SpaceX Starship New Landing Method Somehow SHOCKED the whole NASA...
Вставка
- Опубліковано 15 вер 2024
- SpaceX Starship New Landing Method Somehow SHOCKED the whole NASA...
===
#techmap #techmaps #elonmusk #starshipspacex
===
1) SOURCES OF THUMBNAIL
2) SOURCES OF IMAGES AND VIDEOS
Ryan Hansen Space: / ryanhansenspace
/ ryanhansenspace
@Considercosmos: / considercosmos
Cosmic Perspective: / @cosmicperspective
LabPadre Space: / labpadre
/ labpadre
TijnM : / m_tijn
/ @tijn_m
iamVisual:
/ visual_iam
/ @iamvisualvfx
Evan Karen: / @evankaren
C-bass Productions: / cbassproductions
Farryfaz: / farryfaz
Tony Bela : / infographictony
Lewis Knaggs: / @lewisknaggs
/ lewisknaggs42
PRØXIMA ⁂
/ @proxicentia
ErcX: / ercxspace
Clarence365: / clarence3652
/ @clarence3654
John Cargile: / groundtruthpics
WAI: / @whataboutit
/ felixschlang
Fabian Ramirez
/ texas_lizard
StarshipGazer: / starshipgazer
/ starshipgazer
@3D_SPARTANAC: / 3d_spartanac
@MarkoM3D: / markom3d
SpacePadre : / spacepadreisle
C-bass Productions: / cbassproductions
Everyday Astronaut: / erdayastronaut
/ everydayastronaut
Ashtorak : / ashtorak
===
SpaceX Starship New Landing Method Somehow SHOCKED the whole NASA...
First of all, they can come closer to the real catch attempt on flight 5. Secondly, they can test the ability to land Super Heavy offshore.
Honestly, several years ago, SpaceX unveiled its intention to land the Super Heavy Booster on a droneship.
Although there are many opposing debates, can't help but mention its great advantages for SpaceX's long-term goals, clearly shown in Starship's Flight 3 in mid-March.
There is likely nothing better than getting the extra performance and increased payload without jettisoning anything like a hot staging ring just by landing downrange.
The location for offshore landing could be a platform in the Gulf of Mexico somewhere, assuming that SpaceX built a Mechazilla tower on said platform. And likely on a larger drone ship than is currently used for the Falcon 9 first stage.
SpaceX Starship New Landing Method Somehow SHOCKED the whole NASA...
A conventional launch mission will leave the stage with close to as little fuel as possible by the time it detaches in order to be efficient. But it does not make sense to waste a significant amount of fuel, up to 10% to make that return to Boca Chica. That number matters while 80% of the fuel is consumed in the first place and the booster just has 20% remaining for in-flight activities.
However, keep in mind that this is only a reference to the test flight and the reality is much tougher.
Musk partly emphasized it as follows:
"any emissions that are going to particularly to geostationary orbit um or to escape velocity uh anything beyond earth uh would it is likely to need to land on the ship"
SpaceX Starship New Landing Method Somehow SHOCKED the whole NASA...
Launches to GEO or Earth escape require too much fuel for the rocket to reverse its horizontal velocity and return to the launch site. It would result in additional wear and tear on the booster.
An advantage of ASDS is the vessel can be positioned near the spaceport. So, it’s far cheaper to bring the rocket back on a ship than to fly it back with fuel! So, they can load only as much fuel as they will need to deliver the payload and then mostly fall and glide for a powered landing on the barge.
===
Subcribe TechMap: tinyurl.com/3z5...
Boca Chick ah? Me thinks you need a new AI speech program!
I noted this, thanks
@@techmap9 no u said Boca chi..(Short I sound) cah.. it is Boca chi (long e) sound ca.. that's how u say..
2:58 ISS at 1400 to 1600 km? I don't think so. It's around 415 to 420 km.
The high tower on a platform at sea is somewhat of a problem...so drop a cylinder down in the water on the platform so the return ship drops in the tube and is caught by the arms partly above the platform...I can draw up a prototype if needed...👽...🖖
I'm not sure they can build a tube that could hold up to the heat and power of the engines. Plus the extreme sound and heat waves would be extremely destructive when contained within a tube and only able to escape by passing back up the tube and over the rocket. That blast would rip apart the rocket before it got out of the tube.
