@MarcusHouse Any speculation as to the rings or ribs on the common dome "beehive" of 33? Stiffeners? Cooling fins? Allows flex like a huge bendy straw?
Top commentators like you should be able to discern between capable and configured. Starliner is capable of autonomous return its just not configured because they did not envision this contingency.
How can it possible that there are only 3-4 companies on earth capable of paying YT creators. I am glad they do, but their pockets must be deeper than the Mariana Trench
@@RandomPerson-V This comment is pinned. It is always at the top. Top comments are decided by whatever system drives this thread. They do seem to shuffle around a bit. They are not necessarily ordered by the replies or likes. I don't really understand how it is ordered.
Years and years of humans thinking all together. Figuring out problems after problems. Pushing all the limits. Blowing all sortsa stuff up.( like to see a video on all raptor design failures in slo mo with rock and roll music) But the size comparison is wonderful. Because if the original raptors all 33 of them fit at the current size,smaller mass means that they will be spaced further apart from one another and that space can be utilized for more raptors. More lifting capabilities.
@@jasonplant5432 Those bells are same size, I believe, so I think they will be 1 more that they can add if they can fit them closer than it already is.
It’s not simpler it’s just more refined. Musk stated to “fix” anything wrong with it would require them to actually cut into it…. Which makes me believe they’re moving to a “simply replace it rather than fix it approach”
What RichardPapp said. It only looks simpler because most of the plumbing that's bolted onto a Raptor 2 is built into the structure of a Raptor 3, like the gooseneck and rim jet plumbing in a toilet bowl. And, like a toilet bowl, the only way to get to that plumbing is to smash it.
Really seems like magic to see that picture of such a "simple" engine firing with more thrust than its two predecessors. Looks can be deceiving, it is really the most advanced aerospace technology to ever exist if you account for the years and years of experience, Raptor heritage, and cumulative capability SpaceX put into its development.
Canada is a real country! We have some cleaning to do is all. The US is the same. Unfortunately wokeness got a foot in the door and spread like a plague@@ryannunnink293
The Ice Sheen on the Test Firing Raptor 3.... My Gawd, that is astonishingly breathtakingly beautiful. Like watching the Turbos on an F1 race car incandescing as they scream up.
That's because it is. And for some reason I thought you were talking about Starship not Starliner so I was going to say "it's the stainless steel, very retro idea of the future" (I wanna say 80s sifi but I'm not great at dates)
That's because it IS antique tech. Have you seen at their cockpit? It is embarrassing! It's like a twenty year old 747 with row upon row of switches and dials.
"Antique" is a bit hyperbolic when referring to the capsule, but it definitely does seem that the mentality and design philosophy of Boeing has become antique and dated for 2024.
@@dirtypure2023 Boeing knows that more parts = more problems. But they are paid “cost plus”. Bean-counters rule. The more they make the more $ they make.
That monster crane is a piece of work!! So much of the equipment at Starbase is equally impressive as the spacecraft. Just look at the hauler that moves the ships around....it's amazing.
Those SPMTs are worthy of a whole video in themselves. You can link together any arbitrary number of them to move whatever the heck you want, the only limitation is if you want the platform to remain level you can't have more than 4' elevation difference between the roadway at one end of the assembled unit and the other. I figured out once that with a mere 420, 8 axle SPMTs you could move a Nimitz class aircraft carrier down the road.
I remember, when Starliner docked with crew, my only statement was that I wouldn't consider it a success until both Suni and Butch came back down. Boy did my fears come true...
I'm still amazed ( and disgusted ) by how Boeing has been telling everyone that'll listen that everything is fine and this is a success and Nasa is just silently nodding in the background and occaisionally going "Yep, total success, no problems here" as the bullshit keeps piling up. Any other company with a lemon like Starliner would have been shitcanned well before this manned flight/disaster yet Boeing is still gonna get a contract....totally insane
@@Dave_Kerman I had a really bad feeling about this mission from launch I've had a horrible feeling about Starliner since the 1st flight missed the ISS and Boeing wanted to say "close enough" and jump straight to manned flight.
