Who REALLY has the best new rocket? SpaceX, ULA, NASA, Blue Origin or someone else?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 9 พ.ค. 2024
- A new generation of rockets are making their debut around the world! But which rocket is really the best? Is it SpaceX Starship? Or something else?
#space #spacex #nasa
Please support me on Patreon!
/ angryastronaut
Dear generous supporters,
For the last several months, you've heard me talk about getting to 1% of my subscribers being Patreon members.
I'll be able to really take this channel to the next level if we get there.
Since then, we've reached about 45% of that goal, but I don't see us crossing the finish line unless I have A LOT to offer in return.
So here's my proposal:
If we can reach 90% of that goal, REVENUE WISE, I'll start a channel EXCLUSIVELY for Patreon supporters. That means one recorded video and one Livestream per week, just for you! No one else will have access to this content.
Ever.
We can reach this goal, WITH YOUR HELP!
What does this mean for TH-cam Members?
If my current TH-cam Members join Patreon at the $3 level, and if my existing Patreon supporters bump up their support by ONE LEVEL, we can reach this goal this month!!
In addition, I will take video topic suggestions from you guys every week, and pick a video topic for the week.
That means you guys choose the content!
PLEASE NOTE THAT ALL CURRENT BENEFITS FOR TH-cam MEMBERS WILL NOT CHANGE, WHETHER WE REACH THE GOAL OR NOT!
What do you think?
If this sounds like a fair deal, here's my Patreon link:
/ angryastronaut - บันเทิง
Blue Origin has a rocket ? 😂
Carnival ride
Agree, it's pretty much game over for Blue Origin at this point. Since New Glenn is not in same class as Starship it can only hope to compete with Falcon Heavy...if they would ever build one.
@@Logoseum NG wouldn't competed with Starship, it would compete mostly with Vulcan and Ariane 6. Only if starship can be extremely cheap is it in the same competition for LEO and especially GTO-LTI-....
@@MDP1702 Estimates are that Starship will be cheaper than Falcon 9 so even with refueling, it will be cheaper for it to send 100-150 tons anywhere, than any other rocket system
🤣you funny 🤣
I think Starship is it. Very versatile. Can be adapted to almost anything. The Pick Up Truck of rockets.
If it’s refueled. What we need is a space fuel depot. Capture a comet and shield it so it drops into deep freeze, then mine it into its constituents; Hydrogen, Nitrogen, Oxygen, Carbon( important for making methane) and any trace metals. We can fuel up tons of ships if we can learn to catch comets.
@forcivilization5021 I can't be the only one who thinks concerns about refueling in space have been blown out of proportion just because it hasn't been done before.
Not only that, but it's simply a necessary step.
You can't avoid it forever.
No it's not because it's far from being done and it's way too big for what 95% of what the market need!
Try to deliver some pizza with a 10 wheel truck?
@@joannewilson6577 What do you think freezer trucks are for? Most pizza is delivered by 18-wheeler.
If not the whole pizza then definitely the ingredients.
What you are advocating for is a space tug, not a whole rocket.
It's called economy of scale.
Lots of rockets that are not yet constructed!
Yes but some are a lot easier than other to build and optimize....
They also have never landed vertically. No one has besides space x. I doubt they'll all master it on the first try
@Smiles10130 Blue Origin did it first
@@danielconway7190 they aren't orbital rockets
And has not done it since. Spacex does it routinely. BO takes wealthy clients to almost space every few months or so.@@danielconway7190
Stoke Space deserves an honorable mention under the "most innovative" rubric, at a minimum - for its fully reusable rocket plan and its unique second stage design with the regeneratively cooled heatshield and aerospike engine ring with differential thrust steering.
Relativity's Terran R is also an interesting contender in the Neutron/Falcon 9 class, that for some reason wasn't mentioned.
But Starship is also insanely innovative. It pioneered the FFSC methalox engine tech, as well as ultra-cheap stainless steel construction. And its capabilities will only grow from here. And if any other company starts giving SpaceX serious competition, I could see SpaceX easily and rapidly building an expanded - not just extended - fairing for the Falcon Heavy, or even using SuperHeavy as a first stage for a heavy lift rocket with expendable upper stages, that would totally mop the floor even with SLS Block 2, for still less than a tenth of the cost per launch...
Stoke as a Small to Medium FULLY reusable launch system should be very nimble . They would be the First Rocket launch company in history to ONLY be fully reusable from the get go. That should give them many growth and expansion advantages. I see them as the only potential Disrupter to Spacex
Starship only requires refueling if you want to carry the entire second stage outside of earth's orbit. Once a proper 3rd stage is created for Starship's payload bay or the inevitable expendable Starship, it will be able to do everything SLS can and more. Once the current Starship is operational by the end of this year or shortly thereafter, we will all be scratching our heads as to why we aren't using this instead of SLS. The next administration is all but certain to shift Artemis to Starship. Only way this wouldn't happen is if Starship had a major setback.
If a third stage the size of the old Saturn S-IVB with high ISP could be created to ride on top of a reusable Starship second stage the vehicle could readily loft enormous payloads into high energy orbits, put them into TLI, or into deep space trajectories at far lower cost than SLS and without depending on refueling. That isn't where SpaceX is heading right now, they are totally committed to Earth orbit refueling.
