Go to ground.news/everydayastronaut to stay informed on SpaceX and all things space with a balanced perspective to form your own conclusions. Subscribe through my link to get 40% off unlimited access with the Vantage Plan this month.
Also imagine someone accidentally sends the booster to the wrong tower one day. Like oops there was a billion dollar satellite on our landing spot. This is just a joke btw
Anyone else remember getting banned from r/SpaceX for suggesting they catch the rocket with a robot arm? It was literally a rule. Pepperidge farms remembers.
@@Britonbear For us yeah. But media around the world would say things like SpaceX rocket exploded again this time on the launch side etc.. I can still remeber the news article of flight 4...
@@johnvriezen4696 All of these tests will be largley forgotten by the general public when the first landings on the Moon and Mars happen. People like us will remember the test campaign, but the majority of people aren't even aware Starship exists. Far too busy worried about sportsball.
@@smugfrog8111 yeah thats the most frustrating thing, spacex is doing all the incredible revolutianary things and all of my familly and firends dont even know it exists
ayyy thanks for saying calm 😂 I appreciate that, I've been trying harder and harder to just be myself on camera and not acting like some hype man or something and this feels so much more natural to me and hopefully to my viewers as well. Thanks for saying something 🙏
Until the next most interesting and important moment in spaceflight history. Things are moving very fast in today's world. I'm 56 yo and although I missed the moon landings, I do remember how exciting it was to watch the Space Shuttles, but now that we're back in the space race, I can only imagine the excitement of my parents generation with the first manned flights and moon landings.
The sound, the music, the mixing, perfect leveling. Your voice is clearly heard over the music, the music completely matches the theme of your channel, is has a decent bass as well. This also goes for the rest of the video, where you talk over launch sounds etc. I know this comment is petty, but I am just literally completely impressed.
the thing with the deluge is if that cold plate gets any damage from those engines they have to be replaced. firing the deluge ensures no debris enters those holes and to prevent any material oblation
@@cube2fox I would expect the IR flash from the fireball after a crash and any puddle fires to be the biggest risks to the launch complex. Running the Deluge would help with both. The launch mount is built THICK out of cheap steel so dents should just be an annoyance.
I'll give it a 5% chance of failure prior to completed boostback burn, a 40% chance of early abort, where it doesn't get anywhere near the tower, a 20% chance of a late abort, where it fires up the engines, sees things going wrong and then flies off into the water instead, a 10% chance of attempted but failed landing, and a 25% chance of successful landing. And I'll define a successful landing as one where they end the flight suspended from the chocksticks without explosions. Some damage to the booster is acceptable. Will be interesting to see how it goes. Hopefully they get approval for Sunday - that still doesn't seem completely definite.
@@dogbreath6974 Some people would actually consider me wildly optimistic. But I try to be realistic. And if I am too pessimistic, I'll be pleasantly surprised!
If this actually happens, it will be one of the greatest achievements in the last hundred years. If it doesn’t happen, the explosion could be legendary
The biggest danger to the launch site for catching boosters is the close proximity of the tank farm. Even if it’s mostly empty like the booster, the damage could be a major setback. I assume they must already be planning for a totally different tank farm design for the kind of launch cadence they are hoping for. If they want to achieve airline-like operations then they will get airline-like crashes, most likely in close proximity to the tower.
@@NonSensewithnosense Yep, and an off course booster that blows up and veers off course can land right on it. They’ve done the minimal amount of effort on the system as needed so far, which is exactly how you develop something. I’m just curious what they will build when they are launching and landing one every couple days. Nothing that we are looking at now is finished hardware, not the rocket, ship, launch mount, tower, or tank farm.
Mostly empty tanks, & even half-empty tanks, are weaker than full tanks. Pressurized tanks are much stronger than unpressurized tanks. An adult can stand on an unopened beer or soda can, but empty (or opened) cans will crush under a child's weight. Plus the tank farm is protected by a big concrete wall. It will be fine.
