemed to have trouble even static firing all 33 full duration. Maybe they had stricter parameters and learned a lot though :).

if you look at both stages its actually 39 engines

Looks like he has lost weight.

EA better bring his OG spacesuit with binoculairs with him for a video on the other side of the moon.

@@davidbeppler3032 I imagine there might be some training going on.

He’s not an engineer yet he masquerades as one. Lol.

@@Laminar-Flow what a rude comment. Tim has spent years learning about rocket science, from the perspective of an average Joe. He may not be a degreed engineer, but that in no way lessens his ability to teach the masses about aerospace. I say this as an engineer myself.

Yup

🙋🏻 lol

me

bingo!

At least during the first burn 🫢

things that make you go hmmmm

Thirteen Saturn V Launches with 65 F1s used and they never failed. Not a single one. Things were done so quickly to get to the moon that documentation took a back seat. Yes, we would have to start from scratch to build F1s today. The Apollo program was our "Great Pyramids".

It truly is! I still can't help but to find it funny that people woo over a company chasing to be more effective than a 60 year old rocket, when computers were room sized

@@DesertRat332 Well no launch failed , thats true, but at least one F1 stopped firing during Apollo 13 launch.

@AntiangelRaphael "Saturn was so impressive that we LOST ability to make ones today." That's not how things work. We didn't lose the ability to build them due to technological changes. We lost the ability to build them because the factories that built them were shut down and there is no reason to spend the incredible amounts of money to restart that production. It's like saying we lost the ability to make old carburetor engines because technology changed. No, we just won't make them again because there isn't any point. The Saturn V was extremely expensive and wouldn't pass any safety standards required today.

n1 was a comedy of incompetence and basic math failings.

​@@mezmerya5130such as?

now imagine the economy of an entire country run with centralized moneyburning decisions like that.

actually NK-33 engine still operational on Soyuz 2.1v and it was used on Anteres rocket

Wrong, the Zenith used RD-171 engines, which were developed from the more recent RD-170( it's what the boosters of Energhia used in the 1980's) , not the old NK-15 like you suggested.(also Zenith don't fly today, was flying like 20 years ago! )

Those are fair points.

The more engines you add the more chances for an engine failure.

@@jamesjellis But also the less effect that individual failure will have. Arguably they should be more reliable as there is more testing done to find & eliminate design/manufacturing flaws as well. Ultimately is it better to have 4 engines where a single failure loses 25% of your available thrust, or one with 33 where a failure only loses 3%? Or to put it another way, 33 where you would need to lose 8 engines to almost lose the same thrust?

​@James Ellis The loss of a few engines doesn't affect the capability of the craft as much. The engines are super lightweight as it is and it seems worth it to mount a lot of them. I'm sure SpaceX will radically improve the reliability as the engines mature over the years

It works for Falcon 9, sure it'll scale up. I consider the first test a huge success, and as Tim pointed out, the one failure was the Flight termination system. Starship is built like a good old brick wall

Yessir!

We're WAY past that.

The N1 would only work if the US built it

Looks like the engines weren't much of a problem after all.

@@man-from-2058 The boostback burn failed, but that was probably more of a plumbing issue. No news on what destroyed the second stage.

Well, since Starship is now hot staging, the interstage will definitely get some openings. Probably not quite as open as N1

@@Raptor2 Starship's mesh interstage is much closer to those used on the Titan rockets!

@@Danuxsy What? Last I checked, the N1 never got into space, but Starship has.

@@Danuxsy I don't think you know what the N1 was. It flew 4 times, with each ending in failure before making it to space. The second launch failure was the largest non-nuclear explosion, if I remember correctly. Starship has already gone to space twice now, though only once when you commented. They were suborbital test flights as well, so not even planned to get fully into orbit, which the N1 did plan on while still not going as far.

It really looks like 100 plus launches is possible in the near future. They should have paid as much as it took to keep the Merlin engine inventer and engineer. (I'm not sure what his official title was)

@@Bryan-Hensley He retired, I doubt he would be pursuaded to stay working for more money when he is already very wealthy.

@@Bryan-Hensley Don't worry, Elon has a talent for finding the best people and also for getting them to work for him. And not just that, but once they are onboard, the company culture highly encourages the sharing of knowledge, so nobody is irreplaceable for long (that includes Elon himself, although it takes a lot longer).

