In fact, there is no need to validate commercial iterations of reusable rockets by launching large quantities of stainless steel, and elon's best publicity is to fool people into thinking that the same steps must be used to accomplish it🤭
@@jbrice2010 I think you are mistaken 😎. The Chinese culturally misapprotiated "chopsticks" from the neanderthals people who used them first to club the mammoths soft 😁🤭🤭 and then to stir them in hot water 😁 and then to eat them with. The Chinease copied the Idea of the Romans as well to chop down all their trees for industrial usage of wood.... the Romans just used it for ships and the Chinease for "chops" 🤭🤭🤭😀😀😂😂😂
It's to be expected. SX has not done much to keep the Starship project under wraps. Most of the rockets design has been done in full view and graphic artist have kept up with very specific design element along the way. Even the construction technologies have been highlighted as well. I am sure there are many things that the competition doesn't know - hopefully doesn't know. And, that is the difference. Even if you gave them everything in a basket that doesn't mean anyone could duplicate it. It takes some exceptionally talented folks to get this job done right. Kind of like building an "interocitor":-)
China's copy approach of a Starship system with more going on under the hood than on the surface is risky, considering the costs associated with space. If they move too fast they may have to scrap entire iterations and start over from the beginning, that could set them back a lot, years. I will give China credit for their ambitions because you have to start somewhere but it seems overly ambitious, they don't even have a working Falcon 9 analog yet. And remember, Starship grew in phases, from a 'flying grain silo' to a bigger one to the one we see today, that took lots of testing and fundamental groundwork, you can't just jump straight into the final phase of a not yet fully proven system and have a complete understanding of the bigger system, can you?
Indeed, even as Starship strives to reduce costs on many fronts, it will eventually face the price-performance limit, mainly in the following areas: Cost-effectiveness bottleneck caused by technical limitations - Chemical fuel intrinsic limitations: At present, starships mainly rely on chemical fuels for propulsion, and there is a theoretical upper limit on the efficiency of chemical fuel energy conversion. Even if the fuel formula is continuously optimized and the combustion method is improved, the energy output and propulsion efficiency that can be improved are still limited. This means that to reach the goal of space exploration farther away, more fuel and larger arrow structures will be needed, and costs will rise dramatically. For example, to achieve a manned mission to Mars, only rely on the existing chemical fuel rocket technology. Even if the cost is well controlled, it is difficult to make a qualitative breakthrough in cost-effectiveness. This is because to overcome the huge energy demand, we must constantly increase investment, and the performance improvement that can be obtained is less and less obvious. -Reusable Real Loss: Although Starship emphasizes re-use to reduce costs, its components will inevitably wear and age after multiple launches, re-entry and recycling. Like thermal protection system heat insulation tile, each re-entry into the atmosphere under the impact of high-temperature high-speed airflow, the performance will be degraded, need to be replaced or repaired; After multiple ignitions and high-load operation, the engine also has the risk of failure, which requires in-depth maintenance and overhaul. As the number of uses increases, the maintenance cost increases, and the cost-reduction benefits of re-usability are gradually offset, making it difficult to keep improving the price/performance ratio. Market demand and operation scale restrict the cost-effectiveness improvement - Limited space transportation market capacity: Currently, the total demand for space transportation is relatively limited, mainly for satellite launch and some scientific research missions. Large-scale commercial application scenarios such as interstellar travel are far from mature. Even if Starship can significantly reduce costs, without sufficient launch orders to spread fixed costs and achieve economies of scale, the room for price/performance improvement is limited. For example, if the number of launches per year can only be kept at a low level, the cost of R&D, manufacturing, and operations will still be high, making it difficult to achieve better price/performance ratio. -Operation costs cannot be reduced indefinitely: The operation of a starship involves many links, from preparation and staffing before launch, to monitoring during flight, to maintenance after recovery, and so on. Each link requires a certain amount of manpower, material resources, and financial resources. Although operational costs can be reduced by optimizing processes, adopting automation, etc., these costs cannot be reduced to zero, and there is a bottom line. When the operating cost cannot be further reduced, the only way to improve the cost-effectiveness is to increase the revenue. However, when the market demand is limited, the cost-effectiveness will be limited. continuous optimization of external factors affecting price/performance - Regulatory and Policy Costs: Space activities are subject to strict regulations and policies, such as approval of launch permits and environmental liability regulations. Meeting these requirements often entails additional costs, such as environmental impact assessments, safety tests, etc. In addition, policy changes may create uncertainty, such as changes in insurance rates and changes in launch site use regulations, which may increase operating costs and limit further cost-effectiveness. - Competitive and alternative technological pressures: The space industry is highly competitive, with other space companies and space programs in different countries competing for market share, possibly depressing profit margins through price wars. At the same time, emerging space exploration technologies, such as more efficient propulsion methods that may appear in the future (such as controlled nuclear fusion propulsion, if applied), will weaken the existing cost advantages of starships, making it difficult for starships to make a big breakthrough in cost-effectiveness, and facing an upper limit dilemma. So, while Starship has done a lot to reduce costs, there is a price-performance limit that is hard to break due to a combination of internal and external factors.