I love seeing a new AA video notification! If I could make one suggestion, Tim, it's that a "CGI" banner on rendered scenes would help avoid confusion because they are so convincing. Long time space enthusiasts (like most of us here) know what's real and what's not but I think casual viewers could be confused seeing the booster get caught like it's already happened.
the positioning system is not purely satellite based but also uses inertial measurement systems as well as potentially ground/water based systems but that said i do think its likely he meant half a metwer based purely on the fact that half a centimeter on the first landing attempt would be an insane improvement over f9s capabilities despite a much larger vehicle
I think there's probably a 1% chance of a major explosion at the tower, a 39% chance of a divert to sea and explosion on the water, and a 60% chance of a mostly successful catch. I really would trust the SpaceX flight computer to divert if there's a problem, but I think there's something like a 95% chance of a divert to the water for one crash landing in the first 10 attempts. I'd bet they get something working on the first one, then delete something they think is waste that turns out to have been important and have to add it back in.
It’s honestly just the most hardcore way of weight savings there is, the booster has no deployment legs, so instead of crushing the rockets if they tried to land it, they are just gunna catch it. Maximum performance to weight ratio.. I love it.
Instead of labelling somebody crazy, you need to understand who exactly populism appeals to and why. There is a ton of knowledge on this in socio-political psychology. It primarily stems from alienization and dismissal of legitimate concerns as craziness, exactly as you are doing right now.
Giant explosion? No, but falling from a missed catch and then maybe a smallish explosion seems likely. I can’t say how much damage that would represent, of course, but it does seem like it could lead to quite a delay.
@@maxsk9074that helps, but I suspect that the FAA will also want some sort of report about damage caused by an incident on land. But maybe I’m wrong about that?
@@nathanpowell195 the FAA only let falcon fly after that first failure because it didn’t put the launchpad or civilians at risk, so I’m assuming they’re going to be all over starship, maybe to the point of grounding it
@@maxsk9074 Second tower is probably 6-12 months away from being capable of supporting launches. But a missed catch just isn't that likely to cause enough damage to delay things that much. I'd guess 1-2 months.
Those moments where your jaw hits the floor because something unbelievable is happening during a Starship launch are the best. Lots of potential for those in this launch. Sunday can't come fast enough.
Hey! Hope you see this! I want to see someone explain SpaceX current process of preparing a falcon booster for flight. How much refurbishment is needed exactly? Can't recall ever seeing a recent video detailing this process. Thanks!
I am just happy they are so public with the testing and we get to see all this good and bad. I get more excited over these tests than just about anything else you can watch.
This is going to be an epic event. With the genesis of the SpaceX team performing a historical achievement, i would guess 75-80 % success. Either way, I'm sure I will be screaming with joy for the exploration of space.
This may not work perfectly the first time. But i believe they will Crack this Nutt eventually. SpaceX has no fear. But who knows? Maybe this works the first time? We'll see.
An empty fuel container is a very dangerous fuel container. 13:42 Remember, it's the fumes (unless vented out before the impact) that ignite, not the fuel itself.
The difference between most other fuel containers is that the fuel tanks on Super Heavy contain pure fuel gas, not fuel mixed with air/oxygen. If the fuel tank is breached, the fuel still has to mix with the outside air before it can burn/explode.
This was my question, it'll be nearly empty on return I suppose. Is that a good thing or bad thing? Maybe they could time everything out so it's ejecting excess fuel all the way up until caught, but then again they need some pressure in the 'can' otherwise it prob will crush.
Thanks, Tim, good overview and details. I suspect the primary reason the deluge system is activated for the tower catch/landing is just in case the catch is muffed, the water deluge will minimize the negative RUD effects. I enjoy the thermal, color-changing mug nearly every work day.🙂
The arms seem flawed. Why not a hexagon that can expand or close like a toy ball? A big hexagon it lands within and the ring closes providing more landing points. It also could have more than the side of a tower holding it
I think the straight arms allow a smaller angle between fully open and fully closed. That may allow the rocket to drift inward and self-center on the arms. However, if the rotational angle of the rocket is off, that could result in only the tower-side fins making contact and the opposite fin unsupported. I guess we'll see how it plays out 🤷♂️
My guess is that this will be a qualified success. Either their landing abort systems will work great and prevent a huge explosion or they'll catch it but something unexpected will happen to cause some damage to the booster.
Awesome music throughout this video - I often forget about Tim's musical endeavours! Presumably the band playing in the footage of the Astro Awards is Everyday Astronaut?
