Although SLS is the most powerful overall it achieves most of the thrust from the pyrotechnic SRBs, the core only producing 2 million pounds. The Apollo Saturn V, although slightly less powerful, made all of its 7.6 million pounds lift-off thrust from 5 kerosene burning engines in the core, no detachable boosters. I still think the Saturn V is the most awesome launch vehicle ever.
@@charlesjustice8771 Nope. Only for NASA. Unlike Redstone (Project Mercury), Atlas (Project Mercury) & Titan II (Project Gemini), which were designed as ICBM's & adapted to manned spaceflight by NASA.
I was expecting SLS to lift gracefully off the pad, like the Apollo missions from old video. But Artemis leaped off the pad, ready to rock! Beautiful to behold!
The Saturn V lept off the pad too. Before it had flown it's own length, the Saturn V had already accelerated to over 100mph and executed a manuever to make sure it couldn't hit the launch tower. If that isn't leaping off the pad, I don't know what is.
Shouldn't they have designed the wires to withstand the heat? They knew the heat that would be generated. Random failures like this is why Challenger's crew needlessly lost their lives, and America lost it's entire shuttle program.
For those wondering, RTV as mentioned @4:22, is a silicone based sealant (and adhesive) of high quality. It's a single componant and cures upon contact with air. There are three grade levels, home use, automotive and aerospace. Aerospace grade RTV is type white for lower temperature application, and type red for higher temperature. The Shuttle's tiles were stuck on using red RTV. Aerodynamic blending & panel gaps on the Mach7+ X-15, and the Mach3+ SR71, Jet engines, and recently on Starship is with red RTV. Actually, anywhere you see red smears and red hand / finger smudges, it's red RTV. The best is by Dow Corning, and good up to 370 celsuis. Amazing stuff.
I recommended a diverting wedge to divert the flow but the project manager was concerned about the weight the crawler was limited to-Apollo had a wedge on the drawings. I was the Electrical Engineer on theproject so I had no clout with the rest of the engineers. This comment is in reference to the doors.
They are only telling us the minor damage that they want us to here about to make us say OOOH AAAH. Imagine the REAL DAMAGE information that is being withheld from us... 😱
@@joshpro3816 That tower has withstood tens of Shuttle launches and a few Saturn V launches and it’s still standing. There’s not much to be damaged there as they know a massive rocket will be launching on it. Edit: should’ve said crawler
Aye, but it's just the start. There's a million things that can go wrong and they need to make sure that every little issue is fixed. But if it all goes to plan, it will be amazing.
If you think about it, Saturn V is the most powerful fueled rocket ever built. The SLS is the powerful with the help of solid rocket boosters. It just shows you the engineering marvel the Saturn V was.
@@karlwithak1835 fuck something wrong with you. You're going around commenting the same shit on every comment. You clearly don't know how it works, this isn't a case of messing up engineering, it wasn't launch critical nor is some of it preventable. It's called learning, foreseeing that elevator doors would blow in is unrealistic. I don't know how you can see a new generation of rocket, the most powerful rocket, and the most advanced human rated space craft ever, working successfully but two elevator doors breaking a failure.
@JZ's BFF Crashing is something SpaceX sometimes does intentionally while figuring out a thing. Production launches are not meant to crash, and rarely do. So far, only 2 Falcon launches (out of close to 200) have failed to deliver their payload to its destination.
That launch tower got a beating, I'd imagine they are going to need to do thermal upgrade on a lot of the exterior pipes/cables, even the launch structure could use some reinforcement I'm sure after the first test.
It seems pretty awful to me. _"underestimated"_ is problematic at best .. considering it rely's on *_estimating_* what the power of a massive rocket can do. They should know exactly what will happen, and design / engineer it to happen exactly the way it needs to happen. Having to re-build doors so they can even get up inside to inspect the rest of the thing wasn't part of the plan. The fact that this guy seems so casual about it is worrisome.
I can't exactly just say that they've underestimated anything because I don't even know what was estimated, but it sure seems quite the repair work to be made... and I'd be highly surprised if nothing changes about it for Artemis II!...
whatever the future holds for us, I think it's incredible to be in the first sliver of history where amazing things like this can be collaborated on and built. it's incomprehensible to me how something like this can be all coordinated
@@sammencia7945 Moaning about how the door failed without realising the success and marvel of engineering that the rocket took off in the first place is kinda cringe, my guy.
@@abizair1832 NASA is actually underfunded and still manages to amaze. Hopefully the funding can get further as we get closer to inhabiting the Moon surface!
@@pantheraerospace752 they legally can’t keep secrets, it’s public taxpayer funded organization, taxpayers have every right to know what their money is being spent on
Umm. Just stunned. It’s ONE extra shuttle engine & the same side boosters with an added ring so it burns longer. Right? Or did I miss something important in the booster re-boot? Did the shuttle trash the pad like this each launch?
I wouldn't say the pad is trashed. Everything he mentioned except for the doors, are meant to be burned off, or are just not important. Cameras? Not important. The scorching? Ablative painting being burned off. All pretty typical at most launches. As for the camera, NASA isn't a company that has to sell it's product. SpaceX is, which is why they have much better cameras and video feeds on their rockets. At the end of the day, NASA is a public agency with the goal of space and aeronautical science, and SpaceX is a company with the goal of selling cargo/seats on rockets. Those two different goals, mean they have two different focuses.
The extra segment on the SRB adds a quarter more ammonium chlorate/aluminum propellant to be burned in the same time as the Shuttle's. Don't think it can be thicker as that would narrow the space for the exhuast, off my head.
Not quite... Each booster is longer and that translates to same burn time but more power. A wider booster would correspond to a longer burn time. Either way, they had enough data from the Shuttle era to understand what that amount of power could do to the launch tower.
@@TheLightypants Yeah you can waffle on about that, clearly you have no business sense at all. It's pretty basic to understand that NASA cannot afford to throw money around and burn it. The fact that you need to deflect onto private companies, which isn't relevant at all to what was said, is embarrassing.