China has its own unique development experience and technological path, from the training of scientific personnel and engineering teams, space simulation experiments, space practice verification, and has never imitated starships. I guess no one ever told you that reusable rockets don't need to be technologically iterated by firing lots of stainless steel, even if they look similar, but this is the optimal configuration for a lot of simulation experiments🤭
I'm not a communist China lover but to be honest, we are going to need many more boosters and StarShips if we are going to get to Mars. They could lend a hand and help out with launch supplies. Instead of UPS China shipping, we could get the "STUFF" from China to orbit.
The Starship is a speculative technological path for chemical rockets, with limited potential and it's difficult to achieve cost-effectiveness. In contrast, China's heavy reusable rockets have adopted a comprehensive technological path from the very beginning and are far ahead in this regard. After all, the Long March rockets have accumulated a lot of experience in lunar flights and achieved various technical indicators. It can be seen from the fact that they were able to safely send the Zhurong rover to the surface of Mars during their first Mars mission that their technology is much more advanced than that of the Starship. Moreover, they possess more advanced wind tunnel simulation test sites and large rocket launch test platforms.
On the plus side SpaceX isn't patenting any of these technologies, and this is strategic because China has no patent laws so they would have direct schematics to 'share' for themselves if the patents were published.
No way, the starship itself has design flaws, chemical rocket iterations will be subject to technical limitations, and China will not pass on its technical experience to him😂
NASA is a DEI safespace.. they uses to be relevant until they couldn't figure out what toilet to use. More interested in what sex thier astronauts are and what money pit project to launder our tax money into.. they've lost thier edge and prominence.. go SpaceX
this propaganda for greedy Elon is tiring. Yes, other countries have less regulations and then, the rockets fall next to their villages. Do we need the same?
![[LIVE] BABYMONSTER(베이비몬스터) - DRIP | 두시탈출 컬투쇼](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/UG05pxLGwzc/mqdefault.jpg)
Let Space X fly!!
You know, everyone seems to ignore the fact that SpaceX stole the idea of chopsticks from the Chinese. 😂
Yeah😂😂
In fact, there is no need to validate commercial iterations of reusable rockets by launching large quantities of stainless steel, and elon's best publicity is to fool people into thinking that the same steps must be used to accomplish it🤭
@@jbrice2010 I think you are mistaken 😎.
The Chinese culturally misapprotiated "chopsticks" from the neanderthals people who used them first to club the mammoths soft 😁🤭🤭 and then to stir them in hot water 😁 and then to eat them with.
The Chinease copied the Idea of the Romans as well to chop down all their trees for industrial usage of wood.... the Romans just used it for ships and the Chinease for "chops" 🤭🤭🤭😀😀😂😂😂
LET SPACEX FLY!!😊
Space X nees to beef up security.
Chinas Innovation speed...../rofl..... you mean their industrial espionage speed?
