💦 CREATE AND FUCK YOUR OWN AI CUMSLUT 🔥 TRY NOW ♥
Create AI Cumsluts 💦
May 29, 2026

[Space Bites+] DISASTER for Blue Origin // Primordial Black Hole Candidate // Starship Flight 12

BONUS STORY STARTS AT 20:08

Watch here (with no ads) or on YouTube: https://youtu.be/ES_2Db9WAGQ

​ @NASASpaceflight  https://youtu.be/9b-ZhGB8XDc?si=g8pQDX8OHTDd4R3D  @scottmanley  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aaR6yEE-Myo

New Glenn Explodes, NASA leans in on a moon base. Starship makes its 12th flight. Have astronomers found a primordial black hole? And in Space Bites Plus, flying a plane through a rocket plume to measure its pollution.

Comments (9)

F
Fawad · May 31, 2026

Awe, I was hoping for one more "Japenese outdoor" video or the one from "inside" that centre you were talking about, it was fun.

P
PETER V8 · May 30, 2026

Regarding the pollution check whilst rockets going through the atmosphere into space, BUT haven't heard any concerns of the main Starship landing in the Sea exploding and the unspent fuels and gases etc, mixing with the Sea Water and sea life in the areas of it's landing or even reaching the Sea Bed ??? Any news on this 👀 please 🙏

F
Fawad · May 31, 2026

That particuar part of Indian ocan was specifically chosen for its sparse marine life, depth and low environmental impact, that "explosion" is a clean one. Basically SpaceX's Starship is powered by methalox, a mixture of super-chilled liquid methane and liquid oxygen. Pros outweigh the cons. Environmental Breakdown The Pros: Clean Combustion • No toxic exhaust: Unlike older, kerosene-powered rockets, methane combustion does not produce harmful soot or toxic chemicals. • Clean byproducts: The primary emissions are simply carbon dioxide and water vapor. • The ultimate goal (Carbon Neutrality): Because methane can be synthesized using atmospheric CO2 and water via the Sabatier reaction, the fuel cycle can theoretically be carbon-neutral, particularly if powered by renewable energy. The Cons: Scale and Emissions • High absolute emissions: Starship is the largest rocket ever built. A single launch requires over 1,000 tonnes of fuel, resulting in massive, though largely non-toxic volumes of carbon dioxide and water vapor being released directly into the upper atmosphere. • Atmospheric impact: Pumping these greenhouse gases directly into the stratosphere has complex, localized effects on the atmosphere and climate, which scientists are still studying.

R
RONALD LARSEN · May 30, 2026

no subtitles and I can't read lips...

C
Cyrille Lewandowski · May 30, 2026

About the impact of the multipication of lauches because of the megaconstellations, chloride is the least of all concerns. I'm sure there are more but here's two which are the real concerns : - the effect on the envirronment and especially on the ozone layer of the reentry of so many satelites : when they burn in the upper atmosphere, they produce nano particules of metel which love to bond with oxygene, destroing ozone. - the effect of water, which is a very powerful greenhous gas, in the exhaust of the rockets : below the stratopause, water concentration is maintained by the cycle of water which is very short (the existence of vast mass of liquid water keeps water concentrations in the atmosphere stable). In the stratosphere or above, water accumulates and its geenhouse effect goes up. Abut the effects of the reentrry there is a study which is nos that optimistic, but not conclusive enough. These are the studies we want to see.

S
Stephan Soller · May 30, 2026

Thanks for bringing up the early SMBH story. If confirmed I hope this can shed more light on the dynamics of the early universe. If they can find more of those, maybe they can even constrain if it's direct collapse, black hole stars or other mind-boggling shenanigans going on. Interesting times. :)

D
Dave Burton · May 30, 2026

Unfortunately, the New Glenn disaster is really bad. It will certainly cost Blue Origin north of $1 billion, perhaps twice that, maybe even more. Just the rocket, alone, cost about $150 million. The LC-36A launchpad & related infrastructure which was destroyed cost hundreds of millions. Also, this will cost at least a year's delay in their program, which will cost them many launch contracts. For instance, they'd just been awarded nearly $500 million in new NASA moon mission contracts, which they probably will no longer be able to fulfill. OTOH, the SpaceX IFT-12 mission was a huge success, much better than I expected. With so many changes, I was determined to be satisfied as long as it didn't destroy the launchpad. To get past stage separation would make the mission a big success, because it would mean that useful test data was obtained for both booster and ship. For ship to successfully reenter, on target, in the Indian Ocean, was beyond what I dared hope. Sure, some things failed. (Rocket engines aren't supposed to blow up!) But that was to be expected, and none of the things which failed stopped the mission and prevented them from testing most of the subsequent things on their agenda. "The payload was data," and they got a LOT of it!

B
Benjamin Lefebvre · May 30, 2026

One of the best argument in favor of a space elevator yet!

M
Miguel · May 30, 2026

Bonus story is cool. There’s a lot of geo engineering already happening, as a side effect of our various burning activities, so we need observations to see how it’s working, good bad or mixed.