How to Use HLS Starship
Вставка
- Опубліковано 7 тра 2024
- NASA's next moon lander is a lot different than everyone (even NASA themselves) ever dreamed of. In this video, I breakdown alternative ways NASA could use their SpaceX HLS Starship to bring more cargo and people to the moon.
Thanks to Dale Rutherford @Dtrford on twitter for the thumbnail art.
Want to support Apogee? Consider becoming a Patreon supporter and earn access to exclusive live-streams and patron-only discord channels - / apogeespace
Checkout the official Apogee Website for awesome merch! - www.apogeechannel.com/
Join in on the discussion on the Apogee discord server, open to all - / discord
Follow me on Twitter for updates - / apogeespace
Animations from the great and talented:
ERC X / ercxspace
Deep Space Courier / @deepspacecourier
Hazegrayart / @hazegrayart
Timeline
0:00 - Intro
1:01 - Current Plan
8:22 - Split Crew & Cargo
10:40 - One Way Cargo
15:31 - Round Trip Crew
25:27 - Comparison
34:33 - Final Thoughts - Наука та технологія
Loading up an HLS Starship with 200 tons of cargo and then just leaving it on the moon to be retrofitted into a 150' tall 100ton base is literally one of the smartest things I've ever heard.
"If you're against this technology because there's a SpaceX logo on it, you're not team space, and you don't want us to be successful".
Fucking savage.
But true!
But oh, soooo true. And what I hate about all partisan nerds. Yes, I love SpaceX and want them to succeed. But I also want the other American providers to succeed. And the Russians. And the Chinese, for God's sake. We need variety and competition - but in the best sense. That is how we will all advance most effectively and speedily.
I block so many partisan nerds on all sides. There is, unfortunately, no arguing with them, and they get thoroughly in the way.
Primitive propaganda ;) For one, there's no economic case for manned Moon missions and manned spaceflight in general. For two, SpaceX or not, this is plain wrong choice and even dyed in the wool Elon's worshippers who understand basic facts are sceptical about choice. This is unfit for purpose, better fit for literally ALL other purpuses (like one-time landing base, orbital hub) . This is RISKY as frak project-wise, because mission profile depends on multiple refuling flights with non-existant tankers, untested engines, non-existing booster and so far SpaceX has been less than successful clobbing primitive test articles. Landing such mass on lunar soil and ways of accessing the surface are just stupid and too risky. For three, I want Musk at superheavy length away from anything, precisely because I want it to be succcessful in reality, not in magical thinking. "For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." R. Feynmann. In any case, Biden's administration will gradually phase out entire programme and focus NASA on probe missions and climate change.
I think someone lost out with bitcoin, perhaps?
Spacex has proven their intention and ability to achieve their stated goals beyond what their competitors have.
@@piotrd.4850 "For one, there's no economic case for manned Moon missions and manned spaceflight in general." - baseless assertion. Space tourism is likely to become a thing, the ISS has provided plenty of science, asteroid mining could be a thing, plus having sustainable colonies in other places of the solar system can provide continuation of the species after a cataclysm. Also private industries like SpaceX don't need an "economic case," they are allowed to do whatever they please.
"This is unfit for purpose" - it's actually quite fit for purpose. You give the reasons yourself: "like one-time landing base, orbital hub" Those things are likely to be a part of the long term goals. Last I checked, NASA stated they want this program to extend beyond the currently known missions, possibly with the intent to establish a permanent presence on the moon.
Also, as long as it can fulfill NASA's stated objectives - it's fit for purpose. Maybe it can be argued it's overkill, but overkill is still fit for purpose.
"mission profile depends on multiple refuling flights with non-existant tankers, untested engines, non-existing booster"
It's not as if the other entrants have finished craft at the moment. Also, SpaceX has tested the engines multiple times, most recently in SN15 of Starship. The booster is currently being fitted together, with the plan to perform a nearly-orbital test in the near future. These things are a lot closer than you think.
"and so far SpaceX has been less than successful clobbing primitive test articles"
SN15 was successful, and it appears they want to launch it a second time. Also it should be noted that the Falcon 9 and Falcon heavy have been very successful craft, so it's not like they're new to the whole rocketry thing. This is just how SpaceX rolls: Fail a lot, learning along the way and building towards eventual success.
