วีดีโอ

gosh my bad, the drawbacks of using AI voice... thanks for your feedback!

@ it’s all good! We still watched the entire video! 👊🏼

I missed the gigabyte thing :)) , but the content is serious. Thanks for your feedback!

They rely heavily on the private sector and fixed-price contracts. Their budget isn’t as abundant as it used to be, and their approach has become outdated

@@Q88M Yeps. Its sad. Something you once looked up to is a fraud/ con. Elon is the next wave on innovation. Dreamweaver would have been better off independent but I understand being on a budget that's why they weren't able to continue their dream to create it in the first place. Just hate the fact NASA is going to take their "dream" from them and claim it as their own. Love your channel. Thanks for all you post. I really appreciate it.

Dream Chaser is the legacy of the Space Shuttle. It'll only fly a few missions to the ISS, but it’s set to have many more flights to private space stations. Well, let’s wait and see.

These numbers are for the dreamchaser and 4 g vs 4 gigabytes for the Dragon capsule - maybe that's an effect of artificial voices being used for commentary purposes ... 🤓 ... well, at least the receivers seem to be of human kind

I missed the gigabyte thing :))), thanks for your feedback. AI voice, you know, gotta make adjustments for the next time.

No. It is vaporware.

Agreed. This is real lazy. I’m off to see Tim at everyday astronaut

I can't invest in a human narrator just yet, but I hope you enjoy the information I bring

They use this technique, but since it's used inside the factory, it's hard to get any footage of it

Blue Origin is very slow, but they’re trying to take shortcuts. At least it’s a kind of effort, just a bit too late. Rocket development takes years, decades, and I think Jeff Bezos doesn't have enough time to create a launch system that can compete with Starship

New Glen is almost a complete product with everything at about 90% completion. Starship at its current rate of progression even with a lot of luck will not be ready until 2026 for a full cargo payload. Let alone special variations, like the lunar lander, the mars lander, a heavy cargo version and a tanker version. Don't get me wrong I want Starships succeed but they have been extremely wrong about almost all of their deadlines and they still have many significant engineering hurdles with just their engines.

@RighteousInquisition Are you on drugs ? Starship? 🤣🤣 What about Falcon , Falcon heavy, Starlink , humans in space , sending people and cargo to ISS , those things are up and running , it's like catching the bus and everyone wants to get in it and send their stuff in to space . You got nothing , BO got nothing ....

@@carlosoliveira7727 Falcon heavy would be more comparable just barely. Falcon 9 however is a medium sized rocket and does not fit in the class of New Glenn or Starship. Since we're comparing large class rockets New Glenn is almost complete, while in terms of what needs to be accomplished Starship has only just begun.

@RighteousInquisition Starship just begun ? With that phrase you left me speechless , they literaly started a new era is space exploration with what they achieved so far ( sixties and spaceshutlle level ) , no one did something comparable , you have a very strange view of what's really happening in front of your eyes , i understand that for their competitors some things are hard to acept and " swallow " but for regular space lovers it's a great time to be alive . My friend let's be realistic , a lot of things are happening in Spacex world , in BO world nothing really happens ...

Exactly, they’ve set incredibly high goals. They even say they want to land on a moving barge, definitely not an easy feat

They have also produced reliable rocket engines like BE-4 that is now being purchased by four other companies.

The Space Shuttle is a glorious symbol of old space, but also an economic disaster. It’s the result of optimizing the wrong things. I agree that NASA saved SpaceX at a few points in the past, but now SpaceX operates on private funding. As for NASA’s successful firsts and SpaceX’s failures, I’ve even read a study by a researcher comparing their different approaches and which one proved more effective. But yes, the lessons from the Space Shuttle are invaluable, and its symbolic significance can’t be changed.

