Why don't use the side thrusters to tip the spaceship over?

In order to participate in the Program you must (3) be an “accredited investor” as defined in Rule 501 of Regulation D ahah well that sucks for the 99% of us. cant sign up.

your delusional bro, your little d!ckhead hero Elon aint going to do sh!t

AntiGravity Aircraft The Next generation Spaceship Work base on Gravity just spinning by using car's engine can fly in bad weather plunge in the ocean even in outer space Earth which weight predict 600 trillion ton does not fall at the Sun because of centrifugal in orbitting, on the contrary it does not be thrown far go out the orbit line of hold by gravity at the Sun as orbit center. Gravity and centrifugal is equal called Equillibrium, thats why until now Earth which we was inhabited always rotate and circulate the Sun. Now we justly take example : how if the gravity used and centrifugal is negated? The Earth will float far leave the Sun. So that centrifugal can be used to fly far away if gravity eliminated. Finally how to eliminate gravity? It’s way rotate part of aircraft by horizontal. When that rotation faster centrifugal force getting greater and the gravity getting smaller, finally it lose the gravity and the aircraft start flying. Of course people would surprise: how the aircraft can keep rotate without fulcrums? Thats why we named that aircraft Shuttling System that is aircraft likes two disc adjoining attached in the midle as fulcrums: A. The Top part, we name Positive rotate to right, and the edges is getting thicker and havier. B. The Buttom part, we name Negative rotating to left, and the edges is getting thicker and havier. C. Middle Part , we name Neutral, air crew placed and also machine and everythings turning Negative and Positive at the same time. The aircraft can liftup added with explosion from the engine. However that aircraft construction later, let the engineer doit it, and we are sure the aircraft will bulletproof and also waterproof. . . In modern civilization where human being generally using flying saucer as vehicle, will a lot of change in lives either in materialism and in psychological. In materialism area will apply the change in life like. People no longger need roadway and rel road which spend large of energy, money, places, things and time, object place and time. People would utilize that area for habitat or for other need:

I'm reporting this as a scam, you are criminally insane.

More like “The Fairytales of Elon Musk”. The they can’t even get it to operate in earth orbit. It ain’t going to the moon, nor Mars, people. Wake up.

title should be "How my scriptwriter think SpaceX will build a Moon Base" 🤤🤫

Yeah pretty irritating to say SpaceX is planning this. I’m pretty sure that is just not true. It would transform to a very interesting story if they could prove me wrong with a reference.

1960’s with better graphics We’ve already sent people to the moon nothing there but rocks and dust Title should be why they never went back ? Because there’s nothing there .LoL 😂

You presume he thought about it. He did not. This is more of a "How I fantasized about building a moon base" Anyone past first year engineering will give you a bunch of reasons this is ridiculous.

Why not build it to also land on its side, too?

@@CrisHelmare1 Draco engines may not be sufficient and other engines may be too complex, bulky and heavy. Adding a whole system to also land horizontally seems more difficult that putting it flat on the Moon surface, but it could be an alternative idea.

I also think they should have specific REFUELING starships that have basically ZERO interior space for crew ( make them autonomous & use the space for BIGGER fuel tanks. This would cut down the number of trips needed to refuel in space ( i heard It'll take 10 starships to get the fuel needed ) that's WAY TOO MANY ( 5-7 will save ALOT of MONEY )

Idea: What if we ONLY have horizontal rockets? It would be fine if the rocket travels sideways because it would travel in places with little to no air resistance. And yes, I’m aware that the starship is probably going to have to travel in the atmosphere for a bit, but that’s fine (I think).

@@richardbloemenkamp8532 Fire the Dracos on the "top'' side to start the fall and fire the ones on the bottom to slow it's descent and provide a soft landing. Prepare the regolith cradle before you start.

Exactly!Stainless steel under certain wavelengths (IR being one) is like having black paint. Extra hot in the sun, and extra cold in the dark. I'd suspect the white is not only paint, but some kind of insulation capability as well. A good example is the SpaceShuttle main fuel tank that had foam insulation on the exterior. White on early versions was more cosmetic, as the tank never achieved orbital velocity.

Placing it on the moon is not easy. Look up the numbers for how much fuel the LEM carried.

@@kensmith5694 assuming dry_mass = 100,000 km/s exhaust velocity = 3.4 km/s delta_v = 1.7 km/s we need 65,000 kg of fuel (ChatGPT did the rocket equation math for me). Starship carries 1,200,000 kg, so that's only 6% of the fuel load. This feels like a custom design could do this - maybe a small boost tug / decelerate stage?

