SpaceX is facing the hardest challenge with Starship HLS: Refueling!
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 28 พ.ค. 2024
- SpaceX is facing the hardest challenge with Starship HLS: Refueling!
===
00:00 - 03:13: Starship HLS refueling
03:14 - 08:26: The difficulties
08:27 - 09:32: SpaceX’s basis
09:33 - 09:50: Conclusion
===
#greatspacex #elonmusk #spacex #nasa #starship
==
Advertisers who want to place ads on our channel, please contact the email manager: smanager339@gmail.com
===
SpaceX Starship SN
Be the first to sponsor us Thank you.
www.patreon.com/GreatspaceX?f...
Our video content is referenced by video sources at these sites:
HUGE THANKS TO:
Tamás Török: / @tomket7
C-bass Productions: / cbassproductions
Tony Bela : / infographictony
Bowen Cameron: / bojay_stellar
Ryan Hansen Space: / ryanhansenspace
/ ryanhansenspace
TijnM : / m_tijn
/ @tijn_m
Clarence365: / clarence3652
/ @clarence3654
PRØXIMA ⁂ : / sushifoxxstudio
/ @sushifoxxstudios
LabPadre Space: / labpadre
/ labpadre
Randolph Visuals: / cosmicalchief
Matthew Cable: / @matthewcable
SpaceXvision: / spacexvision
John Cargile: / groundtruthpics
WAI: / @whataboutit
/ felixschlang
===
SpaceX is facing the hardest challenge with Starship HLS: Refueling!
Orbit, once SpaceX's primary hurdle, is now successfully navigated. However, a new formidable challenge looms on the horizon: refueling.
This task is anticipated to be SpaceX's most significant challenge in the foreseeable future, representing a monumental feat for Elon Musk and his team. Its successful execution will have far-reaching implications for SpaceX's ambitious plans, particularly the Artemis moon landing mission.
Join us on today's episode of Great SpaceX as we explore the intricacies of the Starship HLS refueling mission and examine the strategies SpaceX must employ to conquer it.
SpaceX is facing the hardest challenge with Starship HLS: Refueling!
In less than a year, SpaceX has conducted three integrated Starship flights, with Flight 3 marking the most significant milestone. During this mission, the transfer of fuel from the header tank to the main tank was successfully executed for the first time.
SpaceX is facing the hardest challenge with Starship HLS: Refueling! This achievement lays the groundwork for SpaceX's next critical endeavor: ship-to-ship refueling. This task holds immense importance as it will ultimately determine the success of one of the most pivotal missions of this decade: the lunar landing.
----
We use images and content in accordance with the TH-cam Fair Use copyright guidelines: th-cam.com/users/intlen/about...
Any questions about copyright please send us via Gmail: colonbina25@gmail.com
To be resolved, thank you. - วิทยาศาสตร์และเทคโนโลยี
![เปิดบ้าน เปิด Supercar อั๋นโอกิ เคยเอา rolls Royce เเลกพระ องค์ละ 100 ล้าน l [Nickynachat]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/FeGwJwXauZ0/mqdefault.jpg)
I'm no aeronautical engineer but, my job as a production equipment designer, gives me some insight in mechanical systems. I've thought about some problems regarding ship to ship transfer of fuel in low or zero gravity. In my opinion, the most cost effective, and safest method way to transfer is a bottom to bottom(engine to engine) connection. After securing, the ships, the ships would be spun along their axis. This rotational motion would force the liquid oxygen and fuel to move to walls of the tanks. Pick up tubes installed along the perimeter connected to pumps would now transfer the liquids to the adjoining starship. Or, in leu of pumps, nitrogen gas could be used to pressurize the tanks and force the liquids to the other ship after rotation has been established. In a third method, a combination nitrogen and pumps could be used again, after rotation has been established.
