What Happened to The SpaceX Oil Rig Launch Platforms!
Вставка
- Опубліковано 9 тра 2024
- What Happened to The SpaceX Oil Rig Launch Platforms!
Last Video:
The SpaceX Starship Orbital Launch Update Is Here!
• The SpaceX Starship Or...
► Join Our Discord Server: / discord
► Patreon: / theteslaspace
► Subscribe to our other channel, The Space Race: / 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.theteslaspace.com
Business Email: derek@ellify.com
#Spacex #Space #Mars - Наука та технологія
We've already solved the problem of cryogenic transportation of fuel on water. They're called LNG carriers.
LNG carriers maintain the liquid by keeping the pressure and not the temperature.
@@mrbaab5932 you’re very wrong mate. LNG goes through liquefaction by *cooling* it to -260F. LNG ships have to maintain it at that temp. It is not under high pressure like propane tanks.
@@mrbaab5932 yeah you're wrong about this.
@@cruisinguy6024 would love to know which is right?
@@danielmckim8521 would love to know which is right?
You'll know SpaceX are serious about marine launches when you see them purchase LNG tankers. That particular part of the transport/resupply issue was solved decades ago...
Who says you have to station your platform so far from shore? Thirty feet of water should be plenty to absorb the blast. Don't float your platform, anchor it to the seabed. That way you can build a sea fence around the platform to keep the dolphins out, it won't be rocking in the waves, and it will be close enough to the shore to PIPE the fuel.
refueling would be easier, you could park a tanker ship of gas right next to the platform.
But what about the immense sound from the launch
@@harshillutsavka9420 Would be absorbed by huge masses of water sprays used at normal launch pads.
@@harshillutsavka9420 less of a problem than on land
@@InsufficientYarsago That would negate the sound reflections back to the rocket but what about the sound heard by the people near it as we've seen during the launch people who were miles away said it was deafening.
Imagine how loud launching multiple rockets per day will be
This thing will encounter same problems that Concorde had but noise is even bigger issue. Nimby and all that. These will always be launched far from human settlements for that reason. There may even be environmental problems, we already know that active sonars in military submarines can damage living tissue in the water. I don't think we fully understand how much noise a rocket this size and power would produce in an ocean if launched from marine platform.
@@jarivuorinen3878Rockets will simply never be safe enough to land near major settlements until they have full glide capabilities like aircrafts do.
Keep in mind that in the gulf even 12 miles off shore you can build a floor mounted pylon platform in 100ft of water. Such would give you stability for a diverter and being in international waters perhaps ease regulatory and legal challenges.
True, but that still leaves two really big issues; How to transport the vehicle, even in pieces, to the platform and hoist them aboard. And two, fuel and oxidizer transport and storage. These are huge issues to overcome.
Hoisting Starship components off of a barges and assembling them aboard the platform may be viable, but only in calm weather. Corrosion will certainly be an even bigger issue than on land... ask the Navy.
One could make the O2 via electrolysis on the platform (What to do with the hydrogen is an issue. Sell it perhaps via pipeline?) and one could build a pipeline to move the fuel. This would probably be the least expensive way. Shipping the propellant would be a headache, relatively expensive and a safety nightmare. And if one is going to do hundreds of launches a week or a day, there's no way to move that much tonnage safely; Move two ships into the explosion hazard zone, fuel the vehicle, then move them out of the hazard zone for liftoff, then back in, etc. No captain or insurer is going to let a ship within 10 miles of a launch. And I'm being generous at 10 miles.
@@HammerOn-bu7gx Indeed, but the legal barriers on land have become untenable. I doubt SpaceX will be allowed to launch more than a few times from Boca Chica. Available time at the Cape will be getting tighter as more companies set up there. The Gulf is the only place that makes sense. Oil rigs have been operating there since 1947. Its nothing new. Also note Boca Chica and the Cape both operating in corrosive coastal environments. Also remember Shotwell has talked of building multiple platforms in the Gulf.
Solution: Dig a deep lake, build the launch platform in the middle of it and launch from there. Put some deflector shields up to avert the spray kickback and you have your launchpad.
