Genius! SpaceX Starship Refueling method, never seen before...

[@dionysus2006]

Rockets don't have turbochargers that consume propellent. They have turbopumps that pump propellent. One thing that isn't talked about much is the turbopump has to pump propellent into the combustion chamber at a higher pressure than the pressure created by the combustion. Otherwise it would flow backward. Turbopumps see cryogenic temperatures on one side and combustion chamber temperatures on the other. A true miracle of engineering !

[@rodentnolastname6612]

Actually, the turbo pumps consume a small amount of fuel. Well, the engine that that powers the turbo pumps consume the fuel.

[@clavo3352]

This is a really important clarification. Thank You. I wonder how strong a pipe conduit has to be to transport LOX and Hydrogen or other rocket fuel in space. Could plastic pipe do it? No, because no atmospheric pressure would make pipe rupture easier. There must be some way to punch a pressurized cylinder into high orbit so it can be cheaply and reliably towed into outer space. Nuclear steam cannon maybe?

[@rodentnolastname6612]

@@clavo3352 atmospheric pressure is only 14 PSI. Your fuel transfer pipes wouldn't have to be much stronger to compensate. For comparison, a bicycle tire is usually 30-40 PSI over atmo pressure. Dropping the tire pressure to 20 psi and then putting it in a vacuum chamber and it would be just fine.

[@clavo3352]

@@rodentnolastname6612 So, as a former welder I remember picking up oxygen bottles made of steel that were pressurized to about 2,200 psi. I get your point that the 14 psi of atmosphere on that scale is negligible. Oxy bottles as they are, are pretty aerodynamic. So there's little to improve on. No tubing, or piping design to make getting a big blob of rocket propellant out into space.

[@TheWizardGamez]

That assumes the engine is closed cycle which historically, most haven’t been

[@TexanUSMC8089]

Once the standard Starship prototype becomes operational, they can build dedicated reusable tankers. They'll carry far more fuel than the standard Starship because they won't have any cargo bays. It'll be all fuel tanks. I could see an arm to refuel, similar to what's used on the launchpad. It can extend and retract after fueling. One or two tankers can remain in orbit, and three or four can be used to keep the tanker full. The cost will be relatively low because all Starships and Boosters are 100% reusable. The only cost would be Oxygen and Methane.

[@henkvandenbergh1301]

Poor Bezos "too many launches for refueling". SpaceX: 200+ launches. Bezos: 0. Sorry, even people as smart as Elon can't divide by zero.

[@solifugus]

I've never seen any evidence suggesting Elon is particularly smart. He has inspired and pushed a lot of highly intelligent engineers to do amazing things but he, himself, has said and done a lot of really dumb things. I think that's the real key, though. It takes a moderately dumb person in charge with resources to to push those who otherwise know how challenging such feats really are.

[@Karl-Benny]

The More you try the more dumb thing`s will be done it`s how we learn from our mistakes that matter@@solifugus

[@TexanUSMC8089]

@@solifugus It's funny how some people can call a person dumb who went from having no money to being the wealthiest person on Earth. He didn't get there by being dumb. LOL

[@StarATL]

This begs to be said then, I wish I was as dumb as he is. PayPal, Tesla, SpaceX, StarLink, NeuraLink, etc. Billionaires still say stupid things.

[@raeraeella6426]

It's amazing how easy it is to belittle others mistakes and so hard to celebrate others achievements

[@garryowen5110]

SpaceX absolutely can do this. When? That is up to the regulators controlling launch permits.

[@MagicToenail]

its up to feasibility

[@gameb1te]

dont get the Union Jack bit??

[@TheDripSpotter]

My word the waffle for the first 2/3’ds of this could easily be done away with!

[@michaeldemarco9950]

Personally, I believe are sticking with what gets to orbit Hass to go to the moon type. Lunar exploration is dead wrong. The starship is great to get to earth orbit, lots of tonnage to earth orbit, but from there, I think the ISS is the way to go. Modulized ships that go from the Earth to the moon is the way to go once starship is an orbit. It’s kind of stupid to refuel it and send it to the moon unless it’s a one-way cargo trip.