They never nail it on the first try, i wish they could but i think something especifically will go wrong then they will fix it for the 2nd try and succeed
I honestly think they have a good chance of catching it, if they go for the catch attempt this time. I saw Ift1 & 2 in person, every time they've learned and gotten better from every launch. It truly is inspiring watching what many would seem impossible become regular
There is a 3rd option after; successful "catch", and slam into the pad & blow up. Either the rocket or the "director" could scrub the catch attempt and ditch in the ocean instead (as you explained earlier in the vid). Ditch in the ocean instead, might actually be the most likely outcome.
Great video! thanks for this! Thanks for reminding me about the landing attempts of starship i forgot how exciting they were. I'm going to rewatch them now. I remember watching some of them live on my night shifts haha great times, feels long ago too.
what’s the news on the apollo landing conspiracies episode? it sounded really fun, i hope you’re still planning to work on it after all this flight 5 craziness has passed
I’m voting big fireball on this one. It’s such an insanely complicated procedure, there’s almost no way they manage to get it just right the first time. It’s definitely technologically possible though, so I fully believe it’ll work eventually. Falcon 9 also had many failed landing at first.
Is it really that much harder just to plop it in the ocean? Personally I think the Sea Dragon had the launch idea down, assuming it doesn't mangle the ocean. Turning that around to a hover and plop and ocean proofing seems like worth a think.
well... for the damages... you compare to explosion on the ground without anything critical around. 1. there is a tour now. the booster can directly hit this tower. 2. there are a lot of tanks with propellant near the landing zone 3. there is the launch ring with a lot of material on it 4. there is chopstick where you'll have a big energy applied it's far away different from just a big concrete and nothing else around.
@@cube2fox at this point, protecting the ground has no added value and its limited to a small area. this will not prevent the damages if the booster explode, the explosion will be higher than the water or in an area without any water at all. also I'm not sure if they have water available after the launch.
That is the 64 million dollar question, yeah. Best guess is that while FAA coordinates air space usage, NASA or the DoD can also certify the vehicle for launch without the FAA approving the hardware.
Government agencies like to under-promise and over-deliver, quite opposed to Elon's boundless optimism. They sell you the worst-case timelines as the best-case timelines so that they can have as much time as they need to handle any curveballs.
I bet they have the booster deluge system on just in case the landing fails. Good chance it would immediately put out any residual propellant fires. (The launch mount is built THICK so I'd expect that, fire sneaking in cracks or cooking it are the biggest risks from a landing failure) I bet the FireX system is enough heat control for a successful booster landing.
IMO catching is not so serious problem...Good old watertower (Starhopper) was able to hover 5 years ago, and hundreds of Falcon9 landings taught Spacex how to control landing. Sensors on the chopsticks can be extremely precise. The main problem with Startship (I mean the upper stage) is the high speed reentry heating. When returning from an interplanetary journey, reentry speed can be much higher than the LEO speed. Rapid reusability requires no or very slight servicing...so the "skin" of the Ship must be very tough.
The chop stick capture may not be the dummest idea, although getting the booster to glide back to a runway may be more ambitious but would seem to have far more advantages.
I think I don't understand the difference between 'boost back burn' and 'entry burn'. Is it both regarding to the booster or did I mix something up? At 3:25 there is a mentioning of a boost back burn (to return to the launchpad) and at 5:34 you say there is no entry burn needed. That was like a mad hatter trick to me. Maybe someone can clarify that for me? Thx a lot!
The boostback burn is to get the booster heading back to the launch pad. At the point where the boostback burn is finished, the rocket is still in the vacuum of space, hurtling towards the atmosphere. Falcon 9 will do a boostback burn followed by an entry burn, right as the booster is starting to see substantial heating and deceleration from the atmosphere. The entry burn slows the booster down, and the exhaust acts as a gas "shield" against the atmospheric heating. The Starship Super Heavy booster doesn't need the entry burn, because it's designed to withstand the heating of reentry.
I think if they give the manual authorization they'll make the catch alright, but I'm not 100% sure it won't collapse the arms or the assembly that attaches them to the tower. I'm anticipating "failure" being the booster gets caught and the arms end up slipping down the tower a ways. They may have to bring a crane in to get the booster off the tower and do some rehab on Mechazilla to beef up the assembly before they try again, but I don't think it'll be a big boom...maybe more like a vertical train derailment...? Can't wait to find out.
