Would like

Quazar501 He is awesome!

I hope someone has informed 前澤 友作 that the first woman to visit the moon shouldn't have to be someone's girlfriend as a prerequisite.

@@pentagramprime1585 "Someones girlfriend." That is a bit demeaning. You're talking about an actual human being here. If a billionaire wants to take someone he loves on an amazing trip, I don't think anybody should be complaining about what gender that person is.

@@VainerCactus0 Did you fail to notice that every soul aboard the ISS right now is a man? I want more inclusion in the space program. That said, we need more female pilots and astronauts (as opposed to to a contest where some billionaire picks a date for his flight). It won't change as long as people keep pretending that everything is fine.

Every other heavy lifter maybe. Still need smaller boosters for small and specialized shots.

@@jeffreyroot6300 The good Electron fanbase

@@jeffreyroot6300 SpaceX Draco ( in Dragon 2) and ion thrusters ( in Starlink ) will do the Job

@@northMOFN The other factor: even if they could make money selling Starship launches for $6M each, they'd make even more money selling Starship launches for $60M each. So basically, they'd only need to start under-bidding Electron launches if they have excess capacity and would rather fly those launches than have the rockets sit around idle. Given they also need to launch however many Starlink satellites, never mind migrating over all Falcon 9 payloads, for the foreseeable future it'll be more profitable to do something else with Starship rather than compete against Electron.

@@jeffreyroot6300 If Musk Math numbers work out, that's not even true. This may be cheaper to launch than pretty well any other operational launch system, regardless of size, including Electron! It's mind bending if it works.

Super heavy seems like the simplest part of the whole system. If there's one part of the SS/SH system that Spacex has experience with it's landing and reusing 1st stages. SH deals with significantly less dramatic heating and will always be returning to the launch site which removes lots of variables. If anything will be challenging itll just be getting so many engines to function in such close proximity without issue. Starship has way more significant issues to deal with.

not really sure how they get to mars and back on a pile of cryogenic propellants when they boil off relatively rapidly compared to the journey time Not really sure how they intend to land something that top heavy on mars (or the moon) without some sort of developed landing pad either Not really sure if the fuel bleed heat shield even works either. Additionally nobody's got a good idea of what a stainless steel space vehicle of its size does in space with regards to expansion and the million other little daunting metallurgical problems

@@AsbestosMuffins Weight and landings are problems that I think SpaceX will overcome without to much trouble. Starship will weigh less on the moon and Mars than Earth. The lunar dust needs to be addressed. If they try to land Starship on the moon without a pad it will put a lot of dust in orbit. Entry and landings on Mars will always be sketchy. That will never get easy.

@@scottdorfler2551 theres a new moon design for the starship,they are planning on using some Draco/Raptor thrusters on the upper part of the vehicle. It's not a draco thruster but it's like the raptor version of it

@@isaiahphillip4112 Very naive indeed. SH should withstand about 6000 tonnes of thrust so it definitely cannot be made the same way as those sn-xxhoppers that cannot properly handle theirs own weight.

... or an IRL version!

he is jeb and he does whatever the fuck he likes, thats why we love him

Jeff who?

@@dotnet97 Jeff Bezos, the Amazon guy

@@Kyle-gw6qp missed the joke lol

@@jakebrown5967 On the other hand "Jeff Who" is beyond being a joke now. It's a _meme_ .

@@jakebrown5967 oops I'm not very up on jokes

Don't take it personally...

He said that about Aerospikes

@@premiumbananaguy5319 his quote was about all aspects of rocket including aerospike engines. Go and do some research bro.

@@omidrastin3745 Now you said yourself that it included aerospikes.

@@aesbj9228 you two don't get the point I am trying to explaine the same thing. Come on guys areospike engines are the main part of a rocket.

@@omidrastin3745 I've watched the video of everyday astronaut many times already. It's possible that I misunderstood him, but my native language isn't English. As far as I know they were talking about Aerospikes, and Elon said, if someone would say the way they are taking is wrong, it would be a gift. But it is possible that I am wrong

Abandoning a concept is a lot more forgivable than abandoning a _product_

@@illuminati.official If only disney knew this, we would still have club penguin...

