Enjoy 10% OFF and free shipping on all Hoverpens with code SPACERACE: North America & other countries: bit.ly/SpaceRace-novium UK & Europe: bit.ly/SpaceRace-noviumeu
Constructing a concrete structure resembling a volcano with multiple holes around it to disperse heat presents an intriguing idea. This design could potentially spread the intense heat generated during a launch, reducing the concentration of heat in any single area.
The meteor pen is the one I want, but I can't afford it. I still think, once Mechazilla catches a booster or ship, it should become known as MechaMiyagi!
It wasn't that they thought that using the Vertical Tanks was more unsafe, It was US & Texas Regulations for the Safe Storage of Liquid Methane and/or Liquid Propane (close to CH4). Thus, they had to re-purpose some of the existing tanks (which are now being demo'ed for new tankage). This was one reason Elon was saying things about Regulations keeping the possibility of Man to Mars from happening, in the thing he had with Jay Lenno...
We did worry about a 60 foot Launch Pad---especially launching 16 Million Pounds Force at 6,000 Degrees, with a 400 Foot Long Exhaust. In Fact it was 27 to 28 Months ago We Warned of a Launch Without a TRENCH DELUGE SYSTEM. We are actually amazed, the Launch pad sees so little damage.
Don't forget about how the raptors start, thrust, fuel to engine's ratio, re-routing vector control, engines power during launch, etc. Love your video's. Wish I could help write for you guys. - NOM
Imagine trying to recreate this launchpad on mars. Especially the lack of water. Im pretty sure mars will be a one way ride and no return for a long time until technology catches up.
Theory on the Use of Antimatter as Fuel The idea of using **antimatter** as fuel for advanced propulsion systems is based on its ability to release enormous amounts of energy through the process of annihilation, where antimatter particles collide with matter particles, converting all the involved mass directly into energy, as described by Einstein’s equation **E = mc²**. This process is, theoretically, the most efficient form of mass-to-energy conversion known to science. 1. Production and Storage of Antimatter Currently, antimatter can be produced in particle accelerators, such as the Large Hadron Collider (LHC), where high-energy collisions result in the creation of antiparticles. The major challenge is the minuscule quantities produced and the extremely high cost of the process. For example, only a few atoms of **antihydrogen** have been produced so far, and the estimated cost of producing one gram of antimatter would be in the trillions of dollars. To make the use of antimatter as fuel feasible, we would need to develop much more efficient technologies for mass production of antiparticles, such as antiprotons and positrons, possibly by exploring larger-scale collisions or yet-unknown processes in particle physics. Another significant challenge is **storing** antimatter. Any contact between antimatter and ordinary matter would result in immediate annihilation, releasing energy uncontrollably. Today, antiparticles can be stored in magnetic and electrostatic traps, known as **Penning traps**, where they float in a vacuum, avoiding contact with material walls. However, storing larger quantities of antimatter for space propulsion would require developing much more stable and efficient magnetic containers with powerful electromagnetic fields. 2. Antimatter-Based Propulsion The most promising application of antimatter as fuel would be in **space propulsion systems**, given its potential to release vast amounts of energy with a very small amount of fuel. Two application scenarios are considered: a. Direct Annihilation Propulsion In this theoretical model, the annihilation between antiprotons (antimatter particles) and protons (ordinary matter particles) would release high-energy particles, such as gamma photons, which could be directed to generate **thrust**. The efficiency would far surpass that of conventional chemical rocket systems, potentially reaching significant fractions of the speed of light, making interstellar travel more viable. The main limitation of this concept is how to channel the energy released by annihilation in a controlled manner, as gamma radiation is difficult to capture and convert into thrust. An advanced system of mirrors or radiation-resistant materials would be required to direct this energy. b. Hybrid Fusion-Antimatter Propulsion Another possibility is using small amounts of antimatter to initiate nuclear fusion reactions. Nuclear fusion, which is already being researched as an energy source, requires high temperatures for atomic nuclei to fuse. Antimatter, upon annihilating with matter, could provide the initial energy needed to trigger these reactions, creating a hybrid propulsion system. In this model, antimatter would not be the primary fuel but rather a catalyst, making nuclear fusion more efficient and controlled while reducing the amount of antimatter needed. 3. Technological Feasibility Although antimatter is, in theory, the most efficient fuel known, there are significant practical obstacles to overcome before it becomes a usable reality: - Cost of Production: Producing antimatter in viable quantities at an affordable cost would require revolutionary advances in particle physics and accelerator engineering. - Safe Storage: Storing significant amounts of antimatter without causing accidental annihilation requires creating incredibly precise and robust magnetic and electrostatic fields, an area still under development. - Energy Conversion: Even if we can control annihilation, converting the released energy into a usable form, whether electricity or propulsion, involves significant engineering challenges. Handling gamma radiation or other high-energy particles is a critical obstacle. 4. Future Applications In the future, if these technological barriers are overcome, antimatter could revolutionize areas such as: - Space Exploration: Interstellar travel could become possible with antimatter-powered spacecraft, reaching significant fractions of the speed of light, shortening trips to other star systems from centuries to decades. - Emergency Energy: Small antimatter reactors could serve as emergency power sources in isolated locations or scenarios where space and weight are limited. - Energy Weapons: On the other hand, the destructive potential of antimatter also represents a threat, capable of releasing immense amounts of energy in explosions. This raises ethical and control issues over the use of such technology. 5. Conclusion While antimatter holds the potential to revolutionize the future of energy and propulsion, it remains a distant technology from practical application. Developing viable methods for producing, storing, and using antimatter depends on significant advances in particle physics, materials engineering, and high-energy propulsion systems. Nevertheless, antimatter represents one of the most exciting frontiers in science, with profound implications for humanity’s future, especially in the realm of space exploration.
I’m absolutely certain Elon is a Fanderson. I also agree the OLM and Starship are Anderson inspired, and what about the Dragon capsule? That docking hatch cover is something Gerry would have designed.
Ya still have a 400 foot long, 6,000 Degree, 16 Million Pound Blow Torch ---Sitting in a 60 Foot Tower - WE are really surprised there isn't more Damage.... not the Bones BUT the Equipment & Fittings.
