How SpaceX and Boeing will get Astronauts to the ISS
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 patreon.com, 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.
2019-02-26 00:06
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 hundred....it 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. https://newspunch.com/nasa-caught-using-green-screen-to-fake-astronaut-footage/ 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, and....here's looking at YOU... USA. Speaking of Myanmar & Liberia, they are slowly moving towards metric: http://metricviews.org.uk/2018/02/metric-in-myanmar-an-update/ 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.
WHEN WILL SPACE X and BOEING take Astronauts to the ISS? HOPEFULLY BEFORE THE SCHEDUALED DECOMMISSION OF THE ISS IN 2020.
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!
OOF
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 ...as 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.
What a good video ! Thanks Tom
This video does a really good job of sucking Elon Musks's di*k
Funny, there is Russians but no Chinese
Really informative Tim. You are good at what you do.
que pasa bebe
Mad Max reference FTW!
Didn't the Apollo program have changes in every launch?
HIPSTER 2 DA MAX
The Starliner / Centaur / Atlas looks like something a noob cobbled together in Kerbal Space Program. Hardly cutting edge and a non re-usable booster to boot. Oh dear, surely they could have done better.
Yeah... you can't discount price per seat based on cargo capacity unless that cargo capacity is actually being used... Which wasn't the case on most flights.
Hold on has spacex ever said anything about using Mr. Stevens to catch the dragon capsule? Now I know the insane reentry speeds and even with the parachutes the capsule is coming down fast, but it would be very elon musk of SpaceX to reenforce the arms and net of Mr Stevens to catch the capsule
"Rapid unscheduled disassembly"
Crude vehicles indeed
If I was to fly any rocket. I'd choose anything but SpaceX. I admire their success... from a safe distance.
It is about time we started sending people into space again. I will say I have been embarrassed.
Tower + loading platform + super chill fuel... why not lunching a rocket underground? It is not exposed to sun, does not need a platform, nor a tower, it seems, and Elon has the Boring company
Quality content! Keep up the good work!
*Get rid of Russia, it's great!*
Hey Everyday astronaut, could you please do a video on J002E3, it’s the Apollo 12 3rd stage that left earth orbit in 2003 and will possibly re enter orbit in the 2040’s
I have a question What is going on with Elon Musk?
The starliner/atlas V looks so Kerbal design.
Boeing is NOT a private company. They have their tongue firmly up the *+% of the US gov and NASA. And vice versa. Look at the history.
Great video, thanks from South Africa.
Hypergolic rockets mounted in backpacks for the zip lines?
So the burning question: Does it also have a FRUNK???
At 19:15, what would it look like if you truncated the Starliner, Crew Dragon and Soyuz down to just their crew-accessible volumes as well?
(Not a crack at the non-STS craft - it's more that it's interesting to see what the crew have to bounce about in.)
Hardwork always paysoff! Thanks for these beautiful and exciting videos!
Do you know anything about Callisto rocket?
Wonderful video! Just found your channel. Subscribed. * It's asterISK, not asterICK.
Starliner is an ugly little spacecraft isn’t it?
Why don't they use GO Searcher or another ship or any other vehicle for filming purposes to go along with the camera on the drone ships? I do want to see a better and more stable landing video but I would imagine that it would also aid Space X in the analysis of each drone-ship landing.
I think the price of the Soyuz will drop drastically when these start flying. It's only that expensive because it currently has a monopoly.
dexter isnt an arm its a hand that goes on he canadarm ...you know im trying to like your channel but you keep messing up info on the simplest things it makes me wonder if youre getting the stuff i dont know correct or if everything is all wrong but at least you got the name of the canadarm right and didnt go all american and just call it the robot arm in violation of international agreement
Great video
A lot of effort and info!
I think that it might have been interesting to also compare the two new crew capsules with the Apollo and the Chinese capsule in addition to the Soyuz and the Shuttle.
Shuttle had 2 persons on board for its first flight
> Reverts flight
Thanks for the great video, I learned some new things today.
16:43 - The FSS is not only a relic from the Space Shuttle era, but actually the upper part of a mobile launcher (ML-2) used for the Apollo / Saturn V moon missions and now the only one still in existence after NASA scrapped the tower on LC-39B.
"It feels like flying an iPad": I am fortunate to own a Tesla Model 3. The touchscreen is prone to "mis-touches". For example, if your finger touches slightly off the garage door opener activation link it takes several more touches to navigate back to the right place to re-execute opening or closing the door. The same thing is true for nearly every control (radio, climate, navigation, ...). The problem is worse when driving in situations that demand the driver pay more attention to the road (fog or snow, bumpy or winding road, urban environments, ...). And if you are wearing gloves? Fuggedaboudit.
QUESTION: If the Space Shuttle was mostly carrying payloads up to make it's use more efficient, where were those payloads delivered to at the time of ISS? Only to the ISS or satellites too? Would then these satellites be delivered also in such a low orbit as the ISS or would they manuver up and down to then join the ISS? We know that changing inclination is too expensive in terms of deltaV so I'm guessing any payload had to be taken to the same orbital inclination just with a different altitude.
My challenge to Nasa, Space infrastructure. Navigation beacons, higher rate data transfer, de-orbiting service. Maybe even a fuel depot?
Starliner sure looks frumpy compared to the crew Dragon. Starliner vs Starship will be an amusing comparison.
Watching this Video and all of your enthusiasm, I'm remembered that working in space ISS environment is really a great. My next small payload will be launched with NG-11, really looking forward. Please go on with such videos Tim
what a joke.
idiots.
has anyone tried to use their touch phone with gloves on. its difficult - right? I'm not sure if touch screens on the Dragon 2 is a good idea. we'll see I guess.
Yay can everyone visit that fun amusement park?
I'm just bummed the Sierra Nevada Dream Chaser will not be manned.
While I find all the systems very interesting, as a retired Boeing / McDonnell Douglas engineer, I have got to favor the Boeing program. Thanks and keep up the good work.
Simply an awesome and very educational video. Thank you!
Thank you! Thank you! I had no idea what was going on with NASA, manned missions and the ISS; and now, in just 30 minutes I got a clear picture of the crew launch situation going forward. I'm so happy and excited to see the private sector taking such a big role, and coming up with such perfectionistic and beautiful designs.
Well done! Thank you.
They can't get into "space". It's just a big sinkhole. I guess you believe in the Tooth Fairly also?
great video you put lots of work into it. big thumbs up love this stuff
I’ve just watched about 15 of your videos in a row and this is the first one I’ve realised one of your eyes is a different colour to the other eye
I would have to disagree that ergonomics are as small part of the equation when designing space capsules.
heterocromia
Spacex be flexing
*All the ISS is but a marketing show. The real space program currently exists on the backside of the moon and Mars. Besides, Space Labs is no longer doing work and and was to be expanded to create manufacturing capabilities in space, which ISS was never intended. Alas, just like crystalline grown space metals that have 100x strength Titanium.*
Why did you not compare it with the chinese crew vehicles?
Doesn’t go to the ISS
can't they make so they don't have to do all that stuff after the Star liner lands? It seems that they'd want to get to the people inside asap and not want to wait that long. To me it seems that if they do a splash down it would ground and cool down everything, or they could slow the decent more to help with cooling and have grounding cables drop out when the airbags deploy. I do wish that someone would find a way to make a new space shuttle
off topic i noticed towards the end there, do you have different colored eyes
Nice vid
Sooo Boeing is like the understudy for SpaceX?
Great video.
Hey, Everyday Astronaut, Have you tried taking a break from eating Elon's Musk sometimes? ;)
Awesome, vid...you now have a new sub, straight from the Space Coast.
The original shuttle did have two ejection seats but you already knew that ;)
And they would have killed the users
It's to Bad that Space X and Boeing is Still using OLD SCHOOL TECHNOLOGY!...To get into Near Space!...Let alone Deep Space! NASA (Never A Straight Answer) and Boeing especially, Both are involved in the Secret Space Program aka SSP behind the scenes are Delivering Deceiving the General Public into Thinking that this is the Best we can Do using Rocket/Fuel Old School Technology since the 50's! Boeing and NASA Both are Aware of the Highly Advanced Secret Space Program Technology's that is used to Travel into Near as well as Deep Space and Beyond! The SSP has been Traveling into Space for well over 70 Years Now and Got it Down to a Science! You may want to do some Research on William Tompkins and his work at Douglas Aircraft Company back in the 50's and his involvement with the U.S. Navy Secret Deep Space Battle Fleet Development Program and today is known as "Solar Warden", which went into Full Operation back in the 80's!...I am Just Saying!...God Bless!
Thanks Tim great video... will you be down here for the SpaceX Dragon launch Saturday?
Dragon 2 lift off , two days to go
Oh boy the content flows very good. Great production :D
As dragon 2 and starliner lift off on rockets for low earth orbit, what will there role be after they retire international space station.
Dragon 2, starliner and Orion can't wait.
WHEN YOU MENTION THE PART ABOUT THE BOOSTER FAILURE ON THE SPACE SHUTTLE, YOU SHOULD HAVE MENTIONED THAT THE TWO REPRESENTATIVES FROM THIOKOL CHEMICAL COMPANY DID NOT INITIALLY GREEN LIGHT THE SHUTTLE TO GO UP BECAUSE OF THEIR FEAR OF THE COLD WEATHER ON THE O-RINGS. AFTER THEY WERE THREATENED THAT THEY WOULD CALL UTAH AND GET A GO FROM SOMEONE AND MAKE IT SO THEY WOULD NEVER WORK IN THE INDUSTRY AGAIN. THEY EVENTUALLY GAVE IN AND LET THEM GO. WHEN THE O-RING FAILED THEY POINTED THE FINGER AT THE TWO ENGINEERS AND THEY NEVER WORKED IN THE INDUSTRY AGAIN. THIS IS WHAT NASA DID TO PEOPLE THAT WORKED FOR THEM. THEY REALLY DIDN'T CARE ABOUT THE SAFTEY OF THE ASTRONAUTS, THEY JUST WANTED TO LOOK GOOD. I THINK THE PEOPLE THAT ARE RUNNING NASA TODAY HAVE THE ASTRONAUTS INTREST IN MIND A LITTLE MORE.
It wouldn’t be a Mad Max style convoy without a guitar slaying, flame throwing mutant tied with bungee cords to the front of the recovery vehicle. A considerable investment in spiky shoulder pads and leather pants would also be necessary.
overlap and redundancy... spot on. And I love that the world is finaly industrialising space travel... peace through culture, prosperity through science
+STC Doesn't change anything
Everyday Astronaut They are banned...
China doesn’t visit the ISS.
This is honestly one of your best videos ever. I learned so much. Thanks Tim!
Are we going to pretend they have real people in them things????
21:40 *pusher* *_p u s h e r m e m e_*
Dragon Crew looks like a luxury liner inside and out, compared to Soyuz. Its about time we started taking manned spaceflight seriously, instead of jury-rigging a tin can as an afterthought.
How ISS measure its speed?
The Space Shuttle is still my favorite space craft ever (Well besides the Enterprise and The Orville of course) hehe . Shame it cost so much to operate. Maybe one day someone to make a SS 2.0 and be cost effective. We'll just have to wait to see what the future as in store for all of us. Cheers Dion YT: Dionm01
Boeing’s Fire And Rescue Team. F-A-R-T. Fart.
Hi Tim I am wondering why can't the first stage or booster be a very large magnetic rail gun. Much of it under ground, less chemicals, and a adjustable on the fly power. With a SpaceX or such second stage. Once designed and built it could provide consistent launches for a fraction smoke and money. Like the magnetic rail guns the Navy has now. I am not sure,but I recall they are shooting the gun quite a ways was it 90 miles or so? If it correct I think they may be be able to increase the payload. I am no engineer just a dreamer/idea person.What do you think?
Why are they using crude vehicles? And what is the Crude Ragon capsule?
Imagine how easy it would be if there was not a constant speed of light.
Love your work. Please stop being lazy and pronounce AS-TER-ISK correctly.
New Sub Here. Awesome content! You kept me tuned in this entire video and that is hard to do. Will check out your other videos. Grey bell is clicked for sure!
0:04 From one to THREE! That's a huge increase in the number of crude vehicles going to ISS! :op
I know you've had this posted for a week now, but I wanted to say HOW great you are at communicating AND putting the history/story together so well and thoroughly. I'm a space nerd/junkie/KSP player too, and you keep me interested! So glad you've found you're calling and posting videos for the world to learn and enjoy. (Amazing you do your own music too. When I post my music on my vidoes, the comments are never kind ;-)
Wait i just got an idea, i know this might not be related to the video but what if we assemble our moon base while in obit on earth like the ISS then once its completed we land it on the moon as a whole
I don't think there is really a use case for the space shuttle today, however if there was a need, I guess it would make sense to send the shuttle uncrewed, like Buran, and send the crew on one of the capsules described here, with proper launch abort systems. Alternatively remove the "airplane cockpit" part of the shuttle and instead put a capsule at the tip with launch abort system, and able to be used as a lifeboat if escape from orbit is needed, keeping a bigger crew compartment in the main part of the vehicle. And with solar panels so it can stay up longer.
1:29 kurwa... poland cannot into space ;-;
how have I only just realised your different coloured eyes...
What an incredible video for everyday people, so detailed, so well illustrated and so well presented! Love every second of it. "Thank you" is not enough for the everyday astronaut.... Well done! I have become a fan. [ I hardly EVER become 'fan' of anybody or anything ] To gain some understanding and knowledge of these things, your site is the BEST for common people.
A weird thing to note. For all the hype about the Falcon 9 returnable booster, and re-using the new capsules, the cost per seat is higher than the Shuttle. The Shuttle was always condemned as being too expensive, but that is not how the numbers play here.
Great show!
I hope the SLS fails. Because NASA favors Boeing... Launching people on the second launch? Considering launching them on the first? Really? I hope it does a belly flop in the Atlantic first launch.
dude, we can totally tell you like the Dragon better ....
''Rapid unscheduled disassembly'' Is it me or is that a KSP term?
Shout out to all my heterochromia iridium sisters and bros.
Doesn't boings starliner is capable of traveling by f9? So why not leave the saturn out of it?
We designed a robot arm for the international space station: youtu.be/q8cos5iyBII
"Rapid Unscheduled Disassembly". Lol. Awesome. Nice video.
Dude, do you have two different coloured eyes?
Excellent and informative video of great spaceships - many thanks!
The flat earthers say ! It's fake ! Never happened !
how does one do laundry on space station?
go space X
Tim - this is fantastic. Thank you so much for such a professional summary. I loved the comparisons! You clearly know your subject and deliver it in an engaging, enthusiastic and enjoyable way.
Will Crew Dragon berth or dock?
staying up all night to watch the first dragon 2
Let’s face it - we still need a space shuttle.
9:55 That’s the site that had the Apollo 1 fire. Guess it was a memorial site until now.
ISS was originally planned for retirement in 2020 but extended to 2024. By the time the US gets there manned vehicles in full production , we’ll need a new station. The capsules are not capable of building space stations. Only as space tugs for readymade sections.
Are this guy eyes different colors ?
is the cost per seat if to take all 7 seats or only the 4 used by nasa?
It is absolutely ridiculous to claim Space X and Boeing are "Private companies". Without US military contracts both those companies would not exist.
