Why is SpaceX Starship Only Capable of 40 to 50 Tons to Orbit For the Flight 3 Version?
Remove your personal information from the web at joindeleteme.com/MARCUS and use code MARCUS for 20% off US consumer plans.
DeleteMe International plans: international.joindeleteme.com/
Welcome back my friends to an intriguing week. We have so many great things to finally dive deeper into around Starbase and Starship updates as they prepare for flight 4. Many have been asking about the 40-50 tonnes to orbit for the current Starship design which came as a surprise to all of us (including me) from Elon's presentation last week. What are the SpaceX Starship Expectations vs. Reality? Is There a Problem? Raptor is the key, and it is complicated. Do we also have a dry mass problem? Are they running engines at lower thrust for safety? Lots to speculate about today. We have Falcon 9 action as always. Also, Boeing Starliner is ready to fly, and we are finally getting ready for action, with Gilmour Space and their Eris rocket preparing to take its first flight from Queensland Australia!
👕Like this shirt? Pick it up on any product you like here.
marcus-house.myspreadshop.com...
and without the date if you prefer
marcus-house.myspreadshop.com...
🎁 Marcus House Merch - marcus-house.myspreadshop.com/
Thanks for Callum's (@hisdirtremoves) assistance with explaining Raptor
Give him a follow and check out his stuff here!
/ hisdirtremoves
/ 1781266918751752305
You can support me on:
Patreon - / marcushouse
Join my Discord - / discord
Follow/Subscribe on Twitter - / marcushouse
The production crew:
GameplayReviewUK, TiagoCruz, Mr Pleasant, Virtu, Orbitly
Support from the below is always massively appreciated:
📷 NASASpaceFlight - / @nasaspaceflight
📷 RGVAerialPhotography - / @rgvaerialphotography
📷 Randolph Visuals - / cosmicalchief
📷 Greg Scott - / gregscott_photo
📷 Starship Gazer - / starshipgazer
📷 Cosmic Perspective - / @cosmicperspective
📷 LabPadre - / @labpadre
📷 Epic Spaceflight - / @epicspaceflight
Set models:
😍 Mini venting Starship/SLS - stardesk.peachs.co/a/marcus-h...
😍 Starship, & Crew Dragon by - morethan3d.com/
😍 Moon/Mars Mova Globes - www.movaglobes.com/
😍 Saturn V - LEGO - www.lego.com/en-au/product/le...
😍 Space Shuttle - LEGO - www.lego.com/en-au/product/na...
3D artist magicians:
✨ Tony Bela - / infographictony
✨ Ryan Hansen Space - / ryanhansenspace
✨ Erc X - / ercxspace
✨ Corey - / c_bass3d
✨ Alex Svan - / alexsvanart
✨ DeepSpaceCourier - / ds_courier
✨ SpaceXvision - / spacexvision
✨ Stanley Creative - / caspar_stanley
✨ TijnM_3DAnimations - / m_tijn
✨ Christian Debney - / christiandebney
✨ Evan Karen - / @evankaren
✨ 3D Daniel - / 3ddaniel1
Remove your personal information from the web at joindeleteme.com/MARCUS and use code MARCUS for 20% off US consumer plans. DeleteMe International plans: international.joindeleteme.com/
Minor nit: the Raptor 3 is not the most powerful rocket engine in history.
@MarcusHouse Australia is going to launch a rocket soon. Do you think that Elon would consider a base in the Southern Hemisphere for Southern missions? Would be great to see. Love your work from Australia Mate.
And who promises me that DeleteMe is not selling my data themselves? All these data deletion services are sketchy as hell, and I wouldn't trust a single one.
There is an LNG port close to Starbase. Do you know if they have considered getting a pipeline ran there directly to eliminate the need for transport by truck?
@@caldodge I said "for its size" and was referring to any raptor.
Your reporting is the easiest to understand, most comprehensive, and respectful. Thanks, Team Marcus.
Totally agree on that.
Let's hope the Boeing Starliner won't have some side panel pop off mid-flight like with other Boeing products...
