Tap to unmute

Starship vs N1: Is Starship doomed to repeat history?

  • Published on Sep 23, 2023 veröffentlicht
  • Has SpaceX fallen into a similarly flawed design that plagued the N1? Why did they choose so many engines? Will it continue to suffer a similar fate over and over like the N1 or is there something inherently different?
    Today we’ll answer those questions and compare the two most powerful rockets ever made, from different sides of the world and from completely different eras to figure out how they’re similar and perhaps more importantly, how they’re different.
    Music by Everyday Astronaut: "Trans-lunar Coast" and "CRYO" available wherever you stream
    Article version with links and sources - everydayastronaut.com/starshi...
    Additional Video Resources:
    Starship VS Falcon 9 - • Complete Guide To Star...
    The Entire Soviet Rocket Engine Family Tree - • The Entire Soviet Rock...
    Elon Musk Explains SpaceX's Raptor Engine - • Elon Musk Explains Spa...
    How SpaceX is upgraded Raptor 2 to be the ultimate engine - • How SpaceX Is Upgradin...
    How Stoke Space's Unique Rocket Works - • How Stoke Space's Uniq...
    How to Power a Rocket Engine - • Rocket engine cycles: ...
    Why Don't Rocket Engines Melt - • Why don't rocket engin...
    00:00 - Intro
    01:50 - Starship VS N1
    04:40 - Comparing engines
    06:25 - Common philosophies
    14:30 - Trial by flying
    19:55 - Will starship repeat history?
    26:20 - My opinion / Summary
    Want to support what I do? Consider becoming a Patreon supporter for access to exclusive livestreams, our discord channel! - / everydayastronaut
    Or become a Clip-Share member for some bonus perks as well! - / @everydayastronaut
    The best place for all your space merch needs!
    All music is original! Check out my album "Maximum Aerodynamic Pressure" anywhere you listen to music (Spotify, iTunes, Google Play, Amazon, etc) or click here for easy links - everydayastronaut.com/music
  • Science & TechnologyScience & Technology

Comments • 0

  • ryan s
    ryan s 3 months ago +2621

    It's beyond wild that this guy who I have been watching for almost a decade has gone from wearing a silly flight suit to getting fitted for a real space suit. No one on youtube deserves it more than you!

    • David Beppler
      David Beppler 3 months ago +27

      Looks like he has lost weight.

    • Supreme Ruler of the World
      Supreme Ruler of the World 3 months ago +29

      EA better bring his OG spacesuit with binoculairs with him for a video on the other side of the moon.

    • DistracticusPrime
      DistracticusPrime 3 months ago +24

      @David Beppler I imagine there might be some training going on.

    • LaminarFlow
      LaminarFlow 3 months ago +22

      He’s not an engineer yet he masquerades as one. Lol.

    • ryan s
      ryan s 3 months ago +134

      @LaminarFlow what a rude comment. Tim has spent years learning about rocket science, from the perspective of an average Joe. He may not be a degreed engineer, but that in no way lessens his ability to teach the masses about aerospace. I say this as an engineer myself.

  • Jesse Shaw
    Jesse Shaw 3 months ago +516

    This makes the Saturn 5 seem even more impressive from an engineering steandpoint. The fact that it was done in the 1960 is 🤯

    • Ryan Sheridan
      Ryan Sheridan 3 months ago +11

      things that make you go hmmmm

    • DesertRat332
      DesertRat332 3 months ago +67

      Thirteen Saturn V Launches with 65 F1s used and they never failed. Not a single one. Things were done so quickly to get to the moon that documentation took a back seat. Yes, we would have to start from scratch to build F1s today. The Apollo program was our "Great Pyramids".

    • Inguz
      Inguz 3 months ago +14

      It truly is! I still can't help but to find it funny that people woo over a company chasing to be more effective than a 60 year old rocket, when computers were room sized

    • J. H.
      J. H. 3 months ago +3

      @DesertRat332 Well no launch failed , thats true, but at least one F1 stopped firing during Apollo 13 launch.

    • Anthony Pelchat
      Anthony Pelchat 3 months ago +41

      AntiangelRaphael "Saturn was so impressive that we LOST ability to make ones today." That's not how things work. We didn't lose the ability to build them due to technological changes. We lost the ability to build them because the factories that built them were shut down and there is no reason to spend the incredible amounts of money to restart that production. It's like saying we lost the ability to make old carburetor engines because technology changed. No, we just won't make them again because there isn't any point. The Saturn V was extremely expensive and wouldn't pass any safety standards required today.

  • Kyle Sty
    Kyle Sty 3 months ago +249

    Your thoughts on the Soviet program were extremely enlightening. Like many Americans, I thought the N1 was conceptually flawed, but now I agree with you that it is a pity the N1 rocket wasn’t allowed to fully mature.

    • Michael Williams
      Michael Williams 3 months ago +5

      Honestly it was probably a blessing! We'd all be communists by now if they had beaten us to the moon most likely..

    • Asleep Awake
      Asleep Awake 3 months ago +19

      the Soviet engine designers really got it right. Everythingnin the world ia iterative. Only people deluded by MBAs thinks there is such a thing as a turnkey solution. The world is always iterative.

    • Bubble
      Bubble 3 months ago +1

      propaganda my boy

    • Asleep Awake
      Asleep Awake 3 months ago +27

      @Bubble huh? For what purpose? Appreciating great engineering transcends petty tribal nationalism. Unless some anti-science weirdos think the entire space program is propaganda 😁

  • Ryan Pederson
    Ryan Pederson 3 months ago +155

    Don't forget the vibration environments. Rocket motors make a lot of acoustic and structural vibration. Even today this is rather difficult to predict (probably the main reason SX flew was to capture these real environments to anchor their finite element models), but it was impossible to do back in the 1950's. Without understanding the physical vibration environment it is very hard to know if your components will not just shake apart.

    • visionofmalkav
      visionofmalkav 3 months ago +4

      Hello Mr Engineer

    • Robert de Forest
      Robert de Forest 2 months ago +4

      Also it's tricky to detect resonant frequencies in models or on a test stand.

    • Ouwe Brood
      Ouwe Brood 2 months ago +1

      That's what I always understood was the main issue with all those engines on the first stage of the N1. But that said, it is very well possible this would have been solved if more time had been available.

  • 4y
    4y 3 months ago +25

    N1 never succeeded but it actually proved a lot of concepts to be viable. It was also insanely cool and that engine family could've powered the soviets space rockets for decades.
    Its really cool to see Starship and hope it succeeds. Really SpaceX is only doing something because other players became too complacent

  • Clive Simmons
    Clive Simmons 3 months ago +120

    As someone who watched the original Apollo lands as I kid I think that this is the most exciting project since. I still marvel at the regular booster landing and have every confidence that spaceX / starship will succeed

    • CaptainPantsuGoblin
      CaptainPantsuGoblin 3 months ago +10

      They landing was something NASA did in the 70s.
      Also maybe look at the Artemis II project?
      Way more reasonable
      And just to be honest, I don't see them getting starship working anytime soon.

