How To Develop The Moon ALL PARTS
Вставка
- Опубліковано 6 жов 2024
- All six parts of the lunar development series put together in one convenient place!
Patreon: / lunardevelopment
My book: www.amazon.com...
Join this channel to get access to perks:
/ @anthrofuturism
Written, Produced & Narrated by Ian Long
Pedantic Nerds:
When you put regolith into the cell out comes oxygen gas, aluminum, silica, and low-purity molten iron. Molten Regolith Electrolysis. Then you can take that low-purity molten iron and feed it back into the cell, refining it into high-purity iron. Molten Oxide Electrolysis. The difference is the purity of the iron, and to make steel we need very high-purity iron.
Since the steel-making process involves two electrolyzing steps we should specialize them and deliver two of these to the Moon.
Music Credits:
MogueHeart - Between The Worlds (2nd song)
The Intangible & Dreamstate Logic - Deep Recon
Stellardrone - Breathe In The Light
Stellardrone - Red Giant
Dan Henig - Danger Snow
MogueHeart - Between The Worlds
Stellardrone - Breathe In The Light
Stellardrone _ eternity
65 days of static - Asimov - Наука та технологія
The book is now FREE: ua-cam.com/video/AqF7-3mZKmM/v-deo.html
Hi, if making steel on the moon with on-site resources is viable, you can bet Elon will plan to build Starships destined for Mars, on the moon, making much larger payloads possible. Maybe even 1000 tons to lunar orbit, and 500 to Mars.
@@paulmichaelfreedman8334 Yeah you don't need to make them aerodynamic either and can power them using nuclear fission engines
How about the leave the radioactive exhaust off the moon by limiting the nuclear earth-moon ship transport between a LEO SpacePort and a Lunar orbit SpacePort?
@@paulmichaelfreedman8334 Yeah Elong likes his stuff vertically integrated. I like @Anthrofrofuturisms thoughts on commoditising space objects and travel. Imagine the infrastructure we could have :) And for peanuts in the grand scheme of government policy.
The question I have is what economic benefits is there to development? We didn't go to the "new world" just to explore, we went to exploit. You also have to consider what a nightmare it would be to have a long term settlement on the moon which nobody does thinking it would be "cool" to live on another planet. You'd want to look up Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station and how people deal with being basically locked inside a building for 6 months.
A man's water is his own, his carbon belongs to the colony - Mune, Book II
Hehe.
And on Arrakis, the order is reversed.
Sonif you pass of the colony do they remove your carbon?
Bless the maker and his regolith
*Lune
thanks now I have to go play kerbal space program
1 or 2?
@@007hansen no one plays 2
@@007hansen2? there’s only one!
Try Space Engineers. Not exactly the same but it fills the space version of Minecraft void
Same here
UK's Nuclear Division of Rolls Royce's are developing Reactors for the moon and beyond
Small Modular Reactors. They're being developed not just for the moon and beyond, but primarily for here, on Earth. Put one of these at the South pole and you can power a village there with energy to spare. Just to say. They beat, both financially and practically, the huge nuclear stations that take many years to build, as they are modular and can be built like on an assembly line. Best of all, they can be disassembled and transported to a new location if needed. And because they use liquid fuel (dissolved) a meltdown is practically impossible, unless someone finds a way to hack it and sabotage the system in some way, which is extremely unlikely.
@@paulmichaelfreedman8334Of course they have to say they're building it for the moon to hype up the interest.
@@bobweiram6321 They're serious about all use cases, earth, moon, mars.
RYCEY IS THE GOAT!!!
@@paulmichaelfreedman8334 They actually DID have a nuclear reactor at the south pole. They scrapped it in favour of diesel engines, for some dumb reason.
This is the channel I’ve been looking for a channel that contemplates and discuss the vast scientific and technological advances that would be made by colonizing the lunar surface.
Well met lol
Isaac Arthur channel is very good too.
@@verdi2310😁👍
@@verdi2310actually I really have problems with his accent. I'm not a native speaker I understand a lot of accents but his is hard to follow.
@@sveng9933 Isaac actually has a speech impediment.
He's had therapy for it, and it's not nearly as bad as it was years ago, but it can be distracting until you get used to it.
40 some minutes in and I just realized This channel doesn't have the half million subs I was assuming it did BC of the quality of the video. Tip of the hat to you my man.
Thank you! Maybe one day!
This video is the most optimistic about space exploration that I've been in a long time
Let this sink in: We could have built a bloody base on the moon, but instead we got 32 Marvel movies. Humanity is doomed.
Imagine what the world would be like if the US government gave the same amount of funding they give to the military to NASA instead
Not humanity...America son...just America.
@@SpinoSam probably enveloped in a global war. Maybe if NATO countries actually spent what they promised the US could devote some GDP to science and space
Infinity War was well worth it
This is not a base, it's an expensive camp site with no use. A Marvel movie has a use, although it is only entertaining some people for a short period of time.
