Check out my first ANGRY rocket concept! Wehrner Von Braun had a concept called Nova for delivering huge payloads to the Moon with NO REFUELING!
What would happen if we made Nova reusable with Starship?
#space #SpaceX #nasa
Support Hayzegrayart!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZXv4fLrpfnI
https://youtu.be/rGx61TgDvCk?si=Uge-CBWqRvTuWe_H
Please support my journey to the Cape!!
DISCORD MEMBERSHIP, EXCLUSIVE CONTENT AND EARLY RELEASES PLUS 15% OFF MERCH!
https://www.patreon.com/AngryAstronaut
https://cash.app/$Angry70
https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/AngryAstro
Follow me on twitter:
https://twitter.com/Astro_Angry
source
I won't be on the PREMIERE chat. I'll be in the air when this video goes LIVE!
See you at the Cape!
Starship has a lot of drawbacks. One is the simple fact that the first stage simply has WAY too many engines. With 33 engines, it is going to be virtually impossible to make them all work at once. It may happen once in a while, but not very often. Another is that to get out of earth orbit, the Starship itself is going to need to be refueled in orbit, and that is no small task. It has never been done before, and will likely be a long time before it is done successfully, and a much longer time before it can be done reliably multiple times. And once you get Starship out of orbit, and pointed towards the moon or Mars, then what? Heading toward its destination at escape velocity, it would take several days to reach the moon, just like Apollo, and 2 YEARS to reach Mars. No human crew is going to survive a 2 year trip to Mars. But even if they did, what happens when they get there? They should be able to get into Mars orbit, but there is no way to get to the surface. Starship is not designed to carry a lander. And since Mars has more than twice the gravity of the moon, you would need a much more powerful lander, both to make the decent to the Martian surface, and to take off from the surface of Mars and reach Mars orbit. Then you need the power to leave Mars orbit and return to earth. Since Mars has less gravity than earth, you would need less velocity both to reach Mars orbit, and to reach escape velocity. But if you expected to make the trip back to earth in 2 years, you would need to be able to reach a speed higher than Mars escape velocity.
IF we ever make it to Mars with a human crew (and I don't expect that to happen in this century, though I won't be around long enough to find out) it will be done the same way as Apollo. The first several missions will simply be landing a couple of humans on Mars, then returning them to earth. It won't be transporting a couple dozen people to Mars and building some kind of permanent base. We put human on the moon 55 years ago, but NEVER succeeded in building any kind of base on the moon. Doing so on Mars will be orders of magnitude harder.
It turns out that most of Starships internal volume is full of engines, fuel tanks, and other propulsion and life support equipment. There is very little room left to be used as habitable space for humans. And certainly no place for either a lunar or Mars lander. And virtually no room for cargo if there is a crew. Which makes me wonder, just what CAN Starship be used for, no matter where you might be able to get it to? It seems that there was very little thought put into that. Elon wanted to build a really big rocket that was completely recoverable and reuseable. But just what is it supposed to be used for? Delivering more space junk to low earth orbit, which is so full of junk already that it is dangerous to even go there, or pass through it? A tiny piece of space junk, weighing maybe a pound on earth, traveling at 18,000 mph, could completely destroy a spacecraft or space station.
A carbon fibre third stage makes a lot of sense but it’s not what the boss wants…
Wow!! Let's see here, the Starship is being designed to take us to Mars.
So could Starship go to Mars?
Damn! You may be right! I wonder if Starship could refuel from another Starship whilst in Earth orbit? Maybe you should contact Mr. Musk about that idea (you can claim it as your own, i don't mind).
Elon needs to move 5 miles south and then he could fire off anything he wanted with no questions.
this is complete lunacy, go home you're drunk
BREAKING NEWS: discovery of new wormhole to Sagittarius galaxy!!!! Coordinates:
Third stage would improve starships ability to reach higher orbits and beyond. You don't a lot of tanker launchers then.
Von Braun not brown
Hm, I wonder if you could get more thrust out of Starship by doing a Vulcan Centaur style engine only recovery. I mean, what's the point of sacrificing payload capacity going with cheap materials if you're going to reuse the rocket anyway?
Space nerd dreams! Starship will have a VERY hard time landing on moon, not to mention RETURNING from moon. 2040++!
LMFAO!!!!!
Musk can't even get "regular" Starship functional, yet people think he's gonna build a SUPER-Starship too!!!
