Dust is ballistic in a vacuum. Dust can't "billow" or "swirl". It just flies like microscopic cannon shells. No dust clouds. Man! What good stuff nit picking be damned! Amazing, every time.
Love the historical voices of President Kennedy talking about the first moon landing on the video, my Granny watched us go from walking, horse and buggy, to cars and to rockets going to the moon in her lifetime.. Thankful there are people who decided it’s still important to go to the moon and Mars and explore space. Thankful we still have a space program and to all involved in making that possible.
Gallium31 get confused how. like how fast a rocket moves and how much force on the body would kill the astronots going at insert copy and paste here If a rocket is launched from the surface of the Earth, it needs to reach a speed of at least 7.9 kilometers per second (4.9 miles per second) in order to reach space. This speed of 7.9 kilometers per second is known as the orbital velocity, it corresponds to more than 20 times the speed of sound. only dumb people think a human body can withstand moving 4.9 miles a second
World of Gaming Can you withstand 30m/s? Yes. Can you withstand 0m/s? Yes. What if you hit a brick wall going 30m/s? Well if you're in a car, the frame and the body will cushion your deceleration. You might experience several hundred G's and survive. If you have nothing to cushion your body and you hit it straight on, you'll probably experience over a thousand G's and a LOT of trauma.
World of Gaming, it takes about 9 minutes for a rocket launched from the surface of the earth to reach a velocity of 4.9 miles per second. Astronauts only feel an acceleration of about 3 g's during that time.
Good stuff! It is definitely time to go back to the moon! It will be an excellent stepping-stone and testing-ground for technologies to go further into space - to Mars and beyond. The moon would also be an excellent launch-pad for a Mars mission - much easier to escape the moons gravity! With Bigelow looking like they will put up a huge inflatable lunar-orbiting station, I can envision shuttles from earth orbit to there (and back) and then shuttles from the lunar orbiter to the moon and back. I'm *sure* it will happen!
You used the word “Envy” in the wrong way. Envy is “jealous” so to correct your statement, it should be “i like your skills” or “im jealous of your skills”.
Nice animation of BFR! Looks even better than the 2017 IAC illustrations of BFR. Wonder how the seating configuration will be like in BFR. They will need seats for landing & reentry. I think they'll place at least one to two seats per cabin inside the cabin sections of BFR . You should consider doing a detailed animation walk through of what you think the interior will really look like in the cabins, common area & cargo storage area.
Well clearly the copyright laws needs some "adjustments"... companies lose more money from suing each other than they gain from not losing products to piracy and such.
thats actually just a mistake the creator of this animation made, the moon does have an atmosphere, but its so thin that you could say its non existant
HZQ Productions it has to do the orbit insertion burn / it has to slow down so the moon gravity catches it. Space works really different than they show in the movies. If they wouldnt do this burn they would get slingshotted intp deep space or maybe back to earth
Ships tend to go in "reverse" in space also in transit, because while travelling at 30 km/s even a grain of sand becomes like a bullet. So they put as much between spacecraft between debris and people as possible.
Nice video, but not sure why you choose to reverse the docking align, in the original spacex presentation is wing with wing.. this has the benefit than even two normal second stage can dock and transfer fuel without the need of a special tanker design with opposite fuel connections. It seems that your only concern is to crash the wings on a bad alignment in a docking process, but that approach is controlled by computers at very low speed, if they can land vertically in a boat from space, then this would be the less of the concerns. So next time, stick to the original presentation.
No, wing-to-wing is not androgynous, you need two different ships to mate together, with the design in this video both ships can be identical as far as the mating surfaces go. Clap your hands together and think of them as BFS rear ends, they match together, but left and right hands are mirror images of eachother, not identical, this would be the wing-to-wing configuration. If you had the misfortune of having two left hands you could not clap them together and have them match.