Instead of a tower on a floating barge it could have a hole, so the barge could incorporate a huge tube sealed at the bottom there would be negligible sway problems
What would you do with the exhaust gases being blown into the tube once the booster reaches the top of the tube?
@@lotuselansteve This would be for landing not take off.
The drone ship is necessary because of the sonic boom. The sonic boom on the falcon 9 is bad enough with the mass of the starship. It would be three times worse and the local communities will not be able to handle multiple landings
due to belly flop maneuver there is no sonic boom at all
You want "Likes"? Stop the "Humiliated" and "Shocked" nonsense in the caption!!!
I only use it because it involves some UA-cam algorithm. Sorry if this makes you uncomfortable
Please ban AI video's. Total waste of time
As long as all the hardware is reused, perfecting and making the process cheaper will come with experience.
If the returns are coming down in the Gulf of Mexico, a former oil platform might be a good option. It could be quickly converted and would be stable whatever the weather.
Wow, lots of things happening, great video enjoyed watching 👍👍
Yeah, what ever they do it's going to be very exciting to see.
It currently takes 2 days to truck in enough cryogenics for a starship full wet dress rehearsal and one launch-on-the-first-try (per tower.) Or I should say it has taken 2 days to truck it in. If they have added transfer stations to the tank farm, that reduces the required time.
Even if booster only takes 8 minutes to return to launch site, starship will take many hours. For a single one of either type, at best they will launch 2x a day, because the depot/target orbital plane crosses the launch site 2x a day.
If they don't beef up the tank farm capacity, it's more than half a week between launches. If they do beef up tank farm capacity, or arrange industrial pipeline to site, they can launch as frequently as they have booster+ship ready at orbital plane crossing (temporarily Ignoring the time for launch license approval.) If they don't need 2 days to truck in propellant, and they use 2 nearly-simultaneous towers each in Florida and Texas, they can get 4 loads up per 12h, or whatever the tank farm refill time is, whichever is greater. Texas could launch about 66 minutes after Florida, every 12h.
By the time they get a launch pad that doesn't need to be repaired after every launch, they will be able to launch back-to-back in less than a week. 12 days is highly pessimistic.
Be Difficult --- Starship Booster is a Cylinder maybe 10 to 20 times the Volume of Falcon 9 and just the Wind Loads & Weight Controlled to Plus/Minus a Few Feet---- God Bless Those Guys.
Presumeably the tower on a platform will need to be considerably shorter for stability,
The oil rig should have a cutout in plan (to resemble a ‘U’ shape. Have a barge enter at sea level and dock with the sea-bed tethered oil rig. Land the booster (either with legs or using a shortened tower), so that the bottom of the booster approaches sea-level (not 40 m or so up in the air). It would be way more stable.
Short legs concern me due to the rebound pressure wave of the thrust with such close proximity of the engines!
10-15 launches to refuel for one mission??? WTF?!?!!?!!!? They were able to do it in the FRIGGEN ‘60’s on one tank. Your tell me we just can’t manage to do it with one top-off?!?!?!??
The ISS is 1,400 to 1,600 Km up? WOW. What an achievement. Just out of curiosity, where do you get your facts?
At least you're in line with international measurements. Metric. Thx.
400 Km above sea level. Above Boca Chi-caaaah.
@@v.prestorpnrcrtlcrt2096 god damn AI voice overs on freaking every thing
@v.prestorpnrcrtlcrt2096 No! At 1,400 to 1,600 km the International Space CENTER (ISC for short) is located. It looks like I missed that one for years! The International Space Station (ISS) orbits at around 400 km, as is generally known. 😜
@@therollingpalankeen I think you missed the jest by misreading my comment. ISC? Whatever. Chica.
@@v.prestorpnrcrtlcrt2096 No, not at all. You missed mine! 😉 Listen carefully at 3:02
Boca who?
Yeah another AI channel. Just find the three dots and then click 'do not recommend this channel'
Reshaping Booster and SN to a slimmer shape to glide ride the atmosphere
could make room for more fuel and save fuel in travelling back to landing
Reshaping would make vehicles better at deflecting Plasa re-entry forces
Hey ya Elon, just wondering if quantum locking might be able to assist in the landing of Starship. Just a thought.
