there will always be men to take up this kind of challenge, not me, but there are some.

ima be honest, if I got the chance to be the first human on a planet, I really wouldn't give a damn if I'm not coming back.

There will always be men like me, cheering on men like that. Mars is great; but when it comes to a choice, I prefer warm cats and cocoa.

@@ExHyperion In my younger days, yeah. But I'm (much) closer to 60 than 50, and have some medical issues that would preclude my being a pioneer. Dammit.

Is there a word for the exact opposite of a sales pitch?

and literally as I said that, I hear another being tested in the distance.

lol that's so awesome. Yeah that's why starbase isn't going to be the main launch site. Hard to pass environmental review when you shake everything to death.

Makes you wonder how they're gonna manage without a flame trench and proper sound suppression system.

@@wheatley1866 with a high thrust to weight ratio

@@wheatley1866 That is one of the things they are testing with the initial stack launch. _Can_ they do without it. (edit: 'it' being the flame trench. They have the water deluge system in the stand for sound suppression.)

Along with "SpaceX got some great upskirt shots....uhhh, you know what I mean...anyway"

@Ben McCann It was la'padre, not SpaceX :0)

But but but billionaires bad!

@@lekhakaananta5864 Billionaires _are_ bad. More precisely, the _existence_ of billionaires. No one ever got to be a billionaire by being a swell guy and giving people their due.

​@@TheGreatAtario You understand the meme format right? "X bad" means it's a braindead argument against X. When something's actually bad, one should use legit arguments instead of crappy ones to prove they're bad. The annoying part is the "billionaires bad" crowd makes nonsensical arguments like the mars colony one. I know lots of actual arguments about why billionaires are bad. I also think the "billionaires bad because mars colonies" dumbasses deserve to be poor for their extreme stupidity.

i look at it more that raptor one was a prototype it had issues but nothing major it needed to be ran again and again and again to see where the failures were and inspecting them for which parts degraded which means taking it apart where as now that it is finished they made it with out flanges because they no longer need to take it apart

@@si2foo But if it's reusable you would have to check the internals somehow for inevitable maintenance and safety checks. But anyway, i'm sure the engineers at SpaceX will make the right decision.

Sounds like a dumb idea. Why would the arms not have cameras on them?

@@DeFreshS10 you should write SpaceX a letter telling them they are dumb

@@zyeborm taking manned drones to fly next to a booster, needed an operator, Batteries, etc. Vs stationary cameras you can mount directly to support arm?

@@zyeborm also them thinking they can launch 10 starship 3ntimea a day? Yea they are dumb

@@DeFreshS10 1. You comment enough that it seems as though you're re-listening to your own thoughts. 2. If the assembly and fueling process takes less than 24 hours, then I don't see why 3+ towers in one area can't assemble and launch 3 vehicles a day. #expandyourthinking 3. Operating a camera arm on a crane arm can get very awkward, and malfunctions can be hard to (safely!) correct during crane operation. Drones are mobile and versatile; and one can put varieties of cameras on them, including night vision, IR, and spectrographic CCDs, not just vanilla photonic ones.

Same here. I haven't watched any of the other videos because I wanted to watch this one. :)

Indeed, they are one of the best summaries to listen to

I'll wait for the Manley take any day

Here here!

I waited for Scott's video as well! He's always got the best one.

Numbers sounded right too, from what I learned in class.

For laborers, that's pretty common; I don't know what Scott did, but presumably some engineering, or who knows what. I worked at a cement factory (Davenport) and a chip factory (Santa Clara Intel). The big shame is that I have NOT worked at multiple, nor any, nuclear power plants; we should have at least 50 times the number of nuclear power plants as we have now (of current size, and millions of the new smaller shed-size nuclear power plants) in our country, but foreign enemies infiltrated us to the point they convinced us to not do what is good for us.

@@johndododoe1411 If you study all the various nuclear power designs, yes, those are some common ballparks. There are both larger and smaller, mostly smaller, but the most interesting ones are the recent very small ones that can go in each home's back yard as kind of like a large shed.