​@@andrasbiro3007 he has a talent for hiring 20-somethings fresh out of school and for making friends with the chinese communist party

​@Bryan Hensley 100 launches that all include an expendable second stage. I am amazed that no one talks about what it takes to produce that number of second stage engines.

Honestly it was probably a blessing! We'd all be communists by now if they had beaten us to the moon most likely..

the Soviet engine designers really got it right. Everythingnin the world ia iterative. Only people deluded by MBAs thinks there is such a thing as a turnkey solution. The world is always iterative.

propaganda my boy

@@michaelwilliams3104 They're still commies, I don't think who lands on the moon first would change that much. They made it to space first, and sent the first man up.

@@kokokaification huh? For what purpose? Appreciating great engineering transcends petty tribal nationalism. Unless some anti-science weirdos think the entire space program is propaganda 😁

Hello Mr Engineer

Also it's tricky to detect resonant frequencies in models or on a test stand.

That's what I always understood was the main issue with all those engines on the first stage of the N1. But that said, it is very well possible this would have been solved if more time had been available.

@@hoebare the fact that elon dont use a flame trentch create standing waves and enigen ""stuffing"" gases cant go no where.. and the new water system is a joke som retardo tell us that the rocket only press what is 17bars at water plate .. but no it preses 100 upon 100 of bars... simpel math -- and newton 2 law if the rocket weight is 500ton.. pressiur is 600ton or the rocket will not lift off ..

Yes, but without analytics you determine things empirically - in this case by either taking lots of time for a lot of rocket engines shake themselves apart on the test stand or taking lots of money for lots of "testing by flying". The Soviets had neither the time nor the money.

100% over engineered. It needs to be minimum amount of parts as possible. I remember watching a podcast from one of the designers talking about how they cool the Engines down with the fuel before igniting it, and they talked about how to get the nozzle for the cooling system right. And all I could think amazing another part that could fail.

​​​@@soppybottomboys1195What was over engineered about it? I'll add that the only reason today's commercial airliners are so safe is because of the complex systems that have evolved over decades to provide redundancy. SpaceX's vision is for their rockets to have similar reliability and longevity. It's easier to build and replace a couple of failed engines than it is to build and replace a whole rocket.

Beautiful how thoughts can become reality, isn’t it?

Dear moon program

He's not an everyday person anymore tho...

​@@potatosalad68 about to be an everyday astronaut.

don't

A true testament to the Engineering prowess and sheer skill of SpaceX engineers and technicians. They are almost at TWO HUNDRED FREAKING first stage return landings.

And the fact that people already ignored and forget how many failure falcon 9 have in it's development phase really prove early failure is much better than failure on the finished product. I'd rather fly on a rocket that have blown up in it's early phase of development than a rocket they spend billions hoping it doesn't blow up because they can't afford failure

It's worth remembering that one of the few landing failures in recent years was caused by one of the two Merlin engine failures on the upward leg of the flight (the primary payloads being successfully delivered to orbit in each case).

Wow, kinda depressing SpaceX is still using mostly the same engine design from the 1960's, can you imagine just how disappointed a space enthusiast would have been if we told then where we were today.

So they claim. Given events surrounding Tesla's FSD, its reliability and that of various Tesla physical builds I'm inclined to be dubious about those claims.

nasa sent a rocket to the moon last year, and then managed to bring it back home... this thing is an absolute failure

not really impressive though, didn't even make a full suborbital flight yet

successful as it blew up? or in that it wouldn't have made it back, s it lost 70 plus heat shield tiles?

@@rickb.4168 Specifically stage separation, not everything.

Indeed, which is also true of Falcon 9 and Electron... one-to-nine seems to be a convenient ratio between a single engine with a vacuum nozzle up top, and fitting in many of the same engine with a sea-level nozzle on the booster.

commonality as an argument is stupid, sea level engine and zero atmosphere engine require very different ratio, it why space program INTENTIONALLY design different engines. so this is more of a stopgap argument than it actually being a good idea. even the raptor has 2 design so it doesn't SUCK in orbit. this is not that important during testing, but if you want to get to mars, your space performance will have a major impact... as high as 30% difference in what you can carry to mars.

@@lagrangewei what you say is somewhat true but you are not at all taking into account the complexity, cost, and management challenges of maintaining multiple engines.

@@lagrangewei and yet SpaceX and Rockets Lab have both been doing it very successfully for some time now... it might be suboptimal physics, but using the same engine for both stages is a huge benefit cost-wise.

