Elon Musk's Starship Earth to Earth: We Have Reached Peak Idiocy

[@AdamSomething]

Aaand the 90kg CO2 per hour at 5:10 is actually per passenger. So an aircraft would pump out a bit over a 100 tons per transatlantic flight. So the difference is more like 6-fold. The number can vary though based on a lot of factors, e.g. aircraft configuration, engines, etc.

[@kelanianwesterndayser112]

@@RandomGuyOnKZbin601 If you use hydrogen and oxygen in rockets you indeed get zero CO2 emission, instead you get water vapor emission and, believe it or not, water vapor is greenhouse gas too.

[@goranjosic]

@@RandomGuyOnKZbin601 95% of hydrogen is produced from fossil fuels! The only "green" hydrogen is 5% extracted from the water with the help of electricity (solar or windmills). So it isn't green fuel.

[@AndrejGobec]

Which fossil fuel exactly is Starship supposed to be using as propellant??

[@Kappa1060]

Starships fly on Methane CH4 and Oxygen O2. They react to H2O and CO2. It would be rather climate neutral if they make those fuels with green energy, what they planned. I'm not sure how they will do it but it's done by extracting CO2 from the air so it's creating no extra CO2.

[@goranjosic]

@Peter Evans you are one of those Elon fans?! O_o

[@edmund22]

Rockets are also launched in pitch perfect weather conditions. And this would also need to be true for landing. So perfect weather on two sides of the planet, good luck with that.

[@AmandaHugandKiss411]

Oh yeah that too! Excellent point 👍 There is just so much wrong the obvious gets lost in the most stupidity of this idea . Elon's magic solutions stupidity is amazing 👏

[@kco1270]

+1 weather is the real problem. Imagine the execs and VIPs onboard sitting through a scrubbed launch due to weather.

[@AmandaHugandKiss411]

@Dacia Sandero guys totally agree 👍

[@ChrisTuckerCarlzyn]

Well the pads are over water so why not just move them

[@tjenadonn6158]

@@ChrisTuckerCarlzyn Because when people book a flight to somewhere they expect to land somewhere close to there. There's a difference between a flight to JFK being diverted to Newark International due to inclement weather and a rocket being diverted from JFK to Bogota. Also, MOST MAJOR CITIES ARE LANDLOCKED. Think Berlin, Paris, London, Madrid, Prague, or any of the other European economic powerhouses. All inland, all densely built up, all with little if any room to build a FUCKING LAUNCHPAD. To say nothing of the US aviation market, which is almost entirely built on domestic flights between small aviation markets. Even mid-size international airports like Hancock International Airport in Syracuse, NY don't have the budget, real estate, or large body of water nearby to allow for rocket flights, so even smaller aviation markets like Bountiful, UT or Manhattan, KS will just be SOL.

[@this_is_patrick]

"They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright Brothers, but they also laughed at Bozo the clown."

[@obscuremix8198]

Based on what he promised with Las Vegas loop and what he ended up delivering, I wouldn't be surprised if the final version of the Starship involves shooting people out of a cannon.

[@dannypipewrench533]

How about trebuchets?

[@obscuremix8198]

@@dannypipewrench533maybe that one would be the option reserved for economic class XD.

[@dannypipewrench533]

@@obscuremix8198 Seems fair.

[@hiftylonghead892]

@@dannypipewrench533 musk would argue its environmentally friendlier to use a trebuchet

[@dannypipewrench533]

@@hiftylonghead892 Of course he would. Unless we use hydrogen in the cannon.

[@sabretechv2]

I worked as a launch ops engineer for a large rocket company (not SpaceX) and it took us between 8-12 hours of prep and systems checks to launch a rocket. Not only that but airspace and wind conditions and weather conditions and down range safety borked every other launch at least once. I think the logistics behind this are even worse, and no it can’t all be automated by software lol

[@MotorcycleWrites]

That’s not to mention that these things will be sitting on the ocean most of the time, have only a few minutes between launch and reentry, and reused over and over. I bet that would be a great way to make advancements in some exciting areas of material fatigue at least lol.

[@Stewart1953]

it's nice you had a good career.

[@esecallum]

JUST USE AI

[@Karak-_-]

That's not as easy as it sounds.

[@frits191]

As a software engineer, its amazing to see how many people who have barely any idea how software works just say "software will handle it", as if its a big red fix it all button. Software is great at calculating and going through patterns, not doing magic or changing physics lol

[@MC-pt8kv]

Please, please let this become a thing. A super expensive form of travel that is really only feasible for the super wealthy and blows up 1 in 100 flights. Oh god, talk dirty to me Adam.

[@domeplsffs]

Ahahahahaha bruuuh! XD

[@samus598]

If it didn't murder all the marine areas with 230 dB noise pollution(enough to murder/deafen all kinds of sea life) and cause constant noise pollution for the poor people forced to live near the launch sites, and didn't put tons of carbon into the atmosphere, it would be nothing but positives!

[@darthadipose1920]

Between this and the Mars colony I’m starting to believe Elon Musk has ulterior motives

[@armahpruski5877]

Ooh wait a minute, I see what you mean

[@dennischritskou3631]

Make the odds 1/10 and I'm all about it

[@ross4]

You forgot another problem: governments being willing to let intercontinental ballistic missiles land 20 miles from their major cities.

[@doylethelovely2555]

Oh yes I will allow a regular launching and landing of missiles within 20 miles of my city this totally can’t be used against me to sneak nukes into my citie

[@tomdarling-fernley3178]

Oh yeah, great point, how on earth would NORAD etc be reconfigured to sift the starships from a Russian Sarmat ICBM, especially seeing as some systems struggle to discriminate between missiles and sunlight reflecting off of clouds? And how (meh, Why??) would any defence ministry ever want to share enough info with Musk's company to figure it out in the first place?

[@DrewLSsix]

@@doylethelovely2555 what? Are.... are you against international airports for the same reason? That seems like an extremely irrational thing to presume.

[@doylethelovely2555]

@@DrewLSsix Dude there’s a fucking difference between an international airliner and what Is essentially an intercontinental ballistic missile

[@zambani]

@@doylethelovely2555 There may be. But if a hostile government can sneak a nuke onto public rocket transport, I'm certain they can sneak it onto an airplane or a cargo ship.

[@zaidlacksalastname4905]

This is the kind of thing a 5 year old would conceptionalize and forget about 4 minutes later

[@kaivogel253]

for some reason people see the rocket messiah as something other than this 5 year old :D

[@badger6882]

omg

[@wisdomaxolotl2766]

My first thought was "I remember this from a children's book. And even the book only had it in use for emergencies, not for a shorter ride.

[@josephine.1226]

@Guy Whose opinions will offend you ...same here.

[@wyrmh0le]

"Rockets have indeed gotten much safer, to the point where only 1 in 100 will explode" I nearly did a spit-take that's such a good line.

[@IvanTre]

Yeah, except the BFR is designed that even if two engines blow up, it can continue the flight. Unless the fuel tank somehow goes, it shouldn't blow up. Engines are what destroys rockets typically, but BFR is designed to survive an engine destruction..

[@wyrmh0le]

@@IvanTre F9 also has engine-out and used it on their only engine-out (outside recovery) to complete the primary mission. Then they had two LOVs because something bad happened inside the tanks and they blew up. The latest version of F9 has had the longest string of successful launches of any operational rocket. Which is a little over 100. Best ever. And that's barely the statistical significance to say it's actually 1 in 100 or better. So we'll see how Raptor 2 and the structures of Starship behave but that's not really the point. Even if Starship reaches its technical goals and eventually increases those numbers by an order of magnitude, or even two orders in the armada-to-Mars fantasy scenario with thousands of launches per synod... That'll still be several orders short of commercial flight.

[@joshuaporterfield6774]

Which is 3 a year if you do only one launch a day.

[@MakeYouMadds]

That's factoring in non-manned flights. Manned flights are given much more care and don't have nearly as much of a failure rate. If I remember correctly, some gemini mission almost used a LE and a soyuz mission did, and only 5 of the hundreds of spaceflights failed and resulted in death. 4 out of the 5 of those were because the engineers were careless with their designs, in spite of criticism and past events (This is what happened with apollo 1, columbia, and soyuz 1 and 11). The outlier, Challenger, was caused because of a shitty design. The space shuttle is objectively a horrible spacecraft that wasted money and didn't even do it's job. I doubt the starship will follow in it's footsteps.

[@Misfire333]

Most rockets have launch abort system

[@starvalkyrie]

"Officials are still trying to piece together why the missile defense system mistook the 'starship' for a weaponized ICBM, our thoughts are with the families of those lost, Tom"

[@thallan]

Oh god, yes! I want to the fucking iron dome shooting down one of Musks stupid inventions. Preferably without passengers but you know, omelettes and eggs.

[@scottsbarbarossalogic3665]

"Now, the weather"

[@hyphen2612]

"Condolences to the families Sara. In other news, a recent study by an English team said cat furballs might be the key to curing cancer! Let's go to our British correspondant..."

[@mzm4344]

@@thallan So you want the Iron Dome to shoot down like a falcon 9 with a GPS satellite?

[@thallan]

@@mzm4344 no like musk tries to land it in a field protect by an iron dome, which proceeds to shoot it down the same way they shoot down HAMAS rockets

[@chenoir]

As a small plane pilot, I can tell you that 2G is already something to withstand, and without training, more than a few dozen seconds is hard. Continuous 3G would be torture for an untrained person.

[@kroktal8896]

Well I assume in the case of the Starship it wouldn't be vertical G (unless they are stupid enough to make everyone sit vertically in the rocket during the trip) so it theoretically would be more withstandable (but not enjoyable)

[@michajezierski7690]

C'mon, I do 2Gs (60 degree turns) with PPL students on a regular basis and if anything, they get motion sickness only. Plus, as krotkal said, the Starship passengers will not experience Gs in Z-axis.

[@chenoir]

@@michajezierski7690 For a short period of time sure. But for a longer, 3g might be quite uncomfortable. I have cervical pain, and while I loved the sensation of 60° turns during my PPL lessons, it always left me quite a painful souvenir afterwards. Anyway, there are so many reasons that's the worst idea ever.

[@1Live2Love3Thrive]

It's just a way to waste funding, theres no viability.

[@foreverpinkf.7603]

Another way to get rid of old and sick people (after taking their money).

[@TheBonsaiZone]

Maybe a "HydroLoop" can get you from land to the launch platform quicker?

[@wastelandwanderer3883]

LMFAO :D

[@Anthaghoull]

So you can vomit your lunch twice in the span of a few minutes? Because, to be fair, hyperloop = acceleration, and lots of it. Since it's horizontal, it's a bit better than a rocket, but that's a problem fast trains have in general... getting up to cruising speed. So, hyperloop over 20 miles to get on a rocket, and be time efficient, means you don't get to eat, and you must make sure to pee and shit before it, because you will most likely empty your bowels in one of the two amusement park attractions.

[@chrispadilla4027]

why even go into space? Why not have the boring company use their flamethrowers and Hyper technology to *bore* a tunnel network in the earth's crust to launch the rockets underground? Elon should hire me for thinking outside the box.

[@archer_wsk1408]

@Nat20 Damage 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

[@gavin5410]

@Nat20 Damage why don't they just eject you out of the rocket mid orbit? You could give everyone a parachute and they could land wherever they want in the city. Then the rocket could land on the platform to be refuled and refilled and launch again. No need for transportation back from the landing pad.

[@MachiriReviews]

Congratulations, Elon! You made a mode of transportation more dangerous than motorcycles! Massive achievement!

[@chri-k]

I have seen ( not in person ) a motorized unicycle before. So he was definitely not the first to do that.

[@andreizadasilvapereira5312]

Oh my god, do you want to DIE!!!???

[@freddogrosso9835]

Flying Motorcycles!

[@redherronrecords]

"I strapped a motorbike to a helicopter and was like 'wotuuuuuuuup'" ~ Elon Muskrat

[@personzorz]

I prefer Carl Sagan's version. "Yes they laughed at galileo, but they also laughed at Bozo the clown"

[@Chisito23]

I thought about this quote for some time but I can't understand the message that it's trying to say. Can you explain it please?