The Nuclear Generating Stations are probably the safest place to work. The plants are also the cleanest place to work.

as a third year enginering student i worked for ontario hydro in the nuclear division where they were building darlington nuclear power station. at the time the largest nuclear station in the world. i was just a student intern but worked for 2 engineers. one day we took a field trip to a different station under construction. i remember going through the reactor and having to put on tyvek booties and standing on top of the reactor .never saw so many pipes in my life. i was 21 yrs old. pretty cool. now i'm 61 but still remember that day. the doors in the containment building were like 4 feet thick concrete on tracks that rolled in with gaskets that inflate.

Elon said that Raptor 2 is not the engine that will be used for Interplanetary missions, indicative that the V2 is not the end goal for Starship.

I don't think staged combustion engines are ever going to be "truck" engines. The pre burners are really delicate and finicky and the turbine environment is extremely harsh, and they explode if a valve gets stuck open. I think that for an ultra-reliable booster engine, an open expander cycle is the way to go. An expander cycle, as proved by the RL-10, can literally eat insulation foam from the tank and not care, and they're self-limiting in terms of thrust, and can be designed with enough margin to not explode even when every single valve gets stuck open. The open/bleed expander is a bit better for launch vehicles because it's possible to build much larger engines with much higher thrust to weight ratio than with a closed expander cycle. I think proof of how benign and reliable an open expander is as a cycle is that relativity picked it for their Aeon engines despite being a very uncommon and under-researched cycle to get around how terrible 3D printed Inconel 718 is compared to normal turbopump impeller materials.

@@erlienfrommars Anything other than nuclear is stupid for big interplanetary missions.

I would point out that was Peter Beck's strong point on designing the new Archimedes engines for Rocket Lab's Neutron Rocket. He goes on and on about how it's more important to make them robust and reusable than to make them edge of technology demonstrators. The Archimedes engine is a simple gas generator cycle engine much like the SpaceX Merlin engine, but designed to burn Methane instead of RP1. Sure it's not quite as efficient as the Raptor engine, but in theory it will be more reliable and easier to check between flights. I don't think Starship and Superheavy with all those Raptor engines will be lacking for thrust. Detuning them for longevity is probably what's going to happen. Eventually.

@@thamiordragonheart8682 the self limiting is probably the biggest problem. I'm not sure if it's even theoretically possible to reach 300+ bar chamber pressure with an open expander. You can only heat and expand the gas so much. If start ship has a certain launch weight that needs to be lifted, they'd need to find a way to get more power out of an open expander or they'd need more engines.

I imagine they will cheer for the achievement of SpaceX. Younger ones might change sides, and older ones will stay at the relatively slow-paced BO factory.

@@kerbodynamicx472 They would still need someone to sweep the floor.

Doubtful they'll do launches a couple of times a day anytime soon. Even 5 years from now they'll probably be struggling to launch once a week, and that requires a massive boom in space industry and orbital delivery demand. How do I know this? Elon always overpromises and underdelivers, so just keep expectations reasonable until we see it actually happen. Atleast we can enjoy the amazing work they are actually doing!

@@johnfrian The launch interval is calculated by the average of how long it takes for Starship to launch, complete LEO missions, and return to the launch site _divided by_ how many Starship vehicles are waiting in the launch queue. [For example steady 3-day missions divided by a queue of 6 Starships allows up to 2 launches per day.] The boosters return to launch site within 9 minutes, so these will only limit launch rate if there are not enough boosters in their own queue to compensate for total loss rate (also refurbishment time). Since the manufacturing rate at Boca Chica / Starbase is already close to making 1 booster + 1 (or 2) Starship per month, either queue can already grow at one per month or even faster. [Also assuming production of 42 or 51 Raptors per month.]

