NASA Lunar Starship is in big trouble! Can't launch as schedule...
Вставка
- Опубліковано 18 тра 2024
- NASA Lunar Starship is in big trouble! Can't launch as schedule...
===
(00:00-0:19): Intro
(0:18-3:09): Payload problem
(3:10-5:34): Starship's payload important to Artemis
(5:35-8:06): Raptor engine problem
===
#alphatech
#techalpha
#spacex
#elonmusk
#nasa
===
Sources of thumbnail:
Alexander Svan: / alexsvanart
Sources of image & video:
iamVisual: / @iamvisualvfx
Evan Karen: / @evankaren
C-bass Productions: / cbassproductions
Ryan Hansen Space: / ryanhansenspace
TijnM: / m_tijn
/ @tijn_m
Project Road to Mars: / @projectroadtomars
SpaceXvision: / spacexvision
LabPadre Space: / labpadre
Clarence365: / @clarence3654
@tomnket7: / @tomket7
Christian Debney: / @christiandebney1989
ACTUSPACEX: / @actuspacex6995
THELONELYCAT: www.youtube.com/@thelonelycat...
TheSpaceEngineer: / @thespaceengineer
Everyday Astronaut: / everydayastronaut
ErcX Space: / ercxspace
Stanley Creative: / @stanleycreative
Erc X: / ercxspace
Starship Gazer: / starshipgazer
Velin3d: / velin3d
====
NASA Lunar Starship is in big trouble! Can't launch as schedule...
Starship HLS big trouble
This a bad News!
Starship HLS is facing big trouble with its payload and engines.
This was discovered through Elon Musk's recent statement.
So, how will this impact the ability to complete the lunar mission of Starship?
Let’s find out on today’s episode of Alpha Tech:
NASA Lunar Starship is in big trouble! Can't launch as schedule...
On April 6th, SpaceX CEO Elon Musk provided a public update on the Starship program from the company's facility in Boca Chica, Texas.
This is not a new event, Musk typically gives in-depth presentations on Starship annually.
He has engaged in numerous discussions about his ambitious goal of establishing a colony on Mars.
Media outlets covering spaceflight have made enthusiastic comments about the targets he has set regarding the cost per launch and payload capacity to orbit for Starship.
In fact, the most significant announcement is believed to be summed up in one sentence:
NASA Lunar Starship is in big trouble! Can't launch as schedule...
“Currently, Flight 3 would be around 40-50 tons to orbit.”
To understand the significance of this statement, one only needs to review previous statements regarding Starship activities.
Since Musk's 2017 presentation, the estimated payload capacity of Starship has fluctuated between 100 to 150 tons to Low Earth Orbit (LEO).
===
Subcribe Alpha Tech: / @alphatech4966
=== - Наука та технологія
Finally a realistic video, with only a bit of empty cheerleading towards the end.
Make the re-fuelling tanks separable from the Starship and without thermal protection thus saving weight. the tanks can burn up in the atmosphere, only the engine part returning to Earth.
This will also allow for large modular building blocks to be left in orbit for space stations or interplanetary vessels, or carrying a smaller design moon lander with just one re-fuelling launch.
How would engines alone return? Starship relies on aerobraking (as everything else does); at least some kind of capsule with ablative or inflatable shield would be needed.
A completely different vehicle...
@@bazoo513 I was thinking a small model much like the first prototypes with a container on it and with a 'traditional' round shield on top. It probably couldn' t carry enough fuel for landing though I realised later on.
We made it to the moon and back half a dozen times half a century ago ... using slide rules.
And the whole development process, from repurposed German V-2s to boots on the Moon took only a bit over a decade. Compared to that, SpaceX's pace of development is glacial (but then, the pace of development of SLS or even New Glenn is geological.)
The Apollo program ran from 1961 to 1972 and cost about $25.4 billion at the time. Adjusted for inflation to 2024 dollars, this would be approximately $170 billion today. SpaceX will likely spend less than 10% of the Apollo costs. Post bugs and streamlining ops and vehicle manufacturing worked out, launch costs will be ~$10M and decline to ~$1M over time. Amazing progress everyone should take pride in as Earthlings.