[@GrobeNuuk]

@@Chisito23 People like to defend stupid "inventions" by claiming people laughed at successful inventions in the past and that the thing they are defending is the same way. Some go further to imply that the fact that people laugh at the invention is in itself proof that it is ahead of it's time and going to be successful. Carl Sagan is noting that people have laughed at things that went on to become successful, but they have also laughed at things that are plain stupid. In other words, the fact that people laugh and deride an invention is no indication that that invention isn't actually stupid.

[@Chisito23]

@@GrobeNuuk thank you!

[@toomanyaccounts]

@@Chisito23 bozo the clown was a tv character that was meant to be laughed at.

[@RigbyWilde]

Bozo? Temos um brasileiro aqui?

[@Lambda_Ovine]

Just wait, the next thing he's going to suggest is making an 'Earth Elevator' that goes across the center of the Earth, powered by gravity and you can go to the other side of the globe super fast.

[@hddun]

If you were insane enough to go by rocket to Singapore, you wouldn't worry about hitting one of his 10,000 STARLINK satellites...

[@dennispickard7743]

Roach M shhhhhhhhhhhhh! Don’t give him ideas !

[@ahmadradwan7429]

So essentially you're proposing the world's biggest mass human BBQ? Genius!, just name it" the epic Keanu wholesome 100 no mustard doge VIP hyperpod", people will fall head over heels for it.

[@vylbird8014]

You could build a zero-G restaurant and theme park in the center.

[@coobk]

wait a second that is just stolen from the remake of total recall....

[@antipoti]

You left out the biggest and most obvious problem: cost. Concord proved that cost is generally more important than speed. Rockets are crazy expensive, so it would no way in hell be economically viable. And if there were demand for this, supersonic (or maybe even hypersonic) planes would outcompete for the same nieche users (ultra rich, in a big hurry).

[@tomitiustritus6672]

Also, the Concorde fleet had to constantly deal with tons and tons of noise complaints, wherever one of those things went. One of the other reasons for canning the project. You simply can't do anything but flying over oceans. And those rockets starting and landing are not any quieter. Imagine every bigger city sounding like there is a violent thunderstorm approaching constantly.

[@jm56585]

Imo Concorde failed because of the many airspace restrictions due to noise and scale. There was definitely a very small amount of ultra rich people that used it, but waiting for a concorde was probably slower than using a normal private jet, since there were not many users. Starship suborbital would probably have the same problem with scale, maybe more since they would also need expensive landing and launch equipment. Being fully reusable, unlike partly refurbishable like the STS and F9, it would probably reduce cost of rockets a lot, but the speculated 2~10 million per launch would probably still be a lot to pay for the ~100 people on the Starship.

[@lichasvocke8642]

You have to keep in mind that Starship is going to be Fully Reusable because of the fact that the Booster and Starship itself gonma land. The only cost you have is fuel and refurbishment after many flights. The fuel is produced out of co2 in the Air so its fully co2 neutral.

[@waori]

@@lichasvocke8642 The wear and tear on a rocket being fired at 27000 km/h is going to be a lot worse than the wear and tear on a plane. Best info I can find has Musk saying that "almost every piece of the Falcon should be reused over 100 times. Heat shields and a few other items should be reused over 10 times before replacement." So if we assume "over 100" means close to 100 then we could be very generous and say that these rockets do 150 trips before having to be completely replaced. Commercial planes last more 20 years and around 50000 flights hours. NY to london is 7 hours so over 7000 of those trips, meaning these rockets would cost at least 50 times more to run than an equivalent plane service. Unfortunately that's assuming the replacement parts for rockets is the same as for planes, in reality the cost to build replacement parts for rockets will also always be higher than for a plane given the much greater physical demands that get placed on a rocket, the more specialized knowledge required, and economies of scale. Also, rockets can never carry as many passengers as an equivalently sized airplane, so those costs will be split between fewer passengers. This could never match planes on cost. It is realistically only competing for first class travellers (who would otherwise spend those four extra flight hours in a first class cabin), and even then, they will probably have to be convinced to pay even more for the advantages and disadvantages of the rocket version.

[@Nonkel_Jef]

A private jet is probably still easier / faster because there's less hassle with checking in and luggage and whatnot.

[@PHAL__]

Maybe normal people actually said to the Wright Brothers that their idea was dumb but all around the world scientist were aware that flying heavier than air machines was possible and there were races with prizes all around the world for the first one that could reach that. Santos Dummont was the first one to takeoff with a aeroplane on Paris, a few months after the Brothers did the same on the US, but they didn't did in front of a crowd since their plan was to refine the machine before revealing it, so they could file patent on a close to commercial able product. While Dummont was scientist in spirit much like Tesla. For most of Elon's stuff is the other way around, uninformed people saying that he is a genius while people with knowledge on engineering and physics are mostly skeptical of his claims.

[@ratemisia]

E2E flights are physically possible, same as heavier-than-air flight. They technically could work despite the obvious drawbacks described in the video. Does this make them a good idea? No, duh.

[@sriharshacv7760]

that must have sucked

[@Cecil_Augus]

Holy sh*t finally someone talking about Dummond. You know, here in Brazil we do not talk about the Wright bros, as we know the existence of Dummond. He later commited suicide and one of the reasoning was the usage of planes in the WWI.

[@MrMarinus18]

The main thing experts were dismissive off was their idea of bendable wings as they thought it would make the plane too unstable. However the twisting wings allowed for far more control. Unfortunately that instability proved to be true and the flyer was incredibly physically demanding and required a lot of practice to fly. So within just a few years the whole twisting wing idea was abandoned in favor of ailerons. Even with the Flyer III being mostly stable the extreme physical demands on the pilot made it's maximum flight time around 15 minutes as after that the pilot would be too exhausted to continue. The twisting wings will twist by themselves in flight so the pilot has to constantly fight it. With ailerons the wind actually pushes the back to neutral so you don't have to constantly be fighting the control to keep going straight. Also the Wright's idea of having the vertical stabilizer in front was quickly dropped as well as it created interference and reduced overall lift.

[@fullmetaltheorist]

@@Cecil_Augus Sad thing is that he's not the only scientist to end his own life after his invention was used for war.

[@inurokuwarz]

I can't beleive I could get anywhere on earth in only an hour! After a 3 hour boat ride.

[@reinerbraun670]

And after two hours waiting at the dock

[@DeltaPi314]

And after waiting 5 hours the rocket to be checked, re-checked, double re-checked... for your safety.

[@d_r3236]

@White wolf amogus

[@mortimer687]

@White wolf sometimes speed isnt the solution to everything, especially when youre launching people into space at 3gs

[@douggodsoe]

And a bus to get to the boat. And then, it turns out, you didn’t need to be there.

[@grantharriman284]

wow, this is literally just a more extreme version of every single concord problem

[@auliamate]

Concorde, but 1000x more insane. Like, can we make modern day planes more efficient and green before we make ultra fast rockets and superjets?

[@amramjose]

Worse, many orders of magnitude worse.

[@hesido]

Maybe these are just publicity stunts for advertisement. Because seriously, the math just does not add up, and lots of people working with Elon are good at it.

[@madensmith7014]

@@hesido A lot of Musk's ideals are really just that. Publicity stunts. Most of the things Musk says, the specialists don't agree with is gonna happen but just go along with it. Best case for this is Neuralink, looking into it, the tech already existed, and whatever Musk is telling isn't anything new but he sure got the public aware of it.

[@micklenier6152]

@@madensmith7014 well... falcon recoverable rockets somehow worked... and will continue to work untill methane prices will go through the roof.

[@benjones1717]

Science in star trek "science boys you have 3 hours to science us out of this black hole". Science in real life, 'spend 20 years to invent a thing, it doesn't work'. Science isn't pirate's treasure.

[@pedrolmlkzk]

Nuclear fusion will be viable by 1980!

[@ivannoreland5656]

@@pedrolmlkzk There has actually been a great deal of progress in fusion research since the 1940s. We are not as far away from it now as we were in 1980.

[@ivannoreland5656]

Maybe not a pirate treasure, but still the closest thing to a pirate treasure that we have

[@StainlessHelena]

@@ivannoreland5656 maybe the real treasure is the -friends- research grants you make along the way.

[@sanjaymatsuda4504]

In Star Trek they have a supercomputer that almost programs itself, a holodeck, an antimatter reactor, and more importantly, free human labor because it's all a labor of love. In real life we have a box of scraps and everyone is worried about their next meal, next car, next research paper, or next merger and acquisition, and any scientific advancement is just a welcome side-effect.

[@FalcoGer]

I have an idea. A hole straight through the earth where you board a pod and it gets dropped in freefall and you fall all the way to the other end of the earth in just under an hour. In fact you can travel anywhere in the very same time with a point to point tunnel and zero friction. Just use the magic lube on the magic walls that hold back the magma and radioactive sludge that makes up earth's core. With my technowizzard CGI technology we can build those tunnels 10000 times cheaper than roads. And there are most definitely not a million things we didn't think about, such as emergency exits or anything of that kind.

[@potatoheadpokemario1931]

Isn't the current theory one in which the earth has a solid core? That needs to move to generate Earth's magnetic field?

[@eldarlrd]

The freefall wouldn't bring you to the other side, you gravitate towards the center but after that you'd need even more energy to get you out of there to the other side and escape the gravitational pull.

[@PRH123]

What you need now are some venture capitalist investors, who can take your revenueless CGI company to an IPO, after which you all immediately sell your stock and disappear...

[@potatoheadpokemario1931]

@@eldarlrd actually wouldn't you gain enough momentum to keep on falling though to the other side?

[@chinglamyung]

@@eldarlrd in a perfect vacuum, the kinetic energy you gained from falling to the center of earth is enough to get you to the other side. However, real world is not a physics textbook, and actual perfect vacuums might as well not exist in real life.

[@johnny_eth]

This is actually a good idea. Imagine all the billionaires and corporate executives taking these rockets. Eventually the world would become a better place.

[@tariqalodat720]

😁😁😁👏👏👏

[@Enceladus2106]

Yes please

[@TheRubberMatch]

I agree man. Elon could cure cancer and this dude would find something to throw a pussy for about 😂

[@flyingman2633]

@@TheRubberMatch You seem to not understand the joke. It was that everyone who takes these rockets will die because of it either; being shot down mistaken for an ICBM, or it will just crash.

[@Salafiyahisthehaqq]

@@flyingman2633 yeah… he didn’t get the joke

[@notrod5341]

I have a new idea for future transport. We strap rockets to our legs. I call it hyper legs. We can move many % faster and it'll be all cool and futuristic.

[@c15a]

yep, your legs wont fucking explode

[@Tommmmmmmmmmmm]

Don’t forget the LED’s and fart sounds

[@Pet_Hedgehog]

@@Tommmmmmmmmmmm fart sounds? i'm sold, tell me more.

[@kiranks3341]

Try pitching this to the US govt. I'm sure you'll land some subsidies. Good luck.

[@notrod5341]

@@kiranks3341 Alas im yet to crush enough unions to qualify for that

[@MistahFox]

"Earth to Earth rocket flight" The Germans actually did this before, they made the first manmade object in space and it could travel from Berlin to London in just 5 minutes! What incredible futuristic 21st century technology! In the 40s...

[@joostdriesens3984]

It could land right on your doorstep! 😅

[@chloralhydrate]

... yes, as von braun said: "I aim for the stars! (But sometime I hit London...)"

[@breznknedl]

@@chloralhydrate" the rocket flew perfectly, it just landed on the wrong planet" Wernher von Braun

[@Planaxe]

Oh really? They were able to launch objects into space and back to earth landing in perfect condition and centimeters from the spot they wanted it to land on?

[@joostdriesens3984]

@@Planaxe Yes, they were able to land them EXACTLY on Londen with centimeter accuracy, and sometimes next to it. 😆

[@utilid4lifefigureitout602]

I really needed this channel.... seriously my mental health has improved seeing so many people embrace common sense.