@@lagrangewei The difference is mainly in the nozzle, a rather straightforward item, and recently Space X has even begun occasionally using a mid-size nozzle on the MVAC. Since both the 1D and MVAC are designed to be multiply re-ignitable in vacuum or near-vacuum, there probably is little else that is different.

yeah i never thought of that till you said something

I say we mount one and put it in orbit! 😉😉

​@@jim2lane Like the Michael from Footfall!

@@jim2lane The russians beat you to it :D

Space Cruiser Yamato 2.0?

This. When you must not fail you plan in so much safety margin and overengineering and redundancies that the whole performance and price tag suffers. Not to mention that you can’t plan for unknown unknowns.

I’m not sure how true this is, you can’t just hope that you’ll find all the failures in your testing. Just because it doesn’t fail in the early testing doesn’t mean that it isn’t a potential issue.

I have one -- the ship QC "grabbers". Elon: "The best part is no part."

People don't like to see their tax money blow up in flames. That's one advantage Elon has over NASA.

@@stclairjm Exactly. The Soviets were getting desperate and so had to launch and pray it worked. SpaceX its their own money, no outside pressure. So hey lets launch and enjoy the show.

SpaceX is doing this to flatter Musk's ego and nothing more. It's not a realistic business proposition it is a vanity project and doomed to failure because Musk is neither the engineer he thinks he is nor going to stay rich for too much longer. China will emasculate Tesla to steal its market share and twitter will continue to bleed money forever.

It blew up 😂

Where are the facts? His narrative is "I'm sure they'll figure it out. I'm sure re-building launch pad is not the problem. I'm sure Elon will never die. I'm sure Soviets would eventually figure that out. I'm sure SpaceX finances are safe and sound." Where you have those facts you speak of? The fact is that he is not even astronaut. The only thing he said is right is that he is a "fanboy". Also it vexes me how he glosses over ultimate problems the design of this program is facing only to dissmiss them with a silly chuckle. Is this scientific reasearch according to you? Where are those facts? I recommend you all taking a good look at Thunderf00t take on what this entire program is worth.

"All the facts" ... wow. Do you honestly think that? I agree that some of the videos Tim made about rocket engine history were informative and interesting, but only a fool can't see that Tim is very much a fanboy and PR channel for SpaceX and Elon. Tim avoids to criticize or even question simply because he would lose access and even his ticket to the moon. Better to shut up and throw Elon some softball questions and keep woooing and wowing at exploding rockets. If you really want to get the whole picture you have to actively seek sources that provide opposing arguments, but most people don't really seem to care. Making up your own mind is an exhausting business.

@@EnnoMaffen If you had been following Tim all these years, he is an everyday guy explaining rockets the best he can in terms us everyday people can understand. He is on the front lines jumping up and down at launches while we are at home jumping up and down cheering on launches with him. You just don't get it and is a bummer.

​@@EnnoMaffen I sort of agree with you here.

But tim is more than a PR channel for daddy elon. He actually is bringing space down for everyday people

Exactly.

I think that is insider info..

Exactly that why the n1 failed 4 times.

N1 indeed had issues there. Shutting down engines caused the '"waterhammer" effect and kerosene piepes were destroyed. I think SpaceX is aware of this.

That does not matter. The U.S. has lost the industrial base that allowed them to produce the F-1 engines of the Saturn V. so Space X is stuck with what they have. You do have plenty of socialist idiots chanting MIC is Evil wanting to eliminate what little you have.

This! Starship HLS really needs to come in the Syldavian red & white checkered livery.

Totally, agree! seeing what looked like a synchronized dance when the two rockets landed together was totally stunning to me and left me with the impression of having witnessed one of the greatest technical triumphs of human history. I certainly will never forget that moment as long as I live.

totally - i put that right up with landing on the moon. A breathtaking bit of history that will be known and rewatch for as long as humanity is still around

that is what got me interested in rockets for sure :)

He IS an excellent teacher.

Well, it's not like it's rocket science. Oh, wait.

@@iDuckman

He’s too good to be a teacher, I learn more from good RU-vidrs than what I learn in school.

Yes, back to his highly technical quality video's. It bums me out that this isn't the best way to make money on youtube, instead short clickbaity videos are money makers.

Sheesh, people don't even care. Barely anybody shows up to the launches anymore.

