SpaceX reveals plans for a second Starbase! What's needed to build 1000 Starships?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 24 січ 2022
- Get Surfshark VPN at surfshark.deals/felix - Enter promo code FELIX for 83% off and 3 extra months for FREE!
Today, I'm going to tackle a beast of a question! Let’s talk about the future of Starbase! What’s needed to build a rocket bigger than the Saturn V Moon rocket… 1000 times? Let’s do this!
Editing: Stefanie Schlang
Photography: Kevin Randolph
SpaceX 3D Creation Eccentric on Patreon!
/ owe_3dce
Credit:
⭐SpaceX
⭐NASA
⭐RGV Aerial Photography on Twitter: @RGVaerialphotos
⭐RGV Aerial Photography on UA-cam: @RGVAerialPhotography
⭐Ryan Hansen Space on Twitter: @RyanHansenSpace
⭐SpaceX 3D Creation Eccentric on Twitter: @Bl3D_Eccentric
⭐SpaceX 3D Creation Eccentric on UA-cam: @Spacex3DCreationEccentric
⭐C-bass Productions on UA-cam: @CbassProductions
⭐Caspar Stanley on Twitter: @Caspar_Stanley
⭐Race To Orbit on UA-cam: @alexrex7382
⭐Race to Orbit on Twitter: @RaceOrbit
⭐IamVisual on UA-cam: @iamVisualVFX
⭐Christian Debney on Twitter: / christiandebney
⭐Nick Henning on UA-cam: @NickHenning3D
⭐Nick Henning on Twitter: @nickhenning3d
✔️Merchandise Store: shop.spreadshirt.com/whatabou...
✔️Patreon: / whataboutit
✔️WAI Spotify Playlist: spoti.fi/39tmULH
✔️Get a Tesla: ts.la/felix20632
✔️Facebook: / waispace
✔️Twitter: @FelixSchlang
✔️My Camera: amzn.to/3xYn2wm
✔️My Microphone: amzn.to/3tGmAPZ
✔️My lighting: amzn.to/2RMR1Xo
✔️My tripod: amzn.to/2RcNeTt
📄Links for this Episode:
www.spacex.com
www.spacex.com/vehicles/stars... - Наука та технологія
Actually, the $7500 price is unfair, as that assumes you're carrying 100 tons of passengers or 1333 passengers on a single flight. Now the payload volume is around 890 m^3, and a 747 has a main deck volume of around 700 m^3 and seats around 450 passengers. So 500 passengers or 37.5 tons of passenger would probably be closer for a mass transit version.
So the actual price for economy passage to LEO would be closer to $20,000 per passenger. That's still ridiculously cheap, not much higher than twice what a long haul first class seat on a conventional airliner costs. If they can use some of the spare mass for paying cargo, the price could be reduced even further.
You still didn't factor life support systems and other hardware in crew version of the starship per person. You are not sending those fragile chemical bags in bare unpressurised steel can.
@@sodalitia Fair enough. We have 62.5 tons of mass to build a cabin and a short duration ECLSS for 500 people.
Right! My immediate reaction was //FLAWED// //FLAWED// //FLAWED// , unless we are stacked like cordwood!
But the price will be much higher than the cost. SpaceX charges as much as they can for Falcon 9 while still being cheaper than the competition. If they charge 50 million for a Falcon 9 launch, that doesn't mean this is how much the launch costs them. They will most certainly charge much more for a Starship launch than for a Falcon 9 launch, namely exactly as much as they can charge while still being cheaper per kg than the competition. Any objects which can be only launched with Starship or SLS will be ridiculously expensive, since SLS is not a commercial rocket, so Starship basically has no competitors. Which means SpaceX can charge ridiculous amounts of money for those Starship launches, in contrast to launches for Falcon 9, which does have commercial competitors.
Which means the price calculations in this video are totally off.
@@cube2fox I could be wrong, but I believe SpaceX charges ~$90 million for a launch. In this case, $50 million might be a reasonable estimate for actual cost per launch on SpaceX’s part. I do think a lot of the calculations in the video were very flawed though.
I mean, if you're comparing aspirational costs, the space shuttle was originally estimated to be $260/kg. We'll just have to wait and see what starship really looks like after it's been in production for a few years.