[@Kazmahu]

Literally the only use case I can see for this is the scene near the end of Metal Gear Rising: Revengeance where the protagonists only have a couple hours to stop a plot to cause a global war and the only way to get there in time is using a rocket, which itself is a combination electromagnetic-launch/chemfueled beast intended to be SSTO but having atmospheric control surfaces to land. Oh, and it's supposed to be remote-controlled, the cyborg occupants still nearly shit themselves at the G-forces involved. The sheer fact I'm quoting something from Metal Gear as a primary use case should show how mental the project is just from a concept standpoint.

[@pickledrat4232]

"Doktor! Turn off my elon musk dumbshit inhibitors!"

[@jurtra9090]

@@pickledrat4232 good quote

[@mithmoonwalker]

and that was in 2018 where nanomachines could turn a texan senator into a walking volcanic erruption

[@Fred_the_1996]

@@pickledrat4232 b-but raiden, that's madness!

[@giles.9862]

I still cant believe MGRR is one of the most realistic entries in Metal gear.

[@valblome4913]

Airline Nerd Rant Incoming: Nevermind the safety record or the physics, he doesn't even have a sound route network! He's ignoring everything we know about the airline industry. In the 2010s, mid-sized airplanes were developed which could fly long distances once only feasible with larger planes (and larger fuel tanks). This changed everything. As an example, it used to be that a passenger in a mid sized city, like Denver, would get on a little airplane which would transport them to a big airport with a denser population, like Las Angeles. In this busy city, there were enough people to fill a big plane. This large aircraft, now having enough passengers to be economically viable, would go to Tokyo. Today, however, a passenger can embark on a fuel efficient mid-sized plane, which can fly far but doesn't need as many passengers to turn a profit. A lower population city like Denver can now provide a nonstop flight to Tokyo. There is no layover in Las Angeles, and the passengers are happier. Customers overwhelmingly prefer direct flights, so the airlines completely restructured to buy more smaller long range airplanes. The jumbo jets which once flew between major cities are being retired. Airlines don't want to buy 500 passenger airplanes anymore, but Elon suggests we fill these Starships with 1,000 people??? Only routes between major world cities can accommodate this. And no one will want to go through security to get on an airplane in Denver, leave the airport in Las Angeles, go through more security to get on a rocket, and THEN go to Tokyo. His enemy isn't just supersonic airplanes, it's every airplane that can fly a direct route...

[@marcelljambor2529]

Very informative, thank you

[@Destroyer_V0]

Little perspective I can provide? Qantas was going ahead with something called project sunrise. Aka, direct flights from australia to anywhere in the world, with an extended range A350. At least before covid, not too sure about their plans now. Elon musk would be in competition with at least one major commercial airline, who would likely make more profit per flight unless elon charged a ridiculous sum. And even then! I doubt he can operate as many rockets, as Qantas can operate aircraft.

[@tubaraofeio1053]

@@Destroyer_V0 i mean if it already costs a hefty sum to fly on a plane so imagine on a rocket, hed have to fund this thing out of this pocket, the only people i see using this are other dumb millionares

[@double-you3409]

Wendover productions alt account.

[@Fightre_Flighte]

Not to mention that Concorde largely showed the case where pretty much only business executives, and other business men would need to use such speed regularly. Taking a 5-10 day cruise is ridiculously slow, but taking a three hour flight is too costly to be worth it. Most people were happy to take their six hour hop across the pond. The speed was worth the cost, and that wasn't the case for Concorde - basically.

[@capitalv8062]

In my 8th grade, like 8 years ago everyone in the class had to come up with an invention. My dumb invention was pretty much the same as starship earth to earth, I called it a space train.

[@LA-MJ]

Good name

[@ldblokland463]

at least the name is nice

[@RAVIKULRAORA]

mine was the immortality drug ,

[@sandy_dandy_cotton_candy1221]

*space pod

[@cannedpineapple2702]

I like the name far better. Thank u for sharing :)

[@Bustermachine]

I suspect a lot of the stuff Musk proposes is less about making serious proposals and more about maintaining his position as the world's pre-eminent 'futurist' and thus buoying his company stocks with his media presence. Which still makes him worthy of debunking. But I think it's much less complete insanity and more just normal cynical stock manipulation but a businessman who just happens to know how to use a twitter account.

[@treehavn]

He already mentioned this in another video. Hes pretending to be tony stark to keep the tesla bubble inflated for his shareholders.

[@notastone4832]

@@treehavn he himself tweeted that tesla was over valued and people tried to sue him over it T_T

[@rc2k524]

dude has pretty much said this, literally he makes marketing by using his image

[@distantraveller9876]

It's a terrible strategy and makes him look incompetent and immature. Anyone with a basic understanding of physics and maths can see right through it, like at least try to think of ACTUALLY useful projects instead of just saying whatever gets you trending on Twitter.

[@dex6316]

@@distantraveller9876 he has a very large cult-like following, and everyone talking about him and his stuff is free marketing. I’d say it’s an incredibly successful strategy. Him looking like an idiot is irrelevant, since stupidity has never stopped the elite before.

[@Dave-zv3lp]

Elon Musk: _"And with your support, we can turn a mildly irritating four hour trip into literal torture for just twenty minutes!"_

[@raam1666]

*extremely irritating 13 hour trip

[@tylerpyle2135]

4 hours to cross the globe? which plane you be flying on?

[@TaeSunWoo]

Meh I’m for it

[@dr4876]

_"but hey you'll have a nice view!"_

[@dudka_i]

@@tylerpyle2135 MiG-25

[@sunil_de6856]

Nevermind that all Missile defence systems are gonna go crazy when one of those starts flying around.

[@SkipTheKip]

Can't imagine any starship routes taking someone to Israel, what with their Iron Dome and everything

[@TeteBruleeFR]

This would solve itself very easily actually... It will be the exact same process with commercial airplanes. The rockets will have to announce in advance their flight course to authorities, and broadcast an ID during all flight time. It will be a pain to put it in place the first time, because a lot of superpowers would have to be involved (basically, no superpower / nuclear power country would like to find an unidentified rocket entering their flight space), but it is not unrealistic to have all of them cooperating, with enough preparation... The real problem would be if one of theses rockets goes rogue and does not follow its flight course anymore... With the threat of a potential terrorist attack, and the speed of the rocket, it would leave no other choice for the concerned country to immediately shot it down, and ask questions later...

[@zacknattack]

@@TeteBruleeFR except that rockets are quite a bit faster than planes and are quite a bit more missile-like than planes, which have already had incidents where one was shot down under the belief it was a missile.

[@trapfethen]

@@TeteBruleeFR Yeah, these defense system use SPEED to distinguish between missiles and non-missiles. They don't interact with the flight authorities system at all. They don't look for, or even read, airliner transponders. If it's above a certain speed and of a certain shape, it's tagged as a missile and the defense kicks into action.

[@svavarkjarrval8757]

@@TeteBruleeFR Don't think announcing the trips would solve it since any nation intending to attack the destination country could time their attack to coincide with the scheduled arrival of the spaceship.

[@vermas4654]

The moment when bringing back the Concorde and Tupolev 144 sounds like a more sustainable idea

[@ng.tr.s.p.1254]

I agree. Rockets are better for space exploration, not for earth.

[@chrisyorke6175]

Concorde actually had a very good flight safety record until a freak accident on the runway finished its career. Disaster struck while it was taking off and still aground. It deserved better luck.

[@vermas4654]

@@chrisyorke6175 I was talking about sustainability, not safety tho. But yes, it deserved better. And it's eastern sister did too.

[@grahamstrouse1165]

@@chrisyorke6175 Concorde as very cool. It’s safety record wasn’t even that bad. It just wasn’t very efficient.

[@chrisyorke6175]

@@grahamstrouse1165 I agree. It only took one fatal accident. Bit of a luxury, but proved a concept.

[@glynnec2008]

You didn't mention the biggest problem: An inbound ballistic missile loaded with passengers is indistinguishable from one loaded with nukes. Defense Agencies around the planet will never allow a private company to launch anything like this.

[@Anonymous-df8it]

What does a nuke look like before it has been loaded into the missile? I thought that they were synonyms, no?

[@sebagomez4647]

@@Anonymous-df8it a nuke is something arround the size of a car. its mostly called a nuclear warhead. you can have missiles with non nuclear payloads

[@AtomicAlchemist]

@@Anonymous-df8it "Nuke" Is kinda vague, sometimes people use it to refer to a missile with a nuclear warhead, and sometimes they use it to refer to just the warhead itself

[@barnabasigari3109]

@@Anonymous-df8it nuke is any weapon that creates a nuclear explosion. So you can just have a bomb that explodes dropped out of a plane, or a missile that launches from the ground and delivers its payload by itself or anything between. They also made nuclear torpedoes (and artillery shells aswell!) ig you could call them nukes aswell.

[@zdeneknovak5276]

Inbound passanger plane is indistinguisahble from one loaded with nukes. What is your point?

[@Misterz3r0]

Even if you are an Elon Musk fan, you cannot deny the step by step breakdown of why this is a dumb idea.

[@AnthonyHandcock]

But the Musk fans *DO* deny it. That's the problem. I was arguing with one in the pub (back before a virus made that impossible) and I ran through the whole list of every reason why the hypeloop was such a fucking stupid idea. It all got hand-waved away with a "Elon will solve it". It's basically a religion based on the belief that Musk is some sort of great inventor even though he's never actually invented anything. Nothing that somebody else hadn't already invented anyway.

[@stephenhartley2853]

@@AnthonyHandcock it never ceases to amaze me how people call him an inventor despite never inventing anything. its quite remarkable to say the least.

[@AnthonyHandcock]

@@stephenhartley2853 The power of marketing.

[@zool201975]

lol you overestimate the reasoning power of fans.

[@HaplessOne]

@@AnthonyHandcock I'm not an elon fan and admit that a lot of his ideas are dumb. To be fair however an invention can use existing concepts. Just because the first touch screen phone (the iphone) used existing tech to create it, doesn't mean it wasn't an invention. Touch screens already existed on certain expensive pc monitors, the ability to call others already existed, as well as the ability to have apps/games on a phone. The IPhone combined it into a package we hadn't seen before, creating the modern smart phone, which we still consider a revolutionary invention to this day. Even if your invention is simply improving on already established concepts, its still considered an invention.

[@mortified776]

Totally agree with you on the fetishisation of science by non-practitioners in modern culture.

[@MagicAndReason]

Right! Like how in America we worship STEM education, but can't be bothered to teach philosophy. We produce people who operate in areas with little ambiguity who are then one-dimensional thinkers who have no concept of how society works. Add in a steady diet of evangelical Christianity & conservative lies, and you have a population of technically smart morons working in a capitalist gulag.

[@lololunacy2338]

Elongated Muskrat

[@nickkorkodylas5005]

@@MagicAndReason This whole comment section reeks of communism. Philosophy doesn't real and entitled self-important intelligentsia soothsayers are the first to receive a bullet at the back of their skull when your people's revolution^TM finally comes. Try to digest it.

[@BongShlong]

Posting "YAY SCIENCE" memes and believing in Astrology or for dudes "science bitch" and watching joe rogan

[@LancesArmorStriking]

@@nickkorkodylas5005 "Doesn't real"? Between that and your last name, I think you're a Lithuanian whose parents told him scary stories about the soviets. Also, this isn't communism. Philosophy was there before communism, during communism, and after it. They are separate things. Supporting philosophy is not communism. Sorry.

[@topcesc]

Wait, let's hear the man out: Billionaires taking a 1:100 chance of blowing up every time they go from A-B might be his best idea to date

[@ross4814]

Fueling the star ship will take longer than any of the other steps you've mentioned combined.

[@joeyhamilton6854]

Most human rated rockets have to be fueled after everyone is strapped in. Imagine having a CEO pay 10k to a chair for 5 hours without being about to use the bathroom or eat anything. Then having a half hour roller Laster ride.

