How SpaceX Will Build The First Moon Base
Вставка
- Опубліковано 4 тра 2024
- How SpaceX Will Build The First Moon Base
Invest in the future of Space with Linqto. Use code SPACERACE500 at checkout for a $500 discount on your first investment. Click the link below and take advantage of this limited time promotion today! l.linqto.com/spacerace
Last Video: How SpaceX and NASA Will Land On The Moon
• How SpaceX and NASA Wi...
►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
Invest in the future of Space with Linqto. Use code SPACERACE500 at checkout for a $500 discount on your first investment. Click the link below and take advantage of this limited time promotion today! l.linqto.com/spacerace
Why don't use the side thrusters to tip the spaceship over?
In order to participate in the Program you must (3) be an “accredited investor” as defined in Rule 501 of Regulation D
ahah well that sucks for the 99% of us. cant sign up.
your delusional bro, your little d!ckhead hero Elon aint going to do sh!t
AntiGravity Aircraft The Next generation Spaceship
Work base on Gravity just spinning by using car's engine
can fly in bad weather plunge in the ocean even in outer space
Earth which weight predict 600 trillion ton does not fall at the Sun because of centrifugal in orbitting, on the contrary it does not be thrown far go out the orbit line of hold by gravity at the Sun as orbit center. Gravity and centrifugal is equal called Equillibrium, thats why until now Earth which we was inhabited always rotate and circulate the Sun. Now we justly take example : how if the gravity used and centrifugal is negated? The Earth will float far leave the Sun. So that centrifugal can be used to fly far away if gravity eliminated. Finally how to eliminate gravity?
It’s way rotate part of aircraft by horizontal. When that rotation faster centrifugal force getting greater and the gravity getting smaller, finally it lose the gravity and the aircraft start flying. Of course people would surprise: how the aircraft can keep rotate without fulcrums? Thats why we named that aircraft Shuttling System that is aircraft likes two disc adjoining attached in the midle as fulcrums:
A. The Top part, we name Positive rotate to right, and the edges is getting thicker and havier.
B. The Buttom part, we name Negative rotating to left, and the edges is getting thicker and havier.
C. Middle Part , we name Neutral, air crew placed and also machine and everythings turning Negative and Positive at the same time.
The aircraft can liftup added with explosion from the engine. However that aircraft construction later, let the engineer doit it, and we are sure the aircraft will bulletproof and also waterproof.
.
.
In modern civilization where human being generally using flying saucer as vehicle, will a lot of change in lives either in materialism and in psychological. In materialism area will apply the change in life like.
People no longger need roadway and rel road which spend large of energy, money, places, things and time, object place and time. People would utilize that area for habitat or for other need:
so the title of this video should be "How do I think SpaceX will build a moonbase" -.........
More like “The Fairytales of Elon Musk”. The they can’t even get it to operate in earth orbit. It ain’t going to the moon, nor Mars, people. Wake up.
title should be "How my scriptwriter think SpaceX will build a Moon Base" 🤤🤫
Yeah pretty irritating to say SpaceX is planning this. I’m pretty sure that is just not true. It would transform to a very interesting story if they could prove me wrong with a reference.
1960’s with better graphics
We’ve already sent people to the moon
nothing there but rocks and dust
Title should be why they never went back ?
Because there’s nothing there .LoL 😂
You presume he thought about it. He did not. This is more of a "How I fantasized about building a moon base" Anyone past first year engineering will give you a bunch of reasons this is ridiculous.
Well, if you need a horizontal interior in a Starship, then why not send one that has a mostly horizontal interior from the start. During the travel in space there is no gravity so not preferred orientation. The few hours during take-off/landing they can manage in some orientation adjustable seats like they have in Dragon.
Furthermore, if they want to put the starship from vertical to horizontal on the moon, then they can already at some extendable supports, hinges, hoisting structure etc. on the starship from the start. It is not that you fly the Starship to the Moon, land vertically and then decide that it might be a good idea to put it horizontal. Planning is everything in space flight.
Why not build it to also land on its side, too?
@@CrisHelmare1 Draco engines may not be sufficient and other engines may be too complex, bulky and heavy. Adding a whole system to also land horizontally seems more difficult that putting it flat on the Moon surface, but it could be an alternative idea.
I also think they should have specific REFUELING starships that have basically ZERO interior space for crew ( make them autonomous & use the space for BIGGER fuel tanks. This would cut down the number of trips needed to refuel in space ( i heard It'll take 10 starships to get the fuel needed ) that's WAY TOO MANY ( 5-7 will save ALOT of MONEY )
Idea: What if we ONLY have horizontal rockets?
It would be fine if the rocket travels sideways because it would travel in places with little to no air resistance. And yes, I’m aware that the starship is probably going to have to travel in the atmosphere for a bit, but that’s fine (I think).
@@richardbloemenkamp8532 Fire the Dracos on the "top'' side to start the fall and fire the ones on the bottom to slow it's descent and provide a soft landing. Prepare the regolith cradle before you start.
1:40 the reason why you would want white paint is to deflect as much solar radition/heat as much as possible. White is known for its best deflection of all visible wavelengths. The Northrop Grumman Moon lander had that thermal blanket Kelvar to protect it's equipment from the exteme heat and cold. So no it's not a marketing choice.
