How SpaceX and Boeing will get Astronauts to the ISS

How SpaceX and Boeing will get Astronauts to the ISS

Show Video

Hi it's me Tim Dodd the everyday astronaut, we're at a really exciting time, where the number of crewed vehicles, going to the International Space Station will, go from just one to, three, the Soyuz is eight year, monopoly for getting humans up to the International Space Station is finally. Coming to an end so today we're gonna take a deep dive on the two new spaceships that are going to be responsible for taking humans to and from the, International Space Station from the United States so, we're gonna compare the bundling Starliner riding an Atlas 5 rocket to, SpaceX's, crewed dragon, on their Falcon 9 rocket and, to see how far we've progressed in the world of human spaceflight we're also going to compare all these systems alongside Russia's, Soyuz capsule in the United States has retired space shuttle and a side-by-side comparison we'll take a look at the designs the rockets they ride the dimensions, the cost the safety considerations, and any, other unique feature that each vehicle offers considering. I've been up close and personal with SpaceX's, crewed Dragon capsule and Boeing, Starliner I think. I've got some pretty good insight on these vehicles let's, get started. The. International, Space Station is still, one of the greatest feats of human engineering I mean after all it's a football-field-sized. Floating. Laboratory traveling. Ten times faster, than a bullet circling, the earth every 90, minutes it's. Taken 33 launches, to put all of its pieces into orbit and has been home to over, 230. People from, almost 20, countries, the ISS, typically, has six astronauts, onboard crew. Are sent up in groups of three and usually. Reside at the station for six months, there is typically a 3-month overlap for existing, crew and newly, arriving crew but since the space shuttle program ended in 2011, there's, only been a single, ride, to the ISS, that's. Russia's Soyuz, vehicle, but we're coming up on a really exciting time as the United States prepares to send US astronauts, to, the International Space, Station from US soil on two brand-new. Spaceships, and what I think is most exciting as NASA has hired private, companies, to do the development and the, operations, in a new program called the Commercial Crew program the, two companies that won the contracts, are SpaceX, and Boeing I'm, not really going to get into how the Commercial, Crew program got, started or has progressed in today's video I mostly. Want to talk about the hardware starting, off with Boeing and their star liner Boeing started designing the Starliner originally, known as the cst-100, in 2010. After winning a contract, from NASA for, the CC dev program the star liner is the traditional, truncated, cone capsule, design much like previous spacecraft from the United States it, can carry up to seven astronauts at a time although. NASA won't use more than four seats at a time the Starliner will be the first orbital, capsule, to land on solid ground in the United States now this is similar to how the Soyuz, capsule, lands and also. How Blue Origin, suborbital. Knew Shepard capsule lands there are five landing, sites proposed, in the western United States but the two prime sites will be the u.s. is Army White Sands Missile Range in New Mexico, and the Army's Dugway, proving grounds. In Utah Starliner, will land using parachutes and a set of large airbags a pair, of drogue chutes are deployed at about nine kilometers, and altitude followed, by a trio, of main, chutes at three point six kilometers, and at 1.5, kilometers, to the heatshield is ditch and the six airbags are inflated, these airbags serve a dual purpose in nominal, cases the airbags will soften the landing when landing on land and in, off nominal cases, like an abort or an emergency reentry the airbags offer buoyancy, and balance, for water landings touching, down on land will allow the Starliner, an easy path to refurbishment.

And Reusability, Boeing, is hoping to be able to turn one around in just six months and reuse. Them up to ten times, that's. Definitely. A good thing since, the crew will land on solid ground recovery. Of crew is quite different than a splashdown on the, edge of the landing zone there will be a mobile data tracking vehicle, or mdtv. As well, as a mobile landing control center or ml/cc. And a host of other recovery vehicles, waiting to pounce, once touchdown, is confirmed a small, army of vehicles will race their way across the desert now I picture this pretty much being like a real-life, Mad Max, scenario, so, Boeing, please send us videos of this upon, arrival a crew will check and stabilize the hydrazine, fuels and then ground the vehicle for static electricity after, that an HVAC. Truck will roll up and start, to cool the spacecraft including the crew and the fuels next, up a mobile landing platform, will pull up with stairs and begin to evacuate, the crew Boeing. Has to pull crew out within one hour and cargo out within two the person who actually extracts, the crew is a member of Boeing's, Fire and Rescue team which, i think is pretty cool the crew is taken out and then set over to a truck for medical check-ups and then whisked, away on a NASA helicopter. Eventually. The capsule itself will be loaded up with a small crane truck and taken. Back to begin refurbishment, the cockpit, of Starliner takes a fairly conservative, and familiar approach although, it's a lot less cluttery, than the space shuttles cockpit, it still, features familiar, and traditional, controls buttons. And non touchscreens. The Starliner will dock to the ISS and not berth docking. Is where the vehicle actually does all the final maneuvering, until, it connects itself up with the docking port dragon, 1 and Cygnus, cargo vehicles, both currently, berth to the station, meaning, they park and then are grappled, to the station via the Canada arm or Canada, arm astronauts. Get in and out of the side hatch run on earth but when docked they'll crawl through the top, art that connects to the International, Space Station via. The International docking, adapter on the ISS initially. Getting into, and out of the Starliner is admittedly, a bit cumbersome, astronauts. Need to shimmy into their seats lying on their backs the, spacecraft, is two main sections the, crew module and a service module the, crew module is, well. Exactly, what you'd think it's, where the crew goes it's, also the part that survives reentry, the service module houses, propellant, tanks for orbital maneuvering the orbital maneuvering thrusters, the launch abort motors, which are on the bottom in a pusher configuration, solar. Panels, on the bottom and radiators. On the sides as well as a host of other things the abort motors are for Aerojet, Rocketdyne RS, 88, bantams, modified, to run on hypergolic, fuels to. Function as a launch abort motor the, first uncrewed, test flight oft, one will, fly with the qualification. Test motors but they'll be inactive, since there will be no crew on board in the event of an issue with the booster or a rapid. Unscheduled, disassembly, these. Abort motors would be used up until a few minutes into flight after which time the vehicle would just use the maneuvering thrusters the, Starliner offers a full, envelope, abort, window meaning the astronauts, can abort at any time and remain safe, Boeing designed the Starliner to be able to ride on a variety of rockets including, the Alice 5 the, Delta 4 and the Falcon 9 they, wound up selecting United Launch alliances Atlas 5 for now and eventually you LA's upcoming, vulcan rocket will likely fly Starliner, the exact Atlas 5 they selected isn't n22, now, here's a quick reminder of those numbers the first part of the name represents, the fairing size the options being 4 meters 5, meters or, n4, none the.