@@dang4546 Yes, Apollo program was a national effort, and one of the reasons the cost was so high, apart from insane rate of development, was the decisions to spread development and manufacturing across the country. But I am not quite sure that SpaceX development cost so far is only 10% of that - only government funding, from first DARPA money for as yet unflown Falcon 1 to HLS and StarShield contracts, probably amount to more.
Falcom program, while it did have an occasional "build first, think later" moment, is a phenomenal success. I don'r see that Starship will be a repeat of that story. And "projections" of launch cost of only several million are absurd - mere wishful thinking. In several decades, perhaps. But who knows what will happen in several decades.
Your last video talked about raptor v4 at 330 bar and 202 thrust to weight ratio. You should have made an estimate of capacity using those hypotheticals. C'mon you can do a calc.
Shocker.
Best way to reach the moon with Elon‘s help? Stack all of Elon‘s unkept promises one on top of the other and that will certainly get you to the moon now and to Mars in just a few more years!
The leftists have turned on Elon 😂
@@danielwoodman7213 It has nothing to do with politics. Intelligent engineers look at the plans and see how flawed it is! Musk cult groupies look at the plan and say go, Elon go!
If you add that much to the plan, it won't get off the launch pad!
If ' ONE ' Starship engine fails during the boost phase what will be the consequences on the mission ? If ' THREE ' failed then ????
With a full load, one failure is the end of the mission. And then you have a major issue coming back with that much weight. You could vent the excess full but offloading the cargo is another matter!!
I wonder if anybody has considered doing the fuel depot in Lunar orbit, and then Parking the Mars fleet there and fueling up, Then when Mars window opens, all diving into Earth's gravity well and doing the close in loop orbit to milk Earth's gravity well for acceleration for the Mars trip?
Would maybe save some fuel... and theres probably an edgy Lunar orbit that wouldnt take much energy to break over its hump, and then power accelerate into Earth's gravity well...
Just sayin'
I always thought Elon was being hyper-optimistc in his statements about used Starship for lunar landings.
Elon is hyper optimistic about a lot of his statements
I think a Falcon heavy bolted to either side of Star ship should sort the issue out !
Want less refuelling flights? Leave the tanker starship at its full intended size but have a shorter much lighter HLS lander as its only intended for a crew of two anyway, currently its massively oversized for the job.
1%? I remember someone else saying the same about landing a rocket on a boat.
This is landing a Starship with large mass requiring 1000 plus tones of cryo fuel & oxidizer ... on the Moon. You are comparing apples to oranges.
The Starship lander is just plain dumb. Starships are only good for putting large modules into LEO ... cheap & quick.
Look at the mass of of the Apollo CSM & Lander ... sent to the moon ... requiring a Saturn V with disposable stages. And Space X ... with only a Super Heaven booster ... & ... Starshp ... wants to send the Starshp with huge mass .... to the moon ... land ... then return to orbit ... and eventually back to Earth.
The Starship Lander is ludicrous but accepted because Elon and those running Nasa are moron Liberals.
A truly smart person ... would simply use two Starships ... to put a large CSM & Lander with Habitat module and extra fuel ... into LEO ... dock the two ... and let the Service module with plenty of fuel take the lower mass to the Moon and return with the Command module ... leaving the Habitat module on the moon to be reused for a Moon base. And the lander platforms will be reused as transports to and from orbit .. or on the surface.
@@abelincoln.2064 The privatization of space was not a liberal idea!!
Great Video ! What is the delta-V of the Starship HLS ? With the Fuel Depot near the low inclination LEO CSS the Starship HLS with a 6.1 km/sec. delta-V could launch from LEO and fly to the Lunar Surface (LS) and land on empty ! Also the Starship HLS from a "L1 Halo Orbit" to the LS and return is about a 6.0 km/sec. delta-V... A Lunar Outpost/Base (Clementine Base) is needed for Crew Safety at the Lunar South Pole... Also near the Outpost/Base is the Fuel Depot supported by the Lunar Water Ice (H2O). The Hydrogen (2H) from the Lunar Water Ice can be used to recover Lunar Oxygen (LUNOX-TM/LOX/O2) from the minerals of the Lunar Regolith ! The Tech developed to return to the moon to stay , can take US and the world to Mars and beyond ! tjl
Thank you for your comment!
I can't see NASA allowing a manned mission with no abort capabilities. If Starship has a problem during landing, the only possible alternative is crash and burn!