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
I dont understand this line of argument.. so your point is we cant launch a large rocket often enough because of disruption and 'people wont like it' ?
well if thats the case then spaceflight is finished anyway
Starship is just inherently flawed, it weighs too much due to heavy use of steel
An interplanetary colonizer system that pretends to take people to Mars for the first time (or the first few times) has to be a collection of spaceships that take people to Mars, support their mission there for its full duration and then bring those people back home again. All of this has to be planned as part of the same mission: there has to be enough propellant, oxigen, water and food on board for the full mission. It's difficult but that is the way it has to be the first time end the few first times until a reasonable base is build there. The reason is that Mars is not a habitable planet, there is not oxigen there to breath, when you arrive there for the first time there is nothing there… You can't rely on the crew to manage to produce propellant, oxigen, water, food, etc, "in situ" on the first mission. You have to have very little respect for the life of other human beings to put people on the surface of Mars without planning for their survival in Mars and a secure ticket to come back home.
The nova was expendable and expensive why bother. Starship is by far a better craft. Two stages both reusable.
Nice to hear you using metric, AA. How very European.
It'd take people like you a decade of stupidly high funding to make this work. SpaceX will be using its starlink revenue to colonise the solar system by then. That's why Starlink exists, remember. Oh no, they'll need to station some gas tankers in the gulf with a launch/landing platform to deal with in-orbit refueling, far enough from anyone who'll complain about the noise. So what?
Starship still needs to demonstrate A Payload. Its too heavy, running out of fuel, fully loaded.
Starship needs greater thrust, higher Isp, lower mass and landing on the water. Eliminating in orbit refuelings would be genius
There is no proven water on the moon. Only rumors.
I'm old enough to remember when people said Nova would have needed an offshore launch site, because the sound of launch would damage buildings. They were wrong of course.
Optimizing for mass fraction is silly. The cost metric is cost per mass to orbit, and that is what Elon is optimizing for.
If you want something to transport from LEO to the lunar surface, I would suggest a nuclear tug. It could be refueled with hydrogen from the Moon, and it would have enough thrust to take off from there.
I do wish people would stop knocking Carbon Fibre as a structural material. It is perfectly good for pretty much any structural problem provided you design correctly based on its limitations (like any other material) and ensure your manufacture is appropriately controlled and regulated.
Equally, there is nothing wrong with using Stainless Steel, Aluminium or Titanium alloys … in each case it is a question as to how these materials are used and if you are prepared to absorb the costs.
Another bug of mine is the way people “compare” materials .. Stainless (a misnomer as the aerospace industry uses the more correct term of “corrosion resistant”) steel covers a wide range of different alloys with widely ranging properties … depending on your priorities and the $$ you’re prepared to pay. Same applies to Titanium … the name covers a wide range of alloys with equally varied properties.
If you’re going to compare materials, be specific in the alloys you are comparing … there are plenty of grades of Titanium that you would NOT want to use. Equally, (and I do not know what grade of SS is used in Starship) it is quite possible there is a grade/alloy that could, maybe, halve the weight but at triple the cost!!
The Oceangate disaster was not because Carbon Fibre was used, but because of the WAY it was implemented and the apparent lack of substantiation to determine overall performance of the overall design and manufacture process of the submersible as a whole.
The biggest challenge for Starship (in my opinion) remains the problem of the Thermal Protection System … particularly if you want rapid reusability. This challenge is not an issue if you are prepared to go disposable … but then you’re back to the question of cost … what are you prepared to pay? If you want low cost to orbit you need reusability. If you want reusability, you need a good TPS to get your launcher back home. If you have a good TPS solution, you can use a much wider range of materials … the world becomes your crustacean!
It's called nuclear engines
Is AA advocating for the FAA shutting down this idea yet?
Your ISP comment at the start of the video threw me off … the seconds are not burn time, ISP is just about efficiency and the "seconds" is just unit. Per Lunar Starship (100% refuel in LEO) you can take maybe 10T to the surface and still have a 3T type payload (people) return to Earth's surface. Agree about the refuel hassle. I suggestion someone is going to do a CLPS lander with HyrdoLOX that can take 20 – 30T to the lunar surface as Starship payload so no Starship refuel. Finally, making Starship and SuperHeavy fully expendable, gets you closer to 40-50 T landed on the lunar surface.
AA, in the controversy of steel vs. compisite, you seem to be ignoring the requirement for reusability. If you're going to build one Nova-class rocket, the composite has a strong case. For repeated use, steel.
Starship isn’t Nova. The aim of SpaceX is lowest dollar per pound, not the largest payload to orbit or beyond. There were several versions of Nova, the designs were being worked on in parallel to Saturn. Saturn 5 was optimised to get 2 astronauts to the lunar surface and back. The lowest mass and simplest was lunar orbit rendezvous Saturn 5. Werner Von Braun didn’t like the option as it left nothing. His preference was Earth orbit rendezvous, which while still launched by single use rocket systems, would build a space station and refuelling of reusable lunar and interplanetary ships. As such Musk’s vision with Starship is way closer to Von Braun’s.
Explain how to make a rocket motor function in the vacuum of space . Because there is nothing to gain thrust against.