Middle Number is the amount of strap-on, rocket, boosters and can range from 0 to. 5 the last number is the number of rl10, engines on, the Centaur upper stage the. Centaur can have 1 or 2 RL. Tens so, putting this all together the Atlas 5 that will launch the Starliner will have no fairing, since it has a star liner on top it'll, have two solid, rocket boosters, and dual, rl10. Engines on, the upper stage, hence the, n2, 2 when, the Starliner launches, it'll be the first time you ole's actually, used a dual rl10, centaur upper stage on the Atlas 5 however. The dual engine centaur has been flying since 1962. And flew, on the Atlas 3 as recently as 2005. So, it's definitely. Not anything new so, why, are bowing, in ula using a dual engine centaur, when, the Starliner is relatively, light the. Rl10 engine is crazy, efficient, but, one thing it's not is, powerful. In order to allow for enough time for a standard single engine to push the upper stage and its payload into orbit of velocities, without, reentering, the atmosphere the first stage of the Atlas 5 usually. Lost itself into an extra high altitude, allowing, for more time for the upper stage to do its circularization burn, this works great for standard, payloads but in the case of an abort this, trajectory is actually way, too steep, generating. Crazy high unsurvivable. G-forces. When it hits the atmosphere so in order to maintain a nice safe, shallow profile, for the fragile and precious humans on board the, upper stage needed more oomph and the, solution to that was the dual engine centaur, if you need more info on this unique engineering, solution Scott Manley has an awesome video on it boeing and ula will also be running a secondary, flight computer they'll be running in parallel to the primary flight computer on the Centaur upper stage it'll, catch any errors in the flight plan faster. Than a human reaction time shutting, down the engines and triggering an abort another design consideration, is due to the blunt nose of the Starliner you'll see these little lattice, structures around the outside the. Starliner was designed to be as stable as possible free, entry which, means having a short and stout design, the lattice structure helps to fuse the airflow over the vehicle helping, to make sure there are no shock waves or inadvertent, pressure areas over the lower portion, of the vehicle on ascent, especially. Since the rocket actually tapers, down to, the skinny centaur upper stage they. Also added an aerodynamic, skirt to, ensure smooth, airflow, despite, the Apollo spacecraft being, a similar, shape the Saturn 5 I rode on top of kind, of wedding cake tout tapering, wider and wider and therefore, didn't have those design considerations, Starliner, astronauts will take off from yola's Launchpad SLC, 41, at, Cape Canaveral, Air Force Station, in Florida the. Pad has already been fitted with the crew access arm in preparations, for the first crew launches, this will be the first time humans, have launched from this particular launch pad which is awesome, and also the first, humans have launched from Cape Canaveral, Air Force Station, since, Apollo 7 in 1968. We'll, get into the dimensions, the designs prices, and more when we do a side-by-side comparison of, all the vehicles. Now. On to the other new spaceship, SpaceX's. Crewed dragon. Or dragon, - dragon, 2 is the follow-up to SpaceX, is very successful, dragon capsule that has flown cargo, to and from the ISS since, 2012, the Dragon capsule was originally, called Dragon Rider when it was initially proposed, to NASA for the CC dev program SpaceX. Was not selected for the first round perhaps. Because the Dragon capsule had noses, all around it but SpaceX, was selected, during the second round of contracts the original Dragon Rider capsule, was essentially, just a crew rated version of their Dragon capsule which, at the time was getting ready for its first test flights to orbit and was, already on contract, to resupply the ISS, which, would later do in 2012, in 2014.

Spacex Revealed the updated, version of the dragon capsule which would carry astronauts, at their headquarters in Hawthorne, the Dragon 2 was a massive, redesign of the original Dragon capsule including. Seating for up to 7 astronauts although. Again NASA won't be using more than four at a time for the Commercial Crew program Dragon two was originally, planning to also touchdown back on land using the abort motors assuming. They weren't used for an abort to come to a nice soft touchdown anywhere. However, due, to a few, reasons spacex ditch propulsive, landings and will do a parachute, recovery and splashdown, in the ocean much, like the current Dragon capsule if you need to know more about why spacex canceled propulsively, landing their dragon capsule, i've already got you covered the crew dragons primary, landing zone is the atlantic ocean which is different, from the current Dragon, capsule which has been splashing, down in the Pacific Ocean, since its first launch in recovery in 2010, SpaceX, also filed to have the Gulf of Mexico be, a contingency, landing site to which, I believe. Would be a first, SpaceX, has a pair of ships named go searcher and go navigator, that'll, be in charge of crew recoveries, go, searcher features a hoist, capable, of lifting the Dragon capsule onto the deck and then offloading, the crew there's communication relays, and a helicopter landing, pad to get the crew home after splashdown go searcher has been part of SpaceX's fleet for a while, ad in the recovery efforts of 9 drone ship landings as well, as Dragon 1 recoveries. Despite, the ocean landing SpaceX, does have refurbishment, and reuse plans for Dragon 2 although, not quite like you might be thinking refurbish, dragon twos won't carry humans again but, they'll eventually be used to carry cargo 4 CRS 2 missions, SpaceX, already, has experience refurbishing, splashdown, dragon capsules and has, reef own five dragon, capsules to date although, according to Elon Musk in 2017, he, mentions it's almost as expensive to refurbish, the splashdown dragons, as it, is to build new ones but I'm sure since then they've implemented streamlined. Processes, which, have helped made the efforts worthwhile the design of the crew Dragon capsule is extremely. Minimalistic. It's easy to see that the design was influenced, by Elon who likes things simple, the interior looks like the Tesla Model 3 of spaceships compared, to night rider's car get some, unique features of the interior are touchscreens, and moveable, chairs when. Dragon 2 was first revealed Elon. Sat in a seat and pulled the screen down to him that's, now reversed, as the screens are stationary and the seats move up to them again, just, like the Starliner the Dragon 2 is designed to be fully autonomous, with manual overrides really, only there as contingencies.

But, The Dragon 2 does something that the old Dragon 1 couldn't do and that's, doc getting, into the Dragon capsule is done via the side hatch once, you poke your head in it's very spacious and minimalistic, it's, easy to plop into the seat and get comfy I actually. Really, think this layout makes sense like the Starliner of the Dragon 2 is actually two sections, as well there's, the crew module and the trunk the crew module is again the part that holds the humans but, it also has the super Draco abort, motors integrated, onto it since. This portion of the spacecraft is recovered, the super Draco motors, are also recovered, yay. Just, like the Starliner the super Draco's run on hypergolic propellants, and offer, a full, envelope, abort window as well the trunk is an unpressurized, section of the spacecraft, just like it is on dragon 1 this, allows for the ability to take up larger components, that wouldn't fit through the docking port or items. That are installed on the outside, of the station items, that are inside the trunk are retrieved, via the canadarm2, or another, arm named Dexter, the trunk of the Dragon 2 offers a unique layout with stationary solar, panels covering one side vehicle and radiators. On the other side the, old dragon one had extending, solar panels this makes sense because you want the solar panels to be facing the Sun and you want the radiators, away from the Sun so, pretty. Cool design the trunk also has some fins to help stabilize the vehicle in the event of an abort and, again I already did a video all about this so if you want to learn more about the fins on the dragon and why they matter during an abort check, out this video, the trunk is detached, prior, to reentry and burns up due to a lack of a heat shield this, allows for a disposal, of some on station items as well a very, fiery. Garbage, service the dragon 2 is designed to exclusively, fly in the Falcon 9 although, there were plans for it to fly in a falcon heavy at one point but, SpaceX, no longer plans to human certified Falcon Heavy and instead is focusing, on starship, in order for the Falcon 9 to be crew rated NASA, required, a design freeze at their block 5 variants, and SpaceX tends to upgrade their vehicles so frequently. Sometimes. Introduced, unintended, consequences. Part, of this design freeze also required the use of a new composite, overwrapped pressure vessel or CO PV the, co PV failure was the root cause of the mo 6 pad anomaly, and a, co PV strut was the cause of the CRS 7 failure SpaceX. Started flying a newly designed CO PV at the end of 2018 it's, kind of unusual that NASA required, a design freeze I mean considering NASA has considered flying humans on the second, launch of SLS or even. More crazy there's even been talks at them putting humans, on the first flight of SLS but, SpaceX, is known to make changes all the time, in. The constant, pursuit of improvement, so. I think a safer, more conservative, approach is a good idea when human lives are involved the Falcon 9's flight profile with the crew also, had to be altered compared, to the cargo versions, to ensure the safest, profile in case of an abort due, to the shallower, flatter profile, it also means the first stage booster the Falcon 9 will not do a return to launch site landing, and will, have to land downrange, on the drone ship the upper stage of the Falcon 9 uses, the merlin 1d vacuum. Engine which is extremely. Powerful but. Not very efficient, we'll, have no problem, maintaining a shallow profile, crew will climb on top of a block 5 Falcon, 9 poised at launch complex 39a. At Kennedy Space Center in Florida now, I have to say not that it's a contest but SpaceX, definitely, does have the coolest launch pad ever I mean after all this is the same launch pad that humans took off from to go to the moon crew, will go up the fixed service structure that's a relic from the Space Shuttle era although, SpaceX, has done a lot of work to remove the rotating, service structure repaint.