And we know SpaceX always gets it right the first time! Except with anything they have ever done! Maybe the 3rd or 4th crew might just live!
Hey! what's happened with alpha tech español??? :(
Alpha Tech: How did the Apollo Program get rockets to the Moon, without fuel tankers for refueling in space? I'm confused about all the need for so much fuel having to be sent up by multiple launches to supply a Fuel Tanker to allow a mission to the moon. I could understand that need for a mission to Mars, but to the Moon?
Answer is - weight & reusability ...
Apollo used multiple disposable stages. Booster, intermediate booster stage, payload {Command Capsule and LEM}.
Each stage removed itself and it's massive weight, when its function was completed. Only the LEM landed on the moon, and only the command capsule returned.
Musk believes in reuseability, so extra fuel is required for each stage to return to earth. He wants Starship to land on the moon and return back to earth.
The Saturn V was disposable ... and only had to send the low mass CSM & Lander in the direction of the moon. The Service module had the rocket and fuel to get the command module & lander to the moon and into orbit .. and return the Command module to earth. Much lower mass .. compared to the Starship.
Starship Lander is Elon's stupid idea .. just like buying Twitter for $40 billion when it's only worth $5 billion at most.
Starships are only good at putting 50 - 100 tons into LEO ... quickly & cheaply.
A Super Heavy Lifter with disposable upper stages could sent 50-100 tons to the moon or mars.
Alternatively Space X could put a large CSM & Lander with habitate module into LEO ..with two Cargo Starships ... dock the two ... then let the large service module with plenty of fuel ... take the Comman & Lander modules to the moon ... and return to Earth with the Command module. And then Space X could refuel the Service module in LEO ... making it a Transport ... to get modules to the moon. Staring with a lander with fuel ... so that the Landers on the moon ... can remove their Modules ... be refuel .. and used a transport to retrieve modules in orbit around the moon ... brought by the Service module from Earth.
Look at the Apollo Service module. It was disposed of once it got the command module to the moon and back to Earth. It did not have enough fuel to go into LEO .. nor could Nasa refuel it. You can put a large Service module ( with not command module) in the cargo bay of a Starship ... specifically to transport modules to the moon ... return to earth ... and be refueled .. to be purely a lunar transport. Likewise the Lander is a platformed with rockets & fuel tanks to land the heaviest module ( 1/6 gravity) on the moon ... but also if refueled ... to go back up to orbit to pick up another module.
Isn't it great what you can do when you aren't a moron Liberal?
@@djohannsson8268 Well the "StarShip Moon Lander" will NOT return to Earth. It will stay in Moon Orbit.
@@abelincoln.2064 Well 1st of all the "stupid Elon" is one of the few really genius and determined individuals Earth has brought out in the last 100 years whoes only massive idiotic fail I can recall is Amber Heard and all men can relate to these "men/womean mistakes" at least the ones of us that still persue romantic relationships.
Secondly neither Nasa nor SpaceX are idiots.
The moon is a testing station for Mars and beyond.
The "oversized lander" called "Star Ship" is needed for bringing about 5 MILLIONS of tons of goods and one million of people to Mars to establish a self sustainable colony there.
So IF the Artemis mission was just to bring down 2 astronauts to the moon then we just need an Apollo sized lander.
If we want to establish a lunar base or even just a small Mars base then we need a Starship sized lander which has to "practise" before the big missions.
I am more than sure that the test landings of Lunar version Star Ships before Artemis 3 crewed moon landing WILL have all lots of usefull cargo for lunar exploration and lunar base building stored inside. One rover?? We can send 10 and a truck =).
Maybe the 1st lunar manned landing will have an emergency return module inside of Starship all wrapped up in a crash proof capsule ^^ .... yes Star Ship is that big.
Stop thinking small. That modus operandi has crippled human development for the last 50 years (and not only in the space industry)
Go Elon , you got this. Don’t listen to naysayers 💪🎉🇺🇸
Yeah! Hope
We will have this one super ship... carry humans or fuel or payloads... No, you won't. Math, physics and safety regulations don't support that.
Starship second stage is one huge PR blunder. A placeholder and regional theater prop. Once you fill it up, rocket equation messes it up.