Or space MCAS
Too low, terrain, Too low, terrain!
Still wouldn't want to fly on it. Too many fixes since the last flight that have not themselves been flight tested.
Old joke.
@@RocketPal Well you go fly on it
'Bout time the Aussies joined the space club! Welcome, friends!!!
19°, nice
Aussie was one of the first.
Australia's first satellite was launched in 1967
@MarcusHouse - I hope this comment doesn’t get buried - I wanted to say how appreciative I am of your videos, I love how they are WAY more researched than the other space KZheadrs and that you included links and artwork from so many genius small sub creators!!!
Saving Chandra seems to the smart pick. Crazy that they've defunded the whole X-ray band that can't be done from Earth.
It’s almost as if this administration doesn’t want to push for space funding weird they have unlimited funds for war though
Scrapping Chandra is a classic move - it's NASA pushing back and saying if you cut, our only option is to cut things you want.
@@darrenmx Yep...who will blink first? (probably NASA).
For all you doubters out there: it took 7 launches before Falcon made a successful launch, flight and landing. Now they do it twice a week.
This isn't Falcon and NASA was heavily involved
@@budyeddi5814I don’t know the extent of NASA being involved, but SpaceX just finished their 3rd launch of the heavy and between its first and third launches, they have made enormous progress over a thing substantially more complicated than Falcon. At this rate, Starship is on pace to beat Falcon. Now that is an awesome track record considering the increased engineering challenges and complexity.
@@Curteman20 ah yes, third launch and has yet to reach orbit. Absolutely groundbreaking
@@budyeddi5814ah yes, completely ignoring the original comment.
@@budyeddi5814 hate and bait all you want, just small bait didnt make spacex stopping chase their dreams😂
19:52 Thanks for covering the Starliner rollout. A lot of passionate engineers and technicians putting in long hours to help fly return Suni and Butcher safely. Can't wait to see her fly. 🚀❤️
starliner looks like a trashcan on a telephone pole compared tp the elegant looking crew dragon capsule on a falcon 9.
@@michaelotoole1807 since when is appearance the primary motivation for rocket technology?
Hopefully engineers will have gained valuable insight that SpaceX or Blue Origin will want to take advantage of by hiring them. Boeing’s cost, performance, schedule and risk make any additional effort to succeed nothing more than a dubious face saving contract obligation
@@SamuelMM_Mitosis i didn't say it was. just making a point.
Hopefully, the Starliner's flight isn't following the rest of Boeings' quality control...
Love seeing that Aussie flag on a rocket for space. So good thank you MH
Huge respect for people who coordinate all of the works at starbase
They should have a show. There must be some characters on the site.
I like how those all clamps work . Amazing
love your content marcus as a fellow aussie its great to be able to keep upto date with my isp and the going ons with the amazing monster thats gonna change the world
Just remember, Spacex extended falcon 9 and that has worked out wonderfully well. I bet it will be no different for Starship. Version one is the test vehicle and not the end product. The 100 ton mark will probably be achieved with version 2. SpaceX isn’t breaking the laws of physics, they are using them to their advantage
im sure versions 1 is a lot more capable than stated. the payload stated during the event showed the capability for "flight 3" and not for "version 1". its pretty likely that there was less fuel in the tanks and the engines were running at lower throttle during that flight.
I break the laws of physics all the time. But just me, I'm the only one that gets to. And no you can't see the pics. Just buy my book. Nobody is breaking the laws of physics. It's the very laws of physics which allow us to do things that look like they break the laws of physics. Not sure why it irks me so much when people say this obvious thing. I guess it's like assuming you're speaking to a group of idiots, at a space flight event. When Musk makes SS float off the pad without engines or propellant then we can talk about the laws of physics. Until then they're doing what people have done since the beginning of space flight. Just with less congressmen threatening to give your money to Boeing to make jet engines for planes we don't fly anymore..... None of these ideas are new, everythings been tried in one way or another. They just have real funding now and less cooks in the kitchen.