The Tower add cladding. And attach, their mobile access arm one thing that SpaceX will be doing this completely, new in, the world of human spaceflight and actually, took some convincing to, make NASA consider, a valid option is a load. And go fueling procedure since, SpaceX, uses super chilled propellants, they need to load them up into the vehicle as late as possible so they don't warm up and boil off before the vehicle takes off spacex, actually continues to fuel the rocket up until just three, minutes, before liftoff, now clearly three minutes isn't nearly enough time to get up the tower and strap the crew into the Dragon capsule and then leave the tower so, the crew will actually, enter before propellant. Load and will remain on board, while, the vehicle is fueled up I can clearly understand, how this is different but I actually feel like it's kind, of a safer, move I mean this means the astronauts, and the ground crew never. Need to approach a fully loaded vehicle, on the pad once, fuel starts flowing the crew is actually in the safest place imaginable. A tightly, sealed pressure vessel armed with a powerful abort, system so despite, the process of fueling up being pretty risky, the, crew is in a very safe place can you imagine this. Will be the first time in history a human, ear will hear the sound of crowd genic fuel flowing into the vehicle they'll, hear all those creaks and strains of the vehicle as it comes to life, that's. Gonna be crazy another, fun fact is the crew arrived to the launch site in Tesla, Model X's, of course. Man. SpaceX. Will be putting on a new show that's, for sure now lastly before we get to the direct comparisons, did, you know both launch pads have an amusement park ride well. Not, quite but each pad does have an emergency, zip line capable, of evacuating, astronauts and ground crew, in a hurry in the unlikely, event of say a leak or a fire while I'm sure there's limited, use cases when this would even be remotely useful, it does, look like it'd be pretty fun well. Assuming. You're not being chased by a fireball, okay. Wow enough, of the rundown it's time to compare these vehicles side-by-side. And, see how these new vehicles compared, to the Soyuz and the space shuttle. So. First, off let's just line these vehicles up side-by-side and compare their sizes. Yeah, the Space Shuttle Orbiter clearly. Dwarfs, these vehicles in size that. Thing is huge. And because of its immense size we're gonna focus in on just the crew module portion, of the shuttle so we can see these other vehicles but, don't forget about the rest of it we'll, still be talking about the system as a whole since, the aft end is its service module and the cargo bay is similar in nature to the trunk of the Dragon capsule just, weighed way, bigger but, notice how much bigger the Starliner and dragon are compared to the Soyuz so let's run through the dimensions starting with their height the, Starliner stands five meters tall with the service module attached the, crew dragon is 8.1, meters tall with the trunk and the Soyuz is 7.5, meters, tall with, the orbital module and service, module attached the, space shuttle will show its length as height because that's the way it stood when I was on the pad it stood, 37. Meters tall from tail to nose next. Their width the Starliner is 4.5. Meters wide the Dragon capsule 3.7. Meters wide the, soyuz 2.2, meters and the space shuttles crew compartment, in payload Bay were 4.6.

Meters Wide we'll. Ignore the wings for this comparison I feel like we're gonna have a lot, of asterisks, when we compare these vehicles to the space shuttle because that thing was, a completely. Different beast next, up dry mass star, liner is 13, tonnes dragon, is 9.5. Tonnes, the Soyuz capsule is shockingly, light at 7.1. Tonnes and the space shuttle yeah, you can imagine this is quite a bit heavier at, 68.5, tonnes. As mentioned earlier crew capacity, for both Starliner and Dragon is 7 but again NASA will only use for the. Soyuz capsule can fit 3 barely. And the shuttle could fit up to 8, although 7 was much more common now for volume, but with pressurized, and unpressurized, Starliner. Has 11, cubic meters of pressurized, volume and no unpressurized, Dragon. 2 has 10 cubic meters of pressurized, volume and 14, cubic meters of unpressurized, volume, Soyuz. Has 8.5, cubic meters of pressurized, and no unpressurized, volume, the, space shuttle is of course king here with 74, point 3 key meters for pressurized, volume and, 300. Cubic meters of unpressurized, volume, in other, words you, could almost fit all three, spaceships inside, the payload Bay of the shuttle so. Now how, long can these vehicles stay in space the, Starliner can go 60, hours on its own and 210. Days while docked crew. Dragon can go one week on its own and also 210. Days undocked, the, Soyuz can go 30 days on its own in 180, days when docked and, the space shuttle couldn't go much beyond 17, days due to being powered by fuel cells next, up how about their abort systems the Starliner and crew dragon both have a pusher, type system that's full envelope, a they, can abort safely at any time during ascent the, Soyuz has a puller or tractor, system with an abort tower and fairing, motors - which also offers a full envelope escape and of, course the Space Shuttle had no mechanical. Abort systems and a quick little note here on abort systems pushers. Push up from the bottom or the middle of the spacecraft, and tractors. Or puller abort systems pull from the top using a tower or, something like that now we're Dolly's land Star. Line our shuttle and Soyuz all touched, down on land while, crew dragon splashes, down now how about reusability, /, refurbishment. Ability, the star liner is capable of up to 10 reuses, crew, Dragon is capable of reuse but for now only as cargo variant Soyuz. Is expendable. And the space shuttle was also reusable, so now the launch vehicles that get these to space star. Liner will ride the Atlas 5 n 2 - crew, dragon the Falcon 9 Soyuz. The Soyuz FG rocket and soon the Soyuz 2 and the, shuttle was part of the space transportation system while. We have these Rockets pulled up I think it's important we take a note on their reliability, we're, gonna ignore partial, failures and only talk about mission success in which case the Atlas 5 really, comes up on top at 100%. Success, in seventy-nine flights the Falcon 9 is that 69, missions and has had two failures one. Of them actually happening before the launch occurred giving, it a 97 point one percent success. Rate the Soyuz is complicated. Because it's been flying since the 60s, in some, form or another so in total, it's, 996. Out of, 1028. For a 96 point, nine, percent success. Rate but, it's newest variant the FG has, only had one failure, out of 66, making it 98.5. Percent successful. And the shuttle had two failures out of 135. Launches, also, making it 98.5. Successful, it should also be noted that thanks to the abort system the one failure of the Soyuz FG led, to no loss in life and another quick note this time about the use of solid, rocket boosters the solid rocket booster led to the loss of the Challenger vehicle but, that's not to say solids, on their own are inherently, more dangerous, per se the, mixture of a solid, rocket booster and the lack of a mechanical, abort, system is really what was dangerous, we've learned a lot since the space shuttle and the Atlas fives use of SR B's is considered, very safe and due. To the fact that the Starliner, does have an abort system if there, was a failure the, crew would be able to get away from the rocket so, we really, shouldn't compare the Atlas's use of SR B's to, the space shuttles use of SR B's and now where do all four of these launch from launch, sites are slick 41, at Cape Canaveral, Air Force Base for Starliner right, next door is the Falcon, 9 which, will launch from LC, 39a, at Kennedy Space Center the, Soyuz launches from Baikonur, LC.

