Blows me away that NASA grants their biggest youtube critic to come and see them, i guess that says alot about the new direction NASA has with their PR policy.
@@christopherdaffron8115 Right, but if they can get 98% of the way there on NASA's dime, then when offered, NASA might pay the last 2% when presented with the evidence.
Have the crew on Lunar Starship declare their independence during the trip to the moon and then, after landing on the moon CLAIM it (or a piece of it) as Sovereign Territory (Muscovia?)
Do you remember that huge banner at NASA that said “We Are Going!” It doesn’t seem that NASA has the first idea of what it is doing. What NASA needs is to get Bridenstein back. This current guy is lost among the stars.
NASA should be able to at least make a nuclear powered Eagle lander out of alfoil and launch it to lunar gateway or fit in SLS . Surely they can do what they done all the way back during Apollo. Or is Artemis truly the smaller weaker little sister of Apollo
It was always pretty obvious that SLS,Orion and the lunar gateway were completely superfluous to a mission that could be accomplished solely by Starship.
@@rogerphelps9939 SLS and Orion are proven and man-rated NOW. Starship is...whenever. People want immediate gratification; waiting isn't NASA's strong suit.
@@rogerphelps9939 Orion can be refurbished. That's why LM is only building a few of them. SLS is not because it's basically single-stage-to-orbit. The core stage is too high and too fast to RTLS. The Space Shuttle taught NASA that reusability is futile. That was their takeaway from that program. When we gonna get spaceships that can land, take off, rinse, repeat like airliners? I want my Eagle Transporter.
@@dalethelander3781 Artemis requires Starship to work, but Starship can easily do this mission without Gateway, and take 100 people at a time. But the mission is not to go to the moon. The mission is to subsidise US aircraft manufacturers without ending up in court for breaking international fair trade laws.
@@gasdive You have no idea what kind of craft Lockheed Martin builds. It would seem you have no use for defense contractors. I love defense contractors. I love war. "Peace sells, but who's buying?" ~Megadeth
Remember when we launched a Saturn V and just went to the moon for a week and then came back? The more complicated it is, the more likely it is to fail. If Orion is anything like StarLeaker, you can bet it will fail.
I just can't believe how they didn't revert Orion back to its more capable early version when SLS came along- as it was stripped down in order to match the less capable Ares I, thus making it unable to even go down to Low Lunar Orbit like the Apollo CSM did!
Congrats on the referral from Sierra. Speaking of Sierra, Im convinced that the other players need to be brought into the game on order to achieve colonization of the moon. 1) If you're going to dock starship to gateway...gateway needs to be bigger. What adds mass and usable space but doesn't require starship to get it there? 2) What can take a simple 2-3 man outpost to the moon permanently? 3) What is current only cost effective moon going craft? 4) What's ESA up to moon wise? There are a lot more solutions just around the corner that don't require SLS or Starship. Just saying.
We still have the Bigelow Aerospace tech for the Bigelow Expandable Activity Module (BEAM). Being inflatable you can make a huge structure that is still easy to move like the present Gateway plan. The solar panels can also provide additional mobility using sunlight as we have done with some of our space probes. If things get much worse we can still use a Canadarm like on the space shuttle and ISS to transfer between HLS and Gateway. Something to consider.
Uhh easiest solution --- leave gateway as a comms station --- orion and starship meet and xfer astronauts in either Moon OR earth orbit -- ie orion just an orbital bus for now.
Better idea : use some starships in orbit to make a station ! Simple and SPACIOUS ! ^^ They just need a circular collar to connect them together ! Perhaps each one can transport a section of it and they can be coupled together !
@@netshaman9918 No need to use a starship as a station. That would require refurbishing it in space. Use starship to carry space station modules into the desired orbit. Sierra Space already has some massive modules designed with starship farings in mind.
@@netshaman9918Look at the video again. Lunar Starship HLS is massive, but it's not as big as a regular Starship. It's a smaller vehicle built for a specific mission and will only be used on 5 landings.
