Will the SpaceX Starship fail like the Space Shuttle?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 20 ก.ย. 2024
- With SpaceX aiming to drastically reduce the cost of getting into space with their Starship/BFR, it's easy to forget that the Space Shuttle once promised the same thing. In this video, we look at why the Space Shuttle failed to achieve it's goals of being cheap and reusable. We also look at what SpaceX are doing to avoid the BFR/Starhship having a similar fate.
Thanks for watching this Primal Space video. If you enjoyed it, let me know in the comments below and don't forget to subscribe so you can see more videos like this!
References:
primalnebula.c...
Support Primal Space by becoming a Patron!
/ primalspace
Twitter: / theprimalspace
Facebook: / theprimalspace
Music used in this video:
» Secret Conversations - The 126ers
» Oceans - Bobby Renz
» Leoforos Alexandras - Dan Bodan
» Eureka - Huma-Huma
» Back To Vik - Leviathe
If you don't take a chance, there won't be a result.
Entrepreneurship involves taking risks. Space is no different.
haha my man you spoke the truth without risk there's no result or success and I have full hope in starship
@@opportunitymatters7866
Yeah. Playing it safe doesn't get you anywhere in life really. As long as you're not acting reckless then don't be afraid to take risks.
In every journey there is hard works to accomplished to achieved success in life challenges
@@anthonyc4138
Now that sounds reckless and borderline self negligent.
BFR sounds too insane to be true, but people said the same about landing rockets and reflying rockets just a few years ago. I have serious doubts, but i really hope they prove everyone wrong and do what seems impossible again.
After following the success of Tesla and seeing the grasshopper prototype, I knew from the beginning that they would be able to pull it off, if only on Elon time.
It has very little in common with the space shuttle.
I Feel they will use some NASA rocket to transport the humans to Mars, and some BFR's to transfer all equipment. Altough, landing on Mars will not be easy for anyone
.Nothing is impossible, Interstellar ships will be 1/2 mile long spacecraft with thousands of people on board. Floating cities.
@@Godscountry2732 that's on the very small side. I lived in Hawaii for a year, and I was sooo claustrophobic that it was unreal. Humans would need an Armada of city sized space ships just to move a couple thousand people, because people need copious amounts of food, entertainment, and just flat out space in order to be content. Floating around in a tin can is okay for a few months, but nobody wants to spend their entire life on something so cramped as a shopping mall sized spit of land with thousands of room mates.
Star Ship will be beginning of a bright future. Upward and always forward!
madmax2099a Yes
ELON
Not if we can't get over certain humans tendencies.
Star Ship to Mars with Elon Musk as an on board explorer will be great ... good luck on the journey!
madmax2099a that’s what people said about the Shuttle...
Space travel is actually really interesting and insane
Yea
and dangerous
@szsmix wait is it safer than flying in a plane?
@szsmix ok thanks
Yea
Passport On earth: Elon Musk
Passport On Mars: Elon Mars
Passport to disaster: Elon Musk
@@Djur2844 I can't understand
The conductor mind it
Passport on moon; Elon Moon
It's not musk is muskit
In my opinion the fact that spacex successfully failed a landing last flight prove how great their system is . I have high hopes for the future
There are hundred and hundred hidden fails from Nasa too, the only difference is
SpaceX dont care about failure, their work is to go to space, not make some silly people like ya happy
Yep, a nice water landing
nasa's job is to take a $500m concept, and turn in in a $15B product that is 25 years late, and has the greatest possible chance to fail.
Data points: Shuttle.
Constellation.
SLS.
James Webb.
Successful "emergency sea landing". And yeah that was impressive.
@@theuncalledfor you guys have to see this...
th-cam.com/video/zewyvQEqsS4/w-d-xo.html
Who is here after successfull Space X dragon launch and landing.
yessir
✋ me
Literally everyone who sees this comment
Yeah
well this guy and sub to my channel
Wow even got footage of crs-16 landing failure.
Last minute edit game is strong
@@AQDuck 4:23. Booster is clearly block 5 by interstage. Furthermore, that's the exact footage that was released of 1050.1 splashing down short if LZ-1
Edit: Corrected time
@@@AQDuck It must be a conspiracy.Why would they always have glitches,interference at sea. But not on land based landings?.Lets see why? we no longer use Loran ,so a sea landing would need to be up linked to a satellite then down linked to a ground station, Hmmm . Its a little more complicated i,cameras mounted on a sea water vessel. might be subjected to water,rocking motion,.Its all fake ,we can't build spacecraft that land.That would be like saying your going to build a hand held computer,phone,etc that communicates,takes films,takes photos,is a microscope,engineering fixture,along with performing thousands of jobs.Impossible,will never have a device that does it all.
@@Godscountry2732 mmmm considering I work there, I'm going to tell you that you need to get with the picture and understand that humanity is capable of many amazing feats.
@@dv2689 He was using sarcasm. ;)
Primal Space: "Will the SpaceX Starship fail like the Space Shuttle"
Elon: NOpe
One thing I found glossed over in this video was the inherent safety of the designs if something does go wrong, with the only mention in regards to safety being avoiding stuff going wrong.
A conventional crewed rocket design, like Soyuz, or (when they actually start carrying people) Atlas V and Falcon 9 should be able to get the passengers off the rocket safely in the event the rocket explodes. This is down to having a launch escape system mounted on the relatively small capsule on top. This was a huge problem with the shuttle, where the only thing they could do in the event of a major failure was to detach the shuttle and hope that the orbiter isn’t badly enough damaged to glide down to earth. The issue gets worse once you realize that the shuttle had very specific parameters to when it could actually detach, so much so that losing a single engine early in flight would force a complex and difficult maneuver just to get the orbiter back home. With those sorts of parameters and no launch abort system other than “get the shuttle off the stack and pray,” there’s just no way any crew could have survived an explosion of the shuttle’s stack without an exceptional miracle.