Ummmm... This is the first rocket to use this Mobile Launcher... its was built for the Constellation program which never flew and altered slightly for SLS, which was the first launch from the platform...
@@Verbal_Sin No, this is one of the two original launch platforms that were built for Apollo. They were modified for the Space Shuttle and then one was modified further for Artemis.
Folks very little of this ML is from Apollo, the Base is all new, the tower is all new. As stated it was originally designed for Ares/Constellation back in '09-'10. It was then extensively modified for SLS. -The '09 build was mostly structural with basic systems like the electrical power system in the base, fire suppression systems and the elevators. -In '2013 the blast hole was modified, with extensive structural changes in the base and bulkheads needed to be performed. -Then in 2015 the SLS contract was started to finish the mods and add all the subsystems that are needed to fly the rocket. Including, finishing the structural mods, adding fuel systems, electrical, hydraulic, modified fire suppression, Enviromental control, adding hundreds of equipment cabinets... It was a huge contract topping 100 mill, I believe. p.s. back to the reused parts...the only thing I know of was the LOX and LH2 piping systems that were scavenged form a shuttle or two ML bases and maybe a few misc. parts. Peace.
Bro, this project was a major goat fook. Way over budget, way passed all time lines and a massive engineering and management fandangle. Go investigate the Inspector generals reports...
@Karl with a K Not sure they'll learn much or take away much. There's a tendency to blame the weak links on arbitrary blah, blah, blah. Some of the NASA engineers believe their own hype. How smart and inventive they are, meanwhile the ships sinking right under their feet. The refurbishment of the VAB was also a giant fiasco of money and management. I worked on all of these contracts and the stories I could tell...But it's not just NASA's fault, the contractors are in sanely greedy, deceptive and manipulative, in my opinion and the unions and productivity output...oh boy....The whole thing is system of inefficiency and marginal quality control.
It's very interesting that although the SLS is more powerful, Saturn V was bigger and could carry almost double the cargo. Here in Alabama rockets are big business so I'm always curious about the thought process behind the design of new tech in aerospace. If anyone has any good suggestions for videos I could watch about the design of the SLS and why NASA felt it was the best direction to go in I would be thankful.
It‘s not the best way from an engineering perspective - but the only way that would politically be feasible. It‘s not expensive because it needs to be - it‘s expensive because otherwise it would not have gotten enough political support.
Kinda doubt it. Some non-important cameras with sacrificial coverings, burn off of ablative paint on the deck near the flame trench, and some doors. The doors are the only thing that wasn't supposed to be damaged like it was. Everything else was meant to burn off or be damaged during launch.
@@TheLightypants No, with the kind of budget pressure NASA is constantly under, especially fro experts on Twitter (or what’s left of it), it’s just another thing they will have to plan to fix when and if the money arrives.
That's fine. It's the next milestone. Goddard>V2>Mercury>Gemini>Apollo>Shuttle>... Eventually they'll be another, then another and so on. Having a little competition is a good thing.
@DA lol how can You say things like that "no water deluge system" , it was there on KSC for every falcon 9 launch , not sure why do You think they will not install it for super heavy , also we dont know how powerful super heavy is because it has not been launched even once and its just a big work in progress
Starship tower already sustained damaged with only half the engines Running and Nasa Mobile launch system is way more robust only issues with it are the hydrogen leaks mostly due to the fuel itself being notoriously difficult to work with .
@@RideAcrossTheRiver Ha ha, that's what I figured. They don't expect the average US taxpayer to know the measurement system the rest of human civilization uses.
Now imagine what Starship's Super Heavy booster is going to do to its launch facility (and maybe itself) with no flame trench.. I don't buy that just dumping a lot of water on it is going to be enough.
I'm just wondering if it will stay vertical enough for the booster to clear the tower. If not, there's a not insignificant chance that the tower will take out the booster.
The real problem is this idea that we (the US) spent all this money, and somehow after years of delays forgot to engineer the pad and it's components before a launch. Not wanting anybody to take photos of the pad and telling us here that "everything is fine" is both a public relations screw-up and an embarrassing lie to anyone with half a brain.
In the photo of the charred camera I found it very unusual to keep the camera cabling on the outside of the camera support. If the cabling went inside the metallic support, there would be no damage.
I think it's because every hole in the main superstructure made to accommodate conduits compromises the structural integrity of that same superstructure. The more holes, the more points of failure. I agree some shrouding of certain areas would be beneficial to some items of interest. However, they themselves have to be held on with reinforced attachment points to handle the blast of a launch lest they fly off and do more damage. Reinforcements to the tower are required to mitigate the failure points of the added holes adding to the cost of infrastructure. Using exterior conduit away from the direct blast does help but inevitably something must be exposed somewhere to get something useful out of the system. In the end cameras and cabling are much cheaper to replace than repairs to launch towers.
@Karl with a K Well, here’s what I think: I think you overestimate your knowledge and understanding of rockets and missions and underestimate what NASA knows. Be sure to let me know when you launch a successful mission to the moon, won’t you.
If those oxygen sensors *_had_* failed, the inspectors who went to the pad wouldn't even know they were suffocating, because nitrogen and helium are both inert gasses. This is an absolute failure on NASA's part, and it could have been so much worse. They had to "lock down" and disperse those gasses before inspection could take place. I'm going to paste my previous comment: "Shouldn't they be engineering for this? It sounds like the doors being destroyed was not a planned event. They're doing a damage assessment and finding things that they don't even know if they damage came from the launch or from the hurricane. Was it damaged *_before_* launch and no one noticed? What if it was like the valve no one knew was damaged that made SpaceX's vehicle (which was planned to carry people) explode during testing?" There is so much spin in this guy's delivery of information here. Him saying _"This is my favorite picture"_ .. it's a picture of camera equipment and wiring *ON FIRE* .. camera destroyed .. but hey .. the "housing survived". What if that was a crew module? He just wants to extol how powerful the rocket system is, and then use the power of it as an excuse for why the damage happened. Another reply I made earlier .. to someone thinking how cool it is that they _"blew the doors off the place"_ : "Shouldn't they have designed the wires to withstand the heat? They knew the heat that would be generated. Random failures like this is why Challenger's crew needlessly lost their lives, and America lost it's entire shuttle program."