China's rockets are so advanced, they are filled with water! 😆
@OdinReactor Well liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen as propellent is a proven and valid choice. 😎
That is in essence water. 👍👍
It's to be expected. SX has not done much to keep the Starship project under wraps. Most of the rockets design has been done in full view and graphic artist have kept up with very specific design element along the way. Even the construction technologies have been highlighted as well. I am sure there are many things that the competition doesn't know - hopefully doesn't know. And, that is the difference. Even if you gave them everything in a basket that doesn't mean anyone could duplicate it. It takes some exceptionally talented folks to get this job done right. Kind of like building an "interocitor":-)
let spaceEx Fly
China's copy approach of a Starship system with more going on under the hood than on the surface is risky, considering the costs associated with space. If they move too fast they may have to scrap entire iterations and start over from the beginning, that could set them back a lot, years. I will give China credit for their ambitions because you have to start somewhere but it seems overly ambitious, they don't even have a working Falcon 9 analog yet. And remember, Starship grew in phases, from a 'flying grain silo' to a bigger one to the one we see today, that took lots of testing and fundamental groundwork, you can't just jump straight into the final phase of a not yet fully proven system and have a complete understanding of the bigger system, can you?
Indeed, even as Starship strives to reduce costs on many fronts, it will eventually face the price-performance limit, mainly in the following areas:
Cost-effectiveness bottleneck caused by technical limitations
- Chemical fuel intrinsic limitations: At present, starships mainly rely on chemical fuels for propulsion, and there is a theoretical upper limit on the efficiency of chemical fuel energy conversion. Even if the fuel formula is continuously optimized and the combustion method is improved, the energy output and propulsion efficiency that can be improved are still limited. This means that to reach the goal of space exploration farther away, more fuel and larger arrow structures will be needed, and costs will rise dramatically. For example, to achieve a manned mission to Mars, only rely on the existing chemical fuel rocket technology. Even if the cost is well controlled, it is difficult to make a qualitative breakthrough in cost-effectiveness. This is because to overcome the huge energy demand, we must constantly increase investment, and the performance improvement that can be obtained is less and less obvious.
-Reusable Real Loss: Although Starship emphasizes re-use to reduce costs, its components will inevitably wear and age after multiple launches, re-entry and recycling. Like thermal protection system heat insulation tile, each re-entry into the atmosphere under the impact of high-temperature high-speed airflow, the performance will be degraded, need to be replaced or repaired; After multiple ignitions and high-load operation, the engine also has the risk of failure, which requires in-depth maintenance and overhaul. As the number of uses increases, the maintenance cost increases, and the cost-reduction benefits of re-usability are gradually offset, making it difficult to keep improving the price/performance ratio.
Market demand and operation scale restrict the cost-effectiveness improvement
- Limited space transportation market capacity: Currently, the total demand for space transportation is relatively limited, mainly for satellite launch and some scientific research missions. Large-scale commercial application scenarios such as interstellar travel are far from mature. Even if Starship can significantly reduce costs, without sufficient launch orders to spread fixed costs and achieve economies of scale, the room for price/performance improvement is limited. For example, if the number of launches per year can only be kept at a low level, the cost of R&D, manufacturing, and operations will still be high, making it difficult to achieve better price/performance ratio.
-Operation costs cannot be reduced indefinitely: The operation of a starship involves many links, from preparation and staffing before launch, to monitoring during flight, to maintenance after recovery, and so on. Each link requires a certain amount of manpower, material resources, and financial resources. Although operational costs can be reduced by optimizing processes, adopting automation, etc., these costs cannot be reduced to zero, and there is a bottom line. When the operating cost cannot be further reduced, the only way to improve the cost-effectiveness is to increase the revenue. However, when the market demand is limited, the cost-effectiveness will be limited.
continuous optimization of external factors affecting price/performance
- Regulatory and Policy Costs: Space activities are subject to strict regulations and policies, such as approval of launch permits and environmental liability regulations. Meeting these requirements often entails additional costs, such as environmental impact assessments, safety tests, etc. In addition, policy changes may create uncertainty, such as changes in insurance rates and changes in launch site use regulations, which may increase operating costs and limit further cost-effectiveness.
- Competitive and alternative technological pressures: The space industry is highly competitive, with other space companies and space programs in different countries competing for market share, possibly depressing profit margins through price wars. At the same time, emerging space exploration technologies, such as more efficient propulsion methods that may appear in the future (such as controlled nuclear fusion propulsion, if applied), will weaken the existing cost advantages of starships, making it difficult for starships to make a big breakthrough in cost-effectiveness, and facing an upper limit dilemma.