BFS might fare a little better here to be honest, but it does have some similar issues. No apparent launch abort system being the big one. In the event of an explosion from BFS’s fuel tank itself, everyone on the rocket is doomed. If the explosion is in the first stage, then BFS might have a chance to escape, detaching and using its engines to get away from the booster and power-land somewhere, but it seems doubtful to me. A complete or near-complete loss of thrust to the first stage should be survivable however, an area where survival on the shuttle would be difficult if possible.
So 1 point to BFS for being inherently safer than the shuttle in the event of a launch failure. It’s still not better than a conventional capsule in this regard though.
Next we have anomalies on launch which doom the spacecraft later, either while in space, on re-entry, or on landing. This is mostly a space shuttle problem, due to the fact that the shuttle is mounted lower on the stack. Any bits of debris falling off the stack could strike the orbiter, causing damage. This doomed Columbia and nearly doomed Atlantis as well. BFS does not have a similar issue here, as it’s mounted on top of the rocket. Maybe a bird strike could be a concern, but that’s a concern for any rocket. Although, some crew capsules do have covers over their tops, and their heat shields are not exposed when the rocket launches.
So BFS gains another point, although conventional rockets are still just a bit safer.
Thirdly is landing. Flying a brick was probably easier than flying the shuttle, but the shuttle was still pretty safe regarding landings. Sure, it took an experienced pilot, but the only mechanical failures which could ruin it would be a loss of control or loss of landing gear (or a rapid unplanned disassembly). Seeing as the shuttle was designed for gliding, it could stay in the air longer to give the crew time to bail out, or potentially crash land or ditch with few or no fatalities if it couldn’t land on a runway.
BFS I see having more trouble here. Landings themselves are powered, which means, in addition to all the previous things you needed to have working, you now need to keep the engines working to land. This increases the chance of failure resulting in the death of the crew. In addition, it has to land on its target at slow vertical speed, so an AI malfunction is worse here than on other rockets. A botched landing will result in the deaths of everyone onboard, while a CRS-16 type landing would probably cause at least injuries.
And once again conventional capsules remain supreme as the safest way to land from space, using their conventional heat shield and parachutes to do so.
So point to the Space shuttle this time, for being safer in this regard than BFS.
So still, BFS is the winner. But conventional rocket capsules are still a lot safer than these 2 examples. There’s more I didn’t compare, but hopefully this covered the important points.
Actually if you know anything about the Soviet shuttle( buran energia ) it was better than us shuttle in the very respects you mentioned , it had an escape system and also had controls so that astronauts can control it manually if something goes wrong but unfortunately after the fall of USSR that giant piece of tech was eating dust in a warehouse and saw a lot of damage
In rhe case of the rockets exploding there won't be anytime to eject the crew away lol
@@kevinbutton4580 A launch escape system only has to get the crew off a couple of seconds before explosion, if even that. Rocket explosions do take a little bit of time to first form and then destroy the rocket, which is all time the launch escape system has to detect the failure and activate.
1983 showed the first use of a launch escape system, although at this time it was manually activated. A pad fire started aboard the rocket, and 2 seconds prior to the booster exploding, the capsule containing 2 cosmonauts launched off the rocket. The cosmonauts were bruised from high G acceleration but survived in good condition.
Thankfully since then launch escape systems have only been used to save humans once more, earlier this year. However, that failure was not explosive in nature, and thus doesn't fit well with my point here.
But there is an uncrewed rocket with crewed capabilities being developed (which involves ground pad testing of the launch escape system) which has exploded in recent times, where we can extrapolate data about the potential effectiveness of it's launch escape system. I am, of course, talking about the SpaceX Falcon 9 and the Dragon capsule.
The first time Falcon 9 exploded (not on landing) was with CRS-7, which was using the uncrewed Dragon spacecraft to take cargo up to the ISS. Interestingly, since the Dragon spacecraft was designed to be used for crewed launches (a newer version will be used for them next year), the capsule was indeed fitted with a launch escape system. And it worked; the capsule was successfully detached from the exploding booster, and would have survived if the parachutes were coded to deploy in such a situation (again, this was a cargo flight, so this oversight was kind of intentional, as few care if you fail to recover a bunch of supplies and experiments in the event of your rocket exploding).
The second time a Falcon 9 exploded (again, not on landing) was with AMOS-6. This payload was a commercial satellite. The rocket was being prepped for a static fire (basically a launch but without them actually releasing the rocket) when it exploded. Now, it did not have any sort of launch escape system on it, since it was in it's cargo configuration. Good footage of the explosion was obtained. Now previously SpaceX had done tests of the launch escape system of Dragon V2. They basically put the capsule on the pad and fired the abort system. Video of this event was overlaid over the AMOS-6 explosion, and showed that if the LES had launched at the same time as the rocket visibly exploded, the crew would have most likely survived.
So yeah, launch escape systems should keep the crew alive in the event of a rocket explosion (at least in most cases). They get the capsule off the top of the rocket quickly enough to do this.
I'm not reading that.
Do you guys think strapping yourself to a giant bomb is ever going to be safe. Every launch is a question mark.
I think it would be hard to get life insurance if you did this on a regular basis.
Nasa coming older times of blue prints vs today of digital designs and testing is a huge jump forward. With the youth taking on new engineering with such powerful tools such as 3D printing and other manufacturing tech. There will be far less accidents. GO Space X. Wish I could work for them..
whats wrong with blueprints? and 3D printing of metal is just welding on top of welding
@@lyndonlucier791 This is an oversimplification. The powder in sintered, not welded, layer by layer, with one continuous material, instead of two. It's also heat-treated in an oven.
