The scariest thing about using the Star Ship for lunar landing is, in my view, stability. You will be landing on an unprepared surface, at least the first time, and this thing is tall. Also, since most of the fuel/oxidizer has been consumed the CG of the vehicle will be relatively high. These concerns are so obvious that I am sure the SpaceX engineers have thought about the potential issues. I wonder if it might be a good option to place the fuel/oxidizer tanks above the crewed section and separate them before landing. Just thinking out loud.

You guys do realise SpaceX will need to launch at least 15 Starships to execute the Artemis III lunar landing.

@adriank8792

8 күн бұрын

Yeah, everyone knows that. Orbital refueling is one of Starship's best features. Once SpaceX perfects it, this rocket will be more reliable than the Falcon 9 while also being far more capable

@moonlander03

4 күн бұрын

Do you really believe the Artemis will be able to launch anything to the moon.. being well underpowered compared to the starship…. Those rockets are out dates and pretty much useless for Modern missions.. they need to let space X cook and handle business.. Nasa needs to retire and create a new XNasa.. instead of wasting money for junk.. 🤦🤦🤦🤦

@Vector-879

3 күн бұрын

So how did they do it back in the 60s with only 1 fuel tank or whatever???? It’s 2024 lols

@moonlander03

3 күн бұрын

@@Vector-879 do what.. fake the moon landing.. they barely had power to launch small satellites or probes that’s it.. ….

@neomatrix3612

3 күн бұрын

@@moonlander03 100% agree.. NASA is just kept running to pay peoples salaries. They didn't keep up with the times.

The important thing about Lunar Starship, as opposed to any other possible contender, is that when you land 100 tons on the moon, you're not just doing it for show. _That is what you need to do if you're serious about staying._ If you're interested in the smoke and mirrors approach, you send up a small craft and say, "There, we're back." You can't proceed beyond that point if you don't have a way to get some serious mass to the moon, so literally every other craft that's ever been proposed to land on the moon is _only_ good for Apollo-like spacewalks and flag planting.

@tdn4773

Ай бұрын

Yes, but China will land first, plant a flag, and claim the entire south pole and dark side for China.

@douglascunningham6319

Ай бұрын

We had a moon buggy but yeah I get your point. But a week. Not 6 or 8? As a cargo delivery maybe. But darn expensive for a week. Need tobe settings up gardens for air an food. Remote control construction machinery.

@lagrangewei

Ай бұрын

starship-gateway plan is actually bullshit, because there is no refueller capable of maintaining its operation. the "gateway" is not going to have enough fuel to refuel it. if they are serious, they will just delete the gateway and buy more starship to serve as refueller. at this rate i am putting my money on China actually doing more stuff on the moon. if you waste your entire budget on the gateway, you ain't doing shit on the moon.

@craigmackay4909

Ай бұрын

I’m interested if Elon would take tunnel boring machines 👌🏻

@subvind

Ай бұрын

@@craigmackay4909 that sounds awesome

Being alive during the original space race would have been so amazing. But honestly this second push for space exploration is also very exciting. Each eras engineering was impressive in their own way

@digitwidget

Ай бұрын

It WAS amazing. Contemporary space geeks would've LOVED it. I STILL geek out about it, watching my DVDs of the Apollo missions or viewing the missions here on KZread. I was the perfect age for geekdom when the Eagle touched down (not yet 15) and consider myself fortunate to have been around to see it.

@ronaldgarrison8478

Ай бұрын

I was alive then, more or less. (Age 17, just for full disclosure.) Saw the whole TV coverage. It was cool. But would I go back to then? No. Totally a no-brainer. No need to even think about it.

@nelsonlanglois9104

Ай бұрын

Yeppers it was 👴 Von Braun was the Elon Musk of his Time... The Saturn V was his Baby but that was only after alot of failures . Redstone , Gemini Astronauts and Appollo til July 1969 and Neil Armstrong & Buzz Aldern landed

@tomheeks2830

Ай бұрын

@@nelsonlanglois9104 😂no, von Braun was a very talented engineer. Musk is a vaporware selling conspiracy clown 🤡

@oryjen

Ай бұрын

I was. And didn't know it was a lie.