I would expect alot more issues from extending Starship unlike Falcon 9. Extending Starship changes Center of Gravity/Center of Mass radically. This will change ALL flight characteristics in how effective the engine gimbal are effect, how effective the grid gins and how big they need to be and how fast to pivot that much mass. It will change how POWERFUL thrusters need to move that mass. It will change how big the fins need to be to balance that mass through reentry. Even the belly flop maneuver will be completely different from what was tested
@@saquist all these are problems SpaceX surely faced when extending Falcon... the only difference is the scale. The only unique problem might be the reentry flaps on Starship, but this seems like a relatively minor issue, assuming SpaceX can correctly tune their control systems with V1, which I'm sure they're already well on their way to completing.
@@akkkbn Center of Gravity and Mass calculations aren't minor. Take the shuttle as an example. Programs had to be written to adjust for constantly changing of the location CoM/CoG as the fuel is drained because of SSME use of asymmetric thrust. It's not a linear comparable either because starship are SOOO much more massive than Falcon. Raptors don't have as much less gimbal room in a cluster of 33 engines. Then taken all the fuel during landing and and slosh is around ! Remember Falcon never exploded on return to landing site. Different engines behave just differently under pressure.
Thank you for another great update, Marcus! The Space-Nerd's highlight of the week. Keep them coming.
Yippee, thanks Marcus. What a great week in space flight developments.
Nicely done as always. Wish I had a tenth of your enthusiasm. Good on ya cobber.
Great update Marcus, cheers bro.
Such a pleasure to have a MH post during my Saturday evening. Thanks for posting, loved it :)
Great video, shedding light on the raptor engine stat questions. Vast taking on launcher (yes I missed that) and a new player in Australia, all first time content for me.
Great production! So much hard work! Well done! Thank you!
Have you ever done a deep dive into how Space X’s administration process works for modification of their launch and space systems? It seems that this is overlooked even though their modification management process is as revolutionary as their rockets.
Always here at 7 (or later,ha) every Saturday. Thanks as always for your great info!!
Another fantastic episode. Thanks Marcus & team!
Love your videos Marcus, I look forward to seeing them every week!
Thank you David!
@@MarcusHouse thank you
Good stuff as usual. Thanks for the upload.
Good video. . Unbelievable how S X is expanding. . The Raptor 2 looks a beast.. Thank you MH + Team for all your hard work
Thanks for watching as always Rob!
Good Morning. Marcus 7AM Here in Chicago every Saturday. I listen to you. Love your reports.
Can’t wait to see the mid week deep dive thanks for the new video Marcus
As reusability goes up total payload to orbit goes down. Same problem the Space Shuttle had. It was huge yet only capable of placing about 30,000 pounds in low earth orbit.
Thanks Marcus !
Is it weird I can spot when you say something different? LOL "I'll see you in the next video" replaced with "I'll catch you for the next one". As always, awesome content. I tried watching some other channels like this, but they just didn't have the same delivery. Great job!!
Good to hear the Gilmour Space news. I wish them all the best for the future...
Excelent video and tecnical explanation about the "raptors" motors and the others alternatives ! Congratulations.
Well done team @MarcusHouse
I read an article about satellite debris/dust in the upper atmosphere. It's mainly aluminium dust for the breakup of satellites. With SpaceX and several others looking to launch 1000's of comms satellites over the next few years we could see 'ozone holes' appear in the upper atmosphere. Just for context, meteorites and other non-Earth debris contribute many tons per day to the dust in the atmosphere, but very little is an element like aluminium. Very little reseach has been conducted on the long term effect of metal dust in the upper atmosphere.
Fun fact, some scientists believe this can help.
Surely offset by fully-resusable launch vehicles?
@@billstevens3796 Yes, it could affect the albedo of Earth, but it's an unknown factor...I'm sure some climate denialists will come along soon and say "I told ya so!'
@michaelmicek how does that change the number of satellites?
@@michaelmicekBut more satellites as a result?
Marcus, great news show. Solid info on rocket engine types. Excited to hear more about Starship F4 - it should be v soon, thanks, Eamon
Thank you!
