Elon Musk Isn't Telling Us Something About Starship
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 4 ноя 2024
- Sign up for the weekly Space Race newsletter here: www.thespacera...
Last Video: Elon Musk Leaks Starship Flight 6 Update!
• Elon Musk Leaks Starsh...
►Sign up for the weekly Space Race newsletter here: www.thespacera...
►Become a member today: / @thespaceraceyt
►Support the channel by purchasing from our merch store: shop.theteslas...
► Join Our Discord Server: / discord
► Patreon: / thespacerace
► X/Twitter: / thespaceraceyt
► Subscribe to our other channel, The Tesla Space: / theteslaspace
Mars Colonization News and Updates
• Mars Colonization News...
SpaceX News and Updates: • SpaceX News and Updates
The Space Race is dedicated to the exploration of outer space and humans' mission to explore the universe. We’ll provide news and updates from everything in space, including the SpaceX and NASA mission to colonize Mars and the Moon. We’ll focus on news and updates from SpaceX, NASA, Starlink, Blue Origin, The James Webb Space Telescope and more. If you’re interested in space exploration, Mars colonization, and everything to do with space travel and the space race... you’ve come to the right channel! We love space and hope to inspire others to learn more!
► Subscribe to The Tesla Space newsletter: www.theteslasp...
Business Email: sean@creatormill.com
#Spacex #Space #Mars
Not sure if the error is for simplicity sake or not but as it's central to your explanation I feel it's important to seek clarification. The explanation of "orbit" is overly simplistic as most orbits are elliptical for a reason, and you are incorrect in stating that Starship has not yet reached orbital velocity. Starship HAS BEEN reaching orbital velocity since the 3rd Flight Test, but what it is NOT doing is performing a perigee burn to circularize the orbit. It's traveling at orbital velocity but on a trajectory that has it re-entering the atmosphere at the desired location because of the curvature in its orbit.
@@SpontaneousIntrospections 17,500 MPH is orbital velocity, I think that's right around 26K KPH, which is the speed the last three ships have attained! Great point! The second & third burn probably won't happen till flight 7!
@ agreed. Thanks for filling in the numbers.
I think it's wrong. It doesn't rise its perigee high enough to achieve orbital. Thus no orbital speed. If it was as you say, starship would have flown over Australia and re-entered close to America. But it doesn't. So the orbit is still below the karman line.
Tho for starship it is possible to complete an orbit in just a single burn, as it's flight profile allows to do this.
Even if everything i said is wrong - still, you can't get to the ground if you move with orbital velocity.
Yes but ... empty. Impressive and unprecedented as it is, the most powerful rocket ever made seems to be barely capable of getting an empty starship into low Earth orbit. Where's the 100 tons of cargo musk has been promising for years? Because until he can rapidly and reliably get 100 tons of cargo into orbit, he's not going to the Moon, and he certainly won't be going to Mars.
Catching the booster is exciting, but it's really a bit of a side show, a distraction from the true limitations of this behemoth.
@ catching the booster is the proof of concept they needed to move forward without heavy landing legs being installed ON the Booster. Nothing sideshow about it. It was a fundamental hurdle they had to overcome to move forward with their current concept of the system. And they’re not even launching it fully fueled because it’s not necessary for this stage of iteration.
You mean “The Interplanetary Transport System” aka T.I.T.S.
damn, gotta Love that name TITS!! LOL ;D
BRUH💀, we can say elon is working on T.I.T.S.
Elon is going T.I.T.S up.
some guy was likely paid well for that acronym! LOL ;D
T.I.T.S and Astral Supply Shuttle.
0:08 I would actually say the Mars Sky crane manoeuvre was the most impressive thing man has done since the moon landing
@@EaziGX up until THAT time it probably was, then it was eclipsed by powered flight on another planet with the success of Ingenuity, and now the scope of the engineering feat that went into successfully catching/landing the first stage of the largest and most powerful object in human history.
Then you are very ignorant.
JWST was pretty cool, but did Voyagers predate 1969?
I saw the plans for that and I was gonna say it's never gonna work but it did... Awesome...
Yeah. That was awesome.
The hard part of orbital refueling is not the docking, it pumping cold liquids in microgravity, keeping them at constant temperature during so long time and avoid slushing (liquid floating around inside the tanks). At least a week of storage is required, and for the moon landing at least two weeks.
Will be interesting to see the tanker starship. They need to start building a few soon, as soon as they stick the landing it needs to be ready to be launched.
Well I dont think we see anything
@
They’ve managed a lot of milestones already. I’m sure they’ll solve orbital refueling as well.
im thinking that sloshing can be avoided by a small cold gas thrust forward to push fluids to the "bottom" of the tanks. you could use the rockets for that once linked, but that kind of stress on the connection seems a very bad plan.
Ullage, done. You are wrong.