How did 260 turn into 51k tho.. Government contracts without the need to make money to stay in business.. Unlike spacex.. If they suck they are gone
Though one has to admit that with SpaceX's current experience, the eventual costs are very probably not to exceed the projected costs by too much
@@randomhobbies5796 the space shuttle was designed with 100 launches and very few light refurbishments in mind. it had over 21 000 tiles of varying shapes and sizes due to this.
but after only a few launches, one of the shuttles blew up, killing everyone inside. the reason was that one tile had fallen off. because of this, every single tile of the ship had to be checked for bad tiles, which drove up the launch costs significantly, and dramatically reduced the launch frequency.
@@Dejawolfs Challenger blew up due to the O ring malfunction in one of the boosters, in 1986, not due to tile damage. Columbia blew up due to the tile damage, but that was in 2003.
@@Dejawolfs no space shuttle was destroyed because of the tiles. Challenger launched despite engineers’ warnings in frigidly cold weather which permitted the escape of hot exhaust gasses from a solid rocket booster which burned through the lower attachment between the booster and external tank, causing the booster to pivot on its upper attachment and crash into the tank, destroying the tank, releasing massive amounts of fuel and oxidizer, and causing a massive explosion which ultimately destroyed the vehicle. Columbia s was struck on the leasing edge of a wing by foam shed from the external tank during launch, which allowed (a week or so later) hot plasma generated during reentry to enter the vehicle, melt its aluminum structure, leading to its breaking up at hypersonic velocities in the upper atmosphere. The tiles took forever to inspect and replace and definitely effected costs and turn-around time (and once were lost at a location which fortuitously was strong enough to survive reentry without them), but did not in the end ever result in any loss of vehicle incidents.
It would be great if SpaceX used the Starship to build an orbiting shipyard to build larger more powerful space ships for interstellar travel.
Agree
It would be easier to launch ships from space
True, but Musk’s ship is a deep space ship. So this ship can do it. We might see a large space base, but the problem is you still have to get stuff to space and let’s think about all that junk flying around is dangerous so we need a way to clean that up first. So any base you build should be on the moon or around it because a tether in lunar orbit is much much easier.
Could not have said it better
@@jonathanhughes8679 I just think that a ship built in space would be a great candidate for a nuclear propulsion system. Much less mass needed for propulsion, more space for cargo.
Live cargo needs a lot of support systems, density will be lower and costs higher. They mentioned at least space for 100 people earlier, that would be 20k/person if 2mio /launch is accurate. In the long term
Support systems already established in space would also drastically reduce the needs for each individual launch. One would hardly need to bring much water, for example, on a journey of a few hours to a low-orbit station
Elon estimated the launch would cost $2 million. 100 people divided into $2 million is $20,000. Then spaceX would need a profit.
@@michaelanderson4325 Did he specify that's what it would cost SpaceX to launch or the ticket price to charter a launch?
I'd pay up to about $50k
Not really mate, 10k/ person is not gonna happen in the next 50 years at least
Hopefully the rocket fuel providers can keep up with the demand of launching just 2 Starships and boosters per day. Seems like a lot of trucks are lined up and waiting to fill those huge tanks just for pressure checks and static tests. Haven't read any words about how much LOX the production facility at Baco Chica can output, if its even working yet.
The purpose of a reusable 1st stage is that you won’t need nearly as many boosters as they need starships. Maybe 10%?
Each Starship may need 10 Tanker launches for the trip to Mars. The final number of Boosters will likely depend on how long they'll be able to store propellant in orbit.
@@TJAllcot they have already discussed refuel starships. I believe many will be one way trips to orbit or moon before they go to mars. I think it depends on how many times can a booster take a starship to orbit before retiring. 100 flights would only require 10 boosters to take 1000 ships up in a perfect world.
@@willtinsley2128 if each Marsbound Starship needs ~10 launches for the refueling, than a 1000 booster launches will support (only) 100 ships; but I think even 100 Strships to Mars is a huge number - who's gonna pay for all that? Is there a market demand for 10000 tonnes to be transported to Mars?🤔
1000 starships + 1000 booster launches. Now thats 1 heck of allot of fuel. No wonder musk has built his own fuel farm, will dave him billions in rocket propellent.
@@user-pi4cf6fj7b did you think this out
Great to have such a good breakdown of what is happening. So useful. THANK YOU
Felix, love the numbers. We live in an incredible time. Can't wait to see this all come to pass. Great job as usual! 👍
5:27 No. That's not where the equator is. It definitely does not run through Central America. It's further south. It runs through Ecuador (which is Spanish for Equator). ESA has a launch facility in French Guiana which is actually still a few 100 miles north of the Equator, but I think it's the closest launch facility to the equator in the Western Hemisphere. The actual position of the equator is shown at 5:45
The closest one is in Brazil, the equator line crosses Brazil.