Twenty five years ago Sea Launch solved the problem of launching large rockets from a converted oil drilling platform in the best location possible. IMO almost everything worked as planned except transferring a large rocket (Zeni 3SL - Falcon 9 size) from a ship to the platform on the open sea. Because the demand for launches was so low, Sea Launch avoided the problem by always loading the assembled vehicle onto the platform in port and sailing the platform to the launch area.. That's OK if you can accept a month between launches. The platform was heavily modified and enlarged to include a full length hanger for the assembled horizontal launch vehicle and also have room to roll it out and rotate it to vertical. The platform had a large (500 ton?) flame diverter and water deluge system. AFAIK there was no reason the platform couldn't handle something larger but 10X larger?
SpaceX's ideas are so fantastic it needs a fantastic solution. A hundred launches a day? IMO they need a to move all their operations to a floating spaceport in the middle of nowhere on the equator (like the Sea Launch location). The floating base would have to be large enough to have a full scale airport, factory, docks, tank farms, housing, power stations etc. and be immune from waves and weather. They would need large launch platforms a safe distance away and ships or barges to move the the unfueled rocket from the main base to the launch platform. Except for the floating part and launching rockets, isn't China doing something like this now with their artificial island territorial claims?
In other words it's impossible.
@@paulhaynes8045 -- When buggies were crafted in small shops I imagine the idea of a large factory making millions of things a year much more complicated than a buggy would seem impossible. What I can't figure out is why SpaceX would want to launch 100 times a day unless there was 100 mile wide asteroid on the way.
@@poopytowncat these 'people thought that about cars/aeroplanes/spaceflight/etc' comparisons sound logical, but they aren't. There is no law that just because people were wrong about one technology or dream, they'll be equally wrong about another.
I think sea launches are not going to happen, not because I don't think people can still breath when they travel above 15 miles an hour, or most people will never be able to afford to fly, or I can't imagine things being massed produced, but because there are simple and basic reasons against it. For instance, where's the demand? Equally, where's the money? And that's even before you come onto the technical and logistical problems of launching at sea, or a deal-breaker like Starship not being human-rated...
@@paulhaynes8045 -- Basically agree because I can't imagine a scenario where 100 launches a day over a period of many ears would be needed unless there's a reason for a mass emigration to Mars or the sky colonies floating above Venus such as an ale-yeast virus or when MTG becomes president. Didn't Musk say if you could come up with 200 thousand dollars or the average price of a house you could go to Mars?
About the flat concrete. Where I’m from there’s people who learn from listening ( you want a flame diverter), there’s people who learn from watching ( flame diverters worked great in the past) and there’s people who need to p*** on the electric fence by themselves 😊
yeah SpaceX is kind of dumb ngl but what can you do?
7:45 you talk about murdering the sea life below the floating deck but I hear very few people mention the endangered turtles and birds in the protected wetland they launch from in Texas.
Seen turtle eggs scorched from the previous launch.
The ocean is mostly a desert mostly devoid of life and therefore easy to avoid killing sea life.
@@treborobotacon
Brain dead take.
Source on those burned turtle eggs?
i just wanted to thank you so much for your content. I've spent weeks trying to find visual, easy to digest material to better understand Spacex and finally found what I needed through your vids.
I like to thank you for concise , stuff
You sad pathetic incel.😅😅😅😅😅😅
😅😅😅😅😅😅😅
This was very insightful! thank you
My understanding was that they were going to fly the booster out to the floating platforms, which makes sense if it's intended to land there in the second place. Making launching a secondary function. So the issue returns to getting it off of a land based pad in the first place.
The platforms could only be used for launch.
If the catcher arms dont work mechazilla there is no way to land the booster because it will rip apart any pad just like the destroyed the one they took off from.
@@Steven_Edwards But surely the ‘mostly’ empty booster, without the fully laden Starship would only be using 3 motors and reduced power to land with, not 33 at full power?
Remember that a few weeks ago a booster did a short test with 30 motors at half power in which the concrete base survived. I think that the problem was down to 33 Raptor 2s running at 100% power - the concrete could not cope with that sort of punishment.
@@davemoore5222 Problem with the concrete was probably that once it formed a crack, pressure from the exhaust gases pushed the crack wider until the crack reached through the concrete slab. Once exhaust gases could enter below the slab, the pressure had nowhere to go but to start to expand under the slab, and stresses cracked it further. Same could happen with steel as well, but we'll see what happens with the water jacket system, once Starships can be launched again. I don't think we'll see another launch very soon because FAA probably has to investigate the effects the previous launch had on nearby residents. Some sand flew miles away from the launch site to surrounding areas.