It's expensive developing new stages. Refueling is cheaper. If someone offers to pay for it, it could happen but a few refuelings and that will not be needed
@@takashitamagawa5881 Make no mistake about it, SpaceX will be all about this in the next few years. It's not all about reusability. It's about competition.
A third stage would make recovering the second stage more difficult, unless the 'third stage' is carried internally, like the Rocket Lab Neutron's 'second stage'. I suspect that will be the standard, a space-tug (or the refuelling facilities for one) carried inside the fairing, along with the payload.
On this point and to the other comments. There is Impulse space (Tim mueller former spacex cto of propulsion) that is already developing a space tug for other launchers but will definitely upgrade to use starship as implied in many of his interviews. Planned first mission of their system if I recall is 2025/2026.
I do like Rocket Lab's Neutron!
It is not on the list, but my vote for worst launch vehicle is Astra -- the one that danced sideways on the launch pad. Maybe the worst, but certainly the most entertaining.
9 launches for just 2 successes. Not a great start.
But a terrific (bankruptcy) end!!!
My bet is on Rocket Lab Neutron.
Probably going to be 2026 before their first launch.
@@odysseusrex5908 2025 is my guess, along with new contracts for launch, space services, satellite parts, space craft...
If it delivers as advertised, it will definitely be a formidable competitor to SpaceX's lineup
@@keithrange4457 It will be a strong competitor to Falcon 9, unfortunately for Rocket Lab, Starship will be coming on line at the same time.
Rocket lab Neutron 🚀
And with SLS we get to throw away 4 billion dollars each launch! What a great and versatile rocket!
Yea, he just seems to be burning the money so that it doesn't go to Ukraine (._. )
Kinda like flipping the table when losing at monopoly.
price is the most important factor for space exploration, if it makes no economic sense it's simply a dick measuring contest like Apollo with no future beyond just sending a couple of people to live on the moon or mars. The goal of starship is to make space affordable so that thousands of people can go beyond earth.
Once you add all those refilling missions for Starship, for missions beyond LEO, SLS costs start to look more reasonable.
@@RogerM88 Depends on how close Starship gets to that stated goal of 2 million dollars per launch.
@@isakh8565 2 Millions? It barely covers the propellant costs.
True that neutron is the most innovative rocket. It is incredible what rocket is doing with soo little money. Definitely the only real competitor to SpaceX.... go Rocket lab
Careful; contrary to what this video implies, Neutron is NOT being built to compete with Starship- and correctly so. So don’t make the mistake Angry does and put Neutron and Starship in the same sentence- at least, not in this decade. In this decade, Starship is totally occupied: a) getting to full and rapid reusability; b) doing its first Priority Missions: launching full-sized Starlinks; then c) supporting NASA’s HLS 1 & 2 programs, with ALL the attendant flights; i.e., actually demonstrating repeatable cryo refilling at scale; the flights themselves; and all of their refilling flights. Outside of a,b, c, Starship this decade might, at most, also launch one of the newer, Starship-only sized modules et al being developed. - Dave Huntsman
Like most things, this boils down to money. How much does it cost to get an object from point A to point B? Without full reusability, it is exceedingly doubtful that anyone will be able to even remotely compete with Starship. Just as no one can compete with Falcon 9 at the moment. There is one thing you failed to mention about Starship: It is designed to be not only reusable, but also mass manufactured. SpaceX will have a fleet of Starships in short order and your refueling worries will be dealt with as a matter of routine.
Rocket Lab’s Neutron has designed away so many operational costs. Plus Beck has confirmed future block upgrades will be coming. 🚀✨
When they do the first launch and people realize there is no billion dollar launch tower. Oh you don't need those?
Careful; whether they can get that throw-away carbon fiber second stage’s cost down Enough is going to be one of the keys to whether Neutron can be successful or not. - Dave Huntsman
We want Starship to fly, now!
I have made this statement before. There is no viable reason any rocket company can't design an upper stage to sit on the super heavy booster. Just how difficult is it to put the top 2 stages of SLS on super heavy. And with lower mass than starship just how much altitude can SH get.
While true, SH has so much thrust, it is kind of a waste to use it for lower weight stage as you will have to throttle it down anyway and if it goes up higher, it will be harder to reuse as it will have to fall from higher height.
Its not how it works. If SH pulls the wrong G's then people inside are goo. Its not KSP where you can just mix and match. A human rate-able rocket needs the crew to survive the forces exerted during the launch.
Once you figure that out ,then you need a launch tower that can load people and whatever fuel the second stage uses. (Its not methane.)
@@Honestraccoon The G forces are not that big, especially on falcon rockets. What you don't want is changes in G, so too big of a thrust would not be a problem. You don't want high G forces early on because of high dynamic pressure and because it would require different rating on the cargo.
Could be done, sls uses hydrogen rather than methane which would addcost and complexity to a launch mount and you would need an adapter of course, staging would be an issue. Sls core stages at 100 miles in height (8+ mins of burn) and Mach 23. sh does so at 40 miles (3 min burn) at a slower speed relying on starship to get above the karmin line. That’s a big gap, you could remove some engines go quicker stage later assuming upper stages can handle it but sh would be too far down range to recover without an oil rig mounted catch tower and your efficiency and payload would take a hit as sh is just much heavier and less efficient than sls core stage. (Sls core stage is actually good at what it does) I believe It would be easier to chop off the starship nose and put your sls stages there then discard the 2nd stage or build a new aluminum 2nd stage similar to the Apollo era s2 on the s5.
