I was hoping for a bit more on the "how" side of things. This was kind of like explaining how we can achieve FTL travel by saying: first we build an FTL spaceship, then we launch it, and finally we use it.

@JeannineDC

Ай бұрын

That's what Elon said and that's about all the info anyone has. Maybe b.c it be long time from now? 🤷‍♀️

@SebastianWellsTL

Ай бұрын

@@JeannineDC Also I would think something that revolutionary would be considered a trade secret.

@rolandreynoso1392

Ай бұрын

Just think about it like aerial refuelling but in space

@snakevenom4954

Ай бұрын

​@@00kt86 No pumps are going to be used. Just high pressure traveling to lower pressure

@snakevenom4954

Ай бұрын

Some small thrusters on the bottom of the ship giving the ship a slight push forwards. That slight force will make all the Methane and Lox clump up through surface tension on the bottom. Then the tanks are opened up to each other and the high pressure tanker Starship will flow propellant to the lower pressure working Starship. Hope this helps

Going to be interesting storing and moving liquid gas in essentially zero gravity!

@archierush868

Ай бұрын

Already did a fuel transfer demo during flight 3. It was highly successful, even though it was just within the same ship and from a header tank to the main tank.

@The1QwertySky

Ай бұрын

They did it in ift3

@JeannineDC

Ай бұрын

I can see what you are saying about flight 3 and it worked good but I don't consider it the same. The ship docking with the fuel tanker ship seems 😳 but then again ships sock with the Space Station.

@JeannineDC

Ай бұрын

Agreed

@CHMichael

Ай бұрын

Liquid gas ? Any solid fluids ? Everyday astronaut usually explains it very well.

This literally didn't explain anything about how they'll do it. It just said they will.

@elbob1491

Ай бұрын

Elon has no plans, first he proposed hooking them up tail to tail and using rocket thrust to force fuel from one tank to another, lol. Because that won't mess up your stable orbit lol. Before that he suggested spinning and before that he wanted "t handle in space" design. Watch that video for a laugh as it spins on the intermediate axis and will become the vomit comet for a trip even to the moon. Lol. Elon doesn't engineer a solution he just lies and says random things. Engineers have to tell him physics doesn't work the way his imagination does. Lol

@PersonalStash420

Ай бұрын

@@elbob1491 I think he either isn't telling you because he doesn't want to or else he hasn't gotten to the refueling part yet and is just spit-balling ideas. If this is the case then I imagine he knows it's possible and he will get to it when it's time. What you said about Elon Musk not engineering solutions is just lame.

We just witnessed the rare starship mating ritual. This is how falcan 9s are born.

How exactly would the fuel be transferred? Are there transfer pumps, or is there negative pressure in the emptier tank?

@ivander1511

Ай бұрын

Prolly using pumps, just like how they demonstrated the header to main tank propellant transfer in the 3rd flight

@mediaworldwide9848

Ай бұрын

You saw Armageddon right? It’s similar. They hook up the hoses and then it blows up and everyone dies.

@ryzkyjaeger07

Ай бұрын

​@@mediaworldwide9848You saw the IFT-3 launch right? Thank goodness the engineers down at SpaceX don't believe that Hollywood movie magic can be applied to their Starship alone.

@jaxspellinar

Ай бұрын

@@ivander1511 Did they though? They also said they opened the cargo bay door...

@anthonypelchat

Ай бұрын

Negative pressure and thrusters to push the fuel. If that doesn't work as expected, then they will try again with pumps.

Those maneuvering thrusters are kick ass !

Not to mention, the tanker could potentially stay up in space functioning as a fuel station for future missions, it would need to be resuplied, but it wouldn’t have to be taken out of space

@muuubiee

Ай бұрын

Considering they need 20-30 refuels, they're not leaving tankers up there in LEO.

@jonahfastre

Ай бұрын

@@muuubiee ah nvm, I thought it was like 3 or 4 refuels

@exotix2092

Ай бұрын

If I remember correctly, I had seen that they will need maybe 8 or 9 refuel in total for the moon and 24 refuel for mars, no idea how they are going to do that, and how they will transfert fuel for one ship to another because they need ullage in 0g.