That would be correct only in the case where you use 1 lox pipe and 1 ch4 pipe offset of the center to the left or right sides to transfer fuel, but you can use 2 for lox (both down, female and male) and 2 for ch4 (both up) to transfer fue, I guess this picture show that method: www.illustratedcuriosity.com/files/media/39386/rocketenginebfg.jpg
Ah, okey, yeah now I get where the confusion is coming from, it's the same damn thing both ways. Over the line of anrogyny you must have matching resources, male to female and vice versa, two sets of everything. If you draw the line of anrogyny horizontally or vertically doesn't make a lick of difference. SpaceX drew the line vertically, this video drew it horizontally. Well there is one difference, with SpaceX approach you can have some connectors in wings. My geometric thinking broke down there for a while, thanks for bringing it back on track.
yeah, but having connectors in wings does not have much sense, because Elon Musk already said that the second stage fuel would be filled from the first stage without an external connection to the launch pad. So you just fill both stages using connections from the rocket bottom, which it become way easier for reusability.
queazocotal But it’s wrong? In the presentation about BFR Elon even showed how it would dock-encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSEJuvHHNe8o8HyDeIq50j3rFSH2Z7kA2SM_xESUbuWWowTHcBw
Purpose wise, tankers don't need to refill other tankers though. The sole purpose of the tanker is to refuel ships heading out from LEO. The tanker docks with the outbound ship and refills it back to back, both with the same orientation (up down). I know it's for artistic purposes, but for detail purists like myself, it's a pretty glaring hiccup, plus the tankers don't have windows. They're tankers. They have fuel as the payload, not the pressurized habitat area for the passengers. The animation is still superb though, but ya can't blame ppl for noticing. Unless SX decided to change something, we're still detail purists and assume it's going to be the way shown in the presentation orientation wise. Plus, the ships are designed to have the pipelines interconnect (as shown in the animation in the presentation), so don't see why it's even a thing why they would need to be upside down anyway. Also, afaik there are 2 pairs of pipes and not 4. I love the animation as it's superb again like the Mars one, but the detail purist in me _really_ wishes it stuck to the script, even the mundane details. As an artist, I don't care cause it rocks. As an engineering enthusiast, I can't help but notice discrepancies.
Don't know how you would use tankers as in space boosters other than modifying them for that purpose, then they become space tugs rather than tankers, plus I haven't the faintest idea how you'd make the adapter for one of those. Also, what do you mean by "if the trajectory leaving earth skims past earth"? How can you skim past the Earth if you're leaving it??? If you mean if it leaves and skims past Earth on another orbit then I kinda getcha, but then the header tanks may have been spending too much time in space and boil-off will become a problem for maintaining margins. It's a neat idea for purely thought experiments, but would require too many mods to be considered practical when you can simply build bigger spaceships, or upgrade to the full ITS, potentially modified.
@@ramirowendler Anything above LEO will require "refueling". Even a passenger ship could be used to bring up 100 tons of propellant, and would require about 12 launches to fully fill another passenger ship already filled with 100 tons of cargo. Since SpaceX is so badass, they will probably try to do a Moon fly-by or landing as soon as two Starships and one Booster are tested adequate for the task.
Hi dude. Just a note about your particulate animation, as a VFX super and into physics myself, for realism remember there is no atmosphere in space so in maya or 3DS or whatever package you use don't put any drag value or speed decay on any emitted particles. Just allow inter-particle collisions. Stuff just doesn't slow down in vacuum which in fact is why some people think space footage is faked because stuff behaves differently to what they are used to seeing in an atmosphere and so "looks wrong" to them. When a rocket lands on the moon there is no billowing cloud. Again the exhaust and kicked up dust does not slow down because there is no atmosphere and so cannot form vortices, cannot hang around decelerating in a swirling cloud close to the base of the rocket the way helicopters kick up swirling dust clouds or the falcon 9 boosters kick up swirls on landing. That doesn't happen in space. Watch the Apollo LEM return to orbit footage ruclips.net/video/sj6a0Wrrh1g/видео.html Debris just gets the hell out of there depending on mass and each dust particle travels in purely ballistic paths. Try running a pure physics sim and see how much it more closely matches
there is an issue with vertical landing on places like moon. it is it's surface. since there is a really low gravity the moon dust goes everywhere. a landing pod is needed to be built. maybe by a rover that can melt the dust with a laser hand harden it. maybe even reform the dust with it's arms to make the shape better.