LOL....That Starship is soooo TALL....I visited the Statue of Liberty several years ago and I thought that it was tall....This thing is taller than that by a lot!! OF course, that is both of starship and the first stage added together.
Given how cramped the ISS is and how long Starliner crews are likely to be spending in it, Boeing's interviews start with "do you have claustrophobia?".
The "Beehive" funnel arrangement may be to ensure that there is a smooth flow of propellant regardless of how the booster swings and changes attitude. A rapid change in cross section straight into the downcomer means that the flow has to rapidly accelerate at the start of the tube. This will allow for a more gradual change in velocity, keeping the pressure gradients much lower.
Re the "extensive" program of heat tile replacement--the month-long process for Ship 30, and the hopefully shorter one for ship 31: That is amazingly SHORT timeframe, in comparison to the nearly YEAR-long timeframe of completely changing a shuttle's heat tiles. Well done, SpaceX!
@@henrikmanitski1061 The Sovs aren't around now, and we're still going for Moon and Mars... Commercial interests is as good or even a better motivator than nationalism - after all, once the U.S. reached the Moon in 1969, the public, and thus, the U.S. gov't, quickly lost interest and everything petered out. And the Sovs were still going "strong" back then also.
Nah. I'm doubtful Boeing was great at one point weren't they? Coporatism will eventually make SpaceX become another Boeing eventually. It won't happen now, but it will. Musk can't live forever and once he's gone, SpaceX's chance of staying competent will be lessened, coporatism will eventually ruins everything, like a soul eating Entropy that it is.
@MarcusHouse just a gentle reminder at <a href="#" class="seekto" data-time="1238">20:38</a> that Cygnus is berthed not docked. Saying docking here might confuse less-expert viewers who just heard there are only two docking ports and both are occupied.
@@dirtypure2023 I will let Marcus do that in detail, but short version is that docking means the craft can attach under its own power and control; berthing requires the robot arm to grab the craft and move it into position. They also use different ports with radically different sizes and latching mechanisms. It’s very relevant because of the Starliner problem.
They need the little thrusters, that don't work, to keep the Starliner from hitting the space station when they let it go and try to get it away from the space station.
I love that you didn't fall into the Bruno v Shotwell X pissing contest over Raptor 3. You, like me, are a SpaceX fan. But steering clear of all that nonsense is a breath of fresh air. Keep it up mate, love your saturday videos :)
If that was a pissing contest, neither of them of them even pulled their pants down. Bruno made an uninformed tweet and Shotwell replied with a picture and a playful jab. In the small world of space flight news it wasn't even drama, just a humorous anecdote.
@platniumdr oh yeah definitely, it did, however, get seized upon by other social media personalities and RU-vidrs as a kinda "gotcha" moment and blown out of proportion. Glad Marcus didn't even mention it :)
@@UnclePie- That's true. After I made that comment RU-vid presented me a few videos about it. It's amazing some people can take a couple tweets and make a 10 minute video lol.
Thanks for the great videos as always. One note at <a href="#" class="seekto" data-time="742">12:22</a> - the flight software (FSW) on Starliner does not need to be reinstalled. Configuration files need to be reloaded. These configuration files contain runtime parameters to configure the software for completely autonomous operations. FSW does not need to be recompiled nor reinstalled. It's like changing a parameter in an ".INI" file on some operating systems or a ".conf" file on others. While the changes are simple, verifying and validating that those changes work as intended require many hardware/software integration tests with real hardware. These tests can take a few days to weeks to get vetted, approved, tested, and all the paperwork in place to upload and deploy the configuration. Not saying that's an efficient process , just explaining why it may take weeks. Better to be safe than fast in human spaceflight. Thanks again 🚀😊
Ah. However, in this instance, Boeing is neither safe OR fast! This clearly flawed mission should NEVER have launched. Once this travesty is back on terra firma, heads should be rolling.
