Starship Flight 14 and beyond

[music] >> Now, I don't know about you, but flight 13 looked like an absolutely epic success to me. [music] Assuming SpaceX continues engineering wins on the Starship platform, I kind of wanted to ask >> [music] >> what do we think flight 14 will look like? Is it time for Starship to begin its initial operations, or do we still have a couple of test flights left? [music] Buckle up. Put your tray tables in their upright and locked position because Project Tomorrow Orbit 18 episode 22 is now departing. >> [music] >> So, I know we were off for like the last 2 weeks, and what a perfect timing, right? As flight 13 happens, and then immediately we go off the air and for for 2 weeks straight. But, let's take a moment. Let's not cover all of the things you guys already know, right? Like you you everyone already knows most of what happened on flight 13. I Let's start with this. Flight 13 looked to be a really great success, at least in my eyes. We'll bring it over to the round table. Now that flight 13 is out of the way, what do we expect flight 14 to look like? Do What do we What do you think's going to happen there? What do you think's going to happen there? Dave, I'll I'll throw it to you first. >> Uh well, if we believe everything SpaceX has said, we're going to go for a ship catch. We're going to go orbital. We're going to launch at least 20 production two orbit Starlink reals V3s and put them into the network. Uh all sorts of stuff is happening. >> Well, I hang on. I I thought it wasn't hey, we're definitely going to do a ship catch. It was wasn't Elon a little more Didn't he give himself a little bit of wiggle room on that? >> Well, it's as if we look good, we'll try to catch the ship. So, that means if they make it to orbit and the orbit okay, they'll probably try to catch it. >> Ryan, what do you think? >> Given that they said they've landed all the previous Starships in the Indian Ocean within a very tight box. >> That sounds like an aspirational target that the engineering team found out real time. >> [laughter] >> Um, I think they've been tooling to it. >> That happens a lot, Dada. >> [laughter] >> There were There were so many events >> constantly. >> Yeah, there were so many events that I found out Elon would be like, "Oh, we're going to do a you know, a a Starship unveil event, you know, next Thursday." I'm like, "We are?" >> [laughter] >> I'm glad I know. Let me go start running that event. Um, that absolutely >> He's not the only CEO that does that, by the way, but yeah, that's that that is what it is. >> Are you saying you have stories you can't tell, Dada? >> I do. >> [laughter] >> I think we all do. Uh, Ryan, what do you think? You think they're going to catch Ship 14? What What do you think is going to happen on Flight 14? >> Well, I don't think they're going to catch Ship 14. I think that's long gone. Um, but I think the ship [laughter] You got the numbers in the wrong order. Forgive me, the ice cream van is literally driving past as soon as you throw to me, so I apologize if you can hear that, but I do think Ship 41 has a good chance uh, four then one, not one then four, of uh, coming back to Starbase for a catch. Whether they pull it off or not, I mean, who knows, but before uh, Flight 5, which is when they caught the first Super Heavy Booster, Bill Gerstenmaier said that they landed the booster with centimeter accuracy, and Elon said a very similar thing after Ship 40 landed in the Indian Ocean. He said that if this had been like it was precise enough that it could have come back uh, to the tower uh, for a catch. Of course, there's other things that have to happen ground side for a catch to happen, but you know, the precision of the landing of Ship 40 on this previous flight was good enough for a catch. So, that's very promising, and there is no reason I can see why can't go to orbit. You know, they have demonstrated that Raptor works in space. They've demonstrated that they can come home safely. Those are the things you need to do to prove not only to the regulatory authorities, but also to the general public we're not going to be, you know, doing something dangerous here. They have a vehicle which works in terms of delivering stuff to its destination. Booster needs a little bit more work, but in terms of the ship, I mean, that's pretty much good to go as far as I can see. So, I think there is a if the data agrees with the visual things that we've seen from all of the footage that's been released, I think a ship catches a ship catch attempt, I will specify, is looking pretty good for the next flight. >> It's kind of a big deal, right? Because right now the ship is, you know, basically staying over ocean at all times. But in order to catch the ship, it's going to have to fly over US population, is it not? Like this is a you can't detonate I'm excellent. Yeah, well, you're you're flying over population. It doesn't have to be US. It doesn't matter. You're flying over humans as opposed to what they have been doing up until now is really not flying over humans. Like they've been purposely not doing that. And and you you mentioned, you know, they've kind of proven that it's safe. Have they proven enough that it is safe? Have they proven enough that this thing's not going to just break up on re-entry? They got one They got a They got a handful that are really good, but like do they have enough data, do we think? >> I think they have plenty of data. I mean, they're doing this thing that with Starship, they're doing this on the bounce uh with the upper stage. I think, you know, V1 was a very linear path of of success. V2 was unfortunate for the ship, and I think SpaceX lost their way a little bit in 2025. V2 is not going to be an era of Starship which SpaceX are going to look back on favorably, but it did give them a lot of lessons which is that, you know, you can't take things for granted. And, you know, they dropped the ball again bit with the with the V2 program. But, V3, I mean, they knocked this thing straight out the gate with ship. Uh the very first ship that they flew in V3, um the very first ship that they built in three V3, they got it to the Indian Ocean with a beautiful heat shield, and they just did it again on flight 14. And, you know, that heat shield look I uh maybe I didn't see something, but that heat shield was like 99% looking good. Uh the only big visible uh tile losses were around the aft end, uh which uh we believe was caused by staging, not by entry itself. So, if anything, staging needs to be looked at, not re-entry. I mean, they've got a pretty reliable system given they've got a numerous ships now on target to the Indian Ocean across V1, V2, and V3. >> It is I didn't grab any of the B-roll, but it is pretty cool. If you go on X and you you look at SpaceX's account, looking at the footage of them effectively towing back uh towing back the ship to I think it's going to Australia. And like, kind of struggling to tow the ship back to Australia. I don't think I'm not sure anyone expected it to survive. I remember watching the live stream, and it you know, it lands and tips over, and I'm waiting for it to explode, and it just kind of bobs in the ocean, and you're like, wait, what? And you could kind of even hear it in his voice. He's like, uh uh uh uh uh I guess we caught like, it didn't blow up. >> [laughter] >> Yeah. >> Well, I I understand that I understand that yeah, that one of the Starship guys was immediately packing a bag and on an airplane to Australia within moments of that because they had to put together a whole rescue effort with no plan to have other rescue ships going out to join their their on-site crew, which couldn't tow it if they wanted to. >> And I even said on the NSF stream, if you're listening to that, I said, as the ship was tipping over, queue explosion, and then nothing happened. It didn't explode, and we were our minds were just utterly blown that that thing survived the tip over. And I mean, yeah, even you know, the wording that SpaceX and Elon have put out on Twitter over the last few days seems like towing it back to Australia is really difficult and they're not sure if they'll be able to do it simply because of how the you know, the the tides and waves and how water works and things like that is working kind of against them. But they've got so much imagery and they've clear they've rigged things up to the ship. So they've clearly sent people, you know, physically to the ship to inspect and gather data. And I mean, they've got so much data out of this and you know, on the question earlier like is this reliable enough to come back through? Even if there were things that they were worried about, they'd know actually physically been able to touch a Starship that has gone through re-entry which is going to give them so much more data than than on-board sensors ever could before the ship blew up and kind of destroyed itself. >> Oh, yeah, 100%. >> Do they have to keep it pressurized in order to be able to to not make it float cuz it's just a the sealed vessel but in order to have the rigidity so that it doesn't destroy itself over the waves and stuff? >> Unknown. >> I don't know if anyone knows that. I would have assumed just a little bit I don't know that they need flight pressure but I have to assume some pressure. >> No. Yeah, I mean the big thing is they're trying to tow it rear end first. And the rear end is down a little bit in the water and also at least from the last reports there's pretty severe sea state out there right now. There's a lot of waves breaking. >> That's that's not the hard way to tow it at all. >> Yeah, why are they towing it rear end first? That doesn't make any sense in my brain. >> Because that's where they have anchor points. >> There probably aren't any tow points in the nose. >> There's no there's no big there's no big tow ring up in the nose they can hook onto. >> Huh. Do they need >> There's another question. >> I can't bring it up. Bust some tiles out and weld a ring on there or something, man. Like In the middle of the Indian Ocean? Why with the ship bouncing 10 ft? Yeah. Tech divers, dude. Tech divers. I can't bring up the pictures now, but SpaceX did release imagery looking head-on with the ship and you can see because of the way before if you imagine that this is the ship, right? Before the forward flaps were like this. They they moved them to the steel side to protect them against re-entry because they were getting burn-throughs on the flaps. And when you fold the flaps in like that cuz they're kind of like this, right? And then you fold them in the flaps kind