@muuubiee

Ай бұрын

​@@exotix2092 The people who looked into it came up with minimum 16, but more likely 20, possibly 30, for a lunar mission.

@RedRyan

Ай бұрын

​@@muuubieeI'm pretty sure that's not how it's going to work. They will make the ship nice and light and it will only need 5 to 7 refueling mark my word

you guys are the best! Sending love from Cali

A lot easier on the ground than doing it in the air be we figured out how to refuel aircraft in flight but this one will probably be even harder to figure out. Hope that they will start testing it soon. It will need a lot of testing.

Great info 👏🏻👍🏻🫶

It would be great if @Whataboutit explain how propllent transfer occurs at micro gravity

@scirrhia_kruden

Ай бұрын

Yeah, that's what I thought this Short was going to be. I mean, it's what they'd said it'd be, so I was surprised they didn't at all. There IS info elsewhere on KZread tho, and both SpaceX and Blue Origin (or the National Team, to be precise) need it for their missions. SpaceX just needs to do it 19+ times per landing, so the stakes are even higher, as is the inherent risk, because they need every single one to go flawlessly. I think Blue Origin's plan calls for a single refueling, but still, they need to get it right too.

@RedRyan

Ай бұрын

​@@scirrhia_krudenit's not 20 times. It might be something like seven times but not 20

@imconsequetau5275

Ай бұрын

It all depends on the _payload capacity._ Today's prototypes can only deliver about 45 metric tons, but version two will be close to 110 tons.

Docking half full tank with fuel sloshing inside will be quite a challenge.

I work in refrigeration. Transferring gas in liquid form a cylinder to another cylinder is a bit of a process.

And they need at least twelve of this tanker missions 😂

All the future proof people need for spacex and Tesla done through animations - not actual prototypes performing a task and proving something is possible.

How do they refuel the tanker

@jacobkilzer5796

28 күн бұрын

Why would they? It’s easier to just deorbit the tanker when it’s done and send a new one up

That's what they "WANT" you to believe!

Ok. But what takes the cargo up? How will it be transferred to the lander?

As the sensitive Moon transits itchy Aries, our feelings are closer to the surface than normal. What emerges might not be well thought out!

There is no "Draining" of Liquid Oxygen in space. It is all about high pressure pumping and that means heat exchange condensation of gas with condensers. All very complicated.

Hope it works …. Game changer

I've been overlooking a possible key to the solution. Isolate before launching that amount to transfer.

What if you use the whole rocket so it is empty and use the second stage

If it ever works!

Pie in the sky.

Why dont they take the tank to the moon with them : to be used as a fuel storage on. The moon. ???

@imconsequetau5275

Ай бұрын

The best place to store propellant is in orbit around the moon. It costs the least in terms of delta-V. Similar to why the Apollo architecture kept Command & Service modules in orbit.

Whatever you do, *do not send a smaller space ship into 2 starships when they are refueling.*

Starship rocket to Mars

So space x are making a orbital space station?

What happens to the tanker?

8-20x refueling is BS

Would love a video explaining how the fluid is transfer in space and how the ship can travel with liquid that is floating around. How you push it to the engine and make sure you burn it well?

@imconsequetau5275

Ай бұрын

Ullage thrusters. These can be cold gas thrusters, hot gas thrusters, or just bleed vapor from the tanks directed aft.

@imconsequetau5275

Ай бұрын

Transfer by lowering the receiving tank pressure, bleed tank vapor to vacuum. Or increase the donor tank pressure by heat from a hot gas thruster.

How does StarShip actually transfer the fuel from ship to ship in 0g?

Why bother transferring fuel from the tanker? Why not latch on and take the full tanker to the moon?

@scirrhia_kruden

Ай бұрын

Because it'll require MULTIPLE launches to get enough fuel into orbit to refuel Starship. Current estimates are around 19 launches, assuming the promised 100t lift weight, which currently Starship can only lift around 40-50t which is 20-30t less than the Falcon Heavy.

To transfer propellant ,they will need to accelerate in order for the transfer to happen or else it will not work. This will boost the tanker on a higher orbit

@imconsequetau5275

Ай бұрын

It's just a tiny acceleration - a nudge. Nothing to be concerned about. It's not like a main Raptor engine is used. It's just an _ullage_ thruster.

