You, Scott, Tim and now Felix too each have very different presentations and you each compliment so well. I'm in for more collabs

Marcus, there’s not an “FCC investigation”. There a SpaceX investigation that’s overseen by the FCC. Probably a slip of the tongue, but it’s important to get this right.

You mentioned 200 tons for Starship. Elon announced the next version will be capable of 400 tons. More than a fully loaded 747.

@@ryanmcgowan3061 Really only referring to the current version for now, but these next gen stretched ones, sheesh... you have to wonder how tall and skinny the rocket can be before you need to start going wider.

@@MarcusHouse I imagine it's a big increase in mass only, not so much volume. Unless I'm unaware of what the next gen has in store.

Can we have a frank conversation about Elon still saying Starship will go to Mars. It's not even going to the moon. It's never going to be human rates This is a starlink truck.

Also Everyday Astronaut and WAI are good channels too =)

you got it

The SpaceClonws are super delighted by the immense environmental pollution caused by the bigoted billionaire, not to mention the spoiling of the night sky for astronomy

You're forgetting me. I'd deliver a very thorough presentation but really dry as I'd be reading Wikipedia. Possibly not even about rockets.

All this trio has nothing to do with humanity 😂 all this business Wich is private fore Elon Musk give to all world internet , everybody be paying to him nothing to do with Mars kyky from village without any education !

The third kind is when it passes behind my mother-in-law.

"The third kind is when it is shredded into confetti!

„The third kind of radio black-out, when your vehicle is entering the litho-braking stage“

Nice

@@ChatGPT1111 🤣🤣🤣

These three guys huh??? *These* three guys! Just wow.... they should be a regular thing.

...and that focus is SpaceX apologetics, using their only source, SpaceX. What a circle jerk.

@@kennethc2466 Yeah, they should have talked about the other reusable rocket that is the same size as starship and flez the same week, year....

A Canadian, a Scotsman, and an Aussie walk into a bar...

@@kennethc2466 Why are you so interested in Starship? Or are you here solely for the vitriol and trolling? In it for the endorphin hit?

Common Sense Skeptic bringing the hard truth: STARSHIP IFT-3 LAUNCH Post-Mortem ukposts.info/have/v-deo/a3WopqqChaWpzo0.html Also: Thunderf00t

Exactly. This junk heap will never succeed.

Resounding success in Musk speak.

It’s only the largest flying object ever made. Give it time.

Oh this. It was the biggest flying object ever nonsense. Any speculating company cpuld create the biggest flying object if you re just going to blow it up in the air. It all comes down to payload and so far it has had none. Stop drinking the koolaid and look objectively.

It will never land on the moon, let alone Mars 😂

lol perfect ❤ please you 3 sing more 🎤🚀

Elon better save some seats for these OG’s 🤙🏽

Common Sense Skeptic bringing the hard truth: STARSHIP IFT-3 LAUNCH Post-Mortem ukposts.info/have/v-deo/a3WopqqChaWpzo0.html Also: Thunderf00t

Tiles definitely came off later during re-entry, but that first round looked like ice or maybe a coating of some sort. I suspect they haven't properly accounted for the expansion and contraction of that large hull. Especially as parts without thermal coverings are exposed to plasma.

@@ddelv1601 There were at least 2 tiles visibly missing on ascent, from the view of that one camera. On descent there was both ice and a black material. Quite likely tiles disintegrating.

They licensed the tiles from NASA. Next they will also license the mounting system.

I'm just surprised how long it lasted piledriving ass end through the atmosphere before the structure finally gave up! 🤣

I would add Zack Golden (CSI:Starbase) and the two guys who do "What About It?" (WAI, the one with the logo that looks like AWAI). WAI can be a bit silly but delivers solid info and insight, but nobody goes deeper into the Stage Zero and launch support systems than Zack Golden. But if you follow Zack, settle in for some good looooong videos, and don't be mad if you don't have the engineering background to keep up! ;-)

THat is what I thought too. It was so funny to see the three guys together the last time!

Great discussion Love the variety of accents too

@charleslivingston2256 I am not an English native speaker so I don't hear anything Canadian in Fraser Cane, but I definitely recognize "Moikus Hois" is that British?

@@Enkaptaton Canadian is similar to US (other than the South) - just a few differences. Marcus is Australian. Scott has Scot accent.

I strongly agree

That's a rather odd pic of Scott.🤔 Is he secretly flipping off someone or did he stand too close to an atomic pile and fried his brain? 😅 [edit: how about @44:12 as an alternate? 🤪]

@@sandytrunks 😂, even better. I think he's trying to tell us something.