@@Steven_Edwards the amount of thrust required to take off from a standstill, is not the same as landing… most of the energy will be used before you get close enough to burn that hole. It’s not even close to the same
Awesome production value!!!
Thank you!
Regarding bringing fuel to a sea based platform - We do have LNG tankers which already carry liquified Natural Gas, which is primarily Methane, and they carry 100,000+ tons of fuel each!
Flame diverters can be designed to send the flames in 4 different directions at once. That would solve the building water/moving platform problem.
Starship just demonstrated it’s not fragile be dealing with the mayhem unleashed by 33 powerful extreme-temperature jackhammers! I don’t think any other rocket on the planet would have not exploded on the pad…
thanks for mentioning the already solved issues.
Great channel. Excellent editing 👍🏽
Wow. Deeply appreciated upload. 👍
High arch over a crater (artificial if it has to be) is what a super high powered rocket needs to be launched from. Hard surface has to be as far as possible from the thrusters.
like Baikonur space port?
Maybe launching a rocket from inside a dormant volcano, used in the film "You Only Live Twice" 1967, is less a fantasy idea. And more a, 'hmmm that would solve many launch issues.'
"I'm pretty sure this rocket is designed to operate from any volcano-based lair that you happen to have."
Rocket Lab's Neutron Rocket Plans to Compete With Falcon 9
Scott Manley
Excellent and informative video that answered a question I have had since the recent Spacex launcn
i love the cinematic at the start :) well done!
I’m just surprised that none of the shortcomings weren’t considered before they even bought the platforms!
The entire Starship program has been run with a reckless cowboy style. If they keep it up, it is only a matter of time before someone gets killed.
The platforms were so cheap that it basically doesnt matter
@I hate N-perms You own it, your responsible for decommissioning, removal and clean up.
At least a Normal company would be
They are normal and already sold. The scrap on those would be sizable also. You have to have the beginning capital to pay for decommissioning before you get the scrap though.
@@timtitus5002 yes but why waste time and money to buy it in the first place, they probably sold them for less, it was a loss of time and money. I know I know, it’s just pocket change, why not give it to me!
Excellent update!
Excellent stuff bro
You do a really great job of putting it all into perspective.
Starship did not "blow up"! The vehicle was destroyed when launch control initiated the self-destruct function.
yes the stupid people ,mostly reporters , can't fathom it. and the " explosion" was actually the ship breaking apart due to aerodynamic forces. scott manley explains it well. the self destruct is actually only 2 panels on the side one on the booster and 1 on the starship. they blow a hole in the tanks and then the cryo sprays out non explosively. it took about 60 seconds from initial holes blown to where the ship broke up
I read that it was a rapid unscheduled disassembly.
Please read , stage 0 upgrade improving 2 issues with the current approach: A stage 0 elevator system would consist of two additional side towers with a series of vertical tracks or rails that are embedded into the new two towers of stage 0. The starship and super heavy booster would be placed onto a platform exactly like the current one but capable of riding up and down these tracks. To propel the platform and mounted vehicles, a set of large electric motors would be installed at the base of the new side tower tracks. These motors would provide a powerful force that would accelerate the platform and vehicles upwards along the tracks. One more way to assist such system would be to install large counter weights along each of the two side towers. Once the platform and vehicles reach a certain height and ascent speed, the engines would be ignited and the starship and super heavy booster would continue their ascent into space.
This system would address two issues at once:
1 - Save vital fuel in the first 10 seconds of launch - during the first launch it looked very fuel expensive.
2 - Add vital distance between the booster exhaust and the pad - reducing considerably the pad damage. Maybe eliminating it altogether. The elevator system would then be lowered back down to the base of the launch pad, ready for the next launch.
Overall, this elevator system would provide a safer and efficient way to launch starships and super heavy boosters minimizing damage to the launch pad and saving precious fuel during the initial stages of launch.
Let’s break down the solution a little further:
1 - The elevator in the first iteration will safely speed up to 100 meters per minute.
2 - Once reached a critical height the elevator will slow down and bring the entire system to a halt with both vehicles lifted to the highest capacity of the lift, addressing this way a possible launch scrub scenario safely. Once this is completed, the lift slowly comes back down to it’s original position with or without the vehicles depending if the launch was successful or not.