Thanks for your great analysis. Keep following and discussing on our channel ☺️
Tail to tail risks damaging the engines. Use a syringe pump, or bicycle pump style. This would push the fuel through pipes in whatever direction they run.
IMHO, the tendency to produce a wobbly children's Top or to suddenly switch ends in orbit with sloshing liquid unequally pushing against the walls must be looked at.
Could the answer be this simple?
1) Remove cargo capacity of 2 boosters, 2) Increase fuel tanks size to entire booster capacity, 3) Remove Starship engines, fins, shield, etc. from 2 Starships and build them both out to be a habitats, 4) Attach each ship to its booster solidly, 5) Add 4 basic landing legs, on each side, along the entire assembly of both ships @ 45 degree orientation to allow for horizontal landing on moon, 6) Install basic maneuvering engines to orient landing and positioning, 7) Launch both ships closely together with a crews on them, 8) Once on the moon, remove Dragon capsules and grid fins, 9) Use grid fins as a platform to stage Dragons for egress, 10) Develop a mid size ship to be placed in space as transport from ISS to the moon.
RESULT: Provides an active moon base from which to conduct refueling, experiment, prep for Mars, etc.
*Many thanks for another good video*
Some minor niggles at some minor mistakes: 0.001 gravities is not 1/10th of a gravity. It's more like 1/1000th of a gravity
Niggling over, the fuel transfer (tanker blasts off then refuels main ship; main ship then heads to destination) is what NASA proposed in the early 1960's until it was proven that the Saturn V's could launch the whole lot of the Moon landing hardware in a fully fuelled condition to the Moon.
To transfer fuel from one vehicle to another while they are both in orbit was something that NASA had nightmares about (in the 1960's) after the Agena missions. The Agena spacecraft was known as the "angry alligator" for a good reason. Fuel transfer is something I am guessing has been vastly improved in the decades since.
For example, there is now the quite common practice of air-to-air refuelling for military aircraft of all sizes and types. I am guessing this could be adapted (this is pure guesswork on my part) for space vehicle to space vehicle transfer.
*_Lastly, Elon Musk did say he would be landing humans on either the Moon or Mars (or someplace called Mumble Mumble) by 2024, a goal I thought was colossally unrealistic. Nevertheless, I have to admire the progress he and Space X have made. They have done an astoundingly good job in a short time and we all have to acknowledge that_*
Ait to air refueling relies on gravity but gravity this can be simulated using acceleration. Pumps on their own will not work as the fuel will be just floating about. Pumps and some form of acceleration would be an option though.
Thanks for your comment. We realize this mistake and will fix soon, so keep following and discussing on our channel ☺️
Nothing from a Saturn 5 was reusable...Big difference...
@@ryignacio1 *Yes, the Saturn V's were not re-usable.*
The point was: the fuel transfer problems that NASA had dreaded were avoided because the Saturn V's were powerful enough to take the entire Moon-landing hardware to the Moon, without in-orbit refuelling.
*_To make it more plain: the in-orbit refuelling problems was the point being made_*
Space x got to love these people not afraid of mishaps not afraid try again each time proactively into next launch after awhile you get where they want to be .
The best path forward (for many reasons) is an orbiting station that unloads all kinds of payloads including propellant. Anything going to high earth orbit or the moon or a staging Mars base on Deimos should be optimized for these requirements. That means lighter weight, lower thrust, no high stress high G launches and landings
Both ships have the quick disconnect fittings, just add an arm to connect the two (with crossover pipes to the correct tanks) for fuel transfer. Easy solution. What I would like to see is an attached and filled second ship/tank (like the Space Shuttle's launch) for the weightless trip to the moon.
To me SPACEX have already achieved getting the ship 2 space. Launching a tank and leaving up there in a relevant orbit. It gives the SPACEX team a lift plus allows for achieving the refuel process for NASA’s moon trip. 2 birds one stone. In fact 3.