That was how all traditional Western Rockets were launched the Soyuz has used an Orbital Launch mount since the 1960s obviously its a lot more basic than the SpaceX one but then it didn't need to be complex for the Soyuz
@@bigianh I apologise for the hostility, but to call old tech more basic is just simply untrue, especially since Starships's launch pad was now forced to use solutions that existed since orbital flights were a thing. The materials might change, so can shape, but the basics remain the same
@@KnightspaceORG Ohh I get that the Physics and engineering haven't changed much. Actually when you get down to it Soyuz is even more impressive because back then they were using pencils & slide rules and didn't have access to transistors never mind the micro processors we have today
@@bigianhrelatively unchanged is a pretty strong generalization. Sure, same engines(ish) and booster design. But if you think the rocket is the same then you are grossly wrong. The first rockets could literally only launch tiny probes literally the size of a watermelon. While today they launch missions on one of the worst orbital trajectories to the largest object ever put into space.
With the amount of concrete they used for that thing, they might as well have built a conventional trench launch platform from the beginning. But hey, if it works, it works.
But it won’t. And it’s questionable if their water deluge system is even legal since they will be dumping a bunch of polluted water into a protected sanctuary.
It appears to me that your Falcon 9 launch scenario is incorrect. The stages and payload/capsule are assembled in the HIF, or horizontal integration facility right next to the launchpad. Only then does the transporter erector bring it up a rail system to the pad itself.
makes you think if they need such a complicated system to launch how will they land and launch on other planets? which don't have this system deployed?
So, you are giving SpaceX kudos for "moving quickly and breaking things", even things that have a known history of how to build safely, reliably, and efficiently. The thing that amazes me is that NASA, Florida and local state officials gave the OK to launch, and that SpaceX wasn't heavily fined for safety and environmental violations.
@@oversovl Well, let's start with the fact that they had to replace every single clamp holding the flying pipe on the launch pad. There might've not been concrete flying everywhere, but there was still a lot of damage
While a very good description of spacex's setup... it didn't explain the burning question I have: WHY spacex went for a showerhead that sends debris, flames and steam in all directions as opposed to a traditional flame trench that redirects most of the rockets thrust safely away from the site.
@@fernmra massive trench is a pretty cheap option. A simple single tube water deluge system is a pretty simple me cheap option. They didn’t build the flame trench because they pulled a fast one on the FAA, the Texas government, and every wildlife agency in the US. The site was pictured in their own documents to be for falcon 9 launches. Which was already questionable(but the Texas government needed more federal tax dollars so hey might as well). Then they started blowing up rockets and neither the FAA, EPA, or department of the interior stopped them. And now they plan on launching rockets the size of the Saturn 5. He didn’t do it to be cheap. He already has LC 39. He never had to pay for the infrastructure. But in a couple years people are gonna be asking why they went from the most advanced and developed space launching infrastructure to a quarter mile off the border of Mexico. Brownsville is literally 1 percent better for deltaV than cape Canaveral. By elons logic. He should’ve went to Brazil or Kenya or Indonesia.
A while back I watched as Mecazilla captured a returning F9! It was amazing. Once again Space X made science fiction become reality! They nailed it on the first try! Sure StarShip is bigger and more powerful but I think they will do it and they might nail it on the first try. It will probably be a few more test flights before they get to doing that but I hope I can be at Starbase when it happens.
I still can’t stop thinking big rocket is such a waste of time… Way better to focus on electro / hydro magnetic levitation that solve all theses cumbersome problem
I got to be that guy real quick. If Starship can't lay over on its side, how does anyone expect it to do the belly flop or flip and burn maneuver? Also how was ift 1 able to rotate over 360 Degrees while attached without succumbing to aerodynamic forces? I think the whole ship can't be on its side is a misconception
flip and burns or other midair maneuvers are probably different from sitting on the ground and having most of the weight on one side instead of distributed across the support structures inside the rocket also, for like flip and burns, those raptors are mounted much more structurally than a sheet of metal forming the skin of the ship that d definitely could crumple could also just be that they don't wanna risk it or maybe it requires extra maintenance idk tho, I'm no engineer
@diogenespepsi6244 nope. Rocket will be falling at 1g. Just like sitting on its side on the ground. Plus you have the relative wind pushing upward on it. So it actually is under more stress falling than stationary. It could be transported horizontally, without damage.
@@citizenblue I mean if so it's probably just that it introduces some risks of damage and they'd rather not go through the trouble, though I don't doubt the possibility that the ship just really would not want to be tilted sideways given how massive it is
Cancel water deluge system and legs, double the present hieght of launch pad, the space distance from nozzle to tke ground but a big changes to launch pad legless but to fabricate other menchanzillla like but to tripple the strenght of menchanzilla like to build as lower new additional heavy ccarrier crane menchanzilla with bisected launchoen pad when rocket elevate from it then it will open and move sideways to free launch pad directly expose to huge fire from rocket nozzle, the distance with good constructed ground base will help to lessen pressure cause by heat plus the coolant from launc pad even it is moving sideward scattering the gas coolant arroud the lower part of the tower space down to the ground base..
i am curious actually it is not easy for the arm to catch the recycled rocket as the force might be very strong the arm and the corresponding building must very strong for holding it 🤣🤣 i am layman so i duno whether it is easy or not 🤣
@@mobiuscoreindustries Yes ...but it worked..!!! Planes are reusable on the spot ,...Not refurbishable ....it don't take a month for a plane to take new passengers, only 1 hour...!!!
@@bogdan78pop we are talking about a spaceship, not a plane. And besides this entire thing is being done specifically do we can get closer or reach aircraft like capabilities. As it stands, it took 2 months to fix the damage of IFT-1 to get it ready for IFT-2. And it took less than a week to prep the OLM for IFT-3. A more accurate comparison for those would be the SLS mobile launch tower. a tower that cost more than one billion, and took about half a year to be repaired from the previous SLS launch and next launch isn't planned before 2024 You really do not have a lot of comparison to go for other than the shuttle and the falcon 9 when it comes to actual refurbishment and re flight. The space shuttle's average refurbishment time was 6 months, and it's absolute fastest was 54 days (and after challenger, 88 days), while the falcon 9 manages an impressive 51 days including the time it takes to bring the droneship back. But if you ever want airliner like reflight, you need what SpaceX is doing here. Bringing back booster and ship to a suitable launch point, have standardized easy to service construction, easily swappable engines, and as much of the equipment needed on the OLM rather than on the ship. Also can you please type like a normal human being?