So, while Starship has done a lot to reduce costs, there is a price-performance limit that is hard to break due to a combination of internal and external factors.
China has its own unique development experience and technological path, from the training of scientific personnel and engineering teams, space simulation experiments, space practice verification, and has never imitated starships. I guess no one ever told you that reusable rockets don't need to be technologically iterated by firing lots of stainless steel, even if they look similar, but this is the optimal configuration for a lot of simulation experiments🤭
The harbor freight of rockets.. be sure to get the 90 day refund insurance
Spacex should be granted a development license.
As soon as it become production, it should fall under stricter FAA regulations.
After how many seconds is the disaster occurring in the clip? Just click bait?
Let SpaceX fly!!!!!!
Well, at least it will make a good show when (if) they ever try to catch a rocket.
Let SPACEX fly
End Starliner, .money better spent on alternate programs
Let space X fly
Let SpaceX fly
I'm not a communist China lover but to be honest, we are going to need many more boosters and StarShips if we are going to get to Mars. They could lend a hand and help out with launch supplies. Instead of UPS China shipping, we could get the "STUFF" from China to orbit.
No need..Space X can launch on Starships every hour :)
The Starship is a speculative technological path for chemical rockets, with limited potential and it's difficult to achieve cost-effectiveness. In contrast, China's heavy reusable rockets have adopted a comprehensive technological path from the very beginning and are far ahead in this regard. After all, the Long March rockets have accumulated a lot of experience in lunar flights and achieved various technical indicators. It can be seen from the fact that they were able to safely send the Zhurong rover to the surface of Mars during their first Mars mission that their technology is much more advanced than that of the Starship. Moreover, they possess more advanced wind tunnel simulation test sites and large rocket launch test platforms.
You are right, Americans do need China's help
Never question the technology advancements of China.
CCP stuff looks good, but it doesn't work!!!😅
TOFU DREG!!!
Sounds coming from a Chinese space development team. “Cheat! Copycat! Steal! Cheat! Copycat! Steal! Cheat! Copycat! Steal! Lie! Lie! Lie!
I’m ready
Let space X fly.
I'm ready!
Let's run it back!
Temu rockets 😂
😂😂😂
Ready!
I'm READY!!!!!!
China; Well we invented the chop sticks so we have rights to copy!!! Next time name it Hamburga!! No one copy!!!!
I think that Elon is not worried. There are so many possibilties once you are in orbit.
Moon, Msrs, Asteroid Mining
On the plus side SpaceX isn't patenting any of these technologies, and this is strategic because China has no patent laws so they would have direct schematics to 'share' for themselves if the patents were published.
Hey, at least they're smart enough to _steal from the _*_best._*
good channel deserves more followers
my honor, thanks
Crappy Chinese animation!
The ultimate flattery is imitation
Where is China getting all of the info from? It can't be just from pictures.
Man how they gonna let china copy there whole designs get their ass
Bring deams FASTÈR!!!
Big Dream faster.
Elon could move far faster in China.
No hurdles, state support.
No way, the starship itself has design flaws, chemical rocket iterations will be subject to technical limitations, and China will not pass on its technical experience to him😂
Tian is not hard to pronounce. It's the same as all the other tians-Tianjin, Tiananmen.
(Not TeeAHn. Lol.)
China goes boom lol 😂
Do they, the chinese, do anything original
Country with the biggest IP theft
Visited last year.
They spit and litter-in parks and temples-like nowhere I've ever been.
Does that count?
Thier anti opium addiction program was the SHIT..
NASA is a DEI safespace.. they uses to be relevant until they couldn't figure out what toilet to use. More interested in what sex thier astronauts are and what money pit project to launder our tax money into.. they've lost thier edge and prominence.. go SpaceX
Elon , hey Donald can I launch on Monday. Sure let spacex fly
this propaganda for greedy Elon is tiring. Yes, other countries have less regulations and then, the rockets fall next to their villages. Do we need the same?
Funny, 😂 J-20 and NOW, this Bull Shit ! The Real meaning of a Chinese, Knock Off !