We don't know if the caulking that came off the capsule came off from the launch or from the hurricane 🤔 really?? You didn't inspect both the capsule and the launch area after the hurricane? Wait, didn't you announce previously you had to repair some of that caulking after the hurricane 🤔 I don't know how important that stuff is, but seems to me you knew it was damaged from the hurricane, repaired it and then it fell off again during launch.
The storm did not do that to the elevators. I have family who live a few miles away & Ian passed over the Cape as a weakened tropical storm. If you really think they wouldn't have noticed that kind of damage to the doors, you don't know how NASA operates. The oxygen sensors are certainly not the only way they test for toxic gasses after launch. As far as the camera equipment burning, understand the temps you are dealing with. Also, the crew module is located on top of the vehicle not underneath. Sad to say, you are providing the "spin".
Even with the doors blown off, somehow I just know the elevators are still quietly playing music. _(Flyyyyy Me To the Moooon, and let me play among the stars...)_
I wonder what brand of elevators those are... I know the TKE US/NA headquarters is in Atlanta which isn't THAT far away... Are they just normal elevators? Or are they specially built somehow? I would imagine yes.
2:24 ....4-0 8-0 hollow metal door & frame. I'm gonna cut to the point -- judging by how straight that strike leg is still tells me that door does NOT look good. Folded like taco.
@@thethirdman225 Thats why I said most powerful orbital rocket dummy, also it doesn't need to go to the moon to count as most powerful rocket. How did you manage to be confused twice.
I’ve wondered a) what kind of cameras they use and how they protect them (I know some are broadcast) and secondly b) how are the access arms not blown off - are they just attached and fall right to T-0?
I noticed this in Everyday Astronaut's coverage video of the launch. I could see the left elevator door fly open and start flapping violently back and forth (upper right of the frame). No one mentioned it, so I just thought it was norminal, lol th-cam.com/video/nUozQWAg0wE/w-d-xo.html
most likely not. the heat is for such a short time. This not 'tempered steel", some of it is of a slightly high strength alloy, but nothing very exotic.
The steel construction would be from heavy gauge, for the lighter un stressed areas anything from 6 to 8 mm. I wouldn't be supprised if 25 or 30 mm thick is used for the more beafed up / stressed parts. The steel used wold be mild steel with a low carbon content, SAE1015 to SAE1025, or ST37. Mild steel can not be tempered (heat treated) and is not really effected by short exposure to heat. Steel has a very high thermal mass, it takes a lot to soften and melt steel. That tower is good to go.
Starship launcher will have similar issues they already caused damaged with only half the engines . this is normal and expected same issues with Shuttle and Saturn V
It was only 1/2 the engines at much less than full throttle - and for less time than they will actually be destroying the place. I'm a big Elon fan, but his garden water hose suppression system needs at least a 10,000x upgrade or the pad won't be there to catch the returning booster
@@wallstreetoneil Agree I believe SlS Artemis is the upper limit for land based mobile launch tower Spacex is way to much for their flimsy pad they should have gone the way Sea Dragon as a water launch system Elon doesn't even have a engineering degree! Makes brash decisions unrealistic schedule and pressures his workers a recipe for disaster Challenger Columbis Apollo 1 all caused by the need to rush! Cheers from Salt Lake City!
How many times did he say "World's Most Powerful Rocket"? With all the damage, too bad the engineers could not for see the possible damage. Just sayin'.
He only said it twice. Can we see the damage done by Saturn V rockets or the Shuttle stacks for comparison before criticizing the engineers who didn’t “foresee the possible damage”?
@@mysussyisnotbaka it might take a while until it's fully developed but Starship is not a scam.. it will be launching Starlink satellites in no time Edit: dang idk If you are serious or not now lol
@@mysussyisnotbaka Yeah, because you sound really educated on the topic. All the blue haired snowflakes have been crying about it ever since Elon ruined their sad little platform.
NASA Math: At $4.1B per launch, that's roughly a million dollars per metric ton of thrust at launch. Clearly those elevator doors weren't expensive enough.
One thing you can say is that the launch pad looks a tiny bit more substantial than the SpaceX Starship one. Some work needed there Mr Musk me thinks. (deliberate bad grammer by the way) Even though it was a frenkenrocket from the past, It looked good and the launch was amazing.
Although SLS is the most powerful overall it achieves most of the thrust from the pyrotechnic SRBs, the core only producing 2 million pounds. The Apollo Saturn V, although slightly less powerful, made all of its 7.6 million pounds lift-off thrust from 5 kerosene burning engines in the core, no detachable boosters. I still think the Saturn V is the most awesome launch vehicle ever.
They are both INCREDIBLE and I love them both!
And the Saturn 5 wasn't a rerun. Lets go to mars. These reruns suck.
The size of the Rocketdyne F-1 is beyond words!!
By comparison the RS-25 is much smaller.
They are very different by design and both wonderful tools
Was the sat 5 an ICBM delivery vehicle?
@@charlesjustice8771 Nope. Only for NASA. Unlike Redstone (Project Mercury), Atlas (Project Mercury) & Titan II (Project Gemini), which were designed as ICBM's & adapted to manned spaceflight by NASA.
I was expecting SLS to lift gracefully off the pad, like the Apollo missions from old video. But Artemis leaped off the pad, ready to rock! Beautiful to behold!
The Saturn V lept off the pad too. Before it had flown it's own length, the Saturn V had already accelerated to over 100mph and executed a manuever to make sure it couldn't hit the launch tower. If that isn't leaping off the pad, I don't know what is.
Artemis like: "I'VE BEEN WAITING FAR TOO LONG, SEE YA LATA SUCKAZ!"