[@krunkle5136]

Imagine being so important that you have a space craft that takes 5 hours to refuel waiting for you.

[@TheYrthenarc]

@@joeyhamilton6854 "Most human rated rockets have to be fueled after everyone is strapped in." - Sorry what? The Falcon 9 is the first human rated rocket ever that is fueled with the crew already on board. All the others were fuel first, people next. Also, it takes about 15-20 minutes to fuel a Starship.

[@jasonjacksn]

@@TheYrthenarc this is very wrong

[@chengong388]

@@TheYrthenarc I don't think you have any idea how much fuel is in the starship and superheavy.

[@olivermaynard3380]

The thing is, cutting down travel time just isn't that important in a world where we carry our work, entertainment and social life in our pockets. There's really no problem with an 8hr flight from London to New York, so there's no need to "fix" it!

[@congratulationsmerry6386]

Honestly we need to rebuild our cities or have à good public transport since from what i have observed in my area is that people work either in their city or to the neighboring cities. Just 2 train stations away. However, out train stations are shizt

[@talesdemidioful]

exactly, this whole "speed up" sounds soo outdated, is like pretending that you are that busy

[@Skank_and_Gutterboy]

When I was flying from LAX to Taiwan and I'd start feeling a little pissy about it being a 14 hour flight, I'd always remind myself that there was a day not long ago when the only way there was by steamship and the journey would take months.

[@talesdemidioful]

@@Skank_and_Gutterboy your trip begins in the airplane seat, man, you can either enjoy the view, relax, drink a pepsi or be "those people"

[@Skank_and_Gutterboy]

@@talesdemidioful Yep, no doubt.

[@jimgrant4578]

Rockets need nearly perfect weather to fly. Launches get scrubbed if its cloudy.

[@olivergraf1360]

This is probably the smallest of all issues. The Saturn V rocket of the Apollo 12 mission launched during a thunderstorm and it was struck by lightning mere seconds after it launched and they still managed to land on the moon. Of course, they usually wait for good weather and in this instance they only launched because the president was there to watch on that day and NASA didn't want to disappoint him, but weather is still probably a small issue compared to all the other problems.

[@acefighterpilot]

Elon doesn't wait on the weather. He'll launch if it's freezing out, even if the o-rings are only qualified to 40 degrees Fahrenheit...

[@noradlark167]

It does not. It just reduces failure rates to be conservative.

[@sethdrake7551]

@varun prasad small issue is relative compared to all the other issues its pretty small

[@blucksy7229]

Tell this to soyuz they regularly fly in bad conditions and get struck by lighting

[@jtofgc]

You're being INCREDIBLY generous in saying they could board that thing in 30 minutes. It usually takes 30 minutes or more to board a commercial aircraft in the 160-200 seat range. KLM bragged a few years ago about achieving 17 minute boarding under test conditions with their 176 seat 737-800 configuration.

[@lexlex44]

"Yes they laughed at galileo, but they also laughed at Bozo the clown" I means that just because someone laughs at your ideas, it doesn't make them smart ! Stupid people can laugh at smart ideas, but smart people can also laugh at stupid ideas.

[@SteinGauslaaStrindhaug]

I'd much rather have an ariship using a few days to reach my destination if it means I can have comfortable cabin like on a boat or sleeper train at a reasonable price; than another even more uncomfortable and more expensive experience than normal aeroplanes have today.

[@DrewLSsix]

Well not enough people agree to make that a reasonable business model.

[@crytocc]

@@DrewLSsix Data suggests otherwise; this is basically exactly what the Stena Line ferry between Harwich and Hook of Holland does (~8 hour travel time, compared to the 1-2 hours of other channel ferries at narrower points), and it's quite popular and extremely comfortable to travel on.

[@SA-mo3hq]

And airships are Pimp. As. Fuck. (except for that horrifying amazon drone hub abomination)

[@SkywalkerWroc]

Airships are making a return. Look into Airlander and alike. And they actually have a feasible business case that doesn't require an entire system to raise 54000 times in reliability.

[@gabrielmalek7575]

This would be sweet if it weren't for the global shortage of Helium, which is not going to get better. We will basically run out of Helium, and I'm not getting on a Hydrogen filled blimp. We're literally going to need to get Helium from space one day.

[@ethribin4188]

"Everyone laughed at the wright brothers, yet they succeeded." Everyone also laughed at the hundreds and thousands of other flying machine builders. And all of those flying machine builders failed

[@macrumpton]

Without trying there is no success.

[@nickl5658]

@@macrumpton But without some commercial planning, you end up with the Concorde.

[@macrumpton]

@Aquarium Gravel you mean like making rockets that can land on their tails, or trying to make electric cars practical, or making a worldwide high speed satellite network. Plenty of folks have said those are all foolish.

[@britishrocklovingyank3491]

@@macrumpton And plenty haven't said it was foolish. It's a really useless way to argue. For everything you say people said I can show people who said the opposite. It's based on what is planned and done. Musk is saying a lot and not anywhere near what he says he is going to do. He hasn't even done anything new.

[@doomguy2.0]

So your point is people should just give up on their ideas the moment idiots who have nothing better to do with their lives start laughing at the ideas?

[@FizzleFX]

1:50 i love how quiet this rocket is. *Must be one of those electric rockets* i hear so much about... they run on solar, you know?!^^

[@char1721]

yeah! Such a visionary this man is! Give this man a medal! He deserves it!

[@MrMarket1987]

Maybe if they somehow harness the Solar-powered Science of Shin Tetsujin 28, they might be onto something.

[@FizzleFX]

@@MrMarket1987 if you zoom in you find ASTROBOY being the one to push the rocket into orbit. Astroboy being ofc ElonMusks son.

[@Tarquinthetyrant]

there is no sound in space

[@erneststyczen7071]

@@Tarquinthetyrant does the rocket take off in space?

[@trotskyeraumpicareta4178]

He doesnt need the rockets to be safer, he just needs to make you sign a contract before each flight and make sure the press won't cover the accidents, which is probably cheaper.

[@ziglaus]

Press won't cover the accidents of Elon Musks company? Thats not just expensive af, its basically impossible

[@digaddog6099]

@@ziglaus hes done it on a smaller scale already though, but it probably wouldn't work for something like this

[@pwnmeisterage]

It's a little more difficult to cover up when Sheik Dubai or Disney CEO is killed by exploding rocket.

[@Anonymous-df8it]

@@pwnmeisterage But they could just *only* mention those instances. By only covering a fraction of the accidents, you can make it look very safe!

[@CharlesLavallee]

Alternative: just use a Zoom meeting

[@pauligrossinoz]

*Underrated comment!*

[@istymix]

or bring yourself a book to read on a 10 hours flight, time flies faster

[@abstractfactory8068]

@@istymix Why do you have to go full intellectual wanna be, just bring something to keep you entertained and leave it at that.

[@istymix]

@@abstractfactory8068 sure, that

[@suntzu1409]

@@istymix use RGB Headphones to time travel. Using RGB, you can travel to mars in 5 minutes

[@BeKindToBirds]

You didn't even touch on how unbelievably expensive it would be in fuel alone. The whole ticket would be obscene. And of course his "vision" explicitly stated it would be CHEAPER

[@LilliHerveau]

I mean, who said it was for `regular` people? It's for the ultra rich elite of course

[@pavelvodnar3206]

@@LilliHerveau why not

[@MrAerohank]

That's Elons go-to line. It's going to be 1000x better than existing tech and also 1000x cheaper! How? Don't worry about it, just pre-order now!

[@moontrooper2587]

I mean, methane (the fuel that Starship uses) costs around 24 times less than kerosene (the fuel that more traditional rockets use), not to mention its stronger than kerosene, bringing the cost down yet again. If a Starship can hold 100 passengers, and a single launch costs around 2 million, each person would only need to pay $20,000.00, as opposed to a $80,000,000.00 (80 million) ticket for the Soyuz. Edit: And for the purely economical Starship model (1,000 passenger capacity), each passenger would only need to pay $2,000.00.

[@glitteringsunshine4306]

@@LilliHerveau Sure, made for the elite, but paid for by the oblivious masses.

[@penguiscool2334]

The starship itself is an incredible feat of technology and I don’t think it can be stated how innovative it is in this one comment. But using something like starship for EtE travel is probably the worst use you can have for it. The starship is designed to be the largest rocket ever made surpassing the SaturnV that took us to the moon. Using the starship for something as arbitrary as EtE transportation would be like using a flame thrower to light your cigarette, a total waste and not really practical.

[@kogkog6983]

As a mechanical engineer I was always fascinated by all the things Elon Musk did when I was still in University and I am still fascinated at all his rocket tech. But now that I have graduated and have a little knowledge about manufacturing and design efficiency, I can see all the flaws in his technologies. e.g. electric cars instead of electric public transport or electric trains which would be a better idea or maybe electric roads like the overhead lines that trains have I think it is only possible in America to do these crazy experiments with govt. funding. We don’t have that luxury or funding in my country (India)

[@vodkaboy]

Indian railway system is pretty impressive, much more so than what hyperloop achieved so far.

[@scottdodge6979]

The problem with proposing mass transit in America is the fact that we have already geared our infrastructure around cars and the deep rooted car culture in the states. We view them as an expression of freedom and its why I generally prefer my own personal vehicle. Couple that with the fact thag we have cities but in between them is easily 60 to 100 miles minimum of nothingness. Now a coast to coast bullet train of some sort in the states? That I could get on board with but I am certain lobbyists from the car and airline industries would fight it tooth and nail.

[@antarachatterjee4299]

but he isn't getting funded by the govt, he is doing it from his own money

[@javierviana96]

Another mechanical engeneer here, I remember when I started studying that everyone had a good opinion of Elon work. Now that most of we had finished we know this man is just selling smoke. He's the fucking Lyle Lanley.

[@sirtrix.]

@@antarachatterjee4299 he gets lots of .gov funding

[@realcow1]

"You know, rocket have this attribute of being really fucking loud." Couldn't have phrased it better.

[@hyperiif5702]

Lmao

[@lukegn]

So is that Honda Civic at 3am, y'know, I really couldn't tell the difference

[@redeze1996]

aerospace engineer here. I agree with pretty much all you say that it's a fucking stupid idea with the only goal to make tech-nerds go "such wow". but you asked to correct your numbers so here they are: 4:10 I don't know where you got that 25% fuel for suborbital fights from, but it doesn't apply to starship e2e. It might be true if you just want to go "up" and back down again (like sub 2000km flights), but in the starship promo video they boast with 27.000 km/h, which is close to orbital velocity. calculating fuel for rockets is only dependent on payload mass and the velocity you want to achieve. so there is just a small difference in fuel between going e2e and going to low earth orbit. I did some napkin math and maybe you can save 500t of fuel, but it doesn't really matter since it doesn't change the magnitude of the result. let's just focus on the first stage, since we will need to fill that 100% either way to reach those speeds. the capacity is about 1000t of methane and 2000t of o2. So burning that would release a bit less than 3000t of CO2. that's pretty much in line the graph you showed at 4:45. the passenger capacity of this thing is unknown, Musk claims 1000 passengers, which is wildly unrealistic in my opinion. But assuming that gives us about 3 tons of co2 per person for a long-haul flight. your airplane co2 numbers are also quite off and I wonder where you got the numbers from. 5:02 "total emission of an airplane transatlantic is 1 ton"? that should raise your alarm bells man. I think the numbers you found are per passenger. A 787 can carry about 100t of fuel, so about 300t of CO2 for a long-haul flight (up to 14.000km, so pretty much anywhere on earth), make that half for an transatlantic flight, it doesn't matter. nowhere near 1 ton for the whole plane. the passenger capacity for the 787 is 250 people, for full fuel capacity that's 1.2 tons of co2 per person. as you can see, the co2 difference is not that big, about a factor of 2.5 (but it largely depends on the passenger capacity of the theoretical e2e starship, which cannot be known). that's mostly because the rocket only boosts for around 5 minutes and then cruises above in the thermosphere, while the aircraft has to plow through the lower stratosphere all the time. that means from an energy perspective, flights of over 10.000km would at least economically make kinda sense with e2e starship. that doesn't mean that all the other concerns are not valid of course, the idea is still dumb.