@6:15 there is a typo in the top left corner. it says RGC aerial photography while it should say RGV. just letting you know. :) love the content btw. really great stuff.
Great summary! Glad you dropped the background music too 👍
Way too good of a video. This is perhaps one of your best ones yet!!! Great information. Thanks!
When the starship becomes fully operational I'm definitely going to start planning to go to Mars 🤩
1 way trip man!
@@davidmacphee8348 good
As much as I love the idea of a Mars city. I think living there would be depressing as hell
Fool
@@tobiasklingele9803 it's never going to happen, they can't even get to the moon, that's the first place you would test the crappy NASA technology.
Think a mistake might have slipped in at 3:12 Felix! SpaceX does infact reuse Falcon 9 fairings, only the second stage is expended :)
the payload could be considered expendable hehe
I dont think that is completely true, if they are able to catch it, its is reusable, but they sometimes couldn't catch it, so its mostly reusable.
@@IR-MaNu they gave up trying to catch them but still pick them up out of the water now, and reuse them.
More of this, pls. Love the bigger perspective!
Thanks to the WAI and the team 👍
SpaceX's progress is so fast it can reach orbit
Actually humanity reached orbit some decades ago. We even went to the moon!
Space x has no real progress to offer. It's just one of the first private company's to do the same stuff NASA did for decades. Wich is cool and an achievement! No doubt about it.
But they didn't solve ANY of the big problems with space travel or even colonialization. Not one!
Reusable rockets are their biggest achievement. But on the other hand: NASA had reusable vehicles and reasons to cancel the space shuttle program.
@@alexanders.1359 Even the Delta Clipper did it first before Space X.
Space has done nothing that hasn't been done before, in fact everything they have said they will do , they haven't. Just like all of Musk's businesses, he is a con man, scamming governments and investors out of their money, Promises the world and delivers nothing.
You guys are great!
One thought I always have when I look at starship is that it could get to the moon or mars and land…. And then fall over beacause the landing site is geotechnically unstable under the load. How does the SpaceX team address this problem?
Why would the landing site be geotechnically unstable?
Your narrative makes the BEST summary of the wonder of what's happening down there at Boca Chica! THANKS!!!!!!!
Thank you for down to earth explanation of Starship and its location.
Just a minor correction. Kilograms is a measure of mass, not weight. While mass will remain constant, weight varies based on gravity acting on the mass.
So how do you determine the mass of something? Do you whip out a folding rule and measure it, or do you weigh it?
I can assure you that a kilogram of lead and a kilogram of styrofoam doesn't have identical masses. But they weigh the same - one kilogram.
A liter is a measure of mass (1000 cubic centimeters) and a liter of water WEIGHS one kilogram.
What's heavier, a kilogramme of steel, or a kilogramme of feathers?
That's right - it's the kilogrammme of steel, cause steel is heavier than feathers.
@@LarsPallesen Perhaps you could elaborate on that lead - styrofoam example. I'd say that according to F = ma, if the weight of two objects is equal, and its measured in the same level of gravity, then their mass must also be equal.
@@LarsPallesen litre /liter is a measure of volume, not mass (from being equal to CUBIC centimeters). And a kilogram of lead and a kilogram of Styrofoam have the same mass. They have different VOLUME (volume is mass divided by density) and different DENSITY but the same mass. FFS learn your basic middle school measuring units before implying other people are wrong.
@@LarsPallesen how do you determine the mass of something? You compare it to something else with a known mass, e.g. with a beam balance. A beam balance will tell you the mass of an object, irrelevant of the gravity field you're in (as long as it's non-zero). The common scales you find are indeed just force meters (they measure the force earth gravity exerts on something and are calibrated to show the force exerted on a 1 kg mass as 1 kg).
For your comparison of lead and styrofoam, you might end up with a lower mass for the styrofoam because of its buoyancy in air. They *do* have the same mass, but they might weigh differently. If you repeat the same in a vacuum, they end up being the same. (I remember at school, we did indeed put a feather and a small piece of metal in a glass tube, that we subsequently evacuated. If you upend the tube, it looks "normal" for the metal piece to fall rather quickly. It's really eerie seeing the feather race the metal to the end of the tube, falling at the same speed...
I think the biggest jump for reaching the mass production goal of Starship (at least logistically) is getting a Raptor factory up and running on or near Starbase(s).
youre not the only one thinking about that xD
plans about that are already on the table and going on for the current tests and starship near or not xD
Nah transporting things is very easy and cheap once you get it going.