1/5. And the, shuttle launch from both LC, 39a, and LC, 39 B at KSC and lastly. We're gonna talk about price per seat and this one has a pretty big asterisk, as well both, Starliner, and crew dragon have a price tag of 58, million per seat the, Soyuz capsule, is now up to 82, million per seat and the shuttle well, this, is a hard one on paper the shuttle would cost around 214, million dollars per seat but don't forget the shuttle did a lot more than just take crew up it, often would carry an additional payload, of a dozen, tons or more so. Maybe, it's fair to take that 214. Million dollars per seat per launch, and then, take 80 percent, off because, 80 percent of the volume of the vehicle was, dedicated. To cargo, but. Maybe, that's not fair either so let's just say it's somewhere between 43. Million and, 214. Million the, last thing I want to mention but only for the Starliner and crew dragon is their cost of development, so the Starliner received 4.8. Billion, and spacex, received 3.1. Billion in total but, this includes two demo launches and six operational, flights from each company now I don't really want to get into a spitting match over why each company got paid such different amounts but, it likely had to do with each company's, proposal. Perhaps after SpaceX, flies a few dozen astronauts, they can charge a little more for increased confidence from NASA kind. Of like how they're able to increase the price of the cargo resupply missions. Once, they prove to be reliable, and after, they gained a better sense of the costs of running the program so when it's all said and done here's, my opinion first, off I couldn't. Be more excited to see an awesome pair of exciting, new rides to space it's. About time, as, solid, and reliable as the Soyuz has been it's. About time humans have other newer, and more comfortable, options, as far as each system goes I've got my opinions and I'll keep them short because I already know the comments, section will have plenty of opinions to, go around the Starliner, is an awesome, spaceship, it's very well thought out and you can tell human safety is very much on top of mind for both Boeing and ula, I'm glad to see they're going to be landing on land because I think it's cool and I'm glad to see they can reuse the spacecraft, and, I'm also happy the Atlas, will finally be carrying humans again for the first time since faith 7 launched, with Mercury Atlas in 1963.

And As advanced, as the Starliner is I do, wish Boeing have gone a few steps more progressive, it, feels like the spaceship is just a little conservative, and you can tell they didn't want to take any design, risks or really, push any boundaries but, unfortunately when I got to sit in it it just feels a little stale, and cold, however, esthetics. And ergonomics, are a very, very, minor part of the equation when you're putting humans, in space so, now we come to SpaceX's. Crewed Dragon, capsule there's really no arguing, that SpaceX made the better looking and downright, sexy, spaceship. It. Truly is stunning. And quite frankly the radical, departure from the norm really, seems to have been pulled off brilliantly. Just, look at how easy it is to get into this thing compared, to the Starliner and I have no doubt the crew Dragon capsule didn't, cut any corners and safety considering. They had to answer to NASA on every, single millimeter, of the thing so, when it comes to pure cool factor, I'm. Gonna have to give the leg up to SpaceX after hearing from a few people who have used the touchscreens we're talking about hardcore pilots, here they, have voiced missing, a more traditional control, scheme saying. It does feel a little bit like flying an iPad but lastly seeing, a falcon 9 land. After delivering crew to the ISS will be a nice cherry, on top and although. Of course it won't be landing back at Kennedy Space Center I never. Get tired of seeing this so, no matter how you cut it you can't, go wrong, NASA hired two incredible. Companies, to come up with some truly exciting, new rides to space NASA. Should be proud of this new program it, saved them money and now offers a variety of options so. Now they actually have some overlap and redundancy. In humanity's, access, to space a novel of this video was intended to highlight the Commercial Crew program to, be perfectly honest I wound up really, appreciating. The space shuttle more after diving into this that, thing was something really, special I mean yes of course had its flaws and, it didn't, quite live up to the hype of making spaceflight, cheaper, or safer. But, boy oh boy did, it have some unmatched, capabilities so. Great, job NASA Boeing, and SpaceX I, honestly, couldn't be more excited for this new chapter of spaceflight and don't. You all worry I'll, be doing my best to bring it all to you guys I'm planning, to try to make it down to all the demo missions and cover them live in person if. You want to help contribute and ensure I can bring you the best coverage, possible considering. Becoming a patreon supporter by visiting, slash, everyday, astronaut or you'll also gain access to behind-the-scenes content, and exclusive. Live streams if you want another fun way to support what I do head on over to my web store at everyday astronaut, comm slash shop where you'll find shirts like this and, grid. Fanatic coasters and prints. Of rocket launches and lots of other fun stuff you, can even find all the music in my videos which, is always original. And not, only that be sure and check out my new EP, called 27. Marlins which, I wrote the music to the Falcon heavy launch that's, right when you watch that video you are watching this straight video off of SpaceX's, livestream has not been cut in any way the music was written to, all of the events of the flight so it's a fun new way to experience launch definitely, check it out right, here on YouTube thanks everybody that's gonna do it for me I'm Tim Dodd the everyday astronaut bringing space down to earth for everyday people.

2019-02-25 23:06

Show Video


Man, the starliner on atlas is U G L Y

I really wish you would stick to measuments that those of us can understand. I hate the "global" metric system. It doesn't give the true scale of these craft properly.

Good job Tim!

My dumbass thought they were going to get astronauts to ISIS

had no idea there was that zip line escape system. so awesome

I’m putting my money on Spacex

Excellent info Graphic Tim. Thanks

So why is it so expensive to refurb a splash down capsule? Someone help plz

I never thought I'd get to experience the feelings my parents did in the 60's, I'm so happy I was wrong.

When r we going to see some action. ??????

NASA is requiring a design freeze sounds like the power of the lobby. The livelihood of so many government and related freeriders is now depending on the power of NASA to stop Elon Musk from innovating them out of existence!

March 2nd!! Lets go spacex! Beautiful launch thursday!

Orion, development cost 10 Billion? Launches on SLS, development cost 20 Billion? Starliner and Dragon 2 are pretty low cost in comparison.

I think it would be cool if you made a video about the state of progress in development the sls is.

And to think NASA put humans on the first space shuttle flight lol

Too cool, Tim. You're helping to bring the excitement back to space exploration. I'm catching it from you, and can't wait to see both Spaceliner and Crew Dragon fly. Gotta go check out your music, now.

Which ISS are you referring to: The empty shell in orbit, the mock-up in the pool used for EVA videos, or the fake set in the vomit comet that simulates zero-g 35 seconds at a time?

This is definitely within your top 5 videos Tim! Great job! I love your content and really appreciate the work you put into finding great data for this video and putting it in a comprehensive, easy to follow format! Thank you!

Good to see some new manned space vehicles. Also good to see the spare seats, Soyuz has done well over the last few years but never offered a realistic rescue option for the whole crew of the station at once. Good to see this issue addressed. Exciting times in space exploration :)

Freaken great video Tim , thanks... Keep up the good work

good straight info video. thanks

Size of an American football field there mate. A football field in Aus could be either a rugby field (similar to American football) or an Australian Rules footy field (170 metres long oval). Still, as an American you are probably unaware there are different types of football. Not that it matters, i'll get off of my soapbox.