[@neilmuir3503]

good analysis man

[@RamenNarwal]

Thank you for fact checking, this man should always have a major to check the scrips

[@grandioso3507]

@@RamenNarwal yes noticed that often he messes up the calculations smh

[@the_imonem]

yes numbers are a bit off for airplane flights, however, other problems truly exist also one things that wasn't mentioned as a problem during the video which is how would you lift 1000 passengers + luggage to the rocket head?

[@nathfrancois5507]

@@the_imonem An error by a factor of 300, which should be obvious to anyone who knows the first thing about air travel and CO2 emissions, is not "a bit off". It's an indictment of his competence to make a video essay on the subject. Not to mention the comparison to the Concorde which also had many comfort, noise, security and fuel cost issues, like those cited here for the rockets.

[@staycgirlsitsgoingdown2]

It’s important to remember that the 20 miles from city is 20 miles from the last house, not 20 miles from downtown. So there’s a good chance that for any city that’s not on an ocean, the starship port could end up being 50 miles from downtown, maybe more for sprawling cities or cities nearby other cities. In some cases, you may end up being HUNDREDS of miles from downtown if your city is part of a larger megalopolis and in a landlocked area. So imagine living in Montreal, and wanting to take the starship. You’ll have to travel 1.5+ hours to the Laurentides to take the starship. And that’s assuming that elongated muskrat gets permission to land ROCKETS in areas surrounded by highly flammable TREES. And if he dosnt get permission for that… the nearest city on the ocean with a population big enough to support a system like this is BOSTON. Which is a 5-7 hour drive away. Imagine driving 7 hours, spending 2.5 more hours getting to the dock and going through security and boarding stuff, and then a 30 min flight, 2 hours for deboarding, customs, and getting to the city. That’s a total of 12 hours spent so you can avoid a 12 hour flight. If you can get around the whole 1/100 trips will involve a death thing, this idiotic system will only ever work in port cities. Wanna go from NYC to Tokyo? Sure, that’ll work. But Chicago to Paris? Good luck. St. Louis to Munich? Funny joke, will you be here all week? And don’t forget, you need perfect launch conditions with very little wind. Yknow, weak winds? Something that areas 20 miles out to sea are knowing for?

[@ishathakor]

yeah sprawling cities are going to have a series issue with this stuff. like houston or phoenix are both basically car dependent sprawl as far as the eye can see. and you also have to consider that the starship port will need to be 20 miles away from any other dwellings too, which includes small towns and rural villages.

[@scruffybones321]

You missed one tiny little detail: ICBMs are slightly harder to land than regular aeroplanes.

[@elgringofeo9348]

How tf would you land a rocket? Like you would need to make it do a 45 degree spin to face up and basically have pin point coordination, maybe some sort of "bed" to land on

[@zorbaz3940]

@@elgringofeo9348 maybe a hole which the rocket would go into and stop and passenger would get off

[@Bloated_Tony_Danza]

@@zorbaz3940 yeah well just fly rockets into giant sink holes, problem solved 🤨

[@hamzerpanzer]

@@Bloated_Tony_Danza Haven’t landing rockets already been developed?

[@somerandomperson3970]

@@elgringofeo9348 It's possible. But because it's essentially horizontal, you would probably spend even more fuel. Hydrogen is usually made with fossil fuel, one way or another. Scientists are still trying to find a way to fuel the reaction, where water is split into hydrogen and oxygen, with solar energy. Still, flying in 3gs' not enjoyable.

[@Jorn6460]

A few days ago I watched the recently released "Could Starship Be The New Concorde?" by Primal Space. After watching your video, I felt like watching it again, just with a little but more scepticism. Also kind of funny that the Wright Brothers where indeed featured, as if you already knew. The trip on a boat would already eliminate all the speed advantages of the Starship. Actually, if Europe would build high speeds rail, we would not need any planes between Amsterdam and Berlin or most other large Western European cities, due to the long times that are required, or at least recommended (two hours) to be at the airport before flight departure.

[@bruno8516]

Donde countries can’t afford that kind of infrastructure. Not everyone lives in developed countries.

[@jasperschlief]

@@bruno8516 if u don't live in a wealthy area, how are you supposed to pay tickets for a fucking rocket

[@nirfz]

There is something about replacing air travel with high speed trains nobody takes into account. All the time for security measures with airplanes have a root. It is the travel possibility where a*holes can harm the most people in one incident and get media coverage. If airtravel is replaced by highspeed trains, those trains will earn that place. They will then be the prime target for those idiots. Meaning that we then get all the security stuff for train travel negating any improvement over air travel. Those trains would then be even easier targets, as they move on a from of rails still. And attacking the rail and derailing something going 250-300kph i would argie would be easier for them than downing a plane. So can we keep the slow trains and airtravel please?

[@lennysmileyface]

@@nirfz If they ever built a hyperloop it would be even easier. Just punch a 10cm hole in the tube and the entire thing will pressurise catastrophically, killing everyone.

[@nirfz]

@@lennysmileyface If you mean the outer tube, then according to how i understood the working principle, the capsules containing passengers inside the tube would just screach to a halt if you puncture the vacuum tube. If you meant the capsule with the word "tube" then yes, that would cause a pretty fast but disgusting looking end of the passengers. (In my opinion the main reason it will never be used in transporting people...the danger of having a malfunction that causes the capsule to not be sealed completely is too big.)

[@anscart2969]

Addition to the G's part: The average G- Force during a commercial flight lies between 0.75 and 1.25 G with 0.5 to 1.5 G's in a turbulent flight. So while saying that the average flight subjects you to 0.2 to 0.4 G's is technically correct (if you subtract or add those values from/to the normal 1G we have on earth) someone might misinterpret those numbers

[@infinix2003]

Excatly!

[@TheDriver-ne2qc]

I did misinterpret for a moment. Well, i'm stupid.

[@iam.damian]

And when it comes to the economics: if you are rich enough to buy a ticket on the Starship, you are rich enough to fly by private jet: much more comfortable, safe, eco-friendly, flexible, and you can also skip the airport security.

[@blackhatfreak]

Private planes are in no way eco friendly.

[@AlphaNinjaFTW1]

@@blackhatfreak more

[@HypnosisBear]

@@blackhatfreak still safer than big f**king rockets.

[@ShroudedWolf51]

@@blackhatfreak They aren't...but they are significantly more eco friendly than a damn rocket.

[@wren_.]

@@blackhatfreak at least they’re better than a fossil fuel powered rocket

[@andersbergman3268]

Elon Musk is just doing these videos for ad revenue at this point

[@CountingStars333]

To stay relevant..

[@Kavster92]

He is doing it because he cannot recoup the costs of his space project. I bet his scientists told him it won't work and he is back tracking.

[@alpineiii7933]

Well at least he’s doing something to progress space exploration unlike some other space companies

[@XBlueBeam]

Those videos dont do a shit when it comes to Elons economy, starlink, rideshare, Tesla, the boring Company, etc takes care of the money income.

[@alpineiii7933]

@@XBlueBeam Fax

[@auliamate]

"Being smart can make you rich, but being rich does not make you smart" -me watching Adam Something. I fucking swear if this was already a quote and I never knew...

[@scottvelez3154]

You smort

[@LukeVilent]

Watching Adam Something doesn't make you smart either. Neither being Adam Something does.

[@dopemaster4205]

@@LukeVilent well you get one more perspective.

[@LukeVilent]

@@dopemaster4205 If only this perspective was supported by numbers that make sense. Viewing Earth is flat as also a perspective.

[@dopemaster4205]

@@LukeVilent that perspective is proven wrong for this reality that we live in. But could be made into good films. But i don't think Adam's perspective are completely wrong.

[@RM_VFX]

It wouldn't even take an explosion to kill this concept, just one abort or one close call with 1000 passengers would ground this indefinitely. Move fast and break things is not a good approach here.

[@DecepticonLeader]

Explosions have happened plenty in SpaceX history when developing their rockets. Yet they are extremely successful. Moving fast and reiterating the process to quickly find and fix problems, how exactly is this not a good approach? SpaceX have done over a hundred successful launches and sent crews to the ISS on more than one occasion.

[@MyKharli]

@@DecepticonLeader And 50 years ago we were driving on the moon doing doughnuts , your point ? A fifty year old soviet rocket can send astronauts to the iss so whats your point .

[@DecepticonLeader]

@@MyKharli The point is, we can now do all those things better, safer and more affordable than that 50 year old soviet rocket. Computing power equivalent to a calculator those 50 years ago leaves much to desire as well. Have the advances of technology eluded you?

[@MyKharli]

@@DecepticonLeader yes as on every metric air soil water and the environment has got worse whilst idiots think some science fix is going to save them instead of doing what we need to do ..ok ? What advances are you aware of ? bigger tv ? ability to blow anyone up anywhere in 30 minutes ? a vague hope for 2 billion people without access to safe water in 2021 ? come on tell .

[@DecepticonLeader]

@@MyKharli But that's just human greed. Technology is of great benefit to us otherwise we wouldn't know our earth was in bad shape. So tech advances are definitely important. Would you prefer going back to living in caves and zero healthcare? There's a transition period now between dirty fossil fuel related tech to cleaner renewable tech. 2 billion without water isn't a tech thingy, it's a management issue. The 3rd world is full of corrupt governments that rather take the money for themselves than fix their own country.

[@moonbunny24]

This reminds me of a nightmare that I had where there was a ride at Universal Studios Orlando where they used a rocket powered slingshot to shoot you up into space that way the world would look like the Universal logo, but then if the pod you were in didn't land in exactly the right spot because of, like, wind you'd die. That legit sounds like if Elon made a theme park.

[@laifyalif]

this trick can only be done once

[@theamericancristero7390]

I'm reminded of how many times the cold war almost went hot due to one side thinking the other fired. That happened at least twice that I know of, and in one case Moscow saw a launch they thought was from a US sub, IIRC the Soviet leader was told he had 20 seconds to return fire, said he didn't believe the US was that insane, poured himself a glass of vodka, and waited it out. Turns out the memo about "hey we're launching something, it isn't a nuke, don't nuke us" from the US got lost in the channels.

[@Bacopa68]

The time you are thinking of is when a Norwegian weather rocket that didn't get fully registered in Russia spooked Russia in the early nineties. Both Russia and the US got closer than this back when the Cold War was really going on. Worst US false alert was in 1979 when a training simulation tape reel got mixed in with the blank recording reels at NORAD. Instead of recording, this reel uploaded training data to the main screens at NORAD. All US nuclear forces went wild. Command planes took off from Andrews without Carter because Carter had issued Directive 59, loosening of nuclear response from direct Presidential control. Zbigniew Brzezinski had the White House on the phone ready to get Carter to give the codes when SAC Offutt and Canada called in saying they could not confirm the Soviet attack based on local data. Carter was patched in to SAC and did not order an attack. Other closest call is when the essentially leaderless Soviet Union in 1983 got the idea that NATO Able Archer 83 was a cover for a nuclear first strike. They were mostly relying on traffic analysis and it sure as hell looked like the big one, especially since the USSR had been exposed trying to cover up details of the KAL 007 case. Remember, the Soviet Union was basically falling apart at this point. Extremely dangerous time. Worst of all the Able Archer exercise even called for a simulated drill with Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan being fake requested to authorize use of some nuclear weapons. Around this time Thatcher and Reagan had been using their encrypted channel to talk about Grenada, but the Russians only knew there was traffic they could not decrypt the messages. Worse still was that Reagan was in Japan with lots of cameras on him. It was decided it would be insensitive to Japan for Reagan to be interrupted for a nuclear weapons drill, so some minor diplomat played the role off camera. The Soviets freaked and dispersed bombers and subs and brought all missile stations on alert. But they rode things out and realized that their two main human agents were right and that no attack would come.