I look forward to your videos every week Felix. Very exciting to finally see the space industry maturing towards the colonization of our Moon and Mars.
Awesome research & infos guys! Congrats!
Your videos are so great! Thank you so much for making them, hope you'll have a wonderful week!
One thing I want to point out is, that you won't need 1000 Super Heavy Boosters to launch 1000 Starships, when the booster is fully and rapidly reusable ;). You will only need 10 boosters, if you can launch each of them 10 times a day.
I doubt each booster will even launch weekly. Elon said the same for falcon 9, then used starship as an excuse for why they didn't go through with it. In reality it's going to take some serious iterative r&d (like they are doing now, but focused purely on reusability) to develop such rapid reusability. That is, if it's even practical or cost-feasable to do it that way. Their current r&d is for the "get-to-orbit-with-desired-specs-without-blowin-up-so-we-can-start-selling-launches"-ability
@@johnfrian Such rapid reusability is long term vision, and will be possible when the turnaround steps necessary are mostly automated which will take quite some time to accomplish. Short term vision is pioneering the return to the moon and then the road to Mars. After the scouts have determined the best places on the moon to settle, then infrastructure can be built. That's where I see Blue Origin coming in. Bezos's experience with organizing a massive workforce (Amazon as example) can get this off the ground, literally. Because we're going to need tens of thousands of workers in space to build the infrastructure needed if we're going to actually stay there.
I think the time it takes to fuel and load this ship would prevent us from making this turnaround possible. Plus all it takes is one accident with fully fueled ship and the shockwave alone will destroy half of the site. People also forget that bigger ship=bigger risk. Plus I seriously doubt that there is a business case or a demand for that many launches. What exactly is it that we will be sending up there (except starlink satellites and more space junk).
@@amandaburns5421 I wonder what the insurance cost will be to cover the damages and payouts to next of kin after a fatal accident. Point to point launches for travel? No business case. One flight between lets say New York and Sidney per day with 100 passengers will never be profitable. 1 day tat is very optimistic. Very few countries will accept a launch facility close to populated areas with all that noise. Journey to and from a launch facility will take almost as much time as an airplane. The sky dive and flip landing maneuver will never be human rated. And who wants to live in a cave on Mars doing what exactly?
Once again Felix you deliver as always! Thank you good sir! 🙂
Keep on rocking!
Why build more Falcons, if 70 can meet the demands?
What became of the two oil rigs that SpaceX bought?
I think they are still being rebuild to fit Starships, i don't think they will be used sometime soon, maybe next year?
Thanks for all the good work! Another great video. To the stars.
I love this whole SpaceX Endeavor !! I love the idea of humanity reaching the stars, & not just the Moon or Mars
Nasa have been doing it for 70 years. Space X wouldn't exist without Nasa.
It'll likely cost around $400Million per launch for Starship. At least to start out with. So that's $4000 per Kg. Still a good deal.
Just curious how you figured this number lol
@@plasmic4727 idk trying to google the cost of falcon 9 production costs vs launch costs. Also have to account for development costs which for falcon 1 to 9 were about 4 billion? Dont quote me though. So however much they spend on starship the first 20 or so launches will be just to recoup the development cost. 100t payload is so ridiculously huge it wont take long.
It's hilarious how these UA-cam shills say let's work on a conservative number of $2M per launch which is a complete joke.
Then say that number is from Elon Musk himself, like that means anything. They guy is endlessly talking utter BS about costs, timings, the difficulty of tasks.
If Starship ever gets off the ground it will be a miracle if it ever gets to $100M a launch.
$2M is just a ludicrous figure Elon pulled out of his arse.
All these shills take it to the bank though.
@@youtubevanced4900 First launch will always be the full cost of the rocket, in case it blows up. Each subsequent launch with reused 1st stage and engines. Slight refurbish itll probably be 10 mil tops and go down as they stream line it. Elon seems to be pissed about engine production woes. Theyre not making them fast enough. Starship itself is probably a done deal
@@Andytlp 10 years of falcon and its still $60M.
Starship will never be less than 100M.
If they do a third Starbase someday, then it might be good to do it in Puerto Rico. It is U.S. territory that is closer to the Ecuator than either south Texas or Florida. I know that Puerto Rico was one of the locations they scouted back before deciding on Texas as well.
Pretty sure Elon already planned that...he is in the process of rebuilding the entire electric grid in that country...only one reason to do that
The infrastructure in Puerto Rico is atrocious and they wouldn’t be able to have those endless 18 wheeler convoys coming in
@@rationalthinker9612 Elon Musk isn't rebuilding the grid in Puerto Rico. He did tweet something about it after the passing of Hurricane Maria, but he’s not involved with the electric grid of the country. Instead the government controlled power company was privatized by a company called Luma.