Or you could add a core stage on top of sh (shudders) Alternatively as others have said it would be quicker and cheaper to add a kick stage to your payload and put it inside the rocket to retain reusability of the expensive bits lowering your launch costs. The launch mount would need little modification and no need for an oil rig. The downside is spacex has not shown it can build a big enough payload door yet without compromising the structure of the nosecone for re-entry, the amount of reinforcement on the slot door suggests this is not a trivial problem.
I'm voting for Neutron as likely the most useful.
I just wonder if it will work. My understanding is so far they haven’t done any actual reuse of their current rocket.
if you are going to assume that Starship refueling is going to be delayed, you need to assume that other rockets will be delayed as well
ESPECIALLY when you look at rockets that already have years of delays (what makes anyone think SLS block 2 is going to be anywhere close to on time?)
As for unrefueled starship launches, it's huge payload means that you could have 3rd stage in the nose of the starship (or as the nose if you expend the starship), that huge capacity opens up a lot of possibilities. a Centaur upper stage is only ~25t and if you launch it from LEO rather than requiring part of it's capacity to achieve LEO, it will have substantially more long-range capacity, so let's call it 10t to deep space, let's waste 5t for bracketry and you are up to 40T, so an expendable starship could launch 4 of them in one flight, sending 40T to the moon or beyond WITHOUT any orbital refueling.
However, I think the big thing is going to be the cost per launch (cost per pound matters, but that assumes that you need the full capacity of the rocket)
for that RFA, SpaceX and RocketLabs seem to be the ones to watch
RFA is taking a very interesting approach to cost (see EA's recent EU rockets post) to drive the costs down for expendable rockets. If they can drive the cost of the rocket down to 1/10 what others are dealing with, they will actually be competitive with some of the partially reusable rockets out there.4
If SpaceX is able to fully reuse the Starship and do orbital refueling, it will be like Ford and the model T replacing everything else
refuelling is a key component of the starship design which allows it to reach further than leo. If starship had been fully developed it would have been picked to launch the Europa clipper satellite and would have quite possibly got it there quicker than SLS.
How do SLS, that flew once, Vulcan that flew once, and New Glenn which Blue Origin hasn't even orbited a single thing, fit into your calculation? It took Blue 2 YEARS to get their puddle jumper back into the tourist game after it Blue Up. And that made 7 flights total after 10 years!
In order to determine the "best" rocket, you first need to ask: what for? This question is missing in this video and the answer is different for each purpose. Versatility, reusability, payload capability are features of a rocket they are not it´s purpose.
There is only one metric that matters.
Economic.
Nothing ever happens unless it's economical enough.
@@jtjames79 Most of the time. SLS and one might say Arianne 6 is not about economics, well not on the customer side anyway :-) And of course if something is economical depends on the chosen goals. Vulcan for example was all about having a rocket that can fulfill Air/Space-force requirements which dictated all design choices.
@@michalfaraday8135 Vint Cerf and Bob Kahn didn't have a goal when they invented TCP/IP, other than making the most economical network possible. They couldn't even imagine what would be using the internet for today.
If they were only optimizing for immediate goals, even today, there is nothing more efficient than a station wagon full of tape drives barreling down the freeway.
Artemis is a station wagon, Starship is TCP/IP.
The available engines also dictated the design.
Again, Starship is not meant to serve "the market" it is to take mankind to Mars.
True. But "the best" rocket could also be defined by what best serves the current market.
It all depends on your point of view.
@@TheAngryAstronautStarship 3 is designed for 20 year missions with a small crew. It’s meant to go very far out - hence it’s name.
Also, starship could carry 100+ tons of interplanetary craft to LEO, and that craft shoots off to wherever needed. No refueling required.
It will serve the market to take mankind to mars…
The competitors will have their work cut out for them. Competition is good
Yeah, as a source for lawsuits.
Looking forward to Neutron!
We have both 747s and single engine Cessnas.
Single engine Cessnas aren't used for crossing major oceans, the comparison doesn't work super well unless you say the continents are planets. There will be little rockets to put things into orbit around mars, those would be the "Cessnas" and Starship launching from earth to the moon and mars would be more like a 747 going from South America to Europe etc. Using tiny rockets for LEO would be like shipping a package on a dedicated Cessna flight rather than loading it in a large cargo plane... flying the same route
@@jaxonmattox9267 There are thousands of planes costing between $3 and $10 millions used everyday..no need of plane costing $200 millions every time.
@@jaxonmattox9267 The Cessna Citation M2, available from $4.7 million.
As the smallest jet in Cessna's active lineup,
With its emphasis on enhanced speed, range, and comfort, the M2 boasts impressive jet performance while allowing for single-pilot operation-a feature that appeals to those looking to reduce costs or enjoy a hands-on flying experience.
Starship is supposed to be the price of a cessna but the capability of a 747
@@jaxonmattox9267 Cessna 150 and 152 pilots routinely fly their airplanes across the state, coast to coast across the country, and even across the Atlantic Ocean!
The Cessna 182 Skylane offers a slightly higher range, usually around 900 to 1,000 miles.
This single-engine aircraft is a favorite among private owners and charter services for its balance of range, speed, and carrying capacity.