@@macjonte Have they hit any? I look at their own milestones and they're about 4 years behind. Still no complete orbit, no payload, the Pez dispenser door didn't work, their refueling simulation wasn't anything... and last I checked, they decided to scrap their belly-to-belly refueling (since half of the fuel is wasted) and gone to the ass-to-ass method where the front ship slows down to let the supply ship's fuel transfer by momentum, but he never talks about the orbital decay from slowing down. The entire project looks like a massive list of failures and I doubt he's ever going to the moon, let alone the plan with 20 refueling ships for Mars. How does he plan to get people out of the ship to the surface?
I am proud of this species slowly advancing into the universe
I am not
@@Andrewski-c2x Why?
Thanks bro. I am happy you are proud of me
We are getting there eventually 🙏🙏
currently we haven't really advanced a lot. 1960's-70's was the largest advancement in space and still is, but the day spaceX has taken the historically largest possible payload into lunar orbit and landed on the moon, now that would be an advancement.
The "experts" laughed at SpaceX when Elon announced they would attempt to land Falcon 9 boosters on drone ships at sea! It took many tries, but now with 350+ landings, individual boosters being used 20+ times, & only two lost boosters in landing attempts, the Falcon 9 has a better record than the shuttle system!
It appears that SpaceX learned a great deal & incorporated this into the Starship system! The next two years will be interesting!
No experts laughed... They pointed out the obvious that there isn't really a market for reflying boosters over and over again, which is why SpaceX's largest customer is themselves with their Starlink satellites...
Also, some us are old enough to remember the Falcon 9 being sold to the American taxpayer as being able to be flown again for the cost of simply refilling the rocket with fuel. That never happened.
Catching the booster is peanuts compared to bringing back the upper stage and that's with it being a completely empty test flight article... The 100 tons to LEO Musk said starship would do is actually more like 40 (I doubt even that number) but don't worry, V 3.0 solves this! 🙄
If SpaceX was serious about sending people to Mars, they would have human rated the Falcon heavy...
Starship will be used by Uncle Sam to "spread democracy" but it'll never, ever take people to the moon or mars. Period.
In two years, Elon will blame someone for the fact he hasn't completed X, Y, and Z.
A la Twitter advertisers
@@DumbledoreMcCrackenWhat do you base that statement on?
@@DumbledoreMcCracken When has he ever blamed someone else for failing to do something? His companies get results I'm sorry that makes you feel inferior cope about it
@@stevegilliver5104look at his name, he is just a troll.
Funny how I've said many times how I would have loved to be alive during the first space race and the Apollo era, and here we are now, in a second space race. Granted this time around the world isnt as captivated, but those of us that love aerospace are riveted!
Well to me this looks more like the N1 rocket all over again
Yeah because our media never covers these stories. I remember in the 80’s and the 90’s the media actually covered real stories like this. They were always honest and didn’t just talk about politics. Hell a lot of people couldn’t wait to watch the news. Now it’s all garbage.
After hearing all this I don’t think we’ve made to the moon ever.
So what didn’t they tell us? Basic orbital dynamics?
I was a little insulted by that as well.
@@vernonkroark you see, it’s constantly falling
As far as I can tell, the author didn’t get around to that.
I guess still scratching head.
It's in the very last statement. There will be unknown challenges that will have to be solved. Sending spaceships to the Moon and Mars will not be easy. Certainly the author isn't able to tell us what Elon won't.
I solely believe xAI42x will do 20x after its launch price, the hype is high and its community are not relenting.
Thank you for admitting that there are huge challenges ahead. Objectivity seems to no longer be popular, so I really enjoyed this.
Challenges?. I see dead ends
I think most people keep forgetting, Starship is way behind schedule and way over budget at this point. Considering most of the funding for Starship is from NASA and thus taxpayer money, I hope this would me more thoroughly discussed.
I think you need to find a better source to spoon feed you what you pretend you know. You're being gulled at the moment.
@@TheEvilmooseofdoom Is the contract between NASA and SpaceX good enough for you? For example, the first schedule milestone is Starship orbital launch Q2/22, meaning successful orbital launch with promised payload capability. (Not even close currently).
I thought the propellant transfer was going to be next, and then starlink pez dispensing. I believe they should first pez dispense, and then propellant transfer to the empty pez ship. This would make the most sense
It takes 20 successful launches and 20 successful orbital refueling maneuver for Space X's lunar mission profile. That's' the most ridiculous proposal.
Thank you. Starship will never land on the moon. The woman at NASA who made the decision (and then went on to work for Musk) handed it to China.
exactly man. Im not a hater, but that is absurd. And all this space guys youtubers skipping these questions....
Btw, Why, why build a spacecraft this big when they can dock on space
As I understand it, SpaceX /has/ reached orbital velocity, but not in the inclination you would need to orbit; it’s got enough radial velocity to not raise the periapsis enough while still holding the correct velocity.
It’s exactly what you conveyed, but at one point you said SpaceX would need to achieve orbital velocity and that’s already been done.
