SpaceX Just Completed a MAJOR Milestone for Starship!
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 7 เม.ย. 2024
- Starship’s 4th flight is closing in at an absolutely bonkers pace, but why did SpaceX just demolish their Starship Launchpad at KSC pad 39A? Meanwhile in Kazakhstan, the Expedition 70 Soyuz capsule landed successfully after a lengthy stay at the International Space Station, SpaceX conducted a massive FOUR orbital launches with Falcon 9, and China made a single space outing on Tuesday. Enjoy!
👕Buy my Merch!!.............►bit.ly/3fM2BKs
😎Join the Channel!..........►bit.ly/3sPu0ld
🐱🏍My Subreddit.................► / mattssubreddit
📷Instagram......................► / mattlowne
🔥Twitter............................► / matt_lowne
💬Discord...........................► / discord
💕Patreon...........................►goo.gl/lLDt79
🚀Second channel.............►goo.gl/cww3Ik
Full Space News Playlist:
• Space This Week
Check out NASASpaceFlight's Starbase 24/7 livestream!
• Starbase Live: 24/7 St...
Starship, Starbase, and all other rocket Photographers:
📷 NASASpaceFlight ► / @nasaspaceflight
📸 Starship Gazer ► / starshipgazer
📸 Greg Scott ► / gregscott_photo
📸 Starbase Surfer ► / cnunezimages & www.cnunezimages.com/
📸 Sean Doherty ► / @nasaspaceflight
Many thanks to C-Bass productions for their renders of Superheavy and Starship Splashdowns!
🚀Corey ► / c_bass3d & / @cbassproductions - วิทยาศาสตร์และเทคโนโลยี
SpaceX is quickly becoming BNL from pixar 😂
🚽
Honestly SpaceX should consider landing the starship vehicle on a drone ship instead of a land-pad. The worry of there being land debris really makes me wish they kept up with the plans of using an oil rig.
Here before this blows up
It has to land back at the launch pad to be refueled and relaunch in order for their plans to work.
Booster won't have legs. It's a way to lower weight and landing legs cause a lot of issues for re-use.
As for Starship, the issues are the same. Landing legs are expensive and bulky. Sometimes too much work than they're worth. It will take a lot of time to get the catch perfected. But once it is perfected, landing legs won't be necessary at all. Just for lunar landings
The reason they went for the tower capture is that they intend to use these at a very high launch. Cadence.
Remember refueling on for a trip to the Moon, it is going to take a dozen or so launches, so they need a booster. They can reuse as rapidly as possible.
I suspect you are right though, this is incredibly ambitious
@@M167A1 I agree it's incredibly ambitious. But sometimes that's a good thing
I have a feeling Elon wants 4/20 again, and this pace could have one by then...
Starship is the kind of thing I’d expect Matt to make in KSP, not a multi-billionaire who makes electric cars.
6:33 What there is to love about Starship 3 is its planned payload to orbit. That is nearly half the mass of the ISS! While the ISS took 42 flights to build... 37 of which were space shuttle launches, and those were bloody expensive compared to Starship. Just imagine the size and scope of space infrastructure that Starship will enable to be built...
6:33 everyone gangsta till this turns out to not be an april fools joke
Like your style of narrating, very entertaining! 👍
Honestly, I will never not be amazed that SpaceX made automated booster landing routine.
I member space this week ep. 1, I was so stoked, these days it's besting NSF bro. Love!
I seriously doubt we will see a booster coming anywhere near boca chica this year. Then again, both flights 2 & 3 surpassed my expectations.
I honestly thought the first booster was going to explode on the way up as the engine kept flaming out and exploding. Booster 10 was amazing to watch until it flipped. Flight 3 did better than I thought it would but I figured the booster would come in like a rocket. It’s a skyscraper coming in from space, just about. The sheer physics of trying to slow that thing down is insane. I can see them catching the booster hit the ship, that’s such a small target to aim for. I never thought I would see rockets landing on their own so yeah, they keep amazing us.