of create a very perpendicular horizontal surface and the flaps would then be dragged through the water this way and I'm not sure if the flaps could physically survive being dragged through the water that way. That would be pushing very hard on the flaps as they kind of yank the ship through the sea. I don't know whether that has anything to do with it, but it was very It surprised me to be perfectly honest with you seeing head-on with the ship laying the on the side that it is laying with those flaps in the sea to then try and pull that. Maybe it's easier for them to pull the other way. I don't know. That's just a guess. >> I mean it's everything I've seen everything I've seen from the marine rescue side is there's just no place to hook in multi-inch diameter steel cables to it other than maybe through the clamp hooks in the aft end which appears to be what they're doing. Actually, I've seen a report they didn't even hook to the ship. They actually surrounded it in in floats and they're towing the floats like a fishing net and the ship is just coming along for the ride. >> There's a really simple solution to this which is just land the ship back on the tower and you're good to go. >> [laughter] >> Flight 14 like yellow, let's go. So first of really quickly from the ground umbilical carrier plate and I love that the ground umbilical carrier plate called out data said data is back. Yay, I've missed you. You [laughter] know what? In after dark we'll tell data's ground umbilical carrier plate story with space shuttle once more for anyone >> The feeling is not mutual. >> [laughter] >> Um great comment from the chat room from Airvel who says for like the past 5 years next year was going to be Starship's year. And I think that's partly my fault. I think I've been the one that's been like it is it's a year away. We're a year away. But I think 2027 is really going to be it which leads me brilliantly into my next question which is you know do we think Starship's about to enter into an operational state? Right now it's an experimental rocket. Um and I'm going to say operational kind of comes in phases, right? You don't go into full operational state. We're kind of maybe like a a minimal or initial operational state just kind of carrying up a handful of Starlink satellites and like successfully doing this over and over and over again. Not a single flight. I know flight 14's planning Starlink, but do we think they're going to start to be able to recur and like do this consistently like an actual operation? Do we do we think that's real at this point? >> This is not the way to go if they're trying that. They need another solution. >> What do you mean? >> Um towing Starships back. >> Oh yeah, their solutions are going to land on the on the tower, right? Like they're they're going to try to bring it back to the >> Water landings are gone. >> But you don't need >> This should be the last ever water water landing. >> In fairness, you don't need to recover for operational to become an operational like there's no stage two recovery for Falcon 9 and it's an operational rocket. You just got to like in your CONOPS be like, all right, we're going to lose the second stage to plan to lose the second stage. Don't put it into your manifest and build another one. Which I make it sound like just build another second stage. But like [laughter] >> It's very simple. >> Just build a Starship. >> It's >> Just build a Starship. >> It's easy. You just hand wave. It's the answer to everything. >> It's fine. But but hang on, but that's what rocket companies do right now, right? Like they just build another second stage. So like do we think that's going to be their CONOPS for the next few flights? Like try to recover them, but like what what do we think is going to What's this look like here? What are we doing here? >> They're going to go and try and recover them. I mean, they have to. I mean, you can't You can't build a rapidly and fully reusable super heavy lift launch system, which Starship is designed to be, if you're suddenly going to turn around "We'll just throw them away. Who cares?" Like, that's not the point. The point is that it's a fully recoverable launch vehicle, and when you decide to start expending things, it's no longer a fully recoverable launch vehicle. In my opinion, I the ship is ready for operations. The booster, on the other hand, is still going to be in a test flight phase. So, I think we're going to see some kind of hybrid flights, where the booster is still in testing and the ship is operational. The booster has proven twice the new Super Heavy V3 that it can deliver the ship to hot staging, but it has had two troubled flights. Like, after hot staging, it's completely on the first flight, that boost back burn was a boost back burned. It didn't do anything, and then it it it impacted the water at supersonic speeds. That was not a good flight for Super Heavy. But, the second flight of Super Heavy V3, they did get the boost back burn underway with 33 engines, but again, it ended early, and they had an unsuccessful landing burn. So, the booster has still got some stacks they need to work out. But, in terms for the upper stage, ship hasn't done anything wrong. Ship has done two perfect flights as far as I'm concerned for the V3, you know, meeting mission objectives so far, and they've deployed Starlinks. They've carried Starlinks to space and deployed them. Starlinks don't care if they're in orbit or if they're on suborbital trajectory or not. They just burn up. They don't care. I mean, they might as well have been put into orbit, and they would have been fine. So, they can just do the same thing next flight, going a few kilometers per hour faster, and you've got an operational launch vehicle. >> Uh Gregory Lane 9044 from the chat room says, "Quit telling them how to do it. Let them work." It Okay, it it I get it. We're not telling [laughter] SpaceX what to do, right? Like, we're speculating. We're having fun. And uh for those who don't know, I was at SpaceX for 14 years. I was a principal engineer. I recently left SpaceX, and I can tell you, yeah, we we don't like we we they it's like the internet isn't like, oh my gosh, I didn't think of that. Like, we already knew all this stuff. It's just fun to speculate, right? We're we're all nerding out. I've lost all my internal data, so all's I can I can only speculate with you guys, right? And so, it's fun to speculate. Like, we're having fun to speculate and be like, hey, what what's going to happen? How are they going to do this? Cuz to to to an early >> There's still there's there's still always an element of we're just trying to figure this stuff out. >> Well, yeah. Well, but that well, that's SpaceX's MO, right? Of like, not really trying to figure it out, but like uh >> [clears throat] >> always making the product better. And and and good enough is never good enough, and you can always the best part's no part, right? So, you can always make it simpler, you can always make it more reliable, you can always make it better. And that is that's just >> Yeah, but there's there's still there's still daily deliveries from the Acme company. >> Yeah, that's true, too. >> [laughter] >> Both things can be true. >> That is true. >> On On a related note, I can't find it now. I was trying to find it, but I do know there used to there I'm not sure if it's still there, but they definitely used to be a note on SpaceX's website with on like their contact page, like, "Please do not email us your ideas for rockets." >> [laughter] >> Because they don't like they like they don't want us sending them ideas on how to do things. They'll just do it by themselves. We're just we're just having fun at speculating and just imagining what the future might hold. >> Absolutely. And and I will say, like, we are years behind their internal plans already, right? Like, they they already like they they already know all of this. They They have They have a great plan. It's incredible. They just have to work through certain things of like, okay, how how do you do this thing that was previously thought to be impossible? How do you do this impossible thing? And they they do the impossible every day. So, we're not telling SpaceX what to do. We're having fun speculating on it. Um I want to go back to my point about um op- making the vehicle operational cuz as we're saying like towing these vehicles as it's being done right now is non-viable if we want a fully reusable rocket. And Ryan, your point of like, "Hey, this is a fully reusable system." Valid point. But, as Arval says in the chat room, I mean, they're building the machine that builds these machines. So, it doesn't What what's more important? Getting full reusability as fast as possible at the cost of making it an operational vehicle, or making it an operational vehicle and then building that reusability in ala what they did with Falcon 9? Cuz they could say, "Okay, look, we're going to learn how to make stage two fully reusable while we make it also an operational vehicle sending up real Starlink satellites, real payloads that we don't want to lose." And then kind of learn those lessons along the way. Keep That's exactly what they did with the Falcon 9 and the reusability there. But, it does handcuff your design a little bit when you do that. >> They can't make a fundamentally flawed vehicle reusable. There's no point setting up product a production line for a vehicle which you might find in 3 months is, you know, imagine if they set up a gigabase style production line like they're building right now for Starship V1 or for Starship Mark 1 when the thing looked like it'd been wrapped in, you know, tin foil. >> [laughter] >> You know, you you can't do that. They need to they need to set up they need they they I believe V3 they are honing in they're you know, they are closer to the final Starship design than they have ever been and they need to get that on on Starship V3. And then once they get to that, they can start contracting their production processes from kind of the multi-months per vehicle down to the to the weeks, perhaps even days. >> I I don't think this is the end of of the evolution of production, you know, Boeing didn't build one 707. Lockheed didn't build one Electra. They're going to have to iterate as they they get these into a quote-unquote operational state and find out what the pain points are and and reduce or eliminate them. Like you you you don't you don't have a car fully formed and that's the only change you make. You you iterate and iterate and iterate. Look at Teslas. How many versions of Teslas in the same