    • Joey Bulford
      Joey Bulford 3 months ago +7

      The SLS launch is far more impressive tbh. It actually orbited the moon and didn’t blow up in the atmosphere.

    • xXYannuschXx
      xXYannuschXx 3 months ago +7

      @CaptainPantsuGoblin I highly doubt Starship will ever carry humans into space. No rescue system and a suicide burn to land on a planet; those are things that simply wont allow it to carry humans.

    • Writer Shard
      Writer Shard 3 months ago +2

      @xXYannuschXx Yeah this is my problem with SpaceX' approach to progress at all costs. Like... it's okay to delay things if it keeps our human astronauts safer. I might not see humanity go into space, but that's better than seeing a rocket full of people explode, or hearing news of the first men of mars being condemned to die there.

    • Mudman61
      Mudman61 2 months ago

      @CaptainPantsuGoblinI fully agree. I’m putting my money with NASA. Elon Musk has a bad habit of taking short cuts in order to achieve goals faster. Artemis worked beautifully the very first time. It was practically flawless. You certainly can’t say that about Starship. I noticed right when it failed that the desired goal post for that mission changed from splashing down near Hawaii in the Pacific all the way back to just “CLEARING THE TOWER.” That’s a massive change in the goal posts location. And with that change, SpaceX called the launch a success. I call that BS. LETS BE REALISTIC. IT WAS A FAILURE OF EPIC PROPORTIONS. Furthermore, it lifted off the pad very slowly. That indicates that the spacecraft itself is far too heavy. It weighs MORE than the Oliver Hazard Perry class frigate I was stationed on in the Navy. And this craft had NO cargo or crew on board. I’m wondering if a fully loaded Starship will even lift itself up off the pad.

  • Ted Archer
    Ted Archer 3 months ago +897

    N1 was a brutal tragedy. They had three improved rockets assembled, when management changed and he ordered all of them destroyed. Hopefully, they managed to save some engines, and they fly to this day on Zenit

    • mezmery a
      mezmery a 3 months ago +34

      n1 was a comedy of incompetence and basic math failings.

    • nagantm441
      nagantm441 3 months ago +151

      ​@mezmery asuch as?

    • S1nwar
      S1nwar 3 months ago +56

      now imagine the economy of an entire country run with centralized moneyburning decisions like that.

    • quaeris aliquid
      quaeris aliquid 3 months ago +60

      actually NK-33 engine still operational on Soyuz 2.1v and it was used on Anteres rocket

    • The Orion's arm
      The Orion's arm 3 months ago +25

      Wrong, the Zenith used RD-171 engines, which were developed from the more recent RD-170( it's what the boosters of Energhia used in the 1980's) , not the old NK-15 like you suggested.(also Zenith don't fly today, was flying like 20 years ago! )

  • Hector Roldan
    Hector Roldan 3 months ago +20

    The more complex a system, the more points of failure that can lead to disaster. I'm amazed the N1 was able to accomplish so much. I was remembering the N1 while it was going up and once Starship went into the spin after a few engines either didn't fire or flickered out, it was a good thing that the difference in fuel and build allowed the Starship to stay together for so long and maybe not as much damage after it went boom. That poor launch pad.. {Just made it to 7:30 and nice to hear similar thoughts}

  • AeroviewUSA
    AeroviewUSA 2 months ago +7

    Tim, you've seriously earned your ride into space and a WHOLE lot of our appreciation for not just your knowledge but how you can spell it out in a way even those who are new to spaceflight (etc) can understand.

  • Godzilla Rider Gamer
    Godzilla Rider Gamer 2 months ago +12

    I dont think that the unreliability of the engines, in terms of them being some of the first was the major reason so many shut down during starship’s initial launch. I think it was *mostly* that they were bombarded with concrete as it lifted off, as seen by the HPU being destroyed along side them 😂

  • Aminal Creacher
    Aminal Creacher 3 months ago +5

    One thing the N1 has over Starship is those beautiful lattice-like interstage trusses. So stylish!

    • N1 Engine #18
      N1 Engine #18 3 months ago +4

      Well, since Starship is now hot staging, the interstage will definitely get some openings. Probably not quite as open as N1

  • Jim Irving
    Jim Irving 3 months ago +31

    Thanks, Tim, great video! I was born a few years before Sputnik, and I've been on the edge of my seat for all of it! And thanks to SpaceX's vision and drive, I think I'll actually see the human spacefaring adventure get properly underway. I'm rooting for you and the team! ("Have Spacesuit, Will Travel!")

    • John Green
      John Green 3 months ago +2

      Till you meet the Mother Thing.

    • Jim Irving
      Jim Irving 3 months ago +1

      @John Green From my elementary school library, I must've read that book and "Rocket Ship Galileo" a hundred times.

  • Peter Smythe
    Peter Smythe 3 months ago +341

    Wow it's kinda impressive they've only had two Merlin engine failures on ascent out of 228 launches with a total of 2052 engine-launches.

    • BurningSun
      BurningSun 3 months ago +50

      A true testament to the Engineering prowess and sheer skill of SpaceX engineers and technicians. They are almost at TWO HUNDRED FREAKING first stage return landings.

    • Anggara Gustika
      Anggara Gustika 3 months ago +80

      And the fact that people already ignored and forget how many failure falcon 9 have in it's development phase really prove early failure is much better than failure on the finished product.
      I'd rather fly on a rocket that have blown up in it's early phase of development than a rocket they spend billions hoping it doesn't blow up because they can't afford failure

    • awuma
      awuma 3 months ago +15

      It's worth remembering that one of the few landing failures in recent years was caused by one of the two Merlin engine failures on the upward leg of the flight (the primary payloads being successfully delivered to orbit in each case).

    • Battleneter
      Battleneter 3 months ago +3

      Wow, kinda depressing SpaceX is still using mostly the same engine design from the 1960's, can you imagine just how disappointed a space enthusiast would have been if we told then where we were today.

    • Mountain Nomad VFX
      Mountain Nomad VFX 3 months ago +10

      So they claim.
      Given events surrounding Tesla's FSD, its reliability and that of various Tesla physical builds I'm inclined to be dubious about those claims.

  • CC 07
    CC 07 3 months ago +16

    Incredible how far the aoviet space program was 50 years ago already, they really had passion about this.

  • Frequent Traveller
    Frequent Traveller 3 months ago +9

    Thanks for an objective view of both programmes. It's especially good to hear a thoughtful view of the N1 programme. Given the Soviet's practice of keeping boosters, the ISS might have looked very different today, if the N1 had been allowed to become operational.

  • Einar
    Einar 2 months ago +7

    Great and very informative video! I would love a video on Energia too, as i believe it had a lot of potential, that sadly never got used due to the fall of the soviet union. Especially the modulary, as there was plans for a even bigger rocket (Vulcan) by simply strapping on more energia boosters to the core.

  • kr4bz
    kr4bz 2 months ago +4

    Your videos have impeccable quality. Really just a joy to watch. Great job man! To you and your team!

