Starship Version 3! The Super Starship
Vložit
- čas přidán 3. 02. 2024
- Starship Version 3! Will the SpaceX Super Starship Rule the Space Industry?
We think that SpaceX is well-positioned to dominate space for the next several decades, and we’ll explain why.
By reviewing the amazing success of the Falcon 9 and Dragon cargo and crew capsules, as well as running the numbers on a 150-meter (almost 500-foot) tall Super Starship.
Thank you for you support!
Extracredit:
Shop the Academy store at...
shop.spreadshirt.com/terran-s...
Please help support our channel at...
/ terranspaceacademy
Thank you so much for watching!
Ad Astra Pro Terra
Artists
/ c_bass3d
/ labpadre
/ neopork85
/ hazegrayart
/ alexsvanart
/ _fragomatik_
/ nickhenning3d
/ rgvaerialphotos
Companies
/ nasa
/ spacex
www.cochranex.com
/ blueorigin
/ space_ryde
/ virgingalactic
/ relativityspace
/ neutronstarsys
Credits
ESA
ULA
NASA
SpaceX
Blue Origin
HazeGrayArt - Věda a technologie
I'm so proud to have been a supporter of this content. I have severe depression and often times wonder what's the point. I have nothing meaningful to offer , I don't matter, and when I die no-one will care. But, every time I see a lesson then see my name in the credits I think to myself " This is the point". Thank you for this channel. It helps me survive and it helps keep me alive.
I appreciate your perspective, and would just like to add a bit to it.
If you've ever heard of the concept of the Butterfly Effect: that in complex, dynamically chaotic systems, the smallest perturbation - no matter how seemingly insignificant on its own - can hugely impact the eventual trajectory of the system's state as a whole. Because of the chaotic and complex nature of such systems, it's impossible to estimate in advance what the ultimate significance of any single minute change in state will be.
I put to you, that the state trajectory of humanity as a whole is just such a highly complex, highly dynamical system. As part of this system, you are enmeshed in the overall, multigenerational, continuous, aggregate human journey that pre-dates your birth and will continue past your death. And no matter how insignificant or inconsequential you might feel within that great tapestry, just merely by being one of the threads in it, you contribute to it, and in ways that - because of the inherent complexity and chaoticity - neither you, nor anyone else could ever fully appreciate or comprehend.
Your mere presence has already affected this ongoing story, just like the mere presence of an observer affects the outcome of a quantum measurement. And so, it is not the same as it would've been without you, and nor will it be the same with you gone. So: stick around, be a part of it, let it be a part of you, and keep beating your little butterfly wings amidst the ineffable mystery of existence. Rest assured that you will never know, and will never be able to fully appreciate - just how much of a difference you're making.
I am both happy to hear that we have helped and very said for what you are going through. We appreciate and need you Jeffrey, hang in there. Things will get better.
I wish I could figure out just WHY you don't have several times the subscribers!! There is so much that's taught here.
I appreciate that James. Take all the people interested in space and subtract those that just want surface news and don't care to know the details of rocket science :-)
@@terranspaceacademy it doesn't help 90% of people are too dumb and will struggle to understand... myself included xD
Most people dont like math
@@terranspaceacademy It might also have to do with the Everyday Astronaut/Scott Manley being the go-to for those who DO care about rocket science? Tbh might work out better if all the spaceflight channels got together in an actual "space academy" network. There's people missing their fix of space/EV talk after "Our Ludicrous Future" was made more of a yearly get-together.
According to my calculations 94.65% of people are below average, and this is an above average channel
Thank you for being the foremost rocket engineering channel on yt. Your content and pleasant demeanor are refreshing.
Wow, thank you!
I love the mathematics presented to explain the problems and solutions.
Thank you Merrill! They are a chore but like cardio and lifting weights, vital to survival :-)
I worked on Constellation back in the day. Cool to see the Ares V animation, even though a lot of us knew back then it would probably never fly. Now it's essentially morphed in SLS.
Ares I was my baby though! I did the sizing on the Upper Stage tanks when we switched from RS-25 to J-2X, ran the trade study on using a common bulkhead design and lots of other stuff.
Still, we're on a better path now! I love your idea of using Starship to launch the lunar lander for earlier missions. Takes orbital refueling out of the critical path, but still leaving the inevitability of it for later missions with larger payloads, when we're starting to build out a full lunar base.