Those 5-segment boosters really have some kick!
SRBs for the win
@@defeatSpace LOLLL 😀👍
That photo of the scorched wires is pretty incredible, would like to see what that camera looks like after the launch. 2:36
Shouldn't they have designed the wires to withstand the heat? They knew the heat that would be generated.
Random failures like this is why Challenger's crew needlessly lost their lives, and America lost it's entire shuttle program.
@@THE-X-Force its literally just the launchpad
@@THE-X-Force Maybe the material encasing that cable is meant to ablate, protecting the wires, and meant to be replaced every few launches?
They must expect to replace these items, there not rare earth material.
@@THE-X-Force you must be new here. Probably watched a couple Blue Origin flights maybe a couple SpaceX launches huh
The raw power of Artemis was incredibly impressive
That launch literally blew the doors off of the place!
Sorry I accidentally gave you a dislike. I corrected it.
^ most wholesome comment thread in the entirety of the internet ^
That rocket was lit af
That rocket lifted off like ah Boss!
@@spencerwilson3298 people can’t see dislikes anyway
For those wondering, RTV as mentioned @4:22, is a silicone based sealant (and adhesive) of high quality. It's a single componant and cures upon contact with air. There are three grade levels, home use, automotive and aerospace. Aerospace grade RTV is type white for lower temperature application, and type red for higher temperature.
The Shuttle's tiles were stuck on using red RTV.
Aerodynamic blending & panel gaps on the Mach7+ X-15, and the Mach3+ SR71, Jet engines, and recently on Starship is with red RTV.
Actually, anywhere you see red smears and red hand / finger smudges, it's red RTV.
The best is by Dow Corning, and good up to 370 celsuis. Amazing stuff.
This is very interesting - do you have a related background in aerospace?
Coming from the automotive world it does not surprise me they've had failures with RTV.
@@dsjgfhidupgjret Was a maintainer.
@@ADAMJWAITE Not the same RTV. Work procedures strict and controld.
Wow thanks for the caulk lesson.
Elevator door has a sign on it saying " Out of order due to rocket damage!" Amazing, awesome, epic! :)
I can't believe they let Leonard near the rocket fuel again At least Sheldon saved the day again.
Where is sign in video?
Where did you see a sign like that?
@Mr. Tangent @@papagrounds The Big Bang Theory S03E22
Artemis Engineers: How much thrust do you want?
NASA: Yes.
I'll give her all she'll take captain! We're going to the Moon!
@@emkkahn near the moon. Not to the moon. 60 odd years and all they can manage is ‘slightly better’ 😂
Meanwhile, at Space X …. 😆
Not very original
@@Monkey80llx what are you managing though?
@@thethirdman225 who cares it was funny
I recommended a diverting wedge to divert the flow but the project manager was concerned about the weight the crawler was limited to-Apollo had a wedge on the drawings. I was the Electrical Engineer on theproject so I had no clout with the rest of the engineers. This comment is in reference to the doors.
Exactly what I was wondering myself
please tell us more!
Much admiration for NASA staff during this revealing post launch damage report 🚀
They are only telling us the minor damage that they want us to here about to make us say OOOH AAAH. Imagine the REAL DAMAGE information that is being withheld from us... 😱
@@joshpro3816 That tower has withstood tens of Shuttle launches and a few Saturn V launches and it’s still standing. There’s not much to be damaged there as they know a massive rocket will be launching on it.
Edit: should’ve said crawler
@@a8495turtle uhh that.. makes..sense...
@@joshpro3816 So what additional damage are you aware of that NASA withheld from the Artemis launch?
Yeah! I really enjoyed this report.
A launch so damn good it blew the doors off! I'm proud of you Artemis.
Lift hoistway looks like a typical social-housing estate that I used to do call-outs to after a weekend of 'partinging'!
by good, do you mean a $30 billion waste of tax payer money?
@@banzaiib Shut up. Go away. You have zero clue as to the benefits of space exploration.
@@banzaiib yeah, a billion dollar rocket launch tower that isn’t rocket proof. That’s how you guarantee repeat contractors
@@banzaiib Go to bed child
Gives new meaning to the term, “ I blew your doors off.”
Damn. Artemis ain’t playing. She is making Apollo proud!
Aye, but it's just the start. There's a million things that can go wrong and they need to make sure that every little issue is fixed. But if it all goes to plan, it will be amazing.
If you think about it, Saturn V is the most powerful fueled rocket ever built. The SLS is the powerful with the help of solid rocket boosters. It just shows you the engineering marvel the Saturn V was.
“Powerfulest” is that even a word?
he created a new word
redundancy in most powerfulest too and same name lol
SLS is the most powerful rocket period. All rockets have fuel. So please don't discredit SLS
@@samsunguser3148 True!
I.just said the other day I'd love to see the aftermath of the launch on the launch pad. Thank you for this 👍👍
Artemis 1 is so powerful, it turns the night into day,and destroyed doors
@@karlwithak1835 but SLS launched like a champ
All rockets turn the night into day if your close enough
@Karl with a K starship is nearly 2 years behind schedule.
@@karlwithak1835 fuck something wrong with you. You're going around commenting the same shit on every comment. You clearly don't know how it works, this isn't a case of messing up engineering, it wasn't launch critical nor is some of it preventable. It's called learning, foreseeing that elevator doors would blow in is unrealistic. I don't know how you can see a new generation of rocket, the most powerful rocket, and the most advanced human rated space craft ever, working successfully but two elevator doors breaking a failure.
@JZ's BFF Crashing is something SpaceX sometimes does intentionally while figuring out a thing. Production launches are not meant to crash, and rarely do. So far, only 2 Falcon launches (out of close to 200) have failed to deliver their payload to its destination.
That launch tower got a beating, I'd imagine they are going to need to do thermal upgrade on a lot of the exterior pipes/cables, even the launch structure could use some reinforcement I'm sure after the first test.
They have a year or two for repairs and upgrades so that's plenty of time.