Correct. Orbital velocity achieved, but not orbit. People really struggle with this concept.
yes, yes, correct, and good, and whatever else is needed to be said!! LOL ;D
It's reached an airspeed equivalent to orbital velocity, but not the speed needed across the ground to maintain orbit. It's really an irrelevant distinction, if it did one orbit of the earth and came back down it wouldn't be any more difficult than what it has done.
@@criticalevent In other words, the met orbital speed but not velocity.
Tell me you play KSP without telling me you play KSP
I just hope that SpaceX will remain private so it will continue implementing whatever their vision is, instead of having to think about quarterly results and returning value to the shareholders. And their finance department serves R&D and operations rather than it being the other way around.
More like corrupt board members that have nothing to do with science but steal multi-million salaries.
They're generating plenty of revenue through Starlink, their contracts with NASA and other governments, so I don't see any need for them to go public in the future.
Uh, you do realize they are being funded by NASA, right? And that they are horrifically behind schedule and over budget in that regard?
Of course it will.
Because the man doesnt like other people having a say in "his" projects financed by them.
He fears few things more than having regular rules and responsibilities towards his investors.
Avoids that however he can. Tesla has not paid a cent in dividend so far, and has declared they dont plan to for years. Musk likes the lack of rules and responibilities the "startup" label gives, very much.
He will continue to bleed mountains of taxpayer money and basically steal the Starlink investor funds to keep SpaceX running under only his control for as long as possible.
None of the companies make a profit, too. _(No, starlink as of now is a money-pit that doesnt even earn its own electricity bill in revenue).
Which is no surprise, since the new tech usually comes much later, more expensive and far less capable than claimed.
Major hurdle omitted:
1. SpaceX did kick up a lot of debris when they made that big crater. Though on the moon there will be no neighbors complaining about some regolith rain the high velocity concrete pieces damaged parts of the engine bay and eventually led to the loss of the vehicle. Fixing that problem is likely going to give some engineers headaches.
2. On the way to mars (and on the red planet as well) Radiation is REALLY high, especially if a solar storm hits the vehicle. When nasa made the moon landings they developed solar weather predictions and had the option to delay or cut short the moon landings. On the way to mars you can neither predict that far into the future nor can you just turn around and get back home quickly. Your only chance is some really good (and heavy) shielding.
Sorry your point regarding orbital velocity is just plain wrong. The Starship is already travelling at orbital velocity. Many of the points you make are not correct. Orbital prop transfer was tested on flight four. Docking has been done thousands of times in orbit
There was no actual propellant transfer done yet, they just pumped it between tanks within one Starship.
@@jadeed14 lol, look up the definition of the word transfer and then reread your comment.
@@jadeed14 and how much different is moving the final location of the pumped fuel from inside the rocket to another rocket connected by a series of tubes? Right, it isn't.
Y'all pretend that 'never been done before' is the same thing as saying 'impossible'. It hasn't been done before because no one has NEEDED to do it before. It's an engineering challenge. Not a physics challenge.
@@jackinthebox301 where did I say it's impossible, exactly? And if you think pumping fuel inside the tanks in an undisclosed configuration within one ship is "no different" from an engineering standpoint to a fuel transfer between two ships docked in orbit, then I'm not sure what to tell you.
@@jadeed14 You didn’t, but the perspective you’re coming from is one of over the top skepticism. Pumping some liquid through some tubes isn’t breaking the laws of physics. They’ll figure it out. They’ll figure it out because they want to. Because they have to. If they can design and fly the only full flow staged combustion engine in the world they’ll figure out orbital propellant transfer.
Second, it’s good to note that we have no idea what SpaceX is doing behind closed doors. Besides what is being done literally outside, we only know as much as we do because Elon tells us.
I personally feel like the goal being able to have a Starship/Super Heavy combo perform multiple launches within a single day is the least feasible thing that Musk wants to do and is ultimately going to slow overall progress.
Achieving orbit is only a few extra seconds of burn. You also conveniently skipped that ship was not on a circularized trajectory. You an actually have an velocity above orbital, but a perigee that reenters.
Mars is the goal far enough, reachable enough, improbable enough to smoke screen everything else.
There is somewhat an important lesson here about ideals and their purpose, in all things. They are not meant to be reached, they are simply meant to be pursued.
This video was well made and explained I would love more content like this. you have a new subscriber.
There's a big if: Starship has not yet reached orbital velocity in Earth orbit. Empty. Without cargo.
And by the fifth flight the Saturn-V was not only human-rated, it had already made two round trips to the moon.
If China makes it back to the moon with people before anyone else, this channel's gonna be huge.
I'm rooting for them, we will need some decent food on the moon, just think of all the buffets!! LOL ;D
They certainly have a better chance of hitting their 2030 target than we have of hitting our 2025 target. 🤣🤣
@@criticalevent Yeah lol, I feel like the US is fucking around right now while China is honed in. We are outsourcing our space program to the lunatic who owns twitter, and boeing, and the lunatic is winning. Meanwhile, china is dropping their rocket boosters on their own towns, and looking to make the moon on schedule if not before. I am baffled by the fact that the space race is not being talked about in American politics, !!!YET!!!.