@@ericsiemienczuk7217 th-cam.com/video/SEaht2tQ8P8/w-d-xo.html welded !!
@@lyndonlucier791 Okay, sorry, MOST metal 3d printers used in production, use sintering, not welding.
SpaceX also has the advantage of not having an external customer who does their own review and approval process for every change. One of the reasons military and NASA aerospace programs take so long and cost more than they should is because the contractor is not free to make changes on the fly. Everything they do has to be reviewed and approved by the govrenment customer. And the US govrenment bureaucracy is slow and aimed more at avoiding any problem that can be laid at their feet. In addition the defense contractors know that - if they want future contracts - they have to take the blame for all cost over-runs and delays - even the ones that are caused by the govrenment.
BTW there's an easy way to spot the govrenment screwups - if the contractor gets the blame but gets no penalties for poor performance - then the fault is with the govrenment.
They are two different animals. Not comparable.
But you can totally compare two different animals though.
@@Jona69 yes, you can compare a new born cheetah to a 40yo pig, but why would you? Innovation is what America is all about. Elon is challenging old corrupt paradigms, he's going to change the world.
@@ericpowell7547 You can learn a lot from making comparisons even if the comparisons aren't fair.
@@Jona69 yes, I believe we stand on the shoulders of our predecessors, learning from their successes and failures. 40 years ago I had to learn how to use a sliderule, it was terrible lol, now artificial intelligence. I have faint memories of the Apollo missions, the stagnation of the shuttle programs, then nothing but bureaucracy, we had to catch a ride with the Russians! That's sad,lol. Where's the moon bases? The hotel in space? It was a dark time in America, I feel like we are finally moving forward, but yes brother, learning is key.
Their missions are comparable. They both set out to lower the cost to get to space. The space shuttle failed that mission
its funny that the title calls the shuttle program a failure even though it was a great success and ended due to safety measures and costs
Yes a great success. That’s why it cost 10x more per launch than initially estimated and had 2 complete vehicle disintegrations in 135 flights. That a failure rate 20x higher than the 1/1000 promised during building. So no it was definitely a failure, that’s why it’s the deadliest launch vehicle in human history
Fun fact: Originally, the Space Shuttle had a two-stage fully-reusable winged flyback design, but that was too expensive for NASA's shoestring budget. #FundNASA
I'm actually offended, the space shuttle didn't fail, it was retired due to lack of funding to make it safer.
yeah cuz Obama killed the funding
It did fail, and shouldve been retired earlier
It was a piece of shit to say the least
The most overpriced, joke of a spacecraft we ever used...we wouldve been better off and saved money sticking with Saturn and Titan rockets
It was a disaster from the inception - economically, payload capability, scheduling etc. Oh and it killed 14 astronauts. And please spare me the crap about taking chances.
The program managers promised 1 catastrophic failure per thousands of launches. In fact 2 disintegrated in about 130 flights.
the media: WILL THE STARSHIP FAIL? LIKE THE SPACE SHUTTLE?
elon:no
Because that's why it's called _"BIG F*CKING ROCKET"_
who is watching this after the falcon heavy launch?
edit:100 likes!
Sans The Skeleton me
me and me
Wunna hav a bad time?
and then they went to the iss
who's here after falcon 9 launch with humans since 9 years?
@Julian Pas lmao
Jeez Julian, who the fuck hurt you
@Julian Pas damn clean your pants bro, you're on your period
Since they're going to Mars, it would seem prudent to equip each BFR with a BFG... for instances of demonic invasion
Stormcastle BFN is more efficient. One boom sends one big message
The spirit realm awaits 🙏
WARNING: THE SLAYER HAS THE BFG
RETREAT TO THE MARTIAN SURFACE
"You can't just shoot a hole into the surface of Mars!"
Might as well get Doomslayer on board.
The space shuttle did NOT fail. I am sorry you feel this way, but the reality is that the space shuttle reached the end of its vehicle life span. To characterize the space shuttle as a failure (in part), because of cost overruns would mean that 99.9% of other similar space bound vehicles would be failures as well.
There was also the fact escaping the shuttle in case of malfunction was much more difficult than with their previous space programs, being too complex compared to what they had promised, an the launch rate was not that spectacular when considering their promises.
They should have NEVER scrapped the Apollo program.
They're using stainless steel for a heat shield now
Starship will still have a heat shield, but it won't be as extensive as the Space Shuttle, and should be more resistant to failure due to the underlying structure being steel, which is more heat resistant.
no their heat shield is going to made out of heat resistant tiles just like the space shuttle.
@@JakeBananas Ceramic tiles and not light weight carbon fibres.
They still need a heat shield but because they are using stainless steel rather than aluminium the heat shield can be much simpler and more robust. Also materials science has moved on a lot since the shuttle, not even the shuttle would use the same heat shield if it were designed today.
They might use a thing named PICA-X
Your criteria for "failure" is incoherent. From the very title, you class the STS program a failure. STS had failures and shortcomings, but the program overall was very successful. By its very nature as a private enterprise, BFR/Starship cannot have the same failures. This makes your entire video pointless.
Yes, there is no clear metric for his declaration of failure. It was a program that flew. It revealed some safety issues over 30 years and it didn't mean the programs initial lofty goals.. That's it.
The shuttle program was a program that was about reducing the cost and having better safety. Both those objectives couldn't be met.
In that regard, the Shuttle is a failure.
Also, the Shuttle forever will haunt NASA's chances of ever being able to ever have another golden age of manned missions ever again; ALL attempts for them to replace the poorly deigned Shuttle have failed (Constellation and the now mostly scrapped SLS as the primary example).
