“Revert to launch” is the only abort system I need. Okay, after a year, I will finally confirm that this was about KSP, but it can be about SFS as well, if you like :P

@willies545

4 жыл бұрын

I'd just be sitting at the control center spamming F9 ^^

@monad_tcp

4 жыл бұрын

yep, we need better cloning tech, so that 98% of failures isn't a problem, just revert to a cloned human

@rahulsawant_pikachu

4 жыл бұрын

@@monad_tcp or we can just use robos ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

@CyneLikesOreos

4 жыл бұрын

kerbal 101

@mrkeogh

4 жыл бұрын

Maybe a big red REVERT button in the middle of the console to make it easy to punch?

The fact that we live in a time where two youtubers can have regular engineering conversations on twitter with the head engineer and CEO of a major rocket company is just astounding to me...

@prof.m.ottozeeejcdecs9998

4 жыл бұрын

It is indeed, and probably for the first time in history as well!

@dingledooley9283

4 жыл бұрын

It's very cool, but it's not the first time in history Tim just does a better fairer job than any news paper/broadcaster who would have covered the great rail/ocean liner builders many years ago

@jovangrbic97

4 жыл бұрын

Musk is not an engineer and neither is Tim... that's the reason

@BrianKabonyo

4 жыл бұрын

@@jovangrbic97 lol

@thedarksecrets-official

4 жыл бұрын

@@jovangrbic97 then what is he? your mom?

"Rapid unscheduled disassembly" ... LOL I love that term 😄

@pugs6357

3 жыл бұрын

Also know as explosion

@ccm2059

3 жыл бұрын

@skeet or RUD

@vadymvv

3 жыл бұрын

Only if it doesn't used on humans

@executivesteps

2 жыл бұрын

Would you love the expression if you were on board and had no way to escape?

@djdansumners8645

2 жыл бұрын

@@pugs6357 ollllnllp no

38:50 "so only about half a percent of flights would see any benefit from a launch escape system"... my KSP contraption, lets just round that one up to 100%

@linuxgeex

3 жыл бұрын

He should instead have said "of the 3 incidents where an abort system could have been used, only 33% were successful." That puts the value of it in much clearer perspective since it would raise the bar from 99% to 99.3% and that's not insignificant.

1919: "I'm not going to fly until planes are as safe as cars." ... 2019: "I'm not going to space until rockets are as safe as planes." ... 2119: "I'm not teleporting until transporters are as safe as rockets."

@theambergryphon4266

4 жыл бұрын

To be honest even if I had odds of the Saturn v with a one way trip on starship/falcon heavy I'd love to go to mars, I'd love to die there, just not on impact.

@thomasgauthier5691

4 жыл бұрын

Planes are already safer than cars...

@theambergryphon4266

4 жыл бұрын

@@thomasgauthier5691 that's not the point

@theambergryphon4266

4 жыл бұрын

@@kollanata.620 I'm pretty sure I'll have life support

@davidanderson4091

4 жыл бұрын

"1919: "I'm not going to fly until planes are as safe as cars." 2019: "I'm not going to space until rockets are as safe as planes." Preceded by 1885: "I'm not going to ride in a car until its as safe as riding a horse"

"It's like putting a Cessna inside of a 747 just in case the 747 fails." Boeing, please hire this man.

@ericw.1620

4 жыл бұрын

could have worked for the 737 Max

@tma2001

4 жыл бұрын

Trump sees this quote, picks up phone to Boeing: "About AirForce One ..."

@Reiji_Kurose

4 жыл бұрын

Belkan tactics

@lashedandscorned

4 жыл бұрын

@@syaondri Incase the Antonov fails, you get the Boeing, and if that fails you get the Cessna. big brain time

@lashedandscorned

4 жыл бұрын

@@syaondri thank you kind sir

I'd love to see a short video going over these older videos where you address Starship questions/problems, and how they've evolved up to the last successful(ish) landing of SN10.

Soviets: *puts lots of engines on the N1 rocket* Elon: Write that down, write that down!

@JackMacLupus

3 жыл бұрын

Why is the "Write that down!" making me thing about the scene of Howard Stark in Captain America? *Howard gets blasted through the room* "Write that down..." XD

@karlmarx1423

2 жыл бұрын

Good on

KZread needs to add a love button so I can adequately show my adoration of the videos from Everyday Astronaut.

@citizenblue

4 жыл бұрын

There's always Patreon... 😎 Tim does a fantastic job with his channel. A real gem here on KZread.

@buttonasas

4 жыл бұрын

Add to your Favorites playlist. Share with friends. Do it again after 5 years

@HiroNguy

4 жыл бұрын

I'm buying merch - when he gets my SIZE in

@paulruemmele

4 жыл бұрын

Mark Stach I have to wait until after Christmas. 50% of my Christmas wishlist is “anything Everyday Astronaut”.

@martir.7653

4 жыл бұрын

The irony is that only Tim has a "love" button to appreciate commenters.

**Me in KSP putting an "abort abort abort system" for if my "abort abort system" fails, and at the same time thinking if I need another level of abort systems to save me from possible "abort abort abort system" failures.**

@bingusaerospace

4 жыл бұрын

Jarno de Wit all of my aborts in KSPis basically just the tower yeeting my capsule away

@jarno_de_wit

4 жыл бұрын

@@bingusaerospace I generally like to design every single part myself, including the escape system. The downside of this approach is that it often takes more than half an hour to get a nice working LKO manned rocket. I almost always use part of setting to make everything look nice.

@t65bx25

4 жыл бұрын

1. Smack and LES on the top for 1st stage aborts 2. Put sepatrons around the top of the service module or upper stage for any aborts after LES is jettisoned 3. Done

@imeakdo7

3 жыл бұрын

Lmaooo

@mathematician237

3 жыл бұрын

And then fails and just immediately reverting to launch

Revisited this video after SN8's flight. Essentially I still feel there is several things that can happen just in the landing sequence that can justify an abort system. Something that is obviously unique in space flight. Fuel pressure, fuel amount, wind conditions, flap control, engine thrust vectoring, engine relight (especially after a return flight from say Mars or landing on Mars). All of this happening correctly in a few seconds. So I think the nose cone section of Starship should have a push away abort system. So as to limit the size needed to pull away. Yes, starship will loose payload and personal capacity because of extra parts but people wont ride without it.