@@criticalevent can't wait that long for my kung pao chicken!! LOL
Understanding how things are for China right now, what with rockets launching then going sideways and crashing into villages, excuse me for not thinking they're on a realistic....... trajectory for beating us to the moon.
I like to think of orbits as "you jump but keep missing the landing in the most insane way possible"
I, too, am upset Elon and SpaceX haven't provided in detail exactly how they plan to do everything gate review by gate review. I expect all their technical specs to be posted online and in detail for all people and nations to read, or they should be shut down! (This is sarcasm if you can't tell)
Kamala? Is that you?
You must work for the Chinese government. They tell everyone everything about their space program.
The people who didn't even read the whole comment are cooked 😭
@@dirtypure2023 I couldn't stomach the whole comment. Simetimes satire and sarchasm are indistinguishable from stupidity.
@@slartybarfastb3648 Then it's good satire! Lol
Remember that animation of a launchsite on Mars for Starship? The weight of that would only take a quatrillion flights and maybe 2 more for the Mechazilla design. It's easier to create artificial gravity without rotation.
Exactly . A fairy tale is far more real than this story/experiment
is a real accomplishment, but catching a rocket is not the biggest scientific discovery , not even by far
Right, Newton may take "issue" with that!! LOL :D
Not discovery, greatest recent achievement.
@@billweberx they just turned on one of Voyager's communication links, now in interstellar space, again, after 40 years, that's pretty "recent" too! LOL ;D
You do a great job explaining starship evolution. Keep up the great work. A lot of people that stream the live feed from Starbase don't do their homework. Thanks to you and others I can share what I've learned with them. Thank you 😊
does anybody know exactly how many starships will be required for refuelling 1 starship trip to moon?
I think it is more than one, but not sure I remember correctly
From what I heard, it is 14.
I mean then how is it feasible?
@@javaman7199 14 launches, maybe not 14 starships.
Number of ships or number of launches? I'd wager a total of 4 - 6 ships depending on how they want to do things. They've got two launch towers, why not pull double duty?
Launch wise? For the moon, less than 10. They don't need to fill the tanks.
For Mars? However many it takes to fill it up. We don't know how big *exactly* the Mars ships will be yet.
The booster catch is not as significant an achievement as landing Falcon 9 on OCISLY. Why? The drone ship is moving in three dimensions, while the catch tower is stationary. A larger booster is easier to balance than a smaller one (try it - try to balance a pencil vertically in your hand - then try a broom stick.) The Super Heavy catch is an evolution of the hundreds of landings the company have conducted from Grasshopper onward.
SpaceX's Starship development involves key milestones: achieving full orbit, payload deployment, orbital refueling, lunar landing, and Mars missions. Each step presents unique challenges, requiring innovative solutions and iterative testing to realize Elon Musk's vision of interplanetary travel.
And timeline greased with bacon fat.
@@criticalevent Strict and optimistic timelines are always better than unoptimistic ones. When you say a project will take 20 years, you can bet that it will take more.
@@sakshamShukla_ Strict and optimistic? Pick one.
In Elon's plan, presented to NASA, Starship was landing to Moon already over six months ago.
Actually transferring fuel in micro gravity is harder than all of this. The fuel is floating around and won’t flow unless ullage rockets are fired to ‘push’ the fuel to the fuel pumps. Many a satellite has exploded before this technique was learnt. You can’t just fire a rocket in free orbit. That’s why compressed nitrogen thrusters might be useful. The forces exerted on the connection between 2 starships need to be balanced… and their masses are massively different.
You can also have the propellant in a bladder inside the tank then pump air into the space between the bladder and tank, causing the bladder to collapse and the fuel to flow. Problems solved decades ago.
Someone famous once said something like “we choose to go to the moon, and do these other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard”. 50 years later we’re back where we were but now the technology has caught up to the point where it’s again feasible to do these hard things.
A great man that someone famous.
You should take a look at what is involved in getting Starship to the moon. It is vastly more complicated than you think.
er... in case you hadn't noticed the returning booster in the last test was not failure free. It clearly was damaged, fire was coming out from the side, and bits were flying off. Musk himself admitted later that they were 1 second away from engine failure. The main section had once again bits burning off from the stabilizing fins, and it crashed since there was no indication that the main rockets actually started before it crashed. There's really no point in trying to catch or land these rockets if they're too damaged to fly again. And then there's the big big elephant in the room, and that's the fact that the money that NASA has given SpaceX is not inexhaustible. They're way over due with this mission and all these other stages that need to be completed are still 5-8 years away, judging from the rate at which they're going now. NASA isn't going to keep handing out money beyond that which has been agreed to, which means they're going to run out of money well before any of these issues can be fixed. There's a reason Musk is desperate to get Trump elected, and that's because he knows that the walls are closing in on him. I really wish you people weren't so gullible.
This rocket has just enough power to push itself into orbit
AFAICT the last two flights had successful controlled reentry, reignition, and landing burn for Starship upper stage - they just landed in the ocean.
