NASA Reveals Major New Lunar Gateway Update!
Вставка
- Опубліковано 28 лют 2023
- NASA Reveals Major New Lunar Gateway Update!
Last Video: What Life Inside The Orbital Reef Space Station Will Be Like!
• What Life Inside The O...
► Join Our Discord Server: / discord
► Patreon: / theteslaspace
► Subscribe to our other channel, The Space Race: / 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: derek@ellify.com
#Spacex #Space #Mars - Наука та технологія
I'm excited for Relativity's approach. Hope they nail it right away!
Yeah, I'm excited about their launch too
If they do... are they further ahead than Blue Origins or is it not comparable? Just asking... I like news about space things... but somethimes I get a bit lost where every company is with their programs.
@@rickvisser8296 if Relativity’s rocket makes it all the way to orbit they will already be surpassing blue origin, which I believe has never actually sent a rocket into orbit, only to the karman line and back.
trying to find their stock, do you know what it is? or is it private?
@@oskargravseth3889 Looks like it's private still.
Having Gateway launched by the end of this year even would be insane but cool
Launch of first payload is next year atop falcon heavy.
@@HunnidTheTrapper02 Yeah, the hold up is not SpaceX's Falcon Heavy, but IF Northrop Grumman (HALO) and Maxar Technologies (PPE) can get both of those modules ready in time for the launch. It has already slid from May 2024 to Nov 2024, so it would not be surprising if it slides into 2025. The NASA IG is expecting the Artemis III mission to slide from NET 2025 to NET 2026, either for the xEMU suits (likely) or the HLS Starship (possibly) or even SLS/Orion if things muck up there. The Artemis III crew flight around the Moon on SLS/Orion is NET 2024 as some of the Orion hardware from Artemis I is being reused for Artemis II. Artemis III has its own separate capsule, so it should be able to go off 6 months to a year after Artemis II.
and cost at a minimum 4.2 billion dollars.
@@jessepollard7132 No, the PPE and HALO modules are launching on a Falcon Heavy for $331.8M. The I-Hab and ESPIRT modules are hitching a ride with Orion, which is already going to the Moon to deliver crew.
This year? About the same chance as finding a cure for cancer this year
I’ve been watching your videos for so long now that I say say, “this is the space race.” Every time you do 💀💀💀
Why even the skull emojis?
@@noorspetsialist5547 like “I’m dead 💀” it’s an expression of laughter
@@Puftendo Sure, it's a bit off-topic with the video, but isn't it just turning into "😂" or "laughing my buttocks off" all over again while just staring IRL? (apologies, I just feel like no-one can convey clever jokes on the internet, let's just stop this reply chain from here)
As someone working on Gateway, I can guarantee you that we've been very busy, even if most of the things we're doing isn't public yet. I definitely need a vacation! LOL
Why isn't it public? Why are they hiding everything?
@justinmadrid8712
I don't know how you went from Having unannounced things acquaints to them hiding everything?
Have you ever seen the Chinese space program? They basically say nothing.
Love from Slovenia 🇸🇮!!¡!¡!¡
Slovenci pionirji vesolja 🇸🇮
If you ever get the impression that the rocket scientists are doing something stupid and “why don’t they just…” rest assured, there is most likely a very good reason.
the engineers, yes. the congressman from Alabama, room for questions
This was the first video I've seen of your channel and I wanted to let you know I'm thoroughly impressed! I have a high bar for aerospace content and you checked every box and earned a sub. Excellent video, and keep them coming, please!
Thanks for letting us know you approved.
Very great channel with awesome quality content, glad I finally found my space home here after searching for years ❤
I have quibbles and will put each one in a separate thread.
0:30 The Foust article on Dragon XL being delayed was on Apr 15th, 2021. The very next day on Apr 16th, 2021, NASA announced the HLS Option A contract was awarded to SpaceX's HLS Starship for the Artemis III landing. So it is not surprising that the Dragon XL with ~5 tons of cargo capacity was put on hold, when HLS Starship can carry so much more and is also going to Lunar Gateway.
Great updates!
Why don't they design the gateway with the hull diameter of starship in mind? The modules could be multiple times larger, making for a much more luxurious and less claustrophobic lunar station.
Because Northrop Grumman is building the HALO module based on the Cygnus module. Alenia Thales Space is building the I-Hab and ESPRIT modules, with JAXA helping with I-Hab.
The PPE & HALO modules launch together on the Falcon Heavy. It is 3.7m and the fairing is 5m internally. Starship is 9m, so a module that size, won't fit on any other rockets.
After the Artemis III manned landing is over, HLS Starship is either left in lunar orbit or disposed of. Some are lobbying for HLS Starship to be attached to Lunar Gateway when it arrives, so that it would provide extra space. Lunar Gateway was not planned for such a large spacecraft to be docked, so who knows if NASA will change the plans that way. HLS Starship would likely have to set aside some payload mass for modifications to be attached to Lunar Gateway. I think it would be a good idea, but I'm not an engineer or with NASA.
so that it would be more expensive.
They could also use expandable models which are cheaper, lighter, and have more volume space. Expandable models have already been used on the space station and proven reliable.
@@acemax1124 except Bigelow has gone bankrupt by now
Starship is so big it doesn’t need a station. If you want a station, just park starship in orbit. Lunar startship can dock with that. If it wants to.
Cheers for the update 👍👍👍
I'm blown away at how much Elon Musk and SpaceX have achieved. I recall thinking to myself how they would never be able to land rockets back on the ground and re-use them. It never gets old watching the launches -- especially the couple I saw in person.
I realy wish to believe in Starship but something inside me says it will not work. Hope it's wrong.
@@joseeduardobolisfortes Starship is likely to work, but won't necessarily be as cheap or as rapidly reusable as Musk hopes.
@@joseeduardobolisfortesStarship will definitely work, even if a few blows up at first, it will work and be awesome to shoot humanity into the future.
landing airplanes after takeoff was once considered impossible. except that they kept crashing into the ground.
@@ericblanchard5873 My concern is: how many "blows up" will be needed before it is considered safe and if SpaceX can absorb this budget.
Awesome, really excited about the moon gateway station
😁
Great stuff!
Good show. Getting harder to believe that Starship will be ready for Artimis 3. Fingers crossed.