  • newbie
    newbie 3 months ago +3

    I do think that however you simulate and engineer things in the lab, a real life test will always show something completely unexpected.
    This is why, even though Indian space research organisation had GSLV and GSLV mk 3 as their most powerful Rockets, they still rely on PSLV for most of their important launches . It's because of this experience... That PSLV had a lot of launch experience, that made them do this.

  • AmigaClone
    AmigaClone 3 months ago +463

    At this time SpaceX has eight Falcon 9 boosters which have launched more than ten times. The two oldest boosters have been expended after 11 and 14 flights. Two have reached the current limit of 15 launches and are awaiting to be certified to twenty. Two others were launched for the 14th time in May 2023 while the last two launched for the 11th time in May 2023.

    • Bryan Hensley
      Bryan Hensley 3 months ago +9

      It really looks like 100 plus launches is possible in the near future. They should have paid as much as it took to keep the Merlin engine inventer and engineer. (I'm not sure what his official title was)

    • Chaim Goldbaum
      Chaim Goldbaum 3 months ago +46

      @Bryan Hensley He retired, I doubt he would be pursuaded to stay working for more money when he is already very wealthy.

    • András Bíró
      András Bíró 3 months ago +21

      @Bryan Hensley
      Don't worry, Elon has a talent for finding the best people and also for getting them to work for him. And not just that, but once they are onboard, the company culture highly encourages the sharing of knowledge, so nobody is irreplaceable for long (that includes Elon himself, although it takes a lot longer).

    • j gunther
      j gunther 3 months ago +23

      ​@András Bíró he has a talent for hiring 20-somethings fresh out of school and for making friends with the chinese communist party

    • Will Mason
      Will Mason 3 months ago +13

      ​@Bryan Hensley 100 launches that all include an expendable second stage. I am amazed that no one talks about what it takes to produce that number of second stage engines.

  • James Owens
    James Owens 3 months ago +2

    I agree that N1 would have worked if given the chance to iron out the issues. I also believe that Starship will succeed in being the transformative vehicle it is designed to be. Lunar Starship will probably not launch by 2025 (Jim Free is already preparing us for this) but it will launch, and will still be sooner than any other vehicle could have done it. I'm very much looking forward to seeing them demonstrate large-scale cryogenic refueling in orbit, since that's never been done before. Overall, it's a great time for space enthusiasts like us to be alive, and I know Tim will get his ride to the moon, and we are effectively all going with him!

  • Larry Bethune
    Larry Bethune 3 months ago +8

    I was thinking about the N1 the very first time I saw Starship. Hope they have better luck than Korolev.

  • David Bisignani
    David Bisignani 3 months ago +5

    Thank you for another great video! I agree that SpaceX will resolve all of the problems with the Starship. It might take a few years but they have a good deal of experience with the Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy. I look forward to seeing this huge ship sail!

  • Sime Coic
    Sime Coic 3 months ago +2

    You nailed it.
    I think people in general doesn't have a clue what kind of engineering milestones those guys are doing since 2017 Falcon Heavy and with Starship. At the moment the only thing and philosophy that is keeping us as humans on the higher level to go one step beyond of exploring

  • Тони лед
    Тони лед 3 months ago +3

    The N1 rocket was destroyed not by engine failures, but by a complex control system from above (the rocket was controlled by the thrust of the engines), and hydraulic shocks in the fuel system caused by the resonance of a bunch of engines in one block.

  • Hippida
    Hippida 3 months ago +248

    The one thing not mentioned in the video. There has been some development in the past 55 years in fields of metallurgy, and production technology. This imho with computers makes for a vast difference in the probability of success of Starship.
    Since I had just the one thing to add, you obviously made a great piece comparing 2 of the craziest rockets ever made.
    Thanks Tim

    • Lensflare Deviant
      Lensflare Deviant 3 months ago +5

      Those are fair points.

    • James Ellis
      James Ellis 3 months ago +9

      The more engines you add the more chances for an engine failure.

    • Mykl Langridge
      Mykl Langridge 3 months ago +23

      @James Ellis But also the less effect that individual failure will have. Arguably they should be more reliable as there is more testing done to find & eliminate design/manufacturing flaws as well.
      Ultimately is it better to have 4 engines where a single failure loses 25% of your available thrust, or one with 33 where a failure only loses 3%? Or to put it another way, 33 where you would need to lose 8 engines to almost lose the same thrust?

    • Weasle
      Weasle 3 months ago +14

      ​@James Ellis The loss of a few engines doesn't affect the capability of the craft as much. The engines are super lightweight as it is and it seems worth it to mount a lot of them. I'm sure SpaceX will radically improve the reliability as the engines mature over the years

    • Hippida
      Hippida 3 months ago +9

      It works for Falcon 9, sure it'll scale up.
      I consider the first test a huge success, and as Tim pointed out, the one failure was the Flight termination system.
      Starship is built like a good old brick wall

  • P C
    P C 2 months ago +1

    Hello Tim, when I look at that cargo bay door of Starship, I have to wonder if the SpaceX engineers ever considered a vertical payload door opposed to the current horizontal door. You have to wonder just how much structural reinforcement has to be added to carry that stress load around that huge door. If the stresses collapse that door opening by even a fraction during launch, that door may not open or close. If I were to design it, I would attempt a vertical door as it is much easier to carry that stress load. The big takeaway would be if they could deploy the Starlinks in a vertical position. In my mind, I picture a multilevel dispenser similar to the old slide projector carousels. Preliminarily, I think you could actually dispense more satellites in this configuration if the mechanics work out.

  • A Canuck
    A Canuck 3 months ago +3

    Dear Tim:
    As always, you've offered us much food for thought. I agree with your considered assessment (that SpaceX will likely manage to make Starship into a viable launch system). I also believe that the company and its engineers, managers and backers have the resilience that just didn't exist in the Soviet Union when the N-1 was being developed. Indeed, I would go further, by asserting that no other company on the planet is presently capable of doing this (although maybe that might change over the next five years).
    The "Musk Factor" has obviously been a crucial part (the "magic", if you will) in all this. So, his untimely demise would be a blow.
    But unlike Mr Korolev, Musk does not seem to be the main engineer behind the Starship. His ideas carry weight (obviously), but he operates in a completely different social and political context. Moreover, he has (apparently) made sure to put in place a flexible corporate framework--headed up by a well-regarded CEO, Gynne Shotwell.
    It is worth remembering, as well, that SpaceX made its reputation on its own merits. Sure, NASA helped to finance the development of Falcon-9 and the Dragon capsule, but this support came in the context of a commercial space program development strategy that could have seen the rise of another company.. SpaceX succeeded on its own merits and has managed to attract many talented people because of its "iterative" corporate culture that enables it to do what many established firms in the US aerospace sector had previously thought was impossible.
    Like you, I hope that we see an evolved, safe and reliable Starship system in regular use by the late 2020s... and barring some sort of global catastrophe, I think it is more likely than not.