They are the very definition of "private companies". They are for profit, and are not publicly traded. That's the only criteria. The fact that they have government contracts does not disqualify them from that (and neither are MILITARY contracts - they are aerospace contracts). You realize that the government doesn't actually do anything, right? If the government needs paper, they have a contract with a paper manufacturer. That paper manufacturer would therefore have a government contract. Literally everything the government needs they have to turn to the private sector to get. They don't make tanks. They don't make planes. They don't make guns. They don't make cars. They don't make boats. They don't make chairs. They don't make desks. They don't make beds. They don't make blankets. Hopefully, you are catching on. They don't make anything. Also, both of these companies would survive just fine without their government contracts. The vast majority of SpaceX's business comes from other companies - particularly communications companies. And Boeing....well...you understand that Boeing makes airplanes, right? Ever heard of the 737? 747? 777? These three planes alone are all in the top 5 on the list of most popular and used commercial aircraft today and of all time. To say that government contracts are keeping them in business is asinine. And what does it matter anyway? Even if what you say were true, what difference does it make?
If the Starliner's launch site is called "Slick 41," then how come the Dragon's is not "Lick 39a?"
bruh just press ALT F12 and click rendezvous with the ISS, lmao is so easy
Maybe for future video? I would live to see a similar comparison including Apollo Saturn as it's cone shaped capsule and detachable service module design i think mor3 closely matches Crew Dragon and Starliner. What was it's internal volume' mass, and cost per seat for orbital missions at least? Just an idea. thanks!
Boeing only chance is if the SpaceX completely fails
At first glance I thought astronauts are going to fight ISIS... oh man.
they go nowere - SPACE IS FAKE - EARTH IS FLAT
Really?!?! That I did not know! Thanks for sharing!
Everyday Astronaut I am trying to wrap my head around The Everyday Astronaut‘s Wife and keep getting hung up on the Johnny Depp horror movie. ;-)
One time my wife was switching profiles and accidentally fat fingered the garage door button and inadvertently closed it on the trunk
Well, the reason for the Space Shuttle to begin with was to construct the ISS itself, so the payloads it was flying were literally modules of the ISS. The ISS itself was the payload.
ah true, sry , missed that. Still would be interesting to have a comparison of all the space-fairing (human-flying) vehicles - so little is reported about China and India(?)+Everyday Astronaut
great video sir
Great video Tim totally agree the space shuttle was just an awesome vehicle. I now wonder if the operational costs of the shuttle would have come down if they were able to reuse the boosters and new fuel?
This is BULLSHIT. The new vehicles should have been modeled after the shuttle, landing like a traditional plane.
Excellent video! You have to say Space X have done a great job! Great that there are new systems and having 2 of them is great! Yes the Space shuttle was amazing especially given the technology of the time, glad I got to see her!
And right now we watch as Ripley docks to the ISS
Ok but what about waste? How much of each rocket is actually recovered. I know SpaceX recovers their falcons in almost the entirety. What about the Atlas V or the rocket the Soyuz is on? How much of them is recovered and how much is wasted, destroyed, and never seen again? That has to figure heavily into overall cost of operation as well I assume.
Why does SpaceX land in the sea and can only be reused for cargo? Why have these stupid limitations? I know what I would be going for if I was NASA and it wouldn't be this, fancy interior or not.
Dude, you said it, millions? Billions? Of course it's convincing, really who's paying for it? It's all fantasy
You are really good at this.
Dude your a sucker, we can't go to the moon, give me the licence plate on the moon landing, I'll chuck it in my microwave. It should be fine! What materials are ya using? The game is up
One brown and one green!!?
Intelligent & interesting video...nice work, I much enjoyed it. From 1 intellectual person to another, am looking forward to hearing back & chat a bit... Sincerely: Michael
Cool to see you ask Elon such a great question
It should say how will Boeing get Astronauts to the ISS?
привет с Украины. hello from Ukraine.you did very good video. like
NASA has long since used commercial contracts.
Wow nice video, I think I'm gonna give myself a stranger now
Thank you
I just hope soon we find a better way to get to space than essentially duct taping people to the nose of a giant bomb.
I’d love a comparison including Apollo CSM and Orion!
I'm disappointed humans went backwards to capsule design. Re-make the Shuttle with maybe half the original cargo bay, with today's design and materials, and launch it on the Falcon heavy ! Surely we can make it safer than it was 60 years ago!!! And a parachute landing on ground or at sea? , yikes, runway landing was so much more sophisticated. Another outdated idea from NASA who can't even build their own launch system... It will be nice when SPACE-X can build their own launch facility and no longer be restricted by NASA and their outdated concepts of design. Cool video thanks for sharing facts not just opinion.
The Space Shuttle was a true feat of engineering. I really wish they would revive that program.
Winning combo: Starliner on Falcon 9.
awesome video !
So what happens to the rocket that carries the Boeing capsule? Is it reusable?
What about Dream Chaser?
Very interesting content. I do agree with the increased appreciation for the shuttle. It could carry a crew and an enormous payload. It was equipped with a robotic arm as well. Those rockets really had to move a massive ship. Very impressive but very expensive.
Question: Why Russia just not rebuild Energia? It was great, and fully operated rocket, and even has own project that could make this beast first reusable rocket ever! Soo WHY NOT?!
Like, but... "asterik"? It's "asteriSk".
SpaceX is god, Boeing... stick to airplanes ✈️
Great video. Will you be doing any videos about the new SLS?
Still waiting for SpaceX’s starship enterprise...
If I ever do need to have a boss, it will be Elon
I don't understand why Elon Musk didn't have the Dragon capsule outfitted with airbags and have it land on land instead of water. Do you know? It seems it would be cheaper to bring it back on land. I would think land would also be safer (remember when NASA lost a capsule when it sank). And, more secure since it would be landing in the US. And, then of course, reuse which Elon Musk is a big proponent of. It seems like Boeing is the better option.
Just discovered moments ago. You’re making want to become an engineer (again)
Are his eyes two different colors?
KSC more like KSP XD
very well done. thanks!
SpaceX and Boeing are showing why capitalism is the best!
Hey Todd. While explaining abort systems you quickly switched from Boeing to blue horizon. Is this because they are one in the same or are the differences so minimal that you put it in a different video. I find it highly unlikely that the reason is the former. Just something I was confused about.
$58 million per seat still sounds pretty dang expensive to me. Not feeling the new efficiency.
This video was amazing! Thanks bro, had me hooked to the screen!
Having spent years working the Boeing Sea Launch program, I found this extremely interesting - thanks!!
I guess with the new green agenda this is all speculation as this contributes to green gas and climate change all that heat farting up the atmosphere. LOL
I've lived in Cape Canaveral/Merritt Island my entire life. I was born in 1985 so I missed out on getting to see the Apollo missions take off but have gotten the opportunity to see my fair share of amazing rocket launches. Myself and millions of other locals are grateful to SpaceX and Boeing for keeping our local economy afloat and we're ALL VERY excited to see the crewed missions takeoff once again from our local historic launch sites. I recommend to any space enthusiasts, if you get the chance, come down and see a SpaceX launch when the boosters are landing back at 39-A or a drone ship. They are quite the site, streaking back to earth like meteorites and the sonic booms that follow.
Once the US has their own means to get to space, the Space Shuttle will be able to become a relic like the capsules it replaced itself.
This was actually not only one of the best rocket break down videos but possibly one of the most complete videos released in 2019
I wonder what will be the safety procedures for SpaceX's Starship?
How strong are those space craft ? How do highly pressurized fuel tanks or crew capsules survive the vacuum of space ? How thick are the walls to withstand this total vacuum ? Why is the Soyuz the only craft that looks like a diving sphere , when the US ships look like Cadillacs ? Hope they have all Successful flights ! MAGA !
Ugh. Amateurs.
Interesting thing about the Vacuum of Space .... have you ever created a vacuum in a plastic bottle and seen it crush itself or implode ..... the same thing happens to tanker trucks during a filing accident , they're crushed , and they're made of thick steel . Also , scientists built a large Vacuum Chamber in Ohio and its walls are 6 - 8 feet of reinforced concrete and a massive thick steel door to prevent implosion when testing space vehicles for the vacuum of space . Now reverse that and imagine how thick the walls on space craft must be to prevent the pressurized capsule from pulling itself apart as it goes from atmospheric pressure to nothing . And you must think of a balloon popping if the spacecraft ever had a leak . How does NASA defeat that huge difference in pressure ?
If it's Boeing, it ain't going. lol
no internal airbags? This is amazing though :DD
After all that's just a beginning.. and where not able to build a real spaceship.. there's so much work..
HORSESHIT!!!
Well done Soyuz as well!
Hahahaha will they be landing in CGI again ??? :D:D:D
Kind of sad how unimpressive the new capsules are compared to the 50 year technology of the space shuttle...
Как обычно, вранье и подтасовка фактов - для Дракона дается герметичный объем, а для Союза - обитаемый. В реальности герметичный объем Союза больше герметичного объема Дракона - 10,5 м3. Ну и размеры очень сильно искажены.
A very well put together video 9/10 Thnx! @ Everyday Astronaut
The shuttle program really was just a Big failure :/
Very well made and edited and informative video, I think you should of spend some time on the kind of propulsion system and fuel they are using. Elon Musk has little prejudiced towards hydrogen.
Hi! 21 minutes into the video you are talking about the lifetime in space for the vehicles, What is actually limiting the lifetime. And why just 210/180 days. Is it just statistical calulation or some structual limitations?
The space shuttle, when you think about what engineering really is, was a disgrace. It was nothing more than American showboating and it cost people their lives. It's honestly kinda f'd up.
Awesome presentation and loaded with information. Thanks so much.
Can you rebuild delta iii rockets?
big gay hat lul
Dr. Space Shuttle from the 1980s is laughing out loud..
Dude ur videos are so awsome. Big fan. Keep them coming. 1 ? Can u plzzzzzz tell me if the dragon v 2 has a bathroom on it. I've asked so Manny people and no one knows. So do u ?? I really wanna no lol
No toilet but they have a privacy curtain and some disposable bags for urine or solids I believe
Remembering back in the 80's /90s Watching star trek the next generation and thinking those touch screens are pretty cool only to see them on actual real life spacecraft decades later Geek tears.
Good luck getting those large payloads into the Starliner or Crew Dragon like the Shuttle carried.
Great comparison video, that's giving a great perspective on the upcoming projects ^^
As fun as it is to compare the Starliner, Crew Dragon and Soyuz to the Space Shuttle, I feel like the comparisons would have been more apples-to-apples with an Apollo atop of Saturn V instead (or at least in addition). So glad this was recommended to me, great video!
Much respect to SpaceX and Boeing. I hope I live to see a man walking on Mars.
At The end he explains failure rates and escape plans. Much advancement !!
I would have liked to see crew access on the Klingon, oops, Russian, Soyuz.
Just found this wonderful channel. So happy
Wasn't the space shuttle originally designed with a cockpit abort system similar to the F-111 fighter? Where the cockpit would detach and be jettisoned as a life pod.
10:39 *Yep most definitely a cursed image.*
I would like to start by saying that I found your presentation very informative and insightful. Having been born in the late 60's I was lucky to have become aware of the world in time to catch the last few years of the Apollo program. As a child I was enamored with those rockets and the men who flew on them, brave men and a beast of a machine. I remember thinking how amazing it was that humans were in space flying to and landing on the moon. I remember our first attempts at long term habitation of space with the Skylab projects, and the transition over to the Space Launch System. I remember being absolutely blown away when they launched the first shuttle flight, it was the most incredible thing i'd ever seen. I remember watching the Challenger disaster on live T.V. and thinking that was going to be the end of the program. I was glad they kept it going. I remember when they launched the Hubble on the shuttle, and then go back to fix the damned thing, lol. I remember when they first started talking about building the I.S.S, and thinking to myself "can they really do that?", then a decade later there it was, and I thought to myself "wow, they really CAN do that". That got me starting to think that maybe we had a chance to get to Mars during my lifetime, and I gotta say, that got me pretty excited. Then suddenly the Columbia suffers damage on launch and crashes on re-entry, and again I thought it was all over. how can we keep flying to and back from space when we've now lost 17 humans in the process (3 during Apollo)? But, after the nation took a collective deep breath and a long hard think on the issue we kept going. Then out of the blue it is announced that the S.L.S. is being cancelled and that thought that we were finished for sure this time reared it's ugly head once again. I'm glad that we are developing this new generation of vehicles, and i'm even happier to see that private business is taking the lead to develop multiple vehicles. Thanks for taking the time to highlight each of these new machines and their capabilities.
sorry, I meant STS, got my acronyms mixed up, lol.
SLS isn’t cancelled
I think it's disappointing that SpaceX won't be landing on land, even with a landing bag solution. I wonder if this is something they will consider in the future, or if they will just completely phaze out dragon once they have Starship?
Great information Thanks from W Australia
Very good.
Great video!
"Rapid Unscheduled Disassembly" (6:29), otherwise known as a Rocket's Very Bad Day.
Dragon 2? THor one, Avatar 6, Ball 6, Fox6, Bafomet 33, ISIS 11, Osiris322, SATAN 3, NATO 666, Lucifer 1, love these names
I really love NASA, Disney and Supeheros. I wonder if Thor can go to the ISS?
Can boing also take you to LEGOLAND world? I would love to go to the beach theme.
Comprehensive assessment. Thanks
Man, am I ever glad I discovered your channel - it's awesome!
How much are Astronauts paid Per hour...
My dad worked on every shuttle mission till the challenger disaster,broke his heart,so he moved into new engineering.Its great to see new companies and ideas being put into use.
Great video! Thanks and congrats!
People keep using the word "shuttle" to refer to the failure of the launcher system. The Shuttle (only a part of the STS) was always extremely succesful and reliable. To me its success rate as a stand-alone spacecraft was 100%. Both tragedies were caused by rocket launcher failures that compromised the integrity of the Shuttle, the most visible piece of the entire system. Yes, as a system, it failed twice. Great video, I really learned a lot. I wish you would have added the Apollo to the comparison, just for reference. It seems we have not really advanced much in over 60 years of manned space travel. We cannot send men to the moon within 1 year from today to save the earth if we had to.
70 years and we’re still using capsules smh. c’mon guys we can do better than this!
Why dont you just use the space ships you back engineered??
Hydrozen fuels*
awesome analysis
*Just* noticed you're heterochromatic.
I live in Cape Canaveral Florida, where can I volunteer for the first man to go to deep space, and #Mars mission is to be able to #Elonmusk to build his house on mars, I think that I can offer much more help for the mission
Awesome video
you forgot Virgin. ?
With the shuttle’s large size was it a main benefactor in hauling freight in the initial building of the space station?
You really know your stuff
And where is Boeing? Seems like SPACE-X is in the news everywhere.
A cost comparison might (as far as seat) be cost per cubic meter or ft
Wouldn't want to be on starliner after the 2nd one. Laughable. Look at how much maintenance the shuttles needed post flight. As an aside, NASA appears pretty useless now, unless a bureaucratic money eating monster is preferential.
Wow, man thanks a lot for not using this goddamn imperial feets, pounds & gallons!
"unscheduled rapid disassembly" heh
Is the starhopper model from buzz space models?
salute to you too, my good sir.