Oh my goodness I'll bookmark it on my Calendar
That Buran t-shirt at 5:20
brings a tear to my eyes that someone else in the world loves it, thank you
Ditto that, Alexandra Chemysh! Wish I had one. I, too, love Buran with its jet engines and unmanned capability (beats NASA Space Shuttle easy); and the re-usable Energia booster lifts, alone, Buran's 100 tonne bulk to LEO by generating 3,500 tonnes of thrust. Tears aside, We "someone else's" know that Elon Musk's Starship is merely catching up, albeit 35 years later!! (Hello from New Zealand, Rocket Lab turf!🚀🇳🇿)
I just wanna live to see a successful starship landing on Mars..
We need a Deep Space 9 gateway to dock at and refuel etc.
sorry - too large and requires too much constant support.
@Jesse Pollard it will need to be this size once we start transporting 1 million people to Mars. That's just a start, we will be inventing new engines and ships to go farther, faster, and safer into deep deep space, as long as our soon-to-be WW3 doesn't wipe us, humans, to extinction. Hopefully we will come into a new era of peace before world war takes place and unite the planets countries to invent the tech to get us to the far planets and quickly. The only way I see this happening is after WW3 if there is anyone of us left, or an alien spacecraft openly comes to earth and recorded on live news around the world and tells us we are in danger of other aliens or a comet coming for earth within 50+ years. Then all countries would most likely work together to save our planet or to ditch it by transporting people off world. Humans at this stage are too petty and greedy to unit for no great reason. So in the meantime we will be held back from evolving because of those reasons, at this time we need to be at 1.0 to accomplish this, right now we are at 0.72 we are somewhat close and tech is evolving fast, but can humans evolve with the speed of our tech? The answer is no, we will most likely destroy ourselves with militarization of what we create. But yes Deep space 9 would be too big to build right now, maybe not in 10 years if SpaceX is able to built 1 Starship per day. Just my thoughts and opinions.
needed about as much as an ocean airport in the 1920s.
would almost make sense to leave a star ship in orbit to start the next space station, (leave star ship as the first module). the star ship that space X uses would be built on the ground and hey the meneuvering engines are already built in. Not only the spaceX team could include everything need for a first expansion, star ship would have to be outfitted with hatches for these expansions
Very nice channel.
4:50 The NRHO is very stable compared to a low lunar orbit. That is much more important for long term stability of the Lunar Gateway, since the propellant for the PPE still has to be sent to the Moon. So the less propellant needed to send to the Moon, the better.
The launch of the PPE and HALO together on a Falcon Heavy is NET Nov 2024 as you mentioned earlier. The path they will take to the Moon takes months to get there (you also mentioned), so may be ready in 2025 at the earliest.
They have discovered stable frozen low lunar orbits. Saying low lunar orbit is unstable is not accurate.
@@garychurch9237 Do you have a link? Because everything I have seen is that a low lunar orbit is less stable than the NRHO, so you need more propellant in a year.
@@steveaustin2686 Frozen Orbit- Wiki. It's not hard man.
@@garychurch9237 Maybe you should have read it first.
"Through a study of many lunar orbiting satellites, scientists have discovered that most low lunar orbits (LLO) are unstable.[3] Four frozen lunar orbits have been identified at 27°, 50°, 76°, and 86° inclination."
Since I have stable orbits as the first criteria, what I was disagreeing with the video about, you also have the communication aspect, which was the first criteria in the video. I would put it second. In those LLO, the orbital period is about two hours, so the majority of the time, the Lunar Gateway is out of contact with the surface mission under it. In the NRHO, roughly 90% of the orbit is in contact with the surface mission at the south pole. And depending on the location of the base on the south pole, like Shackleton crater, you can get almost all the Moon's orbit in sunlight. A big factor for a lunar base, since a lunar night is two weeks long.
@@steveaustin2686 Not going to argue. Bye.
1:40 The graphic you show has nowhere for propellant to be stored for future refueling stops to other locations in the solar system. Also, unless Artemis develops resource extraction on the Moon rather quickly to make propellant, you still have to truck all the propellant to Lunar Gateway. So refueling spacecraft going somewhere else is a longer term project.
One of the things that Artemis wants to develop, is how to extract resources from regolith on airless or nearly airless worlds. NASA has a RFP out for ideas on how to free water ice from regolith. The example plan NASA had was tenting over a section of regolith with a transparent dome and using mirrors to direct sunlight under the dome. The water ice would sublimate to water vapor to be extracted from the dome.
The PPE is for station keeping in the NRHO. That orbit was used, instead of a lower one, because it is very stable and needs little propellant every year for station keeping. MASSCONs (mass concentrations) on the Moon are mostly on the Earth side of the Moon, so low lunar orbits are not very stable.
The PPE and HALO launch on a Falcon Heavy NET Nov 2024. I-Hab goes with Orion on Artemis IV and ESPIRT goes with Orion on Artemis V.
A “jumping off point” for mars should be in low earth orbit where earths magnetic field provides more radiation protection that a lunar rectilinear halo orbit.
(Btw this is for the lunar gateway SS) The thing is that when they announce something everybody is like “oMg it iS OnLy 6 yEarS BefORe tHe DatE WiLl thEy MaKe iT In TIME” like wait and see what is happening like a little delay there in there isn’t so bad and keep in mind that these things cost billions of dollars and it’s gonna be orbiting another moon/planet so it’s a big deal and it’s nothing to be messing with or hurrying it up just because of our excitement
The Lunar gateway should include two inflatable modules, for habitation and less crammed conditions.
Large Space Stations, Lunar Base...could have been operational many years ago, but they threw it all away in the early 70's after Apollo :-(.
The technology was not ready, Apollo was controlled by a calculator as the main computer. Material sciences was also primitive at that point. The mission would have been cost prohibitive even if the tech was somehow up to the job.
I was 2 when Sputnik launched, I was a nerdy kid (before it was fashionable...), followed NASA all thru the 60's and SpaceX, etc. now. What was "thrown away" was all the infrastructure, manpower and the knowledge we gained.
@@alaskanight940 Not even a calculator which is why it kept getting register overrun errors such that Niel Armstrong finally turned off the computer and landed the LEM himself! Yes, I was watching it on B and w TV at the time.
@@festeradams3972 Yes and in my opinion that was STUPID!
