Why does SpaceX keep changing the BFR? The evolution of BFR

Radiation Train
Radiation Train

Once the question was framed, the answer flowed ... has much more uses than just rocketry. 42

10 hours ago
Andreas Tormin
Andreas Tormin

Why do they call the Falcon heavy the most powerful rocket ever made, if it really was the Saturn v or am I wrong?

Day ago
Everyday Astronaut
Everyday Astronaut

They don't. They say it's the most powerful rocket currently operating. It's the 5th most powerful in history. N1, Saturn V, Energia, Space Shuttle in that order.

Day ago
Blu Rox22 Js5
Blu Rox22 Js5

Why won't Tesla build a death star

Day ago
Someone Else
Someone Else

Instead of pitiful, primitive, inferior chemical fuel rockets that require six months just to reach Mars, why can we instead not have interstellar FTL-capable starships that run on antimatter or dark energy? Or how about intelligent shape-shifting self-flying and self-healing bioships, that a type III alien civilization would use?

2 days ago
tecknos africa
tecknos africa

that thing will never leave the launchpad , it will explode

2 days ago
Rowland Reeves
Rowland Reeves

Great work. For those of us who can't go to these events your analysis etc. is very informative. Graphics and history of BFR evolution well done. Thanks for all your efforts. Also thanks for not asking Elon a bunch of boring questions.

5 days ago
HUNter
HUNter

Just belly flop into the athmosphere like a boss. Next update: parachutes are for pussies, we'll just swan dive into the pacific from orbit!

5 days ago
馬璽مستأمن
馬璽مستأمن

Those 'flaps' are fins, and are for aerodynamic stability. And what about the canard? It's huge, but not mentioned.

5 days ago
馬璽مستأمن
馬璽مستأمن

+Everyday Astronaut I am refering to you naming these fins as 'flaps'. Flaps are used to INCREASE lift on wings. What you probably thought of are spoliers, but spoilers do not have airfoil (they always stall), and are retractable. Any surface at an angle other than zero in relation to the vector of the velocity generates some lift. Looking at the airfoil of these fins, they are obviously optimized for adding the stabilizing aft drag, rather than lift, but it is still lift. Same applies to the (relatively large) canard at the front of the new BFR, which also produce lift. Just to be sure, I am defining lift as a force perpendicular to V vector.

5 days ago
Everyday Astronaut
Everyday Astronaut

Fins act on same plane as the lifting surface. These aren’t fins in that manner. Check out my more detailed video “why the BFS will fall like a skydiver”

5 days ago
UsingCheats
UsingCheats

Does BFR mean big freaking rocket?

5 days ago
Someone Else
Someone Else

No. Big Falcon Rocket.

2 days ago
ROCROCROC1
ROCROCROC1

I am somewhat more skeptical than others might be. I don't think Elon is going to put all of his cards on the table. Why would he? Other companies are trying to keep up with SpaceX and if they can readily see what he is doing in the planning process that puts them a step ahead. I suspect those fins were in the planning long ago. When he initially demonstrated his landing configuration he must have already known he needed more surface area to land the BFR. Same is true of the Raptor engine. The arguments for using just one engine have been known from the beginning. While others are building vacuum engines Elon is changing the shape of the rim surrounding the second stage engines. Problem solved?

6 days ago
Mohith Kanagavel
Mohith Kanagavel

Elon Musk is a living "Tony stark"

6 days ago
Düsseldorfつくば
Düsseldorfつくば

The fact that SpaceX is giving so much insight into their design decisions is (at least to me) another proof, that the main objective of Elon is just to move mankind forward and actively encouraging other companies to join the space race, while at the same time he has a huge amount of faith in his team that, at the end of the day, they will come out on top.

6 days ago
Stuart Netherclift
Stuart Netherclift

Hi Tim, nice video again. In the SpaceX renders they usually show the BFS being mounted on to the BFR by a crane and cable system with the cable attached to the BFS nose. If this is really how it will be then BFS is obviously designed for this load, which means it should be relatively easy to tether two BFS's together nose to nose via a cable, spin them up and have artificial gravity on the trip to Mars, which would be very cool. Any thoughts?