The most important questions are why should we send people to the moon to stay there and what can people do there we can't do on Earth? All I have seen in this video is a guy spending hundreds and hundreds of millions of (taxpayers?) dollars just to have some people on the moon with no purpose.
1:50 : belly flop doesn't work on the moon!! To land sideways you need additional rocket motors at the nose and at the stern/ or a 90° gimble capability + structural reinforcements to carry the bending forces - a completely different rocket!
Yeah, i had to stop the video to look for this comment. The landing maneuver shown in the video is not very realistic at all.
Watch the tear-down of Starship hulls. Those 4mm tank rings are super flimsy after depressurization.
I have more inclination to believe that buried inflatable habitats are the way to go. Dig out trenches as deep as possible so the cover mounds are not tall, inflate the habitat, inflate structural members with rigid foam, backfill and cover with regolith/binder concrete.
Maybe polyethylene/regolith composites on Mars. Use some binder that's more heat resistant on the Moon.
As soon as I heard the dialogue about the belly flop landing, I knew this video wasn't coming from somebody who knew anything about physics. This is for entertainment purposes only
@@michaelwilliams2593 that’s a little harsh. I wouldn’t say that it’s only good for that. I do agree that the bellyflop idea isn’t terribly practical, but it would probably be possible to land a starship vertically, and then lay it down on its side
@@mahatmarandy5977 Agree. There are many techniques with hoists, jacks, supports, partial digging etc. that would make it possible. And indeed if you can already ensure that it is partially in a (newly-dug) trench then covering it in regolith will be a lot less work. Still hoisting down equipment and vehicles from a vertical starship might work quite well too (in KSP that is almost undoable. ;-)). I like the rough ideas in the video but I think many ideas can still be improved upon with some thought.
Dude!! This is such an awesome project and I love how the effort you put into it shows
Thank you!
If you knew the most basic things about spaceflight you would know they didnt put any effort into this garbage within two minutes of the video.
Iron ore on earth has almost no carbon, its mostly consists of oxides, carbon comes from iron ore smelting that uses carbon as reducing agent.
Imagine you've come to a examine a dead planet. On the moon you find this little base, long abandoned.
"Correlating the two past civilizations, is likely the "temple" present on their natural satellite composed of trace, manufactured elements, was a vacuum-base of one of the past societies of Terra. Digital text scrubbing of their old hard-drives in their derelict launch site in what they called "Cape Florida," point to references of "Lunar-bases," along with "firework" designs corresponding to the delta-v capacities, necessary to exit their atmosphere and enter a significant heightened trajectory beyond the gravity well at the time."
Translated from Minecraft Enchanting Language: Galactic Standard
you sound like one of those climate change cultists. do us a favour, get mother nature rid of your unncessary co2 footprint. mother nature is planning on getting rid of your defective genes through war/famine anyways, she only likes life that actually wants to expand and populate everything around it. not weaklings like you.
watching again so the algorithm picks it up
Wow thank you!
It's my % money please! So space 🌌 can get accounted for at FBI &CH@ suger hc hd qh
Fantastic 4 losers of space 🌌🌐! Lol who cares about weaker superheroes that lags est ! It's all about them vs galaxy 🌌!? Apps VR sector for JupitersS _----Ajax organic?
Thanks for helping me discover this channel :D
@@SisavatManthong-yb1ynI had a stroke reading that.
Each of those tourists would get a space suit for free? The cost per unit is more ose to 20 millions today.
Cost plus contract bloat along with super low demand is why they cost that. There is absolutely no reason a human sized suit should cost 1/3 what a fing rocket launch does...
Just re-use space suits
@@deltap6967 space suits have to be fairly customized to fit properly. But volume production should lower costs.
@@matthewconnor5483 you can design a suit that can change size at the openings to ensure a airtight seal and morph to the shape of the body
@@matthewconnor5483nasa doesn’t customize them much there like 3 general sizes for length of arms and that’s basically it
If the moon is industrialized, it brings down the cost of building an orbital ring considerably. An orbital ring is one of the few earth-to-space megastructures that can be built with normal steel, with surface-to-space train lines made from normal steel hung from it, rather than unobtanium supermaterials like a space elevator requires. It's also a very handy place to put things like terawatts of space-based solar power for both terrestrial use and its own use, slipways for building massive interplanetary ships, communications and astronomy equipment of absurd size, electromagnetic launch rails, and split-propulsion emitters like giant lasers for pushing laser sail ships. That would lower the marginal cost of moving mass to orbit enough that regular travel and trade in space can reach the level necessary to support millions of people in space rather than a few thousand.
Wait, what elevation would the ring be on? Is steel really strong enough to keep it together?