  • Tariq
    Tariq 29 days ago

    Thanks for another excellent and informative video.
    I'm curious about your view on why they went with a "one size fits all" solution. Especially, after the highly successful Falcon family architecture, which went from Falcon1 to Falcon9 to Falcon Heavy. Now, the Falcon9 is the space launch industry's number one workhorse. A similar architectural approach would have created a more cost effective and LESS COMPLEX next gen solution built around the Raptor. A center core with strap-on boosters, all re-usable, of course.
    How long the complexity of the current approach is going to cause problems and stretch schedules out is an open question.
    One last point, the majority of launch requirements could be met with just the center core. Just look at the number of Falcon9 launches compared to the Falcon Heavy.

  • Zakariya Al-Battashi
    Zakariya Al-Battashi 22 days ago

    Thanks for the awesome video! Minor note: when comparing the engines you mentioned the nk-15 utilises oxygen rich closed cycle but forgot to highlight that raptor 2 utilises the full flow staged combustion cycle.

  • Scott Bruner
    Scott Bruner 3 months ago +88

    I enjoy a bunch of different channels, but this is one of the few I actually look forward to.
    Always excellent information presented in a fun and engaging manner.
    Keep ‘em coming, Tim!

  • TheLoneWolfling
    TheLoneWolfling 3 months ago +3

    My main issue with the 'silly numbers of engines means you're more safe' approach is cascading failures. There are many engine failure modes that are localized, sure, but there are many engine failure modes that are nowhere near as contained. Consider e.g. an engine turbopump grenading - similar failure modes in aircraft are generally a case of 'pray that it doesn't hit another engine'.
    And yes, there are approaches to help mitigate this somewhat... but again I come back to areospace. Uncontained engine failures happen, and by and large aircraft don't even _try_ to protect against high pressure turbine failures because the mass cost is prohibitive... and aerospace is far less weight-constrained than rocketry.

  • Paulo Alves de Souza
    Paulo Alves de Souza 3 months ago

    Nice one Tim! At this point SpaceX hasn't got the option of turning back. Too much at stake. Superheavy and Starship will make it to orbit and be a transformative technology as you say. If it will be in their current form/design time will tell. I hope sooner than later you'll be going live from the Moon.

  • Michael Benno Butter
    Michael Benno Butter 3 months ago

    Dear Tim... another masterpiece of explanation of difficult things! If anyone deserves his flight to space... it is you!! Mike, Germany

  • Charlson C. Kim
    Charlson C. Kim 3 months ago +2

    my understanding is that the early SpaceX engines were based on earlier Soviet engines so it is not surprising that they also adopted a similar design philosophy.

  • RDL
    RDL 3 months ago +3

    Only watched the first 1 minute (so far) but I'm guessing the Starship will fly better when the engines aren't burning launchpad rich. I can only imagine the rebound like spraying a pressure washer into a dirt patch and it flies back in your face lol.

  • Eric Leslie
    Eric Leslie 3 months ago +107

    I feel like they'll get to orbit pretty quickly, but it's the rapid reuse part that might get tougher. However, when they get it right there's nothing that will stop the system.

    • Kristian Bjotveit
      Kristian Bjotveit 3 months ago +1

      Might have some problems with the heat tiles but hopefully they figure it out

    • Garret H
      Garret H 3 months ago +6

      ​​@Kristian Bjotveitt may not take as long as we think. I was watching a Scott Manley video the other day, where he talks about the tiles. In footage of the launch it appears that the tiles are handling launch and Max Q. They don't start falling off until around the time they begin loosing control.
      If I had to speculate, do to the rocket tumbling in the manor it did it probably began bending in a way it wouldn't encounter during normal flight. On launch day I think I recall someone mentioning the rocket no longer looked straight shortly before failure.
      While I know the tiles are not directly glued to the tank walls, imagine how you might remove one object glued to another. Pulling the object off all at once may be difficult or near impossible. But if you can bend and peal one of the objects away from the other a little at a time it gets easier.
      In this case I'm guessing the tank probably deformed enough to pull it away from the tile mount.
      As long as the tiles make it to orbit I'd imagine most of the tiles will survive re-entry. There you have the tiles being pressed towards the tank.
      Plus stainless handles re-entry heating better then something like aluminum. If I'm not mistaken a shuttle lost some tiles and survived because it happened to have a stainless plate where those tiles fell off. If this amount of tiles fell off somewhere else it would have burned through aluminum. Definitely fact check me on this one however. I remember someone talking about it on Clip-Share.
      I'm not saying the first re-entry will be successful but I wouldn't be utterly surprised. Still will probably workout relatively quickly.

    • Justin Jacobs
      Justin Jacobs 3 months ago +6

      @Garret H It was space shuttle atlantis, it happend to have an antenna array mounting structure underneath that was steel that saved the flight. there was also damage to about 700 tiles they reported. Its to be noted that the heat the tiles faced on the shuttle was around 2300 F , and the melting point of stainless steel is 2500-2700 F, so its quite likely starship has a higher survival rate if it loses tiles.

    • Jonathan Newman
      Jonathan Newman 3 months ago

      agreed. These things take time, but step 1 is a functional rocket - reusability will come later, and only then can they really work on rapid reusability.

    • Ikarus
      Ikarus 3 months ago +5

      Time is on their side. They don’t need the Starship to be at multiple launches a day in the next year, they just need to be faster than the competitors. Even if Starship is only being reused at the rate of the falcon 9 they will be way cheaper than other rockets meaning they will not run out of money from contracts.

  • Nick Outram
    Nick Outram 3 months ago +11

    This video answers one of the main questions I had around Starship. Is it simply making the same mistake as The Soviet N1 and thus doomed to fail. I think that there is nothing inherently wrong about large numbers of smaller engines and look forward to seeing you complete your Moonflight shortly!

    • CoastalSphinx
      CoastalSphinx 3 months ago +3

      Starship is repeating the most critical mistake of N1: attempting to develop a highly complex technological system with little margin for error, under the control of a technologically ignorant autocrat (Brezhnev or Musk) who habitually ignores expert advice that contradicts his preconceived ideas.

  • Chris Weiss
    Chris Weiss 3 months ago +1

    Your videos are so incredibly insightful and enjoyably. Well done

  • Gary van Boomen
    Gary van Boomen 3 months ago

    You are my reference with regards to factual and realistic reporting on this new exiting space era we are entering. Down to earth specific, relatable analysing and reporting of a most difficult field and topics so that the average interested Joe can understand. Most of all no BS straight unbiased very well researched view of the topic. Many many thumbs up for you.

  • Wild Bill
    Wild Bill 2 months ago +1

    In the aftermath of the Titan submersible incident, one has to appreciate how much testing Space X is doing.

  • Geoff TT
    Geoff TT 3 months ago +3

    Amazing footage! Great discussion. Way to go Tim.