7 days ago
Kasyu
Kasyu

So, they’re taking the kerbal approach?

7 days ago
Marc Barrett
Marc Barrett

I have strong doubts about the BFR ever actually existing.

9 days ago
初中生# 维尼
初中生# 维尼

shrink,shrink and shrink……

10 days ago
Mark Pijnappels
Mark Pijnappels

I agree that you do not see very often inside the design process, but it is not unique: The Ocean Cleanup went through three very publicly visible design incarnations. First it was a 100-km-long barrier, fixed to the seabed, then multiple 2 km versions which were anchored at a few hundred meters depth and currently System 001 is 600 m in length, without any anchor as it is propelled by wind and waves.

11 days ago
Kenneth Ward
Kenneth Ward

Here's a question for future interviews with SpaceX planners: Why are they planning to land a large ship on Mars if early missions are planning to return, when John Houbolt's approach of a small lander was more weight efficient (Lunar Orbit Rendezvous, or in this case it's be Mars orbit rendezvous)? It seems all the eggs are in the basket that says fuel must be manufactured on the Mars surface for any of this to work.

12 days ago
sailordolly
sailordolly

If you look at the design process for the Apollo spacecraft and lunar lander, or for the Space Shuttle, you'd see a whole lot of rapid design changes as they gradually closed in on what was most practical for their performance/budget/time constraints. It is thus nothing new that the BFR/BFS likewise is going through several iterations before they actually start flight testing any of it. Also, given SpaceX's (and Musk's) track record, they can probably accomplish it, but it is going to take more time and money than Musk's optimistic prediction. They may be aiming for a 2024 Mars launch, but it might take until 2030.

12 days ago
JTheory
JTheory

nice edit.. one 8th.

13 days ago
stefan hudson
stefan hudson

Another thing to consider is that u need to build a massive space vessel which needs artificial "gravity" coz if u are on a space shuttle like ship, there is no gravity in space, so it takes from about 130-300 days to get to mars the double the time to get back here (home/Earth) so getting to my point by the time u reach to earth from mars ur bones would totally collapse because u were so used to floating around in space like "Drunken flying birds". So like in the film "the Martian" they had that massive spaceship that the astronauts lived in until they arrived in mars, that's another thing Elon Musk has to worry about "Gravity". it will be a lot easer to build a missive vessel that can hold enough people, food and fuel for the journey back and forth and extra fuel for the "mini" rocket to land on mars and get back to the spaceship. And what Elon musk should do to is hire a massive bunch of scientist and all the other people that will be important to the mission and get half the crew to study on mars the Mars's surface while the other half study the mars weather changes and patterns to warn the colonists when dangerous storms threaten the mission. I feel as Elon Musk is not ready to endure such a huge ambition coz u need to think of COST, WHAT TYPE of people will go, HOW LONG do you want to spend on mars and WHY do u want to go there in the first place when everyone knows mars is a hostile planet and WHAT is there to mine? there are hundreds of questions to ask but in MY opinion these are the most important questions people need to figure out when going to mars. Thank You for those who have had the time to read my comment.

13 days ago
Ace Liu
Ace Liu

Why dont you get more subs? Great video. Your channel is underrated

13 days ago
Edward Case
Edward Case

Engineers typically use parts that are standardized, or "off-the-shelf". I think that in SpaceX's case, with new production techniques, the engineering team can choose to make, a ball bearing let's say, to special order. Drives cost up, usually, but with their approach, this seems to dissipate because the rocket is reusable. My take on why the BFR BFS changes so often is that its a good thing. A very good thing. Let's hope they don't waste budget on 2000 dollar space hammers such as NASA once allowed.