@@admiralepstein467 There’s some infrastructure issues, much like there's infrastructure issues in the United States. That's why the president had been campaigning heavily on that issue. But not that it matters much, Puerto Rico is an island, so unlike Texas, you don't need long convoys driving overnight or longer. Depending where you place the base you are only an hour or two away from the port at most. A few potholes or construction work doesn't affect that too much. Plus a third a Starbase would be to create an additional production line of Starships and an alternative port to space, so it wouldn't necessarily have to have the same output as the other two.
Of course if they want to achieve a city on Mars they're probably gonna need more than 3 Starbases. I imagine at some point there would be the one in Texas, one in the eastern side of Florida, one on the western side, one in Puerto Rico, and possibly one in Hawaii. With 5 Starbases, production would really skyrocket.
Great video! Thanks for including my graphics :)
Thanks Felix, love your updates! :)
The FAA and the FCC are going to have a very large part in the timeline of Starship. Likely they will slow down progress to some degree.
Looks like they already have, not by much but still fingers in the pie.
Leave it to the corrupt commie government to keep screwing us all !
Curiously absent from this video is the fact that for any starship to leave low earth orbit, to head to the moon or mars ... roughly a dozen other starship launches will be needed to first refuel that starship.
It's simply impractical
If I'm remembering correctly for a trip to mars where the starship is carrying 100 tons they would need to send 6 tankers not 12. For lunar missions and any mission carrying less than 100 tons beyond earth orbit would need less than 6. ultimately the amount of tankers need is ultimately decided by the mission it's self.
That's well-known data for anyone familiar with spacex. And even with that refueling it will likely still be cheaper than any other method of interplanetary travel.
While starship has not yet been in space, that does not mean spacex is new or experimental.
More than half of orbital launches from earth in 2021 were launched by spacex. For the whole planet. Falcon 9 has demonstrated the legitimacy of reusable rockets and the experience of spacex for delivering cargo and people to orbit.
Spacex did not get these launches because of favoritism. They got the launches because they have proved that they can reliably put things into orbit more economically than anyone else on the planet.
In the long run it doesn't much matter how many rockets it takes to refuel for any given mission. What matters is the cost of that mission, its safety and reliability.
Spacex has already had the same falcon 9 rocket launch less than 48 hours after it landed. Less than 48 hours on the ground between 2 orbital launches. Falcon 9 does need some refurbishment between launches. Starship, the goal is to not need anything more than fuel.
Starship needs heat tiles for reentry, unlike Falcon 9. Those tiles need to be refurbished, which was very expensive for the Space Shuttle. Even if Starship is much cheaper to refurbish than the Space Shuttle, it still seems possible that it needs more refurbishment than Falcon 9.
Much appreciated!👍
Well done episode!
If they hit the aspirational price tag per kg my ticket to orbit would be about the same as the flight over to the US to launch 😂
You would have to divide the total price of laubch by amount of people taken, not dollar per kg x the weight of a passanger. So it would likely be closer to 100.000$ to orbit. Still extremly cheap
Considering it's $400k for a suborbital trip virgin or blue origin. Starship will be revolutionary
Just a small point, the animation starting at 6:55 has the direction of movement clockwise. It should be anti-clockwise (assuming north is "up"). Otherwise, another great video.
Gracias Susi por los subtitulos!
Just had the most morbid thought. With a cost that low for getting to orbit I think there could be a market for terminally ill people who want to go to space if only for a day before they die. Each could be sold a one-way ticket with a expendable pressure suit or tube to exit an airlock from starship on their final voyage. An hour later anesthesia comes out, puts them under, they de-orbit and burn up, going out in a blaze of glory. Hey I said it was a morbid thought.
Greatest
Cremation
Ever!!!!
(Not morbid. “How we deal with death is at least as important as how we deal with life” Adm JT Kirk , 2284)
Or with lower gravity on Mars you could retire there and have quite the adventure! 😁🖖
Guess we found a use for that creepy suicide pod that's being developed...
I think that if Starship will kill people, it would be in a more explosive way, actually.
If you're rich enough, maybe you could buy an entire starship for yourself and launch it toward your favorite star, or out to intergalactic space. The ship would be your coffin/time capsule for the aliens
I think one at Kennedy Space Complex is a given, at this point. I can foresee the need for at least one more, perhaps on the west coast, or even offshore somewhere. Three Starbases minimum, imho.