Go to ground.news/everydayastronaut to stay informed on SpaceX and all things space with a balanced perspective to form your own conclusions. Subscribe through my link to get 40% off unlimited access with the Vantage Plan this month.
I wonder if those early flight tests were to help develop the software to control the part where the booster scoots towards the arms
Also imagine someone accidentally sends the booster to the wrong tower one day. Like oops there was a billion dollar satellite on our landing spot. This is just a joke btw
Anyone else remember getting banned from r/SpaceX for suggesting they catch the rocket with a robot arm?
It was literally a rule.
Pepperidge farms remembers.
@@jtjames79Wow, just had that same idea, Tesla bot and all, the tech is there, right? Operator controlled with a joystick. Must work! 😅
8:26 i suppose in case it fails to catch could also decrease damage from explosion greatly
Either way this will be one of the most memorable flight tests
Excitement guaranteed
Yeah whatever happens it will be hailed as a great success.
Absolutely - let's just hope that the chances of an RUD upon landing is lower than it may first appear.
@@Britonbear For us yeah. But media around the world would say things like SpaceX rocket exploded again this time on the launch side etc..
I can still remeber the news article of flight 4...
@@Ri_Shin_Marco You misunderstand me. I am not one of 'us'.
If they succeed, it's revolutionary, if they fail, it's spectacular. It's a win-win.
And if they decide to ditch in the ocean it won't be memorable.
@@johnvriezen4696 All of these tests will be largley forgotten by the general public when the first landings on the Moon and Mars happen. People like us will remember the test campaign, but the majority of people aren't even aware Starship exists. Far too busy worried about sportsball.
Excitement is guaranteed, as Elon says
@@smugfrog8111 yeah thats the most frustrating thing, spacex is doing all the incredible revolutianary things and all of my familly and firends dont even know it exists
i really love these calm, explainative videos!
ayyy thanks for saying calm 😂 I appreciate that, I've been trying harder and harder to just be myself on camera and not acting like some hype man or something and this feels so much more natural to me and hopefully to my viewers as well. Thanks for saying something 🙏
@@EverydayAstronautits great, you sound enthusiastic but not loud or panicked or anything
@@EverydayAstronautSpaceX doesn't need a hype man anyway. They just keep doing the "impossible" with exciting explosions along the way!
Likewise, seem further and further apart these days. Nsf have great regular content
@@EverydayAstronaut thats definetly the way, at least for me! Nobody needs an overacting hype man 😁
This is going to be one of the the most interesting and important moments in spaceflight history
Godspeed Starship
Until the next most interesting and important moment in spaceflight history. Things are moving very fast in today's world. I'm 56 yo and although I missed the moon landings, I do remember how exciting it was to watch the Space Shuttles, but now that we're back in the space race, I can only imagine the excitement of my parents generation with the first manned flights and moon landings.
@@rolandtobiasz let’s hope to see a moon base and or a manned mars landing in our lifetime
Yes yes. Godspeed Starship. 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
Wow I miss analysis of this kind from you Tim ! No one does it like you do .
The sound, the music, the mixing, perfect leveling. Your voice is clearly heard over the music, the music completely matches the theme of your channel, is has a decent bass as well. This also goes for the rest of the video, where you talk over launch sounds etc. I know this comment is petty, but I am just literally completely impressed.
The music is terrible!!!
And he made the music himself!
I listened to this video in my studio with big speakers and I also immediately noticed how well the audio is done. Hat of to the audio engineer.
the thing with the deluge is if that cold plate gets any damage from those engines they have to be replaced. firing the deluge ensures no debris enters those holes and to prevent any material oblation
Good point. Perhaps it's also meant to mitigate the explosion in case the catch fails?
oooo both excellent points!
@@cube2fox I would expect the IR flash from the fireball after a crash and any puddle fires to be the biggest risks to the launch complex. Running the Deluge would help with both. The launch mount is built THICK out of cheap steel so dents should just be an annoyance.
