"SpaceX Starship is a BIG MISTAKE!", Scientists revealed…



“SpaceX Starship is a BIG MISTAKE!”, Scientists revealed…
Huge thanks to:
TijnM: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCDA8yz_nQY-0Uxd96-qxYjA
iamVisual: https://www.youtube.com/c/iamVisualVFX
=======
Two decades ago, the latest owner and CEO of Twitter, Elon Musk founded SpaceX, a rocket company to someday send people to Mars, and he has said for years that he will make space travel as easy as hopping on a plane.
As he stood in front of a gleaming steel spaceship, it was tempting to start believing him. “It’s really gonna be pretty epic to see that thing take off and come back,” Musk said.
But that is the hypnotic nature of such showcases. The flashiness of the affair, the giddy confidence of the host—these can almost elide the unspoken hitch here, that building an interplanetary spaceship is really really difficult.
Can Starship be a big mistake?
Let’s see what famous scientists and engineers just explained about that.

Starship—which is being built at a Texas site dubbed “Starbase”—consists of a giant spaceship on top of a large booster, known as Super Heavy. Both can land back on Earth so they can be reused, reducing costs. The entire vehicle will be capable of lifting 100 metric tons (220,000 pounds) of cargo and people into space on regular low-cost missions.

The volume of usable space within Starship is a whopping 1,000 cubic meters—big enough to fit the entire Eiffel Tower, disassembled.
For most, this massive size is admirable.

However, the Mars Society President and Aerospace Engineer Dr. Robert Zubrin said: “that a problem with Starship is that because it’s so massive it takes a great deal of facilities to be able to refuel it, so he anticipates that the few Starships that first land on Mars will stay on Mars.”

To begin the Mars colonization effort, the rocket company’s mission will be to deliver a massive amount of cargo, including vital equipment to Mars, and possibly robots with capabilities to set everything up before the first human arrival. Part of the first deliveries to Mars could include supplies such as power generators, large batteries, and solar panels that would aid to build/power a propellant plant to refuel Starship and eventually come back to Earth. Zubrin pointed out that it would take 6 to 10 football fields of solar panels to refuel Starship within a 500-day stay on Mars.
“SpaceX Starship is a BIG MISTAKE!”, Scientists revealed…

source

34 thoughts on “"SpaceX Starship is a BIG MISTAKE!", Scientists revealed…”

  1. lots of critics have come and gone but spacex staid. lot of people were convinced it's impossible to land a first stage on rocket engine on earth. you really think Musk and his team did not think about those obvious issues? have fun criticizing all you want, it will not hold spacex back.

    Reply
  2. actually when it should do other things than bringing things to LEO and return, then it does what it's not designed for … Zubrin himself proposed dumb things, but I am with him when it comes to what he said about starship — Space X seriously gotta rethink their moon mission and orbital refilling

    Reply
  3. Humans become a two planet species.

    Let's be clear on this point. Anyone going to another planet is not a typical person on Earth. They will either have loads of money, or a very large brain full of knowledge about the projects/systems being run on that 2nd planet.

    The other 99.999999999% of humans are going down with the ship. So, do I want billionaires to think they can destroy earth, because they have a 2nd home, or do I want them to understand their future families will be screwed along with the rest of humanity?

    Reply
  4. The Mars Society president Dr Zurban says "the first few Starships to land on Mars will stay on Mars". Maybe that is the case. Maybe Elon Musk has planned for that. So I wonder what his point is? Zurban makes a lot of hypothesis, without acknowledging that Musk's plans may well be flexible. Zurban rather sounds like he's fond of the sound of his own voice. "Look At Me". 🤣

