How SpaceX and NASA Will Land On The Moon
Вставка
- Опубліковано 14 тра 2024
- Last Video: How SpaceX Will Land On Mars
• How SpaceX Will Land O...
►Become a member today: / @thespaceraceyt
►Support the channel by purchasing from our merch store: shop.theteslaspace.com/
► Join Our Discord Server: / discord
► Patreon: / theteslaspace
► Subscribe to our other channel, The Tesla Space: / theteslaspace
Mars Colonization News and Updates
• Mars Colonization News...
SpaceX News and Updates: • SpaceX News and Updates
The Space Race is dedicated to the exploration of outer space and humans' mission to explore the universe. We’ll provide news and updates from everything in space, including the SpaceX and NASA mission to colonize Mars and the Moon. We’ll focus on news and updates from SpaceX, NASA, Starlink, Blue Origin, The James Webb Space Telescope and more. If you’re interested in space exploration, Mars colonization, and everything to do with space travel and the space race... you’ve come to the right channel! We love space and hope to inspire others to learn more!
► Subscribe to The Tesla Space newsletter: www.theteslaspace.com
Business Email: sean@creatormill.com
#Spacex #Space #Mars - Наука та технологія
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.
Yes, but China will land first, plant a flag, and claim the entire south pole and dark side for China.
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.
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.
I’m interested if Elon would take tunnel boring machines 👌🏻
@@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
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 UA-cam. 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.
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.
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
@@nelsonlanglois9104 😂no, von Braun was a very talented engineer. Musk is a vaporware selling conspiracy clown 🤡
I was. And didn't know it was a lie.
Sooo they are crossing the ocean in a rowboat and then a cruise ship will meet them and bring them to shore
😂
The 2 astronauts who have to stay behind on Orion will be a big jealous
I love to see before i pass on . I enjoy the first landing
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…
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.
Thats because. Its a new system. Not what nasa or india use. That use ai
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???
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.
@@davidsandy5917
The recent landers that fell over had significant sideways velocity at touch-down. They didn't just tip, but literally tripped.
Once the guidance system is precise enough to zero that horizontal velocity, such a wide base is not needed. You could instead use legs that conform to the irregular surface and hold the craft vertical.
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.
the cinematic videos are thecoolest ones
Facts!
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.
Fool
This is SUCH a good video! Kudos to The Space Race team!
Never give up on producing such high quality content
I can't see them doing all that this decade
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.
Probably struggle before the end of the next one too
If the people in charge have your attitude, they definitely won't.
@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.
@@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.
It will be interresting to see this huge structure resting stable in the dust of the moon surface.
I love this style of videos. The visuals and narration is top notch. You make things easy to understand. Please make more.
So, they've made it 10 times more complicated than Apollo ever was. Got it.
Starship is at it's earlier design tho. Some things might change
That is exactly my thought. Seems like a rube goldberg approach. 10 launches to fuel one trip to the moon.
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.
@@imconsequetau5275that will be tough when it's only big enough to carry 40 tonnes
@@mervstash3692
You already know the current Starship payload capacity of 40,000 kilograms is temporary and will be scaled up on subsequent models.
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 UA-camrs are missing A LOT of details and fail to think this through.
Nice job. Up to date and lots of good info. Gonna click the ol sub button.
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.
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.
@davideyres955 you took the words right out of my mouth. If they insist on pushing through with this nonsense people will die.
Nice work 👍
Very good, liked the detailed explanation. Helped me understand the mission profile.
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
Niel also said ET told us " Don't come back "
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!
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.
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-
This video just comfirmed to me that the Chinese will reach the south pole first 😢
We are the righteous innocent people, we will win always
@@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.
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.
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.
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.
Honestly old concepts would be better than starship like convair nexus and star raker to make space infrastructure to make space freighters
@@toastedmatt9387 yes like the old concept named convair nexus could carry 4000 tons better than star ship
That's what China is doing.
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..
Outstanding presentation!!
Great video. Would have loved to hear about the space suits they will use.
You guys do realise SpaceX will need to launch at least 15 Starships to execute the Artemis III lunar landing.
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?
I am telling you this Starship shoe in method to get to the moon is a scam.
15 tons vs 100 tons. That’s a huge difference when it comes to space travel
@@Unknown-oh6ue40 tons, Starship was just announced to carry 40 ton payload, not 100 tons anymore.
So why did the Apollo only need one rocket vs ten refueling for the Artemis missions?
exactly what i was thinking!
Something like 100 tons of cargo delivered to the surface of the moon as opposed to practically nothing. That is the theory anyway.
More payload
@@rogerphelps9939 thanks for the reply!
The lunar lander was 15 tons. This is 100+
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.
Same here. I can't find any evidence of a successful fuel transfer. 🤔
@@kennyfordham6208 Just curious what the results are, good or bad; progress is progress.
@@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.
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.
@@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.
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.
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. 😎
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.)
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?
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.
@@2150dalek DreamChaser will be a failure. Just watch.
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.
High quality content 😊.
Did the Apollo moon landing also need 10 refills? If not why not?