model year have you seen? >> Yeah. I well, that was that was the weird thing for me like like when buying my Teslas like they they really don't have a model year. They have to cuz that's like that's like how the like the the what am I trying like the NTSB and the the all the road systems works and you need to have a model year, but like Tesla will do major revisions inside of an existing model year and it really blurs the lines of like cuz once but but that goes back towards Ryan, you said if you've got a fundamentally flawed vehicle, I'm not convinced the vehicle's fundamentally flawed. It It looks like it's actually pretty good. >> flawed either, but I also didn't think that V1 was fundamentally flawed and I also didn't think that V2 was fundamentally flawed until I got through for the first time and it started doing loop-de-loops over South Texas two flights in a row. So, I mean, >> [laughter] >> we could we could find There could be doing loop-de-loops over South Texas on flight 14. Who knows? We we genuinely don't know right now and that's SpaceX's whole approach. They find these things out by flying the vehicles and if you what if you set up the production line and then start flying the vehicles, if you find something when you're flying the vehicles, whoopsie-doopsie, we now have to go back and redo our entire production line. >> No, that they're they're agile enough in order to be able to to counter those difficulties as they as they arise. >> They're they're much better at getting rework incorporated into in process uh machines uh than other people some other people are. Um we can talk more about in the next that in the next subject. >> I mean think about it this way. The the first Model 3s that were produced are vastly different from you know, 6 months down the road, but they looked exactly the same. They completely changed the structure, the contents, the electronics, the wiring like schema from you know, the beginning of production to the end of production inside of the same model year. So, it looked the same, but it was nowhere near the same car. Like you didn't have to re- completely retool a production line. They made agile changes. >> I mean >> see any reason you can't do that with the internals of a rocket that no one sees. >> We we we already know they are. I mean, the amount of change work >> Yeah. >> Um all right. I let's I mean, let's now assume that uh maybe not flight 14, but maybe flight 15 cuz it does feel like you know, just gut checking this. Flight 13 was pretty good. It was pretty good. I expect flight 14's going to be even better. Like it feels like flight 15 is kind of when they enter that initial operational stage. We'll see. We'll see how flight 14 does. Once Starship is fully operational, right? Like actually flying, we've got full reusability, this thing is going, what does that mean for the rest of the space industry? Cuz like how many other vehicles are fully reusable? Even if they don't get rapid reusability right away. Like this is going to be a game changer, isn't it? What does this mean for the industry? >> Forget forget the reusability. How many other vehicles can launch 100 tons on a monthly basis? >> Yeah, I mean, dystopian profit in the chat room. 100 tons to orbit for a couple hundred million dollars is good value. And like this is this is going to be crazy when this thing actually gets operational you can send more than just Starlink up there. Like start imagining what the industry looks like. Like your ride share programs, a 100-ton ride share program. You could ride share full satellites up. Like like what you're going to be able to do with this thing is crazy. Who >> As soon as as soon as they get rid of the payload dispenser. >> Well well, yeah. I mean I I think that goes towards full Well, or or um they and maybe they've already done this, but they just published a spec on how to build a pizza box satellite. >> They are. People are already People have already announced other um Rocket Lab has a flat sat for Neutron. >> Yeah, but in time for Starship uh Vast is developing a a flat pack satellite system to fly on Starship. So, it's going to be very similar to if you go to Rocket Lab, they'll sell you a Photon bus. You go to Vast, they'll sell you a a flat satellite bus and then you can launch it on the current Starship system um before SpaceX uh develops a uh whatever kind of cargo door they decide to do, whether they'll do kind of the clam shell or the shuttle payload bay. Who knows, but they you know, that kind of thing is a few years out. So, uh payload dispenser is going to be the way to go initially. >> I mean >> You still have the issue of you still have the issue of getting an orbit that is what you need or what you desire. If you're doing a 100 satellites in a launch doing a ride share with with Starlink, like you're going to be in their orbit unless you dramatically change something. It takes a lot of delta V to change what your orbit is. Um so, there's still going to be a market for individual launches of smaller satellites or you know, smaller satellites. Is there not packing >> Well, hold on. It takes a Wait wait wait wait. It takes a lot of delta V, but you're also assuming that the second stage has no fuel to perform those Delta V maneuvers. That is not a safe assumption with Starship. They can send up and fully refuel the second stage and move you to whatever orbit you want. >> Yeah, I mean, there's I think at this point there's still a market for the small to mid sat launchers while the other heavy lift vehicles are coming online. But, I mean, when when New Glenn and Neutron are also operational, hopefully, uh the market's going to look totally different. >> The DoD isn't going to want a Starship that everyone in the world can track to be determining where their their orbit is. >> I don't understand how that's any different than any other rocket. >> Yeah, everybody tracks every rocket. >> Yeah, there's there there's places where there isn't satellite or radio coverage and there there's ways of of sneaking things around a little bit in space. And >> But, I mean, the DoD is not going to >> the small the smaller I aren't You never know. >> I I would argue that I don't think Starship's any different from a DoD perspective than New Glenn, Falcon 9, Electron, you know, pick your poison. Right? Like, you it's they're all making a giant flame. Uh Right? Even the X-37B, people could track the X-37B. So, you know. >> True. We've imaged the X-37B with with ground-based telescopes. >> Uh Ryan, what are your thoughts? What what what happens to the space industry once Starship is fully operational and it's sending up whatever it needs to send up and it's fully reusable and it's 100 tons? >> Well, first of all, uh I think we're definitely a few years away from being able to send anything up on Starship, but once we do get to that point, fingers crossed, sooner rather than later, I mean, anyone developing or operating an expendable launch system, uh, you know, if you if the nails are not in the coffin. The coffin is underground and dirt has been placed on top of it. I mean, there >> [laughter] >> there is there is no coming back. United Launch Alliance, Arianespace. Um, so, >> [laughter] >> you know, it's going to be very obvious that reusability is the key. Um, and I think Starship is just going to get SpaceX to get even further ahead than they already are. Um, and I mean, good on them because they're SpaceX is, you know, a decade, if not decades, ahead of the rest of the industry for a reason, and that's because Elon Musk had a vision, and that vision has been executed by an incredible team. Um, but I think Stoke is probably going to be up there, uh, because they are the only other company developing a fully reusable launch vehicle right now. And they're also getting close to flight. It's much, much smaller than the Starship. It's currently three times the VEO, um, but I mean, it full reusability is the key. That is the magical key that unlocks everything at a much cheaper cost. So, um, SpaceX is just going to advance their lead, and I think Stoke is going to kind of leapfrog the rest of the industry as well. Um, maybe Blue Origin will do something, but I I think even partial reusability, um, unless you're doing like super deep space exploration missions, then maybe partial reusability makes sense cuz you want a big super heavy upper stage. Um, not a super heavy booster, a very heavy upper stage. You know what I'm trying to say. Uh, not a noun, an adjective. Um, >> [laughter] >> but yeah, for anything into low Earth orbit, full full reusability is the way to go. So, if you're not doing full if you don't have plans for full reusability, and if you're not doing partial reusability right now, you're not actively developing that, I mean, you're you're done for. You're screwed. >> Uh, what about Relativity? Aren't they working on a fully reusable vehicle as well, or is it only half reusable? I feel like Relativity is one of those weird ones. >> Yeah, it's currently partially reusable. That's Terran R, which is going to be kind of a Falcon 9 class vehicle. Um they're actually putting engines on the first stage as we speak. They're getting really close to doing some proper testing with Terran R, which is exciting. Um but that was going to be fully reusable and then they transitioned away to being partially reusable. Uh but that was before Eric Schmidt took over and uh now in the Eric Schmidt era of Relativity, they're continuing to develop Terran R kind of how it was, a partially reusable vehicle with a big upper stage and a big fairing, kind of similar to New Glenn, uh but a little bit smaller. Um but I would not be surprised if they also transition to a fully reusable uh vehicle as well. I mean, I personally I think New Glenn and Terran R are two rockets which are going to be quite quite simple to transition quite simple to transition to a fully reusable uh launch vehicle because they will have um at least it already in the case of New Glenn, it has a reusable booster. They have proven that works. Um So, I mean, this is really really exciting. I think, you know, if there if there's any two companies, uh you know, SpaceX is already going to have a fully reusable Starship. Stoke is going to have fully reusable Nova. If there's two more companies to add to the list, I think the easiest in the biggest air quotes possible vehicles to kind of transition to fully reusable is going to be New Glenn and is going to be Terran R. >> You know, uh I want to talk about New Glenn in a moment, but before we do, um let's finish up on the flight 13 and