14 days ago
szurheal
szurheal

Great review! Totally agree with you on all the points you made about SpaceX's transparency with design and observations re: BFR's progress. There is a "greater good" feeling when you look at their approach, and Musk's comment about the "right question" was really intriguing. You've got my subscription! Looking forward to more great content! 👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻

14 days ago
Vladimir Tiffany
Vladimir Tiffany

Your eyes look diffrently coloured?

16 days ago
MidNightStudios
MidNightStudios

This channel is what Elon watches when he is off duty.

16 days ago
Tiggerlive
Tiggerlive

Tim Dodd?

16 days ago
Gemein Hardd
Gemein Hardd

U just answered your own question, it's an EVOLUTION

17 days ago
Everyday Astronaut
Everyday Astronaut

The point of the video was to answer the question 😉 I’m not answering it for myself you know 😉

17 days ago
Hiren Patel
Hiren Patel

Controlling that many engines on 1 rocket is a mess. Korolev who single handedly pioneered the Soviet space program but his bad terms will engine designer Yangel, meant that Yangel wasnt ready to build bigger engines and hence Korolev had to use 32 smaller engines and although Korolev died before N1 launch it was doomed to fail from start. SO 31 engines isnt something so great really.

17 days ago
Obsetube
Obsetube

Hiren Patel that’s why you work for them. awesome!

14 days ago
Hiren Patel
Hiren Patel

+Obsetube Because these rockets have almost ZERO tolerance for trust failure on any of the engines. The reason being for the targeted orbit/trajectory, the thrust and burn time as calculated to reach desired velocity at specific altitude. So even if 1 small engine fails it would throw the rocket out of it trajectory and the payload may not even reach the desired altitude or orbit.

14 days ago
Obsetube
Obsetube

Hiren Patel it wouldn’t be funny if you only had say one and it clunks out.

14 days ago
Hiren Patel
Hiren Patel

+Obsetube Thats is so hilarious.

14 days ago
Obsetube
Obsetube

Hiren Patel your better off having multiple ones like this. You can loose a motor, and still keep going.

14 days ago
Viking II
Viking II

This is a big scam, right? The crew protected from radiation by the water tanks? To all the trip? And on Mars also? That to mention only 1 problem.

18 days ago
Kenjew Kii
Kenjew Kii

The BFR is kind of similar to the Concorde, because they both rely on angle of attack to provide drag, therefore, slowing the craft for landing

19 days ago
Lewis McLaren
Lewis McLaren

Wow you listen with your ears I listen my nose

20 days ago
zeckmon3 zeckee
zeckmon3 zeckee

I like the 2016 original design better

21 day ago
Jazz Throwout
Jazz Throwout

A hexagonal pattern with 7 engines is of course more space efficient than an octagonal pattern with 9 engines. Also: the aft cargo is beneficial for the spaceships' center of mass. I am a bit concerned about the fintips though; if the ship lands on a rocky surface (which to some degree is unavoidable) the tips might get slightly bent or scratched which may be an issue in flight. A good engineering solution with some kind of extendable rubber pads might be needed here.

22 days ago
KlapAl0ng
KlapAl0ng

YOU WERE THERE WHEN THEY ANNOUNCED THE FIRST PASSENGER OF BFR?

22 days ago
Ethereal Forest
Ethereal Forest

Elon Musk is one eccentric boi

23 days ago
張海鷗
張海鷗

國際性頻道國家執政出席活動網站內容舉發回覆提交使用者持有蓄意破壞性職務執政必須要求裁員處分/影像持有廣告商戶共謀非法經營以廢紙處理不得頻道播放必須終止服務。執行移交國際性國家執政重懲理賠償還權益受損嚴重影響理賠處分

24 days ago
Watcher Zero
Watcher Zero

Getting as much drag as possible to slow re-entry has been done before, its a copy of the 'Feathering' system used by Virgins Spaceship Two and Rutans Spaceship One.