@@CMVBrielman I'd like to see Sierra team up with SpaceX and develop a scqaled up version of dream chaser. It would be the solution to makeing Starship human rated, if a large version of dreamchaser can be integrated with the lower half of Starship. Just before re-entry the dreamchaser craft can detach from the rest and return to earth in a glide pattern, while the propulsion section returns via the belly flop. There'd be a substantial payload penalty, but if this design is dedicated to crew transport only, they can sacrifice a lot before it becomes a problem and still transport around 50 people in one go.
Make at least 3 additional Starships and 2 of them designed with 2 lateral docks meant to dock the 2 starships together, additional docks on other sides to allow docking of the normal starship and other vehicles. And while at it, the additional starships are designed to re-use everything possible from the current station modules.
Yes, of course, its so easy to do that. Might as well design a Starship as a space station while u are at it. Its not that easy to modify Starship like this.
@@mervstash3692 NASA had defined the gateway as required. For the first moon mission HLS and Orion are planned to dock together so it's not a technical need for the crew landings.
I find it hard to believe that GAO is identifying technological issues that the actual technologists and engineers working on the project haven't already considered.
There might be some ways to rectify it with a good soft docking mechanism that retracts. Its going to be a real challenge though. Any nudge by Starship will throw it.
It's more a case of starship having much more mass so it affects the station just by being there. You could alway try and be clever and dock the station to starship which would reduce any unwanted manovering but ideally you want them to work together on station keeping when connected.
Why do we need a lunar gateway? I thought the point of Artemis was to colonize the moon, not lunar orbit. I say nasa should cut their losses with the gateway, use starship to land and launch from the lunar surface, and possibly make the gateway into a com station. Gateway seems like a huge money sink to me. 15 years is not a lot , especially if it won’t have people on it all the time. Please feel free to tell me if I’m wrong.
"colonize"? - a manned outpost ist no colony They had 4 ITF and exploded at every step once. Maybe they get the rest done without issues, but I doubt it. SpaceX needs another 30 flights without issues to fullfill their part (15 for the test mission and another 15 for the real deal) - how is that in any reality an actual option?
The amount of research that needs to be done for a permanent colony is staggering. Gateway, Orion, and Alpaca (alas...or that other Blue lander) were the right scope and international scale to accomplish it. The idea that SpaceX is in it for the same reasons that everyone else is, is a bit misguided.
@@benjaminmeusburger4254 spacex are progressing incrementaly and by large steps each flight. They have the paperwork in requesting permission to launch starship 120 times out of Kennedy alone as well building up two launch pads there. They need to develop the refueling technology for their own plans not just for NASA. They are already building an upgraded version of starship that includes ALL the things they have learned and not just the critical patching they've been using on the obsolete ships they have launched so far.
As much as I love SpaceX and the work they're doing, I still find using Starship as the lunar landing vehicle a bad decision. It seems like such a massive risk trying to land something so tall (and likely top-heavy) in a gravity field they don't have experience with on a non-engineered surface.
From the very beginning it seemed odd that the HLS would be SO much bigger than everything else involved with the crewed lunar mission. SLS is such a disappointment. Its payload to trans-lunar injection is significantly inferior to that of the old Saturn V, hence such a limited capability service module compared to that of the Apollo spacecraft. And its hard to see how its enormous cost plus its non-usability fits in with the idea of enabling a continued presence on the Moon's surface.
Definitely not 11 mate. Best guesses currently are 20-30. Even then we still won't know until they actually try it. Which they can't anytime soon with 1 launch site & months between attempts. You make the whole program Starships & we are all of a sudden talking over a hundred launches to land a few people on the moon.
From the start, it has been beyond ridiculous to select this giant Starship, for landing two humans on the Moon. Jordan finally said the >key word< today: *dead weight.*
@@dalethelander3781 nope, that was the politicians. Technically it's possible the problem comes in letting a private company manage the station keeping of a (inter)national station.