3 - Within the height of over 120 meters, there is over a minute to spin up all engines. Given the last test it took them circa 10 seconds, SpaceX could allow the lift the run for at least 40 seconds before starting engine ignition. Remember the first ignition is precise to the second and you can see that from the countdown of any rocket launch.
4 - With SpaceX fail fast approach and iterative improvement, such system could evolve to save a lot of fuel in the future.
5 - The simplest MVP could be simply launching from a stationary position at the highest point in the lift system - this way avoiding entirely the issue of the pad destruction.
Please share it with Elon, let him shoot it down. :)
I think your idea is to complex and not robust enough for the benefits it gives. After all they want a complete fully reusable system, not only the rocket and such an elevator system would probably needed to be checked/repaired regularly, which goes against the rapid reusability of the pad.
Also the added ∆v would only be 1,66 m/s (based on the value provided by you) which is miniscule compared to the multiple km/s ∆v the rocket has.
Edit: If you lift the entire launch ring with the rocket on top there is also a MASSIVE issue with the plumbing to the system.
This would never work. Good luck moving that launch mount up at any considerable speed. This is pure fantasy and not based in logic..
@@exo_2171 Thanks for your response, would you be able to calculate the amount of methalox needed to accelerate the full stack from 0 to 1,66 m/s in KG? And would it directly translate to the increase in payload capacity?
@@otavios6027 I can't really accurately calculate it because we don't exactly know the needed variables to do so but a rough estimate of mine would be about 600 to 700 kg. But that could also be totally of to be honest
@@exo_2171 No need to be accurate, we're not rocket scientists anyway. You were close to the amount of propellant burned “per engine”. According to Wikipedia it’s 650 kg/s per engine. 510 kg/s O2 + 140 kg/s CH4. I know, Wikipedia is not the most trustworthy source of information however, given SH has a capacity of 3400T propellant in total, it feels about right that each engine can burn through 650 kg/s.
Let’s be conservative on our calculation - we don’t need to be accurate too, only aprox - let’s say we’re not full throttle (500 kg/s) and that we’re launching with the minimum number of engines (30) and that we ignite after 5 seconds of acceleration allowing it to burn another 10 seconds in contact with the pad.
SH can burn through 500kg/s * 30e = 15.000 kg methalox per second.
15.000kg/s * 5s = 75 tons of fuel saved. 75T potential payload capacity increase to current expendable starship 250T bringing it to 325T.
If Elon Musk is serious about reaching his goal, he has to build this elevator/trampoline.
Great job on this video
Amazing video thank you
Great analysis!
"physics is a complication" You have a great insight into Elon's brain with that quote.
Cool video, subscribed.
Couple things you make out to be bigger problems than they are.
1, No, BFR does not have enough power output to boil the sea and sink the platform. You just can't transfer energy that fast. Having high volumes of steam blast past supports might cause issues with erosion unless you implement deluge system. Which you would since water is right there and proper deluge protects the platform from heat and vibrations. Hell, you might flood the deck as you launch.
2, Flame diverter doesn't move the platform. Split the stream equally and let the pods take care of the change. It'll remain solid as bed rock. These things are built to give the mother nature and her tempest tantrums a middlefinger.
3, Bespoke tanker ship exists and there are ~700 of them. It's called LNG carrier. A ship purpose built to transport liquified gas in low pressure envionment. Optimize it for your chosen fuels and stick supercooling gear on it. With reasonably small amount of header tank space on platform you can keep the vehicle topped up all day while ship retires to safe distance with most of the platform crew.
4, Transporting and lifting it to the launch pedestal are engineering problems fairly easy to solve. Heavy lift ship with hold down clamps would do in a pinch though you would probably want to get a purpose built one to cut excess cost.
Damn awesome!!!
SUPER nice video, i know alot more now❤👌👍, Keep up the good work❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤
I see another problem: back in the film stargate and subsequently all 3 series, they always showed the "kawoosh". the "kawoosh", the effect that shows an opening gate is an US-airforce engine test stand, where the engine fires at a watersurface, filmed from under water and with the watersurface edited away. you ramp up a fighterjet engine and it punches a >5m hole into water (which then collapses).