Ironically they might be able to start and finish Starbase Florida before the FAA gives them the go ahead in Boca Chica.
@@gamerfortynine So far, the intention is for the oil rigs to be launch platforms, not construction facilities, which is what he's talking about here. I think that they COULD be adapted to include other platforms for construction as well as a "terminal" for those using the flights.
Thank you!
9:55 looks like S21’s nosecone barrel.
For production of 1000 ships, there will need to be multiple production sites and launch pads. Another site will probably be needed along with Florida and BC with 2 launch towers at each.
Love how you emphasize the long view on what we're seeing on a weekly basis. Breathtaking! Makes me wish I was young again. Go team Elon!!
"We don't want the 1st rover race?!"
Me: Speak for yourself Felix!
I for one welcome the inception of Formula Mars, lol.
I can see Elon sending a bunch of cybertrucks to Mars and racing those maybe
Wow, great graphics. Nice job
Graphics is all its ever going to be, these people are delusional.
@@metalicminer6231 aww what makes you say that? Felix and his team works hard at this stuff.
@@VideoconferencingUSA spreading false claims, great, the science doesn't add up, and musk is just a salesman, first stop should be the moon, but thats not going to happen either, how's musks trial going for his failed solar city..?
@@metalicminer6231 I guess I will keep dreaming :) gotta get some positive and fun information from somewhere. :)
Thanks again for good stuff.
Keep in mind Elon isn't building as many Falcon 9's as he can. He has more than enough boosters for what he needs and also as soon as Starship is available the Falcon 9 will be obsolete anyway.
Elon is an untalented invert of baphomet.
*MSaylorhigh* Telegramma.
Buon lavoro amico. Ultimamente, quando sono state richieste previsioni su bitcoin e criptovalute in generale, alla maggior parte degli esperti su UA-cam e altri media, le previsioni sono per lo più generiche senza specifiche sulla direzione. Tutti sembrano indovinare e diventare ancora più confusi riguardo al futuro. L'unica cosa costante che posso dire con certezza è che i trader stanno effettivamente guadagnando buoni rendimenti mentre gli HOdler sono sempre preoccupati per cosa riserva il futuro per bitcoin o se c'è anche un futuro. Con l'intuizione, le capacità e l'esperienza di un trader come Michael Saylor, il cielo è il limite. Sono arrivato a questa consapevolezza quando ho realizzato un ritorno sull'investimento dell'87% nel mio primo mese utilizzando i suoi segnali per le mie operazioni. Per non sembrare di parte, ci sono molti BUONI trader là fuori, ma Michael mi è stato di immenso aiuto, specialmente con i suoi segnali e strategie.
Sono uno studente di Michael Saylor dal 2019 è stato un grande mentore..
Sto ancora imparando da lui, è molto esperto e con previsioni accurate.
Tutti possiamo imparare una o due cose da Michael, le sue capacità di profitto sono un fenomeno. Grazie al suo servizio sto guadagnando di più e diventando più ricco..👍
Molto bello, stavo solo trattenendo prima di trovare Michael. Secondo me è il migliore in circolazione, sono stato in grado di aumentare il mio btc da 0,4 a 5 btc.
Michael ha elevato il mio portafoglio di criptovalute con i suoi segnali ben congegnati da 1btc a 3btc. Sono così felice di essere uno studente del suo programma.
I don't suppose that 1000 starships over 10 years equals 100 per year, because there will be fewer at first and more later. That curve might be exponential or it might be linear, depending on how fast they build starship factories.
I legit read "Felix Schlong" and I thought that was the greatest name in all of history.
Making price assumption based on Musk's statement is as delusional as thinking riding an Hyperloop and ending in a traffic jam in a hazardous tiny tunnel in Las Vegas. Be careful people, there is a difference between marketing and reality!!
Dont pop these sci-fi fans bubble 🤣
Seriously, Musk is a modern-day P. T. Barnum. He's lucky SpaceX is privately held, because he doesn't have anybody scrutinizing his books.
First
Name checks out
I wonder if they're going to come up with a chopstick method for the falcon 9 so they don't have to replace the legs if the impact is alittle to hard on landing.
Great video!
That will change when the first one goes boom.
It's expected to explode. That's the plan.
Only if someone is in it when it goes boom. And even then you have to think of the track record. As long as it's safer to be in a SpaceX rocket than a car I think it'd be little more than a roadbump.
Will SpaceX manage to turn our multi-planetary future into reality? What do you think?
Inded
It depends on how far we get into Starship before the next economic recession.
