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

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

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

kerbal 101

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

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

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

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

@@jovangrbic97 lol

@@jovangrbic97 then what is he? your mom?

Also know as explosion

@skeet or RUD

Only if it doesn't used on humans

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

@@pugs6357 ollllnllp no

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.

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.

Planes are already safer than cars...

@@thomasgauthier5691 that's not the point

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

"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"

could have worked for the 737 Max

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

Belkan tactics

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

@@syaondri thank you kind sir

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...

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

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.

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.

oof

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

Abort to work...

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...

Storm Riordan truth 👆🏽

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

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".

I would prefer a two-part 20 minutes though

His style of content would be perfect for adaptation into a Netflix docu-series. I would be all for that!

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.

​@@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

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

@@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.

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

Lmaooo

And then fails and just immediately reverting to launch

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

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

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

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

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

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

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!

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.

@@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

@@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.

YOLO

Bill.

@@charadremur7354 Lemme heal ya' up.

LOL ;)

lul

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

Good on

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

You weren't on any mercy mission.

LOL!

@@sebione3576 Absolutely! genius! :-)

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

@@Ensign_Cthulhu Don't worry. Kerbals bounce.

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

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

@@everettlwilliamsii3740 Kerbals are very durable.

starbomber facts

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

moar boosters!

The more fuel, more boosters technique

YES

Yeeeeessss.

Agree

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

@@DrFiero r/yourjokebutworse

or maybe pointy end up

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

Great line!

You can really tell he's not an engineer sometimes

The best rocket is no rocket

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

Vodka? Kidding me? Pure 98% alcohol!

@@DmitryKiktenko that some serious vodka right there

No Only if you are sick And lack kalcium

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

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

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

@@brunoleal5123 Wrong comparison

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

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

@@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.

@@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.

@@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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

This. 100% this.

YES this

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

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

@@longjingshen5473 for how many? ;)

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

Arguable

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

You know it was a prototype test launch right?

@@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.

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.

Eli Harman this one is a comprehensive mini course!

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.

Add Isaac Arthur :-)

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

Yes

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

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

@@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.

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

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

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.

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

@@pmj_studio4065 10 now

Preach!

Fly save and reload.

@@hans-joachimbierwirth4727 aye alright you scrawny fuck

@@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.

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

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

"welcome to my ted talk"

I'm getting those "Masterclass" ads too.

@@johncrowerdoe5527 yooo me too lol

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

I looove Gordon Ramsay!!

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.

@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.

Yeah why not, use a slingshot.

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

@@huihuihuihuihuihui1 russians are there

@@user-mj3ll9hv6r где именно?

Nice one

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

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.

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.

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

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

There will be less blood luckily with rockets... but yhea :/

JackSpeed 439 - There’s also “ETOPS” which means “Engines Turn Or Passengers Swim”, which is used when certifying aircraft to take passengers over water further than where a plane could conceivably glide to shore from cruising altitude.

M. de k. - Boeing’s problem is with those making the decisions (upper management) about what’s important & what isn’t.

One thing space flight may have over air travel - environment predictability. Planes have to handle a huge range of conditions in weather, wind, storms, temperature, visibility, run way conditions etc etc. Rockets are out of atmosphere in a minute or two, then are in a known and very predictable environ (space) for the majority of there trip, then they have a few minutes of hell and atmosphere again for a few minutes. And they don't launch if they don't like the winds/storms. Having said this space craft also have to handle more speed, pressure, temperature etc. Do you think this environment thing is a plus in any way, or just wishful thinking on my part?

Technically rockets ARE going through the process... every accident is meticulously analyzed and investigated to try and prevent it from happening ever again. Models are grounded when it seems the production process has basic flaws and all the other steps, but as Tim said there are orders of magnitude less starts for Rockets than for airplanes or even Zeppelins and Balloons, so the process takes a much longer time.

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

I split it in 2 parts.

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

Pray that someone with a rational state of mind puts a stop to this

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

Most can but some, maybe not.

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.

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

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

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

And me 🚀

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

and the explodey area away from you

Same here😂😂

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

Good point. SpaceX envisions flying up to 100 for interplanetary flights and even more than that for Earth point to point flights, so there is no realistic way to design an abort system for such a large spacecraft.

And that would be a perfectly valid abort system in it's own right as long as the engines can survive the actual explosion. It's like a helicopter. It doesn't have any means to make glide so instead you add auto-rotation to at least soften the impact and give some directional control because the alternative would be building a small rocket ship or an airplane.

By the time they get to 100-person flights Starship will have accumulated many cargo and crew flights to find and eliminate as many problems as possible.

@@aBoogivogi Technically you don't add auto-rotation to a helicopter; it's an inherent feature of this type of aircraft.

@@CLipka2373 I assumed there were ideal angles for the rotor to maintain and possibly some gears linking it to the rear rotor. I figured you would need to flip these. Sort of like how any prop plane has a feather setting where the prop is effectively producing minimal drag to increase your maximum glide distance.

fr

Watch out J.C., a bomb!

Feliz Archez RUD

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

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.

@@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?

@@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.

Ikr . He is basically saying nothing else will fail bcs these simple fixes won't happen now

Yeah, this is a significant part of why testing individual parts and concluding that when they're put together that their safety in isolation means that they will have safety in combination too (highly flawed assumption!) is so bad. At least when you test systems all together you are much more likely to produce the conditions where unexpected failures due to unanticipated interactions can occur. Also - by adding a full abort system you will significantly lower the performance margins due to the large amount of weight and necessarily redundant systems (especially propulsion). This has its own implications for safety, and the increased system complexity will, too. As you say, it's complicated. There is no single answer. Personally I tend towards a perspective that basically says "space is inherently dangerous, and so is system complexity and reduced performance margins. Prefer a solution that minimises complexity and maximises performance margin, and redundancy if this can be achieved with minimal additional complexity" IMO, the engine redundancy makes me feel significantly better about the safety of the vehicle. In future, if the cabins can be fitted with a means to turn the crash couch into a self contained ejection capsule (no propulsion, just hope that the capsule emerges from a vehicle failure intact) with a parachute system maybe this can be a good compromise. It would be nowhere near as good as a full abort system but it's also far simpler, nowhere near as heavy, and you'd think still much better than having nothing at all!

The front fell off.

blowing off the top seems like a nice launch abort systems.

@@leonairrc Its way to weak

The front fell off

No cardboard derivatives.

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.

I'm in.

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.

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

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!

lol. This test had nothing to do with final Starship. This is like saying "this car isn't reliable. They should add abort system. Look it twice failed as protoype while testing"

@@jagildown will see. NASA has certain threshold for reliability. I don't think they care if it is achived by abort system or by reliable and proven vehicle

@@jagildown Falcon 9 us not that reliable. It has around 100 flights, and expirienced couple failures. So it's reliability is surely bellow 99%. Also, crew dragon has not been much proven. Starship will be proven by cargo mission, becouse it's second stage and a spacecraft simultaneously

I was the 69th like

A prophet of the modern age.

She's a genius

Hands up, and touch the skyyyy

Elon secretly fangirls over Nicki confirmed.