That steel plate "shower head" is NOT a real flame diverter. Truest is allowed to go out uncontrolled in every direction! Including towards the tower and the way too close tank farm! You guys call this "innovation"? I call it a disaster waiting to happen.
Elon officially wins the biggest dik swinging contest lol back when the pad was just getting done, prior to the luge system, i jokingly said to him, could you please just move them fkn tanks just at least 50 yards further away from that nuclear blast zone??? lol
Very informative. However, watching the SpaceX launchpad design process just demonstrates how pig-headed they can be. Yes, they have learned from failures during the iterative design process. But some of those failures could have been easily foreseen by "traditional" designers of launch pads. SpaceX, in their pig-headed insistence that they always know more than all the rocket experts of history, proceeded with a design that was inadequate to the needs of Super Heavy, and everyone BUT SpaceX knew it, and the completely foreseeable failure gave them a real black eye in the area of PR and relations with government regulatory agencies and local residents. Thankfully they have fixed many of the design flaws and are in the process of fixing the other obviously stupid part of their design - placing giant upright propellant tanks a few hundred feet away from the most powerful rocket in history and expecting them to suffer no damage. But there is another thing that has remained unaddressed. The more complex and indispensable you make the "Stage 0", the more devastating any damage to it will be to the continued functioning of your fleet of Starships and Super Heavy boosters. Since neither part of the system has landing legs, you will be catching live, partially fueled, flaming components as they try to land - all in the name of quicker reusability. All you need is one slightly misaligned catch, or an engine or guidance failure at the end of the flight to completely destroy one of the Stage 0 facilities for a VERY, VERY LONG TIME. You will not only lose a Starship and Super Heavy, but you will lose the ability to launch the rest of your fleet. To me, that is a very large drawback that more than compensates for any weight savings of eliminating landing legs. Why not just have a landing pad on rails a safe distance from the launch pad? If the landing is successful, then you just ride your booster or Starship back over to the launch pad on the rails, and then the chopsticks pick it back up and place it on the pad for another launch. If you have a failed landing you have lost a much less complicated structure far away from any fuel tanks. Perhaps some of the engineers at SpaceX have figured this out, but Elon is pretty hard to sway once his mind is set on an idea. If he doesn't think of it, it likely won't get done.
Well put. I agree with your comments. However, there is even more unaddressed problems ahead. Specifically, just one catastrophic failure on launch that whole launch facility is going to be destroyed and there will be some massive secondary explosions. Your comment that SpaceX/Musk is pig-headed is right on point...but I would also add SpaceX/Musk wants to do everything on the cheap on the service support side. Hence, the ludicrously small footprint of the launch facility. The failure to build a proper launch facility without a proper fire trench/baffle diverter deluge system is going to bite them in the ass down the road. Additionally, they chose to build their facility right next to the beach at Boca Chia on a barrier island right in the middle of a wildlife refuge. Plus, one level 5 hurricane with the usual accompanying storm surge will wipe that entire facility out. So, I blame the State of Texas and the Federal Government for allowing this to happen in the first place. I am all for commercial space programs but if they can't meet certain infrastructure standards they shouldn't get in the game in the first place. That said...there are other failures here...if you look at the slow-motion launch video the overpressure pulse waves of 33 engines with 16.7 million pounds of thrust coming off the first stage means a massive amount of harmonic vibration on the whole Star ship stack and the entire launch facility. I believe that had to cause damage to the facility and the stack all by itself not to mention the so-called stage Zero which suffered lots of damage this last launch. That is why they need a fire trench. The fire trench serves a specific purpose as it transfers sound waves and thrust down into a covered area diverts thrust in one or two directions and protects the stack from reverberation of overpressure back into the stack. I have a feeling that they have not isolated Star Ship electronics, gyros and gimbals enough from that vibration and that was a contributing cause to the explosive destruction of both stages. Additionally, it didn't help the shield the rocket array either. 16.7 to 20 million pounds of thrust presents a whole new set of challenges in launch physics. I would like them to do a test of Starship on pad 39A at the Cape and see if that handles the vibration better. Bottom line it looks like they have a long way to go and lots of problems to solve before they let anyone fly in that ship.
Here is the thing tho, if you look at starbase operations you will see that what you are advancing as a thesis (that the engineers and Musk are pig headed) is demonstrably false. Many changes were tried, tested, and changed again. Sometimes going forward, sometimes reverting, but the unifying thing is that they will never say no outright if the physics say it can make sense before they actually try it. An example that pops in my mind was the GSE long duration storage tanks. Considering how much fuel is needed for starbase ops, SpaceX figured they could use their already existing manufacturing to make GSE tanks and sleeve them with thermal isolation for long term storage. However while completely sound both logically and on the balance sheet, odd regulations (like the fact methane tanks have to be sideways), various issues with leaks, and obvious issues with damage during IFT-1 highlighted that while this solution had merit and worked, it also wasn't worth it's tradeoff. So, they diverted and started swapping out the tanks for more regular cryogenic storage tanks. Try, test, iterate. Musk himself keeps having to repeat this point to people, that if you aren't failing and/or rolling back ideas you really aren't innovating enough. Failure is expected, success is a potential outcome. but you will never know if something can work practically if you never try. We saw the exact same thing happen with the rocket exhaust. Contrary not the mistaken belief that "why don't they build a flame trench hur dur", people forget that there is far more that goes into his than a big hole, things that make a flame trench impossibly difficult to build at starbase. Starbase is located, like many other launch pads, inside a nature reserve. A perfectly logical and harmless thing, but it imposes some pretty severe restrictions. More on that later. The entire area is a swamp right next to the sea and therefore the water table is extremely high. If you just build a concrete trench there you have effectively displaced water and successfully created a boat. Spoiler alert, unintentional flotation of your structure is usually not something you want. So you need to elevate the entire thing. This is what was done at the cape, they built the launch systems on GIGANTIC artificial hills dumped onto the nature reserve just to be far enough away from the water table to build that trench. Russia which launches their rockets in the middle of nowhere, can indeed just build a big hole, but not here. And of course the first issue here is that spaceX isn't a state. They don't really have the resources, legal leway, and really logistical abilities as NASA at the height of the space race. They don't even have the required land nor can aquire the required land even if they wanted to. So just building an artificial hill like at the cape is not a practical option. And therefore, the easy solution of the flame trench is right out as a result. The failure of the concrete was also NOT SpaceX being pig headed either. The manufacturer specs said it could work, and static fire testings showed it would work. At the time of IFT-1, the water plate was already prepping for installation, but both SpaceX and the FAA thought it would absolutely last a single launch at least with the data they had. Problem is the reaction of underground swamp soil to the most powerful rocket launch ever made is NOT a deeply known field of science, and they ran into something no one had predicted where it's the ground bellow the entire OLM that caved in. Which was of course fixed with the water plate solution as you know. Which worked flawlessly during all subsequent static fires and IFT-2 An adequate solution to an extremely complex problem, that people with more anger than knowledge can't wrap their head around because "why not flame trench". What you really believe that the people that land rockets and that know such a system works would not just do this if it was practical of even really doable? There is no silver bullet in engineering, only tradeoffs.