@knightfromjupiter

Жыл бұрын

Exactly, that's why comparing starship to other launch vehicles isn't the best approach. Starship has a lot more opportunities to fail when an abort system could be of help since it has to land itself propulsively. The fact the abort system wasn't useful in, for example, the apollo program doesn't mean anything for exactly this reason.

@eannamcnamara9338

3 ай бұрын

​@@knightfromjupiterexactly. Abort systems are there in case for emergencies, we were just lucky the Saturn 5, got away with it, the soyuz and shuttle both needed one, and we'll only one of those two systems had one, and only one is still flying

Don’t apologize for the amount of content you include in your presentation... it’s a lot of work and very thorough...I love your in-depth approach!

*Flies away in Cessna* "The rest of the passengers didn't like that..." --

@jwadaow

4 жыл бұрын

YOLO

@charadremur7354

4 жыл бұрын

Bill.

@techmantra4521

4 жыл бұрын

@@charadremur7354 Lemme heal ya' up.

@a64738

3 жыл бұрын

LOL ;)

@matrixarsmusicworkshop561

3 жыл бұрын

lul

I needed an abort system for this video... Just watched the whole thing in one sitting and didn't even notice my launch window coming and going (missed my bus).

@jeffvader811

4 жыл бұрын

oof

@pmj_studio4065

4 жыл бұрын

Nyyppis you can always have a backup launch window a few days later. Need a Video Abort System? Power button:)

@wezleyjackson9918

4 жыл бұрын

Abort to work...

@InventorZahran

4 жыл бұрын

Buses, just like planets, move in a continuous orbit around their route. However, their trajectory is influenced by road layout rather than spheres-of-influence...

I'd like to see you revisit this video now that you're going to the moon (unbelievable and congratulations!). You seem to be cool with going to the moon on a largely untested vehicle without an abort system. I'm still not convinced. My main concern is a RUD on the pad given that Raptor is a newer more complex engine, and the vehicle has so many points of failure. Please convince me that Starship is a human-ready spacecraft. I'm sure you wouldn't agree to flying on it otherwise. The illustration in the thumbnail gives the impression that the escape system in the Starship nosecone is possible. Edit - Just watched your dearMoon announcement video and I came to the realization that the only way this particular artistic mission profile could be accomplished is using Starship because of the giant window, as shown in the drawing. I suppose there are inherent risks involved. Imo, seeing you go up on a Crew Dragon would be equally exciting and it does have a viewport and a launch abort system, but would certainly not offer the same ability to grab footage in the same way as if you had the giant cabin space that Starship offers. You could probably fit your van in the Starship with plenty of room to spare! Anyway, congrats again, and godspeed. I'm happy for you. Have been watching from the beginning, and just want to see you return to Earth safely!

@trambinvestment3563

Жыл бұрын

Agree, there's a lot of new data to be analysed since when this video was first published: e.g. Starship prototype tests, F9 better than ever booster landing streak, and the New Shepard in-flight abort this year. NASA still seems very reluctant to trust Starship, by not having humans on Starship HLS during launch and landing. Also, if we think, the major sins that caused accidents with the Space Shuttle were things that were specifically new to the SS concept: SRBs in human-rated vehicles, and vehicle side mounted on the fuel tank. Both these are properly addressed in Starship. But Starship itself has one thing that is new: propulsive landing with humans, and that's by far the phase of flight with the most "unknown" risks that cannot be properly calculated at this time...

@michaelarbach

Жыл бұрын

Me to!! This was the first thing I thought of after the news (outside of dear moons crazy timeline lol)

@maxv9464

Жыл бұрын

Worth noting that dear moon won't be happening for at least 5-6 years, at which point the HLS will have been used to land and shown a much more risky mission off. And neither will happen unless starship is launching and landing super reliably for refueling.

@Blaze6108

Жыл бұрын

I was thinking the same. This video spends a lot of time comparing it to the Shuttle situation, but in reality crew escape systems are necessary even for classically-designed rockets, and in general for all rocket vehicles due to their inherent safety issues (namely, sitting on top of hundreds of tons of highly-explosive propellant). In fact, it was the STS which was unusual - and unsanfe - in not including one due to its weird shape and stacking arrangement.

Your vids are soooo long, I need to plan time in my schedule to watch them. But they are sooo thorough and filled with knowledge its insane! Keep these vids going and I'll keep a time slot in my schedule to watch them!❤️

Your long form content is basically unmatched. thanks for all the effort you put into all of these videos!

@writemeyers

4 жыл бұрын

Storm Riordan truth 👆🏽

@sawspitfire422

4 жыл бұрын

With KZread being the way it is, seeing someone who doesn't give in and make every video 10-20 minutes long is really refreshing

@SB-xt5jk

4 жыл бұрын

Agreed. I'm always "where the hell is he?!" and then he releases a video like this that obviously took time/money/effort and I'm like "oOoOoO".

@XimCines

4 жыл бұрын

These are the type of subjects that needs to be done in a large format, besides his followers (us) are people who loves detailed information.

@hwinangkoso

4 жыл бұрын

I would prefer a two-part 20 minutes though

Need escape pods for droids and the secret plans they are carrying.

@sebione3576

4 жыл бұрын

How this comment only has 13 likes in as many hours is beyond me.

@jv-lk7bc

4 жыл бұрын

You weren't on any mercy mission.

@joelsilvaamorimdonasciment1089

4 жыл бұрын

LOL!

@joelsilvaamorimdonasciment1089

4 жыл бұрын

@@sebione3576 Absolutely! genius! :-)

@InventorZahran

4 жыл бұрын

That escape pod in Star Wars had a very earth-style design aesthetic, with the simple cylindrical frame and visible RCS thrusters... It almost looked like a module from the ISS!

"The best part is no part. The best process is no process." -Elon

@sarahutch6413

3 жыл бұрын

These videos always feel like 5, maybe 10 minutes at most.

@ChrisBrengel

3 жыл бұрын

Great line!