Well, apparently Starship flight 5 only barely made it to the precise landing location before at least one grid hinge finally gave way and the actual landing apparently was an enormous ball of fire
Technically, Elon is claiming a complete success based on goals achieved but I'm not sure even he has to admit the landing didn't look good. To
@@tonysu8860 You just made that crap up. It's on video landing. There is no "apparently."
@tonysu8860 the explosion you talk of, was as a result of hot rocket gasses coming into contact with liquid water. It was an accurate and successful landing.
They were aiming for the general vicinity of a buoy in the middle of the ocean. They landed _physically on the bouy_.
@@tonysu8860 Why do people who have no idea what they're talking about feel the need to interject misinformation everywhere? Stop talking if you don't know the basic facts.
I was under the impression that the starship did reach orbital velocity. They just didn't reach the right height so that it couldn't orbit earth. That way it was guaranteed to land near where they wanted.
Correct. They intentionally did not place Starship into orbit. They did not have a permit for an orbital launch.
Has Elon Musk made plans for the actual sustainable living space on Mars yet?
I'm pretty sure Musk has said "that's the easy part, let's do the rocket first". We'll see how that goes, but I think he's not entirely wrong.
@@celeron55no way that's true. A rocket only needs to be tested and achieve significant reliability, then it can "just" go. A whole colony is insane. Imagine all the logistics needed there to create water, food, medical equipment etc. Also nothing can fail when you are up there, and i suspect many things could go wrong.
Yes
Musk said if the cost of transports to Mars could be brought down by a factor of 1000x, then a Nasa-equivalent yearly budget might suffice to build a colony there.
Now, if Starship works, it could bring down the cost by a factor of 10x, perhaps a bit more, which by itself is an incredible feat. Where the other 100x are supposed to come from, I have no idea.
@@celeron55 We have lots of rockets that have gone and travelled space, we have yet to have a closed-loop life support system go up.
I think for the Lunar varient of the Rocket, why not land it in a horizontal position, easier for the crew to exit, and design it to take of from the moon in that position, or even add a mechanism that will stand the Rocket up vertically in preparation for take off when the crew is departing. Having the crew exit from a standing Rocket is just asking for 1 of them to break a leg
"The old spaceshuttle... " Is there a new one we've not seen?
Technically, the starship is a shuttle that will go between the earth and space regularly.
no, but it's retired from service so it makes complete sense to most of us
Dream Chaser and the X-37B
@@a10warthog4 it would need to get refuled 20 times just to get to the moon... Currently it would cost 10bn with the "exploding reusability"
Strange comment. Something can be old without there being a new version.
Just for anyone confused on the whole starship not reaching orbit but obtaining orbital velocity issue. Just because the ship didn't point its velocity in the correct direction for an orbit doesn't mean it didn't have the kinetic energy to reach orbit if it hadn't point more across instead of up.
To reach orbit the velocity must go across the earth. If I throw an apple straight up, no matter how much kinetic energy I give it, it will never reach orbit, even if the kinetic energy would be sufficient for a correctly directed orbit.
Yes, they did not circularize the obit to guarantee entry should things go south. That's part of the the FAA license.
And he need not explain himself to no one.
right, and not to mention anyone! LOL
On this, you're right, but there ars various other aspects to him that really warrant Some scrutiny.
@@ronschlorff7089
No one !
I had read that Starship can't land on the moon without a landing pad. The engines will dig a conical crater and starship would fall over on landing. However, I noticed the cgi of a landing had engines firing from the upper part of the ship, so maybe that approach will work, hopefully.
Elon Musk doesn't need to tell us anything about Starship.
Why not? We're paying for it.
@@philliberatore4265 You're paying for all sorts of other things too that you are not being told about, in much greater monetary quantities than the relative pittance that spacex receives.
@@philliberatore4265did you buy starlink?
Most of the rocket development is not NASA funded
@@philliberatore4265 The government pays SpaceX for launch services, and that’s the extent of it. SpaceX is a private company, neither we nor the government is entitled to it.
@@philliberatore4265you aren't paying for Starship... What you're paying for is a Starship HLS.
The elephant in the room, as it were, is the massive amount of radiation any craft will be subject to on the journey and the amount that Mars is bombarded by constantly. Finding a way of protecting any astronauts on the journey and on Mars will be, by far, the biggest challenge in any Mars visit. The moon is inside Earth's magnetosphere, we have never sent any person or even animal, outside of that protective zone.
Landing on the Moon or Mars is one challenge, but what about taking off from those surfaces? Without a proper deluge system and no established launch platform, it seems that Starship would kick up a significant amount of debris. This could result in substantial damage to the engines and the lower portion of the rocket.
In the case of the Moon, it will lift off from the surface using nose cone thrusters (you can see these in various animations of HLS Starship). Mars is a lot tougher but there are strategies to make it do-able with significant investment. Infrastructure will come in time.
@@dirtypure2023 right, and 1/6th gravity (moon) and 48% (Mars) help too.!