25 days ago
Everyday Astronaut
Everyday Astronaut

We compare the differences before spaceship two and BFS in my other video “Why BFS falls like a skydiver and not fly like an airplane” 👍 although similar ish, the two are quite different

25 days ago
kale rijsbergen
kale rijsbergen

The earth is flat fool

26 days ago
orange70383
orange70383

The best thing about Space X is there's never any risk involved because it's all fake. But it will fool some 8 year-olds but not many.

26 days ago
PaulJayFFF
PaulJayFFF

But... there'll be hardly any drag when entering the atmosphere of Mars. Must be a good reason for the fins I'm sure.

26 days ago
BIOSHOCKFOXX
BIOSHOCKFOXX

"-Will do. Love reddit. -Lets sit down and do twitter questions" :D

26 days ago
jet li
jet li

So many bar, raising the bar, where is a bar? Yet another great, informative video! Thanks Everyday.

27 days ago
Overspray Collector
Overspray Collector

I fell asleep sonewhere along along the video but woke up again at 10:10

28 days ago
matthewakian2
matthewakian2

I hope this craft does not go the way of XCOR Lynx.

28 days ago
Richard Green
Richard Green

Every "new" technology is a solution looking for a problem. To fund the R&D, you need some plausible customers with plausible goals.

29 days ago
Comedy Copter
Comedy Copter

$20 billion and still stutters

29 days ago
Adam Austin
Adam Austin

Explain this detail. How can a someone go from a gaseous pressurized atmosphere to a "near perfect" vacuum without an air lock in between? DOH! Speaking of air lock, how come they never show us astronauts going in and out of air lock? DOH! Here's a detail for you. How do rockets fire in a near perfect vacuum, when zoom climbs have shown the maximum altitude any aircraft can reach is roughly 135,000 feet? Shucks! I also wonder how it is that the SR-71 can't even keep fuel in its tanks on the runway because of the extreme heat it experiences travelling mach 3, they have no way to seal the tanks, yet rockets and shuttles can supposedly reach speeds of mach 22 with no ill effects? Then there's the question of these satellites floating around in 500C heat of the thermosphere like it's nothing. What kind of materials can withstand the heat? Though we never see an air lock, why do we see air bubbles floating upward in space? In one space station video, the dummy astronaut removes a key from a door and drops it. How does he drop it, why does it fall down? There are so many questions and only one answer. "Space may be the final frontier, but it's made in a hollywood basement" - Red Hot Chili Peppers.

29 days ago
orange70383
orange70383

Hey you're spoiling these peoples fantasies, you see the typical rocket fan-boy is among the most naive and very easily fooled because well it's a fantasy for them that unfortunately they think is real. With you posting the truth there's a very sleight chance that one of these space cadets might begin to have doubts about this rocket scam and may suffer a mental train wreck leaving them stuck in a state where they only repeat over and over 10-9-8-7-6-5-4-3-2-1 blast off.

26 days ago
David Gaines
David Gaines

6:50 retroactive fix-up job!

29 days ago
RJ
RJ

Listen people, we are never going to Mars okay they've been saying this since the Carter Administration I'm 51 years old I've listened to this same lie every time we get a new president. Each President says we're going to go to Mars during his administration yet it never happens I mean NASA admits we can't even get back to the Moon because "we lost that technology" but yet they expect us to believe we're going to go to Mars? Come on man which is it if you can't go to the Moon you certainly can't go to Mars I have an idea, why don't we fix this place before we go screwing up another one, just my two cents

Month ago
B Real
B Real

I used to be that excited about Space too until I found out space is a fabrication created by the government's

Month ago
flakeat
flakeat

You hit the nail on the head about how requirements creep can totally hose up the original design intent. Great video!!

Month ago
Jonathan Yu
Jonathan Yu

I still enjoy the original ITS design

Month ago
Daanydoomboy
Daanydoomboy

20th of september is technically summer

Month ago
Otai w_a_v_e
Otai w_a_v_e

8:57 I didn't even notice that you have different eyes colors until now hahaha

Month ago
Alien
Alien

If you only knew the technology they actually got. Your head will blow up.