Exactly!Stainless steel under certain wavelengths (IR being one) is like having black paint. Extra hot in the sun, and extra cold in the dark. I'd suspect the white is not only paint, but some kind of insulation capability as well. A good example is the SpaceShuttle main fuel tank that had foam insulation on the exterior. White on early versions was more cosmetic, as the tank never achieved orbital velocity.
It might be easier just to launch a starship mostly configured for horizontal use and landing. Then use another Starship or a tug of some sort to move it to the moon.
Placing it on the moon is not easy. Look up the numbers for how much fuel the LEM carried.
@@kensmith5694
assuming
dry_mass = 100,000 km/s
exhaust velocity = 3.4 km/s
delta_v = 1.7 km/s
we need 65,000 kg of fuel (ChatGPT did the rocket equation math for me).
Starship carries 1,200,000 kg, so that's only 6% of the fuel load.
This feels like a custom design could do this - maybe a small boost tug / decelerate stage?
@@dpjanes ChatGPT can't be trusted on math stuff. Putting a payload down on the moon is not an easy problem. Remember there is a de-orbit burn then the decent and then the positioning when landing. The best way to work it out is to start with the last thing you use the rockets for and work backwards towards the start.
Landers and/or shuttles are a good solution. Taking the chance of landing an upright rocket of that size on an unprepared surface is a disaster guaranteed to happen.
@@buddypage11 I agree that you don't want the lander to be tall. It is worth remembering that there is no air resistance.
Who wants to go to space atleast once in their lifetime
why just jump into Antarctic water and try to breath
@@tb7977 you will have space suits dum dum
Landing the spaceX starship on the moon is too fantastical it won't happen anytime soon.
it will happen, then fall over
love the defeatism... 🐑
Similar skepticism was voiced by many many people about landing the first stage booster of Falcon 9.
@@websitemartian thankyou
@@johnstewart579 The reuse of the booster is a far easier problem. There is no reason to go to the moon so there is no reason to make a system for the job.
That conversation from vertical configuration to a horizontal configuration is never gonna happen and is a mental idea. Much more sensible would be to launch it like that, but presumably it would have to have no crew aboard.
when they use the hull of lunar starship as a moon habitat enclosure, they need to bring a second starship that brings the crew back to lunar gateway at least. And each starship needs 10-12 more starship launches to be refilled in LEO.
Then you only have an empty hull. All the modules for ceilings ,walls furniture, and machinery still needs to be brought as cargo/ payload extra. if you install optimized inflatable moon habitat modules and cover them with loose regolith. you can fit all the required components into the cargo compartment of one starship and this one starship is available for leaving the moon again
Also, will the inital lunar Starship have wet-workshop capability, maybe not pressurised but to use the empty fueltanks as storage?
I don't think they'll be any starship tipping for a long time, the effort it would take to remodel the interior in-situ is crazy, better off sending a lunar starship up that has inflatable modules that can be covered with regolith - which could be done using automated rovers. I don't think we'll see any "building" done on the moon within the next decade, but a moon brick factory using regolith and 3d printing would be cool.
Furthermore, will the lunar starship have some sort of cover on the nose solar panels? I'd be surprised if they're not damaged on the way up due to the extreme speeds.
Is there going to be a backup ladder to get down/up?
I'd send starships with horizontal interior ahead so they can be tipped and used, and go there with the starships that land and re-launch to moon orbit.
Using installed inflatable habitats in fuel section is the best solution for sure.
@richkhalilsonicjunkee2203 That defeats the purpose of an inflatable habitat. Inflatable habitats can be larger than fairings as they inflate. Why would you do all that just to have it be the same size as the fairing? The fuel area is pressurised anyway, just drain it and use the empty space.
Leave it vertical and re-use the tanks, with pre-installed floors as perforated tank baffling, for expansion space. Have 2-3 floors of finished hab with extra equipment to be moved into the lower decks later. The ship and tanks can be shorter than currently designed, since there is no intention to leave the moon, and less likely to tip over. Living/storage/exercise/sleeping quarters on the lower levels and shield the bottom of the ship with regolith, bulldoze, sandbag or 3d print bricks. Circumferential water-wall on higher levels.
“The best part is no part”
Says the designer of the Vehicle with 33 engines plus 9
...of which a dozen have to be launched to get a single vehicle out low-earth orbit.
@@richardmetzler7909 yes, of course. So, when Elon says they are launching 1000 ships, its really 10,000 😂
I know a lot of people throw shade on Elon for his political views. But God bless this dude and people he surrounds himself with.
I feel like some politically motivated people would rather set mankind back 40 years than let Elon succeed.
I mean… I hope he succeeds(and as a result, all of mankind). But I fear he might just become a political target before that.
1st thing humans will build on the moon: cemetery
It would be easier to split the starship in half just before landing, and land the top containing the people or robots on the soil next to the bottom with the draco engines and letting the bottom half soft-crash itself. Then unpack whatever tools are needed to build an inflatable base that gets covered by regolith by a lunar bulldozer brought along. It takes away the risk of tipping, it takes away the risk of high tower unloading, and it allows for far more practical use space then trying to recycle the lander, it also allows the scrap of the lander to be repurposed for other things, like using the rolled steel to cut simple tool replacements from or fabricate layers of covering to reinforce the regolith. This would reduce risk because the astronauts have a safe complete shelter from day one without risk, and have more flexibility to produce a bigger more permanent shelter. Also this way bots can do this before any astronauts land
You literally explained how they landed on the moon in 1969 😂
But the idea to cut Starship in two is good. The tank section is only needed to get out of Earth orbit. They can leave it there already. Any further and its only dead weight, wasting fuel.