I just have hope for them
Of course, as I said before if Elon doesn't do it someone else will. Spreading out to other planets is part of human nature. Just as discovering America and moving west. We are explorers.
When you repeat yourself about flying to space for $7,500 there seems to be something in the audio. Is that intentional or what's going on there?
Space hail from FINLAND, you ROCK
I am wondering could more starbase / starship factories be built and Speed up the manufacturing process & timeline.
Plus [eventually] You need a facilities at the Mars end to conduct the soft landing(s) or;
** Do they just land it upright on Mars with no Legs or Stabilizer(s)? what about in a wind storm / dust storm is there protection against the ship blowing over?
Also A Mars Starbase & Service garage / facility wood also be needed right?
I very much doubt there will ever be 1000 starship or even 100
Why?
Based on what? Soyuz has been build more than 1600 times. It's not that much. A 100 seems very feasible considering they are already in the 20's building prototypes.
What would be more interesting is how many boosters will be build?
@@catch_me_if_you_can1147 That would depend greatly on the turnaround time I think.
The 1000 ship figure is often cites when talking about building the self-sustaining colony on Mars. I'm sure that specialized one way Starships will be made that will never return to Earth.
@@Diggnuts and greatly on the “rud” rate of the early boosters
I think all these SpaceX fans should choose to be more skeptical of Starship going to Mars within that time-frame (also known as "Musk-Time".) I think that a lunar landing is very much within that time frame, but a landing on Mars is a whole different ball of wax. There are also HUGE problems with any Mars colony. I'm extremely skeptical that it will ever happen. Mars is simply too inhospitable and too far away. I think we'll see Lunar colonies first, and probably some orbital colonies. In fact, the real benefit to the whole Superheavy and Starship program is orbital colonies and asteroid exploitation.
There's noting else to do on Mars but "trying " to survive. Maybe one day ,but we are centuries from that... plus, that fucking Starship proved nothing yet .
@@ludwigvanzappa9548 I think "centuries" is a realistic timeframe. We have plenty of stuff to learn about living off our home planet before that's possible. (I also think we need a nice big comet to crash into one of Mars' polar regions before we can even begin to contemplate colonization, and we really don't know how to do that yet.)
@@tarmaque Yeah, the comet would be nice!
@@ludwigvanzappa9548 On a long time frame a comet would be great, but the problem is finding one in an orbit that we can realistically alter to drop it on Mars. At least with technology we currently understand. But even then it would take decades or upwards of a century for the physical effects to steady down and make the planet _more_ habitable. Long term good thing, short term bad thing.
If they truly are able to make starship and super heavy boosters on mass, it will be the most incredible thing ever to see after the launch of the super heavy booster with starship itself. Hope they get there soon enough.
This is an awesome video. I rate it as one of the best!
Thousands of Starships? Never going to happen. Musk will be lucky if he gets even one Starship to the moon ever. There is no way he will have a Starship on the moon within three years. The guy is deranged. In 2016 Musk said he would be launching cargo flights to Mars this year (2022). Now it is three years away. In three years time it will still be three years away. Musk would be better off investing his money in solving the climate crisis than trying to land people on a planet where they will dead within weeks.
Exactly, he's a fraud, tugging at the heartstrings of startrek fans.
Well aren't you folks a sodding ray of sunshine...
@@sallyforth9905 It's called reality buddy.
Bit too much fanboyism in this vid. Mars by 2027… if that happens ill live stream me eating a hat. We haven't even had a test fight of starship and somehow its 5 years away from Mars? Elon has a tendancy to oversell and underdeliver - see his vegas "hyperloop".
01:30 😲 That scared the hell out of me!
I think that Starbase will continue to be the primary (maybe only) production site for Starship. The Roberts Road facility will likely be a payload integration and maintenance facility. Don’t forget this all has to be paid for. The Starlink project will take up most of the focus for the next three or four years.
Interesting and maybe with the thought that it could potentially be converted to another factory or be used if they end up not being able to utilize Boca Chica as intended due to environmental, legal, and/or governmental restrictions.
I like how both pro and anti SpaceX youtube channels have the same sponsor. :D
Hey Felix, what about the cargo doors/hatch on starship. Any update on what that will look like?
As a technical note, the word you want to use is tonne, not ton. A ton is one of two Imperial units either 2000 or 2200 pounds, a tonne is 1000kg. Felix does, however, pronounce tonne exactly correctly.