@@Mbeluba The steel ring would be in orbit, we power it and use the magnetic field generated to levitate platforms.
@@BenkOfTheKlery Are there no issues with ring staying in orbit? I assume it would need at least some thrusters to correct it's position.
Are you sure ring of that size can stay together? I'm not sure what forces act upon it and how they cancel each other, but having a ridgid steel ring of more than 20 000 km in diameter must be complicated, even in microgravity. It's definitely spinning in relation to the ground, so is there any centrifugal force?
And also what kinda platforms supported with electromagnets are you talking about?
"And also what kinda platforms supported with electromagnets are you talking about?" Imagine a static maglev with the form of a platform, that's it.
The answer to the other questions is... there's no answer, there are so many variables to count for a design(if you didn't realize, I'm not an aerospace engineer yet). But if well designed the answer for them is "YES, IT CAN".
It doesn't matter the size of an orbital ring if someone is planning to build something of that size sure that knows all the problems.
A tip: IT'S A CONCEPT, JUST ENJOY IT.
@@BenkOfTheKlery so you don't know. That's fine, just don't pretend you do.
Wow what a great video! I love that you take your time to actually cover all potential details even in hypothetical situations in order to present a realistic possibility of a colonized moon! Please continue making more videos on this subject, I’m glad I found your channel and I know your channel is gonna explode with popularity!
Thank you so much!
@@Anthrofuturism Do you think it's possible for people to begin to actually live there in the long term? What effect will that have on humans over massive periods of time?
I read an article saying Idaho is developing mini reactors that can power 10 homes I think. Also in Idaho was one of the first American cities to have nuclear power in the past
Can't wait!
I'm pretty sure scientists are working hard trying to figure out how to transplant Idaho to the moon.
@@AncientEgyptArchitecture huh
@@AncientEgyptArchitectureyeehaw! Lunar corn farms!
@@ancapftw9113 Exactly.
You grossly underestimate the problem of the dust. The Apollo suits were wrecked in 3 days.
Well, you should also consider that tourists may not spend as much time outside on the lunar surface as the Apollo astronauts did. But say that was an integral part of the experience that they were offered/paid for. Consider that those suits are 50+ years old, and we probably could make something much, much better that lasts ~1 month, and then since we have an actual lunar base we can (instead of planning to return in 3 days and never use them again) take them inside the lunar base to refurbish them, potentially allowing you to use it for years and years.
Magnetic arrays solve this problem
Yah, there's a whole lot of underestimation here.
The best way to get up and running on the moon is self-assembling systems and robots. Way too risky, dangerous, expensive and inhospitable for humans to do the grunt work, get the infrastructure installed and then ( maybe ) people can move in.
@@Anthrofuturism
Can magnetic arrays solve non magnetic regolith problems?
@@sidharthcs2110 it's electrostatic
As of flight 4 Starship’s demonstrated payload to orbit is around 35-40 tons to Leo. And they are finding that they are going to have to add additional mass in another heat shield bringing down that payload even more. They are having to push extremely hard to get those payload figures higher and still keep the vehicle reusable, V3 could fly maybe 70 to 80 tons at most. A stretched orbital HLS will need between 1200 and 1500 tons of prop to do the job.
There’s not a chance they will be able to go to the moon on 5-8 refueling flights. 15-20 minimum. Best case scenario.
The humor in this video is unreal lmao, keeps it super entertaining.
so... why do we have to send a steel shipping container to the moon again?
That was one of the most hilarious parts.
You don't. The reactor design just needs to be able to fit into the volume of a steel shipping container, so that the entire unit can fit within a rocket faring and be landed on the moon in one piece. Probably similar to the skycrane model the Curiosity and Perseverance rovers used. Then you build the containment vessel around it once it's on the lunar surface, and run the power cables to your base.
@@blackepyon4042 oh I see, first they leave room for a shipping container in the rocket then they package the reactor into said shipping container to make sure it'll all fit. then you might as well just put the entire shipping container in there since we know there's enough room. no need to even break out the measuring tape 🤣
@@typicallucas It depends on how you want to get it there. You COULD use a shipping container, if you really wanted to, but a different design might work better for a given reactor output, depending on what they plan for. Launching it on it's own rocket and using a skycrane contraption to set it down might be a better way to go, or it might not.
@@blackepyon4042 nah, it's fine, 4 tons of steel is but a drop in the bucket. especially considering sending rockets to the moon is basically free, and it's easy, and rich tourists will buy cruises to the moon instead of spending their money on private airplanes
I had a similar idea, but didnt develop and put in the work and numbers as you did. Well done!
One thing that the first moon base should focus on imo besides the things you already mentioned is mining water and converting this to hydrogen and oxygen for rocket fuel. This is where the fuel station in leo should come from. This would really jump start a more affordable space economy.