This may be self-defeating but, for Lunar Based missions, side boosters with solid fuel or it own fuel tanks, were attached to minimize fuel losses, so refueling may not be necessary.
Assume you want to do in-orbit refueling. The tanker and the receiving ship connect side-by-side. Then both ships implement thrusters to spin the two joined ships around the longitudinal axis. The rotation causes the fuels to move outward. The fuels can then be pumped from the tanker to the receiving ship. Then reverse thrusters negate the spin and the ships decouple. The receiving ship provides the electrical power to the tanker during the transfer. Thoughts?
Great process👍👍👍
No. While it's a nice thought, it is so obscenely complicated, there are a 1000 ways that whole process ends badly.
Adding small, strap-on solid rocket boosters to Starship (not Super Heavy Boosters) could get them to orbit using far less fuel. Sure, it's added weight and cost but getting Starship to orbit using far less fuel from its tanks would be a win/win I would think.
That's a lot of mass with thin skin that needs to touch together while aligned so that the force isn't concentrated in one place on the hull. All with orbital mechanics at play.
A transfer hose?
One day, I had free time and strolled through the US Patent Books. I saw a patent where the Venturi Effect was used to transfer low-pressure water into a hi pressure boiler.
Nice to see a fairly impartial video on Space X.
Thanks for your comment. Keep following and discussing on our channel ☺️
Great vid, as usual.
There are no drawbacks to having multiple launch pads. Spacex needs at least four pads. Low earth orbit is easy requiring only liftoff full to complete a mission. Any launch to moon or Mars will require at least 5 relaunches for orbital refueling. Assuming at least one fails there will have to be multiple relaunches from each pad. It is a necessary evil but this is what’s required. Go Spacex
Maybe a robot with fuel lines can leave one starship meet up with the other and connect them. So the two do not need to very close and some measure of safety can be adopted with a 3rd
I believe a bladder system could work for ship to ship transfer. Placing a bladder inside of the fuel tank, pressurized inert gas could be released between the tank wall and the bladder, displacing the liquid fuel within the bladder as it collapses.
Great suggestion 👍
A friend refueld always a little 2 kg propane tank for camping .He put the small overnight in the freezer, the household 13 kg in the sun, to get pressure, then he coupled both, opened the valves and the little one got filled. But in Space, Noooo doesn't work.😊🇫🇷
It might work. facing the full tank towards the sun and keeping the empty one at the shade, the temperature difference could be enormous. I heard that one astronaut used the same principle to work on a bolt that doesn't fit on the Hubble telescope repair job.
You got the first method wrong. The acceleration is to settle the liquid over the pipe, but not to transfer. In order to transfer, you use a higher pressure on origin and lower pressure at destination and then when you open the valve, the system will automatically transfer the liquid. It´s like a straw. This is my favorite method. In any case in both cases you need the tiny acceleration to settle the liquids at the entrance of the pipe.
Thanks for your great comment. This also an interesting method
I worked in the nuclear power plant maintenance field for 25 years and it always seemed to me that a problem would occur more times than not when mechanical units are involved. I would think that this refueling would be much more beneficial being gravity fed or some way to pressurize the tank. It's not like someone can replace a pump that failed and I understand backup systems I just think the fewer moving parts the better. THANKS
Thanks for your great comment 👍
The biggest challenge I think is the heat tiles being rapid reusable. I can't see it happening. Something new needs to be invented.
Good morning
Have a nice day, my loyalty audience☺️
Hi great 👍 space x for anther video of how they are doing David 👌❤️🇬🇧👍🚀
♥️🚀♥️
They should put the fuel transfer modal on the very top, and they can join like the connect to the ISS
It would be nice to see the raptor engines to re-light properly, before we start transferring fuels. Maybe they should work on getting control and bring the booster, and ship back to hover over water. Then worrie about fuel transferring.
♥️♥️♥️
What about using the pressure difference between full tank, empty tank and outside pressure near vacuum? using a valve on the empty tank to siphon fuel from the full tank. Just saying.