$58 mill per seat for 7 seater. NASA only uses 4 seats per flight. More like $101.5 mill per seat per launch. Also 88 mill is how much Russia charge US for its astronauts. Actual costs 3 times less. Also assigning 100% success rate to vehicles that delivered "0" humans to space is a bit of a stretch, comparing to almost 1000 flights of Soyuz and such high success rate. For these new vehicles a single unsuccessful flight will brings stats to like 70-80 %. Reusability is questionable as its basically said to reuse means to put in same money - that metal may as well go into metallurgy for new equipment to be produced. Lastly, Soyuz2 is also introduced at about same time, why not much said about it? The launch cost is 10% less than Soyuz1. Once they streamline production the price may also go cheaper. In my opinion actual costs per seat is still 2x cheaper on Soyuz rockets thaN THIS NEWER ones.
The Shuttle had Unmatched capabilities? Buran apparently was better in every way. Just a real shame about the fall of the Soviet Union. Love this video, btw! Fantastic effort, and great information! Thank you for the time you took to do it.
Tim! Your comparison of the four crew-carrying vehicles is truly a little masterpiece in public relations work! Absolutely brilliant! I simply love your style of commentary: Full of fact but in no way dull or here-comes-the-teacher like. (I've been a life-long physics teacher myself...) Keep goin'! Mike
*Capitalism working!*
Yeah! Fully agree! And I learned "socialism" with my breastmilk, as I lived in East Germany. By the way - you will not know: The leading Politburomember for "Planning" in East Berlin, Gerhard Schürer (whose autobiography I just have read) comes to the same conclusion (in 1997, when he actually wrote the book...) "Capitalism has proven more versatile and more adaptable that all left(ist)philosophers - including Marx himself - thought" If you speak German: This autobiography is really a good read! Greetings Mike
First time here. That was very high quality production! Thank you and subscribed. Hope you get to space some day.
What a video! Love the graphics.
The X capsule may be stylish and comfortable but I didn't see any cup holders or ashtrays.
Yeah, sure they will - when pigs fly.
Shot in the dark but where can I get those glasses you're wearing from?
awesome video to stumble upon. such great information regarding the race into deeper parts of space. Any word on EM option to change from a mars base to the moon?
Space X rockets seems to burn a lot cleaner. That makes me think and feel it has already gone green. Very important to those left behind. Thank you for sharing with a big Thumbs Up.!
Great job. Your work is better than most of the stuff on youtube about this subject.
Like you, I am very excited that the USA will soon be able to send people back to space. This is a very exciting time. Excellent presentation! Count me as a new subscriber.
starliner = 405 millions for one start ! dragon = 174 millions ! Soyuz = 70 millions !
ha ha americans all time love fake news ! 24.44 Soyuz cost 70 millions for 3 people ! 82 millions per seat its only for americans !
+Everyday Astronaut ISS its soviet MIR 2 ! Russia can off ISS and usa should build new station
Which is why I labeled it as price per seat charged to nasa. Yes I know Soyuz is cheaper and yes I know they can raise the price due to demand. Doesn’t change the fact that it costs NASA $82 million
Starliner - 60 hours operational....what
This is a really good vid thank you.
Elon - stop smoking that weed.
what about Federatsiya?
i wonder how russia will advance in space tech i mean they better think of how to make their own rocket reusable.
I doubt they get the money for this... (and honestly: it i s the financial power which drives innovation here)
Tim, I just noticed you had two different colored eyes. Super cool!
Space X seems to be coming from a movie by Arthur C Clark with a good sense of ergonomics.
you are right. Space shuttle was one and can't be compared with other. I am having a project on it and I am in love with every orbiter.
The ISS team need better wires for their weightless antics. See what you can do please.
+Michael Benno Butter They keep on getting their wires tangled up when they do their head over heels act. Just watch the videos.
What do you mean exactly??
If it ain't Boeing I ain't going
What determines the 210 day limit on being docked? What is it using while docked?
Good question! But the answer ist very technical. It has to do with guaranteed times of operation for batteries, filters, lubricants and a host of other delicate machinery which is (as we know from our cars) simplky limited.
Thanks E A, I appreciate your video. I've watched a few flat earth people and I needed some real science. I also needed to see someone talk who could understand what they're talking about. Thanks again.
Wonderful video, well organized and to the point. My only issue is @~27:00 with your comment "aesthetics and ergonomics are a very, very minor part of the equation when you're putting humans into space". Assuming you mean that there's very little for these astronauts to do, and that they are mostly along for the ride, then please explain why the engineers of the Starliner chose to add an incredibly complex set of unreadable controls/panels for their "trained monkeys" to interface with, and stress them further with uncomfortable accommodations? Consumers of any thing are much more happy and effective when that thing is well designed and ergonomic. Boeing should spend some of their massive wealth to employ a team of industrial designers!
I’m so glad that the United States
I’ve gotta know what’s up with your eye? I hope it’s okay.... Great comparison!
Please do not forget Bezos Blue Origin. HAHAHAHA
good joooooooooooobbbbbbbbbbbbb
Great channel but I think you were a little easy going on the space shuttle, which was a catastrophic waste of money, nearly bankrupted NASA and achieved very little.
"Seeing a Falcon 9 land after..." Seriously, I watched proper open mouthed when they did the simultaneous twin land of both units. Flipping AMAZING! It was just as cool as it was when I sat there open mouthed with amazement when I watched the shuttle launch in primary school. In that moment I was nine years old again...
They'd better not let the fire marshal see those things.
R.U.D. !!!
Yes - but will there be free Wi - Fi ?
Nice job but what about Orion?
Anyway thanks for responding I love your YouTube videos I just think Orion is the best thing man has ever seriously tried to do and hopefully it works out in my lifetime...
Besides there is a push from the political side of things to make Orion be able to do both deep space and visit the ISS
I get that but in terms of a capsule that brings humans into space it's a worthy comparison don't you think?
Orion’s not going to the ISS
One way to compare costs more effectively would be to factor in how many flights by traditional cargo rockets would be required to match what the shuttle did in a single lift, since the STS would never have gone up without carrying cargo.
I'm confused, I thought I heard you say that the Crew could NOT dock - additionally in the video, it appeared the arm attached was to the Crew...However, what I watched last night on CNN showed the Crew a traditional dock from the nose cone to the ISS... Can you please clarify?
+Everyday Astronaut Thanks bud! I actually watched a few more of your vids this A.M. too! I recall you saying in this vid that SpaceX changes configs, etc "like, A lot!" Haha I believe that the Crew initially hook on and used the Canada Arm (named because this was The Great White North's contribution to the ISS? - Along with Cmdr. Chris Hadfield - of course!) THEN nose docked! Exciting times, my man...exciting times! Glad I am riding shotgun!
The old Dragon could not. New dragon capsule can dock!
get a nose job tomorrow
No, Max - that's much too much simplified!!
I watched this well after the launch of DM-1, but it was still very interesting, nonetheless. Very well put-together and researched, Tim. Nice job.
All lies. And, you can sleep at night knowing NASA fakes all this? Well, I have news for you. We the people are no longer fooled. For over 40 years I use to be one of NASA'S number one fans. I believed everything that I saw on TV. And, as a vulnerable child, I believed everything that I was taught in our school system. But, after the moon landings were discovered as being faked, in order to place Americans ahead of the Russians in the so called "space race", and after many years of extensive research, I have discovered that the ISS is only a holographic image projected unto the ionosphere from various locations here on earth. All the information presented here in this video is fake news and you should be ashamed of yourself.
I never noticed your eyes were different colors till now! I know of someone else with different color eyes who likes space too! Your in good company :D
' i love any americans great rockets and space shuttles... no wonder why this man use a cap on the head
the more options to space the better, if you can imagine a better launch system by all means. USA.
Well done! Down to earth presentation.
Dragon 2 deserves some more glory there
Watching the SpaceX first stage touch down is an icing of the cake. Without it, the show is not complete.
¡ןןǝqʍoɔ ǝɹoɯ
As someone that grew up watching the Space Race from a small town in Cornfield Iowa I am impressed with what I have been seeing. Well done Tim, professionally done, highly informative and easy to watch and follow.
What small town in Iowa?! You know I’m from Iowa, right?
So Starliner got more funding and is using old tech (Atlas V). Why did they need more funding? Good video comparison.
Correction: The Crew Dragon also docks. "When SpaceX's Dragon spacecraft travels to the ISS with cargo, it is captured by the crew using the station's robotic arm and pulled into place. But the Crew Dragon spacecraft's docking procedure is a little different, instead relying on automated control software to attach itself to the desired module on the outside of the station."
That’s referring to dragon 1. I said when the “current dragon” docks. I add later that dragon 2 is capable of docking in the dragon section
who else hates the short cuts of audio? It sounds so unnatural after a while it gets hard to listen to.
Send ISIS to the ISS
Why did they even cancel the space shuttle
I cant handle looking at your different coloured eyes, its too distracting.
Are you still feuding with Sheldon?
IMO they should have just stuck with SpaceX, boeing haven't really done anything original, it looks 70's, and while I'm fond of the Apollo program, I think we need to remember that it started 50 years ago. It's like boeing was selected as the "All American" or maybe out of pity because they lost the X Fighter contract.. SpaceX is a far more futuristic company that has proven revolutionary new techniques in launch and descent of rockets etc.. Just no boeing, it's an eyesore and doesn't seem to present and new tech.
Lukider I like the idea of promoting good old American competition. If for no other reason that it will help allay fears of favoritism and corruption. These two companies will be motivated to keep an oversight eye on each other while competing.
In the event of an in-flight abort of the Starliner, who will be in charge of the crew recovery from the ocean?
If you see this comment, can I just ask how you got well known to the various agencies and enough so they let you check out their vehicles- and actually sit inside? I wouldn’t have thought anyone not working for said company would be allowed to get anywhere near it. This is yet another well-explained and really informative video. Love your content
Space Shuttle is like that Titan gpu no1 can afford
*First of all...bud...you're not an **-astronaut-*
Just bring back the Saturn-V already and put some kind of Super-Apollo on top of it already.
Trust you watched the launch of SpaceX yesterday - amazing to watch the stage one rocket land back down on the pad.
Great video, Tim! thanks!
Nice job on this video. I especially liked the graphics.
Roof That's due to developmental costs. That per-launch will come steadily down in the future.
+Zapranoth I presume you've already done yours thicko.
+Douglas George Sigh. You tinfoilers are everywhere. Don't you have to go clean your cave out of something? Spring cleaning time is nearly here.
I think he just has two different colored eyes... my mother-in-law has one green and one blue.
oh please ! they are all BS !!!
Yes , Yes ... kill me !! But i still love the old good space shuttle !! Looks like a 747 Vs few small Pipers monoprop !!
Thanks Tim for the info, Awesome channel!
Space is gay, it would be better to be studying and exploring our oceans.
It's brilliant work and very good to see American innovation and invention back out in front. If to be a leader in any endeavor, relying on an opponents invention and capability genuinely reduces ones ability to lead. One cannot win a foot race without legs, and one cannot lead the field if solely dependent on a competitors faculties. Whatever the case may be, I'm happy to see the US is not simply outsourcing another production to Asia, Latin America, or Europe. The US should create a space-station as in intermediary pit-stop to the moon, and also build a facility on the moon, and then carry on to build a Mars facility. Full stream space project.
Rocket fuel technology is mass ejection technology. Based on momentum conservation law m1v1=m2v2. The distance a payload can reach is limited. That's why no one has very long range missiles. Space travel, land on the moon, go to mars are all lies. Rocket fuel technology will keep us on Earth forever.
Despite recovering the booster ..... Why spacex cost as much as Boeing ...... I thought spacex launches are cheaper .....
Tim: You keep saying “klomitters”. WTF is a klomitter? Then I realized that you’ve been corrupted by the epidemic of scientific illiteracy that mispronounces KIL-o-meter as KLOM-iter. Do you also say cenTIMeter, milLIMeter, and kiLOGram? KLOMitter makes no sense whatsoever. Language entropy leads to thinking entropy. Be better than that. Otherwise, cool stuff bro’. Keep up the good work!
Can us tell us when this is going to happen ? not before 2025, I'll wager.
The major media coverage for the successful event today was almost non existent. They have so little time with all the advertisements. Glad I saw it on SpaceX
Great video...been looking for a good summary of the current situation and explanation of the two new crew capsules.
Star liner is better than dragon 2 because it’s *bigger and lands on land* Dragon 2 is better than star liner because it has a trunk and has a *7 day life support* Soyuz is better than dragon 2 and star liner because it has *30 day life support*
Great video! Can you give us more details on how you calculate the costs per seat? (Or at least your source for those costs?)
Soyuz and the two commercial options are published by nasa for how much it costs them
Use an Aerospace like Trident 2, cutting drag significantly on ascent.
What's up with the Soyuz graphic? The red letters on the crew module spell out "Z SOYU".
VERY, VERY informative!! Thanks for your efforts!
What are those spinning planet trinkets behind you? I NEED THEM.
the zip line "does look like it would be pretty fun ... assuming you're not being chased by a fireball" bwahaha, best line!
How do they cool a balloon?
So NASA has admitted that the Moon is within Earths atmosphere, so does that this mean that the 'orbiting' ISS is also within the atmosphere together with all the 'satellites'??
Great work, man.
Great Job as usual. Beautiful design in Crew Dragon. What are the chances that the touchscreen crashes compared to the old style switch not working ? is there a fail safe for a burnt mother board?
Awesome video
it's cuz its a 100% oxygen pumped capsule they'd blow up... so now it's vape pens instead TESLA vapes.... lmao. lol...
+Douglas George The "I know you are but what am I"? comeback? Man, haven't heard that one since 2nd grade. Better stay in your cave though. Scary things going on out here. Moon missions, space stations, these things called "wheels" and "fire"? Better stay inside.
Excellent video! Got to give it to Elon, in my opinion. Love the shuttle too... They should re-engineer the thing and bring it back... fly's piggy back, and lands like a plain... Who can't love that?
How gullible do you need to be to still believe in space and the ISS? #SPACEISFAKE #ISSHOAX #BUBBLESINSPACE #BENDYDOOR #RESEARCHFLATEARTH #THEFLATEARTHREVOLUTION
As usual, they will use CGI and lies.
NASA is a undercover Nazi party organization launching nuclear warheads into orbit under the ruse of practical space exploration shuttle right before everyone's eyes. Also they are using the sun to weaponize the Hubble telescope (hints the wildfires in California... Where it was built)
you talk like a gay
is it just me ...or ...don't u think Boeing's rocket design looks like a .........D H ?
Hi, This is very good program. Do you know by any chance why there are two vehicles serving the same purpose? Base on what will NASA make decision which one they are going to use?
Last human launch was Apollo 17, not seven, in December 1972.
That was from Kennedy Space Center. Last human launch from Cape Canaveral Air Force station was Apollo 7
Excellent video mate.
Why SpaceX has to land its Crew Dragon on water while Boeing is allowed to land in a desert?
hey I have a good deal on a bridge I can sell you
every day I am seeing more and more evidence this is all bull -----their is a expert marksman that will give you twenty thousand dollars if you can prove the coriolis effect ----he knows it is bull ---just a small thing to prove again and again this is all bull----the biggest con in the history of the world
I did have hellacious respect for Trump and believed him when he said he would drain swamp and Hillary would be in prison. He has not hit a lick about Washington's +1,500 elite pedophiles/pedovores. Business as usual. If I began listing Washington's scumbags I would use 20 comment spaces !!!!!