[@ChuckHolland-i4b]

It be cool if they had a belly to belly docking bay. You could connect two fully fueled Starships for the trip to mars. Or connect several together to make a space station.

[@mustang607]

What if SpaceX made a three stage reusable rocket?

[@Karl-Benny]

who knows I'm sure it`s been on the drawing board

[@anthonybellmunt3103]

Maybe what Space X can use, is a once off stretched Starship NOT made of stainless steel (using aluminium or carbon-fibre) to act as an orbital fuel-depot. A sun-shade would be a must! It could aslo be stripped of wings, heat-tiles, landing struts, etc. You might be able to fuel Lunar Starship in one go!

[@michaelmurphy6195]

The fact that refueling in space has never been done, never seen before!

[@techmap9]

Exactly! Starship will be the pioneer

[@markmaz56]

The ISS gets refueled all the time. In space.

[@michaelmurphy6195]

@@markmaz56 How?

[@markmaz56]

@@michaelmurphy6195 Both Progress and ATV spacecraft deliver propellant to the ISS. The Service Module uses storable dinitrogen tetroxide and unsymmetrical dimethylhydrazine propellants. The propellant is transferred through ports on the docking interface.

[@spacecoyote6646]

The Mir space station was refueled by the Progress cargo module

[@kevinbissett293]

If anybody can pull it off. Elon can!

[@Karl-Benny]

And his team

[@templartone5181]

For such a brilliant man, this is totally impractical ! We need to explore electro magnetism propulsion or nuclear propulsion.

[@parthasarathyvenkatadri]

What I don't understand is if the saturn v can take people to moon without refueling ... Why does a starship that has similar power need to refuel ...

[@mauricegold9377]

Saturn 5 dumped practically all its stages into the ocean, or left them in deep space. It could carry 45 tonnes to lunar orbit, and 130 tonnes to LEO. Used only once per launch. Starship by contrast is totally reusable, being able to lift 150 tons to LEO, but at that point with only enough fuel to land safely back at Starbase. It requires refuelling in LEO to get to the moon. BUT.. having done so, it can then land 100 tonnes of cargo or people on the moon, which could include habitats, heavy mining equipment, food, water, breathable air etc. The Apollo Lunar Lander was small, and light, enough for two standing astronauts, a few cameras, an electric buggy and air and food for a few days. That was fine for the late 60s-early 70s, but not now.

[@ctraltdel6510]

Now youre thinking pal. Heres a hint: we didnt go to the moon.

[@jcoghill2]

I would prefer the tanks contain either methane or LOX but not both for safety reasons. They shouldn't even be stored near each other. As important as the fuel depot is I wouldn't expect the wait to be to long on that.

[@konradcomrade4845]

What about developing a humungous orbit_lifting_tractor tug with electric Xe+/Ar+/Cl- _ion propulsion ( CL is an abundant nuisance on the surface of Mars, so using it as ion_proulsion exhaust in planetary space would make economic and environmental sense), capable of pulling or pushing two (coupled ) starships to higher orbit, while they do the refuelling? It would need be enormously powerful, but with such high specific impuls it would be amazingly efficient and reusable over and over; built for just this one purpose: to double the orbit height, while the starships do their refueling. The tractor would be easily in range for any necessary repairs or periodic maintenance of the ion propulsion drive(s). Then the LunarLander or the Marsship could start their journey(s) from a higher energetic earth orbit, saving fuel! Any ideas about the necessary power generation/transmission for such a machine? Lasers onto solar quadruple_density_thin_film_panels? This "Enterprise Class" (from Me, a fan's endeared reference to Star Trek) Tractor may be a huge bird, limited only by the density and risks of space debris inbetween these orbits. Nuclear power gen may be a possibility, but I think it is a bad/unsafe/unreliable idea in low earth orbits. Reactor technology always/most_times is fun and advertises big promises at the beginning and gets messy at the end of the reactor`s lifetime! Russia, China, and USA shouldn't invest too much in this dangerous tech, and prevent other nations from pursuing that either, especially the so characterized Rouge And Religious Nations! Engineers are not the "Bertold Brecht's"-dwarfs of Goliaths.