@@festeradams3972it was already thrown out before NASA landed on the moon. When apollo 11 lidfted off apollo 17 rocket was already being delivered to KSC. Apollo was impressive but it was anomaly in progression. It's architecture was flawed beacuse in the end
Main goal: political stunt
the asteroid belt is the mecca for mineral mining....all you have to do is reach for it and have the most lucrative source wealth as earth produce its things that shines
5:51 are we not going to talk about the fact that the code on the big screen monitor is BASIC?
🤣🤣🤣 Austin Powers using the bathroom on the moon!! That was great how they snuck that in!!
4:20 ??
Early 2021 plus 2 years, 8 months = Early 2023 plus 8 months > August 2023
Serious question, is there the possibility they are holding off until Starship is fully operational? It has such a large payload capacity and should be able to make cheap round missions. I only ask with the hopefully very soon fully launch of the Super heavy Starship.
EDIT. Missed the point of my question. Would landing with a large payload of robots and building equipment a few times on the moon be easier than building in space. You would have low gravity eliminating need for large equipment just teathering and slow movement. Would eliminate the issue of orbiting the moon and making shipments have to line up with the earth orbit and stations orbit around the moon. Also give a small amount of gravity for the people inhabiting the base at the time.
WOW!!! What a Channel!!!
Narrated Very Well and on topics that " I " am interested.....especially 'Gateway'.
A Very complete update on all things "space"! Thanks for the posting.
" '???' "
all these mentions of refueling stations - what's really needed there is to come up with ways to make the fuel in space vs have to lift fuel out of Earth's gravity well. So wondering if there is any potential for that using astroids and comets as source of raw materials...
You can break water (H20) into hydrogen (H2) and Oxygen (O2) for use as a propellant. With carbon dioxide (CO2), H2 and a catalyst, you can make methane (LCH4) and H2O. So you can make propellant off Earth. Artemis plans to develop the tech for getting water ice off of airless or nearly airless worlds for future propellant creation on the Moon and Mars. If an asteroid/comet has the resources, they would work too.
its my belief that the moon should be just that a gas station to the solar system
Is the dragon XL still a thing ?
You launched a great big battery and then you got great big solar panels then your green new dew and just pull up and plug in
Do they also 3D print they’re pressurized fuel as well?
You mean the tanks? Yes, almost everything on the Terran 1 and future Terran R are 3d printed.
Lunar Gateway Space X
....Sooo, if a crew rated Dragon XL can make it to Lunar Gateway, then as soon as the lunar Starship is ready, then SLS becomes a redundancy.
Look at the Dragon XL at 3:03. It is a cylinder, so there is NO way it is a crew transfer spacecraft. Dragon XL is a one way, pressurized cargo spacecraft that can be used as a room on the Lunar Gateway, until it is disposed of.
The article by Jeff Foust that he shows at 0:30, was done on Apr 15th, 2021 and onl Apr 16th, 2021, NASA announced that HLS Starship was awarded the $2.94B HLS Option A contract. That is almost certainly why Dragon XL was put on hiatus, because why send a ~5 ton cargo spacecraft when HLS Starship is also going there and can carry so much more.
Starship has some maturation to go through, before it can replace SLS/Orion. From page 27 of the GAO decision to deny the HLS complaints. [DELETED] is apparently at least a propellant depot Starship variant from the context and SpaceX had the GAO redact that info. Added in Musk's payload update (~150t) and he says that it is up to 8 Tankers to fully refill HLS Starship, depending on HLS Starship's mass. My comments are in ().
"SpaceX’s concept of operations contemplated ten total launches (down from 16), consisting of: 1 launch of its [DELETED]; 8 launches of its Tanker Starships to supply fuel to [DELETED] (down from 14); and 1 launch of its HLS Lander Starship, which would be [DELETED] and then travel to the Moon."
On page 10 of the same GAO report, the SpaceX plan for Artemis III is 1 Starship variant launch every 12 days. So that would be about 3 months to get HLS Starship on its way to the Moon, if 8 Tanker flights are needed. Per page 9 of the Apr 2021 HLS Option A Source Selection Statement, HLS Starship can only wait 100 days (3 months) in lunar orbit for the crew to arrive. It took the Falcon 9 over a decade to get to a less than a week launch cadence. I'm thinking that Starship needs to get to at least a once a week launch cadence (2 months) to have enough slack for scrubs to be able to replace SLS/Orion. So it is not unreasonable, that Starship will take some number of years to get to that cadence. Likely around Artemis V in 2028-ish I would think.
SLS was always a redundancy.
@@jessepollard7132 Nah, it is needed to get crew to and from the Moon. Like through Artemis V, before Starship matures to the point that it can replace it.
Sls brings more capacity. The more rockets the faster we can colonize the solar system
@@armaniwebb4467 Not really. it is bigger single launch - but then you have to spend 4+ billion dollars before you can launch (which will take about 2 years if not cancelled again) again. Besides Starship will launch just as much if not more, and launch more frequently.
GREAT content, GREAT presentation!
Well, it would now seem that a Starship launch this month is highly unlikely. Will they manage it in April? I am both hopeful and skeptical. The launch has been getting pushed back by one month, every month, for a very long time now. I certainly hope to see that pattern finally broken and, obviously, important progress has been getting made all along. Nonetheless, I am at a point where I will believe there is going to be a launch when I see the blasted rocket lift off the pad. It will happen someday, but I am making no bets on when.
Relativity, of course, had to scrub their launch. These things happen. It is better to scrub than to RUD. They'll launch next time and, hopefully, make it to orbit. Getting to orbit on your first try is a bit unusual, as the Japanese just demonstrated. Nonetheless, with all the new rockets being developed by so many organizations both new and old, including most especially Starship, you are very right, the next ten years is going to be a very exciting time.
Looks like some one is finally reading my notes:: I said we need a Space Port for leaving these Star ships in space. It would save on fuel from launching and landing all the time. We wouldn't be burning up the atmosphere so much. It would increase the life span of the ship from the G forces from the shaking of the ship from launching and landing every time. It would decrease the turn around time from landing and launching and every time. We could refuel in space, repair in space, reload in space would make it so much easyer. The safety from launching and landing in space would increase 10 fold. Is anyone one out there ???, over. Hello?? Leave your comments down below ...