Have a shuttle (basically a cylindrical airlock with thrusters) to fly between station and starship and never dock. Or better still, drop human beings out of the equation altogether.
@@dalethelander3781what are you talking about? We have been docking large things to small things and vice versa for the entire history of the space program.
Apparently its time for the hopper to be reintroduced. This craft will be better for runs to the lunar Gateway. Both crafts are to large between Blue Origin and Starship. The Alpaca is an ultimate choice to begin the work
I agree. I like Starship and think it's a fine vehicle for lunar & interplanetary travel, but it simply isn't very compatible with the overall Artemis infrastructure IMO
@@jmwoods190 here's the problem with interplanetary. We fall very short on the mileage and obviously the speed . The speed also needs to be slowen down. We never got to that concept even returning from our Moon . At 35k mph and using our atmosphere to brake isn't advancement. Our goals need refinement and I learned more than some .
@wikkid1show569; the chemical propulsion is the problem. It serves only to get off of Earth ground and into Low Earth Orbit. Any mile beyond LEO requires just too much additional fuel. Just look at the tini Apollo + LM, ontop that giant SaturnV; (I guess you've built the model). In two years the nuke motor is supposed to obsolve a test flight. Then its time to use the ISS as a space station: accomodate ariving astronauts while they wait for their transfer ride. It is bad practise to launch every new mission from the ground. Thats something the bean-counters should have taken care of, a long time back.
Or as was mentioned on another channel, starship could use its thrusters to maintain proper orbit while docked. Seems a pretty simple thing to deal with.
Not really simple but less of a challenge than getting the politicians and NASA stuck in the muds to agree to give a private company that sort of access.
Congratulations Angry, you deserve it....keep up the good work sir, the sky is the limit for you 👏💯.Despite your very limited resources, i have learned more about the space industry than all the major news news network put together. Your hard and diligent work is very much appreciated.
NASA used to dock the massive space shuttle to the ISS while it was under construction and smaller than the space shuttle before the solar panels were installed. So it should be possible to dock the massive starship to a smaller gateway.
Starship with fuel will be 3-4x the mass of the Shuttle. The ISS is a lot heavier than lunar gateway. I realise you're talking about the early days of construction, but those missions were designed with the shuttle in mind. Adding Starship as the lander is an afterthought (probably due to cost) and so the mission profile has only just been re-evaluated, highlighting these issues.
@@dalethelander3781 it was part of a mission redesign when they realised the Saturn V, didn't have the payload for direct to surface. I get the impression they've only now done the analysis for that redesign.
It occurs to me that we are so focused on setting foot on the moon, that we aren't setting ourselves up to stay there. Why not focus on building a larger Gateway with a lunar 'taxi'. Send several starships to land autonomously on the moon, loaded with cargo needed to build a base on the moon. Slowly build up a presence on the moon using people who live on the Gateway and use the taxi to go back and forth.
An option not discussed: Since the HLS only needs to dock with gateway long enough for a crew transfer, the Gateway could function as originally planned the rest of the time. During the transfer (only), have HLS thrusters make the needed navigational adjustments. Also one can avoid too much momentum transfer, from HLS to Gateway, by having HLS match the velocity of Gateway when it is a meter away, then have gateway dock with it. A second undiscussed option is to have HLS match the velocity of gateway, with several meters of separation, then have Orion transfer crew between the vehicles. This uses some of it's scarce fuel but we are only talking about a few meters.
They should make a version of Lunar Starship able to land upright and then tip over so that it lays down on the surface so that the door would be closer to the ground. That starship would never leave the moon. It could open up and become a factory or a permanent moon base segment.
Yes, just like other landers have been designed to "tip over" after landing. This should be an *unmanned* Starship, of course, sent to arrive before personnel on a smaller down-and-up lander. Gateway only needs to be a few comm satellites.
congratulations on getting your NASA press pass Angry! You deserve it. Sorry i am skint so can't help but really appreciate your coverage, especially the UK spaceflight stuff.
