SpaceX's Starship HLS Interior Design NEW UPDATE... 

Thank you for calling B.S. I’m in total agreement!

Well yeah but have you seen the Chinese space station? Lol

@@Azd1r.3358. It's clean, but not aesthetic. Just as Dragon capsule is futuristic, but not aesthetic.

Obese programs like SLS are the Republicans' version of welfare programs.

Great comment, David♥️

Something new for a nice day😂

Yeah

Maybe build a ladder for back-up. Shouldn't be hard.

Rappel or use rope ascenders would be simple back up and light weight.

@@CaptMcTavig Sure going down but how would they get backup

@@BennyCFD I stated a rope assender. It is a device that climbers use on ropes to go up the rope.

How did it work in Apollo?

I think the lift will be a good opportunity to get as much moon dust off as possible. Anti-static charge, and it will all fall off back toward the ground

👍👍👍

Lots of liquid methane and oxygen

I believe the Axiom suits are designed to be crawled into. One of the bigger rover designs I saw had the back of the suits docked to the back of the rover, with no other doors or hatches. That's kinda where I assumed that they were made to be crawled in and out of. It'll be interesting to see as they get closer to making these missions a reality!

Humans stay on earth, safer that way. No need to go to the moon, been there done that.

it does have landing legs

@@kalkovonschpritzendorf1914 sure can’t see them in the drawings. If they just move straight down from the main body there’s not enough stability considering how tall it is. Look at the original Lunar Lander from the 60’s. Yea,it’s comparatively tiny but at least it wouldn’t tip over if the landing wasn’t perfect or the terrain wasn’t flat and firm. Musks obsession with light weight puts the astronauts at risk. Getting all the way there only to have the lander tip over and loose the crew would stop the whole mission to the moon. The public doesn’t like loosing their hero’s like we did with Challenger.

Most designs now show landing legs. They won't overlook that. There are too many people involved to overlook something used so many times before in the company.

@@fw1421 trust me, Musk doesn't like losing Starships either. Don't forget the gravity on moon is much lower so it's easier to keep something stable. The legs, as shown in the video, are expanding from the bottom of the craft - there are like 8 of them. You are right that it looks unstable... but you forget that the ship is 9m wide - these legs are much wider than the Apollo lander. I am curious to how they want to balance it though. I do think there will be some system to balance the legs in case of uneven terrain - if they can auto adjust each leg automatically, they should be safe.

They were using a version of starship for a moon lander.

We don't know how much gravity is essential to human health. It could be that 1/6 g plus plenty of exercise may be sufficient. Only one way to find out.

@@1701echopapa Hi, thanks for writing. You raise a very interesting and important question: what would be the impact of the c. 0.38 _g_ gravity of Mars itself upon human health? AFAICT we have no conclusive answers yet due to insufficient scientific investigation, so I would want to ask Musk what research, if any, Spacex is conducting to find out; but I'm now quite concerned about this. My thinking proceeds from a premise that Nature never provides a single iota of anything more than is required for survival. Given that our entire evolution--not just the c.2.5m years of hominids and _Homo sapiens_ but including also everything which went before that--has been under a gravity of 1 _g,_ I suspect we will discover that 1 _g_ is an absolute requirement for our long term health. For putative Martian colonists, therefore, I can't see this as anything other than a complete showstopper. :-( If my thinking is correct--and as you say, there's only one way to find out--then it implies that while humans might well live indefinitely on other planets with 1 _g_ gravity or in space habitats rotating to provide it, we can't live for long anywhere else but Earth. Lastly, returning to the question of travel via Starship to Mars, clearly Musk will want each Ship to arrive with 100 colonists who are fit and healthy, not hospital cases requiring lifelong dialysis (including the doctors and nurses forming part of the Ship's complement). If a full 1 _g_ turns out to be essential, then there is of course another--and in my humble but outspoken opinion ('IMHBOO'?)--far better solution than tumbling, which is to use a different propulsion system that can provide that constant 1 _g_ acceleration for half of the journey followed by a single half-tumble and 1 _g_ deceleration for the other half. Granted that probably rockets would be desirable for imparting a suitably high initial impulse to the Ship but following that, the most likely candidate drive seems to be Hall Effect thrusters. I notice that Spacex already develops and uses those for its Starlinks, albeit not as powerful as Starship would need. As well as providing a steady 1 _g_ for the entire voyage, my calculations say that this method would also yield another highly desirable thing: a reduction in journey time from about 9 months to about 90 hours, or around four days. Such a thing would not only virtually guarantee a healthy Ship's complement on arrival, but would also mean that Earth - Mars interplanetary _trade_ would become entirely feasible, which is an idea I like very much. :-D Of course, this is all just so much speculation atm; and my sums may be wrong. Hopefully others will think about this, critique my ideas and methods and check my arithmetic. Anyone? :-))

The Lunar Module door was rectangular.