It failed to stay in budget. It failed to be as reusable as promised. It failed to be ready to fly as quickly as promised. It failed to return astronauts back to the ground alive. That's a failure. No double quotes required.
Fun fact: Originally, the Space Shuttle had a two-stage fully-reusable winged flyback design, but that was too expensive for NASA's shoestring budget. #FundNASA
Me:
Trust in the Musk
Star Ship to Mars with Elon Musk as an on board explorer will be great ... good luck on the journey!
Safir Your pfp is infinite
He is literally trying to explode the first stage
Legendary
We thrust with Musk.
I miss the name BFR, its a cool nod to Doom and it really should have been kept as the name of the whole launch system:
Super Heavy (Stage 1) + Starship (Stage 2) = Big "Falcon" Rocket
Yeah, the current Super Heavy (Stage 1) + Starship (Stage 2) = Starship can get confusing at times.
What I want to know, is why they haven't named Lunar Starship to Moonship? ;)
That's like saying the Apollo program failed. It was built by man, man made decisions killed 3 astronauts. Yet it took men to the moon and landed them there.
Well the Saturn V fulfilled it's goal. The Space Shuttle didn't really fulfill it's goal of a reusable launch system
Arclight545 didn’t the space shuttle kill 14 people?
We're born with super computers in our pockets these days. There is NOTHING our next generation isn't capable of!
do you even known what "super computers" are?
David Pupazan you know that your phone has 2 million times more processing power than all of the computers that were used to put a man on the moon
Doesn't make it a supercomputer though....
@@nonegone7170 in the context of the previous generations.. if I'd told my younger self I'd have a pocket sized device with a screen resolution higher than anything on the market and the ability to basically do anything I wanted... then yeah its considered a super computer.. now however compared to "super computers" of our time it is not. Seems like people forget how far we've come in terms of technology
@@nonegone7170 are you really this dense? Honest question.
First off.. the space shuttle had over 150 successful missions. I was not aware that it “failed”
More like the program ended
Terrible choice for the headline in my opinion.
A lot of people (including NASA engineers) argue that Space Shuttle was a waste of resources and set American space program back.
The Space Shuttle is the most amazing vehicle ever built.
That is an indisputable fact.
And because facts: 135 missions. 134 (at least partial) mission successes. 133 launches and landings.
However 2/5 vehicles destroyed. 14 astronauts killed.
@@philb5593 you do realize those are horrible statistics? The Soyuz has had several hundreds of manned launches, and lost exactly two crews.
it costed far more than they predicted. that equals failure on that area
also they promised it could fly far more often - fail there too
I think he mad it clear that it failed... to held it's promises as made by NASA at the beginning of the program, in the economic sense.
You said that SpaceX could not tolerate failures with the BFR when manned. However, the failures you showed while making that comment were all failed booster landings - which even with the BFR will not be manned and failure, though costly, will not be life threatening. Otherwise great video.
Correct, BFS (Starship now) is our primary mission.
The BFR / Spaceship will land the same way as the first stage and therefore the comparison is sensible...
Sorry, BFR / Starship...
@@GunnarLof Partially sensible. The BFR will also have a booster that will not carry humans and will land like the current booster. The BFR / Starshipwill land similarly, but will actually have a more complicated landing process. However, as noted by Elon after the most recent landing failure, the current booster is not considered mission critical so they did not provide redundancy for many of the systems. Almost all previous failures can be put down to 'learning curve' ie they were almost exclusively first of a kind trials. Once they started landing them, they have had very few failures which is remarkable in itself. The most recent failure before the one this week was the center core of the Falcon Heavy - on its maiden flight. I am sure the BFR /Starship will fly and land multiple times before carrying humans. For the Falcon 9, I believe NASA has demanded a certain number of sequential launches of the Block 5 without significant changes before they will allow humans on. A similar rule would apply to the Starship.
but what ejection system will space ship use? we see that manned falcon uses pretty good one.. if manned spaceship will be made for 50 people... thats hard
Fail?? I'd hardly call the space shuttle a fail. Could there have been better design considerations? Sure. Were there mechanical issues that only later became obvious? Of course, but isn't that the way the progression of nearly every technological advancement is made? The space shuttle was a crucial step in the continuing adventures of the space race, no less than the walkman was a step in the advancement of mobile entertainment.
It was a fail. Too complex, too expensive, too dangerous. It it wasn't fail we would still have them today or atleast upgraded version of it.
It was a fail. The pair of rocket and shuttle was a disaster. It's like having a human head transplanted to camels body.
It was expensive, and unsafe.
That's a fail, it failed on everything it wanted to achieve... Except for cargo capacity.
The program had a 30-year operational lifespan (rivaled only by Soyuz, basically). It assembled much of the International Space Station and deployed several satellites and telescopes. Each orbiter flew around two dozen missions and the program led to advances in science and technology for not only the space program but eventually for daily life as well.
One can hardly call it a "failure" based solely on budget or not meeting criteria that were overly ambitious in the first place, any more than we can call Apollo a "failure" because we're not living in Moon domes with flying cars.
Fun fact: Originally, the Space Shuttle had a two-stage fully-reusable winged flyback design, but that was too expensive for NASA's shoestring budget. #FundNASA
The space shuttle was only a failure if they didn't learn anything in the process. I believe the shuttle program was a huge success. Perhaps not in all of the ways they anticipated, but the space program advanced by leaps and bounds as a result. SpaceX seems to reignited the imagination of the space program, and is on the path to more great advancements.
I'm curious to know how it advanced space flight by leaps and bounds? The system using legacy items so far it proving very expensive and entirely disposable. That's not building upon what the shuttle was, that's going exactly backwards.