This convoluted mess makes Saturn 5 and Apollo look elegant to the point of perfection. NASA falling foul of Elon and another false promise. Whoever would have guessed. 🤔
Well done scoring the opportunity with Crew9 with NASA. This is every GenX space enthusiasts dream. If I was in your shoes this would mean even more to me then the number of followers
Use Starship as a lunar gateway, use another one to ferry large amounts of cargo between the Lunar surface and the gateway, and the Dynetics lander for astronauts (because that big ol tall Starship gonna tip over)
Thanks for a careful explanation of the Lunar Gateway and Starship HLS mismatch. I saw another mention of this issue but without the details you included. I don’t know what the NASA Artemis team is planning but they must have some contingency plan. Maybe they can transfer the astronauts directly from Orion to Starship HLS without having to use the Lunar Gateway. Starship has an incredible amount of mass that is impractical for many purposes. Carrying all that mass to the Moon may be possible with the LEO fuel depot, but sending a Starship all the way to Mars with enough fuel to go into orbit at Mars seems impossible.
If they wished to proceed with Starship, what would make more sense is Earth orbit to lunar surface and back to Earth orbit. It should have sufficient delta V to handle this (Even to the lunar south pole) and makes the system more reusable. Also it may make more sense to go from Earth polar orbit to lunar polar orbit, if the aim is the south pole. I cannot find reliable figures for this, so difficult to assess. It should also reduce risks as there's much fewer steps. It should also be cheaper as the Gateway is not required.
I think falcon heavy is a better, safe solution. The 10-20 refueling flights to get a single Starship going is crazy. Sounds as realistic as the 4 flights to Mars this year
The other more radical concept, other than utilising Bigelow style inflatable modules on Gateway, is to make Starship 2 stage, in addition to the booster, and more like a conventional deep space rocket. Would that offer greater efficiency and utility for moon landing missions I wonder?
rather pointless, spacex are building starship to go to mars the moon is nothing more than a stop off and test location. The ability to refuel starship in LEO gives it all the advantages of a deep space rocket at a fraction of the cost.
I'm all for having multiple contractors for Artemis, but with the delays to date, the original plan now doesn't work. It never did. The difference is that when design started on the Gateway modules, they had to be designed for what rockets were available or estimated to be available. Now, the starship is in development. There can be more freedom in new designs as anything that starts design now will easily be able to use starship. Imagine one of those inflatable modules that, when packed and not inflated, can fill a starship cargo bay. Inflated that module would be huge. It is possibly even too big to be practical with current materials. Also, gratz on getting the NASA gig AA, looking forward to your coverage of Crew9. I hope you get to ask all the difficult questions that need to be asked, even regarding starliner and getting Butch and Suni back down. I think designers need to head to the drawing board and try to redesign current gateway modules to be able to fit into a starship payload bay. Maybe even with some inflatable tech in part. Either way, landing humans on the moon before the end of the decade looks very unlikely.
No because starship, as angry mentioned, has to dock loaded with a thousand tons of fuel. Its empty mass is irrelevant. Everything changes, center of mass, angular moment, forces torque...how indeed didn't the review committees with their fat paycheck, see that? Waste of taxpayers money.
Just make a gateway with the starship as the core. A specialised starship with extra docking ports and docking points and build it from there using the starship propulsion as it’s way to manoeuvre
so I think you would have to have a joint attitude control system With the kind of soft docking system you would need to employ I'm not sure it would be adequate for starship to steer it. No matter the systems need to have some level of coordination
Are you a physicist, professor? Better call NASA and offer your services, you're obviously more clever than the scientists and engineers on their payroll.
