It warms my heart to see a top-level comment endorsing Eager Space. Even more so that it was submitted the same day as the video, and it is now "liked" to the top, in plain view. That was oddly specific, I know. Eager Space's lack of reach does not appear entirely organic to me, that's why.
@@hermanrobak1285 it’s not so much of a surprise as I looked through the designs of his video thumbnails :) but maybe it’s for the better that it remained engineering focused
I agree we should at the very least be launching ROSV's (Remote Operated Space Vehicles) a lot more, specially with all the advanced systems we have now, we also should be looking more at hybrid 1st stage systems using turbine based engines supporting rocking engines to help reduce cost and increase reusability.
Your point about telepresence is well made. And from a technical perspective, it is correct, but it ignores the core of the issue: which is budgets and politics. (Never make the mistake of thinking that the technical facts and figures are the core of the issue... they basically never are for ANY issue. This is because, with enough money, one can generally overcome near any technical issue, and the gate-keeping of large amounts of money is always political). There are three Political Space Factions in America. Here they are named after their first or principal proponents. The Von Browns see Space as all about international relations and grand spectacles. The Sagans see space as all about Science. The O'Neills see it as all about Settlements (full disclosure, I'm an O'Neill). Apollo and Skylab era NASA endeavors were mostly about the Von Brown Agenda... they didn't want telepresence robots on the moon for the same reason they didn't want cheap and routine space flight... it would eliminate the POINT which is spectacle for international diplomacy reasons. Telepresence robots on the moon are much less of a spectacle than people. In the early space shuttle era, the Sagans weren't interested in telepresence on the moon because there was more and cheaper science that could be done with floating space telescopes like Hubble or robotic probes that were sent too far for telepresence to work. The O'Neills have, until relatively recently not been afforded any power in NASA, and even now entities like SpaceX attract their attention more. That's why it hasn't happened. Concerning you're brief asside about radiation exposure on the Lunar and Martian surfaces... not really sure why you think that matters much. Neither environment has much on the surface that matters. Settlements will be sub-surface and most maintenance in either location will be performed by telepresence robots operated by humans in the same location. There's a 1 second delay between the Moon and Earth without delays built into the telepresence robot and communication network. That much latency, as anybody who has ever played an online multiplayer video game knows, is almost crippling. You CAN do it from Earth to the moon, but you can do it BETTER from Moon to Moon. Your radiation position makes more sense when considering spinning habitats that are not on the surface of natural bodies... which lets face it are going to be where most humans end up living. But even then, there will be enough shielding, both material shielding mined from asteroids, and EM fields that the unprotected radiation number for space, either inside or outside the magnetosphere of a natural body only relevant to a "What if something goes wrong?" contingency plan. Your points on Falcon Heavy are well taken... and to me it comes down to Farring size. Why has SpaceX and NASA been so reluctant to develop a WIDER farring?
@@terranspaceacademy The military implications of developing the moon have two very different shapes depending upon what the Moon is being used FOR. If we limit the moon to a mostly automated series of stations, then we will see something reminiscent of modern drone and anti-satellite warfare dominating with the primary military utility being, communications, remote sensing, and maybe eventually reaction-mass/fuel mining. Where things will be really interesting is when the Moon ceased to be a MEANS and starts to become an END. When it is a destination rather than a way-station, supply depot, or sensor platform... and that means manufacturing and mining of non-consumable materials, then advanced fixed defenses start to become worth the investment. For the Moon, there are really only two kinds of advanced fixed defenses: (1) Radar/thermal guided missiles... only useful for defense of surface installations which ultimately only have to be solar cells, landing-pads, and surface access tunnels. (2) Deep Deep tunnels. Once you have sizable and manned installations on the moon Sub-Surface really is the name of the game. And if you get deep enough, nothing can hurt you remotely. Interestingly an enabling technology is being developed right now by Quaise Energy... Gyrotron Electromagnetic rapid drilling.
Their current fairing accommodates 99% (not exactly a factual percentage but u get it…) of existing needs. If there was a huge demand, they would divert resources to the production of it.