For Moon and Mars 3rd stage would make a lot more sense. Also different design and engines. You have to leave something behind... (Interstellar)
What this video fails to state is that as some things are being added to the ship for reliability and safety, they have also lightened the ship by making advances in other areas like reducing the overall weight of each engine The SpaceX Raptor 3.0 was test fired and reached 18% more thrust than a Raptor 2 (269 vs 230 Tonnes of Thrust). The Raptor 2 had 25% more thrust than the Raptor 1 and it was 20% lighter. Raptor 3.0 is even better with a Version 4.0 already on the drawing boards. I don't see a problem here....
I swear I have read everything you said here from an article...
Build a musk tower on moon and you no need elevator in ship. The tower unload cargo. My noob opinion.
Once Space X can reliably recover Starship and super heavy booster by water landing. They can start parallel development and testing of their moon ship design.
Send the command crew and cargo section of Starship to NASA environmental vacuum chamber to be tested. Qualify life support, electrical, docking and automated hazard warning systems. The base of starship engine and fuel tanks can be welded after the qualification to the crew and upper cargo sections.
Dragon can deliver and pickup the flight crew, eliminating the hazardous takeoff, landing, and refueling of Starship. Until all have had their 100 plus success flights.
Unmanned Moon orbital and unmanned landing can be completed after unmanned refueling is successful.
Starship isn't going to be the holdup in lunar landing....it's going to be NASA and the SLS which is WAY behind schedule. They need a new launch tower for the later Artemis flights and haven't even made workable blueprints for it let alone begin building it which will take them years to complete. Name me ONE NASA program that went off on time and on budget? The only successful programs they've run were farmed out to JPL which is a competent organization. Anything directly run by NASA is always WAY late and WAY over budget. The latest is the Mars material return mission that they now say they can't do as planned. Way to go NASA!
Iterative development is a cute way of saying improvisation. And saying "if it worked with Falcon it will with Starship" is a ridiculous thing to say.
That stupid rocket is going nowhere.
It is just a horrible way to do engineering! It is also economically idiotic!
Dude, get yourself informed. Iterative development means agile methodology which is not improvisation. SpaceX develops rockets like modern software is developed. That is why SpaceX can eat everybody's lunch including entire countries considered superpowers.
@@joecarmo9059I say that because I'm informed.
@@ludwigvanzappa9548 By the way the algorithm knows who you are. Who do you think you are fooling?
@@joecarmo9059Elon will send his goons?
You could use multiple Falcon 9 to little by little bring fuel up to the Space Depot, reducing cost.
too expensive. Starship lander is stupid. Simply use two Starshps ... to put a large CSM & Lunar Lander into LEO ... and let the Service Modules rocket take the smaller mass to the moon and even bring back the Command module. And this service module can be refueled to used as a transport of modules brought up by the Starships to the moon. See. This is the way.
But Elon is a moron Liberal and will only do it "my way or the highway."
@@abelincoln.2064 You think he's a liberal???
Need build gate on moon and Mars, not only gate to Mars on Earth. My noob opinion.
So smart everyday does have influence over nasa😂
That was a great video! He pointed out the folly of the plan no one wanted to admit.
Translation... get the FAA the hell out of the way. They are slowing the show and the ability of SpaceX to rapidly re-iterate.
You mean, they are preventing them from destroying their own launch infrastructure and neighboring towns and are providing excuses for endless delays.
SpaceX was _never_ slowed down by FAA when they were ready. If anything, that first license was premature, and FAA caved under fanboy pressure, knowing perfectly well what the chances of something remotely successful were: zero.
Now, FWS perhaps did take too long to complete their assessment.
Weee
I think you should have perfected version 1 before starting on version 2 and 3 of Starship. Space x may have caused us a lunar landing before the completion. Every time you step forward you go back at least 3 steps.
Starship version 2 is not a revolutionary step from Starship prototype version 1. It's more of a refined version of 1. It's 3 meters taller. Which is probably the maximum height launch tower 1 currently supports.
Elon jumped the gun by focusing on the actual starship ....... not the SuperHeavy booster.
It should have always been the Super Heavy first .... with legs just like F9 ... getting a fixed mass ... to specific altitude & velocity ... before return to the launch site ( not a ship or sea platform.