"Landing such mass on lunar soil and ways of accessing the surface are just stupid and too risky."
Are they? Can you quantify the risk? Or are you just spitballing?
"For three, I want Musk at superheavy length away from anything, precisely because I want it to be succcessful in reality, not in magical thinking."
Last I checked - SN15 and a bunch of other rockets in assembly near Boca Chica, TX are very real, and not magical. SpaceX does not engage in magical thinking (except perhaps their aggressive timelines), they work hard and keep trying, learning along the way. They're very much aware of the reality and difficulty.
"Biden's administration will gradually phase out entire programme and focus NASA on probe missions and climate change."
I hope not. We can learn so much and do so much in space.
The time that it took you is completely worth it compared to how much value this video has. Thanks for and keep on doing it!
I appreciate that!
@@Apogeespace agreed. Quality over quantity 👌
Thank you so much for this video, it answered so many questions i had. The SLS Starship pairing is a temporary affliction caused by politics. It will be remedied by time and $ considerations at some point.
Man the fact that you've got your video quality and "branding" locked in from the get-go is incredible. The intro felt hype and familiar by your second video. Loving this video and I'm only 37 seconds in right now 😅
Apogee has awarded us with a new vid for our patience!
True !!
Hello brother!
Your videos are SO high quality, you deserve more attention. Such a great channel
I love tim dods content and i hope that this channel will one day get as much attention
These are better than Dodd's stuff.
@@rogerfreeman6787 don't compare dude, these two people are good at their own thing
Funny how empty SpaceX Starships (either in orbit or on the ground) can easily replace the following:
ISS
Lunar Gateway (ie: space station)
Lunar ground base
Mars space station
Mars ground base
Yeah, I’ve been saying that from the beginning. NASA doesn’t read my comments
This was awesome! don't rush and try and keep to a consistent schedule. Whatever works best for you. The quality is superb and I'm looking forward to more!
Rushing is bad, but consistency is valuable for growing the channel.
The cargo-first approach seems very logical to me. It makes it so starship can more consistently launch payloads to the lunar surface without being dragged down by the cadence of a different launch vehicle, much less risk because it's only cargo and when crew does finally land there's much more available material on the moon to work with.
The proposed mars missions for starship use a similar idea, initially launch cargo starships to mars, set up ISRU and only then launch crew
What would really de-couple the cadence of lifting propellant into some Earth orbit (apogee of elliptical orbit?) would be a GIGANTIC set of storage (carbon fiber?) tanks in orbit. One for LOX and one for each fuel (methane and kerosene - for F9s lifting Crew Dragons) and some kind of warehousing for cargo. This tank-farm could also be comprised of special Starships that do NOT return to Earth, but are intended to be left in orbit forever. This would make them much lighter as you don't need a heat-shield, nor flaps, and you might want to use carbon fiber instead of stainless bc there is no heat-load from reentry to worry about.
Since the lift requirement on the Moon is so much less than around Earth, a similar lift-support (where lift is modular and comprised of LOX, Fuel, Engine/s) system around the moon, probably another elliptical, a Lunar insertion orbit, or Lagrange point, where payload can be mated to more appropriate lift. Think of this like railroads do with locomotives. Out in the vast planes of the midwest you don't need much, but over mountains you need a TON of power, so you need lift spread out along the load. You wouldn't want to marry the lift/locomotion/power to the load as that power requirement will change drastically depending on the mission. When going to other planets, even if you leave from the same spot, and are going to the same spot, the orbital mechanics can be drastically different depending on the alignment of the planets on your particular flight.
This argues strongly that lift and load should be separated, and safety argues that LOX should be separate from fuel wherever possible to avoid explosions killing crews. Also, LOX is more versatile and precious as people need it to breath.
@@roijoi6963 seems very logical indeed ....
This is the most underrated channel on yt
Only because we're in the very early days of the channel. The quality of these videos is unmatched. Even Tim Dodd could learn a lot from this guy.
Honestly, after looking at his subscriber count, I really cannot disagree at all.