@imconsequetau5275

Ай бұрын

Anyway, in Low Earth Orbit there is some drag from an ultra low density atmosphere that is slowing all orbital bodies.

What's the difference between launching a tanker version of starship and then launching ships that contain nothing but fuel?

@imconsequetau5275

Ай бұрын

The depot tanker could potentially have more dry mass. It could have greater storage capacity (stretched tanks), larger battery banks, solar shade, solar PV collectors, heat emitting surfaces (kept in shade), ullage thrusters, and circulating pumps.

Surely the tanker starship would also have fins and wouldn’t just be sacrificial.

@imconsequetau5275

Ай бұрын

The tanker may or may not have fins and tiles. It could just stay in orbit until it was obsolete. Any visiting tanker could remove all the propellant before the obsolete tanker is discarded in the ocean.

@imconsequetau5275

Ай бұрын

However, for now, the prototypes are destined to be deorbited after the first propellant transfer test. As to whether they are recovered or not is up to chance.

What I don't get is how it's going to take, twelve I think it was, launches just to send fuel up to get number 13 to the moon.

F*ck yeaaaaa

Easier siad than done

They will have to spin docked ships to create force and not to chnge orbit by burning engines to get fuel to one end of the tank.

@imconsequetau5275

Ай бұрын

The G force requirement is tiny. You only need a couple pounds of force applied continuously to the 1400 ton spacecraft. The thrust just from venting propellant vapor is enough thrust and might be needed as a "bootstrap" method (but is wasteful). It is better to combine (burn) both vapor types in a tiny ullage motor to maximise efficiency. Motors that run on vapor pressure alone do not require liquid. But it is also possible to store a small quantity of each liquid in a pair of pressure vessels with a membrane barrier/separator. Nearly identical to the water accumulator often seen in water systems with a backflow prevention valve, but modified for cryogenic temperature. Although the complexity goes up slightly, I would prefer to maintain main tank pressures by heating up both liquid propellants, pumping liquids through heat exchangers on the ullage motor surface.

nononono give me the old man

The fuel will be heavier than the payload so it wont work. They have to figure out newer ways

that's not a good idea. the reason why you need a rocket is to get up to speed fast. but to just deliver goods to a place in orbit you don't need to be fast - you can prep this as long as you want. the pro move would be to sort of space elevator this up. or weather balloon into X plane. basically, the trade off made here isn't the ideal solution given the normal constraint doesn't apply

Why a tanker + starships with just fuel? Wouldnt the tanker already have the fuel? Why not just multiple tankers?

@plainText384

Ай бұрын

This is probably a mistake in TJ's Skript. I believe what he calls "tanker" is usually referred to as a depot, while the tanker starships are the ones taking the fuel up to LEO. Why does SpaceX/NASA want a depot? Well, if SpaceX can scale up to launching 4 Starships per month, and they need ~11 tankers + HLS, then it would take about 3 months from first launch to HLS heading to the moon. My guess is that NASA or SpaceX may not want HLS to be hanging around in LEO for 3 months before heading to the moon (possibly because they want to launch HLS with perishable supplies?). But that is pure speculation. I also don't think it's impossible that the mission architecture changes and they launch HLS first and have all the tankers refuel HLS directly instead of going through a depot. It's not like we've seen flight hardware for any of these variants yet, so anything is possible.

Why are we making such a big deal about a tank farm in orbit. No one is counting the trucks coming to Bocachica to fill the tankfarm. The rocket goes to orbit, gets refueled there in under an hour and then move on to the next fuel depot on Mars orbit or somewhere. Tankers independent keep going up to fuel the depot. What is the problem??

@jaxspellinar

Ай бұрын

You don't spend 100M$ and 1200T of fuel to get the trucks to Bocca Chica

when will this actually be tried?

Kind of glides past the fact that it will take a lot of fuel to launch fuel into space.

@imconsequetau5275

Ай бұрын

At 5 million dollars, propellant is by far the cheapest part of Starship's cost. (Except for the even lower labor cost of each subsequent launch.)

With so many delays I'm starting not to care.