That's a problem for 8 years from now Elon when, if he's not in jail, he will announce the first mission to Mars in one year maybe, 2 years definitely.
@@criticalevent He could do that from jail.
@@billweberx I fully expect that will be the case 🤣
The two Starships don't need to abut each other, as seen in the illustrations.
The connection could more easily be like one or two Canadarm robotic arms themselves, just with an integrated fuel line.
Excellent! I know people have used the throwing a ball analogy before to explain orbital velocity. However, some small twist in your lesson made it much more compelling/understandable. Well Done!
I’ve never seen a video get so much wrong but talk with all the confidence in his voice.
7:17 I mean, almost everything SpaceX does is something that's never been done before
right, by definition, often if you are doing something different you are something that has "never been done before", even the Cro-Magnon bow makers knew that, so long ago!! ;D
@@ronschlorff7089 They are not just doing something different. They're doing something better than anyone else has done so far and what no one else can do. On top of that, what they are doing is important to humankind.
@@billweberx ok, yes,....yawn!! LOL
not that you know.
Not really. SpaceX is only claiming to be doing it cheaper. And even that seems to be a lie.
Building infrastructure on Mars isn't the problem. It's getting to Mars for cheap that's the key.
Sure it'll be so so easy to build stuff on Mars, yes.
@@jackprier7727I agree with the sentiment. In situ resource utilisation is the key point. To mine, process, then refine the raw materials required for pretty complex manufacture of components Is significantly more challenging than is being presented. Mining is challenging on earth, material processing is very energy intensive and requires significant plant. The technology to achieve this needs to be in significant development now ! To supplement the Starship rapid development. Space x need to deploy a fleet of starships equipped with drones with ground penetrating radar, they need detailed surveys of mineral deposits. They then need a second tranche of starships packed with nuclear reactors and solar cells, power storage systems, they then need to send closed loop life systems, habitation modules, food, water, oxygen, rovers, drones…. Then they need to send the now developed in situ resource utilisation systems, mining equipment, establishing mines, begin stock piling raw materials…. Then they need to send processing equipment, foundries, mini autonomous production lines…. At the same time as deploying the first settlers, mining ice and establishing water, oxygen and hydrogen production. On top of this hydroponics and safe landing areas with an efficient method of transportation supplies from landing zone to habs! A massive, engineering, scientific and technical human endeavour is an understatement. I’ve obviously probably missed loads out too. It’s hugely complex and will require so much investment. That said it’s definitely possible.
I think establishing a larger cycler craft on a constant mars earth transit, would significantly reduce the fuel requirements and cost of heavy equipment transportation to Mars. Would be an interesting addition to starship missions.
This guy is just your typical Elon hater dressed up in a mild manner. Ignore.
Don't neglect the balls. If you can find them.
Why can’t you dislike Musk and still be impressed or with what the engineers at space x have accomplished, or question where things are headed? The two things are in no way mutually exclusive.
Gobble gobble.
@@yeahnahgood9915 No way anyone would have accomplished what SpaceX has without Musk. Otherwise, someone else would have.
I don't know if the Mars portion of this video can really be considered accurate. The fact that there's only certain times that a trip to Mars is feasible because of the planets orbits there is very narrow windows and limited room for failure when it comes to those time scales.
0:40 You expect Elon to tell EXACTLY how its done (i.e. sending people to Mars). How do you expect that he can do that?!? What is your expectations to detail events that will happen 30 years from now?!?
Why do you think it's 30 years from now???
You act as though Elon owes you a full explanation of his plans. He doesn't owe you a thing.
1:33 I love it, it's a cool reference to the Kurzgesagt video about the Dyson sphere where they also break things down the same way. Your videos are great👌
At 10:50 so now they can’t land on the moon but in the past they allegedly succeeded many time and first time around with almost no sweat and no high tech 😅
Completely different budget, completely different political pressure, tremendous risk and absolutely a whole lot of "sweat". Go read up on the topic before commenting
Know ya worth Kings. NEVER EVER COMMIT TO A SINGLE MOM
You lost dude?
@@mig4868 single moms will somehow defund space x to buy another pitbull
STRIGHT UP FAXS.
Like you could get laid rofl
SpaceX is the new NASA change my mind.
You are so negative. Sad.
You know what? He skipped over the even more difficult steps for getting to the moon, including building an orbital fuel tank, sending up to 20 Ships to fill it up with oxygen and methane so that the HLS moon lander can make *just one* round-trip, how it will handle landing *and* remaining vertical when landing on the very rough terrain of the moon, the elevator to transport astronauts and great from the top of HLS to the lunar surface, the particulate rejection systems for keeping the moon's destructive surface powder out of HLS and her engines, the completely bonkers goal of having two entirely separate launcher systems, one for getting astronauts to and from orbit, the HLS. Compared with Apollo and Space Shuttle, this combined system exposes many more potential points of failure. Because SpaceX develops by testing-till-explosion, I believe it won't be until 2029 or '30 that HLS is greenlit for a crewed round-trip. So many tests to do, and so many revisions and reflights until they get it right. And I'm a fan boy! They're just applying iterative agile engineering practices to what was formerly long-form R&D, and that adds process friction, time and expense.