33 raptor engines punched a 5m hole into concrete and dirt. thermal conductivity of water is quite low, but the water displacement when starship ignites, that could potentially sink it.
the hole would be more in the 100 m but correct
@@quantustremorestfuturus5434 yes, 100m sounds reasonable as a "kawoosh" in water. after all, the rocket blasted a 5 meter deep trench into concrete, accelerated the concrete blocks to ~400km/h and nicely concrete blasted the surface.
on another note, when saturn 5 lifted off, the combined energy output of the 5 F1 engines was around 40GW. superheavy is more powerful. the flame diverter or in the case of the oil rig, the water surface has to deal with that amount of energy, at least for 10 seconds. that's not easy. they need a flame trench or otherwise the rocket creates a flame trench on its own.
Where excavation isn't an option, elevating the OLM to allow trench/diverter AND deluge system is the best option. Directing the trench/diverter "blast" seaward/away from populated areas would reduce the sound levels they currently experience. Unless a high temperature alloy, stainless steel, Inconel, etc. is used for the diverter, no amount of water cooling is going to protect it from the most powerful and violent thrust ever produced! My math isn't the best, but the energy that is produced by the booster, for the duration the "pad" is subjected to, is the equivalent of a nuclear blast! The acoustic energy and accompanying vibrations are themselves extremely destructive both seismicly and thermally. This is an issue never before confronted at this level. Possibly, the deluge system will need an ecologically safe additive system to create a "gel" or "foam" in MASSIVE quantities to absorb more energy than water and steel can alone. Just a thought from a retired Industrial Design Engineer... with a TBI!😂
The option of additives is not viable - because the launch site is in the middle of a wildlife refuge…
Yeah no. SpaceX applied for permits to build up the site to include a diverter to begin with, but were denied due to the placement within the wildlife refuge.
@@jordanlarson6488 interesting it didn't know that
I was thinking that carbon foam/Starlite stuff might be enough for the heat but now I'm not so sure maybe if it was meters thick lmao at least it would be cheap, but I also don't know if it would stay put with that much force running across it at angles
As a non engineer I suspect that you can pump enough of water to deal with any number of engines.
Thanks for that, I did wonder why they couldn’t just cut a hole in it and point the engines at the water
Forget those launch rates if you are breaking windows 10Km away from the launch site every time you take off.
Payload integration is a major problem for starship period.
8:14 unless you use a two sided flame diverter and the forces offset.
Exactly: It's not an interesting point to make, unless one side diversion is a must, as nothing in the platform design prevents it, or having it sit on bottom legs near pipes from the shore.... Biggest drawback is exposure to storms, salt corrosion and narrow working space: Probably impractical for corrosion alone.
can still have sideways thrust due to uneven exhaust flow , but would be minimized with 2 sides.
A two sided flame diverter would be destroyed/melted by Starship.
@@Jimbogf thanks for your comment, but no
A rail bridge out into bay. The bridge can be at an angle and rail car pulled gently by winch and tow cable. The angled bridge spaces the booster enough distance from the salt water to include a fresh water deluge. Pumps and forward supply of fuel are available on bridge launch platform to fuel the booster and starship.
Well launching it on the flat concrete slab was the best thing they could do with the prototype, because now they know what to do on the mars launchplatforms and can figureout a version that you can relatively easy construct
great video, love your content. small correction: Gwynne Shotwell, not Gwen
They also have to consider landing on other surfaces like the moon or Mars. It's probably going to be one of the hardest part of logistics going to other planets and being able to land and take off again without blasting a huge hole in the ground or damaging the engines.
A 100 launches per day is a pipe dream.
Well, pipes gotta dream! 🙂
I think flame diverters and trenches are the answer. Divert the exhaust out trenches in opposing directions should do the trick.
Subbed ❤️ 👍
You said “utter”, I say “extensive” destruction of the launch pad and environment.
Thanks for making this video, no one else was explaining the why.... Fuel transfer to the platform would be a problem, and getting the Starship out there would be difficult. It's the super heating the water though that I think would be the biggest problem. These platforms would be close to shore and thus in shallower water. Where the open ocean is more like a desert at the surface, the shallower coastal waters is more likely where a lot of marine life would live....
Marine life can be scared away with small explosions nearby before the launch. Navy demolition experts do this on regular basis when sinking old oil rigs and similar things.