Don't tell Bethesda you can make caves that aren't all clones of one another because then we won't see Elder Scrolls VI for another ten years.
Excellente
opinions mean little sure but all systems are awsome and hopefully perhaps even after decades of low earth orbital flight there might be some advances in the theoretical design and imagination which also inspires , as is the existing physics.Thanks for the informatsi about the N22 etc , the best bit when considering understanding design designators. Still no Ionising Forcescreen or Toroidal Radial so far then.
Good video. Very informative & worth the time.
for the next decade Vostok going to be the only ones !
On a personal level I really like the Starliner. I like the more traditional space capsule design, the traditional control panels meant to give crew direct control over their situation when circumstances call for it. The "futuristic" style of the Dragon 2 is cool but I'm a big believer in good old dials and switches, and in giving pilots control of their craft, even if only as a contingency if automation fails. But at the same time, I think one of the great lessons of the Shuttle is that while you can "have it all" - that's not always what you really want. In this case the goal is a modern option for cost-effective crew launches. Space craft need to be efficient, and maybe the weight of a traditional flight console isn't really justified.
24:49 - Regarding the cost-per-seat of a shuttle flight, and the consideration that it might be effectively offset by the cargo capability... If it's $214M per seat - that's based on, what, seven or eight crew flying? Around $1.5B overall per flight...? (I know NASA's website indicates "about $450M per flight"... Really??!? I mean, what?? Where does that huge disparity in cost-per-flight calculations come from?) So would it not be reasonable to start with the cost of flying a Shuttle, deduct the cost of flying a comparable cargo using another launch system like Atlas V, and then figure the cost-per-seat from the remainder? Maybe a little generous since it assumes the Shuttle would ALWAYS be flying cargo... Wikipedia says about $153M to fly an Atlas V 551 - which should have been able to fly a dozen tonnes or more, right? Then let's round up a bit to be extra-generous, given that the Atlas V cargo launch would have to be fully automated - say $300M for that cargo launch in order to do without a human crew in direct control, and the RMS. That's still $1.2B per shuttle launch, or around $170M per crew member for the ADJUSTED crew flight cost... Or you could split it down the middle, say it's about the same as flying two (overly expensive) 12 tonne missions - one manned capsule (at $600M - almost four times the cost of flying Dragon 2) and one automated cargo flight (at $600M - four times the cost of Atlas V!). Then it's around $100M per crew member. But how do you justify shaving off EIGHTY PERCENT of the shuttle's per-flight cost when calculating the cost to fly crew?
(Size comparison of different space vehicles) **face-palm** And we were launching that thing into space every single time we needed to move crew... **sigh** Maybe the shuttle deserves more credit than I give it for some of its other capabilities and accomplishments - but it really seems like it was a terrible waste to fly that massive thing.
You really don't believe any of this stuff to you space is impossible
Do you know with these contracts, do the companies sell design/intellectual property rights of their stuff along with the actual service? I wouldn't want patents to be hindering technological progress, especially considering NSA is in part a technology progressor. One could argue that the technology from the effort to get into space is as important or even more important than the actual space access itself, especially as the former fuels the latter. If private companies using tax payer dollars say "hands off, this is our top secret technology" not only would that go against that technological advancement ideal but any opacity of design anywhere at all could be risky for the actual missions. Or even if the technology isn't secret but they deny or overcharge for access or restrict competitors from using said technology, that would hinder things. 8:50 It's a good idea to have a system do something automatically without human control?
NASA and SpaceX: *fighting each other* Boeing: Let me in!
+Tetsujin but the space nerds think it does. I agree, why not both? It's like keeping pressure out and keeping pressure inside of a craft are completely different concepts **sarcasm**. Plus, if you ever wanted to explore jupiters moon europa in any detail, you're gonna need a submersible :)
It doesn't have to be one or the other
As a matter of fact the ISS is low enough in orbit that it does experience some atmospheric drag, and periodically has to be boosted to compensate for the resulting decay in its orbit. As for the moon - according to that recent report the Earth's exosphere extends beyond the moon, yes. But we're talking about a really sparse distribution of gaseous molecules in Earth orbit. Calling it part of Earth's "atmosphere" is kind of just a technicality IMO.
Odds are they didn't trust the new company (SpaceX) enough. They went with the old tried and true methods and established company.
Very, very, very expensive and very dangerous. Fourteen crew members already died in it and during launch it had very large periods of abort "black zines" where a failure would have been non-survivable so another major accident was only a matter of time coming. By comparison, Soyuz, Dragon and Starliner all have minimal or zero black zones. This was demonstrated well by Soyuz last year.
Well, among vehicles that got past the test flight phase, let's say... Don't get me wrong, I think Buran was an impressive piece of work, but it never got to the point where its capabilities were truly realized. No fault of its own perhaps but from a strictly practical perspective there was never a point in history where Buran could be sent into space to service Mir or carry crew or deploy or retrieve satellites - because the program ended. So it had those capabilities but it never got to the point where they could actually be used.
How much does it cost to become an astronot actornaut?
Subbed and Belled, fantastic presentation and work, glad I found you in my feed.
holy crap dude....great video. Just came from watching the (amazing) Apollo 11 doc tonight and found this to round out my evening of inspiration.
can you make a video in order to convince half of Americans that do not believe in Moon landing ? please !!!
yeah baby!
hey tim, yall talk the talk and walk the research walk here we are movin out, american craftsmanship climbing up outta earth's gravity well again settin up bases on the moon, diverting asteroids into gold rushes, spreading out and thriving
Looks like SpaceX will be next to put astronauts in space.
All three are silly because any vertical launch situation is always far more dangerous than it need to be. Any reduction of power in a vertical launch means total disaster. With a horizontal launch, you just land and try again. The ONLY inefficient things about a horizontal launch is the weigh of the take off wings is unnecessary for landing, but if you separate them, there is no reason not to do horizontal launch. It does not need massive acceleration in order to prevent disaster. With horizontal launch, a reduction in power just means orbit takes longer to achieve. And that is about 100 times safer.
I just don't see how the ISS could have been built w/o the Shuttle or something similar. It really was impressive when you compare it's capability to the other systems.
the shuttle was the semi hauling a load next to you on the road. way the hell up there, so many good hauls shuttle was magnificent
I disagree and considered the Shuttle ridiculous. You do NOT combine people and cargo. That not only prevent an abort system, but ensures the greatest risks to the people possible, with the need for the largest launch propulsion. The Shuttle was totally asymmetric, forcing massive thrust vectoring while using up fuel during the risky part of launch. And finally, by combing crew and cargo, that meant reentry was far more dangerous than it has to be, because of the useless size of the nearly empty Shuttle.
Fire And Rescue Team What a lovely acronym
For some odd reason, I found myself falling in love with the Space Shuttles (STS) again as you mentioned. Seriously, they are modern marvels of machine.
Atlas V carries the name in tradition only. The original Atlas ICBM that was scattered throughout the US during the most dangerous period of the Cold War had to be pressurized to keep it from collapsing upon itself. It also had American engines to go with ultra cutting edge technology. The newer Atlas uses a twin-chambered RD-180 Russian engine. According to Chuck Walker (“Atlas—The Ultimate Weapon”), the Atlas project set several records in American industry, employed more than 100,000 people at its peak and cost more than $6 billion, a massive sum for the 1950s. Atlas orbited four Mercury astronauts, boosted Mariner 2 toward Venus, Ranger and Surveyor toward the moon, Mariner 4 toward Mars, the Agena target vehicle for Gemini astronauts and started two Pioneer spacecraft toward Jupiter, Saturn and out of the solar system. To me the greatest achievement for the namesake Atlas is New Horizons. Very nice, comprehensive documentary.l
Great video. The price-per-seat thoughts were interesting. IMO the allowance for the Shuttle payload bay contents shouldn't be more than whatever say Atlas would've charged to take the payload bay contents to orbit separately, plus a bit for rendezvous capability perhaps. That would still leave each set of astronauts paying around $1billion for the ride. I think just the idea of big cargo + crew drove the cost problem. Near-simultaneous launch would have been a much neater solution.
SORRY SPEEL CHACK IS HAVING A PRBLEM MUST BE MR GORSKY????
IT IS GOING TO BE A "LUGGAGE TROLLEY" OH THE WINND SREEN THING EASY SCRATHES ARE A HASSLE? 3 THINGS NO PERSON HAS TRIED ON THE "INTERNATIONAL SPACE STATION AND WHY THE ARE GENIUS NOT JUST THAT VERY VERY GUNIUS
They will be DRIVEN out to South-Central, Nevada "Studio B" where the Sound Stage is of course.
??
Very good assessment and commentary.
why do they even need Boeing? Both the Crew Dragon and the Orion have done successful test flights. you have two ships that work, why do you need three
Very professional review. Thanks!
The old rocket technologies redesigned for to relaunches into the ISS much better than the Space Shuttle,because the Shuttle are costing to much to maintain.
Yeah I don't think I would want to deal with touch screens while in a moving, shaking rocket capsule.
You have a fantastic name: "Everyday Astronaut"! :-) :-)
Why don't we just use the Apollo technology? Seems to have worked. Now I'm digging for old 1960s car commercials because I want to drive some proven technology on the highways.
Well...proven they are - but in the 4 decades since then, technology has developed in leaps and bounds! Think of Falcon 9's recovery of the precious first stage... We walk old paths but one storey higher, so to speak... Greetings: Mike
Very aesthetically beautiful video
How interesting. Thank you
You had me at docking
Tim, what would happen if we put two felcon9s to the Space shuttle? You think it would lift it?
They’re 2/3rds less powerful than the shuttle SRBs, so they wouldn’t have been capable of lifting that beast.
WHAT A FANTASTIC TIME TO BE ALIVE, TY FOR THE VIDEO, BRO, MAGA YEAH TRUMP AND SPACE FORCE!!!!
I hope Rogozin taught Roscosmos to make trampolines for sending Russian astronauts. For example, the Russian military industrial complex is not capable of producing civilian products. Putin said that pans like tefal are unattainable for a military industrial complex. :-))
Thanks for making these videos, incredibly informative!
Skyler Warren Paranoid much?
thank you mr science
I think the shuttle would have felt a lot more solid if they weren't always gluing heat shield tiles back on in space, and you didn't have commentators wondering if they had enough tiles aboard..
The problem with NASA is the design methodology. They have too many design sign off stages & it stops progress. Space X is doing things right. If you want better, you need change. if you freeze change, you can't improve & the whole process grinds to a halt.
I see you have the star hopper model
Is your left eye OK? One eye dilated can be a sign of brain damage.
I’m just heterochromatic
Space shuttle, take alook, jet plane looking thing, gets full of idiots, with a title saying astronaught. gets strapped to a fule, filled bomb
Stop lieing, Elon Musk wants to take you to Mars one way, he's already got half a million suckers world wide. Your another one
Amazing job you did there, great production. Thank you!
They should have adopted much technology of the Russian Buran and upgraded the US Space Shuttle with it. So much knowledge wasted there.
cool,,,❤❤❤ keep creating new space stuff guys ❤❤❤
Tim, I hope you get a chance to go to space someday. Excellent presentation.
Great video. I'm surprised you didn't add latitude of launch sites though. Who doesn't like a bit of trigonometry.
It's funny how futuristic movies still design their spaceships to look clunky. While on earth, thanks to Elon, we are making spaceships into works of art. It actually reminds of the design of the UFO described by Bob Lazar. Only three seats and 3 gravitational engines. No need for other rooms, computers. You can imagine that in the future, there might not be any need for giant screens.
Superb presentation in all aspects. I understand more now about these different rockets and payloads thanks to your great video;
Old cars are deaths traps compared to new ones.
How about yourself, believing in conspiracy nonsense with no solid proof other than cheap youtube videos and charlatans rant?
shuttup shil-tard. We don need no stinkin' CGI! (unlike you mindless sheep) sad pouty-face joe selfie. what are you supposed to be with that mug. Or is that CGI too? some kinda grunge emo thang? or is it a CGI character from one of your vid games? "... and of course, they also lie ... a-wayah, a-wayah, a-wayah." aww knawck-id-awf, ya liddle baybeh! (heh-heh-heh!)
As usual, conspiratards and flerfers arent even capable of producing convincing cgi about their nonsense or even proof or practical applications of their "theories". And of course, they also lie
How sad.....
This is absolutely amazing, I am actually seeing this happening. Humans going into space in 3 different spacecrafts. I don't know about you guys, but this sounds like sci-fi to me. I was 7 when I got to see on (black and white) TV last time we landed on the moon. Since Apollo 17 we rolled back the human adventure is space and Moon became, again, a fiction realm. I know it is just for ISS now, but it looks like this time we'll go forth. 2019, what an amazing year be alive.
Starliner will land in White Sands. Next to the hundreds of nuclear test craters. Sounds legit.
Could the Super Draco engines be used to propulsively land the Dragon2 capsule should the parachutes fail?
I love your channel, your enthusiasm and knowledge will surly inspire the next generation of space enthusiasts for space exploration and travel, from Australia
I feel so sorry for someone who has dedicated so much of their life to learning about fake space. I wasted over 30 years of my life on it too. The International Fake Station is a giant money making fraud. The evidence is so overwhelming, that basically anyone who still believes that it is up there, just hasn't done any research.
......................All Space missions are CGI...........................
Great video, good presentation, Just a bit to much trivia babel.
I've watched the NROL-71 live stream, and I've been waiting for it to come out as a replay, so I can record you answering my question (trust me, it feels great to have your favorite Youtuber to talk to you). It still han't come out for me at least. Why is this? Don't tell me that it got taken down by Youtube, right?
Hey just wondering where did you get those little Globe things on your shelf that are spinning
lol saw the comment about your different coloured eyes and now I cant stop starring...
I don`t belive that the seats at the Space X Design will match an Astronaut with a heavy and bulky Spacesuit.....;-) Although, it looks cool, I admit.
Wait don’t they wear their spacesuits in the capsule? Chairs could just be made larger but touch screens with gloves? But spaceX‘s design looks Sexy. Like when compare a Tesla interior with one of a vw Bug
As a non-technical observer, consolidating all the controls into a single flat panel seems like putting all your eggs in one basket. What if that single piece of equipment breaks? I realize there will be a reasonable answer, but what is it?
This has been super educational..thank you.
Yes you are strongly incorrect, how about'' no, astonaughts'", dingbat, crap for kids, ruining the atmosphere, look at these new rockets piercing the stratosphere, like darts. Fools and the money spent, on missiles as that's what they become, for war. No man, Russian, chineese, otherwise, has ever set foot on the moon. No escaping, from the truth, how many liers, did you say went to the moon? And you stop lieing, who's paying you to lie to me?all tax, spent on Impossible , tasks that kill people in the worst way. N eed A nother S even A stranouts Step right up, kaboom!!
From where did you get that rotating globe on top of that shelf behind you(in front of Saturn V booster)??
Very well done! Thanks! I too am so glad to be able to have American space craft taking astronauts to the ISS but like you, this just makes me appreciate the Space Shuttle program even more.