I'll believe when I see it.
this wont happen in any of our lifetimes
If you see it, you won't have to 'believe' it.
@@xergiok2322 of course you do. the brain plays tricks on you all the time..
@@rogerwilco1777 Not in the next 60 years?
@@rogerwilco1777
Ha. You wish. But realistically speaking we'd see the start within a decade.
I grew up in the 60s and was 11 when Apollo 11 landed on the moon. It was fascinating for a kid my age. At 66, I hope to live to see us go back to the moon.
Back to the moon? Sure we might tuch a boot on the moon within 20 years. But building some kind of base on the surface or launching hundreds of starships, eeeeh NO never gonna happen.
I'm 69 and I hope so too!
@@N04hrk Why not?
People in general lost interest anyway. Twelve people have walked on the moon, but I'd wager that not one of a hundred people could name four of them. But the reason the missions were discontinued fifty years ago was the tremendous expense of manned lunar missions.
It was only a great movie for propaganda /cold war agenda to be better than Russians... but Now the truth is becoming the reality.
I like the idea of a Starship laying horizontally as not only a base. But with the first lander as well.
By keeping the fins on the lander, tracks, like tank tracks can be built into the tips of the fins. The gravity is a lot less. So retractable tracks can be added to reinforced fins. A decent set of stairs can easily fold out of the crew compartment as opposed to the 150ft elevator and the problems that could bring. The ship will be able to move around on the moon.
As for landing & takeoff thrusters. A long retractable tract of pivoting thrusters can run along the upper side of the starship. These thrusters with a sufficient heat shield pattern can provide landing and takeoff propulsion that will be far enough away from the surface to allow T/O & Landings without kicking up too much debris.
I have drawn this idea out on paper and photoshopped a SS with tracks. But haven’t gotten it into a 3D animation yet. Hopefully soon and I’ll share it.
Even rotating around a gyroscope located in the nose could possibly safely lay the craft on the moon from its upright position.
Tipping Starship over onto its side would be pretty rough on it and would probably crush it, even at 1/6 gravity. I think they will be better off hauling compact inflatable habitat inside Starship and off loading it onto the surface and pumping it up there.
Also falling on sharp edged rocks may puncture the ship.
Oboy. All right, let's start with the simple bits. (1) The basic structure renders this idea ludicrous. The 2nd stage tanks are NOT insulated; the ship exterior is the tank exterior. SO the temperature swings every 2 weeks will go from around boiling water in sunlight to -130c in lunar night. How much insulation mass will need to be shipped to render the whole tube survivable? (2) Internal bulkheads are not removable. They form the top and bottom of the fuel and oxidizer tanks, and are integrated into the external structure. You would have to be able to vent both systems completely, wash the interiors down to prevent flash fires and toxic fume conditions, and there would have to be airlocks built into each dome that could withstand cryogenic temperatures without leaking. For the platform, those airlocks would have to be offset, which would make the stress pattern change asymmetrically. This would require an entirely new proofing program to prove your ship won't blow up randomly, or fail structurally. (3) 5 meters of regolith? How? NONE of the proposed lunar rovers have plow blades or back hoes on them. They don't have the ability to pull something over like a John Deere; they are more like half assed dune buggies, able to bounce over non solid ground but no real traction. Hydraulics would likely be out due to temperature variations, which leaves electric. The regolith would get into the actuators and grind them to shreds very rapidly. The same would happen to robots, Tesla or otherwise. You couldn't power them without building a full blown power grid there. They couldn't handle dirt movers much bigger than an old fashioned shovel. Then there is the issue of them having 'learned' how to move in a 1g gravity well and suddenly being turned on in 1/6th G. The things would be helpless unless they could retrain themselves on the fly. Which they can't at the moment. (4) 'Laying the vehicle on it side' is far more complicated than portrayed. The crunchy regolith under the landing skids will shatter and compress, and its just as likely that the aft end slides out from under the supports as it is that it lays down. There's the long term life support systems to install. The power systems. Multiple air locks. Some kind of passageway to connect other 2nd stages when needed. All the interior fittings. All the science instruments. All of which will have to be small enough to carry in via air lock, or else you regularly depressurize the whole thing for outfitting and maintenance. It would be far easier, cheaper, and safer to build the base around the internals than try and 'reuse' a rocket in that fashion.
Finally someone sane on this channel. Excellent explanation. 👏🏽
@@rodrigooliveiraborges4269 1. The fuels are methane and Oxygen so no cleaning is required. 2. The moon dirt is part of the insulation. Other could be spray foam. 3. Inflatable air locks with some light weight framing. 4. Track hoes/ dumps trucks for moon operations are not outside current engineering capabilities. Not the best way to make a moon base but it's do-able. The thruster could be used to tilt the starship over and a cradle attached to the "down" side to better support the structure.
I predict this and the mars base will go exactly like the Boring Company and the HyperLoop or the Tesla robots.
yep, I 100% agree. Think of all the hardware needed 'just' to get started.
I think they just said the ship is not going to the moon.