We've been doing this in KSP for at least a decade. Nothing new here....

If Starship is out of fuel once it reaches a stable orbit, how will another Starship make it to orbit and have any fuel to spare? Sounds like someone needs to rethink this.

@imconsequetau5275

Ай бұрын

The mission ship will have all spare mass capacity allocated to mission hardware. The replenishing tanker ships will have all spare mass capacity allocated to extra propellant. Actually, the mission ship will likely be the last to be launched and refilled from the depot tanker.

If the Saturn v basically coasted all the way to the moon , why do we have to refuel a starship to go back to?

@lucassevey5989

Ай бұрын

There's no air resistance so if you do not actively stop yourself somehow you just go in that direction

@imconsequetau5275

Ай бұрын

Starship will have much more payload capacity, starting at 45 metric tons with the early prototypes and soon 110 tons, then 200+ tons. Apollo discarded 5 stages during the missions, Starship is fully reusable with only 2 stages. Liquid propellant is the cheapest part of a rocket. So making multiple launches, to prepare an orbiting depot, is very efficient with fully reusable stages. Each launch costs only $5 million USD in propellant, so it's very cheap compared to rockets that are discarded during each launch.

Wow! You just have to love Elon Musk and SpaceX.

my stupid ass brain just popped up a stupid question... how they send the important payload from earth into the starship in orbit in the first place...? y'know, how many other launch and fuels needed just to be put into the starship...

What you meant was "Why" not "How. There is no "how" here...

Yes, no "how" it's all guesswork at the moment. I would have internal transfer tubes from the ship to ship interface to within a smidgeon of the opposite side of the ship. When docked side to side, the ships would rotate about their common axis. This would force the fuel in the donating ship to the furthest point from the axis, ready to be pumped up the transfer tube to the other ship. The axis would shift with the shifting centre of mass but that shouldn't be a problem. The rotation need only be very slow so little stress on the structures.

So a single moonshot will require about 30 Starships.

@imconsequetau5275

Ай бұрын

Hell no.

@imconsequetau5275

Ай бұрын

These are intended to be rapidly and fully reusable. Whether the deorbited ships are recovered or they crash is up to chance. But every new ship will have design improvements to improve reliability. Eventually, the Starship reliability will be high enough to qualify for crewed missions.

@yourhandlehere1

Ай бұрын

@@imconsequetau5275 No...for each trip. How many little loads do you think it will take to fill up the tanker that has to fill up the moonship? 4600 (metric) tons of fuel to get 100 tons of payload in orbit...in this case 100 tons of fuel. Two different fuels needed. Starship itself holds about 1200 tons. Has to use that to get into orbit. Once up practically empty. Enough for maneuvers. Now to pump 100 tons of fuel into the empty tanker...you have to spend all that again. At least 12 trips. Are you returning the tank fillers and sending them back, launching more than one from different locations...? You better have several ready to go on standby. Provided no mishaps...days, maybe weeks to get a single tanker filled. Launch problems, weather, etc. A single mishap with the main tanker during filling...start the whole mess over I think they need to think again.

@imconsequetau5275

Ай бұрын

@@yourhandlehere1 On the last test launch, the prototype Starship had a real payload capacity of roughly 45 metric tons. But please don't think that this is a static picture. The designs will advance and payload capacity will rapidly improve - soon reducing the number of launches to fill a depot. 110 ton is the short term goal for a working Starship version two. This can be quickly achieved in the short term by using quick disconnect systems mounted higher on the Integration tower, along with stretched tank lengths and more Raptor engines; Probably 35 on the booster, and 9 on the second stage (6 sea level and 3 vacuum Raptors, IMAO). 200 tons is a realistic goal if the steel alloy is replaced with a more expensive, stronger alloy using a thinner gauge sheet, perhaps 3 mm. (There is little point in trying more expensive steel until the boosters and ships begin returning safely.) I'm also expecting inexorable increases in chamber pressure, thrust, 😁 and ISP from Raptors. The first lunar HLS mission only requires a modest payload capacity, well under the existing prototype's 45 tons. So even the present prototype design could conceivably fulfill that near term HLS mission, but the version two Starship has already started being fabricated in the new factory building.