@@andyrechenberg How will they run soft/hardware interface testing without actually firing thrusters? Has the software ever been tested for successful undocking using known faulty thrusters? How do you fire those thrusters without undocking at all? Isn't that itself an unacceptable risk?
@@bobbarclay316 there aren't real thrusters in the labs. The propulsion controllers, and the flight computers are hardware that is identical to flight hardware without the rigorous testing needed to flight-rate the hardware. The tests involve ensuring that the computer and propulsion controllers send the correct commands at the proper time. Yes. Many simulations have been run with simulated under-performing or "off" thrusters. There have been 2 "docked hot fires" of the SM thrusters while connected to ISS. These are short pulses to get data on thruster performance and imparted accelerations.
Definitely politics and money are a major part of this. If NASA approves crewed starliner return, and something goes wrong, congress will demand resignations. If NASA rejects crewed return, then Boeing is going to see massive drop in stock price.
Was a bit of entertainment to see Tory Bruno call out Raptor 3 reveal as partially assembled and then Gwynne replying with the engine firing in the same configuration :)
I now know why people use ad blockers. close to 12 ads shown in this and every time, it's clears the video cache so have to wait for the video to catch-up, really annoying. Get your act together GOOGLE!!!
They won't. They would rather you pay a subscription to get rid of ads. Since I listen to music, it's worth it for me to pay to get rid of ads and listen to music.
When the ads appeared only at the beginning only they weren't so bad but now they appear every few minutes and are totally annoying. If YT offered an ad free $5/month service I would jump on it in a heartbeat. Instead they only offer the $14/month Premium service which includes things I don't want.
been watching since day 1. havent missed an espisode in all of these years. also buy from your vendors to support the show. make sure to pass on a virtual cheers (with some good craft beer of course) to all of the crew. cheers, mate
jesus boeing. i bet musk was like, "oh we can just send up a dragon to go get them" and nasa was like, "hold on a second, we need to run the numbers, check the levels and potential procrastination time with team of engineers then print out and fax the entire result documentation to the room next door for a 2 month study that includes field mice and protractors, could cost millions." and boeing is like, "we thought we wouldn't need the software anymore so we removed it for safety reasons.".
@@peterkemp4235 It would be a complete waste of time. There is nothing to learn form a project like Starliner other than don't use very outdated technology and that hubris is not a substitute for talent and experience. I work as a software developer and have seen projects like this. You'll have to try your best and fail, THEN there is something to learn. Maybe the individual engineers working at the project are good (and frustrated), but Boeing as a whole is just trash these days. (Edit: maybe I misread your comment. If you meant to learn who is to blame for pushing the project over its limits, then that would be interesting.)
They (NASA) actually just gave them a ~260k grant to evaluate just that idea 😀. 6 seats “just in case” they need to bring those Boeing astronauts back…
More important is their suits. The Boeing suit interfaces are incompatible with SpaceX's. For all NASA's talk about 2 vendor redundancy, the suit incompatibility just invalidated the entire concept.
Dragon was also planned for landing at the launch site, but NASA wanted it to drop into the ocean. Why do they allow Starliner to land on solid ground? There must be a lot broken with NASAs standards.
@GntlTch Definitely does not "invalidate the entire process." Just the ability to switch up who rides in what immediately. It requires some planning now, but the MAIN advantage of having redundancy is still present.
Here before 30min? Epic! I can't wait to see the booster catch attempt and the second pad. It makes me wonder if they'll take out the bidet at pad 1 and replace it with a trench once tower 2 is ready for launch
I gues it was Raptor, reducing its weight by half and increase thrust by nearly half. At least everyone else would call this "mind boggling". BO engine look like scrap against this.