Thank you James! There was a lot about Constellation that was extremely innovative and still practical. I wish they had just commercialized it back then but once you start awarding cost plus I guess it's all or nothing. I should do a lesson on the J-2X... Amazingly advanced for its time.
Your channel is one of a kind. Keep spreading your knowledge on rocketry. SpaceX enthusiast. Greetings from Europe.
Thank you Robert!
Stream quality took a nose dive since SpaceX stopped using youtube, I wish they worked on their video quality some more.
Me two... for quality video X sucks apparently. At least release the high quality versions in a few days.
Damn, whoever tracked this landing needs a god damn raise!
That looks amazing!
Wasn't it though! We need an award for rocket photography! The Wernie but we'll pronounce it "Vernie" to be elitist!
It was a piece of software and a mechanized mount.
ChatGPT!
I think this is the best channel on rocket tech . It's not difficult to follow at all. I tire of the dumbed down channels on this subject. As a follower of rocket tech since Sputnik, I throughly enjoy the details you include here. Keep it flying sir! Your amazing!
Thank you so much David! That means a lot to us.
Thanks so much for creating and sharing this informative and timely video. Great job. Keep it up.
You are most welcome Sam, and thank you.
This is an amazing channel and is extremely informative. In time viewership will sky rocket.
Thank you so much Dean! Fingers crossed. :-)
Luv the video segments at the end you have been doing. I think the speculative Starship videos are great fun.!
Glad you like them Ken! They almost bring me to tears putting them together sometimes. Where would we be today if we had truly invested the resources we should into space science and industry? And more importantly, where can we be tomorrow if we start now?
Your channel is very enlightening. The technical detail is presented in a way that makes complicated topics somewhat easier to understand. Thank you. Ad astra, pro terra
Thank you so much Trista! I appreciate your saying that.
that tracking shot! also great analysis in this video.
Thank you so much, Ed! I agree. Sometimes the space photographer deserves an award! I wanted to call it the Wernhie!
But pronounce it Vernie so we know who the posers are :-)
Excellent production.
Thank you.
Glad you enjoyed it Noel!
Dear Terran Space Academy, I love your channel, particularly the content that you do YOURSELF in your own voice, rather than the material that you take from other channels and lectures. (It would suffice to simply post a link to that material). To that end, I would like to suggest a few topics that I think would benefit from a Terran-Space Academy treatment... these are listed in order of most inside your existing wheelhouse, the ones that would require the least new research on your part, to least inside your existing wheelhouse.
1. The benefits and disadvantages of side-boosters compared to vertical stages. How much weight cost do the structural hard-points for side boosters imply? Are side-booster separations more or less likely to cause RUD than vertically stacked stage separations? If side boosters are basically no different, Why vertically stack at all? Why do some side boosters have aerodynamic covers that are relatively flush with the center core of the rocket, and why do others have normal symmetrical conical aerodynamic noses? Why are side boosters only ever strapped to the FIRST stage? Why are most side boosters solid-fuel, and most stacked stages liquid? What are the relative advantages of Falcon Heavy's variable throttling of side and center cores over the cross-feed system that was originally planned? While there is no indication that Musk and SpaceX are even thinking of this, but if Starship was in a Falcon Heavy like configuration with to side boosters around a central booster and Starship on top, what would it's hypothetical performance look like?
2. Nuclear in space propulsion.... a comparison of different architectures: Nuclear Thermal, Fission Fragment, Nuclear Powered low or no expended propellant drives such as Zubrin's dipole drive, ion drives, photon rockets... that is, Is there an advantage for these drives to be nuclear rather than Solar powered. More generally, has solar power, from a up-mass per kw perspective basically out-competed nuclear radiothermal generators for probes in the Terrestrial distance range from the sun (ignoring issues of safety and the politics of launching nuclear material)?
3. The economics and business side of a launch startup... How much seed capital does t take to go from a rocket idea on paper to a prototype rocket engine that's actually been fired on a test stand for the first time? What kind of expertise-sets do successful examples of such companies tend to have? That is, are the employees of these companies ALL rocket-engineers? What other roles are essential for such companies? Is most of the success of successful rocket startups in having a well-regarded and seasoned CEO or founder? How do launch startups differ from computer startups? (One of the things that has made Musk so successful in SpaceX and Tesla is that he's BOTH CEO and CTO... that lets him get the advantage of corner cases in both the engineering of the main product, and the design of the business model of the company. Sometimes a technical problem is intractable, and being the CTO he has a real handle on when that is the case and to what degree, and then being the CEO he can design the companies business case to bypass the problem that was intractable on the engineering side... conversely he can do that in reverse and opt for technical fixes to bypass legal market or compliance barriers to progress that might represent intractable barriers to a CEO but not to the CTO.)