Yeah facts

True... But I can't wait to see what the Axiom station looks like inside. The artist renderings look amazing!

Haha, I will appear in a beautiful day. So keep following our channel😉

@@colonbina1 who Kevin, a bot? Bot narration for sure………..very grating voice. Why choose that one

Yeah, become grating very fast. Add in bad English grammar, pronunciation,

🤣🤣🤣

Wow a boomer you are old lol... Lets math A launch estimated 8 million per depot generously?≈ 4 mil fuel 4 mil transfer to depot launch x 10 80 mil per 100ton or 5 semi trucks worth of stuff that costs 150 million dollars of equipment so were in 230 million The SLS cost 18.3 billion divided by 230mil is 79 mars landers for the cost of one launch. This probably what spacex does not to mention the billions of other equipment that utilizes the railroad to the frontier so to say. 2-4 launch sites in a 26 month window. With adequate boil off depots to last 24 months with a 3 day cadence just like falcon9 that's 1040 launches /13 per mars lander gets 80 landers 400 semi trucks worth of material A supper Walmart does 700-1100 semi's per year. So we need at least 10 walmarts on mars this could easily sustain the million people musk wants

as 10 super Walmarts serve 5.2 million people terrestrially. S o let's just say 100,000 people. 10 super Walmarts times 900 semitrucks divided by 5 semi's per starship looks like 180*10*13= 23,400 launches. So 23,400/(26mo*30launches per month) makes 30 daily launch sites operating 24/7 per year. 23,400* 8mil =187.2 billion dollars. Plus launch facilities costs 30*3 billion makes 90 just say 100billion on launch facilities stage 0 Total 287.2 or 300billion dollars. 1million per lander minimum. Makes 187.5 billion then add the private contributions ? 18 billion? Do you have 300 billion, of courses this would never happen. Give it to poor little earthlings instead Right? Boomer doomer womp womp. Oh yah, old you said...

Elon is worth 200 billion today The United States spent $820 billion on national defense during fiscal year (FY) 2023 $1.4 trillion is allocated for Social Security in the US federal budget for the year 2023.

SpaceX's suits don't have fully integrated life support, which limits usefulness on moon walks. Also - I'm okay with giving other people a chance at making space suits; not everything needs to be SpaceX.

Yes it easily will so many revolutionary things and just 4 Test Flights in the whole Flight worked. So i see no reason why it shouldnt go out of orbit. Almost everything works great

@@relox2827 Orbital refueling will be a mess...

Right👍

@@ludwigvanzappa9548 They'll figure it out

@@ludwigvanzappa9548 Yeah thats true but they will figure it out.

Nothing flimsy about it

They're still doing Gateway?

Hls is purpose built make it wide as possible

I agree wider better for interior room, but adds air resistance squared. So wider is not better for launch.

@@aarondonaldson4164 it only has to be launched once and then refeuled

This is just a test man. It won't be the full one

Well, I'm sure since "you " don't like it, Elon Musk will stop everything and redesign it.

Yeah

I doubt they'd send rovers using Starship, anyways. Well, at least not with the HLS. That'd be a pretty big waste of cargo space and weight. I'd expect them to use Falcon Heavy to deploy a dedicated rover lander developed by whoever makes the rover.

@@coolHawk_ With an operating Starship there won't be a falcon heavy anymore. Without HLS landing legs and thrusters there won't be a Starship doing it either. Would have been better to make HLS capable of anything that will likely be needed in future and just use it for less taxing early missions. No need to put a rover in if you have other cargo. A rover though would be essential, looks like they may be going with a small unpressurized design, at first anyway.

Yeah

Better than 100 feet down a ladder. Besides, elevators are a mature technology.

🚀🚀🚀

👍👍👍