More outstanding work! I’m very thankful for a credible source, comprehensive, low bias information combined with an effective, efficient communication style. Keep it up!
Excellent stuff bro
Let’s go Gilmore! Good luck on your launch. C’mon Aussie! Go you good thing!
So great seeing Gilmour Space Technologies' progress! Aussie has been a long time since Woomera! (Yes, there were research launches of scramjet, etc.)
I just got back from a vacation near KSC. It was an awesome trip. Got to see flight 20 of booster 1062 on my first evening there, then did the KSC tour on Sunday. It was a blast. It was a clear night, so I even got to see the first half of the landing burn. It was amazingly bright, even so far out at sea.
thanks marcus
Go Queensland! That rocket should be painted Maroon! 😁
Nah, should be yellow. Then they could pay some people to put a bend in it.
Thanks for covering the Starship payload decrease. I thought this would have received more coverage in the space/rocket media. Also good to see the Aussie rocket coming online. Still a way to go to catch us Kiwis ;-)
Greetings from the dystopian Hoosiergeti Plain ... Saturday mornin' Space stuff eye candy !!!! Woot !!!
LOl. Hoosiergeti. Very good.
Markus always a pleasure and very informant.
Starliner! With all the issues it's had, you must have very big cajones to get on it... those are some brave astronauts.
Thanks
@ 13:41 am I looking at the magnificent mach diamonds receding as the power is turned off?? Stunning visual, respect from Manchester (UK) @ 14:37 as if by magic :)
Marcus House and Ozzy Man Reviews are my 2 favorite streamers from down under. 👍👍
Love OzzyMan
How about a colab? @@MarcusHouse
Please do something on Space X teaming with Vast to make the Haven 1 potentially leading to the first RSS in human history. So stoked if this is true!
About TIME Australia got a spaceport. Good on you! 😁👍
Always looking forward to your updates, quality over quantity. Thank you!
It's time to grab the coffee!🚀
I had seen something that implied that the tanks were not quite full for flight 3. That might end up with engines running at 90% or less and fly the desired profile with no need to dump fuel at the end.
Thanks Marcus for all the new details. What I'm wondering is: Where does all the dirt come from which is brought in by all those dump trucks onto the new orbital launch site?
Cheers Marcus and team. Love ya work ANZAC brother 🇳🇿🇭🇲
QUESTION - Why is SpaceX not using a hopper like test rocket, to work out the catch process?? Seems like it would be simple enough for them to build a set of test-only rockets to work out the catch process???
@@truegrit1860 It obviously can, because after starship breaks off to orbit... the booster has to fly back to the pad.
@@truegrit1860The water towers flew on their own after Hoppy, right? Surely they could put a nose cone on, fly it up 10k and bring it back down as they did with Starship.
You don't know that. Maybe They could choose to light only 13 engines if needed@@truegrit1860
Great show!
I think it makes more sense to have the catch arms set up at a different location
Yeah, let's get on the Boeing spaceship
If it's Boeing, I'm not going.
You can always go on Starship
When I hear "crewed flight", I initially think "crude flight" 😳
I have the same problem!
Cheers Marcus 🍻
The ultimate solution to the launch-damage/need-to-catch problem is to have two towers. The catch tower could be very simplified with little more than a bare structure and the chopstick mechanisms.
Won't meet the goal of launch, return, stack, fuel, and launch again multiple times per day.
@@michaelmicekthat won’t be for years though - and if they wreck a tower it’s a major drama. Until they get the landing catch reliable I agree that a simple tower with arms would be a cost effective good idea
I'm pretty sure that the second tower will be fully capable before it is used the first time. The current launch tower was built, extensively modified, finished and extensively modified, again, several times. That must be about as expensive as building it complete and then replacing it, particularly since, if there is no crash, they can just start using it for both launches and recoveries without the extensive down time of major modifications. Let's face it, no one at SpaceX really expects to crash a booster into the tower. However, if they do crash into a tower, a second that is ready for use is better than a half-capable tower they need to finish before they can use it.