AntiGravity Aircraft The Next generation Spaceship
Work base on Gravity just spinning by using car's engine
can fly in bad weather plunge in the ocean even in outer space
Earth which weight predict 600 trillion ton does not fall at the Sun because of centrifugal in orbitting, on the contrary it does not be thrown far go out the orbit line of hold by gravity at the Sun as orbit center. Gravity and centrifugal is equal called Equillibrium, thats why until now Earth which we was inhabited always rotate and circulate the Sun. Now we justly take example : how if the gravity used and centrifugal is negated? The Earth will float far leave the Sun. So that centrifugal can be used to fly far away if gravity eliminated. Finally how to eliminate gravity?
It’s way rotate part of aircraft by horizontal. When that rotation faster centrifugal force getting greater and the gravity getting smaller, finally it lose the gravity and the aircraft start flying. Of course people would surprise: how the aircraft can keep rotate without fulcrums? Thats why we named that aircraft Shuttling System that is aircraft likes two disc adjoining attached in the midle as fulcrums:
A. The Top part, we name Positive rotate to right, and the edges is getting thicker and havier.
B. The Buttom part, we name Negative rotating to left, and the edges is getting thicker and havier.
C. Middle Part , we name Neutral, air crew placed and also machine and everythings turning Negative and Positive at the same time.
The aircraft can liftup added with explosion from the engine. However that aircraft construction later, let the engineer doit it, and we are sure the aircraft will bulletproof and also waterproof.
.
.
In modern civilization where human being generally using flying saucer as vehicle, will a lot of change in lives either in materialism and in psychological. In materialism area will apply the change in life like.
People no longger need roadway and rel road which spend large of energy, money, places, things and time, object place and time. People would utilize that area for habitat or for other need:
@@dadearinto5546 .... yes but does it come in corn flower blue?
.......And electric cars.😅
Hay, to get those government grants that has substantial amounts to try out one theory is still worth it.😊
He dose make some progress , he finds brilliant minds to help him pull off a lot.😅
Im wondering about the structural stability of the horizontal starship when it's covered with dirt. Even in low gravity, that dirt is going to be heavy and will apply a crushing force on the horizontal starship. When vertical, it's structural stability is pretty good, but when you look at ring segments which are laying down on the side at Boca Chica they just collapse. Seems like you would need to add a lot of circular stabilizing members to keep it from being crushed, even in the low gravity.
breathable air as we have on earth has a pressure on one bar. that means 100kN /m2 compared to the lunar vacuum, equivalent to the weight of 10 metric tons per m2 on earth. You could pile up 30-36 meters of regolith on starship, before the weight of the regolith outweighs the force of the inner pressure. so, you more have to see it as an inflatable structure since the inner pressure has a much higher effect in the structure than the weight
I would suggest a separate lander module that can dock with the Starship on the moon.
That way if they have a crash landing and survive, they still have a functional Starship base they can get to.
I suggest use the well proven Falcon Heavy to deliver the lander module to the Moon's surface for docking with a prepositioned Super Heavy moon base, delivered to the moon well in advance.
Perhaps they can use a customised wide footed Dragon capsule with additional rocket boosters as the lander.
I think the whole starship moon lander is only a covered-up way to get more funding for developing Starship. Once SpaceX have their normal Starship for Earth re-entry finished, they will come up with a radical new design for a Moon lander. There is no good reason for a moon lander to look like a Starship. For example in space their is no atmospheric drag, you can live with very little thrust over a longer period. For landers it is important to first determine if you want a given lander to come back into orbit around the moon. If not, then the optimal design is completely different from landers that you want back in orbit. In both cases the Starship does not look ideal because you can achieve roughly the same functionality with much lower-weight landers with a much lower center of mass and easier to cover with regolith.
Getting from earth-orbit to moon-orbit takes about 4000 m/s delta-V (3100 LEO-TLI and 900 TLI-LMO (low-Moon-orbit)). When you arrive at LMO you don't want to bring a half empty fuel tank to decent on the moon and come back up. BTW you need about 4500 m/s to start from LMO, land on the moon and back to LMO. A single starship cannot do this because it does not have more than 8000 m/s even with minimal payload and refueling on the moon surface is a problem because the Moon has no CO2. So now we are refueling starships in LEO with up to 10 launches per starship and then we need to refuel them again in LMO. We may end up with over 30 launches before we have one starship land on the moon and come back to LMO. This seems unsustainable to me.
Instead I would suggest to send an unmanned rocket with a land-able habitat/laboratory to land permanently on the moon. Use robotics to cover it on the moon with regolith. Then when finished, send people with a system that is much closer to Apollo style, but maybe a bit more reusable, maybe methane, better computers and landing guidance. Fuel for launching from the Moon back to LMO can be for example be delivered with the land-able habitat/laboratory or some other lander craft. SpaceX are good and landing spacecraft, this part is probably best left to them.
@@richardbloemenkamp8532 Lunar starship doesn't have to be aerodynamic, it is because it's cheaper to use an already designed and built vehicle, although I do agree with you, starship is not a good choice for a lunar lander
Remember, this is going to be a habitat. One thing you NEVER do to habitats is tip them over, the resulting damage could end up being eventually lethal once it splits wide open on a hairline fracture created by the impact from tipping it over. The landing thrusters will need to be deployed to prevent that.
who the hell would ever want to do this?