Very interesting and well presented video, but the gangster spongebob and peter griffin was definitely the best part of the video.
Thanks lol
Thank you for the amazing video! I know it took a lot to animate all of these and research all of the R&D costs you mentioned. That said, I really think you underestimated R&D by at least 1 order of magnitude, and something like $50 billion is a much more reasonable conservative estimate.
There are two main reasons I believe this:
1. Private organizations fleece the government when fulfilling contracts. One non-profit in DC (POGO) estimated that the government pays ~2X more than the private sector for comparable services. If you add in the lower supply of qualified organizations for lunar-style missions (it's a lot easier to find a security guard contractor to guard the gates of your facility than a contractor that has the know-how to build and deploy lunar-specific infrastructure), and I think costs could balloon 5-10X higher than what we see on earth for comparable services.
2. I don't think you can lump R&D costs for building the shelter into one single project. The wheel will have to re-invented in a lot of cases, and effective prototyping on earth will be very expensive (or impossible) because of how difficult it is to replicate an exact lunar environment, meaning a lot of trial and error is to be expected. I suspect your $4billion cost over 8 years could likely be replicated for many aspects of the project. $4bil for the steel electrolysis reactors working in space, $4bil for the water radiation insulation and containers that don't leak, $4bil for the machine shop, $4bil for the excavator, etc...
Multiply your $4 billion by the number of advanced R&D projects that are required and inflate your costs by the fact that much of this will be performed by government contractors, and $50 billion begins to make a lot more sense. Remember that the unmanned (no life support, human-grade systems, etc...) James Webb space telescope cost $10 billion to deliver. The ISS took $150 billion and costs $3 billion a year just to maintain. Of course, I agree with a lot of your arguments that we are at a better starting point with a lot of the technologies required to make this lunar development a reality, but I really think $5 billion is far too low.
Of course $50 billion is chump change compared to US military spending, so I still think it's a bargain compared to a lot of what we do every year on earth :)
But don‘t forget one important detail: people/crews on the moon have to rotate, like ISS crews, due to lunar gravity similarity to weightlessness. So, a full-fledged colony is impossible, but you could still do a tourist resourt, a mining base or a scientific outpost etc. just don‘t leave people longer than 6 months on the moon, to maintain their health.
And no, physical training is *not* enough to compensate for the missing gravity (the moon only has ~1/6th surface gravity of the earth!)
The second problem: the regolith is made of extremely sharp micro-crystals, which are another health-hazard. The third problem is radiation from solar flares, galactic radiation etc.
Even on Mars, the weaker gravity will become a *massive* problem, long-term.
And there‘s no easy solution in sight, either.
@@dot1298 he addressed this in the video. He said that on the ISS you can easily leave ppl for a year at a time. And the ISS has NO gravity. So the little bit of gravity on the moon will only extend that number to far beyond 6 months
There is almost no communication lag between the earth and the moon. You can remotely control robots that will be the first things to send so they can set up the infrastructure.
When UA-cam's new hype feature comes out I will be using it on all of your videos
There are three ways to do space (including moon, mars, asteroids etc.)
Do it small and fast, do it right, or don't do it at all. Unfortunately humanity tends to avoid the Do It Right option in most cases.
I have an alternate propulsion system for the lunar shuttle, one that makes people nervous in an entirely different way: photonic laser thrusters. These are Dr. Young K. Bae's invention, and they're essentially a refinement of the laser sail. It uses a thin laser amplification medium and 99.99% reflective dielectric mirror on the powering spacecraft, with an identical mirror on the target spacecraft to bounce the laser light back and forth thousands of times, essentially turning it into a very long laser cavity itself. So instead of bouncing off once, it bounces - is recycled - 1000 to 10,000 times, imparting thrust to both ends while recuperating the energy that would normally be lost, and reducing the laser power needed from terawatts to megawatts.
This does mean that a) you can't have the beam incident on it all the way, it will lose focus eventually b) you need an Earth-orbiting 10 megawatt laser with repositioning thrusters/systems for the acceleration phase AND a 10 megawatt moon laser for the deceleration - hence the nervousness. But the performance is something else. A small 1-ton spacecraft (50% of that payload) with a 30 metre mirror and a 10 MW laser could reach Earth from the Moon in 20 hours with a beam incidence time of 6.8 hours - a delta-V of 11.6 km/s and, assuming a 1600m/s moon orbit, a thrust of 3227N. If you increase the mass, it increases the time it needs to accelerate, thus length of the incidence time/boost phase, *but* also increases the time it's within range of the beam, and doesn't increase the size of the mirror, so it scales fairly well. My calculations (and I may be wrong) say that 10 metric tons needs an incidence time of 12 hours. This can be tweaked.