Month ago
20somthingdrifter11
20somthingdrifter11

I would like to honestly say thank you for this channel, all the news these days it so negitive, but this channel manages to find some posistive news that gives me a little hope in humanity.

Month ago
Lazz the Wolf
Lazz the Wolf

Do any of you swiveling worms (myself included) have a CLUE as to what we're witnessing? I am ASTOUNDED! What a time to be alive!

Month ago
Lazz the Wolf
Lazz the Wolf

orange70383 please, enlighten me.

26 days ago
orange70383
orange70383

Yes, we are witnessing an astounding amount of gullible naive people falling for this blatantly obvious hoax that is space x.

26 days ago
Plutotracks
Plutotracks

Original design from 2016 looked best.

Month ago
mary s
mary s

I think id like to purchase a BFR tee shirt...??? Logo spacex on the back !!??

Month ago
Joe Campbell
Joe Campbell

How do you go to SpaceX and not wear your space suit?

Month ago
Bobby M
Bobby M

This new BFR reminds me of mid 20th century scifi rocket designs wear the rockets would ALWAYS land on their fins. Really makes you think, were they onto something?

Month ago
ublade82
ublade82

Wow over 1,000 cubic meters of cargo volume! Now they can fit your mom!

Month ago
Raidenway
Raidenway

This is a suicide mission unless they test this with AI on auto pilot without any human for at least 5 years before commercialising it

Month ago
Jazz Throwout
Jazz Throwout

Dude, how do you think the Falcon 9 lands? 'AI' of course, not a pilot with a joystick in the launch center. And by AI we mean current microprocessors running smart algorithms in real time, reacting to feedback from multiple sensors. And thats why landing a rocket has only become feasable in the last few years. Because even in 2000 said processors would have cost a fortune and before 1985 the whole equipment would also have been huuuge thus dramatically reducing the payload. I'm afraid your comment comes about 10 years too late... 😀

22 days ago
Hetzer 2000 gaming
Hetzer 2000 gaming

It could have 700 engines to get it into space and mars.

Month ago
WatchMe Noobing
WatchMe Noobing

Its called improvement xD

Month ago
Galaxspirit Animations
Galaxspirit Animations

I live very close to Los Angeles and the HQ is only 43 minutes away?! *OOF*

Month ago
Shawna Abdul
Shawna Abdul

Yeah but how will the crew members get down without breaking their necks? A 10+ story ladder won’t work

Month ago
Shawna Abdul
Shawna Abdul

Thank you

Month ago
caav56
caav56

Via elevator, like the one shown on this picture - https://i.imgur.com/Sl9U2wU.jpg

Month ago
Mixam the Slav
Mixam the Slav

Can you make a video on the Soyuz MS 10 launch screwup?

Month ago
Manav Sethi
Manav Sethi

AWESOME! Your work is just awesome brother. I'm an astrophysics enthusiast, a programmer and want to do entrepreneurship in space travel. I'm hell nerdy and handsome and extrovert at the same time. It's like being a multi-flavor pie. I think we can work together and create awesome stuff "of future"! Please give me your mail or mail me "come on-board" at [email protected]

Month ago
Mike351025
Mike351025

Awesome videos. I love pretty much EVERYTHING space!!

Month ago
JeanLafitte
JeanLafitte

When Wernher von Braun locked conceptual design on the Saturn in the 1950s, we had a very reliable but very expensive space transportation system in the late 1960s that fiscally killed US manned space exploration from 1977-1981 and ANY manned lunar exploration to now. Phil Bono's "plug" engines MIGHT have dropped cost per unit mass to orbit incredibly.

Month ago
Théophane Mayaud
Théophane Mayaud

Awesome video 😍

Month ago
Krzysztof Rodak
Krzysztof Rodak

31 engines, good luck. Where do they plan to test it ?