But it's silly to compare a single engine $300K Cessna 172 to a $250 million big aircraft.
The Cessna Citation X is the fastest cross-continental private jet for business in the world.
Interested in Nuclear propulsion.
I don’t see anyone else who has the current resources required to overtake SpaceX in the next decade. It’s certainly quite possible that someone does, but there’s no way it’s happening in the 2020s and maybe not even in the 2030s. Falcon plans to launch 140 or so times this year. There’s not a chance anyone else gets close to that cadence in the near future. I know you cite Vulcan, which is an awesome rocket, but it’s only slated for a small handful of launches per year. We also don’t know what other variants SpaceX has planned for starship. I would imagine they’ll build a workhorse variant.
70% of the Falcon 9 launch are not paid by any customers..it cost a lot of money to Space to launch those Starlink.
It cost them hundreds of million each year!
SpaceX estimated the total cost of designing, building and deploying the constellation would be at least US$10 billion.
Starship is not close to be fully reusable if it will ever be.
If it was easy Falcon 9 would be!
I’m so disappointed in a lot of Musk’s stuff. But it’s awesome that he tries. Tesla is cool but EV is impractical and not green and disappointing, not just Tesla they all are. But SpaceX? I don’t know I’m not a rocket man but it’s impressive.
Totally disagree. Those launches are being paid by current and future subscribers to Starlink.
@@tmackey7878 And the $10 billion needed for the Starlink program come from where? and the $10 billion needed for the Starship come from where?
70% of the Falcon 9 launch (starlink)are paid by SpaceX
In a huge part by investors that bought 58% of SpaceX and by starlink.
According to the materials WSJ reviewed, SpaceX lost $968 million in 2021, and $559 million in 2022. SpaceX earned a tiny profit of $55 million in Q1 2023 -- but that was just one quarter in a very long year.
@@tmackey7878 Despite Rare Profit, SpaceX Still Mostly Loses Money: (that was 8 months ago).
Moreover, $55 million profit for the first time (in the first quarter of 2023) on $1.5 billion in quarterly revenue makes for a tiny net profit margin of just 3.7%.
But it's much worse than the 8.8% operating profit margin that Lockheed Martin Space earned last year, or the 9.4% operating profit margin at Northrop Grumman Space Systems. Yet it was a profit.
Starship will be it. It’s the Swiss Army knife inspector gadget of launch vehicles. They’ll make it do whatever you’re willing to pay for it to do in the same time it would take other companies to let you know what you’re requesting is impossible.
Somebody has a bug about refueling. All the rockets are compared WITHOUT REFUELING which is odd as there is only one rocket designed with the capability and if refueled the majority of the limitations beyond Leo are gone.
Current market. That's key. New capabilities in launch redefine the market and what's possible. I'm sure Starship will that effect. I'm more sceptical of Vulcan and New Glenn competing at that price, we'll see. Neutron does excite me though if it nails its brief and takes F9's crown. Interesting times.
There is nothing preventing SpaceX from building a stainless version of Falcon-9 scaled up to use Raptor-N... and SX will already have experience with second stage recovery and reuse if they decide on such a project.
The rest of this decade will indeed be exciting with these competitive players in the market , simply unprecedented!
you keep failing to mention that there will be SpaceX Fuel Depot ships in orbit to fuel up Starship, basically a gas station in orbit, that Starship Tankers will keep filled, So Starship will only dock once, take on a full load of fuel and proceed with its mission to the Moon, Mars or Beyond. I do not know if you are intentionally missing this point or not. An ships not yet built or flown aka proved themselves reliable can hardly be counted.
Because if he accepted that there would be no excuse to make videos about how starship fails to deliver to anything other than Leo. It's a repeated theme in recent videos about Starship WITHOUT refueling can't do ... When the design of the vehical specificly includes refueling in mission planning.
Dude , the most used rocket will be the cheapest per unit mass PERIOD and of story . Everything else is NOISE !
It isn't that easy. Starship could for example achieve a staggering low price for putting 150ton into orbit, but see this increase a lot for smaller payload.
@@MDP1702
They will aggregate small items to make a full load. It is done today - and has been for more than a century - with train cars and semi trailers and container ships. The small payload guys may need to wait for launch, though. Or they might pay for the entire launch, if the load is urgent.
@@frankmcgowan9457 Ride share missions are not the norm, nor the best. And starship definitely isn't a perfect vehicle to perform rideshare missions, not at all, unless it also refuels to reach different orbits.
Maybe if the payloads have their own propulsion to get into the correct orbit or in orbit tugsatellites are going to be used, but this also drives up cost.
And it isn't like other companies would just standby and do nothing. Look at what Rocketlab does for example, or other startups and who knows what some of the big companies are doing behind the scenes. For all we know NG is delayed because BO tried to reduce its cost or make it more future proof (like just needing to add a reusable 2nd stage on top of the existing booster similar ot starship, but smaller).
266$/kg for 150 tons is great, 2000$/kg would be not much better (if any) vs opposition. (40$/mission cost for 150tons and 20tons respectively)
Cheapest per unit mass is not Starship. Cost per mass depends entirely on the required orbits and customer availability, both of which Starship has major problems with. It's like comparing an A380 vs 737.