@@revmsj Tat' based on the misguided concept that Starship will be a viable machine someday. Dod asked SpaceX to slightly get a bit more cargo into GEO orbit and SpaceX wasn't interested!! Easy money military contracts and Musk didn't want the business because he's committed to Starship as the future rocket!! If this were a public company, Musk would be thrown out of the company!
It's required for USSF/NRO contract (along with vertical integration capability), and has been spotted, but there's not a pressing need so not a high priority.
10:10 an aerospike does absolutely diddly squat for you in vacuum (such as when trying to hover/land on the Moon). The beauty of aerospikes is that they form an optimal expansion envelope during _atmospheric_ flight, as external pressure goes through the full range - so you don't have to separately equip sea-level and vacuum-optimized nozzles. An aerospike is a good 'universal' solution, that does well in all regimes - but as so often happens, a Jack of all trades is a master of none. In vacuum, a good vacuum-optimized bell nozzle will beat the tar out of an aerospike, in terms of overall efficiency.
ive always said we should be sending seniors , especially for long duration monotonous trips. Set up a bingo display , load up the geritol and they will do just fine. Not to mention theyre aquired wisdom is invaluable
Not a rocket scientist here... just a trucker. So please be kind 😅 Given that Starship is the truly revolutionary part of the Starship/Super Heavy combination, and it seems like they've got the design for the booster pretty well dialed in, it would seem to make sense to have some kind of non-reuseable second stage to put on top of Super Heavy. Essentially, BFR. That way, they could start making use of all that lifting capacity while waiting for Ship to be ready.
It's very doable yes, but it's a question of wanting to do it, which they likely don't. It wouldn't take much to take the wings off and have the top just be a dumb hull or fairing above the fuel tank portion of Starship, but it kinda flies in the face of what Musk is trying to do with reusability, wastes at least 6 engines per flight, and complicates their assembly line by needing a separate branch for it. Interesting idea in theory, but most payloads that need high lift capacity will probably fit on a Falcon Heavy, which is also more flight proven.
This reduces the landed payload by ~19% for MMH+NTO or by ~17% for Methalox. Apollo carried ~1090 m/s for TLI-LLO, and ~2410 m/s for lunar descent. That's 3500 m/s, way more than the 2000 m/s you used. That's a 45% payload reduction for MMH+NTO or 39% reduction for Methalox. IM-1 had ~3750 m/s SLIM had ~4050 m/s Chang'e 4 had ~3500 m/s Also, you want a descent TWR when landing ~2. Apollo DM had a 1.85 local TWR. More stuff: Based on NASA's Vehicle Performance Estimator, Falcon Heavy can reliably get ~15.6t to TLI. You need 3500 m/s for LOI+Landing, and the descent module can have an Apollo DSM-like 20% dry mass. With this, we find that an expended Falcon Heavy can land a 3.1t rover using hypergolics, or 4.2t using Methalox. This is probably being generous, since LUPEX lands 350 kg but weighs 6t after TLI.
@@terranspaceacademyThe orbital velocity 100km above the moon is ~1630 m/s. The Moon's escape velocity is ~2380 m/s. 2380 - 1630 = 750 m/s, which is close to the 680 m/s. I've made many lunar lander, rovers, sample returns, and even manned-landings in KSP RSS. I usually bring 1000 m/s for TLI-LLO, and have 50-150 m/s remaining.
@@terranspaceacademy"Odysseus completed its scheduled 408-second main engine lunar orbit insertion burn and is currently in a 92 km circular lunar orbit. Initial data indicates the 800 m/s burn was completed within 2 m/s accuracy. 1/4 (21FEB2024 0920 CST)" Intuitive Machine's official Twitter post
@@terranspaceacademy "Odysseus completed its scheduled 408-second main engine lunar orbit insertion burn and is currently in a 92 km circular lunar orbit. Initial data indicates the 800 m/s burn was completed within 2 m/s accuracy." - IM
Actuslly we can use the 9 meter booster, of Super Heavy, Starship add in a second stage to the moon orbit, and we can release a fully fueled lander and return launcher, to bring back the samples. We can build a massive faring, and send a 50 tons payload to the Moon.