stage two when it came back down. You know, Ryan, you mentioned that some of the aft um heat shield looked to potentially get kicked off at staging, but when I looked at it, it did look pretty toasty, right? Like that that ship saw some stuff on the way [snorts] back down. It It dealt with a few things before it hit the ocean. And um Like based on that, how soon do we think stage two reusability really is for Starship? Let Is this something where we think they can reuse that heat shield or is this something where it's going to be a little more space shuttley where it's a refurbished spaceship where they got to go through and inspect every single heat tile and like we don't get to that rapid reusability, we're more in like that refurbishability. So, we can re-fly it, we don't have to rebuild it, but like it's going to take a while to get us into that state. Uh Dave, what do you think? Like what did that look like 13 and what do you think's going to happen? >> Yeah, I I think I think the the ship doesn't isn't as bad as it looks. Uh we saw a lot of uh probably the crunch wrap ablative uh making those white streaks. Um that may have literally just been the crunch wrap ablative um that was slightly slightly proud of the surface. Um so, the tiles themselves may be completely okay and if they look at the crunch wrap and go, "Yeah, there's plenty left. We can re-fly this." They're probably going to have a pretty small subset of tiles that would have to be replaced. The other thing is unlike shuttle SpaceX is really experienced already at replacing tiles. Uh production side, they replace hundreds of tiles all the time just because of production defects or whatever. The The tile crew can replace a tile in you know, multiple tiles an hour. Not not like uh the shuttle was. >> Mhm. I mean that's still a refurbish though, not rapid reusability. I understand rapid reusability is you land it, the uh ground umbilicals pop back in, you fuel it, you launch it again in a few hours, right? As soon as we talk about, "Hey, I need to inspect my heat shield." Rapid reusability, in my opinion, unless you guys disagree, rapid reusability is off the table. Is Is not rapid reusability. >> Rapid reusability, reuse, yeah, you got rapid reusability reusability, and refurbishment. If the fact that they catch it, throw it on a stand, take it back to Gigabay, it spends a week there, and then it comes back out, that's still order of magnitude better than shuttle ever was. You only need seven Starships to do daily launches if it takes a week to re- refresh one. So, I think we're it's going to be a it's going to be a curve. Uh it's probably going to be a month or more from the first catch, maybe even 6 months to a year before that ship would possibly fly. But, after that, I expect that time will keep shrinking, and at some point they might actually relaunch one without sending it back to Gigabay. >> Uh Dean White in the chat room uh 9386 says, "And the SpaceX tiles are the same as each other, which was very different than shuttle. Shuttle had like independent tiles that were kind of a pain in the butt, so >> I would say they're mostly the same Starship. >> Yeah, mostly the same, but there are numerous unique shapes and sizes of tile on Starship. They are not exactly the same. There's square tiles around the flaps, there's smaller tiles like kind of like 50% hexagonal, if not smaller, tiles around weld lines. So, there are a variety of very unique >> There's probably a hundred There's probably more than a hundred different types of tiles on a Starship easily. >> Yes, but that being said, I will say that they are much more interchangeable The vast The majority of tiles on a on a Starship are more interchangeable than shuttle ever was because, you know, each shuttle tile had a specific identification number for a specific location. That is not the case with Starship. You know, the the vast majority of the tiles of the the same shape, but they're not all the same. There's not a blanket statement that they're all the same. There are very specific different tile shapes. And another point on the on the earlier point, SpaceX had their first public company earnings call this week. And during that call, Elon Musk said that the heat shield tile problem is, quote, solved. So, whatever that means, I don't know, but Elon says it's solved. So, he also said there'll be daily Starship launches this time next year. So, um yeah, let's go. >> I just think you have to have lots of launch pads. I mean, they're working on it, right? >> They're working on it. >> Uh Dystopian Profit in the chat room says recovering ship will give him a lot of info. I That's a very true statement. It's one of the huge advantages of having reusable stages, cuz you can actually see how it's fairing both on the way up and on the way down. But, they'll need to do some retro- interpolation there. 1 to 2 years of refurbishment, then real reusability. And that kind of tracks, right? Like, that's sort of what happened with Falcon 9 uh when they started uh landing Falcon 9, and it really wasn't reusable at first. It was It was refurbishable at first. Uh it was It was an effort to get it back uh flying again. But, they streamlined that process, and uh Dave Orion, or anyone, do you guys know what's the fastest turnaround for a single booster? Not pad, but like single booster for Falcon 9? It's pretty quick, right? >> That's a Ryan question. >> Well, that's not That's an Alex >> That's really Yeah, so you're You are correct. >> All right. >> All right, fair enough. >> I'm going to I'll have a quick look. I'll have a quick look. >> It's It's It's month-ish period, I think, but that's just vague recollection. >> Yeah, I mean, and if if they want to make this thing >> F9-97 has done a 14-day 3-hour reuse, as one example. >> So, 2 weeks 2 weeks from launch to launch. Like, that's not terrible. >> a faster one. >> But, I mean, we'll we'll just baseline 2 weeks. I think that's faster than Shuttle ever was. Wasn't Shuttle about a month the fastest they ever did? Something like that? Data, would you happen to know that one? All right. Put everyone the spot. They they've they've flown just different shuttles within a month. >> Yeah, that's the that's the trick. >> I don't think the same shuttle recycling. The same shuttle recycling >> Uh it was so >> Just just for just just for order of just for order of magnitude, the space shuttle had up to 31,000 distinct individual heat tiles. >> Woof. >> And Starship has 18,500 but many of them are exact exactly the same. >> Uh so I asked AI, so take this with a grain of salt, um but it says the fastest individual space shuttle orbiter turnaround was 54 days. So I'm going to call that 2 months or so, and it was done by space shuttle Atlantis, which is OV-104, the goat of space shuttles, just so everyone knows. >> Uh I'm going to pretend that I didn't hear that, and I'm going to tell you that I'm I've only made it to B1075, but I have found B1088, which has done 9 days and 3 hours for you. >> like >> Yeah, 9 days >> stuck uh stuck out of my head. >> Yeah, pre- pre- pretty incredible. Um Oh well, actually, this is a good So I I I keep trying to move on to the next topic, but like chat room has got some good comments. Uh Phil Baxter 487 says, "I want to remind everyone that everyone thought the space shuttle would be rapidly reusable and change the launch industry." Uh totally fair. Totally fair. I think there is a difference here in that uh SpaceX has already exceeded I think as we just showed, they've already done better than space shuttle ever did with Falcon 9. However, space shuttle was stage two reusability. Which is crazy hard, right? Like I you got to give kudos to the engineers for the space shuttle, cuz they were designing this thing in the '70s, and they got stage effectively stage two reusability. '60s '60s and '70s, absolutely. >> The space shuttle did change the industry because for 30 years we used the same five orbiters. >> It It It And you know, it's still stuck in our psyche to the not psyche, but it's like in the collective consciousness. When you see sci-fi shows talking about whatever and you got to go save the world, you don't launch a rocket. You still in modern movies, you launch a shuttle. There was something just glorious. Look, the shuttle had its issues. The shuttle had its issues. It needed to retire, but that doesn't mean it wasn't a work of art. It was absolutely glorious. It was incredible. What an incredible >> And a workaholic. >> It It It was. It was It was It was It was pretty great. It's pretty great. >> By the way, I I I watched I watched for For All Mankind and I'm still having trouble getting around a shuttle at the moon. >> Oh, uh you know, we'll talk about this in After Dark, but for everyone who was watching the new intro sequence there sitting each other's legs there and um I look forward to your letters. Uh okay. >> [laughter] >> Let's move [clears throat] on. Let's talk about New Glenn because New Glenn had a a little oopsie on the pad. That's what is That's what it's known industry term, a little oopsie. Uh highly technical, highly technical. >> Observation. We call that an observation. >> Exactly. >> [laughter] >> And uh it looked So, um they've been a lot more transparent on socials than they have in the past, which I'm very thankful for. They're moving a lot slower than SpaceX with regards to this transparency, but you know, that seems to be Blue's MO, just move with whatever pace they want to move with. But, it sounds like >> said, I will say that I trust the Dave Rim Buck Day over an Elon Musk update, but that might just be me. >> I >> Turtles all the way down. >> Tur- Seems fair. It sounds like So, Dave Limp did tweet out and say, "Hey, we've isolated this issue to uh an oxygen valve in the in the engine." It sounds like engine There's an engine oxygen valve that was at fault in the engine bay itself. Now, he said oxygen valve. I assume it's a liquid oxygen valve as opposed to a gaseous oxygen valve cuz I don't know that they use gaseous oxygen anywhere on the vehicle. But, they only said oxygen valve. But, a LOX valve makes a little more sense to me cuz cryogenic valves are They they require the dark >> freakishly hard. >> Yeah, yeah, they they require the Actually, Dana, this is your area of expertise. Do you have any understanding, full speculation? Do you have any theories as to like what may have gone wrong with an ox valve? >> Uh it didn't keep the ox in. >> [laughter] >> Thanks. >> Or it didn't open when it was supposed to. I think it's actually the supposition that it stuck. And the