Hmm why all the footage of Delta's Castor 2 boosters they haven't flown since the early part of this century :|
The concept of producing rocket fuel in space is interesting. There is plentiful solar energy but limited matter. The solar wind could supply hydrogen matter but no oxygen or carbon matter. So the rocket engines in space travel will not be chemical as we know them today. They will need to be some kind of ion drives yet to be developed.
The way that you would produce propellant for Lunar Gateway, without shipping it from Earth on Tanker Starships, would be to use the water ice on the Moon. That is one of the things that Artemis wants to develop, the way to get water ice off planets with little to no atmosphere. The example plan that NASA has is using a clear tent over the regolith and using mirrored sunlight to heat up the regolith to release the ice. NASA has a RFP out for anyone who has a better idea to contact them with it for a proposal. Breaking water (H2O) gets you hydrogen (H2) and oxygen (O2). With carbon dioxide (CO2) added to H2 (with a catalyst) in the Sabatier process, you get methane (CH4) and H2O. Another thing that NASA wants to fully develop is making propellant on other worlds via breaking water and or making methane, depending on what the spacecraft needs. So propellant production in the quanties needed for refilling a spacecraft are years away.
@@steveaustin2686 You are correct in most respects but here is the problem in the long term. Sunshine 2 weeks on 2 weeks off on the moon. The poles are not the ideal solution in the long term
@@steveaustin2686 Problem 2. Starship uses methane which is not available on the moon in the short term. In the long term the carbon in the regolith can be used to create methane but this is a very big if
@@jeffharmed1616 The reason for putting the Artemis base at the South pole, is some areas have like 90% sunlight. Which is why the Shackelton crater is a hot topic for a base, as the rim can have that almost continuous sunlight and the access to continual shadow from the crater rim.
Not all rockets use methane as a propellant. Liquid Hydrogen (LH2)/Liquid Oxygen LOX) is a very popular deep space propellant mix as it is very efficient, more so than LCH4, and the smaller tanks of upper stages don't have as much problem with the propellant ratio needed. So that is no problem for propellant from the Moon. There are papers about methane production on the Moon as apparently there can be a decent amount of carbon in the water ice. So LCH4 might be able to be made there as well. That would be one of the things Artemis would be looking at.
@@steveaustin2686 Yes it did mention the north & South Pole advantages in my early message and alluded to their short term limitations. The only real economic propulsion system in the rocket game is starship with its methane fuel. Everything else pales in comparison so I would support Dr Robert Zubrins position that the moon looks like a folly
Well they're the battery people and they're the battery experts like it said what would Great big battery launched in the star shadow and with solar panels and just pull it in plug up
4:35 It does not take months to reach the moon. It takes a few days. It took the Apollo program 3 days, and the new horizons spacecraft reached it in just under 9 hours.
That depends on how you get there. The CAPSTONE probe to the Moon took 6 weeks as it slowly raised its orbit to save propellant. The Falcon Heavy launch of the PPE and HALO modules together will take 9 to 10 months to get there per NASA, as they are taking a propellant saving method to get there. Since the PPE has an ion thruster, that may be part of why it is taking so long.
@@steveaustin2686 I can't remember where I read but my understanding is the combined mass of PPE and HALO is so big the only way to get it to lunar orbit with Falcon Heavy is to take the "slow boat" approach. This is very different, of course, with New Horizons, which is about the size of a grand piano and not massive at all. 😀
@@bbartky Very likely I would think. Apparently the original plan was to launch them separately, but that would have required a service module for the HALO module.
Yeah Think about it one great big battery will last a long long time how many millions a pound of fuel you had to get up there and all you need to degree big battery
Why doesn’t SpaceX make large capsules out of starship that are just empty shells ready for configuration once in location in lunar orbit.
Likely because SpaceX will be busy enough with HLS Starship and the other two variants to get it to the Moon. Musk's daily Starship launch cadence is a far off goal, as the SpaceX plan for Artemis III is 1 Starship variant launch every 12 days per pg 10 of the GAO report denying the HLS complaints. It also takes up to 10 launches to get an HLS Starship to the Moon (GAO pg 27), at $1.15B (HLS Option B contract). Sending the PPE & HALO to the Moon on a Falcon Heavy is $331.8M to NASA. The I-Hab and ESPRIT modules hitch a ride with Orion on SLS, which is already going to the Moon anyway.
This will be useless answer but a true one
Beacuse nobody paid them to do so :)
@@_mikolaj_ LOL. Yeah, it is expensive to get stuff to the Moon.
@@steveaustin2686 yeah, a good bussines will not fly to the moon for no reason
Thats how you get yourself bankrupt.
If NASA was willing to pay, i bet they may do it, but if not, no use case.
@@_mikolaj_ Oh for sure.
The HLS Starship is basically out of propellant once the surface mission is over. The HLS Option A contract does not require sustainability. I would not be surprised if some of the cargo payload was used for modications of Starship as a module on the Lunar Gateway. That would also require the modification of Lunar Gateway as HLS Starship would likely outmass it. That would surely make it difficult for Lunar Gateway to keep attitude control and for any orbit corrections. That capability would likely have to be built into HLS Starship.
👍
divine free will unity.
It had better be big. 5,000 cu meters of living space per astronaut. 50,000 cu meters for fuel storage. 100,000 cu meters for each life, as back up. After all, you live in a massive space.
Is the news scaping it, because it's kinda pointless when using BFR. Like seriously Shipship upper stage has more internal volume than the whole station, by quite a margin, why are we still bothering with this, if you really needed a station just use a Starship upper stage as the station, espically in the case that it's for refuelling because you have a giant tank ready premade.
This isn't a case like reusing the shuttle tank where you would have to make major concessions to get the tank to orbit, the tank is already going to orbit and from there you can refill it to go to the moon. Also if you don't need the massive tank storage at the moment you can modify it when it gets to the moon and cut out the fuel tanks for a truly enormous station with way more internal volume than the ISS in 1 shot. To be fair you would probably want to do that as you would need to lose internal volume the micro meteor shielding, but it's not even like you would need another launch to send along that shielding assuming 100 tonnes of cargo that is plenty.
Would need another launch for all the equipment though, but you would be able to have the space ready and then some in 1 shot.
lol the thing about "musks goals" is that they hardly ever reach them when faced with reality. Dont expect 20 dollars per kilogram.