Excitement guaranteed
"in thrust we trust"
fr
‘There is no replacement for thrust’
I'll give it a 5% chance of failure prior to completed boostback burn, a 40% chance of early abort, where it doesn't get anywhere near the tower, a 20% chance of a late abort, where it fires up the engines, sees things going wrong and then flies off into the water instead, a 10% chance of attempted but failed landing, and a 25% chance of successful landing.
And I'll define a successful landing as one where they end the flight suspended from the chocksticks without explosions. Some damage to the booster is acceptable.
Will be interesting to see how it goes. Hopefully they get approval for Sunday - that still doesn't seem completely definite.
That seems fair.
@spaceadvocate so your feeling optimistic then.😂
@@dogbreath6974 Some people would actually consider me wildly optimistic. But I try to be realistic. And if I am too pessimistic, I'll be pleasantly surprised!
If this actually happens, it will be one of the greatest achievements in the last hundred years. If it doesn’t happen, the explosion could be legendary
Even if they get it done, it’s pretty useless. Or at least far from the ridiculous promises Musk made about this thing.
@@angrydoggy9170What are talking about, if they do ir, it is useless. Which planet are you from?
@@viewer_5714 The angrydoggy9170 is just one of those MAGA people who criticize everything and everyone.
@@viewer_5714 Come on. Make an effort. You’re writing English like Musk runs his projects.
The greatest achievements in the last hundred years? What are smoking my friend?
its a good day when tim uploads a new video
The biggest danger to the launch site for catching boosters is the close proximity of the tank farm. Even if it’s mostly empty like the booster, the damage could be a major setback. I assume they must already be planning for a totally different tank farm design for the kind of launch cadence they are hoping for. If they want to achieve airline-like operations then they will get airline-like crashes, most likely in close proximity to the tower.
They need under ground tanks.
Yeah, that is a big potential issue.
Edit: though if the guidance is still pretty good if a failure does happen, it might be far enough away.
They already built a giant concrete wall which is separating launch tower and tanks.
@@NonSensewithnosense Yep, and an off course booster that blows up and veers off course can land right on it. They’ve done the minimal amount of effort on the system as needed so far, which is exactly how you develop something. I’m just curious what they will build when they are launching and landing one every couple days. Nothing that we are looking at now is finished hardware, not the rocket, ship, launch mount, tower, or tank farm.
Mostly empty tanks, & even half-empty tanks, are weaker than full tanks. Pressurized tanks are much stronger than unpressurized tanks. An adult can stand on an unopened beer or soda can, but empty (or opened) cans will crush under a child's weight. Plus the tank farm is protected by a big concrete wall. It will be fine.
I love seeing a new AA video notification!
If I could make one suggestion, Tim, it's that a "CGI" banner on rendered scenes would help avoid confusion because they are so convincing. Long time space enthusiasts (like most of us here) know what's real and what's not but I think casual viewers could be confused seeing the booster get caught like it's already happened.
Good point!
I’m calling bullshit on Bill Gerstenmaier’s claim of “half a centimeter” accuracy. I think it’s likely he misspoke.
I agree, according to what I could find in google now, there are no satellite based positioning systems capable of going below centimeter accuracy 🤔
Yeah. More likely he meant 0.5 meters. Which would still be unusually accurate.
the positioning system is not purely satellite based but also uses inertial measurement systems as well as potentially ground/water based systems but that said i do think its likely he meant half a metwer based purely on the fact that half a centimeter on the first landing attempt would be an insane improvement over f9s capabilities despite a much larger vehicle
I think there's probably a 1% chance of a major explosion at the tower, a 39% chance of a divert to sea and explosion on the water, and a 60% chance of a mostly successful catch. I really would trust the SpaceX flight computer to divert if there's a problem, but I think there's something like a 95% chance of a divert to the water for one crash landing in the first 10 attempts. I'd bet they get something working on the first one, then delete something they think is waste that turns out to have been important and have to add it back in.
85% of statistics are made up on the spot 😏
It’s a manual command actually before BB burn ends!
@@callenvlogs5989 you actually didnt respond to what he said
Only 1% chance of explosion at the tower is way too low!
80% of statistics are made up on the fly.
It’s honestly just the most hardcore way of weight savings there is, the booster has no deployment legs, so instead of crushing the rockets if they tried to land it, they are just gunna catch it. Maximum performance to weight ratio.. I love it.