I really HOPE it's fewer than half of us the do not believe! But those who think it has all been a hoax are under/uneducated and suffer from low self esteem issues.
The Space Shuttle was probably one of the greatest engineering disasters in US history. It was supposed to lower the price to orbit by a factor of 10 and instead raised it by a factor of 10. Two of the five vehicles had catastrophic failures with the loss of the vehicles and 14 crew. They were death traps from the get-go with many single-point failure modes. Any astronaut that rode them that tells you they weren't afraid is being dishonest.
EARTH IS FLAT AND STATIONARY ⚠️ LETS DEBATE
starliner looks VERY cramped
I think now would be an appropriate time to actually build/design a space shuttle since there’s an actual space station to “shuttle” people to, unlike the STS shuttles which was a shuttle to nowhere and wasn’t really designed for science and was just a military piggyback, I just think that we are going in the opposite direction using rockets with CM....Might just be me I’m not a scientist or an engineer but I think the shuttle was the right idea at the wrong time, I think we still need to look into space planes and not so much on conventional rockets, great video however and I’m at happy that American companies are breaking the Russian monopoly on space travel
Look, the rocket is raising its arms (from the Y letter) into the air like the human on the left 1:08
What about STS?
Hahaha hahaha "Mad Max scene" that's totally what I'm going to see now, when we eventually get footage. Hahaha hahaha hahaha hahaha hahaha
I bet they take away the comforts of the dragon capsule to get a fifth seat in it.
PRove it Also, i have a question, why would anyone want to fake space missions, whats the point?
YES....!!! GREAT JOB NASA @ stealing our taxes, only to deliver us CGI. TY
the russians want soyuz back up capsule incase space x hits the station in full emergency and rightfully so... if astronauts are to be lifted into space so the real cost is still in the russian gdp cost ...and it is not as nasa and space x assume that usa is back into space this is not realistic to pretend so... skeatesy the son of man 2019 bubbygoddezz
Great job on this video. I just have one question how come it is 58mil per seat for Spacex solution when they can reuse the first stage?
I'll tell you what I've been a amateur rocket scientist for more than 30 years of my life I flew up just about every bit of my life savings at the Black Rock Desert flying gigantic monster rockets up to quarter scale. I've always dreamed of going to space. Please make me a candidate I feel I have not done anything for my country yet I'm almost 60. If anything happens I don't blame anybody that's my lifelong dream to get to space to Mars to the Moon even if I don't make it back. The technology we have today I believe in. Even the stuff that's not mentioned.
Let's face it. When SpaceX does it, it's cooler.
The space shuttle was designed to build the International Space Station and it carried most of the station modules, which were designed to fit exactly inside the shuttle cargo bay. Since it was 7 times heavier than SpaceX´s Crew Dragon, each launch cost much more. To carry up to seven astronauts, the current ships designs are much more cost efficient. Actually, each ship is designed to fit a specific purpose. Many people drive a SUV alone and don´t bother the extra fuel cost, while they only needed a small vehicle for two people. Going to space, however, is so expensive that you really can´t take an SUV (the Shuttle) to do a small car´s job (the Dragon).
Z
THERE IS NO MOON IT'S ONLY AN ILLUSION WAKE Up
Sergio Rejtman well the shuttle was actually designed to carry military and CIA satellites into orbit that’s why the Hubble telescope fit and that’s the reason why there’s all those “classified” sts missions and it’s the reason why the cargo bay was so big, I’m not talking about remodeling the shuttle in talking about making a SSTO that is capable of trans porting people and components to the space station and be able to glide back to earth and land on a designated runway, like the old shuttle did just the new one would be better because the DoD wouldn’t be involved and demand a lot of requirements
I see that it look the same old school system . Nothing new . a lot of fuel to go up . I think it have to be a new way system to push it up .
Dude, what happened to your left eye?
Or my right eye? I have heterochromia
Full marks for your production quality it is first rate. We await the Starliner first launch, they have a tough act to follow after what appeared a flawless SpaceX mission. Thanks for the time and effort you put into this presentation.
Good job as usual, Tim. The difference between flying in the Starliner and the Crew Dragon is comparable to the difference between riding in the economy section of a Boeing 737 and in a Tesla Model S. In other words no comparison.
+Everyday Astronaut Wow, in researching what heterochromia is, I just found out I have central heterochromia! Thanks for replying, and thanks for the very well done videos you produce.
You seriously don't think they've tested this? That is the approved look, that is the final design. SpaceX also has their own suit, designed by them. It is much less bulky.
I get the dimacrats hate our great president and great country but that does not give them the right to shut down people who love ther country and saying USA USA USA USA USA!!!! The dimacrats have lost ther minds
I get it. I get dimacrats hate our great president and great country but that does not give them the right to shut me down and attacking me for loving my country. Wtf dude ?? How do u have somone like night bot working for u I love ur chanel and ur videos but night bot should realize that there people who love ther country out ther and they shouldn't be attacked for it. Wtf
Night bot is an automated robot who prevents spam and capitalization from spamming the live-streams. If you were blocked or warned it had nothing to do with politics, purely spam prevention by a robot
I get it. Dimacrats and the new generation of libtards don't love our country. I get they hate our great president. But they need to realize they Republicans love space to. And I shouldn't be attacked for loving my country it really upset me when it's my birthday and I'm watching a awsom rocket lunch on my favorite chanel and all of a sudden I get atacked for loving my great country I get that Democrats hate our great president and great country but I shouldn't be called a bot or be hatred on for loving my country. I wanted u to be aware that night bot is not a good person if there ganna hate on people that love ther country and saying USA USA USA they told me to stop saying USA USA USA and spaming and called me a bit. I don't get it I live my country. Big deal. Get over it. But no. They shut me down for living my country. Wtf??? What do u think about it ?? How are we living in a world where I say USA USA USA and night bot says warning quit spaming. Calling me a bot and saying well keep a eye on him. Wtf. All I said was USA USA USA greatest country on earth. Y cuz I love my country and I getting atacked for it. Y ?
Do you realize that you are attacking people?
Please shave.
Hey everyday Astronaut. I am a big fan. I love ur videos and I love space and anything rockets . I just wanted to make u aware that yesterday I was watching the live stream of delta 4 launching and it was my birthday so I was really excited and really happy about my country doing great in space. So I said USA USA USA USA greatest country on earth by cause I love my country and space and I started to get attacked by night bot I think he works for u. Idk but it really sucks that I'm watching my favorite chanel about space and I get atacked for loving my great country I just wanted to make u aware that u have night bot hating on people for loving ther country and saying USA USA USA. I said USA USA USA and all of a sudden I'm getting a tacked and ther thinking I'm a bot. That's ridiculous
I have to say after watching this video...!!! Beautifully done...!!!
Keep in mind, we have seen the schedule to be prone to change.
You really have to wonder. If NASA had a second crew vehicle option and launch abort sustem, if they still could run limited shuttle missions specifically to take large amounts of cargo to space.
Although less common, there are touch screens that don't require special gloves
Man, please make a video about the Brazilian rocket site that is now open to american companies. It can save up to 30% in fuel because of be closer to equator!
Everyday Astronaut is one of the best space related chanel on YouTube by far. USA USA USA USA!!
Thank u. I'm still a huge fan. Keep up the great work
I hear Starliner could have been first but it keeps flying itself into the ground. Yeah, I'm going to hell.
13:10 ima recline my seat now
Yay lego saturn v
May I ask where you bought those rocket models that you have in the background?
I learned more from this video than the knowledge I obtained in 58 years. I guess I never took the time to really study, with this video the "Study " part is explained very well!
The space shuttle came from an era where people working in the space industry thought BIG and seemed to have way more innovation and creativity than later on (during the shuttle era). Only since Musk started the race again, have there been truly wonderful innovations and brilliance in engineering again. The shuttle was the 70's pinnacle of the early lessons learned, and it was again proof of American resilience and teamwork, like the apollo project was in the 60s. I don't think anything as elegant and capable as the shuttle will be around for some time to come.
yeah yeah USA is great, the rest of the world is not?
Just maintenance of the shuttle, even when sitting in the hangar is gruesomely expensive. The shuttle was retired because it cost too much money. A single mission cost between 1 and 2 billion dollars. The inspection of the tiles after every mission cost thousands of man hours alone. The shuttle was special, beautiful and capable, but it came at a very high cost.
Seeing the number of posts here by you and the fact you got kicked for spamming a live stream,, you just can not shut up about your great country. Dim it down dude and peeps might even start to like you.
Awesome vid man!!
Man, your videos are awesome! Thank you for putting so much work into making them!
Waste of money,, clean up our polluted oceans. NASA is testing a rain making device in India, this is money well spent, fix our problems.
Tim - BEAUTIFUL work, bud ! ALL the VERY BEST to you and yours, from Texas - Chuck.
soyuz may die off here... do you think when space's population expands that it'll return to its current status as the go-to? it still looks like the most simplified. and every degree of difficulty adds a hundreds more possible flaws. is rocket reuseability more important than transportation? all we really gotta do is put people there. boeing did sooooo much but took soooo long just to produce this. at taxpayer expense. soyuz was like "i'm a tin can, let's go already." and super reliable. js
you make great content. you began hard with "considering that i actually sat in them, check out what i have to say." and then completely smashed with data and video editing. very nice! in the past the right people wouldn't be in their right places, but in this new age each of us can actually follow what we love. you're in your right place and it shines.
I feel like the starliner landing would be a **bit** bumpy
Would you rather jump into starliner fast as you can or dragon 2 fast as you can?
Amazing vid Tim!!! I learn so much from these!
would be good to have the comparison of STARLINER and CREW DRAGON in the same scale with ORION, instead of SOYUZ and SPACE SHUTTLE, much more interesting
Would you rather jump into starliner or dragon 2 for a launch?
Cyanide 142 also the starliner is as you said cramped, which is another upside for the dragon. Anyway they are both awesome but I like the dragon more but that is an opinion.
Cyanide 142 true true
+EpicPro1 interior is nice but cramped, and the landing cool to watch but I fear someone could get hurt in a rough landing
Cyanide 142 I also like the interior. But the starliner landing design is what I prefer, even if the landing is a **bit** bumpy
Cyanide 142 Yeah I got that
+EpicPro1 dragon's more advanced example being it has touchscreens
+Cyanide 142 same. also the dragon is more roomy.
Dragon no doubt, nothing against Boeing but the dragon has already been tested
How would the parachute work in space if there’s no air
All a lie
Why cant spacex just train their own astronauts
It doesn't, but it doesn't need to. It is not opened "in space".
Fire And Rescue Team.... Why no acronyms all of a sudden?
to do what?
Great Video
Russians have left the chat.....
Just wanted to comment on this video today to say you make by far the best space content, the second Falcon Heavy launch today was to bad, although keep up the great work. Love the content.
basically boeing is cheap and redundant and spacex is luxury
Please make a video about satellite orbit types, because Im confused what, where and the different of all the orbit. Please:)
Falcon Heavy actually launched the CLOVERFIELD Satellite!!
Soyz last almost killed crew....russian junk from P7 (Idea by German bot Korolov)
The shuttle launched from kerbal space center?:D
SPACEX
I Belve that spaces and boing.
Now if you could take NASA, Boeing, SpaceX. And combine them into NBSX, we will have the ultimate Space platform that the world would have seen.
Wow! Atlas and Centaur!! I remember those from my childhood as a space-crazy kid in the '60s. The mention that this would be the first time Atlas carried humans since MA-7 brought a nostalgic tear to my eye.
also like to know this!!
Great video!! Always love your content!!
Rus solo carried the ISS for decades... Now it's time for later players in the game!
Well, least get it off the ground first.
well, the spaceshuttle had 5 orbit capable versions, of which 2 failed... so 40% of the launchers where failiurs...
Great Job Tim!!
those rockets look standard af
dont know why i had to come back here. this is such a well made video :)
1 crude vehicle to 3 crewed vehicles does sound pretty sweet.
Best video for a long time
@Everyday Astronaut So now what? Dragon blew up ;( Spacex have more Dragon's (You were talking about 5 pieces?) so this probably will delay the next crew mission I guess? And does Boeing profit of this set back? Bummer!
Maybe we need to build modules for China so we can hitchhike with them to ISS
Techically they had 6 Enterprise was never space worthy unlike discovery colombia atlantis challenger and endeavour
nice heterochromia
Elon Musk is today what Christmas Columbus was in the past- explorer, but as Henry Ford he seeks to build cheaper rockets like Henry Fords Model T cars. Elon has three key ingredients vision, passion, and entrepreneurship-ROCKET MAN!
Tim, you are my inspiration. i want to be just like you when i grow up
As always great video! But... about the cost of a Shuttle seat... As per NASA, a Shuttle launch is about $450m. So even without subtracting payload cost, a seat would be about $64m.
There’s many many different quotes on the launch cost. When you consider the program cost at whole, it boils down to 196 billion (program cost) divided by 135 launches = 1.4 billion per launch
I just stumbled across this. I had no idea. This new era is is incredible and frankly i am completely baffled.
i would want to reuse the capsule for personal purposes after it completed its 10 cycles in space travel, thank you
8 year monopoly due to Obama's 8 year presidency. He will forever be remembered as the Man who klled NASA. HERE IS A LINK TO PROVE EVERYTHING WAS CANCELLED FROM 2008 ON WHEN HE WAS PRESIDENT. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_NASA_cancellations
Actually the shuttle program was cancelled by George Bush. Besides cancelling the shuttle program was a really good call, focusing on private companies was a great way to make Spacex excel.
Just looking for Matt Lowne in the comments
It kinda sucks that the Dragon won't land on land. Propulsively landing back at a space centre would be awesome.
You explain thing really well and in a fun way, thank you for your hard work! :)
Tim I got a question for you. Why is the countdown for rocket launches a counted a t- 10 seconds.
Amazing, what's coming, eh?! Awesome! Thanks for covering!
Ha, "rut" cause is 100 percent Iowa accent.
A "Rapid Unscheduled Disassembly!!" Wow!!
Hmm, a common sight in Kerbal Space Program, quite an amazing game. I would love to see these new rockets in that game.
Eh, it's kind of sad that nobody is even looking at perfecting Space Shuttle concept. Soviet Buran was already a much more refined spacecraft with safety being taken care off and that was 30 years ago...What are they going to build the new station with?
Pizza time
+Galaxy Guy no problem
+Cyanide 142 That's the answer which I was looking for. Thank you buddy
+Galaxy Guy time going down (minus) until launched time
+Cyanide 142 why the *t-* is being called out instead of just the number?
I'm not Tim but I can answer, It's started at 10 because that's how long most rocket engines take to ignite
Why dosen’t the dragon touchdown on land, that would allow them to reuse them for crew
NASA didn't approve using Super Dracos enginess for touchdown breaking.
I remembered that the united luanch allience proposed the dream chaser but its been some time since we heard of the dream chaser. I wonder what happened to it and i don't know if it got cancled or still being built.
It was Sierra Nevada and they won several flights for cargo transport to ISS. They will use unmaned version of dream chaser. Sierra regualry posts info about work progress on Dream Chaser + they still work on maned version.
Great job, Tim Dodd. Just discovered your videos today and have already enjoyed watching two of them. Keep 'em coming!