@Joesolo13

3 жыл бұрын

You can really tell he's not an engineer sometimes

@amir.u.qureshi

3 жыл бұрын

The best rocket is no rocket

@michaelprice3031

3 жыл бұрын

@@amir.u.qureshi You're right, it's a space elevator or orbital loop!

44:40 Oh this aged like fine wine

Agree or disagree SpaceX should name a Droneship "Flamey end down"

@M33f3r

4 жыл бұрын

Yeeeeessss.

@merylschultz9234

4 жыл бұрын

Agree

@DrFiero

4 жыл бұрын

Along with it's sister ship... "pointy end up"

@FenderBridge

4 жыл бұрын

@@DrFiero r/yourjokebutworse

@TheWheelTurns

4 жыл бұрын

or maybe pointy end up

43:00 "Put more rockets on it" This is a very VERY Kerbal answer to the problem.

@monkeypants6764

4 жыл бұрын

starbomber facts

@matrixarsmusicworkshop561

3 жыл бұрын

yes i know. .-. -.-, its also how real life works : ))) but ok XD

@vallabhkavi1477

3 жыл бұрын

moar boosters!

@giovannisimionato1262

3 жыл бұрын

The more fuel, more boosters technique

@xsn1p3r8

3 жыл бұрын

YES

I look forward to watching your updates. You have great information and an obvious enthusiasm for space travel.

"Imagines 10g's" *ribs begin cracking*

@kennethschultz6465

3 жыл бұрын

No Only if you are sick And lack kalcium

@reconnaissance7372

3 жыл бұрын

@@kennethschultz6465 I don't think calcium is going to help much against 10 times your own weight being pressed on itself.

@arachnid83

3 жыл бұрын

"Maybe if it was 500 times gravity you might have an advantage. But 10? I don't even feel it" - Vegeta

@brunoleal5123

3 жыл бұрын

Recon if you’re playing basketball and dunk the ball on a full court fast break you exert around 10x your body weight on your ankles an knees so I think you’d be ight

@cayden2744

3 жыл бұрын

@@brunoleal5123 Wrong comparison

"My car engine died 4 seconds before I got to my house, but I was close enough to walk the rest of the way. I call that a success!" - RD-180 engineers, apparently

@laiserfire

3 жыл бұрын

The difference is they have enough money to throw away a rocket, while you probably wanna keep your car :)

@anonymm3152

3 жыл бұрын

Yeah, but the car would probably be able to roll home

@wolfvale7863

3 жыл бұрын

No rapid unscheduled disassembly either. That is a good car.

@SirThreepio

3 жыл бұрын

@@anonymm3152 Only because you can get out and push it :)

@akshaygowrishankar7440

3 жыл бұрын

@@fridaycaliforniaa236 the Reliant Robin army is nervously perspiring about now

Hi reliability engineer here(although I work on robots). Some things to think about when looking at reliability are the difference between system and component reliability. Basically what component reliability is would be your 99.88% reliable engine but your system reliability takes into account all failures. With most systems they have components that are in series with eachother meaning if one thing fails the system fails(similar to series circuits vs parallel circuits) now you can stack components in series and in parallel. Your fuel tank would probably be a single thing so there is no redundancy but your engines are in parallel with one another so one can fail but your system will still work successfully. Now you can consider a more complex model for the engines since if you lose more than maybe 2-4 engines your rocket will stop flying up which is a failure, basically you enter that as a threshold of the failure of those redundant parts. In general anything in series can have it's reliability multiplied to the rest of the system to calculate the system reliability. Your subassembly with the parallel parts has a different equation to calculate that subassembly but then that can now be factored in like anything else in series. Also what should be considered is what you consider a failure. Like you said in the video landing the rocket is not necessary for success so failures that only impact that won't be considered when determining primary success, but you could have a system reliability that is just for landing but that would include failures up until stage separation and down to landing and ignoring failures on the second stage and beyond. Hopefully this is interesting to someone!

@tfletch4756

4 жыл бұрын

Travis Hunter it was really interesting actually enjoyed reading it being able to sort of understand it Thank you

@prof.m.ottozeeejcdecs9998

4 жыл бұрын

You are right, and I concur. Nothing is perfect, ever. Probability of success to achieve a set goal is what counts, and to try to improve on that!

@johncrowerdoe5527

4 жыл бұрын

What about the success of secondary missions. Such as the mission of not having to pay for more rockets because the previous one can be used again.

@travishunter8573

4 жыл бұрын

@@johncrowerdoe5527 so basically with any reusable system you create a reliability goal based on what you want, so for something that has a critical primary mission SpaceX would probably target reliability% of let's say 98% reliable at 20 uses. They do that so that at 10 uses(their target with falcon 9s I believe) they should have effectively 100% reliability. With some redundant components they can allow for more failures without it causing issues because having multiple less reliable things let's you get a higher likelihood that that action will be preformed even when 1 or more break. Also what happens is since 10 uses is high reliability and after that it starts to drop off you can stop failures from happening but just retiring that rocket. The aspects of landing a rocket can be weighted in the reliability model based on severity of the failure(total loss vs damage etc) the detection of the failure(if you can detect it before it happens then maybe you can switch the part being used before it fails, and occurance (just how often it is likely to happen) you can use engineering judgement to determine the priority of what either needs to be improved, eliminated or just lived with. So a fuel tank exploding is very severe and you can only detect it after it happens and hopefully it isn't likely, but something like the hydrolics that they added more of in the grid fins maybe is only detectable when it happens but the severity is not as high because now there is an extra pump to perform that function and the occurance of 2 failing at the same time is much lower

@johncrowerdoe5527

4 жыл бұрын

@@travishunter8573 My question was about goals with a lower priority outside engineering calculations. For example loosing reusability of a particular booster would have a well defined economic cost calculated by economic professionals. Modeling such external goals as engineering calculations seems like a classic case of seeing everything as a nail.

Hello Tim, Not sure if you’ll see this but I’d like to congratulate you on producing such an amazing post. Excellent research, clear explanations and confident presentation. You rock, man!

Tim, you are a star! I have learnt SO much about rockets. Thank you for dedicating your time to educate us

36:59 cosmonauts : blyat we could've died Rescue crew : relax comrade , take this vodka

@DmitryKiktenko

3 жыл бұрын

Vodka? Kidding me? Pure 98% alcohol!