Musk has admitted that he makes overly ambitious goals regularly. I agree that $20/kg likely won't be reached. Even the HLS Option B price of roughly $115M to NASA per launch, would be $1,150/kg internal cost to SpaceX and that would be big. Starship would still be competitive.
The $200/kg price would be SpaceX's internal cost and at the same markup as the Falcon 9, that would be $38M-$57M per launch. I think that is about as far as SpaceX might reach and maybe less. Either way in a few years, Starship may do the market, what the Falcon 9 did a decade ago.
Elon musk sets unrealistic goals on purpose but Gwynn Shotwell’s goals have almost never been far off. Eking sets crazy goals & she makes them real so if she’s saying that we’re gonna be getting an even bigger ticket than the starship in less than a decade, $20 per kilo can’t be more than 3 decades away.
Evidently you haven't been following the successes. SpaceX has already redeuced the cost to orbit by nearly 50%.
6:15 SpaceX said that they shut down one engine before the test started and the other engine shut down on its own, after starting. The engines were likely at 50%, because while the Superheavy booster LOX tank was filled, the LCH4 tank was only minimally filled. There was also not the Starship (second stage) with its 1,200 tons on propellant on top, so running the engines at 100% may have caused the booster to break free from the clamps and launch. Not an ideal situation. SpaceX has done plenty of full power and full duration tests at their McGregor facility on Raptor 2 engines, so SpaceX is evidently confident in them working.
The [DELETED] Starship propellant depot will almost certainly be used for HLS Starship, before it is used for a Mars mission. The SpaceX plan for Artemis III, is likely the same plan for Mars. From page 27 of the GAO decision to deny the HLS complaints. [DELETED] is apparently at least a propellant depot Starship variant from the context and SpaceX had the GAO redact that info. Added in Musk's payload update (~150t) and he says that it is up to 8 Tankers to fully refill HLS Starship, depending on HLS Starship's mass. My comments are in ().
"SpaceX’s concept of operations contemplated ten total launches (down from 16), consisting of: 1 launch of its [DELETED]; 8 launches of its Tanker Starships to supply fuel to [DELETED] (down from 14); and 1 launch of its HLS Lander Starship, which would be [DELETED] and then travel to the Moon."
The HLS Option A contract is for the Artemis III landing, and test landing, and NASA awarded SpaceX the HLS Option B contract in Nov 2022 for either Artemis IV or V, depending on what happens with the second lander under Appendix P.
why so much [DELETED]
@@_apsis Because SpaceX had the GAO redact the info on [DELETED] which is a propellant depot from the context. We don't know what [DELETED] is called or what else it might be, besides a Starship based propellant depot.
So two engines didn't fire up and this static test was considered a success ?
Yeh sure, what could possibly go wrong ?
not much as even without two engines a Starship could reach orbit.
Ah, yes. The Gateway Lunar Orbital Platform, or GLOP.
달 게이트웨이 건설은 1년정도면 만들수도있어.이번에 중국이 우주정거장 건설한 기간을 찾아봐. 2년이 안돼. 달 게이트웨이 엄청빨리 건설할거고, 충분히 빠르게 다 가능해.
It seems to me that lunar colonization is a much more realistic goal than mars, just from the perspective of all the research that needs to happen in preparing for a mars settlement not to mention the logistical constraints that mars presents. Do the moon first then look beyond the horizon.
The Artemis program plans to develop the skills and tech needed for a future Mars mission. Learning in our own backyard, as you said.
$ Per kg is a terrible metric. By that logic, the Electron has a Per Kilo launch cost of $250,000US.
내가 볼때 10년 15년안에 달에 수천명이 거주가능한 달 도시가 건설될꺼다. 그리고 일주일마다, 대량 달까지 수십명의 사람들이 왔다갔다할꺼고, 거의 매일 달까지 화물운송이 발사될꺼야. 각종 필요한 장비들, 식량, 물, 자원, 다 매일 발살될수있어. 로켓 발사비용이 대당 수십억수준으로 확 떨어질꺼야. 작은 로켓은 수억수준으로도 될듯 충분히 가능해.
처음에 대량 화물을 보내는데 10년전에 저걸 한다고할때 돈이 너무 든다고 그랬잖아. 로켓 제작비용 기간, 다 엄청 비쌌으니까. 지금은, 로켓 재활용으로 다시 돌아와서 다시쓰니까 로켓 발사비용이 엄청싸졌고, 이번에 테란 원의 발사성공으로 3d프린터 로켓이 성공적으로 발사될수있는걸 보여줬잖아. 3d프린터 로켓을 스페이스X의 재활용 로켓하고 합쳐서하면 수십분의 1비용으로 낮출수있지. 그럼 2달에 로켓하나 제작한다면 3d프린터 10대가 로켓을 제작한다고치면 1년에 로켓 40-50개를 만들수있지. 그러면 그 로켓을 한번에 화물 다 실어서 보낸다면 화성에 기지 건설과, 화물 운송이 가능하지. 저건 1년이니까 2년마다 돌아온다했잖아. 화성이, 그럼 2년동안 100개이상 제작해서 한번에 대량 화물을 보내는걸로한다면 화성에 기지건설은 100% 가능하다. 달에도 충분히 가능해.
why hurry? why not take it easy and enjoy the ride?
Please God no gateway just go direct to the surface .
Comme à l'espace rockets de terre sans EP? Chaque son lancer est très tort camelote avec NASA et d'autre qu'on y ait en malhonnête de la sécurité contre tout Esqui Module Academy de moi.
ill give you the way it will go, spacex will be ready with starship and none of the other companies will be ready and they will be over budget.
Agreed.
@@steveaustin2686 why spacex has delays(mostly from the FAA recently), I still will bet they are ready before ULA or others.
@@ReRe-yl6dq The FAA vs SpaceX is not really a thing, except for clicks by certain YT channels. After all, the FAA defended SpaceX in front of Congress in Jun 2021 over the unauthorized SN8 flight. The 'NASA delaying Starship until the SLS flies' is just as silly, since NASA needs BOTH Starship and SLS for Artemis. Besides, the review was completed already.
