Aaand the 90kg CO2 per hour at 5:10 is actually per passenger. So an aircraft would pump out a bit over a 100 tons per transatlantic flight. So the difference is more like 6-fold. The number can vary though based on a lot of factors, e.g. aircraft configuration, engines, etc.
@@RandomGuyOnUA-cam601 If you use hydrogen and oxygen in rockets you indeed get zero CO2 emission, instead you get water vapor emission and, believe it or not, water vapor is greenhouse gas too.
@@RandomGuyOnUA-cam601 95% of hydrogen is produced from fossil fuels! The only "green" hydrogen is 5% extracted from the water with the help of electricity (solar or windmills). So it isn't green fuel.
Starships fly on Methane CH4 and Oxygen O2. They react to H2O and CO2. It would be rather climate neutral if they make those fuels with green energy, what they planned. I'm not sure how they will do it but it's done by extracting CO2 from the air so it's creating no extra CO2.
Rockets are also launched in pitch perfect weather conditions. And this would also need to be true for landing. So perfect weather on two sides of the planet, good luck with that.
Oh yeah that too! Excellent point 👍 There is just so much wrong the obvious gets lost in the most stupidity of this idea . Elon's magic solutions stupidity is amazing 👏
@@ChrisTuckerCarlzyn Because when people book a flight to somewhere they expect to land somewhere close to there. There's a difference between a flight to JFK being diverted to Newark International due to inclement weather and a rocket being diverted from JFK to Bogota. Also, MOST MAJOR CITIES ARE LANDLOCKED. Think Berlin, Paris, London, Madrid, Prague, or any of the other European economic powerhouses. All inland, all densely built up, all with little if any room to build a FUCKING LAUNCHPAD. To say nothing of the US aviation market, which is almost entirely built on domestic flights between small aviation markets. Even mid-size international airports like Hancock International Airport in Syracuse, NY don't have the budget, real estate, or large body of water nearby to allow for rocket flights, so even smaller aviation markets like Bountiful, UT or Manhattan, KS will just be SOL.
Oh yes I will allow a regular launching and landing of missiles within 20 miles of my city this totally can’t be used against me to sneak nukes into my citie
Oh yeah, great point, how on earth would NORAD etc be reconfigured to sift the starships from a Russian Sarmat ICBM, especially seeing as some systems struggle to discriminate between missiles and sunlight reflecting off of clouds? And how (meh, Why??) would any defence ministry ever want to share enough info with Musk's company to figure it out in the first place?
@@doylethelovely2555 what? Are.... are you against international airports for the same reason? That seems like an extremely irrational thing to presume.
@@doylethelovely2555 There may be. But if a hostile government can sneak a nuke onto public rocket transport, I'm certain they can sneak it onto an airplane or a cargo ship.
I worked as a launch ops engineer for a large rocket company (not SpaceX) and it took us between 8-12 hours of prep and systems checks to launch a rocket. Not only that but airspace and wind conditions and weather conditions and down range safety borked every other launch at least once. I think the logistics behind this are even worse, and no it can’t all be automated by software lol
That’s not to mention that these things will be sitting on the ocean most of the time, have only a few minutes between launch and reentry, and reused over and over. I bet that would be a great way to make advancements in some exciting areas of material fatigue at least lol.
As a software engineer, its amazing to see how many people who have barely any idea how software works just say "software will handle it", as if its a big red fix it all button. Software is great at calculating and going through patterns, not doing magic or changing physics lol
"Officials are still trying to piece together why the missile defense system mistook the 'starship' for a weaponized ICBM, our thoughts are with the families of those lost, Tom"
Oh god, yes! I want to the fucking iron dome shooting down one of Musks stupid inventions. Preferably without passengers but you know, omelettes and eggs.
"Condolences to the families Sara. In other news, a recent study by an English team said cat furballs might be the key to curing cancer! Let's go to our British correspondant..."
@@Chisito23 People like to defend stupid "inventions" by claiming people laughed at successful inventions in the past and that the thing they are defending is the same way. Some go further to imply that the fact that people laugh at the invention is in itself proof that it is ahead of it's time and going to be successful. Carl Sagan is noting that people have laughed at things that went on to become successful, but they have also laughed at things that are plain stupid. In other words, the fact that people laugh and deride an invention is no indication that that invention isn't actually stupid.
So you can vomit your lunch twice in the span of a few minutes? Because, to be fair, hyperloop = acceleration, and lots of it. Since it's horizontal, it's a bit better than a rocket, but that's a problem fast trains have in general... getting up to cruising speed. So, hyperloop over 20 miles to get on a rocket, and be time efficient, means you don't get to eat, and you must make sure to pee and shit before it, because you will most likely empty your bowels in one of the two amusement park attractions.
why even go into space? Why not have the boring company use their flamethrowers and Hyper technology to *bore* a tunnel network in the earth's crust to launch the rockets underground? Elon should hire me for thinking outside the box.
@Nat20 Damage why don't they just eject you out of the rocket mid orbit? You could give everyone a parachute and they could land wherever they want in the city. Then the rocket could land on the platform to be refuled and refilled and launch again. No need for transportation back from the landing pad.
Just wait, the next thing he's going to suggest is making an 'Earth Elevator' that goes across the center of the Earth, powered by gravity and you can go to the other side of the globe super fast.
So essentially you're proposing the world's biggest mass human BBQ? Genius!, just name it" the epic Keanu wholesome 100 no mustard doge VIP hyperpod", people will fall head over heels for it.
Science in star trek "science boys you have 3 hours to science us out of this black hole". Science in real life, 'spend 20 years to invent a thing, it doesn't work'. Science isn't pirate's treasure.
@@pedrolmlkzk There has actually been a great deal of progress in fusion research since the 1940s. We are not as far away from it now as we were in 1980.
In Star Trek they have a supercomputer that almost programs itself, a holodeck, an antimatter reactor, and more importantly, free human labor because it's all a labor of love. In real life we have a box of scraps and everyone is worried about their next meal, next car, next research paper, or next merger and acquisition, and any scientific advancement is just a welcome side-effect.
You left out the biggest and most obvious problem: cost. Concord proved that cost is generally more important than speed. Rockets are crazy expensive, so it would no way in hell be economically viable. And if there were demand for this, supersonic (or maybe even hypersonic) planes would outcompete for the same nieche users (ultra rich, in a big hurry).
Also, the Concorde fleet had to constantly deal with tons and tons of noise complaints, wherever one of those things went. One of the other reasons for canning the project. You simply can't do anything but flying over oceans. And those rockets starting and landing are not any quieter. Imagine every bigger city sounding like there is a violent thunderstorm approaching constantly.
Imo Concorde failed because of the many airspace restrictions due to noise and scale. There was definitely a very small amount of ultra rich people that used it, but waiting for a concorde was probably slower than using a normal private jet, since there were not many users. Starship suborbital would probably have the same problem with scale, maybe more since they would also need expensive landing and launch equipment. Being fully reusable, unlike partly refurbishable like the STS and F9, it would probably reduce cost of rockets a lot, but the speculated 2~10 million per launch would probably still be a lot to pay for the ~100 people on the Starship.
You have to keep in mind that Starship is going to be Fully Reusable because of the fact that the Booster and Starship itself gonma land. The only cost you have is fuel and refurbishment after many flights. The fuel is produced out of co2 in the Air so its fully co2 neutral.
@@lichasvocke8642 The wear and tear on a rocket being fired at 27000 km/h is going to be a lot worse than the wear and tear on a plane. Best info I can find has Musk saying that "almost every piece of the Falcon should be reused over 100 times. Heat shields and a few other items should be reused over 10 times before replacement." So if we assume "over 100" means close to 100 then we could be very generous and say that these rockets do 150 trips before having to be completely replaced. Commercial planes last more 20 years and around 50000 flights hours. NY to london is 7 hours so over 7000 of those trips, meaning these rockets would cost at least 50 times more to run than an equivalent plane service. Unfortunately that's assuming the replacement parts for rockets is the same as for planes, in reality the cost to build replacement parts for rockets will also always be higher than for a plane given the much greater physical demands that get placed on a rocket, the more specialized knowledge required, and economies of scale. Also, rockets can never carry as many passengers as an equivalently sized airplane, so those costs will be split between fewer passengers. This could never match planes on cost. It is realistically only competing for first class travellers (who would otherwise spend those four extra flight hours in a first class cabin), and even then, they will probably have to be convinced to pay even more for the advantages and disadvantages of the rocket version.
I have an idea. A hole straight through the earth where you board a pod and it gets dropped in freefall and you fall all the way to the other end of the earth in just under an hour. In fact you can travel anywhere in the very same time with a point to point tunnel and zero friction. Just use the magic lube on the magic walls that hold back the magma and radioactive sludge that makes up earth's core. With my technowizzard CGI technology we can build those tunnels 10000 times cheaper than roads. And there are most definitely not a million things we didn't think about, such as emergency exits or anything of that kind.
The freefall wouldn't bring you to the other side, you gravitate towards the center but after that you'd need even more energy to get you out of there to the other side and escape the gravitational pull.
What you need now are some venture capitalist investors, who can take your revenueless CGI company to an IPO, after which you all immediately sell your stock and disappear...
@@eldarlrd in a perfect vacuum, the kinetic energy you gained from falling to the center of earth is enough to get you to the other side. However, real world is not a physics textbook, and actual perfect vacuums might as well not exist in real life.
This would solve itself very easily actually... It will be the exact same process with commercial airplanes. The rockets will have to announce in advance their flight course to authorities, and broadcast an ID during all flight time. It will be a pain to put it in place the first time, because a lot of superpowers would have to be involved (basically, no superpower / nuclear power country would like to find an unidentified rocket entering their flight space), but it is not unrealistic to have all of them cooperating, with enough preparation... The real problem would be if one of theses rockets goes rogue and does not follow its flight course anymore... With the threat of a potential terrorist attack, and the speed of the rocket, it would leave no other choice for the concerned country to immediately shot it down, and ask questions later...
@@TeteBruleeFR except that rockets are quite a bit faster than planes and are quite a bit more missile-like than planes, which have already had incidents where one was shot down under the belief it was a missile.
@@TeteBruleeFR Yeah, these defense system use SPEED to distinguish between missiles and non-missiles. They don't interact with the flight authorities system at all. They don't look for, or even read, airliner transponders. If it's above a certain speed and of a certain shape, it's tagged as a missile and the defense kicks into action.
@@TeteBruleeFR Don't think announcing the trips would solve it since any nation intending to attack the destination country could time their attack to coincide with the scheduled arrival of the spaceship.
Right! Like how in America we worship STEM education, but can't be bothered to teach philosophy. We produce people who operate in areas with little ambiguity who are then one-dimensional thinkers who have no concept of how society works. Add in a steady diet of evangelical Christianity & conservative lies, and you have a population of technically smart morons working in a capitalist gulag.
@@MagicAndReason This whole comment section reeks of communism. Philosophy doesn't real and entitled self-important intelligentsia soothsayers are the first to receive a bullet at the back of their skull when your people's revolution^TM finally comes. Try to digest it.
@@nickkorkodylas5005 "Doesn't real"? Between that and your last name, I think you're a Lithuanian whose parents told him scary stories about the soviets. Also, this isn't communism. Philosophy was there before communism, during communism, and after it. They are separate things. Supporting philosophy is not communism. Sorry.
I have a new idea for future transport. We strap rockets to our legs. I call it hyper legs. We can move many % faster and it'll be all cool and futuristic.
Maybe normal people actually said to the Wright Brothers that their idea was dumb but all around the world scientist were aware that flying heavier than air machines was possible and there were races with prizes all around the world for the first one that could reach that. Santos Dummont was the first one to takeoff with a aeroplane on Paris, a few months after the Brothers did the same on the US, but they didn't did in front of a crowd since their plan was to refine the machine before revealing it, so they could file patent on a close to commercial able product. While Dummont was scientist in spirit much like Tesla. For most of Elon's stuff is the other way around, uninformed people saying that he is a genius while people with knowledge on engineering and physics are mostly skeptical of his claims.
E2E flights are physically possible, same as heavier-than-air flight. They technically could work despite the obvious drawbacks described in the video. Does this make them a good idea? No, duh.
Holy sh*t finally someone talking about Dummond. You know, here in Brazil we do not talk about the Wright bros, as we know the existence of Dummond. He later commited suicide and one of the reasoning was the usage of planes in the WWI.
The main thing experts were dismissive off was their idea of bendable wings as they thought it would make the plane too unstable. However the twisting wings allowed for far more control. Unfortunately that instability proved to be true and the flyer was incredibly physically demanding and required a lot of practice to fly. So within just a few years the whole twisting wing idea was abandoned in favor of ailerons. Even with the Flyer III being mostly stable the extreme physical demands on the pilot made it's maximum flight time around 15 minutes as after that the pilot would be too exhausted to continue. The twisting wings will twist by themselves in flight so the pilot has to constantly fight it. With ailerons the wind actually pushes the back to neutral so you don't have to constantly be fighting the control to keep going straight. Also the Wright's idea of having the vertical stabilizer in front was quickly dropped as well as it created interference and reduced overall lift.