There’s a channel called Astro Kiwi which has way fewer subscribers than Apogee - quality is not as good, but is still pretty good and channel is definitely underrated like Apogee.
@@alrightydave Thanks. Im going to check them out.
I never thought the one way mission made sense. Apparently I was wrong. Thanks for the explanation.
Yeah I thought the same thing but I didn't consider the fact that each lunar starship launch entails over a dozen launches for refueling, so the reusable nature of starship is definitely still being used to its full benefit even if the actual lander won't be reused.
Except it only meets half the mission criteria you now need another lander for your crew, which hasn’t been factored into the cost.
This discussion in your video reminds me of the discussions surrounding the Apollo options in the early to mid 1960's, when they were debating a single-stack Apollo on Saturn V, or a rendezvous in Earth orbit of the lander and CSM. Ah, sweet nostalgia.
I can see, based on SpaceX's preferred development methodology, of sending a number of unmanned, cargo-carrying one-way HLS Starships to treat them as highly advanced prototypes - simultaneously proving the lander concept and working the bugs out, and also providing a large base in situ before the first human flight even takes place.
You definitely don’t have to apologize for taking this long to get this video out!
This is Everyday Astronaut level content that’s being released every month at worst, every two weeks would be insane considering the quality of your content!
Looking forward to the next video on Blue Origin. Well done on this one!
I think the tanks are stretched on the new design, probably enough Delta-V to return to LEO
I agree. But waiting until we hear for sure.
Agreed, judging by the new landing engine position and smaller crew cargo requirements of Luna mission, tank's have been expanded.
Additionally, engines are still in development and will have power and efficiency improvements.
I think this is right. The crew compartment is higher up now now than it was before.
I don’t think people understand how amazing normal/lunar Starship is at bringing average amount of cargo (>10 tons) a long distance (to the moon/surface).
Sure, everyone loves the fact that it’s an amazing shuttle to ferry 100 tons of cargo to LEO, and it deserves to get all the huge recognition for that,
But it’s an incredibly impressive deep space vehicle at bringing average amount of cargo (like what Orion would bring to the Moon) -
The stretched tanks give enough delta-V to get back to NRHO while waiting up to 100 days for Orion and to still have some margin left. There is no way it would give enough delta-V to get back to LEO. The only way to get back without refueling is to aerobrake.
@@Apogeespace Great video !. Please make one with refuelling on lunar surface with local resources.
Wow ... It's the first time I've seen a video from your channel, and frankly I've been fascinated. You have thought very intelligently and you have captured it with incredible quality and details, the effort behind these videos is very noticeable.
Your video quality is awesome
Keep up the good work :). By the way, one thing I noticed in the new design for Starship HLS is that the tank size seems bigger/taller, maybe that's how it will have enough delta-v to get back to LEO. By sacrificing a bit of cargo volume
I have a feeling the tanks have been stretched. But this isn’t yet confirmed. Hopefully we learn more soon. It would make sense.
@@Apogeespace with the GAO denying the protest, Bill nelson will be detailing the moon lander plan to congress soon i reckon.
This is a real eye-opener and begs the question: "Why is NASA still pursuing the antiquated and outdated SLS system?"
Because all 50 states have at least one factory churning out pork for the congress critters. Nasa long ago learned not to mess with the pork if they want to have any funding left for real science.
@@Dragoon755 how so we get rid of that politics, without getting rid of the funding
@@burjalmadre I think it will be a real wake up call when Spacex lands on the moon and mars and NASA still hasn't managed to launch the SLS. The lead in space exploration is going to be private companies and NASA is just going to be a obsolete joke. The only other way is if people get sick of funding incompetence and start demanding congress stop wasting money on pork projects and special interest bailouts (boeing).
Becuse they must obey there political overlords, that want NASA to make porke-program insted of space program.
Because SLS - if it becomes operational - will be able to do things that Starship won't be.
For a new channel, this is an extremely high production quality. The graphics that are accompanies by the voice over is perfect. Great job man!
5:57 The resupply starship could be a more typical starship with a heatshield and fins so it can aerobrake to return to Earth, unlike the lunar starship which can only land on the moon.