This might work. facing the full tank towards the sun and keeping the empty one at the shade, the temperature difference could be enormous. I heard that one astronaut used the same principle to work on a bolt that doesn't fit on the Hubble telescope repair job.
Subjecting cryogenic fuels to a vacuum will result in immediate boil off. The only way to transfer cryogenic fuel is under high pressure. Furthermore it sounds a bit stupid to even consider this idea. There’s just no need or even benefit in flying a huge thing like starship to Mars.
Need to use a Canada arm style connection between starships and apply Bernoulli's principle to move the fuel. That simple
I have pondered about a transfer drone rather than trying to mate 2 Starships.
Can you tell more about your thinking?
Many drones launched on Falcon 9's or heavy's that refuel Starship in orbit.
True…but what is cooler? 😂
Space X is planning way out past the next flight. How many flights are they thinking when considering their schedule?
Why doesn't SpaceX just add 2 large long outside Fuel Tanks?? Like they do for Jets. SpaceX can add 2 large outside fuel tanks like the solid fuel Boosters on the Shuttle crafts. 2 large Tanks attached outside the Starships that are not returning to earth surface can easily use it's fuel to reach orbit then transfer fuel from the outer tanks which will refuel the star ship for a trip to the moon simple solution!! also SpaceX could use Falcon to launch larger Fuel tanks to meet up with Starships. then these Tanks can fall back to earth and land using Parachutes like they do with the Dragon Capsules!! Why doesn't anyone able to contact SpaceX with this IDEA!!!!
Why not use L.I.F.E. as a space gas station? We could deploy lots of LIFE to space and connect them as one then we could use multiple starships/F9/FH flights to refuel it
Why don't they just lengthen the booster and it's fuel tanks (or add a set of Starship tanks) and throw a nose cone on it for refuelling the Starship.....don't have the weight of the rest of Starship to lift, so the booster should be able to lift the load to orbit , refuel the Starship in orbit and return to land
🚀
🚀🚀🚀
Instead of coupling directly and risking a crash between two starships, it is better to refuel like with an airplane in the air refueling.
Not the hardest challenge, that would be reentry and capture of Starship. Order of magnitude harder.
👍🚀👍
What about adding 3 Nuclear engines to Starship, no OX required. They will be needed for the trip to Mars. Testing now has to happen.
That liquid transfer by acceleration is interesting.
The numbers took a minute to sink in. An acceleration of 0.001 of gravity = 1/10 gravity. I'll take your word on that.
So, they could transfer speeding up and slowing down for very large transfers without changing the orbit much. There must be a distance from Earth, a sweet spot, for transfers. Just so the acceleration doesn't change orbit too much.
If anybody knows the equation, please post.
Great analysis. Keep following this interesting topic while waiting for their updates ☺️
Wasting fuel to transfer fuel? Hmmm🤔
@@jaydonbrown617similar to when we have to drive to the gas station to get gas. Gas stations use electricity to pump gas into our cars.
@@that70sgamer Its more like chasing a gas truck down the Autobahn, trying to pump gas, while your gas tank is on E
@@jaydonbrown617 LOL, That's awesome! Thanks for the chuckle.
We need four tanks for cargo(fuel) ships.Two thanks we moving to recipient ships.Only conection,without pumps,etc.
In the future we needed satellite gas station(my opinion)My be is Vast company work on the topic.There is several option for gas station(my opinion)
D.
The transported fuel will be in the cargo bay and the refueling nozel near fuel tank if receiving ship. So side by side image of thumbnail seems very wrong for refueling. Just like in air plain refuel is not side by side in space refueling will not be either
Thanks for your great contribution. We'll take note this
It's easy...without pumping fuel,rotation ships etc...just connection between ships...and other construction for fuel rocket tanker...insayde!