You do realize American football and football fields are relatively close enough to represent the ISS. A rugby field on the other hand is a different story

what a great video!

I miss the space shuttle. It was so impressive seeing it take off and land.

Good job Tim

Underrated channel, great content sir.

I wouldn't be surprised if SpaceX used the cargo refurb Dragon 2's to practice the powered landing they talked about in the beginning. I was very disappointed when they chose a splash down recovery.

I think Elon musk you should consider doing the falcon heavy launch at night time, it would light up the shy from miles away it should be awesome

Tim, loved this well researched video. Keep thriving for quality over quantity!

Can you talk about DREAM CHASER?

you have ugly facial hair(shave it) and different eyes. you are definitely ugly dude. just saying

Let's not talk about safety. When Starship comes, there will be no escape. Everybody can see it, i can too. A fire in the first stage booster will immediately propagate to Starship if Starship attempts to use its own methane to escape, leaving no time for the passengers to escape the ball of fire. The only solution would be to send passengers with crewdragon to Starship, once starship is already in orbit. But 3 crewdragons flight to send 'just' 21 passengers to starship, when it can take a doesn't look like a practical solution for a hundred passengers, but it could be viable for 14-21 'Dear Moon' passengers. Another solution would be to piggyback big abort-boosters on Starship, who could then NOT use its own propellant to abort at launchpad. It is a serious payload reduction and only works if the fire has started from the first stage booster. It wouldn't be of any use during a fire in Starship itself during launch. Perhaps then , there will be a need to slice the tip of Starship and turn it into as escape pod for ~20 people, using its own abort boosters. A separate frontbow of starship acting as an escape pod connected with explosive bolts will decrease even more the payload, so, all in all, for a number of passenger never exceeding 21, which is a lot already, i bet for a separate boarding of Starship in orbit with 2 or 3 crewdragons flights.

Hey Tim, can you please make a video about why SpaceX lands back at site rather than on sea every time? It seems like they could save a lot of money/fuel by landing out at sea instead of having to do a boost back burn.

I already do! It’s old, but the facts are still the same. It probably needs an update though

Go SpaceX, and Tim for #dearMoon

Since NASA has put a design freeze for the falcon 9, the success rate could possibly increase. Or it could be vice versa, since SpaceX won't be able to improve the rocket to make it safer.

aster-risks I get its a silly hard word to say but thats why you can edit takes together. not asterik or asterix, as-ter-risk-s

Tim, your videos are getting better and better by the week, we all notice your hard work and it's greatly appreciated. Love the English subtitles too, great for non-native English speakers like me. Your content is just so amazing overall, that I felt compelled to contribute on Patreon, even if just a little for now. Please keep up giving us the best space stories on the Internet, we need that dream to strive towards!

Good video indeed. When you say $58 million/seat, you mean $58 millions a FLIGHT right ? sending 5 astronauts would cost close to $300 millions otherwise.

I liked the video a lot. Such a detailed comparison.

that's all well and good. but china's military in cooperation with russia's has invested massively in space warfare and america need's to catch up. the days of faking spacewalks in pools are over in china, and the arms race for space has begun. don't like trump that much, but the space force needs to happen.

SX bid $2.6 billion for the CCTCAP contract. Where did the other $500 million come from? The total for the first cargo contract was worth $3.1 billion.

Would you consider not using Patreon? I simply can't support that company.

The shuttle had a 1.5% failure rate but it also killed 14 people. That's more than ALL other spacecraft combined. It was a deathtrap no margin for error.

I have a question about the Lifespan of Soyuz, how you figured out the 30 days? I found only the 210 days dockd. The longest Soyuz flight I know was 18 days at Soyuz 9. As always a great video but I would prefer a comprehension to Apollo CSM ether the Shuttle.

I like how fair this was to shuttle, considering how different of a system it was to current capsule systems

Space Shuttle was bad in its implementation, but not because of it being a bad idea. It was bad because it was a massive political compromise. Had it been built according to the original ideas put forth by the commercial companies that ended up building bits and pieces to a design effectively created by the US congress with a little help from NASA administrators, it would have been a lot more safe, reliable, cheaper, and have far faster turnaround times. It also would have been replaced with something even better by the mid/late 1980s, meaning the design effectively stalled US space technology development and engineering for decades for no real benefit at all.

I would have loved to see the final round of the CCDev competition be SpaceX Dragon 2.0 vs SNC DreamChaser.

I'm still sad SNC got eliminated from CCDev

Thank you for making this high quality and informative content. You the man!

I really don’t understand the people saying the Space Shuttle was useless... Besides the safety issues and regarding the missions the shuttle did, it was one of the most if not the most capable spacecraft... This is fact... I mean the flexibility is just stunning... the Space Shuttle is for example the only vehicle capable of doing service missions for hubble, repairing it and boost it’s orbit... would also have been the only vehicle which can bring Hubble safely back to earth... without the space shuttle Hubble is now left to just reenter and burn up in the atmosphere really...

WOW Tim, you've really out done your self on this one!! Wicked Awesome Cool...

Excellent vid and concisely written. Good job, Tim and patreons. Enjoyed that!

Sexy graphics Tim, you worked hard on them I can tell!

Also, Crew Dragon us 27 feet tall. According to the NASA FRR.

I miss the space shuttle

Crew dragon's trunk is 12.1 feet and the capsule is 13.1 feet wide, according to schematics from the NASA FRR. Which confirms Shotwell's saying that Crew Dragon is a much larger vehicle than Cargo Dragon.

Real world rockets resemble KSP rockets more and more. When KSP first came out, it's rockets looked unrealistic. 7 years later reality has changed to make KSP realistic.

my favourites channel, lot of interesting things about space

A little part of me will always be sad that I didn't see a real space shuttle. Let's hope that the new capsules can eventually be as magical.

Holy smack. This is why I don't miss the TV... look at the quality of this content, the time that is taken into making it... thank you, Tim. Can't wait to see you narrating one of these missions!

Thanks again for great video! -with best regards- Lasse Lahti, Finland

Surprising you put the price range of the famously expensive shuttle to extend below the price of the famously cheap falcon 9.

I really hate being 70 yrs old now, the things I`m going to miss seeing the future bring  :(

This is really well produced video - excellent research, top notch presentation, sleek graphics, appropriate footage, succint script and non-intrusive, mood-enhancing music. Didn't feel like 30 minutes video at all. Thanks a lot Tim for this comprehensive run down! Learnt a lot of new things from this video.

thanks for using metric!

I thought there was a new soyuz rocket in development which didnt have the 4 detached bosters

With brilliant videos like this readily available I have to wonder how anyone can believe the Earth is flat.

Go SpaceX and ULA! 2 space taxi companies WITH abort systems for USA.

What a great video! I feel like this channel has stepped it up and evolved into one of YouTube’s strongest representations of the genre. I’m super excited about all of the things happening in the realm of space flight today and I’m grateful to be able to learn all about it from excellent resources like this channel. Thank you!

Putting 80% off of the shuttle because it also had extra volume? Yea, but it still dragged all that volume and mass even when not used, so it's stupid to not take that into account as inefficiency. Also, there where only 5 human rated shuttles, 2 of them blew up, so a spectacular 60% reliability of the vehicle. I'm not sure how dumb a person can be, but this guy is pushing that envelope real hard.