Can’t wait to watch this after work. Getting pretty hyped for Sunday!!!!
You had to drop in "the warm gas thrusters" 😂
I think Elon could do with ground news to make him stop being crazy.
So hyped for this test flight though!
he isnt crazy
Instead of labelling somebody crazy, you need to understand who exactly populism appeals to and why. There is a ton of knowledge on this in socio-political psychology. It primarily stems from alienization and dismissal of legitimate concerns as craziness, exactly as you are doing right now.
@@snuffeldjuret on everything except space he is
Giant explosion? No, but falling from a missed catch and then maybe a smallish explosion seems likely. I can’t say how much damage that would represent, of course, but it does seem like it could lead to quite a delay.
second tower is pretty much ready right?
@@maxsk9074that helps, but I suspect that the FAA will also want some sort of report about damage caused by an incident on land. But maybe I’m wrong about that?
@@nathanpowell195 the FAA only let falcon fly after that first failure because it didn’t put the launchpad or civilians at risk, so I’m assuming they’re going to be all over starship, maybe to the point of grounding it
@@maxsk9074 Second tower is probably 6-12 months away from being capable of supporting launches.
But a missed catch just isn't that likely to cause enough damage to delay things that much. I'd guess 1-2 months.
Not
It's going to be epic!!!
I like the intro, that's the soviet shuttle Buran? 0:57
Yup
Energia/Buran
Ayyyyy, love the new quick intro, short and sweet
Yooo!!! The shot of the booster Raptors relighting at 3:13 is WOWOWOW!!!
As always, thank you for your clear and concise explanation of this craziness. "Go Starship"
Those moments where your jaw hits the floor because something unbelievable is happening during a Starship launch are the best. Lots of potential for those in this launch. Sunday can't come fast enough.
Ryan Hansen is a master at his renders and videography !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Hey! Hope you see this! I want to see someone explain SpaceX current process of preparing a falcon booster for flight. How much refurbishment is needed exactly?
Can't recall ever seeing a recent video detailing this process. Thanks!
You've gotten so far cuz of your own hard work my frend! keep it up pls
I am just happy they are so public with the testing and we get to see all this good and bad. I get more excited over these tests than just about anything else you can watch.
It's not like they can keep it a secret 🤦
@@conor43421 can't you hide the thing someone's backyard🤣
This is going to be an epic event. With the genesis of the SpaceX team performing a historical achievement, i would guess 75-80 % success. Either way, I'm sure I will be screaming with joy for the exploration of space.
I fear no man. But that thing scares me.
This may not work perfectly the first time. But i believe they will Crack this Nutt eventually. SpaceX has no fear. But who knows? Maybe this works the first time? We'll see.
Tim, why doesn't the booster have more catch pins?
An empty fuel container is a very dangerous fuel container. 13:42 Remember, it's the fumes (unless vented out before the impact) that ignite, not the fuel itself.
The difference between most other fuel containers is that the fuel tanks on Super Heavy contain pure fuel gas, not fuel mixed with air/oxygen. If the fuel tank is breached, the fuel still has to mix with the outside air before it can burn/explode.
This was my question, it'll be nearly empty on return I suppose. Is that a good thing or bad thing? Maybe they could time everything out so it's ejecting excess fuel all the way up until caught, but then again they need some pressure in the 'can' otherwise it prob will crush.
As always with SpaceX excitement guaranteed
Thanks, Tim, good overview and details. I suspect the primary reason the deluge system is activated for the tower catch/landing is just in case the catch is muffed, the water deluge will minimize the negative RUD effects. I enjoy the thermal, color-changing mug nearly every work day.🙂
I agree, clearly they water is there to mitigate a crash in case the catch fails.
The arms seem flawed. Why not a hexagon that can expand or close like a toy ball? A big hexagon it lands within and the ring closes providing more landing points. It also could have more than the side of a tower holding it
If so, the booster would need to come in directly from above and cant kind of “shuffle” in from the side, making it a bit harder to do
Hard to understand. A hexagon and a toy ball a very different things. A hexagon is flat and pointy, a ball is round and smooth.