@@imconsequetau5275 The limiting factor will be the time it takes to get a Raptor 2 made and tested. We don't know what the lifetime of one is so they likely will pull the first ones off and dissect them. After a few flights, they will know from how they worked at landing if they need to pull one or not. The 20 on the outside ring are going to be the ones that they won't know about unless they have a failure.

He sent me a chop-stick pic

I took a big swig of coffee right when he said that, and it went all over the place.

@@jamesgrover2005 aww man he sent you a Stick Pic?

Zamn

And she was wearing no undies^Wengines. It was just the skirts^Wbells... ah, sorry, got carried away a bit. :-) (Look at 14:07 onwards, check the "engines" closest to the viewer...)

Exactly.

Right choice.

I like how this presentation was more grounded than any others previously have been. Maybe it's because they have hardware built this time around? Maybe it's because we have been hearing these things for a few years now so it doesn't seem as fantastical? It just seems like now Elon knows how it's all going to happen and what still needs to be done to accomplish it.

Don't pay any attention to the "confidence and conviction of his voice". That's what gets us SolarCity, Tesla Semi-truck, and other such nonsense. Hold SpaceX to a higher standard so it will continue to actually do real things ;)

Yeah, his confidence and conviction mean very little.

"Confidence and conviction of his voice" - cult alert.

Good grief. The easily led love a confident message delivered with conviction. Did his teeth sparkle as well? Reassess your gullibility.

I like how he makes videos about what he is interested in and excited about. Like you said, it really comes through in his videos. He always seems genuine and not that he is putting on an act. He is here because he wants to share it with us, not because he needs the views.

I couldn't decide which was most embarassing - Musk's obvious state of sleep deprivation, or Dodd's awful interview style...

@@paulhaynes8045 I like Tim's interview style. de asks real details , shit that interests an engineering geek. like on all the 9/11 stories its always about the people . i don't care i want stories of the building structure not the people. they are just props.

Yeah, when he spoke to Dodd, the message was basically that the rigs were an opportunistic purchase... they were going cheap, so they snapped them up having any immediate plans for them. Presumably the delays around Boca Chica have inspired them to start coming up with those plans... giving themselves some flexibility around launch options.

@@simongeard4824 That sums up the SpaceX/Musk attitude at the Dodd interview pretty well. With Elon's new timescales just disclosed in the Q&A though I fear that is very likely to end up being another case of "Elon time". An operational platform by the end of this year? (I think that's what he said in the Q&A.) I find that hard to believe. OK, The Boca Chica launch tower took 13 months and they've presumably solved some of the common problems but I would have though the sea-based platform is more difficult. I'll be really impressed if they can have anything on station (wherever that happens to be) within a year. I look forward to being proved wrong.

@@julianfp1952 welcome to the difference between the private sector and the 30 billion miles of red tape that exists any time a government entity wants something built.

he kind of is, or at least he asks them to explain stuff to him with simpler words

He's literally the lead engineer. He's just as involved as Warner von Braun was if not more.

I just got done dealing with Weld porosity in a high pressure nitrogen system. Now instead we have to have them all X-ray and eddy current. At extra expense on an already over budget program

@@jtjames79 He's also the guy who titled himself the chief engineer. I'll believe that he is involved in the design, but engineering is crunching the numbers to make it work, and nothing about elon suggests that he's actually running the computational fluid dynamics or doing finite element analysis. He has actual trained engineers going that and then he's deciding between options based on their engineering, not his.

@@jtjames79 he can call himself whatever he likes in his company. Musk is not a rocket engineer and needs to check his ego so the actual engineers can do their job.

Is that a Raptor 2 in your pocket or are you just happy to see me?

Yep and that is a *BIG* problem. The RS-25 is also impressive (even more taking into account that it launched in the early 80s), so are the engines from Scuderia Ferrari; Not the kind of engine you want to place in a semi-truck. The Starship is fill with complexity: the engines, the thermal protection system, the launch tower, the take off procedures, the return procedures etc. If we look at the successful Falcon 9 family is exactly the contrary: simple engine, if the. landing fails nothing of value gets destroyed besides the rocket itself, simple two stage design, simple proven scape system, low cost parts etc.