Marcus, the clarity of your videos - few compression artifacts, contrast, color grading; everything de-jittered - it’s excellent! A joy to watch in 4k. I dare say, one of the best video deliveries on the web. *chefs kiss*
When starliner launched, I thought about being an astronaut aboard and how disappointed I would have been that I was chosen for starliner and not crew dragon
A redundant comment from me here: Top talent at Boeing aerospace divisions are most likely going to migrate elsewhere. It could result in a significant talent vacuum requiring them to pay significantly higher wages to stay viable. This could be a death spiral for the company. Even their friends in high government places won't be able to help. They're under a microscope now.
Couldn't happen to a more deserving company. Unfortunately disasters like that take a lot of good workers with them before the ones responsible take any consequences at all.
@@hankkingsley9183 Hopefully, putting them on life support will involve draconian efforts to reform Boeing. Heads must roll. Engineers need empowerment. Quality must reign. Boeing should be privately, not publicly owned.
It was the new managers brought in from Northrup - disasterous merger - new managers had the "us vs. them" approach - management vs. employees- lost a beautifully constructed team of engineering talent, just to save a bit for management's pensions - really criminal.
Boeing can't compete today. Starliner can't compete today. No matter what they do, unless they try to stand on their own two feet and then try to compete as a company on real merits, then they have no future.
That savings will be taken by the Cabins, and Inner structure for human capable equipment, and cargo, so it will even out. They will also stretch out the Starship by over 10 meters which will add more weight to the total weight.
I wonder if the astronauts currently on the ISS can somehow force NASA's hands like how the Hermes crew did in The Martian... like "Houston, be advised that we are going to deliberately detach the Starliner with a spanner and cast it adrift in space" or something like that.
That would only set it on an orbit that would be highly likely to cross paths with the station, an unknown number of orbits in the future. If you want to set it adrift then you have to use the capsule's thrust capability to move it a safe distance away from the ISS.
It's unnecessary - if the crew feel that strongly about it, they simply need to tell NASA that they're not willing to return in the Starliner, and NASA will have no option but to accommodate their demands. Because NASA has no power to force them to do anything, and NASA *really* doesn't want to deal with the media fallout from trying to overrule the astronauts on matters of safety.
Raptor3 is so mindbogglingly good that even oldspace oldtimer CEO's can't believe it's possible to be real, and call Spacex liars and accuse them of showing “partially assembled” engines as complete. Of-course that same guy says that their superduper high energy rocket first stages go to orbit so could be lying again.
Raptor 3 is crazy if they aren't massaging any numbers.. you would already look at raptor 2 and think it had great specs but turns out it was just an interim prototype for them... damn starliner needs 4 weeks to install software, you can't make this sht up, your cost plus contract dollars at work dear US citizens
To be fair, Starliner needs 4 weeks to *test* (and fix) software, not to install it. And really, given their recent history, I don't think that's something we want them to cut corners on...
@@bryanillenberg Oh, absolutely... it's absurd that they've made a change like that on a certification flight, even if the functionality wasn't strictly required by the contract. The SpaceX approach is much more sensible in this respect - the capsule flies itself by default, so it works the same whether it's flying crew or cargo. Humans, if present, have the ability to override the computer in an emergency, but they're not a required part of the control loop.
Why is "regulatory approval" not just a rubber stamp at this point? SpaceX has more then proven their skill and concern for safety by now. (More than Bowing or anyone who approved starliner, that's for sure) to me it feels like the US government is intentionally slowing SpaceX down, i assume because of how embarrassing the Boeing bet the government made has been, didn't crew dragon development start after "starliner"? (Don't remember off the top of my head amd don't care enough to check, starliner would have been an acceptable platform (assuming it ever works) before the space shuttle but is just out dated junk now)
ThankU Marcus. Your work on your show is much appreciated by all who sign in to watch it. We certainly enjoy all your efforts. You create a great show.
NASA just need a few Dragon capsules for astronauts flights and resupply missions. They need to stick with a product that works and is reliable and cost effective.
These timelapses with ships moving around look so goofy. But can we please appreciate the guy with the probably coolest job on this planet, driving around Raptor engines on a gigantic RC Car?