First reusable space vehicle. Ability to haul 8 or maybe more astronauts. Serviced Hubble. Flight control systems. Thermal protection systems. RS-25 engines.
The space shuttle is the greatest vehicle ever.
In the second half of its life and still to day, it does hold NASA back. The shuttle was just going to be the start of a huge space economy, but... we know what happened.
who's here after SpaceX made it to the mars?
Wow your late. They've made it to Saturn
lol
lmfao
OFF Wow you're late. They already developed a fast ship that they were able to recover the Voyager 1 while it is going really fast.
@@supercoolmunkee nah we're just in different time zones in space.
I know the Shuttle had its problems but damn I love that thing! I'm gonna have to do a video in defense of it now.
Fun fact: Originally, the Space Shuttle had a two-stage fully-reusable winged flyback design, but that was too expensive for NASA's shoestring budget. #FundNASA
The shuttle was originally conceived as smaller and fully reusable. By the time USAF had had their say it was too big to be built with the budget. The semi reusable shuttle was known before it flew that it wouldn’t save launch costs due to the compromised build, Worse, due to the size/mass profile of the orbiter it would need to be rebuilt after each flight. Turnaround time grew from 2-weeks per vehicle to 2-months then to a year. You are attempting to compare chalk and cheese.
I worked on the Orbiter for 32 years. The nearly one year turnaround was dictated by the NASA who created the manifest. We couldn't have assembled the ISS if the remaining 3 vehicles after the loss of Columbia if the processing flow was a year. NASA bears the blame for the long turnaround times for many requirements imposed on USA. I will add a post that will lay out what actually happened during the Shuttle Program. Knowing the NASA as I do I speculate they will attempt to impose similar requirements on SpaceX and their turnaround will be long for Crew Dragon. I have many NASA friends and I may lose many of them if they read my post.
Fuck you, you're saying I can't put chalk in my sandwiches and eat it? I DO WHATEVER I WANT, IF I WANT I'LL EAT CHALK
jk
Actually, both the big payload bay and the large crossrange were both desired by NASA. There were even some Phase B concepts that could do all the TAOS shuttle could, and be fully reusable. The problem was that the Shuttle wasn't funded enough for any of these ideas to come through. #FundNASA
Now the bfr will be made out of stainless steel and won’t have this heat shield. It will have double layered stainless steel with "sweat pores" on the underside to manage the heat.
this aged like a fine wine
Why ?
Space is fake..... Sky is fake.... Planets are fake.... Countries are fake..... Other people are fake !!! You all are sheeps 🐑
@@sghqz comments are also fake
R Λ Z Ξ You are fake.
@@RR-uc1wb no u
Nothing is guaranteed but you can't improve the process if you don't start. The longer you wait the more it'll cost. SpaceX has a good mindset and they learn something from each launch.
Elon Musk will refuse to spend money wastefully he will adhere to the safety guidelines they established I have learned things during the failures and it's good to you learn these failures without loss of human life developing a very intense very specific oriented launch protocol and the continued development of components the bfr will be a success
He spends money on weed. I'd call that wasteful spending.
Vrominator X he literally said he doesn’t like it wtf. One puff does not mean that he smokes regularly.
Vrominator X can you verify that statement?
Also: If it even is true, it's very, very little money compared to economy. He is talking about money invested in his companys and there musk is not wasteful at all.
@@highbullseye2460 He smoked up on Joe Rogan's show. During an interview.
@@dylansemrau4839 He says he doesn't like it, but his actions say otherwise.
I’m honestly confused as to why nasa is making the sls, which isn’t reusable. It’s horribly expensive and seems impractical. The starship on the other hand will be a fraction of the cost of both the space shuttles and the sls. It’s also going to be 100% reusable.
They will drop the SLS when the Starship proves itself. Congress will have no choice. They'll look stupid to the public if they keep building the SLS. Orion as well.
Jemuel Mongado I agree. That will just mean the taxpayer money already used on that project will be wasted though, will it not? Maybe it wasn’t taxpayer money. Still, the amount already wasted on the project is astounding.
@@indigodragon0613 Yeah, but if the SLS really does fall short against Starship, then it's a necessary sacrifice. The unused funds would be better off redirected to the development of technologies necessary for space travel and colonization, like habitats and rovers.
Jemuel Mongado Yeah, that’s true.
@@indigodragon0613
Don't fall for the Sunk Cost Fallacy. It's better to cut your losses and go for a fresh start, than to keep wasting resources on a project that was a bad idea to begin with or has been thoroughly obsoleted by better alternatives.
Note that this doesn't mean that the SLS shouldn't be completed at this point, I'm only trying to guide you (and everyone who happens to read this) away from faulty reasoning.
Also note that the previous paragraph doesn't mean that I don't think SLS should be canceled, just that that wasn't the point I was trying to argue for.
Putting every positive thought and energy feeling into the success of this project!!
👍🎂👌👍3
Space Shuttle for 1981 was bloody impressive. Only 2 failures and 135 successful flights.
Now in 2018 with better technology at our fingertips, Space X must use this to their advantage. If Space shuttle was a possibility back then, then BFR can also be a reality.
never get tired to see the stereo landing of the falcon heavy. just gorgeous.
I like that you put time in the details.. like in the description! Love your video’s keep up the good work! :)
It's not really fair comparing these systems just because of the reusability factor. A first attempt at anything is always at the mercy of the unknowns. The STS was really a work platform for low Earth orbit. The US used it for too many unnecessary things to make up for not having a space station. The outstanding things it could do included maintaining the Hubble Space Telescope, retrieving failed satellites and of course building a space station. Because of the expense and dangers it was retired. We learn from sad experience. What worries me is the BFR will be a 2 stage rocket carrying people. Eventually something will go wrong or all rocket launches and returns should be successful... and they still aren't.