I'm not sure how dumb you can be, because a spacecraft's success has ALWAYS been measured by the success of each individual mission, not the longevity of the vehicle. It's especially unfair to compare vehicles this way when: 1. Both accidents were a result of human errors that were not a product of the vehicle's design, rather, were ill thought out scenarios that we've since learned from. 2. The shuttle was designed and constructed in the late sixties to early seventies, and all surviving vehicles were flown for over 30 years. That's better than most aircraft, and the stresses the shuttle has to deal with are significantly greater than a 747. Speaking of which, I think that's a fair comparison: the 747, widely recognized as one of the most successful aircraft in history, has had close to 150 accidents and incidents. Compare that to a modern 787 with only 1 accident/incident. Technology changes over time, especially the 30 years between the construction of the space shuttles and the construction of newer human transport systems. With regards to the 80% off due to cargo usage, yes, that is a valid assumption. It costs ~100 million to launch a spaceX resupply rocket with 2-3T of cargo, so the space shuttle having the ability to bring 4* that amount in parts for the ISS, supplies, scientific equipment, etc it is a considerable factor in cost per launch. Back then, governments didn't have the money or the willpower to design multiple rockets and resupply vehicles to fill every single small niche the ISS demanded, meaning that it ended up saving NASA a lot of money in the long run. Think about this reasonably for a second: the cost of development for a rocket system is huge, we see that the SLS, which is using a bunch of pre-existing technology, is going to cost upwards of 11B dollars. If NASA was, say, flying up the space shuttle with only 50% of its full payload for every mission (and even that is a stretch, it was far higher, especially since it was carrying spacelab a third of the time, ISS components a quarter of the time, and launching satellites another quarter of the time, with only very few dedicated dockings outside of non-testing missions) and every mission cost around 1B$ adjusted for inflation, that's ~6 astronauts and 10T of cargo/equipment for that 1B$. Compare that to today's prices for launches, and you would require 2 Soyuz launches, and 4-5 Falcon launches. With the Soyuz launches costing around 250M each, and the Falcon launches costing around 100M dollars each, you're still looking at very similar costs. This, all without including the fact that the shuttle allowed NASA to do insane things (like repair numerous satellites, retrieve some, and service Hubble, conduct scientific experiments in space without a space station) that no other vehicle could do today.

Your best video so far and of the best videos I've seen on Youtube :) Wow, well done man. Also it convinced me to become a Patron :D

Let's compare mortality ? So far the Soyuz wins hands down. Hoping the commercial crew capsules are as safe as Soyuz.

Very cool video! Great work.

Not complaining, but I was watching chinchilla vids on auto.

Great video thanks.

after playing kerbal its scary to see a ship that appears so top heavy.

Imagine if someone decided to make a new version of the space shuttle with a modern understanding of the stresses it would be under and with a privatized company manufacturing and flying the ship (so there were no mandatory "must use this part" or whatever, and if something didn't work it could just be changed out). Also, I'd kind of like a comparison of the space shuttle and the space x Starship. I know that they're radically different designs with very different end goals, but they also have many similarities. Starship also has some design choices that seem to be trying to improve upon what the space shuttle did, like not using ceramics for heat shielding.

Where did you get the figure that Soyuz could operate for thirty days on its own? I can't imagine it could carry enough consumables for that, unless maybe there was only one cosmonaut aboard, and the orbital module was completely crammed with food and water.

is the 58M/seat the price nasa pays or the cost of launching? I wish you put both

its what nasa pays

3:43 Six months!? That's ridiculous.

*fragile and precious humans*-Tim Dodd, 2019

Fantastic video SIr!

It's sad our government has no agenda to increase NASA's budget, they could do so much in so little time if they got even a fraction of a percent more of the federal budget. Sad one of the most inspiring and innovative institutions ever is forced to resort to hiring people to do the job they were created to do.

I had that Mad Max moment too.

i clicked on this because i thought the title said isis instead of iss and was really confused

I love your video's man!! I sometimes put a video of you on in the background, but then I get clinched to my seat because it gets interesting. Your dedication and passion is contagious!!

Will Boeing use reusable rockets?

no but they will try to recover the engines of vulcan in the future

But the Soyuz has a bathroom...

Tim Dodd and Scott Manley...Tag Team Heavyweight Champs

I know, they are going to create a winch line and put it on the ISS, then when they need to bring someone or somthing up, they lower the winch and drag it up. Yay

Please, put the links of videos you mention in the description.

Excellent video! As you said even though the shuttle didn’t live up to what was promised it was and still is an unmatched beast of a spaceship! Until starship that is.

competition is always a good thing.

Economy of scale...that is the argument engineers and scientist use to expand their budgets... Elon Musk knows we are dumb enough to keep falling for it.. small packages can get the job done especially if the join up in space (or on mars) , less risk if something does go wrong...

Do you have any information, or what's your view, on The Gateway Foundation's "Von Braun Rotating Space Station"? We would like to know your thoughts. We could not find anything in your Vlogs. Thank you.

4:39 - Is it _really_ called the Fire And Rescue Team; FART?

Another excellent video. Me and my four year old son love watching your videos. Thank you for all of your hard work and dedication

Tim, what a great video. Very thorough look at the new commercial rides to space. And a shout out to Scott Manley. Keep the excellent videos coming. BTW, I agree with your assessment of the shuttle. It's legacy is the ISS. Now way it could have been built without the shuttle.

Great informative video Tim. Thanks

I just realized you didn't mention Sierra Nevada

+Everyday Astronaut Yeah forgive my baketardedness, I completely forgot the context and I dont like deleting comments, great show as always, I have just recently found your channel so i'm slowly binging

None of them are flying to the ISS. This is a rundown on crewed vehicles going to (or have gone to) the ISS. SN will send cargo only

I guess im high, there were a few not mentioned, virgin, blue origin... many

I just hope the HVAC truck wont have to cool the _Crew_ too much.

When will you do a video on Virgin Galactic?

Soyuz is most sensible option imo. The price is only this high because there is no working alternative for now so they charge what they want. But the size matters because smaller = lighter = less materials = cheaper and soyuz wins this because of soviet developed engines by trial and error (most expensive development) that are aprox 25% more effective than standard engines. Therefore soyuz with its rocket is a lot smaller. They just need to make capsule reusable and none of new kids on the block can compete.

Have you done an episode about why NASA didn't take what it had learned from the space shuttle and create a new shuttle program?

It's about time that they had more crude vehicles going to the space station.

I bet in thirty years time the Americans are launching their astronauts in the latest Soyuz or its Russian replacement.

Tim, you take care to mention that the soyuz only had 1 failure on it's newest model, but don't mention that the block 5 has also had no failures (on the primary mission, ignoring booster landings, which don't affect the mission status), out of 12 flights. Admittedly 12 is less than 1/5th of the total flights of the FG, but if you're going to make distinctions, then make distinctions.

+Everyday Astronaut That's fair enough. I've just been reading into the FG's history a bit, it's been around longer than I thought. It's off-putting how its the newest craft, and yet had its first flight back in 2001. Only having 1 failure in almost 20 years is pretty impressive.

Definitely not fair to consider comparing the 1960’s reliability of the Soyuz vs the 2010’s reliability of the falcon 9. What I did was the most apples to apples comparison. With only 12 block 5 flights, there’s not enough statistical significance to call the falcon 9 100% successful.

Once saw ULA, i constantly clicked the dislike button

Someone needs to ask Elon if the dragon will have cup holders just for kicks

Why bother? Much cheaper to hitch a ride with the Russians & soon...the Chinese & India. Saves a-lot of money.

You got a flamethrower????

What's the limiting factor for docked lifespan?

Do you accept paypal?

I never get tired of watching the Falcon9 first stage land too.