Literally the only use case I can see for this is the scene near the end of Metal Gear Rising: Revengeance where the protagonists only have a couple hours to stop a plot to cause a global war and the only way to get there in time is using a rocket, which itself is a combination electromagnetic-launch/chemfueled beast intended to be SSTO but having atmospheric control surfaces to land. Oh, and it's supposed to be remote-controlled, the cyborg occupants still nearly shit themselves at the G-forces involved. The sheer fact I'm quoting something from Metal Gear as a primary use case should show how mental the project is just from a concept standpoint.
"Earth to Earth rocket flight" The Germans actually did this before, they made the first manmade object in space and it could travel from Berlin to London in just 5 minutes! What incredible futuristic 21st century technology! In the 40s...
Oh really? They were able to launch objects into space and back to earth landing in perfect condition and centimeters from the spot they wanted it to land on?
Concorde actually had a very good flight safety record until a freak accident on the runway finished its career. Disaster struck while it was taking off and still aground. It deserved better luck.
But the Musk fans *DO* deny it. That's the problem. I was arguing with one in the pub (back before a virus made that impossible) and I ran through the whole list of every reason why the hypeloop was such a fucking stupid idea. It all got hand-waved away with a "Elon will solve it". It's basically a religion based on the belief that Musk is some sort of great inventor even though he's never actually invented anything. Nothing that somebody else hadn't already invented anyway.
@@AnthonyHandcock I'm not an elon fan and admit that a lot of his ideas are dumb. To be fair however an invention can use existing concepts. Just because the first touch screen phone (the iphone) used existing tech to create it, doesn't mean it wasn't an invention. Touch screens already existed on certain expensive pc monitors, the ability to call others already existed, as well as the ability to have apps/games on a phone. The IPhone combined it into a package we hadn't seen before, creating the modern smart phone, which we still consider a revolutionary invention to this day. Even if your invention is simply improving on already established concepts, its still considered an invention.
Most human rated rockets have to be fueled after everyone is strapped in. Imagine having a CEO pay 10k to a chair for 5 hours without being about to use the bathroom or eat anything. Then having a half hour roller Laster ride.
@@joeyhamilton6854 "Most human rated rockets have to be fueled after everyone is strapped in." - Sorry what? The Falcon 9 is the first human rated rocket ever that is fueled with the crew already on board. All the others were fuel first, people next. Also, it takes about 15-20 minutes to fuel a Starship.
I suspect a lot of the stuff Musk proposes is less about making serious proposals and more about maintaining his position as the world's pre-eminent 'futurist' and thus buoying his company stocks with his media presence. Which still makes him worthy of debunking. But I think it's much less complete insanity and more just normal cynical stock manipulation but a businessman who just happens to know how to use a twitter account.
It's a terrible strategy and makes him look incompetent and immature. Anyone with a basic understanding of physics and maths can see right through it, like at least try to think of ACTUALLY useful projects instead of just saying whatever gets you trending on Twitter.
@@distantraveller9876 he has a very large cult-like following, and everyone talking about him and his stuff is free marketing. I’d say it’s an incredibly successful strategy. Him looking like an idiot is irrelevant, since stupidity has never stopped the elite before.
The thing is, cutting down travel time just isn't that important in a world where we carry our work, entertainment and social life in our pockets. There's really no problem with an 8hr flight from London to New York, so there's no need to "fix" it!
Honestly we need to rebuild our cities or have à good public transport since from what i have observed in my area is that people work either in their city or to the neighboring cities. Just 2 train stations away. However, out train stations are shizt
When I was flying from LAX to Taiwan and I'd start feeling a little pissy about it being a 14 hour flight, I'd always remind myself that there was a day not long ago when the only way there was by steamship and the journey would take months.
This reminds me of a nightmare that I had where there was a ride at Universal Studios Orlando where they used a rocket powered slingshot to shoot you up into space that way the world would look like the Universal logo, but then if the pod you were in didn't land in exactly the right spot because of, like, wind you'd die. That legit sounds like if Elon made a theme park.
Airline Nerd Rant Incoming: Nevermind the safety record or the physics, he doesn't even have a sound route network! He's ignoring everything we know about the airline industry. In the 2010s, mid-sized airplanes were developed which could fly long distances once only feasible with larger planes (and larger fuel tanks). This changed everything. As an example, it used to be that a passenger in a mid sized city, like Denver, would get on a little airplane which would transport them to a big airport with a denser population, like Las Angeles. In this busy city, there were enough people to fill a big plane. This large aircraft, now having enough passengers to be economically viable, would go to Tokyo. Today, however, a passenger can embark on a fuel efficient mid-sized plane, which can fly far but doesn't need as many passengers to turn a profit. A lower population city like Denver can now provide a nonstop flight to Tokyo. There is no layover in Las Angeles, and the passengers are happier. Customers overwhelmingly prefer direct flights, so the airlines completely restructured to buy more smaller long range airplanes. The jumbo jets which once flew between major cities are being retired. Airlines don't want to buy 500 passenger airplanes anymore, but Elon suggests we fill these Starships with 1,000 people??? Only routes between major world cities can accommodate this. And no one will want to go through security to get on an airplane in Denver, leave the airport in Las Angeles, go through more security to get on a rocket, and THEN go to Tokyo. His enemy isn't just supersonic airplanes, it's every airplane that can fly a direct route...
Little perspective I can provide? Qantas was going ahead with something called project sunrise. Aka, direct flights from australia to anywhere in the world, with an extended range A350. At least before covid, not too sure about their plans now. Elon musk would be in competition with at least one major commercial airline, who would likely make more profit per flight unless elon charged a ridiculous sum. And even then! I doubt he can operate as many rockets, as Qantas can operate aircraft.
@@Destroyer_V0 i mean if it already costs a hefty sum to fly on a plane so imagine on a rocket, hed have to fund this thing out of this pocket, the only people i see using this are other dumb millionares
Not to mention that Concorde largely showed the case where pretty much only business executives, and other business men would need to use such speed regularly. Taking a 5-10 day cruise is ridiculously slow, but taking a three hour flight is too costly to be worth it. Most people were happy to take their six hour hop across the pond. The speed was worth the cost, and that wasn't the case for Concorde - basically.
"Being smart can make you rich, but being rich does not make you smart" -me watching Adam Something. I fucking swear if this was already a quote and I never knew...
@@LukeVilent that perspective is proven wrong for this reality that we live in. But could be made into good films. But i don't think Adam's perspective are completely wrong.
A few days ago I watched the recently released "Could Starship Be The New Concorde?" by Primal Space. After watching your video, I felt like watching it again, just with a little but more scepticism. Also kind of funny that the Wright Brothers where indeed featured, as if you already knew. The trip on a boat would already eliminate all the speed advantages of the Starship. Actually, if Europe would build high speeds rail, we would not need any planes between Amsterdam and Berlin or most other large Western European cities, due to the long times that are required, or at least recommended (two hours) to be at the airport before flight departure.
There is something about replacing air travel with high speed trains nobody takes into account. All the time for security measures with airplanes have a root. It is the travel possibility where a*holes can harm the most people in one incident and get media coverage. If airtravel is replaced by highspeed trains, those trains will earn that place. They will then be the prime target for those idiots. Meaning that we then get all the security stuff for train travel negating any improvement over air travel. Those trains would then be even easier targets, as they move on a from of rails still. And attacking the rail and derailing something going 250-300kph i would argie would be easier for them than downing a plane. So can we keep the slow trains and airtravel please?
@@nirfz If they ever built a hyperloop it would be even easier. Just punch a 10cm hole in the tube and the entire thing will pressurise catastrophically, killing everyone.
@@lennysmileyface If you mean the outer tube, then according to how i understood the working principle, the capsules containing passengers inside the tube would just screach to a halt if you puncture the vacuum tube. If you meant the capsule with the word "tube" then yes, that would cause a pretty fast but disgusting looking end of the passengers. (In my opinion the main reason it will never be used in transporting people...the danger of having a malfunction that causes the capsule to not be sealed completely is too big.)
hmm... i wonder _why..._ could it be the fact rockets are mostly used by government funded space programs for exploration of outer space instead of torturing normal people in glorified missles?
But I thought Mr genius Tony Stark man could come up with the schematics in less than an hour??? You mean to say he just purchases the technology that other people invented?
aerospace engineer here. I agree with pretty much all you say that it's a fucking stupid idea with the only goal to make tech-nerds go "such wow". but you asked to correct your numbers so here they are: 4:10 I don't know where you got that 25% fuel for suborbital fights from, but it doesn't apply to starship e2e. It might be true if you just want to go "up" and back down again (like sub 2000km flights), but in the starship promo video they boast with 27.000 km/h, which is close to orbital velocity. calculating fuel for rockets is only dependent on payload mass and the velocity you want to achieve. so there is just a small difference in fuel between going e2e and going to low earth orbit. I did some napkin math and maybe you can save 500t of fuel, but it doesn't really matter since it doesn't change the magnitude of the result. let's just focus on the first stage, since we will need to fill that 100% either way to reach those speeds. the capacity is about 1000t of methane and 2000t of o2. So burning that would release a bit less than 3000t of CO2. that's pretty much in line the graph you showed at 4:45. the passenger capacity of this thing is unknown, Musk claims 1000 passengers, which is wildly unrealistic in my opinion. But assuming that gives us about 3 tons of co2 per person for a long-haul flight. your airplane co2 numbers are also quite off and I wonder where you got the numbers from. 5:02 "total emission of an airplane transatlantic is 1 ton"? that should raise your alarm bells man. I think the numbers you found are per passenger. A 787 can carry about 100t of fuel, so about 300t of CO2 for a long-haul flight (up to 14.000km, so pretty much anywhere on earth), make that half for an transatlantic flight, it doesn't matter. nowhere near 1 ton for the whole plane. the passenger capacity for the 787 is 250 people, for full fuel capacity that's 1.2 tons of co2 per person. as you can see, the co2 difference is not that big, about a factor of 2.5 (but it largely depends on the passenger capacity of the theoretical e2e starship, which cannot be known). that's mostly because the rocket only boosts for around 5 minutes and then cruises above in the thermosphere, while the aircraft has to plow through the lower stratosphere all the time. that means from an energy perspective, flights of over 10.000km would at least economically make kinda sense with e2e starship. that doesn't mean that all the other concerns are not valid of course, the idea is still dumb.
yes numbers are a bit off for airplane flights, however, other problems truly exist also one things that wasn't mentioned as a problem during the video which is how would you lift 1000 passengers + luggage to the rocket head?
@@the_imonem An error by a factor of 300, which should be obvious to anyone who knows the first thing about air travel and CO2 emissions, is not "a bit off". It's an indictment of his competence to make a video essay on the subject. Not to mention the comparison to the Concorde which also had many comfort, noise, security and fuel cost issues, like those cited here for the rockets.
It often feels like those elon musk ideas are thought up when he's in the shower for 5 minutes and then he sends a one-line message to his secretary so that his companies work it out without any sort of forethought put into the viability of the idea. Being surounded by yes men makes for poor business.
Who cares where his ideas come from? When’s the last time you’ve created a business with a clear mission to accelerate the worlds transition to sustainable energy - and succeeded? I’m always amazed to see people trying to tear down a person or business that’s doing real good. Who does that?
@@damonknutson2855 Nobody cares where his ideas came from. Everyone cares how long he thinks about them. If the buisness's ideas are similar to "lets convert people to light to travel around the planet in less than a second", probably it's not doing real good
@Erre Waser Hey, launching at the same time as a Starship launch might be good cover for an ICBM launch. Starship itself would be the greatest missile bus of all time. It could be a 150 warhead MIRV with a missile bus that could confound all defenses. Is this Elon's true plan?
Addition to the G's part: The average G- Force during a commercial flight lies between 0.75 and 1.25 G with 0.5 to 1.5 G's in a turbulent flight. So while saying that the average flight subjects you to 0.2 to 0.4 G's is technically correct (if you subtract or add those values from/to the normal 1G we have on earth) someone might misinterpret those numbers
In addition, the Raptor engine runs on methane, and while a lot of methane does come from natural gas which is a fossil fuel, it can also be created biologically making it at least potentially sustainable. It is a hydrocarbon though so I will give you that, but it’s also the lowest CO2 producing hydrocarbon that is commonly used for fuel.
@@betabry42 C1H4 has the lowest ratio of hydrogen atoms (turned to water) to carbon atoms (turned to CO2) out of all the alkanes. Renewable production would be great, though. Let's add some reverse cow enemas to all those factory farms.
Well burning methane is releasing the least GH gases out of all fossils, but if you ad leakage during extraction and transport, it comes down on average even worse than coal.
1. In future, this could be used for transporting cargo. Human transportation would not be efficient and would be too costly. 2. It probably will use other fuel source aside from methane. Elon switched from normal kerosene based fuel to methane because it could be manufactured in mars. An alternative fuel, like hydrogen if he can build an engine efficient enough for it, will be required for this.
@@immigrantgaming420epic what I meant to say this is not for normal people, it's for the elites and riches only. I am not anti elitist, not anti capitalist. But I believe that when you have so much money and so many possibilites it's a waste to be creating another useless and counterproductive thing, when you can use those resources to make the actual scientific progress.