    Reply
  5. when a great and learned scientist thinker states some thing is wrong impossible??? He most probably will be proved wrong? if a great learned person states a thing enterprise may have the chance of working ? he may well, be proved right? 1900 men who tried and wished to fly dreamed of space TRAVEL WERE DECLARED FANCIFULL SILLY STUPID INSANE? TODAY WE TRAVERSE THE PLANET IN HOURS TRAVEL TO DEPTH OTHE OCEANS ORBIT T HE EARTH COMUNICATE WITH SOUND IMAGES IN SECONDS ACROSS THE GLOBE 1820 WE ONLY USED WIND HORSES DONKEYS CAMELS AND HUMAN SWEAT? ROSE WITH THE SUN AND SLEPT WHEN THE SUN SET? ONLY THE WEALTHY HAD CANDLES AND OIL LAMPS COAL

    Reply
  6. I don't think the engine plume would be an issue for the moon landing (and perhaps even mars) since the renders suggest that the landing engines for the moon lander version of the starship would be at the top of the starship far above the lunar regolith.

    Reply
  7. So…what has Zerbin done? I looked him up, educated author and critic. Has not started any companies or built anything. He can be a critic with out much wight behind his opinion, after all in 40 years what has he done? OR he could build a better rocket…bet he stays home. Orbital habitats like an Oneal cylinder are better then living at the bottom of a gravity well anyway. Live on mars? why ?

    Reply
  8. Practise makes perfect! Giga villages in Namibia terrain new city before Mars dream travels is key to human survival. One million volunteers awaits to develope new colony in the isolated desert region of Africa, Namibia before Mars dream! Food for thoughts. Fraction of the costs to Nam8bia terrains!

    Reply
  9. The biggest obstacle to Mars colonization is very simple – you can not live there without having to live in an artificial environment. You can not simple go outside for a stroll without the protection of a spacesuit – without one you would die very, very quickly indeed, in milliseconds.
    Living permanently inside a dome is not really practical, and is certainly very, difficult on Earth, let alone Mars!
    And there are so many other reasons why Mars colonization is impractical- the cost of getting there is absolutely enormous and would easily be the most expensive project in history, whether military or civilian. And with the world beset by so many intractable problems, people will not unreasonably ask why spend huge amounts of money going to live on an uninhabitable world, and having to live all the time in an artificial environment which could go wrong at any time, when we can not solve those problems here on Earth.
    By all means send uncrewed vehicles to Mars – they function and survive in the Martian environment much better and longer then humans could and can and are returning tremendous amounts of science without lives being built and at a very, very tiny cost compared to sending people there.
    As the Cassini scientist Caroline Poco has said, it would be better if Mr. Musk concentrated his efforts on developing non polluting sources of energy or little polluting sources of energy – nuclear fusion is a promising example – which would benefit everybody on the plsnet

    Reply
  10. The technology today is a lot more advanced than you can even comprehend a magnetic stability control arm engine was created but held top secret it would use no fuel it can hover above the moon surface and land without Creighton any debris and the engine can travel at light speed with his magnetic coefficient stable arm magnetically controlled one day it will be released

    Reply
  11. I remember reading a quote . BE CAREFUL WITH PESSIMISTIC PEOPLE! FOR EVERY SOLUTION THEY FIND A PROBLEM. I almost reacted quickly in the comment section when I first read that. I'm glad i thought about it carefully and didn't respond.

    Reply
  12. I think Musk should try to send people to Antarctica and try to populate it. It is much-much-much hospitable then Mars. And he wouldn't need any rockets! And the cost to go to Antarctica? Peanuts when compared with the price for going to Mars – besides Musk doesn't even have the money to cover the costs – it's all a big B/S and nobody is going to pay for that since there is no profit in it at all.

    Reply
  13. You can watch these things land and know we didn't go to the moon. There was no dust on the moon lander in the studio faked photos they took, and there was no plume of dust, even under 6 times less gravity. These new rockets have computers controlling them and have crashed many times but with 53 year old technology we supposedly landed a Moon lander perfectly 7 times in the moon that couldn't be flown on Earth. Lies! The only way this could have been possible is under a controlled faked environment of 100% propaganda. We do seem to have that technology.

    Reply

Leave a Comment