Also marine life gets slaughtered on regular basis when large ships are being sunk and nobody cares. Least of all China and Russia. But other countries do this as well.
Excellent. A sane and rational look at the problem. I have been banging on about how ridiculous this idea is for years, so it was a pleasant surprise to find a Space X channel making the same point.
But there are even more reasons why this isn't going to work. How do you get the passengers to and from the platform, for a start. Astronauts might not mind this, but are point to point passengers really going to want a journey that begins and ends with a boat ride - and is totally dependent on the weather??
Then there's the time this adds to the point to point journey - on top of all the usual airport delays. What's the point of paying a fortune for a quick flight, if really takes hours and includes so much hassle and inconvenience?
And last, but certainly not least, there's the small matter of Starship ever getting human-rated. No purely powered landing craft has ever been human-rated, for obvious reasons - there is no safety backup if the powered landing fails. And that doesn't even take into consideration the crazy Starship landing flip!
In short, the basic design of the Starship is not only flawed because of the power needed to launch it, but even more so as a vehicle intended to carry people.
It might one day ferry people to the moon, maybe even Mars (although almost certainly not), but the passengers will have to be ferried up and down to the orbiting Starship by Dragons and Falcon 9s.
And, if anyone, is wondering what the definition of irony is - that's pretty much it.
Ferries are pretty quick and on point with schedules regardless of the weather, maybe because I live in NY and use it often. I live in the Soundview area of the Bronx and have 3 means of transportation, my car, bus / train and the Soundview Ferry that drops me off at 4 locations in Manhattan, when traveling to the city I prefer the ferry, quicker easier and on time within 20 minutes.
@@frankv7068Except the ferries would have to travel kilometres away from major cities so that the daily launches of starship don’t deafen the entire population
Helicopters are human rated, watch your wording.
@@junkaccount8302 helicopters is a great idea
@Junk account Helicopters can autorotate to do an unpowered landing. Starship has no means of landing safely if the engines fail.
I like SpaceX, I want Starship to succeed, but I don't expect it to ever do point-to-point transport. Hypersonic aircraft could do basically the same job, far more safely.
Rocket science is hard obviously, but Italy launched rockets off the coast of Kenya back in the 60s, and there was a Russian company literally called Sea Launch that had all the necessary infrastructure for the Zenith figured out.
It's not impossible.
Since the launching of super heavy load due to mega thrust created by 33 super raptors engines , it need a big changes no matters in what place to take off, if on the ground it needs to tripple things have been prepared from previous evolutions, aldo at sea stability plus the proper launching mechanism aldo minus worries about launching pad, just hung rockets with rocket built in mechanism, only we need a great floating platform as heavy as two or four decom US decom plat tops.
The hubris is astonishing
7:40 we cant say how much
bro there are charts and graphs for this, buoyancy doesnt change much, displacing the water however, now that is a different story
Have a earth tethered launch platform in space. It would be an elevator as well. Send and receive launches in space. Elevator handles people and material..etc...flow from and to ground.
8:30 There is no need for a bespoke tanker ship. There are already Cryogenic Liquid tanker ships. They are used to transport Liquified Natural Gas. There might be some issues with O2 as it is so corrosive. But that is a handling issue that they would already know how to deal with. The problems of cryo liquids at sea are already solved.
You also have to consider the environmental impact of the ocean launch. Just because we don't live in the ocean doesn't mean other things don't live in the ocean.
If they do go for floating platforms with an open-to-the-water blast trench, then you'd have to space out the points of contact with the water so that they fall outside of the zone of effect. With each meter out and each pontoon added, the greater the reserve of buoyancy and practical stability you'll receive. If built as any of the various polygon shapes that would provide the best stability needed for the least amount of material required, then that reserve of buoyancy could be used to build upwards so that the least amount of exhaust blast interacts with the water. If, on the other hand, a flame diverter trench is chosen then the higher the launch mount is built, the larger the footprint of the rig will need to be for it to be able to diffuse the exhaust blast via an integrated diverter system that exits from each of the polygon points. The apex cone of the flame diverter could be fed with water sourced via desalinization of local seawater or from nearby freshwater if saltwater use is prohibitive.