@@illuminati.official sound like your saying abandoning "produce support" or fucking the people who bought your products, like windows phone, sega dreamcast, etc.

All those concepts were abandoned in favor of Starship. Which at this point is an absolute disaster.

@@DavidJohnson-tv2nn is it? What inside knowledge do you have that you can say it's not exactly on schedule and performing the tests as they wanted it to perform?

If you love his channel you also love the other videos and not only this series!

There won't be a final episode on SpaceX abandoned projects until he covers their exploration of big dumb pressure-fed boosters.

Yeah I was worried for a second until I read the rest of it.

ApolloParks wow. That is a very bad idea XD

Do you have a link to that vid?

Ha

Jokes on you my first successful KSP Launch was an LKO relay sattelite.

If something was done, it was never impossible, they just hadn't figured out how. 😁

@@lordgarion514 True but that's what people said back then

In ksp with more boosters you can...

So, last time you were on UKposts in the 1960s?

DC-X...

If you put on Antarctic clothing and full face protection, could you row a little boat around inside the LOX tank?

I TF· ·FR ME· ·R ATE TenFramesPerSecond That would be cool. VERY COOL...

@@dunneincrewgear Nice name.

@@-danR of course you could. Just don't light a...nevermind.

Noted

@@dr.shalabhsaxena4420 "No ted"

Play safe

I always salute when he says that.

@@dr.shalabhsaxena4420 Come on now. We don't call it a racist term like "crashing" anymore. It's "lithobraking".

and here's where I keep assorted lengths of wire.

"Red Dragon" always sounded sick imo

@@Sin526 And a Lunar version called 'Gray Dragon.'

holly mother of confinement.

Or lunar dragon

Or lunar dragon

FINAL COMMENT: I'm outta here. Sayonara ... 😎

So replicants have actual hearts

@@Thefreakyfreek Well yeah. We are more human than human.

There is still a small chance...... It involves time travel

@@davidteer80 Lol

@@davidteer80 Im pretty sure we would remember that as it still allready wouldve happened.

@@rtg5881 depends. Some scientists believe that if if time travel occurs it would create a parallel timeline to the original so anyone in the original timeline would have no knowledge or memory of the prior events being altered..... According to Back to the Future Part 2

@@davidteer80 i dont think Back to the Future is a good source of what scientists have to say on the matter. In fact, scientists speaking to normal folk often arent, either. For instance, have you ever heard it being said that the light you see from stars was emitted a long time ago? Well, turns out thats not entirely accuate. Now if we want to speak about a timeline of events, yes, that will differ based on your frame of reference, in fact even what exactly happened will depend on your frame of reference as time dilation also comes with length cotnraction, what would make the most sense in my opinion is to use light as that frame of reference and rebrand the speed of light as the "speed of now" to deal with relativity of simultanaity. Becouse light actualy reaches every point it will ever reach instantaniously from its frame of reference and theoreticly it would be possible for you to get to the point of origin of that light at the time it originates with the use of wormholes. We dont know wether wormholes are possible or not, but they are in line with our descriptions of the universe. And they require negative mass. Thats not antimatter or anything, no, negatgive mass. Turns out you can take something away from nothing. That you can do, and it happens all on its own on a subatomic scale all the time and immediatly bubbles back, for a wormhole the size that a person would fit through, we are talking about a moons worth of negative mass at least. Lets say its not feassable unless wevve got several solar systems worth of energy (and when i say their energy, i mean turning all their mass into energy in accordance with e=mc², not fusion, fission, or any other compareativly low power forms of energy), you could call that timetravel depending on your frame of reference but causality is never broken... except for roman rings involving multiple wormholes. And we dont even know if wormholes are possible at all at this point, even with infinite energy. Just that they arent ruled out by what we know about the universe. So ill hold off on investments into roman rings incorporated for now ;)

It is really massive. You basically get a Falcon 9's delta-V, except it's more because of the higher altitude (hence higher ISP), and your rocket is already going pretty fast. The current non-crossfeeding FH is not really that efficient, but hey, it still works!