@@pranavyeole102 btw he didnt say that, he said it isnt as expensive as to be a thing only for top billionaires, sure a lot of people would not be able to afford it(me included) but still a lot of businessman would.
I think you might have missed the biggest issue with this idea: when have a thousand people ever needed to go across the globe all at once? The rocket would NEVER be at full capacity, and it's possible it could never be.
There aren't 1000 people on this planet who can afford to dump about a million dollars on one-way ticket just so they can save few hours travelling in the first place.
Similar problems arise with the hyperloop. You might be able (theoretically) to transport 20,000 people every day at high speed between Los Angeles and San Francisco or New York to Washington, maybe London to Berlin even, in under an hour but how many actually need or want to go there. About 10-20 % or so of that number typically !
I like that literally every single aspect of this idea is fundamentally flawed and it's still being advertised as a totally possible concept even by SpaceX's representatives.
@Nat20 Damage I don't think going to Mars is bunk. We will go there and I believe sooner rather than later although not for another decade or two. Colonizing Mars on the other hand is a total bullcrap. It is the next frontier that we will explore but the promise of colonizing it or making that into a capital investment is undeniably a scam.
"we carefully select our investors" is what the spaceX boss lady said. Meaning: "we only want investors dumb enough to believe this shit and will never go public and actually be accountable for this BS"
3:06 I'm a college senior majoring in Aerospace Engineering. One important detail to keep in mind is that the data shown in this telemetry graph is for an _orbital_ launch, not suborbital. For most rocket launches, the bulk of its fuel mass is used to burn sideways to create a stable orbit at its maximum altitude along its trajectory (called "Apogee"). But for a suborbital point-to-point launch, there is no hard sideway burn at Apogee, just minor course corrections to line up the other end of the rocket's trajectory with your landing site. By minimizing your Apogee and "flattening" the arc shape of your trajectory, you can reduce the amount of acceleration onboard since it can spread the burn out over a longer period of time. In fact, a flatter arc would also mean that the rocket is spending more time burning in a thinner part of the atmosphere, which can increase the efficiency of the engines over the duration of the flight!
@@LeBTrung No, not really. Every aircraft needs 2 things to stay in flight: a way to keep it in the air, and a way to move it forward. Subsonic to low-supersonic aircraft use the geometry of their wings to generate the lift needed to stay in the air, so their engines only need to deliver thrust to keep it moving forward. Thus, the more air is available, the more efficiently it can fly. But rockets, on the other hand, can’t use lifting surfaces to fly. Its engines must deliver thrust to maintain both the horizontal and vertical components of its flight path. So, rather than flying with the aid of aerodynamics like a plane, a rocket uses a “ballistic trajectory” to throw itself like a baseball. So, in order to avoid drag as much as possible, a rocket will fly much more efficiently when there is less outside air. In most cases, rockets will make a very hard burn in order to get out of the atmosphere as quickly as possible. From there, without air to slow it down, the rocket can coast along the rest of its arc without needing to make any burns until it needs to change course (such as circularizing into orbit or adjusting its landing site). The faster a rocket changes its velocity over time, the higher its acceleration will be. Likewise, the longer it can stretch out a burn over time, the lower its acceleration will be. But the _amount the rocket’s velocity needs to change_ (we call this “delta-V”) will remain the same whether you make a high burn with a low burn time, or a low burn with a high burn time. And when most of that burn is performed in the upper atmosphere, the lack of drag allows the engines to deliver that delta-V for much less fuel than a short hard burn in the thicker, lower atmosphere.
Very true, but i think we both can see that even the suborbital flight would have too many issues to be viable compared to other methods not involving rockets.
10:13 "Not even reality or basic maths can stop him" 😄 It's round about the same absurdity level of all his other claims, but yeah this one probably takes the crown.
Elon: “I am a visionary dedicated to saving the environment with my electric car company” also Elon: “planes annoy me so I want to travel around in fucking rockets” I’m beginning to think he isn’t actually going to save the world from climate change
They plan to make the methane from co2 collected from the atmosphere, therefore making it technically carbon neutral. Making the fuel just requires carbon dioxide, water, and energy CO2 + 2H2O -> CH4 + 2O2 Ultimately this makes it as carbon neutral as whatever generated the electricity to make the fuel.
@@azureprophet If billionaires were at least rational they would try to preserve the exploitative system that amassed them this wealth but they aren't .Guess they gonna have to find out the hard way that money doesn't get you anything without a sosciety .
Yeah the Wright brothers excuse is pretty bad. Yes they learned to fly but even when they had a working prototype it was nothing that was even remotely commercial viable for a long long time. At best it gave rich thrill seekers a short ride of a couple miles or two. Able to carry one or two people hanging on the wings and other such silly things. They also had a working prototype before trying to sell it while Elon Musk seems to keep wanting money, investors and selling his product before is more than a dream on paper. It would be like the Wright Brothers selling international flights before their first test even got off the ground.
Methalox is actually pretty eco-friendly, depending on how it’s made. The exhaust is mostly water and CO2, and if they manufacture the methane on site as I believe they intend to, it should be entirely carbon neutral - actually it will remove some carbon, since they’ll burn fuel in space.
@@201bio A: Burning ANY hydrocarbon gives you "mostly water and CO2". That includes oil. B: They're not going outside Earth's gravity well. They're not even going to ISS levels. Anything deposited at that altitude will integrate into the atmosphere. You can't just dump gas at the edge of space and say it's out of the environment.
@@nicholasrandall3507 B: I forgot the conversation was about Earth to Earth Starship, you’re totally right. A: I think the idea is to pull CO2 out of the air to make the methane. So Starship becomes effectively carbon neutral. That all depends on whether or not they’ll create their own fuel, and how they do it though. That said, the everyday astronaut (a UA-camr) has a very good video on the environmental impact of rocketry, which could be worth a watch.
@@201bio If they've improved the CO2 extraction tech, that's excellent. Last I heard it was horribly inefficient, but that was several years ago. Given how much fuel is required to extract rare minerals to make solar panels, even using green tech to manufacture hydrocarbons it would be difficult to achieve true carbon neutrality. Grass is technically still superior to us in that regard.
The other thing about the Wright Brothers is that I've seen the footage of flying machines that actually looked like flawed, but otherwise workable prototypes made by other aviators. They actually did fly for a little bit and clearly were on the right track. It wasn't a singular visionary, some of them actually knew what they were doing, even if everybody else were fools. Elon Musk is just rich enough to afford people who have some idea of what to do.
You probably shoot a rocket from London (well somewhere off the Essex soast) to Tokyo (or somewhere off the coast in Sagami Bay). If he throws enough money at it, he will probably manage that bit. Will he get enough passengers to cover the running costs? No.
Most people with the smarts to figure this stuff out don't have the drive or imagination to do it by them selves, that's why people in history like Elon exist, bring the right people together and be the person pushing the ideas forward since everyone else is content sitting on their ass waiting for their life to be over
@@matthewsharp1178 Elon Musk is an unqualified LARPER. None of his proposed "ideas" has thus far yielded any results. Dunno why you thought unironically pushing him as some visionary on a channel that bashes "Great Men" was the idea that you had.
@@afqwa423 also I'm confused, I was agreeing with your original comment lmao, not sure why you felt offended by that? Good luck living with so much hate dude, I bet your successful aren't you
I'm loving this... I hated the Hyperloop from the start - I thought: "what happens when you get stuck" and then I had horrible nightmares about being trapped in an underground tunnel. I never heard of this Earth to Earth plan, so now I'm looking forward to nightmares about falling to my death in a malfunctioning rocket!
@@issan1566 What's scarier is having commercials being uploaded to your brain. It's like that episode of black mirror where you can't use a sink without watching a sponsored ad
"A good rule for rocket experimenters to follow is this: always assume that it will explode.” -Astronautics, issue 38, October 1937 You say 1%? I played XCOM and it goes like this: Alien has a 1% shot: always gets it! Your guys with 99%: miss!
I mean, the Wright brothers didn't immediately start trying to convince people that flying machines were the best way to get to the local store. I feel that that is the key difference. Musk just buys stuff and then tries to shoehorn that thing into as many applications as possible, regardless of efficiency.
One thing that wasn't mentioned in the video is that since the launch pads have to be out in the sea, the potential market is already limited to cities that have shores which is well... a small fraction of all the cities in the World. With supersonic flights you could at least theoretically fly to anywhere
I don't think that is super fair, since a lot of (most?) countries have also banned supersonic flight over land, so youd still need to be on the coast unless you're doing part of your journey subsonically.
@@Synthetica9 Sure, but at least you can. For example a New York - Munich flight would be possible flying supersonic through the Atlantic ocean, and slowing down for the last short segment over Europe. That would be impossible with this rocket thingy.
"a small fraction of all the cities in the World." isnt correct. The vast majority of cities are at the coast or close to it like @@skipperg4436 mentioned All other citys are usually at rivers
Also You have to pack bagages, people to the boat and go to the station. than upack the people and bagages and pack them on the ship. That alone will take an hour ... than upack them after landing another hour.
I always thought SpaceX and this Rocket to earth stuff was some of Elon's dumbest projects. Not only do they seemed doomed to fail like most of his money burning ventures. It also proves he's a massive hypocrite. Most his projects are about going "Green" and saving the planet.... Then he pushes commercial rocket flight, one of the worst forms of transportation possible for the environment. About the only thing that could be worse is a nuclear powered submarine with a leaky reactor core.
Actually I think the nuclear reactor would be better than the rocket, as radiation doesn’t actually harm the planet overall (like burning fossil fuels does) and is pretty localized
I completely agree that the idea is flawed, but the fuel used in this one is Methane, which can be completely renewable produced, so you could call it green if you had an abundance of clean electricity. I'm disappointed in Adam for not mentioning that.
Considering the realistic number of rocket launches achievable in one day, the carbon emission output would be minuscule compared to airplanes. Since you argue this form of transportation will never be adopted on a mass scale, this will never become an issue
Glad he’s not afraid to call out Elon. Given that Elon fans are the most immature bunch out there and will bombard anyone with negative things to say about their almighty idol Elon.
He's hoping to put 1000 people into one starship? That will either make the seating in RyanAir seem like luxury travel in comparison or be one big starship - about 2.5 times as big as a Jumbo Jet.
11:10 "... and to feed into this movement of Scientism in our popular culture. Scientism being this essentially worship of science without ever understanding any of it, or following any of its principals." I wanna marry this quote. Is this quote single?
All of Elon Musk's "ideas" come straight from science fiction. I was reading about sub-orbitals being normal way back in the mid-80's. Books that were written in the 40's and 50's at that. It's just pure science fiction with little to no practical utility aside from 'hurr durr futurism lol'.
They didn't make sense whatsoever anyway, because he took per person data for the flight and total data for the Starship. And the rocket slowing down burns some (which I think is already in that number) but it's really actually not much because most of the speed is bled of through the atmosphere.
@@n3lis94 Speed is bled off, yes, buy you have to carry all the fuel you need up when you start the journey. And every pound of extra fuel you carry up will need even more fuel to get it up.
Hold up, are we referring to practical design or just whoever managed to get off the ground first? I only ask as it’s the reason why we give the idea of DC to Edison or AC to Nikola, they didn’t make it but they made the idea practical.
One other point - let's take London to Shanghai as an example. You're in Russia, and you see a big f*ck off rocket accelerating quickly above European airspace. And now it's gone suborbital and oh God, is it heading for Moscow? No time to ask questions, launch a counterstrike!
Also, has anyone here seen an actual rocket launch in live? Rockets literally take forever to prepare before they can take off. Sure Starship can reach major cities within an hour but how about the 3-5 hours of waiting before the launch? Starship is just not practical at all. I feel like this is the Zeppelins of our age and I feel that there is going to be a major disaster with this one.
The passengers would only experience a boarding time. What possible use could it be to ask the passengers to arrive and sit on their hands in good time while fueling is performed?
Refuel and Refly time is expected to be ~45 minutes from landing to launch for Starship. It's an economy of scale thing with ~100-150 planned Starships within a decade. I understand a lot of the hesitation and question the economics of it myself but it is doable.
@@connoro1373 You barely get 45 minutes on an airplane. Ryan Air has 30minutes and that's one of the lowest. And airplanes are produced like hundreds per year, with thousands in active service, not 150 over a decade. So, no. You cannot just 'economies of scale' everything like a handwaver. There are some processes which take time and need to take time to operate safely.
Given the cost of rocket fuel, crew costs, maintenance costs, and markup, I cant imagine how expensive tickets would be. I imagine it would be very difficult to actually fill one of these things.
This idea of using rockets for intercontinental travel is an old one, that appears most often in older sci-fi, like 1960's, 1950's and maybe even the 1940's. I believe that "The Man in the High Castle" and I think that it's a thing in some Bradbury stories, such as "The Martian Chronicles"...and plenty more from that era.
