Almost everyone says, "Elon is the greatest, Elon does this, Elon does that,..." but think of all those SpaceX people that pulled lots of all-nighters to make it all happen.
AGREED! Some of my best friends work at SpaceX, I'm aware of how insanely hard they and their coworkers work. It's a life commitment, not just a job for them. It's quite admirable.
EmperorJuliusCaesar Elon is the vital visionary and leader who took all the risks and is making things actually happen. You are so obviously wrong, you’re just repeating pinko talking points.
Dougieroar i suppose you’ll say Napoleon wasn’t really a good leader because he had good soldiers... or Steve Jobs wasn’t anything special either huh? Idiot Edit: sorry insults aren’t necessary
Were you perplexed at all the people calling yesterday's Iridium 4 launch as a UFO? :-) (I know; we're space geeks and not everyone follows this stuff, but still...)
@@AlchemiconSilver the soyuz uses 5 engines, each engine has 4 *thrust chambers* which is only one part of a rocket engine. Albeit the most visible part to most observers , a thrust chamber does not an engine make.
Great video. Though it is a bit misleading to say that it's going to Mars. It's going to orbit the sun in an elliptical orbit, and its apoapsis will be close to where Mars orbits the sun. It will never actually get to Mars, it'll just get close during its orbit.
Maybe they'll try ballistic capture technique to enter Mars orbit. It doesn't need delta-v to enter orbit: www.scientificamerican.com/article/a-new-way-to-reach-mars-safely-anytime-and-on-the-cheap/
I was wondering about that, obviously no soft lander and crashing the Telsa into the Mars soil is tacky. What if a billion$ were squandered to soft land it on the surface, equip it so it can drive away from the lander and park nearby. Imagine such a photo!
Regardless of the results, the Falcon Heavy launch will be awesome. I hope it is a total success but I agree that as long as it gets far enough to not damage the pad then it will be successful to at least some degree.
Yea, the team that rebuilt 40 said they could possibly do something that quick in only a few months next time with their better knowledge of the situation, so maybe even a pad failure wouldn't be too awful since I doubt they'll have time to build another Falcon Heavy for at least a couple months.
Will you make a video talking about how SpaceX reengineers a Falcon 9 into a Falcon Heavy middle and side booster? You made it seem like a lot of work has to be done so I was wondering if you would make a video about this.
Just a small correction to your reference to Soyuz having 20 engines. Soyuz has 5 engines - 4 RD-107 and one RD-108 - each with 4 combustion chambers driven by a single turbo-pump. RD-107 has 2 verniers while RD-108 has 4 verniers for attitude authority.
Denny Putra why would you assume he didn't know that but just forgot? I did the exact same thing until I read this comment. I've watched many videos and read many articles talking about it being a single engine with four chambers, but it completely slipped my mind when he mentioned 20 engines...
@@EverydayAstronaut Your statement was essentially accurate, though, since the point you were making was about multiple simultaneous ignitions, and each of the 20 combustion chambers is a separate ignition, right?
Vinícius Oliveira because its a small growing channel at the moment. But with more subs and more people who watch the videos the channel wil be recommended more
Being quite interested in the subject of aerodynamic analysis of lattice grid fins in transonic flow I can totally recommend the book "Aerodynamic Analysis of Lattice Grid Fins in Transonic Flow". Anyone with a remote or deeper interest in this interesting subjects should read it. Definitely one of the better works out there on the subject of aerodynamic analysis of lattice grid fins in transonic flow.
Maybe they'll try ballistic capture technique to enter Mars orbit. It doesn't need delta-v to enter orbit: www.scientificamerican.com/article/a-new-way-to-reach-mars-safely-anytime-and-on-the-cheap/
That'd be cool, but they'd want to wait until April for that (more delta-v can get you there outside the launch window, but with extra arrival speed which you don't want for aerocapture), and build a vehicle that's capable of it. Also, Musk confirmed the heliocentric orbit to Phil Plait shortly after the initial announcement www.syfy.com/syfywire/elon-musk-on-the-roadster-to-mars
Everyday Astronaut No problem man, I love your videos. I have an interesting question if you have time, with space x making the most noise currently in the space industry. What future technology’s do you think would or could disrupt the space industry. (Besides a warp drive, lol) possibly a VTOL SSTO? With Non propellant propulsion in vacuum/EM drive. Although not some boring plane/jet shape, spaceships are supposed to be badass. With Space X wanting to make life multi-planetary, and reusing rockets. Tesla with renewable energy and electric cars. I guess the best way to beat your competitors is by doing everything/first so no one else can. 😂Thanks for reading. Oh wait! Asteroid mining, Hover-Boards, and Jetpacks. Bingo
lol. here, writing to you from the future - falcon heavy was a great success. but now elon and team are working on something completely insane - starship
I think everything will be successful except the landing of the center core on the drone ship (if they attempt it at all). It will be further down range than ever before, going faster, and have totally different body dynamics with all the new structure. They will probably need to tune that landing over a few attempts.
