ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 12 พ.ค. 2024
- NASA engineer: ""SpaceX made BIG MISTAKE with Starship''. Musk Reacts...
===
#techmap #techmaps #elonmusk #starshipspacex #spacex
===
(Intro) 0:00
(What sets the Starship apart from the Space Shuttle?) 0:59
(Starship is a big mistake) 2:28
(SpaceX’s advantages) 7:31
(Outro) 9:01
===
1) SOURCES OF THUMBNAIL
2) SOURCES OF IMAGES AND VIDEOS
TijnM : / m_tijn
/ @tijn_m
TheSpaceEngineer: / mcrs987 / @thespaceengineer
WAI: / @whataboutit
/ felixschlang
Groundtruth: / @groundtruth4442
===
NASA engineer: ""SpaceX made BIG MISTAKE with Starship''. Musk Reacts...
When the idea of Starship was published to the world, a lot of the hype surrounding it seemed reminiscent of the conception of the Space Shuttle.
Reusability, cheap operation, fast turnaround just like an airliner, and high flight cadence are the things that Nasa engineers had long pursued in the Space Shuttle project.
NASA engineer: ""SpaceX made BIG MISTAKE with Starship''. Musk Reacts...
Sadly, those goals will never come true. Two fatal accidents on the vehicle and its retirement in 2011 are the bitter evidence for Nasa's failure to make the reusable spacecraft low-cost, and safe.
However, in the twenty-first century, there is a unicorn who dared to take Nasa's dream from death and even bring it to a higher level. And what they have achieved on their journey has shocked the entire space industry.
It's SpaceX with their ambitious Starship rocket project.
As a loser, some Nasa engineers can not admit the truth and it explains why they call "Starship a mistake".
Find out everything in today's episode of Techmap.
NASA engineer: ""SpaceX made BIG MISTAKE with Starship''. Musk Reacts...
(What sets the Starship apart from the Space Shuttle?)
Although sharing the same idea as the Space Shuttle, what sets the Starship project apart is Elon's vision goes far beyond what Nasa can think about.
===
Subcribe TechMap: tinyurl.com/3z5ysrtf
This was basically a SPACEX commercial. 😂
Most of these channels are Musk propaganda! Intelligent engineers' are now seeing all the miserable failures and their contributing flaws. Musk likes to make fantastical claims long before they have any clue how they will do it!
Give me a NASA managed program any day!!
Very different programs. The Shuttle was a series of cutting edge research programs to be published, that also happened to later fly. Starship was intended to fly, that will also push technology along a bit.
As a contast, the SLS was a fund raising program that spent most of the money counting on the cost overage problems would lead the program being canceled, without having to produce flight hardware. A diving catch was made when it wasn't canceled by bolting museum hardware together (without much capacity to even replace the museum displays that were raided). The concept had been around as a backup for the original Shuttle for years, it just needed to be dusted off and updated. Actual manufacture of new Shuttle engines is... unlikely since a new round of funding would be required.
A better fit for an rocket under the updated Apollo capsule would be a super heavy variant of the Falcon Heavy system. Moving to four boosters around the core and providing two aditional landing pads. Overall program risk compared to the SLS system would be reduced. Development and flight testing could be completed fairly quickly without waiting for SLS or Starship. I would expect that the Falcon Heavy team had some of the calculations and projected performance already in their notebooks.
So to compare:
Shuttle / NASA - PhDs / Politics
SLS / Boeing - Business profit / Government funding
Falcon 9 / Falcon Heavy - Engineers and trying to reign in Mr Musk a bit and the young engineers trying to learn as they go.
--
Well, also a bunch of old farts watching people splash rockets trying to relearn solutions to various rather old rocket engineering problems.
1:24 I am not sure where you got your costs for the space shuttle. The best estimate of the shuttle program costs was around $211 billion at around $450 million per launch in 2012 dollars.
For point-to-point transport, the disadvantage is the long preparation time until the rocket is filled with fuel and the required installations for landing and relaunch.
Cost per Shuttle fight at US$54 million,... maybe in 1975 dollars. One of the metrics used to compare expenses, was that the reported budget of the James Cameron movie Avatar, was equal to half the cost of a Shuttle flight at the time.