I imagine two Starships docked in X formation to transfer fuel, may as well live up to the name. 🖖
Yeah, that's impressive moment👍
Can solid propellants be used instead?
It's more difficult than liquid
*Kinda difficult to "transfer" solid fuel from one rocket to another*
@@ozsteamer2755 Why? Solid motor stages can be kept in orbit indefinitely and later starships can dock with them as needed.
Kevin, you confuse velocity with acceleration at the 5:00 minute mark. .0001 g is a measure of acceleration, not velocity. .0001 g equals .0098 m/s^2. Sitting on your chair, without moving, you experience 9.8 m/s^2 acceleration pulling you down on the chair. Velocity is a measure of changing position AND direction. So, in orbit, you might have a velocity of 11 km/s, and experience 9.8 m/s^2 acceleration due to gravity. Note that in orbit you are freely falling around the planet, so despite your velocity, and despite gravity pull, you experience zero g, because you're in free fall.
Thanks for your comment, Richard. We'll take note this and fix this soon ☺️
Can't be that much harder than docking with ISS.
Men should make the connections to transfer the fuel and oxygen!
Yeah, SpaceX will do this
@4:45 ... 0.0001 of earth's gravity is NOT one tenth of Earth's gravity. It is 1/10,000'th of Earth's gravity.
Yeah, this is our mistake. We will take note this and fix soon
I'm confused. Can you relight a raptor with zero gravity? Fuel needs some gravity to be pumped?
Starship has thrusters to settle the fuel for a relight.
👍👍👍
I would consider making a train of fuel tanks that connect in space like what Orville did when he design a ship that went to the Earth's core. When the tank is empty, eject it and keep traveling.
This is why Starship needs hypergolic pressure-fed rockets
Can't wait to see some infrastructure built in orbit . A propa space station . each Spacex rocket to drop off fuel getting ready for the long awaited Mars missions
We hope so
There is others options.Move not fuel...Move the thaks with fuel (split tanks) External suspension if nessery.Rotation in space is not good idea.I can send scethes.
point .0001 is ten percent?
Too bad the Starships nose cone is used for docking, we already have experienced in plane to plane refueling in the air, space could be similar. If you use a side refuel method then any angular 3d velocity differences that could cause a failure.
In a plane refueling their are three pilots
The tanker pilot, the jet pilot, and the refueling pilot responsible for steering the refueling drone head to the fuel cone target. The main pilots maintain course and speed and attitude. Any minor 3d movement is handled by a flexible umbilical cord.
Why can’t a pump be a version of a dragon with freezer pump and be placed between the 2 A process they have plenty of data on. Or by introducing a dragon. Simply changing the dragon with astronaut s to full tank launched without astronaut s for safety. Then go in in full rocket. 2 launches only. One full tank no astronaut s. One normal launch with astronaut s and enlarged dragon. It transfer s to full tanker. And trip continue s.
Refueling assuming the launches work is one of the easiest challenges not the hardest Reentry of starship is the hardest and remains the hardest challenge
Yeah, it will be a big challenge if we apply to Starship
Really? The easiest? Okay pal😅😂
Refueling will be easier than solving re-entry (with falling off tiles) but still I don't think 'easiest' is a good descriptor. It won't be a walk in the park but I think it is doable by the bright folks at SpaceX.
@@wezleyjackson9918 "Bright" indeed
There's five or four option for fuel(on orbit) my calculation without rotation,pump etc.
Can you tell more about that? ☺️
@@colonbina1other option is full tank enters in the empty tank.(corpus to corpus or nouse to nouse) Test show as...evry is option.(but the full tanks in orbit is better and for Falkon systems,and we send full tanks with Falkon for Starships..many options.Test show as)
@@colonbina1 Soft tanks -kevlar for recepient ship.Corpus to corus or nose to nose.(nozzle to nozzle is not good idea)Other-external suspension or internal doking for full thanks(better internal)
"Classic " system is with "balloon" in the tanks...etc.Only test show as.Four reusable /moveable fuel tanks(or six) and helium balloon in the tanks.There is several type for fuel tanks to Orbit.