In conclusion, this proposed system is not only more dangerous but also even more harmful to the environment than the old Soviet practice of leaving nuclear waste unsupervised on a public parking lot
One thing I can say is that Elon is a marketing genius. He bombards the interweb with crap, keeping the "beleivers" beleiving, whether good or bad to keep his stock price high. Best thing you can do is scroll right past and not click on any Tesla or Musk articles.
When the symptoms of traveling at extreme speeds comes up, all that comes to mind is Shatners description of what it was like for him to travel to space. And lo and behold, he portrayed all symptoms described perfectly lol
The Starship is already an incredible piece of technology, and it can be a revolutionary high-capacity rocket. As a mode of transport, it's another gadgetbahn, but IN SPACE
You know Musk's in trouble when his ideas are comparable to Bosnian Ape Society (which is an awesome channel, but that's like your society being unironically comparable to South Park).
I'm glad to find more of these critical videos online. Thunderfoot, Common Sceptic and Adam Something. You are doing an excellent job, keep it up. People need to have their eyes open.
their eyes open to this? Don't get me wrong, this channel produces videos I agree with, but this video literally makes me mad because of the ridiculous number of mistakes. This is genuinely not a critical video.
Great video! I did notice one error: When you were showing the engine cycle, you used the graphic for fuel-rich staged combustion instead of full flow staged combustion, which does use 2 turbopumps, not 1.
Wanted to mention that, too. The one for the airplane is clearly per person while the starship one is in total. Overall the co2 emission seem pretty similar
“Starship” … I don’t think Elon quite know’s what that means. Nor has he seen a single episode of Star Trek. A ‘Star Ship’ travels … BETWEEN THE STARS.
If the rocket engines used in Starship had liquid hydrogen as fuel, then the fossile fuel argument wouldn't hold water. But other than that, it's still a dumb idea. Also, the raptor engines are insanely complex, and full flow staged combustion is incredibly difficult to pull off from an engineering perspective. That's why we don't really see it in rockets, like at all almost.
Not until now that is. This is how rocket science technology progresses with cutting edge rockets. Look how many other recent launches into space broke the mold for deploying extremely advanced and complicated instruments. The JWST for ex. Now having said that we are still in early stages of testing these Raptors. Time will tell. And yeah as far as this earth to earth ship I think that is a dumb idea as well.
@@michaeldeierhoi4096 I don't like Elon Musk at all really. But I do like what he's doing with SpaceX. I love space, rocketry, and cosmology in general. Of course we have had closed cycle rocket engines similar to the Raptor for a long time now. Take the RS-25 for example, which powered the Space Shuttle since the 80s. It is considered to be one of, if not the greatest rocket engine ever made along with the Soviet NK and RD engines. I am excited to see how the Raptor progresses.
As long as it's done by Mr Musk and his companies that doesn't matter, just like the emissions and fuel used. (Already the case with his current rockets. They land not like a spaceshuttle by gliding, but they use thrust of the rocket engines to land vertically. Not the most fuel efficent way. So they have to take a lot more fuel with them for the landing. Meaning they burn more fuel propelling the aditional weight on the way up.)
@@nirfz Landing vertically actually is more Fuel efficient, because you don't haul Wings and Control Surfaces into Space which adds a lot of dead Weight. The additional Fuel for the Suicide Burn (KSP Term), aka "Hoverslam" (Elon Musk Buzzword-Bullshit) is much lighter than that. Even though I hate Elon Musk and especiall the Fanboys, I have to admit that SpaceX has achieved some pretty awesome Things in Rocketry, so did Tesla for Electric Cars (I hate the Idea of giant Touchscreens in Cars, or Screens in general). Then again, IIRC these Companies were already around when Elon Musk started investing and marketing them.
@@Genius_at_Work I have the same feelings towards big touch input displays in cars. But i can't imagine that amount of fuel and it's storage as well as additional control nozzles for the vertical landing to be lighter than the orbiter wings. Those wings and control surfaces meant that in landing 0 fuel is needed. I'd compare it to the Harrier aircraft, where it showed that any vertical landing or starting cost a lot more fuel than conventional landing and starting. And the Harrier had way less speed to slow down for landing than the rockets.
Counterchallenge to Elon Musk: Prove to the world that your "starship" rocket is as safe as air travel. By riding it yourself over 50,000 Earth-to-Earth trips.
I mean, he'd probably be on the inaugural flight of the E2E program. Asking him to do it _now_ is kinda dumb, because Starship isn't ready yet even by his optimistic standards. Granted, the idea of E2E is also really fucking dumb.
The Raptor Engines use Methane as propellant, which can be made by extracting CO2 from the atmosphere and combining it with H2. The Methane mixes and burns with liquid Oxygen to release back the CO2 plus H2O (and some trace gasses caused by the flame reacting with the atmosphere). That way, no new Carbon is released into the atmosphere unlike RP-1, which uses fossil fuels and adds new Carbon into the atmosphere. It’s probably the second cleanest rocket propellant after Hydrogen.
Thank you for this, I also think it was a bit of an unfair to call methalox “fossil fuel” and compare its emissions with other engines and furls only by amount and not by chemical makeup.
I had a Musk fanboy tell me about this recently. Nothing I said would change his mind. I did refer him to another YT channel owned by a well known British Musk critic (think weather limb 😊) but he was having none of it.
Remember the Gravitron ride you can find on fairs? Those let you experience at least 2G, and up to 3G. This will allow you to stand vertically on the walls. Now imagine going for 15 to 30 minutes at 3G.
Where do you get those numbers? 15 Minutes at 3g would get you to close to 100,000km/h. If I didn't make a mistake, a 3g burn takes 4.25 minutes to reach 27,000 km/h. For me personally, I would not consider this a problem, but for many others, it might be pretty tough.
Aaand the 90kg CO2 per hour at 5:10 is actually per passenger.
So an aircraft would pump out a bit over a 100 tons per transatlantic flight. So the difference is more like 6-fold. The number can vary though based on a lot of factors, e.g. aircraft configuration, engines, etc.
@@RandomGuyOnUA-cam601 If you use hydrogen and oxygen in rockets you indeed get zero CO2 emission, instead you get water vapor emission and, believe it or not, water vapor is greenhouse gas too.
@@RandomGuyOnUA-cam601 95% of hydrogen is produced from fossil fuels! The only "green" hydrogen is 5% extracted from the water with the help of electricity (solar or windmills). So it isn't green fuel.
Which fossil fuel exactly is Starship supposed to be using as propellant??
Starships fly on Methane CH4 and Oxygen O2. They react to H2O and CO2. It would be rather climate neutral if they make those fuels with green energy, what they planned. I'm not sure how they will do it but it's done by extracting CO2 from the air so it's creating no extra CO2.
@Peter Evans you are one of those Elon fans?! O_o
Rockets are also launched in pitch perfect weather conditions. And this would also need to be true for landing. So perfect weather on two sides of the planet, good luck with that.
Oh yeah that too! Excellent point 👍
There is just so much wrong the obvious gets lost in the most stupidity of this idea . Elon's magic solutions stupidity is amazing 👏
+1 weather is the real problem. Imagine the execs and VIPs onboard sitting through a scrubbed launch due to weather.
@Dacia Sandero guys totally agree 👍
Well the pads are over water so why not just move them
@@ChrisTuckerCarlzyn Because when people book a flight to somewhere they expect to land somewhere close to there. There's a difference between a flight to JFK being diverted to Newark International due to inclement weather and a rocket being diverted from JFK to Bogota.
Also, MOST MAJOR CITIES ARE LANDLOCKED. Think Berlin, Paris, London, Madrid, Prague, or any of the other European economic powerhouses. All inland, all densely built up, all with little if any room to build a FUCKING LAUNCHPAD. To say nothing of the US aviation market, which is almost entirely built on domestic flights between small aviation markets. Even mid-size international airports like Hancock International Airport in Syracuse, NY don't have the budget, real estate, or large body of water nearby to allow for rocket flights, so even smaller aviation markets like Bountiful, UT or Manhattan, KS will just be SOL.
You forgot another problem: governments being willing to let intercontinental ballistic missiles land 20 miles from their major cities.
Oh yes I will allow a regular launching and landing of missiles within 20 miles of my city this totally can’t be used against me to sneak nukes into my citie
Oh yeah, great point, how on earth would NORAD etc be reconfigured to sift the starships from a Russian Sarmat ICBM, especially seeing as some systems struggle to discriminate between missiles and sunlight reflecting off of clouds? And how (meh, Why??) would any defence ministry ever want to share enough info with Musk's company to figure it out in the first place?
@@doylethelovely2555 what? Are.... are you against international airports for the same reason? That seems like an extremely irrational thing to presume.
@@DrewLSsix Dude there’s a fucking difference between an international airliner and what Is essentially an intercontinental ballistic missile
@@doylethelovely2555 There may be. But if a hostile government can sneak a nuke onto public rocket transport, I'm certain they can sneak it onto an airplane or a cargo ship.
This is the kind of thing a 5 year old would conceptionalize and forget about 4 minutes later
for some reason people see the rocket messiah as something other than this 5 year old :D
omg
My first thought was "I remember this from a children's book. And even the book only had it in use for emergencies, not for a shorter ride.
@Guy Whose opinions will offend you ...same here.
I worked as a launch ops engineer for a large rocket company (not SpaceX) and it took us between 8-12 hours of prep and systems checks to launch a rocket. Not only that but airspace and wind conditions and weather conditions and down range safety borked every other launch at least once. I think the logistics behind this are even worse, and no it can’t all be automated by software lol
That’s not to mention that these things will be sitting on the ocean most of the time, have only a few minutes between launch and reentry, and reused over and over. I bet that would be a great way to make advancements in some exciting areas of material fatigue at least lol.
it's nice you had a good career.
JUST USE AI
That's not as easy as it sounds.
As a software engineer, its amazing to see how many people who have barely any idea how software works just say "software will handle it", as if its a big red fix it all button. Software is great at calculating and going through patterns, not doing magic or changing physics lol
"Officials are still trying to piece together why the missile defense system mistook the 'starship' for a weaponized ICBM, our thoughts are with the families of those lost, Tom"
Oh god, yes! I want to the fucking iron dome shooting down one of Musks stupid inventions. Preferably without passengers but you know, omelettes and eggs.
"Now, the weather"
"Condolences to the families Sara. In other news, a recent study by an English team said cat furballs might be the key to curing cancer! Let's go to our British correspondant..."
@@thallan So you want the Iron Dome to shoot down like a falcon 9 with a GPS satellite?
@@mzm4344 no like musk tries to land it in a field protect by an iron dome, which proceeds to shoot it down the same way they shoot down HAMAS rockets
I prefer Carl Sagan's version. "Yes they laughed at galileo, but they also laughed at Bozo the clown"
I thought about this quote for some time but I can't understand the message that it's trying to say. Can you explain it please?
@@Chisito23 People like to defend stupid "inventions" by claiming people laughed at successful inventions in the past and that the thing they are defending is the same way. Some go further to imply that the fact that people laugh at the invention is in itself proof that it is ahead of it's time and going to be successful.
Carl Sagan is noting that people have laughed at things that went on to become successful, but they have also laughed at things that are plain stupid. In other words, the fact that people laugh and deride an invention is no indication that that invention isn't actually stupid.
@@GrobeNuuk thank you!
@@Chisito23 bozo the clown was a tv character that was meant to be laughed at.
Bozo? Temos um brasileiro aqui?
Maybe a "HydroLoop" can get you from land to the launch platform quicker?
LMFAO :D
So you can vomit your lunch twice in the span of a few minutes?
Because, to be fair, hyperloop = acceleration, and lots of it. Since it's horizontal, it's a bit better than a rocket, but that's a problem fast trains have in general... getting up to cruising speed. So, hyperloop over 20 miles to get on a rocket, and be time efficient, means you don't get to eat, and you must make sure to pee and shit before it, because you will most likely empty your bowels in one of the two amusement park attractions.
why even go into space?
Why not have the boring company use their flamethrowers and Hyper technology to *bore* a tunnel network in the earth's crust to launch the rockets underground?
Elon should hire me for thinking outside the box.
@Nat20 Damage 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
@Nat20 Damage why don't they just eject you out of the rocket mid orbit? You could give everyone a parachute and they could land wherever they want in the city. Then the rocket could land on the platform to be refuled and refilled and launch again. No need for transportation back from the landing pad.
"They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright Brothers, but they also laughed at Bozo the clown."
Just wait, the next thing he's going to suggest is making an 'Earth Elevator' that goes across the center of the Earth, powered by gravity and you can go to the other side of the globe super fast.
If you were insane enough to go by rocket to Singapore, you wouldn't worry about hitting one of his 10,000 STARLINK satellites...
Roach M shhhhhhhhhhhhh! Don’t give him ideas !
So essentially you're proposing the world's biggest mass human BBQ?
Genius!, just name it" the epic Keanu wholesome 100 no mustard doge VIP hyperpod", people will fall head over heels for it.
You could build a zero-G restaurant and theme park in the center.
wait a second that is just stolen from the remake of total recall....
Science in star trek "science boys you have 3 hours to science us out of this black hole". Science in real life, 'spend 20 years to invent a thing, it doesn't work'. Science isn't pirate's treasure.
