While the Starship test flight will likely have place monday april 17, this super-heavy space launcher still suffers from many shortcomings. At least that’s what it says “Shenanigans and lies in the land of the Starship”a video essay by Stardust – The Air & Space Channel.
Videographer Vincent Heidelberg begins by recounting the nightmare experienced by the population of Boca Chica Village (Texas, United States), where SpaceX settled in 2009: closed roads, noise pollution, fires, pollution, inhabitants pushed to the exit , all against the backdrop of very significant tax benefits.
In addition, when the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) authorized SpaceX to operate in Boca Chica Village in 2014, the company was not expected to conduct prototype tests there that could lead to explosions.
In addition, in 2019, the FAA approved the launch of Starship in the small town on the basis of data provided by SpaceX mentioning three engines and no booster, while Starship embarks, at the level of its first stage, the Super Heavy booster containing … thirty-three engines.
Elon’s Ark takes on water
Vincent Heidelberg then criticizes, with the help of ecology researcher Matthieu Mulot, the idea defended by Elon Musk that it would be possible to live on Mars with the help of Starship. The planet is indeed uninhabitable, for several reasons: temperature, atmosphere, radiation, soil…
“To live” there would therefore be to be there “locked up in bunkers” constantly. Otherwise, no resources on site appear usable, which would make humans entirely dependent on cargo ships from Earth.
Moreover, says Matthieu Mulot, the terraforming of Mars, so sending animals and plants there is science fiction. He also reminds le concept de «population minimum viable»that is to say the “minimum number of individuals of a species needed in a place for it to persist”. Highly variable from one species to another, it has often been estimated at around 500.
We should add that species are interdependent and form extremely complex ecosystems that are dependent on their environment. The challenge therefore appears pharaonic.
starship grazer
Since 2017, Elon Musk has also presented his project as a possible ultra-fast alternative to long-distance flights, which would allow “anywhere on Earth in less than an hour”.
But if a Starship flight lasts about an hour, the whole trip (controls, boat to floating spaceport, boat from landing point) could easily reach six hours, which makes it unattractive compared to a classic three-four hour flight.
Finally, the launch must preferably be made towards the west – without land in the east, for security reasons –, from the sea and towards the sea, and can therefore only serve cities that meet all these criteria.
Not to mention the intense acceleration suffered by passengers, the sensitivity of rockets to weather conditions, the risk of banning overflight of certain territories (like the Concorde), the fear of the passengers associated with the acrobatic maneuvers of the rocket (in particular the belly flop), etc.
flying coffin
Security is also the last problem of Earth-to-Earth Starship manned flights («earth to earth»). The rocket has no backup system (!). If the booster explodes, the trajectory is diverted or the engine fails, no parachute is capable of slowing down such a ship.
Unlike a shuttle or an airplane, Starship is also unable to hover or land in the event of a problem. SpaceX has not made agreements with other platforms for landings in the event of a glitch and its rocket cannot be piloted manually.
Finally, landing in belly flop goes through a long phase of free fall leaving very little time to deploy a possible ejection system – which does not yet exist on the rocket.
All of this would make Starship “the most dangerous manned spacecraft ever designed”, according to Vincent Heidelberg. Which recalls in passing that NASA imposes backup systems on all its shuttles from the Challenger (January 28, 198) and Columbia (1is February 2003). And if the American space agency has chosen Starship as a lunar lander – a use that is obviously more suitable – it is now seeking an additional solution.
Moreover, the question of the oxygen refueling – and in flight – of the Starship rockets is still not resolved. Finally, Vincent Heidelberg criticizes the argument that a “reusable” launcher would be more ecological.
To be profitable, the Starship must fly much more, therefore consume more fuel, to put more objects in space. Gold, “Why would we need to launch a million tons of stuff into Earth’s orbit every year?”.