SpaceX had approval for orbital launches of the Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy from Boca Chica since 2014. They can also fly sub-orbital tests of reusable spacecraft. SpaceX went through an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to get that approval in 2014. Now, SpaceX wants to fly orbital flights with Starship, that has roughly 3 times the propellant as the Falcon Heavy. So the FAA review was to see about adding Starship to that existing approval, without having to go through another EIS.
The FAA was the lead agency with NASA, the Army Corps of Engineers, the US Coast Guard, the US Fish and Wildlife Service, and the National Park Service all involved from the beginning. With 6 different goverment agencies involved, it is not surprising that the review took time. Musk asking everyone to comment, over 18,000 comments were received, didn't help. Consultations were mentioned for a third time on Apr 29th,2022 and mitigations for the first time, so some issues did come up and SpaceX had been working out a solution with whichever agency or agencies covered the issue. The Permitting Dashboard: Federal Infrastructue Projects had 5 sections to the FAA review. The first was completed in Oct 2021, second in Jan 2022, third in Apr 2022, fourth in May 2022, and fifth in Jun 2022, so there was continual progress. The FAA review is complete with Starship able to fit under the existing EIS for Boca Chica. SpaceX can do the mitigations and apply for the launch license at the same time. Apparently, some of the mitigations, like the wildlife crossing, only have to be started and some are on going.
ULA's Vulcan Centaur is not a part of Artemis. ULA makes the Interim Cryogenic Propulsion Stage (ICPS) for SLS, so they provided a part for the Artemis I launch late last year. They also fly the Atlas-V , which has been flying as long as SpaceX existed. ULA's Vulcan Centaur has been delayed by the almost 3 year late delivery of the Blue Origin BE-4 engine. Tory Bruno has been upset with Blue for a while. The Vulcan Centaur is currently planned to launch on May 4th, 2023 with the Peregrine Lunar Lander. Then they will launch the Dream Chaser CRS demo mission to the ISS later this year. If those two flights are successful, then the Vulcan Centaur should be certified for NSSL payloads for the USSF, which is where ULA makes most of its money.
Don't get me wrong, I like SpaceX and they are the top launch company, but they are not the only launch company.
Yea and then space x will somehow save us all!
@@ReRe-yl6dqwhat has ULA to do in artemis program atm? Last time i checked at the moment they only launch one CLPS lander currently on May 4th and nothing else.
They have nothing to do with main missions as of now especially artemis 3 or 4
So have they finally figured out what it is supposed to be good for? It will still be dwarfed by a single Spaceship lander, which continues to be stupid.
to bad we couldn't spend money on propellant to push the space station into a moon orbit.
The ISS is old. Think of it as a 2002 minivan being driven by a harried soccer mom with 7 kids. It needs to be replaced as micro cracks are starting to appear in the hull. Besides, the modules for Lunar Gateway are already being built.
NASA plans to deorbit the ISS around 2030 and plans for Axiom Space to have their commercial space station up and running before then. NASA is also funding development of other commercial space stations under their Commercial LEO Destinations (CLD) program.
It wouldn't survive. and is coming apart even now.
had nothing to do with proppellant - but the fact that the ISS infrastructure is beginning to fall apart - the structural beams are fragmenting and ought to be replaced. instead, the entire thing will be discarded as non-maintainable.
Who wants to jump onto a high cadence Starship!
30 minute turnaround means no time to inspect much less refurbish the engines, and it launches without an abort capability. I think Russian roulette with a single shot gun is safer
Musk's overly ambitous goals of multiple daily flights is a very far off goal that is not likely to be realized. Per page 10 of the GAO report denying the HLS complaints, the SpaceX Artemis III goal is 1 Starship variant launch every 12 days. So with up to 10 flights to get HLS Starship to the Moon (GAO pg 27 with ~150 ton payload update), its around 3 months from the time the depot goes up, the Dance of the Sky Tankers is done, and HLS Starship refills to go to the Moon.
just look at aircraft. fuel, load passengers, fly, fuel load, fly, fuel load fly. Then after some 30 flights there is a normal inspection and maintenance. The only exceptions are when problems are reported. And THAT is what SpaceX is aiming for.
@@jessepollard7132 The wear and tear a rocket motor gets vs a jet engine is wildly different. The consequences of a jet engine failure vs a rocket motor failure is also wildly different. The frequency of jet engine failures vs rocket motor failures is also wildly different
@@tylerjohn4607 NOt really. jet engines have multiple smaller engines built in. The only difference is where the oxidizer comes from and the form the oxidizer is in. Jet engines tend to lose either the compressor turbines or the power turbines. rockets tend to lose the pump power or have the engine burn through itself. both have engine burn through in related places.
@@jessepollard7132 They both have a lot of wear from having to be exposed to temps above their melting points, but the amount of wear is wildly different. a jet engine will needs inspections every few hundred hours and overhauls every few thousand. A rocket motor will need an overhaul every few minutes of flight. So while a lot of the forces have similarities, the scales are very different.
I wish we had made progress on a simulated gravity spinning space station design by now. If Gateway is going to be continuously inhabited, it would be greatly beneficial to the health of the people stationed there if it was 1/2 G or more. But since we have conducted basically no research besides micro-gravity, we don't even know what the threshold is for long-term stays in space without the harmful side-effects.
Artemis doesn't envision continuous inhabitation of either Lunar Gateway or a lunar base. They expect to go, do some experiments, maintenance, etc and leave some experiments running by themselves untl the next crew visits.
@@steveaustin2686 which is a plan for failure.
@@jessepollard7132 Until they can work out crew living in space out from under the Van Allen belts, it would be folly to have a continuous presence. Not to mention that SLS/Orion are a once a year launch cadence, maybe twice a year. Until Starship can mature to a faster launch cadence for the Dance of the Sky Tankers to be able to replace SLS/Orion, that is ALL NASA has for getting crew to and from the Moon.
@@steveaustin2686 No it is not. NASA could contract with SpaceX to use the falcon heavy to reach the Moon and beyond. and living outside the Van Allen Belts is well known. all it takes is the will to actually do it. Which is not the same thing.
@@jessepollard7132 Nope, former NASA Administrator Bridenstine said back in 2019 that while a fully expended Falcon Heavy has the mass lift to get the Orion, ESM, and ICPS to LEO (barely), the aerodynamics were a problem they were looking at. Nothing came of that, so evidently the aerodynamics of such a large stack ARE a problem.