Month ago
Krzysztof Rodak
Krzysztof Rodak

IMHO it's a huge deal. In FH Musk did not risk that much because his stages were already in use and verified. Then it was a matter of bunching them up without performing real static tests. But 31 engines in a single rocket body, not tested before, is totally different situation (mind just vibrations problem). A lot of risk, a lot of money, but it's just mine opinion. Good luck anyway

Month ago
Everyday Astronaut
Everyday Astronaut

Same way they tested the 27 engines of falcon heavy... just add four engines 🤷‍♂️ not that big of a deal

Month ago
Our House Niittylä
Our House Niittylä

TLDR, this is an idea that was made by a designer WITH NO IDEA ABOUT AERODYNAMICS, so it keeps changing as they get more serious about it being a thing and not just a BS picture and marketing stunt. e.g. anyone that isint a fanboy, looked at the first one and said "its a dart" and with no lifting surface in the front 2/3 of the craft itll go into the atmosphere the fat man going to Nagasaki.... with much the same results...

Month ago
Robert Spreadborough
Robert Spreadborough

ok space man google these 2 truths - the spped record is held by NASA for 9.5 mach but your rockets need to reach a minimum of 25000 in order to reach escape velocity - yes thats right mr astronaut - 25000 that is about mach 70 - what a joke - what a lie you are promoting -

Month ago
Everyday Astronaut
Everyday Astronaut

Perhaps you’re confusing 9.5 Mach with an atmospheric record. Actually as you ascend through altitude your Mach number changes. MACH NUMBER is defined as a speed ratio, referenced to the speed of sound, i.e. Since the temperature and density of air decreases with altitude, so does the speed of sound, hence a given true velocity results in a higher MACH number at higher altitudes. AIRSPEED is a term that can be easily confused. Besides that, no human has ever experienced full blown escape velocity (that would take a craft beyond the earth towards to inner or outer solar system), but we will when we send people to mars. I think you need to just double check your math. To get to LEO it takes about Mach 22 (at sea level which its not), and that happens all the time. Please cite your sources on these records and let me know why you think we’d experience escape velocity to reach LEO.

Month ago
Macro Shaft
Macro Shaft

same reason Stark kept iterating

Month ago
matt cade
matt cade

Astro not

Month ago
Geri Ott
Geri Ott

My penis is very big

Month ago
L-D-S Animations
L-D-S Animations

Why not? -__________-

Month ago
Reinhold Everest
Reinhold Everest

So musk and his artist's concepts are going to Mars now? OK. Musk is erratic and now literally promises the moon, he rarely delivers. NASA consumed 5% of the US budget at one point and 400,000 Scientists, Engineers and Technicians worked to launch Apollo 11 to the Moon. I hate Time magazine but this article has very good points: http://time.com/5401923/elon-musk-spacex-moon/ Looking forward to the SLS launch.

Month ago
fisterB
fisterB

Tim, do you want to go as a filmmaker on the #dearmoon mission?

Month ago
x9x9x9x9x9
x9x9x9x9x9

I want to see this set this guy is on. I thought green screen at first but after looking for all the signs of chromakey I don't see it. 8:56 I am dead. As a first time viewer I hadn't even noticed.

Month ago
Everyday Astronaut
Everyday Astronaut

http://YouTube.com/TMRO that’s the studio I was in! It’s NOT green screen! Cool right?!

Month ago
Jonny One-Truck
Jonny One-Truck

13:00 The first question, hiding in plan sight.... Dr. WHO?!?!?! :-)

Month ago
Jurgen E
Jurgen E

looks more and more like a werner von braun design or am i mistaken

Month ago
aassug
aassug

7:05 crazy reentry? really? completly unique? Come on, be objective, science is about that.

Month ago
Everyday Astronaut
Everyday Astronaut

Watch my newest video. We talk about how it’s new and different. Name another reentry that uses drag brakes for orientation through reentry

Month ago
Bobby traylor
Bobby traylor

Find the question to solve the answer... his favorite book is hitchhikers guild to the galaxy and he quotes it I like that

Month ago
Jordan Lozinski
Jordan Lozinski

Its all fake dummies WAKE UP!