The ideal solution would be for Space X to make HLS modular. Essentially if the crew portion of the ship could pop off and be lowered down via crane it could function as a lunar habitat without the need for renovations. Add a dedicated transport vehicle and it could be relocated anywhere. By placing them into a hexagonal ring, connecting them together via corridor, Space X could create a 7 module lunar base with each module possessing 4 stories. Next, use the crane to set down the fuel tanks so that they can be converted into a storage facility, laboratory, garden, machine shop, rover parking, and etcetera. Moreover, if the legs could pop off and be pop into pre-built hard points on the fuel tanks sides, it would stabilize the tank and mitigate the need for digging a trench to stop it from rolling. This could be made easier through the use of pre-built doors that could be bolted on with built-in cutting guides for astronauts to cut a clean hole. Once renovated and reinforced, both the habitat and storage facility can be covered with compacted and hardened regolith to finish Stage 1 of the lunar base.
I could swear this was an episode from Star Trek. The one with Captain Archer, I think?
Really?
Instead of remodelling 90 degrees, make a risk assesment for additional stage separation between main tanks top & the 1/3 top part of the rocket. Keep all things vertical. It will look good too.
Inflatables blow away the
horizontal starship out of the water.
Just put a roof over them,
Top them w regolith. Tractor.
By the Hundreds.
If Space X will launch a Starship daily then surely wouldn't it be optimal to keep some of them, say 6-8 vertical & then drape a net/mesh over them to create an interior structure.
The Starships could also have a door near the top to then interconnect each starship & would allow each starship to have dedicated sections e.g. food, R&D etc.
Then you can create a ground dwelling for other purposes.
They could just design and build the interior of the starship in a "horizontal orientation" here on Earth, that would make more sense. Also if they have those landing thrusters at the top maybe they could burn the ones on the right to get the ship to start tipping and then as it starts to fall ignite the ones on the opposite side for just an instant to slow down the momentum as it falls the the moons surface. Just a thought.
I think it would be cool to make an anthill kind of base on the moon. multiple entrances to the surface with connecting corridors, multiple rooms where oxygen is made using plants and lamps, multiple rooms for storing resources and as many rooms for habitation as you'd want. There would be multiple mining operations ongoing at the same time for more space, locally sourcing resources to build either solar and batteries or some equivalent means for power production that can be made with on site resources etc. I think an anthill base is much more flexible and robust over any service base. There would be landing locations and communication installations by every entrance and even if one entrance got hit by a particularly large asteroid that wouldn't impact everyone in the base as long as most people could get far enough away from that entrance.
there should also be an asteroid defense system to take those big ones down or deflect them.
Horizontal thrusters strategically place forward and aft and land it remotely sideways. Build the internals “flat” and have a walk in door.
My prediction is it stays vertical.
They will preinstall grating or perforated decks WITHIN the tanks - these will double as baffles for the fuel/liquid.
They will install two internal hatches that can be opened between the ch4 & o2 tanks, and another between ch4 and habitat.
Ch4 tank will either be moved to the top with the o2 header, or possibly it will end up with two hatches and could become an airlock - the header tank could probably be a cylinder rather than a sphere for the sake of a dual purpose component.
Introducing hatches internally is tricky from a leak perspective, however they could build in an internal airlock to act as a gap - main issue is with the ch4 to cabin due to max differential pressure. Prob also want a buffer between cryo fluids and human occupied spaces anyways.
Just a note. The stability and the forces needed to either keep starship vertical or to tip it over are completely independent of the gravity of the moon. Do the math and do not argue with Issac Newton.
well same landing rockets can be used to tip it over, and lower it slowly, they may make it already set for horizontal layout and legs for where it will set, starship has so much potential
Painted white because of the Sun light.. tests done show that white reflects the heat considerably better silver.. especially when there is no atmosphere. So it is an engineering choice.. NOT for any other reason.
at the beginning of this video it was mentioned that the refilled tanks of lunar starship would be empty after landing on the lunar surface. How would the crew get back to Earth then? it is said that the delta-V capacity of a starship refiled in LEO would be 6.9 km/s. the deltaV from LEO to the surface of the moon is 6.4 km/s
One of the considerations for Shuttle was the external tank. This thing could have provided a lot of pressurizable metric on orbit. All theat was necessary was to put an air lock and hatch. Because deorbiting the external tank meant using OMS engines for final orit insertion, and because OMS are far less efficient than SSME, this techniqut took -more- fuel to reach orbit than taking the tank into orbit would have required.
The primary factor is how hard is the moon to tunnel in to the moon and build underground it would be the most efficient depending on the density you would need to core drill and find the the easiest soil to creat a start you going to have to build a refueling supply and staging spaceport that will be used to send the next journey to Mars all fuel cells need to be protected immediately
I say, the first one can bring a power station like small reactor or sterling engines, supplies, and several inflatable stations, and a lunar rover with loader attachment
To avoid the horizontal and the vertical orientation it is needed to make the habitation part separate from the fuel tank part. This has to be pre built in.
Use the higolic thrusters to separate and land still vertically.
Tall and narrow is a problem with a high CG. That's why a short squatty design is much better for uneven surfaces. ITC got a LOT right there with the Eagle.
Send a big drill onto the moon, drill down 20m, create tunnels in crater mountains or drill vertical tunnel shafts. Disassemble the hull of the rockets. Use the hull parts as double layered tunnel covering, with some isolation foam for warmth and fire protection between. Use the "heads" of the rockets as locking part of the vertical tunnel shafts. Cover those with material. Later build large halls below those layers. A moon base needs heavy construction machinery on the moon, fully automated/remote controlled with some humantyp robots for maintenance. You need to store water and food for months, before the first human moon settlers arrive.