True. Should save some cash
Indeed, lunar landing needs completely different landing hardware that define the HLS difference from regular Srarship. HLS has landing thrusters high above the surface and anti-toppling landing legs. Regular Starship has moving flaps, and heatshield, but happily lands on a giant raptor flame on a cleared Earth or Mars pad. The HLS landing method uses no atmospheric braking, only active thrusters, which also limits total mass at landing time. This in turn limits maximum fuel on a HLS launch from Moon, thus limiting ability to return to Earth orbit, with or without crew.
In contrast, a tanker starship in lunar orbit can provide lots of extra fuel for returning HLS and other methalox rockets. If we resurrect the lunar gateway as a crew only waystation, HLS can drop off astronauts there before refueling, needing only a small amount of fuel to take off and go to lunar orbit stations.
You sound like a young man using his brain! Very well done! One have to think: things have become complicated! 21 launches for one trip to the moon! 50 years ago they did it all with one saturn 5!!
Thanks! It is true. But the Saturn V didn’t bring down a habitat the size of the ISS and 100t of cargo each time either and then reuse 100% of itself after. Was still incredible.
You deserve more subscribers
I appreciate the hard work you've been putting into your videos and hopefully this channel will grow. You mention several times that you feel like your missing a piece of the puzzle and I thought I'd hand you the piece you seem to be missing. Lunar Starship can aerobrake on it's way back from the moon in order to get back into LEO. Starship only needs it's flaps and heatshield if it plans to land back on earth. It is still able to aerobrake on a return trajectory from the moon without them. Depending on it's final properties, how well it can handle thermal loads, it's final mass and it's cross-sectional area that it can use for aerobraking maneuvers it can choose an appropriate perigee and make multiple passes until it has a desired apogee and then conduct one final small burn to circularize. This is how NASA and SpaceX can achieve full reusability with only LEO refueling.
HLS Starship would not be able to aerobrake since it lacks a heat shield not because it doesnt have fins
@@Xboxgames2 That is not correct. Lacking a heat shield limits the perigee at which an aerobraking maneuver is possible. Not whether it is possible given this isn't an interplanetary manueveer where you need to remain gravitationally bound to the destination planet.
Very nice video, and a nice topic.
I love your HLS as lunar base - it just makes perfect sense. Send dozen or so up, specially made to be base-structures on landing and we're good to go.
Of course this all depends on Starships being fully reusable and cheap to refuel. Fingers crossed for the great people at SpaceX figuring it all out.
Demount the raptors and send them back with the next ride home for reuse. All that's left is a steel tube. Perfect.
Your "not close to scale" disclaimer cracked me up! LOL Great, informative video. Thanks for making this!
I imagine NASA technicians and engineers are sitting around watching this in a meeting, and taking notes.
You can say what you want about Nasa but im pretty sure they already know all of this and even more and have already selected it down to a few possible methods.
LOL... nah.
@@juriteller3688 They know all of this but need to ensure that SLS will have a use case after the huge sunk costs and time put into it. Also Starship is still very far from completing development and its goals are extremely ambitious, so it makes sense for there initial plans to not be overly dependent on Starship and still rely heavily on the more conventional SLS and Orion so as to be able to adapt quickly in the scenario where Starship is not able to meet all of the requirements within Artemis's time constraints.
He's talking about hypothetical things that we already know aren't what they're doing... they won't be doing orbital transfers from starship to starship, they won't be refueling in lunar orbit... his videos are amazing to people who don't know shit.... 40 minutes of hypothetical fantasies
You guys have NO clue what engineers dim, or how smart they are with stuff like this. This guys is freshman college level analysis at BEST. I understand it’s special out on UA-cam but in engineering circles this is nothing special. This is still a great analysis , but engineers are who they are for a reason.
"next up my thoughts on Blue Origin"
this is going to be good
finally new video!
This is so exciting ! I would love to see the lunar starship used as a lunar base, even a village of starships housing dozens of astraunauts doing work on the moon.
I believe Elon has already stated before that the initial few Starships would fly to and remain at their destination to serve as bases. They will start to have returning ships when they start producing rocket fuel on-site.