@@longboardfella5306 Yes. I agree that with the iterative design methodology, nothing would prevent Spacex from perfecting launch capabilities on one tower and catching on one or more others. Once the designs reach a high level of reliability, then begin integrating the two functions into one and when that one is nearly perfected, then integrate all of the towers. Eventually there will be a need for multiple towers in any case.
0:55 It's a giant broken fidget spinner!! 😀
Just hope SpaceX build up the ground level high enough they can put a flame trench under OLM2. The showerhead works but a flame trench eliminates so many problems they have with OLM1
The flame trench/diverter seems to be the way to go. I also feel that they should have one launch system and a separate recovery system. Keep it simple works the best. JMO
just a reminder: Starship on the OLM sits a few meters higher above the ground than the Saturn V on LC39. and at both sites you cannt really dig into the ground.
@@rayRay-pw6gzintegrated recovery / launch system is a fundamental goal of Starship, not an add-on.
They're specifically trying to eliminate the expense of building a flame trench and replace it with something that can manufactured, mass produced as it were.
@@michaelmicek I understand their stated goal. Sometimes you have to learn to walk before you try to run a marathon. We all will see what the future holds for SpaceX . I just was stating my opinion. The levels of thrust at launch is going to increase, as we have already seen. That being the case , repairing the launch system after every launch will force change. JMO✌️🫶🇺🇸
Bravo Marcus very good job
Mars sample return was a very poorly thought out process. (NASA’s lack of foresight all too common these days) The samples should have been stored with Perseverance so collection was at a single point. Having to follow the same path to collect them like breadcrumbs is insane.
Yes, same with the moon program, thes should have known that Mr. Musk will not have his homwork ready in time, no matter how many taxpayer money they throw in his direction.
they could use a helicopter to collect them?! Probably done within a week..
@@joansparky4439 The plan is (was) to use a second rover to follow the first. A total waste of effort for the distances they’d have to cover. Single point collection is the only cost effective method. Imagine your spouse buying groceries and paying for them but leaving them in the isle. You then go to the store and follow along her path later and have to find them, collect them and take them to your car… which is parked right next to theirs. Logical?
@@nooneyouknow9399 pretty sure the dropped sample tubes are backups that could be recovered in case the rover failed and made the primary samples still carried by the rover inaccessible. i think Mars Guy has mentoined that whenever this topic came up.
Australia should develop its own reusable rocket system.
Should it? Maybe just license Starship for now and wait for the patents to expire.
Nice work my guys and gals
The Mars sample return mission is far more important than Artemi$. Spend accordingly.
Hopefully nasa assigned an extra person to check the bolts on the doors for starliner lmao
Everyone scoffed at SpaceX when they started. Oh, they'll never: get off the ground, get to orbit, propulsively land, reuse 10 times, make a full flow staged combustion engine running on methane and oxygen, get to orbit etc etc etc. The cost of mass to orbit keeps dropping, and i think they will continue to do amazing things.
Except the cost of mass to orbit hasn't dropped pretty much at all...
@@GraveFable25that's completely false. Everyone involved in space admits that. Don't let some preposterous internet clowns fool you.
@@sotosandroid6139 Its not false. Not in terms of the actual total cost. Spacex are able to offer lower prices, but thats only because of government subsidizing them.
@@GraveFable25 NASA is not subsidizing SpaceX in any substantial way as far as I'm aware. Buying services from a commercial entity is not subsidies. Paying 600 million for a DIVH launch when you can buy the same service for ⅒ of that is subsidizing.
@@GraveFable25thats utter nonsense... spaceshuttle cost 13k$/kg into LEO and falcon 9 is sitting at less than 4k$/kg
@9:38, one might ponder whether Starship 4 could have a 10m width similar to Saturn V. Such an increase could address any outstanding issues related to extending its length, considering the initial concept envisioned a 12m diameter..