@Karl with a K Nope, Artemis 2 and 3 will also go to the moon with Artemis 3 having people on it.
@Karl with a K They're already contracted for the ML2. To reuse the ML1 it was estimated it would take a 3 1/2 year remodel.
PEACE
LOVE
UNITY
HONESTY
PROSPERITY
FREE THINKING
GOOD HEALTH
SOBRIETY
FUN
LAUGH
OPTIMISM
@Karl with a K Karl shut up please😂 so negative
Awesome work guys. Also, award to Mike Sarafin for a most impressive Moustache!
Same thing happened in 1981 when the first Space Shuttle went up. The launch damaged the tower, and it took a while to fix.
Same thing also happened on the Ares1X flight in 2009
@@CardZed Did not know that, thank you.
so nasa basically underestimated the overall power of the sls. that's pretty metal of nasa. rock on!!
So it takes more than just rocket science 😂🤣
It seems pretty awful to me. _"underestimated"_ is problematic at best .. considering it rely's on *_estimating_* what the power of a massive rocket can do. They should know exactly what will happen, and design / engineer it to happen exactly the way it needs to happen. Having to re-build doors so they can even get up inside to inspect the rest of the thing wasn't part of the plan. The fact that this guy seems so casual about it is worrisome.
NASA work on thebeasth ofdecade history in proyec to go 🌙.
To said succesfuul NASA good mornings for to healthy oll job program thanks.
I can't exactly just say that they've underestimated anything because I don't even know what was estimated, but it sure seems quite the repair work to be made... and I'd be highly surprised if nothing changes about it for Artemis II!...
whatever the future holds for us, I think it's incredible to be in the first sliver of history where amazing things like this can be collaborated on and built. it's incomprehensible to me how something like this can be all coordinated
And just think, they're only 6 years behind schedule right now!
@@Caseytify no other country is doing this kinda stuff so time is irrelevant
We experienced this from 1957-1973.
I have already seen this.
We already DID this!
And now they fail at engineering fuel hose connections and doors.
@@sammencia7945 Moaning about how the door failed without realising the success and marvel of engineering that the rocket took off in the first place is kinda cringe, my guy.
The future holds fire and brimstone.
Wow...hope they can find a way to prevent that on future launches. That's definitely not an expense you'd want to have to constantly pay.
It's NASA dude, a quite-rich space agency... Paying for those doors is like spending 0.01 _cents_ on mundane door.
Yeah, thats what is going to cost a lot to replace every launch... 🤨
It's a bunch of scientists and engineers they'll figure it out
The thing will only fly every 2 years at best....
@@abizair1832 NASA is actually underfunded and still manages to amaze. Hopefully the funding can get further as we get closer to inhabiting the Moon surface!
Rare analysis from NASA. Interesting information for Artemis. Reinforce those elevators. Great Job.
I thought NASA wanted to keep this secret?
At some point they will have to install blast doors to protect the elevators. It could get costly rebuilding the elevators every time
@@pantheraerospace752 why would they want to do that?
Not sure that this is rare - they tend to go into detail about stuff once they’ve figured it out.
@@pantheraerospace752 they legally can’t keep secrets, it’s public taxpayer funded organization, taxpayers have every right to know what their money is being spent on
I just wish he'd clarify whether or not this is the world's most powerful rocket.
It is
It’s the most powerful rocket to have ever flown successfully. I believe the N1 was the most powerful rocket, but it exploded or something like that
2:09 he did
you know google exists
Everyone in the comments got whooshed
Umm. Just stunned. It’s ONE extra shuttle engine & the same side boosters with an added ring so it burns longer. Right? Or did I miss something important in the booster re-boot? Did the shuttle trash the pad like this each launch?
The SRBs are much higher thrust as they are larger than the shuttle
I wouldn't say the pad is trashed. Everything he mentioned except for the doors, are meant to be burned off, or are just not important. Cameras? Not important. The scorching? Ablative painting being burned off. All pretty typical at most launches. As for the camera, NASA isn't a company that has to sell it's product. SpaceX is, which is why they have much better cameras and video feeds on their rockets. At the end of the day, NASA is a public agency with the goal of space and aeronautical science, and SpaceX is a company with the goal of selling cargo/seats on rockets. Those two different goals, mean they have two different focuses.
The extra segment on the SRB adds a quarter more ammonium chlorate/aluminum propellant to be burned in the same time as the Shuttle's.
Don't think it can be thicker as that would narrow the space for the exhuast, off my head.
Not quite... Each booster is longer and that translates to same burn time but more power. A wider booster would correspond to a longer burn time. Either way, they had enough data from the Shuttle era to understand what that amount of power could do to the launch tower.
@@TheLightypants Yeah you can waffle on about that, clearly you have no business sense at all. It's pretty basic to understand that NASA cannot afford to throw money around and burn it. The fact that you need to deflect onto private companies, which isn't relevant at all to what was said, is embarrassing.
Pretty remarkable that this platform has been around so long but is still capable of facilitating the SLS.
Ummmm... This is the first rocket to use this Mobile Launcher... its was built for the Constellation program which never flew and altered slightly for SLS, which was the first launch from the platform...
@@Verbal_Sin No, this is one of the two original launch platforms that were built for Apollo. They were modified for the Space Shuttle and then one was modified further for Artemis.
This tower is entirely new. Only the base is re-used from Shuttle and Apollo.
@@T_Mo271 And the crawler. I wouldn’t be surprised if towers are just considered an expendable item to so no e degree.
Folks very little of this ML is from Apollo, the Base is all new, the tower is all new. As stated it was originally designed for Ares/Constellation back in '09-'10. It was then extensively modified for SLS.
-The '09 build was mostly structural with basic systems like the electrical power system in the base, fire suppression systems and the elevators.
-In '2013 the blast hole was modified, with extensive structural changes in the base and bulkheads needed to be performed.