To be honest I don't think he is even that bothered about full reusability of the Starship with this Artemis gig. NASA just needed a lander, and that's exactly what he will give them, nothing more nothing less. And with Congress in control, NASA won't be allowed to contract everything to SpaceX alone, so there won't be any of the maximum low cost setup as seen in this video.
Slap some docking ports all over it and leave it in lunar orbit as a future space station core!
I don’t see how they can be bases on the moon .
There is no radiation protection . Also no thermal insulation . It’s gets very very cold.
They could be cargo bases but not human bases.
Now there is no reason that the cargo contains radiation and thermal insulation that could be somehow placed on the outside of the starship after it lands on the moon . It may seem odd but it’s far better for humans to have a protected baae than to have to build one out of regolith - at least until they master regilith construction , dust control, energy management and a ton of other aspects required
@@gedw99 Starship should easily take 100 tones of payload to the surface of the moon as a one way trip with minimal refueling, with a volume of 1000+m^3 bigger than the ISS. This is so humongous it is unpresedented in space history. It realy doesn't take much mass nor volume to insulate thermaly and against radiation compared to those capabilities. It's absudly easier than to try to get lunar bases by any other mean.
I love this channel 😍
You make really awesome, informative content. I just found your channel today, watched everything, updooted all the things and subscribed. Keep up the great work. I can't wait for the next video!
Great video! Keep up the good work. I enjoy the graphics and how you break it all down. You ask the same questions that I have about the program and the use of the Starship. Looking forward to watching more.
Another amazing video, I'm still blown away by this channel. Keep up the great work!
Thank you!
Best video I've seen on this subject, bar none. Accurate and thorough, and the contingent mission profile analyses is what I would expect from a team at NASA. Are you in the industry?
I just found your channel and I love it! The graphics are great, your script sounds well researched/thought out, and you don't talk to the viewers like they are children by using exaggerated inflection or acting overly excited. Keep up the amazing work!
Love seeing new videos come out from you. New channel, but the quality is great!
Yet another fantastic video, dude!
Do you have a team of editors and animators? Because if you don't, that's really impressive stuff.
Thanks so much! No it’s just me. All of the 3D animated parts with the source listed are created by others and used with their permission.
A channel that I love, that reminds me of this channel, but isn't space related, is Academy of Ideas. You should check it out.
@@Apogeespace big up!
@@Apogeespace Excellent video! I would recommend having someone proofread the overlay text though, as there are a few typos :)
Again, this is so good. This is my sort of thinking and I love it. Thank you.
yea man love this guys videos always looking forward to a new upload.. keep up the good work man!
Keep up excellent work bro 😉
Finally, he returns!
Solid video, subscribed! Thank you for putting this together
Great job! Keep it up! I can't wait for the next thing you take on.
Should be noted that getting from the Moon to the Earth is generally a lot easier than getting from the Earth to the Moon, due to the Earth's atmosphere and gravity.
I was missing you!
I've watch others and yours is hands down the best and most informative. Great presentations and excellent and concise.
You did a fantastic analysis ! Thank you, young man. Keep up the excellent work.
Zero dislikes...
What a community we are boyzz
I am so excited as this is new movie 🍿
Great work - I really appreciate all the thought you put into this.
well done! can't wait for your next video.
Love this video - thanks so much for all the work and time put into it! A few thoughts and possible additions:
1. In your preferred case, assuming life support can sustain the presence on the moon, you could take a lot more people than you suggest. Even if you only used two or three crew transfers in LEO you could double or triple the human time on the lunar surface.
2. Although potentially more risky, you could avoid some complexity by putting the astronauts on the one-way cargo mission with a side-by-side HLS round-trip Starship flight for crew return. The cargo trip would lose some payload by taking people, but could take a bunch of them without requiring any in-orbit transfers or Dragon/Starliner launches at all, greatly reducing overall costs and some risks. The round-trip vehicle would gain delta-V by not carrying astronauts to the moon with their outbound consumables. You do run the risk of getting the humans to the return-capable vehicle, and each crew transfer results in an expended vehicle on the moon, but if you can link them up into a mega-base, that could be a win.