I love to see before i pass on . I enjoy the first landing

@leotimtom6637

Ай бұрын

You will not see it. They couldn` do it then, they can`t do it now. Van Allen belts , space radiation and bremstrahlung will fry them.

Recently couple of moon landers have tipped over during the landing process. And those objects were not as tall as starship is gonna be. On an uneven lunar surface i can not get my head around how are they going to successfully do it…

@raytrevor1

Ай бұрын

Agree, they will need a very flat, smooth and hard surface to land on. Seems unlikely! The Apollo 15 lander was at quite an angle on touchdown.

@azkavanny3077

Ай бұрын

Thats because. Its a new system. Not what nasa or india use. That use ai

@Ed-eq8ui

Ай бұрын

I have exactly the same concerns. This seems way more complicated than Apollo ever was. A tall spindly lander, 10 launches, rendezvous, and dockings just to fuel one flight to the Moon???

@davidsandy5917

Ай бұрын

That is a concern I have as well. This is not about the technology of the lander so much as it is about the irregular surface of the moon. Nevertheless, if we see a problem the engineers at SpaceX have also seen the same thing. If it were me, and it is not, I would consider placing the fuel supply towards the front of the space craft so that it would be mostly empty upon landing, thus the vehicle would be more stable.

@imconsequetau5275

Ай бұрын

@@davidsandy5917 The recent landers that fell over had *_significant 2 mph sideways velocity_* at touch-down. They didn't just tip over, but literally tripped on the rough surface. It's the fault of the guidance system and/or horizontal velocity sensors. (Really was an operator error!) Once the guidance system is precise enough to totally zero that horizontal velocity, the base does not need to be wide. You could instead use vertical legs that conform to the irregular surface and hold the craft plumb. For Starship, I expect legs will use a hydraulic / pneumatic system, shared between all legs with a common accumulator/pressure tank, and clamps for each leg extension. The ship needs -vernier- landing thrusters near the top to maintain true vertical until the legs lock in place. A hydraulic ball valve for each hydraulic leg piston might close as well for redundancy. The accumulator would provide spring action and damping.

So many possible points of failure. All these launching, docking, refuelling maneuvers alone. It could fail while docking or refuelling at the last maneuver, then they'd have to start all over again... honestly, that sounds so unnecessarily risky to me. I hope it works out fine, but i have my doubts. This is going to be very interesting!

@Hobbes746

Ай бұрын

it’s risky, but we have no alternative. If we want to have 4 people on the moon for 30 days, that’s 20 times the payload that a Saturn V could put on the moon. If you wanted to do that in a single launch, you’d end up with a rocket that weighs at least 20 times the 3000 tons of a Saturn V.

@jackprier7727

Ай бұрын

Destin, of "Smarter Every Day" addressed exactly your many points--a must-see video about this complicated {probably insane} hocus-pocus approach being far too risky in so many ways-

the cinematic videos are thecoolest ones

@SebastianWellsTL

Ай бұрын

Facts!

It will be interresting to see this huge structure resting stable in the dust of the moon surface.

This is SUCH a good video! Kudos to The Space Race team!

Never give up on producing such high quality content

I was a young man during the Apollo era and it was an amazing time. Seemed like a science fiction movie come true. Although that was an amazing time, and we did amazing things, the next 5 to 10 years will be something that none of us could ever had imagined. Sit back and enjoy the ride!!

Sooo they are crossing the ocean in a rowboat and then a cruise ship will meet them and bring them to shore

@zachb1706

Ай бұрын

😂 The 2 astronauts who have to stay behind on Orion will be a big jealous

@corrupted123

Күн бұрын

Yeah but the cruiseship is too heavy and doesnt have enough fuell to bring them back so they need to go back with the rowboat

If the landing fails, I'm going to have even more respect for the NASA engineers of the 60's and early 70's than I already have.

@PatrickCebron-yg8jg

28 күн бұрын

Fool

@JJ-yg1sf

13 күн бұрын

Respect for Holley wood actors

A return to the moon in this decade is extremely unlikely. Space X progress has actually been glacial considering the size of the task and how much of it remains to be completed.

According to Neil Armstrong, it wasn't money NASA lacked. It was courage and focus. Best wishes

@troothhertz6297

Ай бұрын

Niel also said ET told us " Don't come back "

I love this style of videos. The visuals and narration is top notch. You make things easy to understand. Please make more.