Starship is a cargo ship Neutron will be UPS delivery van both will have a place but for Leo Neutron makes more sense
It is all come down to cost and time. If you want more flexibility it going to Neutron with higher cost. But we you going to lowest cost Starship is the way to go. Just like falcon 9, it will have ride share. With both starship and falcon 9, Space x is going eat up most the Leo because of price.
A new wider fairing for the falcon heavy is a very easy task. With it, it will beat all rockets by anyone else. SpaceX is 10-20 years ahead of all other players on Earth.
Excellent presentation!!
The only one that gets butt hurt about spaceX is that angry astronaut
Think starship would be more versatile simply because it is still capable in full expendable mode which would actually take away a lot of what was mentioned. The issue is the cost gets increased by a lot
If spacex developed a disposable second stage they could outperform all the other rockets. Hopefully they develop one for customers who want a simpler option.
They may do so 1 day, but at present, they have zero interest in any expendable bits. After full reuse is accomplished, only then they may make a variant that is then just a stripped down variant of the reusable starship for added mass lift capability
Competition is good. I hope for at least a dozen operational heavy lift rockets from as many companies/organizations within 10 years. But rn SpaceX really has no competitors. Other than NASA of course which has the only operational heavy lift rocket. Which I'm not entirely convinced will ever launch again.
Feel very excited, every time I watch this!
What a great episode thank you man wasn’t aware of the fact how good the neutron rocket will be. Peter Beck rocks punk cool guy
Good one. It has been a while since I’ve seen one of your videos.
SLS - Super Launcher Subsidies...
Pffft, you're really using Refueling as the "Achielles Heel" for Starship, the only rocket to launch aside SLS, while all these others either are non-functional or wont be ready to, lets be real here, 2040 at BEST
I get it, youre upset Alpacha to this day lost, and you hate SpaceX, or maybe Elon, dunno which, a LOT and still have to cover it for the views
But be real here Angry, remove the shades and take a nice long look.
Dont be Angry about space, be Real about space. Stay Excited Y'all
You should probably start discussing the incoming multiple strong, dense and fast moving CMEs that will impact the earth starting today….there are 6 of them
As an angry astronaut and all
Huh? Where did you get that?
In my opinion, Starship and Vulcan have the best chance of getting into service first. Let's not forget that starship is closer than ever to being able to deliver payloads to LEO. Both rockets have been to space, albeit starship was on a sub orbital trajectory it could have very easily burned all the way to orbit and deployed a payload. Vulcan is an already proven rocket and thus i think these 2 will have the REAL competitive advantage
Risk factors for Neutron not addressed: 1.) PB has short-changed his testing program. Vertical flight down to precision control/landing is Not Trivial. SpaceX was correct to not wait and learn the basics of that early on with cheap, thrown-together test vehicles. I see no movement by RocketLab on the (needed) program to learn that key skill. 2.)Even with that practice, remember how much, er, ‘fun’ SpaceX had learning how to stick the landings on the drone ships? It wasn’t just a launch or two; & those booster losses were with boosters primarily meant to be expendable to begin with- not with expensive full-up reusability designed in from the get-go for each and every vehicle. 3.) A lesson from SpaceX history is that detail-oriented CEOs in rocket business needs be a “US person” to be able to get into weeds & make big design calls like Elon did. PB himself is a ‘Key Person’- yet he is Not, per ITAR rules, allowed the 100% visibility & control into Neutron that Elon had (and has)- & it was Elon who very critically did make all of the hard design choices on Falcon AND Dragon AND Starship AND Starlink- because unlike Elon, PB is Not a “US Person”. 4) Competition circa 2026/later will be brutal, w/new boosters coming online, as well as SpX able to dump F9s on market when most ⅔ of its payloads (Starlink Minis) go away w/Starship launching Starlink full-sized. Now, I DO agree with Vince that SpaceX will NOT lower F9 prices to bargain basement; they have the lowest cost-basis/most efficient rocket operation in history, everything’s been amortized, they can lower prices Enough to give all other competitors headaches- yet still bring in profits they need to fund other developments. 5) Vince gives RocketLab being the big dog at Wallops as a plus- he’s right, on that- but he doesn’t bring up the negative: Neutron is designed to launch whole constellations, and there are whole orbital planes that almost all constellations need to get to that CANNOT be gotten to from Wallops. A customer can go to SpaceX/Falcon 9 alone to launch to ANY inclination from 2026 onward; they cannot do with Rocketlab; Rocketlab can never been the sole-source launcher for constellations, and that is NOT a selling point. To be able to get to all inclinations like SpaceX can, Rocketlab would have to have another launch location- something requiring significant capex they have not budgeted for. It can’t be New Zealand- LOX production for all of NZ together would fill up only half a Neutron lox tank; if they wanted to launch Neutron from NZ, they’d basically have to create that industry down there, which Peter has shown no interest in doing.
Are any of the above risk factors absolute killers? Of course not. But I list them here for one reason: Management has not, to date, given full disclosure on what the mitigation effects for any/all of these will have on the bottom line. That’s all. - Dave Huntsman
Allen musk always stated that he is open to competition, so if someone else gets a opportunity to open a part of the market they're welcome, the old group ULA Boeing etc drop behind more and more on daily base, new glen still is a paper rocket.....
I'm outraged!
It's actually SpaceX vs Cartoons 🙂
Well, Vulcan is already operational - and so is SLS, for what it's worth - and Starship is not.