@@jaimeduncan6167 I always kinda wonder if they'd still go for staged combustion if they started developing the engine now instead of 10 years ago. Back then the plan was to push the performance envelope in every way possible with carbon fiber structures etc. Feels a bit weird to combine the heavy steel structure of an old-school "big dumb booster" concept with these super complex high performance engines... but then I guess they need the performance now to lift all that weight... anyway, I would not be surprised if the follow-on to raptor ends up being a simple gas generator engine again (and they just scale up the rocket even more to compensate for the performance loss).

@@jaimeduncan6167 The power and efficiency provided by the full flow staged combustion is exactly the reason that Starship is capable of the high-capacity reuse that it will be able to pull off. Also, I don't see your point in regards to the launch tower and TPS complexity, as it would be literally impossible to use a non-tiled TPS for Starship given its size. Also, you do realize that Starship is trying to achieve full reusability right? This is not Falcon 9 2.0, and thus must be more complex to achieve the necessary goal of full reusability.

@@johannesgutsmiedl366 That it's a pretty good question. I really don't know.

👍

Ehhhh... Elon is definitely not much of a down-to-earth person. Don't get me wrong, I like the work that he does - generally - but there's not a whole lot that separates him from the stereotypical Fortune 500 CEO with too much money other than his willingness to put some personal effort into the engineering he oversees.

@@ShawFujikawa dont act like you would be any better if you were ever to amount to his level of wealth.

@@pluto8404 so you're saying the problem is it being possible to get that much money?

It will not last forever.

I have no problem with the flying part, it's the landing that I'd be worried about. 😂

@@my3dviews "I have no problem with falling. I'm an excellent faller. It's those inconvenient landings I could never get the hang of." -Some book I read ages ago but can't remember which one.

@@tarmaque It's like the saying "it's not the fall that kills you, it's the sudden stop". 😂

@@my3dviews "It turned out that when Miss Level had asked Tiffany if she was scared of heights, it had been the wrong question. Tiffany was not afraid of heights at all. She could walk past tall trees without batting an eyelid. Looking up at huge towering mountains didn’t bother her a bit. What she was afraid of, although she hadn’t realized it up until this point, was _depths._ She was afraid of dropping such a long way out of the sky that she’d have time to run out of breath screaming before hitting the rocks so hard that she’d turn to a sort of jelly and all her bones would break into dust. She was, in fact, afraid of the ground. Miss Level should have thought before asking the question." Terry Pratchett _A Hat Full of Sky_ 2004

@@tarmaque Well okay then. :-)

samee

Same...👍

Except for the accent. The way he Scott's some "woooreds"!

@@michaelvangundy226 no, not except the accent, especially BECAUSE of the accent

Same for teachers - the more you do the better you get. and the vocal exercise aids in projection. I used to be able to get echos from the back of an auditorium used for class. NOT anymore - retired too long and worked in industry lost that capability.

I tend to agree. Kennedy is the only realistic shoreside launch site that could support multiple launches a week with this beast, so I suspect the launch cadence he's thinking (which I also think is unrealistic) would require multiple offshore launch facilities. However they won't be building these things offshore, so they'll have to launch them to get them to the offshore launch platforms. It's all about the sound the'll create, which I think is the major holdup right now.

Getting payloads to a sea platform and integrating them there might be challenging though.

@@danieljensen2626 What about using it as a tanker launch site? Just gotta have some LNG/oxygen tanks around and top them off from time to time.

@@tarmaque Of course one of the the beauties of using a secondhand oil platform is that you can bring it to the booster (ie tow it with tugs) rather than have to move the massive booster to it. There are other advantages too - away from people, obviously, but also able to build starbases any latitude that suits - the equator is especially helpful (why the ESA facility is in Guyana). I'm actually surprised other countries haven't gone for this option in their space programs.