Then the next step should have been to develop disposable upper Stages .. to get 50 100 tons .. into LEO.-
And only after Space X had a Super Heavy Lifter ... that can put up 10 times or more what the Falcon Heavy can .. should it then focused on the Starship replacing the disposable upper stages.
Elon is fixated on a Starship landing on Mars so offered NASA a Starship landing on the Moon. But either landers ... are just plain dumb .. due to their total mass the the fuel needed to get them to mars/moon then land and get back to orbit and back to Earth.
If Elon has simply built the Super Heavy Lifter ... with the booster always returning to base ... with disposable upper stages .. and less 50 - 100 ton cargo capacity ... he could have won the contract to build an Earth & moon station ... and ... Artemis sending a huge Command & Service Module and Lander with Habitat module ... to the moon. And he could focus on developing the Starship and improving the Super Heavy ( ie engines & weight reduction. And we would back on the Moon ... Fall of 2025.
But he's obsessed with his "chubby" starship.
too busy tweeting
You are a guy that fills up his tank to the rim every time you pull into a gas station or? ^^
Just imagine you dont need a full tank to fly to the moon, land and start back into Lunar orbit (Starship Lunar Lander version does not need to go back to Earth!)
I cant do the calculations but I am sure that getting to LEO and getting out of Earths strong gravity well takes way more propellent than flying to the moon and landing there.
So 5-6 flights at 100 tons each would fill the tank roughly 1/3 which might be enough??
But then it might be wise to fill up the 1st Starship Lunar Lander so it has enough propellents to do multiple landings?
Question: if you don't take enough fuel to conduct the entire mission, how do you plan to do it? Refueling in lunar orbit? From what fuel source? If you're thinking insitu fuel production, then you still have to fly missions to the lunar surface to deliver the hardware to generate said fuel, plus the oxidizer needed. Do that without giving the delivery vehicle fuel to take off again, and you're throwing away hardware that's billed as 'cheap' because it's supposed to be reusable. So what magic wand will you deploy to solve this problem?
@@andrewreynolds9371 ??????
Please read my post again. It seems you didnt understand it.
@@kwichzwellbreck697 I did read your post, which is why I wrote what I did.
@@andrewreynolds9371 Reading and understanding are two different things though.
You do know that the mission parameters for Artemis 3 (the 1st landing on the moon by humans since Apollo 17) are as follows (set by NASA not SpaceX) =
The astronaut crew will arrive at the Lunar Gateway Space Station with an Orion capsule.
There they will transfer via the Lunar Gateway Station to the Starship lander.
They will land and get back to Lunar orbit meeting the Lunar gateway station via Starship Lunar Lander.
Fly back to Earth using Orion. Starship remains in Lunar Orbit (Gateway Orbit).
As I say again. There is no need for a full tank!
Starship can fly all the way to Mars on a full tank fully loaded.
It doesnt need a full tank to reach the moon almost empty and do a landing and lift off in such a small gravity well as the Lunar one.
Again. Again. The fully reusable Starship lander is just plain dumb especially if you have to do 15 - 30 refuel launches for the current 50 t payload to LEO.
The Starship is only good at putting large ( 50 - 100 t) modules into LEO.
A Super Heavy Lifter with disposable upper stages could send 50 - t00 ton modules to the moon or mars.
Space X needs to stop developing the HLS ... and start developing a large command & service module for the bay of a Cargo Starship .... and ... large Lander with Habitat module and extra fuel for the bay of a second Starship. Get the CSM & Lander into LEO ...and docked .. then let the service module with plenty of fuel get this smaller mass to the moon ... then return ... to be refuelled ... to send other modules ... to the moon. Use a Service module with its engine ... as a transport. And if you can refuel it at the moon ... then it can bring large modules back to the earth.
Don't use the high mass ... Starship ... as a transport ..... but the lower mass "Transport" module ... that will ... command, landing, habitat, Cargo etc modules ... to the moon & back.
Also Space X should have always just built a Super Heavy Booster with landing legs like the Falcon 9 .. specifically with disposable upper stages ... to immediately get huge modules into LEO or sent large modules directly to the moon ... like for a space station ... or ... CSM & Lander..
Blah Blah Blah. Your wrong! Click Bait
You're*
You were saving me a lot of time. Thanks a lot.
there is 1% chance starship will get us to Moon and 0% to Mars
You are very generous with the Moon...
NOTHING BUT BS