My 'ponder' on that was short lived. I started to get a headache thinking about "OLM still under construction.". Actually, it was like a nightmare. 😱
A vehicle catch is not going to be trivial. Since the grid fins are not strong enough to catch the vehicle, the little parts that carry the weight during a lift are very small. The tolerances on a catch are ridiculously small. For my money, catching is still pretty harebrained and really risks one of the most expensive parts of the system that, if destroyed, basically grounds an entire fleet of launch vehicles. I think a superior system would be a recovery landing pad hundreds of meters away from the launch pad. The landing pad could be on rails to return the vehicle to an area adjacent to the launch tower where the chopsticks could pick it up. You could still have relatively rapid turnaround, while separating the dangerous recovery from the extremely expensive launch tower and platform.
It is encouraging to observe Australia's proactive engagement in this initiative. I wish them success with the launch. Indeed, the participation of more nations heralds a more promising future for all.
My bet is that the first catch attempt will be on flight test nine. The next few launches are going to have a lot of unforeseen variables arise to cause problems.
Given the enoromous string of failures around Starliner, and how very long it has taken to bring this mission to readiness, I would feel a lot better for the safety of the Astronaughts and the ISS if Boeing was forced to do another uncrewed test flight, that mimics docking procedures as much as possible in empty space, before any humans are put at risk. It feels like it's being pushed through on momentum of "this was the plan", rather than because it's a good idea. I'm frankly terrified that we're about to see casualties in space for the first time since the shuttle disasters.
The first Shuttle disaster was caused by NASA testing "how cold is too co,d to launch" and discoving the engineers at Martin-Thiocall were right. Seven dead because no one "official" noticed and asked about the smoke that blew out if the SRBs. As launch time weather cooled, smoke got thicker until the whole thing blew up. The second was caused by that huge tank of cryogenic fuel that shed a chunk of ice during launch. That ice apparently broke one or more tiles on the wing leading edge, dooming the ship during re-entry. No repair kit was provided and no EVA was scheduled to examine the exterior. Of course, with no repair possible, examining the damage would have done nothing to help and it would have sunk morale. NASA is not the model for prudence and safety that the Starship detractors would have us believe. Like NASA, SpaceX has a perfect record until it doesn't.
Uncrewed.
The recent changes have been on changing materials to non-combustible ones. Not exactly related to 'mission critical' systems. But important for crew safety. As for the Reactionary Control Thrusters, they obviously identified what the cause was for the few that failed. A lot of work to re-work it all, but I think your reading too much into the earlier testing. The astronauts would have looked over all the work done. They would not be 'jumping in' if they thought it was unsafe.
@@David-yo5ws While entirely probable, that last part of your statement was also said about the space shuttle, and they were aware of the specific failures, and still jumped in. I'm not saying it is absolutey neccesariry to do another uncreewed test flight, only that I, personally, as someone with no inside knowledge on the progress made on the Starliner program, would feel safer if it were.
Marcus, your work and that of your team and contributors is excellent. I am sure that you all have realized by now, that your episodes will help form the understanding of this time in history for future generations. What an incredible story you are reporting and preserving! Thank you!
Thank you!
Who else loves this 150 foot monstrosity? ❤
IMO Mars sample/return was an uneconomic idea from the start. Fly a rover to Mars and collect samples whilst travelling over the surface. Fine, that works. But dumping those samples along the way to force the requirement for a second rover mission to follow the same route and (presumably) to return to the landing point somehow for sample transfer/encapsulation, launch and return? If the samples had remained on the rover, the return mission would not require that hugely expensive collection rover - land near the rover instead, transfer/encapsulate samples and launch/return missing out the middle man.
i wonder where the info that the dropped samples are the ones to be recovered is from, because as far as i know the primary sample collection is still in the rover, and the dropped sample stashes are just in case the rover fails and doesnt allow the retrieval of the primary samples. today is the first time i read that the dropped samples are intended to be the target for recovery..
Starship astronauts can pick them up on their first flight back...
Personally I think this Starship super heavy project was initiated 10 years too soon and they would have been better of using super heavy with additional fuel tanks positioned in orbit to make it to Mars. They would have been far further along the pathway to Mars if they had chosen that approach. The in ten years time they could developer the larger rocket, should it then be deemed necessary.