@ and like I said the first time. He’s so negative.
If SpaceX can do the rocket catch it should not be long before they can land a giant rocket on its landing legs like they do in 1950 and early 60s movies.
The first tests the rockets actually landed on their "tails". I don't even know why they need to whole thing to catch them.
There is a lot Elon Musk is not telling you about Starship...
Like getting it back from mars and that entire process...
Let me guess. The plan is to send them there and figure out that little part later?
Musk actually said that the goal is to create self sustaining colonies so that you don't "need" to come back.
He quite literally has explained this in depth. If you had done any amount of research, you’d probably find this out.
No, the plan is to stay. No kidding.
@@TheShuey1234 I have done the research... and all i see is fancy artistic artwork with thousands of unanswered questions. I say fancy... it's nothing that i don't see in graphics or arts class in any secondary or high school.
And SpaceX just completing step 1 out of 50 is not more than just artwork, exciting or even promising... and they have not even completed step 1 out 50... they have not completed a successful full cycle on/around earth and they have not even landed the starship spacecraft properly (without it breaking to a million pieces) on earth yet.
0:21 the send stage has been landed for years…. When the first stage lands from orbit and takes off with in 7 days that will be impressive
14:05 "First landing on chopsticks, there was no failure .... " Not really. It was on fire, and 2 seconds away from exploding. Not a done deal at all.
lmao no it wasn't
The Falcon 9 had problems also, but now with a very few exceptions are very reliable. Same will go with Starship eventually. They've done 5 test flights and the last 3 have been fairly successful. You learn by doing.
We tried to keep the massive failure a secret, but you just had to expose it! How does it feel to have exposed this MASSIVE failure???
That fire was venting methane, which it is supposed to do. It was never 2 seconds from exploding, it was 1 second from going into an abort mode, which would be a controlled crash next to the tower. If you have to grasp at straws so hard you're making them up, maybe you're just a dumb ass.
@Chris-cb9ln You obviously didn't get Musks memo.
Google "Spacex Starship seconds from disaster "
It's not if you fall. It's when you fall but find the strength to get up again.
and when mars landing is successful, a huge amount of drones would be spawned to explore Mars surface from the "air".
Great video, perfect.
You’re doing an incredible job with your content!
There is another essential milestone you failed to mention - successful reentry and landing of starship on EARTH UNHARMED. The ultimate success of everything requires that the starships are (A) entirely reusable and (B) extremely safe. Nothing else matters. This is what ultimately doomed the shuttle. The shuttle needed extensive overhaul between missions and was prohibitively expensive - let alone the obvious safety risks. So far the burn-throughs and constant reconfiguration of the heat shield show that they are not yet remotely adequate for starship to be meet its reusability expectations - again let alone the obvious safety concerns when putting humans onboard. There is no skirting around the issue and it isn’t a minor engineering fix. It’s not a given that they will figure this out quickly. That’s why Elon says the other stuff is “easy.” Earth reentry is hard. It is core. Fundamental. Without this base being covered - all discussions about further capabilities are just fun fantasy.
You may be underestimating your audience.
I would imagine most of us understand how orbits work.
Except that their explanation is incorrect. Starship HAS BEEN reaching orbital velocity since the 3rd Flight Test, but what it is NOT doing is performing a perigee burn to circularize the orbit. It's traveling at orbital velocity but on a trajectory that has it re-entering the atmosphere at the desired location.
I’m thinking the defense contracts will bring the biggest innovations and bizarre visuals.
you may fail a million times but the success in 1 is a million win
Awesome video and content. 👍😎
OK..---- . Whether starship is Sub-orbital like a ballistic missile or in orbit with a perigee deep into the atmosphere, the same effect is achieved. One just takes more fuel than the other... Musk's statements point more to the side of the lower velocity version while the starship's heat shields are in their initial tests. Saving full orbit velocities for when the Heatshield has been Perfected.
These are the stories of the starship enterprise!
Aliens will not be happy.
Expect last minute trouble.
skipping the de-orbit burn is one of the main ideas behind starship
Click bate. The title is misleading. The title hints that a bit of information is hidden, but the entire video shows that goals are being achieved. Only in the final seconds does it state something hinted at in the title, that Musk doesn't say all the things that need achieved.
Lots to keep up with, Informative vid, thks. 👍
It's not just landing on the Moon. After getting people and supplies there, getting them and maybe some cargo back to Earth. The Moon isn't Botany Bay or Devil's Island.
They are setting up a permanent Moon base. I have no idea what the significance of those places are but the Moon will soon be a large transport hub, so yeah. VERY comparable to a bay.
Khannnnnn!
no, it will never be Botany Bay, if we ever have criminals/prisoners to go to space we'll just "space them" and say bye bye you MF!! LOL ;D
@@RechargeableLithium love it!! ;D
We got Space Race 2.0
You must send Elon Musk on the first trip.
