How to FLY the SPACEX STARSHIP! 

Some of the comments add a ton more info though that I did not think of so be sure to read those as well!

Oh yes the sim is set up to let you explore inverted flight during hyperbolic, entry, etc. The sim is there to let you experiment. As for the cable, you get 6 months of 1-G for basically zero fuel cost, and you worry about dis-assembling it a day or two before landing? No way: Not a concern compared to the benefit!

@@austinmeyer WRT cost & benefit - the major issue for humans after flight is actually vestibular system readjustment to gravity -- few days of microgravity messes it enough. But the cost of artificial gravity system is much more than just a cable and hooks: radiation shielding design is messed up, thermal design is messed up, your comms system is now more complex and fragile, your navigation system is more complex and fragile (to manual backup anymore), solar panel design is changed, setup is risky and hard (previous in-space attempts of various wire systems had roughly 50:50 failure rate). It essentially means major redesign of the vehicle. Anyway, Elon explicitly said they are not going to do that. NB. ISS missions are half a year with some nearly full year and some of them ended up with 7.5g reentry (if Soyuz guidance systems fail and they sometimes to, they use backup procedure which ends up in fully ballistic reentry) - so we have a strategy to deal with return to gravity after 6 months of microgravity. The drug + exercise regime works reasonably well to keep astronauts healthy. And artificial gravity doesn't solve other problems like radiation. Spinning actually makes radiation shielding less effective (significant fraction of charged particle radiation comes from the Sun, so so called shadow shielding works reasonably against it; spining messes up shadow shielding)

@@SebastianKaliszewski " spinning messes up shadow shielding" ...You can spin with shadow shielding... the normal vector to the plane of rotation simply points at the sun.... shadow shielding un-affected... imagine rotation with heat-shield bellies always turned to the sun... shadow effect not compromised... system is neutrally stable with no energy input of any sort to maintain it... unless gyroscopic precession starts altering the plane of rotation... not sure if that even HAPPENS with 2 masses on a cable.. feel free to do a youtube video laying it all out...

@@austinmeyer You then need a new shield along the side of the spacecraft, then (or expose the crew to increased radiation). A side of Starship crew cabin is bigger than its base so any added shielding is less efficient per area. And you get no benefit from shielding provided by thrust structure, methane header tank, main tank bulkheads, floors, etc. Those provide 30-40g/cm^2 of shielding (and methane header tank provides >100g/cm^2 but it's pretty small and far away from the cabin). 30-40g//cm^2 is probably good to go without adding much more. While, on the side you have about 8g/cm^2 -- the rest you must provide separately.

@@SebastianKaliszewski oh yah you have to shield maybe half the walls instead of all the floors... may indeed be more shielding...

It's not even as preposterous as it seems, they need to hang it from the nose for stacking anyway

@@zchris13 Nobody says it's preposterous. But the idea that it doesn't cost you anything as Austin says is not accurate either. It will cost you the weight of the steel cable and the mechanism to tether two Starships together. Because it has to be very strong, it will be a great deal of mass that has to get to orbit, which means less mass for your human cargo. Nobody knows what that trade off will be until the Starship is at least in the 3rd phase of testing. So the tether idea is a good one, but very unproven at the moment.

oh good!

Yep, and I'd be wanting three separate cables in case the other two broke, otherwise you'd be flung off into deep space forever

Yes, suicide burn is also saving fuel. But for SN8 particular case, according to NSF they will use one engine for the flip, and then two for the rest of the burn

@@alvianchoiriapriliansyah9882 Oh I didn't know that, thanks. The rest of the logic still applies; more than one engine.

i haven't dived into that yet...once i did thos emars missions, i just was not that excited about coming back to earth....

you can toss a link to it here in the comments i dont mind!

Yah I have about 2 months in it I would say... but I just HAD to see how this thing would fly!

I think you would need to mount the human in a gimballed enclosure, such that you were not spinning relatively to each other. a bit like a Ferris wheel.

The longer cable, the better. Why? Because the longer the cable, the less the motion-sickness possibility from rotation, because the rotation rate is lower.

I can answer the bit about energy; for a given radius and a target 'gravity', you end up needing to hit a certain RPM. This RPM has an associated tangential velocity, which is equal to the delta V necessary to spin up or spin down. For example, if we wanted to simulate 1 g with a 500 meter tether, we would need an RPM of about 1.3 and end up with a tangential velocity of 70 m/s. The total delta V necessary to spin up and then spin down later is therefore 140 m/s, which is totally doable. Also, this radius should be big enough to eliminate pretty much all of the nausea-inducing effects of living inside a centrifuge.

@@sycodeathman Exactly! The longer the cable, the less the 'living in a centrifuge' effect. Delta-V is negligible compared to space flight, and when you impart it once, you enjoy 1 g all the way to mars!

Hey... those fins are, without question, PLANES (the definition of PLANE is pretty clear!) and without question they PLANE through the AIR! I rest me case! Also after 35 years of flying I can't call it anything else.