The space shuttle sure was an amazing craft , for those who never got to see it fly you really missed out , if you knew what you were doing you would get them back into production , ive already seen it too much
Meanwhile SLS:
Guys spacex has created this beast. It a steep learning curve. They still learning how to tame this beast. No one has ever done it before. We should give them the benefit of the doubt and also it’s super fascinating
Starship is so much more than a rocket. Falcon 9 is gonna be better at putting stuff to orbit for like next 6 or 8 years. Starship has like 10 goals, and achieving orbit is only one of those. To achieve all of those it will take literally hundreds of launches as we are on bleeding edge of operations in space. Starship is paving the way to human space exploration and 90% of things they are doing have never been done before. US had 40 launches across 3 programs before they even started the apollo program. SpaceX is probably makin even a bigger step so needing a lot of testing should be expected.
I have confidence that the Boeing Starliner astronauts will probably make a successful transit.
Think you should start dedicating part of your overall segments to the upcoming Polaris Dawn missions. First private crew to ever do a space walk, highest orbit since Apollo. Space X will unveiling new EVA suit for that mission next month, which may be used on Moon/Mars. This crew will also potentially be the one first testing Starship, when it is crew ready. Think the public needs to know more about how important the Polaris Dawn missions will be and what they are all about.
I'm fairly certain that SpaceX deliberately flew Flight 3 with the engines performing below the advertised margins because A: the rocket is lighter than they were designed for, and B: they wanted to see how the rocket would perform if one or more engines were underperforming in a real world scenario. Edit: As for the Mars Sample Return mission, I think the best thing to do would be to keep the sample return rocket and payload, but have it be delivered by SpaceX as part of an Interplanetary Demonstration Mission for Starship. At the record pace that Starship is going, such a mission might be possible by 2027 at the latest (barring any major delays).
Poking holes in the Ozone Layer's a problem, also, dirtying up low earth orbit is too.....
Imagine 3 starships launched per day as Elon wants.
Man, having been in major infrastructure construction for some years, my brain cannot get around how complicated these contracts must be and how efficeintly they need to be managed so the ball keeps moving. You can only achieve this is there are people not getting enough sleep. They're all in
Catching is going to be the big show with starship. I doubt they'll be doing it as soon as you think tho
I think they knew the V1s would only ever be a test article, so payload was always irrelevant.
More that the payload claims were aspirational rather than irrelevant. Apparently the US DoD will be releasing a funding round for extra-light weight military vehicles and Elon has secured access to large titanium reserves 😅
Then why not disclose that information to your customer who has paid you in advance?
@@mervstash3692what customer? And why would a deal between spacex and military/govt/corp be made public to us?
I’d love to know what plans SpaceX has for an escape system for starship in case of a failing booster. It seems to me it’s going to be such a long time before this is human rated that Mars is still a long, long way away.
Why? Musk already said there will be losses...
Hot staging allows the 2nd stage to separate and potentially be caught on a 2nd tower (another reason for a catch alone tower).
@@Scanner9631 theres no proof of concept until now, like the safe return in the first place, refueling in Orbit, reaching the moon safe, landing on the moon, return from the moon surface, relighting the engine in space multiple time, reusability of the system all to be working in 2026....
Very Cool Marcus !
Flight-4 will probably have feature that tower moves arms as booster does simulated landing so zooming in would maka sense
Yeah I wouldn't trust that boeing starliner.
Wouldn't jump on that one even if the ride was free 💀
@@AvyScottandFlower Watch out for falling hatches
Thanks!
Great job
Marcus should address the issues SpaceX has caused the Artemis programme also to make it a balance channel
issues like not seeking out and talking to private industry early on to get to the moon asap can't be put down on private industry pal. That's on NASA and the US gov and their schemes to funnel money and votes into districts of their choice to get re-elected.
Check when the Artemis II and III SLS launches will be possible. They are also causing delays. (SLS is Boeing after all). Ask why it is so far behind when at its core it is repackaged shuttle parts.
@@Scanner9631 that too he should do a episode on all of it