  • James Shields
    James Shields 3 months ago +260

    Lots of great points. You mentioned lots of advantages of many small engines, but there's one that I don't think you included (unless you did and I missed it). Having small engines allowed commonality between lower and upper stages. If you have bigger engines, they will be too big for your stage, so you'll probably need to have dedicated engines for each stage, requiring additional development and testing.

    • Simon Geard
      Simon Geard 3 months ago +20

      Indeed, which is also true of Falcon 9 and Electron... one-to-nine seems to be a convenient ratio between a single engine with a vacuum nozzle up top, and fitting in many of the same engine with a sea-level nozzle on the booster.

    • lagrangewei
      lagrangewei 3 months ago +24

      commonality as an argument is stupid, sea level engine and zero atmosphere engine require very different ratio, it why space program INTENTIONALLY design different engines. so this is more of a stopgap argument than it actually being a good idea. even the raptor has 2 design so it doesn't SUCK in orbit. this is not that important during testing, but if you want to get to mars, your space performance will have a major impact... as high as 30% difference in what you can carry to mars.

    • Fensox
      Fensox 3 months ago +11

      @lagrangewei what you say is somewhat true but you are not at all taking into account the complexity, cost, and management challenges of maintaining multiple engines.

    • Simon Geard
      Simon Geard 3 months ago +24

      @lagrangewei and yet SpaceX and Rockets Lab have both been doing it very successfully for some time now... it might be suboptimal physics, but using the same engine for both stages is a huge benefit cost-wise.

    • awuma
      awuma 3 months ago +18

      @lagrangewei The difference is mainly in the nozzle, a rather straightforward item, and recently Space X has even begun occasionally using a mid-size nozzle on the MVAC. Since both the 1D and MVAC are designed to be multiply re-ignitable in vacuum or near-vacuum, there probably is little else that is different.

  • gold fing
    gold fing 3 months ago +7

    This is a great video and presentation, so detailed and explaining all things so well! I believe we will see the next Starship launch soon and Starship reaching orbit this year already.

  • subsonicdeathmonkey
    subsonicdeathmonkey 3 months ago +11

    I truly believe they will make it work and make it work soon. They’ve proven themselves already and I don’t see their previous launch as a failure at all. I’m excited for the future!

    • Sturm Kintaro
      Sturm Kintaro 3 months ago +6

      With that, you are in good company of other blinded fans of Musk, but not a lot of actual engineers or scientists.
      Musk stated that the rocket that blew up had a ton of parts where better versions were available, but he wanted to get rid of the old parts and launched it regardless. Which means that not only did he destroy his pad, got grounded by FAA and NASA, will be forced to build flame diverters at Boca Chica (which is impossible since SpaceX failed to comply to the rules set by the USACE), damaged a good amount of his own equipment, and burned a billion dollars worth of hardware, no, most things he learned are not even applicable anymore since the next rocket is already designed and will differ from the current version in a significant number of things. Which means that most of what he learned is "Flame diverters have been used for decades for a reason", hardly anything he would have had to launch a rocket to find out.
      Couple that with the footage SpaceX released from their test of that water cooled plate that clearly showed damage to it even with a single engine apparently not at full power, and Musks brilliant screw up when he suggested to replace said plate by essentially a shower head shooting water at the engines with "sufficient pressure to counteract the engines", meaning that the extend of his knowledge about launch pads is "We know flat launch pads reflect pressure waves and may damage the engines, so let us use the same pad design with the same pressure reflection, but add an entire StarShip booster worth of water pressure to that, without access to pumps powerful enough".

    • Cherri Berri
      Cherri Berri 3 months ago

      Genuinely, when do you think they proved themselves? That is such an outlandish and delusional take I really want to hear the lack of logic in the potential thought processes that took place in your fanboy brain.

  • Pixelsplasher
    Pixelsplasher 2 months ago +1

    Let's just say the N1 was too far ahead of its time and now Starship is just about time. It's not a matter of if but when it succeeds.

  • Mael Cloutier
    Mael Cloutier 3 months ago

    As a young adult, i really love your video and the way you bring complex information into the most basic principle that majority can understand. I have so many question about rocket and the subject is fascinating, i think it would be great if you did a video on the part of the starship rocket, like how much volume of oxygen they need to store in the rocket for them to survive the travel between earth and mars or like what inside of the starship rocket, what are the main part of it ? Thank you for this quality content and i hope you the best !

  • Larry
    Larry 2 months ago

    A lot to think about, and a lot of it I have already thought about.
    Space x has stumbled in the past, and there is no guarantee they won't stumble again.
    The high engine count has always been an issue for me, but has yet to prove as the biggest issue. Time will tell, we will just have to wait. But, maybe, it might not be all that bad of an idea to think towards a modified engine profile, perhaps start thinking about a large raptor 4 and solid boosters as an alternative, just saying. Just my thoughts. Keep us on our toes Tim, and keep bringing the good stuff !

  • John Doe
    John Doe 3 months ago +122

    Whatever achievements still to come, seeing the two boosters land together for the first time was a thing I'll remember for the rest of my life! 😲
    The red & white Tintin Space Rocket finally becoming reality, I was so happy, excited and amazed - a real thing of beauty. 😛

    • LittleLordFancyLad
      LittleLordFancyLad 3 months ago +5

      This! Starship HLS really needs to come in the Syldavian red & white checkered livery.

    • James Comstock
      James Comstock 3 months ago +8

      Totally, agree! seeing what looked like a synchronized dance when the two rockets landed together was totally stunning to me and left me with the impression of having witnessed one of the greatest technical triumphs of human history. I certainly will never forget that moment as long as I live.

    • tim hem
      tim hem 3 months ago +4

      totally - i put that right up with landing on the moon. A breathtaking bit of history that will be known and rewatch for as long as humanity is still around

    • snuffeldjuret
      snuffeldjuret 3 months ago +1

      that is what got me interested in rockets for sure :)

  • Evan Atkinson
    Evan Atkinson 2 months ago

    Great work as always.
    I’d love to see a vid on the limitations/failures of the space shuttle, and how starship will avoid these traps.

    • Everyday Astronaut
      Everyday Astronaut  2 months ago +1

      Like this? 🤔 - clip-share.net/video/v6lPMFgZU5Q/video.html

    • Evan Atkinson
      Evan Atkinson 2 months ago

      @Everyday Astronaut it seems you anticipated my whim!
      Lack of escape system was one key factor, but also; Vulnerability and complexity of the TPS, actual resisability vs promise, Cost of reusable RS-25 engines, location on side of booster, solid rockets etc…. I’m sure you would find so much insight!

  • Oldjohn52
    Oldjohn52 2 months ago

    Once they catch and re-use a booster, I'll be onboard. I still think the amount of reuse they will achieve is not gonna be as great as hoped for. The biggest problem I see is that launch mount. It's a mashup of different techs that are untried. At least, untried in this amount of thrust at launch.