Very good, liked the detailed explanation. Helped me understand the mission profile.

At least once a stable touchdown, preferably more.. Imagine being the astronaut touching down and the rocket tips over and lands on its undock hatch.

I can't see them doing all that this decade

@richardbloemenkamp8532

Ай бұрын

I heard plans launching 6 starships in 2024. I'd be surprised if we see more than 3. One flight to the moon would take 10+ starship launches. So I guess you are right. Anyway it will depend highly on what the Chinese manage to do.

@mervstash3692

Ай бұрын

Probably struggle before the end of the next one too

@IamMaximumFury

Ай бұрын

If the people in charge have your attitude, they definitely won't.

@mervstash3692

Ай бұрын

@IamMaximumFury probably a good chance to go checkout what miricales they need to overcome to be ready for the Moon. Landing the 2 stages would be just the 1st of 100. And we are still many flights from achieving the 1st still.

@IamMaximumFury

Ай бұрын

@@mervstash3692 I dont believe in miracles. I believe in Elon Musk.

At best this is not possible before 10 years, 50 years or so for a realistic scenario.

Nice job. Up to date and lots of good info. Gonna click the ol sub button.

Another very interesting video from The Space Race. An elevator with guide rails and moon dust - hopefully the astronauts won't get stuck halfway down or up because the fine crystalline dust has clogged everything.

Nice work 👍

So, they've made it 10 times more complicated than Apollo ever was. Got it.

@ToiletThatRamsPeople

Ай бұрын

Starship is at it's earlier design tho. Some things might change

@Ed-eq8ui

Ай бұрын

That is exactly my thought. Seems like a rube goldberg approach. 10 launches to fuel one trip to the moon.

@imconsequetau5275

Ай бұрын

Once Starship is reliably delivering 100-200 tons to orbit in a single launch, there will be plenty of spacecraft (of that mass) that can directly leave LEO and land on the Moon. But they will be far smaller.

@mervstash3692

Ай бұрын

​@@imconsequetau5275that will be tough when it's only big enough to carry 40 tonnes

@imconsequetau5275

Ай бұрын

@@mervstash3692 You already know the current Starship payload capacity of 40,000 kilograms is temporary and will be scaled up on subsequent models.

This video just comfirmed to me that the Chinese will reach the south pole first 😢

@Peter-ox8lj

23 күн бұрын

We are the righteous innocent people, we will win always

@jagtanjy

21 күн бұрын

@@Peter-ox8lj INNOCENT??? Palestinian’s blood on your hand by your country’s backing!!! It ain’t innocent no more…..as once upon a time.

Will they fix the DUST PROBLEM before landing on the moon?

Outstanding presentation!!

You forgot to mention that the apollo lunar lander had a second stage just for ascent, and that was protected from damage in a rough landing. The spacex lander, beyond being the wrong shape for a lander and a lot heavier than necessary (and therefore more likely to have its engines damaged on landing), cannot afford any damage to it's engines on a rough landing. It's a terrible idea, I hope it doesn't cost lives.

@davideyres955

Ай бұрын

You also forgot to mention that starship dosnt have an abort eject system. Any failure and your dead. He talks about SLS which went to the moon. Let’s just think about that. They went to the moon and SpaceX has yet to complete a mission. It’s not even got to orbit. Oh and if you think SpaceX could have done anything with out nasa your tripping. SpaceX would have gone bust as they are burning money they don’t have. Starship is idiotic for landing on the moon. You’d need a lift to get off or on the surface. Lift breaks and you are on the moon and you are dead. Even the SpaceX lander they’ve been paid a ton of money to develop is a joke and only got funding because one person signed off on it without the appropriate oversight who then left nasa and now works for who? Yeh SpaceX. Let’s face it, SpaceX is yet to do anything like the Apollo missions.

@hermeticxhaote4723

Ай бұрын

​@davideyres955 you took the words right out of my mouth. If they insist on pushing through with this nonsense people will die.

Great video. Would have loved to hear about the space suits they will use.