I'd like to imagine a runway built on the moon with arrestor wires, so this thing could come in horizontally, with the engines facing prograde so it can use the engines to slow down and come to a full stop through a horizontal landing. This would make so much more sense than standing vertically high above the ground. so they could actually have a ground level payload bay once it's landed on the ground, they could move the ship.
Cannot see many BFR's landing on the moon before a variant without wings is designed that just goes back and forth from LEO to the surface. Probably several versions for different mission purposes. Likely the lander would dock with a tank station - not a tanker - in orbit and while there receive cargo from a range of launch vehicle sources.
Theres actually almost no "kicking up dust" as you land on the moon since the exhaust gasses inmediatly expand not being forced down "like you would have in a non-vacuum". Great animation though lov the vid
Vai ter que aumentar o tamanho das asas para diminuir a velocidade, porque assim ficará abaixo dos dois mil graus Celsius a 60 km de altura. É só uma sugestão.
Great video but there will be no billowing dust or smoke or anything else on landing any particles no matter how small will travel in straight lines away from the blast.
A f9 second stage could be modified to orbit the moon and retun to earth. extensive modifications. Lovell apollo 8 emphasized 2 degrees to return. the spacex capsule has some propellant to modify this type of return parameter
Bfr is for mars landing you should change it into moonship moonship is also a starship like bfr and ITS IS INTERPLANETARY SPACE TRAVEL BFR= BIG FALCON ROCKET
I'm a really huge fan of - especially - lunar exploration, but its hardly to believe they would land vertically such huge spaceship. The risk of falling the ship would be too high. There's no chance to land horizontally on the Moon of course, but taking into consideration the height and the size overall of BFR and stability + flatness of the lunar surface..... the one name comes to my mind - disaster.
"We choose to go to the Moon and do this, that, and the other thing!" I can't wait! I know we definitely did (this), and I'm pretty sure we did (that); it's the (other thing) I'm concerned about. I'm sure Kennedy meant well.
You should be working at SpaceX in the marketing department 😁. One obvious mistake though, the tanker is mirroring the BFR when they dock. The rest is good!
0:01 - What's with the upside down docking? 0:20 - Why does the tanker have windows? 1:50 - Why is the lens flare obstructed by the terrain? 2:20 - Moon is way too bright relative to Earth. 3:15 - Heat shimmers can't happen in vacuum. 3:30 - Dust doesn't billow in a vacuum.
Landing vertically doesn't seem safe. It might topple over if the terrain is not level. With vectored thrust it could land horizontally like the Eagle in Space 1999. More safer that way in my opinion.
I wonder about this. A fully fuelled and loaded Starship can indeed get to and land on the moon with a reserve of over a kilometre per second of delta V left over. However, that's not enough to allow it to take off again, and producing methane on the Moon is not practical. So any landing is a one way trip.
Purely as a constructive critique on the animation, which is very pretty but... 1 - Unless Elon Musk has lost his mind, it makes no sense for the lander to look like that - an unstable high centre of gravity, and no apparent way for astronauts to get out. There were good reasons for the Apollo Lunar Module to look the way it did. 2 - The dust cloud would not be as pronounced as that, and would certainly not billow in that manner, which would require an atmosphere. Any dust particles would move outward in an arc, to fall back onto the surface. Otherwise, a really nice animation.
that lander is a colony ship, holding hundreds of people, rather than two, the center of mass is also towards the middle of the lander, so that wont be a problem, theres a hatch that lowers a crane to the surface, so that isn't a problem either
![Cody Johnson - I'm Gonna Love You (with Carrie Underwood) [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/yy9PuYMU29g/mqdefault.jpg)
Dust is ballistic in a vacuum. Dust can't "billow" or "swirl". It just flies like microscopic cannon shells. No dust clouds. Man! What good stuff nit picking be damned! Amazing, every time.