-Then in 2015 the SLS contract was started to finish the mods and add all the subsystems that are needed to fly the rocket. Including, finishing the structural mods, adding fuel systems, electrical, hydraulic, modified fire suppression, Enviromental control, adding hundreds of equipment cabinets... It was a huge contract topping 100 mill, I believe.
p.s. back to the reused parts...the only thing I know of was the LOX and LH2 piping systems that were scavenged form a shuttle or two ML bases and maybe a few misc. parts. Peace.
The SRB's are like a Welding torch. Not Bad NASA. Great job on the Launch. Damage was expected. ty. FL
NASA: "Make sure you mention 'World's most powerful rocket" a few times...
It’s like a race car driver shoehorning in his sponsorships at the end of a race
At 40 seconds he says the mobile pad has damage but will be ready for the second launch. Well you have almost two years to get it fixed so I hope so
@Karl with a K
What the heck is your problem?
@@karlwithak1835 Why are you the way that you are? And by that, I mean "retarded".
@@karlwithak1835 Mad. Don't make your personal info so easy to find next time ;)
The cameras used are incredible with that clarity!
Mike Sarafin is the kind of project engineer who dots his i’s and crosses his t’s, and always has a pen and paper handy
*"I"s
*"T"s
@@Mrshoujo you don’t dot an uppercase « I »
Bro, this project was a major goat fook. Way over budget, way passed all time lines and a massive engineering and management fandangle. Go investigate the Inspector generals reports...
@Karl with a K Not sure they'll learn much or take away much. There's a tendency to blame the weak links on arbitrary blah, blah, blah. Some of the NASA engineers believe their own hype. How smart and inventive they are, meanwhile the ships sinking right under their feet. The refurbishment of the VAB was also a giant fiasco of money and management. I worked on all of these contracts and the stories I could tell...But it's not just NASA's fault, the contractors are in sanely greedy, deceptive and manipulative, in my opinion and the unions and productivity output...oh boy....The whole thing is system of inefficiency and marginal quality control.
@Karl with a K it all comes down to the "6 P's.""
I thought the statement was just a compliment to the successful launch but it actually did blow the doors off the elevator.
“You were only supposed to blow the bloody doors off!”
Thank you for the transparency...
Why weren't elevator doors facing safe side of tower?
How do you know they weren’t?
2:50 looks like the lego man from hell
I was up close at Feel the Heat seats for Artimus-1… it was IMPRESSIVE
@@dannyh8288
What???
Makes me curious... how does this compare to damage during a shuttle or an Apollo launch?
Bro deadass knocked its socks off 💀
I'm surprised after all this time since Apollo they didn't come up with a possible solution to protect the elevator
unlike the main engines the boosters have less finesse to them. They will have to figure out how to deflect the exhaust differently in the launch bay.
PEACE
LOVE
UNITY
HONESTY
PROSPERITY
FREE THINKING
GOOD HEALTH
SOBRIETY
FUN
LAUGH
OPTIMISM
"You're only supposed to blow the bloody doors off!"
😂
Beat me to it!
@@thethirdman225 and me 😆
Dear god it's been some years since I've heard that referenced! Is that Basil Brush?
@@eliotasterforrest5026 Michael Caine. The Italian Job.
There can't possibly be a better analogy for Artemis I.
It's very interesting that although the SLS is more powerful, Saturn V was bigger and could carry almost double the cargo. Here in Alabama rockets are big business so I'm always curious about the thought process behind the design of new tech in aerospace. If anyone has any good suggestions for videos I could watch about the design of the SLS and why NASA felt it was the best direction to go in I would be thankful.
It‘s not the best way from an engineering perspective - but the only way that would politically be feasible. It‘s not expensive because it needs to be - it‘s expensive because otherwise it would not have gotten enough political support.
😄😄😄 THE PROUD VOICE WHEN HE SAYS THE WORLD MOST POWERFUL ROCKET BUT WELL DESERVED I CANT W8 FOR STARSHIP HAHAHA
He was pretty calm describing the damage but inside he's thinking this is going to cost a lot of money to fix! Lol
Kinda doubt it. Some non-important cameras with sacrificial coverings, burn off of ablative paint on the deck near the flame trench, and some doors. The doors are the only thing that wasn't supposed to be damaged like it was. Everything else was meant to burn off or be damaged during launch.
@@TheLightypants No, with the kind of budget pressure NASA is constantly under, especially fro experts on Twitter (or what’s left of it), it’s just another thing they will have to plan to fix when and if the money arrives.
So much fascinating things to learn just from the launch structure and all the magical things happening at hot end of the rocket! 😎
PEACE
LOVE
UNITY
HONESTY
PROSPERITY
FREE THINKING
GOOD HEALTH
SOBRIETY
FUN
LAUGH
OPTIMISM
Michael Caine "you were only supposed to blow the bloody doors off"
NASA "Roger that!"
They are gonna call this "The Worlds Most Powerful Rocket" as many times as they possibly can because they know their window is short.
Stole the words right out of my mouth lol
its only the most powerful _operational_ rocket
what do you mean by that ?
That's fine. It's the next milestone. Goddard>V2>Mercury>Gemini>Apollo>Shuttle>... Eventually they'll be another, then another and so on. Having a little competition is a good thing.
@@kilianhufgard1035 SpaceX Starship
Just curious as to why a concrete housing wasn't thought of to be installed in front of the elevator doors 🤷🏽
OK so Superheavy is close to 2x more powerful with practically no water deluge system...Hmm...
SpaceX has a long ways to go with Starship. I doubt early attempts will make it to space, let alone orbit.
@DA lol how can You say things like that "no water deluge system" , it was there on KSC for every falcon 9 launch , not sure why do You think they will not install it for super heavy , also we dont know how powerful super heavy is because it has not been launched even once and its just a big work in progress
Starship tower already sustained damaged with only half the engines Running and Nasa Mobile launch system is way more robust only issues with it are the hydrogen leaks mostly due to the fuel itself being notoriously difficult to work with .
@@ezragonzalez8936 The nasa mobile launch tower is the reason why so many launches were delayed, and it was the root cause of 90% of their problems.