Ultimately, I believe there will be separate vehicles for Earth-LEO-Earth, Earth-Lunar Orbit-Earth, and Lunar Orbit - Lunar Surface - Lunar Orbit. It doesn't make sense to haul around so much extra mass in the bottom half of Starship to go to the Moon or lunar surface. Different vehicles will be more efficient. 😎

@2150dalek

Ай бұрын

I think DreamChaser would be a good Earth-LEO-Earth....to ferry astronauts to an orbiting Lunar Ship (once it's fueled & ready to depart.)

@douglascunningham6319

Ай бұрын

Needs tobe turned into a video game platform an updated regularly. Farm out some questions an problems. Add some incentives an or recognitions for work. Get the world involved. Space Legos. Isn't minecraft or city build like that somewhat?

@zachb1706

Ай бұрын

Or maybe building a single vehicle that can do all that and is fully reusable is cheaper. That’s really the goal. You’ll also need a large rocket than can do all that in one go to get to Mars.

@rogerphelps9939

Ай бұрын

@@2150dalek DreamChaser will be a failure. Just watch.

@rickace132

Ай бұрын

Yeah, that's what the Apollo Engineers ultimately did. They were thinking about going the Starship direction, but decided it would make more sense to land in a small lunar module.

Honestly is sounds cheaper and more efficient to just make something like an improved version of the Apollo Luner Lander until gateway is up and running but I could be wrong.

@toastedmatt9387

Ай бұрын

Ya but you’d need Starship anyway if you wanted to have a permanent lunar presence, which is what they keep saying Artemis is all about. There aren’t other options really, if we ever want a permanent moon base then we need Starship or something similar that can deliver 100 tons of cargo.

@hilarybrown2271

Ай бұрын

Honestly old concepts would be better than starship like convair nexus and star raker to make space infrastructure to make space freighters

@hilarybrown2271

Ай бұрын

@@toastedmatt9387 yes like the old concept named convair nexus could carry 4000 tons better than star ship

@rickace132

Ай бұрын

That's what China is doing.

@imconsequetau5275

Ай бұрын

The permanent lunar base needs thousands of tons of infrastructure and supplies; Including "earth" movers to bury the habitats. Best to deliver that cheaply with Starship.

Imagine it tipping over, while you're sitting in the top of it... Nearest help is 400000 km away..

How are you going to build the landing pad? What machinery is SpaceX needing to move rocks, level the soil, and compacting it down? Right now, this top heavy vehicle might topple over landing on a boulder or a pad sinking in soft dirt (doubt those thrusters would keep it level once the fuel is exhausted)….and at the same time, the engines might get damaged by flying dust to large stones disabling it. No repair stations anywhere. Sure I would love SpaceX to succeed but these KZreadrs are missing A LOT of details and fail to think this through.

Did the Apollo moon landing also need 10 refills? If not why not?

@MattNolanCustom

Ай бұрын

Compare the mass of the Lunar Starship and the mass of the Ascent Module from Apollo and you will have your answer.

@tholo86

6 күн бұрын

Because there was never a landing in the first place

@MattNolanCustom

6 күн бұрын

​@@tholo86yawn

5:07 You mention the fuel transfer was successful. Do you have a source? I've not been able to find a credible source that says it was actually successful. Just that it was attempted and results were to be confirmed.

@kennyfordham6208

Ай бұрын

Same here. I can't find any evidence of a successful fuel transfer. 🤔

@SeaTacDelta

Ай бұрын

@@kennyfordham6208 Just curious what the results are, good or bad; progress is progress.

@bbartky

Ай бұрын

@@SeaTacDelta This! Of all the things that happened on the third Starship test the thing I want to see the most is how the refueling test went. My understanding was that NASA and SpaceX would have joint press conference to announce the results but I have seen anything like that yet.

@thorin1045

Ай бұрын

the main issue that even if it was successful (as nasa did not come out with any problem, it was probably done without failure) it was within the craft. from one tank to the other. it was the same when the apollo cmd moved the oxygen from one tank to the other for balancing and less than what the progress and other cargo spacecraft do when it refuels the iss, as those pump stuff between crafts. so at best it is a first step in a very hard road, at worst a nothing burger.