When two dogs are looking at their owner in the distance and the first dog recognizes the owner before the second dog, that tells you the first dog's eyesight is better than the second dog's eyesight. Lots of dogs may have poor eyesight. How would we know otherwise?
Of course starship is only a deep space ferry until they make a landing pad that is robust to not fail from thrust to land. Smaller lighter material shuttles that can thrust land easily with no big time consuming pad efforts.
Some of the goals of the Shuttle program are the same as for the SH/SS program, but other than that they both use liquid propellants,they are utterly unalike.
If anyone could get to the moon first it would have been the USSR because they had a ten year jump start on everyone else even Nasa
? So how is it that Nasa made it before them and without a crash when the unmanned landers that we send even with today's tech can't land without crashing !
Reliability will occur when simplicity is achieved in engine numbers and design. 30 engines with 60 propellant pumps make no sense. Figure out whether 2 pumps can be more reliable serving 5 combustion chambers than the current 10 pumps being used.
It's NASA's fault for not being innovative. After the shuttle they said ok that's good enough.
Plus unlike Boeing, spacex is private and nimble so it can redesign and fix problems with less red tape etc.
Those raptor engines ARE highly reliable independently or in small clusters.
In fact the N1 rocket was technologically superior, but more complex. And that was the basis for the raptor engine today. But there have been massive improvements since then.
People can not control 33 rockets, BUT computers can and will oversee and control each rocket’s performance.
Exactly the problem Russia’s had with N1. That is why musk said modern technology and computers can control it.
Plus the Russian designer died when N1 was put into service. His successor was not as competent.
Fast turn arounds will never be achievable as long as tiles are basis of heat shield systems. They are going to have to be checked between each flight.
Install a human narrator, please.
Make ur own channel please
When I first heard of Starship, I'll admit I had the same concern as these engineers. Knowing how the Soviets faired with their multiple-engine rocket. Then I realized we are light-years ahead of where they were regarding computing technology. The Soviets were no slouches when it came to rockets. If computing power had been half of what we have today the outcome may have been different. After watching Starship develop, I have no doubts SpaceX will solve all of its rocket issues. It's the logistics to Mars that concerns me. Not logistics of equipment, although that's daunting, logistics for humans. Can you imagine 100 people go to Mars and none survive the 2 years for the next arrival? Getting that right is gonna be a bigger problem than most people think. It's the small simple things easily overlooked that could be the undoing. For example say your forced into a bunker or fallout shelter, you're surrounded by a 3 year supply of non-perishable canned goods, but forgot to store a can opener or you on Mars and you need a 10mm socket, but it's missing. Why is the 10mm always missing? Anyways, it's gonna be exciting to watch. Also, I was surprised when you read my comment, thanks. It shows you actually take the time to read what us knuckleheads write. On another topic, I haven't seen the mid-video greetings you used to have. That was one of the things that helped set your channel apart. At least it was for me.
Thanks for sharing your thought. About the logistic, you are right, it's the reason why we need the factories on Mars in the first place. And I always appreciate that the first people to set foot on Mars are superheroes because they dare to leave a comfortable life on Earth to begin an extremely exciting journey on another planet. For the mid-video greetings, honestly, I just place it in my video if it's necessary. I will consider add it later after read your comments. Thanks a lot
@@techmap9 you're quite welcome👍
I suspect the first attempt to land on Mars will not be one ship but many each crewed by many people with non returnable but landable ships. Each with cargos to support the crews on the planet. Don’t put all your eggs in one basket They can live in the ships until they get a landing pad built so the future star ships can land undamaged for return flights.
It’s possible that a laudable ship can stay in obit around mars and earth while basic cargo ships can transport larger cargos to and from earth. You only need laudable vessels at each end. Star ships don’t actually need to land crews, the new smaller mini space shuttles can transport crews to and from the starship left in orbit. The much larger starship can be used to transport people and cargos back and forth to landable smaller ships left in orbit to actually do the landing. I think that starship and the new mini space shuttle can complement each other. One for cargos and one for crews!
