Starship aborts launch, NSF reacts - The Flame Trench

I don't see why this docking port in the nose is such a big surprise and i don't see why you guys see this as a problem at all. For HLS and Depot, there's no reason to worry about the headers at all, just delete them. None of that hardware is structural. As for future ideas, if they absolutely have to keep the headers in the nose for ballast reasons on ships intended for re-entry, could they not build a larger header with a transfer tube built into it to give access to the nose?

I think we'll begin to see HLS hardware once they start catching Ship. Maybe possible like EJ said, once they get into orbit they'll start to show some stuff.

What about too much water from the top of the tower, got to be difficult to light.

2:03:49 was there no trust in the sprawling future perspective of ares1X taking to the skies once every 2 years?

Wow

I thought that bearings were supposed to spin. Bushings not so much. I guess if the shaft within a bearing shifts instead of spins, then a bearing would spin the wrong way, shifting within its housing.

Seemed to be a lot of discussion about the proposed nose entry port and how to make up the weight and balance issues with removing the small tanks and manifolds there. I didn’t hear part of the discussion that mentioned that there would need to be a small decompression chamber. Can you imagine trying to compress and decompress the entire volume of the ship’s livable space? That would easily make up most of the weight difference.

19:14 the birth of the expression "to New-Glenn oneself"

At least we get to watch TWO countdowns to Launch in 5 days!!!!!!!:_ShuttleH:

Late comment, as I couldn't join "live" - agree that the rendering of the Artemis/Orion docking is nonsense. It is my hope that HLS is going to be ready, but SpaceX has decided to keep I.P. theft at a minimum. Also, why bother with Orion at all, when HLS is better in every metric?

On the 37A discussion, I actually lean more towards Ryan this time than EJ, which is weird because usually I'm the opposite. SpaceX has been optimistic with launchpads supposedly being ready before (cough, 39A by the end of 2025, cough). Nor is 37 even needed for a while. They can legally launch what, 75 flights a year between Starbase and 39A right now? And that's assuming they can't get the FAA to raise that a bit further. ASU at Starbase should be online in a few months and be able to supply prop for 2 launches a week right? If the FAA signs off on the flightrate to use that capability that's like 150 Starship launches a year that SpaceX would be good to go for in 2027. Show of hands for anyone who thinks they'll need 37A (and B) by EARLY 2027 because they want to fly more than THAT next year. Yeah no they're not going from single digits to triple digits in a single year, even SpaceX can't handle that. Meaning they're not gonna need 37 until 2028 at the earliest, so really no need to rush there.

Now, where I do vehemently, viciously disagree with Ryan on is him still clinging to the ludicrous claim that Starship will only fly 2 or 3 more times this year. I'm sorry WHAT!?!? You

Starship is truly reusable 😂

So New Glenn is now a verb 😊

SAFETY FIRST ❤

The Raptor engine is a good example of the tradeoff between manufacturing optimization and design flexibility. Early iterations typically prioritize achieving the desired performance, with the design represented by many discrete components that each correspond to individual design parameters. That level of granularity makes it easier to adjust specific aspects of the engine's behavior as issues are discovered.

As the design matures, the focus shifts toward manufacturability. Components are consolidated, part counts are reduced, and functions that were once separate become integrated. This simplifies production, lowers cost, and can improve consistency, but it also reduces the ability to independently adjust the underlying design parameters. If reliability issues emerge after that point, addressing them may require redesigning integrated assemblies rather than making relatively small, targeted changes.

If that has occurred with the Raptor engine, then continued improvements in reliability could become more difficult because the design has traded tuning flexibility for manufacturing efficiency. Whether that tradeoff was made too early is ultimately an engineering question, but it c

The failure to launch should make the next Space X documentary more interesting. 👍

Thanks Y'all on NSF❤

New outro is great!

1st Falcon 9 launch was 1 year, 1 month & 17 days, before the final Space Shuttle launch. (June 4th 2010 vs July 21st 2011)

Random guy: "All entertainment, no knowledge"
NSF: "Yes"

Sad😢, but better safe than sorry. "Rockets are hard" he said.
Go SpaceX 🦾
Go Starship 🚀