I think they will make the launch mount from reinforced concrete instead of steel next time.
nice
I dunno why he doesn't jsut slap some falcon 9s to each side of it and land all 4 parts instead of planning for bigger versions. Unless he really wants that payload space. But it seems that the extra size would just have to be filled with feul anyways. A modular falcon 9 booster system would be awesome.
That was the thinking behind falcon heavy, which was supposed to launch many years before it really did but was delayed specifically because of this kind of thinking. The original falcon 9 booster was lot designed with the necessary stiffness to survive being strapped to and released from the side of another booster. Adding moar boosters works in ksp, but it becomes a nightmare in the real world.
There's also the simple problem of the square cube law. increasing the diameter of the rocket gives exponential rewards for fuel/dry mass ratio, which is the entire basis of the rocket equation.
These reasons and more are why theyre building starship. If youre building a new system, why only make a marginal improvement? In rocket science, the concept of "beeg rocket go brrr" acrually holds some merit, so a massive and fully reusable rocket is basically the best kins of rocket from both a capability and finance perspective. This is also why the only upgrades to starship will be stretching the tanks. When they needthe capability provided by a theoretical "Starship Heavy", theyre better off developing a new system that will be cheaper to run and more capable and thus more profitable in the long run.
@Tea_N_Crumpets I dunno if im buying it. The falcon addition would cost only a small amount extra in research. Then cost nothing to slap as many as can fit. That versus the cost of basically double the size of a ship they still have yet to control in space? I bet the cost award would go to the falcon 9 booster plan. It would just be more limited in total weight ratio in the end, but darn I bet that is going to take a few hundred years to pay for itself.
You would need a lot of falcon 9 boosters to match the amount mass starship could get to orbit, no?
@skillfulfighter23 I'm just talking about slapping some falcons around this monster of a rocket for some added boost. Not making a brand new falcon 9 based grouping.
@@RandomPickles-- There's a lot that goes into designing a tank system that's strong enough to transfer tons of thrust without being too heavy. Stretching tanks is really simple because those forces don't change much. Adding side boosters completely changes where the forces are applied, and then those forces radically change mid-flight. That much of a redesign and it's basically a new superheavy booster.
Designing a new booster wouldn't be as hard as designing the first one though, so maybe there will be an asparagus syperheavy booster at some point, but it won't be a simple variant or V+1 of the current designs.
The eclipse day? Why the eclipse day?
Hi matt lowne thank you for doing space news very interesting matt lowne (i didnt watch the video because i cant rn hahaha lol)
Raptor 3 Isp? From the EM presentation I got the impression Raptor 3 isn't necessarily less complex. Which could be relevant. They deleted some, but then also "moved parts inside". To make it all safer. Which could make them slightly harder to build. Or not. We will see. Moar power always good.
Raptor has turned out to be well finetuned product line over the years. Which, considering number of launches and total production numbers makes sense.
Colonizing Mars though complete bs for investors, fans, no idea.
According to Elon it is really hard to build but I guess they have all of the angles covered.
You can see just from the render that parts that were previously assemblies of several pieces are now one part, so it is necessarily less complex if the render is in any way accurate.
@@filonin2 EM told some parts are moved inside. Integrated pipes or something. You don't see them doesn't mean they aren't there. Crafting one part within another may complicate production a lot or just slightly - depends on materials, technologies, design, etc. Usually it's more complex. Which could add a bit to costs and production time.
It "seems" reverse drive for rocket engines isn't the most favorable one. The closer to engine exhaust speed limits, the worse. Thus workarounds.
@@andrewsarchus6036 If it's a cast piece, it would be a nightmare to put complex geometry shape within another. If it's cut, again - hard to do all the required angles in smaller space now. Mounting part within part - doable, but adds some challenges to tolerances and complicates assembly.
Anyway, it's all doable and scalable. We just want it to be as reliable or better. And then production time not being 2x. You sure can have factory 2x larger. But that's costs and delays. While EM and everyone else suggests costs will go down for launches. Respect to actual engineers.
@@vensroofcat6415 Yes I agree with all of this.
matt! whats the intro music called?? 0:00
Yea i would love to know that too
6:59 if you take a line between duna....