@adamrezabek9469

2 жыл бұрын

@@DmitryKiktenko that some serious vodka right there

It’s crazy how he makes consistently good almost hour long videos.

@fernandoabril8726

4 жыл бұрын

Arguable

@GaryNumeroUno

4 жыл бұрын

What's not arguable is how cute Tae Sun Woo is!

Tbh I still think a launch abort would be a good idea. A 99.5% success rate would be very bad and unacceptable. If not, maybe it would be best if it had a detachable reentry module so that the people could land the good-old way. That, or the crew could transfer to a Dragon capsule (delivered by a Falcon) for reentry.

Your videos have become so high quality, its amazing. I mean not that they've been low quality before but this is a whole new level.

There was a person who said: “An engineer knows that he has achieved perfection, not when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away.”

@lexwaldez

3 жыл бұрын

German engineers typically have a lot of trouble with this concept. Now Russian engineers...

@criticalevent

3 жыл бұрын

Yes, the term "over engineered" is one of the the most often misused terms. It actually means to make something as cheap as possible.

@kurtblackwell7752

3 жыл бұрын

@@criticalevent well that's not true. To over engineer something means exceeding the required specifications by too much. If your requirement is to make it cheap you could make it too cheap, but you could over engineer something by making it unnecessarily strong and so too expensive.

@criticalevent

3 жыл бұрын

@@kurtblackwell7752 No, that's what to over build something means. Engineering is where you come up with the specifications in the first place. I'm a product engineer for a major OEM parts manufacturer. My job is literally to take parts and figure out how to make them with the fewest steps and the cheapest materials possible while still meeting the engineered design criteria.

@pegleg2959

3 жыл бұрын

@@criticalevent I don't know where you've heard that (I have a feeling you've made it up off the top of your head), but you're wrong. Over engineered means to make something unnecessarily complicated, or to add features that aren't needed for its intended use. Like if you designed a suburban car to have the armour of a tank, its over engineered. Or if you put an LED screen with a password on a household fridge, it's over engineered. What you're talking about is a cost effective or economical design.

Kerbal Solution: rely on the exploding booster to blow the crew capsule part clear...

@Ensign_Cthulhu

4 жыл бұрын

The difficulty is in making the crew capsule tough enough, while still sufficiently light that the rocket isn't crippled by its own payload.

@TonboIV

4 жыл бұрын

@@Ensign_Cthulhu Don't worry. Kerbals bounce.

@everettlwilliamsii3740

4 жыл бұрын

... without turning the occupants into jello from the g-forces involved.

@kathrynck

4 жыл бұрын

Hey, it worked the the Challenger ...err wait...

@johannson1980

4 жыл бұрын

@@everettlwilliamsii3740 Kerbals are very durable.

I can easily imagine them sending people up to Starship exclusively in Dragon capsules

I think if spaceX really wanted to make an abort system for starship they should go the blue origin route where there is an SRB on the bottom of the crew capsule that looks like a stylish table from the inside (also they would have to add some emergency parachutes to the capsule).

"Hello, I am Everyday Astronaut, and this is my masterclass"

@PrograError

4 жыл бұрын

"welcome to my ted talk"

@johncrowerdoe5527

4 жыл бұрын

I'm getting those "Masterclass" ads too.

@outboundprojectworkshop1270

4 жыл бұрын

@@johncrowerdoe5527 yooo me too lol

@InventorZahran

4 жыл бұрын

"If you want to fly a rocket ship, you gotta be an optimist." -Chris Hadfield's MasterClass trailer

@robik1009

4 жыл бұрын

I looove Gordon Ramsay!!

Kids you always have to remember that this video was just a "bridging", cause the other video he is working on was to complex to finish in time. Shows you how much effort and love that man puts into his videos.

I am 2:44 in and I am liking and subbing because the production value you just showed me already is amazing sir.

Brilliant job. Well done as always Tim.

"Designing a rocket to be as reliable as an airliner is the goal" *Boeing 737 Max has left the chat*

@Jehty21

4 жыл бұрын

The Boeing 737 Max has a safety record of around 99,9996% (2 accidents in over 500,000 flights)

@2nd3rd1st

4 жыл бұрын

@@Jehty21 Alright, but when those 00.0004% cost 346 people their lives that's nothing to brag about. Besides, in its time of service the 737 series killed over 5000 people in 90 crashes. Maybe that's peanuts overall but it's still pretty bad.

@DARisse-ji1yw

4 жыл бұрын

It's " Boeing" not Boing ....

@2nd3rd1st

4 жыл бұрын

@@DARisse-ji1yw You'd hope the planes go Boing rather than Crash though

@dozodub

4 жыл бұрын

They crashed as a result of greed and dishonesty. It's not a failure of competence so much as a failure of integrity. A very big black mark on the history of Boeing and the story is far from over. All deaths were preventable and they took multiple steps along the way where they could have changed the outcome but acted otherwise.

Everyday Astronaut is one of the only youtubers I’ll block out an hour for.

@douginorlando6260

4 жыл бұрын

Eli Harman this one is a comprehensive mini course!

@XimCines

4 жыл бұрын

Same here... 1:30am totally worth it.

@smac919

4 жыл бұрын

Luke Thomas ( an MMA Analyst / MMA Media ) is about the only other one for me lol but that’s because analyzing MMA fighters styles / fight break downs takes atleast an hour.

@hammadsheikh6032

4 жыл бұрын

Add Isaac Arthur :-)

@likestoparty

4 жыл бұрын

I turn the sound down so I can really dig into those KZread hand movements.

"rapid unscheduled disassembly" is probably the best expression for something blowing up :'D

Good stuff, I really enjoy your show, thank you so much for your hard work

43:00 - "You're solving the problem of rockets by sticking more rockets on them": Well, we all know that's the way to go. Kerbal engineering FTW :)

@HaydenManka

4 жыл бұрын

Yes

@AFuller2020

3 жыл бұрын

You are correct, that what happens in Civil engineering projects.