  • Jeff Knapp
    Jeff Knapp 2 months ago

    My guess is that it will take two - three years to become fully operational. I wouldn't be surprised if they were able to complete a full, cargo-carrying mission within in one - one-and-a-half years. Spaceship and super-booster are much more robust out of the gate than the N1 was plus, as you mentioned, there's a vast difference between 1960's technology and today. Also, by mass producing these while constantly refining and upgrading while doing so, means there will be many more opportunities to fly test vehicles to work bugs out of the system. Finally, the cost per unit is much, much less than the N1 was. I have no doubt that they will within a few years make as reliable as the Falcon 9 is now with the added bonus of being able to reply both parts of the rocket much more frequently than the F9 will ever be.

  • Hamish Barker
    Hamish Barker 2 months ago

    Thanks for the great video tim. Just one point against the larger number of starship engines: IF there is a failure mode of a single engine which can result in loss of mission, having 6x the number of engines increases the number of possible loss of mission scenarios. For example. Say theres a 0.5% probability of single engine failure mode causing loss of mission. With 5 engines, loss of mission probability is 2.5%. but with 30 engines that goes up to 14%.

  • Andrew Lohbihler
    Andrew Lohbihler 3 months ago

    Great video Todd. What improvement did you help Elon make involving thrusters with "hot gas" on the second stage? I didn't hear the end of that story.

  • Broba-Vet25U
    Broba-Vet25U 3 months ago +2

    Do you think SpaceX will ever try and replace the Merlin engines with raptor 2 or 3 on a falcon 9 just as a experiment? I would think if they have engine issues on the next starship TestFlight this would be a good testing bed for the problems that might occur with multiple raptors and multiple restarts during a mission. While I’m sure they won’t because of the redesigns due to different propellants but it would be cool to see just how much payload is possible.

  • Andrew Hamilton
    Andrew Hamilton 3 months ago +108

    I really enjoyed this video, Tim. You lend such style and sharp clarity to explaining the very complex history of spaceflight. Thanks so much from Down Under!

  • Chris A
    Chris A 3 months ago

    Maybe it's already being done, but I think it would be interesting if someone were to train an AI to analyze the existing video footage of flights and testing that is published by EA and others. That might provide interesting insights that Sapiens just can't discern, and potentially provide a marketable data set.

  • Gadget0343
    Gadget0343 3 months ago

    One thing I think has been overlooked, is that they have a bunch of boosters and Starships that are pretty much obsolete from significant improvements. So either scrap them of fly them for data. Either way they are getting scrapped so might as well get something out of them.

  • JP Smith
    JP Smith 3 months ago

    First time watching one of videos. Really excellent. Informative with good narrative and presentation. And you have a good voice for this type of work.

  • Gordonicus
    Gordonicus 3 months ago

    I think Starship will totally succeed, and in so doing will transform space flight forever.

  • Zenichev
    Zenichev 2 months ago

    Super nice and profound video! I appreciate those of your videos related to soviet programs so much man 👍

  • Spin Drift
    Spin Drift 3 months ago +56

    Such an informative video and a nice comparison to what has gone before. It's an incredible age we live in and it's exciting to see these developments come thick and fast.

  • GoodQuestion
    GoodQuestion Month ago

    @EverydayAstronaut I know Raptor doesn't have coaxial pumps (Merlin does). How difficult do you think it would be to make the pumps coaxial for Raptor? It would simplify and increase reliability on many other things, right?

  • Frank Woodman Jr
    Frank Woodman Jr Month ago

    Love your work in this video but that's expected. You have been very reliable yourself. And I'm excited to think that you most likely will travel to space and in the not to distant future. Having been one born to see human space travel begin it's amazing to think I may well live to see everyday people commonly travel to space. We've came to do such amazing things as we've mastered technology to solve the problems mankind alone could never solve. Now we see technology on the verge of taking over our role and taking us places only imagined. This is truly a time we humans will either become interplanetary or kill ourselves off. That's still an unanswered question. Anyway I'm eager to see you make your flight and flying with you will be the dreams of millions of us who watched as mankind feebly headed to space so many years ago. Just know that you will actually be powered by the dreams of myself and millions more who dared to believe it was possible. As Eugene said, " To boldly go where no man has gone before!" We've never met but we've shared the same dream.

  • Clay P
    Clay P 3 months ago

    From what I understood they used so many engines, because they couldn't attain stable combustion on larger engines due to the massive amounts of fuel being pumped. The F-1 engine solved this with an intricate injector plate that fed the fuel evenly into the combustion chamber. The Russians hadn't figured this out at the time and chose to use many smaller engines instead.
    Edit - I wrote this at the beginning of the video before I saw you commented about it , oops

  • tod4y
    tod4y 3 months ago +2

    Not to mention that one of the reasons for N1 failing was pogo oscillation.

  • Christian A
    Christian A 3 months ago +1

    I can't wait for our Tim, Everyday Astronaut, to fly on a rocket! I'm so looking forward to it!

  • Steve Coates
    Steve Coates 3 months ago +58

    Good job Tim and kudos to your team. Just the right amount of tech without being overwhelming. Thank you kind sir, and thanks to your team

  • isayfuck
    isayfuck 3 months ago +3

    Youre a legend in the making tim. So cool to watch the development of the channel over the years. Cant wait for your show after dear moon!

    • Karen Thomson
      Karen Thomson 3 months ago

      He sold out. Also he’s full of himself.

    • isayfuck
      isayfuck 3 months ago +2

      @Karen Thomson sold out how?

    • Terigon
      Terigon 3 months ago +1

      @Karen Thomsonhow?

  • I-Love-Space
    I-Love-Space 3 months ago +1

    Excellent history lesson on launch vehicle development and the engineering considerations therein. I tend to agree with you that SpaceX will ultimately be successful in making Super Heavy reliable and the Starship system work. I even believe they will get it working as a lunar lander, and they can even master on orbit refueling.
    My only criticism is that they could have had a fewer problems if they had listened to the wisdom of launch pad development experts through the last 50 years of space history. Sometimes, Elon exhibits a real pigheaded stubborness as the the darker complement to his more positive determination to persist in the face of failures. That concrete rain was simply inexcusable when you consider it was easily foreseen by anyone with half a brain.
    I also feel like the system AS PROPOSED, in good conscience, should never be man-rated, EVER. Putting passengers INSIDE the second stage on top of huge propellant tanks with no means of escape may not yield a disaster right away, but like the Shuttle, will one day kill an entire crew. With the Shuttle that was roughly 1 in every 100 flights. Because of that, one of NASA's ideas was to separate crew from cargo.
    I would feel much better if there was a smaller Starship built purely to move passengers to orbit, (to dock with and load a bigger interplanetary Starship), that was specifically designed to be man-rated. It would include little escape capsules (somewhat like the ones on the B-58 Hustler supersonic bomber) for each passenger. These capsules could eject everyone in the case of a problem with the Starship during ascent. As we saw from the Shuttle Challenger, it is possible for the passenger cabin to remain intact under the most difficult conditions. So I think it is possible to engineer such capsules that could survive a disaster and have computer modes to bring the passenger onboard down under various flight situations. With proper shielding, it could even reenter the Earth's atmospere if the abort happened high enough.
    Because the weight overhead of this system would cut into the usable payload of a Starship, that is why it has to be specifically made for getting people to orbit only, with maybe very limited cargo capacity. Then use bigger Cargo versions of Starship to put fuel, cargo, etc to orbit and to the depots, lunar and interplanetary vehicles. The interplanetary Starship for Mars flight could be bigger and even get to orbit carrying only cargo, and empty seats and cabins. It might even be able to carry more fuel and reduce the number of tanker flights required.
    Using a more specialist approach could make each purpose-designed Starship more efficient and safe for its designed purpose.
    But as proposed now, there is no way I would ride a Starship to orbit, and I worry for Jared and his crew and now you on the Blue Moon mission.