Will the sea platform still be there when the booster returns?

Agreed. If this was closer to "expected to work" then it would probably not fly (waste of time + clean up), but since its more likely to crash anyway, they may as well spend the fuel to get important data.

It belongs in a museum! ;)

The question you have to ask is though, what would they be getting data on? The engines are too different to count, possibly aerodynamics and re-entry thermals but that depends on if they plan on changing the TPS. Electronics are all placeholder. Stage separation would be a big one, simulated cargo loads and stuff. Launches don't just give you data unfortunately, you have to have all the components in placs to test for it to make sense. I still think it would make sense to launch that booster, but the window is rapidly closing as their ground testing continues.

@@gajbooks Basically everything but the engines is shared AFAIK, so they'd get data on everything, especially the starship in upper atmosphere/orbit and possibble landing configuration data from the controlled splashdown they have planned.

The only point of flying this combo is to see how a Starship performs coming back from orbit - assuming the completely untested, never flown booster can get it up there. Amd asuming, of course, that the FAA are going to allow this monster rocket to take off (or blow up) in the middle of a nature reserve! And, if it doesn't fly from Boca Chica, I can't see them taking it to Florida, so that's it - scrap. Ultimately, they can develop and prototype in BC, but they're going to have to build and fly at the Cape. And anyone who thinks the answer is the sea platforms hasn't paused for long enough to consider the logististics of getting the rockets out to one of those platforms, and then fueling it, loading it, and launching it from there.

100 %

It's very much his aspergers. His brain has a million things it wants to say and they get all jammed up trying to be said

Style, yeah. Substance, not so much.

@@Snowmunkee Um, please don't. Even if you have Asperger's syndrome, don't stereotype like that. You should realize there's way more variation. Elon's performance is just that, a performance.

@@travcollier Elon himself has described his own experience like that

If the stage was level with the bottom of the rocket, and the rocket was vertical, then ANY distance from the bottom of the rocket would put you farther away from the top, than the height of the rocket. In order for there to be any safety in this, you'd need to be farther away from the BOTTOM of the rocket, than the rocket was tall.

@@Tjalve70 Ha, yes. In other videos you have commenters fixing grammar. On rocket videos, you have commenters fixing trigonometry.

@@wyskass861 and the whole thing was a joke in the first place. 😂 So the trigonometry lesson was all for naught.

I agree. I think if they can get flight clearance in a reasonable amount of time they'll fly this combination. However, if there's more delay then the next generation will be ready and they'll change their minds.

I wonder if the FAA will allow SpaceX to launch as frequently as required to develop orbital Starship capability.

I still don't understand why they haven't built a water noise suppression system and did a complete Static Fire for Booster 4.

Depends. Gotta be super-sure that it gets high enough before it goes boom and destroys stage 0. If BN5 looks more reliable or safer, or has fewer flanges, they might scrap BN4.

They'll be ditching booster 4 in the ocean anyway so why not try

Just remember, Elon usually overpromises and underdelivers. He said the same about falcon 9, then uses starship as an excuse to why it never happened. I hope SpaceX proves me wrong, just keep your expectations reasonable until it actually happens.

@@johnfrian my definition of regular is, I’ll be fine if he’s doing more or less the space shuttle rate…

Worst part of facilities maintenance back in the day.

Aren't they staying below 50' to 100', with higher work done from the tower mounted scaffolds?

@@johndododoe1411 some of the work is at the top of super heavy, which is plenty above 100ft

@@johndododoe1411 the white ones they use go up to 300ft. Wouldn't get me up there lol

@@johndododoe1411 those superlifts go to the top of the stack. Never seen them messing about wih scaffolds to work on the top of the vehicle.

Unfortunately it was Chernobyl in 1986.

I feel the same way, but I live in Canada where the government boot is always on your neck. Doubled my income through education two years ago, still can't afford gas and groceries due to tax hikes and inflation. Starting to wonder, what's the point?