Oh yah and i spend more time FLYING it on the PLANES than GUIDING it when in rocket mode in this app sooooo.........

Well there ya go then!

I don't think the solar arrays and radiators will be able to handle 1G when deployed.

@@silenterection They do OK on the roof of my house right now......

3d printed by a 3d printer

In short yes. Long answer: vacuum raptor was successflly fired on Earth at essentailly sea level pressure. It can't be throttled, though on Earth. Mars has low enough pressure that practically any vacuum engine could be fired.

I BET IT MIGHT BE, because the atmo pressure on mars is soooooooo low! i don't engage the engines, but maybe i SHOULD????? if anyone figures it out let me know!

@@austinmeyer Simple way of thinking about this is considering that over 100x less pressure means that over 100x higher nozzle expansion ratio vs sea level engines could be tolerated. For example 1:15 Merlin cold tolerate over 1:1500 expansion nozzle on Mars. Raptor which is around 1:40 at sea level could go beyond 1:4000 before ambient pressure on Mars would become a problem.

@@SebastianKaliszewski right of course... i should engage all 6 engines on mars to save time (and fuel, with less time spent 'hovering' against gravity)... will do app update that does this... i just treated the term 'vacuum engine' as gospel without considering how close to vacuum mars is

@@austinmeyer From PoV of rocket engines 20km up is pretty much vacuum. A side note: Vacuum engine test stands don't produce perfect vacuum, they produce pressure more or less like 30km up -- which happens to be pretty close to Martian surface).

OK.. show me the math! I would love to see the supersonic drag equation for both cylinders and planes! Give me a link and I can roll the improvements into the next update for sure!!! But, of course, I need a link to experimental dat with proof, not just a vague mention of 'different drag'. I always code X-Plane to experimentally-proven data for constants like these, so I need to see the experimental data and proof.

The Starhsip hop tests have been done with one off-center enginge. So it's not totally impossible.

They will use one for flip, then two for the rest. And again, SN5 & 6 hop proved that the thrust vector control is totally capable for off-center

Yah the way >>I

@@austinmeyer So will the next update have a throttle control option to manually hover?

@@playerjeblemontea1568 I dont think so cause it will be impossible to land.. .trust me i have tried

@@austinmeyer what if we do it in KSP style control or add it in computer edition if there will be? :)

For 1G, exactly enough to lift the starship on hold it on Earth. Not an ounce more, not an ounce less.

@@austinmeyer I used to log back in the 70s'. I could break a 1.5" steel cable pulling in a big log. The idea sounds great. But I'm still curious what size cable it would take.

@@phillipzx3754 Whatever size cable it would take to lift the rocket up on the pad and put it on top pf the booster. Not an ounce more. Not an ounce less. Enough to suspend the rocket under 1G. No more, and no less.

I’m not entirely sure this adds up, but I think one of the big reasons for creating artificial gravity is so your astronauts stand a chance of thinking during the 5G braking manoeuvre. If that’s the case, while they’d be better off with 0.3G than 0G, the reentry G-forces are now ~17 times what you’re used to. With a 1G spin, it’d be 5 times what you’re used to. That’s still a lot; I’d want to lift weights on the way there to be able to move my arms during that, and to remain conscious I’d want to be sitting flat against the acceleration. But it’s a lot more likely I could do it than if I were trying to do it from 0.3G

I cn get back to the pad! You gotta hold the nose up by tilitng the pad back to you, rotate the pad AND HOLD IT left or rite to aim the nose back to the pad, then lower the nose a LOT to glide like a plane, then pull up as you approach the path you left going up... i can get back to the launch pad! kind of tricky but can do it!

@@austinmeyer Not gonna lie... Not sure I understand what you just said 😅😂

@@MrRaph1260 did you watch the in0game mission-2 "BRIEF" video that i made to show how to do mission 2?

@@austinmeyer Just did ! Thanks now I understand much better... Basically has to do a 180 degrees steer while skydiving

Ships so close would have to spin lots faster.... vomit ensues. And, connected at the tail, as the song says "oh what a feeling.. dancing on the cieling"

@@austinmeyer Agreed, but, I think the bigger issue would be making sure each ship had equal mass to prevent an uneven spin that would throw them off track or have to constantly corrected. Everything aboard each ship would have to be accounted for mass wise and be perfectly even which is why they probably won’t attempt that idea although it is favorable for the physiological issue you brought to light.

@@austinmeyer Assuming two equal masses, to feel 1G acceleration even at only 1RPM wouldn't it require an 1800 meter cable (900m radius)? I'm not a mechanical engineer, but I imagine there might be some problems trying to keep a long cable under a constant tension. I suspect there might be problems with oscillations - a cosmic twang ;-) If the radius were only 50 meters (the length of a Starship), then they'd rotate every 15 seconds. However, so you don't look out the window you wouldn't actually be aware you were rotating, constant rotation shouldn't produce vomiting when everything around you is moving in the same frame of reference. As for the ceiling - it's all relative isn't it? If it feels like the floor, then it's the floor. Might be a good place to experiment with "how much G force is enough to maintain bone mass, though better to try on the way coming home". Great program BTW.