Just when you thought SpaceX couldn't get any cooler, they drop plans for a moon base! Talk about aiming for the stars and beyond!
Buddy they won’t even get starship on the moon.
It would be nice to build the electrostatic right into the shell of the rocket. That way it could practically pull the regolith onto itself.
Send it uncrewed filling the available space with inflatable pre-configured habitats. The fuel tanks are probably too flimsy for anything too useable. So remove them somehow or maybe even just flaten them and inflate the habitats on top of them crushing them.
Could you send up a pre-built starship, aready after the first wave of astronauts are there? It could be ready for use and fully equipped. Once the tanks are removed, the floor and labs could be extended.
Interesting video, thank you. On one point, you can't simply tip a Starship over and let it fall, another method would need to be used. It will likely be badly damaged (probably broken into peices) due to the kinetic energy of the top section when it hits the ground based on its very high mass and impact velocity. This would be like dropping the nose from 8.3 meters on Earth. If a object will be damaged by dropping it on Earth from a specific height it will be damaged on the Moon at 6 times higher. So if the nose cannot survive a 8.3 meter free fall drop on Earth without being damaged, it wil not take a 50 meter drop on the Moon without being damaged. A drop from 8.3m on Earth and a drop from 50m on the Moon will hit the surface with the same velocity and thus the same kinetic energy (destructive energy).
Might be best to make it land vertically. Put landing legs on the front, middle and back. Put the draco thrusters front, middle and back. If it's going to stay and not come back. Make the insides for this type of stay.
We all saw what thrust can do to earth. Light some thrust, create a torch while blowing out a 15 meter hole beneath starship, then set it right on in. Post in a new hole! Underground moon base! 🎉 You're starting vertical anyway, got extra fuel, ground mostly dust, no atmosphere, win-win, win! Win..cosmic radiation problem 1/2 done! 🎉🎉
The way this video sounds, the lunar starship is almost ready for launch & Elon Musk will have a huge city on the moon in the next 5 to 10 years
I’ve been thinking about pyramids and Roman/Greek arches and aqueducts… rock-block technology… an option is to stack rocks to create a ramp … create arches over a rocket layed on its side. So an early payload would a robotic rock-block splitter.
Seems to me the solution is an inflatable habitat that fits the interior shape of Starship. Still work to do to open the ends of the tanks to make the space accessible, but in a vacuum an inflatable structure becomes very rigid.
Basically a self-assembling interior.
The biggest problem is that you forgot that most of the starship in this configuration isn't pland to be airtighit
Man looks like Starship is more than meets the eye
Top 1/3 could be built for horizontal use on earth.
Seems more practical
Nope, they've already spoke about 3D printers that will use moon dust and it'll slowly write buildings. This will slowly make a base where scientists and astronauts can stay. They will do the same on Mars.
They should reconfigure that baloon thing into a spacecraft launch platform.
Helium on it's own being there just enough so it falls slowly, and a solar powered active suppport, That is bases on the perimater spinning.
Why? It can the be a part of how they launch rocket.
After all, high enough, you don't have to launch the rocket up, you can do so horizontally.
Of the top of my head; the platform itself, will be considered a *brick with a baloon.
Around it, and stetching a few meters up, you have a mechewire that spins, fast.
That spining wire also streches down, where you have a hook that spins counter (that is where the engine that spins the mechewire is. Action/reaction) above the brick, air pressure drops, beneath it the two objects spinning counter to eachother basically nullify this effect and thus, high pressure, this does not need to be as high as the carmen line.
And that hoop, can have *spots* for rockets. So those don't need as much fuel, because they are tossed by said hoop.
So, how to tip down the Starship?
What about to use those Draco thrusters, both to start the fall and to slow the fall?
Rovers, ropes, cranes... just use a rocket!
You're welcome.
Avoid all that and just have a premade star ship sent there and land already build that way. Also ive always said they should build star ships like a submarine. Horizontall y but with an 18m wide body. Build in LOE. Ride up in a dragon capsul then board it. Travel to the moon or mars then use a smaller star ship to go down and back up to the mother Star ship. Stack 3 x 18m wide star ships together in a triangle format one build like a sub for the crew and others for fuel and cargo.
Soil and regolith are not interchangeable. Soil is made primarily from organic detritus. Regolith is mineral/metal/salt only.
The white paint is very definitely _not_ a marketing choice. White coatings radiate more and help with thermal regulation when staying in space for a long time. Same reason the Space Shuttle was white. I'd expect fuel-depot starships and starships destined for Mars will also have a white coating.
One can create a protection that transforms the energy from the impact of the meteorites into energy one can save into batteries... One can put several such things around the ship-houses to grow the number of meteorite impacts...
If SpaceX would go that route, it would have the layout for it as it is being build.
About 90% of what is needed in the tanks would be built in, the cargo and crew area would have easy prefabs to go from vertical to horizontal.
It would be guilt from the ground up for the purpose.
jmpo
Don't bother renovating. Just send more Starships with lateral layouts inside, stuffed with supplies and fewer crew. Send lots of Starships and join them together into a larger base. Wait. If these Starships are going to be used as habitations on Mars, no need to make the re-usable either. Save on re-entry shielding.