@@andreabindolini7452 Yes but Elon said ...
MOM!! People on the internet are making fun of Starship! It's the future don't you know?!
Good video, Jordan. Well balanced with content. Now, if only SpaceX would develop a reusable third stage that could nest inside the Starship's payload volume. Hmm. Isn't a guy named Mueller developing something like that? 🤔
To clarify....YES, I am a SpaceX/Starship "Fan Boy"....
I ALSO have the same enthusiastic "Fan Boy-ishness" for RocketLab !!!
I can guarantee you - SPACE X will ALREADY have a new larger fearing for Falcon 9… but regardless, the INCREDIBLY CHEAP, full reusable STAR SHIP can take just about any payload cost effectively. ❤😊
I think it's odd to say that refueling is a negative, meanwhile things like docking to ISS and separation of the segments in Apollo and Artemis mission is completely ignored. It is so so much easier to dock and transfer propellent than to dock and share electricity, pressurization and physical cargo (including humans). People mention how many refueling Starship HLS will require, but forget how many mission critical docking and undocking are involved when using SLS. Just to be clear, Starship HLS can be made to load crew on Earth, go to space, refuel in LEO, land on Moon, deploy crew on EVA (multiple airlocks and hatches possible without depressurizing the entire craft!), reenter the HLS and return to earth and propulsively land.
Meanwhile Artemis 3 will require multiple stages, multiple separations even before leaving LEO, travel to moon orbit then insert into near-rectilinear halo orbit (a 3 body orbit that takes a week for ful orbit btw), dock with Gateway, transfer crew to Gateway, enter HLS that is docked to Gateway, land on moon with HLS, deploy crew on EVA (possibly no airlock at all if SpaceX HLS not used), enter the HLS, go to orbit, dock with Gateway again, transfer back into Orion, and then go back to earth. It includes in total 4 separation events, 5 crew transfers though crafts and possibly no airlocks on surface of the moon.
Starship will be the dominant Semitrailer .....but it's not a taxi or a 5 ton.
Ula is out unless they move to reuse.
Blue Origin is just behind the curve.
Falcon Heavy extended will be the 5 ton.
Starship is by far the best launch vehicle ever built. If it can reach the lofty goals set for it it will revolutionise the space industry and male every other launch vehucle obsolete
Interesting episode man
I'm glad you liked it!
You didn't cover Stoke Space... 100% reusable is its goal ... higher than Neutron. I'd also score Falcon Heavy as more reusable than Neutron on a Mass-to-Orbit vs Percent of Rocket Reused.
Just a note to all UAP. The Canadian Gov Science minister has stated they are going to release the Sky Canada Project in the fall and she said . "I think our report is going to be quite fascinating on the historic front, so stay tuned." Sky Canada Project, is the first known official Canadian UFO study in nearly 30 years.
Interesting story in yesterday's video from Down to Earth With Kristian Harloff about Dr Kirkpatrick being photographed at a 2018 Skinwalker Ranch meeting he denied attending when recently interviewed by Steven Greenstreet!
Starship is meant for Mars it will b funded by starlink .
For anything to Earth orbit it will be Starship. Anything beyond… Starship unless you need speed that it can’t provide.
You can put a 100+ ton rocket inside starship. With hydrogen engines that would probably mean more than 20 tons to the moon from 1 launch. But 100 tons to the moon sounds alot more fun. Even if it takes 10 launches.
@@yujinhikita5611 Could then probably as well just create a small non-reusable 2nd stage for starship.
Why wouldn't SpaceX make a Starship without a cargo bay and designed to lift another vehicle on its nose? Heat shielding that can bear the load (or be deployed prior to re-entry) would allow recovery of that abbreviated Starship to be recovered and reused.
Reuse is key to the SpaceX strategy; we should not expect them to give up on that if there is any way to preserve it and provide the utility demanded by the marketplace.
@@frankmcgowan9457 it can just carry that vehicle in its nose.
@@frankmcgowan9457 Because then either the client or SpaceX needs to pay for the extra vehicle. What would be the upside vs using providers of smaller rockets that also can achieve the necessary result.
Also using more methane isn't necessarily a positive thing either, not for publicity reasons (co2 emissions) or for cost long term (most likely higher environmental taxes will eventually be raised on co2 emissions or burning of methane directly).
At some point the question also might be asked if burning so much more fuel for same outcome is even acceptable.
Lot's of cherry picking and selective handicapping here. I would say the whole point of starship is refueling or more importantly breaking the stranglehold of cost getting more delta farther up the gravity well. Having an incredible cost advantage to LEO for fuel almost trivializes any of the challenges solved or advantages of any other rocket you talked about.
No rocket is too big when it's that efficient.
I believe it's called 1st movers advantage.
That would go to ULA, SLS.
Well, take heat shield & flap, dumb the whole rocket into the ocean, and finally, put $150 million/ launch. I double dare you calling Starship not versatile.
Starship's the only system designed from the ground up to protect Life's precious candle by making it multi-planetary... I wish other rockets shared that mission enough for a truly fair comparison.
But it's not, it's only a heavy lifter to LEO, for all other purposes it's better to use a suitable craft, which potentially could be delivered by starship.
It's a work horse.
You are repeating what you have been told. It's really sad.