@@nickmoore385 I swear I was going to write a similar joke involving Chernobyl, but then saw yours, so you beat me to it.

The real question should be; Why do you need someone to inspire you to make your life better. Instead of "being inspired", maybe focus on inspiring others.

@@hawkdsl Cause inspiring others doesn’t make money by itself, it’s just a byproduct and as such, you gotta do something that can inspire people and that takes inspiration. It’s a cycle and you can’t do it without inspiration from others

It just doesn't interest me as I know I'm not going to get what I want. No talk of interiors or enough info. I'm just totally impatient now to see the next flight. Getting frustrated.

Elon has this black & white vision that humanity must somehow "leave Earth" or we're doomed as a species, but that is basically ridiculous. On a minimally geological timescale, humans can't do shit to the Earth in any meaningful way with respect to its habitability (mammals survived an asteroid impact equivalent to about BILLION nukes!).

@@awebuser5914 How Dare You!

@@awebuser5914 It's not necessarily only about what we could do to us, its also about what outside forces could do to us. Space has quite a few ways of accidentally making a habitable planet no longer so. Being overly cautious will always look stupid until the one time it is necessary. Given that we literally cannot predict when such an event could occur, why not be prepared?

@@jemmerllast8492 "Space has quite a few ways of accidentally making a habitable planet no longer so..." Well, there has been no recorded occurrence of that in a few BILLION years, so we can just say that is completely wrong. The Chicxulub impactor was staggeringly damaging, but it really didn't have a significant impact on the long-term habitability of the planet. Species that could not adapt to the transitional changes died-out, but a staggering amount of life survived and flourished thereafter.

Edison fit? Screw that!!

no, more compact and lighter weight.

It’s because spacex has been violating all kinds of regulations at starbase in the name of “progress”.

If you look up the history of F1 development, you'll see why. As rocket engines get larger, combustion instability becomes a bigger and bigger issue.

Go back and watch Scott's video on Things KSP doesn't teach you: Rocket Fuel Injectors. It's the same reason that Russia went with multiple small combustion chambers and multiple engines: Combustion instability. The bigger your combustion chamber the harder it is to prevent combustion instability. I think this is part of what is causing so many headaches for Blue Origin on the BE-4. (Among other things, including management problems and a lack of engineering talent.)

If you lose 1 out of 30 engines you lose 1/30 of your thrust. If Apollo lost 1 out of its 5 engines you lose 1/5 of your thrust.

Don't let the scale of Starship as a whole confuse you -- the Raptor engine is actually pretty big. But Hat Man and tarmaque are right that combustion instability is the _absolute worst._ You're _far_ better off using smaller engines if it means you don't have to risk combustion instability by using bigger ones.

Also don’t forget throttle range. The falcon 9 does a suicide burn because the single merlin does not throttle down enough. This is not an issue for those that just throw away the booster

Dad jokes, honest? The dad people will not go now, the Scott people will! No the dad Joke under us, but the rascally people!

Could be a 4mm allen screw. 😂

The off-centre washer on the lower-right screw indicates they are quite small. If they were big, the % "error" in the size of the hole in the washer would not be noticeable. Small washer have a high % error, they fit loosely. 1/2 a mm is a big error in a small washer, but is just an easy fit in a bigger washer.

@@77gravity ah well and I was hoping for mega bolts lol

good point. I was wondering the same thing. Maybe the launch tower is mostly a pathfinder for construction or something. I also imagine the use of the sea platforms might have a salt water system of sorts.

@@koenwerf84 Also, it may be that the video was more art driven and less engineering driven so maybe I shouldn't read too much into the video.

Read "The Marching Morons" by Cyril M. Kornbluth

So Mars is going to be a penal colony? Sort of like Australia, but without the sunshine?

@@jamesharmer9293 Robert Heinlein already explored the idea in several of his novels. Including _The Moon is a Harsh Mistress_ where it's the Moon that is a penal colony.