[@mladend]

I am not sure about the vizualisations where Starships are joined laterally while oriented in opposite directions. It would prevent firing the main engines on both vehicles, unnecessary, IMHO.

[@TexanUSMC8089]

They probably wouldn't fire engines when they close. They could use maneuvering engines that use tank pressure to separate before firing main engines.

[@stgeorgeist]

slim down SN second stages stra[p on extra solid boosters if need alter top half to hold fuel or oxygen or supply haulage cargo. craft meet mothership oppersit sides huge pods with fuel oxyen or supply pods pods attach at diferent sides of fusilage. supply rockets close up and renter to refit with new pods. in space shape size is of no detriment hinderace. mu;oitple ships can also link into a better place to live and maybe spin for weak gravity simulation

[@LuKaZz420]

Never been done before

[@rkhyden1950]

Remember, with out SpaceX, we'd be sitting on the ground.

[@spacecoyote6646]

Hmmm. Star fuel capacity: 1200 tons. Starship payload: 100 tons. So. 12 tanker trips to refill a starship in orbit.

[@AdviceAdvanced-ph2yq]

GO SPACE X AN WORK CREW,,‼️

[@BonnieWilson-xu5vd]

Try lower top to bottom down

[@rseyedoc]

Ice has been found on the moon so the focus should be mining and refining fuel on the moon where it would be much easier and cheaper to deliver to lunar orbit. Or eventually mining asteroids.

[@TheMoneypresident]

And when that has been used up, it's gone. As air and water it can be recycled for people on the moon.

[@TexanUSMC8089]

We can't focus on mining on the moon until we have vehicles to haul mining equipment there. Starship is the next step in the human space flight ladder.

[@solifugus]

I have long believed that we really just need one deep space mission to kick off human expansion into the solar system. That is a 5-year mission to the outer edge of the main asteroid belt and back with vast amounts of water ice. It could be easily collected into large bags and hauled back to Earth orbit. It would then provide not only propellant for many more missions but also radiation shielding and life support. This one mission would provide hydrogen, oxygen, radiation shielding, water to drink and grow food, and swim, and bath in. After this, you could launch inflatable vehicles that rotate for artificial gravity. Inside, side dried compressed soils pre-implanted with select vegetation. Water and the soil expands and the plants grow. It only takes 1 meter of water to block all cosmic rays and the radiation from solar flares. It will also block micrometeors and even someone larger ones. This one mission would rule them all. It would reduce the cost of settling any body or vessel, opening up opportunities for mining for precious metals in the asteroid belt or manufacture on the eclipsed edge of Mercury, for example. Mercury is tidally locked to the sun so one side always faces it and is scorching hot while the other side is always dark and ice cold. The edge between provides extraordinary energy production potential while the dark side is very rich in heavy metal ores. Can you say, shipyard?? Further, Mercury is very close to us.

[@Jolly-Green-Steve]

Dude you hit the bong way too hard. Go take a nap and come back to reality.

[@konradcomrade4845]

Isaak Asimov is hitting the Bong much harder! This is not so bad. What about assembling an iglu-spaceship out there in the asteroid belt and bringing it back (with outer thermal insulation to keep it cold in the sunlight) ?

[@Jolly-Green-Steve]

@@konradcomrade4845 genius!

[@konradcomrade4845]

@@Jolly-Green-Steve Ahh, thanks for the compliment, but I am really a neglected engineer, whose (several important) inventions haven't been paid for in time! Now I am old. The powers-to-be shouldn't think they can profit from confiscating!

[@BonnieWilson-xu5vd]

If they can refuel in air on military jets so why not space

[@kennyfordham6208]

Because military tanker planes use gravity to pump the fuel to the other plane. In orbit, the fuel just hangs there. There's no gravity to move it to the 'bottom' of the tank. Normal pumps won't work.