I think i watch to much ksp
I think you watch too much Matt Lowne)
actually no, you can't watch too much Matt Lowne
Has anyone considered using flywheels to replace both the grid fins and batteries? Flywheels are excellent for short term energy storage both in terms of mass and volume and they inherently lend themselves to attitude control (think reaction wheels). In addition they would work both in space and near the pad where fins are ineffective. I am given to understand the the fins alone mass about 12 tons altogether which allows plenty and more for the flywheel mass. It also honors the principle of "no part is the best part". Thoughts?
Edited for typo.
What if a ship explodes over land close to the surface. Now you have a fly wheel that will travel miles and smash through everything. It's extremely dangerous.
And the best part is no part. You will need massive bearings, braces, and cushings for the fly wheels. If one breaks, you have a catastrophic failure of the rocket. Worse if people are on board.
Starship can be in space for days at a time. Some will travel for months to Mars. Far too long for a fly wheel. Most engineers despise working with flywheels. Few will work with massive ones because it's almost impossible to stop one. They're just too risky for a rocket.
Reaction wheels work well in space up to a point, but aren't really great at controlling a craft moving through an atmosphere at high speed. They also offer absolutely no ability to slow the craft down (unlike the gridfins, which generate a fair amount of drag).
Also, unless you want the craft to spin constantly you're going to have to cancel out every flywheel with one spinning in the opposite direction.
You're also exchanging mostly static parts for constantly moving ones, which is pretty much the opposite of what you want to do when you want to reduce maintenance.
The application of fly wheels/reaction wheels irl is far less practical than KSP makes them seem.
Flywheels aren't nearly powerful enough for air control, and they'll get saturated basically instantly. it would be better to have a weight in the fuel tank that can be shifted around to alter the center of mass.
pretty sure they need separate launch and landing towers
Why ? it will be more spectacular to use one launch tower for both
@@marianpazdzioch6632 because OLM is so darn valuable, guessing way cheaper to run a second tower than risk the OLM
Would be very curious to see them stress test a raptor like fire one up and turn it off then on again so on and so on as well as leaving a few months between firing
The ksp to space news pipeline is real and I love it
Yeah I think the angle the booster comes in at is to make it a lot easier to abort into the water. If it was coming down relatively straight, the most it could do is abort to right next to the tower, which isn't that much better than just not aborting. By making it have a lot of sideways velocity when coming in, all they need to do to abort is move slightly to the side to miss the tower.
Matt! Idea! Do a Europa clipper mission in ksp 1 or 2, a survey mission to the Europa analog, which I believe is vall
I still hold hope there'll be a surprise launch of IFT 4 on the 20th, to mark one year since IFT1.
Catching those rockets must be hard because without fuel they are just like metal balloons without the internal pressure or something. Empty cans? Have SpaceX mentioned pressurising them for the catch?
Because starships engines obliterate the launch pad every single time
Nono they fixed that after flight 1
@Aieou472 Well, take a look at the pad after flight 3. The Raptor engines are so powerful, they dug a crater.
Elon said there was no damage to the pad; no significant damage, and that was just a lie.
@@kipkipper-lg9vl why is the water deluge system still there if it doesn't work, and why has Elon not announced any plans to replace it. also have you seen the pictures he took of the pad after flight 2? no damage at all.
@@Aieou472 look mate just google the pictures of the pad, there is a literal impact crater in ground, that is all i am saying
3:00 Nope, we all didn't assume that for reasons of safety just like how the Falcon 9's don't come straight down until the very last few seconds over the barges and they come down over the water if landing back at the pads in Florida and California before vectoring over the pads in the last few seconds. This is nearly entirely the reason to have steerable grid fins instead of something much simpler and smaller to add a bit of air resistance to keep the top side up. If there's a problem and you lose control, you want the ballistic trajectory to hit the ground or water near the landing site, but not the landing site itself so you don't destroy the landing zone. You only want to vector it to the landing site once you are certain you have control and you have enough stopping power to stick said landing. The animation is likely exaggerated for reasons of them using a Falcon 9 flight profile on a booster that is MUCH bigger than a Falcon 9. They'll have to work out in testing when is the right time to change over from near miss crash landing trajectory to landing attempt trajectory.