The SRB's were like the gates of hell opening when they ignited and the Devil doesn't need to ever use the elevator
It saddens me that NASA still uses imperial measurements.
NASA does that outwardly to the US public.
Amen to that
@@RideAcrossTheRiver Ha ha, that's what I figured. They don't expect the average US taxpayer to know the measurement system the rest of human civilization uses.
only the communication/PR department uses imperial measurements
@@RideAcrossTheRiver Pandering to the ignorant mob?
I love that on the time, it doesn't say year, month, day. It just says 2022 and day 320.
Now imagine what Starship's Super Heavy booster is going to do to its launch facility (and maybe itself) with no flame trench.. I don't buy that just dumping a lot of water on it is going to be enough.
I'm just wondering if it will stay vertical enough for the booster to clear the tower. If not, there's a not insignificant chance that the tower will take out the booster.
PEACE
LOVE
UNITY
HONESTY
PROSPERITY
FREE THINKING
GOOD HEALTH
SOBRIETY
FUN
LAUGH
OPTIMISM
At 2:31 ... they had a camera pointed at a camera?
Based on this, me thinks there needs to be some kind of flame diverter at Starbase...
@JZ's BFF Yes it is very weird because boosters will never launch from Mars so that thought process doesn't make much sense to me.
wow they couldnt do the math to determine how to make those doors safe? just wow
The real problem is this idea that we (the US) spent all this money, and somehow after years of delays forgot to engineer the pad and it's components before a launch. Not wanting anybody to take photos of the pad and telling us here that "everything is fine" is both a public relations screw-up and an embarrassing lie to anyone with half a brain.
Bet that repair will cost $400 million dollars for no reason.
Now this is the stuff I like to see 😎
How were the cameras versus the Saturn 5
In the photo of the charred camera I found it very unusual to keep the camera cabling on the outside of the camera support. If the cabling went inside the metallic support, there would be no damage.
I think it's because every hole in the main superstructure made to accommodate conduits compromises the structural integrity of that same superstructure. The more holes, the more points of failure. I agree some shrouding of certain areas would be beneficial to some items of interest. However, they themselves have to be held on with reinforced attachment points to handle the blast of a launch lest they fly off and do more damage. Reinforcements to the tower are required to mitigate the failure points of the added holes adding to the cost of infrastructure. Using exterior conduit away from the direct blast does help but inevitably something must be exposed somewhere to get something useful out of the system. In the end cameras and cabling are much cheaper to replace than repairs to launch towers.
@Karl with a K Quick, go and tell them, genius!
@Karl with a K What was their response?
@Karl with a K Well, here’s what I think: I think you overestimate your knowledge and understanding of rockets and missions and underestimate what NASA knows. Be sure to let me know when you launch a successful mission to the moon, won’t you.
@Karl with a K So is everyone else, so your point is meaningless.
I wish there was footage for the elevator doors
She said enough with these damn delays im ready to go damn it 🤣🤣🤣💀 i think she just earned her name in one launch ❤️
Artemis is also the name of the BOY cat in Sailor Moon, donchaknow.
@@Mrshoujo Artemis is the sister of Apollo. Not some damned pussy. LOL
Also, Artemis Gordon, from "Wild, Wild West", who was known to dabble in explosives on occasion.
Keep in mind that the rocket is called SLS
PEACE
LOVE
UNITY
HONESTY
PROSPERITY
FREE THINKING
GOOD HEALTH
SOBRIETY
FUN
LAUGH
OPTIMISM
I find hard to believe they miscalculated the strength of their elevator doors by that degree.
So, you think they knew it was going to happen? Poppycock. And those are not reenforced doors.
@@SloaneLasers no. I find it hard to believe they would make that mistake yet I fully believe they did.
PEACE
LOVE
UNITY
HONESTY
PROSPERITY
FREE THINKING
GOOD HEALTH
SOBRIETY
FUN
LAUGH
OPTIMISM
If those oxygen sensors *_had_* failed, the inspectors who went to the pad wouldn't even know they were suffocating, because nitrogen and helium are both inert gasses. This is an absolute failure on NASA's part, and it could have been so much worse. They had to "lock down" and disperse those gasses before inspection could take place. I'm going to paste my previous comment:
"Shouldn't they be engineering for this? It sounds like the doors being destroyed was not a planned event. They're doing a damage assessment and finding things that they don't even know if they damage came from the launch or from the hurricane. Was it damaged *_before_* launch and no one noticed? What if it was like the valve no one knew was damaged that made SpaceX's vehicle (which was planned to carry people) explode during testing?"
There is so much spin in this guy's delivery of information here. Him saying _"This is my favorite picture"_ .. it's a picture of camera equipment and wiring *ON FIRE* .. camera destroyed .. but hey .. the "housing survived". What if that was a crew module? He just wants to extol how powerful the rocket system is, and then use the power of it as an excuse for why the damage happened. Another reply I made earlier .. to someone thinking how cool it is that they _"blew the doors off the place"_ :
"Shouldn't they have designed the wires to withstand the heat? They knew the heat that would be generated.
Random failures like this is why Challenger's crew needlessly lost their lives, and America lost it's entire shuttle program."
Well said.
We don't know if the caulking that came off the capsule came off from the launch or from the hurricane 🤔 really?? You didn't inspect both the capsule and the launch area after the hurricane? Wait, didn't you announce previously you had to repair some of that caulking after the hurricane 🤔 I don't know how important that stuff is, but seems to me you knew it was damaged from the hurricane, repaired it and then it fell off again during launch.
The storm did not do that to the elevators. I have family who live a few miles away & Ian passed over the Cape as a weakened tropical storm. If you really think they wouldn't have noticed that kind of damage to the doors, you don't know how NASA operates. The oxygen sensors are certainly not the only way they test for toxic gasses after launch. As far as the camera equipment burning, understand the temps you are dealing with. Also, the crew module is located on top of the vehicle not underneath. Sad to say, you are providing the "spin".