To further continue on some other points. The catching and the damage potential. Just like with falcon 9 and the barges, landings slamming into the barges has caused damage to them obviously, but never something that wasn't easily fixed even if they failed the landings and that is due to a careful choice of trajectory. The falcon return trajectory never aims for the landing spot on a freefall trajectory, it first need to confirm aerodynamic control with it's grid fins to not smash into the ocean, and then it will still overshoot the landing site unless it's engines function, upon which it's burn will bring it back over the landing zone. This is why falcon never failed a landing in a spectacular way that would destroy the badge. It cannot get to that point without getting most things right already. Both starship and superheavy's default response, completely separated from active control, would therefore be the same : missing the launch pad and crashing nearby instead of at sea. Then we can look at the times where falcon crashed into the barges, and when starship landings were occuring we also see the other thing: returning boosters and ships carry considerably less energy and less mass than at launch. When falcon or starships exploded on fueling it let to a gigantic energetic fireball. Meanwhile even starships like SN-9 slamming on the pad at full force did not lead to anything close to such an energetic event. It would cause damage, but not even to the scale of the IFT-1 damage which was repaired in less than 2 months. So definitely taking out one of the OLMs, but not for a considerable amount of time. And that is ignoring that starship and superheavy can HOVER, unlike the falcon 9 which could only perform a suicide burn. Meaning their descent is a lot more controlled way less reliant on pinpoint precision. Which you know after 260 odd successful hoverslam landings you kinda start to have a bit of knowledge in the matter.
Starship Landed ~ 3 Miles from Targeted location in Indian Ocean --- + or - 3 Miles won't do for Mechazilla --- It's going to Need + or - 3 Feet accuracy. Understand there was no Beacon or Topography Features on the Ocean, BUT THE #5 BOOSTER WILL STILL HAVE TO TARGET 0.05% MORE ACCURATELY. ... not to mention it's 'Attitude' in any Cross Winds. Lot of Surface Area.
Enjoy 10% OFF and free shipping on all Hoverpens with code SPACERACE:
North America & other countries: bit.ly/SpaceRace-novium
UK & Europe: bit.ly/SpaceRace-noviumeu
Watching this after the catch is amazing!!!
So true! 🙌🏾
true
The deluge system faces up, not down. This makes it more of a Booster Bidet than a Ship Shower.
My initial thought as well: “ it’s a giant douch!”
4:36 "Sell me that pen" 🤣
i'll take 5!! i got money pooring out of my ashole atm lol
Thank you for this informative video. Stage Zero is just as important as Starship
8:10 "freshly excavated via rocket engines" is absolutely comical
I looked for this comment bc I just about died when he said that.
Best explanation of Stage 0 I have seen yet! Thanks and keep up the great work!
I guess you haven't watched CSI Starbase
@@citizenbluebest explanation under several hours for people who aren’t super space nerds like us*
It would be noce if you added links in the description to the other creator channels' videos, renderings, pictures, and infographics
You did a good job! Carry on!
Constructing a concrete structure resembling a volcano with multiple holes around it to disperse heat presents an intriguing idea. This design could potentially spread the intense heat generated during a launch, reducing the concentration of heat in any single area.
Watching the video "some day in not so distant future" in 2024, after the first successful Superheavy catch LOL
Superb presentation. Thank you. Best wishes, health, joy, well-being.
An exquisite piece of engineering and vision.
They say if you can dream it you can build it have to give SpaceX an A+ for following their dreams.
I like the Southpark Kenny with the red flag in the opening and closing picks. Yes I named him.
And as predicted the capchure was indeed exciting
Right. Nobody, including SpaceX, ever thought of a water deluge system before - even at the first test launch of Starship...
I love today's video. excitement is Guaranteed
Another excellent video as usual!
How spacex reinvented every thing
They could put a third sheath around the vertical tanks for blast protection lol
Crazier now is that they are making another one! Better than ever before
Well done. Good report. Thank you!
Good morning. I love to see you do an article or video on how the stages are released once they’re going towards space.
Dude! Awesome video! I have been following Space X for years. I never knew any of this stuff about the launch pad…. Truly thank you !
Thank you so much for your great explanations....
to me , very helpful!
Super informative video. Best one I've seen yet explaining stage zero. Only the mix of metric and US customary units confuse me.
Impressive 3D manufacturing. Lets see the final product make it to orbit!
Thanks again for good stuff.
One thin I think you should have said something about is the “Fire X” system. But an excellent video. Thank you
The meteor pen is the one I want, but I can't afford it. I still think, once Mechazilla catches a booster or ship, it should become known as MechaMiyagi!
It wasn't that they thought that using the Vertical Tanks was more unsafe, It was US & Texas Regulations for the Safe Storage of Liquid Methane and/or Liquid Propane (close to CH4). Thus, they had to re-purpose some of the existing tanks (which are now being demo'ed for new tankage). This was one reason Elon was saying things about Regulations keeping the possibility of Man to Mars from happening, in the thing he had with Jay Lenno...
Fatal flaw here is if something goes wrong with the catch manoeuvre you have to rebuild the launch site.
Another great, informative video guys! Keep up the good work! GO SpaceX GO!