Compare the mass of the Lunar Starship and the mass of the Ascent Module from Apollo and you will have your answer.
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
Great video 👍
This is such a cool video!
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!!
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.
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.
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.
@@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.
@@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.
Hopefully NASA will look at this comments section and realize that they're actually really dumb and didn't think about that.
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).
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.
4:28 Elon have said that the current Starship design can carry ~50 tons not 100-200
Moon surface is uneven, instead of landing legs they should use a Bean Bag that will compress & conform to lunar surface
Yes.but
First. The moon gravity is low
Second. Bag need to be big
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.
I think we can predict the answers to those points.
The SpaceX craft makes ever so much sense as a ONE-way freight lander.
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.
What about planning a little closer date, such as three years from now...🎉
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.
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.
Gateway is both pointless and unnecessary.
Seems like tying the Starship down to the ground all the way around after landing, would be a good idea.
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.
Can’t wait…
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?
How cool
Will they fix the DUST PROBLEM before landing on the moon?
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.
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.
Pretty nest graphics and animations.
That is so cool that we're getting to a step where someday people will be living on the moon
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
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.
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.
Crew Starship will have emergency backup manual control like Crew Dragon does a likely requirement from NASA.
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
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!
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.
Putting too much into the military and not enough into avoiding war all together. America has an issue with preventative measures!
No manual controls? What could possibly go wrong?
Like a movie
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 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
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
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.
The future of the human being star🎉❤
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?
Side thrusters are space exploration at a whole 'nother level 10:14 Hopefully they work as intended on the moon 🌓
I assume that the pendulum sort of swinging affect of a high engine that Dr. Goddard saw has been corrected.
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?
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.
14 is the answer to remove the sound barrier
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?
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
God bless the engineers.
I can't imagine NASA not asking for a manual override to the lunar descent sequence, in case automation fails
Send the tesla robot first for the landing to see the elevator work ..be cool to see him do the first step …seems great for testing…
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.
Im guessing the editor, the narrator and the video director is 3 different people
Why no ascent descent stages?
It's been so long since we've sent anyone there that it's like it never happened!
Because boomers exploited it, and millennials didn't care, it wasn't cool. I have hope for Gen Z if they can appreciate things that are real, and not abandon them.
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.
You fail to mention that NASA requires both automated and manual piloting capabilities in their HLS systems.
SpaceX needs to use / deploy the same system that their Starlink booster do for their upcoming Lunar and Mars capsules...!
I know ..Added weight due to
" Landing Legs " , but there's No MegaZillia Catching Arms on the Moon or Mars...
yes - it takes money - but it takes a workable plan even more.
What happened to the podcast on iheartradio?
i think the easier and safer way to get on the moon is travel to a space station orbiting the moon then take a lander down to the surface and start buildn a base on the moon or already have a inflatable habitat waitn to camp in
Looking forward to Americans finally returning to our Moon and inspiring new generations. Though 2028 is more realistic
Hey man, you misspelled Apollo.
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
I hope they'll add a ladder beside the elevator in case pressing 'UP' won't work...
What is amazing is that Starship is not just a replacement for a manned lunar lander like Apollo, it is more like the originally envisioned Direct Ascent version lander of the Air Force and Army's lunar base program of the 1950s. It will land 100 TONS of cargo on the moon.
I think it may take much longer than envisioned in "Elon time", but when it is finished, it will have capability that no other country or group of countries could hope to have. America will have the true capability to support a HUGE base on the moon and build it much faster than the Chinese-Russian partnership.
As long as SpaceX and NASA go the distance, we will be unmatched and dominant on the moon.
My queston is how many tanker flights will be required to get the Lunar Starship ready to leave LEO or MEO, land on the moon, and return to lunar orbit or MEO? Does HLS Starship need its tanks to be fully refueled to have enough fuel to land and return? I don't think they will. Also, upon reaching orbit, there is still residual fuel left in the Starship tanks, so that also reduces the amount of extra fuel required.
With Elon's recent presentation on Starship upgrades, it may take fewer tanker flights if each one carries more fuel. And I expect that SpaceX will build a fuel depot version of Starship or a docked complex of them that will get fueled up in advance of launching the HLS version. That way it isn't waiting in orbit for a bunch of tanker flights.
Another thing I am interested in is the landing gear. As we have seen, landing at the South Pole is very tricky, given the difficult terrain. i think the landing gear is going to have to be much wider than the renderings are showing, more along the lines of the Falcon 9 booster landing gear.
As for Starship leaving the surface of the moon and returning directly to Earth orbit, Werner Von Braun calculated that the old WW2 V-2 rocket had enough delta-V to get from the surface of the moon back to Earth. With the Aerobraking capabilities of Stainless Steel, it might even be better than that for Starship. We will see what NASA and SpaceX come up with. They can be very resourceful.
Luna gravity is 16% of Earth.
Land the Starship vertically then lat it down. Than 100 ton payload will only be 17 ton to lower sideways onto the surface.
Some airbags should be enough to land the side tipping.
you're kidding, right ?