Space x doesn’t know how many tankers it will take to refuel a single rocket, the estimates are between 8-12, that is absolutely insane, saying it now, starship is a bad design

NASA went nowhere since 1958. Period! No one else either...

See what you have done ? You explained nothing, and now you have a comment section full of explanations from people that have no clue .

The fuel is chilled when it's initially loaded onto rockets but does it require continued refrigeration when in space? How long can they store the fuel in space? 🤔

@casperdurandt

Ай бұрын

It done via a process called bleeding. No refrigeration required. You just keep dropping the pressure and it maintains its low temperature. There are some losses but this is not a mayor problem

@sidekick96734

Ай бұрын

@@casperdurandt thanks! I figured there had to be more to it.

@jaxspellinar

Ай бұрын

@@casperdurandt It is a major problem depending on the time it takes the 8th or 15th taker to get to orbit, how much fuel is left from the first due to bleeding?

@imconsequetau5275

Ай бұрын

​@@jaxspellinar True, but throw in some 45-110 metric tons of equipment in the depot: starting with solar shades, then photo voltaic panels and small circulation pumps, maybe heat radiators (deployed in the shadows). The cold of space in shadows is about 2 degrees Kelvin, so chilling the propellant is as easy as aiming the shaded radiator panels edge-on to Earth and circulating propellant. You just need a pair of small cut-off valves for each redundant loop that might get hit by micro-meteorites or debris.

@jaxspellinar

Ай бұрын

@@imconsequetau5275 That's not how cooling in space works though, every 90 minutes, it comes back into the sun and that 2 degrees Kelvin shoots up with solar radiation. You need to insulate it from heat and cooling and then pump it with refrigerant, just like on earth. If not, then you have to vent it, which means you have to send more propellant into space to cover what has bled off. It's not impossible, but it's not the simple task that Elon wants people to think it is. At least with hypergolic fuels, refrigerant and bleed off isn't a problem.

I wonder when people will realize that SpaceX is a lot of hype and very little to it. They are very very far behind to what they have been claiming for years.. But they need so keep the impression of progress, there are a lot of investors.

@imconsequetau5275

Ай бұрын

Wow, such a pessimistic and discouraging mindset. You see a string of "product" "failures" and presume that investors are hurt. I see continuous iterative progress on hundreds of engineering issues at an astonishing unprecedented rate. These are merely Starship prototype version 1.nn, while most investment costs are actually going into the infrastructure: fabrication bays, buildings, tooling, and *_human expertise._*

We gotta figure out how to launch and fly without fossil fuels, the greys have already shown us that 61á2ß3dßfjdfzßz d

Do YOU want to go to the moon ... NO TANKS

Why do they need to refuel to go to the moon? Why didn’t they have to refuel in the sixties, then?

@Baffour_ComMo

Ай бұрын

Starship is huge

Then they will build an orbiting warehouse and lots more rockets will bring goods. India is out with no corners in an orbit.

Going to need about 27 refueling trips 😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅

It’s not difficult. First you send a big empty tank into orbit. This will be your fuel depot. Then you send rocket tankers with fuel as payload to fill the depot. Then when filled, you send your starship with payload destined for Mars to the fuel depot in orbit and gets filled in under an hour. No pumps required. Get filled with delta V. Small thrust by cold air thrusters. Easy

@casperdurandt

Ай бұрын

When you have orbital mechanics, you don’t need pumps.

@jaxspellinar

Ай бұрын

@@casperdurandt Yes you do. If not you'll only get two half filled tanks as the pressure equalizes. You can spin, but that won't fill one tank full, you'll only get one slightly more than half.

We need to use and abuse the asteroid belt, it's full of precious metals and other useful stuff. Use the crap mined from the asteroid belt to build what we need at orbital docks at both the asteroid belt and Mars, would also work for advanced weapons testing.

@imconsequetau5275

Ай бұрын

The moon's surface is littered with asteroids, or at least the dust of them. Plus, most of the remaining asteroid cores are just meters below the surface. Ready to locate using metal detectors and ground penetrating RADAR.