4. Spinning space stations for artificial gravity paired with Inflatables... This seems like a match made in heaven... the inflatables are massive when inflated and small and relatively light when launched, and thanks to fibers like Kevlar which are much much stranger than steel cables can easily withstand 1G of sheering forces, conversely spin only really works if the radius of the station is large. Yet bizarrely these two concepts seem to never get paired and even seem to be mutually exclusive in the minds of some people who talk about them on youtube. The advantages of spinning inflatables, becomes greater when one considers them beyond the current simplistic inflatable paradigm of an inflatable that is launched in on piece, inflated in one step, and that's it. In order to be useful within that simplistic launch and operation paradigm current generation inflatables must be constructed much more complexly than simple balloons with walls that are many stacked layers of different fibers with various properties designed to make a safe habitat wall once inflated from the inside. However, if you are willing to off-load some of the complexity of the final station onto in-space assembly, the resulting station size can be massively increased. The simplest form of this is modular construction. We use that already in space stations and have for decades... Nothing about this method couldn't be used with an all-inflatable station. As a simple example, imagine six inflatable modules that, in their inflated shapes, were essentially pie-slices... these modules could then be docked together with one another into a circle much larger than any one of them. That circle in turn could spin. Yet another idea that never seems to be talked about is the idea of an inflation construction step that is more complex than putting together modular tinker-toys in space. Imagine you launch a simple balloon, perhaps made of nothing but a single layer of thin Mylar, then inflate it... its inflated shape can be MASSIVE because it's just a flat sheet of Mylar when underinflated, and so literally square kilometers of the material could fit in any orbital class rocket's fairing. And it doesn't need to be inflated with a large amount of gas to start with because the outside of the balloon is hard vacuum. Then you inflate another slightly smaller bag inside the first one such that the space between the inner and outer balloon is say... 1 meter. The inner balloon would be inflated at very high pressure, much higher than the outer balloon. The 1-meter space would likely need a number of fittings and connectors installed between what will be the outside of the station and what will be the inside of it, but because it is an enclosed space, the space walks to do this would be relatively safe. Next, you fill the space between the two balloons with something like A-B foam, probably mixed with asteroid or lunar-mined regolith for density. Finally, after it has set, you wrap the outside of the inflated structure with ribbons of a Kevlar-like material for structural support and spin the thing up. Result: A space station with meter-thick walls that easily could have volumes exceeding anything envisioned today and relying upon launchers with no more capacity than those that exist today.
Just some ideas on future topics, and thanks again for the channel.
Thank you so much and we really appreciate the feedback. I'll start with number one and compare adding a first stage (India's solid rocket motor) to adding solid boosters (SLS and Vulcan) or just adding more cores comparing the Delta IV and Falcon Heavy to the other options... I have something planned for this weekend but expect it for the one after. I'll credit you for the idea. Ad Astra Pro Terra! :-)
Speaking of credit... MM650? or something else?
great stuff!
Glad you enjoyed it
Since they want to keep the booster burn time to a minimum I think it's safe to assume in a 150m Starship future the following:
Booster will only increase by a 10 meter maximum. They will probably increase the throat of the Raptor even more to allow for greater mass flow, keeping booster burn time to a minimum with optimized RTLS flight profile.
The 70m Starship will end up with 9 engines with something like 2600+ tons of thrust.
I don't know what will happen to the payload bay in that scenario, but they can really optimize the shape, space and total available internal volume if they go with a sharper taper-in design and a blunt nose, something closer to a 9mm bullet than the pointy rocket design, that would make the full diameter inside the payload bay much longer.
There's still a lot that this vehicle can improve and evolve.
People forget how much F9 v1 changed by the time it was F9 block 5.
And also, the same reasoning (minimization of gravity losses) would lead one to assume they would target full (100%) thrust at liftoff, rather than the very conservative 85% postulated in this video...
@@Spherical_Cow he put 85% Raptor 3 because that matches the Raptor 2 of today, so conservatives estimates to see how it performs even in that scenario.