The shape of the fuel tanks
-classical cilinders.Different diameters for recepient ship and for donor ship.Cylinder in cylinder to be able to Donor fuel tanks with Kevlar bottoms or removable.When fuel ended in recepient tank we score the donor tank into recepient tank.
one of option.Other option we need to move tanks to sideways.(Charging)
This means that the construction of the tanks (fuel) we need to Should be interchangeable ship to ship.(and ship to space)
I would just have a hose with a small remote vehicle to connect the hose. The fuel can come in a bladder which could be squashed with pressurized gas. What do I know? I'm just a chicken.
Have an AI harvest all the relevant ideas and then employ about 20 fluid dynamic engineers to rank the ideas.
SpaceX hardest challenge is not refueling in space. Elon Musk greatest challenge is himself. It is interesting how an individual can start off like race horse out of the gate. Then turn around and lose it.
Starships greatest challenge will be too get to space.
Landing booster and starship are still secondary at this point. If starship had followed on falcon super heavy success. Elon would already be attempting a landing on the moon. Energy is the main reason to go to the moon. With helium 3 we could get ride of fossil fuels for power plants. Automobiles are still years away. The other point is the price on energy. So I would like to see it materialize.
Currently starship has zero chance of making it into space. It too heavy. They can’t burn the booster long enough to put starship into a stable low earth orbit. Starship has reach the height, diameter and weight of diminishing returns.
So on size bigger will only be worst. Falcon heavy is your blue print. But while we weight for the light to come on. China 🇨🇳 will plant their flag on the moon before America 🇺🇸. That sucks.
Spend all this time trying to build rockets that hardly have any benefit over decade old Soviet designs...
Put one under vacuum. Suck the fuel in.
I know someone has to be working on a different engine. I wonder who or what is going to win out.
Great question👍
His hardest challenge will be keeping the funding coming in. He has promised too much and delivered nothing so far. This thing was supposed to be on Mars by now.
Okay??? And N1 was supposed to be on the moon yet it didnt even reach 10km... and nasa put tens of billions into artemis to land on the moon again and all they did was use old rocket engines and SRBs and they cant even land on the moon
@@Berilaco Come on now. NASA contracted SpaceX to deliver, spending billions on the contract and SpaceX delivered nothing so far. Artemis is performing as promised, it’s doing what it’s supposed to do and doing it flawless.
@@angrydoggy9170 okay and when did they start the artemis program??? Oh right more than 10 years ago and when did they start starship?? Oh RRRIIIGHT 4 YEARS AGO and they have delivered promising tests... for example the propellant transfer to test if they can easily transfer cryogenic fuel from one tank to the other or other tests and the only thing that is really holding them back from testing one starship every month is the government
@@angrydoggy9170 and yes nasa is funding starship but it doesnt really matter because spacex is getting enough money through starlink and other contractors
I don't think ship to ship fueling will be a problem at all. I believe It will be seamless. The science for docking is down pat. The only think would be how the transfer the fuel in a weightless environment. You're already under pressure. Use that to your advantage. It's already condensed. The cold temperature wouldn't be a surprise either. If there are any glitches at all. They would be minor. Great Episode. Have a Great Day, Kev.
With how things have been going so far, if they ever manage to position two Starships in orbit, they will just crash into each other and become more space trash. Starship doesn't even have RCS thrusters, you umm, kinda NEED that to maneuver in space. But either way, how are things in la la land?😂
Thanks for your great support. Have a nice day ☺️
th-cam.com/video/OoJsPvmFixU/w-d-xo.html
Why doesn't SpaceX just build a huge spaceship like the famous StarTrek Starship Enterprise in space like they built a Space Station why not a Spaceship and eliminating the need to break though the atmosphere with the the Ship that Size. This would allow so much much more personnel & cargo space. Even could use nuclear propulsion to reduce or eliminate the need for fuel. The Gravity Thing they will have to work on and perfect.