@@efone3553 I still bars. But I'm not a note person.

remember the Shuttle was a failure. It was meant to fly every few DAYS, but took MONTHS between launches. It was a technological marvel, but never lived up to its intended potential.

@@jwenting I believe with the shuttle the cadence originally was anticipated to be something like 50 flights a year. I think 1985 was the year with the most shuttle launches, which amounted to nine.

@@michaeldunne338 that's 1 flight a week, and I believe that was per shuttle, not for the entire fleet. So yes, they wanted the maintenance in between flights to be a few days, not months or years.

Might have some problems with the heat tiles but hopefully they figure it out

​​@@KristianBjotvet may not take as long as we think. I was watching a Scott Manley video the other day, where he talks about the tiles. In footage of the launch it appears that the tiles are handling launch and Max Q. They don't start falling off until around the time they begin loosing control. If I had to speculate, do to the rocket tumbling in the manor it did it probably began bending in a way it wouldn't encounter during normal flight. On launch day I think I recall someone mentioning the rocket no longer looked straight shortly before failure. While I know the tiles are not directly glued to the tank walls, imagine how you might remove one object glued to another. Pulling the object off all at once may be difficult or near impossible. But if you can bend and peal one of the objects away from the other a little at a time it gets easier. In this case I'm guessing the tank probably deformed enough to pull it away from the tile mount. As long as the tiles make it to orbit I'd imagine most of the tiles will survive re-entry. There you have the tiles being pressed towards the tank. Plus stainless handles re-entry heating better then something like aluminum. If I'm not mistaken a shuttle lost some tiles and survived because it happened to have a stainless plate where those tiles fell off. If this amount of tiles fell off somewhere else it would have burned through aluminum. Definitely fact check me on this one however. I remember someone talking about it on RU-vid. I'm not saying the first re-entry will be successful but I wouldn't be utterly surprised. Still will probably workout relatively quickly.

@@garreth629 It was space shuttle atlantis, it happend to have an antenna array mounting structure underneath that was steel that saved the flight. there was also damage to about 700 tiles they reported. Its to be noted that the heat the tiles faced on the shuttle was around 2300 F , and the melting point of stainless steel is 2500-2700 F, so its quite likely starship has a higher survival rate if it loses tiles.

agreed. These things take time, but step 1 is a functional rocket - reusability will come later, and only then can they really work on rapid reusability.

Time is on their side. They don’t need the Starship to be at multiple launches a day in the next year, they just need to be faster than the competitors. Even if Starship is only being reused at the rate of the falcon 9 they will be way cheaper than other rockets meaning they will not run out of money from contracts.

NK-33 be like ...

And 50 years later NASA would use them for a new SLS

me! i am so glad the ship did not have a cockpit with astronauts in it. that is truly a success

Actually, their computational ability was fairly limited - their best machines were copied IBM designs, and I don't think they even were taken from the System 360 Mainframe but rather a previous generation (perhaps as old as the *1401* series) and may have been TUBE based designs. More akin to what we designed the Titan II or AT BEST the Saturn I with (which design was FROZEN in the early 1960s).

It’s mindblowing how this guy built all of this over 60 years ago. Today with computers billions, even trillion times more powerful, it’s a challenging process. Even today, just a few nations domain, this technology.

From the way you worded that, it looks like you're saying the Russians DID have computers which could model that rocket, but from the "in fact no-one" I think you meant that they did not, which is more accurate for a time when computers were still being wire wrapped together out of TTL logic and bit slice chip sets, and the soviets were even behind on that, they never really kept up with Western computers, not that we had anything in the late 60s that could do it either.

@@tristan7216 Yeah, probably badly worded by me there. The problem with computers back then is that they simply did not work fast enough - insufficient computational speed to cope with the fluid dynamics. Also, I read somewhere that the Soviet Space program at the time of the N1 was still using RTL, not TTL.

@@rafaelcferraz 60 years ago, there were *2* nations even working on this level of rocket. Today, there are several - and some of them aren't all THAT big (cough North Korea, cough Iran)....

Hear hear!

They landing was something NASA did in the 70s. Also maybe look at the Artemis II project? Way more reasonable And just to be honest, I don't see them getting starship working anytime soon.

The SLS launch is far more impressive tbh. It actually orbited the moon and didn’t blow up in the atmosphere.