[@casualguy2991]

That's something I'd say if I launched a nuke. Seems kinda sus

[@corajallen9471]

This isn't the wild west every rocket flight is announced years in advanced, unlike ICBM launches which tend to be, yaknow, suprises

[@GravityTrash]

Wasn't it just literal light particles that the radar misinterpreted?

[@JRexRegis]

@@casualguy2991 I don't think anyone was ready for MAD - it was a theoretical thing you could do but not something that any side would ever. A deterrent. Nobody would believe the other side launched because no human would be that dumb. That sort of environment breeds honesty because there's no point about lying if you're both dying anyway. So both sides trusted eachother when they said "that's not a nuke"

[@russellmoore8187]

What I want to see is a safe modern intercontinental airship. Imagine cruising just a few hundred feet above the ocean for 3-4 days between Europe and the Americas. It would be such an amazing trip!

[@stormisuedonym4599]

Had I billions to play with, that's probably what I'd be aiming at. Fast is one thing, but _luxurious_ is something people will pay for.

[@juliusapriadi]

Yes - as long as the weather is pretty ;)

[@nichsulol4844]

@@stormisuedonym4599 playing too much game elite

[@stormisuedonym4599]

@@nichsulol4844 ... What?

[@paulmahoney7619]

As fossil fuels run out, nuclear airships might be the fastest way to travel in a decade or two.

[@mabster314]

My favorite key feature of a transit system is that it's absolutely indistinguishable from ICBM launches

[@smetljesm2276]

LooooooL 🤣🤣☺️☺️

[@Bacopa68]

Starship would be a hell of a MIRV bus. How many warheads could it hold? Hundreds surely.

[@jinghaoli6340]

It would also interfere with the beyond the horizon radar systems around the world, when a rocket transit system gets shot down by a ABM missile

[@Bacopa68]

@Erre Waser Hey, launching at the same time as a Starship launch might be good cover for an ICBM launch. Starship itself would be the greatest missile bus of all time. It could be a 150 warhead MIRV with a missile bus that could confound all defenses. Is this Elon's true plan?

[@CTCTraining1]

Hmm, yes, I had not considered quite how problematic going off schedule might be. Think I’d better cancel my tickets.

[@mostlyharmfulll2103]

That reminds me of this one Simpsons episode where they showed a future in which garbage cars were space ships that would take off and fly into space just to land in front of the next house five meters away from their starting point. Only that back then that was a joke.

[@thomasjardine2108]

I can't wait to fly on the Cyberpunk 2077 SpaceX ICBM!

[@grmancool]

The Cyberpunk 2077 SpaceX *Blockchain ICBM *NFT

[@thetruckmaster626]

Nah Kim Jong uns already working on that one

[@four-en-tee]

It'll probably run like Day 1 Cyberpunk too.

[@desdearb]

On an interview on Elon he basically said that: expanding is difficult as rockets are classified as advance military technology

[@auliamate]

hmm... i wonder _why..._ could it be the fact rockets are mostly used by government funded space programs for exploration of outer space instead of torturing normal people in glorified missles?

[@dvf1736]

@@auliamate it might also be the fact that rockets are also the premier way of delivering nuclear warheads around the world

[@DragoonBoom]

But I thought Mr genius Tony Stark man could come up with the schematics in less than an hour??? You mean to say he just purchases the technology that other people invented?

[@micha5200]

Cute pfp :)

[@SeraphimKnight]

It often feels like those elon musk ideas are thought up when he's in the shower for 5 minutes and then he sends a one-line message to his secretary so that his companies work it out without any sort of forethought put into the viability of the idea. Being surounded by yes men makes for poor business.

[@thegrandnil764]

This was one of the original reasons he made spaceX

[@TrungNguyen-uf8cv]

It's viable if they determine to, there are few thousands people working on it, definitely more brainpower than an youtuber from nowhere

[@damonknutson2855]

Who cares where his ideas come from? When’s the last time you’ve created a business with a clear mission to accelerate the worlds transition to sustainable energy - and succeeded? I’m always amazed to see people trying to tear down a person or business that’s doing real good. Who does that?

[@chikan9205]

@@damonknutson2855 Nobody cares where his ideas came from. Everyone cares how long he thinks about them. If the buisness's ideas are similar to "lets convert people to light to travel around the planet in less than a second", probably it's not doing real good

[@gordon1201]

You're an idiot. His shower thoughts have revolutionised multiple industries

[@JustaGuy_Gaming]

Yeah the Wright brothers excuse is pretty bad. Yes they learned to fly but even when they had a working prototype it was nothing that was even remotely commercial viable for a long long time. At best it gave rich thrill seekers a short ride of a couple miles or two. Able to carry one or two people hanging on the wings and other such silly things. They also had a working prototype before trying to sell it while Elon Musk seems to keep wanting money, investors and selling his product before is more than a dream on paper. It would be like the Wright Brothers selling international flights before their first test even got off the ground.

[@mahatmarandy5977]

Hi Adam. My dad was part of the Apollo program, and one of the guys that built Skylab, so I come from a space industry family with a fair amount of experience, though admittedly none of it is my own. I'm not saying this makes me a super authority or anything, it just means that I have thought about this a little more than most people, and the mention of rockets does not automatically make my jaw dropped and my brain turn off. I'm a little harder to impress. OK from my research, the idea of a sub orbital rocket transport first started turning up around 1965. It was originally explored by Boeing and MacDonell Douglas and I believe General dynamics although I'm a little fuzzy on that last one. Interestingly their research indicated that the concept was feasible and likely, they thought, would be a huge industry by the mid late 1970s. However they recognized that it only made sense under certain circumstances and on certain routes. For instance to use your example of New York to London: they concluded that that was stupid for pretty much the exact same reason you did. Sub orbital transports were really only useful for hemisphere long flights, or things close to them. So New York to London would never be profitable or sensible, but New York to Sydney Australia, or possibly Los Angeles to Sydney, did make some sense because you could save pretty much a whole day in transit time. They thought that this would be viable, but they did not think it would be universal. Although they foresaw and ability to launch dozens of flights a day, they recognized that there probably would not be financial justification to do so. And there is simply no need to be able to transport cargo that quickly. So they attempted to gain some support from the military, using these kinds of very large sub orbital transports (named Rhombus and Pegasus and Icarus, the latter of which seems just begging for disaster) to rapidly deploy troops pretty much anywhere in the world 1000 at a time in an hour or so. Unfortunately their own studies and the military studies showed a serious liability in this: the ability to do that would be absolutely kick ass, but then you've got a big dumb rocket sitting in the middle of a battlefield completely defenseless and how the hell do you get it back out again? So that went nowhere. A lot of their plans were based on the plug nozzle concept, which is a really neat idea that has not quite worked out. There's no theoretical reason why it wouldn't work, and if it did it would revolutionize the sort of thing, but it's just never really had the money put into developing it. I have never been able to find a solid reason as to why not. The US government has never been terribly forward thinking when it comes to that sort of technology so it might simply be that the lawmakers who find these things don't understand them. But I honestly don't know. In any event, Boeing and all concluded that it would be a desirable but fairly small and fairly expensive market. It would only really work when you had rich people that had to get from one place to another super Duper fast half a world away, and how often does that really happen? Also as you pointed out the noise with a serious issue. So the plans just sort of faded away. It is worth noting that all of these studies involve using cryogenic fuels, hydrogen and oxygen basically, and it was assumed that water would just be sucked out of the ocean, desalinated, electrolyzed into hydrogen and oxygen, and then stored for use in Rockets, generally it was assumed this would be powered by dedicated nuclear reactors that have been built specifically for that purpose. Well this is obviously fairly involved, and requires a huge front end investment, it is vastly vastly vastly more efficient than using fossil fuels. The basic rocket equations show that the lighter A fuel you burn, The more thrust you get, and the more thrust the more efficient and hence cheaper operation costs are. And there is really nothing later than hydrogen. And of course if you burn hydrogen and oxygen your exhaust as water, which doesn't really pollute. Bottom line: if Boeing and McDonald Douglas had been forced to rely on fossil fuel's to power their monsters, they simply would not have done it. I think they've given up the concept now, but for a while there Virgin Galactic was looking at a concept they called spaceship three. The initial spaceship three design was simply an orbital version of the dumb space craft they have now, but one space hotels did not materialize they push that development into a new spaceship three concept, which would be a suborbital transport. Unfortunately it could not possibly carry enough people to turn a profit. The only thing something like that would be really good for is if you really needed to get medicine or organ transplants from one side of the World to the other quickly. If some kid in Australia I needed a heart transplant, and they had a heart in London, then being able to get into Australia in an hour would be a literal and not figurative lifesaver. But again: how often does that exact situation turn up? Assuming you ever actually see this comment, I hope it is useful or at least interesting. It basically points at the same limitations that you did, but it provides more history and a more clearheaded perspective from a time when they likely could have pulled something like this off, but decided not to. Thank you for reading

[@sujalshetty5986]

wow

[@hoangnguyenvuhuy5535]

Is there a tldr

[@javkiller]

The one thing I would add that might make the current starship design somewhat of a change compared to the old proposals is the aim to make it inexpensive through serialized production. Provided you could lower the costs to the point it would be trivial to lose one or ten, then you'd have something you can feasibly use commercially in some environments. I guess we'll have to wait and see.

[@ligma5592]

I did not read any of this in the hopes someone in the comments had summarized. Mission failed boyz, we'll get'em next time

[@mahatmarandy5977]

jav my understanding is that they intend to mass produce them.

[@Bmmhable]

In view of how people are reacting to the pandemic, I would argue that no, we are not "worshipping science". It would be sufficiently good if we were taking science seriously. The problem is that people are mistaken on what science is, don't understand its modus operandi, and that someone like Elon Musk is actually not a scientist.

[@madhavagrawal8303]

Engineers are no less than scientists. The engineers at SpaceX are geniuses! They know about these issues, and are working hard to solve them.

[@8Smoker8]

People are 100% worshipping what they misunderstand for science.

[@Golden_Ghoul]

Elon is just runs his mouth & pretends he came up with the ideas.

[@snarktube]

Many worships 'laws' that we 'know' are 'approximately' correct. We are not as logical as we assume.

[@t.c.b4722]

Musk has an engineering background, but his main job seems to be marketing his ideas to the masses. Some of those ideas are indeed fucking stupid. Some are good. It's up to us to be able to tell the difference.

[@iliketrains0pwned]

3:06 I'm a college senior majoring in Aerospace Engineering. One important detail to keep in mind is that the data shown in this telemetry graph is for an _orbital_ launch, not suborbital. For most rocket launches, the bulk of its fuel mass is used to burn sideways to create a stable orbit at its maximum altitude along its trajectory (called "Apogee"). But for a suborbital point-to-point launch, there is no hard sideway burn at Apogee, just minor course corrections to line up the other end of the rocket's trajectory with your landing site. By minimizing your Apogee and "flattening" the arc shape of your trajectory, you can reduce the amount of acceleration onboard since it can spread the burn out over a longer period of time. In fact, a flatter arc would also mean that the rocket is spending more time burning in a thinner part of the atmosphere, which can increase the efficiency of the engines over the duration of the flight!

[@matteoperron5436]

very good point

[@LeBTrung]

So basically like a plane?