+Wojtek Sykurski yeah, I think you are right, Falcon Heavy already as a concept looks like Energia 2 (they, had a bigger rocket called Vulcan with reusability in plans). Although a crew ship with built-in modification for the crew to go into open space and something like the ISS's canarm would help.
+Vasiliy Nechepurenko Mayby this would be sollution: - launch components to LEO/LMO on heavy lift rockets (FH, Energia, DH) - perform auto docking on most of modules - send humans to perform final tasks on Soyuz/Dragon/Orion/DC
+Wojtek Sykurski well its not going to cut it. To build something in space (and fix it when something goes wrong) you need a big cargo compartment like Shuttle and Buran had. Dream Chaser is based on American HL-20 and Soviet Bor-4 experimental designs that were used in development programs of Shuttle and Buran respectively.
Take a look at Sierra Nevada Dream Chaser. They won contract for several cargo missions to ISS.
dragon & starliner should have factor of safety 8.Otherwise it may explode.
But they all get the job done
Wojtek Sykurski nonono, Im talking about landing with parachutes on land
+Wojtek Sykurski oh well, a working VASMIR would solve so many things, lets hope we see one working one day.
+Vasiliy Nechepurenko the best thing would be a "cycler" with VASMIR engine - ser it on LEO for maintanence + 0g work, set it in unmaned mode to LMO, then send the crew by Orion/Dragon/Federation (faster trip for Van Allen radiatio exposure). Or - add heavy shielding + suplies and send it with crew to Mars.
where can I get those mars and earth glass balls that are behind you?
Such a shame NASA never made Space Shuttle 2.0, with the greatest repsect all the new systems look like somthing from the 1960's... But then there is reaction engines here in the UK maybe they are the future? Great video btw, very much enjoyed. Please keep them comming.
Rapid unscheduled disassembly
I love the names Space X comes up for their rockets, recovery ships, components etc....
Dexter isnt an arm, its a tool the canadaarm uses, you probably mean kibo’s arm
Why did the crew dragon 2 dich fairings?
Boeing or Space X?
Great video, how long did it take to produce?
Asterisk. Not asterick.
Confused How SpaceX putting a Everyday Astronaut sticker at their laptop....
Awesome and entertaining presentation ...thumbs up ...keep it going !
Space-X is Avant Garde, Boeing is Modern Conservative and Soyuz belongs to yesterday.
Still can't launch crew, can you?
Great videos. What does NAZA do with 56 Million dollar a day budget? I mean Russia sends them to space? 56 Million a day budget, what do they do with all the money? What do they have to show us, tax payers? Thank you.
NASA does far, far more than human spaceflight. Operating more rovers and probes than every other country combined, for example.
To be honestly I thought you're Wil Wheaton
that title is a good joke dude.
wat
+Cyanide 142 Rocket engines do not take 10 seconds to ignite. That's slower than any modern engine, at any rate.
If this is the best tehc they have since the moon landing then I am sure they never went to the moon.
So impressed with your information regarding the new age of spacecraft development. All in one place, and alot to take in but explained for the layperson. Thank you and im a new subscriber.
I understand why they have chosen to go with the splashdown instead of the fully Superdraco landing for the Dragon 2, but I can't get why they have completely excluded the landing on the ground using parachutes and the Superdraco only for the soft landing. Soyuz have used this system for ages.
33 launches to put the ISS together? the most amazing feat of man kind, and not one real time video of this super doper feat assembly, only cartoons, so whats up with that? NASA such liars
+Ambient Morality oh well I'm no expert, just what I thought happened
Iss is I a joke. Astronauts, wasted on minutia. 50 plus years "studying" the effects of space on man and staring at Earth. It has not contributed a drop in the ocean on bettering humankinds condition on Earth. Where's the money really going?
Fantastic video. I would be interested to know why the return vehicle can only be used ten times or so. Is it due to so much damage per flight, or what wears out ?,etc. Why not just replace the certain parts and keep reusing it ?. Again, I'm just curious. The shuttle was used many many times
space shuttle is truly awesome! space x and boeing is not even close. now nasa must be doing their math.
Russia it has been fun but it's time for us to move on, nothing personal!
The world must keep Israel from going into space.
Excellent
Wouldn’t the zip line still hurt the crew members in the case of an explosion due to the loud noise.
No talk of Orion?
Not going to the ISS
24:26 are these sizes to scale? If so, than, THE SPACE SHUTTLE’S SRB’s ARE MASSIVE!
I'm telling you they should have called the dragon the millennium.
Where did you get the information about the Centaur upper stage having two flight computers? Shouldn't flight-critical components have at least triple redundancy? Otherwise you can't tell which flight computer is producing correct information until a human intervenes. Or do the flight computers themselves already have this redundancy?
Great Video mate, Good job.
is it because it blew up
Human spaceflight since Apollo has been a complete waste. All we have learned is that the human body begins to deteriorate rapidly after about a year, which means colonization of space independent of the Earth is impossible.
Atlas V with that 100% reliability
if you count partial failures the shuttle is by far the most dangerous
Soyuz. Because over 1,000 launches. It's had more diagnostics done than anything flying. Every single component has been tried and tested again and again and again. It's a known quantity, and when you are putting people into orbit, it's reliability and predictability that matters. It doesn't need to be sexy or dramatic, because it's only shuttling back and forth to the ISS. For longer missions, the Starliner CST.
You bring a whole new meaning to the book in the Bible called "ACTS"
do you have heterochromia?
Well for starters one leaks hydrazine fuel out of its abort motors, the other explodes when it’s abort motors are readied for test firing. Both are definitely coming up short in that department.
Super Job as always.
An excellent video Tim, lots of great content, you are a Black Hole of knowledge. Superb video! Cheers from Bill
Did you watch the Avengers end game? Then you should saw the engine used by tue Guardian of the galaxy space ship... Why do the fire changed its color when it gets out side the Atmosphere?
Boeing? More like Boing
Typical NASA, nothing but bureaucracy and politics. We need to just go ahead and defund them already. SpaceX can do it better, faster and cheaper.
This is man made climate change !
Tell me one thing, do You like to live with fairy tales all Your life, or are You once and for all start to think logic and discover all NASA lies?
Has anyone noticed that his left eye is darker than the other ?!
"Boy oh Boy", there's the question. The space station has components that are 21 years old now. We don't seem to be working towards any ability to maintain, upgrade or replace worn out parts. The shuttle was an amazing vehicle with, admittedly problems caused by politicians cutting budgets to give OUR money to their donors. Problems that ended up costing us even more money AND LIVES. But we worked with the world, we built a stepping stone. How sad that we were able to go to the moon in only 7 years with a year and half off because of a catastrophe. We had no idea at the time how to do it, but they did it. Today we can't even get a man 150 miles up into space for a one round trip around the earth. My PARENTS went to the moon, while my and YOUR generation can't even get our a$$ off of the ground. But still we NEED to transfer even more of the wealth we produce to the top .01% of the wealthiest among us?
Wow! Your videos are blowing my mind and have reignited a passion for space. It’s hard to find in depth videos of such quality. I appreciate the amazing work you put into the videos. You have my sub and I’m heading over to your website and Patreon.
24:55 Tim trying to protect the shuttles reputation...
An excellent video Tim, lots of great content, you have superb knowledge. Thanks for sharing your knowledge.
This is a cat
Spacex is so far ahead of ULA.
Thanks Tim.
ISS would NEVER have been built without it so shut up you ignorant fool.
Can I just say as much as I love SpaceX and futuristic use of technology, theres something about apollo style capsules with physical buttons and switches that I really like.
Dream Chaser.... bring it on!
Is it the contact lens or your eyes are different in colour ?
Nope, I’ve just got two different colored eyes!
Good video!
Will the starliner have MCAS?
So Boeing went with the Boeing owned launcher? Shocking! :)
The Superdraco Abort Motors is why humans will never be placed inside this capsule. A monumental mistake that could be quickly overcome by removing the motors and rigging on the nose a tried and true abort rocket and landing in the water. But that's a whole lot of crow to eat. Blue Origins capsule will never fly humans either for much the same reasons.
+Appable oh well I'm no expert, just what I thought happened
Quick question: when was the shuttle's external tank loaded with fuel? I thought they were continually loading that up until a few minutes before launch.
Hydrogen and LOX. And yes they did have to continually press it for flight
My only question is that you said ’parents’ so you mean your mother and father went to the moon however there is no record of a female astronaut of the moon.
@Wojtek Sykurski oh well, a working VASMIR would solve so many things, lets hope we see one working one day.
@Vasiliy Nechepurenko the best thing would be a "cycler" with VASMIR engine - ser it on LEO for maintanence + 0g work, set it in unmaned mode to LMO, then send the crew by Orion/Dragon/Federation (faster trip for Van Allen radiatio exposure). Or - add heavy shielding + suplies and send it with crew to Mars.
@Wojtek Sykurski yeah, I think you are right, Falcon Heavy already as a concept looks like Energia 2 (they, had a bigger rocket called Vulcan with reusability in plans). Although a crew ship with built-in modification for the crew to go into open space and something like the ISS's canarm would help.
@Vasiliy Nechepurenko Mayby this would be sollution: - launch components to LEO/LMO on heavy lift rockets (FH, Energia, DH) - perform auto docking on most of modules - send humans to perform final tasks on Soyuz/Dragon/Orion/DC
@Wojtek Sykurski well its not going to cut it. To build something in space (and fix it when something goes wrong) you need a big cargo compartment like Shuttle and Buran had. Dream Chaser is based on American HL-20 and Soviet Bor-4 experimental designs that were used in development programs of Shuttle and Buran respectively.
@Appable oh well I'm no expert, just what I thought happened
@Cyanide 142 Rocket engines do not take 10 seconds to ignite. That's slower than any modern engine, at any rate.
@Galaxy Guy no problem
@Cyanide 142 That's the answer which I was looking for. Thank you buddy
@Galaxy Guy time going down (minus) until launched time
@Cyanide 142 why the *t-* is being called out instead of just the number?
Early shuttle missions had ejection seats but they'd been removed by the Challenger Tragedy.
Really disappointed about the Dragon not being reusable for crews. The space shuttle is still king of reliability and reusability.
NASA just hates SpaceX because they make them feel old and look stupid. Both of which they are.
you its astonault?
The next piece of news concerning US flights to the space station will be that one of them has crashed into it. Just wait.
As cool as all this is...its like we have taken a massive step backwards in technology. You look at what the shuttle was capable of and what the "new" capsules can do and there really is not even the remotest fair comparison. The shuttle just outclassed all these by leaps and bounds. Even the cost per seat was lower once cargo is taken into account. The boeing vehicle is basically an Apollo capsule design wise and the dragon looks cool but its just a pod with people in. The Soyuz is old old but reliable tech. Then there's the shuttle. I cant help but think if we had a shuttle and the brains behind spaceX and Boeing tweaking it, we would have a vastly more capable launch vehicle than these glorified tin cans. The Shuttle was and still is far far in advance of what we have today.
Boeing will use the same engineers that gave us the 787. HILARIOUS.
Hey the 787 is an amazing machine. 737 max may not be the greatest thing ever... but that’s a pretty big stretch there to equate the two
an ice cream cone is all boieng could build 60 years lateR?
Soyuz going strong for 50 years....would charge the americans an arm and a leg per trip. America: sanctions Russia. Russia: still ferrys their bitches to and from. if not for Russia them astronauts on iss be dead when SS program retired.
Talk about a waste of taxpayers money.
I still don't know why the slow start is not done by a fan platform.
could help clear runways couldn't it.
After the siege of Berlin, it's about time NASA got off their checkbooks and ensured there was a non-Russian way to airlift astronauts and supplies to the ISS.
what monopoly nobody force merican to fly with a sojus rocket
Love you and your videos. Well done and congrats on your massive efforts. For you own good, I suggest, much less or none of just your face talking to the camera.
It becomes nearly impossible to find content for an entire 30 minute video. My face is the last resort these days.
I think the Atlas V should have had an asterisk by it's 100% reliability due to AV-009, which had a premature shutdown of it's centaur stage. The spacecraft still managed to get to orbit under their own power, but that still constitutes a partial failure of the launch vehicle, so even though you discounted partial failures, that's a pretty big one to overlook. Sure, it's not as dramatic as the two Falcon 9 failures nor the FG failure -- hence why I'd say an asterisk as opposed to an outright failure -- but it would still likely mean the crewed capsule would not reach the station.
What a joke
Um so if these space vehicles may use an abort system I was wondering if they get a waiver when they fly over Alabama.
two eyes different eye colors ...
That was a great video! Thank you for putting in all the effort and time into bringing it to us. Greetings from Arizona.
leteci tanjir but NASA wants Americans in space so they have to use the Soyuz for now
Because of You and your channel and Adam Harrington and Learn Your Land, I am so glad I have learned how to use YouTube. So now I have to figure this Patreon thing out...im not rich but i feel an obligation to pay for my schooling.
Honestly, the shuttle is not really comparable, as you said yourself. The best comparable NASA platform for this is the Apollo unit. But otherwise cool.
Great coverage as always! Thank You Very Much!!
Love your videos, and can you not use txt message sounds to indicate rocket features? it is really distracting.
I just realized Tim has differently colored eyes. interesting it took me several hours worth of these videos to figure that out
Ya! Dragon has my vote for sexy. Both will work though.
wow ! very clearness
Boeing?? Ha ha hahahahaha. They make planes that crash.
The supperdraco never failed before the testing and NASA seems confident that space x can resolved what ever cause the critical failure if the failure was not cause by salt water And integrated abort system is usefull trough out the flight Specialy when you can throttle it allowing the space craft some margin or emergency orbital adjustment, remember that the dragon was at first meant to fly on the falcon heavy to reach the moon. At the end of the day they could just replace it woth solid rocket boosters or less volatile fuels
Thanks for this amazing video! ✌
The Boeing seems to be status quo. It doesn’t seem to improve on the Apollo systems.
Would have been nice to see the long march 2F compared.
What are these planets that stand at the model Saturn 5?
The SpaceX capsule is (duh) a Tesla, The Boeing capsule is a Cadillac, The Space Shuttle is a Ford pickup truck The Soyuz is a VW Beetle
Mobol access arm?
Who else get a master class add the rocket equation every time they watch the every day astronaut
you forgot japanes cargo ship! 5:28
I'm not sure I like the fact that the astronauts compared the interior of the Dragon to flying an Ipad. they're nice, but I sure as hell wouldn't want my life depending on one.
22:41, don't you mean sls :P
Can we get our buttons back, I like buttons.
Great job, thank you.
I think the comparison would be more of SpaceX = Space Tesla Starliner = Space Van (boring, but gets the job done) Space Shuttle = Space Semi (huge and roomy and can haul a lot) Soyuz = Space Lada (tiny and Russian)
VERY GOOD MAN.
I wish I could like this this video indefinetly .
Perhaps it may have made more sense to have the Apollo Saturn 1b stack instead of the space shuttle orbiter?
@Everyday Astronaut That's fair, but I was thinking that the Apollo/Saturn 1b stack would be comparable enough thanks to being what ferried astronauts to SkyLab
We only compared vehicles that visit the ISS though for a nice clean apples to apples, despite the Shuttle being so far out there
If you are NASA and you are signing a contract t SpaceX who hasn't "earned trust" yet. You don't give them a smaller paycheck and say "take less money than the other guy but don't fail". The less money seems like its counter-productive.