I have no doubt that SpaceX will succeed at any challenge that they face!
keep it simple. just hook up a hose and pump, don't try to dock shit.
While Elon Musk's ambition to establish a city on Mars is admirable, his repeated overly optimistic timelines have rightfully sparked much scepticism.
Initially aiming for a crewed mission by 2024 (yes, THIS year), SpaceX's progress with the Starship rocket, though revolutionary, has fallen significantly short. Musk's revised timeline, pushing the Mars landing to 2029, is still seen as highly optimistic by many experts, given the complex technical, logistical, and regulatory challenges that remain unresolved.
Personally, I have always seen 2029 as a much more realistic target for our return to the Moon, marking 60 years since the historic Apollo 11 landing in 1969 (which I was fortunate to stay up all night to watch).
IMHO SpaceX will be hard pushed to even hit that target, with manned Mars missions more likely an additional 10-20 years away.
Musk should therefore prioritise mastering lunar missions before embarking on the Martian journey; after all, the Moon serves as a logical stepping stone towards more ambitious space exploration endeavours.
Any way, they're leading the way to Mars, so continue to have faith in their efforts.
Covid slowed everything down bro, get a grip.
@@colonbina1 Don't get me wrong, I totally do !
It is just that having grown up during the exciting space pioneering 1960's & 70's, I am just being more realistic on timescales.
Why? Because at my age, I am still hoping🤞and praying🙏 that I am still around to watch someone finally stand on Mars, as I did when Armstrong stepped on the Moon...😂
@@menotyou1234As if😂
@@MuddyDuck...While it's HIGHLY unlikely that SpaceX will ever get Starship to Mars, why even go? What is the point besides bragging rights over.....who exactly? The rovers sent to Mars serve their purpose well and more will follow, putting a human on Mars is a one-way trip if they even get that far.
Bladder tank
Can you tell more detail about this?
@@colonbina1 by using the boiloff to squeeze the bladder like tube of toothpaste and force the fuel out.
SpaceX is able to dock the dragon to the International Space Station so it's not that much more complicated for the Starship to do the same
Yeah, let's wait for their next feats👍👍👍
Wtf?!? Yes it is, it's light-years apart in difference, are you serious????
What a stupid thing to say, it's two toally different things...
@@ludwigvanzappa9548 docking two vehicles is completely different is it are you sure about that or you just like a two-year-old child
@@13thbiosphereWait and see, genius!
Refueling and fluid transfer has been done in space for decades. ISS anyone?
"It's so hard yet we will master it", "world first" marketing for idiots.
Chill and just do your job, old princess. You've got government contract for Moon.
ISS uses Hypergolic gas for fuel wich is not cryogenic like the LOX of Starship. Two totally different things.
@@ludwigvanzappa9548 like one is crazy toxic and the other is crazy cold?
Cryogenic gets pumped on earth and hypergolic gets pumped in space. Which means you can pump cold and you can pump in space. Minds getting blown. Have multi level tanks if you must.
Docking those two is quite another story though. There is no protocol and Starship RCS is trash.
Nobody has done this before and it will open access to the planets.
We can't survive 6 months in low earth orbit away from the electromagnetic gravitational pull of the earth's double torus OOrt cloud magnetosphere without our bones atrophying.
The nouveau Nephilim are getting ready to ride out this the millennium of climate change end times in orbit & return as demi-gods.
Again the silly animation of a spaceship landing in the pure moon-dirt.
☺️☺️☺️
"Lunar regolith"=pure moon-dirt
So when does Musk admit he’s full of if.
0.001 g is NOT 1/10 g. It’s 1/1000 th.
I guess the presenter really is useless at maths !
I favor siphoning. 🙂