3. As a lunar base, the Starship's non-pressurized volume could also be useful. Potentially, the tanks could, with some extra plumbing, be repurposed as storage for liquids or gasses manufactured on the moon, such as hydrogen and oxygen from electrolysis of water ice, etc.
4. Your costs would be further reduced if Starship launches come down in price over time to more closely approximate Elon's goal of cost of fuel + payload. For NASA there would be a markup, of course, but the $18M per refueling launch could come down to $10M or even less if things go well. Hell, if energy becomes as cheap as it seems likely, then fuel becomes yet cheaper as it can be manufactured from air and water given enough power. That would mean that a refueling flight could cost SpaceX well under $5M a launch. In the limit, assuming rapid reuse, 100-flight lifecycle, $5M vehicle cost (due to steel, economies of scale, etc.), and essentially free fuel powered by solar farms, and streamlined, largely automated launch facilities and systems, a Starship refueling launch could come down well _below $1M_ each. What would that do to your estimates?
Note, if that last seems overly-optimistic, consider that you're talking about the next 19 _years_ so, improvements of all kinds, most assuredly including energy cost and Starship manufacturing cost, are to be expected.
A+ as always. You’re sailing up to be the Daniel Day-Lewis of YT space content creators.
Who are the other contenders for that title? I know about Scott Manley and Tim Dodd, but who else should I binge watch? :)
Tim and Scott pump out good content often. Apogee drops Academy Award quality more rarely. I like that.
Terran space academy and Smallstars are each worth a good binge session.
The videos on this channel are excellent, I always look forward to the next one.
@@oconnor663 Although it's not the same type of content, I love binge watching Angry Astronaut and 2 the Future.
@@oconnor663 There's this guy with speech impediment that talks about EVERYTHING about space, treat it as a podcast though, since the graphic is just there for few reasons. Isaac Arthur.
Tim Dodd's friend, Joe Scott sometimes make video about space stuff.
Excellent Breakdowns ! thank you!
Fantastic analysis, again, well done!
For your last option I have a few objections. first, starship is as far as we know rated for 100+ ton for leo. the larger previous equivalents in the BFR was talking about 150 tons. that tonnage can be taken further using refueling but that still places a maximum payload in the 100 ton region and I can't really imagine managing to shave of 100 ton off starship to make the 210 ton target.
Second starship being reused as a base doesn't make sense to me. Having a base is useful if the base can bring some significant advantages over the vehicles you are using and when you are using the over sized starship their really isn't much of an advantage, you don't need the extra space, and they will still be awkwardly vertical. This could be an advantage if an other lander provider shows up and spacex agree to use the starship as a base for a competitor, not impossible but I feel its a big if.
Unless, we are talking about very specific and their for their unusual payloads for self-sufficiency the vehicle has to be counted as lost and even for these types of payloads it will probably be more interesting setting up inflatable habitats that are closer to the ground and with a more convenient horizontal configuration than using HLS and we a talking about very different mission.
Any way great video, you are a new and fairly small youtuber and even if I disagree with you on this specific point, you produce top quality contente on a similar level to Scott Manly and Everyday Astraunaute.
Per the NASA HLS Option A statement, evidently a Lunar Starship that is fully fueled in LEO, is capable of going to lunar orbit to meet the Lunar Gateway and then once Orion arrives, taking half the crew down to and back from the Moon. His cargo plan is to go straight to the Moon from LEO, skipping getting into lunar orbit or getting back off the Moon. So you don't need the fuel for those options, giving you more cargo payload to take to the Moon.
@@steveaustin2686 I can understand that it is in theory possible to bring 210 ton from LEO to the surface of the moon using starship, but to get their we first need to that payload from the earth surface into low earth orbit. fuel at this point doesn't matter, starship only really has enough fuel to get 100 ton into low earth orbit and then relies on refueling to get the 100 tons of payload across the solar system.
To get to 200 tons you'd need atlest 2 staships and a transfert of payload in low earth orbit something apogee didn't like.
@@gavinkemp7920 right on that one.
But... do you prefer to life in a garage over living in a penthouse because you want to avoid the elevator twice (or 4-6 times) a day?