I am 12 and yet I'm interested in rockets and stuff like this. Anyone else my age would find this very boring.
There is a huge difference between SpaceX and Boeing. SpaceX is in the industry to outcompete everyone else and monopolize space. Boeing is in it for the government grants to do nothing.
Hey Tim, The Space Shuttle didn't have a mechanical abort system, but it did have an RTLS abort procedure, and an abort procedure where it landed somewhere across the Atlantic Ocean. Maybe this would be a good topic for a new video.
Does anyone know if Russian Cosmonauts will fly on Dragon and Starliner? Or will they only fly on Soyuz and American/US Partner astronauts will only fly American spacecraft? Maybe he answered this in the video, but I missed it if he did.
The Shuttle would have remained viable if the bureaucracy at NASA had been less intransigent towards upgraded technology and political expediency and more attentive to its own safety rules and guidelines.
That moment when your symmetry-dependent rocket has a prime number of seats and a crew of four.
I don't care what capsule is used, anything is better than the claustrophobic hell that is the soyuz. Just watch a launch video of it, it looks miserable.
Google search the NASA SLS.
Grrr your eyes are so annoying, I cant focus right
what a fanboy...
i wonder what would 14 dead astronauts of spacious space shuttle say about your opinion.. unfortunately they cant anything, but i bet that NASA's corner-cutting made their families miserable...
Gotta love that arm
How do i stop getting this SpaceX shill videos...every time i click "not interested" they still pop and pop...
Starliner, Dragon, Soyuz: Space Shuttle: I'm about to end this mans' whole career
Nemanja Ignjatović well it is true, but if you can have safety AND comfort that's even better.
Nice! Thank you
Not really but ok
Can you imagine if every day you drove to work and back, you knew the exact chance of survival you’d have?
Just a wonderful and comprehensive video Tim. Loaded with great info, thanks.
Please make a video about the Sojuz, 1028 Missions should provide some nice storys
Well, hopefully before the ISS EOL.
Will we continue to support the Russian space program for supply missions even though we will have our own system? I’d hate to see the Russian Space agency disintegrate as it would be damaging to continued enthusiasm for STEM in that part of the world even though there are other fields I believe our future lays in space and space exploration and different countries are going to have different perspectives and different priorities.
Crew Dragon looks like something that would fit in a Star Trek episode.
I think you have done an excellent job describing the U.S. space flight programs hardware for the near future. It reminds me of my childhood watching the Apollo missions - The excitement and pride of seeing the United States land men on the moon goes beyond words. I think one day, amateur astronomers will be able to use decent telescopes
Ok, so random comment, but i just thought of this: C.R.U.D. Crap, rapid unscheduled disassembly!
It took me longer than I'd like to admit to realize you said "crewed vehicles" not "crude vehicles". I r dum.
Space x was roomy inside.Looked like a living room
4:43 a member of the Fire and Rescue Team, or FART for short
You couldn't be more excited? Wearing rubber underwear?
Crew Dragon was not initially designed for splashdown in a salty ocean, which may be the reason for the explosive anomaly during testing in April 2019.
Superb watch, you gained a new subscriber
x33... nuff said...
Why don't they use the service module or the trunk as heat shields during decent? Since these components are allowed to burn up anyway, why not use them to absorb some re-entry energy and save the capsules some abuse?
reason of failure Cdragon was COPV failure again
The Space X explosion a few weeks back was very worrying. Imagine if that happens anywhere near the ISS
Boeing Already Fight against Airbus, Now, SpaceX. Holy.
KSC *kerBLYAT Space Center*
Boeing. Any software involved with the Boeing rocket?
Still in low earth orbit :( .....do those are capable to get to the moon?...
Wouldn't LM's Orion CM be a better benchmark for comparison than the Shuttle?
We just compared vehicles that (will) visit(ed) the ISS as our level territory. Since Orion or Apollo never visited it, we left those and other vehicles off the table.
I think we all became a bit complacent in regards to the shuttle and what the engineers were asked to create. Think of the extremely limited computer ability, all the politics that surrounded the entire project from those who felt it was a complete waste of money to those who wanted much more all wrangling over every part of it. An everything it was expected to do, and then what they did achieve with it. The Hubble, then repairing the Hubble just to start. The fact that political pressure led to the loss of the first one, and somewhat lack of contingencies led the loss off the second. Maybe this is naive, but I have always wondered why with something like the shuttle they didn't launch a contingency container that carried additional supplies, repair items and perhaps a re-entry capsule so if the shuttle or any other crew carrying vehicle is damaged to the point that it can't reenter safely they have a backup capsule. Then if possible you can repair the craft on a future mission. Or if Its only a possibility of loosing the craft you can remotely reenter it.
CREW DRAGON?! Arrive in a model X? Ha! Nyet! Is leaking Lada and a subcompact Soyuz for you comrade! For the foreseeable future.
Here's an opinion - The price of space launch is going up, not down! Seven flights ($512M (2019$)/flight) of a Space Shuttle (if we dusted one off) could deliver 56 passengers and 112 metric tons of cargo to the ISS for $3.586B. Using 34 SpaceX Falcon9 Dragon ($113M) launches and 9 Crew Dragon ($58M) launches (for example) it would cost $4.977 B to do the same thing. That's 39% more expensive. (BTW, I don't believe in burdening the Space Shuttle economics with the various sunk DDT&E and Facilities costs which the newer systems are now schooling off of, or continuing to make use of.) Can you post a video where this math is done as accurately and fairly as possible? BTW, I think your videos are great!
great video and presentation. Small comment: it ain't new. It is fresher. We still miss real new break through in propultion and energy source. Or is it the same thing?... We should stop splashing around habour and go to the deep see if you know what i mean :-)
I would be on the Soyuz before any of the others
Omg!!! Boeing cant keep regular passenger jets in the air these days!!
another point to consider.. the star liner hasn't done anything yet.. Let wait until it actually flys first before we do any comparing shall we? Nasa is just a governmental outfit.. they don't know what is going on! Solid rocket motors were not the problem.. stupidity and greed where. increased confidence? space x is real .. boeing is still a dream... and there design is the same old that is why it cost more right? NASA save money? that is funny...
I learned a lot about space because of you! Also thanks to you i found out about KSP and i learned a ton about the physics and stuff. Continue to bring space down to earth because normal people might become astronauts.
It would be a real shame if one of the astronauts hit and broke the screen on ascent.
Boeing has proven that it cannot be trusted to do the right thing.
GOOD WE DON'T HAVE TO RELY ON THE RUSKIES TO GET INTO SPACE ANYMORE.
I think it's cool that space agencies have so many options nowadays, so they can really tailor their choice of launch vehicle to fit the particular mission's profiles. Each mission requires a specific booster, pressurized and unpressurized cargo, and payload variant, and soon they'll be at a point wherein they can really, "mix and match," to maximize their productivity and stay as cost-efficient as possible. It's an exciting time to be alive.
Everything seemed so easy when we sent men to the moon 40 years ago. It cannot be so complicated
Water is very important but heavy to get to ISS. Why don't astronauts just go down fetch water from the clouds just like mountain people go fetch water from the river? A bucket and a long rope would do
Has anyone seen a press release about Atlas V being human rated? Seems like that would be a big deal for the manufacturer. Writing this comment mid-July 2019: In April 2019 Boeing announced an August unmanned flight. Any status update on that? Once again, it seems like a press release like "Starliner Stacked on Atlas V, Testing Underway" would have been released by now, assuming an August 31 launch, rate of progress, ...44, 45 days before launch... would've happened by now.
No one says that it is complicated, this is basically a race to the better efficiency between SpaceX and Boeing with new technologies
marc ferraro , you have won a prize for the dumbest comment! You can jump into a pond with stones in your pockets. For free!
what if no shuttle on 1970 alt timeline
Que es lo que los cohetes botan durante el despegue? 9:40 Parece hielo!
SpaceX commercial counted :) But in fact Souyz with MS-13 in it is just reliable and proven. All those fancy designs well are useless
Erm the Soyuz 2 rocket has been flying since 2006. Infact there were 3 upgrades to it since. 2.1a, 2.1b and 2.1v. The next soyuz will be phoenix. But that is a different class.
@Everyday Astronaut speaking of which. You should do an episode about Russian project Fenix. Its very confusing, especially about the soyuz 5 and soyuz 7, which started as both the 5. 7 is methane engine versio, atleast started like that, but its diametar is smaller than the 5. 5 being the central part of the future yenisai super heavy rocket aswell. They seam to overlap in capability. Im not sure even of their status. That d be a really cool episode.
@Everyday Astronaut ok yeah thats true. Although thats to change since fg will retire this year. Or should. Since soyuz 2.1 has ramped up production. Oh btw Soyuz MS can stay docked 210 days in space. I think you were thinking of older models.
Right, but humans still fly on the FB
WHATEVER YOU DO, DON'T INVITE BOEING TO THE PARTY!!
"In the event of a rapid unscheduled dissasembely" Sooo, an explosion?
6:31 thats a spacex quot
The shuttle had escape pods on the first five launches. Shuttle was a compromised designed to attract funding...the whole Orbiter was supposed to be an escape platform originally and it was meant to be much smaller than what the CIA and Air Force required. Talk to any engineer that worked on Apollo and the shuttle program and they will tell you that Apollo was much more of a significant achievement to them personally...there is a reason the SaturnV is on my grandfathers head stone...it was everything good about the ideals of the space program, the shuttle, although impressive, was a compromise in the days after Von Braun.
I know Boeing reputation so I would ask spacex to make my space capsule Sorry Boeing ur recent news had me change my mind.
I have to admit, I like the Crew Dragon over the Starliner. Though I agree, both are desperately needed for our continued access to space. Now, I hope that Boeing does not cut corners with Starliner like their 737 Neo, although I doubt NASA will allow them to do that. May they both be highly successful!
You made a mistake about the shuttle not having a launch about system. The shuttle's launch about was the shuttle itself. In the event of an emergency the shuttle could have been detached from the external tank and glide back to KSC. The procedure was in place during the 1986 Challenger explosion, but there wasn't any prior warning, of the exhaust gas leak that caused the explosion, to execute the manuver. It occurred so suddenly none of the other escape systems would have worked either. If the leak had been detected when it started it would have been a different story.
Not necessarily true. First the quote is “no mechanical abort system” which is true and second the shuttle couldn’t detach until after SRB jettison and even then for a return to launch site landing it had to keep the external tank attached for a while longer.
That's a quick half hour.
Let's get this to a million views!!!!
Actornaut!
The CEO of ULA has talked about playing KSP and seems like a real stellar dude. Elon Musk is someone I admire as well. Boeing is a massive company with a lot of resources and probably has great people working for them. I think private space travel is in good hands so far.
with private companies competing to offer NASA the lowest price, they are gonna save a lot of money. The Soyuz is a great craft but the Russian government charges NASA a lot of money per seat to use it.
When these craft launch Soyuz will be so dated it will be laughable.
16:15 The vertical scale is altitude, but what's the other axis?
I agree. If they can't get their small/mid workhorse people mover to fly every time I couldn't really trust them. Seems like too much politics going on in that company. Spacex is exciting but I wish their CEO came accross a bit more grounded.
that's the joke. It was first tweeted by Elon Musk
So what happens if the airbags on the star liner fail?
you didn't';t mention a 3rd spacecraft under development : The Dream Chaser
All of you fanboys that ar jerking off on space x remember this Ruskosmos is the best in the Rockets industry First man in space first spacewalk first satellite first space station firs nuclear engine and so on, just to remain you 70 million per set in Soyuz one of the best rocket in the world. Space x is far away form sending people in the space.
Is that other one.... the 'Dream Chaser' still being worked on?
" i want my MLTV...." :) What's in the blue ice box? (beer, duh). OMG Tim...there is no "up" or "down" in space. Sigh, i give up. Stopped at 05:38.
Dude, thanks for the amazing effort, It could be even greater of you spoke abit slower, FYI your subscribes are from everywhere , just take a breath
Forget the Space Shuttle.
Great comparison and description i am Space X side
Propably km downrange. It's the usual altitude versus downrange graph for the ascend patterns.
@party4lifedude I think the Kerbal community came up with it first. Uncle Elon made it famous.
when you compare the failure rate of the Falcon 9, you are only comparing the old versions, i believe the Block 5 has a 100% success rate?
Fake space....watch the moon with a telescope on a clear summer night and u see water ripples...
Worship baal and u are hired...
Hi Tim, I've been looking for an answer to this but haven't found one. I'm hoping you know. Will the Starliner have an in-flight abort test like the Dragon?
Nope. They opted to certify through other means, IE more ground tests and certifications.
After Boeing's cluster F*** with the MAX. I'm not too sure I would trust them with space flight.
Wait is the BFR still called bfr or starship I’m confused
What about the Orion command module with it's SLS booster? Or isn't it designed to go to the ISS? Well then I hope the Boeing Starliner wins.
Seems prudent to fund them both. Having 2 different designs with respective strengths and weaknesses is inherently less risky than putting all the space eggs in one basket. After an extended operational period this could be re-evaluated if one program really outdoes the other in safety and cost-savings.
Fabulous video! Very well done Tim. I am a SpaceX fanboy, I love the fact they’re making space travel both cheaper and ever cooler!
Awesome video and production! Thanks very much
Fake space comment by a fake commenter.
@rainbowsixODST What do you mean "When these craft launch"? The Soyuz, both launcher and capsule, are dated now, and were dated 20 years ago. The launcher is a modernized version of the rocket Yuri Gagarin flew on and the capsule is modernized mid to late 60s tech.
Soyuz is a build, launch and throw away system. The Boeing system has some reusablity and Space-X is almost all reusable. Oh and can you say Soyuz T-10a?
4:40 They need a better name than the FaRT.
Hopefully Boeing's software wasn't written by the same guys who did the 737 Max...
@sa di, care to explain how equatorial mount of telescope works? Because i'm 100% sure that you are just some idiot trolling and you never had any telescope in your poor hands;)
you are an imbecile and a troll!
@Thomas Beckham thats a strange way of spelling Daddy
Wtf you are talking about? They got water on ISS thanks to fuel cells that create water when they are used, they then recycle used water so there is no need for much of it to transport.
Indeed, you cannot compare the GEM SRB's to the Shuttle SRB's... well actually you can, quite a lot to talk about there, even though probably the only thing they have in common is the solid nature of their fuel. I mean, the Shuttle SRB's also had thrust vector control - that there sounds crazy to me but it worked. : )
Elon Musk is Thomas Edison drive and Albert Einstein creativity and logic. I applaud his achievements and cheer his optimism. Genius. Really... Genius.
Boeing system problematic. The jettison heat shield has to many moving parts. Air bag could malfunction and breach heat shield integrity. More steps, more glitches. Hope I'm totally wrong.
i just notice the heterochromia... thats cool to have... maybe..
Fascinating video.
I wish they would just get with the propulsive landings already!
Let’s play video games oh the launch is our fun game on IPad who else wanted a HDMI TV that is touch screen 88x100 insainly large.