[@TheMoneypresident]

Common sense skeptic has a video

[@TexanUSMC8089]

@@kennyfordham6208 They don't use gravity to pump fuel to rockets on the ground. I'm sure they'll have some electric pump to transfer fuel in orbit. Internal tank pressure should be enough. If they can start engines in space, they should be able to refuel.

[@kennyfordham6208]

@@TexanUSMC8089 Yes, they use gravity to pump fuel, to the rockets, on Earth. In the ground tank, gravity causes the fuel to go to bottom of the tank. The pump (at the bottom of the tank) provides the suitable pressure to send the fuel to the rocket. The tank, in the rocket fills up, from the bottom to the top. Have you seen those ISS videos, where the astronaut empties a bag of water? The water forms a sphere and floats around the station. The same thing happens to rocket fuel, in orbit.

[@BonnieWilson-xu5vd]

What gets me this isn't me

[@jamesbarnette4350]

bro the awkrad spacing with AI voice is awkward as hell

[@techmap9]

I will improve this, thanks

[@ohtoah]

Stop using Chat gtp to write your script, it sucks.

[@techmap9]

I didn''t

[@robertbrander2074]

14 Times ?? ...... That's 15 BF Rocket Launches for Musk to go to the Moon ! ... That's Insane ? ... And before that , they have figure out how to do it ! ... While they are still trying to just learn how to Launch the MOAB ! .... What a Lark ! ... This SpaceX is more like a 3 Ring Circus ..... :-D

[@TheJrstout]

Your robot talks funny.

[@spacecoyote6646]

What happens when Tesla stock comes back down to earth. How will Elon fund all of his good ideas

[@sendintheclowns7305]

How many time must you beg viewers for subscriptions and likes in one video?

[@MikeMW87]

Efficient :) 🤣

[@charlesspringer4709]

Nothing to see here except the amusing errors by the AI voice reading the script.

[@thinkingoutloud6741]

If you refuse to respect your audience with a human voice, you need to at least write your script to fit the limits of your robo-reader. And a test read would help you. Since you don’t do even that much, please don’t consider me a member of your audience. This video is my first and last.

[@techmap9]

We will try to improve this, thanks

[@-campteq-359]

Use your own voice... And I'll start watching you again.

[@per619]

"Never before seen" clickbait title. Your animation may be redone but this is all 100% old news. Won't be back.

[@kreelaban3420]

"Partially fueled spacecraft' ? Many inaccuracies in this click bait.

[@techmap9]

We will find more about this. Thanks your feedbacks

[@davidgardner9346]

Why is a UK flag in the background when talking about Bozos?

[@1fastal1]

That is stupid...JUST USE SIDE BOOSTERS!!!

[@kenmacallister]

The synthetic narrator is oddly halting, puts pauses in weird places, and pronounces acronyms in unusual ways.

[@techmap9]

We will try to improve this, thanks your feedbacks

[@-campteq-359]

Stop with the AI Voice... Be a man or woman and speak yourself.

[@cbgardenmaryland]

They make good animation ,,, but starship may never land on the moon. Not in this decade anyway

[@techmap9]

Why not?

[@frankmcgowan9457]

So far, he has provided good service for cost. As long as he's spending his own money and that of his investors, let him try. Getting federal agencies to do their necessary oversight in a *_timely_* manner will also necessary.

[@cbgardenmaryland]

@@techmap9 look at it. Do you think it can land on a soft surface without tipping over? If it gets lucky and does, what are the odds of it lifting off and making orbit again?

[@cbgardenmaryland]

@@frankmcgowan9457 i believe it isn’t his own money. NASA has given him millions on this pipe dream, i would not be surprised to see the star ship program canceled

[@robobloxgamer524]

@@cbgardenmaryland If NASA believes in starship, I guess SpaceX has everyone fooled except you, and maybe Bezos.

[@Remorpho]

this is cool but we should focus on fixing our problems on earth before spendings millions and billions going into spacxe for billionaires

[@TexanUSMC8089]

Here we go. LOL Do you think we should stop building cars, or TVs, or cell phones, or computers until we fix all problems on earth? How do you think we get GPS, TV and phone signals? From sats in orbit! That's what funds SpaceX to launch 100 rockets a year.