I thought so too... Making it more "pointy" because of a somewhat funny movie is not a good design choice.
Going to 100% makes things explodey... No one wants a 40-story steel structure coming to visit them.
@@terranspaceacademy I guess it depends on the definition of 100%. To me, the maximum sustained thrust at which an engine is designed to operate reliably, is the 100% setting for that engine.
You have your dry mass weights for the Super Starship inverted (you put the booster mass under the starship and vice versa).
I know! That was my secret catch for the attentive scholars! (Actually... my bad :-)
That Cygnus launch was great practice for the Gateway launch.
That's true. Though I don't like that we need Gateway...
@terranspaceacademy I think even the people who green lit it knew it was sort of pointless. It's only a tool to prevent the Artemis program from getting canceled.
The gateway is the prototype Mars space ship. I'm glad we are building it, because it means we are actually serious about Mars.
My feeling is that once the Gateway is working in autonomous mode, we can start work on an autonomous Mars circulator to deposit rovers and helicopters, and eventually return samples.
MSR budget debacle has shown us that we don't have the necessary infrastructure for MSR. We should start building that infrastructure, starting with a Mars circulator and a communications network.
Great video.
Thank you so much!
Amazing ❤❤❤❤
Thank you!
Thankyou so much
Most welcome 😊
I think a bigger booster has a higher likelihood of making the current SpaceX moon landing proposal work. The planned refueling missions are just a bit too uncertain for my taste.
Also unrelated, how can Starship deploy these large modules?
The only payload deployment method I have seen so far is their Tic-Tac dispenser. No bigger module can fit through there.
Will they eventually have an expendable upper stage that can fully open its fairings?
I can‘t really see how they could make a fairing that fully opens to the full diameter, then closes again and be structurally sound enough for reentry and landing.
Yes, Starship will have a generic LEO cargo delivery variant, that opens up to release large payloads. There are renders of it, but no physical articles have been built yet (to my knowledge). In these renders, the leeward half (without the TPS tiles) of the cargo segment flips up very wide on a hinge at the bottom, and cargo is pushed out sideways first to clear the nose cone, then forward to clear the hatch.
That is a good question... and come back and land intact? Could the Starship reenter base first and survive?
I suspect Spacex's goal with the Raptor 3 and the new/ proposed Stretch Starship is to whittle down the number of ships needed for refueling at LEO for onward flights. At this rate SpaceX will be able to expedite the sending of lighter unshielded non-returnable Supply Starships to the Moon well in advance of the further delayed manned landings - supplying materials for the first permanent structures and the beginnings of the necessary infrastructure.
They must be... Twenty launches per flight is insane. But greater mass to orbit gets tough without higher efficiency...
When Elon talked about stretching the Starship, he was referring to stretching the Ship, not the booster.
No way they only stretch the ship.
He was talking about thirty meters... that would mean the Starship would be 80 and the booster 70?
Great site , just found it. Gonna subscribe.
Ok though, I noticed at about 7:10 a commercial comes on about Cygnus and I see spaceX mentioned nowhere. ?
Welcome aboard! You're talking about SpaceX own broadcast? Where they covered what was going to the ISS? The most amazing thing about SpaceX is how they have made the previously thought impossible routine.
What can I do to promote this program. And how can I get youth in the high schools interested we need to tap into our future talent and inspire them to CARRY ON JB!!!!
Very, very true! In the fifties and sixties it was possible to dream that the masses would have a chance at space travel, as soon as we start sending regular people into orbit or to the Moon I think things will change. Are you watching "For All Mankind"?
I have a very very large space station design, it occurred to me that I need more than outside cameras fixed to the station but actual flying drones to orbit or keep a fixed distance from the station to monitor the outside from a more encompassing perspective. If they get low on fuel the can come into one of the cargo bay doors or perhaps plug into the outside of the ship to await refueling and charging. Such drones could monitor EVA situations and in the event of an emergency be used to rescue a detatched or unconscious astronaut on a space walk.
Just have them on stiff cables. In space they'll stay exactly where you need them.
Thanks for another excellent analysis.
Only one problem, they have yet to get the regular Starship operational let alone the "Super Starship". As it stands right now the vehicle is overly complex with more failure modes yet to be determined.