There is NO way that the 8.6m Exploration Upper Stage (EUS) that is planned for Artemis IV+ will fit on a 2.7m Falcon Heavy core stage. So Falcon Heavy would only work through Artemis III, IF aerodynamics were not a problem, which evidently they are.
The only missions to send crew outside the Van Allen belts were the Apollo missions and they got lucky they were not hit with a CME. SOHO at the Sun-Earth L1 can give warning for CMEs that the Apollo missions did not have. So crews would have time to prepare for one. Cosmic radiation can be slowed by the Sun's heliosphere but not stopped. Part of the Artemis program will be testing these at Lunar Gateay and on a surface base, hopefully between crew missions.
Apollo 17 spent just over 3 days on the surface of the Moon and just over 12.5 days total on the mission. Artemis III is planned for a week on the Moon and roughly a week to get there and back, being longer than the Apollo 17. Roughly half of ALL the Apollo missions time on the Moon, is planned for just Artemis III mission. Later Artemis missions are planned for a month or so on the Moon. Apollo was dipping our toe in the water and Artemis will be wading into the pool.
ALL of the Apollo flights to the Moon, including Apollo 8, 10, & 13, are almost 83.4 days in total. By Artemis VI, NASA could very well pass that for JUST surface time on the Moon, depending on how fast NASA does 30 day surface missions. Lunar Gateway is almost certainly needed for missions that long.
What's happening to the green new deal don't you put solar panels up there and have big charging stations all over the universe and just pull up and pull up and pull again is that how it worked thank you very much till the democratch that
It will take decades for man to establish a research colony on the moon 🌙. Political, cost and technological hurdles lay in the way 🤷🏿👨🏿💻👨🏿⚕️👀
Naw less than one decade. Remember Space x is helping and they do things for less money, faster, and way smarter than everyone else.
@@vincewilson1 🤣🤣😂 the young , that’s what I thought in 1969 as a Freshman in College 😁😁👨🏿⚕️. Not everyone thinks we should be going to the Moon 🌙 or Mars. The population intelligence level was obvious during the Pandemic 😷🤷🏿🤷🏿👨🏿💻👨🏿⚕️😀
@@ray1956 The plan for Artemis is a lunar base, regularly used by astronauts. A permanent colony with people living there all the time, is likely more than a decade a way, as lots of research needs to be done on what 1/6 gravity actually does long term. And how any losses from a lower gravity could be mitigated.
Actually 150 tons of cargo is about all you need for a start.
@@jessepollard7132 what to start a Jamestown colony. We haven’t tested any current technologies ie infrastructures for living off Earth. ISS is but a baby step. Astronauts 👩🏿🚀 are stuck NOW till September ( infrastructure problem). Radiation ☢️ 😱. I’m all for exploring, in fact I thought 💭 in 1969 that I would have least traveled to the moon 🌙 once 😂😂👨🏿⚕️
Starship to launch 3-31-2023 @ 23:59:59
APRIL FOOLS. Hahahahaha
Another 1st by USA 🇺🇲🇺🇲🇺🇲🇺🇲
Why are they wasting money on a broom closet..
??
@@steveaustin2686 I have looked into the desine of the station it is so small it is only ruffly 4×4 square of living space.. as of the most recent plans.. so a broom closet
@@williamtaylor8950 Lunar Gateway will at most, have 6 people for a short time and 2 for the duration of a lunar surface mission. The Artemis III mission is for 4 crew on Orion, 2 stay on Orion and 2 go down to the surface on HLS Starship. The Lunar Gateway is currently not expected to be used on Artemis III. If Lunar Gateway is launched in Nov 2024, gets to the Moon by Jul 2025, then if Artemis III launch is after that, it may be used on Artemis III.
For Artemis IV, they will bring along the I-Hab module with the Orion spacecraft, likely with 6 crew, as the later Artemis missions have 4 crew going down to the surface and 2 staying on Lunar Gateway. With the I-Hab added to HALO, that doubles the space and the I-Hab is built for 4 crew. So between the two habitat modules, the Orion, and the HLS lander, they will have LOTS of room. Especially when HLS Starship is the lander.
The HLS Starship for Artemis III will basically be out of propellant once it gets back to lunar orbit when the surface mission is over. So if it were modified for it, it would be an excellent addition to Lunar Gateway. The problem would be it would outmass the Lunar Gateway, so Lunar Starship would likely need to take over the attitude and orbital adjustment maneuvers, which would be one of the modifications needed.
they can't do anything more than an outhouse.
Dude pronounces the crap out of his T's
It's not escaping earth's atmosphere that is the challenge, it is escaping earth's gravity!
Artemis is old tech and should be abandon for something more in line with Star Ship.
Um, FYI, HLS Starship, along with the [DELETED] Starship propellant depot and multiple Starship Tankers are ALL a part of Artemis already.
I am becoming more and more convinced that our next step after a lunar orbital station should be infrastructure development and then churning out rotating O’Neil Cylinders nestled in near earth asteroids. All of which is cheaper than trying to colonize Mars. If you want 1M humans off Earth the quickest, and only feasible option currently, is a couple dozen of these habitats. Interestingly technologically we’re already theoretically able to build these, the holdup is material and resource rather than any technology that we need to develop.
A few dozen of these, 5km wide and 10-20km long to match the material strength of steel, would easily house enough space for at least 1M if not more.
Edit: as we get more established you could also set up a massive 3D printer to churn out habitat shells which would then have their internals worked on after.
Bezos famously said that living on the top of Mount Everest would be easier than living on Mars, as he is a big proponent of O'Neil stations. Of course, it could be argued that living on Mars would be easier than on an O'Neil station, since you have gravity, resources, and a way to protect your base from cosmic radiation right beneath your feet.
Don't get me wrong, I love the Babylon 5 station and expect at some point, we will make something similar. But why not both? Mars has resources and is closer to the asteroid belt than Earth is. Of course the asteroid belt is nothing like you see in Star Wars. On average, the asteroids are 100,000 miles (160,000km) apart in the asteroid belt. Putting an O'Neil Station by Ceres, Pallas, Juno, or Vesta, etc would be worth it as they are so large.