Nice done. Great informative video content. Greetings from Europe BE.
I am happy to report that they caught a rocket with the mechazilla
Didn’t spaceX want to land on mars or on the moon? How they got this infrastructure over there?
The water spray system points upwards instead of downwards. It's more like a 'booster bidet' than a 'ship shower
We did worry about a 60 foot Launch Pad---especially launching 16 Million Pounds Force at 6,000 Degrees, with a 400 Foot Long Exhaust. In Fact it was 27 to 28 Months ago We Warned of a Launch Without a TRENCH DELUGE SYSTEM. We are actually amazed, the Launch pad sees so little damage.
Don't forget about how the raptors start, thrust, fuel to engine's ratio, re-routing vector control, engines power during launch, etc.
Love your video's. Wish I could help write for you guys.
- NOM
Imagine trying to recreate this launchpad on mars. Especially the lack of water. Im pretty sure mars will be a one way ride and no return for a long time until technology catches up.
Even if I was rich, a pen at that price is a joke to me... I don't care how fancy it looks/is, thats nutz.
The moon landing Starship will be quite a feat.
They did it bois
Theory on the Use of Antimatter as Fuel
The idea of using **antimatter** as fuel for advanced propulsion systems is based on its ability to release enormous amounts of energy through the process of annihilation, where antimatter particles collide with matter particles, converting all the involved mass directly into energy, as described by Einstein’s equation **E = mc²**. This process is, theoretically, the most efficient form of mass-to-energy conversion known to science.
1. Production and Storage of Antimatter
Currently, antimatter can be produced in particle accelerators, such as the Large Hadron Collider (LHC), where high-energy collisions result in the creation of antiparticles. The major challenge is the minuscule quantities produced and the extremely high cost of the process. For example, only a few atoms of **antihydrogen** have been produced so far, and the estimated cost of producing one gram of antimatter would be in the trillions of dollars.
To make the use of antimatter as fuel feasible, we would need to develop much more efficient technologies for mass production of antiparticles, such as antiprotons and positrons, possibly by exploring larger-scale collisions or yet-unknown processes in particle physics.
Another significant challenge is **storing** antimatter. Any contact between antimatter and ordinary matter would result in immediate annihilation, releasing energy uncontrollably. Today, antiparticles can be stored in magnetic and electrostatic traps, known as **Penning traps**, where they float in a vacuum, avoiding contact with material walls. However, storing larger quantities of antimatter for space propulsion would require developing much more stable and efficient magnetic containers with powerful electromagnetic fields.
2. Antimatter-Based Propulsion
The most promising application of antimatter as fuel would be in **space propulsion systems**, given its potential to release vast amounts of energy with a very small amount of fuel. Two application scenarios are considered:
a. Direct Annihilation Propulsion
In this theoretical model, the annihilation between antiprotons (antimatter particles) and protons (ordinary matter particles) would release high-energy particles, such as gamma photons, which could be directed to generate **thrust**. The efficiency would far surpass that of conventional chemical rocket systems, potentially reaching significant fractions of the speed of light, making interstellar travel more viable.
The main limitation of this concept is how to channel the energy released by annihilation in a controlled manner, as gamma radiation is difficult to capture and convert into thrust. An advanced system of mirrors or radiation-resistant materials would be required to direct this energy.
b. Hybrid Fusion-Antimatter Propulsion
Another possibility is using small amounts of antimatter to initiate nuclear fusion reactions. Nuclear fusion, which is already being researched as an energy source, requires high temperatures for atomic nuclei to fuse. Antimatter, upon annihilating with matter, could provide the initial energy needed to trigger these reactions, creating a hybrid propulsion system.
In this model, antimatter would not be the primary fuel but rather a catalyst, making nuclear fusion more efficient and controlled while reducing the amount of antimatter needed.
3. Technological Feasibility
Although antimatter is, in theory, the most efficient fuel known, there are significant practical obstacles to overcome before it becomes a usable reality:
- Cost of Production: Producing antimatter in viable quantities at an affordable cost would require revolutionary advances in particle physics and accelerator engineering.
- Safe Storage: Storing significant amounts of antimatter without causing accidental annihilation requires creating incredibly precise and robust magnetic and electrostatic fields, an area still under development.
- Energy Conversion: Even if we can control annihilation, converting the released energy into a usable form, whether electricity or propulsion, involves significant engineering challenges. Handling gamma radiation or other high-energy particles is a critical obstacle.
4. Future Applications
In the future, if these technological barriers are overcome, antimatter could revolutionize areas such as:
- Space Exploration: Interstellar travel could become possible with antimatter-powered spacecraft, reaching significant fractions of the speed of light, shortening trips to other star systems from centuries to decades.
- Emergency Energy: Small antimatter reactors could serve as emergency power sources in isolated locations or scenarios where space and weight are limited.
- Energy Weapons: On the other hand, the destructive potential of antimatter also represents a threat, capable of releasing immense amounts of energy in explosions. This raises ethical and control issues over the use of such technology.
5. Conclusion
While antimatter holds the potential to revolutionize the future of energy and propulsion, it remains a distant technology from practical application. Developing viable methods for producing, storing, and using antimatter depends on significant advances in particle physics, materials engineering, and high-energy propulsion systems. Nevertheless, antimatter represents one of the most exciting frontiers in science, with profound implications for humanity’s future, especially in the realm of space exploration.
Stellar episode.
Excellent video!
The pen casually being 99$ WHAT BROOOOOO 99$ OR EVEN 149$ BROOOOOO That's TOO MUCH.
Goes too far.
Nah, they just copied the Sun Probe launch pad from Gerry Anderson's Thunderbirds...check it out for yourself ...circa 1964.
Yes, yes, suuure…
I'm sure they learned from the past like most things, but also innovated greatly.
I’m absolutely certain Elon is a Fanderson. I also agree the OLM and Starship are Anderson inspired, and what about the Dragon capsule? That docking hatch cover is something Gerry would have designed.
Science fiction is not science....... Do not ignore the engineering behind it
@@peter0702 Do not ignore the levity either.
I recall someone saying that without the water deluge, the Saturn V would have just fallen apart and exploded on the pad from the reverberating sound!
A glorious mix of meters, inches, liters, and pounds per square inch :-D
Very cool!