6:33 - OMG, bricks! 🤦♂🤦♀😂
Good information
$7500 per 75 kg is when you take 100 tones of payload or 1333 (100 000/75) passengers. The payload bay of Starship is about 1000 cubical meters. So less then 1 cubical meter per person - it is not quite comfortable. To be more or less comfortable the amount of passengers should be 3-5 times less and the ticket price higher that much or $22 500 - $37 500.
Although, for example Boeing 737 has 184 cubical meters for 189 passengers. So... as an economy class it almost the same like 1 cubical meter per 1 passenger.
Hi! Happy New year man, u Rock !
Sponsor at the end. Ok I guess that the best I can hope for.
Keep it up, i ll consider becoming a patreon.
We have to also remember that the rocket is only a fraction of the actual costs. Much more expensive is all the ground operations and marine assets. It will be interesting to see if the starship will still be competitive, if all these costs are factored in. Rocket Lab is now already designing a rocket with 2050 technology, which will reduce all of these costs, and most likely beat Starship in terms of cost/kg.
Why no launch facilities in Panama, near the canal?
I for one Love your subscriber to view ratio. such a focused group of fans is hard to realize
How does this guy not have atleast a million subs by this point?? Felix you rock your content is superb
Love how apart from your excellent content you offer resolutions all the way up to 4K. Quality all the way, thanks ! Also you point out what is important. Price of mass into orbit, that's what counts when you want to go to space. Delta V after that just depends on your propulsion technology and your mass. About going to Mars, we surely will have to wait for the solar minimum radiation wise before we can send humans to Mars. So that's limited to a 11 year cycle. I understand why Elon is so pressed for time, we need to get everything ready for the next solar minimum, otherwise we'll have to wait another 11 years or so.
7:40 The first Starship will not carry 100 tons to Mars. It will be able to carry 100 tons to Low Earth Orbit, but the total Delta-V needed to get to the surface of Mars is more than twice the Delta-V needed to get to LEO.
Felix,you're our host for EVERY show. #confidence
6:22 on the top left says "RGC Aerial Photography" instead of "RGV"
4:55 Do that!
I can't believe people still believe this 1000 Starship thing will happen anytime this decade. We'd be lucky to even get one man on Mars this decade, let alone 1000. lol My guess is Roberts Rd production will focus on expendable Starships, including lunar Starship. Starbase TX will produce the boosters, as well as continued development of reusable Starship for the next several years. Even their environment assessment suggests this. It's amazing how people just ignore that.
I suspect quite a number of the starships to land on Mars will be expendable ones, as they can probably make good use to the metal contained in them.
@@realulli It would not surprise me if a "Starship" from earth ever takes off from Mars. A purpose built Mars ship taken there by a Starship will almost certainly do the job of launching humans/cargo back into orbit from the Martian surface.
Why not join the high bay and wide bay. That would give room for a production line for mass assembly. Not mentioned is the need for a refuelling station in LEO.
great video
Some great information on Falcon9 versus the Space Shuttle can be found on Stack Exchange - "why didn't NASA use the shuttle to make a profit?".
Wonderfully concise recap to start the video. Your update of SpaceX plans was cram-packed with info too. The Starship project is on par with Project Apollo on steroids. I hope I see at least one person on Mars before I head over to the Great Beyond. Clearly Elon and his devoted, fanatical cadre are going to give it their best shot. Thanks for your efforts. Quality production.
This stuff is so exciting! I'm almost 30 years old and I don't dare to imagine what will happen in space flight in my lifetime.
...........that's what I said when I was 30. 32 years later.....nothing. That's what my Grandad said in 1972......never been back to the moon....and nasa lost all the data. You seriously need to snap out of it.
@@viclimited9081 What do you mean by "Nasa lost all the data?" The data from moon missions?
@@MrSaemichlaus ......so they say...they actually taped over it because the tapes were very expensive in those says.....because the data was so important....
That cost per flight is also highly dependent on how often a rocket can fly before needing to be retired to be as low as 2m just from construction of the ship the number of flights a ship needs to make to pay of the building off it not including development and infrastructure will still be massive not saying its not possible but its a price we wont see until they have been fly for decades successfully
What a thumbnail! Lovely
I really hope he pulls this off, go starship 🚀🚀🚀, thx felix
Don't forget all the engineers too lol
After some thought, It seems that one of the reasons SpaceX is able to do rapid development, is because they have control (fought for it at times) over the quality of their materials. This means that their simulations equal real world results due to consistency. Frkn Science yo!
Is the VAB tall enough to do a full Starship - Super Heavy stack?
Also, is the crawler track from the VAB to 39A still useable?