[@iliketrains0pwned]

@@LeBTrung No, not really. Every aircraft needs 2 things to stay in flight: a way to keep it in the air, and a way to move it forward. Subsonic to low-supersonic aircraft use the geometry of their wings to generate the lift needed to stay in the air, so their engines only need to deliver thrust to keep it moving forward. Thus, the more air is available, the more efficiently it can fly. But rockets, on the other hand, can’t use lifting surfaces to fly. Its engines must deliver thrust to maintain both the horizontal and vertical components of its flight path. So, rather than flying with the aid of aerodynamics like a plane, a rocket uses a “ballistic trajectory” to throw itself like a baseball. So, in order to avoid drag as much as possible, a rocket will fly much more efficiently when there is less outside air. In most cases, rockets will make a very hard burn in order to get out of the atmosphere as quickly as possible. From there, without air to slow it down, the rocket can coast along the rest of its arc without needing to make any burns until it needs to change course (such as circularizing into orbit or adjusting its landing site). The faster a rocket changes its velocity over time, the higher its acceleration will be. Likewise, the longer it can stretch out a burn over time, the lower its acceleration will be. But the _amount the rocket’s velocity needs to change_ (we call this “delta-V”) will remain the same whether you make a high burn with a low burn time, or a low burn with a high burn time. And when most of that burn is performed in the upper atmosphere, the lack of drag allows the engines to deliver that delta-V for much less fuel than a short hard burn in the thicker, lower atmosphere.

[@OutbackCatgirl]

Very true, but i think we both can see that even the suborbital flight would have too many issues to be viable compared to other methods not involving rockets.

[@geared2cre8]

Well, when you land you'll have fun changing your pants because the force of taking off is gonna force all that 💩 out Haha Musk = Trump2.o

[@hideshiseyes2804]

I love these videos because they’re so great at showing how the empire just absolutely has no clothes, with proper research to explain it.

[@truth6565]

These videos kinda suck.

[@ZombieLincoln666]

you mean emperor

[@Anonymous-df8it]

@@ZombieLincoln666 Thanks! Now I'm imagining an empire where _no-one_ has clothes!

[@mastermati773]

Why not combining them? ICBM but in under-pressurized tunnel!

[@concon09090]

It's like going to space, but on the surface!

[@petercselik5674]

@@concon09090 Or build it in the space so it will be space inside space

[@devilcwesker5980]

Lmao

[@MrRaulstrnad]

brilliant! ...but dont tell elon that-he would call a news conference and the main stream media would declare him God Incarnate and demand that the government must give him a trillion dollars

[@XxKontraxX]

You have missed the part where no one except for Elon Musk and his friends can really afford this rocket flight

[@immigrantgaming420epic]

So ~1k - ~20k per flight per person is so expensive that only top billionaires can afford it? Makes no sense

[@XxKontraxX]

@@immigrantgaming420epic what I meant to say this is not for normal people, it's for the elites and riches only. I am not anti elitist, not anti capitalist. But I believe that when you have so much money and so many possibilites it's a waste to be creating another useless and counterproductive thing, when you can use those resources to make the actual scientific progress.

[@garou12]

that's probably the point

[@pranavyeole102]

@@immigrantgaming420epic wow so 10-20k is cheap for you? are you a billionaire too?

[@marcinsmogorzewski9091]

@@pranavyeole102 btw he didnt say that, he said it isnt as expensive as to be a thing only for top billionaires, sure a lot of people would not be able to afford it(me included) but still a lot of businessman would.

[@racewiththefalcons1]

"Not even reality or basic mathematics can stop him."

[@Jesus_Offical]

Money Can buy Anything Even That

[@Chuked]

@@Jesus_Offical that rocket travel would be crazy overpriced and kill our atmosphere with debris

[@Guldangut252]

@@Chuked the atmosphere already has a shit ton of debris bruh. That is why there's startup companies to eliminate the trash from outer space. Ofc commercial space travel isn't gonna satisfy you, because it's gonna take years before the cost lowers. And mars, the moon or the orbital zone is gonna be safe with no failures so it's _maybe_ a place to be visited by people from time to time.

[@Chuked]

@@Guldangut252 yeah but the thousands of rockets would create more debris than we already have which would worsen the space debris

[@Guldangut252]

@@Chuked bruh, have you heard of reusable rockets? They come back to earth without that shit. First and foremost, the startup companies launch rockets with robots that takes a group of trash/debris and go back to ozone layer, in which, they'll burn mid air. Same goes with the leftover rocket. They might not have great quality like SpaceX, nasa or Whoever Jeff is, but it's work in progress.

[@vapsa56]

Fuel loaded on a manned rocket is always done with the astronauts already on board. That takes approximately 2.5 to 3 hours to complete. So you have to add that time to the launch. If the launch is aborted for any reason. The feul must be unloaded before passengers can get off. So the passengers would be in that thing for 6 hours during an aborted sequence.

[@stevencoardvenice]

Why is it done that way? I can't imagine sitting in that tiny cockpit in an astronaut suit doing nothing for hours

[@wreckcelsior]

8:23 "thrust go brr" got me my smile for the day. Thanks. cheers Adam.

[@mangalink25]

Only one a day?

[@wreckcelsior]

@@mangalink25 Well, luckily I don't over-stress my facial muscles with frowning. Smiles are like friends; you only really truly have a couple really genuine ones. cheers.

[@vagrantlord]

Was looking for this comment, otherwise i would have wrote it. THX ^^

[@vada3157]

Sometimes thrust goes boom

[@electricshmoo]

I'm loving this... I hated the Hyperloop from the start - I thought: "what happens when you get stuck" and then I had horrible nightmares about being trapped in an underground tunnel. I never heard of this Earth to Earth plan, so now I'm looking forward to nightmares about falling to my death in a malfunctioning rocket!

[@reaperinsaltbrine5211]

Look at the bright side: you can continue watching YT through your Neuralink :o)

[@issan1566]

@@reaperinsaltbrine5211 That's scary

[@magneric]

@@issan1566 What's scarier is having commercials being uploaded to your brain. It's like that episode of black mirror where you can't use a sink without watching a sponsored ad

[@fabianloffler42]

Everyday Astronaut has already run the mathematics of the co2 emissions in a proper way which is not just based on assumptions.

[@betabry42]

In addition, the Raptor engine runs on methane, and while a lot of methane does come from natural gas which is a fossil fuel, it can also be created biologically making it at least potentially sustainable. It is a hydrocarbon though so I will give you that, but it’s also the lowest CO2 producing hydrocarbon that is commonly used for fuel.

[@neolexiousneolexian6079]

@@betabry42 C1H4 has the lowest ratio of hydrogen atoms (turned to water) to carbon atoms (turned to CO2) out of all the alkanes. Renewable production would be great, though. Let's add some reverse cow enemas to all those factory farms.

[@JrCo96]

Well burning methane is releasing the least GH gases out of all fossils, but if you ad leakage during extraction and transport, it comes down on average even worse than coal.

[@CathDamienn1776]

@@JrCo96 especially the fucking transportation of natural gas like oh god

[@archit9169]

1. In future, this could be used for transporting cargo. Human transportation would not be efficient and would be too costly. 2. It probably will use other fuel source aside from methane. Elon switched from normal kerosene based fuel to methane because it could be manufactured in mars. An alternative fuel, like hydrogen if he can build an engine efficient enough for it, will be required for this.

[@ian_wallace]

1:15 - Can you imagine waking up EVERY DAY at 6.30 in new york city to a massive VROOOOOMM from a rocket?

[@HailtotheKiin]

I think you might have missed the biggest issue with this idea: when have a thousand people ever needed to go across the globe all at once? The rocket would NEVER be at full capacity, and it's possible it could never be.

[@Hhhh22222-w]

Forget that, there's the problem of clean up after each launch

[@kirayoshikage4057]

There aren't 1000 people on this planet who can afford to dump about a million dollars on one-way ticket just so they can save few hours travelling in the first place.

[@mrbichr8492]

At this point, most people would rather First-Class Plane tickets rather than to go on the starship

[@kirayoshikage4057]

@@mrbichr8492 Too bad most people can't afford even afford those.

[@grahamstevenson1740]

Similar problems arise with the hyperloop. You might be able (theoretically) to transport 20,000 people every day at high speed between Los Angeles and San Francisco or New York to Washington, maybe London to Berlin even, in under an hour but how many actually need or want to go there. About 10-20 % or so of that number typically !

[@MrJohndoakes]

10:40 The idea of rocket travel from one part of the word to the other was a staple of science-fiction short stories for decades before Yuri Gagarin circled the globe. It sounded more futuristic to have a character go from San Francisco to London by sub-orbital rocket than by airliner. The reality of high G-forces, the higher chances of explosion, the noise complaints, the sheer cost -- that's what is going to kill this concept.

[@OutbackCatgirl]

it's almost as if this is a boomer's fantasy

[@noname117spore]

One small factual inaccuracy in this video: the engine you showed and explained was a fuel-rich staged combustion cycle engine rather than a full flow staged combustion cycle engine. It's more like an RD-0120 or LE-7 rather than a Raptor. The Raptor has 2 turbopumps not connected by a shaft; one for the CH4 and one for the O2. To spin the turbopumps, they actually run all of the CH4 and O2 going to the combustion chamber through the pre-burners, with one running fuel rich and the other oxidizer rich. It should slightly improve efficiency and also allow for engines with higher-cycle lifetimes, given that the turbopumps are run cooler. Raptor I'd the third such engine to be tested and first to achieve flight, and I will agree, its a pretty impressive engine. One other thing I have to bring up in regards to the ferry is that it's definitely possible to go beyond 27 knots, as your ferry was doing. Some trimaran and catamaran designs can hit faster speeds; I know there's been civilian designs in the high 30s to low 40s of knots and a military design hitting more than 50 knots. But even so Earth to Earth Starship is such an unsafe transportation idea which would be limited to only anyone who could ride a Rollercoaster in terms of potential customers. Starship is far better used for launching (non-human) mass into space cheaply, and maybe recovering old equipment if they get a robotic arm.

[@merlin9657]

I agree. Also methane isn't necessairily a fossil fuel as it is implied in the video, since you can also produce it with renewable energy through the sabatier process. However, that could impact the cost and you need to be really careful not to vent too much methane cause its like 25 times as bad of a greenhouse gas than CO2

[@noname117spore]

​@@merlin9657 The issue with that is the sabatier process takes energy, and any clean energy which could be put into that process could instead be put into shutting down existing goal and gas plants, and overall reducing our reliance on non-green energy rather than just adding on an additional energy-sink which doesn't have an effect since it's green anyways. From the pollution aspect of using it like a long distance airliner, so far neither analysis I've seen on this has convinced me it would be significantly worse than long-distance air travel. This analysis had some significant math issues with it, and also assumed a cross-Atlantic flight, when a cross-Pacific flight or alternatively a flight going between 2 opposite points on the globe would be better. Thunderf00t did an analysis that had it at 2x worse than a long-haul airliner (6x with additional factors), but forgot to increase the capacity from 100 people. At the higher end of claimed capacity, 500-1000 people, suddenly that claim looks environmentally friendly. I don't think Starship will pollute less or about the same as a long-haul airliner, but it does seem to be within the realm of possibility that it could, at least without a more thorough analysis. -plus every time one crashes it removes the remaining pollution produced by somewhere between 100 and 1000 people, so it has that going for it in terms of environmental friendliness. - But yeah. Still dangerous. Still limited in audience. Still difficult to make economically practical. Still probably not going to happen anything close to as advertised.

[@merlin9657]

@@noname117spore Yeah, saving energy by not doing those starship flights in the first place is also certainly an option xD (like you said, that saved energy could then be used to faster reduce reliance on coal/gas plants, thus fixing the bigger problem first). But I still think its worth to consider that methane can be manufactured and burned carbon neutral, because then, the argument is more about the amount of energy requirements and usefulness of the transport system rather than the about the emissions like in the video. What I dont get is why you refer to this as an "energy-sink which doesn't have an effect since it's _green anyways_ " . If the starship system is fueled by natural gas, then I don't think it would be "green anyways" (cos of CO2 emisions). Do you mean a different application of the sabatier process than starship? Do you mean something different when you say that something is green? I agree with the rest. probably won't happen in the near future if at all, especially not like it is being framed by the animations. Also nice joke :)

[@noname117spore]

@@merlin9657 What I was saying in regards to that was that their plan involves capturing C02 from the atmosphere as well as water (presumably from the ocean) and converting that into their CH4 and O2 using solar power. That was what I was kind of arguing against.