Ya still have a 400 foot long, 6,000 Degree, 16 Million Pound Blow Torch ---Sitting in a 60 Foot Tower - WE are really surprised there isn't more Damage.... not the Bones BUT the Equipment & Fittings.
That was how all traditional Western Rockets were launched the Soyuz has used an Orbital Launch mount since the 1960s obviously its a lot more basic than the SpaceX one but then it didn't need to be complex for the Soyuz
If you think Soyuz was much simpler than SpaceX's exploding pipe, then you have no idea what actually goes into designing a rocket.
@@KnightspaceORG By simpler I meant 60s tech vs modern its still rocket science though. Soyuz has been relatively unchanged since the mid 60s
@@bigianh I apologise for the hostility, but to call old tech more basic is just simply untrue, especially since Starships's launch pad was now forced to use solutions that existed since orbital flights were a thing. The materials might change, so can shape, but the basics remain the same
@@KnightspaceORG Ohh I get that the Physics and engineering haven't changed much. Actually when you get down to it Soyuz is even more impressive because back then they were using pencils & slide rules and didn't have access to transistors never mind the micro processors we have today
@@bigianhrelatively unchanged is a pretty strong generalization. Sure, same engines(ish) and booster design. But if you think the rocket is the same then you are grossly wrong. The first rockets could literally only launch tiny probes literally the size of a watermelon. While today they launch missions on one of the worst orbital trajectories to the largest object ever put into space.
With the amount of concrete they used for that thing, they might as well have built a conventional trench launch platform from the beginning. But hey, if it works, it works.
But it won’t. And it’s questionable if their water deluge system is even legal since they will be dumping a bunch of polluted water into a protected sanctuary.
@@TheWizardGamezSeriously? Hairy agency that you can think of as of elon's ass
It appears to me that your Falcon 9 launch scenario is incorrect. The stages and payload/capsule are assembled in the HIF, or horizontal integration facility right next to the launchpad. Only then does the transporter erector bring it up a rail system to the pad itself.
I believe misting or a water spray at the launch pad would lessen impact to the platform. 360* coverage.
When will SpaceX make a separate tower that is only used to catch any rocket.
makes you think if they need such a complicated system to launch how will they land and launch on other planets? which don't have this system deployed?
So, you are giving SpaceX kudos for "moving quickly and breaking things", even things that have a known history of how to build safely, reliably, and efficiently. The thing that amazes me is that NASA, Florida and local state officials gave the OK to launch, and that SpaceX wasn't heavily fined for safety and environmental violations.
It's look like modernized metal stone henge
Could they use that exhaust heat for something useful? i mean, we can stick a few turbines down a big pipe right?
If the heat shield tiles work for reentry, why can't they also be used on launch pad area?
Why aren't the tanks in the tank farm spherical? More fuel, tougher, the oil industry uses these.
4:08
why did they steal the aperture science logo
I understand an engineer mis-calculated the concrete would withstand the heat and stress. Elon gave him another chance - his last!
you mean launch pad that was basically destroyed after the last launch?
Great video as asways 💯🚀 ! .. The one thing you should of added to it was the fireX system on the OLM !
Just a question if it can't land how do they expect to land it on mars?
Didn’t they destroy multiple launchpads tho?
They did lmao, including the latest one. This whole cult mentality needs to stop
any evidence?@@KnightspaceORG
@@oversovl Well, let's start with the fact that they had to replace every single clamp holding the flying pipe on the launch pad. There might've not been concrete flying everywhere, but there was still a lot of damage
@@KnightspaceORG could you give a link about the clamp replacement thing?
Successful starship launches: 0
Those are not "piles" they are "concrete caissons"
Are the grid fins being down bothering anyone else?
Do a video about Blue Origins Pad...Oh wait.
planet
I still don't get why it isn't Liquid Nitrogen in the *Shower.*
My first viewing of your channel.
Makes me wanna unsubscribe to the rest!
Nailed it!
Is this complex and its energy absorbing piles anywhere near a geological fault line .. .. ?
❤❤❤❤❤
It already happened bro
While a very good description of spacex's setup... it didn't explain the burning question I have: WHY spacex went for a showerhead that sends debris, flames and steam in all directions as opposed to a traditional flame trench that redirects most of the rockets thrust safely away from the site.
They did it this way to save money. The best design is no design
@@fernmra massive trench is a pretty cheap option. A simple single tube water deluge system is a pretty simple me cheap option. They didn’t build the flame trench because they pulled a fast one on the FAA, the Texas government, and every wildlife agency in the US. The site was pictured in their own documents to be for falcon 9 launches. Which was already questionable(but the Texas government needed more federal tax dollars so hey might as well). Then they started blowing up rockets and neither the FAA, EPA, or department of the interior stopped them. And now they plan on launching rockets the size of the Saturn 5. He didn’t do it to be cheap. He already has LC 39. He never had to pay for the infrastructure. But in a couple years people are gonna be asking why they went from the most advanced and developed space launching infrastructure to a quarter mile off the border of Mexico. Brownsville is literally 1 percent better for deltaV than cape Canaveral. By elons logic. He should’ve went to Brazil or Kenya or Indonesia.
like the vid.. but pretty sure ' LITRES ' is spelled wrong? lol
The tank farm is designed to keep large pieces of concrete and steel from flying too far away.
Lunchpad, hehehe
A while back I watched as Mecazilla captured a returning F9! It was amazing. Once again Space X made science fiction become reality! They nailed it on the first try! Sure StarShip is bigger and more powerful but I think they will do it and they might nail it on the first try. It will probably be a few more test flights before they get to doing that but I hope I can be at Starbase when it happens.
W h a t
I still can’t stop thinking big rocket is such a waste of time… Way better to focus on electro / hydro magnetic levitation that solve all theses cumbersome problem
You mean the one you celebrated when you didn't blow it up for the first time? Okay 👍 😂
The only thing they reinvented was how to mess up
I got to be that guy real quick. If Starship can't lay over on its side, how does anyone expect it to do the belly flop or flip and burn maneuver? Also how was ift 1 able to rotate over 360 Degrees while attached without succumbing to aerodynamic forces? I think the whole ship can't be on its side is a misconception
flip and burns or other midair maneuvers are probably different from sitting on the ground and having most of the weight on one side instead of distributed across the support structures inside the rocket
also, for like flip and burns, those raptors are mounted much more structurally than a sheet of metal forming the skin of the ship that d definitely could crumple
could also just be that they don't wanna risk it or maybe it requires extra maintenance
idk tho, I'm no engineer
Because the rocket is in freefall and aerodynamic forces are very different from the forces experienced on the ground.