Nuclear fusion will be viable by 1980!
@@pedrolmlkzk There has actually been a great deal of progress in fusion research since the 1940s. We are not as far away from it now as we were in 1980.
Maybe not a pirate treasure, but still the closest thing to a pirate treasure that we have
@@ivannoreland5656 maybe the real treasure is the -friends- research grants you make along the way.
In Star Trek they have a supercomputer that almost programs itself, a holodeck, an antimatter reactor, and more importantly, free human labor because it's all a labor of love. In real life we have a box of scraps and everyone is worried about their next meal, next car, next research paper, or next merger and acquisition, and any scientific advancement is just a welcome side-effect.
You left out the biggest and most obvious problem: cost. Concord proved that cost is generally more important than speed. Rockets are crazy expensive, so it would no way in hell be economically viable. And if there were demand for this, supersonic (or maybe even hypersonic) planes would outcompete for the same nieche users (ultra rich, in a big hurry).
Also, the Concorde fleet had to constantly deal with tons and tons of noise complaints, wherever one of those things went. One of the other reasons for canning the project. You simply can't do anything but flying over oceans. And those rockets starting and landing are not any quieter. Imagine every bigger city sounding like there is a violent thunderstorm approaching constantly.
Imo Concorde failed because of the many airspace restrictions due to noise and scale. There was definitely a very small amount of ultra rich people that used it, but waiting for a concorde was probably slower than using a normal private jet, since there were not many users.
Starship suborbital would probably have the same problem with scale, maybe more since they would also need expensive landing and launch equipment. Being fully reusable, unlike partly refurbishable like the STS and F9, it would probably reduce cost of rockets a lot, but the speculated 2~10 million per launch would probably still be a lot to pay for the ~100 people on the Starship.
You have to keep in mind that Starship is going to be Fully Reusable because of the fact that the Booster and Starship itself gonma land. The only cost you have is fuel and refurbishment after many flights. The fuel is produced out of co2 in the Air so its fully co2 neutral.
@@lichasvocke8642 The wear and tear on a rocket being fired at 27000 km/h is going to be a lot worse than the wear and tear on a plane. Best info I can find has Musk saying that "almost every piece of the Falcon should be reused over 100 times. Heat shields and a few other items should be reused over 10 times before replacement." So if we assume "over 100" means close to 100 then we could be very generous and say that these rockets do 150 trips before having to be completely replaced. Commercial planes last more 20 years and around 50000 flights hours. NY to london is 7 hours so over 7000 of those trips, meaning these rockets would cost at least 50 times more to run than an equivalent plane service. Unfortunately that's assuming the replacement parts for rockets is the same as for planes, in reality the cost to build replacement parts for rockets will also always be higher than for a plane given the much greater physical demands that get placed on a rocket, the more specialized knowledge required, and economies of scale. Also, rockets can never carry as many passengers as an equivalently sized airplane, so those costs will be split between fewer passengers. This could never match planes on cost. It is realistically only competing for first class travellers (who would otherwise spend those four extra flight hours in a first class cabin), and even then, they will probably have to be convinced to pay even more for the advantages and disadvantages of the rocket version.
A private jet is probably still easier / faster because there's less hassle with checking in and luggage and whatnot.
I have an idea. A hole straight through the earth where you board a pod and it gets dropped in freefall and you fall all the way to the other end of the earth in just under an hour. In fact you can travel anywhere in the very same time with a point to point tunnel and zero friction. Just use the magic lube on the magic walls that hold back the magma and radioactive sludge that makes up earth's core. With my technowizzard CGI technology we can build those tunnels 10000 times cheaper than roads. And there are most definitely not a million things we didn't think about, such as emergency exits or anything of that kind.
Isn't the current theory one in which the earth has a solid core? That needs to move to generate Earth's magnetic field?
The freefall wouldn't bring you to the other side, you gravitate towards the center but after that you'd need even more energy to get you out of there to the other side and escape the gravitational pull.
What you need now are some venture capitalist investors, who can take your revenueless CGI company to an IPO, after which you all immediately sell your stock and disappear...
@@eldarlrd actually wouldn't you gain enough momentum to keep on falling though to the other side?
@@eldarlrd in a perfect vacuum, the kinetic energy you gained from falling to the center of earth is enough to get you to the other side. However, real world is not a physics textbook, and actual perfect vacuums might as well not exist in real life.
Nevermind that all Missile defence systems are gonna go crazy when one of those starts flying around.
Can't imagine any starship routes taking someone to Israel, what with their Iron Dome and everything
This would solve itself very easily actually... It will be the exact same process with commercial airplanes. The rockets will have to announce in advance their flight course to authorities, and broadcast an ID during all flight time.
It will be a pain to put it in place the first time, because a lot of superpowers would have to be involved (basically, no superpower / nuclear power country would like to find an unidentified rocket entering their flight space), but it is not unrealistic to have all of them cooperating, with enough preparation...
The real problem would be if one of theses rockets goes rogue and does not follow its flight course anymore... With the threat of a potential terrorist attack, and the speed of the rocket, it would leave no other choice for the concerned country to immediately shot it down, and ask questions later...
@@TeteBruleeFR except that rockets are quite a bit faster than planes and are quite a bit more missile-like than planes, which have already had incidents where one was shot down under the belief it was a missile.
@@TeteBruleeFR Yeah, these defense system use SPEED to distinguish between missiles and non-missiles. They don't interact with the flight authorities system at all. They don't look for, or even read, airliner transponders. If it's above a certain speed and of a certain shape, it's tagged as a missile and the defense kicks into action.
@@TeteBruleeFR Don't think announcing the trips would solve it since any nation intending to attack the destination country could time their attack to coincide with the scheduled arrival of the spaceship.
Totally agree with you on the fetishisation of science by non-practitioners in modern culture.
Right! Like how in America we worship STEM education, but can't be bothered to teach philosophy. We produce people who operate in areas with little ambiguity who are then one-dimensional thinkers who have no concept of how society works. Add in a steady diet of evangelical Christianity & conservative lies, and you have a population of technically smart morons working in a capitalist gulag.
Elongated Muskrat
@@MagicAndReason This whole comment section reeks of communism. Philosophy doesn't real and entitled self-important intelligentsia soothsayers are the first to receive a bullet at the back of their skull when your people's revolution^TM finally comes. Try to digest it.
Posting "YAY SCIENCE" memes and believing in Astrology or for dudes "science bitch" and watching joe rogan
@@nickkorkodylas5005
"Doesn't real"? Between that and your last name, I think you're a Lithuanian whose parents told him scary stories about the soviets.
Also, this isn't communism. Philosophy was there before communism, during communism, and after it.
They are separate things. Supporting philosophy is not communism. Sorry.
I have a new idea for future transport.
We strap rockets to our legs. I call it hyper legs. We can move many % faster and it'll be all cool and futuristic.
yep, your legs wont fucking explode
Don’t forget the LED’s and fart sounds
@@Tommmmmmmmmmmm fart sounds? i'm sold, tell me more.
Try pitching this to the US govt. I'm sure you'll land some subsidies. Good luck.
@@kiranks3341 Alas im yet to crush enough unions to qualify for that
Maybe normal people actually said to the Wright Brothers that their idea was dumb but all around the world scientist were aware that flying heavier than air machines was possible and there were races with prizes all around the world for the first one that could reach that. Santos Dummont was the first one to takeoff with a aeroplane on Paris, a few months after the Brothers did the same on the US, but they didn't did in front of a crowd since their plan was to refine the machine before revealing it, so they could file patent on a close to commercial able product. While Dummont was scientist in spirit much like Tesla.
For most of Elon's stuff is the other way around, uninformed people saying that he is a genius while people with knowledge on engineering and physics are mostly skeptical of his claims.
E2E flights are physically possible, same as heavier-than-air flight. They technically could work despite the obvious drawbacks described in the video. Does this make them a good idea? No, duh.
that must have sucked
Holy sh*t finally someone talking about Dummond. You know, here in Brazil we do not talk about the Wright bros, as we know the existence of Dummond.
He later commited suicide and one of the reasoning was the usage of planes in the WWI.
The main thing experts were dismissive off was their idea of bendable wings as they thought it would make the plane too unstable. However the twisting wings allowed for far more control.
Unfortunately that instability proved to be true and the flyer was incredibly physically demanding and required a lot of practice to fly. So within just a few years the whole twisting wing idea was abandoned in favor of ailerons. Even with the Flyer III being mostly stable the extreme physical demands on the pilot made it's maximum flight time around 15 minutes as after that the pilot would be too exhausted to continue.
The twisting wings will twist by themselves in flight so the pilot has to constantly fight it. With ailerons the wind actually pushes the back to neutral so you don't have to constantly be fighting the control to keep going straight.
Also the Wright's idea of having the vertical stabilizer in front was quickly dropped as well as it created interference and reduced overall lift.
@@Cecil_Augus Sad thing is that he's not the only scientist to end his own life after his invention was used for war.
Literally the only use case I can see for this is the scene near the end of Metal Gear Rising: Revengeance where the protagonists only have a couple hours to stop a plot to cause a global war and the only way to get there in time is using a rocket, which itself is a combination electromagnetic-launch/chemfueled beast intended to be SSTO but having atmospheric control surfaces to land. Oh, and it's supposed to be remote-controlled, the cyborg occupants still nearly shit themselves at the G-forces involved.
The sheer fact I'm quoting something from Metal Gear as a primary use case should show how mental the project is just from a concept standpoint.
"Doktor! Turn off my elon musk dumbshit inhibitors!"
@@pickledrat4232 good quote
and that was in 2018 where nanomachines could turn a texan senator into a walking volcanic erruption
@@pickledrat4232 b-but raiden, that's madness!
I still cant believe MGRR is one of the most realistic entries in Metal gear.
"Earth to Earth rocket flight"
The Germans actually did this before, they made the first manmade object in space and it could travel from Berlin to London in just 5 minutes! What incredible futuristic 21st century technology! In the 40s...
It could land right on your doorstep! 😅
... yes, as von braun said: "I aim for the stars! (But sometime I hit London...)"
@@chloralhydrate" the rocket flew perfectly, it just landed on the wrong planet"
Wernher von Braun
Oh really? They were able to launch objects into space and back to earth landing in perfect condition and centimeters from the spot they wanted it to land on?
@@Planaxe Yes, they were able to land them EXACTLY on Londen with centimeter accuracy, and sometimes next to it. 😆
The moment when bringing back the Concorde and Tupolev 144 sounds like a more sustainable idea
I agree. Rockets are better for space exploration, not for earth.
Concorde actually had a very good flight safety record until a freak accident on the runway finished its career. Disaster struck while it was taking off and still aground. It deserved better luck.
@@chrisyorke6175 I was talking about sustainability, not safety tho.
But yes, it deserved better. And it's eastern sister did too.
@@chrisyorke6175 Concorde as very cool. It’s safety record wasn’t even that bad. It just wasn’t very efficient.
@@grahamstrouse1165 I agree. It only took one fatal accident. Bit of a luxury, but proved a concept.
Even if you are an Elon Musk fan, you cannot deny the step by step breakdown of why this is a dumb idea.
But the Musk fans *DO* deny it. That's the problem. I was arguing with one in the pub (back before a virus made that impossible) and I ran through the whole list of every reason why the hypeloop was such a fucking stupid idea. It all got hand-waved away with a "Elon will solve it". It's basically a religion based on the belief that Musk is some sort of great inventor even though he's never actually invented anything. Nothing that somebody else hadn't already invented anyway.
@@AnthonyHandcock it never ceases to amaze me how people call him an inventor despite never inventing anything. its quite remarkable to say the least.
@@stephenhartley2853 The power of marketing.
lol you overestimate the reasoning power of fans.
@@AnthonyHandcock I'm not an elon fan and admit that a lot of his ideas are dumb. To be fair however an invention can use existing concepts. Just because the first touch screen phone (the iphone) used existing tech to create it, doesn't mean it wasn't an invention. Touch screens already existed on certain expensive pc monitors, the ability to call others already existed, as well as the ability to have apps/games on a phone. The IPhone combined it into a package we hadn't seen before, creating the modern smart phone, which we still consider a revolutionary invention to this day. Even if your invention is simply improving on already established concepts, its still considered an invention.
Fueling the star ship will take longer than any of the other steps you've mentioned combined.
Most human rated rockets have to be fueled after everyone is strapped in. Imagine having a CEO pay 10k to a chair for 5 hours without being about to use the bathroom or eat anything. Then having a half hour roller Laster ride.
Imagine being so important that you have a space craft that takes 5 hours to refuel waiting for you.
@@joeyhamilton6854 "Most human rated rockets have to be fueled after everyone is strapped in." - Sorry what? The Falcon 9 is the first human rated rocket ever that is fueled with the crew already on board. All the others were fuel first, people next. Also, it takes about 15-20 minutes to fuel a Starship.
@@TheYrthenarc this is very wrong
@@TheYrthenarc I don't think you have any idea how much fuel is in the starship and superheavy.