@@CandyInAPinata that's as easy as a vertical weight and pulley system.

@@VerisonMember Is it though when your end goal is just to get to Mars? Every pound counts and costs hundreds of thousand of dollars.

look at the g-meter in the sim... in the sim its' labelled as earth g. my discussion in this video is in earth g as well.

OOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! OK good we have a bet then! (the off-center thing is all true... but I just don't think it MATTERS as much)

@@austinmeyer could you please do an analyzation of the sn8 landing?

@@softb I mean i KIND OF did, in the mission video in the sim, and the sim itself... did you download x-plane starship and watch the mission video for mission 2?

A SpaceX engineer from the SN9 mission said that the landing burn would be conducted with only 1 engine seconds before it crashed. I do believe the off center thing could be very minimal since the engine itself can just move around how it wants to, to correct it, plus if that was so, then SN5 and SN6 would have landed very strangely.

@@OortCloud landing didn't look quite like I think most of us expected. At this point I'd neither call it a one nor three engine landing. More like a three-two-one landing.

A few notes: -Look at the first test-flite: It was done with one engine. No roll control from the engine was needed. -Look at all falcon-9's: They all land with 1 engine. So single-engine ops are normal... or crap my airplane only HAS one engine! :-O So yes there is a safety-loss, but it has been judged acceptable in many cases. They COULD use 2 or 3 of course... BUT would have to be that much more accurate with WHEN they light up to make sure they.... still MAKE IT TO THE GROUND BEFORE SHOOTING UP AGAIN! :-O

@@austinmeyer Ok.. you are right.. yes, seem that is possible to do roll because they are offset from the center, if that is the case then not sure how the roll is achieved on the falcon9, maybe they use the cold thrusters in that case, because I can not imagine how to roll with one engine in the center (of course it could be a way, I am just ignorant about it). Thanks for the reply.. great work!

@@angellestat2730 Oh yes you can roll with 1 engine since it is offset, that is true. BUT, it will cause pitch and/or yaw as well... which is NOT going to be the same as the roll you want just by luck. so you wind up not being able to use it for roll since it would mess up your pitch and yaw

3-d printed by a friend of a friend... now we can 3-d print... i guess any shape

I guess I'm thinking it need not be many tons... just a cable and some connectors... assembled with space walks at the beginning, and dis-assembled at the end of the trip... i dont think a cable need weigh many tons... the existing reaction control system could be used to get the spin going...

OHHH wait... see my comment in the video description I just added after thinking about your post... I forgot that the ENTIRE SHIP would have to be strong enough to hang from a cable under 1 G! The nose would have to be strong enough to literally hang the entire ship from it, the structural loads being carried all the way through to support the entire ship at 1 G! Hmm... that might add up to tons after all... it's a whole new structural requirement not existing on the ship as designed right now: I bet they have NOT designed the whole ship to be hung from its' nose under 1 G!!!! ;-P Wow this video is stirring up a lot of critical thinking and bringing up things I missed!

@@austinmeyer Don't forget that the ship has to be able to be stacked by a crane (hooked up to its nose) on Earth to the top of its booster before the launch! So they can use the same ports if they want a tether articifical-g

@@alvianchoiriapriliansyah9882 Oh yah cool! BUUUUT... now we have to carry the WHOLE SHIP (not just the nose!) from that crane! Argh! (BUUUT, we only need to do it when the fuel is MOSTLY empty)

@@austinmeyer I'm talking about the entire ship, not just the nose. And this is literally the process that has to be done for every single ship that will go to orbit (because of the booster). And after Trans Mars Injection the fuel is indeed almost empty anyways (only a little bite reserved for landing) I have added a timestamp here for stacking animation ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-0qo78R_yYFA.htmlm2s

UNSURE! We are still cranking on V11 to get vulkan/metal working perfectly, but are without question cranking on next-gen X-Plane stuff as well behind the scenes, to roll in when the time is right. It makes sense for Microsoft and X-Plane to release on alternating years or so, of course, so there is something new every year or so, and that type of schedule seems fine to me.

@@austinmeyer i have a aircraft suggestion for X-Plane 10 mobile can you add the Boeing 787-9 Dreamliner to mobile please this aircraft is much requested but can you please add it if you can or not

@@Geo001yt oh yah i like that plane and want to add it but we have to do some airbuses first to get those... so we are doing some airbus work now and will do dreamliner some day i hope cause i think that plane is really cool. its just all a matter of what order we do stuff in of course.

@@austinmeyer alright and the 777-200 needs a rework and and the a320 needs one to and we need working airport gates

@@austinmeyer oh and why does X-Plane 10 mobile have to always download

No, people who like this stuff use PCs for anything that isn't just making a phone call or looking at memes in a toilet.

@@kazioo2 okay