I doubt they would put humans on BFR until they solve most of the problems (every failed launch / landing means much lower chance of the same problem occurring ever again as they will do their best to prevent it) AND have a reliable launch escape system in case something still goes wrong.
@@marekcernoch1355 What kind of escape system will BFR have? I haven't seen anything on this.
@@billinct860 Neither have I - this is just my speculation.
Maybe they have space left out for LES in their design, but they don't want to put unnecessary expensive stuff on an experimental cargo rocket where destruction of the payload isn't that big of a problem (sure, it's inconvenient, but nobody gets hurt). Also, they might want to first test whether BFR doesn't do something from what the LES couldn't recover - it's somewhat expected to have your rocket fail, but failure in a system that's supposed to keep you safe when the rocket fails would probably not fill people with trust.
But then again, this is just what I - random dude on the internet - think. The closest I've ever got to designing a rocket is Kerbal Space Program and I have no education in this field whatsoever so I could be wrong in every single thing I just wrote.
@@marekcernoch1355 Right or wrong it's nice to discuss this stuff with another intelligent random dude. I'm nobody special, just interested in most space related things. If things as simple as an O-ring or piece of foam could bring down a space shuttle, well, I'm just concerned everyone thinks the BFR fail safe while still mostly only in development.
@@billinct860 True, discussion is what I came to comments for.
Anyway, I think people at SpaceX understand the risks of their designs very well, so general public thinking the BFR is absolutely fail safe should hopefully have no impact on BFR's safety systems. Also, even if we ignore the moral part of having people needlessly die, they as a private company really want to avoid bad reputation, so their priority should always be human safety.
The space shuttle failed because of the bad management NASA had. They didn't learn from their mistakes from Challenger because nobody was held accountable. The managers overruled the engineer's concerns. And paid the price for it.
NASA management was the actual reason both shuttles wer lost
The Space Shuttle only had 2 failed missions. So it wasn't a failure. Our new upgrade to something else and budget and stupidity of an nation who allows our oligarch puppets to spend half a trillion to a trillion a year on DOD and only $18 billion a year for NASA... that's absurd. WE failed ourselves.
@@jmitterii2 we wouldn't have either of those two if the NASA management took the seriousness of the engineers who said it wasn't safe
I always thought the shuttle was a good idea but they needed a redesign it a little I always thought they could put jet engines on it that can at least get it up in altitude was my idea anyway when I was in high school
The Space Shuttle did not fail. It did exactly what it was designed to do.
I remember reading in space books as a kid the "future of space travel" and pictures of how the successor of the space shuttle will be like....now we are actually there, and its so much better
The only english YT channel, where I do understand all!😍☺
the space shuttle has only failed twice and the star ship we don’t now
However, there have only been five fully space worthy ones ever built. Two of those have been lost. Space Shuttle was too expensive in general and a deathtrap.
Wait there was a non space worthy SPACE shuttle!
In 2019 today it's happening
Now its 2020
@@bigmac3373 and now its happened
First of all the space shuttle didn’t fail, one of the most successful rockets of all time.
Tell that to the crew of the Challenger
Naranox tell that to the other 789 crew personnel and 133 successful missions. Not being rude to the crew of Columbia and Challenger but in the end, the shuttle was a successful aircraft. The crew went in knowing what they were doing and if it costed their lives, so be it. Doesn’t mean that they won’t say it is a successful aircraft. Despite costs and what not the issue was on NASA’s maintenance side.
Brayden McNeal The craft had plenty of successful missions, true, but it‘s not worth taking the risk in addition to monetary loss because you have cheaper and safer rockets on the marker.
WOW, 2022 seems extremely ambitious for space x
Remember hearing about those tiles on the shuttle back in the 1970’s as a child. Thought then, “Does not sound too sturdy.”
I believe SpaceX will lower cost and out perform the bureaucratic mess that is NASA.
You dont know the system. Crew Dragon is being overseen by the NASA like they did to us at Rockwell. We actually fought the changes NASA wanted which caused numerous failures and the loss of two birds, payloads and precious human life. The NASA had serious issues with their employees in the 80s due to the retirement of experienced Apollo engineers. They brought in new college hires and put them to oversee us at the design center. They were ignorant due to the lack of real experience and we fought like cats and dogs. We were accused of technical arrogance. It was like "How dare you tell us what needs to be done. We are NASA and I wouldn't have got the job if I didnt know everything I need to in order to oversee your effort. I had been told that by two different NASA new hires. After the brain drain and the new hires came in there was a high turnaround rate and these kids were promoted to management positions because the NASA lacked the experienced folks to fill those positions. I was always tasked to take these guys to see an Orbiter and walk them around and thru the vehicle. They were clueless based on the questions asked of me. They would then return to their JSC offices and would periodically visit me in Downey but very rarely seen in Palmdale or KSC. Budget reductions imposed by Congress from the beginning of the design process meant key systems were deleted including the Aft solid Rocket motors that was the escape system. The imposition of Spray On Foam Insulation on the ET instead of what Martin had specified just to save money on labor and schedule was just as criminal as removing the escape system. The excessively long processing flows was due to the NASA imposing testing of every system on the ground including equipment like temp sensors and thermostats caused that issue. We actually wore out equipment on the ground instead of flight and tearing into every system every flow introduced failures that were not necessary. This also drove up operational costs. Then to top it off the Executive branch pressured the NASA to launch on arbitrary schedules thanks to the media. I could go on and on with the reasons why but in writing this I think I should write a book to dispel these myths. I am now retired and have no intention of going back to work so I have no fear of being blackballed or punished. Had we the budget promised and experienced NASA engineers we would be having a very different conversation tonight. If you dont believe me. Look at SLS and Orion which should have been in operation by now and I have heard that NASA performed much of the design effort and are much more involved than on Shuttle.