differential the contraction from cryo temperatures jammed it. And there was a Tom Mueller had a post saying that's why we went to pintle valves. Um because we discovered that sliding surface valves have problems at those temperatures. >> Yeah. Ball valves are hard when you want to do cryogenic and the quickest way to make a valve go from fully open to fully closed or vice versa is a ball a 90° ball valve. Um the problem with that is that your your sealing surfaces have to basically You have a a ball and it's got a hole drilled through it and the flow goes this way and you rotate the hole so that it can open or you rotate the hole so it can close. The problem is you have to seal against that ball on all sides and it's freezing cold over here freezier than freezing cold over here and warmer than warm over here. So, all of the materials are different sizes. They You've got to have uh enough flexibility that your tolerances don't get out of spec and it's still able to seal like this This is hard. Um Yeah, it's it sounds like they they use a a a a I I I don't know. It's It's sounds like it was a It was a a valve maybe that they were trying to uh I mean, it's it's a it's a huge problem. Like the the the the the volume that you need to pass through there. That that gets to be bigger valves, bigger hardware, and higher pressures inside of bigger structures makes more force. Uh it just sounds like they they were too close to the the edge of what you could do with that size ball valve. Um you know, the bigger and bigger these these ships get, the more fuel and more oxidizers they need to pass through. And And that becomes a a challenge. >> So, and I think the way and uh Dave, I think you had mentioned pintle from uh Tom Mueller. The way I always describe pintle, and maybe this is a oversimplification, is So, Data mentioned ball valves, which is kind of like, you know, it's an open-close sort of thing. A pintle is more like a garden hose. When you squeeze on it, it kind of like it comes in through multiple areas, and you can kind of squeeze the trigger, and you get more or less squeeze. >> It's a hole with a a concentric cone that's that you can press against it to seal. And then, as you open it, it it has a smaller opening. And as you remove the pintle further, you get full flow. >> So, um Merlin 1D famously uses pintles. Uh it's a pintle injected engine. So, um I guess my question then and and Data, you are uniquely suited to kind of quasi speculate the answer. How how hard is it to fix this? Like, let's They've isolated the problem. It's a LOX valve or They said oxygen valve. I'm going to assume LOX valve. Let's assume it's a cryogenic valve. Like, is this an easy fix or is this actually a really complicated fix for them to to implement? >> It should be a relatively easy fix. Uh if it's if it's something where they're trying to get a large volume through a a valve, you can either completely change how the valve operates, ball versus pintle, or you can modify the the structure around the valve, add more material, and make it so that it's uh it it's a a more robust valve, but the the seals all There's I mean, there's a bit to it. Uh the seals have to grow and shrink with temperature and grow and shrink with the material and still seal. Um but if it's just the valve that's the problem, then it's just the valve that you need to fix. >> Uh John PR in the chat room says, "Sounds like they forgot to prime the valve before they open the system." I mean, I feel like that's I I didn't hear that online. I would I have a hard time believing that. Like, you There's an entire chill-in process, and I >> You You prime You prime pumps. You don't prime valves. >> Oh, okay. That's interesting. >> mean, there there's been lots of supposition I've seen that the valve might even have opened, but was slow, and that leads you to a very fuel-rich uh start, which leads you to a hard start, which leads you to a RUD. >> That I I've I've had I've had stuck I've had >> stuck valves. >> You can't prime a valve, right? You have to You have to open it. >> You have to pre-chill it. So, you have to get media to it. >> Yeah. >> Um Part Part of the the secret sauce there is that you have to make sure that there is no air in that line, so that you can get your media all the way to the face of the valve so that the valve gets its uh cryogenic dimensional state and then when you open the valve then it it chills the rest of the line. Um if you have a an air trap for example and and you can't get your cryogenic media to that valve then you don't get everything shrinking to the right size and then you don't get a seal. Um things of that problems similar to that. Um but at the same time once everything gets cold it shrinks. And it shrinks depending on its temperature. So if you uh if if you're you you get it to your operational temperature and everything shrinks and maybe you that that particular valve isn't isn't adjusted correctly for that that temperature. Um and this I've I've had this happen where you get a valve that's stuck and it won't open or won't won't partially close or um I've had valves that get stuck at like 45° so they they have flow going through them. So you can't close them and you can't open them. Um sometimes the actuators are not not properly geared so you have a an actuator that's either electric or pneumatic and you put air to it and it doesn't quite have the oomph to open or close or fully open or fully close. Um I mean there's there's a there's a lot of design and engineering that needs to go into that but um it it it it it all of that is is something that you can overcome if you understand the problem. >> I think we need to start a new series on the channel called Dutta's magic cryogenic valves and just explaining cuz I you mentioned you can't really pre-cool a or pre-chill a valve and I'm like I you're totally right. Like you you're right. You can bring You can bring it up to the valve, but in order to chill the rest of the line, you have to open the valve, which is defeats the point of the valve, kind of, to a point. So, that This is a really tricky >> You can partially pre-chill with something that is not explosive. So, for example, if you have a liquid oxygen system, you can on the other side of the liquid oxygen system use liquid nitrogen. And that brings the materials down to a cryogenic temperature and gets all the seals where they where they need to be dimensionally, but then you've got to do something to get rid of that liquid nitrogen and not affect the combustibility of your liquid oxygen. >> But, ideally, you wouldn't have to do any of that, right? The cuz now we're just adding complexity and you're already complex system. Yeah, so it's a really difficult problem. It's I I'm always fascinated by cryogenic systems just in general. It's If you ever look at pad, I guess it'd be 39A. I'm not sure if it still exists 39B. The the locks the liquid oxygen farm and like the different farms of cryogenic fuel are way away from the pad and just watching the pipes that go from the farm to the pad to fuel the rocket and just watching them zigzag back and forth. And then you can actually see them if you if you have an overhead camera and you do a time lapse, you can see them like shrink and then come back and they shrink a lot. They move a lot. It's not a little. It's a lot. And I don't know, I'm always fascinated by like the engineer who goes behind to fixing this. >> So, so the the cryogenics that I worked with most of it was based on shipping and we we made fuel pumps for container ships. And the skid that I was working on is what 20 ft long or something like that. And if you have cryogenics that need to go from one end to the other, you have to account for the fact that that material is going to shrink 3 and 1/2 thousandths per inch. Which over 20 ft is an is not an insignificant amount of distance. So you put a bend in the pipe so that the those joints, those angles, as everything shrinks from one end to the other, they kind of open up a little bit. So instead of a square bend like this, you get kind of this W with everything everything shrinking. And you do that over a quarter mile to get from your your tank farm to your launch pad, like all of those joints are being stressed. >> It's crazy. >> Well, I'll I'll throw this one out to one of the things we point out to people at Starbase is Starship shrinks inches >> Yep. >> Mhm. >> when you fuel it. Right. So top of Starship uh everything has to be flexible on the QD arms and everything else cuz that ship is going downwards as the cryo goes into it. >> And as you as you load mass on it. >> Right. Yeah, I mean it it it but it's amazing. It's it's literally inches over 400 ft that that the getting down to cryo temperature shrinks that stainless steel. >> On flight 13's wet dress rehearsal, we deployed a new camera and we had a zoomed in on the ship quick disconnect and you can actually see the whole thing sag as it gets loaded with cryo because it's you know, it's getting so cold. It's just SLS does a similar thing as well, which is pretty cool. But I think that's mainly due to the sheer mass of the propellant being loaded into that core stage. >> You know, so this is a lock style >> with >> Go ahead. >> Eek says with 3D with 3D printing you can build cooling tubes into the body of the valve. Yes, as long as you can counter the porosity. >> Um with uh with the issue it sounds like the the LOX valve or the valve the ox valve issue is in the engine itself from from what I was able to determine. So the BE-4 engine well the Vulcan also uses the BE-4 engine which is also grounded for totally different unrelated issue, right? So uh it Liftoff uh on the in the chat room liftoff 80 uh 285 says according to Eric Berger this is not an issue on Vulcan. What are the chances that they were trying something new on New Glenn? So New New Glenn. Yeah, I mean I I have a hard time understanding how this is a non-issue on Vulcan if it is a LOX valve in BE-4 when Vulcan uses the BE-4. Does anyone have any thoughts on this or do we just kind of have to kind of I mean it's hard to speculate cuz we don't there's no like real data. Yeah. >> There are different They are different versions. >> Oh they are. >> Yeah, my guess is that they kind of branched off so Vulcan is kind of more of a more of a kind of stable branch to use software terms of BE-4 and then they branched off to do a development branch for for New Glenn because of course on New Glenn when you it's kind of like F1 when you develop your engine and your rocket you can optimize for that whereas ULA is a is a is an engine