Love the historical voices of President Kennedy talking about the first moon landing on the video, my Granny watched us go from walking, horse and buggy, to cars and to rockets going to the moon in her lifetime.. Thankful there are people who decided it’s still important to go to the moon and Mars and explore space. Thankful we still have a space program and to all involved in making that possible.
These are too good. Keep them coming when u can!
Uploader should try out a job working for the SpaceX graphics team to make their animations.
Home
Bradenton sams
Tedd Wilson and I
berardis3579 You do realize this person makes these videos to show some amazing skills........don’t you?
0:40 can you see the sad face on the earth. Like the rocket is leaving earth?
Like if you noticed.
i saw it
Awesome animation! I can't wait to see more of these, I also love your newer Mars landing video.
Exceptional. Thanks for taking the time to create and share this!
Stephen I seriously hope we can see a simulation of a Mars landing.
Nice video, but during landing on the moon you'll get streams of dust not plumes.
Dust outflow during landing sequence looked perfectly realistic to me mate -- William Black, featured artist on Winchell Chung's Atomic Rockets site.
Can you put animation in the title because people with with little grasp on reality might get confused
Gallium31 get confused how. like how fast a rocket moves and how much force on the body would kill the astronots going at insert copy and paste here
If a rocket is launched from the surface of the Earth, it needs to reach a speed of at least 7.9 kilometers per second (4.9 miles per second) in order to reach space. This speed of 7.9 kilometers per second is known as the orbital velocity, it corresponds to more than 20 times the speed of sound. only dumb people think a human body can withstand moving 4.9 miles a second
Gallium31 "Cooper, what are you doing?!"
World of Gaming Can you withstand 30m/s? Yes. Can you withstand 0m/s? Yes. What if you hit a brick wall going 30m/s? Well if you're in a car, the frame and the body will cushion your deceleration. You might experience several hundred G's and survive. If you have nothing to cushion your body and you hit it straight on, you'll probably experience over a thousand G's and a LOT of trauma.
World of Gaming, it takes about 9 minutes for a rocket launched from the surface of the earth to reach a velocity of 4.9 miles per second. Astronauts only feel an acceleration of about 3 g's during that time.
Shhhh....don't spoil the fun. The NoLobes are too funny.
Well done and mesmerizing. Wish I could hop on board. The music fitted perfectly. Thanks for creating and sharing.
I love it when a video starts off with a space mating ritual.
Then you must love the beginning of dr. Strangelove
ASS TO ASS
It's refuelling
My guy went to orbit to have sex with starship, determination right there...
@@horiginsfs7561 r/whoosh
That was awesome on so many levels. Bravo!
Wake up!!!
that music eminds me of Rimworld for some reason.
Good stuff! It is definitely time to go back to the moon! It will be an excellent stepping-stone and testing-ground for technologies to go further into space - to Mars and beyond.
The moon would also be an excellent launch-pad for a Mars mission - much easier to escape the moons gravity!
With Bigelow looking like they will put up a huge inflatable lunar-orbiting station, I can envision shuttles from earth orbit to there (and back) and then shuttles from the lunar orbiter to the moon and back.
I'm *sure* it will happen!
This was honestly beautiful, thank you.
Every time I hear that JFKs speech, it gives me chills for some reason
It was sincere, not the hollow lies they spew now.
Video is so Beautiful... Music is like Heaven🚀🌕🎶💖
Wow these are always amazing to watch!
I envy your skills!
Please show us how you make these!