@SeaTacDelta

Ай бұрын

@@thorin1045 actually it is a pretty significant test. Cryogenic liquid transfer has never been done in space. Apollo didn't transfer oxygen between tanks. The tanks were stirred because the cryogenic liquid had a tendency to freeze and not read correctly on the gauges. Progress doesn't use a cryogenic fuel but rather Unsymmetrical Dimethylhydrazine fuel and Nitrogen Tetroxide oxidizer. So yes, the transfer was to occur between tanks in Starship, but it has never been done before in space. It is a key requirement for Starship, but also for the Artemis missions. If it worked I would expect NASA and SpaceX to shout it from the roof tops.

I can't imagine NASA not asking for a manual override to the lunar descent sequence, in case automation fails

Great video 👍

I think that this is the best video I have yet seen on NASA's and SpaceX's collaboration on the Artemis human moon landing program - thorough, yet succinct, and well-illustrated! I will refer people to same who are not already familiar with the Artemis Program. Well-done! I wanted to point-out some additional, ironic facts about Orion's/SLS' "cobbled-together" design from "Shuttle leftovers": that Orion's service module was contracted to Airbus, not an American manufacturer; that the design of said service module is largely-derived from the European Space Agency's out-of-production Automated Transport Vehicle which transported cargo to the International Space Station from 2008-2015; and that Airbus incorporates left-over Shuttle Orbital Maneuvering System (OMS) engines into said service modules as their main propulsion. I do believe that NASA is doing its best to stay within-budget - and trying to "spread the costs" via the Artemis Accords. I do question the video's statement that Lunar Starship will NOT have manual controls. While the default landing mode will no-doubt be automated, I am sure that Lunar Starship will have manual controls for redundancy, just as the Crew Dragon does for its missions to the International Space Station (and just as astronauts are trained to perform manual dockings with the ISS as a back-up, should the automated systems fail).

How did the Apollo spacecraft make it to the moon and back without 10 refills before leaving the Earth? Sure the overall spacecraft was smaller by about 25% byt other than that? Is the crew compartment and instruments so much bigger that will be landed on the moon?

@ifldiscovery8500

Ай бұрын

I am telling you this Starship shoe in method to get to the moon is a scam.

@Unknown-oh6ue

Ай бұрын

15 tons vs 100 tons. That’s a huge difference when it comes to space travel

@hermeticxhaote4723

Ай бұрын

​@@Unknown-oh6ue40 tons, Starship was just announced to carry 40 ton payload, not 100 tons anymore.

@rogerh1658

7 күн бұрын

good question，Ur smart❤😂

Remember how SpaceX announced a flight by the Moon by 2018 even selling the tickets. And sending humans to Mars by 2024.

High quality content 😊.

these videos are great

There’s no way I would be a first timer of space stuff watching that cut about starship and not be interested in it bro! Too exciting

So why did the Apollo only need one rocket vs ten refueling for the Artemis missions?

@skyportal

Ай бұрын

exactly what i was thinking!

@rogerphelps9939

Ай бұрын

Something like 100 tons of cargo delivered to the surface of the moon as opposed to practically nothing. That is the theory anyway.

@azkavanny3077

Ай бұрын

More payload

@skyportal

Ай бұрын

@@rogerphelps9939 thanks for the reply!

@Unknown-oh6ue

Ай бұрын

The lunar lander was 15 tons. This is 100+

This is such a cool video!

Hopefully the 17 missions to refuel the starship in LEO, which has never been attempted, work flawlessly and the clouds of lunar regolith stirred-up by landing or takeoff from the moon of the huge ship don't wreck any engines.

@patrickfox-roberts7528

Ай бұрын

I think we can predict the answers to those points.

I like that what speed are we traveling speed Ludacris? 0:53 😂

4:28 Elon have said that the current Starship design can carry ~50 tons not 100-200

Excellent video. One small correction: Artemis 3 (and the later Gateway missions) will use a near-rectilinear halo orbit, not distant retrograde. Artemis 1 used DRO, Artemis 2 will just be a fly-by on a hybrid free-return trajectory, but later missions will all use NRHO.

Yeah, thank you for explaining this. It’s hard to explain to people the history of how NASA had to use the space shuttle design to build. Their new shipment was required to use the same tanks.

This is such a complicated and cumbersome plan that will end happening the same as with the sample return mission that should have brought the samples dropped like poop by Perseverance, they will cancel it. A simpler and smaller lander should go with the orbital module in the SLS, like in the Apollo program, that way you could expect Artemis to follow the schedule.