@jacobkilzer5796

28 күн бұрын

For one, what the hell is wrong with you if you see space and think, “ooh we might be able to kill lots of people with the stuff up here” and you don’t seem to realize how far apart celestial bodies are

@imconsequetau5275

28 күн бұрын

@@jacobkilzer5796 Let's try to bulldoze/backhoe on the Moon and see how plentiful the asteroid dust is there. Metal detectors on rovers could search for concentrated metal nuggets.

So

This is a dream. One that will never come true.

@RedRyan

Ай бұрын

You will see very soon. I work on the Vulcan rocket and I know this is going to happen

Give the money to the poor instead of shooting it to the moon!

This is a fantasy.

@lucassevey5989

Ай бұрын

Just like your girlfriend

No that is not how you do it. You skip the hard part. The hard part is how you move the propellant from one ahip to the other after they dock. That has never been done before, and I am not sure they yet know how to do it.

Don't think about it too much, SpaceX will be bankrupt before they get 2 Starships in orbit

@kevinm9246

Ай бұрын

Starlink is already in the black and bringing in more than the launch biz. Launch biz is doing great. They will be fine. They are innovative and efficient.

The hardest thing will be the multiple launches, in a certain period

And how did they do it in 1969?…

@coconutbird8093

22 күн бұрын

The rocket that was used to first land humans on the moon wasnt supposed to be reusable unlike starship

@ludvik2008

22 күн бұрын

The Apollo lander was way smaller than starship as well and couldn’t carry much cargo except for humans of course.

its difficult to send large amounts of fuel as the only cargo because of sloshing effects. so most of the refueling mission will be about 30% fuel and the rest of the cargo space wil be used for other missions. that is why spacex will need some 10 launches to fill one tank

A few 😂😂😂 like 15 or so...

yeah right. They'll need to launch 20 starships so they can refill 1 ship to go to the moon. Pretty ridiculus and very innefficient. Apollo went to the moon and back without refuel, maybe starship should study those 1960s achives to learn how to do it.

So you went to moon before🤣🤣🤣

Just do whay we did in 69' geez man.. my Good Enough Diploma can't do all the heavy lifting..

@tha1oneasianguy

Ай бұрын

Apollo is there to get off. Artemis is there to stay

@The1QwertySky

Ай бұрын

Go make your own private company and do it yourself if it's so easy

@michaelnoble2432

Ай бұрын

@@The1QwertySky especially if it's a private company that gets billions in public funds despite being YEARS behind schedule and achieving a tiny fraction of what its compulsive liar CEO promised.

@LeonAust

Ай бұрын

One doesn't need a humongous Starship to prove if water is at the moon poles. Initial contract should of never been given to Space X.

@The1QwertySky

Ай бұрын

@@LeonAust what are you talking about?

This ain’t going to work. Like having the Cookie Monster delivering cookies for the local cookie shop. Leaving only crumbs.

@MoraleIsHigh

Ай бұрын

It can work. When finished, Starship can carry a crazy amount of payload. The video exaggerates how many tankers will be needed for one normal Starship. It will likely take 2 or 3, not 1 like is shown.

@listonheinz9103

Ай бұрын

@@MoraleIsHigh 2-3 really? Last time I heard Musk talk about it he said something like “probably 6”. Some even say 8 - 12. I think it’s quite concerning that no one working on the project has a clue on how many of these things is needed to refuel that behemoth. Seems like a crucial point to my eyes.

@anthonypelchat

Ай бұрын

@@listonheinz9103 It's not that they don't know. It's that there are a lot of changes happening all the time with Starship, a lot of details to work out with the fuel testing to come, details on flight cadence with Starship in the future, and then a difference between reusable and expendable Starships. There is too great of a variation right now. They could refuel everything in less than 3 flights using dedicated tankers that are huge, with quick flights, while having everything be fully expendable. Or it could take a dozen using the current design, a slower flight cadence, but have everything be reusable. People are putting too much of a focus on something that frankly isn't important to know right now. SpaceX gets paid the same regardless of how they get the ship refueled.

@listonheinz9103

Ай бұрын

@@anthonypelchat Well, I think this Starship project will fail and be shut down before any human sets foot in it. A blind man can see it’s way too complicated and inefficient.