„For exactly such cases-shuttle transport between the Lunar Gateway and the lunar surface, general transportation of people and cargo on the Moon (as long as no rail systems are in place), transportation of people and cargo between space stations, and transportation of people and cargo between space stations, moons, and planets with manageable gravity (gravity much less than 1g, and later with more powerful propulsion systems, possibly even higher)-I have designed the concept of the Moon Taxi.“ Appendix: Concept Overview and Specification of the Moon Taxi 1. Introduction The Moon Taxi is a modular spacecraft designed for the transport of cargo and crew on the lunar surface and in lunar orbit. It consists of several connectable modules that provide high flexibility and functionality. Each module is pressurized, autonomously accessible, and can be detached as needed without requiring pressure suits. 2. Modular Structure The Moon Taxi is composed of the following main modules: 2.1 Front Cockpit Module Length: 3 meters Diameter: 5 meters (tapering towards the front) Function: Control and navigation of the Moon Taxi Houses all essential controls and life support systems Equipment: Large, semicircular front window for wide visibility Two ergonomic pilot seats with manual control consoles Two foldable emergency seats for additional crew Central control via an AI display Communication modules for remote operation Storage cabinets for tools, spacesuits, food, and medical supplies 2.2 Propulsion-Tank-Landing Gear (Maneuvering Gear) Module Length: 2 meters Diameter: 5 meters Function: Provides propulsion for the Moon Taxi Facilitates landing and maneuvering on the lunar surface Equipment: Main thrusters at the bottom for space travel RCS thrusters around the module for precise movements High-pressure fuel tanks to supply the propulsion system Four retractable landing legs with shock absorbers Heat dissipation radiators for temperature control Navigation and landing sensors to assist in landing 2.3 Cargo/Passenger Module Length: 5 meters Diameter: 5 meters Function: Transport of cargo and/or passengers Can be adapted to various mission requirements Equipment: Spacious interior to accommodate cargo or passengers Small windows or portholes for observation 2.4 Second Propulsion-Tank-Landing Gear (Maneuvering Gear) Module Length: 2 meters Diameter: 5 meters Function: Supports the main propulsion system and landing Identical to the first Propulsion-Tank-Landing Gear Module 2.5 Rear (Cargo) Module Length: 3 meters Diameter: 5 meters Function: Additional storage space for cargo or scientific equipment Equipment: Cylindrical design without windows, dedicated to transporting additional cargo 2.6 Airlocks Dimensions: 2 meters x 2 meters Function: Separate each module and enable detachment without pressure loss Ensure that the Moon Taxi is walkable from front to rear 3. Functional Requirements Modularity: All modules must be capable of safely connecting and disconnecting from each other. The airlocks must maintain pressure and allow easy detachment without the need for pressure suits. Propulsion and Landing: The propulsion modules must provide sufficient thrust for operations in space and for landing on the lunar surface. The landing gear must be able to land the Moon Taxi safely on various surfaces. Crew and Cargo: The cockpit module must offer a safe and comfortable environment for the crew, including capabilities for control, navigation, and communication. The cargo and passenger modules must be flexible enough to accommodate different payloads. Maintenance and Repair: The modules must be easily accessible for maintenance and repair in space. Tool cabinets and other maintenance facilities must be well-organized and easily accessible. 4. Safety Requirements Pressure Integrity: Each module must be pressurized and withstand the conditions of space. The airlocks must prevent pressure loss and allow safe passage between modules. Emergency Management: The Moon Taxi must have adequate emergency equipment, including medical supplies, spacesuits, and repair tools. Communication and Navigation: Redundant communication and navigation systems must be in place to ensure safe operation in various environments.
Why is a Lunar Gateway even needed? Here is what the mission profile should be. (1) Establish a long-term propellant depot in LEO, supply on a regular basis with Starship. (2) Launch HLS to LEO and load propellants (3) Launch astronauts to HLS using Crew Dragon (4) Translunar injection of HLS to Lunar orbit. (5) Land on Moon (6) Work on Lunar base (7) Launch from Moon to TransEarth trajectory (8) Injection burn to LEO (9) Dock with Crew Dragon (10) Return to Earth. NOTE: all cargo, equipment, supplies for the Lunar base will be delivered with unmanned cargo Starships well in advance of the HLS so the astronauts have some place to go. The HLS will handle only astronauts leaving room for the propellant for the orbital insertion burns. HLS and cargo Starships will not need heat tiles or aerodynamic surfaces since they will stay permanently in Space. Some of the cargo Starships could be used as Lunar base modules. This approach vastly reduces risk, cost, schedule, and complexity since it is based on existing Crew Dragon and variants of Starship.