customer so they just kind of have to accept whatever Blue Origin will give them. Of course they'll be working together but uh not to the degree that that that Blue Origin can with New Glenn and ULA is built Vulcan is you know kind of having to be locked in system because it's designed to be that you know put your super secret expensive DOD payloads on top. Uh we definitely can't have this vehicle blowing up. So that's one of the reasons why they have a bit more of a Well, I was going to I was about to say that's the reason why they have more stability on Vulcan but they have a one in six SRB failure rate. So they don't have a lot of stability right now, but the idea is that Vulcan is more stable, I should say. >> You you don't sell your prototype cars to customers. >> Exactly. You know, >> So, Blue is classically much slower than SpaceX, right? SpaceX at least getting rockets to market, right? And we watch SpaceX do hardware rich engineering and Blue does uh you know, paper rich engineering. And And neither is necessarily right or wrong. It's just a different way of looking >> Paper rich engineering? >> Or what what pad rich engineering? Is that what you're saying? >> engineering. god. >> Too soon, Ryan. Too soon. >> [laughter] >> Uh >> Tower rich engineering, I don't know. >> The thing with paper rich >> SpaceX has had their pad blow up, too. >> Yeah, oh yeah. [laughter] Yeah, yeah, yeah. The thing with >> Concrete rich combustion. >> [laughter] >> But, okay. The thing with paper rich engineering is that you should fix you should be able to, in theory, find most of your issues before you ever even begin bending metal, right? So, you've run all of the analysis, you've done all of the all of the data, you should know going in that your rocket's going to work really, really well. And here we are, we had a pad anomaly. Now, that's not to say SpaceX never had a pad anomaly, that in fact their rocket was operational and they had a pad anomaly during a static fire, very, very similar. Different issues, but like both took out the pad, both took out the rocket. However, it is a little bit like Blue takes so long on paper to do this, you kind of expect a different level of maturity of their rocket. Do Do we think there are more gremlins in the system that have yet to be uncovered that they need to start working out? Or do they need to change mentality and move into Okay. Like What do they do? How do they fix this without How do they fix this in the culture that they already have? >> [laughter] >> Make fire. Thoughts and paper can't find everything. >> Mhm. >> There's a point where you got to stop moving pencils around and start moving metal. >> Is this a culture problem or is this a vehicle problem or both? Or management problem? Like where what do they need to change to get this into a stable >> I think it's changing. You you you have to be you have to you have to get out of the we're designing and get into the we're flying >> Mhm. >> Launch cadence is what you have to change. >> Mhm. I mean, they were starting to get that. >> SLS I like yeah, I mean one of the problems that we had at VOA is every rocket was different and we weren't launching enough to be able to validate a change per rocket. So there was like six. And we we found gremlins and by the time we were able to find them and address them uh there was already two other rockets that had them. And so what do you do? Do you not launch or do you run the risk of maybe not making it to orbit and and like you can analyze data from previous launches, but if you don't fully understand what's happening and do testing physical testing uh either you know, launching stuff or doing you know, ground testing whatnot. Uh you're never going to be able to resolve all of these issues and and that's one of the things that SpaceX has done well is getting getting everybody used to the fact that you have to destroy some rockets in order to be able to make them leaner, meaner, more efficient and cost less. >> Do you think they'll get there though? They don't destroy rockets, right? I mean, they don't purposely destroy rockets where SpaceX does. I don't want to say purposely like that's never the end goal, but they're willing to destroy rockets and they they've got you know, they're will they're like look, we've got six more behind it. We'll figure it out. And that's just not how Blue works. So, you >> The SpaceX's mental mantra mentality is is what some would consider reckless. >> Yeah. Oh, yeah. >> And I I don't I don't say that to be mean, but they are they are intentionally hardware rich. They're like, "Well, let's see what sticks. Let's Let's throw it at the wall and see what happens." They They've got some crazy ideas and they've made some made a lot of them fleshed a lot of them out by like doing the thing and then coming back to the table and saying, "Okay, look. Here's our data. This is what we learned. Let's fix it on the next one." And the next one is a completely different beast. Um that mentality is not common, is not well understood or appreciated by investors. Uh so, anybody that's putting into Blue Origin or or the whatever investment groups they they've convinced to to to add money to this or customers, um not all customers are willing to uh take the risk on something that's unproven and unstable and could be different from one to the next. Uh it Blue Origin is going to have to learn how to make significant changes based on a very, very small amount of data that improves their vehicles. And that's not easy to do, but you still have to launch launch rockets in order to be able to get data to correct your problems. >> I There's an interesting comment in the chat room from Dean White, that which is, "Will AI make paper analysis paper rocket analysis more valuable?" I I don't want to answer this right now. I want to come back to this in after dark cuz I it's easy to just go no, cuz it's going to hallucinate, but I think there might be something deeper there. So, >> [laughter] >> No, hard no. I I I actually I do want to explore a little bit. We'll explore that in afterdark. We'll explore it. >> I look at my rocket design. Where are the failures? Don't make any mistakes. >> There are Hank, there are AI developed rocket engines that they have test fired, like 3D printed and test fired that did work and they're weird looking designs, but like >> [laughter] >> afterdark, afterdark, afterdark. >> I'm going to push back on that one, but >> Oh yeah, I I I know. I I as you should. I like I I >> [laughter] >> yeah, right? Like as you should. You know, finally are we Well, >> [laughter] >> I'll start this with Alex's comment in the chat room, which is Elon needs to pass the baton to David Limp for really really optimistic launch by end of the year or even first quarter of next year, right? Cuz Blue still thinks that they're going to launch New Glenn again this year and it is August 9th. They have until December 31st for this to be in inside of this year and they got a lot of work to do. I mean, that is truly an Elon level timeline. Um do we think return to flight for New Glenn is still possible in 2026? There are 143 days remaining for them to be able to return to flight. Dave, what do you think? Can we do it? >> Uh no. I I think yes and >> Yay. >> It It doesn't So, return to flight, especially once the the FAA or NTSB gets involved, um they don't stop you from making changes. They don't stop you from making more rockets. You can make changes based on your analysis and your assumptions and uh shoot your shot to where you think it's going to land and by the time the NTSB or the the the administration has declared, "Okay, this was your problem and this is how you fix it." You've already got a fix, you've already got parts, you've already got everything ready to go. That's not impossible. It doesn't If if it's something that's well understood, if it's a failure that's well understood, if you had a structural failure, you can change the structure. If you had a valve failure, you can change the valve. All you need to do in order to get approval for your next flight is to show that you've addressed the problem sufficient to their requirements, to to their understanding. Um and and, you know, they've got a long history of understanding what these problems are and how to fix them, so that's not that difficult. I don't see that that's difficult. >> I I I I agree with Tutter on New Glenn. I'm not so sure about the GSE and the launch facility. >> I thought the GSE was >> I think they're going to run into the >> That's just a money problem. That's just a money problem. >> It wasn't the GSE mostly intact? Like, do they really need to do a huge GSE lift and rebuild? I mean, they they >> Well, not the GSE tankage, but all all of the quick dis- the non-quick disconnect, all of the plumbing, all of the fueling, telemetry, all of that infrastructure that connects to the rocket is 100% new on the new design. They can't reuse anything. They have to start from scratch. >> Fair but I think a lot of the complexity in the GSE is at the GSE farms themselves and like monitoring input and and being able to push output and getting all of those cuz there's a lot of sensors, there's a lot of valves, there's a lot of stuff that goes into the >> Yeah, but I'm literally talking about the launch complex itself. >> Sure, and and you're right. Like, there's a lot of work to do in the launch complex, but the quick disconnect, the QD, yeah, there's some technology there, but that's really just talking back to the farm realistically and telling it hey, this is what it is doing. >> I'm not worried about the tankage. I'm worried about the fact that they completely deconstructed their tower down to ground level and are going to completely refit the interior of it and have to restack and reconnect every pipe and wire inside it before they can even have a side arm that they now have as a quick disconnect arm that they never had before. >> Uh >> Yeah. >> Doing that in 120 days? That's >> 120 they've got No, no, they've got more time than that. They've got uh >> I'm giving them 20 days after it's functional to get the rocket into the air. >> It's 100 Well, it's 143. >> rocket. >> It's So then they have 123 days. >> [laughter] >> They got to have the tower before they get the rocket on it. >> Fair enough. Fair enough. Uh you know, in the chat room, let us know what you think. Do you think end of the year We'll keep asking over and over and over again. Do you think end of the year is possible still for New Glenn? And And then what do we count as success, right? Like is a static fire by the end of