*lol* :D

23:54 isn't that bad either. 😃

@@perpetualbystander4516 The neighbor is driving by with his new and bigger car of his.

That was my understanding of how the Starship livestream worked before I heard that "it punches a hole in the atmosphere"

SpaceX loves to reinvent the wheel. Elon says he's doing it different. They try. They fail. They copy successful strategies from other companies. They succeed.

Boo.

Too funny! Very witty, my friend!😂

Well, this is something relatively basic and they disrespect it on the first launch, spent a bunch of tax payers money to have 6(?) engines gone from the start. Also, they do not respect landing on the Moon and kicking off rocks all around. Getting off the Moon will be really challenging when you destroyed few engines during landing.

You have invested quite a lot of time in a lie. Have you invested as much, or more, time in to your spiritual development? The time is now.

@@mehck-gk9ynWait there’s a lie? You can make tons of money with lies. I know a church in the city I work in that rakes in millions

There shouldn't have been any refurbishments needed in the first place -Elon had about 70 years' worth of data telling him a water deluge system was needed before he destroyed the pad

@@samuelpeterson7043 How much money have you invested in SpaceX?

I can't agree more ,Fraser please try and have Scott and Marcus on more often,thank you 😊

I'd love to see a semi-monthly analysis from these three on the cool stuff happening in our time. Thank you all for noodling about the important and noteworthy bits of modern spaceflight stuff.

Well said FAA need to hold the line or another 737 MAX will happen.

@@LeonAust, Yes this is true, but also when you have a CEO that has a reputation of bending the truth for investments and higher share value, that layers their companies in NDA's backed up with threats of expensive lawsuits. 0-60mph

I think we got weekly podcast and news channels. Fraser is good interviewer and would be waste of opportunities.

You got my vote. But, after the "Boaty McBoatface" fiasco, perhaps we should avoid the risk inherent in internet naming. Just sayin...

Lol @PEZ - I would vote in favor

Pezy McPezface@@bobbarclay316

Jon Edwards, VP of Falcon Launch Vehicles at SpaceX, said though that: "We also have a strict No Acronym Policy or NAP as we like to call it."

@@snuffeldjuret The man has a sense of humor. Not all that common among science and technology innovation professionals, or SNIPS as I like to call them.

1. Build 2. Test 3. Miscellaneous Failure 4. Redesign 5. Fail Forward Insert a bogus comment to justify the repeated failures.

0. Think. 0.5 Design 0.6 Think again and adjust design. 1 ... 2... ...

yeah, it's about 6 years late now. just make a working one. still no payload to orbit, no booster landing, no ship landing, no refueling

@@themodfather9382 Blue Origin was supposed to launch 4 years ago.

...? ok? @@glennchartrand5411

Vacuum in space is HARD…

@@allangibson8494Usually You don't imagine it, that the vacuum inside the ship isn't the same as outside!! I discussed with a mechanic who made vacuum equipment. He told me! Even if there is some grease inside a vacuum tube, You are lost, You never get a sufficiently perfect "High-" vacuum. And diameters of tubes need to be unexpectedly large, seals be perfect. Hydrogen diffusion!! Even glass-tubes do release a little oxygen slowly.

@@konradcomrade4845 Whilst SOME grease is a problem (they do make hard vacuum lubricants). Vents are however a solved problem - using a single big door as your primary vent isn’t a good idea from a force and asymmetric thrust perspective. The dozens of tiles being shed on reentry weren’t good either.

Sycophant

Your mean the next dismal failure like all the others!

@@batcollins3714 must not have watched the video 😂

@@stuartreed37He either has *no understanding* of rapid iterative development and how SpaceX's Falcon launch system has become the most successful rocket in human history; or he's just another hater who has a brain filled with horseshit. 🤷‍♂

@@stuartreed37 I did and the flight live with thunderfoot it was a complete disaster lol

"latest starship 3 failure"

So does this mean that there exists a video of a drunk Manley berating Marcus? That sounds like it could be really fun or really bad, but either way I have to see it lol

@@seionne85 Yeah, in their first collab with Fraser, Scott is lit and there's a few moments where he talks over top of, interrupts and flat out berates Marcus for being wrong a couple times; all while downing beer the entire interview. The look on Marcus's face is of frustration and embarrassment. So, I was REALLY REALLY surprised when I saw Marcus came back a second time to do another interview with the three of them, and now a third.

I noticed Manley seemed quite hyper.

@@NorthernChev I'm frankly more surprised about Scott coming back, with Marcus on at the same time. I wouldn't have if I were Scott.