Tim, I love you for making these long, in-depth videos. I absolutely agree with you about diving deep into a topic to really understand it, and nowadays there's a lot more content on youtube that only gives a 5 minute overview for beginners and is mostly just paraphrasing wikipedia.

@jackmack1061

4 жыл бұрын

This. 100% this.

@photohotjock

4 жыл бұрын

YES this

@DecemberGalaxy0

4 жыл бұрын

I know, there's just so much things distracting, world is great, every field is, but it's time to have more useful speciality

In all actuality, with all concerns in perspective, Starship is the abort system. I would like to think that once an anomaly is detected in the booster, the clamps for SN would release and lift to a height that would safely bring the crew back to the ground. I hope you watch this video again and again after signing up for Dear Moon".. These are all topics that were all discussed even prior to the development of the ship. CONTINGENCY is the #1 rule in aerospace. SpaceX has it, and is already applied. Great video Tim. Please keep up the great work! - NOM

Rewatched! It's always great to review facts! Thanks, Tim!

"That would be like putting a Cessna prop plane inside of a 747 in case the 747 fails you can fly away on the Cessna." In the early 1900's the consensus was that life rafts on the Titanic was a waste of space and that they were better off just making the Titanic itself safer.

@Ensign_Cthulhu

4 жыл бұрын

The idea was that the Atlantic was full enough of ships that help could be called for; the boats were there for transfer, not survival. If the Titanic's distress signal had actually been picked up (if the radio operator in the nearest ship hadn't gone to bed for the night), there would have been a liner there in enough time to assist - including sending out its own boats. The death toll would have been far lower.

@miscbits6399

4 жыл бұрын

jsm666 That, and Titanic was a double hull design ("it's own lifeboat" in the parlance of the times) Incidentally it was _NEVER_ advertised as unsinkable and the designers wanted to add enough lifeboats for all passengers but were ordered to remove them by White Star lines as they would unsettle the passengers. The primary failing was that the watertight compartments..... weren't. The bulkheads on each deck didn't go all the way to the ceiling and the segmentation didn't extend properly into the double hull structure either. What that meant was that whilst the watertight doors between sections were watertight, once the water level overtopped the bulkheads in each compartment it was able to flow into the next. Even with the sheer number of breached compartments on that ship, if they'd been properly watertight the vessel would have taken _much_ longer to sink (if it had sunk at all - although it would still be dead in the water due to the engine room flooding) - long enough for rescuers to arrive (remember the vast majority of victims died of hypothermia, not drowning) Ironically, if the Titanic had _less_ warning and hit the iceberg had-on, the bow structure would have crushed and absorbed the impact at cost of the lives of ~130 crew in their sleeping compartments at the front but the ship itself would have remained afloat. The fire in the coal bunkers was well known and the weakened metal that resulted definitely played into the ease in which the berg ripped open the side of the vessel, but the fatal error was designed in from the outset and there in a lot of contemporary designs.

@longjingshen5473

4 жыл бұрын

That's rubbish.. the titanic had life rafts🤦‍♂️..

@kbg990

4 жыл бұрын

@@longjingshen5473 for how many? ;)

@100videosandnosubscribers3

4 жыл бұрын

Titanic (actually the Olympic) was the epitome of _user error_ In addition to the various ridiculous design flaws mentioned above.

Space X employee: hey Elon I took out the engine so there is no failure Elon Musk: good job Edit: man, why did this get soooo many likes. It doesn’t even sound correct XD

@tiefensucht

3 жыл бұрын

Yeah why not, use a slingshot.

@huihuihuihuihuihui1

3 жыл бұрын

Yes, they actually used a trampoline recently instead as advised by the head of Roskosmos.

@user-mj3ll9hv6r

3 жыл бұрын

@@huihuihuihuihuihui1 russians are there

@huihuihuihuihuihui1

3 жыл бұрын

@@user-mj3ll9hv6r где именно?

@fabianmayer

3 жыл бұрын

Nice one

I remember one astronaut from shuttle program mentioned that there was a guy with a button that would just self destruct the shuttle inflight if it leans off the proper trajectory so it will not fall on the city. What an interesting job that guy had

Great video. Regarding the closed captions: items get put through the "wringer", not "ringer".

Dear Tim, since nearly two years I am watching your videos. Those are awesome and i like your style. Fresh music, nice pictures. But the best thing is how you present facts about a simple question without prematurely judging or presenting something unilaterally and then weighting the facts, re-evaluating them and giving a properly thought-out answer. Just like in this video, at first I thought "Launch Escape System .. stupid question ... of course everytime." But after 48:43 the world was different again. Smarter. That is true science. To your question: Would I am going on a rocket without a launch escape system? Since I am a father ... No. But Yes. But ... NASA would laugh at me if I wanted to be an astronaut :). So please do more videos and keep your style. Now I have to sign up at patreons ... Geatings from germany.

@pmj_studio4065

4 жыл бұрын

So true 🙂 Only 2 likes...😕 Tim and me?

@HaydenManka

4 жыл бұрын

@@pmj_studio4065 10 now

I would choose a Scott Manley instead of an abort system: Fly save! I meant "safe":-)

@youngThrashbarg

4 жыл бұрын

Fly save and reload.

@kazsmaz

4 жыл бұрын

@@hans-joachimbierwirth4727 aye alright you scrawny fuck

@markhorton3994

4 жыл бұрын

@@hans-joachimbierwirth4727 Research what a Scottish piper did on D-day. Standing up playing his bagpipes under fire for pride (his commanding officer's) and moral. That man had balls bigger than your whole body. Incidentally while I may have a few Scottish ancestors I identify as German and English.

@hans-joachimbierwirth4727

4 жыл бұрын

@@markhorton3994 What makes you think i did less than that? Projections!

@markhorton3994

4 жыл бұрын

@@hans-joachimbierwirth4727 With current media saturation if you had stood up under fire for morral purposes the world would know it.

I think just having the abort system is good, redundancies are always typically a good thing and for (almost) any launch pad mishaps ie the one soviet mission where it saved lives. I understand the complexity argument but i feel the redundancy outweighs the simplification

Everyday Astronaut videos are very informative...they deserve to get more views than 2.4 million.