  • Name
    Name 3 months ago

    Also worth noting that thanks to the booster costs being lower and modern manufacturing practices the starship is likely much cheaper to produce than the N1, meaning there is less cost to doing test launches.

  • Jon Gretar Borgthorsson

    I think they might figure out how to do this. I also think that how they intend to run Starship missions is just WAY too complex of missions with way too many moving parts. Not only the Starship itself but the mission profiles. I really think that SpaceX has forgotten their roots and ended up going the more expensive way.
    Sure they will figure out the engineering. It’s the business plan that I think is doomed.

  • Don Felton
    Don Felton 3 months ago

    I really would like to purchase the falcon 9 model, it looks amazing… unfortunately shipping to Europe is waaaaay too expensive

  • Isaac Grosof
    Isaac Grosof 3 months ago +385

    I just realized: If all goes well, Tim will literally become an everyday astronaut - he's going to actually fly in space, an everyday person actually flying in space. It's incredible!

    • Mehul Patel
      Mehul Patel 3 months ago +8

      Beautiful how thoughts can become reality, isn’t it?

    • ArthurLunar
      ArthurLunar 3 months ago +2

      Dear moon program

    • Potato Salad
      Potato Salad 3 months ago +8

      He's not an everyday person anymore tho...

    • John D
      John D 3 months ago +2

      ​@Potato Salad about to be an everyday astronaut.

    • Smelly Ham
      Smelly Ham 3 months ago +1


  • Client Videos
    Client Videos 3 months ago +1

    Your narration on this video was excellent, very well paced and measured.

  • James Stripling
    James Stripling 3 months ago

    I think SpaceX is much closer than anybody thinks. Full, and capable Starship in a year. Had the launch pad been solid and had it not used hydraulic gimbals, that first flight may have been a wild success.

    • PhycoKrusk
      PhycoKrusk 3 months ago

      I agree they're closer than anybody likely thinks, but a year still feels _really_ optimistic.

  • Sándor Salamon
    Sándor Salamon 3 months ago

    You are an inspiration for all of us! This video is amazing just like every other of yours! Right now we see humanity stepping forward to a new era, and I hope I will be able to see when the first human will reach Mars. I believe in starship :) (Greetings from Hungary)

  • pranav gupta
    pranav gupta 3 months ago

    Providing sources is a must for all youtube videos. Great work.

  • Arthur Savage
    Arthur Savage Month ago

    I definitely see starship being a success for unmanned missions. SpaceX has the resources to make it happen. However I don't see the current design ever being human rated by NASA. I think they will need a detachable crew module for abort and landings or some new design.

  • Bobcat665
    Bobcat665 3 months ago +53

    Another thing worth mentioning was that the Soviet's N1 program was short on both time and funding, things that SpaceX, to the contrary, has had plenty of.

  • Roger
    Roger 2 months ago

    SpaceX also has the advantage of riding on the shoulders of thousands of giants before them. The first starship launch has demonstrated that getting these behemoths safely into space is possible and will be as routine as Falcon 9s.

  • Alex
    Alex 3 months ago

    Great video. The N1 picked a design philosophy that was in many ways the worst of both worlds, disadvantaging it over other rocket designs. Have smaller, cheaper engines, allowing many to be built and iterate more quickly, but sorry you can't test fire them. Many first stage engines allowing for engine out capability, except throttle vectoring means you double any engine loss, negating that advantage.
    The soviet bureaucracy was not known for being flexible and adaptive, but even so the N1 may have gotten to the moon if they'd been able to work on it longer. Real shame.
    I think starship has a much brighter future. I think it's even at the point now where the unfortunate death of Elon Musk wouldn't kill it. It might possibly kill the self sustained martian city, or at least delay it by 50 years or so, but the rocket program has got momentum. Shotwell and Leuders and all the engineers and other personnel could see it through. I sincerely hope Elon gets his wish and is able to die on mars, and not from an excess of kinetic energy!

  • Perish Mokrat
    Perish Mokrat 3 months ago +3

    Hi Tim i am Engineer for air and space tech, but never worked in that area. Thanks for Your compendium of Soviet Rocket engines, for me a historical document. I do not agree politically with Elon, but he is an engineering genius. Tesla changed and prooved a new kind of cars. Same is with Falcon 9. The new standard is to sacrify some performance over reusability. Same will be with starship and Booster in a few Years. And to be honest, you know now much more on rockent engines than I ever could hope to learn on university. Ad Astra

  • Ken Shick
    Ken Shick Month ago

    Great information. I’m betting Starship will reach orbit on next attempt.

  • EV Chargers
    EV Chargers 3 days ago

    I've watched SpaceX carefully since their first successful orbital class launch, and studied the AGILE approach to iterative improvement used by SpaceX and Tesla. It's VASTLY DIFFERENT than NASA or the USSR program. They WILL succeed with Starship, and will come up with even bigger, more efficient ways to "slip the surly bonds of earth" - I'm super happy for your Tim! Keep up the great channel, and god speed on your own journey!

  • Michael Williams
    Michael Williams 3 months ago +81

    I would have loved to have heard a discussion of the complexity that high numbers of engines produce upstream like the fuel and oxidizer manifolds, valving, control issues, etc

    • Adam Smith
      Adam Smith 3 months ago +3


    • Lensflare Deviant
      Lensflare Deviant 3 months ago

      I think that is insider info..

    • Tood Anderson
      Tood Anderson 3 months ago +5

      Exactly that why the n1 failed 4 times.

    • Christian
      Christian 3 months ago +9

      N1 indeed had issues there. Shutting down engines caused the '"waterhammer" effect and kerosene piepes were destroyed.
      I think SpaceX is aware of this.

  • Henry Welsby
    Henry Welsby 3 months ago

    Hi could you explain how hypergolic engines are kept cool as they cannot use cryogenic propellants for cooling. Many thanks, love your work

  • Al Bing
    Al Bing 3 months ago +1

    I remember when SpaceX could hardly make a weld that didn't warp. The early Starships looked like someone beat them with a hammer. Now, they have automated the process and crank out perfect segment rings like donuts.

    • Lensflare Deviant
      Lensflare Deviant 3 months ago +1

      Everything including the methods for building are all essentially one giant WIP. They're all evolving together.