SOYUZ has technically 5 booster stage ENGINES (RD-108 main engine and one RD-107 per each of the 4 strap-on liquid fuel boosters, all LOX/Kerosene), but each engine uses 4 combustion CHAMBERS. The RD-107 has an additional two vernier combustion chambers that can thrust vector in a single plane to supply attitude control. The RD-108 has four of such vernier combustion chambers to supply full vector control to the Blok-A stage.
Yes. He made a mistake. Twenty seven people have mentioned that already. :) The real question is -- does the number of groups into which the combustion chambers are ganged matter too much, or is it the number of combustion chambers themselves which determines the number of most likely points of failure? If a single combustion chamber fails, it is going to be disastrous for Soyuz. It may or may not be for Falcon, depending on how much collateral damage it causes. If the engine only destroys itself, Falcon-9 can fly with two engines out.
How Does it Really Work You do know that Soyuz rocket is most reliable rocket in use today, on other hand Falcon 9 is most unreliable rocket in use today. Only rockets named Soyuz (not counting Vostok, Molnia, Voskhod, Sputnik which also belong to R-7 family) had 967 successful launches and 24 failed (and including all R-7 family number of launches is over 1300). On other hand in total of 47 launches Falcon 9 had already one engine failure (and 2 other failures or maybe 3 when we know who fault is for Zuma).
I love Soyuz. It is a great rocket! It has become so reliable, because it was launched *every week* in some years -- all the bugs were fixed and people became very proficient working with it. But it took time before it became perfected -- in the first three years there had been 15 failed launches out of 37 total launches! *But that is not the point I was discussing.* Even Russian rocket designers argued, and did not know for sure what was better -- to have four chambers in one engine or four complete engines instead. Unless you make it both ways, perfect them, and use them for a length of time it is very difficult to judge, how all the small details would affect the overall result.
How Does it Really Work Where you found data that Soyuz rocket had 15 failed launches out of 37 total launches? Soyuz had 2 failed launches out of over 50 first launches. Your data look more like for R-7 ICBM which is same rocket family but not same rocket (different engine versions ...) and it was designed as ICBM not as space rocket (same as Atlas and Titan rockets). Russians always opted for one engine soultion but with multiple chambers, and there is reason why they (Valentin Glushko) used multiple chambers, for one big single combustion chamber it is hard to get it work correct (big combustion chambers suffer from combustion instability, which is problem hard to solve, for example F-1 engine had grat problems with comustion instability and it was at end "solved" by try end error method). They try solution with lot of small engines (N1 rocket) and they discovered it is hard to control them and it never had success so at end they go back to one big engine with multiple chambers which ended in production of RD-170 engine, which with it derivatives is most widely used rocket engine in world by most number of nations and on greatest number of different rockets (dual-chamber derivative RD-180 is most reliable and efficient LOX/RP-1 engine USA use today)
Yes, you are absolutely right -- I was talking about R-7 because that was the beginning of the continuous line of development of this family of rockets. Today's Falcon 9 and its engine is also very different from the first hardware they used -- so in both cases there has been significant development. The discussion about separate engines vs engines with multiple chambers, took place during development of the engines for the "Energia" rocket. (the text is in Russian) www . buran . ru / htm / 07-3 . htm It says that initially engine designers could not make the turbopump for RD-170 to work reliably, and considered an alternative of splitting the engine, such that every chamber would have its own turbopump. (The same document says that by this time the engines NK-33 from the moon rocket were perfected to the point that they worked reliably with durability sufficient for 10 flights. So there was nothing fundamentally wrong with them -- except the original moon project was not given sufficient time.)
Hey man, this is an incredible channel!! You've earned a new subscriber! Your interest and enthusiasm towards this topic shows in the quality of your videos, I hope you get more and more success as SpaceX and space travel evolves!
LOVED your shopping channel snippet! So funny!! My kids are almost as excited as I am to watch your new videos and launch streams. Keep up the great work!
Thanks @everyday Astronaut Good vid. I agree with you that the launch will probably go off as planned, but I'm bugged that folks keep saying this Tesla is going to Mars.. It isn't. It is going to a heliocentric orbit that has its aphelion about the same area as mars. Mars will not be there when the Tesla arrives, at least as I understand it (if you know otherwise, please smarten me up).