Launch tower is ~17x17x145m, probably weighs ~2650mT with just the structure, piping, decking, stairs, etc. Concrete in the legs ~203mT. Disregarding stability, you'd need a 20m empty cube to float just the tower+concrete, say another 245mT. If you scale up a F9 drone ship, you get 90x158x10m, say 4400mT. Stretched booster+ship+cargo+prop ~6500mT. Total 14000mT, with ~20% of that being just a tall tower sticking up almost as far as the drone is long. Probably will need some huge seawater ballast tanks for stability, and some massive station-keeping engines..
The oil platform is a good idea that should be explored
For starship and booster they're going to need two of those joined together with gyro stabilizers and probably a catamaran/trimaran setup to handle rough seas.
Most likely they're going to need a sunken holding point to lower the center of gravity and stabilize the rocket ships.
Alternatively a permanent offshore platform would be more stable.
Your language is so technical, it's like you are addressing a seminar of nuclear scientists.
I think spacex stated last year, the launch sequence for tankers was 6 hours apart.
thanks for sharing
How about seabed-tethered, refurbished oil platform with short catch tower, and a cutout (to make it resemble a U-shape in plan). Bring in barges from on shore (near sea level). So the booster would, in effect, land at near sea level (rather than at the oil platform platform level. This would stabilize the platform, and allow for easier egress of the booster after landing.
How about getting the next AC carrier the Navy stops using. Big enough to build two towers and enough room below to repair or even build new ships. Add 4 jacks that could go down many yards to attach to the bottom and you have a space platform that could work anywhere in the world, it can attach to the bottom, and also anywhere in good weather.
Great idea. I like that.
This is convoluted speculation. The only thing SpaceX is talking about is catching the boosters, near instantaneous turnaround time, and on orbit refuelling.
Yes StarShip will need landing legs for Moon, Mars and USSF. There will be NO tower or launch pan but for Drone Ship, Moon and Mars can make a pad. It will take 7 each 8m HEX connecting for a pad. So StarShip will need legs.
Terrible AI commentator.
AI audio sucks
I am fully expecting that the first Starship mission with 2 Starships docking in pair is Mission 69.
Best solution might be to make a smaller upper stage (Lunar Starship) for Artemis. If it had a diameter of 7 meters and made from aluminium alloy like falcon, it would be more tha two times lighter and amount of tanker launches would be halved at least.
This video is lacking any language editing. The narrative is obviously not written by a native English speaker.
Blue origin and ULA are just jealous of SpaceX's advancements. They could put them out of business.
It seems more likely to me that offshore launches will happen than landings. Figure in the noise factor when the Starship takes off, and think about that happening daily. Those launch sites are going to have to be a long way from cities. Landing and reusing these beasts is a real problem.
ISS average altitude closer to 400km than 1400km.
Best part is “Boca shikah” at 1:36. Dude, that’s not how you pronounce it!
They misspelled the text they gave to the AI voice.
I miss falcon 9 lunches 😢🥺
Best ham n cheese ever!
I think it is also reasonable for SpaceX to build landing/launch sites in Africa, India or Australia, and Hawaii. That way a Starship can launch from Texas and land in Florida or elsewhere. I also expect Starship to build separate launch and landing towers at each site.
They will do it in the future once the point-to-point travel on Earth goes reality
@@techmap9 I think it is also a good idea to have multiple landing points even without point-to-point. They will already have "return to down-trajectory" possible with Texas and Florida.
I think the ultimate way to do this is to have launch and landing/refurbishment sites spread around the world. Launch from site one, land -refurbish-launch from site two. Launch from site two, land-refurbish-launch from site 3. Keep going until you get back to site one. What you transport on the surface is only the payload, which is much smaller and cheaper than the entire rocket. And, since many of the sites are close to water, transport of the payloads can be by ship.
Costs of a launch would now depend on launch location in addition to other factors...