I know it is heresy in these circles to be in the slightest critical of anything Spacex or Elon Musk. But, somebody has to have the guts to point out when the emperor is buck naked!
It would have been more prudent and they would be much further ahead had they evolved the Falcon architecture to the next gen - larger booster with re-usable strap-ons, Merlin to Rapter, RP1 to Methane, fewer engines in each booster, focus on a re-usable 2nd stage, etc., etc.
I hope I am wrong, because like all the Spacex/Musk fans I would love to see this bird fly and fly reliably. But the engineer in me tells me that 66 high pressure turbopumps in the booster and another 12+ in the ship, the complexities of controlling all that, to say nothing of the ground infrastructure to get the bird up in the air ... And everything has to go right!
Don't book your ride out anytime soon.
Again, hope I am wrong! Ok, maybe the emperor is half clothed!
The "super Starship" is referring to Starship version 3. The current prototypes are version 1 - there are still 5 of them, already in various stages of completion, remaining to launch (covering this year, and possibly part of the next), until SpaceX starts making version 2 (launching next year). All of which is to say, the stretched Ship is still a few years away - it's something to look forward to, but not something to focus upon just yet.
Regarding "complexity": that's one way to look at it. Another, is redundancy: Booster and Ship can afford to lose an engine each (Booster, more than one engine even) and still make it to orbit. Yet another, is steady-state mass-production: higher reliability and repeatability can be achieved and sustained, as opposed to the case of limited-run, artisanal products. Incidentally, the design of Raptor engines is iterating toward ever greater simplification; currently headed to version 3 (though the ones flying this year are all likely still on version 2 Raptors) - so engine-wise, there's actually a drive toward complexity (and, relatedly, cost and weight) reduction.
A good mental exercise to understand the issues of changing rocket components and capabilities :-)
I love the theoretical deep dives. If. Starship lives up to its promise, I’d think existing capsules will go away in 10 years or less. Well…maybe not. NASA is going to want a lot of starship landing demonstrations since it has so little redundancy.
We agree. That's why we support horizontal take off and landing.
@@terranspaceacademy It will depend on how quickly Starship ramps up launch rate. That may be limited by technical, regulatory or revenues.
love love love
Thank you so much Adam!
What would a little increase in the diameter of the booster do for tank volume?
It won't be easy (nor quick, or cheap), retooling the entire production line(s), ripping out and rebuilding the orbital launch mount(s) as well as all the test and transport mounts, and retesting for structural strength, to allow for a larger-diameter Booster...
A lot! Going to 10 meters diameter increases the propellant volume by 23%, going to 12 meters by 78%
If they are going to stretch the length they should also consider going at least to 10 feet... and then? Concentric tanks?
20:10 Wandt is Sweden's second astronaut, not first. Not including Americans of Swedish descent.
Did not know that... thank you.
Building taller is less efficient as there is more weight for the same engines to carry. It makes sense to add more rocket engines to the bottom of the booster to fill in empty pockets and nooks. I have such an engine design, I hope it can compete. Magnetic boots will allow workers to stick to their stations and provide walking resistance and a tension strap that wraps over the shoulders will provide compression for the spine to help slow bone loss to the most critical areas.
That could help...
If NASA would fund it the super booster would be incredible first stage for drone exploration out into the astroid belt.
Indeed it would my friend. We can hope.
Sierra Life expandables.....wonder how many or how big of one could be fit in a starship nose cone.
Good question... Depends on which version. I was looking at the 2.0.
Life 1.0 6m long 9m diam fits in 5m fairing 285cubm volume.
Life 2.0 12m long 9m diam fits in 5m fairing 600 cubm volume.
Life 3.0 16.2m long 11m diam fits in 7m fairing 1,440 cubm.
The 3.0 would fill the entire payload bay of Starship and need more room if inflated.
The 2.0 is 12m tall and Starship payload bay is 24.25 meters tall so maybe two? Especially if it was stretched by another 3 meters. 3.0 would be amazing...
One interesting clue is that future bigger versions of starship would have 9 engines, sixth vacuum and 3 sea level, if you consider 3MN for vacuum ones and 2.7 for sea level type, that would get 26 MN of power only for upper stage, that would require for a T/W ratio acceptable a wet mass of 2400 tons, also only stretching the upper stage would make the upper stage longer than the booster , so probably a increase in diameter is required, for example at a 9 meters diameter every meter in length have almost 64 cubic meters in volume, but for a 12 meter diameter you had 113. Also in this case payload can reach 200 tonnes probably, and make hot staging more easy because the outside engines won't hit the booster upper part.