I think your LOI dV numbers are a little low. More like 800dV to low lunar orbit plus at least 2000-2100 to land and take off from the moon (gravity losses).
Apollo budgeted 2,400 but by later flights was able to get that down to about 1,800. LOI dV numbers depend on your trajectory... High or low orbit and if you come ahead of the Moon letting it pull you back. Low and ahead gives a better gravity slow down and you need less dV but more precision.
Getting cargo and rovers to the lunar surface is one thing. Getting humans there and back is a different story. Sure, use cryogenic propellant for cargo and landers, that's fine. If it's my ass on the line. I would like something more reliable, like hypergolic. As long as Boeing doesn't design the manifold, it should be good.
We need to stop screwing around and get back to the moon. I think we need lots of machines, but a few humans too. I just turned 50 and I"m ready to go. Not sure about the plan to use Falcon Heavies in expendable mode. Either we plan to use the starship, or send up modules in heavies with 2 or more launches. It's not like the 60's where we aren't sure we can rendezvous and dock in orbit. So what if we send up a CM and lander on separate launches. Plus as it stands now the Heavy isn't human rated either. Praying we stop screwing around and get he Starship on the moon soon and then hopefully we can get enough mass there to make a strong and quick foot hold. SO what is your take on seemingly small solar storms turning into large geomagnetic storms recently? Seems all out of whack to me. Might give us some other issues in space soon.
We should not ignore the old Surveyor design. Equipped with up to date gear, this proven, reliable bus won't tip over. made of modern materials it would be ultra light.
I’ve been thinking for some time now, and hope that it’s a viable idea, that we could perhaps develop a 100% reusable spacecraft that’s potentially even larger than starship super heavy, uses turbine jet engines on 1st stage, mix of turbine jet and SCRAM engines (or whatever the upcoming state of the art hypersonic jet engines are) for 2nd stage, and for the 3rd (or however many stages this method winds up taking) stage, you would then use either whatever Vac optimized chemical engine u want to use, or depending on the circumstances you could implement several large Hall effect thrusters, VASIMER (sp*), fission, fusion, solar sail, Warp drive…(obvious joke) or even a combination of the above engines. It would seem that these 1st and 2nd stages could be flown back to LZ w/ SO much less risk and cost as you wouldn’t have to pay for oxidizer. Also much more efficient as there’s no mass penalty for oxidizer. Plus these engines are inherently hella more efficient and need less upkeep than rocket engines and experience less stresses et al. Idk to me it just seems like an obvious next step although I’m just not convinced that jet engines scale up like rocket engines do. I’d be super interested to find out. I’d like to research this topic now…🤔
You are quite correct. But they have their own oxidizer supply... So, if you use one to get to Mach 10+ in the atmosphere, they may be worth the mass. If you are going vertical you don't spend enough time in the atmosphere to make it worthwhile.
For the lunar lander, why don't we consider the SkyCrane architecture from the Mars missions. If scaled up, it could be reusable after dropping it's cargo. What would the mass and fuel numbers be for that?
The Moon is a different story than the Earth or Mars... You could lower a "sky cable" from a low enough orbit with a massive ship and "hook" a transport container on the Moon. Reeling it up...
10% dry mass for a metalox rocket seems pretty high, this is usually a value for pure hidrolox rockets, but in this case you have higher specific impulse to compensate for the higher mass ratio , if you re-make the calculations with 5% dry mass everything will look better.
@@terranspaceacademy 7% is probably a realistic estimations for a metalox reuseble vehicle that needs TPS for re-entering, a expandable upper stage could be made with 5% dry mass, or even lower depending on the materials and design.
But AI, as its being called today, can indeed drive rovers. DARPA had the first one that was able to negotiate desert terrain in the 80s. Avoiding obstacles and looking for "interesting" rocks etc. is to hard for these systems.
Also, the lunar decent engine needed to throttle deeply. Can the aerospike do that? Might be easier to control several small engines. Also, 380 isp is close to the theoretical maximum for methalox. We will need to see that potential realized
The aerospike can throttle down to 15% full thrust because it is expander cycle turbopump fed like the RL-10 with an electropump to start and deep throttle below 15% :-)
It is absolutely distressing that NASA didn't use robotics to start building human habitats on the moon. They could have tried a variety of approaches and learned from failures. What went wrong.