Great Video ! The SpaceX Tanker Starship is best to launch from an ocean platform in case of a RUD ! The Starship Booster can then land on a Drone Ship with Legs ! The Tanker Starship will mate with the LEO Fuel Depot with the LEO CSS nearby ! A good location for the low inclination LEO CSS with a Fuel Depot nearby is heading East from the KSC at about a 28.5 deg. orbit ! This 28.5 deg orbit can support missions to the moon ! Going to the ISS (is a big detour) to go to the moon is a waste of time, fuel, energy and USD/U$D ! The Tech developed to return to the moon to stay, can take US and the world to Mars and beyond ! tjl
Amazing info, thanks
Landing around Starbase is a terrible idea
Wouldn't the need horizontal/diagonally positioned anchors to the sea floor in a low sea bed to make it feasible for stability. I cant see an offshore platform providing enough inertial strength
otherwise deep water latch sounds like a headache. And ejections into the water would be less damaging...
Once operational, SpaceX plans to launch Starship three times a day, not twice a month! But, even it if took 180 days to fill an orbital fuel depot as the video suggests, SLS cannot launch faster than once a year (or likely, far less often). So, even in the worst-case scenario, refueling Starship to go the Moon is not an issue.
thanks for sharing
0:20 Why would they land on a Drone Ship? Is there any way they could refuel the rocket on a drone ship? How many tankers do they need in a short period of time to avoid propellant cook-off when the temp rises above it's boiling point?
3:40 Ten tanker flights to get to the moon? What about coming back? How will they refuel for the return trip? Liquid cryogenics is not conducive to long missions in space.
May God bless and guide SpaceX CEO and Team members achieve abundant success . Amen.❤😂🎉
I always thought landing on legs was a great option! I believe the cost in weight is minimal compared to the load capacity!
Thanks for sharing your idea
They could launch from Boca Chica, return to French Guyana or Alcantara in Brasil. Refuel there and hop back to Boca Chica.
Though water is hard under compression, it can be made soft by injecting air into it, thus creating a shock absorber effect for the floating landing pad as the Starship lands.
Ships will not float on aerated water because of lower density. This has actualy happened.
@@broomanjohn7370 The first time I saw using air to make water soft was during the Olympics many years ago during a high dive competition so the divers should not get injured when they hit the water.
@@picksalot1divers can swim back to surface, ships dont.
@@broomanjohn7370 Why do you think anyone would inject enough air to sink the landing pad? 🤪
@@broomanjohn7370perhaps the comment was misunderstood. The ship is already in the "tough" water. Spraying the water up into the air would soften the landing slightly and be a fire quencher.
1400 kms? What ISS are you talking about, you've got some units confusion.
If the best part is no part why not put a stage 0 on the drone ship for super heavy and a stabilizing tower? That way base is supported as in launch. No need for legs on stage 1.
I agree, I also mentioned this in my videos
The drone ship landings will be necessary for point to point flights
🤜🤜🤜
Better start counting out 'the military'.. so what happened to NPPRostov? Side boosters, solid or liquid are always an option.. the landing barge will need to be a catamaran and to catch the tower(s) could be retractable or fold down and fold down the booster onto a cradle.. I'd use two old bulk ships in the 20kt deadweight size as this would afford a 15knt travel speed and be rather hurricane proof. I wonder if Dream Chaser is going to join up with SpaceX?
Yeah, a collaboration between two companies is win-win game
With the limited energy on earth were are we going to get all the necessary energy for such projects? I doubt that the flying future, in space or in the air, is really bright.
Bezo's Blue Origins seems to be doing Very Well itself at the concerns expressed in their latest lawsuit against SpaceX -- especially "Limiting Activities, Launches & Landings"
Carry on Bezos. You're doing more than enough "limited launches & landings" Just don't push your Goals on Others.
2 oil tankers side by side with the platform between
Reuse up to 20 times? There is no limit.
What about repurposing aircraft carrier exciting
Why not practice megazila catch with Falcon? Yes, it's smaller, but chopsticks can be adjusted.
Falcon cannot hover. Engines cannot be throttled with anywhere near the precision needed.
Was anyone really “SHOCKED” ?
Why can't they have some versions with legs and some without?
Interesting question, anyone has answer?
Using AI to read a script when it doesn't know the proper pronunciation of place names, is just plain idiotic and lazy. Either use a real person to read the script, or teach the robot how to say Boca Chica. It's not hard. Didn't listen to the res...