@anthonypelchat

Ай бұрын

@@listonheinz9103 Apparently you're blind and need to open your eyes. Starship is not going to be shut down. And don't start with efficiencies that you do not understand. Being efficient with cheap fuel while being inefficient with expensive components is not a good thing. SpaceX has proven this with the Falcon family. They "waste" so much fuel on landing the boosters, being so "inefficient". And yet they are the most cost effective way to orbit by anyone on the planet.

Yeah this didn’t really explain anything

I’d put the odds of StartShip reaching the moon in this decade at close to zero. Happy to be proven wrong though.

@Steven-vo4ee

Ай бұрын

@@PersonalStash420 How? By observing its progress, it’s no doubt remarkable, however [putting it mildly] far from landing on the moon. A single lunar starship will require to be refuelled in orbit somewhere between 10 and 20 times to reach TLI. Neither StarShip or Super Heavy has been recovered, let alone reused, the required orbital refuelling has never been conducted [moving a tiny amount of fuel from one tank to another, within a spacecraft isn’t akin to the task at hand], then there’s landing on the moon itself, an evidently extremely difficult task, let alone carried out in a 50m x 9m largely cylindrical spacecraft. I don’t have a million dollars gamble and I seriously doubt you do either.

Biggest waste of money ever... well,,,its. Only money.

The real question is how many heat tiles will fall off the starship during launch four? The heat shield design is not done. Unless a heat shield can be designed that can remain intact completely from one launch to the next, the starship will not be rapidly reusable. If the starship is not rapidly reusable, Starship refueling in orbit is off the table along with going to the moon and going to Mars. Do me a favor, please start a betting pool for how many tiles are gonna fall off the starship during the next lunch let alone during the reentry. The whole point of starship is rapid reusability, but if the heat shield requires major repairs after every reentry, what is the point of starship?

@anthonypelchat

Ай бұрын

They don't have to do the refueling using just one tanker. Rapid reuse is not going to make or break this. And if reusing the upper stage proves too much this early, they can just reuse the booster and expend the upper stage. That will require less refueling flights than reusing the upper stage. Further, expending the upper stage doesn't mean that SpaceX is giving up on reusing it. They can expend them specifically for HLS while continuing attempting reuse during Starlink deployments.

This seems like a very inneficient way to get to the moon. Artemis shouldnt be spacex proving ground for their Mars ambitions. Apollo showed how to get the moon efficiently and back again with tech over half a century ago when we didn't have even digital watches.

@koba_Lyle

22 күн бұрын

They want to build colonies dude. If you send a 10th of the cargo per launch with smaller rockets it will ultimetly cost 1,000 times more to colonize the moon.

@koba_Lyle

22 күн бұрын

Transistors from Bell labs were so much larger then the more advanced but flawed semiconductors we use today. The smaller the semiconductor the more sensitive to radiation it is. So we have to either figure out perfect shielding, possibly micrographicly integrated shielding, Or we just go back to transistor tech. Funny, we might end up with retro style space ship control panels, displays, and computers after all.

Lol i like how he says it will, lol. Ive seen enough tech bros cgi to know thwy dont even have a product. No forethought is going it this. Nasa needs to stop wasting our money on this sunk cost fallacy. When elon claimed 100t to leo nasa said it would take elon 15 launches to refill. Now with it only neing claiemd to take 40t itll be more like 40 launches. And when elon drops the payload max again to 10t, I will laugh. And itll take 200+ launches. Meanwhile saturn V did it with one launch. Convicted fraudsters are going to continue to fraud. Sad

Has SpaceX actually published a detailed plan of how they will achieve this or are they as clueless as the rest of us?

@pyotrberia9741

Ай бұрын

@@PersonalStash420 , Elon does not have to explain himself to me. He has to explain himself to the taxpayers who paid him 2 billion dollars to make this thing work.

@anthonypelchat

Ай бұрын

They do have a detailed plan. The only ones they needed to explain it to was NASA, which they did. NASA has since explained it to everyone during their last meeting 1.5 weeks ago.

If all this needs to be done now, how’d we ever get to the moon in the 60s?

@LeonAust

Ай бұрын

They were better practical engineers, many with WW2 experience.

@michaelswisher9574

Ай бұрын

Smaller ships, longer trip, and never intended to stay. Starship is intended to leave behind supplies, building materials, tools, etc.