Go play Kerbal space program (original one) for 500h+. You will get much more understanding of the topic. Why rockets are built in stages, what's deltaV and Isp and other useful insights. Starship can only work great for LEO. By design. And "Life's precious candle" is complete bs. Or climate change and all the waste wouldn't be a thing here. Plus self sustainable Mars colony is not yet possible. Unsustainable - useless. 100+years to go.
For Europa Clipper: Instead of SLS and to keep its time benefit, a redesign of the payload to include an ion drive along with Super Heavy?
I've been saying for a while, that as Starship will be able to launch such a large payload mass to LEO, then that payload could be a space vehicle in and of itself. 100 tons (let alone 200 tons!) of space craft in LEO I think can go quite far....
I'm sure there will be a few people that will take a look at that concept, space tugs for servicing satellites or clearing up space junk are probably the first to be sent. Get a few space stations up there and you could have craft for moving crew around in leo.
competition is a good thing in any market and I wish everyone luck. BUTT I will belive it when I see it.
Companies spend a fortune miniaturizing satellites because of the limit of size and weight to fit on the rocket. Starship will allow much larger, heavier, and cheaper satellites. There is definitely a market for that.
We need reusable not one time 🤫🤫🤫🤫🤭🙄
History has proven time and time again cost is the number one deciding factor in expansion
Hm, no mention of Relativity Space with their Terran R, or Firefly Aerospace with their MLV?
I'm curious how SpaceX Super Heavy Booster without Starship would stack up. It'd probably put most of the competitors to shame and do some missions that it couldn't with Starship.
New Glenn and Neutron are the prettiest, clean and sleek. ULA's is fairly tidy as well. Starship? Well, it looks like whatever they forgot initially gets just stuck in a stainless steel box and welded on the outside. It has all the streamlining and aesthetics of an oil refinery: why bother making it tidy when you have over 7500 tons of thrust, and it's in vacuum when it gets to high speed?
Good day
I like Relativity Space
Capability? Lets see if any of these rockets can consistently work as promised before discussing their capabilities. Not to mention cost... theoretical capabilities is complete nonsense.
lol I'll go with starship because, ya know, it actually exists lulz
Jeeze, I honestly dont know how it's possible to keep up with all the launch platforms. I'd love to see a global (puiblic) planned launch schedule.
There’s one on NASAspaceflight’s website
Space X rockets are reusable.
Also, is Terran R from Relativity Space not worthy of mention? Probably just as mature as Neutron is currently. Who's cost will be lower will determine who makes it and who doesn't
Starship could just add four oversize boosters!😊
They can add 16 if they want no one care!
Elon Musk said, "It actually ended up being way harder to do Falcon Heavy than we thought. ... We were pretty naive about that"
@@joannewilson6577 And they didn't even implement the propellant cross-feed feature like they'd originally planned.
Also, no, you can't just strap a bunch of boosters to Starship, you'd have to completely re-engineer it to take them.
@@GoranXII Indeed it costed +$500 millions just to get the Falcon Heavy to work and +$1 billion just to make the first stage of the Falcon 9 to work....
@@GoranXII Russian rockets had cross-feed in the past. 🙂
SLS starting cost is $800 million but usually will come out to $1.6 billion per rocket if not bought in bulk…
Falcon Heavy only costs $97 million and is reusable. I’m sorry but these launches are taxpayer dollars and it’s insane to think that there’s even an option other than it’s obviously to help line the pockets of politicians. Same goes for ULA, the Air Force selected them to pick up 60% of future launches on a rocket that wasn’t even in existence at the time but SpaceX only got 40%??? You’re telling me, the most reliable and cheapest medium-lift rocket wasn’t a majority of that contract?? The damn thing is reusable, they have three boosters now that have passed their 20th flight and landing.
Screw the time frame, here’s something to consider. The Europa Clipper might be taking longer to getting towards its destination but nothing will ever take as long as cost-plus contractors and the government.
I don't understand why you think refueling starship is going to require a lot of infrastructure. Just one Fuel Depot. The Depot can stay in orbit. SpaceX keeps it topped off. When Starship launches, it goes, gets the fuel and leaves-- maybe a day in orbit. Then the depot gets topped off at SpaceX';s leisure...
Comparing vaporware....😊
Starship could be used in 2stages, with 2nd stage (expandable) separated from the cone section, that would be an size adapter with orion capsule on top of it . I would much cheaper than SLS, even throwing away 6 engines and the tank section. They could do a NG heavy similar to Falcon Heavy with 3 rockets?
What about Stoke?! You failed to mention Stoke…
Stoke won’t make it. Interesting design but probably not the right design. Rocket lab seems to have a smarter design.
have you considered the capability of starship with a kick stage for high-energy missions?
I don't know why some my replies seems deleted. I'll try here. This reply is for
@jimc1654.
In order to reach lunar surface from LEO, you need about 6300 m/sec of deltaV: 3100 for TLI, 800 for LOI, 2400 for powered descent. The rocket equation shows that an hypotetical 50 tons lander would need a couple of propulsive modules, metholox powered, 150 tons each of gross weight, to achieve this cumulative delta V. Such a stack could be assebled, via Starship, in only three launches, instead of the 11/15 needed for the current plan. Of those 50 tons, roughly half are needed for fuel in order to return from the surface, leaving 25 tons of dry mass. Sure, this is much less than the 100 tons lunar Starshp, but those 100 tons are for the most part tankage, structures and engines needed only for the launch and not on the Moon.