@@captainseyepatch3879 I highly doubt Starship will ever carry humans into space. No rescue system and a suicide burn to land on a planet; those are things that simply wont allow it to carry humans.

@@xXYannuschXx Yeah this is my problem with SpaceX' approach to progress at all costs. Like... it's okay to delay things if it keeps our human astronauts safer. I might not see humanity go into space, but that's better than seeing a rocket full of people explode, or hearing news of the first men of mars being condemned to die there.

@@captainseyepatch3879I fully agree. I’m putting my money with NASA. Elon Musk has a bad habit of taking short cuts in order to achieve goals faster. Artemis worked beautifully the very first time. It was practically flawless. You certainly can’t say that about Starship. I noticed right when it failed that the desired goal post for that mission changed from splashing down near Hawaii in the Pacific all the way back to just “CLEARING THE TOWER.” That’s a massive change in the goal posts location. And with that change, SpaceX called the launch a success. I call that BS. LETS BE REALISTIC. IT WAS A FAILURE OF EPIC PROPORTIONS. Furthermore, it lifted off the pad very slowly. That indicates that the spacecraft itself is far too heavy. It weighs MORE than the Oliver Hazard Perry class frigate I was stationed on in the Navy. And this craft had NO cargo or crew on board. I’m wondering if a fully loaded Starship will even lift itself up off the pad.

You aren't aware that SpaceX is rapidly burning through money and relies entirely on government subsidies and contracts to break even?

He did mention both.

He said that but nevertheless true

Not really. It's haemorrhaging tens of billions per year. The commercial side is a flop. The entire commercial industry is worth roughly a few billion per year split between 100 different companies. Starlink was meant to be their new plan for a source of revenue, but without Starship to launch them in bulk, the company is spiralling towards bankruptcy. Clearly starship isn't anywhere near the point where it's going to be able to deploy satellites yet. Unless they get a hold of some serious funding soon, the end is near.

worth emphasizing let's say.

Are u in love with him or you haven't heard about NASA? ....

Multiple perspectives of the same thing is necessary for understanding different voices resonate better with different people love thy neighbor

@@Matt02341 ur right. thx for reminding me

@@Toonhai LOL!...You nailed that one right on the head, buddy!...We've ALL heard about NASA! THAT's the problem, right there! I watched NASA kill three perfectly good Astronauts in 1967 by being double-stupid. Rest the souls of Grissom, Chaffee, and White. There's plenty sources of audio, and some video, from that day, give a listen. I heard that audio after the Congressional hearings on the whole affair. Grissom summed it well, "How are we supposed to go to the Moon, if we can't communicate between three buildings on the ground?". The fire started later...all kinds of already-flammable stuff in the capsule, add a pressurized raw oxygen atmosphere, one little spark...and the nail in the coffin...the hatch opened inward. The existing pressure held the door shut, the combustion pressure made sure those poor men ro...um...could not exit the spacecraft, even with the help available just outside the window. I've watched NASA piss away money as if those contracts are candy off a float at your homecoming parade. Apollo 13...square vs round CO2 scrubbers, a prime example of NASA's 'too many chefs in the kitchen' approach to building a rocket. They damned near killed "Tom Hanks and the boys" with that one! The Shuttle...Miracle that they only lost two of them and "only" 14 crew...rest their souls. SLS...Pffttt! HOW much MONEY did it cost to refurbish old shuttle engines, just to use them once and throw them away in the ocean? They could've rebuilt the tooling and made brand, spankin', new ones for less! Thats just one little part of the SLS-MESS Boeing Starliner capsule for NASA...THIRTEEN years development and, "There's too much wrong with it to let it fly again at this time."! Nice! Now, on the other hand, SpaceX developed the most reliable launch system known to humanity...going from idea to human rated in 9 years. Not all that recently, The Falcon 9 took the lead as the orbital rocket with most successful launches in human history. AND...the number of consecutive, "You'll never land that thing on its tail!", landings is fast approaching that previously held the record for most launches. Yeah, SpaceX has backed its rocket into the shed almost as many times...in a row...as the previous most reliable rocket managed to launch...throwing itself in the garbage bin as it went, BTW! That all said...though NASA suucks horribly at building rockets...there is a huge space for them...NASA has been doing amazing research since they were called NACA. They've helped civil aviation immensely! Heck, I've used NACA airfoils on my model planes a bunch of times over the decades! NASA is needed as our move outward, away from Earth really begins. A government agency is perfect for research and testing the nuts and bolts, as it were, of space travel, because not every big corporation is like SpaceX...willing to spend a LOT of money developing stuff. Most businesses are averse to huge initial outlays without a return in the next quarter. OR...SHOULD we let the competition just go? Those companies willing to risk busting a few rockets to develop better ones, get the rewards of truly winning?