You build something like a containment area submerged in sea water flooded in , however deep letting exhaustion kick out from its sides , then let it resurfface , however far out it will take to cool , then you could launch from the pool of sea water ! You something of a large enough ship out and a man made lake however deep you would take the starship out in to the lake lower it down inside of a launch tube with however many exhaustion tube it will take to cool it down once the count start then you have sprinklers system to cool the starship and the exhaustion doing launch however far into the air it get away from the launch pad that would minimize damage to the launch area !
Thanks for the thoughtful video. Spacex have a lot things to think about they should have thought about. The most amazing combinatination of brilliance and stupidity we'll ever know.
A moving launchpad.... rocket powered... wheeeeeee
RIP😭 to the caravan 🚐
If the impinging exhaust does froth the water below the platform and reduces buoyancy, that would serve to reduce the upward surge from the thrust trying to lift the platform. After all, when the Superheavy lifts off, suddenly the platform has 5000 tons of excess buoyancy...
Possibly no way of having huge fuel tanks and still enough room for the rest of the systems refueling would be a nightmare even if they could erect the tanks needed.
You can do like the oil platforms do for loading oil onto crude tankers. You also would only need to have two LNG tanker type ships per platform. One to stay by the platform and act as the mobile tank farm and the other would be at port getting the next load.
@@ferky123 or you abandon the idea of a floating rig and go with a jackup or platform rig. If you make it large enough you could stage 1-6+ starships and boosters in their own alcoves along the perimeter. The fuel farm could be housed underwater to aid with cryogenic storage and as a fire prevention measure. Or housed on land and fed to the platform by undersea pipes, with smaller temporary storage tanks at the platform site. Anti-corrosion maintenance would be a full time job with the entire station probably having a new coat of marine paint every 3-6 months to counter the salt spray. As for the transportation issue, if Starship and it's booster is capable of being recovered like they say, then you could have the system be recovered directly from where it launched on the platform. It'd be a mega project to top all mega projects, but it's feasible with the tech we have today.
The tanks can be in the platform legs - like they are in oil rigs.
the launch pad does not have to float and does not have to be far offshore, and it could be accessed from the road with a bridge. they build deep seaports all the time and you can't tell me musk can't afford it
close to shore you are subject to all kinds of EPA rules and environuts would put up every roadblock they can
@@ronblack7870 just as much as they did for where he is now. a deep seaport is a common thing to build and would cause less impact on the surrounding area
@@ronblack7870 but i guess your right concrete projectiles is much safe for the environment
@@ronblack7870 oh by the way they are already close to the shore they could even flood that area depending how deep they went with the lags of the pad
A very good one! Whan SpaceX is concerned, one usually finds either fanboys or haters - objectivity is in very short supply.
They should dig out a lake underneath the excisting stage 0 :D
I believe the structure would vibrate too much...and fall apart before a launch sequence could be completed...it would have to have just the right amount of rigidity and flexibility...which could be compromised by the intense heat...
Any danger to underwater sea life posed launches from a sea based launch platform can easily be avoided simply by enclosing the platform in a net preventing sea life from swimming into the danger area. I suspect that transporting Superheavy over sea and lifting it onto the launch platform is a far bigger problem.
No worries .... we will succeed in 2049 !!
i bet they go with the steel platform idea
why can't they use flexible undersea pipes?
It's a lot harder to get stuff done in the sea in general, than it is on land. SpaceX knows that lots of things will go wrong. Why would they do all that on the sea, instead of on land?
If they use the platforms it will be when Starship has reached a mature state, and their launch facilities are optimized for less staff, and smaller spaces.
I would love to hear 33 raptor engines flying into my city 100 plus times a day.
Platform stability is the real problem. It's not stable enough to launch large ships. Yes they have stability to hold a given position in the sea but drilling and rockets are two completely different problems. Platforms rock and roll, put a 200ft rocket on top and it would pitch and roll too much. A drill rig has the heavy weight going down thru the center, helping with stability. A tall rocket will do the opposite. That realization along with the increased costs of refueling and service off shore ends the current possibility of using drill platforms.