I think the straight arms allow a smaller angle between fully open and fully closed. That may allow the rocket to drift inward and self-center on the arms. However, if the rotational angle of the rocket is off, that could result in only the tower-side fins making contact and the opposite fin unsupported.
I guess we'll see how it plays out 🤷♂️
My guess is that this will be a qualified success. Either their landing abort systems will work great and prevent a huge explosion or they'll catch it but something unexpected will happen to cause some damage to the booster.
Awesome music throughout this video - I often forget about Tim's musical endeavours! Presumably the band playing in the footage of the Astro Awards is Everyday Astronaut?
They never nail it on the first try, i wish they could but i think something especifically will go wrong then they will fix it for the 2nd try and succeed
My money's on the booster landing in the ocean this time, yeah.
SpaceX, place a booey in the Indian Ocean and give us starship landing views.. and my life will be yours!
Maybe they did so already the last times, only the ship so far never made it to the exact landing location!
I honestly think they have a good chance of catching it, if they go for the catch attempt this time. I saw Ift1 & 2 in person, every time they've learned and gotten better from every launch. It truly is inspiring watching what many would seem impossible become regular
There is a 3rd option after; successful "catch", and slam into the pad & blow up. Either the rocket or the "director" could scrub the catch attempt and ditch in the ocean instead (as you explained earlier in the vid). Ditch in the ocean instead, might actually be the most likely outcome.
Already hyped for the lauch an sunday, the promised moon video and the spacewalks to come. Keep up your great work - it's a pleasure listening to you
Great video! thanks for this!
Thanks for reminding me about the landing attempts of starship i forgot how exciting they were. I'm going to rewatch them now. I remember watching some of them live on my night shifts haha great times, feels long ago too.
In addition to the stainless steel construction, I believe Super Heavy enters the atmosphere at a lower velocity than the Falcon 9.
Excitement guaranteed
nice
Hello
It’s going to be absolutely bonkers!!! I’m soo excited to see a catch attempt!!!
Thanks for all your efforts in keeping us all up to date. You're my go to guy for space info!
what’s the news on the apollo landing conspiracies episode? it sounded really fun, i hope you’re still planning to work on it after all this flight 5 craziness has passed
The current configuration of starship has approximately 83,500,000 pancakes of thrust
Great video
Excellent work as always, Tim!
Can't wait for the launche!!!!
Thank you for an amazing and very educational video! 😍 Didn't expect it as early as Sunday, wow can't wait! Let's go! 🚀🔥
SpaceX needs a good catch phrase.
“One of the most ludicrous things ever attempted in the world of spaceflight…”
Curiosity and Perseverance Skycranes would like a word…
Now scale up those cranes up to a size of a building, and have them be caught by a tower.
This would be like catching the booster that delivered those rovers.
The brand new intro is very slick, I love it
Odds that it actually launches Sunday??
They seem pretty fixated on that date
50/50
The new intro is SICK
I was waiting for a video from you, with Flight 5 coming up.
Can't wait for Thunderf00t's balanced and fair live analyses of flight 5!
Ground News is amazing! First sponsored App ive seen, that is actually useful.
Love the new music!
As usual digging the music along with the rocket science. Keep it up Tim!
I am super excited about watching the launch of flight 5!
I think this will probably be one of the most amazing thing I’ve ever seen
CANNOT WAIT! Thanks Tim
this is going to be epic
Can't wait to watch. ❤
I imagine the deluge being active during landing catch can help mitigate fires if the booster doesn't get caught properly.
I’m voting big fireball on this one. It’s such an insanely complicated procedure, there’s almost no way they manage to get it just right the first time. It’s definitely technologically possible though, so I fully believe it’ll work eventually. Falcon 9 also had many failed landing at first.
Xcitement guaranteed! 🚀
Is it really that much harder just to plop it in the ocean? Personally I think the Sea Dragon had the launch idea down, assuming it doesn't mangle the ocean. Turning that around to a hover and plop and ocean proofing seems like worth a think.
Excellent explanation! Thanks.
well... for the damages...
you compare to explosion on the ground without anything critical around.
1. there is a tour now. the booster can directly hit this tower.
2. there are a lot of tanks with propellant near the landing zone
3. there is the launch ring with a lot of material on it
4. there is chopstick where you'll have a big energy applied
it's far away different from just a big concrete and nothing else around.