I agree, they went from a stainless steel ship that they couldn't keep from blowing up to a stainless steel ship that does flips above mach 1 and they can't blow it up on command.

And Falcon Heavy seems to be doing just fine with 27 engines on launch.

Don't forget that past achievements are not a guarantee for future success, they can be an indication though. I do tend to agree with you.

@@dropshot1967 Right. Im not sure, but I heard that different people work on Starship and Falcon.

Not very objective. Tossing out strawmen left, right, and center to show how amazing SpaceX is.

​@@pmman4232I think he meant " at least these guys aren't carnival bakers, crazy about white... I mean space x...

Aged even better now! IFT-3 put the N-1 to shame lmao

We have full visibility to the past space programs and I expect we had that back in the 60's too to the Apollo development program. Successes and failures.

All the NASA vehicles were full thrust, full duration ground tested - including the Saturn V. The Russians didn’t have the facilities to test the N1 at full thrust - and neither did SpaceX. That is another similarity between SpaceX and the Russian failures.

@@Axel_Andersen I don’t think that ordinary folks in the 1960s had access to the Apollo test program status. It may have been available, but I don’t think it got news coverage, and the internet wasn’t even a gleam in DARPA’s eye, so unlike today, we only saw the finished product.

"We never saw the development process, the failures that led to the success. " objectively false

@@John_Freas NASA wasn't the military, you couldn't hide rocket launches/explosions from public awareness, as they can bee seen/felt for miles. Everyone was watching in those early days as it was a matter of national pride. Much of it was televised or reported on. The video footage has been public knowledge longer than I've been alive.

Corporate will does not ever overcome physical reality 😂😂 That’s what’s called delusional thinking

@@Astrogator1 Good thing that physical reality doesn't prevent spaceflight with reusable vehicles, then.

@@Cyberspine Truth. Dude actually came into the comments looking for a fight. I feel sorry for people like that

Sorry, but I have to disagree here. The Saturn 5 is one of the most badass rockets to ever fly and theSea Dragon would have been the most badass rocket of all time if they had actually built it. If you have never heard of it: it had one gigantic 15 meters or so diameter engine and would launch from a swimming position.

Nah, less but very big engines would be more badass :P

More pointy, more scary too!

I bet those Russians that laughed at Elon wanting to buy a rocket from them, wish they had sold him the missiles. Because that investment used to start SpaceX would have went to them. Instead it went to putting them out of the rocket business. I see no way Russia will be a major player in rocketry in 20yrs. Between the war, sanctions, thus the brain drain Russia is speeding down a dead end road. Honestly 20yrs is being generous

I respectfully disagree. The F-1 is one of the coolest rocket engines ever, and the Saturn V will never be dethroned as one of the greatest rockets of all time. Starship is cool because it is basically an N1, Saturn V and Space Shuttle mashed together with 50 years technological advancements. Can't wait to see people land on the Moon again!

We had a saying at the CMU robotics lab that the problem with simulations was that they were doomed to succeed. It looks like that's attributed to Rodney Brooks actually, a Stanford and MIT guy.

50 years of advancement in Russia is like 3 years of America 😂. There has been quite alot of bad happen to Russia since then 😂

SLS was second most awesome. Well Saturn 5 is within my lifetime too, coverage is much better now.

Looks like Starship will try to launch as early as this fall(SpaceX is saying as early as August, but I expect that to be pushed back)

I saw it too from S Padre... Amazing experience.

@@gingerman5123 I was hoping to watch it fly over Key West... unfortunately it did not get that far. Hopefully the next one will make it to orbit.

@@gingerman5123 Yeah there was no way I was missing that launch. The first one is always the best one, followed by the first successful launch, then after that all the milestone things happen beyond observable range.

Modern electronics and other technologies would help too! 🙂

Yeah, because Falcon heavy using 27 engines and its perfect record is sooo different from 30.

Till you meet the Mother Thing.

@@johngreen4610 From my elementary school library, I must've read that book and "Rocket Ship Galileo" a hundred times.