(And the garage will be build a LOT longer and is a lot more costly)
@@gavinkemp7920 SpaceX is aiming for 100-200 tons to LEO and most estimates are for 100 tons. Evidently there is fuel left over, but no one but SpaceX knows how much is left over. Once in LEO, you need at least 2,000 m/s to go anywhere else, but we don't know how much of that Starship has before refueling. The more fuel Starship has in orbit, the more cargo you can replace fuel with.
@@steveaustin2686 I don't expect their to be much. getting to orbit is the hard part, you need 7000 m/s and the booster usually provides only about 30% of that.
Can't wait for your personal perspective later
Amazing video mate, keep it up :D
Seriously one of the best videos I've seen about it. No doubt. You pulled the rug underneath SLS
MAKE A PATREON!!!
Very well-thought-out video with great graphics! Your proposal of using two lunar Starships -- one for cargo (CLS) and one for the astronauts (HLS) is intriguing. In this scenario, the HLS could then be much more limited in capacity handling the four astronauts and around one ton of cargo or whatever are the essentials in case there's an issue accessing the CLS. How much shorter could the lunar Starship HLS be in this case and due to the reduced mass, how many fewer refuelings would be required?
Very good point that the payload bay could be shrunk on this version if you wanted to save mass. The on that goes down to the surface still needs to be refueled 12 times. The one that stays in Lunar orbit go down only needs 6 refuels. In theory you could shrink its tanks and remove its legs and shrink its cargo bay if you wanted to save mass. Then maybe it could get away with 4 refuels.
Great job man and stellar for a new channel.
Impressive artwork! Impressive channel! Onwards to 10K and beyond!
Great vid. Some practical considerations: Things we want to leave on moon: Starship hull. (as a building frame). Things we want to bring back: Starship engines. Same for Mars. The next step for starship is to leave ~5 hulls behind for every 1 that comes back -- with the returning one loaded up with all the engines.
Don’t forget for the old starships used as hab modules, you can pressurize the deppressurized cargo and used fuel tanks and make those hab areas aswell!
Wow! Excellent analysis! Looking forward to the Blue Origen look!
Fantastic video. Some of the best, most thorough, well explained, and clearly illustrated analysis of any subject (let alone such a complex, and often counter-intuitive subject) I've seen on UA-cam (and most other places).
Just discovered your channel, and immediately subscribed.
Would love to see you do a piece on a future Aldrin Mars Cycler concept, with various possible architectures. Maybe something you could team up with @smallstars to do.
Keep up the great work.
I'm sure I just don't understand the maths, but if Starship can't and/or struggles to get back to LEO from the moon, how on Earth is it going to get back from Mars?
Edit: Just answered my own question almost immediately - they will be refuelling on the Martian surface of course! (I am Costanza, lord of the idiots)
Oh, that's right! Can they refuel on the moon, too? At some point?
Refueling on the moon could be done, eventually. Oxygen is relatively simple to get from the water on the moon and makeup a good percentage of starship fuel. Methane can be produced, in the right conditions with the sabatier process and small amounts can could be obtained from the lunar regolith as a byproduct of mining if mining occurs, methane is not as easy as oxygen on the moon though. I would expect oxygen to be the first available to starship, in limited quantities.
It is worth also noting that the sabatier process mentioned above would be used to remove co2 from the atmosphere breathed by the astronauts.
6:11 the issue with this argument is the fact that you forgot one important detail: HLS starship has 2 airlocks. The side cargo door on HLS actually doesn’t limit the size of things that can be moved into HLS as much as you’d think. Remember: that door would have to be opened anyway for astronauts to get onto the moon’s surface in the first place. It would be extremely unwise to not use it for transferring cargo.
More importantly, they can alleviate the can of worms that is robotics through The Worm’s (NASA) support, since SpaceX already had a remarkable amount of robotic experience, along with sister company, Tesla. Remember, SpaceX are already in need of robotics to mass produce starships at about, according to Elon at least, 100 per year.
So robotics isn’t the problem, and neither is the issue regarding transferring cargo that significant.