Your channel has gone so big! When I first visited, we were still at 11,000 subscribers, and here you got 57,000, nearly 60,000 subscribers! At this rate you'll be at 100,000 subscribers by the third Falcon Heavy mission!
Falcon Heavy will launch in 2020 likely 1 to 3 months after today's (Wed., Dec 4) Falcon 9 launch to resupply the ISS. And yes, it'll be a staggering, near-flawless success.
I had faith in the summer 2017 launch, i had faith in the November 2017 launch, then faith in the December 2017 launch. I've lost faith now. I've learned you gotta take everything elon musk says with a grain of salt... actually more like a spoon full of salt
I personally think the Falcon Heavy test flight will take place in 2018, -3 years from now, and that the two side boosters will successfully land at Cape Canaveral. That's just a hunch though.
If we are going to insist on getting everything just right, the fuel is not going into "nozzles", but into combustion chambers, and not into just into the main 4. The point remains, that it is a lot of potential failure points!- It is not at all obvious if feeding multiple combustion chambers from the same pump makes the system less or more reliable, comparing to the same number of entirely self-contained engines.
How Does it Really Work You're probably right, I guess us space enthusiasts don't know everything about rockets, but I just felt this video made an error by saying the Soyuz has 20 engines. Hope Falcon Heavy gets to breathe the fresh vacuum of space when launched.
Your videos continue to get better and better! Keep up the excellent work, Tim! Also, where did you get that awesome Saturn V tie? That thing is choice.
TVC hahah dude been binging your channel for the last 12 hours and have developed a serious interest in space exploration. Thanks for all you do man you have a gift
Take one of those long football game horns to the next launch and let it rip as the Falcon 9 or Heavy is unleashed in a roar of Thor-worthy megalift up into the great dark. Yippee-kihay, everybooodyyyy.
It's nice to see some excitement again about going into space. I'm old enough to have watched the space program since the beginning and SpaceX has brought back some of that excitement of the early days.
Yeah, I've been waiting since Oct 4th, 1957, when Sputnik went up and shocked the world. When I think back to what people were predicting what would happen in the next SIXTY years, we should have already have been mining the asteroids for 20 years by now, and there should be resorts on the moon and a city in earth orbit. I have very little confidence that large numbers of people will find a reason to go live (and probably die) on Mars. Just scientists and explorers.
Unfortunately politics has always played a significant role in the funding and purpose of the space program. After landing on the moon both funding and purpose were lost to a significant degree.
SkipJack That'd be fun, but the radiation from the van Allen belts and cosmic rays and solar wind is going to fry every processor on that thing something fierce, it'll never run again :(
It can't orbit Mars, because they aren't going to launch a live payload. The Falcon can only hold it's propellant for a few hours at best. There won't be any way to orbit Mars, it's just a "dummy" payload. If I did my math correctly, it could do a flyby of Mars, but it would stay in solar orbit, it can't do anything more. It might also just be in a solar orbit, reaching out to the orbit of Mars.
Because while some of his ideas may be a bit out there, a great many others have radically altered a number of industries. His companies have repeatedly made the impossible possible, and beyond that they've made it look easy. A couple of years ago nobody had ever landed an orbital booster - it was thought to be impractical or even impossible. Today they do it on a regular basis, all for a fraction of the cost other companies charge for traditional launches.
Wow! You are the first American I have not wanted to smash in the face for the last 20 years. Lol. Brilliant entertaining and educational video. Many thanks.
Ali Kouhzadi I think most people on the internet are random nobodies unless famous or in a social group? The only person my comment or humour was for was the video creator and he took my humour in the manner meant and my thanks for his brilliant production in the manner meant. Now please be quiet, I am in church celebrating the birth of our saviour. Sshhhhush! Thank you.
It's insanely hard, if not impossible to model the interactions of the shock waves in between the 3 cores and how they affect the structure, and each other. It mostly depends on how robust the ignition is for each engine, if they can all light off as they should, and depends on the structures of the first stages, whether they can withstand the loads. I'm sure that SpaceX has done their best to model all of it, and have probably over built the attaching structures in hopes that it will hold together long enough to get good data on shock waves, and aerodynamic load interactions. Even if it blows up soon after liftoff, it will be valuable to get the data, and I doubt they will blow up more than a couple of them in the DEV process. I'm sure they have it wired to the hilt with telemetry, and sensors, to maximize data collection for this flight. Will be exciting to see the launch, no matter what. I'm also suspicious that it will be successful, as they have had lots of time to try to get the modeling right, and they can over-build it, to try and get the data for the first flight, then start shaving off mass in successive flights. Wishing for the best for the maiden!