White paint can be a "cooling paint". The polished surface should be noticeably heated by the sun's rays, because although the absorption coefficient is small, the emissivity coefficient is just as small.
Why not just make the fuel tanks, so they can easily be converted to living quarters, by installing hatches, like in a submarine, so we can enter into the fuel tanks. And pre-built stairs and floors. All of the above could be built into the fuel tanks on earth, before the lunar lander is launched. No need to tip the lunar lander over. Just open up the hatches and move into the fuel tanks. A 3D printer could cover the lunar lander with a moon dust slurry.
Or the astronauts could just use a blow torch to cut entryways into the fuel tanks at pre-planned spots. And the stairs and floors would be pre-built into the fuel tanks. No need for submarine type hatches. As long as a way to cut into the fuel tanks was provided.
Or if the astronauts are going to use an elevator to travel from one floor to another in the top 3 floors, maybe a pre-built elevator shaft could be built into the fuel tanks, so the elevator could be easily extended into the fuel tanks, and the same elevator used in the top 3 floors could be used in the fuel tanks. 🙂
I think if they get there with empty tanks and a top heavy crew area, the ship is going to tip and fall on its own like the probe. Why not just plan on landing it on its belly? Surely the low gravity on the moon could allow for a slow thruster assisted freefall and touchdown with little to no damage, if you placed and aligned the thrusters properly. You could design the crew quarters to rotate, or just work at a 90 degree angle as well. I just think as soon as they land one of these, even un-crewed, its going to fall right on its side so fast. Id hate to see them get held back from something im sure the press would make a huge deal about.
Would it not be simpler / Better to land upside down with big legs. Maybe with a moon buggy fitted to the entrance hatch ready to go after landing.
Split the lander from the raptor engines prior to landing also. To have less weight and height.
Just a thought…
StarShip should have a capsule like Apollo, leaving the base with the fuel tanks for use as a future base.
Having StarShip HLS being one integrated craft is not an effect design which is why Blue Origin for Artemis 5 is using the Apollo design for Blue Moon.
Correct. Elon is being a Liberal moron thinking only about me, myself & I.
But Blue origin doesn't have a fully reusable orbital rocket ... which is why they can do the same as the Apollo missions.
Elon is fixated on the Starship doing it all.
However the Starship is obviously only good for putting large modules into LEO cheaply & quickly ... including ... a large Command & Service module in one Starship ... and ... large Lander with Habitat module in another Starshp. The CSM & Lander dock in LEO ... the the Service Modle with plenty of fuel for the mass being transported ... takes the Command & Lander to the Low moon orbit ... then brings the Command module back to Earth and LEO ... to land ... while the Service Module is refuled by a Starshp .. to pick up another Module to take to the Moon .. and return ... etc etc.
Elon has to stop being a moron Liberal .. and actually think logically, rationally, reasonably, ethically and ... objectively.
A Starship Lander on the Moon or Mars is just plain dumb. Use the Starship a a large Cargo lifter and refueler ... for the large re-usable Service modules( with rockets) to transport large modules to the moon or mars.
The CSM in a Starshp cargo bay will be huge compared to the Apollo's and have plenty of fue to to get to the mood & back .. and likewise ... Space X Lander .. would be able to put huge modules onto the surface .. with the tiny Ascent stage on top to get back to CSM in orbit.
And the modules left on the moon can be removed from the Lander platform .. and used for the moon base ... with Habitat modules only needing more fuel, oxgen & water from the next landing. which doesn't need a habit module.
Maybe it should be designed to lay horizontal when it reaches moon to be layed on its side. That way little will need dine for conversation.
Since the *Moon's* mass is a fraction of the *Earths* mass the actual space required by the landing engines can be that much less. The *MoonBase* ships can be empty from the get-go.
You can land a hundred *Optimus robots* with shovels, power tools, and instructions to cover the empty tank(s) with 10 meters of regolith. They can go to sleep when solar power is unavailable.
The *MoonBase* engines can be contained in a *reusable* ring with the guidance and power to latch onto a *MoonBase* segment and guide it down. (It's _never_ going up again.)
You can array several of the *MoonBase* segments in a star pattern around a central hub. These segments can be pre-constructed on *Earth,* or in *Earth* orbit, to be whatever is required.
Starship cant hold itself on horizontal...
With respect to Richard Bloemen Kamp: a "Yes, but also".
My desired modification: SpaceX THEMSELVES, advocate for another group (e.g., Alpaca folks) to transport the Selenonaunts.
Limit Starship ONLY to freight and lunar habitat. One way trips, only, for initial Starship landings.
The first two landers are freight. Critical stuff. Including a nuclear power plant, on one of them. And extra oxygen supplies. Both are used for testing: both the Starship landing mechanisms and the Starship external elevators (no vacuum welding?) are tested--prior to human-life dependency on them.
After that is confirmed, the lunar-habitat Starship is custom-made on earth, with a long-axis (i.e., tipped over) floor symetry. In the customizing, dig up lessons learned from Skylab custom configuration. Put in plenty of plastics/water-jacket interior-wall sheathing, to make the toppled ship a CME radiation storm shelter rated habitat. When launching this Starship, use a non-retun booster launch, to minimize volume for fuel tanks. Include that modification in the habitat Starship design, to maximize human-occupancy volume.