@LeonAust

Ай бұрын

@@michaelswisher9574 At this time we don't need an ungainly huge Starship and that needs 15 refuels to just explore and or confirm water at the poles. True Starship if cargo proven will be a good supply ship.👍 But will it get human rated? I have my doubts as a smaller lander would be far more simpler/easier.

@plainText384

Ай бұрын

1) The Apollo LM had a dry mass of about 4-5t. Starship HLS doesn't exist yet, so I couldn't find any official numbers, but the estimate for the dry mass is on the order of 80-100t. 2) The Starship HLS needs to lift all that back to orbit since it only has a single stage, not two like the LM. 3) HLS needs to go to and from a highly eccentric orbit (NRHO), while the LM only needed to go between low lunar orbit and the surface. 4) Artemis is more ambitious that Apollo. They want to do more and stay longer, so the lander needs to be able to carry a bit more. 5) With Apollo the LM was co-manifested with the Apollo spacecraft on Saturn V. SLS especially in its Block 1 configuration (which will be used for Artemis 1-3) is not capable of doing this at all, and SLS Block 1B can only carry a relatively small 10t co-manifested payload (Apollo LM weighed about 15-16t fully fuelled). Even SLS Block 2 will still be a bit less capable than Saturn V. So instead of co-manifesting a much smaller lander (like the 5.5-6.5t Soviet LK), or building a second SLS to launch a medium sized (42t is max for SLS Block 1B) lander, the very heavy HLS landers now need to develop their own ride to lunar orbit. Since Starship and to a lesser extent Blue Moon Mk2 are too heavy for even SLS (or any other rocket) to push them to TLI when fully fuelled, they need orbital refueling to split the burden across multiple launches of smaller, less capable rockets.

@LeonAust

Ай бұрын

@@plainText384 Blue Origin's New Glenn and Blue Moon lander looks like a far better, well thought out lander than the very tall and ungainly fault ridden Starship.

More propaganda bs 🙄

I will use a 747 cargo plane and install a coilgun and launch fuel tank's into orbit, Build a fuel station with a maglev runway in orbit to send tank's to the Moons orbit. Refuel the spacecraft before you land on the Moon.

You also didn’t mention they need to do this at least ten times to get to the moon. It’s stupid and doubtful that it will ever happen.

@muuubiee

Ай бұрын

more like 20 times, for one lunar mission.

@jakob8940

Ай бұрын

What do you mean "to get to the moon"? You mean to build a base?

@mikitukka

Ай бұрын

@@jakob8940 no. To land on the moon they will need to launch multiple starships to refuel one to make it to the moon.

@muuubiee

Ай бұрын

@@jakob8940 To send lunar space ship to the moon, and allow it to land (I think).

@jakob8940

Ай бұрын

@@mikitukka absolutely not

Why? Why not use tech that’s existed for decades. They haven’t even achieved getting into upper atmosphere yet. 3billion dollars for what?

@anthonypelchat

Ай бұрын

They haven't gotten 3B yet. That won't be until they land on the moon. And the tech they are using is drastically ahead of what was used before. They are attempting to have a fully reusable craft that is drastically cheaper than what was used before. Apollo only happened because they tossed a multi-billion Rocket away completely after every flight to get a tiny amount on the moon for a very short time. Artemis is planned to be massively different, though still stuck using SLS.

How did they do it in 1969? Just do what they did.

@schurlexd6972

Ай бұрын

To expensiv

Probably won't work, it's space x after all

Yeah. Sure.

So dumb. It’s going to take something like 12 launches to refuel and then go to the moon. In 1969 we did it with one launch.

@anthonypelchat

Ай бұрын

In 1969, we went with 1 launch, but barely any payload, only 2 crew to the surface of the moon, spent less than a day on the moon, and came back with barely anything. Artemis will go with a 10x or larger payload, could send much more than 2 crew (SLS likely to be the bottleneck though), spend 2 weeks on the moon, and then come back with 10x or more than Apollo.

Way to complicated and inefficient

@schurlexd6972

Ай бұрын

Why, if they could reuse a ship 20 times like the falcon 9?