Can't wait for a comparison between the Shuttle and Starship
A lot of the issues with the MAX started with trying to put larger engines on a plane design that wasn't designed for a newer bigger engine on it. Due to the cost of training pilots for a different aircraft Boeing wanted to make the 737 Max as similar to previous versions of the 737. To counter the design flaw of a plane not being able to have a large sized engine, they thought software would be the way to go, except it wasn't as clearly seen. Had they chosen to not rush the MAX out after Airbus and redesigned the 737 from the start they or conducted better testing with the MCAS they probably wouldn't be in the situation their in right now.
Exactly my thought lol
The competition will also ultimately result in faster advances in rocket technology.
@Andyman Sand and how do you propose to do that when ISS is at 400km altitude and atmosphere ends practically at 100km? Beside taking something from atmosphere bellow would create drag that would lower ISS and eventually it would burn entering denser regions.
@tgstudio85 no, i was just thinking it can be good to go fetch water from the clouds below to have some fresh water every few days
@Andyman Sand they don't have supply everyday you know that? And they have fresh water every day, and your point is?
@tgstudio85 No, but imagine to have fresh water every day
@Everyday Astronaut LOL, for cretins hoaxers all space agencies around world(72 if i remember correctly) are working with NASA to fake everything, and not one person they hire ever said anything about that massive deceive;)
the moment when you don't have an idea that even prime number seats can be distributed symmetrical;)
How is starliner different from 60 years old Russian design?
Space Shuttle was the gold of spaceflight. Unfortunatelly it was too expensive, but we gotta admit we kinda miss the space shuttle...
Boeing? My hope is that they go bankrupt from Max lawsuits & boycotting before they kill any more innocent people over money.
SRB Thrust vectoring is very interesting! It turns out it is actually quite common.
I would have liked to hear about the dream chaser also. How will it compare?
Gabriel Falcão expense didn’t ground it. Age did.
Chris Messenger You probably are because you have no clue.
Chris Messenger says the arm chair engineer.
OK! But then again. Another engineer.
Have absolutely nothing to do with each other they're pretty mich 2 diff companies under the same name
Think Aviation cheap is the problem. It’s not a game.
Yeah but that definition could change with every software upgrade, making the whole thing pointless.
It was my understanding that the Soyuz can go to the moon, but I know the shuttles couldn't. I also understand that at least one of the new things we have in development will be able to take us back to the moon. So will you please compare these again, but throw Saturn V in, including showing the scale (as Saturn V is a very big rocket but has a very small space ship, and the shuttles are very big but have very small rockets in comparison)? And then say some stuff about each one's potential capability to go to the moon (100% for Saturn V; 0% for shuttle, and whatever in-betweens)?
19:13: You could see these other vehicles _anyway._
Haha, those ziplines do look pretty fun! A lot more comfortable than the ones I've gotten mega-wedgies from riding! We used to have a small, harnessless one at my parents' house in Spanish Fork.
LOL, "rapid, unscheduled disassembly"! Uhuh, OK, I see what you did there, hahaha!
Is this better than landing like an airplane because it's an easier type of vehicle that could actually go much farther than LEO, such as landing on the moon again, unlike the shuttles?
Ahh, Dugway, right here in my own state, Utah! Pretty cool! We also made some parts of the rockets for the Space Shuttle Program (at Thiokol)! I live in Orem (just north of Provo).
Try saying "TWENTY-eleven" instead of "two thousand eleven," because it's less syllables; it works just as in previous centuries!
wait are your eyes 2 different colors?!?!?
Petition for Real Astronaut to become the first Dragon rider
I have a feeling NASA really don't like the idea to return hydrazine in a manned capsule with a potential to hard hit. Also even that 7 days duration in space doesn't sound really good. That means after 1-2 missed docking approach crew must abort mission and return to Earth. And of course it doesn't have the propellants needed to change the orbit of the ISS in case of a system failure in the station. Sounds these should be used as emergency evacuation vehicles attached to the ISS with a regular Soyuz taking the astronauts to the station.
Were you born yesterday, @InCrIpTiOn? That _is_ how numbers work if you want them to, "BUDDY." People have been labeling years like that for centuries. Not just years, but some model numbers, such as 1541, 1571, 1581, 1701, 1702, 1802, 1902, 1084, etc.
Hello Kitty Lover Man! That’s not how numbers work buddy. 20 11 =/= 2011
The conical hape of these capsules always turns their bottom towards the shockwave. That means that the capsule has to be shielded mainly near the bottom. However if you would have a service module attached to the bottom, the capsule would likely start to turn around its axes, that means excessive g forces on the pilots, and unpredictable motion, where the capsule's trajectory can be far more steep than expected so it is highly likely that either the capsule would burn in the atmosphere, or the crew would be injured or killed during descent.
Try saying "TWENTY-eleven" instead of "two thousand eleven," because it's less syllables; it works just as has for ages in previous centuries!
VERY informative!!!!
Two words: "Thank you"
I loved the space shuttle! If the Star gizmo and the other things from everyone else can be seen from hundreds of miles off as they go into space, I'm sure I'll love them too. There is nothing like witnessing a launch.
If Nasa was smart they would split the space station into two separate equally weighted modules and spin them like a bola with a 1km tether to get 1g gravity at 1 rpm to generate normal artificial gravity without getting dizzy.
Hi, Canadian here. Our robotic arm is called the Canadarm, not the Canada-Arm. We all cringe when people make this mistake.
What is this guys background and education? NASA needs him on their team sooner than later, his presentations are awesome, keeps my attention and is very / extremely interesting. My background? I am a retired US Military Pilot. Been flying 30+ years officially retired now.
Well another worthy channel! Excellent presentation and diagrams, etc. So based on this, I am a new subscriber! So what happened to the 3rd contender, Sierra Nevada?
Great video. All of your videos are very well produced. I'm curious what software you use for the simple animations (especially the long engines video).
Putting humans in space seems to be a waste of time and money. What do we hope to gain? Wouldn't the money be better spent on atonimous exploration?
Why don’t they repurpose the SpaceShuttle but seal the cargo bay doors and make that all crew quarters for future moon missions and they can Rendezvous with a lunar lander that was pre-launched and they can doc with it in orbit and be on there way !! But obvs have spaceX redesign and remodel the entire shuttle to meet there demands obviously technology and equipment are much lighter and more sophisticated etc and it makes sense Bc we have space shuttles in museums that can be taken back and reused and possibly make one a moon base or a moon space station in orbit of the moon obvs
Fire and Rescue Team? FART?
The shuttle was ahead of its time. Glad I got to witness it during my lifetime.
Man elon musk really hate parachutes
It's a good thing then that he said Canadarm
Soyuz is unbeateable
This video just makes me appreciate Space Shuttle way more. Wow it was more advanced then anything SpaceX has. Why not revive that thing ?
increíble vídeos, 30 minutos fueron para mi una clase magistral de ciencia y tecnología, gracias por este tremendo trabajo !!
I want one.
Interesting that space transport can be done better and cheaper by private companies but politicians keep pushing socialism (government run companies).
Those seats look really uncomfortable and dangerous when it comes to hard shocks
1:35 are your eyes different colors? Sorry still drunk from last night
Don't be fool. You will need "Soyuz" many many years in future.
@Happy Fox Eh,I I wouldn't say that the Shuttle almost killed the space program because it did no such thing and didn't even come close to that. What it WAS was an experimental spacecraft and the side-saddle idea was just hideous in its lack of safety. The one time NASA got careless and didn't listen to the engineers, 7 people died on launch in Challenger. Columbia was just waiting to happen one day and once that happened it was too late to do anything for the crew but hope - and hope ran out. Crew vehicles should ALWAYS be top o' the stack for the obvious safety reasons. That's why the Shuttle should have been like the Dreamchaser and material launched on a separate vehicle. The arm would still be used to grapple the satellite to be worked on and it would be a safe vehicle for crew transportation. Putting people on the side of a cryogenic fuel tank is just ludicrous. And, frankly, Challenger should have been ATS the moment that SRB dropped thrust so much that the SMEs were gimballed almost to the max to correct. Aborts are a lot less expensive than booms.
not really, it's way over complicated and the way that it was designed should have just been a satellite system or used for major missions that required large cargo space to actually get up there, the space shuttle for anything more than an orbiter is useless, it can't land on mars, it can't land on the moon, it can't land on any other planet except earth, it can dock but everything else can dock as well. The time that it takes to service it is months, the cost of it is horrendous, it's essentially the single item that killed NASA's dream of having a space port that they solely use, now they have to lease it out to services like SpaceX and before that pay the Russians to get them into space. Your space shuttle almost killed the space program.
@EinkOLED if so, I think its hilarious. I'll be building my own space station soon using my new centrifugal propulsion design. Mine will have significantly higher stress handling capabilities.
@United Space Pirates Also, the ISS was never designed to work in 1 G, it is a long thin flimsy space station designed to work in microgravity. On earth it would break apart under its own weight.
@United Space Pirates I learned, you can never convince stupid people. Why don't you admit you were wrong?
@EinkOLED Nevermind, we are experiencing a lack of communication. I learned never argue with the ignorant, they'll try to drag you their level and beat you with experience.
@United Space Pirates If you spin the iss, the then centrifugal force will exert outwards from the centre of the spinning axis. So all the astronauts and loose objects will push towards the edge of the space station, like spinning a ball on a string. If the ISS is the string, then the G force will be lateral and a force exerted towards the Ball. That's why a cylinder spaceship is required to simulate artificial gravity. Maybe you should learn basic physics than lecturing me on basic math. And I said before, the experiments conducted on ISS requires microgravity, otherwise the experiments they conduct on a spinning CIRCULAR space station could have been conducted on earth. And as I said before, the ISS was designed to work in microgravity, the solar panels and structure of the ISS will probably fail if a 1 G force is exerted on them.
@EinkOLED the extreme health effects of zero G on the crew of the space station shows how nessesary having normal gravity is. Even a few weeks of zero G has some very painful side effects. The originally built the iss in 1G, it should be able to hold together if a couple parts were spun up to 1G. You are wrong about needing to be round. G force doesn't matter on the shape of vessel. Do some math.
Part of the experiments onboard require 0 G, otherwise what's the point in going to the ISS? Also the ISS will break apart if force is exerted onto the delicate structure and the outer part will break away, and it needs to be round so that the G force generated by centrifugal force is uniform. Also the solar panels need to constantly exposed to the sun, and having 0 G allows easy storage on all 4 walls of the iss and is easier for the crew to float around and transport heavy objects. The only negative affect for the crew of having 0 G on the ISS is muscle and bone loss due to having no gravity exerting down on their body, so regular exercise is required. And eating, drinking and showering, using the toilet is tricky too. The only benefits for this artificial gravity is for long distant missions, such as mars. Also, gravity is still present on the iss due to its proximity to earth. Because the ISS it is in earth orbit, they're essentially in free fall without actually hitting the earth. The same effect when a plane does a parabolic dive, which is used to train astronauts, or during free fall inside a closed box.
Space X makes boeing look like a **** **** ****. To be honest I couldn't really find the words for it, but u know what I am getting at.
oh jeah 33 flunches into orbit.6 Astronauts onboard send up in 3 groups...666 we know it.We will try to catch you all!.Stupid idiots.
"Is finaly coming to an end"?! Is it so bad that russia is transporting astronauts to the iss
Sound similar to soyuz .
Fire And Rescue Team. The 10 year old I'm me is happy
Excellent presentation
As far as I know space shuttle is not quite safe and it's very expensive to operate and it's not fully reusable.
Not that those will apply during our mortal lives, @Oscar, but those will likely be shortened to "twenty-one hundred" and "two-oh-one hundred."
What about the years 2100 and 20100?
That spaceX disaster is a murder machine in the making. Nothing but LCD touchscreen displays inside for your controls? THAT IS INSANE. Electronics fail greater than any other part in modern systems and this joke of a company is relying 100% on a single point of failure with these panels? There's a reason why the US Navy doesn't allow ANY digital or electronic equipment on any of it's nuclear reactors in it's ships, even to this day. You cannot trust any of it when lives are at stake. This is especially true in warships, and the same parallel can be made to space faring vessels carrying human occupants. The MOST advanced piece of electronics you can find in a reactor plant is a plasma display readout of some of the numbers and the BFPL curve data, but that is to be as an aid and a visual guide, it is never to be taken as factual information when operating the actual propulsion plants is concerned. Just think about that. We don't allow these displays or any kind of modern electronics to run our nuclear powered ships, because they are completely unreliable, and here this company is making it's death trap 100% out of this garbage. Touch screens no less. Really I cannot believe that each and every person at SpacEX who had a say so in the decision making process chose to completely ignore safety and all statistical data on how unreliable the interface of their craft is when they were designing it. You are basically throwing people into a can.
"worth while"???? 12:47
flight abort motors seem to unused delta vee once the max abort height is reached
Love your channel - Probably the best channel on space and SpaceX - I want MORE... More of your amazing content... Thanks for what you do.
I love how the Space shuttle is just called “Space Shuttle”
This is SUCH an awesome channel, I think the only thing limiting a broader audience are the lengths of the videos. But I can't complain about that because his discussions are always so exhaustive and must require so many hours of research and work.
I've watched so many if your videos but just now realized you have one black and one green eye
Between you and CloudLicker I fully have space covered! Thank you to the both of you for your great coverage. Hats Off!!!
At 11:44, what's that HUGE gash in the recovered capsule? I dont recall there haven been a story about a failed. test.
Imagine a reality where the US designed the shuttles to be stations instead and kept the apollo program alive
Lets just say that space x is the coolest and the best
Elon should give rewards to his fans, you are the best so detailed and useful infos
Thanks Tim! I always feel I learned some think from your show. Always well presented with excellent flow. Thank you! And you get tours of the best cockpits...
Also it's puzzling that both new vehicles appear to take their service modules with them on abort, which seems odd.
Fire And Rescue Team, huh? Imagine the patch on /their/ coveralls.
Actually, the official name is the Space Transportation System or STS, the Space Shuttle is a nickname.
Perfect parody. Trouble is, there are some morons that believe this piffle.
Alien dna
AWESOME AND EDUCATING AS WELL AS ENTERTAINING!
havig'sng been 10yrs old when NASA put Apollo 11 on the moon and my being a space geek as a child I grew up with an eye toward spaceflight. Then, after Apollo 17, everything seemed to just STOP with the exception of Skylab. I am so excited about NASA's plans with Space X and Boing's Starliner except the launch dates for human spaceflight keeps getting pushed back. I believe we were originally told 2017 and are now in 2019 I find myself anxiously waiting for 2024. I can't wait to see the US back on the moon with manned moon base as we prepare to launch from the moon to take us to Mars. It's an exciting time for space geeks to be alive as long as there are no further delays. I'm 60 now and I want to be around for the next chapter in Lunar space flight!!!
Woah I just noticed your eyes are different colors. That’s really cool
Makes me sick. Homeless people and this huge waste of money! What has the ISS done for you? What has Nasa done for you? What, Some pics? Thats it! Are they real? You don't know. Seems fake to me. But that doesn't matter. People are more important don't you think? They should be!
Space X son!!!! Represemt. But their compition will make them better.
Keep up the good work. Thank you.
Ya well spaceX delayed their test to September. So Boeing will probably be the first company to put a human in space
Well done. Clearer explains a complicated subject, and looks good doing it.
Awesome job!!
Can we all just chip in a few bucks and send this guy to space?
Man, the starliner on atlas is U G L Y