Month ago
Shaboi_Mike
Shaboi_Mike

Jordan Lozinski what you’re doing is taking other peoples opinions and considering them fact. Every nasa launch is well documented and their videos are public record. What you have is taking peoples words, misconstruing them, and also making up your own information to agree with your lie. You have no proof so stop wasting time

Month ago
Shaboi_Mike
Shaboi_Mike

Jordan Lozinski google isn’t a source you have no empirical evidence

Month ago
Jordan Lozinski
Jordan Lozinski

Typical... ask for the proof and then don't look at any of it. You find me a link with a rocket penetrating space with no cuts or edits. You won't will not find such footage, believe me I've been looking into it for a while now. Google image "rockets in space" and ask yourself why they are all cartoons. Or just deny it don't look. Some ppl just need to cling to their space religion for dear life.

Month ago
Shaboi_Mike
Shaboi_Mike

Jordan Lozinski more misinformation

Month ago
Jordan Lozinski
Jordan Lozinski

You can simply google "nasa rocket arc" and clearly see from photos off of their own website that the rockets get launched into the ocean. None of the agencies have shown uncut footage rockets penetrating the vaccum of space. NASA, JAXXA, RASA, Space X it doesn't matter, they will always cut to CGI during the penetration. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7i0yU3u9Obw&t=454s Check this link to witness obvious fraud on the ISS. If ISS is fake then Space X is fake since all of their payloads go to ISS allegedly. If that peaks your interest at all you can check out "UAP" channel and "dilly gilly" channel for hours of space fraud. Youtube litereally contains HUNDREDS of hours of space fraud from the moonlanding up until now. If you don't investigate both sides you can't will only get one side of the story. Where you go from here is up to you.

Month ago
Peter Ferry
Peter Ferry

Stupidly useless… Why do they need to send people in space? Probes and robots are way more efficient for space exploration...

Month ago
Look at my face
Look at my face

Glass half full?

Month ago
Peter Ferry
Peter Ferry

We will all die on Earth before that happens

Month ago
Shaboi_Mike
Shaboi_Mike

Peter Ferry because we want to set up a colony on other planets?

Month ago
Orion Michael Guy
Orion Michael Guy

Space Travel is so easy it is laughable that no one has figured out we are being deliberately kept in the dark by the US Government and their Secret Space Program that has been using Electromagnetic Propulsion for over half a century! There is a reason no scientist can say they know what gravity is. Because they are not allowed! If you know what gravity is, you can theories a simple gravitic propulsion system and build a spaceship! So, we know space, or space-time has density, as in gravity waves... and we know everything that is made of Matter creates gravity - so, and this is so simple it is laughable, but if Matter is E=MC2 - as in Matter IS Energy, and Matter and Energy create Gravity - what is Matter/Energy? Matter/Energy is ELECTROMAGNETIC ENERGY/RADIATION! ELECTROMAGNETIC RADIATION CREATES GRAVITY! How do you build a spaceship? WITH ELECTROMAGNETIC ENERGY! As in the EM Drive, as in THE ElectroMagnetic DRIVE! What is the frequency that creates a gravitic field? its 33 Killahertz, this frequency is designated or "Allocated" as Government Only Frequency Range, and is not allowed to be used by the public or private sector! So the question then becomes, how do you build a spaceship with ElectroMagnetic Fields? Take a large Shipping Container, if you skin the container in "Microwave Emitters" or "Magnetrons" and you turn on the Emitters on the top of the Container, you will create a gravitic field above the container, and just like a bubble of air rising in water, the container will "fall upwards" If you open the emitters on the top of the container, and on the front of the container, you will elevate and move forward Now, if you open the emitters around the entire container, you will create a "field frequency array" or a "Thin Shell" around the container and you will be able to change the containers mass, and you can move the container very fast - because the container is creating an EM Field around itself, it is pushing away "space-time" and it is creating a "thin shell" around itself, where the limitations of the speed of light and local entanglement are reduced or removed, and if you apply enough energy to the front of the container, you can make that container move very very fast, even in an atmosphere, you can move faster that the speed of light! And that is the easiest way to build a spaceship! But be warned, the government uses all Smoke Detectors, Computer Hardware, Cell Phones, TVs, Tablets, Monitors, Cell Phone Towers and other receivers and satellites to spy on everyone, virtually everywhere, and because Smoke Detectors both Broadcast and Receive Unique Microwave Frequencies, they can detect any unauthorized EM Signals, as well as triangulate their signals and create a "virtual camera" using the "microwaves" and the all seeing eye is real! Google NSA Smoke Detector Spy Net, and realize the reason the Government is spying on everyone is because they want complete and total control of everything, and should you build a free energy device, space travel, or EM travel that would make oil practically obsolete... you get the idea - you are all farm animals in the eyes of the wicked, and they cant have you fly the coup now can they! This is a video of how these craft actually work! - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vzY06MRzwPE