Yes, the SpaceX people are pros at CG; just watch Feb launch of their Falcon Heavy.
You used the word “Envy” in the wrong way. Envy is “jealous” so to correct your statement, it should be “i like your skills” or “im jealous of your skills”.
Nice animation of BFR! Looks even better than the 2017 IAC illustrations of BFR. Wonder how the seating configuration will be like in BFR. They will need seats for landing & reentry. I think they'll place at least one to two seats per cabin inside the cabin sections of BFR . You should consider doing a detailed animation walk through of what you think the interior will really look like in the cabins, common area & cargo storage area.
Detail on the surface looks great!
I expect he used real photographs of the Moon.
Beautifully done! I love watching your videos!
JFK "I chose to sleep with Marylin Monroe not because she was easy but because I was hard".
OMG that gave me a chuckle.
And now youve completely ruined the atmosphere of the video xDD
Nailed it 🤗 10
Being polite comes naturally so I would rise up so she may sit down.
What r u talking about
That's the best video I have ever seen on RUclips. Amazing.
Stammering Benny
really?
Thank you to the Astronauts and Cosmonauts that have given us incredible dedication and sometimes their lives so we can go forward.
KSP 2 is looking sick
Ohh yeah, camera crew were already there to shoot moon landing on moon.... Cinematographers were already there in space to shoot the journey 😁😁
Accuser?
Can't wait to see you produce a feature length movie
Animation is excellent
Great visualisation/animation!
Very useful!
put fly me to the moon of background music :D
P illo copyright issues ... but that would’ve been great!
Well clearly the copyright laws needs some "adjustments"... companies lose more money from suing each other than they gain from not losing products to piracy and such.
P illo I want to sing that at one of those symposiums where Elon is giving a speech and then allows people to ask questions etc. afterwards.
Nice video
What date was this video shot?
Just kidding.... lol... great photo realistic job!
10/10
I love the separation scene.
I like how the heat of the rocket engine makes the air flicker in the moons atmosphere
thats actually just a mistake the creator of this animation made, the moon does have an atmosphere, but its so thin that you could say its non existant
The dust dispersion at the end is not accurate.
I look forward to repeated BFR moon landings.
Longform comments: puts effort into their comments
Shorts comments: 🥰🥰😮
From 1:45 why is BFR orbiting the moon in reverse? I'm slightly puzzled. Is it because it's being prepared for landing or what?
Yes, it is preparing for it's landing burn
For lunar orbit insertion and landing
HZQ Productions it has to do the orbit insertion burn / it has to slow down so the moon gravity catches it. Space works really different than they show in the movies. If they wouldnt do this burn they would get slingshotted intp deep space or maybe back to earth
It doesn't really matter what direction the ship faces while it isn't burning
Ships tend to go in "reverse" in space also in transit, because while travelling at 30 km/s even a grain of sand becomes like a bullet. So they put as much between spacecraft between debris and people as possible.
Moon is very beautiful
Nice video, but not sure why you choose to reverse the docking align, in the original spacex presentation is wing with wing.. this has the benefit than even two normal second stage can dock and transfer fuel without the need of a special tanker design with opposite fuel connections.
It seems that your only concern is to crash the wings on a bad alignment in a docking process, but that approach is controlled by computers at very low speed, if they can land vertically in a boat from space, then this would be the less of the concerns.
So next time, stick to the original presentation.
No, wing-to-wing is not androgynous, you need two different ships to mate together, with the design in this video both ships can be identical as far as the mating surfaces go. Clap your hands together and think of them as BFS rear ends, they match together, but left and right hands are mirror images of eachother, not identical, this would be the wing-to-wing configuration. If you had the misfortune of having two left hands you could not clap them together and have them match.
For a more practical example on how androgynous mating in space is done check out IDA docking adapter design.