In his latest speech to Spacex workers Elon said they would only need 4-5 refueling flights for the HLS mission, starships capabilities have advanced from the original Nasa proposal which was in itself a worse case projection.
@@shaung949 4-5 implies, at best, 200 tons per launch, achievable only if you make use of expendable Starships. For the reusable system, a paper suggests the number of 15, taking into account the inevitable boil-off between launches. But we can be generous assuming that the boiloff is totally removed and setting the number to, say, 10 launches.
The best rocket is the one that’s actually out there racking up miles.
Imagine having the backing, resources, and expertise of Boeing, and Lockheed Martin, getting a pass on antitrust laws, and having your biggest customer, the US government, paying you a ten-figure annual retainer…and still being outclassed by SpaceX in virtually every respect (and potentially becoming a laggard to even newer competitors).
Engines? Entirely their own damn fault for deciding to rely on Russia and your direct competition.
I really want to hear the excuses, because I don’t think there is any other way to characterize ULA than an embarrassment.
New Glenn is an odd duck, its payload puts it in the same class as f9h which rarely flys because the capabilities are not often needed. f9 is simply cheaper and can do 95% of the work. Far as I can tell new Glenn is intended for constellations, lots of mass to Leo. However it’s going to have stiff competition from f9 neutron vulcan etc on the lighter end and starship and f9h or on higher orbits Vulcan for the heavier side. If not for Amazons Kuiper project I think it would struggle.
It's all very well to talk about rockets like New Glenn and Vulcan Centaur, but they both require BE-4 engines from Blue Origin. Up till now, it is doubtful if Blue Origin can build BE-4 engines in a production line, instead it will have to hand-build and tweak them. And given that Amazon has a massive contract to construct the Kuiper internet constellation, it will be difficult to imagine a company that has been in existence for 24 years and hasn't even got a prototype first-stage, nor can show it even has 7 working engines for it, will have any spare rockets and engines for other customers. Speculating about this paper rocket is fruitless. That supposed first flight in late 2024 with 2 tiny payloads to Mars is looking a bit of a non-happening.
SLS is 70s technology with a build cadence of 1 per year charitably, and a launch-cost of 4 billion dollars. It is a one-trick pony. Incidentally, even despite the high launch costs of SLS, the Europa Clipper launch went to SpaceX, not just because the launch was mega-expensive, not just because there were no spare SLS vehicles for it, but because the launch-vibration characteristics were too extreme, and could have caused damage to the payload on ascent. The two year extra journey time was unfortunate, but the payload should reach its destination in one piece, and save humungous amounts of money (nearly 4 billion dollars).
It's really too early to make any determinations like this. Nothing is working fully yet, and nothing has been proven in flight. There are many good ideas at work in the developments. And I think it's been shown many times that one design does not fit all purposes. In the end, some will work better than others at what they're best at, and when one falls short, it will be improved or else someone else will step in. I wish them all well.
Europa clipper weighs 6 tons with fuel, 2nd stage of falcon 9 is around 100 tons fuelled, maybe they can frankenstein it inside starship as a third stage and save years on similar long distance missions
Its called a space tug & it can be any shape as it only operates in vacuum ie 9 meters in diameter and just 2 or 3 meters tall.😮
Regarding Startship, it is my stupid opinion that the flight stage should have a NTP engine instead of standard chemical propulsion... NTP not as in Network Time Protocol but instead as in Nuclear Thermal Propulsion, which would be guaranteed to ensure minimal refueling needs if any refueling at all would be needed before returning from the moon or even farther.
It can’t do that, it needs the chemical engines to get into LEO. What it can to do is assemble an NTP rocket in space.
@@zachb1706 Check the Nuclear Thermal propulsion in more detail, recent engines should be able to fight gravity directly, aka, from lift-off. The only reason I am only pointing to the sharship stage is safety.
Yer convince the IEA & the Public that they should let a private company launch a rocket that leaves a radioactive trail behind ! 😅 your such a clown😂
@@jackdbur You realize that there is no need to have it leave a radioactive trail behind right? We're not exactly in the 60's tech wise.
Relativity speaking, you didn't say anything about Relativity's R rocket
Redundant questions... successfully all companies are capable.. time to coordinate and implement cooperation. If the future is gonna exceed
Has or will have?
I'm not an engineer so tell me how much payload, both manned and unmanned, can starship get to the moon without the reusablility criteria? If starship is cheaper to manufacture and than launch, what's the problem? 🤷
Over 100t with refuelling
@shaung949 4-5 launches implies something like 200/250 tons per launch, achievable only if you make use of expendable Starships. For the reusable system, a paper suggests the number of 15 launches, taking into account the inevitable boil-off between launches. But we can be generous assuming that the boiloff is totally removed and setting the number to, say, 10 launches.
That was the figure Elon gave, a lot depends on the amount of fuel actually needed to land and take off from the moon. Spacex have advanced their designs and ratpor engines a lot since they made their initial proposal to Nasa so they may not need as much fuel for HLS.
I'm looking forward to a future when we mine asteroids for resources and manufacture spacecraft and other things in outer space instead of using the resources of Earth and launching them into outer space. Might be a while though.
Ps ... that's the run dmc way it is ... future forward thinking gets better