Getting 1M people off Earth is a LONG term project, Musk's overly ambitious goals not withstanding. There is technology needed to be developed to live in deep space long term on Mars or in a rotating station. Something that the Artemis project plans to work on, since the ISS is under the protection of the Van Allen belts.
Then you have to ship everything from EARTH. NOT a cheap operation for an O'Neil Cylinder.
There isn't enough near earth asteroids with the right elements.
Not quickest - quickest is mars/moon - as both are already built.
What is sad here is that NASA isn't saying that they are going SpaceX now due to SLS failure.
SLS, unlike Starship has actually already flown a crew rated capsule to the moon and back.
@@plainText384 at a cost of 38 billion so far, and 4+ billion for each launch. NOT affordable.
I don't want a Lunar Gateway which would be outside the earths magnetosphere. There's also no way they would put a massive fuel depot within the Gateway. They just need a base on the moon that can be buried with regolith and be shielded from cosmic rays.
Lunar Gateway is so that they can do experiments out from under the Van Allen belts, in zero-g. The lunar base would do experiments in 1/6 g. Not to mention that Lunar Gateway is a way station for the crew spacecraft for longer stays on the Moon. The crew capsules on the ISS only stay for 6 months because the ISS can sustain them while they are shut down. Crew Dragon has a 10 day fly-by-itself capability. Orion reportedly has a 21 day fly-by-itself capability. So having Lunar Gateway would mean longer surface missions as well as experiments in lunar orbit.
imagine where we would be if instead of all the stupid money wasted on weapons and bombs to kill each other. we realized were stuck on a damn rock together and we worked together to get the hell off it?
Your thoughts on the current controlled extraterrestrial reality disclosure process and related US GOV cover-up?
When the nervous contagious giggling subsides, how will our civilization adapt to this publicly known reality?
What might be some of the potential implications of disclosure of this reality? New energy sources perhaps? Religions? History? Confirmation of an established "secret" space program?
Do we really want to know the full truth?
SpaceX can deliver the Lunar Gateway on any date that NASA asks for. SpaceX has a better on time launch delivery record than airlines or passenger rail.
Dragon XL will not be used for crew deliveries. Firstly because the US Senate would not disappoint its campaign funders by cancelling Orion/SLS. Secondly because SpaceX has not designed Dragon XL to support crew. Thirdly by the time crews are scheduled for delivery to the Gateway SpaceX will have Starship crew-rated.
Outdated design still after 60 plus years of going to space! No gravity,cramped quarters and overpriced!
Regarding Gateway, NASA have told SpaceX that the only lunar landings performed by Starship will be the demo landing, Artemis 3 and maybe Artemis 4 and/or 5. NASA has EXCLUDED SpaceX from the 2023 contract for a purpose-built lunar lander, reusable and based at Gateway. Why? Starship is built for colonizing Mars, it's too big for routine lunar landing of small crews and payload drops of under 20 tonne.
In other words, SpaceX fans, don't get your hopes up for Starship to play a major role in colonizing Our Moon; that hasn't been the intention of NASA. SpaceX was used to show ULA and Co. that they could be bypassed if they didn't start presenting SUSTAINABLE lunar spacecraft proposals. They've got the message, have gone back to their drawing boards and returned with realistic proposals. This year, 2023, this valuble, long term contract will be awarded to the bidders amongst ULA and Co., excluding SpaceX.
SpaceX is not a part of the Appendix P competition, because NASA is looking for a SECOND lander to go with the first lander that NASA picked, which was HLS Starship. That is why SpaceX did not have to compete with anyone else for the $1.15B HLS Option B contract for Artemis IV or V, because they are NASA's first choice for a lander. Appendix P will determine a second choice for a lander. Just like NASA is using both Dragon and Cygnus to take cargo to the ISS and eventually will use Crew Dragon and Starliner to take crew to the ISS, the HLS Starship and Appendix P winners will both do Artemis missions.
Bullcrap. NASA LOVES the options that the HLS Starship offers and was positively giddy over HLS Starship per the Apr 2021 HLS Option A Source Selection Statement. But with the commercial programs, NASA likes to have options. If they could have afforded it, they would LOVE to have had two SLS and two Orion options. Depending on how long it takes Starship to mature the initial Artemis III launch cadence of 1 Starship variant every 12 days to something under a week, a second HLS Starship could do the LEO to lunar orbit and back leg, with Crew Dragon/Starliner taking crew up to the HLS Starship and back down. Likely won't happen until after Artemis V though.
You are forgetting the capability of Starship. and ignoring the history of flight. There is a use case for large cargo to and from the Moon, and nobody else has offered a solution (which happens to be why the HLS contract went to SpaceX in the first place). There is a need for large cargo shipments to even build a lunar base.
Starship is perfect for transferring large cargo equipment that any moon base will require.
@@steveaustin2686 Repeat: NASA has excluded SpaceX.
@@jessepollard7132No-one has intentions nor proposals (let alone finance) for large lunar cargoes. Not NASA, CNSA, ESA, JAXA, ROSCOSMOS or ISRO. Initial cargos of small size (Prototype habitats, small-scale reactors, lunar ore extractors, chemical refineries, fuel dumps) will be dropped by landing buses. Small crews in small landers with minimal equipment (and min. fuel from Earth!) will be taking brief jaunts down to the lunar surface for experiments, maintaince etc. No work for a bulky, fuel-laden white elephant such as Starship there! Head to Mars, Elon, because no-one else is!
Watch alternative 3 people
And U all keep feeding them
There lying to you all
Will you go to heaven? Ever lie, steal, used God's name as a curse word (O-M-G)? Still think your good? According to God's law, you're guilty. Wait, God loves you, he made a way out. God so loved the world that he gave his son (Jesus death on the cross) that whoever believes in him will not die but have everlasting life. John 3:16 Repent/believe in Jesus before it's too late.
All these rockets are making U homeless , the price off 1 rocket could put the homeless in houses and could feed all of us
and one big asteroid, or a few nukes could end it all! wouldn't it be nice to have a second place to live? Maybe even give some homeless people a home and a job?
Exploring opens the window to new technologies which will benefit all people in the future. Can’t keep your head in sand and your butt exposed 😅😂👨🏿💻👨🏿⚕️👨🏿⚕️👀
Different problem. and money won't fix it. Granted, one SLS sized pile of money would greatly help, but not be anywhere near enough.