Alternative: just use a Zoom meeting
*Underrated comment!*
or bring yourself a book to read on a 10 hours flight, time flies faster
@@istymix Why do you have to go full intellectual wanna be, just bring something to keep you entertained and leave it at that.
@@abstractfactory8068 sure, that
@@istymix use RGB Headphones to time travel.
Using RGB, you can travel to mars in 5 minutes
I suspect a lot of the stuff Musk proposes is less about making serious proposals and more about maintaining his position as the world's pre-eminent 'futurist' and thus buoying his company stocks with his media presence.
Which still makes him worthy of debunking. But I think it's much less complete insanity and more just normal cynical stock manipulation but a businessman who just happens to know how to use a twitter account.
He already mentioned this in another video. Hes pretending to be tony stark to keep the tesla bubble inflated for his shareholders.
@@treehavn he himself tweeted that tesla was over valued and people tried to sue him over it T_T
dude has pretty much said this, literally he makes marketing by using his image
It's a terrible strategy and makes him look incompetent and immature. Anyone with a basic understanding of physics and maths can see right through it, like at least try to think of ACTUALLY useful projects instead of just saying whatever gets you trending on Twitter.
@@distantraveller9876 he has a very large cult-like following, and everyone talking about him and his stuff is free marketing. I’d say it’s an incredibly successful strategy. Him looking like an idiot is irrelevant, since stupidity has never stopped the elite before.
"You know, rocket have this attribute of being really fucking loud." Couldn't have phrased it better.
Lmao
So is that Honda Civic at 3am, y'know, I really couldn't tell the difference
The thing is, cutting down travel time just isn't that important in a world where we carry our work, entertainment and social life in our pockets.
There's really no problem with an 8hr flight from London to New York, so there's no need to "fix" it!
Honestly we need to rebuild our cities or have à good public transport since from what i have observed in my area is that people work either in their city or to the neighboring cities. Just 2 train stations away. However, out train stations are shizt
exactly, this whole "speed up" sounds soo outdated, is like pretending that you are that busy
When I was flying from LAX to Taiwan and I'd start feeling a little pissy about it being a 14 hour flight, I'd always remind myself that there was a day not long ago when the only way there was by steamship and the journey would take months.
@@Skank_and_Gutterboy your trip begins in the airplane seat, man, you can either enjoy the view, relax, drink a pepsi or be "those people"
@@talesdemidioful
Yep, no doubt.
This reminds me of a nightmare that I had where there was a ride at Universal Studios Orlando where they used a rocket powered slingshot to shoot you up into space that way the world would look like the Universal logo, but then if the pod you were in didn't land in exactly the right spot because of, like, wind you'd die. That legit sounds like if Elon made a theme park.
this trick can only be done once
Airline Nerd Rant Incoming: Nevermind the safety record or the physics, he doesn't even have a sound route network! He's ignoring everything we know about the airline industry. In the 2010s, mid-sized airplanes were developed which could fly long distances once only feasible with larger planes (and larger fuel tanks). This changed everything. As an example, it used to be that a passenger in a mid sized city, like Denver, would get on a little airplane which would transport them to a big airport with a denser population, like Las Angeles. In this busy city, there were enough people to fill a big plane. This large aircraft, now having enough passengers to be economically viable, would go to Tokyo. Today, however, a passenger can embark on a fuel efficient mid-sized plane, which can fly far but doesn't need as many passengers to turn a profit. A lower population city like Denver can now provide a nonstop flight to Tokyo. There is no layover in Las Angeles, and the passengers are happier. Customers overwhelmingly prefer direct flights, so the airlines completely restructured to buy more smaller long range airplanes. The jumbo jets which once flew between major cities are being retired. Airlines don't want to buy 500 passenger airplanes anymore, but Elon suggests we fill these Starships with 1,000 people??? Only routes between major world cities can accommodate this. And no one will want to go through security to get on an airplane in Denver, leave the airport in Las Angeles, go through more security to get on a rocket, and THEN go to Tokyo. His enemy isn't just supersonic airplanes, it's every airplane that can fly a direct route...
Very informative, thank you
Little perspective I can provide? Qantas was going ahead with something called project sunrise. Aka, direct flights from australia to anywhere in the world, with an extended range A350. At least before covid, not too sure about their plans now. Elon musk would be in competition with at least one major commercial airline, who would likely make more profit per flight unless elon charged a ridiculous sum. And even then! I doubt he can operate as many rockets, as Qantas can operate aircraft.
@@Destroyer_V0 i mean if it already costs a hefty sum to fly on a plane so imagine on a rocket, hed have to fund this thing out of this pocket, the only people i see using this are other dumb millionares
Wendover productions alt account.
Not to mention that Concorde largely showed the case where pretty much only business executives, and other business men would need to use such speed regularly.
Taking a 5-10 day cruise is ridiculously slow, but taking a three hour flight is too costly to be worth it. Most people were happy to take their six hour hop across the pond. The speed was worth the cost, and that wasn't the case for Concorde - basically.
1:15 - Can you imagine waking up EVERY DAY at 6.30 in new york city to a massive VROOOOOMM from a rocket?
"Being smart can make you rich, but being rich does not make you smart" -me watching Adam Something.
I fucking swear if this was already a quote and I never knew...
You smort
Watching Adam Something doesn't make you smart either. Neither being Adam Something does.
@@LukeVilent well you get one more perspective.
@@dopemaster4205 If only this perspective was supported by numbers that make sense. Viewing Earth is flat as also a perspective.
@@LukeVilent that perspective is proven wrong for this reality that we live in. But could be made into good films.
But i don't think Adam's perspective are completely wrong.
A few days ago I watched the recently released "Could Starship Be The New Concorde?" by Primal Space. After watching your video, I felt like watching it again, just with a little but more scepticism. Also kind of funny that the Wright Brothers where indeed featured, as if you already knew.
The trip on a boat would already eliminate all the speed advantages of the Starship. Actually, if Europe would build high speeds rail, we would not need any planes between Amsterdam and Berlin or most other large Western European cities, due to the long times that are required, or at least recommended (two hours) to be at the airport before flight departure.
Donde countries can’t afford that kind of infrastructure. Not everyone lives in developed countries.
@@bruno8516 if u don't live in a wealthy area, how are you supposed to pay tickets for a fucking rocket
There is something about replacing air travel with high speed trains nobody takes into account. All the time for security measures with airplanes have a root. It is the travel possibility where a*holes can harm the most people in one incident and get media coverage. If airtravel is replaced by highspeed trains, those trains will earn that place.
They will then be the prime target for those idiots. Meaning that we then get all the security stuff for train travel negating any improvement over air travel.
Those trains would then be even easier targets, as they move on a from of rails still. And attacking the rail and derailing something going 250-300kph i would argie would be easier for them than downing a plane.
So can we keep the slow trains and airtravel please?
@@nirfz If they ever built a hyperloop it would be even easier. Just punch a 10cm hole in the tube and the entire thing will pressurise catastrophically, killing everyone.
@@lennysmileyface If you mean the outer tube, then according to how i understood the working principle, the capsules containing passengers inside the tube would just screach to a halt if you puncture the vacuum tube.
If you meant the capsule with the word "tube" then yes, that would cause a pretty fast but disgusting looking end of the passengers. (In my opinion the main reason it will never be used in transporting people...the danger of having a malfunction that causes the capsule to not be sealed completely is too big.)
On an interview on Elon he basically said that: expanding is difficult as rockets are classified as advance military technology
hmm... i wonder _why..._ could it be the fact rockets are mostly used by government funded space programs for exploration of outer space instead of torturing normal people in glorified missles?
@@auliamate it might also be the fact that rockets are also the premier way of delivering nuclear warheads around the world
But I thought Mr genius Tony Stark man could come up with the schematics in less than an hour??? You mean to say he just purchases the technology that other people invented?
Cute pfp :)
aerospace engineer here. I agree with pretty much all you say that it's a fucking stupid idea with the only goal to make tech-nerds go "such wow". but you asked to correct your numbers so here they are:
4:10 I don't know where you got that 25% fuel for suborbital fights from, but it doesn't apply to starship e2e. It might be true if you just want to go "up" and back down again (like sub 2000km flights), but in the starship promo video they boast with 27.000 km/h, which is close to orbital velocity. calculating fuel for rockets is only dependent on payload mass and the velocity you want to achieve. so there is just a small difference in fuel between going e2e and going to low earth orbit.
I did some napkin math and maybe you can save 500t of fuel, but it doesn't really matter since it doesn't change the magnitude of the result. let's just focus on the first stage, since we will need to fill that 100% either way to reach those speeds. the capacity is about 1000t of methane and 2000t of o2. So burning that would release a bit less than 3000t of CO2. that's pretty much in line the graph you showed at 4:45. the passenger capacity of this thing is unknown, Musk claims 1000 passengers, which is wildly unrealistic in my opinion. But assuming that gives us about 3 tons of co2 per person for a long-haul flight.
your airplane co2 numbers are also quite off and I wonder where you got the numbers from. 5:02 "total emission of an airplane transatlantic is 1 ton"? that should raise your alarm bells man. I think the numbers you found are per passenger. A 787 can carry about 100t of fuel, so about 300t of CO2 for a long-haul flight (up to 14.000km, so pretty much anywhere on earth), make that half for an transatlantic flight, it doesn't matter. nowhere near 1 ton for the whole plane.
the passenger capacity for the 787 is 250 people, for full fuel capacity that's 1.2 tons of co2 per person.
as you can see, the co2 difference is not that big, about a factor of 2.5 (but it largely depends on the passenger capacity of the theoretical e2e starship, which cannot be known). that's mostly because the rocket only boosts for around 5 minutes and then cruises above in the thermosphere, while the aircraft has to plow through the lower stratosphere all the time. that means from an energy perspective, flights of over 10.000km would at least economically make kinda sense with e2e starship.
that doesn't mean that all the other concerns are not valid of course, the idea is still dumb.
good analysis man
Thank you for fact checking, this man should always have a major to check the scrips
@@RamenNarwal yes noticed that often he messes up the calculations smh
yes numbers are a bit off for airplane flights, however, other problems truly exist also one things that wasn't mentioned as a problem during the video which is how would you lift 1000 passengers + luggage to the rocket head?
@@the_imonem An error by a factor of 300, which should be obvious to anyone who knows the first thing about air travel and CO2 emissions, is not "a bit off". It's an indictment of his competence to make a video essay on the subject. Not to mention the comparison to the Concorde which also had many comfort, noise, security and fuel cost issues, like those cited here for the rockets.
It often feels like those elon musk ideas are thought up when he's in the shower for 5 minutes and then he sends a one-line message to his secretary so that his companies work it out without any sort of forethought put into the viability of the idea. Being surounded by yes men makes for poor business.
This was one of the original reasons he made spaceX
It's viable if they determine to, there are few thousands people working on it, definitely more brainpower than an youtuber from nowhere
Who cares where his ideas come from? When’s the last time you’ve created a business with a clear mission to accelerate the worlds transition to sustainable energy - and succeeded? I’m always amazed to see people trying to tear down a person or business that’s doing real good. Who does that?
@@damonknutson2855 Nobody cares where his ideas came from. Everyone cares how long he thinks about them. If the buisness's ideas are similar to "lets convert people to light to travel around the planet in less than a second", probably it's not doing real good
You're an idiot. His shower thoughts have revolutionised multiple industries
My favorite key feature of a transit system is that it's absolutely indistinguishable from ICBM launches
LooooooL
🤣🤣☺️☺️
Starship would be a hell of a MIRV bus. How many warheads could it hold? Hundreds surely.
It would also interfere with the beyond the horizon radar systems around the world, when a rocket transit system gets shot down by a ABM missile
@Erre Waser Hey, launching at the same time as a Starship launch might be good cover for an ICBM launch. Starship itself would be the greatest missile bus of all time. It could be a 150 warhead MIRV with a missile bus that could confound all defenses.
Is this Elon's true plan?
Hmm, yes, I had not considered quite how problematic going off schedule might be. Think I’d better cancel my tickets.
Addition to the G's part:
The average G- Force during a commercial flight lies between 0.75 and 1.25 G with 0.5 to 1.5 G's in a turbulent flight. So while saying that the average flight subjects you to 0.2 to 0.4 G's is technically correct (if you subtract or add those values from/to the normal 1G we have on earth) someone might misinterpret those numbers
Excatly!
I did misinterpret for a moment. Well, i'm stupid.
Everyday Astronaut has already run the mathematics of the co2 emissions in a proper way which is not just based on assumptions.
In addition, the Raptor engine runs on methane, and while a lot of methane does come from natural gas which is a fossil fuel, it can also be created biologically making it at least potentially sustainable. It is a hydrocarbon though so I will give you that, but it’s also the lowest CO2 producing hydrocarbon that is commonly used for fuel.
@@betabry42 C1H4 has the lowest ratio of hydrogen atoms (turned to water) to carbon atoms (turned to CO2) out of all the alkanes.
Renewable production would be great, though. Let's add some reverse cow enemas to all those factory farms.
Well burning methane is releasing the least GH gases out of all fossils, but if you ad leakage during extraction and transport, it comes down on average even worse than coal.