@ SpaceX charges NASA more per seat to the ISS than Russia did, even when russia was bilking us. Both Shotwell and Musk have stated that a key goal for profitability will be being able to turn around a Falcon 9 in 24 hours. After years of trying, the fastest they have turned around a falcon 9 booster is 24 days. Just a few days under the fastest turnaround for a space shuttle. Thus far, SpaceX has not really demonstrated significant cost savings, and being a private company they refuse to disclose their balance sheets. Their rockets are not notably more reliable than those from other launch vendors. SpaceX has spent 3 billion dollars on starship and has YET to achieve their FIRST contractual milestone. Musk’s idea for a launch mount was fundamentally flawed and rather than immediately ‘iterate’ a new design that incorporated 60 years of launch pad design experience, they wasted 4 years and a billion dollars trying to massage Musk’s ego by slapping bandaids on a bad design. Fanboys wax enthusiastic, because hey, who DOESN’T like to see rockets blow up? And they dump all over NASA and Other space contractors, But THEIR designs, albeit late, work correctly the first time without having to be redesigned every time. And at present SpaceX is as late with starship as Artemis was, except, Artemis WORKED and they Didn’t have to build and blow up 20 of them to do it. Musk is Not a genius. His promises of delivery are infamous for never being fullfulled and he always delivers late, less than promised, and at much higher costs. Internal Pepsi documents have shown their Tesla semis, fully loaded, only have a range to 100 miles and have running costs several times higher than diesel trucks that have ranges of 400 miles and up. His real talents are self promotion, stock manipulation, and repeated, utter failure to do his due diligence. He made an offer for twitter without understanding he could be held to it. He failed to discover what the regulations regarding building a launch site in a protected wetland would be, and then repeatedly failed to file the paperwork and do the mitigation required to get FAA clearances. ( and got his fanboys to blame it on the government, rather than his inability to focus and follow thru ) He has managed to convince legions of fanboys that Failure is Success. Its double think right out of Orwell. As far as I can tell, Musk is like that Theranos woman, except she only stole investor money, while Musk focuses primarily on government contracts and subsidies. I am willing to bet that SpaceX will NEVER land a man-rated starship on the moon, Whereas Artemis COULD haul a LEM sized lander out to the moon TODAY.

SpaceX charges NASA more per seat to the ISS than Russia did’ - I need your numbers. If I’m not mistaken, Russia charged NASA about $90 million per seat, while SpaceX charges around $60 million. This might go up slightly for future flights. And I'm sure if Russia had a monopoly on getting people to the ISS, the price wouldn’t stop at $90 million. Reusability is what brings in the money for SpaceX. The launch cost for a Falcon 9 is estimated at $20 million, but they sell a launch for $60-65 million. No one knows exactly how much they profit, but without profits, they couldn’t keep up with the Starlink program. SpaceX doesn’t mind blowing things up because it’s their way of learning. Want to know the engine’s limits? Blow one up. What they need is data, not a perfect first try. Otherwise, why would they put loads of sensors on all their rocket hardware? Starship learns from the best and builds on those foundations. why make something entirely new when there are so many lessons from the past? The Space Shuttle was iconic, but it was retired for a reason. SpaceX is investing in something that can carry hundreds of tons from Earth to other parts of the solar system, not something with the Shuttle’s capabilities.

@ Russia USED to charge 44 million per seat. Before, y’know, Ukraine was invaded, sanctions imposed, and SpaceX started to develop the Crew Dragon. They raised it to 88 million, while they could. Spacex Promised much lower cost because of reusable boosters. But like every Musk promise on pricing, that went out the window. As it turned out they could NOT land their capsule propulsively, making recovery way more expensive, They canNOT turn a booster around in 24 hours, they have not even managed 24 days. Today, SpaceX charges 77 million per seat. Like the 40K cybertruck. The always 1 year away Full Self Driving. The roadster they took in 60 million in cash for, 7 years ago, and still have yet to do any work on, and which will NOT feature the range nor speed musk promised at his pitch. Don’t get me wrong. I am pleased we spent billions in taxpayer money to develop our own LEO launch capability. Which we only lost because politician shut down shuttle without having planned a replacement. I am not so happy about us funding a company wholly owned and controlled by a foreign born lunatic who gets a lot of press for ‘inventing’ thing that were already invented, or even worse, for inventing things that are stupid and useless and getting public monies to pay for them. Don’t believe the Musk Fanboy hype. The ONLY reason SpaceX was having trouble getting FAA clearances was because Musk refused to file the paperwork on time, thinking the rules didn’t apply to him. He just tried to bribe the public to vote the way he wants, and the US military is already looking at him askance as far as allowing him access to sensitive information on military launches because of his aberrant behavior and recent slide into conspiracy and fascist weirdness. And the reason SpaceX’s trouble with the FAA have seemed to suddenly clear up is because Musk brought Shotwell over from the Falcon 9 side and all she has done is the same thing she does for Falcon 9 operations. Namely FILE the paperwork on time and Comply with regulatory mitigation requirements that Elon refused to. ( TBH I don’t know if he ‘refused’ to do it, its more likely he just doesn’t follow thru on anything and doesn’t do his due diligence like he failed to do over twitter. Making a sarcastic offer that he had no idea he could be legally held to. But- The notion that ‘rapidly reusable’ rockets will LOWER costs to orbit or beyond has not yet been proven. I mean, it’s what everyone is doing right now because it’s the tech that investors will throw money at. But at present, investors throwing money at RocketLab, BO, China’s fledgling attempts, Stoke, and others have ZERO actual data on whether SpaceX is making money or not, and even then, SpaceX is entirely reliant on the US buying LOTS of rocket launches. Having all our eggs in Russia’s basket is no less precarious a situation than having our only launch provider being a corporation owned by a foreigner with some mental issues. IF reusable boosters actually DO save money, then SpaceX is bilking the US taxpayer to rake in all the profit he needs to afford to launch all those starlink satellites on his own dime. But at present he has spent 3 billion of OUR money on starship and still is not anywhere near a rapidly reusable rocket. He doesn’t even have a rapidly reusable launch pad. He is as far behind on his delivery as Artemis was and Blue Origin currently are. “Iteration” in rocket development has not proven to save any money, nor any time. Nor result in a better rocket nor appreciably lower cost launch. Maybe, ten years from now, if we have multiple companies to choose from, they might compete on pricing. But right now all spaceX has to do is be 2 million less than ULA to get the launch. But, then again, with only a few providers and all of them privately owned and wanting profit, they will more likely just price fix with each other to charge the maximum they can get away with.