[@merlin9657]

@@noname117spore Thats also what I assumed you were talking about. I wondered why you then referred to it as an energy sink that is "green anyways". When you use the system with the most likely alternative, meaning natural gas (fossil fuel), it has a considerable amount of emissions per lanch which I wouldn't consider as green. And if thats the case, using the sabatier process to make fuel would actually have an effect, since its ideally carbon-neutral, unlike that alternative. As I said, I agree with you that right now, instead of investing in such a luxorious, expensive transport method becoming green, we should use that renewable energy to first get fundamentally independent from coal. But in the end, rich people are probably still wanting to fly in their private jets (or this starship system for fast transport, although unlikely), and so eventually, one should make those carbon-neutral too (carbon tax + market will probably make that happen).

[@vincentguttmann2231]

I don't see the problem... A genius way to get rid of the rich!

[@catsarereallyfurryaliens]

Absolutely LOVE your character assassination of Musk,so refreshing to have a realistic interpretation of this future world fantasy shit! Loved the Dubai video EXCELLENT work Dont stop putting your views out Please give an analysis of Apple and Google! Look forward to that!!

[@ci6516]

It’s honestly dumb . This man thinks we’ve reached peak evolution and that humanity won’t advance past current limitations. This has always been the attitude of arrogant scientists . That their generation is peak generation all has been learnt already . All the assumptions this man makes in his videos is with current technology and procedures . The whole speech on security checks and checked luggage is laughable . Yeah because there’s nooo way to get passed security checks for billionaires . It’s a stupid video . Even on a plane today tsa has a speed lane and ppl don’t get checked if they’re a regular traveler . All the assumptions this man makes and u guys just eat it up and agree “technology will never grow past 2021” “ a plane designed in the 1960s will be what humanity uses for thousands of years to come “ Yup This goes back to every visionary who gets blasted by the community . It could saying the earth isn’t the center of the universe , to other scientists it’s simply impossible to go against status quo. You know da Vinci had blueprints for flying devices way before they occurred. These inventions may not happen in musks liftime but to say their mathematically impossible is just fucking false. Humans get smarter . Idk why that’s hard for ppl currently living to understand. Evolution moves forward not back

[@Ripcraze]

If people had realistic interpretations we would still be living in caves, what this reached is just the peak of his own mind.

[@Kyle-gw6qp]

@@ci6516 Nah. There is a difference. Yes, dreamers invented flight. But dreamers also tried unsuccessfully to gain immortality by drinking mercury.

[@omgitzangrygaming7904]

@@Kyle-gw6qp doing nothing make nothing change it’s all about the risk and finding out. If people didn’t risk themselves at sea making proto boat we wouldn’t have modern naval capability that we have. Long story short risk need to be made for innovation. If I might ask how do we know which berries are poisonous or not

[@Kyle-gw6qp]

@@omgitzangrygaming7904 Right then. Do us all a favour and test wether or not bleach is poisonous then.

[@edoedo8686]

And I thought I was just a crazy 66 year old dude, that worksout too much. Yea, I so agree with this. Don't get me wrong, I Iove the old Star Trek, and interstellar exploration fascinates my old soul. That said, I have big issues with the classism of elites and the conflation with science. I wish these elites would solve Homelessness with science, how about that?

[@austinfernando8406]

6:58 what about the time taken up by making sure all the people who passed out are ok, and also that they _just_ passed out and not away?

[@tulangkerangka1599]

I dont know why this is so funny lol. Passed out and not away lmaoo

[@alkaholic4848]

10:13 "Not even reality or basic maths can stop him" 😄 It's round about the same absurdity level of all his other claims, but yeah this one probably takes the crown.

[@hungryhedgehog4201]

Ah yes an out of control rocket hitting a major city what could go wrong

[@FSXgta]

Liquid oxygen is confidence inspiring...

[@MidnightSt]

Musk: No, it wasn't an accident, it was a successful test of passenger delivery closer to their destination!

[@rbbery]

spacex flies over the ocean, and they are forced physically to do it, so it would be a small chance of the rocket actually crashing into land

[@keith6706]

@@rbbery Then they have a small problem with their promises, don't they? Look at the list of cities where they brag about flight times. London isn't on the coast. Toronto is beside a large lake, but it's in the middle of some of the busiest airspace in North America. Paris isn't on the coast or even near a large lake. Delhi isn't on the coast. Singapore is on the coast but it's in the middle of the busiest freaking shipping lanes on the planet. Johannesburg, not on the coast. Zurich, not on the coast. So tell me, how the hell are they supposed to fly to bloody _Switzerland_ by flying only over water?

[@rbbery]

@@keith6706 the animation came 4 years ago the design has changed alot since then

[@MarcLombart]

"On the surface the hyperloop isn't so stupid." But, isn't it supposed to be placed underground? :)

[@williamhuang8309]

That just makes it even worse.

[@schrodingerscat1863]

Hyperloop is not feasible, it is talking about having tubes miles long 2.5m diameter under almost complete vacuum. Where to start with this from a physics perspective. First it would be incredibly dangerous. If the tube lost integrity at some point you would have a wall of atmosphere rushing in at supersonic speeds. The energy in that would destroy anything in the tubes at the time. Second how do you pull a near vacuum on such a large internal volume, it would take months to pump the air out of even a single mile of tube let alone hundreds of miles. Third how do you build a tube hundreds of miles long that can withstand expansion due to heating and cooling but is also capable of holding a vacuum, it really can't be done simply enough to make it practical. In short it's a stupid idea that should have been dismissed after 5 minutes of consideration.

[@lunchbox1553]

It's a stupid idea anywhere. If there's a breach in the hull, that would turn the Hyperloop car into a jelly jar.

[@afqwa423]

The other thing about the Wright Brothers is that I've seen the footage of flying machines that actually looked like flawed, but otherwise workable prototypes made by other aviators. They actually did fly for a little bit and clearly were on the right track. It wasn't a singular visionary, some of them actually knew what they were doing, even if everybody else were fools. Elon Musk is just rich enough to afford people who have some idea of what to do.

[@katrinabryce]

You probably shoot a rocket from London (well somewhere off the Essex soast) to Tokyo (or somewhere off the coast in Sagami Bay). If he throws enough money at it, he will probably manage that bit. Will he get enough passengers to cover the running costs? No.

[@matthewsharp1178]

Most people with the smarts to figure this stuff out don't have the drive or imagination to do it by them selves, that's why people in history like Elon exist, bring the right people together and be the person pushing the ideas forward since everyone else is content sitting on their ass waiting for their life to be over

[@afqwa423]

@@matthewsharp1178 Elon Musk is an unqualified LARPER. None of his proposed "ideas" has thus far yielded any results. Dunno why you thought unironically pushing him as some visionary on a channel that bashes "Great Men" was the idea that you had.

[@matthewsharp1178]

@@afqwa423 wait wait wait whaatttt? Lmfao have you heard of Tesla? Do you use PayPal at all?

[@matthewsharp1178]

@@afqwa423 also I'm confused, I was agreeing with your original comment lmao, not sure why you felt offended by that? Good luck living with so much hate dude, I bet your successful aren't you

[@OldHatIdeas]

I got goosebumps when you described Scientism accurately in one sentence.

[@henriconfucius5559]

Not very accurate, as it is just a straw man that has nothing to do with the definitions most widely used by it's proponents and the philosophers who study it.

[@lilmane1070]

Yeah that wasnt even close to the definition. It doesn’t require that someone “not understand [it, nor] follow any of its principles”. If you go by that definition, then you’ve let >90% of scientism-ists get off scot free. Yes scientism is a huge problem among Elon & his fanbase, and the two also happen to often not follow/understand science. That doesn’t make both conditions for scientism, and their scientism doesn’t just disappear when he says something not flat out scientifically impossible.

[@udbhav5079]

NASA astronauts' training is of 2 years and our boy Elon wants to send regular Joe on orbital flights.

[@Thirty9tea]

Not to forget that nasa astronaut candidates were mostly experienced aircraft test pilots

[@stefan6347]

Regular Joe Generic Ben Normal Alex

[@isac.2h]

@@stefan6347 Average Steve

[@user-vt4hd8hb4v]

And he wants the BFR landing near cities. Like it's not loud at all.

[@udbhav5079]

@@user-vt4hd8hb4v Musk sells future dreams to fuckin politicians, arts and law peeps. I have never seen any serious engineer endorse this bs.

[@hmrdev-billnye8166]

This idea of earth to earth is something you'd see discussed in 1950's or early 1960's

[@grahamstrouse1165]

Or on my middle school trapper keeper cover...

[@donnel5516]

I always appreciate when someone is willing to point out absurdity.

[@crankychris2]

OK. Paying over $1000 per share for TSLA is totally fucking absurb.

[@Tommmmmmmmmmmm]

Glad he’s not afraid to call out Elon. Given that Elon fans are the most immature bunch out there and will bombard anyone with negative things to say about their almighty idol Elon.

[@falafeldurum2095]

Most of his arguments are dumb and most of those "problems" are overdramatized. This video is just pure Elon Musk hate, not intelligent criticism.

[@Dream146]

isn't it amazing that all the worlds problems happen to be able to be "solved" by products this guy happens to sell? When I see Elon Musk these days I can't picture anything but the monorail salesman from the simpsons.

[@battlesheep2552]

Isn't every company like that, I swear every promo made by every company ever all but says "the future will revolve around our concept, and it will be so much better because of this". Seems unfair to single out Elon for this behavior

[@XaFFaX]

I think you also forgot in your section regarding logistics about fuel - you need to fuel the rocket, you typically do that at the very end when rocket is ready for takeoff, so another probably hours to do this. Also there is a matter of getting the fuel to the rocket located 20 miles from the shore... So yeah, wonderfull idea.

[@AimlessSavant]

Not even considering how touchy you have to be with weather conditions. Just dealing with atmospheric weather is bad, but add onto the fact you'll need to launch a Starship from an ocean platform!?

[@szymonrutkowski6257]

I like that literally every single aspect of this idea is fundamentally flawed and it's still being advertised as a totally possible concept even by SpaceX's representatives.

[@zolikoff]

Capital investment scam. It's like what "startups" do on Indiegogo, except this is at a larger scale.

[@trzykawki]

@Nat20 Damage I don't think going to Mars is bunk. We will go there and I believe sooner rather than later although not for another decade or two. Colonizing Mars on the other hand is a total bullcrap. It is the next frontier that we will explore but the promise of colonizing it or making that into a capital investment is undeniably a scam.

[@guiagaston7273]

"we carefully select our investors" is what the spaceX boss lady said. Meaning: "we only want investors dumb enough to believe this shit and will never go public and actually be accountable for this BS"

[@MyKharli]

Its called marketing , the product is irrelevant if you can get funded . It wont last long, reality takes care of itself .

[@osirisapex7483]

At absolute best, it would only be used a few times by a couple of rich jackasses who think first class is too cheap

[@laurenbastin8849]

Elon: “I am a visionary dedicated to saving the environment with my electric car company” also Elon: “planes annoy me so I want to travel around in fucking rockets” I’m beginning to think he isn’t actually going to save the world from climate change

[@justifano7046]

Do rockets and planes have tbe same levels of the same kinds of pollution?

[@DerrickCartercosmostravels]

we have save the planet and begin expanding off world now. there is no one or the other its both or die out.

[@zeeeone]

They plan to make the methane from co2 collected from the atmosphere, therefore making it technically carbon neutral. Making the fuel just requires carbon dioxide, water, and energy CO2 + 2H2O -> CH4 + 2O2 Ultimately this makes it as carbon neutral as whatever generated the electricity to make the fuel.

[@azureprophet]

No individuals, especially billionaires, will save us from climate change.

[@athanasiospapazoglou7310]

@@azureprophet If billionaires were at least rational they would try to preserve the exploitative system that amassed them this wealth but they aren't .Guess they gonna have to find out the hard way that money doesn't get you anything without a sosciety .

[@thebighurt2495]

1:54 Oh good, more Space Trash in low earth orbit. Guess we truly are headed for straight for the Wall-E timeline.

[@weekiely1233]

There’s no trash there mupet