Putting too much into the military and not enough into avoiding war all together. America has an issue with preventative measures!

We need to deploy the Gateway Station which can be done with the next variant of Orion. I think it's the block B variant which carries significant cargo. A trip to the moon at this time will not be practical because we still cannot keep people there on a permanent basis. That's what the gateway is for. Other types of equipment can be landed separately on automatic as well.

@rogerphelps9939

Ай бұрын

Gateway is both pointless and unnecessary.

Moon surface is uneven, instead of landing legs they should use a Bean Bag that will compress & conform to lunar surface

@azkavanny3077

Ай бұрын

Yes.but First. The moon gravity is low Second. Bag need to be big

What about planning a little closer date, such as three years from now...🎉

No manual controls? What could possibly go wrong?

How about the first landing be with supplies that robots move away from the lander so they won't be damaged by the nearby launch? It also tests the natural surface.

I wish this mission explanation included getting the two person crew back to Orion, and explain the fate of the HLS Ship. Does it return to earth orbit to be refueled and reused?

Seems like tying the Starship down to the ground all the way around after landing, would be a good idea.

Only Ariemis I used a distant retrograde orbit. Future missions will instead use a near rectilinear halo orbit, which is what you were actually describing.

Pretty nest graphics and animations.

Can’t wait…

Wondering how those Apollos carried so much fuel to the moon..

What happened to the podcast on iheartradio?

The SpaceX craft makes ever so much sense as a ONE-way freight lander.

The Artemis missions are using a Near Rectilinear HALO orbit - specifically the 9:2 L2 Southern NRHO - NOT a DRO, or Distant Retrograde Orbit. That is the retirement orbit of Gateway after the Artemis program, and where the Orion capsule was tested. However, it is not where any of the human landing systems, Orion, or Gateway will reside during the program. Your animation was correctly showing an NRHO, but incorrectly labeling it as a DRO.

11:12 Why not use a flywheel powered gyro to stabilize the craft?

Everyone ASSUMES that HLS Starship will be made of Stainless Steel, much like the normal Starship variant. However I suspect that Starship HLS may opt to splurge for the carbon fiber body instead; once all aspects of Starship, including orbital refueling has been perfected. Carbon fiber, though more expensive that stainless steel, is lighter. Therefore this will allow HLS to get to escape velocity faster; while using less propellant.

Why no ascent descent stages?

I assume that the pendulum sort of swinging affect of a high engine that Dr. Goddard saw has been corrected.

How cool

I suspect they will have to build a tank farm in low earth orbit to make this sustainable. That way starship could hook up and receive fuel just like on the launch pad and a separate connection could be made to receive fuel from the tankers. You could also use a space tug to move a tank farm to lunar orbit letting a normal starship make the trip from the launchpad to the moon and back.

I think NASA and SpaceX are like a dream team! These two entities come together they can achieve great things. The 10-ish fuel trips everyone is talking about right now, I don't think will be as much trouble as ppl think. Just look at how quick the falcons9's did multiple landings, once they proved it could be done. The fuel transfers are more complicated but, SpaceX can do it - I believe.

i have wondered if SpaceX would ever use a lighter metal for a specialised starship model for moon landings etc.

Is there any information about the tools that will be used on the moon? What's the new version of the moon buggy? Has it been developed and ready for 2025 yet? What other new tools are being developed?

@zachb1706

Ай бұрын

Officially the rover will be going down in 2030 with Artemis 5. There are 3 companies in the running which started development last year. However, Astrolab had already been working on their rover years before will be sending their rover with Artemis 3.

Crew Starship will have emergency backup manual control like Crew Dragon does a likely requirement from NASA.

That is so cool that we're getting to a step where someday people will be living on the moon

@henryTech720

Ай бұрын

We're not getting any closer we're doing nothing the government doing nothing it's all Elon musk, hack government is trying to stop Elon

what im exited about is them setting up infrastructure to help with future landings like the planned lunar gateway and positioning satellites the easier it is to land on the moon the faster things will be built on the moon

@zachb1706

Ай бұрын

That’s what doesn’t get talked about enough. Artemis isn’t about putting people on the moon, we’re building a freaking moon base!