@@JrCo96 especially the fucking transportation of natural gas like oh god
1. In future, this could be used for transporting cargo. Human transportation would not be efficient and would be too costly.
2. It probably will use other fuel source aside from methane. Elon switched from normal kerosene based fuel to methane because it could be manufactured in mars. An alternative fuel, like hydrogen if he can build an engine efficient enough for it, will be required for this.
You have missed the part where no one except for Elon Musk and his friends can really afford this rocket flight
So ~1k - ~20k per flight per person is so expensive that only top billionaires can afford it?
Makes no sense
@@immigrantgaming420epic what I meant to say this is not for normal people, it's for the elites and riches only. I am not anti elitist, not anti capitalist. But I believe that when you have so much money and so many possibilites it's a waste to be creating another useless and counterproductive thing, when you can use those resources to make the actual scientific progress.
that's probably the point
@@immigrantgaming420epic wow so 10-20k is cheap for you? are you a billionaire too?
@@pranavyeole102 btw he didnt say that, he said it isnt as expensive as to be a thing only for top billionaires, sure a lot of people would not be able to afford it(me included) but still a lot of businessman would.
I think you might have missed the biggest issue with this idea: when have a thousand people ever needed to go across the globe all at once? The rocket would NEVER be at full capacity, and it's possible it could never be.
Forget that, there's the problem of clean up after each launch
There aren't 1000 people on this planet who can afford to dump about a million dollars on one-way ticket just so they can save few hours travelling in the first place.
At this point, most people would rather First-Class Plane tickets rather than to go on the starship
@@mrbichr8492 Too bad most people can't afford even afford those.
Similar problems arise with the hyperloop. You might be able (theoretically) to transport 20,000 people every day at high speed between Los Angeles and San Francisco or New York to Washington, maybe London to Berlin even, in under an hour but how many actually need or want to go there. About 10-20 % or so of that number typically !
1:54 Oh good, more Space Trash in low earth orbit. Guess we truly are headed for straight for the Wall-E timeline.
There’s no trash there mupet
I like that literally every single aspect of this idea is fundamentally flawed and it's still being advertised as a totally possible concept even by SpaceX's representatives.
Capital investment scam. It's like what "startups" do on Indiegogo, except this is at a larger scale.
@Nat20 Damage I don't think going to Mars is bunk. We will go there and I believe sooner rather than later although not for another decade or two. Colonizing Mars on the other hand is a total bullcrap. It is the next frontier that we will explore but the promise of colonizing it or making that into a capital investment is undeniably a scam.
"we carefully select our investors" is what the spaceX boss lady said. Meaning: "we only want investors dumb enough to believe this shit and will never go public and actually be accountable for this BS"
Its called marketing , the product is irrelevant if you can get funded . It wont last long, reality takes care of itself .
At absolute best, it would only be used a few times by a couple of rich jackasses who think first class is too cheap
3:06 I'm a college senior majoring in Aerospace Engineering. One important detail to keep in mind is that the data shown in this telemetry graph is for an _orbital_ launch, not suborbital. For most rocket launches, the bulk of its fuel mass is used to burn sideways to create a stable orbit at its maximum altitude along its trajectory (called "Apogee"). But for a suborbital point-to-point launch, there is no hard sideway burn at Apogee, just minor course corrections to line up the other end of the rocket's trajectory with your landing site. By minimizing your Apogee and "flattening" the arc shape of your trajectory, you can reduce the amount of acceleration onboard since it can spread the burn out over a longer period of time. In fact, a flatter arc would also mean that the rocket is spending more time burning in a thinner part of the atmosphere, which can increase the efficiency of the engines over the duration of the flight!
very good point
So basically like a plane?
@@LeBTrung No, not really. Every aircraft needs 2 things to stay in flight: a way to keep it in the air, and a way to move it forward. Subsonic to low-supersonic aircraft use the geometry of their wings to generate the lift needed to stay in the air, so their engines only need to deliver thrust to keep it moving forward. Thus, the more air is available, the more efficiently it can fly.
But rockets, on the other hand, can’t use lifting surfaces to fly. Its engines must deliver thrust to maintain both the horizontal and vertical components of its flight path. So, rather than flying with the aid of aerodynamics like a plane, a rocket uses a “ballistic trajectory” to throw itself like a baseball. So, in order to avoid drag as much as possible, a rocket will fly much more efficiently when there is less outside air.
In most cases, rockets will make a very hard burn in order to get out of the atmosphere as quickly as possible. From there, without air to slow it down, the rocket can coast along the rest of its arc without needing to make any burns until it needs to change course (such as circularizing into orbit or adjusting its landing site). The faster a rocket changes its velocity over time, the higher its acceleration will be. Likewise, the longer it can stretch out a burn over time, the lower its acceleration will be.
But the _amount the rocket’s velocity needs to change_ (we call this “delta-V”) will remain the same whether you make a high burn with a low burn time, or a low burn with a high burn time. And when most of that burn is performed in the upper atmosphere, the lack of drag allows the engines to deliver that delta-V for much less fuel than a short hard burn in the thicker, lower atmosphere.
Very true, but i think we both can see that even the suborbital flight would have too many issues to be viable compared to other methods not involving rockets.
Well, when you land you'll have fun changing your pants because the force of taking off is gonna force all that 💩 out
Haha
Musk = Trump2.o
10:13 "Not even reality or basic maths can stop him" 😄
It's round about the same absurdity level of all his other claims, but yeah this one probably takes the crown.
6:58 what about the time taken up by making sure all the people who passed out are ok, and also that they _just_ passed out and not away?
I dont know why this is so funny lol. Passed out and not away lmaoo
Elon: “I am a visionary dedicated to saving the environment with my electric car company”
also Elon: “planes annoy me so I want to travel around in fucking rockets”
I’m beginning to think he isn’t actually going to save the world from climate change
Do rockets and planes have tbe same levels of the same kinds of pollution?
we have save the planet and begin expanding off world now. there is no one or the other its both or die out.
They plan to make the methane from co2 collected from the atmosphere, therefore making it technically carbon neutral.
Making the fuel just requires carbon dioxide, water, and energy
CO2 + 2H2O -> CH4 + 2O2
Ultimately this makes it as carbon neutral as whatever generated the electricity to make the fuel.
No individuals, especially billionaires, will save us from climate change.
@@azureprophet If billionaires were at least rational they would try to preserve the exploitative system that amassed them this wealth but they aren't .Guess they gonna have to find out the hard way that money doesn't get you anything without a sosciety .
I love these videos because they’re so great at showing how the empire just absolutely has no clothes, with proper research to explain it.
These videos kinda suck.
you mean emperor
@@ZombieLincoln666 Thanks! Now I'm imagining an empire where _no-one_ has clothes!
"The rocket worked perfectly except for landing on the wrong planet."
Wernher Von Braun
Yeah the Wright brothers excuse is pretty bad. Yes they learned to fly but even when they had a working prototype it was nothing that was even remotely commercial viable for a long long time. At best it gave rich thrill seekers a short ride of a couple miles or two. Able to carry one or two people hanging on the wings and other such silly things.
They also had a working prototype before trying to sell it while Elon Musk seems to keep wanting money, investors and selling his product before is more than a dream on paper. It would be like the Wright Brothers selling international flights before their first test even got off the ground.
"The hyperloop is not complete shit on the surface." Yeah because that would be a train :D
Or a road.
...it's basically a tunnel road,
Elon Musk: Bitcoin is too environmentally unfriendly, don't buy it.
Also Elon Musk: We're going to use rocket fuel to commute between continents.
Methalox is actually pretty eco-friendly, depending on how it’s made. The exhaust is mostly water and CO2, and if they manufacture the methane on site as I believe they intend to, it should be entirely carbon neutral - actually it will remove some carbon, since they’ll burn fuel in space.
@@201bio A: Burning ANY hydrocarbon gives you "mostly water and CO2". That includes oil.
B: They're not going outside Earth's gravity well. They're not even going to ISS levels. Anything deposited at that altitude will integrate into the atmosphere. You can't just dump gas at the edge of space and say it's out of the environment.
@@nicholasrandall3507 B: I forgot the conversation was about Earth to Earth Starship, you’re totally right.
A: I think the idea is to pull CO2 out of the air to make the methane. So Starship becomes effectively carbon neutral. That all depends on whether or not they’ll create their own fuel, and how they do it though.
That said, the everyday astronaut (a UA-camr) has a very good video on the environmental impact of rocketry, which could be worth a watch.
@@201bio If they've improved the CO2 extraction tech, that's excellent. Last I heard it was horribly inefficient, but that was several years ago.
Given how much fuel is required to extract rare minerals to make solar panels, even using green tech to manufacture hydrocarbons it would be difficult to achieve true carbon neutrality. Grass is technically still superior to us in that regard.
El Salvador is using geothermal power plants for their bitcoin mining.
The other thing about the Wright Brothers is that I've seen the footage of flying machines that actually looked like flawed, but otherwise workable prototypes made by other aviators. They actually did fly for a little bit and clearly were on the right track. It wasn't a singular visionary, some of them actually knew what they were doing, even if everybody else were fools. Elon Musk is just rich enough to afford people who have some idea of what to do.
You probably shoot a rocket from London (well somewhere off the Essex soast) to Tokyo (or somewhere off the coast in Sagami Bay). If he throws enough money at it, he will probably manage that bit.
Will he get enough passengers to cover the running costs? No.
Most people with the smarts to figure this stuff out don't have the drive or imagination to do it by them selves, that's why people in history like Elon exist, bring the right people together and be the person pushing the ideas forward since everyone else is content sitting on their ass waiting for their life to be over
@@matthewsharp1178
Elon Musk is an unqualified LARPER. None of his proposed "ideas" has thus far yielded any results. Dunno why you thought unironically pushing him as some visionary on a channel that bashes "Great Men" was the idea that you had.
@@afqwa423 wait wait wait whaatttt? Lmfao have you heard of Tesla? Do you use PayPal at all?
@@afqwa423 also I'm confused, I was agreeing with your original comment lmao, not sure why you felt offended by that? Good luck living with so much hate dude, I bet your successful aren't you
I'm loving this... I hated the Hyperloop from the start - I thought: "what happens when you get stuck" and then I had horrible nightmares about being trapped in an underground tunnel. I never heard of this Earth to Earth plan, so now I'm looking forward to nightmares about falling to my death in a malfunctioning rocket!
Look at the bright side: you can continue watching YT through your Neuralink :o)
@@reaperinsaltbrine5211 That's scary
@@issan1566 What's scarier is having commercials being uploaded to your brain. It's like that episode of black mirror where you can't use a sink without watching a sponsored ad
"A good rule for rocket experimenters to follow is this: always assume that it will explode.” -Astronautics, issue 38, October 1937
You say 1%? I played XCOM and it goes like this:
Alien has a 1% shot: always gets it!
Your guys with 99%: miss!
the real question is are we the aliens or the player....god i hope were the aliens....
i remember that quotes from civ v/vi lmao
I mean, the Wright brothers didn't immediately start trying to convince people that flying machines were the best way to get to the local store. I feel that that is the key difference. Musk just buys stuff and then tries to shoehorn that thing into as many applications as possible, regardless of efficiency.
Musk: *"If it ain't broke, **_FIX IT 'TILL IT IS!!!!!!!!"_*
One thing that wasn't mentioned in the video is that since the launch pads have to be out in the sea, the potential market is already limited to cities that have shores which is well... a small fraction of all the cities in the World. With supersonic flights you could at least theoretically fly to anywhere
I don't think that is super fair, since a lot of (most?) countries have also banned supersonic flight over land, so youd still need to be on the coast unless you're doing part of your journey subsonically.
@@Synthetica9 Sure, but at least you can. For example a New York - Munich flight would be possible flying supersonic through the Atlantic ocean, and slowing down for the last short segment over Europe.
That would be impossible with this rocket thingy.
Only 80% of World's population live close to shoreline. Only 80%!
"a small fraction of all the cities in the World." isnt correct.
The vast majority of cities are at the coast or close to it like @@skipperg4436 mentioned
All other citys are usually at rivers
Also You have to pack bagages, people to the boat and go to the station. than upack the people and bagages and pack them on the ship. That alone will take an hour ... than upack them after landing another hour.
I always thought SpaceX and this Rocket to earth stuff was some of Elon's dumbest projects. Not only do they seemed doomed to fail like most of his money burning ventures. It also proves he's a massive hypocrite. Most his projects are about going "Green" and saving the planet....
Then he pushes commercial rocket flight, one of the worst forms of transportation possible for the environment. About the only thing that could be worse is a nuclear powered submarine with a leaky reactor core.
Actually I think the nuclear reactor would be better than the rocket, as radiation doesn’t actually harm the planet overall (like burning fossil fuels does) and is pretty localized
The leaking nuclear submarine might even be better lol
I completely agree that the idea is flawed, but the fuel used in this one is Methane, which can be completely renewable produced, so you could call it green if you had an abundance of clean electricity. I'm disappointed in Adam for not mentioning that.
@@andrewschmidt434 Except Adam's argument isn't the source of the fuel, but the results of its combustion.