So why set up this complex system? Being a propellantless system, once it's set up you don't have to keep feeding it. It's a photonic railway delivering a stream of raw materials to and fro. All that oxygen and titanium being delivered to Earth and on to Mars is pure profit.
Sources: Y.K. Bae, Journal of Propulsion and Power, Vol. 37, pp. 400-407 (2021)
2021 talk and slides to Future In-Space Operations Telecon: fiso.spiritastro.net/telecon19-21/Bae_6-2-21/
Automatic transcript of talk: rentry.co/gs9wpsab
My crappy calculations: rentry.co/qrrci66r
Where I found it: spacesettlementprogress.com/enabling-a-multiplanetary-civilization-with-photonic-laser-thrusters/
Great video! Seeing the view count made my mouth drop, you deserve alot more!
Wow thank you so much!
got here from frasier cain's channel. totally subscribed! i appreciate all the work & research you put into this. it is shocking to me we haven't already started developing the moon, even a telescope or two, makes no sense.
Set a Moon colony for half the price of what was spent on JWST?
I guess every generation should have its own Popular Mechanics covers.
JWST was an exercise in cost plus bloat. It's not a valid comparison for anything. You might as well compare Falcon 9 to SLS with your smug self satisfied attitude.
@@Shrouded_reaperwho says a moon base wouldn’t turn out the same? With a project of such a magnitude it is likely there will be delays and problems along the way that drive up costs
Steel shipping container was the funniest part. Honestly everything will just be 3d printed by robots. We have the tech to be able to do it
3D printing makes sense for complex geometry and small parts.
I don't see many people mentioning the life support systems needed on the ferry vehicle. The space needed+the cost of such systems would increase the cost of each flight, and mean that less people could go on said flight. This is nowhere near exact, but it could cost upwards of 50x more per passenger, which makes this highly unprofitable, even with all the other improvements listed here. Correct me if I'm wrong, but this seems like a huge oversight.
Amazing can’t wait for the mars series’s continuation.
Great video.
I must express that the nuclear tug section of the video is highly optimistic at best, and science-fantasy at worst. Yes, nuclear thermal rocket engines have been developed and tested, but NOT open-gas-core which you mention, they are as complex or more than nuclear fusion reactors. You also don't count propellant they will use, they don't run on uranium alone, which will need to be supplied from Earth or Mars.
I hope to see this future you describe, and I very much want to see more content from you. Good work.
Also the open cycle means they chew through uranium pretty fast, which isn't cheap either.
the amount of radiation they produce makes it a bonkers idea, too [engine #5 in the playlist]> ua-cam.com/play/PLNDavGvRFdB496mL28_2r6r_hSVqSphn0.html&si=3gpzDbihypKpA8lV
Genuinely just an incredible video, I see this guy become a great UA-camr
Isn't the 'belly flop' maneuver an aerobraking maneuver? One does not need to aerobrake on the Moon. That said, bringing Starship down on its side makes sense- it puts the centre of gravity in a far more stable position than the backside down landing. I imagine, though, that Starship's centre of gravity whilst it is tail-sitting is still quite low. Weighing far more than the Apollo LM, I think landing Starship like something out of a Heinlein novel is as dangerous as hell. Starship HLS has landing engines situated between the crew compartment, and the propulsion compartment. It would be pretty simple to use those thrusters, once Starship has made contact with the Lunar Surface, to pitch the ship gently down on its (need to install) nose gear. And then up again for launch. Of course, Starship HLS can be modified as permanent habitats. Though wasting 33 Raptor engines for each permanent Starship habitat does not make practical sense. It IS better to have capacity left-over than to have not enough.
Yeah all correct and great point about center of gravity. A bit later in the video I discuss retrieving the engines.
Only six engines would be lost. Booster has 33 and those would be recovered
Yes, the poster does not actually grasp the complexities of a belly landing, nor do they understand the reasons why this approach makes sense in an atmosphere but not in a vacuum.
The Dynetics HLS landscape orientation is quite viable and also uses methalox. The HLS version of Starship is also going to use engines far forward on the hull for landing. SpaceX can build an HLS version that merges these two designs.
Likely, the ship would approach the landing vertically, and only more horizontally when it's a couple hundred meters from the ground and it's already slowed to a hear hover.
Dude! Amazing video! Can't imagine how long this took you to create, but great job. Very interesting. I love following your logic and reason. It's impeccable! Well done!
Thank you! Years of research and about 4 months of work :)
A lunar earth mover must have clam shell bucket. One shell most work against the other.
Why? The moon has reduced gravity, but it's still gravity. Just don't make sudden movements, and it will stay in the bucket until you dump it.
Instead of returning the engines back to earth they could be removed and stored as spares for all inbound ships
How do you account for the weight of the regolith bearing down on the buried ships?
Actually, the weight isn't enough on the moon to balance the internal pressure. On Mars, where regolith would be much heavier, it would reduce the stresses of the internal pressure, which is slightly helpful. On the moon, it's much less help.