It makes a lot of sense, actually they've made some agreements for that purpose already, but I'm not sure about the specific details.

Starship needs to prove its ability to land on a flat surface and also on the chopsticks

That's right, they also plan to improve the strength of the mechanical attachment mechanism for the tiles, and it will be tested in the next few flights.

They will test a flight with a load simulator, I guess the earliest will be flight 7

@ I dont think the current vehicle with the current engines and fuel tanks can lift anything. If you look at telemetry the tank is virtually empty. This means right now, unless changes are made, it can lift nothing

At least Starship CAN reach orbit, BO still only has tip dipping space dildos that reach "space" with 0 velocity instead of the around mach 22 or 27000 km/h that is needed for actual orbit... And of course they are flying their first test flights without cargo/dummy cargo, one step at a time. That is the way SpaceX does things. Not build for years and years and then try everything at once, which BO still tries to do. Quick prototyping and testing makes for much faster evolution of the technology needed and we might actually get somewhere within our life times... instead of waiting for NASA for forever. The moon landings stopped shorty before I was born, and besides lots of satellites and rovers nothing much in the sense of human spaceflight to ANYWHERE but the ISS has happened. SpaceX is actually trying to get somewhere while BO is just wasting money NASA-style and doing a worse job at it too!

@ You said a lot of words. But, Starship has not reached orbit. It has only done Sub Orbital flights. To reach orbit, you have to fire engines at apogee and circularize the orbit. To de orbit, you also need to fire engine to place the perigee inside Earth’s atmosphere. I understand why they have not reached orbit yet. But, they have not. I would assume that they can resch orbit, flying empty as they had. I doubt it that they can place any payload on orbit with the current vehicle. Perhaps with more powerful engines and larger fuel tanks. The truth is that it is still a sub orbital vehicle.

@@pedrosura I was not aware I said SpaceX actually reached orbit. I said they can, and I think their test flights so far proof that easily. BO in the meantime is busy reinventing what SpaceX did a decade ago but took over twenty years to do it. Maybe they will be successful in another decade and be only twenty years behind the times... and only took 30 years to do it! Which is a big improvement I guess... New Shepard succeeded in reaching passed the Karman line over 7 decades after the Nazis did it. New Glenn Land and reuse boosters within 2 decades after SpaceX. GO Blue Origin!!! GO!

Material science is pretty interesting, but it seems like you don't feel the same way.

They really have a team like that, and they’re also working on a new stainless steel material that Elon Musk said will soon be put into use.

I used to think like this, but nature uses the principle of many “scales”, or “feathers” or different kinds of skin. This allows for micro adjustments across the crafts structure and economics. Although, there would still be plenty of room for development I agree.

From the video, I saw stainless fuselage under the padding....no ablation layer

exactly!