the year good enough? Uh or do they actually need to like try to light the engine with the intent to launch? Uh I feel like it's the later ladder, right? Like it's >> Yeah. I'm going to say I'm going to say, you know, I'm a I'm a I'm a Blue Origin fan. New Glenn is a beautiful rocket. I love New Glenn. But uh if they can get New Glenn vertical on the launch pad this year, that is a story for the ages because they blew the whole thing up pretty much, right? So if they can pull that off, if Blue Origin, the tortoise, the slow company that takes forever to do anything and doesn't share anything with the world as they are perceived, rightly so, because of what they've spent the last two decades doing, if they can pull this off, if that company can pull this off, that would be a story for the ages. If they can light the engines, that's icing on the cake. If they can launch it or attempt to launch it, that's whatever you put on your icing. You know, that is just if they can get the rocket on the pad this year, that would be an incredible achievement in of itself. And you know, I'm going to I'm going to say they can launch. I think that I think the chance is slim, but I don't I I still think there's a chance. I still think there's a chance. >> Should we do something kind of like what Peter Beck did when he ate his hat? Should we do something if they can get the get the vehicle on the pad vertical on the pad? We collectively as like tomorrow hosts, should we do something even though it's not our rocket company? Like should we do something and if so, what should we do? Again, leave your ideas in the chat room. I'm curious to know what you think. What are you going to torture us with? All right. I think it's time to move on. I think it's time for a Cayden Conundrum and uh to Yeah. Yeah. Uh to try to something something make this one go. Uh what which one do you have here? >> I have the first one. Which is Hang on. Let me press go to live. Ta-da! There we go. Uh it's uh There we go. Uh what uh Jamie hasn't updated this graphic. Uh when was the last total solar eclipse visible from continental Europe? Was it 2015, 2017, 1846, or 1999? >> It is the only graphic I did not update. Uh I I ran out of time. Uh Yeah. Made me sad. Man, continental Europe. Mhm. I know the chat room is saying 1999, but I feel like 2015. I feel like it's the 20 I Oops, I forgot to do my I forgot to do my big text. Uh big big Wait. Wait. Wait. I got to do and then I got to do Oh, no. I'm going to do this. Uh 2015. I'm going to do 2015. >> Okay. Uh Dave? >> 1999 >> Okay. >> Yeah, he's cheating. He's cheating cuz the chat room cheats and so he's cheating. >> I I had 1999 before the chat room. >> No, cheater. cheater >> Well, who says that 1999 >> was busy doing something else when the chat room was doing their thing. >> Mhm. Dasa? >> Uh 1846 just cuz. >> Okay. >> Heck yeah. >> Uh well You will be shocked to discover that it was indeed 1999. Uh there was an eclipse in Europe in 2015 but it was not a sorry, it was not over continental Europe. It was totality was only visible uh from the Faroe Islands uh which are Danish Islands north of Scotland. South of Iceland. >> Out in the middle of nowhere, sort of like Saxa Ford. >> Yeah, tell me about it. >> [laughter] >> Let's move on to uh some comments from last week's show uh left in the show. I So, by the way, uh if you watch the unarchived version, we do post an edited version where we take we trim off like the pre-show and all the the weird stuff at the end and try to clean it up just a little bit. I do try to pull most of the comments from that version of the show which usually shows up on Monday or late Sunday night, early Monday. So, ideally, you would leave your comments there which I'm not telling you at the end of the show. Hopefully, you made it that far to but whatever. But anyhow, this is from space space manav which says, "I see a list of Indian startups working on orbital launchers has been mentioned. It's an inflection point when it comes to commercial spaceflight in India and it will be very interesting to see it unfold." Absolutely. And actually, this is I think seeing more countries get more into space. We're seeing China get more into space. We're seeing India get more into space. Uh I guess I'd love to go around the the room and like we've talked a lot about China recently and like there's a space race between the US and China happening between, you know, trying to get to the moon. Do we foresee India entering the ring anytime soon? Cuz it feels like they're working on some pretty cool stuff. >> Well, I'd say that >> They've been working on some cool stuff for a while. >> Yeah, that's >> have we. So is China. >> [laughter] >> Yeah, India India is definitely an up-and-coming and uh is probably going to uh hang around and provide some very interesting things over the next couple years. >> I mean they've already pulled off like really impressive interplanetary missions. They have a science mission studying the sun. They uh you know, the they are pulling off moon missions on Hollywood movie budgets. You know, for better or for worse, India can pull off incredible missions incredibly cheaply. So, you know, we we were talking about reusability in the first segment of the show. Um the bring the reason for reusability is to bring the cost down. And India is able to produce these missions not using reusable rockets for uh incredibly small amounts of money compared to, you know, the the billions that end up on on NASA flagship missions. So, you know, that's for better or for worse, but it's a different country, a different economy, and uh if western peop- if western companies can purchase rides on Indian rockets, then um they're going to be able to be a very very uh competitive market uh in comparison to the US and Europe. >> But Ryan, that's diametrically Sorry, earlier in the show. >> Sorry, my eyes are just twitched. >> [laughter] >> All right, cuz earlier in the show like you were like, "Look, if you're not fully reusable, you're not going to and like here we are with India not not reusable, so like >> Well, I think the I think there's a a a difference and that's the fact that the Indian economy simply allows them to build stuff so cheaply um that that's not a a critical concern for them right now. You know, in in the US, things are uh much more expensive than they are in India, and therefore reusability brings, you know, it gives it a a cost benefit. But, if you are an American company or a European company launching a mission on an Indian rocket, then that rocket can be expendable, and it will probably be a competitively priced compared to a reusable or partially reusable American rocket. I mean, just as an example, this is already happening. Uh NISAR, which is a synthetic aperture radar satellite collaboration between NASA and the Indian Space Research Organization, launched on an Indian rocket uh last year. I mean, these things are are already happening now between government agencies. Uh we have uh Bluebird satellites from AST Space Mobile launching on Indian rockets. This is already happening. Uh and if India is able to to ramp up their production cadence uh to to spit out more rockets, they could be competitive, and they don't have to worry about uh developing reusability. That being said, reusability is in their is in their road map. >> UK Space. Al- Alex says UK Space. That's hilarious. >> I mean, that is the uh pri- premier uh spaceflight economy in the world, which is the UK spaceflight economy. We are basically a perfect economy. I mean, just incredible the amount of things we've been able to pull off uh since 1970. We've launched and rocket. >> [laughter] >> Didn't the Didn't the last uh satellite launch from Britain fail? >> Yeah, well, that was built by an American company, so I'm not sure that counts, um really. So, I think we can I think we can disregard that. And it was a failure. >> we've got we've got we've got we've got a German or Austrian company that's going to launch from the UK soon, we hope. >> Yeah, so that that's Rocket Factory Augsburg. They're they're based near Munich in Germany. So, if they launch it it's a great success, then I mean, that'd be a brilliant job for the UK. But, if it's a failure, then I've never heard of them. >> [laughter] >> Moving along. >> I'm just kidding, of course. >> Tom Tom uh mentioned uh I heard there would be if there were some sort of firmware bug or something preventing uh suddenly all Starlinks to do evasion maneuvers, we'd get collision every few days. That sounds like Kessler. And this is in re uh this is in reaction to what we're talking about like Starlink would really be difficult to have like a Kessler syndrome because it's in a low enough orbit where even if they slam into each other, it's all all that debris is going to fall to Earth really rapidly. It's not going to sit up in orbit for 20 30 years, right? It's just like destroying everything in its wake. I I don't know. I To that same end, right? Let's just say all Starlinks suddenly lost their ability to do colo- collision avoidance. Um it's not like they're going to just suddenly slam into each other. Uh and then you you know, right? Like it would be a long time before you would probably have a collision and even then Go ahead. >> all you need All you need is one collision and then there's a bunch of debris. >> Right, but the other one is SpaceX says they do perform a amazing number of collision avoidance maneuvers. The real question is of all those maneuvers they performed, how many would have actually led to a collision if they had not added the extra margin uh to the to the pass. >> But but let's just say somehow magically uh all the constellation freaks out and it just steers itself into each other and they all hit each other, right? You're still only We're not talking about a scenario where we're locked out of space for decades. We're talking about a scenario where we're locked out of space for like weeks, maybe a month. Right? Cuz that's all low enough They're still in atmosphere, right? They're going to get pulled back down pretty quickly. >> Yeah. I disagree with you guys. I think it would be months. You know, if if we assume that if I click my fingers and then suddenly every single styling satellite conks out at that moment. That'll be that'll be over in a month. You know, it would be a major inconvenience, but it would not be the end of the world cuz you know >> It just means we need to get the V3s up there to replace them. >> [laughter] >> We just need to launch more starships to fix all of the satellites I've just killed. >> Starship