@@mytube001 why?

They said the PEZ door did work. But not how well it worked. We all saw it open and close. If the Payload area stretched as much as you calculated, then it's possible one of the forward flaps mechanism's was damaged and that may be what caused the rotational instability.

Tell me how you figured the payload bay stretching 12 inches…. It’s 4 mil stainless, not a balloon….

No, that's 10,000,000 POUNDS distributed over the whole bay hull, not 10K PER SQUARE INCH.

The heavy oscillations started when the engines failed to light for the landing burn. “Hoverslam” requires the three central engines to light and only one did.

@@allangibson8494 I dunno, it looks like the oscillations started 7 seconds before first engine start. It seems to match up with venting from down there though...

Yep… wondering too…

Who said it was a steel bar. It may have been a transparent seal, because it had a transparent and reflective quality to it.

Or maybe an inanimate carbon rod.

I would not be surprised if the problems for starship came from the propellant transfer test, something that they won't do next test (I presume), so it might be a non-issue. They might have chosen to just sacrifice starship to meet that goal.

If… if they get it sorted. Elon has a history of not living up to promises.

@@jennybeard6341 you are not mistaken.

Doubt it…. The door isn’t big enough that it would affect aerodynamics if it was open….

That's the word!!

This is the space illuminati incarnate. 😮

@@ChatGPT1111 Perish the thought! As an AI celebrity you ought to be spreading conspiritual disinformation. 🫵🏻

They don't look thick enough and are not straight edge shapes.

I’m not a rocket scientist, but I think you point the shieldy bit toward earth.

I watched the video like everyone else. That is not what Scott said. He said the pressure build up from the re-entry being rotational, caused it to exceed it's design and THAT is what caused the Starship to break up. So it was the inability of the Starship's systems to control it's // (Oblique) approach through the atmosphere that caused the failure. Neither Marcus or Scott could agree on the 'objects' floating off, being tiles. In fact Scott alluded to it being a stuck valve bleeding ice. He did say that maybe the rotation led to some tiles on the edges being blown off. But that is not a Tile failure, that is a result of the control failure.

@@David-yo5wsI watched the re-enty myself and came to my own conclusions before I watched this video. Here is what I posted on the 14th. Days before the launch I watched a video on the tiles and it showed the white backing under the black ceramic tiles. Sames as we saw being shed before the failure. --- I've started this re-entry video at 1 min 38 in, at the point that tiles are being lost along with other debris before they lose contact. That stuff that looks like ice is most likely part of the tiling, as you can see in the image above. ukposts.info/have/v-deo/gohigIqua26qzoU.htmlsi=_RF0Liw10t4AVj3J&t=98

@@buddypage11Thanks for the link. I watched from pause and used the > key to advance 1 frame at a time. The white particles that float near the camera, when you compare it to the physical tile size, are much smaller. Also the shapes are not changing to black and white, only white when they reflect the sunlight. Tiles are # shaped not square. So I am not convinced that that debris we are seeing, are tiles. It seems to be condensed ice coming off the Starship. Just a shame we do not have footage from a camera looking up to the forward flaps.

@@David-yo5wsWhy would ice still be on the rocket at this late stage? It would all fall off during the launch and especially after they are going many times the speed of sound. What I think is happening is those tiles and the white backing are shattering and splintering so we never see a whole tile. Also, what other debris is on that stainless steel body, except those tiles.

Interesting! It should not be a problem... unless the RCS system is not fully operational (clog), then the non-planned "leaks" of weak internal atmosphere gases will cause random motion & torsion.

He certainly knows his boats

He's so...manly. I would say that even if his last name was Jones.

Why would they need it they are getting a constant stream of data until the last milliseconds?

It'll be miles down at the bottom of the ocean.

Sitting next to MH370’s black boxes…

It is possible ONLY for the booster. The Starship´s reentry is too extreme to design anything that could survive while being both cheap & mostly weightless (it also has to float & send a "beep" signal to be located).

when it comes to launching humans they're very conservative with launching along with nasa having the final say in launching as well.

Let me just say this - 1st launch was on 4-20 'cause Musk thought it'd be funny!

⁠@@timpointingturned out he was right, it was pretty funny watching Super Heavy putting a huge crater in the ground and creating an insane debris cloud, not to mention the total lose of vehicle with ground control being unaware for minutes after. But they’ve come a long way from that debacle.

I think until people start to die, lots of fans will be in denial of any "success"

Why would there be? Its literally bolts and metal specifically being tested to the limits of its capabilities with the intent of going faster and further and taking all of the risks while there is no consequences. The STS lived all its life in the fear of long identified faults that were not corrected because humans were already flying. The shuttle accidents were both predicted and acoidable. This is just burnt metal, why set a limit?