@@dpjanes ChatGPT can't be trusted on math stuff. Putting a payload down on the moon is not an easy problem. Remember there is a de-orbit burn then the decent and then the positioning when landing. The best way to work it out is to start with the last thing you use the rockets for and work backwards towards the start.

Landers and/or shuttles are a good solution. Taking the chance of landing an upright rocket of that size on an unprepared surface is a disaster guaranteed to happen.

@@buddypage11 I agree that you don't want the lander to be tall. It is worth remembering that there is no air resistance.

I'd send starships with horizontal interior ahead so they can be tipped and used, and go there with the starships that land and re-launch to moon orbit.

Using installed inflatable habitats in fuel section is the best solution for sure.

@richkhalilsonicjunkee2203 That defeats the purpose of an inflatable habitat. Inflatable habitats can be larger than fairings as they inflate. Why would you do all that just to have it be the same size as the fairing? The fuel area is pressurised anyway, just drain it and use the empty space.

...of which a dozen have to be launched to get a single vehicle out low-earth orbit.

@@richardmetzler7909 yes, of course. So, when Elon says they are launching 1000 ships, its really 10,000 😂

soon too I should imagine.

breathable air as we have on earth has a pressure on one bar. that means 100kN /m2 compared to the lunar vacuum, equivalent to the weight of 10 metric tons per m2 on earth. You could pile up 30-36 meters of regolith on starship, before the weight of the regolith outweighs the force of the inner pressure. so, you more have to see it as an inflatable structure since the inner pressure has a much higher effect in the structure than the weight

why just jump into Antarctic water and try to breath

​@@tb7977 you will have space suits dum dum

You literally explained how they landed on the moon in 1969 😂

But the idea to cut Starship in two is good. The tank section is only needed to get out of Earth orbit. They can leave it there already. Any further and its only dead weight, wasting fuel.

@@MichaelWinter-ss6lx Well, that's why using Starship as the Moon lander is a stupid idea to begin with.

It takes about 1.7 Km/s of DeltaV in order to land on the moon, it takes a farther 1.87 Km/s of DeltaV to lift off (both figures from LLO). Lunar starship has a dry mass of about 90 tons, if we cut this into thirds this for the dry mass of just the crew module, we get 30 tons. The Isp of a SuperDraco is about 235 seconds. The ratio of Hypergolic fuel to oxidzer is about 1:1, so we can just average the value. We can then figure out the Wet mass of starship by taking the average of the density of the fuel and oxidzer (we can only do this because the ratio is 1:1) and then multiplying it by the available area. If we assume we can put aside 100m^3, and that SuperDracos are powered on Monomethyl Hydrazine and Nitrogen Tetroxide (0.880 g/cm^3 and 1.55 g/cm^3 respectively), that the SuperDracos can actually lift the mass of the rocket, that the SuperDracos can run at 100% Throttle for the full duration of the burns and that SuperDracos can relight. We can now get an average density of 1.215 g/cm^3, which is the same in tons/m^3, then we multiply it by the 100m^3 allocated for fuel, we get a fuel mass of 121.5 tons, which is a wet mass of 151.5 tons. The equation for figuring out the DeltaV of a rocket is Isp * g (This is Earth gravity, as Isp is calculated based on Earth gravity) * Math.log(WetMass/DryMass). We can then plug in values and get the equation 235 * 9.807 * Math.log(151.5/30). This gives us just barely enough DeltaV to finish the mission (3732.1150179507868m/s^2, with 162.11501795078675m/s^2 of margin). In conclusion, this means that a starship separation is just barely possible, but with a payload of likely only a few tons. The low payload means that there is no way of bringing all the required materials for the outlined mission. There is also the issue of the lower stage exploding and damaging the upper stage (As it will likely still have a few tons of Methalox on board). A better plan using a starship base would be just to leave a lunar starship with small barriers in it's main fuel tank (a hole in the middle allows for fluid to move up and down the starship) and a small airlock located next to the main engines, on the bottom of the ship on the surface of the moon, and then draining the fuel tanks, RCS tanks, pressurization tanks, and other miscellaneous fluids on board. You can then use some cargo stored on another starship to get the base ready for humans. Also, on the moon, you have to bring the air required to fill inflatable base modules, as there is no atmosphere to get it from. You can use electrolysis to gather oxygen on the moon, but pure oxygen environments are not safe for humans.

Really?

this wont happen in any of our lifetimes

If you see it, you won't have to 'believe' it.

@@xergiok2322 of course you do. the brain plays tricks on you all the time..

@@rogerwilco1777 Not in the next 60 years?

@@rogerwilco1777 Ha. You wish. But realistically speaking we'd see the start within a decade.

Also falling on sharp edged rocks may puncture the ship.