solves all woes. Starship solves all woes. >> [laughter] >> Uh let's see here. Uh up next we've got from Trevor says uh there is some existing data on re-entry pollution. This goes towards I was talking about hey when we take all of these satellites and they slam into the atmosphere and they obliterate themselves, you are like it's not like they go nowhere. Like that material gets absorbed by the atmosphere, right? So like we got to be doing something to the atmosphere. I'm curious as to what that is. Goes on to say atmospheric titanium and aluminum levels are measurable, but as of the last research I'm aware of being released, we don't have any information of the effects of atmospheric metal vapor on humans or the environment we've projected. And yeah, that's kind of my point of like I want I want I don't know. I'm not saying it's a problem. I'm saying I wonder how much data we have that goes into as we start deorbiting hundreds or thousands of satellites to you know the these these new next gen satellites that are in lower Earth orbit um you know, really really close to the planet still within the um impact of our atmosphere. They're only designed to last 4 or 5 years. And so we're going to start and we've got constellations of what SpaceX is talking a million? No, I think those are supposed to be a little higher, but you get the idea still. So what's that going to do the atmosphere? Maybe nothing, maybe something. What's it going to do the environment? I'm just I'm curious as to what that is. Um >> It counters the effects of microplastics on humans. >> Okay. >> [laughter] >> Well, I mean, I would I would assume that because we're demising it by basically combustion, we're not going to have much actual metal vapor. It's going to be oxides and nitrides. Um which are much more inert. >> I mean, but who know we're we're messing with our own environment. As as I like to say, we're not killing the earth. The earth will always survive. It's ourselves. The earth will eventually eject us from the planet and not be able to support life anymore. >> Yeah, but I mean, look, we use titanium we use titanium dioxide in the million pounds a year level as white pigment in paint and plastics. >> [laughter and clears throat] >> Yeah, I mean, like I said, it may be an non-issue. I'm just curious. I'm curious what the data is. And like there are other materials on these satellites that are in use as well. Like What does what what's it do? Maybe nothing. Maybe nothing. Just curious. >> Yeah, but Yeah, but Dave, for for decades they made paint with lead thinking that wasn't going to have a problem. So >> Yeah, details. >> [laughter] >> That's a hand wavy. Hand wavy. Hand wavy. >> Hand wavy. >> I'm sure SpaceX would argue that the benefits of Grok or whatever they end up running on those AI satellites will vastly outweigh any detrimental impacts it might have on earth or the atmosphere. >> Well, yeah, if you get enough AI, who needs humans? >> Might as you start mixing in some daily vitamins in them and then and then the whole whole [laughter] species will become more more healthy. >> Add some fluoride and everybody's teeth will be good. >> I do have an our after I've heard rocket design. Can you imagine if Blue Origin used Grok to design their rocket and they got successful because of it? The beautiful irony that that would be. All right. And finally, this is from Ty994APC who says, "I did not know you guys were still around. I thought you guys shut down 10 years ago." No, no, what happens is I'm a marketing genius. Absolute genius. And what I do is I constantly rename the show and make it hard for you to find. You're welcome. This is very good. The algorithm loves it. Absolutely loves it. And then what we do is we're inconsistent on our uploads, just keeping the algorithm on its toes. Absolute marketing genius. No, no, no. We're still around. One thing that does happen from time to time is you can randomly just get unsubscribed from channels. I don't know why. Uh so like just double-check, make sure you're still subscribed. And sometimes they'll just turn off the notification bell. So just really quickly, while you're here, make sure you're subscribed. Like it costs you nothing and it helps the channel a great deal when you do that. So just please, if you wouldn't mind, make sure you're subscribed. Do all the YouTube things. Hit like. That helps a great deal. Feed the algorithm monster. Uh I I hate to ask you guys that cuz like it just it sucks and you hear it from every every other channel. But the reason I have to ask is if we don't ask, people don't do it and then we don't feed the algorithm and then people don't find us and that sucks. And also it's my name of the show cuz it was Space Bate Cast and then Tomorrow and then Project Tomorrow with multiple brand changes in between. And um Dada, do you think I'll change it again? I'm probably I'm probably not going to change it again, right? You don't think I'll change it again? >> Yeah. >> You know me well, right? >> You you will change you will change it again, undoubtedly, but Here's the key. You need to change your address with the bank too so they know where to mail your checks. >> Right. Whoops. Whoops. Yeah, that's it. All right. Before we go into thank yous, I think one more Cayden Conundrum. Try to stump us. This Yeah, I feel like >> I've got another This second question very different from the first question, very unique compared to the first question. When was the last total solar eclipse visible from the Iberian Peninsula? Was it 1999, 1905, 1959 or 1954? >> to say 1905. That sounds like a good date. I'm going to lock in 1905. I got to find Big again. Where's Big? Yeah, got to go. >> Now I got to see if chat listens to Jamie or not. >> Yeah. I don't see anyone voting. Did it not uh >> See, it's done It's only done Discord and it hasn't done YouTube. [music] I did I followed I did everything you told me. >> Yeah. >> I did everything you told me to do. >> No, no, you're right. 100% 100%. Everyone go to Discord. 1905. That's what I'm voting. 1905. >> We have got one vote on Discord, which is for 1954. And the music's up, so chat, whoever >> Chat has voted. >> You have voted for all of chat. Um and more >> Colton, if you're watching, this is 100 I can validate 100% he did this right. And he ended the previous poll. I watched all of that happen. There's definitely something going on. >> Uh but we got a second vote. Oh. >> No, no, no, no. The music ended. The music ended. >> Okay. So, chat chat votes for 1954. >> [laughter] >> And Molding in our Discord has said, "I have no idea." >> [laughter] >> So, they have no idea and they have spoken for chat. Thank you. Okay. Uh so, uh Dutta, what do you think? >> I'm going with chat. I have no idea. >> [laughter] >> You're not just going to pick one? >> Uh >> You got your four-sided die? >> 1959. Okay. Um uh Dave? >> Uh I have no idea, but I was born in '54, so I'm going to go with '54. >> Well, this doesn't happen very often, but Jamie is the only person to get the correct answer. It was indeed 1905. >> I guess I got checked that one. I was like, I have no idea. That one sounds like a good date. Oh, I'm so proud of myself. I got a point and everything. Oh, that's That's really great. Woohoo! Go me. >> Actually, with that extra point, then that brings you level on points with Dutter, you've both got 15 points. >> Uh oh yay, yay. I think we've done a really >> three months or something. >> I am a winner data. I'm a winner data. All right, on that note, I want to thank everyone so much for watching. I also want to thank everyone who contributes whoa, I don't know what I did, but I hit a button that makes it do this now. >> Whoa. >> It's cuz I won. It's cuz I won. >> That's the winning answer. Look. >> Yeah. Yeah, this is the I don't know what how I made that happen. Um I want to thank everyone so much for watching. I want to thank all of the citizens of tomorrow I don't know did you not put the did you forget to put the the crew slate in there? Do I need to stall for a moment Travis? Tell the world tell the world if I have to stall Travis. I need to stall. All right, how are we stalling? I already did like and subscribe. Make sure you do that. >> got the alternating questions. >> I can read that. >> Oh no, we're not going to we're not going to stall that long. >> I can read that the the quiz the the the scoreboard the scoreboard for the quiz and then I can tell everyone how one to three or not one to three you're doing. So, we have uh this is going to this is going to be in no particular order. >> Travis, go back to the quad for me so that we're not just sitting on me. Well, thank you. All right, there we go. Cuz he's working frantically to get the the thing in. >> Uh we have Jamie who's on 15 points. We have Jared who's on 21 points. >> No. >> Dutter who's on 15 points. Uh Mike who's on 12 points. Chat who definitely cheats and on 25 points. Is that back of the launch pad on 14 points. Uh Spencer has no points although they only did one quiz. Uh Dave has seven points. Zack has one point and Andrew has three points. >> How many how many points do you have Ryan? >> I have a a million quadrillion points because I am the best. >> Mhm. I don't >> I I think Zack would agree with that. >> All right, Travis do I need to keep stalling or are we going to basically I'll it? >> He says should be in. >> Oh, look at this. Ah, hazzah. Here we go. All right, cool. These are the all of the crew of tomorrow who have helped to make this episode happen, contributing week after week, month after month, year after year, even the 10-plus years. This is the 18th year that we have been doing this. If you want to get [music] your name in the show, you can head over to youtube.com/tmro/join [music] or head over to patreon.com/tmro. And of course, you get access to our after dark >> [music] >> heading up right after this, where we'll be talking about AI. Uh, we'll be talking about the ground umbilical carrier plate for data and uh I don't know anything else that we [music] decide that we want to chat about. Uh, so I like >> We can also play the game. I've an interesting [music] game. Has my hotel reservation been canceled? Find out after the program. >> Oh, yeah. Actually, I am really curious. I am really curious. Uh, I like to thank everyone so much for watching this week. I'm sorry that we were off for a couple weeks, but um we're back now and we'll try to be back next week as well, even though I'm traveling. Thank you for watching. We'll see you next week. >> [music] >> Ladies and gentlemen, may I have your attention, please?