Access to resources and low lift materials for orbital habitats and large shielded spaceships. Radiation is the greatest danger to spaceflight, and this is ameliorated by sufficient mass.
@@terranspaceacademy when you say radiation is the greatest danger to spaceflight, you are refering to manned space flight, so you are ultimately saying that we are putting people in space so we can put people in space. Again, what is the mission though? Also, couldn't machines mine and smelt with less hazard? I'd be happier if they dropped high-density asteroids on the Moon with valuable ores to be recovered, but that is too long-term for NASA.
I mathed out a moon or mars base 1/2T each roughly this includes support companies. we could build 30-50 stage 0 infrastructure to make an appropriate 26mo window with refulings
The military is necessary, it's the welfare state that produces laziness and dependents on the government, with absolutely no return on the "investment"
The worst aspect of the time we’ve lost in our space program as NASA sat on its hands for decades while continuing to waste taxpayer money and cash paychecks is that we can NEVER recover that time. 😢
Next time your phone connects you nearly instantly to the other side of the world, think about what you said about NASA “sitting on their hands” wasting taxpayer dollars…
@@Papershields001I agree that space funding has been beneficial, but that's a bad example. Only 1% of international communications go through satellites. It's 99% cables.
Unmanned construction on the moon is unfeasible. Compared to manned missions, it is far more expensive and more likely to break. The issues with high development costs make it difficult, and the motivation for people to send robots is low compared to people.
@geocam2 That doesn't invalidate the desire to go to the moon. Millions of already people live in Canada and Siberia. There are tons of differences between the moon and the taiga. On the equator, the day is 29.5 days long, and the gravity is 1/6 of Earth's. The sun isn't blocked by clouds, and you can study lots of charged particles on the moon. That's awesome. Canada and Russia owns that land, and the moon is free. They aren't interchangeable. Establishing moon bases is a fantastic idea.👌
I’m not convinced that unmanned lunar construction is infeasible, more expensive than manned construction, or untenable as you’ve stated. I get the sense that manned missions into any kind of space is hugely more expensive than any sort of unmanned mission due to the need for all manner of life supporting infrastructure such as O2, CO2 scrubbing, more precise temperature control for biologicals vs machinery and compute, food, water, waste, hygiene, all sorts of physical and mental upkeep, any potential medical emergencies may arise, sleep requirements, and any number of things I fail to conjure up here. Now multiply those needs by the total required personnel required per task and you’ve hauled up a butt ton of unnecessary mass! Not to mention all the money to train these people and the ground crew keeping tabs on these people. Then you’ll have to rotate out these people in perpetuity. I don’t believe it’s possible to do any real lunar construction in a reasonable amount of time and w/ a reasonable budget allocated by the US congress. OTOH, have you seen the leaps in AI abilities and their abilities to not just learn tasks in no time at all, but also to teach themselves w/out humans giving lessons?? They can do a thing in the virtual realm a million times and learn through trial/error before a human can watch the RUclips video on how to do it and they now master the thing before even being embodied! Now consider that Tesla will soon be cranking out thousands of their anthropomorphic robots each with proposed price tag around 15-20K USD! So u launch a mission on a 100% reusable spacecraft, w/ payload consisting of a team of Teslabot, materials necessary to get started, and the needed tools such as earth (regolith) moving equipment, large scale 3D printers, mobile power stations, etc. Now this const project gets cranked out in the background w/ minimal oversight and WAY less overhead! Also if there are any mishaps, no lives are lost! The insurance alone would be worth it… Now I’m not discounting the idea that a small crew may be needed at the very beginning to perform site surveys, and perhaps spot check progress etc. but even that could be done by remotely “embodying” one of the on site anthropomorphic bots. The people piloting the bot could even do so from the nearby Lunar Gateway Station orbiting overhead in order to reduce latency and to facilitate any potential need to visit the site for hands on rectification of a potential issue should the need arise. There’s absolutely no way that manned construction is a more