Send it, in a way that avoids LMoO rendezvous, minimizing refuel8ng requirements for it. It goes straight to the moon. After its successful landing, next to the 2 earlier freighters, an Alpaca (or whatever) brings down the humans.
The first 3 priorities are as follows: (1) successfully tip the habitat Starship. USE A SNUBBING LINE, or two, to avoid damage. (2) Encyst the habitat with regolith, as discussed in the presentation. Build up an extra-thick berm, on the sise facing the Alpaca and its dangerous exhaust. (3) If time and resources permit, tap the nuclear power source to slag regolith onto a hard surface. (Future Alpacas will land on this and not throw debris.)
In the future, more extensive surface slagging is done, for 🎉 freighter (and possible passenger) Starship landers.
Just configure the crew cabin for horizontal use BEFORE launch. Its only a few days trip.
You could construct the interior in such a way that it is removable and reconfigurable
Actually, the first publicly acknowledged moon facility.
The thing to remember about starship as a cargo ship is pretty similar to the A380. Despite the fact that the A380 has fantastic payload and range capabilities, it’s never been made into a cargo plane. The internal volume is just too big. Anything big enough to fill up the internal volume of an a380 is going to be too heavy for the plane to lift. Bigger doesn’t always mean better and I wonder if a starship moon base will face the same problems. Maintaining life support for such a large space when you aren’t using it seems unsustainable. Better to have starship deliver modules requiring no construction work to the surface than to build habitats out of starships themselves.
Use the drako thrusters to controllably tip it over.
Elon is such a genious and I hope he has a long and illustrious life.
Awesome video ! Thank you for sharing . Happy Friday to you !
I'm glad a lot more people are now skeptical about Elon being able to actually accomplish the things that he claims he will do.
Why would you remove the tank domes For a continuous floor? Each tank dome separator should have a emergency airlock which would give you 2 safe places to go if one area started to lose air pressure. There’s some very simple things that can be done to simplify conversation like pre-welding mounting points inside the fuel tanks area’s as well as pre-cut reinforced holes in domes separators with blank plates during flight and than can be easily removed for conversion to airlock, the rest of the stuff could be flat pack and Assembled at destination point. Elon will most likely have these ships designed for reuse once he gets them working correctly.
This is not scifi. There needs to be one return seat for every person on the moon. No one is going to be abandoned on the moon to die.
2:43 trailer parks need propane tanks. Great idea! Welcome to Luna Park… 4:30 Cold had thruster suit would be the emergency back up (I hope)
Hi! Why not separate the tip from the tank section and rise the tip, the living and storage sections horisontal again, with the lift door at ground. Much complicated work saved.
Elevator to the moon?! Is that a reference to the Halo movie?
space elevator!
No matter what the plans are for the moon base,heavy machinery and intense human labors are still needed for the construction of moon base…
But if there aren't too many heavy machinery are available for the time being,astronauts maybe can use exoskeleton for the construction work.
But that will mean the exoskeleton need to be heavy, so astronauts maybe can operate it more easily in moon's gravity.
Anyway, it's challenging to operate exoskeleton in different gravity environment,
because you will need to constantly dealing with different and new situations on the moon, exhaustion from intense mental and labor work will be very common…hmm
Why not Configure the fuel tanks length wise with section bulkhead prior to launch making Renovation easier on the moon.
With China setting to return by 2030 I wonder if Elon will just send a starliner with a landing/return stage to the moon using 3 Falcon Heavies (1 take transfer stage, 1 to take fuel/supplies, 1 to take lander/return and people) and just get it over and done with. Could use a mixed American/Canadian crew (he has Canadian citizenship), could potentially be the second organisation to land on the moon and the first private company.
The maths checks out, but it would be hard to get a lander/return capsule done in 5 years especially with all the other stuff going on.
SpaceX will have Starship on the moon well before 2030.
@@paulmichaelfreedman8334 we shall see
Yeah in 2026-2027 with artemis III@@paulmichaelfreedman8334
@@paulmichaelfreedman8334 not with humans
@@rogerwilco1777 mmm, maybe, maybe not... Starship development is in acceleration phase. You'll be surprised how much speed they are going to gain. I see a manned landing well before 2030 having good chances.
The interior can be made so that the parts of it can rotate and take the orientation one wants...
Given the fact that you would not be using the same lunar Starship that you landed on for converting to a base, because after all you have to get off the moon again, the ones that are used for basis could actually be set up in advance to make the final conversion is easy as possible. Also I don't really see any benefit tonight including a second floor, it would be better use of space.
You could use boom crutch get better leverage when lowering the rocket.
The white paint was to maximize albedo - light reflectivity. Minimizing thermal gain on the lunarSS
The ad for Linqto was not defined well from the video. There should be a clear line between the video content and any advertising.
Elon is the best and his 'SpaceX' company and thier plans....also anyone who uses 'SPACE1999' refrences (a show I used to watch as a kid late 70's,80's) gets my attention. The ships once they land on the Moon will be used on the Moon for living in etc, very clever thinkin, great post to show this.
Can't imagine living long term in 0 gravity.
You're falling for the rocket pendulum fallacy as Scott Manley called it. The position of the thrusters doesn't matter for stability. Rocket nozzles on the bottom are further from COM so they will have more control of the tilt... think balancing a yardstick in the palm of your hand. I think the secondary engines are so high up because their plumbing would be simpler on top of the main fuel tanks. Also having them higher up means less debris being kicked up during landing