@@jamesharmer9293 Oh no.... It's going to become like the Expanse, with them rebelling against us.

specially if you need them for fertilizer...

That would likely be a vacuum bell

Elon even joked about transfer of fluids...

That may be due to the slightly thicker steel being used.

@@jessepollard7132 Is it thicker? I was assuming it was thinner! I could be completely wrong. :-)

@@DenisLoubet So could I. Much of the structure depends on internal pressure being available. It is also possible it hasn't been through a cryo temperature leak test yet. which might introduce wrinkling due to differential cooling from top to bottom. I thought it had a liquid nitrogen temperature/leak test.

That's what pipelines are for. If they are really going to fly three times a day, I think a pipeline from the production site will be worth it. And/or moving the production closer to the launch complex.

pumps designed to fill rocket in 30 mins. Methane tankers are unloading into tank farm today.

That's why the tank farm holds so much more than the stack. I would assume that one part of the tank farm could be providing reactants to refill a Booster and Starship, while at the same time another part of the tank farm is taking on more reactants from pipelines and/or tankers. Tank farm just needs to average like 1/16 the filling speed of the rocket - rocket refueling in half an hour (at a guess), but the tank farm has 8 hours (1/3 of a day) to do that.

Except that it doesn't work.

@@timcareymusic What do you mean?

@@TheDragonaf1 They have not yet created a working Raptor 2. It's still in development.

@@TheDragonaf1 they have not simplified it at all, they just left a bunch of stuff off it and said it’s simpler - no engine will fly without a fuel supply, you cannot just leave that off your model and say ‘look how we simplified it’ and they have not doubled the performance, they have not even shown it lifting anything, they’re just the usual vapourware claims.

Complete darkness? It will be daytime for 3 months.

@@deltalima6703 Yes, but that's not the point.

Wages will be pretty good. I dont know if you noticed, but there is a huge manpower shortsge on mars. Cannot find employees anywhere.

@@deltalima6703 I did notice the manpower shortage on Mars. Thanks for checking. Do you know where that quote is from?

Sounds like a WWII recruitment poster, but the temperature on the warm side of james webb is 130°F, so pretty much all of it is wrong for mars.

I think the first landing tests should have a target in the ocean - maybe a dye release with the SpaceX logo (for Superheavy sea landing). and image of Mars (for the Starship) for the two landing spots.

Actually, Raptor 2 is a 7,2GW engine (this is useful power, not thermal). Elon probably talked about turbomachinery.

ehh? 4GW thermal and 1.3MW electrical? You mean 1.3GW electrical, no?

@@rkan2 Yes, typing mistake. 1.3GW, or 1,300 MW electric power, considering a thermal to electric conversion efficiency of 32.5% on a steam Rankine cycle.

Yeah people tend to forget about airships when talking about the largest flying objects ever made. Which is understandable considering how they pretty much entirely fell out of fashion almost a century ago

Largest by weight...?

@Brick My thoughts exactly.

@@limiv5272 By size of course

@@edd4816 You could say their popularity went down in flames.

Yeah but good luck having Russia China allowing it.

Bigger rockets are in general less affected by weather

I doubt it will have any special means of dealing with bad weather, or at least I haven't heard anything like that

I think starship will be less dependent on weather than dragon/falcon. It's so massive that the weather will have less of an impact and there isn't really an escape system to speak of, so there probably won't be any consideration besides the potential abort landing zone. Dragon is more likely to tumble or sink in the waves, starship not so much, if it lands in one piece.

I think he's going by mass, since yeah the airships are always going to win by volume

Check the definitions of flying and floating. Airships are lighter than air. Aircraft (or any other flying machine) are heavier than air and still go up.

@@realulli So the means by which lift is generated defines if you're flying?

@@ummdustry5718 He would have meant heaviest because big refers to the size.

@@realulli From Wikipedia: „Flight or flying is the process by which an object moves through a space without contacting any planetary surface.“ Therefore airships are flying objects, even hot air balloons as they move with the wind.