@@SloaneLasers What you wrote sounds like a lot of waffle to me.
@@tankourito5419 Wish I knew what that meant.
The video quality made me think it was from the 80s or 90s lmao.
Even with the doors blown off, somehow I just know the elevators are still quietly playing music.
_(Flyyyyy Me To the Moooon, and let me play among the stars...)_
What temperature are the boosters in modern degrees?
It’s no Saturn V, but still a big rocket 😃
Our elevator system is not working right now.
I wonder why?
Luckily the elevator contractor only charges $764 billion per hour.
I wonder what brand of elevators those are... I know the TKE US/NA headquarters is in Atlanta which isn't THAT far away...
Are they just normal elevators? Or are they specially built somehow? I would imagine yes.
Knock knock......who's there?.......
2:24 ....4-0 8-0 hollow metal door & frame. I'm gonna cut to the point -- judging by how straight that strike leg is still tells me that door does NOT look good. Folded like taco.
Man, that rocket is powerful!!
Well, it is the world's most powerful, afterall.
@@LiliWhyte Most powerful ORBITAL rocket, N1 still produced more thrust but when Starship launches it will be the most powerful ever flown.
@@TypicalBlox Starship isn’t going to the moon anytime soon.
@@TypicalBlox N1 didn’t make it to orbit.
@@thethirdman225 Thats why I said most powerful orbital rocket dummy, also it doesn't need to go to the moon to count as most powerful rocket. How did you manage to be confused twice.
I’ve wondered a) what kind of cameras they use and how they protect them (I know some are broadcast) and secondly b) how are the access arms not blown off - are they just attached and fall right to T-0?
I wonder if he drove home in the World's most Powerful Pickup Truck
Incredible cinematic! Hollywood has come so far, they even gave the guy a mustache! I love it!
“You're only supposed to blow the bloody doors off!” 😜
Was Sir Michael Caine at the launch? - "You're only supposed to blow the bloody doors off!"
I noticed this in Everyday Astronaut's coverage video of the launch. I could see the left elevator door fly open and start flapping violently back and forth (upper right of the frame). No one mentioned it, so I just thought it was norminal, lol
th-cam.com/video/nUozQWAg0wE/w-d-xo.html
Good catch!
Did the MOOG survive though? 2:31
"The world's MOST powerful rocket..." For now.
Musk - hold my beer...
I'm interested into whether the steel lost any of its tempered strength?
most likely not. the heat is for such a short time. This not 'tempered steel", some of it is of a slightly high strength alloy, but nothing very exotic.
The steel construction would be from heavy gauge, for the lighter un stressed areas anything from 6 to 8 mm. I wouldn't be supprised if 25 or 30 mm thick is used for the more beafed up / stressed parts.
The steel used wold be mild steel with a low carbon content, SAE1015 to SAE1025, or ST37. Mild steel can not be tempered (heat treated) and is not really effected by short exposure to heat. Steel has a very high thermal mass, it takes a lot to soften and melt steel. That tower is good to go.
@@trespire Heavy sections...more like 2 1/2 to 3 inches....
Starship launcher will have similar issues they already caused damaged with only half the engines . this is normal and expected same issues with Shuttle and Saturn V
It was only 1/2 the engines at much less than full throttle - and for less time than they will actually be destroying the place. I'm a big Elon fan, but his garden water hose suppression system needs at least a 10,000x upgrade or the pad won't be there to catch the returning booster
@@wallstreetoneil Agree I believe SlS Artemis is the upper limit for land based mobile launch tower Spacex is way to much for their flimsy pad they should have gone the way Sea Dragon as a water launch system Elon doesn't even have a engineering degree! Makes brash decisions unrealistic schedule and pressures his workers a recipe for disaster Challenger Columbis Apollo 1 all caused by the need to rush! Cheers from Salt Lake City!
How many times did he say "World's Most Powerful Rocket"? With all the damage, too bad the engineers could not for see the possible damage. Just sayin'.
He only said it twice. Can we see the damage done by Saturn V rockets or the Shuttle stacks for comparison before criticizing the engineers who didn’t “foresee the possible damage”?
Saturn did damage too
I'd like to know where the elevator doors went. Where were they found?
Inside the elevator shaft
On the Moon.
@@TicTac-g7m 😂 they got there before Artemis, cool. First elevator doors on the moon, or are they?
Most POWERFUL!! Not for long. Just kidding, good job NASA
You are not kidding though
Starship is such a scam 💀
@@mysussyisnotbaka it might take a while until it's fully developed but Starship is not a scam.. it will be launching Starlink satellites in no time
Edit: dang idk If you are serious or not now lol
@@mysussyisnotbaka Yeah, because you sound really educated on the topic. All the blue haired snowflakes have been crying about it ever since Elon ruined their sad little platform.
@@digi3218 There’s a bit of a difference between LEO and going to the Moon.
Had the opportunity to open with 'She literally blew the doors off! AWESOME! off, off ....the elevators"
Let this be a lesson to you, Elon! Please pay attention to the damage caused by the world's most powerful rocket!
This is elon musk using my brothers account I just want to thank you for bringing this to my attention.
3000 degrees Fahrenheit? But what is it in Rankine?
Makes me proud to work for NASA
NASA Math: At $4.1B per launch, that's roughly a million dollars per metric ton of thrust at launch. Clearly those elevator doors weren't expensive enough.
Kinda blew SpaceX's doors off too ...
lmao
"Fahrenheit"
**giggles at use of ancient measuring system**
One thing you can say is that the launch pad looks a tiny bit more substantial than the SpaceX Starship one.
Some work needed there Mr Musk me thinks. (deliberate bad grammer by the way)
Even though it was a frenkenrocket from the past, It looked good and the launch was amazing.
Yeah-I'm pretty sure that "methinks" is one word.
Wow! $4 billion broke an elevator door. Why am I rolling my eyes?
Are those elevators Otis Gen 2 with 2-speed doors by chance?
Those camera housings look cool. There's 8 of them at 1:32!