  • Tom Dees
    Tom Dees 3 months ago

    Thanks Tim !! I really enjoy your in depth comparisons of the N1, Saturn 5 and Raptor...I've been following SpaceX since their inception. It became apparent from the start, they would outperform NASA by shear aggressiveness, determination, "no" government involvement but most importantly...Elon Musk's never looking back leadership and drive. Expecting the worst, learning from mistakes, soldiering on and turning SpaceX into what it is today. They are leaving NASA in the dust...NASA along with Boeing should abandon Artemis and Stareliner but more so, any attempt returning to the moon. It has become overly apparent, they both lack competency, leadership, technology at hand to be successful in any capacity. Cost overruns alone dictate they be shut down. Musk has unquestionably proved the efficiency and reliability of the private space industry and SpaceX...To say it has been stunning following success after success, would be quite an understate...

    • Peter Moren
      Peter Moren 2 months ago

      Agree Musk’s drive and leadership has been very important in SpaceX’s success, but I suspect equally important has been Gwynn’s Shotwell’s leadership and political savvy. Musk’s style needs tempering.

  • David Gapp
    David Gapp Month ago

    As you say, SLS does not have the luxury of failing. I suspect more effort needs to be made to test in simulation. I design simulation software and there just isn't enough investment in the field. Also, far too much bespoke software which is inevitably super expensive and cost inefficient (since the criteria for success de-emphasizes extensibility). I cannot speak for SpaceX in this regard, but I see no reason to believe they are doing any better in respect of simulation. Personally I am looking forward to SSTO with full return. I can only hope!

  • Richard Gavel
    Richard Gavel 3 months ago +1

    I would say cost is another reason why SLS can't afford to test in the real world and Starship can. Part of Starship's mantra is to be able to build many of them at low cost. Hence the high likelihood of loosing the first few in early tests doesn't risk total cancellation. Hell, low cost is why SpaceX can build stuff and not even bother to test it (we learned a ton from building it but so many ideas that came out of it that are going into the next iteration that little would be gained from testing a now obsolete design).

  • Paul
    Paul 3 months ago +199

    I feel like something that goes underappreciated with the whole philosophy of "test it early" is that it avoids you solving problems that don't actually exist. I've never met a good engineer who was an optimist, and a room full of us can convince each other that it just won't work without [X]. Would be a neat question to ask in your Elon interviews what things they've found over the years that fall in this category.

    • Mike
      Mike 3 months ago +18

      This. When you must not fail you plan in so much safety margin and overengineering and redundancies that the whole performance and price tag suffers. Not to mention that you can’t plan for unknown unknowns.

    • ShanghaiShuffle
      ShanghaiShuffle 3 months ago +8

      I’m not sure how true this is, you can’t just hope that you’ll find all the failures in your testing. Just because it doesn’t fail in the early testing doesn’t mean that it isn’t a potential issue.

    • Dennis Forcier
      Dennis Forcier 3 months ago +6

      I have one -- the ship QC "grabbers". Elon: "The best part is no part."

    • John St. Clair
      John St. Clair 3 months ago +12

      People don't like to see their tax money blow up in flames.
      That's one advantage Elon has over NASA.

    • TBJ TBJ
      TBJ TBJ 3 months ago +6

      @John St. Clair Exactly. The Soviets were getting desperate and so had to launch and pray it worked. SpaceX its their own money, no outside pressure. So hey lets launch and enjoy the show.

  • Tredok Vayntrub
    Tredok Vayntrub 3 months ago

    It would have been great to see the comparison to Saturn V engines, since this is not really apples to apples, the soviets developed those impressive engines quite a while ago, but i have no understanding of how much of a big deal those soviet engines were or how, generation by generation Rocket Science has been able to slowly improve.
    In short, were the Soviet engines super advanced? or the gap between those two makes sense and is to be expected, hence a comparison to the Saturn V engines.

  • Faeself
    Faeself 2 months ago

    SpaceX seems to take an approach of testing individual components until they seem to be fine and then try it all out together and fix the problems caused by the integration

  • Brandon Hamilton
    Brandon Hamilton 3 months ago

    Great video buddy. What a time to be a space geek. I can't wait to see you ride the finished product to the moon.

  • MeateaW
    MeateaW 2 months ago

    The big difference between building 1 N1 a month or whatever, and starship, is the N1 was disposable. Each finished Starship (when it works) is there until it is decomissioned. The N1 was thrown away.

  • Aaron
    Aaron 2 months ago

    I think starship will ultimately become more successful and capable than what has been outlined to date. The real question is the timeline. To achieve orbit, probably within the year. To achieve re-entry and catching/land, 2-3 years. To become human rated for Lunar landing, 3 years. To become human rated for earth reentry and 100% reuse, 5+ years. Most of which is pretty aggressive admittedly, but I'm optimistic it will all eventually happen and more.

  • supercrew63
    supercrew63 3 months ago +38

    Living near Vandenberg Space Force Base I actually see how quick Space X puts things into space I used to see a launch every few months, now I see a launch every few weeks.. It's awesome every time...

    • Efone
      Efone 3 months ago

      Sheesh, people don't even care. Barely anybody shows up to the launches anymore.

    • Jay F Blank
      Jay F Blank 3 months ago

      @Efone I still bars. But I'm not a note person.

    • CaptainDuckman
      CaptainDuckman 3 months ago

      remember the Shuttle was a failure. It was meant to fly every few DAYS, but took MONTHS between launches.
      It was a technological marvel, but never lived up to its intended potential.

    • Michael Dunne
      Michael Dunne 3 months ago

      @CaptainDuckman I believe with the shuttle the cadence originally was anticipated to be something like 50 flights a year. I think 1985 was the year with the most shuttle launches, which amounted to nine.

    • CaptainDuckman
      CaptainDuckman 3 months ago

      @Michael Dunne that's 1 flight a week, and I believe that was per shuttle, not for the entire fleet.
      So yes, they wanted the maintenance in between flights to be a few days, not months or years.

  • bentbe
    bentbe 3 months ago

    My bet: It will take more than a year before we see Starship in orbit. But in 4 years we will have two Starship launches per quarter, and in 8 years on a weekly basis.

  • Googie Gress
    Googie Gress 3 months ago

    Feels like large-engine combustion instability could be moderated by including multiple fuel input lines and multiple oxidizer input lines. But maybe having multiple virtual thrusters within one combustion chamber would create even more instability because their interactions are too unpredictable. And what if one input line slowed or failed? At least with a single fuel input and single oxidizer input, if supply fails on one, you end up with no combustion and can turn off the working one. But when relying on a certain pattern of multiple injections, losing one injection could cause instability.

  • john & stephanie soter
    john & stephanie soter 3 months ago +2

    There appears to be no doubt that SpaceX will achieve the mundane reusability that Falcon has enjoyed! As for the many engine Q, I believe that was another success of the 1st mission that is little talked about & that is how well the engine monitoring system worked to shut down problem engines without them detonating & basically destroying the ship like the N1 engines did. Great job Tim, can't wait for your flight!