Subbing this was fun and creative not to mention a realistic thought excersize. Looking through your content though I would bet you if you drop 15m videos and make sure people are engaged for 5m you will shoot up in the algorithm
WHAT THE FCK, WHY THE HELL IS THIS CHANNEL SO UNDERRATED??!!!!!!! THIS WAS A GREAT VIDEO SIR
@@_uchiha thank you!
@9:00 opposite is more likely. Aluminum is more likely because for steel, as mentioned you require carbon. Carbon is really rare on the moon. Aluminum alloys requires less energy to make. Magnesium is available to make it an alloy if desirable. Temperature deficiencies can be compensated in the design if required.
But the production of oxygen?
Well done! yah the Starship has to land horizontal to let off large equipment (Excavator, Dump truck etc,), and is the current design strong enough to have a lot of regolith on it, maybe a super beefed up version for those.
Thanks!
You don't think straight, transport logistics have sense only with reuseble spacecrafts, all the way from bottom to top, so logical thing to do would be to reuse all the vehicles in the transport chain, the only option that use chemical propulsion is to use a smaller lunar lander and transfer the payload and the propellant for lunar landing into lunar orbit from the earth transfer vehicle (it may be a starship) to a smaller lunar lander. You may ask, how the large payload fit into the smaller lander and is unloaded on the moon surface? Well the payload would be putted into large containers and attached externally to the lander(transferred from ship to ship into lunar orbit,and unloaded with rolled cables ) , that would allow a significant propellant saving, for example if the lander would have a dry mass of 25 tons (instead of 100 tons or so of fully sized starship), for landing on the moon surface and flying the lander back to moon orbit would require 1,75 of his dry mass in propellant(for methalox and with 380 seconds specific impulse) , but if you send down 100 tons of payload you need only 65% of that mass for that. So a 100 tons full size starship would need 175+65(240) tons of propellant into lunar orbit to deliver 100 tons of payload and be reuseble, but a 25 tons lunar lander 42,5+65(107,5) to deliver the same 100 tons of payload, that is only with the price of a lunar orbit rendezvous and one propellant transfer operation.
Your run-on sentences and poor grammar and absent punctuational proficiency lead me to believe that you have lived less than five years in mortality. Please cite your sources and format your comment prior to posting it so we can all benefit from your knowledge. I haven't posted anything as worthwhile as you yet in this comment section, but my comments have at least been parseable by readers.
Articulate, creative, and informative. Im definitely subbing
Awesome! Thank you!
I always thought landing a lunar ship sideways makes the best sense.
The people who love this idea haven't tried it in KSP.
That is because you have zero understand of why it can’t land like that
@@oberonpanopticon I won’t argue with that. I ain’t no rocket scientist.
You put a lot of work and time into this. Very funny and yet informative and best of all, all technicaly doable within 5 years. You always charged the minimum, we all know that if those tickets are auctioned, enough people would borrow the cash to get one, just to have a glimpse at earth from far away. Thank you for this Video. Very cool! Great job!
@@jojodinger4431 thank you!
this is way over board, just do the kiss principle
You cant keep it simple in space, it is alot more threatening than building on earth, a facility like this will need a lot of anti-radiation tools, all the building materials to make said base, and it will require a minor amount of sexurity officers (1 or 2, its not public so you dont need many) a lot of builders and scientists. It's not a simple thing because if you leak oxygen, that can lead to death, and it will need not only sealing but will also require security measures. Kiss flies in earth because there is room for error, on the moon, there is no room for error, its live or die.
@@PSC4.1you know that the primary way of making technology resistant to radiation is to make it bigger and simpler, right?
@@oberonpanopticon It's not about the tech being radiation resistant, it's about making the humans not have to experience the radiation.
Man would I would kill to grab a beer with you...
Thank you for posting this. I've spent a long time looking for videos like this but I guess advanced isru processes aren't sexy enough for the average space nerd. You're one of those channels whose existence doesnt make sense. High quality, thought provoking, original and about 3-4 orders of magnitude less exposure than you deserve. Keep it up man
@@Ian-l5j thank you dude! and nice name ;)
125$ to ship a frozen Pizza to the moon! Roflmfao.
how much would you pay for one of the 38000000000000 m2 there are on the moon? what do you think the average of that number is, for everyone being able to pay? that is what the entity being able to claim the moon through sheer violence would earn from being able to prove they can forcefully keep anyone ouf of the moon. you were thinking about cost, some others are thinking about GAIN.
@@ChadBrad-t8tland is only useful if you can access it. Just ask that guy who “owns” an asteroid and made it into a parking lot
Absolutely loved this video!!! So inspiring!!!
Thank you!
This disqualified itself in the first few sentences.