@@daronahhaitty1158 you should relearn punctuation man
Space shuttle "failed", because it was never developed over time. New shuttles with improved tech. NASA couldn't fund it.
Air travel would also have failed if we didn't build improved planes after the initial few.
Reusability allowing for 'cheap' travel, means it can charge enough to include development costs of future vehicles, so funding won't be much of an issue.
go spacex go starship!!!!!!!!!
@@screamingpingu2112 yes
Penguin Animations why no? Don’t want humans in space? You sure you human?
The rapid change in Space X’s design philosophy is evident is how much has changed from the BFR to Starliner. The outer skin, to the tiles, even to the number of fins, all have changed.
Starliner? Those boeing capsule thingy?
The BFR booster should be the easy part, building on tried and proven systems. (Excuse the word “easy!”)
The upper stage is another matter which is why it is being developed first. It has to enter the atmosphere at a speed of around 30,000 Km/hr from a lunar trajectory, survive the areobraking and land perfectly. That demands new design and testing etc. I hope they succeed.
4:25 oh that was not really a failure, that was just an unbelievable emergency landing
That was a failed booster landing, unmanned.
That one guy it’s a joke
I wouldn’t exactly call the shuttle program a failure😂
It all depends on the criteria for success, while the shuttle did many great things it was still the most costly and ultimately the most deadly manned vehicle NASA ever used.
Nice implementation of the recent failure footage
Failure?
_Ahem!_
It was an "emergency sea landing".
Hydraulic pump for the grid fins stalled. (They use one shared pump, so all the grid fins lost at least some control.) Without the fins, it was unable to reach the landing pad (plus they wouldn't have aimed for it anyway due to safety concerns), but it still landed in the water. Had the surface been solid instead of liquid, the booster might have remained standing.
@@theuncalledfor Elon failed? What a load of nonsense!
This actually the best channel in the world KEEP MAKEING THIS CONTENT
Good editing, inspirational music and a good voice. Enjoyed the video.
Thumbs up for the editor and Primal space
Will it fail?
Elon Musk: **Starts singing trust me im an engineer song**
Trust me I am a engineer now let’s put this right there
5:14 "Every part of the vehicle will work together perfectly as intended."... citation needed.
Will it fail?
Nah
1st IT'S NOT A starship !
2nd IT'S NOT A starship !
3rd say 1 & 2 as needed.
Yeah but it sounds cool
i'm a reliability engineer by training and this is for me one of the best videos i've ever seen here - thx! every engineer or person with engineering ideas like Musk is arrogant about their concept - that's a trade vice/failure, as we know - just because someone is arrogant about their idea "don't mean it's gonna work" (does NOT mean it WON'T fail), of course i studied both Shuttle failures and included them in my reliability textbook, it's not just because of the "go attitude" they failed, lack of attention to detail and redundancy issues also played parts, nobody puts a potential exhaust port INSIDE a solid engine - which is what the o-rings were operationally, nobody don't include spare parts (extra tiles adhesive and repair procedures) when human life is involved, i know the thousands of unique types of tiles made it cost prohibitive but that's a DESIGN flaw, one of my majors at MooU was stats & prob so i know about that shit, Murphy's Law: something that CAN go wrong WILL go wrong given enuf time, the more things that CAN go wrong WILL go wrong given enuf time, cascade failure / catastrophic failure must be minimized using systems-reliability EVERY time you make a design change that impacts the entire system, i thot i cud find a link to my text online but not now, thx 4 reading sam
If you are a reliability engineer why is it you have bad spelling & grammar, I wouldn't like to read your reports.
Spacex's fails are only at landing the booster, wich means they never really failed
SpaceDave1337 CRS-7, AMOS-6, Crew Dragon testing and the whole Falcon 1 program were failures, and didn’t involve anything about booster landings.
They haven’t even flown crew yet, I wouldn’t be so confident
For the moment yes
Oh wow the b1050 flop already in the vid
The shuttle was successful.
The BFR doesn’t even exist.
It was okay. Arguably, if NASA stuck with non reusable rockets, they'd had humans on Mars by now.
Again, it's how you measure success. Did it fly? Yes. Did it hit the program goals? No.
LensFlare Deviant, the space shuttle was designed to service a space station. That was it's program goal. The space shuttle was funded in the 1970s but the space station wasn't funded until the 1990s. The space shuttle successfully built and maintained a space station. It achieved its goal.
@@DeepDeepSpace It was designed to be a cheap reusable GTO system. It was neither cheap, barely reusable and demonstrably dangerous. It was a impressive system and it did build the ISS. It was more than a single metric measure.
@Lensflare Deviant, the space shuttle was cost effective for its size.
Regardless of the fact that the shuttle didn't live up to all its expectations it still didn't fail! The shuttle is largely responsible for inspiring many of the people that work at NASA and private companies alike to go into space or work in the industry.
If not for the shuttle then we wouldn't have a lot of the people working on the various vehicles being designed and built. The shuttle was an inspiring and imagination spurring titan that paved the way for today's space tech. It absolutely was not a failure.
Your video was around 3 weeks to early. BFR has become Superheavy Starship and all that stuff about ablative Pica-X tiles is yesterday's news. Starship will be built with stainless steel shell integrated structurally with its fuel tanks. Windward side will be cooled on reentry using (cryo) liquid methane on the windward surfaces - leeward surfaces will not require cooling....
So far it seems Elon is meant to be successful.
No.
Unlikely; unlike NASA'S nightmare that was the space shuttle, they're actually designing the thing tone reusable and tacking on more and more features.