Can use the inflatable habitat inside as a pillow after blowing it up, then with starship safely nested, slowly deflate it, pull it out, move then reinflate, boom now you have the starship habitat and the inflatable habitat combined.

That way if they have a crash landing and survive, they still have a functional Starship base they can get to.

I suggest use the well proven Falcon Heavy to deliver the lander module to the Moon's surface for docking with a prepositioned Super Heavy moon base, delivered to the moon well in advance.

Perhaps they can use a customised wide footed Dragon capsule with additional rocket boosters as the lander.

I think the whole starship moon lander is only a covered-up way to get more funding for developing Starship. Once SpaceX have their normal Starship for Earth re-entry finished, they will come up with a radical new design for a Moon lander. There is no good reason for a moon lander to look like a Starship. For example in space their is no atmospheric drag, you can live with very little thrust over a longer period. For landers it is important to first determine if you want a given lander to come back into orbit around the moon. If not, then the optimal design is completely different from landers that you want back in orbit. In both cases the Starship does not look ideal because you can achieve roughly the same functionality with much lower-weight landers with a much lower center of mass and easier to cover with regolith. Getting from earth-orbit to moon-orbit takes about 4000 m/s delta-V (3100 LEO-TLI and 900 TLI-LMO (low-Moon-orbit)). When you arrive at LMO you don't want to bring a half empty fuel tank to decent on the moon and come back up. BTW you need about 4500 m/s to start from LMO, land on the moon and back to LMO. A single starship cannot do this because it does not have more than 8000 m/s even with minimal payload and refueling on the moon surface is a problem because the Moon has no CO2. So now we are refueling starships in LEO with up to 10 launches per starship and then we need to refuel them again in LMO. We may end up with over 30 launches before we have one starship land on the moon and come back to LMO. This seems unsustainable to me. Instead I would suggest to send an unmanned rocket with a land-able habitat/laboratory to land permanently on the moon. Use robotics to cover it on the moon with regolith. Then when finished, send people with a system that is much closer to Apollo style, but maybe a bit more reusable, maybe methane, better computers and landing guidance. Fuel for launching from the Moon back to LMO can be for example be delivered with the land-able habitat/laboratory or some other lander craft. SpaceX are good and landing spacecraft, this part is probably best left to them.

​@@richardbloemenkamp8532 Lunar starship doesn't have to be aerodynamic, it is because it's cheaper to use an already designed and built vehicle, although I do agree with you, starship is not a good choice for a lunar lander

It is known that the dry mass of the lunar starship is going to be lower than the normal variants, likely around 90 tons to around 100 tons. The main fuel tanks of the lander variant may be stretched as well, as the recent renders show the crew module higher up than normal. I'm not sure about the rest, as you would have to somehow turn 6.9 km/s into 12.8 km/s (for a flight to and from LEO).

there should also be an asteroid defense system to take those big ones down or deflect them.

space elevator!

it will happen, then fall over

love the defeatism... 🐑

Similar skepticism was voiced by many many people about landing the first stage booster of Falcon 9.

@@websitemartian thankyou

@@johnstewart579 The reuse of the booster is a far easier problem. There is no reason to go to the moon so there is no reason to make a system for the job.

Use the higolic thrusters to separate and land still vertically.

Correct. Elon is being a Liberal moron thinking only about me, myself & I. But Blue origin doesn't have a fully reusable orbital rocket ... which is why they can do the same as the Apollo missions. Elon is fixated on the Starship doing it all. However the Starship is obviously only good for putting large modules into LEO cheaply & quickly ... including ... a large Command & Service module in one Starship ... and ... large Lander with Habitat module in another Starshp. The CSM & Lander dock in LEO ... the the Service Modle with plenty of fuel for the mass being transported ... takes the Command & Lander to the Low moon orbit ... then brings the Command module back to Earth and LEO ... to land ... while the Service Module is refuled by a Starshp .. to pick up another Module to take to the Moon .. and return ... etc etc. Elon has to stop being a moron Liberal .. and actually think logically, rationally, reasonably, ethically and ... objectively. A Starship Lander on the Moon or Mars is just plain dumb. Use the Starship a a large Cargo lifter and refueler ... for the large re-usable Service modules( with rockets) to transport large modules to the moon or mars. The CSM in a Starshp cargo bay will be huge compared to the Apollo's and have plenty of fue to to get to the mood & back .. and likewise ... Space X Lander .. would be able to put huge modules onto the surface .. with the tiny Ascent stage on top to get back to CSM in orbit. And the modules left on the moon can be removed from the Lander platform .. and used for the moon base ... with Habitat modules only needing more fuel, oxgen & water from the next landing. which doesn't need a habit module.