Considering the realistic number of rocket launches achievable in one day, the carbon emission output would be minuscule compared to airplanes. Since you argue this form of transportation will never be adopted on a mass scale, this will never become an issue
I always appreciate when someone is willing to point out absurdity.
OK. Paying over $1000 per share for TSLA is totally fucking absurb.
Glad he’s not afraid to call out Elon. Given that Elon fans are the most immature bunch out there and will bombard anyone with negative things to say about their almighty idol Elon.
Most of his arguments are dumb and most of those "problems" are overdramatized. This video is just pure Elon Musk hate, not intelligent criticism.
He's hoping to put 1000 people into one starship? That will either make the seating in RyanAir seem like luxury travel in comparison or be one big starship - about 2.5 times as big as a Jumbo Jet.
11:10 "... and to feed into this movement of Scientism in our popular culture. Scientism being this essentially worship of science without ever understanding any of it, or following any of its principals."
I wanna marry this quote. Is this quote single?
All of Elon Musk's "ideas" come straight from science fiction. I was reading about sub-orbitals being normal way back in the mid-80's. Books that were written in the 40's and 50's at that. It's just pure science fiction with little to no practical utility aside from 'hurr durr futurism lol'.
The CO2 calculations didn't include slowing the rocket down for landing, this would drastically increase the amount of fuel it needs to burn.
They didn't make sense whatsoever anyway, because he took per person data for the flight and total data for the Starship. And the rocket slowing down burns some (which I think is already in that number) but it's really actually not much because most of the speed is bled of through the atmosphere.
@@n3lis94 Speed is bled off, yes, buy you have to carry all the fuel you need up when you start the journey. And every pound of extra fuel you carry up will need even more fuel to get it up.
Its great you also spotted it. That was a surprisingly low number for an entire plane per hour.
@@conception3509 yeah I wonder how he didn’t wonder how that was ridiculously low
CH4 is produce by CO2 for Starship, They capture CO2 and release it so we can admit that starship is neutral
Missile defence systems after shooting down a Starship: "Oh no... anyway"
This guy: "the Wright Brothers invented the air plane"
Santos Drummond: "Am I a joke to you???"
They say the same with subs.
The first actual submarine was made by Spain, but the americans always will Claim they invented something first.
@@lordjor96 and even came with the ideia to call thenselves "Americans", like USA was the entire continent
"América for the Americans"
Said the moron law
This guy: "Santos Drummond"
Santos Dumont: Am I a joke to you?
Hold up, are we referring to practical design or just whoever managed to get off the ground first?
I only ask as it’s the reason why we give the idea of DC to Edison or AC to Nikola, they didn’t make it but they made the idea practical.
at 3:36 did you mean 1.2 - 1.4 g?
0:45
These scenes remind me of Bad Piggies ngl
One other point - let's take London to Shanghai as an example. You're in Russia, and you see a big f*ck off rocket accelerating quickly above European airspace. And now it's gone suborbital and oh God, is it heading for Moscow? No time to ask questions, launch a counterstrike!
Also, has anyone here seen an actual rocket launch in live? Rockets literally take forever to prepare before they can take off. Sure Starship can reach major cities within an hour but how about the 3-5 hours of waiting before the launch? Starship is just not practical at all. I feel like this is the Zeppelins of our age and I feel that there is going to be a major disaster with this one.
I mean, preparation time can TECHNICALLY be worked around by having a pre-prepared launch vehicle by the time passengers arrive.
The passengers would only experience a boarding time. What possible use could it be to ask the passengers to arrive and sit on their hands in good time while fueling is performed?
@@nottoday3817 And then they scrub the launch because the weather wasn't quite right.
Refuel and Refly time is expected to be ~45 minutes from landing to launch for Starship. It's an economy of scale thing with ~100-150 planned Starships within a decade. I understand a lot of the hesitation and question the economics of it myself but it is doable.
@@connoro1373 You barely get 45 minutes on an airplane. Ryan Air has 30minutes and that's one of the lowest. And airplanes are produced like hundreds per year, with thousands in active service, not 150 over a decade. So, no. You cannot just 'economies of scale' everything like a handwaver. There are some processes which take time and need to take time to operate safely.
I always thought the dude is the world's greatest con artist.
Seriously, I mean sure his ideas are pretty out there but havant you seen the actual progress happening at starbase at all??
Literally a couple of weeks away from first stacked demo flight
@@Kepler444f And a rocket will fly? Wow. Haven't seen that.
@@britishrocklovingyank3491 the diffrence is that the entire rocket was developed in a year...
@@RichMiniön-r2m So?
Given the cost of rocket fuel, crew costs, maintenance costs, and markup, I cant imagine how expensive tickets would be. I imagine it would be very difficult to actually fill one of these things.
This idea of using rockets for intercontinental travel is an old one, that appears most often in older sci-fi, like 1960's, 1950's and maybe even the 1940's. I believe that "The Man in the High Castle" and I think that it's a thing in some Bradbury stories, such as "The Martian Chronicles"...and plenty more from that era.
In conclusion, this proposed system is not only more dangerous but also even more harmful to the environment than the old Soviet practice of leaving nuclear waste unsupervised on a public parking lot
One thing I can say is that Elon is a marketing genius. He bombards the interweb with crap, keeping the "beleivers" beleiving, whether good or bad to keep his stock price high. Best thing you can do is scroll right past and not click on any Tesla or Musk articles.
When the symptoms of traveling at extreme speeds comes up, all that comes to mind is Shatners description of what it was like for him to travel to space. And lo and behold, he portrayed all symptoms described perfectly lol
It is a known fact that elon is the type of guy that skips on logistics, skips all the things that are boring and goes straight for the fun part.
THIS!
Bejos planned to commercialise space travel
Musk: I will spacify travel
It’s Elon Musk’s secret project to send people to Mars without their knowledge lol 😆
This is exactly what I was thinking. 😂
Just my luck Elon would send my luggage to Mars while sending me somewhere else.
"Wait this isn't Dubai, this is Mars!"
@@Webexplr Put a giant skyscraper on Mars and it’d be hard to tell the difference I bet.
Mars is a suicide mission eventually you'll get cancer from the surface radiation
The Starship is already an incredible piece of technology, and it can be a revolutionary high-capacity rocket. As a mode of transport, it's another gadgetbahn, but IN SPACE
That cg demo at the start reminded me of a Bosnian Ape Society video. I was waiting for it to be a tutorial on how to win at chess
You know Musk's in trouble when his ideas are comparable to Bosnian Ape Society (which is an awesome channel, but that's like your society being unironically comparable to South Park).
Or how to protect my computer from a M1A2 SEPv3 Abrams tank.
2:48 This guy has such a way with words it's legit amazing.
I swear most of Elon’s projects are something an “ideas guy” comes up with except people don’t question him cause of his wealth and popularity
Yes good old capitalism
His success might have something to do with it too
not really, because his first idea "land a rocket booster" was laughable, even Neil Armstrong laughed at it
@@mg00 DC-X is not a rocket booster ._. it is a reusable SSTO vehicle prototype
@@mg00 booster is standard rocket terminology lol
I'm glad to find more of these critical videos online. Thunderfoot, Common Sceptic and Adam Something. You are doing an excellent job, keep it up. People need to have their eyes open.
their eyes open to this? Don't get me wrong, this channel produces videos I agree with, but this video literally makes me mad because of the ridiculous number of mistakes. This is genuinely not a critical video.
Great video! I did notice one error: When you were showing the engine cycle, you used the graphic for fuel-rich staged combustion instead of full flow staged combustion, which does use 2 turbopumps, not 1.
0:10 Did someone told them this? We already had balons for many years
space x: "BURN FOSSIL FUELS!!!"
tesla: "we produce 0 carbon emissions. :)"
same ceo?? makes no sense
3:16 that's how I feel by the afternoon in just regular 1g
Well, if he built the Starship with synthetic self-fixing Hyper Diamonds, I'm sure it would be much safer than a jet. Right?
I definitely love the "thrust go brr" part at 8:30
5:23 You cant compare the CO2 per Person with the overall CO2 Emission, if a Starship carries 850 person, you also only have a Co2 Emission of 800 kg
Wanted to mention that, too. The one for the airplane is clearly per person while the starship one is in total. Overall the co2 emission seem pretty similar
He corrected himself in a pinned comment 4 months ago.
“Starship” … I don’t think Elon quite know’s what that means. Nor has he seen a single episode of Star Trek. A ‘Star Ship’ travels … BETWEEN THE STARS.
If the rocket engines used in Starship had liquid hydrogen as fuel, then the fossile fuel argument wouldn't hold water. But other than that, it's still a dumb idea. Also, the raptor engines are insanely complex, and full flow staged combustion is incredibly difficult to pull off from an engineering perspective. That's why we don't really see it in rockets, like at all almost.
Not until now that is. This is how rocket science technology progresses with cutting edge rockets. Look how many other recent launches into space broke the mold for deploying extremely advanced and complicated instruments. The JWST for ex. Now having said that we are still in early stages of testing these Raptors. Time will tell.
And yeah as far as this earth to earth ship I think that is a dumb idea as well.
@@michaeldeierhoi4096 I don't like Elon Musk at all really. But I do like what he's doing with SpaceX. I love space, rocketry, and cosmology in general. Of course we have had closed cycle rocket engines similar to the Raptor for a long time now. Take the RS-25 for example, which powered the Space Shuttle since the 80s. It is considered to be one of, if not the greatest rocket engine ever made along with the Soviet NK and RD engines. I am excited to see how the Raptor progresses.
Finally people who dont just outright make fun of starships existence
Wouldn’t all the vibration from the launch platform fuck with the sea life something fierce?
As long as it's done by Mr Musk and his companies that doesn't matter, just like the emissions and fuel used.
(Already the case with his current rockets. They land not like a spaceshuttle by gliding, but they use thrust of the rocket engines to land vertically. Not the most fuel efficent way. So they have to take a lot more fuel with them for the landing. Meaning they burn more fuel propelling the aditional weight on the way up.)
@@nirfz Landing vertically actually is more Fuel efficient, because you don't haul Wings and Control Surfaces into Space which adds a lot of dead Weight. The additional Fuel for the Suicide Burn (KSP Term), aka "Hoverslam" (Elon Musk Buzzword-Bullshit) is much lighter than that. Even though I hate Elon Musk and especiall the Fanboys, I have to admit that SpaceX has achieved some pretty awesome Things in Rocketry, so did Tesla for Electric Cars (I hate the Idea of giant Touchscreens in Cars, or Screens in general). Then again, IIRC these Companies were already around when Elon Musk started investing and marketing them.
@@Genius_at_Work I have the same feelings towards big touch input displays in cars. But i can't imagine that amount of fuel and it's storage as well as additional control nozzles for the vertical landing to be lighter than the orbiter wings. Those wings and control surfaces meant that in landing 0 fuel is needed.
I'd compare it to the Harrier aircraft, where it showed that any vertical landing or starting cost a lot more fuel than conventional landing and starting. And the Harrier had way less speed to slow down for landing than the rockets.
Your criticism of Elon Musk is hilarious. You're great at making his stupidity even funnier XD
Adam: we have reached peak Idiocracy
Tik toker's: hold my fitness power
Also the wright brothers literally worked on the ideas, Elon has never lifted a finger
11:14 "Movement of scientism = worship of science without ever understanding anything of it or following any of its principles"
well said haha
Better than talking snakes
Counterchallenge to Elon Musk:
Prove to the world that your "starship" rocket is as safe as air travel.
By riding it yourself over 50,000 Earth-to-Earth trips.
I mean, he'd probably be on the inaugural flight of the E2E program. Asking him to do it _now_ is kinda dumb, because Starship isn't ready yet even by his optimistic standards. Granted, the idea of E2E is also really fucking dumb.
A bunch of ballistic missiles flying around won't confuse the detection systems of nuclear armed countries. Surely.
The Raptor Engines use Methane as propellant, which can be made by extracting CO2 from the atmosphere and combining it with H2. The Methane mixes and burns with liquid Oxygen to release back the CO2 plus H2O (and some trace gasses caused by the flame reacting with the atmosphere). That way, no new Carbon is released into the atmosphere unlike RP-1, which uses fossil fuels and adds new Carbon into the atmosphere. It’s probably the second cleanest rocket propellant after Hydrogen.
Thank you for this, I also think it was a bit of an unfair to call methalox “fossil fuel” and compare its emissions with other engines and furls only by amount and not by chemical makeup.
Making that methane in the first place is very impractical.
Making anything is impractical
I had a Musk fanboy tell me about this recently. Nothing I said would change his mind. I did refer him to another YT channel owned by a well known British Musk critic (think weather limb 😊) but he was having none of it.
What is the critic's name?
Remember the Gravitron ride you can find on fairs?
Those let you experience at least 2G, and up to 3G.
This will allow you to stand vertically on the walls.
Now imagine going for 15 to 30 minutes at 3G.
Where do you get those numbers? 15 Minutes at 3g would get you to close to 100,000km/h. If I didn't make a mistake, a 3g burn takes 4.25 minutes to reach 27,000 km/h. For me personally, I would not consider this a problem, but for many others, it might be pretty tough.