That would be correct only in the case where you use 1 lox pipe and 1 ch4 pipe offset of the center to the left or right sides to transfer fuel, but you can use 2 for lox (both down, female and male) and 2 for ch4 (both up) to transfer fue, I guess this picture show that method:
www.illustratedcuriosity.com/files/media/39386/rocketenginebfg.jpg
Ah, okey, yeah now I get where the confusion is coming from, it's the same damn thing both ways. Over the line of anrogyny you must have matching resources, male to female and vice versa, two sets of everything. If you draw the line of anrogyny horizontally or vertically doesn't make a lick of difference. SpaceX drew the line vertically, this video drew it horizontally.
Well there is one difference, with SpaceX approach you can have some connectors in wings.
My geometric thinking broke down there for a while, thanks for bringing it back on track.
yeah, but having connectors in wings does not have much sense, because Elon Musk already said that the second stage fuel would be filled from the first stage without an external connection to the launch pad. So you just fill both stages using connections from the rocket bottom, which it become way easier for reusability.
Awesome animation!! (What's with all the 'thumbs down'? Oh yeah...flat-earthers...)
why is docking upside down!?
It means that with the right design, the vehicles can be entirely identical and still dock and mate the right hoses up simply.
queazocotal But it’s wrong? In the presentation about BFR Elon even showed how it would dock-encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSEJuvHHNe8o8HyDeIq50j3rFSH2Z7kA2SM_xESUbuWWowTHcBw
Snowmobile2004 perhaps. It will be interesting to see reality, not videos, and how it's actually done.
Purpose wise, tankers don't need to refill other tankers though. The sole purpose of the tanker is to refuel ships heading out from LEO. The tanker docks with the outbound ship and refills it back to back, both with the same orientation (up down). I know it's for artistic purposes, but for detail purists like myself, it's a pretty glaring hiccup, plus the tankers don't have windows. They're tankers. They have fuel as the payload, not the pressurized habitat area for the passengers. The animation is still superb though, but ya can't blame ppl for noticing. Unless SX decided to change something, we're still detail purists and assume it's going to be the way shown in the presentation orientation wise. Plus, the ships are designed to have the pipelines interconnect (as shown in the animation in the presentation), so don't see why it's even a thing why they would need to be upside down anyway. Also, afaik there are 2 pairs of pipes and not 4. I love the animation as it's superb again like the Mars one, but the detail purist in me _really_ wishes it stuck to the script, even the mundane details. As an artist, I don't care cause it rocks. As an engineering enthusiast, I can't help but notice discrepancies.
Don't know how you would use tankers as in space boosters other than modifying them for that purpose, then they become space tugs rather than tankers, plus I haven't the faintest idea how you'd make the adapter for one of those. Also, what do you mean by "if the trajectory leaving earth skims past earth"? How can you skim past the Earth if you're leaving it??? If you mean if it leaves and skims past Earth on another orbit then I kinda getcha, but then the header tanks may have been spending too much time in space and boil-off will become a problem for maintaining margins. It's a neat idea for purely thought experiments, but would require too many mods to be considered practical when you can simply build bigger spaceships, or upgrade to the full ITS, potentially modified.
Beautiful as always!
Animation was OK, until the billowing clouds of dust. That only happens in an atmosphere!
Oscar No it isnt
Because moon has no atmosphere to slow it down. Only the booster can.
I used to make moon landings better than that on an arcade moon landing game back in the 80’s.🚀🚀🚀
Moon base alpha
Sunil Narine
Classic show
We all know what happened to that now don't we Hmmm... ;-)
Sunil Narine john madden
*John Madden*
*Football!*
Muito legal. E será legal para quem poder pagar a passagem quando essas viagens se iniciar! Rio de Janeiro RJ Brasil
Why do both spaceships have windows? The BFS Tanker should not have windows as it has no cabins or crew space.
Geffen Avraham for illustration purposes
maybe for the fist flight they don't need a tanker, the can send people and take back without refuelling (only to the moon of course)
@@ramirowendler
Anything above LEO will require "refueling".