He sells spacex products as a comercial does. I think that he should change the name of the channel for spacex advertising and nothing else. He's a spacex fan and nothing else. If you expect to see a channel with objective and scientific contents about space, go away and wach videos worth of your time. I'm not speaking about this specific video, because the 85 per cent of this channel is about spacex . I think that this channel needs more variety of contents, not just spacex.

Would LOVE to know what isn’t objectively true in this video? What is SpaceX (fan) ish of me? Please. I’d love to know. This is about as factual and unbiased as you can get

Where will the first crewed SpaceX Dragon launch from?

Whoa that droneship is massive!! I've never seen a shot with it compared to anything else....

Is anyone making model kits of these new launch and orbit systems?

Does anyone know why the footage from ISS looks so...odd, totally different from parabola flights? Long hair seems to be sprayed stiff rather than subject to inertia. Why not a knot or pony tail to tuck away? Those vids such as the guy stumbling and then standing up without breaking his neck to the "ceiling", how? The short cuts in vids after which items have moved a lot but it's supposed to be a non-stop scene? Faces looking really tense, in zero grativy. Like stuck was just stuck up somewhere. Odd. Clothing seeming to tag on something. I know in my heart ISS is up there, we can see it. But astronauts performing in front of blue screens, such as when Bush Sr. was wheeled by, it just doesn't help. Who knows why this is happening? To ridicule space debunkers in general? I suspect this is why the flat earth thing exists, just to smother ALL debunkers.

A link to a video with a “green screen” with a grid and numbers for vectors... it took me 3 seconds to google what this was for. Anyone that thinks you can uses a gridded green screen has never used one

Is the ISS still supposed to fall soon?

Todd, You misinform the public as to the cause for the failure of the Challenger. Yes, the SRB failed and ultimately lead to the explosion, but you completely failed to identify that the SRB was operating out of its designed performance specs (External air temperature below the designed specs) and the engineers and company behind the SRB repeatedly told NASA not to launch that morning. However due to political pressures the recommendations to not launch that day was ignored and the rest is history. The failure was the politics behind this launch. The SRB's on STS have a perfect flight record when operated in the designed performance specifications. This misinformation deliberate or continues to serve your slanted agenda as a spacex fanboy. Report the facts not your slanted opinions. Good partial content, but your clear omission of accurate facts into slanted opinions. You are no different than the extreme right or extreme left media outlets serving their own respective agendas.

The quote - "And another quick note, this time about the use of solid rocket boosters. A solid rocket booster led to the loss of the Challenger vehicle, but that’s not to say solids on their own are inherently dangerous. The mixture of solid rocket boosters and a lack of an mechanical abort system is what was dangerous. We’ve learned a lot since the Space Shuttle and the Atlas V’s use of SRBs is considered very safe... and due to the fact that the Starliner does have an abort system if there was a failure, the crew would be able to get away from the rocket… so we really shouldn’t compared the Atlas’ use of SRBs to the space shuttle’s use of SRBs." Please tell me exactly what in there isn't objectively true. Fact: "A Solid Rocket booster led to the loss of the Challenger." Yes, it was because it was used out of its design range, did you really need me to specify the exact root of failure? Did you want me to quote a cracked SRB case when talking about the dangers of SRBs in the loss of the Delta II GPS mission? I mean, the statement stands. As followed by the next statement: " but that’s not to say solids on their own are inherently dangerous" - how's that fit? The dangerous part is their lack of being able to be shut down. So couple this with a vehicle which has no mechanical abort, and you're left with needing to "ride out the solids" until they detach. A deadly combo. Had the vehicle had a mechanical abort, the solid's failure (not worried about the cause of the failure, the solid failed), there could have been a chance of survival. Please please tell me what exactly I said that is inherently biased, or was your own bias present in my statement? Clearly, there is no bias in the statement, it's actually quite vague. Seeing as you think my name isn’t Todd, I don't think you listen too well.

Touchscreens are cool of course, but in a vehicle that you use to fly through space I believe having mechanical touchable workaround buttons for everything important would be very reasonable.

Sad to see that Space X hasn't really trimmed their Dragon for reusability - then again there's spaceship as their truly "own" project... they are doing a lot of different things at the same time. I love the "flying an iPad" concept. It's like Apple used to be: You get a taste of the future.

20:00 I didn't finish the video yet but i dont understand why you biased the comparison like that? edit: 22:00 ok my bad, we are talking capability not specs sorry

Tim is a knowledgeable likeable host

It is effen embarrassing that the US hasn't had a manned flight in almost a decade.

The embarrassing part is that NASA put all their eggs in one basket and then cancelled it.

Your space adventure enthusiasm is contagious and going viral. I’ve caught the bug and am sneezing publicly at every opportunity.

I seriously wish I had enough time to watch the entire length of your videos. My life currently will not allow it.

Whats the difference between Cape Canaveral and Kennedy Space Center and their history?

+Doug Mcdonell Thanks You, Dog McDonalds!

It's very similar to the difference between Youtube comments and Google searches.

I wonder why both new vehicles cost the same per person. Is Atlas V that (cheap) vs a landing reuseable booster ?

Cost =/= price. NASA is paying a fixed price of $58 million. What that costs each company to do is solely based on their expenses. So each company stands to profit more or less based on their systems.

I don't care how much cheaper SpaceX is, they are not ready for human flight. Atlas V and Soyuz have a much better record. I am willing to beat the next SpaceX human certified craft will be good enough, but a 3% mortality rate is way to high for people going up just to research. Haven't ran the numbers, but it would probably also be cheaper to leave people up longer, increasing the risk of cancer to be equivalent to block 5's failure rate, and use a more expensive rocket less often.Not to mention that those scientist have a $100-300k education, so even if you don't value human life, Block 5 doesn't make the cut. Not hating on SpaceX; I think they have proven that their development process(rapid iterations with unmanned flights) is the way to go forward.

+Everyday Astronaut To be clear, I am talking about the Falcon 9, not the Crew Dragon. The Soyuz has been reliable for decades and the Atlas V is probably the safest rocket around. The Soyuz is getting a bit dated, partially its small crew capacity, however I would say the Atlas V is a much *better* replacement than the Falcon 9; not that the Falcon 9 is bad, but if I had to bet my life on it, I would go with the one that has been flying 16 years with a flawless record over the 2 year old option with an, admirable but still worse, 97% success rate. And why I have the utmost respect respect for the engineers at NASA, lets not forget that there decision making involves more that just what is safest and cost effective. Regardless of which is better, picking both isn't an engineering decision; one of them had to be better. NASA has to use both systems for manned missions otherwise the political backlash could kill the new found private space industry. There are already many people trying to cut government support of Space X despite the Falcon 9+capsule being the best resupply system for the ISS and still being highly competitive for manned missions.

You don’t think that NASA has been very very thorough in certifying the vehicle with SpaceX? Listening to the flight readiness review, I think I’ll trust the teams of engineers with both NASA and SpaceX that they know what they’re doing.

aren't the companies that always made the rockets private anyway? Although most of their business is with the government usually the military, so whats different about Elon Musk and Bezos?

22:04 can you make a video about cluster tubes in one stage ? Please do it because i can't find a single video about it

I would argue 2 out of 5 shuttles exploding is a 60% succes rate, but whatever

Ok. So SpaceX lost a block 5 booster. They’ve only launched 5 or 6 so far. So block 5 is at a 80% success rate then?

Tim, thank you so much for this excellent and very educational video!