viable option than unmanned robotic. Not for payload to orbit/moon, not for expense monetarily speaking, not for the safety of humans obviously, and it’s certainly not more likely to have “breakdown” issues either. There’s so much more crap to break down w/ humans present and if/when there’s a malfunction of any one of the hundreds/thousands of systems, no matter how seemingly tiny and insignificant we may believe it to be, then everyone has to abort and construction comes to a stop. That is if they are even still able to. A tiny failure could mean that everyone there dies or gets stuck. We are way more fragile than autonomous machines or robots… Sorry about the novel I wrote here in response. Feel free to not read it….😬lol
@@revmsj Well I agree about unmanned being far cheaper than manned, But there would be zeri need for anthropomorphic robots and even if I thought they would help, it certainly would not be with the Tesla non-real robots! Boston Dynamics would make much more sense because they actually have stuff that already works and much better and more capable than what Musk is promising!! But you don't need it! The robotic rover is already capable and it would not be so hard to make it self repairable! Don't need a simulated human and we build all kinds of things without the need for humans or human looking robots. Might look cool, but it would be pointless. The interesting thing too, is that the moon is not that far away and with a little buffering built in, virtually real time remote control should be possible. Not that hard to build safety margins in the sensors and functions like "go back or undo the last 10 seconds, The delay is only about 1.3 seconds one way. That is near enough to real time to be very workable for remote operation.
should use Chain on Arms instead of Long Rails for catching booster - chain could self center - can wrap around booster some - -can use several catch hooks - will catch on chain links and not Slide - fast adjust - tighten Less chance of smashing booster - form arms/ chain n slight U shape Bowed - Strong - could also use a Cable with stops added on cable - Rail catch looks sketchy to me
Yep. The US is going to let it happen. Science fiction writers will start using Chinese Mandarin instead of English. Mandarin will be the language of Luna.
China’s population will fall by half in the next 30 to 40 years. They won’t be able to afford to do much of anything without a tax base and a bunch of old people that need care.
It works with cartoons, India and China are poor quality, but they make it work. We used to make real good cartoons, space-x will get there, once they start using pastels.
You my friend, need to collaborate with the angry astronaut to bring about the real engineering enigmas that if we are to accomplish the moon, will need critical analysis and engineering sciences to overcome gravity.
Well one thing Russia did was fly our boys and girls to the ISS for a decade after the shuttle finally fell apart. Keep it about rockets not your own political opinions please.
For an exorbitant fee and with threats of stopping over politics. You can't have it both ways. Either have a scientific detachment from politics or have the head of Roscosmos acting like a mafioso.
Another great technical channel is Eager Space. Low sub count but lot of great insight (and dry engineering humor :).
Thank you!
It warms my heart to see a top-level comment endorsing Eager Space. Even more so that it was submitted the same day as the video, and it is now "liked" to the top, in plain view.
That was oddly specific, I know. Eager Space's lack of reach does not appear entirely organic to me, that's why.
@@hermanrobak1285 it’s not so much of a surprise as I looked through the designs of his video thumbnails :) but maybe it’s for the better that it remained engineering focused
Bro just casually assembling a lunar lander, and I am just here nodding my head like I totally understand
You can do it!
A no BS channel. How refreshing. Subbed.
Welcome aboard my friend.
I agree we should at the very least be launching ROSV's (Remote Operated Space Vehicles) a lot more, specially with all the advanced systems we have now, we also should be looking more at hybrid 1st stage systems using turbine based engines supporting rocking engines to help reduce cost and increase reusability.
thank you!
Your point about telepresence is well made. And from a technical perspective, it is correct, but it ignores the core of the issue: which is budgets and politics. (Never make the mistake of thinking that the technical facts and figures are the core of the issue... they basically never are for ANY issue. This is because, with enough money, one can generally overcome near any technical issue, and the gate-keeping of large amounts of money is always political).