@rogerphelps9939

Ай бұрын

The gateway is an unnecessary detail just to compensat for the inability of Artemis to actually land anything. Expect this silly idea to be scrapped.

The more i think about starship the more i think its maybe too big. Also, wouldnt it make more sense to use it for the actual voyage to the moon or Mars, then use a "drop ship" for the final descent to the surface? The idea of a vertical landing in such a harsh environment sounds sketchy, if not flat out insane

They need to start thinking about building special tanker starships

Like a movie

This lunar Starship is going to be too top heavy to be stable on the surface unless it has four wide-spreading, low slung landing megs. Otherwise the astronauts will tip it over from bouncing around in the crew cabin.

@paulmichaelfreedman8334

Ай бұрын

You'll be surprised how far such a ship can tilt before it actually becomes unstable. We're talking 100 tons of steel. And humans bouncing around, will not change anything. They don't have enough mass. And you can count on SpaceX to address any issues that could arise. Trust the engineers they have enough expertise not to overlook such a thing.

@ghost307

Ай бұрын

I wouldn't be surprised if SpaceX jettisons the lower part of HLS with the big empty tanks. The propellants needed for the final landing and subsequent lift-off could be stored in much smaller tanks located in another part of the HLS. That would make it quite a bit shorter.

@paulmichaelfreedman8334

Ай бұрын

@@ghost307 As these ships aren't destined to ever return to earth, that sounds plausible. I also recently read that Mining the resources for making steel is probably viable, and if so I think we can expect SpaceX to want to build a shipyard on the moon, to build Mars-bound ships. Launching from the moon would mean 1,000 tons to lunar orbit, or 500 to Mars.

@GadZookz

Ай бұрын

@@paulmichaelfreedman8334 it won’t weigh that much when it lands on the moon and even less after the cargo is unloaded from one side. Think again about how wide the legs should be.

@KeithGroover

Ай бұрын

Hopefully NASA will look at this comments section and realize that they're actually really dumb and didn't think about that.

Starsip moonlander is gonna be top heavy attempting to land on uneven lunar dirt. I am as fearful of this as the long term condition of the OLM?

I recommend you study up on your Mandarin.

Side thrusters are space exploration at a whole 'nother level 10:14 Hopefully they work as intended on the moon 🌓

Can we build a space station that has a fuel supply to fuel the starship...send the fuel from earth using the falcon heavy to send drums to the gas space station?

Hey Space X I was finishing High School when Neil and Buzz landed on the moon it was an amazing experience to watch. Please get your space program to the moon before I die and I’m 72 years old and please get there before China gets there and claim the moon’s territory.

It’s financially affordable.. many hindrances we’re currently dealing with comes from not having enough 1900s scientist left.

Cana-darm aka Space Race- you know u pull for CHY-NA

When landing on the Moon or Mars I think the Starship is like a Motor Sailer, not a good sailboat and not a good motorboat. The place that the Starship shines is transporting cargo from the earth's gravity well.

I think that SpaceX ought to build on a Larger Version Of Dragon for the Top Part of The Starship. Leaving the Cargo &Lift structure could be made to Operate easier. Using the usual Dragon Jet Rocket s. (I believe that although that Fuel type

@ricchamen6304

Ай бұрын

Refill the Dragon tanks After fetching the Astronauts off The Other Orbiting SLS rocket and can return then to ground or the top of The Now White (Shiny one.) Also along the lower exterior of the Space X rocket on the outside of where the Main Launch Rocket s area they could build in Spray omitters which could spray Say Colloidal Silicate onto the moon surface regolith as it De-sends towards the moon s surface. Any heat would instantly turn the Regolith Colloidal mixture into hardened landing strip type surface. It offers variations for “Potential launch issues with either SPACEX or SLS return I’m sure Astronaut s Don’t wish to hear 👂 or be told: that we are SORRY but your e flight homes been cancelled due to The SLS(Boeing) designed vehicle can’t bring U home. Here’s where a refilled Dragon literally comes in the recapture the astronaut s &bring them Home IE:”The Backup plan!” Using refilled Dracko’s to help her up skyward then followed Space Station attachment Dracos pick up Astronauts and if necessary An added and fuel pod contained for a single Deep Space Flash fire and head towards the small blue marble (& head 4 home )-1/More firing &Drop off engine tank remaining what’s normally dropped off leaving Heat shield ready to do its job. Invert and earth entry chute’s deployed and ocean sling pickup

Can they not make a longer variant of the tanker with bigger tanks to reduce refill launches?