That's a very cool thought... I'll make a graphic and see what it looks like.
Why only 240p or is it co's i am downloading?
It took hours to load and now looks to be high res. Very strange.
Given that if you are going to launch a second stage space station there is no need for an additional payload other than the rocket itself and it's food and support mechanisms. Which means it could be taller as mostly empty space. Say 200 meters in total with almost 100 meters just for the space station. Forgo the pointy cone at the top and use a more space friendly half dome. Use floor dividers in the oxygen tank or methane tank for baffles and when empty, apart from the header tanks, open an air lock door into them and inhabit them. Why not make a suit using non-Newtonian fluid that resists quick movement and causes stress on muscles all throughout the day's work? This suit would help keep muscles toned. Magnetic boots on steel floors will not only help with work and movement but also provide additional resistance and a tension strap over the shoulders will add compression to the spine to help reduce bone lose in the most critical areas . Good Show, I appreciate your talent with math and formulas and keeping terms straight in in coherent order. Building taller is not more efficient due to the extra weight being carried by the same engines. More engines need to be added, perhaps smaller ones to fit into empty pockets under the base of the booster. I have such a design, I hope it can compete with existing tech.
I like the Newtonian fluid idea for suits a lot... I think they need to increase the diameter to at least ten meters.
@@terranspaceacademy Think even larger. A torroid of double lined curved tubes that make a giant ring, one inside of the other, about 225 feet across with a thickness of about 27.5 feet in 43 foot lengths to fit inside a 30 foot fairing. The inner tupe floats and rotates and allows the outer tube to be stationary. The inflatable size that could be crammed into a 30 foot fairing might inflate to 60 feet across Am I wrong?
I've wondered why no one has discussed putting a non reusable starship in orbit as a space station, the breaching the bulkheads to use the fuel and oxygen tanks for space.
Exactly! Put it high enough and station keeping won't require much.
@@terranspaceacademy I always wondered why we didn't do that with Space Shuttle external tanks. It seemed like a total waste to intentionally ditch them back into the atmosphere.
Made my brain hurt... again! I love it. Is a lunar station the most efficient means of getting to and from the moon? Seems like that makes the return trip/re-entry problematic. Did A Clarke have it right with a station closer to Earth (was the station in 2001 LEO? LaGrange point L1?) instead? Lunar station at L3 for transfer to lander? Sorry if this is a stupid question. It just seems an idea was proposed for Lunar Gateway and everything else is ignored.
L1 is best for Earth-Moon transport as it just takes a little shove from that gravitational "hill" to roll on down to either destination.
Wasn't Crew Dragon spec'd for Lunar Orbit return? In terms of surviving reentry?
I'm afraid not... LEO only.
@@terranspaceacademy Both Zubrin and (IIRC) SpaceX have, in the past, proposed Lunar architectures (a Lunar Flyby, in the case of SpaceX) that used Dragon. Yeah, it needs an EDS (and likely a beefier Service Module/Life Support), but it was my understanding that the heat shield was up to it. Or were both Zubrin and SpaceX hanging that on some "upgrade" to Dragon?
As far as I know it's LEO only right now but I don't think it would take much to upgrade.
+1
Welcome aboard!
Could a Starship wet workshop be feasible? We could deploy a plastic lining inside of the methane and oxygen tanks after modification, like jerrycan repurposing kits for use with drinking water. Slap on an ion drive like the lunar gateway and you've got a huge station for a decent price
That's a good question. An inflatable habitat or green house or recreation area to inflate in each tank? Very cool idea.
here's the trick question, could the outside, inflatable portion be made with materials allowing for plants to benefit from the sun's rays?
the living quarters could be installed in the reconditioned tanks@@terranspaceacademy
Clear plastic with algae?
algea would be great for PLA synthesis too, I have a friend who's been working on a self amplifying carbon loop coupled with a bioreactor for making plastic up there/on mars (GrowMars its called)@@terranspaceacademy
During the mass calculatins when stretching both ship and booster, you switched places for the dry mass increases ship->booster... had to laugh at this one.
Thanks Ken! That was my "intentional" error to keep you on your toes!