This reminds me of the electricity backup system in my former employer's building. It was one of the kind where you'd have to route the whole power through that backup system in order for it to be able to uninterruptedly take over power supply in case of a grid failure. The problem was that the probability of a failure inside the backup system itself was higher than the chances for a grid outage are in Germany. So by including the backup system into the power supply system, that would've actually increased the likelihood of a power outage in the building. That's why they decoupled the system and detached the backup system from power supply completely.

@mennovanlavieren3885

4 жыл бұрын

Thanks for giving an actual case of this. (even though it is in a YT comment). I have been wondering about the wisdom of having requirements that specify an implementation like that instead of just specifying the required level of safety. In my opinion non engineers, or engineers who haven't been engineering for a long time should be kept away from the specifics.

@w0ttheh3ll

4 жыл бұрын

@Temple of Ridicule it's relevant. an abort system could directly cause a failure as has happened before. also, having an abort system makes the rocket more complex and heavy, so handling the complexity of the overall system design is harder, corners are likely to be cut to bring the weight back down. all this possibly leading to failure indirectly caused by the presence of the abort system.

"Hopefully the pointy end is up, and the flamey end is down" That made me laugh harder than it should have....

@TROLLDETECTIVE2

4 жыл бұрын

And me 🚀

@felixs9722

4 жыл бұрын

This is the question I got wrong during my NASA job interview.

@pepsidoggo1598

4 жыл бұрын

and the explodey area away from you

@timblack6422

4 жыл бұрын

Same here😂😂

@giggleherz9491

4 жыл бұрын

That Arrogant Russian boss-man that demanded a chair to watch the launch from outside and wound up a pile or charcoal.

Amazing content! KZread needs more of this!

27:15 The Apollo missions didn't rely on propulsively landing on the moon. There was an abort option. They could abort the landing at any time, fire the ascent engine, dock with the command module, return to earth and land there -- non-propulsively. Starship won't have that option. It absolutely *has to* land propulsively, and it must work on the first try, no abort possible.

Dang, 50 minutes... Dang, It’s over already!?!

21:44 Two comments here: 1) The in-flight RS-25 failure resulted in mission success, so if the standard is mission as you propose here, then... 2) It should be pointed out that the failure of the RS-25 here was caused by a short in either a sensor or the engine controller (I don't remember which). Either way, the engine shutdown was erroneous -- and, in fact, mission control recognized this and order the crew to disable the automatic system for the other two engines, which turned out to be the right call (within seconds of cutting out the automatic shutdown system the same problem requested a second engine shutdown).

@tinldw

4 жыл бұрын

In other words, there were actually 2 engine failures with mission loss not happening due to some unrelated circumstances (including lucky timing)

@nixie_chan

4 жыл бұрын

It was a fault in the fuel turbine temp sensor that caused the center engine to shut down. Edit: This is in response to "The failure of the RS-25 here was caused by a short in either a sensor or the engine controller (I don't remember which)." Overall the point of the video was to address the need and effectiveness of abort systems though which makes the exact cause of failure in the center RS-25 during STS-51F a moot point.

@donjones4719

4 жыл бұрын

In discussing abort success, I just count crew survival. Even if 2 or all engines shut down, the crew is OK if have enough altitude for a fly-back abort to the mid-Atlantic (Azores Islands, etc). But that short could have occurred earlier. There are figures somewhere about a "black zone" when a fly-back abort can't work.

@aBoogivogi

4 жыл бұрын

He basically showed those black zones in the charts. They are shown in relation to how many seconds into a flight the shuttle is. Effectively NASA made a whole lot of them gray via the "just jump out attached to this tube here" solution they came up with. That being said since no separation of the orbiter was doable in a catastrophic event it would have been useless then. For a lot of the other scenarios where it was supposed to work it also relied on getting the shuttle into a relatively stable glide position. That was not easy to do as it handled very poorly and it also required a certain height to even be doable as the shuttle generated very little lift and would come down fast even in a stable glide.

@tomgidden

4 жыл бұрын

By the criteria given, the “100%ish” concession should really be given to the RS-25 and arguably Merlin as well. The RD-180 shut down early but was compensated for and resulted in a successful mission, but the same’s true of the RS-25, which shut down early - okay, many _minutes_ early - but the ATO resulted in a replanned but still successful mission. So, how’s that different from the RD-180’s “100%ish”? Merlin on CRS-1 did shut down early (and a little destructively) but the primary mission still succeeded, and the secondary payload only failed due to contract terms that were an accepted risk, ie. the secondary customer was taking a gamble on it anyway, and paying a lot less as a result. The secondary mission had a >95% chance of success if they’d been allowed to do it anyway. In other words, it could’ve been compensated for (just like RS-25 and RD-180) but safety rules said not to try. So, 100%ish-ish, maybe? (putting aside the much earlier Merlin 1A failure) I get that the RD-180’s failure was less severe, being just a couple of seconds early, but that’s not a great metric. Ariane 501’s RUD happened due to an issue that wouldn’t have been a problem had it happened a couple of seconds later, for example. And, saying the Atlas V’s RD-180 shut-off wasn’t a problem because the Centaur could correct for it? With the RS-25 and Merlin anomalies the other engines _on the same stage_ compensated too. The only difference with the RS-25 and Merlin anomalies were that the missions were revised somewhat due to procedures, while with the Atlas, it wasn’t necessary. Merlin, RS-25 and RD-180 all either failed (shutting down early) or didn’t fail. I just think the “100%ish” concession is a bit bogus, unless also applied to the other two.

After the launch of starship, I firmly believe that starship needs an in-flight abort system. I honestly believe a launchpad abort plan may be unrealistic possibility seeing that the entire launch complex turned into a massive firey ballistic nightmare. That looked worse than anything ive ever seen in combat, including moab bomb. Even there ballistic berms were rendered useless, in fact, became source for ballistic materials.

@CoffeeMonster12

11 ай бұрын

You know it was a prototype test launch right?

@PraetorianCTAC

8 ай бұрын

@@CoffeeMonster12 yea people seem to have a hard time distinguishing between the two. I think it’s because SpaceX is one of the only companies that rapidly tests to learn from their mistakes and are so transparent about it. Saying that the new hot staging ring could allow an about sequence now.