The crappy ass refurb process didn't help either
I still remember reading about SpaceX way back when they fist started playing around with the idea of landing a first stage. And thinking "Neat Idea, but it will never work." Now that SpaceX does it routinely and has slashed the cost of putting equipment into space AND will likely beat Boeing in the race to launch Astronauts from American soil again... I have learned not to scoff at Elon or SpaceX anymore. In all honesty if any one puts a human on mars in the foreseeable future it is likely going to be SpaceX.
@CLP because times were different, also SpaceX doesn't know the technology that NASA used because they started from scratch. Most of the component in rockets back then was mechanical and has moving parts.
As a 58 year old space and human space flight enthousiast, I say that they will have some problems and possibly some serious setbacks, but like the engineers and scientists that went before them, they will get past them. Good luck SpaceX and Blue Origin!
The shuttle had a major design flaw: The external fuel tank sitting ahead of its wings, exposing them to launch damage.
That takes care of one of its fatal flights. The other could've been saved by an abort system, which it lacked. And which Starship also lacks.
Fun fact: Originally, the Space Shuttle had a two-stage fully-reusable winged flyback design, but that was too expensive for NASA's shoestring budget. #FundNASA
Give me original ITS !!!
Anyone here after it just succeeded
Me
that wasnt the bfr, it was the dragon capsule on a falcon 9
@@oliverpage2833 no one said it was
@@TripleLayerLemonCake well this is a vid about the bfr.
The main issue I have with the BFR is the lack of a launch abort system. Even the most reliable rockets occasionally fail and if you don't have a way to get humans off the rocket then you have to face the inevitable deaths. Not to mention propulsive landing, which is undeniably more dangerous than dropping a teardrop in water with parachutes.
I like u man like the one time 2.00, u went from fully serious to nice and funny.
Roses are red
Violets are blue
I hope not
And so you too
BFR, now named Starship (top part)/ Superheavy (bottom part), has already changed. Starship will not have a heat shield (unless plans change), but will be made of stainless steel, and it will sweat methane to keep cool. This dramatically increases coolness and might reduce the overall weight, or may increase it. Looking forward to 2021!
1:59 I laugh at the "Get on with it" guy...Haha
Safety cannot be guaranteed. The best we can do is perform all due diligence. Space travel is inherently risky. At some point, lives will be lost on SpaceX rockets. It is the cost of reaching space. Anyone unwilling to accept any risk should just stay home.
As ugly as the 2018 design of BFR is; it still has better chances of succeeding anyways than the Shuttle (which was pretty much the death nail that will forever haunt Nasa's manned missions).
Ambitious projects like BFR will certainly fail if people never try. I hope they (& by proxy we) succeed but even failure brings knowledge & will surely lead to further progress. Exciting times we live in.
Mountaineering has a similar affliction..."summit fever" suffering altitude, exposure and delirium accidents always follow.
I liked how you added a meme in such type of video lol
I'm really worried it's repeating one of the Shuttle's primary mistakes: the lack of a launch abort system. The usual answer to this is "SpaceX will just make the whole system safer!" That's exactly what NASA's strategy was too.
We all fail, But that dosent mean you stop seeking for success
Basically, this video tells us how privatization inspires innovation and how bureaucracy suppresses it.
Hearing about Starship's 2022 trip to mars in 2023 is... something
I don't think that the space shuttle failed. It just had some malfunctions over the years and eventually was taken to the museum.
The Space shuttle never failed. It was retired way past it sell by date and was a huge success.. Its just a pity that the government didn't have a program in place to success it. People seem to forget that it was pretty much the first of its kind. Today, planes are extremely common and almost as easy to make. With only ONE model of space shuttle worldwide, its still baby steps in order to get something like it into more common usage. Maybe if we had as many companies competing to build "space shuttles" as we have had military fighter jets, we'd have lots of them with very good reliability and functions.
The Space Shuttle was designed 50 years ago! The Tech was way different and being invented. If it wasn't for NASA none of these companies would be able to afford the projects. Sure the Space Shuttle had issues but again 50 years ago! It's like comparing a 1975 Mercedes Benz to a 2020 version.
Loved the video, thanks man
For the STS, 2 others major problems where funding and Frequency.
-Funding : From the original estimate they got only a fraction, obligating them to developed a low cost and make compromise on safety and reusability (in earlier stage they wanted to reuse everything not only the shuttle), and inflation did not follow the funding which stayed the same and did not increase.
-In the paperboard stages of development, they planned up to 100 launch each year. In the end the maximum was something like 9 a year I believe. That's a huge thing in term of low cost launch.
So far SpaceX has the pretty impressive launch rate and that's really something they undertood form that experience.
About fundings and reusability it's a private company. One thing for sure they won't continue if they don't make a profitable business, and so far they prooved to be good at it. If they keep going like this, a lot of companies will follow their path (some may say it's already happening).
Just a small note regarding BFR : We can't say whether it will succeed or not, but it won't in 2022 for sure (going to mars, not lift-off to leo or geo)
I have a friend who works for Nasa assigned to the Space-X team for sending up their astronauts next year. He pretty much tells space-X what safety procedures need to be analyzed or how they can determine X, Y,Z are safe. He said the Space-X team are not exactly the cooperative bunch because corporate culture is pretty much "we got this, it's safe, don't worry". My friend's concern is that for material launches like satellite, the safety bar can afford to be lower than human launches, but only for material launches. Anyways, he spent 30 mins complaining about Space-X which I thought was pretty interesting.
Ah what does he know about space, he is just jealous of Elon Musk!
Simple the Starship is going to succeed as it has no politicians controlling it.
And that is why they test, break prototypes, modify, rebuild, then test again. They did it with the Falcon 9, and they're carrying all that knowledge into perfecting Starship & FSH.