@<a href="#" class="seekto" data-time="223">3:43</a> I've been watching the progress on the site since the beginning and it's crazy how it's gone from a single concrete pad to a sprawling industrial compound!
@@jamest5149 Yeah totally bro it's not like he's invested hundreds of billions of dollars into the noblest of goals for humanity in order to set us all on a path for an amazing future, such a terrible person 🙄 You need to find a more productive use of your time than worrying about his political opinions. His actions speak louder than his words so you have my permission to get over it.
He sure is an awful person allowing people to have free speech and he has opinions that might be different than mine so that automatically makes him an evil person something something. You should take a step back and think about the possibility that you are the problem and not him.
Marcus, the falcon booster takes about 15 seconds going down from 4 km of altitude to touch ground (from 1200 km/h to zero). That is pretty brutal. What would be like the "times" for the super heavy booster, to be successfully caught up by mechazilla? My guess is that it may require more time than the falcon booster, even to hoover if necessary, to adjust both its trajectory and attitude, with respect to the tower and the arms.
I am sure they know what they are doing....They are an expert at landings. They just need to adjust for the weight and the thrust capability of the Starships.
Long term at least, I'd expect SuperHeavy to be much the same as Falcon 9 - because while they *can* hover it, every second the engines are running is burning more fuel. So as they build experience in catching the boosters, I'd expect it to end up looking much like the F9 suicide burn...
I think the beehive has to do with mitigating stresses from gravity and acceleration as the vehicle changes orientation, and from sloshing fuel. The sideways forces could be considerable and even a small fracture problematic.
<a href="#" class="seekto" data-time="250">4:10</a> My guess is that's more about capturing the last bit of fuel so vapor doesn't enter the pipe while it's sloshing around on the shallower angle tank bottom. Basically as it sloshes around it falls in and becomes trapped due to the steep sides and can't easily slosh out again.
Marcus, i am a space nut and i would like to thank you for the quality and depth of your space coverage, you are my primary source of space news, so thank you for a great job.
Thanks for the new video! I know it's a lot more complicated and expensive to bring Williams and Willmore back on a Falcon 9, but that's probably the best option. If I was one of them I'd prefer staying up there longer to rolling the dice on Starliner. That vehicle needs a lot more testing.
Raptor 3's complexity reduction is mind blowing. All that removed plumbing. The extra thrust is nice but doesn't gobsmack me nearly as much as how much MASS was reduced.
I probably could have used some background/recap on Starliners issue because I haven't been keeping up. Though I've googled it now. It's something to consider in future as I'm sure im not the only poor soul out of the loop!
I think planning on having Starship retrieve the Starliner should be begun right away. Work out the dynamics of balance points for reentry, internal sling and tie down system, build it into Starship 6. If Starship 5 catch is successful, send up #6. Need some robotic positioning and maneuvering to make sure Starliner stays under control while disconnecting from ISS and inserting into Starship if Canada Arm seems insufficient to maintain control. We don't know how much thrust or the direction vectors that are being generated by the leaks. Gettig Starliner to the ground in relatively good shape should be a tremendous help in determining the failures and what can be done about them. Lets let innovation lead us forward!
<a href="#" class="seekto" data-time="330">05:30</a> Who else thinks raptor vacuum engines look like they have cylons sitting on guard on the top of them
What is the deceleration of the Falcon 9 once the engines reignite? At what altitude does its velocity become subsonic? I suspect the answers to those questions are mindboggling.
"How much complexity has been removed" - VISIBLE complexity - it's all been merged into the structure, it's still as complicated as it ever was and is probably more so now, you just can't SEE it. They are basically 3D printing the engine.
Except if you look at the engine above the bell it didn't increase in total volume anything like the space used by raptors 1 and 2. Just look at the right side of Raptor 3 I compared to Raptor 2. It has that same device with the tubing running down toward the bell. But all the other stuff around the top of the engine, wiring, small tubing etc is gone. SIM-PLI-FIED!!