Watched the whole video, keep up the good work!

“A rapid unscheduled disassembly” 😂😂

@wellsharris8256

4 жыл бұрын

Feliz Archez RUD

@noremorsewoodworking2258

4 жыл бұрын

I think that would be what The Chieftain calls "a significant emotional event".

@ReikiBuddha

4 жыл бұрын

We could have had robotics to every planet in the solar system by now for the obscene amount of money spent on getting people up there. Let's get rid of the abort systems and wait another 10 years for astronauts.

@robinsuj

4 жыл бұрын

@@ReikiBuddha Don't we already have (or at least had) probes in most planets of the solar system? Or at least in orbit of them?

@majorphysics3669

4 жыл бұрын

@@robinsuj Yea I'm pretty sure the only bodies we haven't been to are the vast amount of moons around Jupiter and Saturn. I found a date here that says ALL the planets had been explored by 1989 except for pluto, and that was done just recently.

27:55 Minor mistake: Airliners are actualy able to deploy it's landing gear even without any hidraulic power using only gravity to do the work.

@EverydayAstronaut

4 жыл бұрын

That’s why I said “can’t deploy them normally”, since they can operate without hydraulic pressure 👍

@sonnyburnett8725

4 жыл бұрын

Most can but some, maybe not.

@__-fm5qv

4 жыл бұрын

Most can gravity drop, but a lot also use blow-down bottles to give a big whack of pressure to the hydraulic system to get the gear down and locked. As well as having redundant hydraulic lines for control surfaces and landing gear.

@psdaengr911

4 жыл бұрын

They can drop them, but on the larger planes, without mechanical assist can not reliably lock them .

@williamgoode9114

3 жыл бұрын

There was that recent crash in Pakistan, so the first thrust landing with astronauts will be in October with Doug

A guy my dad used to work for worked on the team that designed the engines for the shuttle; including the Challenger. He said that even after the shuttle exploded, those systems were still working to regain control of the craft and were performing at some 600% of their maximum designed capability.

@divedevil985

8 ай бұрын

the failures of the shuttle were management not engineering. The flew the vehicle with known problems outside of safety margins. Any vehicle will fail in that scenario.

The most thing I love about this whole video is that you first answered the easy yes or no questions. But then explained why asking yes or no is not accurate and that it all is relative and depends. People should take this approach more in life. Almost nothing in life is either a yes or no and always depends but people consistently want a simple yes or no out of every question lol.

@lanatsif

Жыл бұрын

Preach!

Like just for the amount of work that was put into this! Good job, Tim!

@ReganMarcelis

Жыл бұрын

...why did OBAMA think it was a good idea to park our space shuttle and just GIVE-UP for so long?

I love these videos. Everytime I have a ques...oh wait, he just answered it. And then anoth....hold up, he just answered that one too. Good journalism is a dying (if not already dead) thing, If I could nominate Tim for a Pulitzer Prize, I would. My understanding of rockets and spaceflight is 3 orders of magnitude greater than it was 3 years ago, because he actually takes TIME to explain things in detail. I never thought anyone could challenge Scott Manley's abilities to explain this to the common man, but he does.

@capo_di_capi

4 жыл бұрын

Good Journalism is not vanishing, you just have to know where to look for it, try spending less time on Pornhub.

Something you spoke about Tim, indirectly-without stating what should be the rule-is: a non jettisoned exterior-situate re-entry module crew compartment should never be situated below a leading edge which disintegrates at launch.

Great job! very good video!. We are all going to miss the space scape-pods all stars ships have in the sci-fy movies, though.

realizes the video is 48 mins: "wtf?!?" Watches the whole thing in one go

@mattsilcott1447

4 жыл бұрын

I split it in 2 parts.

@mattsilcott1447

4 жыл бұрын

I will admit I made it 20 minutes before the task at hand recaptured my focus

The timestamps are very much appreciated

I like your criticality section at ~7min, I was able to work on a program as an Intern at NASA doing just this on a control system for a hybrid propulsion engine.

I wish Tim still made informational videos, these are so good.

@blueskiesspacetechnologies8217

3 жыл бұрын

He is making info vids, new starship one coming and the Russian rocket engines vid. Also, I think I heard that he's making a cancelled part 3.

Can you really say the F-1 is more reliable than Merlin? Sure, it's at 100% success vs Merlin's 99.88%... but it's only flown 65 times vs Merlin's over 800. Not really a fair comparison

@johncrowerdoe5527

4 жыл бұрын

If we allow an error of one half flight, F-1 achieved 99% with not enough data to add decimals.

@capo_di_capi

4 жыл бұрын

There are, realistically, no confirmed ways to compare such intricate works by engineers and scientists who can say "This way is better" because the outcome intended MUST BE "This must work all the time 100% of the time, which is a literal impossibility at the moment when dealing with orbital mechanics.

@oferkrupka

3 жыл бұрын

It's like deciding which F9 toy for kids to buy, should I go with: 5 stars and 13 reviews *OR* 4.4 stars and 420 reviews.

@Fenrir7

3 жыл бұрын

@C A Condescending, insulting, and completely off-topic. A great way to end any sort of dialogue, which is, shall we say, rather infantile

@FSchloss

3 жыл бұрын

He gives current data, i'm Shure one version will beat 99,98 %

"We choose to NOT do these things, and the other things, Not because they are hard, but because they are easy..." "Spam in a Can."

@Jst4vgApostle

4 жыл бұрын

If this was reddit you would have gotten silver from me.

@jwenting

4 жыл бұрын

NASA has turned into "we choose to not do those things because someone might stub his toe leading to a multi billion dollar liability lawsuit"...

@CLipka2373

4 жыл бұрын

@@jwenting "U-S-A! U-S-A! U-S-A!" - Yeah, you got a great country over there... for lawyers anyway...

@TonboIV

4 жыл бұрын

@@jwenting The reason NASA doesn't do exciting things in manned spaceflight anymore is simply money. The funding they have now is a tiny fraction of what they used to go to the Moon. This stupid myth that NASA is too scared to go to Mars because "safety" just needs to die. Back in the Apollo days they were probably more careful about risk than during the Space Shuttle program, and they're still willing to accept risk. A trip to the ISS is still a pretty risky mission by civilian standards.