But they have the water deluge system which can help soften the impact of an explosion.
@@cube2fox at this point, protecting the ground has no added value and its limited to a small area.
this will not prevent the damages
if the booster explode, the explosion will be higher than the water or in an area without any water at all.
also I'm not sure if they have water available after the launch.
Can someone explain what happened with the FAA? I thought they weren't supposed to launch until late november because of FAA problems
That is the 64 million dollar question, yeah.
Best guess is that while FAA coordinates air space usage, NASA or the DoD can also certify the vehicle for launch without the FAA approving the hardware.
Exactly! Very strange situation.
Government agencies like to under-promise and over-deliver, quite opposed to Elon's boundless optimism. They sell you the worst-case timelines as the best-case timelines so that they can have as much time as they need to handle any curveballs.
Yeah, that will be a feat, but Space X has done many great feats. Thanks for the update!
Thank you for making excellent videos with a teacher's heart.
I bet they have the booster deluge system on just in case the landing fails. Good chance it would immediately put out any residual propellant fires. (The launch mount is built THICK so I'd expect that, fire sneaking in cracks or cooking it are the biggest risks from a landing failure) I bet the FireX system is enough heat control for a successful booster landing.
Me to my friend -"they will attempt to catch the booster on tower".
My friend " they have the rocket, why are they building another?"
He means Falcon 9?
Very excited for the launch, also on unrelated note, Is that some new songs i hear????
Hell yea brother!
I guarantee the boooster comes back to the site eventually lol
You have the best content of any space TH-camr. Thank you for what you do Tim!
IMO catching is not so serious problem...Good old watertower (Starhopper) was able to hover 5 years ago, and hundreds of Falcon9 landings taught Spacex how to control landing. Sensors on the chopsticks can be extremely precise.
The main problem with Startship (I mean the upper stage) is the high speed reentry heating. When returning from an interplanetary journey, reentry speed can be much higher than the LEO speed. Rapid reusability requires no or very slight servicing...so the "skin" of the Ship must be very tough.
Thanks Tim, what an insane explaination Video. Congrats. I am impressed.
I’m hyped. I wonder what odds a bookie would give on the landing 😂
The chop stick capture may not be the dummest idea, although getting the booster to glide back to a runway may be more ambitious but would seem to have far more advantages.
The booster already has dry mass issues. Gigantic wings will not help that.
You are Indeed the new Walter Cronkite. I love your videos. Very straight to the point. Thank you for your high-quality content.
Why add cost and complexity to missions by landing a booster into outstretched robot arms?
It would significantly reduce cost, and he kinda dedicated a whole third of the video to answering that question
@@Cosmo_Sim Thanks….I only watched the start of video. What happens if it doesn’t work perfectly?
Yay Tim uploaded again
I think I don't understand the difference between 'boost back burn' and 'entry burn'. Is it both regarding to the booster or did I mix something up? At 3:25 there is a mentioning of a boost back burn (to return to the launchpad) and at 5:34 you say there is no entry burn needed. That was like a mad hatter trick to me. Maybe someone can clarify that for me? Thx a lot!
The boostback burn is to get the booster heading back to the launch pad. At the point where the boostback burn is finished, the rocket is still in the vacuum of space, hurtling towards the atmosphere. Falcon 9 will do a boostback burn followed by an entry burn, right as the booster is starting to see substantial heating and deceleration from the atmosphere. The entry burn slows the booster down, and the exhaust acts as a gas "shield" against the atmospheric heating.
The Starship Super Heavy booster doesn't need the entry burn, because it's designed to withstand the heating of reentry.
Thanks Tim
12:22 Who else thinks Gerstenmeyer misspoke and meant ½ a *meter* of accuracy?
Thanks Tim for the educational video upload. Let's hope/ambition it's successful, all the best.
I think if they give the manual authorization they'll make the catch alright, but I'm not 100% sure it won't collapse the arms or the assembly that attaches them to the tower. I'm anticipating "failure" being the booster gets caught and the arms end up slipping down the tower a ways. They may have to bring a crane in to get the booster off the tower and do some rehab on Mechazilla to beef up the assembly before they try again, but I don't think it'll be a big boom...maybe more like a vertical train derailment...? Can't wait to find out.