Maybe they can use the space version of the SEV (Space Exploration Vehicle) to help move cargo? it looks like a cargo tug from some sci-fi movie. :)
upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f4/Artist_Concept_%E2%80%94_SEV_Use_Comparison.jpg/420px-Artist_Concept_%E2%80%94_SEV_Use_Comparison.jpg
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Exploration_Vehicle
@@steveaustin2686
That’s a pretty cool idea, considering they haven’t cancelled it and have designed additional variants. Note that it’s payload is 3,000 kgs, sensible for transfer.
Better yet, it’s dimensions would fit snugly inside the cargo bay!
@@topsecret1837 I was wandering around looking at Artemis hardware and found it today. I laughed when I first saw it as it doesn't look like traditional space hardware and more like something from a film.
Since ISS is getting old, maybe they can send up a few to build a bigger station. Starship's cargo capacity would certainly help in lifting station parts.
@@steveaustin2686
The Hubble telescope would be another example of something they may need to refurbish soon. It’s a fantastic telescope which could do a lot more missions, even if superseded by Nancy Grace Roman and James Webb telescopes.
The cargo doors aren’t able to dock to one another, so it would need either human EVA to transfer cargo or robotics to unlatch cargo from inside one cargo bay, move it to the next, and secure it there. A very difficult problem that is far down the line for SpaceX to solve. Much easier to just load the starship payload on earth.
Another excellent video with much thought put into it and many creative ideas
wow very comprehensive , thank you, lots of work.
Wouldn't leaving crew on Starship in an elliptical orbit expose the crew to dangerous levels of radiation from the Van Allen belts?
My thought exactly. Although there might be some way aroung this with later iterations of starship.
But right now the single best option to return astronauts from the moon is by aerobreaking in Earths atmosphere. And the only vehicle able to do so is Orion.
Yes, only if the refueling for some reason fails on the first past. Certainly not ideal. They HLS starship does have radiation protection though.
However this leads to phasing issues which makes your windows for trips to the moon difficult.
I didn’t want to go too deep into this because the video was already long, but that’s why I didn’t like that method much and left it out of the final comparison.
One flaw in the reasoning here: Expecting Starliner to become functional and stop being a flying death trap.
I'm sorry, but I can't trust Boeing on this. I wouldn't sit my ass down in a Starliner if I got payed to do it.
Right, I'd much rather fly Dragon.
Why not? I hear it has the 737-Max software and that's been debugged by now.
@@durandalgmx7633 Hahaha, funny joke.
The thing had eighty-fucking-one critical errors on the flight that was suppose to demonstrate that it was ready and safe for humans to fly on. EIGHTY ONE!!
And it's made by the same company that can't keep their planes in the air properly.
No fucking thanks, I would NEVER trust my life to that thing.
Thanks for the content. liked it a lot
Great video. Good point at the end on moon launch basically verifying starship reliability.
Excellent analysis. Thanks!
cool video with a bit of thought gone into it... thanks for posting...
I am looking forward for this
Love these breakdowns keep it up, would love to see a video on space stations comaring iss to gateway and some alternatives with modern technology to do what needs to be done and what we want to do in space. Love the content
Awesome video, very informative - thanks.
Great video, very good points, well thought out
I speak for everyone when I say we miss your videos! Hope you can make more!
Outstanding study young man !!!
Thank you. Great analysis.
Wow great info . Can't say much else. Just amazing!
This is by far the most underrated channel !!
VERY good points especially at the end
I subbed to you at around 6k. Just noting this, because I think you're gonna grow exponentially with this kind of content!
I'm very glad you went in depth taking about triple redundancy, not canceling SLS. I love your proposal, it's even more of a gateway than gateway.
Great video! Love your channel!
Wow, this video is awesome!!!
Great video, as usual!
NIce one. Keep posting
Awesome video, thanks!
Awesome, great content!
Awesome video about Starship going to the Moon!
That was great!
Amazing facts and figures video. Great job done. SpaceX fan from Europe 🚀😀
Congratulations for this great video. It is truly amazing and I am grateful for this curated and informative upload.
Still I almost feel you have a more clear view of the options available than NASA itself (hope they know what they are going to do, of course).