@Hobbes746

Ай бұрын

Yes and no. Making a longer Starship is part of the plan, but at some point you run out of room: within the diameter of the rocket you can only place a certain number of engines, and the maximum thrust of those engines determines how tall you can make the rocket. The only way to more payload then is to increase the diameter, and that is a bigger undertaking than increasing the length.

@Targus28

Ай бұрын

@@Hobbes746 Maybe they can get down to 8 ship refuel with a slightly longer tanker variant just a guess. I still think this is alot of ships to launch for 1 mission and surely the super heavy will only have so many reuses?

@Hobbes746

Ай бұрын

@@Targus28 SpaceX’s goal is to make both Starship and Super Heavy very reusable, as well as cheap to build. Current goal for Starship v3 is 300 tons payload, compared to 100 tons for v1.

@Targus28

Ай бұрын

@@Hobbes746 How many uses does falcon 9 have?!

@Hobbes746

Ай бұрын

@@Targus28 The oldest stages have been reused about 20 times now, and there’s no sign they’re near the limit. We don't know how much time and money it takes to refurbish a stage for the next flight, but that is a focus for Starship: The goal for Starship is to be able to launch a stage again within a day.

The future of the human being star🎉❤

1:43 The U.S. defense budget is $800B a year…EVERY YEAR! This is why we can’t afford to do anything groundbreaking with 10% the 60’s money.

You fail to mention that NASA requires both automated and manual piloting capabilities in their HLS systems.

Hey man, you misspelled Apollo.

@henryTech720

Ай бұрын

Yeah it's spelled Upalloh😂 English people need to learn how to spell it's how you pronounce that's how you spell😂 smart languages do it that way, English is not smart

Im guessing the editor, the narrator and the video director is 3 different people

14 is the answer to remove the sound barrier

it seems nobody knows if starship has enough deltaV capacity to get back from the moon to LEO to be refilled there. But this is a crucial point wether that concept makes sense. At least spaceX and NASA should know and they should share this information. If it only can go back to Lunar gateway, it cannot be refilled again and is not reusable. With each tanker starship you can bring 150 tons of fuel to LEO, but to Lunar gateway you need considerably more delta V so the amount a fuel that can be transported to there is negligible. Starship completely refilled in LEO has a deltaV-capacity of 6.9 km/s.( with 150 tons of payload) according to the deltaV map you already need 6.4 km/s to reach the lunar surface, and it would be 1.6 km/s to get from the lunar surface , to lunar orbit. So even for that the delta-capacity would be not sufficient. Not taking in account yet, that the rendezvous manoeuvre with lunar gateway alone requires some extra deltaV. If you can mine water on the moon, and convert it into hydrogen fuel, the situation is much better of course But the required infrastructure to mine water-ice and convert it into rocket fuel, will not be available at artmis 3, 4, and 5. And spaceX would need to develop new rocket engines that run on hydrogen fuel.

@Hobbes746

Ай бұрын

That question depends on Starship performance, and that is unknown at this point: development has not finished yet so we don’t know what the payload will be.

@thomasherzig174

Ай бұрын

@@Hobbes746 starship brings 1000tons of fuel, +250 tons for the structure and 150t payload, that gives approximately a 6.9 km/s deltaV capacity. Probably for lunar starship without the heat shield and less payload , the deltaV capacity is higher. But this is not something that WeE should need to speculate about. SpaceX and Nasa should know it, or at least they should know what the target is, when they implement lunar starship into the Artemis mission. It is essential for the architecture, wether it can go back to LEO to be refilled, or just get back to lunar gateway and be not reusable, or if it even cannot leave the moon. I ask myself why this essential information is not shared If it can make its way from LEO to the surface of Moon and back to LEO, the SLS and lunar gateway are unnecessary.

@Hobbes746

Ай бұрын

@@thomasherzig174 As I said, that figure of 150 tons is *not certain* at this point. It’s the goal, but the current configuration is unable to do that (payload limit of IFT-3 was around 40 tons).