That's my only condition.
Optimus ought to be the first to land on the Moon if only because it doesn't need any life support!
The HLS landing on the moon does not need to be done prior to a Mars mission. They can be done independently.
You are right on an engineering level, but SpaceX needs NASA for $, running interference with FAA etc. NASA wants the moon landing. Look at Nelson's congrats following Flight 5. Went from the amazing catch to talking about Artemis. In the end politics and money will talk.
God bless all the people at SpaceX. Keep up the good work ! 🙏❤️🙏❤️🙏❤️ 😢🫡 🇺🇸
Uh, I think finishing sequencing of the human genome is a little more of a achievement than this which could've been done 30 years ago with enough investment.
Say what you want. Elon is the best candidate to put humans on an entirely new timeline. He is a national treasure.
The amount of fuel that is spent in order just to get to orbit... musk says will need five plus starship launches for one mars bound one
You may be going to Mars but I hope you do not leave earth a lifeless giant rock as you go.
Orbital refueling is done regularly perhaps not on this scale but so many people keep saying this as a fact
when you say "we" do you really feel like your are part of space x or at least bought some of its stock
Of course none of this stuff is ever been accomplished before, but have you seen how many things Elon has accomplished to have never been done before? That's hardly a reason to doubt him, especially at this point
beautiful storytelling,
Keep it up man
Musk makes *everything* sound too easy. It's mostly about pumping stock at this point, honestly. Everything is ready "next year". But never is.
SpaceX is great and all, but Starship, so far, is pretty unimpressive. Far from any kind of history breaking milestones.
We have a perfectly good planet here to live on if we take care of it. We are not going to "Occupy Mars".
I think you did a mistake here.The Starship isn't slow enough to not fall but they purposely don't go up enough so that they can orbit the earth. What are the reasons are not what we are concerned now in this discussion but it is not the speed in which brings the Starship down until hitting the back of the head in your baseball analogy, but the height in which they sent Starships to. Not a scientist so I can't swear on it but I'm pretty sure that is the case. Happy to be corrected if I'm mistaken in full honesty though. Very good video btw and thank you for it. Cheers
No, it's the speed. I am a scientist and I'm currently getting a MS in Space Systems. It's the speed. You could orbit the Earth being only an inch off the ground if you went fast enough.
@@vernonkroark Well I'm all ears an have nothing to say. Can you please help me understand it then. Because If i'm not mistaken the Starship actually turns off it's engines before reaching the orbit on purpose not to reach the orbit. I mean it can but they didn't want to. So I'm not sure speed was the concern if I''m being clear. Or at list I think I am lol. Thanks
@@ThrustTornado I'm commenting on how orbits work in general.
If something (anything) moves fast enough, it will orbit the Earth as long as it doesn't crash into anything. So as long as you are above everything in your path, you will be able to orbit if you go fast enough.
It's orbital velocity, not orbital altitude.
@@vernonkroark Oh ok. So we are talking about totally different things. Of course it is the velocity that keeps you in the orbit and make you be able to not fall.
What I have commented on was about the Starshiip specifically. He was saying that Starship is falling down because it doesn't go fast enough. But it still reaches 17k+ kilometers but it doesn't burn it's engines enough on the ascend so it is therefore not in the orbit not the speed. if they let the engines burn long enough then they in fact can reach the apogee and then stay in the orbit and not fall.
Than you though for the info. Appreciate that
@@ThrustTornado ok, cool. I sometimes miss stuff. lol
Thank You Elon for making some of my boyhood dreams come true! Although I will never make it to Mars, I agree we must become a multiplanet species in order to survive and fulfill Gods will, go forth and multiply!❤
This makes orbital refueling much harder... You need two, experimental, unstable, ships in orbit to fully demonstrate it
Unstable? How? Also, having two ships is part of refueling, so no duh. That's like saying you need a fuel truck to bring fuel somewhere. Good one, Sherlock.
@filonin2 bruh, you can't compare a diesel semi to a brand new rocket. One is much more likely to 9/11 Johannesburg than the other.
@@ch4.hayabusa You are a sad little man. I'm glad you will be staying on this planet along with all the other crabs in the bucket.
I'm confused by your comments about the difficulty of a moon landing. Yes -- no aero braking, but about 8 times slower coming down. No wind to deal with, either. Definitely needs enough thrust, but HLS will have some damned big motors to slow down with..
you run into the issue that you have to carry the fuel (Delta V) for that landing and then time it perfectly so you don't run out before you land
@@avroarchitect1793 Wow, yeah I'm sure carrying fuel inside those tanks that carry fuel is going to be really hard. Timing landing burns from the company that does it every few days is also clearly a very difficult challenge. Elon lives rent free in your head and you are a sad human being.
My take on it is he feels he just doesn't need to explain it to you. Why would he need your commentary, or invite commentary from people who aren't qualified to carry the man's lunchbox? Pretty sure us not knowing the details isn't going to slow him down.