You would think The Angry Astronaut would know how outer space works. Stuff is weightless there. Geez. I must be the smartest person on the Internet today.
I have a question, could the starship refueling issue be mitigated by sending up an empty starship only the crew into orbit and transferring payload from multiple dragon flights into the payload bay of an appropriately designed starship? It may not reduce cost but initially it could reduce or eliminate the need for the 15-20 refueling flights.
I work out there. I'm retiring soon and gonna be selling my house. Hopefully, lots of people keep moving here for the launches as well as other people working out there.
NASA plans for a gateway station have very little scope other then using it occasionaly for crew transfer to a lunar lander. I don't think know what to do with a lunar station or there are politics and budget limitation preventing them doing anything significant.
I didn't think that the lunar gateway was going to be used for the first landing? I've seen articles saying that Artemis 4 will be the first mission to it, but I could be wrong.
i wonder if it would be possible for the station to use Starships RCS thrusters while it's attached to the station in order to offset the mass difference, the main problems i see being whether or not gateway and starship could communicate effectively enough to pull it off and if starship has enough extra fuel for its thrusters to be used in such a capacity.
@@dalethelander3781 who's to say what's been considered and rejected, if it has been then I'd like to know what part of the problem made it unfeasible and what other options were looked at? most likely whatever they decide on will need to be the cheapest option as it's no secret NASA is having budget issues and a problem like this I could easily turn into a money pit.
Why not make a gateway station out of a starship hull. It will not need landing engines. Fuel tanks just big enough to get it in to luaner orbit. And those very tanks then can be used to refuel what ever. With the removal of landing engines you will gain space for docking ports and air locks.
I would rather see the use of both SpaceX Starship and Boston Dynetics together. Setup starship as a transport vehicle a la the Shuttle program, open the pod bay doors and use BD to land and return to the lunar gateway as a lockable module. Let starship return to earth orbit, and maybe use crew dragon to ferry people back... Let starship land back on earth in an automated procedure. Might be more steps, but it can show the versatility of what we can do with multiple space vehicles.
Dinky lunar gateway was a bad idea for lunar orbit in the first place. It can only be a temporary solution. Any onboard science studies is going to be mediocre at best. Mining is going to be a primary concern and gateway is not going to be able to handle the scale involved in mining. The science involved to perfect space mining is going to need a lot of room.
The issue with the alpaca is it can't even hold 4 astronauts, similar dimensions to the LEM, negative mass ratio, no plan for lunar orbital refueling, the dangers of lunar orbital refueling, there was no demonstration mission, it was the most expensive, and finally it had no way to upgrade, unless you bring down modules, which is a further expense. Starship is more complicated, but it doesn't have any of these issues, also you don't even need Orion but that's not space xs choice. You could launch a Sierra space module to attach to it, or send bigger modules in starship. Or just not use lunar gateway. Also starship will have thrusters. Space station starship could have the cooling system, habitable space, solar panels, food and air and still have plenty of volume to spare.
The lunar gateway plans make even less sense than sls or the space shuttle architecture. Clearly a single or maybe two starships ducttaped together and configured for longterm space exposure, which is easy to do due to their massive base payload to start with, would accomplish the same result with way less moving parts, different subcontractors and way less budget. You could also just undock the starship from the station and leave it parked like idk 1km away leaving it to control it's orbit with its own system while the station do the same on it's side. Then redock when astronauts need to be on it. I still have no idea why Orion still needs to be in the equations, that thing looks even more obsolete than starliner is.