Not really. I'm a big picture kind of guy which is why I need an attention to detail person to go over my stuff :-)
Correction: Ax-3 is not the first time a Swedish astronaut went to space.
Christer Fuglesang flew 2 times to ISS with on board the Space Shuttle.
You are quite right and I apologize to all those chefs out there :-)
I have a spreadsheet for doing exactly this work. It took me a while to trust its answers.
I started bc i wanted to know what the best design would be if you converted a falcon 9 into a methelox rocket with raptor engines. The idea was a mini starship for smaller payloads, fully reusable, of course.
My conclusion was: Not a good idea.
I'd be curious if you have an opinion on the subject.
I was going to do a lesson on the "Raptor 9" putting any unused Raptors to work with a three stage 9SL/5vac/1vac system. Work the numbers and email me. We'll see if it would be worthwhile. terranspaceacademy@gmail.com
@@terranspaceacademy
Power is out where I am right now. (NorCal)
But I should be able to do this by the end of the week.
Dang! Hope it comes back soon!
16:20 you put the updated Booster dry mass under Ship; and later you put the updated Ship dry mass under Booster... 🤦♂️
Did I? I'll check that. Thanks.
You might try a rocket science for dummies series of videos.
But I hate that title! I've read dozens of those books but I hide them off the bookshelf so I'm not calling myself a dummy! (Other people do that for me-it's covered :-)
Why not add a 3th stage in between starship and booster? I feel they are forcing this to be 2 stage when the metrics simply do not hold up to being optimised.
They don't want anything to be non-reusable...
The quickest way to the Moon is to simply cut off the top 1/3 of the Starship and remove all fins and thermal protection, then stack a 200 ton lander on top with a single Raptor and a Dragon capsule. On the way back only the dragon re-enters. No need for the stupid Gateway nonsense.
Except Dragon can't survive reentry from the Moon. Make that an Orion and it's all good.
I wonder how long it will be before they don't explain what Max-q is every single time.
It's always for a general audience but it does get pedantic to those who follow the industry. :-)
@@terranspaceacademy I gets positively tiresome, they don't define: orbit, stage separation, the karman line, supersonic, inclination, so many things, yet they chose this one specific parameter to explain every time.
13:55 "cross multiply" is not the same as "divide". You mean "divide". A ratio is just dividing two things. and it's not just the kg that cancel, it's the whole kg/m^3
Well you need to invert one side...
@@terranspaceacademy en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross-multiplication it's not that. It's just division.
Good point. Thanks.
If on Mars, would Jupiter be the second brightest object in the sky?
Good point. I'm sure it would be that far from Venus but I'll check with an astronomer. By the way, if we could see Jupiter's magnetic field it would look like a tennis ball in Earth's sky :-)
What I don't like is the military slithering in wanting to take over Starship.!!🤨
They don't want to take it over, just make sure they have access to it... I hope. Perhaps they see the national security implications of holding SpaceX back, if not we are out of luck.
They are thinking of purchasing and launching their own version. Similar to how they buy military variants of jumbo jets from companies like Boeing.
That would be a good option and clear a lot of red tape. What's leaned on the military side would improve the civilian. Just like jets etc...
If my ideas are built out, I am hoping for the science will test my Invention, Aerospace Designs technology, Problem solvi My Project Model Product Technological .
Good to hear from you Dac! And the coherence is improving. Looking forward to seeing you ideas.
I know it’s illogical but if it’s Orange coloured rocket I automatically think that it is an inferior rocket, yep I know it’s not right and it’s something I’m working on.
Ah, color based prejudice seems to be a basic flaw of human reasoning :-) I assume you liked the first shuttle launches when they painted them white? Just kidding. Since that orange insulation killed everyone on Columbia I cannot disagree my friend.
@@terranspaceacademy
Well it’s the little thing’s like the two giant Roman candles strapped to the sides, test pilots description of its flight “it’s like flying a brick”, only one runway landing attempt available, poor reuse ♻️, rumours that the internal wiring for the circuitry used wire wrapping Method, didn’t Resemble what we originally was promised at all. SLS 💸 might have also contributed as well.
I love most of what I have seen on this channel that I have just subscribed, and I note this production is excellent.
A fabulous amount of time and effort have produced a VHQ Video, however (here I refer to the ending clip) I have grown tired of videos that clearly show just how wasteful a lot of these designs are.
Current designs must excel at reusability, and support for redefining compatible internal mission substructure.