Even a passenger ship could be used to bring up 100 tons of propellant, and would require about 12 launches to fully fill another passenger ship already filled with 100 tons of cargo.
Since SpaceX is so badass, they will probably try to do a Moon fly-by or landing as soon as two Starships and one Booster are tested adequate for the task.
Keren kali.. Pengen naik roket ke bulan
i cant wait for this to happen for real
Hi dude. Just a note about your particulate animation, as a VFX super and into physics myself, for realism remember there is no atmosphere in space so in maya or 3DS or whatever package you use don't put any drag value or speed decay on any emitted particles. Just allow inter-particle collisions. Stuff just doesn't slow down in vacuum which in fact is why some people think space footage is faked because stuff behaves differently to what they are used to seeing in an atmosphere and so "looks wrong" to them.
When a rocket lands on the moon there is no billowing cloud. Again the exhaust and kicked up dust does not slow down because there is no atmosphere and so cannot form vortices, cannot hang around decelerating in a swirling cloud close to the base of the rocket the way helicopters kick up swirling dust clouds or the falcon 9 boosters kick up swirls on landing. That doesn't happen in space. Watch the Apollo LEM return to orbit footage ruclips.net/video/sj6a0Wrrh1g/видео.html Debris just gets the hell out of there depending on mass and each dust particle travels in purely ballistic paths. Try running a pure physics sim and see how much it more closely matches
Grommo buddy this is a video game
Its not a game its an animation made with blender@@clematis726
there is an issue with vertical landing on places like moon. it is it's surface. since there is a really low gravity the moon dust goes everywhere. a landing pod is needed to be built. maybe by a rover that can melt the dust with a laser hand harden it. maybe even reform the dust with it's arms to make the shape better.
believe it or not the moon is mostly rock solid, it only has a thin layer of dust, at most a few inches
In 2023 BFR will orbit the moon.
DRAGON OF THE WEST did you have a vision ? Lol
Onésime Basubi Elon said.
Ksp 2 looking good
I'd like to imagine a runway built on the moon with arrestor wires, so this thing could come in horizontally, with the engines facing prograde so it can use the engines to slow down and come to a full stop through a horizontal landing.
This would make so much more sense than standing vertically high above the ground. so they could actually have a ground level payload bay once it's landed on the ground, they could move the ship.
How the camera man get their first?
A really big cannon
+Secret Lee What camera man? It's a CGI animation. No camera man necessary.
My3dviews its a joke...
Awesome, and I start work for Spacex Hawthorne on 4/2/18😎🤣🤣
Niceee!
fake
clayman0 skycade You do realize this is animation.....don’t you? This person has skills.
/r/woosh
clayman0 skycade ?
Nm googled it...but I think your back pedaling now...unless you add (sarcasm) to justify your original comment.
clayman0 skycade pinnacle of humour
Não vejo a hora de ver a retomada das viagens a Lua em alta definição
Beautiful... Thank you
Cannot see many BFR's landing on the moon before a variant without wings is designed that just goes back and forth from LEO to the surface. Probably several versions for different mission purposes. Likely the lander would dock with a tank station - not a tanker - in orbit and while there receive cargo from a range of launch vehicle sources.
I've been waiting for something like this. I want this to happen so much it hurts.
no engine exaust
man o man what detailed
There are no visible flames in a vacuum.
It's very faintly visible
Theres actually almost no "kicking up dust" as you land on the moon since the exhaust gasses inmediatly expand not being forced down "like you would have in a non-vacuum". Great animation though lov the vid
It's made in KSP
@@misterx7898 its not a game its a nimation
Vai ter que aumentar o tamanho das asas para diminuir a velocidade, porque assim ficará abaixo dos dois mil graus Celsius a 60 km de altura. É só uma sugestão.
Wow Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious
Can you make a new one for Lunar Starship?
Great video but there will be no billowing dust or smoke or anything else on landing any particles no matter how small will travel in straight lines away from the blast.