@dongeiger4500 yeah, I don't disagree. I know they aren't going to send just one ship I was attempting to simplify the numbers, but the more you put on the planet the more you're need for those logistics goes up, complicating the whole endeavor. The ships just hanging around and orbiting can only do so much, because once the planets separate it doesn't matter. The cargo on those ships isn't infinite. The 2-year turnaround is the great antagonist here. Most everything is gonna need to go near perfect and so many things can go wrong and people are unpredictable. To be fair though people are also resilient and adaptable. Still, the logistics to keep enough people alive for the experiment to be worthwhile are nuts. Imagine trying to keep just 100 people safe and alive on top of Everest or K2, never mind a thousand or more. Mars is going to be less hospitable than that. The big difference, of course, is salvation is just a few miles away. Granted the winds on Mars are gentle despite what Hollywood would have us believe certainly nothing like what's on top of Everest, but Everest does have some oxygen. Other than that though temps and an atmosphere primed to kill you with any little mishap to your portable spacecraft can be the end of ya. I'm not trying to be a pessimist, but these are legitimate concerns.
Plus engineers said no way would musk be able to land a first stage let alone on a barge. Always naysayers and always mavericks.
6:28 I'm not sure what you use as a calculator... but 196B / 135 flights = 1.45BB PER FLIGHT .. Yes that includes the development costs... but that's the reality. I'm assuming the 54 million you mention before this number was a typo and should have said $540 Million. I don't think anyone thought that the per-launch cost would come anywhere near $54M .. even with the planned 1-flight every 2 weeks cadence, which was the plan prior to STS-25/Challenger.
The little bird who wispered "Parts Count" into Elon's ear pretty much fixed the complication problem of multiple engines, Elon just hasnt used full potential yet.
I think point to point, and Military uses are likely to go hand in hand, and if anything the military be a serious assist, because what they want will be better than current designs.
Its been a dance since the beginning of powered flight, sometimes civilian lead, sometimes military.
The next test flight could be the real milestone, and maybe not much announced.
Will depend on flight profile and things learned.
The resistance has no chance with Elon in charge. Once he gets the logic, the enginerds either go along, or apply at Jeff's.
And point to point would help finance the Mars colony venture, and or the Lunar base first. As would ample military assistance.
I'd say watch the changes between V-1 & V-2 Starship. if theres a lurch in design rather than just upscaling, point to point and Military will come sooner, if its hum-hum scale it up, Have to wait for V-3 to see much change.
Hopefully Space Force is twisting Elon's arm to get him to put down the Tin-Tin comics... They know things he doesnt, and might cattle prod him some, and make some offers he cant refuse, like a National Security protenction policy from the Lumpish Bureaucrats...
Also what the military needs is more in line with what the civilian market needs, and less in line with current hull design, which is primative proto 60's in nature. Elon being a bit Captain Quirk on the hull modernization... (🤭)
I'll know after the next test flight, or at least suspect by lack of publicized flight data.
Also by increased success. Whether its a little or a lot?
Will be crossing my fingers, being somewhat of a plank owner in Starship...
4:33 I think if all goes fantastic, it will be around the turn of this or the next century, maybe!
Thanks for sharing. I think next century is so far away. So, next decade would be more reasonable.
Hermeus will ACHEIVE Hypersonic success within 5 years. Don't underestimate these guys! BOOM has already Acheived a successful flight (first round), NEXT is MACH 1 and beyond!! And these are baby steps!! Come on!.
It is ALL MUSK'S MONEY. IT IS HIS BET.
BAD JUDGMENT, HE WILL LOSE EVERYTHING.
Interesting semantics "and both used different approaches" (or in other language "they were similar in how they were different"). 😂😂
😂😂😂
StarShip is no mistake, it’s a new vehicle and these things just take time. Elon will nail it .
How long do you think it takes for it to be in operation?
@@techmap9
I think if they can land it successfully
Then maybe 6/7 th flight. Elon is a Genius he will figure it out
@@techmap9
After #4 and #5 have landed in ocean, then they can try to catch. Elon is a genius, and he will figure it out. I have faith in Elon.
@@stephensfarms7165 Elon is not building this rocket.
Click bait...don't subscribe
Any content that touts NASA is highly suspect. NASA HAS BECOME SLOW, and has an inflated opinion of itself. It is a committee driven organization that must be retired. NASA had its hayday but blew it when it killed two crews on the Space Shuttle missions. Step aside NASA. SpaceX has eclipsed you.