Nuclear reactors need cooling they will work at really low power without an atmosphere. Solar panels have a higher weight to power ratio.
R
@Anthrofuturism Whatever this is supposed to mean.
@@Anthrofuturism This is an interesting problem, how are the nuclear reactors supposed to vent heat. Do they have a graphene heat sink or something that can get the heat out of the reactor and out to somewhere else? The station won't be able to use all of that heat and it will cook our poor astronauts and even the reactor itself if it can't get rid of it.
@@concon9107 I agree, it is not about how to distribute heat in a power plant. This is solved and circulating watet is the best in most cases.
It is about the way to get rid of the heat. On earth this is done by heating water from a river or the sea. And if not enough water is present, a smaller amount of water is evaporated.
On the moon or in orbit you do not have water to evaporate. You need radiators each connected to the cooling water. The number of radiators limits the output power of the reactor.
Each radiator panel allows the reactor the same output power of a solar panel of equal size. But the radiator panel is way heavier. And the reactor comes in top of the radiators.
In addition, the cooling system is more vulnerable against damage.
The need to set up a radiator array is addressed about 5 minutes after you stopped watching.
Interesting breakdown. Thanks for sharing!
With tourism comes the influencer economy. And hate it or not, that’s where you get your longevity. Unless they all die in a terrible space accident.
very interesting thanks, just bought the book looking forward to reading
This is probably the best video I have watched in the last couple of years about tany related subject
That's awesome to hear, thank you
28:40 That cabin sounds like it would be a special kind of hell after around 40 hours.
I really enjoyed this longform deep dive, id love to see more of these. Like a sequel taking all of these concepts and look further into the future, or in a parallel time line on colonising Mars too? Even if just for scientific research etc.
Or how upon establishing this kind of economy, how we could build craft on the moon for deep solar system exploration, telescopes, Jupiter and Saturns moons etc..
Also just want to add some constructive criticism with regards to your channel... When i first clicked on the video, i was expecting it to be one of these AI generated channels, mainly due to the black and white logo like most of those channels have... It may be worth coming up with a new logo?? Just a little side thought. Otherwise great channel and i really enjoyed this one! Thank you.
Ah I'm nearly finished with a 'what next series' i just published an episode of that today but you can start here: ua-cam.com/video/6eFcdP-rj-A/v-deo.html
Or wait for the 'ALL PARTS' supercut in a week.
@@Anthrofuturism
Awesome, I'll start now for a taster and then watch the supercut also!
Thanks again
So I guess I can become an astronaut as a machinist. Science and technology in fractional gravity is probably going to offer amazing new developments that makes the moon extremely profitable. If only for the ability to put mass into microgravity orbits.
Really cool video! One other hurdle you might want to consider is the building of landing pad infrastructure on the moon. It's still active research but the rocket plume of landing vehicles can accelerate regolith particles to very high speeds and essentially sand blast everything within a 2km+ radius. If you make a landing pad you may need to consider importing materials that won't melt from the high temperature exaust gasses. The landing pad would also need to be strong enough to hold starship. This isn't trivial because cintered regolith's compressive strength is nowhere near enforced concrete used to make landing pads on earth.
You wouldn't have to worry about the exaust for the first landing though so maybe shipping the steel mill first and roboticly assembling landing infrastructure makes the most sense.
Great channel abd presentation with beautiful clear concept thinking
This channel is perfect for my weird niche little interests. Good thing I found this channel.
The money isnt a bad issue,the money is spent on earth, yes its payd to build things that have 0 return ,but its not like wars,spending on equipment has a return.
We humans already spend 2% on gdp on average on litteraly destroing usefull things for the economy
They could land verticaly and lay the ship down later on.
Spectacular. Subscribed Forever
Very well done video. I absolutely love your voice/tone, it's perfect for futurist content.
Lol thanks
Clip choices were great. Well done.
0:20 "subSEquent" You put the emPHASis on the wrong sylLABle.
All paths will be marked by stacks of rocks. The art of the kern will be the art of the Moon.
CAIRN
KY Planet reccommended you, so here we are. subbed
8:35 "earth buildings are made out of the earth and we need to make lunar buildings out of the moon" hahahaha that cracked me up
Incredible video thanks so much for laying it out like this! LETS GO SPACE!!!
My squirrel brain really appreciates the animations. Keep killing it!!!
Squirrels are pretty smart tbh
Beautiful stuff!
This is the nerdiest thing I've ever watched. Keep up the good work
@@literalsarcasm1830 lol thanks :)
Steel is an Iron alloy. It is alloyed with (among other things) Carbon of which the moon is almost totally devoid. It then follows that hundreds of tons of Carbon to make thousands of tons of Steel would need to be imported from earth. Consider using pure Iron or some alloy using elements abundant on the moon.