I hope I get to live to see this happen in reality :)
Amazing animation
I'll be Shure to construct this on KSP
Isaac fell asleep, watching with me next time he wants to go to the moon
The Space Growth
A f9 second stage could be modified to orbit the moon and retun to earth. extensive modifications. Lovell apollo 8 emphasized 2 degrees to return. the spacex capsule has some propellant to modify this type of return parameter
awesome how all changed
I just saw the four pillars of the earth
Bfr is for mars landing you should change it into moonship moonship is also a starship like bfr and ITS IS INTERPLANETARY SPACE TRAVEL BFR= BIG FALCON ROCKET
wow space holiyood....لااله الاالله محمد رسول الله
Cool I did this the other day in Space Flight Simulator
I'm a really huge fan of - especially - lunar exploration, but its hardly to believe they would land vertically such huge spaceship. The risk of falling the ship would be too high. There's no chance to land horizontally on the Moon of course, but taking into consideration the height and the size overall of BFR and stability + flatness of the lunar surface..... the one name comes to my mind - disaster.
Considering the landingspeed and the precision of the boosters I don't see any problems for a landing on the moon.
No spaceX has super good precisie in landings.
If you watch it in reverse, it's like the last people fleeing a failed moon colony.
"We choose to go to the Moon and do this, that, and the other thing!" I can't wait! I know we definitely did (this), and I'm pretty sure we did (that); it's the (other thing) I'm concerned about. I'm sure Kennedy meant well.
Why do we fight pointless wars not because we need peace but because we need oil and money
Jet in vacuum..action and reaction 👀
Awesome, looks so nice:-) Amazing:-)
Tuyệt voi
No way to photograph that from so many different angles that's crazy.
Eric Steele its fake
Nice one
Awesome work 👍🏻👍🏻
You should be working at SpaceX in the marketing department 😁. One obvious mistake though, the tanker is mirroring the BFR when they dock. The rest is good!
Do you think they gonna land with Vacuum motors? I expect they use sea-lever only for earth..
I like how they did not use any fuel to get out of earths orbit and get into moons orbit
Good leanding on the moon.
0:01 - What's with the upside down docking?
0:20 - Why does the tanker have windows?
1:50 - Why is the lens flare obstructed by the terrain?
2:20 - Moon is way too bright relative to Earth.
3:15 - Heat shimmers can't happen in vacuum.
3:30 - Dust doesn't billow in a vacuum.
There is no upside down in space. KSP mishaps. Camera tools glitch. Camera filter. Again, KSP mishap. Another KSP mishap.
@@misterx7898 this is not ksp
Landing vertically doesn't seem safe. It might topple over if the terrain is not level. With vectored thrust it could land horizontally like the Eagle in Space 1999. More safer that way in my opinion.
Please what software did you use to create this animation
That landing looks so freakin hard to do.
Keep at up
0:40 The sad creepy face earth made when humans is going to the moon
So who is filming? 🙂
I wonder about this. A fully fuelled and loaded Starship can indeed get to and land on the moon with a reserve of over a kilometre per second of delta V left over. However, that's not enough to allow it to take off again, and producing methane on the Moon is not practical. So any landing is a one way trip.
Purely as a constructive critique on the animation, which is very pretty but...
1 - Unless Elon Musk has lost his mind, it makes no sense for the lander to look like that - an unstable high centre of gravity, and no apparent way for astronauts to get out. There were good reasons for the Apollo Lunar Module to look the way it did.
2 - The dust cloud would not be as pronounced as that, and would certainly not billow in that manner, which would require an atmosphere. Any dust particles would move outward in an arc, to fall back onto the surface.
Otherwise, a really nice animation.
that lander is a colony ship, holding hundreds of people, rather than two, the center of mass is also towards the middle of the lander, so that wont be a problem, theres a hatch that lowers a crane to the surface, so that isn't a problem either