Month ago
The Bestest
The Bestest

Orion Michael Guy okay calm down you don’t need to write an essay

29 days ago
Breadwolf
Breadwolf

Wake up, man. You really think the world government would be stupid enough to let its secret space travel technology get published on youtube? The EM drive is just a distraction, deliberately leaked to the public to make us think we know what's going on and keep us from discovering the REAL technology that they've been using for over 5000 years, invented by the Ancient Sumerians. They were the first ones to realize that vibrational density of UV light could be harnessed with optics to create a flux impulse. Since the Sun is an abundant source of ultraviolet light, it became trivial to build space craft that could maintain propulsion as long as they were in direct sunlight, no electricity required at all! This is how they were able to make the Nazca Lines, the Pyramids, etc. Open your eyes! This whole electromagnetic fad is being spoon-fed to you by the same people you think you are exposing! They are pulling the wool over your eyes, making you think that you figured them out, and making you complacent in your smug belief that you are smarter than them and know it all. The rabbit hole goes way deeper than you could possibly imagine. Be careful though, they are carefully watching for any unauthorized use of UV light, and they are trying to suppress it as much as possible. Have you noticed how everything has "UV protection" these days? Shades, sunscreen, even windows! They'll do anything to stop us from using UV light for limitless energy and free travel, even claiming that UV light causes cancer! Google it if you don't believe me.

Month ago
Joe Ramirez
Joe Ramirez

You asked the question but I didn't hear a answer,or do I need to rewind the Vidio

Month ago
Corvus Corax
Corvus Corax

I think the 2016 ITS looks the coolest; it's got this weird sci-fi aesthetic.

Month ago
jasper p
jasper p

what happened to butt-to-butt refueling?

Month ago
RoanNYC
RoanNYC

Me in the bathroom after eating a nice healthy portion of Taco Bell is probably no less than 9000 BAR

Month ago
T S Mcraedy
T S Mcraedy

It's simple they keep changing it because they don't know how to do it without killing a bunch of people.

Month ago
Ted Parf
Ted Parf

Wasn’t the 100 tons to Mars? Not LEO?

Month ago
Everyday Astronaut
Everyday Astronaut

Both. It requires in orbit refuel to get 100 tons to mars though

Month ago
jim czerwinski
jim czerwinski

Great presentation

Month ago
T Samuel
T Samuel

Thanks for not wearing the goofy costume, and for good info

Month ago
SwissSpace
SwissSpace

Hey tim! I just wanted to ask you if you only like space travel or if you are also interested in astronomy/-physics in general

Month ago
Everyday Astronaut
Everyday Astronaut

Definitely mostly spaceflight. Physics is cool, astronomy is cool but my knowledge is definitely lacking in those departments!

Month ago
Lloyd Sumner
Lloyd Sumner

Maybe these are three different spacecraft each designed for different jobs last for low earth orbit only

Month ago

Next videos