I noted this, thanks
I haven’t seen or heard anything in the past year or so that Musk or Spacex are thinking of redesigning the two stages with legs so to land on a drone ship in the gulf. Your just creating click bait. Not cool!
god these ai videos just drone on and on
Click bait
Wow 180 days to fuel 1 Starship going to the moon or Mars.
So the 1000 rockets going to Mars… 180000 days! Lol
What if we have 100 launches per day???😂😂😂😂
@@techmap9 better make that barge really fast and have about 10,000 Optimus robots in place.
What about inventing anti-gravity. This may be barking at the wrong tree😂
What about repurposing aircraft carrier
Wayyyy more than they need.... these are not planes that need a runway.
There is no reason to go to the moon with that rocket without it staying there, come back on something lot smaller
The first stage could be landed on hot air balloon. At slowing down point zero speed it should eject a huge balloon and fill it with hot air
Stop using rockets and use super cooled spinning coils
Yeah, wish we could....but that would only work on the moon or other areas with very little atmosphere. They will keep trying....aka suck in more funding but physics and all :)
Why don't you guys land on the moon evenonce?
Tower not a good idea on a barge, light swell would have it swaying feet at the top. would need to be on a ball pivot and counter balanced below.
I'd suggest using a three jaw chuck, to grab the ship at the bottom, and maybe have the jaws on pivots and kept vertical and let the platform roll.
And Chica is pronounced Cheek-ah
It means a small girl or in this case small mouth bay, as boca is mouth.
I noted this, thanks your feedbacks
I've never heard of the International Space Centre. WTF??? That kind of garbage instantly goes in the "Don't recommend channel" category.Bye!
Seems like a parachute and boosters might be a better idea
Is there any parachute big enough to be that big?
@@techmap9Haven't you seen the movie "The gods must be crazy" they safely landed a plane by parachute 😊😊😊😊
Please pronounce
Boca Chica
Correctly
Chica = Cee Kaa
Or Cheee Kaaaa
Cute girl
@@user-hs4it2zs7j Boca means mouth not cute
you need Spanish speaking lessons just like the clown speaking in the video. Boca Chica is Spanish, "Boca" meaning mouth and "Chica" meaning girl
this is “Bot-spoke” you are listening to
Thanks all your feedbacks. We will try to improve this
Dreaming: I recommend large fueling ships away from take off or landing platforms at sea. Is it possible to make liquid oxygen and methane at sea? The tower could have sea water cooled metal plates on the chopstick landing side. The landing chopsticks could be over the ocean and then rotate 180 degrees to be over a test stand for the next flight. A long crane on a large ship is needed to retrieve ocean landings, to move other boosters to the test stand, and to restack complete starships on the launch stand. Can complete starships be stored vertically underwater for hurricane protection? Can the complete landing area go underwater during hurricanes? Consider having islands nearby for the military, support personnel, airport, and tourists. .
" Is it possible to make liquid oxygen and methane at sea?" - with a large nuclear reactor yes. The energy input is the problem.
@@ThomasTomiczek Small nuclear reactors fit inside shipping containers.
@@markiverson1416 Yeah, except you need a lot of them or a lot of time. Numbers matter.
has sido engañado otra vez !!!!
.
Landing legs would be better. If equipped both could be landing already. Screw the extra weight argument, add engines to compensate 🤔
Put the legs on the ship. All the booster weight is in the engine compartment. The arms would slide down and in clamping the tail of the booster as the booster destines blowing the clamps shut.
Stupid idea. What they need is a place to build a major base with a harbour and place for housing and some nuclear facilities to gain the energy for the fuel creation. UK has some funny overseas territories - one of them is an 88 square km island with just a military base etc. - Ascension. They do not need a oil rig - they need a place where they can dock container ships, where they can have 20, 40, 60 towers for humanities' first real spaceport. Even florida is a joke if they want a high cadence - they really ned a place to build Space City. Large harbour, so you can use drone ships when needed, can get hugh cargo container ships to handle payload, parts, etc. Something where damage to the environment is limited and accepted - a small price for humanity to go into space, and only an island.
The deep ocean concept is a dead end - you cannot put enough on it, you have no harbour, and the price for each is insane. A temporary solution - that is it. Nothing you can start pulling up a start every hour and that is needed.