👉Let that old man retire now. That NASA is a parasite That it depends on the government for money to survive and they are laying off employees.
If SpaceX made the space shuttle it would still be flying !
Hire a human and ditch your AI, and I may subscribe
Yet another report from a SpaceX ditto head. Iterative design to solve problems that have been solved long ago like launch pad construction. SpaceX has launched 3 attempts to orbit and failed each time. The notion that SpaceX could facilitate 3 starship launches daily is insane.
There have been hundreds of Falcon 9 launches and no failures in years.
@@downstream0114 Don't ruin his narrative ,, he might have to find another reason to hate Musk. LoL. 😂✌
I think Starship is way too ambitious and unrequired, given they already have a Super Heavy spaceship. Just means extra trips for the Super Heavy. I think they've wasted a lot of money and time on an unproven Starship concept. The vibrations from all those engines would be insane. That time and money wasted on Starship could have been redirected towards in space docking and refuelling technology and development of Moon / Mars base technologies.
NASA is worse than a third grader having a temper tantrum. What a bunch of babies. Grow up.
Odd how conservatives never provide evidence for their argument. Kinda like the stolen election.
I love how people talk about Starship as though it is working and is reusable and has high cadence production and flight when it has not succeeded. Starship thought it could ignore lessons NASA had learned and destroyed their 1st pad because of this. Then they reintroduced the water deluge used my NASA for decades. Talk about it being great when it is shown to actually work.
About the water deluge - everyone was calling for a NASA type, top down. SpaceX reversed it, bottom up. The gain is having a floor to work on. Also, avoiding the problems with building a flame trench.
Btw, the trench being built at Massey is only for the ships, not the boosters. A booster would totally demolish it.
@@knowledgeisgood9645 NASA has used numerous water deluge systems across the last 50 years of rocket flights. In every case it is there not to protect the pad, but to protect the engines and rocket.
Your credibility evaporates when you talk about a single starship taking 100 people to Mars! Starship will probably become an effective heavy lift vehicle to low earth orbit, but it is Ludacris to talk about it caring 100 people on a six month flight to Mars. Please, if you want to have credibility either drop this claim or work through all of the implications of carrying 100 people. How much food will they need, how will they deal with no gravity for six months, will the starship actually be refueled on Mars, where will that fuel come from, where is the pilot plant for producing fuel on Mars here on earth? Starship may have value and there are good people working on it, but making wild claims like that or in this case believing the wild claims of Elon is a recipe for real disaster actually
Absolutely, the 100 ppl posited years ago by Musk is complete horseshite, even in the 3rd version of the Starship and booster. That being said, he's done things NASA has never accomplished, including building his own rocket engines, not needing to buy rocket engines *from Russia,* unlike the ESG/DIE affirmative action NASA ladies, ffs.
Even the idea that after 8 months travel time to mars humans would be functional is horseshite, if they even survived the trip because of the radiation would sanitize the spacecraft of all life. Forget about the loss of 10% of the brain if ppl made it to mars and didn't become moles and lived on the surface. Forget about the poisonous compounds (perchlorates) in mars dirt that can't be removed without prohibitive use of water and energy. Forget about all live requires a magnetosphere to survive. I can go on and on. The whole "let's get to mars" is a pied piper dream sold to the ignorant by one of the best showmen on earth: Musk.
Comparing NASA to any scientific organization is the flaw in this argument, because all it has been, since it's creation, has been fleecing the public, not just the hundreds of dollars pens, and toilets, but the ossifying of technology and "losing" the tech to "get back to the moon," _that NASA never did, because all their "proof" was "lost."_ I'm a show me or shut up kinda guy. Listen to this bullshite from Pettit a "NASA" _Astronut_ saying things no adult would believe even blind drunk: th-cam.com/video/16MMZJlp_0Y/w-d-xo.html Ffs!
You stay safe, the bullshite meter from our gov't and their operatives all owned by our oligarchs has been getting more and more extreme anyways. Soon, death will be life, and life will be sold to us as death. Drink the coolaid it does a body good.
@@jeffreyspinner5437 Have you tried Prozac?
Do you believe the bullshit that you said???