Amazing! Can you please talk about alternative (non-rocket) space launches? Maybe some of them could be safer if functional!

This is impressive work, great job.

I happened to witness the Soyuz MS-10 launch and abort last year in Kazakhstan. Just glad to see that Nick and Aleksey survived that incident.

I love how awkward elon looks whenever he's in front of an audience

@Maximus-k1

3 жыл бұрын

"Just delete it, that's the best thing......yeah."

@shampooner

3 жыл бұрын

Casanova Frankenstein You’re obviously misinformed.

@Saturnares

3 жыл бұрын

@@shampooner actually he's not, elon doesn't want people to know he is an alien from 2 weeks into the future and different universe

@mirarman

3 жыл бұрын

Hahaha

@tylerdruskoff9689

3 жыл бұрын

He isn’t a millionaire for his speaking abilities

I would love a video about space refueling (which starship has to perform) How would they transfer fluids in zero g? Do they need to create micro gravity for the procedure? Thank you for the in depth video.

I'm new to your channel. Excellent content. Thank you.

"soft" landing in the ocean when the booster is several stories tall

@nathaliejegues4615

3 жыл бұрын

It partially sinks in, and slowely topples over

Nicki Minaj summed it up nicely: "Starships were meant to fly". Thanks Nicki.

@powerfulduck

3 жыл бұрын

I was the 69th like

@davez5201

3 жыл бұрын

A prophet of the modern age.

@stoneyhigh05

3 жыл бұрын

She's a genius

@carameltherelorian2544

3 жыл бұрын

Hands up, and touch the skyyyy

@realzachfluke1

3 жыл бұрын

Elon secretly fangirls over Nicki confirmed.

I wonder since it's such a large vehicle with the crew at the nose, if a Starship had the control to reorient itself before crashing back to Earth the G forces alone probably wouldn't be catastrophic. We've seen that an unfueled Starship in free fall doesn't move terribly fast, that combined with a 40 meter crumple zone might make for a survivable event. Though the crew would still be trapped in a steel box and probably on fire.

Little did Tim know when he did this particular video that he too would be a astronaut one day riding on that rocket!

A bomb with a nozzle -EverydayAstronaut 2019

@DagarCoH

4 жыл бұрын

Watch out J.C., a bomb!

41:20 Unfortunately the paper airplane safety record still lies well short of 50%

just came across this video, thanks very much super interesting. One thing that came to mind about air travel safety, is in light aircraft at least how abort systems AKA ballistic parachutes are being fitted more and more in the design of small aircraft. Personally you couldn't pay me enough to get on a helicopter, those things fall out of the sky way to often for my liking. I've been up in a Cesena a couple times when I was much younger and didn't realise how often these things and other light aircraft fail.

@Everyday Astronaut, your analysis of the 'why' behind SpaceX's rocket systems is pretty thorough and well structured. To me that shows hpw good you are at understanding a problem. I am a sucker for understanding better ways of problem-solving. Would you comment on your method (s) in solving problems?

I think comparing it to airplanes is quite accurate. Airplanes don't have parachutes for all passengers because their reliability is great. I would consider parachutes on airplanes to be the equivalent of abort systems on rockets.

@MouseGoat

3 жыл бұрын

but why tho? why cant i decide to take the parachutes out when plane goes down? Seems to be a lot of flights where a lot of lives could have been saved, as once the plain comes crashing down you chances of suval inside a big metal brick are close to 0.

@plainaviation

3 жыл бұрын

Freedom Phoenix Goat parachutes are very heavy.

@joaoolivo1815

3 жыл бұрын

@@MouseGoat Parachutes require training and skills to be properly used, also, you can't use them in 30,000ft, the parachute fails. In addiction, most of the accidents happens on landings or take-offs. Summarazing, parachutes ara usuless in take-offs, landings and cruising altitudes. And if even so you want to use one, good luck finding any space or window to make a jump in a desoriented airplane.

@sebastianochoa5385

3 жыл бұрын

Planes can glide. Rockets fall.

@Veldtian1

3 жыл бұрын

@Robert Slackware Exactamundo, I hate when people argue the weasally financial accountant pov on these issues that relegate a human life to a series of economical compromises. It's evil.

This man knows his stuff, he is committed to stars.

Good point about the safety difficulties casued by the shuttle's solid boosters. Its notable that Soviet space engineers - not noted for avoiding risk - considered but rejected the use of solid boosters for human rated flight on exactly those grounds - that they could not be turned off.

Great video, interesting factual and enthralling. Thank you.

The qualitiy of your videos is awesome, keep up the great work for us, great Christmas days from Germany.

I'm those people who would fly early in the program with little testing.

@Akeldama9

4 жыл бұрын

Just prove that you *can* land the thing, then sign me up. Hell, even if I end up a smear on a cliffside on Mars, WORTH IT.

@TexanUSMC8089

4 жыл бұрын

I'm in.

@user-lv7ph7hs7l

4 жыл бұрын

I would have given my left nut just to ride DM-1 or any Shuttle flight. Everyone has to die sometime. If I die in a rocket climbing to orbit thats would be acceptable. Better than getting run over or lying in the hospital knowing the end is coming any day now.

@Patrick1985McMahon

4 жыл бұрын

@@user-lv7ph7hs7l and if you die who cares about the loss of there left nut. Lol

@DouglasEKnappMSAOM

4 жыл бұрын

Look at how many people will gladly and proudly sign up for the US Marines even during war times. I don't know a solders survival rate but if you are willing to get shot at why not take a chance of spaceflight? Also why do we make such a big deal about a few deaths. If we did that with cars, no one would drive. Last I checked 20,000 people a year died in the US from auto crashes. It is not like I think death is good or should not be prevented but there is something called acceptable risk. Astronauts are heros!

I've watched this a couple of times just because the presentation is so good 👍 Great work EA

I can imagine some fantastic survival stories on the horizon for the starship, ones that could make a good movie and story. Astronauts fly knowing all the risks and a mission to Mars has a ton of risks, but Apollo got through each of their risks with success, and the starship may meet a similar destiny in the hands of the right crew.