@diogenespepsi6244 nope. Rocket will be falling at 1g. Just like sitting on its side on the ground. Plus you have the relative wind pushing upward on it. So it actually is under more stress falling than stationary. It could be transported horizontally, without damage.
@faceboy1392 I think it can survive being transported horizontally just fine, there's just no real reason to do so
@@citizenblue I mean if so it's probably just that it introduces some risks of damage and they'd rather not go through the trouble, though I don't doubt the possibility that the ship just really would not want to be tilted sideways given how massive it is
Cancel water deluge system and legs, double the present hieght of launch pad, the space distance from nozzle to tke ground but a big changes to launch pad legless but to fabricate other menchanzillla like but to tripple the strenght of menchanzilla like to build as lower new additional heavy ccarrier crane menchanzilla with bisected launchoen pad when rocket elevate from it then it will open and move sideways to free launch pad directly expose to huge fire from rocket nozzle, the distance with good constructed ground base will help to lessen pressure cause by heat plus the coolant from launc pad even it is moving sideward scattering the gas coolant arroud the lower part of the tower space down to the ground base..
Reinvented?! ha ha ha ha You have got to be kidding!
i am curious actually it is not easy for the arm to catch the recycled rocket as the force might be very strong
the arm and the corresponding building must very strong for holding it 🤣🤣
i am layman so i duno whether it is easy or not 🤣
Why does it takes 1 month to refurbish it...??????????????.....We never had a problem with Saturn 5...!!!!!!
Bro, the Saturn V was an expandable rocket. There is no refurbishment of it it's destroyed.
@@mobiuscoreindustries Yes ...but it worked..!!! Planes are reusable on the spot ,...Not refurbishable ....it don't take a month for a plane to take new passengers, only 1 hour...!!!
@@bogdan78pop we are talking about a spaceship, not a plane. And besides this entire thing is being done specifically do we can get closer or reach aircraft like capabilities. As it stands, it took 2 months to fix the damage of IFT-1 to get it ready for IFT-2. And it took less than a week to prep the OLM for IFT-3. A more accurate comparison for those would be the SLS mobile launch tower. a tower that cost more than one billion, and took about half a year to be repaired from the previous SLS launch and next launch isn't planned before 2024
You really do not have a lot of comparison to go for other than the shuttle and the falcon 9 when it comes to actual refurbishment and re flight. The space shuttle's average refurbishment time was 6 months, and it's absolute fastest was 54 days (and after challenger, 88 days), while the falcon 9 manages an impressive 51 days including the time it takes to bring the droneship back.
But if you ever want airliner like reflight, you need what SpaceX is doing here. Bringing back booster and ship to a suitable launch point, have standardized easy to service construction, easily swappable engines, and as much of the equipment needed on the OLM rather than on the ship.
Also can you please type like a normal human being?
That steel plate "shower head" is NOT a real flame diverter. Truest is allowed to go out uncontrolled in every direction! Including towards the tower and the way too close tank farm! You guys call this "innovation"? I call it a disaster waiting to happen.
Elon officially wins the biggest dik swinging contest lol
back when the pad was just getting done, prior to the luge system, i jokingly said to him, could you please just move them fkn tanks just at least 50 yards further away from that nuclear blast zone??? lol
great video. terrible choice on using English units. state everything in metric units. psi?
Nope,this is 'Merica👍🇺🇸
They are still going about the launch pad wrong
Very informative.
However, watching the SpaceX launchpad design process just demonstrates how pig-headed they can be. Yes, they have learned from failures during the iterative design process. But some of those failures could have been easily foreseen by "traditional" designers of launch pads. SpaceX, in their pig-headed insistence that they always know more than all the rocket experts of history, proceeded with a design that was inadequate to the needs of Super Heavy, and everyone BUT SpaceX knew it, and the completely foreseeable failure gave them a real black eye in the area of PR and relations with government regulatory agencies and local residents.
Thankfully they have fixed many of the design flaws and are in the process of fixing the other obviously stupid part of their design - placing giant upright propellant tanks a few hundred feet away from the most powerful rocket in history and expecting them to suffer no damage.
But there is another thing that has remained unaddressed. The more complex and indispensable you make the "Stage 0", the more devastating any damage to it will be to the continued functioning of your fleet of Starships and Super Heavy boosters. Since neither part of the system has landing legs, you will be catching live, partially fueled, flaming components as they try to land - all in the name of quicker reusability.
All you need is one slightly misaligned catch, or an engine or guidance failure at the end of the flight to completely destroy one of the Stage 0 facilities for a VERY, VERY LONG TIME. You will not only lose a Starship and Super Heavy, but you will lose the ability to launch the rest of your fleet. To me, that is a very large drawback that more than compensates for any weight savings of eliminating landing legs.
Why not just have a landing pad on rails a safe distance from the launch pad? If the landing is successful, then you just ride your booster or Starship back over to the launch pad on the rails, and then the chopsticks pick it back up and place it on the pad for another launch. If you have a failed landing you have lost a much less complicated structure far away from any fuel tanks.
Perhaps some of the engineers at SpaceX have figured this out, but Elon is pretty hard to sway once his mind is set on an idea. If he doesn't think of it, it likely won't get done.
Well put. I agree with your comments. However, there is even more unaddressed problems ahead. Specifically, just one catastrophic failure on launch that whole launch facility is going to be destroyed and there will be some massive secondary explosions. Your comment that SpaceX/Musk is pig-headed is right on point...but I would also add SpaceX/Musk wants to do everything on the cheap on the service support side. Hence, the ludicrously small footprint of the launch facility. The failure to build a proper launch facility without a proper fire trench/baffle diverter deluge system is going to bite them in the ass down the road. Additionally, they chose to build their facility right next to the beach at Boca Chia on a barrier island right in the middle of a wildlife refuge. Plus, one level 5 hurricane with the usual accompanying storm surge will wipe that entire facility out. So, I blame the State of Texas and the Federal Government for allowing this to happen in the first place. I am all for commercial space programs but if they can't meet certain infrastructure standards they shouldn't get in the game in the first place.