@@mobiuscoreindustries No consequences? Space X should work on HLS already, they have almost 3 billion USD for that. If they don't fulfill contract why they bother now with satellite carrier which failed anyway. Just look at tests for Starship from IFT-1 to IFT3 look at what was their objectives, there were not fully successful yet, only partially, every time something breaks that doesn't give much confidence to use it. Musk already promised too much.

@@Feefa99 except it further shows that you have no clue what you talk about. HLS, just lile the prior crew and cargo program, are millestones driven contracts. Meaning spaceX only gets money following specific accomplissements of milestones in term of mission objectives and capabilities leading to the successful delivery of the HLS vehicle and its supportive systems. Meaning that as it stands most of the money remains firmly locked in the coffers of the state. That being said, contrary to your drivel. IFT-1 to 3 have been very specifically aiming at knocking down specific milestones for the program. These split the reward into many, many sections. Most that were locked tight for a long time even after their obtention due to their freeze in the blue origin lawsuit. However on top of techology based milestones (such as engine, launchpad and vehicle integration) very specific milestones were demonstrated and satisfied, such as testing of the HLS elevator system, and of course the successful internal transfer of propelant in orbit during IFT-3. This is not a cost plus contract offer like the one for SLS, the USG is not paying ahead of time and not paying for delays and missions, they only pay the agreed upon amount when milestones are reached. The interim is funded by SpaceX themselves, who were well started before HLS was even a thing, and clarrified that they were going to make starship happen for their own resons anyways, HLS or not. And so, no, there is no limit upon which SpaceX's starships can be built and launched. They are paid for by SpaceX's own finances and private funds, and if they do not reach the milestones, they simply don’t get paid by the government. Just like how boeing’s starliner has been withheld payment due to it being unable to complete its missions. If you want an example of a system that milked cost+contract and the taxpayers, look no further than SLS and literally its dozens of billions of paid cost overruns. But that does not carry quite the same ring to it, doesn't it?

Bladders for cryogenic propellants are difficult but not impossible! :) Some kind of liquid crystal fabric bladder could work. For a ship spending a lot of time in space I would probably just switch to room temperature propellants and use regular bladders, but for getting to orbit cryogenics are pretty tempting!

@@EveryoneWhoUsesThisTV Thanks for clearing that one up for me. I didn’t know you couldn’t do it with cryogenic fuel.

Or it stopped working after it's initial spin. I think that happened on the booster in the very last seconds you could see the nozzle below the grid fin moving but not firing.

Because with such a limited view it's hard to say what was what. Do you refer to anything specific?

Americans would rather measure stuff in the weight of an elephant or size of a large stone, than using SI units, and you think there is any hope to get rid of nautical measurements?

I measure my rocket efficiency in leagues per hogshead.

@@doncarlodivargas5497 Yeah, yeah, Americans are weird because we don't use much metric. But aviation and ocean shipping are international, so it's not just us. By the way, it's the UK and possibly Commonwealth nations that measure weight in "stone" (14 pounds). The Brits use both systems. I noticed the same visiting in Canada: metric for long distances, speed limits, temperatures, weight of food and other goods; Imperial for short distances (length, width, height), weight of people. Americans, at least those of us who are no longer children, do not often measure weight in "elephants!"

@@hugegamer5988 LOL! The volume of a hogshead changes depending on what it contains (see the Wikipedia page). This might be the most nonsensical of all the Imperial units.

​@@JPMadden - it is not possible to post links in UKposts, but just "Google" Americans using elephants as measurements or something like that and you will get hits

That's funny. I remember people saying the exact same thing during Falcon 9's infancy.

@@QuietEscapism K. So what? Edit: I never said that about Falcon 9. Starship IS fundamentally flawed based on its FAILURES. This is a much larger rocket that Falcon 9, and thus the problems will be much more challenging and likely impossible to fix. So believe what you want, but I think it will continue to be a failure based on all of its recent failures.

@@jeffw8218 You guys said Falcon 9 and reusable rockets wouldn’t work. Even experts said it wouldn’t happen. Now its by far the most efficient rocket ever made. Thats the story of SpaceX. People doubt them and they prove them wrong. Im just saying maybe you’re making a mistake by saying Starship is fundamentally flawed? Like the same top engineers that previously worked on falcon 9 wouldn’t notice these problems but some random guy on youtube has it all figured out? Give me a break.

Almost, but not quite. :)

You have a clown's head? Why are you telling us?