If they needed more capability they would just make the thing fully expendable.

Your best case senario is effectively converting Falcon Heavy into a 3 stage design where the center booster becomes the second stage. It matters for thrust and engine testing that the center booster ignites at launch, but crossfeed vs ignite center booster at stage seperation doesn't change the Δv, however the extra thrust may let you fly a more efficient accent trajectory. Tricky complications though on how much of those gains are left on the table for full crossfeed once you've already got a big chunk of them by simply taking the center booster to minimum throttle. Plus how much extra fuel is required in the center booster to still recover it with that extra kick. The tradeoffs get into fickle numerical solutions that are sensitive to all the details. Not really an answer but should give an idea of upper and lower bounds.

Bare in mind, there is only one fairing size with the falcon 9/heavy

As LueLou said, the first stage is about mass more than orbital energy (Δv). There was a previous video about the specific impulse of the MVac engine which is not that great because it uses kerosene. It is great, in that it shares most of its parts with the first stage engines. That saves cost which is critical for the one non-recoverable part of the Falcon9. ULA uses hydrogen which has a much better specific impulse and because of that they are the better choice for any high Δv mission. SpaceX is content to stay in earth's gravity well with the Falcon9/heavy. For a commercial rocket it is a good economic choice because 99% of all launch costumers just want to orbit the planet we all live on. The controlling factor then becomes mass (and absolute thrust) instead of Δv.

"If this thing gets off the pad, that'll already be mission successful" -Elon Musk I'm just gonna assume putting crew in there isn't the smartest thing ever...

@@yanislahtal6253 That was because they had pretty much run out of tests they could do without launching at least the first stage. Since that's the bulk of the costs, they put an actual second stage on top of that, so that in case the first stage worked, they could demonstrate further capabilities. Elon may also have been exaggerating somewhat, to temper expectations. They've since have had several successful flights, and a lot more data to work with, so expected chance of success should be a lot higher now. Biggest issue I see is that they dropped human rating the falcon heavy, so they'd have to re-engineer it.

@@yanislahtal6253 Elon likes saying dramatic stuff. It didn't mean they actually expected the rocket to blow up on the pad... it was just a reminder that it was nothing more than a test flight of a new and unproven rocket.

Coincidence? I THINK NOT

@@docnathan3959 EXACTLY!!! ITS A CONSPIRACY COMING STRAIGHT FROM NASA!!!!!!!

U.A.?

the falcon 9 second stages orbits deteriorate after a few months i believe

C H O M P

Afik the Falcon 9 second stage does a deorbit burn a few hours after a mission and before it's batteries die. This will be a specially modified 2nd stage with add on solar cells so it can wait for 1-2 months for pickup. Two starlink launches would fit the bill nicely.

@@martylawson1638 Would the extra mass of the Starship not make reentry more aggressive? Also the second stage would have to be accomodated in a snug cradle, adding more mass. And the presence of the cradle reduces Starships paying payload. Interesting, I wonder of Kerbalers can do this. I also wonder, does KSP model the financials?

@@martylawson1638 What would be the trade off in wasted resources if a little more fuel was expended taking the stage into parking position in space where material and engines could be reclaimed at a later date? maybe if some local way of making fuel was discovered, building a Frankenstein out of it?

Falcon Heavy has a Specific Use Case, that is for Heavy, and Expensive, Satellites, which may be Communication Satellites, or Military Satellites, but, either way, those Take lots of time to plan, and build, too! I understand there is another Falcon Heavy Launch this year, though! (But It might be delayed, due to Coronavirus distractions! Or, I have no clue, as well!)

Heavy is still available for anyone who wants to pay for a launch... it just flies very rarely due to the limited demand for a rocket that big.