A large enough semi-submersible platform is amazingly stable. Look at how Falcon 9 hits the bullseye every time on those barges - and those move FAR more than a platform. Stability is never a problem for a very large (Barrow or North Sea class) offshore platform. Space X only ever bought those smaller platforms as a "just in case" as they cost chickenfeed. They clearly were too small for a spaceport so they were scrapped. But I don't think you can rule out SpaceX returning to sea later - most of the problems pointed out here are very fixable. In particular for fuelling you can already buy secondhand huge mobile floating cryogenic containers, complete with ready built facilities for loading and unloading. They're called LPG tankers. And it is ALWAYS far easier to move really big objects on water than on land - that's why offshore wind turbines can be much bigger than onshore ones, and why battleships could have 16 inch guns while the biggest long guns on land couldn't get above 12 inch.
How deep is the water off of Boca chica?
How close to shore could both of those oil rigs be stationed?
How hard would it be to have them stationed distant enough that one could be the launch platform and the other could be a service station with the tank farm pumps gas production etc with a floating bridge between the two?
Why not just build a wharf with a breakwater around both of those facilities with floating docks between them and shore you let the flames go all the way down to the ocean water line everything in water cooled steel you pump the water from the sea right up through everything and right back down into the sea inside the harbor.
Boiling dolphins 😂 bro your dark
Dig a pond under the launch platform.
I'm surprised you didn't mention Sea Launch which had over 30 successful sea based launches, although using a Falcon 9 class rocket. However, there are certainly some lessons which could be learned from their successes.
I didnt know there were dolphins in Texas waters
They should have used them. They could have bought oil tankers to bring propellant to the platforms. It would be way easier to use an oil tanker than 500 semi trucks
That explains why they kept making the lunch platform flat!
The solution to many problems is to again shrink the Starship size
Why can't they launch it from within the sea as NASAs Sea Dragon was supposed to do?
That’s what I think too.
It may be that methane based ignition does not work under water ?
I really like the “ the water is my launch platform “ concept.
It would mean everything has to be st port. So if there was a launch Abluft you have to tow it back to port etc . But it’s minor.
Msybe they could use the same port that they used for the landing tugs
Insulation would be a problem. Dump a starship stack into the ocean and the fuel and oxidiser are going to boil and pop it. Air is a good insulator, water is not.
@@llamatronian101 Also, thick layers of ice would accumulate on the cryo tanks, adding crippling amounts of mass.
So the problem would be fixed by digging a hole and filling it with water then just build a bridge and put the rocket in the middle?
This would have been best option just offshore
Dig a canal directly under stage 0 from the gulf.
can they try to shoot it from mid air?
they will get it done.
Concerns are invalid.
Can we transport cryogenic fuels at sea? Yes
Can we transport rocket payloads? Yes, it's already been done.
The big issue is the platform. SpaceX will need a platform customized for their needs, probably one semi if not permanently perched on the ocean bed a mile offshore.
Please also add metric numbers, so that the rest of the world can also understand what you are talking about exactly
But why they didnt use them for launch and landing of the falcon 9 rockets? I really dont get it. These platforms might be to small for the Starship, but way enough for other purposes
what about putting the launchpad on a pool? you dont have to do it at sea to have water below an structure lol.
I would imagine that leaving a big hole in the center of a floating platform would work best for starship. Maybe it's easier and cheaper to build exactly what they need. Maybe even build them in the parts of the world they will be needed. I think elon and Guen first imagined in the early days they could have starship land anywhere with a reinforced concrete pad.
But plans change. So now they'll just have to have some custom barges in all the coolest neighborhoods around the world.
Well now we know what went wrong with that idea, poor flipper.
I mean... lets jsut get SpaceX to build a SeaDragon rocket :P
How about a huge & deep pool of water below the launch pad?
Pioneers of passenger flight thought seaplanes would be a good idea, that didn't work out though.
Launch platforms(anchored to the ocean floor) 1/2-1 mile from land, dual sided flame diverters to negate movement from side to side, pipelines can easily be run to the site for cryogenic liquids. Might take some engineering, but as an engineer it seems totally plausible🤷♂️
NASA Cape Canaveral Launch Facility solved this issue decades AGO.
Why not try a Sea Dragon launch?
actually in the water . it's hard enough to start the engines as is let alone in the sea. plus water would heat up the cryogenic fuel and oxygen much faster than in the air so add insulation which is heavy
Brazil has a large naval base which is larger than Kennedy Space Center that Brazil is trying to lease to someone who wants to convert it to a launch facility… Maybe Elon could negotiate, lease it, build the facilities & launch Starship from it.