Hi Tim, you were saying how much effort you put into this over on our ludicrous future. Really shows man. Great stuff. Personally prefer a longer format, gives you more space to give depth and breadth, makes for a far more engaging video. Fak, the shuttle was huge... course, i knew it was big, but the animation really beds it home. Cheers mate!

Well done - thanks for another awesome video!

One of the most fundamental differences between the Boeing and Spacex capsules is their respective geometries. My understanding is that Boeing's has a classic shape that maximizes aerodynamic stability on re-entry. Spacex's by comparison seems top-heavy. Could Tim, or someone, explain that apparent instability difference? It wasn't covered in the video but I think it's an important thing to address in any comparison of these two vehicles.

NASA is in a mixed bag situation here. "Public Law 94-168, §2 requires use of the International System of Units for measurement in U.S. Government programs, "except where impractical." That requirement is reflected in NASA policy, NPD 7120.4. " My vote would be for the aerospace industry (and NASA) to move fully to metric. My second vote would be for NASA, as you suggest, to go 100% Imperial. The worst possible situation is to have both systems in place at the same time. "Piss or get off the pot." is wise advice here. +Doug Mcdonell

I can understand metric. I live in it. No problem. In fact, I love the global metric system. It will give you the true scale of these craft properly (and easily) IF...and that's the million dollar "IF".... IF you live ONLY in the metric system. Same goes for the Imperial system. The real problems arise when you mix the two systems. That results in cognitive overload, the worst of both worlds, leading to confusion and errors, and to the direct loss of the $125 million dollar Mars Climate Orbiter in 1999. The solution is this: live in either one or the other but NOT both!! My vote is for living in and getting used to the metric system. The reason is essentially twofold: 1) This year metric will become completely based on physical constants, and 2) the entire world uses it...except for Liberia, Myanmar,'s looking at YOU... USA. Speaking of Myanmar & Liberia, they are slowly moving towards metric: As regards Tim's new policy for the Everyday Astronaut, and in view of what I've just said here, it would be better if he just dropped the bracketed Imperial measurements altogether. That way his readers/watchers/followers could, over time, and through a complete break with Imperial, get comfortable with metric. Once that happens cognitive overload and confusion will wane to a point where it just isn't an issue anymore.

It would also help if NASA quit using metric.

which brain are you using: the tinfoil-covered brain, the intelligent brain (unused), or the fake hologram brain brain?

That's interesting logic, getting the Hubble and the ISS into space is not an achievement because it might have been done some other way. Oh, but then that's still no achievement, there might be a third way.

Some say if was a failed experiment, the cost never worked, it's all gone now - a dead end.

What is the font that is being used in the graphics?

When can we expect to see these launches?

We need more guys like Tim!

meanwhile virgin galactic is pissing in the wind

we need the dragon heavy to get to mars, grrr these setbacks are so frustrating

"Hey everyone, I don't get enough money from ads, please can you pay for my jollies to all the things YOU want to go to, why should I pay for the privilege?!"

While I love the efficiency and low cost of the new crew vehicles, I am still a huge shuttle fanboy, and miss the potential of a shuttle successor.

Im rooting all for spacex

ASSTRONOTS floating around 17,500 MPH drinking their own piss. International Fake Station.

SpaceX really seems like a clear winner of the side-by-side comparisons.

I'm going to Winnie Hut JRs does anyone want anything?

Have you already described the difference between "Cape Canaveral" and the "Kennedy Space Center"?

lol touch screen garbage. imagine the astronauts trying to land this thing and their fingers slipping on the screen.

Great video, thank you ADA

Great job, your presentation was spot on!

Great Video!!

Through Syria? Oh, ISS not ISIS... sorry.

By the way great video, well done.


Zip line that's fun except when being chased by a fireball? I think you mean ESPECIALLY fun when being chased by a fireball!

Excellent summary and comparisons. Well done, again!

Great video thanks. I really miss the Shuttle though. It just "looked" like how a space ship should look. While the Starliner and Dragon (and soon to be SLS) all look like glorified cannon balls. I would have loved it if someone would have taken the shuttle and came out with an updated version that fixed the problems it had. Going back to a capsule system seems somehow like a step backwards. But I suppose there was no money for that. In any case, with those critiques aside, it's great to see America back in the human space transport business. It's about freaken time.

You do such a good job with this stuff. It's impressive and I appreciate your dedication.

Awesome video! I learned so much.

Outstanding video, Tim!

4:08 an army of vehicles lol

Make sure the Flat Earthers don't see this. Cause to them it's all fake. This means you and you video don't exist either. You are a computer generated Hoax. :D

Great video Tim. You really packed a lot of meat into this video. Although we should have never been at a point where we are excited to see us taking our own astronauts into space again, I'm still pumped to see all this coming to fruition. Let's hope we always keep this a thing! We should always be the pioneers of spaceflight!

Hi Tim ,love watching your videos and all. I have two questions for you and everyone else. Am I the only one wondering if we should be concerned about scorching our very tiny atmosphere with increasing rocket launches? I mean I love the idea of space travel and mining etc. just curious.. Question 2. Could we launch vehicles, manned or unmanned by electric rail?

Rapid unscheduled disassembly? That's some grim joke right?

Nice job brother.

hard work, thanks for the video.

i know you finished your cancelled videos but perhaps one day you could do a video on the NERVA and orion programs

+Everyday Astronaut Oh sorry, my bad, that's awesome. Keep up the great content.

Canceled videos aren’t done yet! And NERVA is on the list!

Isn't the Atlas is worthy of a religious cult by now, or, do we have to see it fly for a century to achieve divine status?

Space x should still use propulsive landing

You really outdid yourself Tim - thank you for all the in depth information. Very well done!!

KSC... Kerbal Space Center

Should have used an Apollo capsule for comparison, and removed the shuttle as the latter is a different beast.

Apollo didn’t go to the ISS and shuttle did. It was a fair comparison of vehicles going to the ISS. Not by their size but by their job

Awesome animations on the comparissons!!!!!

Call the “starliner” what ever you want. It’s still a massive step backwards for the U.S. Space program. They should have a truly reusable flying orbiter in place before the end of the shuttle program and not this stopgap thing. You can thank the endless bureaucratic waste and political games and corruption for this latest piece of multi-billion dollar junk.

Quality explanations ! Quality content ! Quality graphics ! 9.9/10 - (i've taken 0.1 because you have a Starship Hopper model and i'm jealous haha)

In my opinion the real exciting times will be when regular people will get to explore space.

"Fire and Rescue Team" - not the best acronym ever.

Touch screen control panels are evil. I can't imagine astronauts with gloves using touch screen. Even in car it is hard to control my smart phone because i cant feel the button and i have to look at the screen.

Terrific video, you have really done your homework!!!

+Yespacito No KSP IRL

s the blue Igloo cooler part of the equipment

at 4:04

I totally agree with Tim when he said "Dragon is obviously better"

Awesome content Tim. Thank you from here to the end of the universe!


4:25 "Chill guys you're on solid ground now"

Not too shabby

The embarrassing part is that NASA put all their bets on the shuttle and then cancelled it.

+Doug Mcdonell NASA didn't cancel it. President Obama did. He said Orion was the "Wrong vehicle for the wrong mission".

The graphic of the Soyuz actually says Z SOYU (З СОЮ) for some reason.

Delighted to have found a channel that I'm hoping provides regular updates on what is happening or already in actual development (as opposed to maybe probably soon gonna be on the way soon as they work out a few minor funding, politics and engineering issues). Like, Sub and ring that Bell!

Such an informative and interesting video. Congratulations Tim. Perfect length too.

Other news