For various real life reasons Glass Cupolas will never be thing on Mars. That render is pure fantasy. Some of the same reasons why you need to bury Moon structures below several feet of regolith, and more.
3:10 maybe, if they don't like how it's coming in, they can full throttle the engines and send it towards the ocean, into what is already a no go zone as an abort mauver? If it comes in too vertical and then needs to abort, the tower would be torched by the engines going to full throttle.
Maybe future towers will have a suppression systems on the upper towers for landings to protect it from the engines and the engines from the sound.
Does it explode?
Yo
My greatest concern is that SpaceX hasn't had enough time to address the issues. The booster is one thing. Having the StarShip doing its own Olympic gymnastics tumbling routine during reentry, not a good thing.
Meh. That's mostly solved. It's the "Landing" that's the biggest unknown.
@@CorwinPatrick OK, cool, understanding has been achieved.
I LOVE MONDAYS
Anti-Garfield
If we were in the middle of the Cold War it could be possible 7:14
Hi 👋
Yo 👍👍
Star ship is the n1 in evey aspect
I mean N1 didn't even make it out of stage 1 sep, starship made it to orbit
@@ferestrod3242😈😈😈😈🔥
very up big yes rocket speed
It seems Matt Lowne has been infected by the comment bots :(
Where What
Please play the game called “rocket science” it’s a ksp lookalike
Someone forgot about a total solar eclipse in the US today, that’s seems pretty “space this week”
So it's not going to just explode like the last 2?
this one will touch the ground first, then explode
to surrect planets is how to live in a universe - life as center of the universe
(to master a solar system as identity has become a talent to explore )
woooo
hello! i bought a plushie from you about a year ago and it never arrived, idk what happened to it or of you guys never shipped it. Hust wondering
Why are there zero comments
Remember folks: If Elon say "80-90% chance", it's probably more like 8-9%.
Given his track record more like 70 to 80% and twice the stated time. Having said that, and he's doing at least as good in the prognostication department as anybody else in the industry
@@M167A1 He's giving time frames for things to happen. If it's twice the stated time, then that is a 0% successful prediction.
I honestly can't remember a single thing Elon has said that has happened in the timeframe he's given - whether that's for SpaceX, Tesla or even Twitter. He's like the Peter Molyneux or Todd Howard of his industry/industries. Big promises made largely off the back of what he wants, rather than what's actually feasible.
@@squallloire But he actually delivers. Largest, most successful spaceflight company on Earth.
@@squallloireYou have to set ambitious goals if you are going to do great things. That’s how you inspire people.
@@applesaregoodeatings HE doesn't deliver a goddamn thing. His very talented and knowledgeable employees do. And almost never in the wild timeframes he proposes.
couldnt they just put some kind of inflatable device into ships cargobay and prevent it from sinking in the indian ocean?
The issue is not it sinking but damage from saltwater to the engines and electronics.
@@filonin2I don't think they were suggesting reflight, just recovery and analysis
Mars colony 😅😅😅
Honestly, why do people still buy into Elon Musk making timeline, or % of success claims? I don't think he has ever been accurate. According to his SpaceX should have been on Mars by now 😂
Well it's not his fault he has to fund his own projects because the government would rather give grants to NASA and there 30 year old technology while Elon started way later than them yet still has more advanced tech than anything nasa has put out in 60 years while being financed billions , give musk the budget those hacks have and then watch how fast his progress increases , the mars missions involving humans were always sleighted for 2030 by the way so you got 6 years before you're allowed to complain , you wanna talk progress and promises NaSA is already 3 weeks delayed from lauching Delta 4
well, for the first Starship test flights his predictions before the flight turned out to be pretty accurate, or too accurate/literally in case of the first one:
reminder for the stated primary goals before each flight:
IFT-1: Clear the Launch pad
IFT-2: get to stage seperation
IFT-3: reach an almost-orbital trajectory
Each of these goald were repeated several times during each livestream well before liftoff. Of course their Flight Plan included more bonus goals, but failing these is like saying you failed a test because you didnt get maximum points.