Dude your channel is awesome and extremely under viewed, over time i will try and watch all your old content, looks its well worth it. In time i bet you will be rewarðed with higher viewer ship much higher keepnup the great work
Thank you man
Absolutely amazing video! Great work!
Something to keep in nind about space is the need for redundancy. If something breaks down, kr goes wrong. Theres no quick or simple way to fix or replwce it. With that in mind, with items like the nuclear reactor, we'de bring twice or even three times the needed amount.
This makes so much more sense than using Starship for anything other than getting to orbit and back
Knowing humanity's luck, the first stage will likely take a loooong time as something is bound to go wrong. Whether it's machinery breaking down, loss of funding, politics, or a combination, our presence on the moon may take decades to take root
Very interesting video and channel. Thanks 🎉
Lol love the Minecraft reactor examples provided
The only issue I have concerning the reactor is the difficulty of dispersing the heat. I fully agree that using a reactor on the moon is the most reasonable solution and the most efficient one, But getting rid of waste, heat is way harder in a vacuum than it is on the surface of plan because there is no medium to help pull the heat away like you would deal with water or air on earth. This is not an insurmountable problem, but it is a significant one.
Note that when I say “radiate heat” I’m not talking about radiation or radioactivity, I’m talking about a radiator. Something that allows heat to escape a machine in order to keep the machine and in this case people from overheating and dying
I mentioned it for the first outpost but it would apply to the others I just didn't delve into that as a minor detail but yeah radiators for basically everything will be extremely important. (I actually animated a radiator configuration for each outpost thing but didn't draw attention to it. )
The only thing i would change is the excavator/loader. Just use a skid steer that is made for space. It can use all different kinds of attachments like auger, bucket, grapple, ect
We have electric arc furnaces for making steel, electric mining equipment. If we can make steel pellets you can make robotic 3d printers. 3d printers should actually work better on the moon as there's no air to create any oxides to stop the metals from fusing. Another idea that might work for power generation is some type of gas in a tank with a bladder to take advantage of the huge temperature swings. The gas will essentially breath in and out of the bladder and tank as it condenses and expands
36:50 just realize bro hasn’t factored in that vehicles will in fact be imported to the moon as well because who wouldn’t want to drive on the lunar surface
Dude, bellyflop maneuver doesn't work without an atmosphere. The ship could touch down in any orientation on the moon, surviving landing in a sideways orientation would require a very flat, rubble free surface.
Amazing video!!! Didn’t know it was a series. I can’t wait for more content as a aerospace engineer student :)
More to come!
Amazing video! You should do a similar one for Mars!
The same issue that we have with landing on the moon affects each and every launch from as-well. So somehow having a rocket launching system which does not interact with the surface regolith is absolutely essential for this purpose.
Mass driver later. Landing pad is also useful. Details details.
Okay this is a neat video but I doubt we’ll use hollowed us star ships as shelters. I could see something akin to the Jamestown in For All Mankind being the first outpost. basically a big, glorified moon lander. then just dropping prefab structures with moon lander style tech. Getting an excavator and loader might require a dedicated descent vehicle as well but converting two starships sounds like an incredible hassle over designing 100% moon dedicated landers.
It could be a bit more work on the moon end but no figuring out horizontal landing, how to convert a spaceship into a building, and finally having greater flexibility with a dedicated ascent and descent vehicle over rockets designed for both earth and moon landings.
I feel like this video is about the second gen of lunar bases. I am very optimistic and I think we will have to wait at least 30 years for these huge semi-independent colonies. Just look what NASA has done for the Moon since Apollo. Not much. We can only hope for China to keep performing well and spark up the second space race. That is our only hope to see something like this collny in our lifetime.
You made of my thoughts! This is awesome!
It will happen the way this video describes or it doesn't happen, simple reality.
Why return the engines? They are being produced on an assembly line and getting them back to Earth is expensive.
14 days is just too short for the first team. They’ll be errors if they rush to meet deadlines. I believe they could last a month or more if the starship shell is encased in water shell which would act as radiation shielding. Plus the added benefit of water being left behind is that it would eventually end up being recycled into other purposes…
Maybe NASA can create a lightweight packaging material that is recyclable.
Very nice! Although I'd like to say one thing. They don't necessarily need to land horizontal, but just need to be positioned that way. A lunar base concept for Starship has instead a small construction crew use cables to carefully lay it down. This saves time on development of a horizontal landing system as well, which starship wasn't really ever designed for.
You can tell this is pretty good by how 99% of the criticisms are "but the current design iteration of Starship might not be capable of supporting itself on its side on the moon". 50 minutes of ideas and calculations and that's the worst problem anyone can come up with?
Lol yeah and it's not an insurmountable issue at all either
There's also the 10-meters-of-regolith part. Spaceship hulls are designed to keep internal pressure inside, they aren't meant to be buried.