Solving Second Stage Reuse - Stoke Space
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 17 май 2024
- The problem I have with editing is that I realize all the gaps in the script I had, so I'm compelled to spend the extra hours filling the corners with text instead of just slapping in 2 minutes of uninterrupted video footage with me talking over it. I could pump out a lot more videos that way ay. Maybe I should. Also another shift up on the audio lets goo, this time just using my laptop’s mic because I am not thinking straight.
Also I don’t feel the need to make clarifications here, so that’s probably a good thing.
Actually discussing Stoke lunar lander. Looking at the numbers I used; they were probably a bit optimistic in the department of dry mass in adapting the stage for minimising boiloff and lunar operations. So it might be closer to 1-1.5 tons. I did give myself 500m/s of delta v margin however, so at least I’m good like that.
www.desmos.com/calculator/nfz...
The more broad stroke criticism of SSTO's is that they can only access LEO, meaning you need an additional tug stage for anything beyond that. So effectively, it's still a TSTO. Now relative to Stoke design, it might be argued that tug is better because space optimized à la Centaur V. Especially pertinent in a lunar landing trade between Stoke and Blue Moon. IDK, being able to go from lunar surface directly to re-entry in 1 stage with ISRU might actually be pretty cool. Super Nova could have some interesting human spaceflight implications.
Stoke Space Script: docs.google.com/document/d/1A... 
Наука
had to watch the video twice lol, I was too focused on the text
Felt a little like sensory overload tbh, so much at once!
Essentially I don't want to bloat the script will all of these thoughts and want to embed them into that video. Every additional second of script is another second of editing and I am not good at editing (this 8 minute video took like 8 hours and it's not at all complicated). So instead I just made a high skill cap video. I appreciate the feedback, it's hard to judge how it feels to watch with fresh eyes.
@@jenakuns Please either put it in the script or leave it out. It is very frustrating and wastes time to have to pause the video to read the text and then rewind a bunch to get back into what you are discussing. If you are going to discuss in-depth aerospace concepts, discuss them; if not stick to more surface level concepts. If I had been just listening and not watching the video I would have missed so much information in your presentation.
Overall I really did like the video but lets be honest here. You didn't make a "high skill cap" video, you made an annoying one that is interesting.
@@dr4d1s Yeah fair. I still really want to keep videos short; average watch time is 3 minutes. But with most of the things discussed, there's like dozens of asterisks; do I just put timestamps in description expanding upon the point? It's information I want to be there for people who want to know more, without bloating the video for people who just want to hear the summary.
However something I do want for the videos, is them to have enough nuance/depth that upon rewatch people gain new insights. Putting a secondary script worth of text into the visual format might have been a blunt way to do that but it is in the realm of I want.
If they can reuse 200 times without any refurbishment , that is 600 tonne to orbit per Rocket , that a little more than the falcon 9 , without any refurbishment
I thought SpaceX should have figured out how to stockpile 2nd Stages into a Parking orbit to build a Fuel Depot & Station with the used 2nd Stage.
1st
One of these days I'm gunna make a video so revolutionary that you are compelled to comment something other than first. Today is not one of those days.
@@jenakuns just call North Korea’s space program bad
@@jenakuns "These" or "Those" days? ... "gunna"... first you need to learn to accept some critique and not consider the critique the same as criticism. "so revolutionary that you are compelled"... I would work on grammar rather than grimmer realities. Slow down. Proof Read. Clear stiff language is much less unattractive than lazy mistakes.