Sorry but 9 to 10 mission structures are not truly necessary
As someone else said, No structure is better than a complex convoluted one.
Thank you so much. A lot depends on the goal but overall you are quite correct. Every nonreusable design is, in the end, a waste of a tremendous amount of resources. On the other hand, sometimes it is the only way to get things done at all. Reusability requires a dedicated investment of time and resources that most organizations do not have. SpaceX is not just more profitable than anyone else is... because of their reusable first stage they are more profitable than anyone CAN be. Only China is actually trying to compete... And maybe Blue Origin with the New Glenn but they are really playing the slow game :-)
I actually start to be skeptical about Starship capabilities beyond LEO as Starlink. Too much complexity needed for the refueling process, as SpaceX is yet to present a fully functional wide payload hatch for commercial applications.
I think it's premature to write it off as a long distance craft. It will be needed to land on Mars, which is a major application of the design. That being said, simply designing it to be able to get off Earth is such a crazy edge-case that I have to think dedicated spacegoing vessels will emerge that can have more optimised layouts (not the gigantic fuel tanks, for example, for an automated slow freight hauler).
Starship with refueling is a way to get 150 tons to mars. Starship with a third stage or big tug as cargo is a good way to get 10 tons to mars and beyond. @@murraypearson2359
Is there a limit to the size of a rocket? Could they make Starship twice as big?
@@AsurmenHandOfAsurProbably the biggest limit is the amount of damage imparted to the launch pad with each launch. The bigger the rocket, the greater the impact. At its current size, Starship is already twice as powerful as the Saturn V, which was the most powerful rocket to ever fly actual missions, until now.
Another aspect of launch impact is the vibration and noise imposed upon any surrounding communities. When launches shatter windows and cause ground shaking equivalent to a moderate earthquake many miles away, that puts a limit on how much more powerful or how frequent the launches can become - unless a launch pad can be built quite literally in the middle of nowhere.
Lastly, there's a tradeoff between rocket size and available payloads. A rocket that's too big might not find a lot of customers who actually need to launch payloads that large [frequently enough].
@@Spherical_Cow Add to that the market trend of satellite downsizing, as over expected operational costs.
Musk hasn't even shown the world that he can circumnavigate the globe.
He's done it hundreds of times with Falcon 9.
He has never gone around the earth. @@terranspaceacademy
His rockets have. And he has too in his private jet :-)
meh so when are people going to clue in that transit between a lunar station and an earth orbiting station would completely mitigate the 'fiery return from the moon, there is only 1' limit if we establish a pair of way-stations and a cycler between then theres no need for straight from the moon to landing on earth. people keep skipping the critical infrastructure that will actually make this whole thing viable. like well established way stations and transit. lunar gateway and either a commercial station or some other international platform would be the right place to start with every other major trip out to build up the transit infrastructure until there are routine flights between stations. develop that first and everything else would happen much faster
We don't have that yet so... still don't want to burn up coming back the first few visits :-)
Thanks for another in-depth video. Unfortunately, I understand your dilemma and stress all too well, maybe even more so than most. I know you spend hours sometimes weeks making a video to share and teach people stuff, and then the views are a bit, well, meh at times.. for sure CZcams won't promote such stuff much, as, even though there is an audience for such content, it's a better bet to promote click baity stuff, and get those ads rolling. To be honest it's all pretty deflating at times. I wish I had a good suggestion for you, but I clearly don't. So, as they say, misery loves company !
Thank you so much for your kind words and understanding. It does help my friend :-)
'' Will the SpaceX Super Starship Rule the Space Industry? '' i wish because Industry pretty stuck in 70s 🤣🤣
a bit of Sci-fi Cant wait for the First NX-01 🤣🤣
I know! What the heck... We are SO behind schedule.
I'm not sure that Mandarin isn't the goal in some circles
Probably not intentionally over here but the result could be the same as if it were...
@@terranspaceacademyI fear the "intentionality of Mandarinization" has a lot to do with the size of the checks being cashed.
Yep, I agree. Probably not. But I do try to remember that just because a belief is conspiritorial in nature, doens't mean it's wrong. LOL Thanks for these videos. I look forward to them.@@terranspaceacademy
You are most welcome Jim! And thanks for watching!
You have knowledge they don't teach in college. 😅
Thank you so much Winston. The most important things in life we teach ourselves I believe.