That said...there are other failures here...if you look at the slow-motion launch video the overpressure pulse waves of 33 engines with 16.7 million pounds of thrust coming off the first stage means a massive amount of harmonic vibration on the whole Star ship stack and the entire launch facility. I believe that had to cause damage to the facility and the stack all by itself not to mention the so-called stage Zero which suffered lots of damage this last launch. That is why they need a fire trench.
The fire trench serves a specific purpose as it transfers sound waves and thrust down into a covered area diverts thrust in one or two directions and protects the stack from reverberation of overpressure back into the stack. I have a feeling that they have not isolated Star Ship electronics, gyros and gimbals enough from that vibration and that was a contributing cause to the explosive destruction of both stages. Additionally, it didn't help the shield the rocket array either. 16.7 to 20 million pounds of thrust presents a whole new set of challenges in launch physics. I would like them to do a test of Starship on pad 39A at the Cape and see if that handles the vibration better.
Bottom line it looks like they have a long way to go and lots of problems to solve before they let anyone fly in that ship.
Here is the thing tho, if you look at starbase operations you will see that what you are advancing as a thesis (that the engineers and Musk are pig headed) is demonstrably false. Many changes were tried, tested, and changed again. Sometimes going forward, sometimes reverting, but the unifying thing is that they will never say no outright if the physics say it can make sense before they actually try it.
An example that pops in my mind was the GSE long duration storage tanks. Considering how much fuel is needed for starbase ops, SpaceX figured they could use their already existing manufacturing to make GSE tanks and sleeve them with thermal isolation for long term storage. However while completely sound both logically and on the balance sheet, odd regulations (like the fact methane tanks have to be sideways), various issues with leaks, and obvious issues with damage during IFT-1 highlighted that while this solution had merit and worked, it also wasn't worth it's tradeoff. So, they diverted and started swapping out the tanks for more regular cryogenic storage tanks. Try, test, iterate. Musk himself keeps having to repeat this point to people, that if you aren't failing and/or rolling back ideas you really aren't innovating enough. Failure is expected, success is a potential outcome. but you will never know if something can work practically if you never try.
We saw the exact same thing happen with the rocket exhaust. Contrary not the mistaken belief that "why don't they build a flame trench hur dur", people forget that there is far more that goes into his than a big hole, things that make a flame trench impossibly difficult to build at starbase.
Starbase is located, like many other launch pads, inside a nature reserve. A perfectly logical and harmless thing, but it imposes some pretty severe restrictions. More on that later.
The entire area is a swamp right next to the sea and therefore the water table is extremely high. If you just build a concrete trench there you have effectively displaced water and successfully created a boat. Spoiler alert, unintentional flotation of your structure is usually not something you want. So you need to elevate the entire thing.
This is what was done at the cape, they built the launch systems on GIGANTIC artificial hills dumped onto the nature reserve just to be far enough away from the water table to build that trench. Russia which launches their rockets in the middle of nowhere, can indeed just build a big hole, but not here.
And of course the first issue here is that spaceX isn't a state. They don't really have the resources, legal leway, and really logistical abilities as NASA at the height of the space race. They don't even have the required land nor can aquire the required land even if they wanted to. So just building an artificial hill like at the cape is not a practical option. And therefore, the easy solution of the flame trench is right out as a result.
The failure of the concrete was also NOT SpaceX being pig headed either. The manufacturer specs said it could work, and static fire testings showed it would work. At the time of IFT-1, the water plate was already prepping for installation, but both SpaceX and the FAA thought it would absolutely last a single launch at least with the data they had.
Problem is the reaction of underground swamp soil to the most powerful rocket launch ever made is NOT a deeply known field of science, and they ran into something no one had predicted where it's the ground bellow the entire OLM that caved in. Which was of course fixed with the water plate solution as you know. Which worked flawlessly during all subsequent static fires and IFT-2
An adequate solution to an extremely complex problem, that people with more anger than knowledge can't wrap their head around because "why not flame trench". What you really believe that the people that land rockets and that know such a system works would not just do this if it was practical of even really doable? There is no silver bullet in engineering, only tradeoffs.
To further continue on some other points. The catching and the damage potential. Just like with falcon 9 and the barges, landings slamming into the barges has caused damage to them obviously, but never something that wasn't easily fixed even if they failed the landings and that is due to a careful choice of trajectory. The falcon return trajectory never aims for the landing spot on a freefall trajectory, it first need to confirm aerodynamic control with it's grid fins to not smash into the ocean, and then it will still overshoot the landing site unless it's engines function, upon which it's burn will bring it back over the landing zone. This is why falcon never failed a landing in a spectacular way that would destroy the badge. It cannot get to that point without getting most things right already.
Both starship and superheavy's default response, completely separated from active control, would therefore be the same : missing the launch pad and crashing nearby instead of at sea.
Then we can look at the times where falcon crashed into the barges, and when starship landings were occuring we also see the other thing: returning boosters and ships carry considerably less energy and less mass than at launch. When falcon or starships exploded on fueling it let to a gigantic energetic fireball. Meanwhile even starships like SN-9 slamming on the pad at full force did not lead to anything close to such an energetic event. It would cause damage, but not even to the scale of the IFT-1 damage which was repaired in less than 2 months. So definitely taking out one of the OLMs, but not for a considerable amount of time. And that is ignoring that starship and superheavy can HOVER, unlike the falcon 9 which could only perform a suicide burn. Meaning their descent is a lot more controlled way less reliant on pinpoint precision.
Which you know after 260 odd successful hoverslam landings you kinda start to have a bit of knowledge in the matter.
@@mobiuscoreindustriesYou people just love to talk, eh?
Starship Landed ~ 3 Miles from Targeted location in Indian Ocean --- + or - 3 Miles won't do for Mechazilla --- It's going to Need + or - 3 Feet accuracy. Understand there was no Beacon or Topography Features on the Ocean, BUT THE #5 BOOSTER WILL STILL HAVE TO TARGET 0.05% MORE ACCURATELY. ... not to mention it's 'Attitude' in any Cross Winds. Lot of Surface Area.