@@unitrader403💯👍
It is incorrect to assume that the funding for these projects comes directly from his personal finances.
Well it's not his fault he has to fund his own projects because the government would rather give grants to NASA and there 30 year old technology , you talk progress while elon started way later than nasa and yet he still has created the most advanced rockets on the planet while nasas most recent project has scrubbed the launch of delta 4 , 3 times in under 4 weeks meaning after they can't even pull a successful launch with the oldest most tried and tested technology , give elon the budget those old timeys have and then you can whine about progress . And by the way the missions on mars involving humans was always sleighted for 2030 so you got 6 years before you can starting complaining about progress , till then understand that Elon has gotten closer to mars in 22 years than NASA has in 60 years let alone any other country ...all while funding it with his own companies not billioms in grants from big daddy in the white house
Somebodies are jealous of ULA🤣
Looking forward to seeing the first ever launchtower RUD
7:11 I wouldn't be surprised if we did, as the average life expectancy is going up, and looking at your view count at least one of us humble viewers will probably live past 100, which gives us until about 2100.
Does anyone actually believe a timeline that Elon announces? If we are to believe his previous schedule, we would have settlements on Mars by now.
Would Space X be where it is if Elon didn't have such outrageous time lines for targets?? I say no. Saying 20 years inspires a generation of engineers, versus saying 60 years. work expands to fill the time allocated. Keep up the great content Matt.
Good point! The timeline may be wrong saying 20 years but no one will want to work hard for a goal that they know won't pay out until after they retire.
@@zgalexy834That just isn't true lots of people work on things they will never see
We all should sign a petition for the 4th inagural flight of Starship on May the fourth! ❤
Mars is a miserable hole in the ground --- it looks Earth-like in the pictures, but it's really not. It's got the worst possible amount of air; it combines all the problems of living in vacuum with all the problems of weather and temperature; the gravity's high enough that getting into space is difficult; once you're there the only resources are carbon dioxide, rocks and sand... I'd like to see people consider Ceres as a better alternative. The surface gravity is low enough that getting into space is trivial, but there's still enough to keep all your stuff in one place. There's no air, but there is a ridiculous amount of ice, and current theories suggest there's liquid water inside which may be exposed on the surface. It's a bit further away from the sun than Mars which helps with solar flare protection, too. It'd make a much better staging ground for further missions to the outer solar system than Mars would.
Elon may make predictions and underestimate the time factor, but his track record, so far, shows that he eventually delivers on his promises. In fact he usually over delivers. He says a Tesla will go 200 miles per charge and it goes 250 to 300 miles.
Second
your fourth
@@noamjacob1216 my bad didn’t load probably
First
🚽
I think NASA made a horible choice with letting SpaceX make the lunar lander I mean SpaceX is yet to have a fully successful mission of starship and SpaceX has a big chance of having out of control starships hiting the launch pad and stoping starship for maybe more than a year SpaceX just is not really on the same timeline as NASA and for the first time I can say that NASA is faster than SpaceX I do understand that SpaceX has been doing starship for a fraction of the time nasa has and the timeframe spacex has gotten here is amazing butt not nearly fast enough for the 2026-2027 window
The person who was at NASA made that decision is now working for SpaceX.
Think of that what you will.
Im sure elon will be dead by the time we get actual mars stuff
Booster without bel cooler, keep a eye on gimbal engines. So they’re building more stainless trot line weights. 10 failed launches followed by one explosion and one burned up starship. That should just about finish Elon musk. Those brilliant engineers he didn’t want to pay. Well that a bill honing to come due in spades.♠️
hey, man. always loved your kerbal stuff. but 20 launches for hls!? someoneat nasa has to be held to account for that. no way anyone thought that could be accomplished in time for artemis3 and no space youtubers are talking about it. I'd rather they pull the plug on the whole program than dump that much trash in the ocean. @mattlowne
Love watching Elon convert Investable to Spendable overnight, like every money-man who has ever lived. Greed vs. research. We'd have been on Mars since 1987 if it wasn't for the filthy human obsession with the accumulation of wealth.
First