There are three Political Space Factions in America. Here they are named after their first or principal proponents. The Von Browns see Space as all about international relations and grand spectacles. The Sagans see space as all about Science. The O'Neills see it as all about Settlements (full disclosure, I'm an O'Neill). Apollo and Skylab era NASA endeavors were mostly about the Von Brown Agenda... they didn't want telepresence robots on the moon for the same reason they didn't want cheap and routine space flight... it would eliminate the POINT which is spectacle for international diplomacy reasons. Telepresence robots on the moon are much less of a spectacle than people. In the early space shuttle era, the Sagans weren't interested in telepresence on the moon because there was more and cheaper science that could be done with floating space telescopes like Hubble or robotic probes that were sent too far for telepresence to work. The O'Neills have, until relatively recently not been afforded any power in NASA, and even now entities like SpaceX attract their attention more. That's why it hasn't happened.
Concerning you're brief asside about radiation exposure on the Lunar and Martian surfaces... not really sure why you think that matters much. Neither environment has much on the surface that matters. Settlements will be sub-surface and most maintenance in either location will be performed by telepresence robots operated by humans in the same location. There's a 1 second delay between the Moon and Earth without delays built into the telepresence robot and communication network. That much latency, as anybody who has ever played an online multiplayer video game knows, is almost crippling. You CAN do it from Earth to the moon, but you can do it BETTER from Moon to Moon.
Your radiation position makes more sense when considering spinning habitats that are not on the surface of natural bodies... which lets face it are going to be where most humans end up living. But even then, there will be enough shielding, both material shielding mined from asteroids, and EM fields that the unprotected radiation number for space, either inside or outside the magnetosphere of a natural body only relevant to a "What if something goes wrong?" contingency plan.
Your points on Falcon Heavy are well taken... and to me it comes down to Farring size. Why has SpaceX and NASA been so reluctant to develop a WIDER farring?
Indeed. The Moon will soon be of more military interest and that will change everything.
@@terranspaceacademy The military implications of developing the moon have two very different shapes depending upon what the Moon is being used FOR. If we limit the moon to a mostly automated series of stations, then we will see something reminiscent of modern drone and anti-satellite warfare dominating with the primary military utility being, communications, remote sensing, and maybe eventually reaction-mass/fuel mining. Where things will be really interesting is when the Moon ceased to be a MEANS and starts to become an END. When it is a destination rather than a way-station, supply depot, or sensor platform... and that means manufacturing and mining of non-consumable materials, then advanced fixed defenses start to become worth the investment. For the Moon, there are really only two kinds of advanced fixed defenses: (1) Radar/thermal guided missiles... only useful for defense of surface installations which ultimately only have to be solar cells, landing-pads, and surface access tunnels. (2) Deep Deep tunnels. Once you have sizable and manned installations on the moon Sub-Surface really is the name of the game. And if you get deep enough, nothing can hurt you remotely. Interestingly an enabling technology is being developed right now by Quaise Energy... Gyrotron Electromagnetic rapid drilling.
I really like the idea of making coins out of the regolith.
Thank you!
I love the motto: "This IS Rocket Science."
Thank you!
@@MrGrace Right? Me too!
CSI Starbase is THE starship channel. Nobody comes even close to close.
Eager space
@@tedarcher9120 Seconded. For those who don't know: Eager Space is the name of a RUclips channel.
@@tedarcher9120 Seconded.
I agree. The detail is amazing.
SpaceX was supposed to work on extended Falcon fairing but it's been a really long time since I have seen any news about it
Well, it is just a fairing and still isn't needed for quite a while yet.
Their current fairing accommodates 99% (not exactly a factual percentage but u get it…) of existing needs. If there was a huge demand, they would divert resources to the production of it.
They’ve instead diverted their R&D resources to Starship which would/will completely negate the need for such a fairing by a huge margin!
@@revmsj Tat' based on the misguided concept that Starship will be a viable machine someday.
Dod asked SpaceX to slightly get a bit more cargo into GEO orbit and SpaceX wasn't interested!! Easy money military contracts and Musk didn't want the business because he's committed to Starship as the future rocket!! If this were a public company, Musk would be thrown out of the company!
It's required for USSF/NRO contract (along with vertical integration capability), and has been spotted, but there's not a pressing need so not a high priority.
10:10 an aerospike does absolutely diddly squat for you in vacuum (such as when trying to hover/land on the Moon). The beauty of aerospikes is that they form an optimal expansion envelope during _atmospheric_ flight, as external pressure goes through the full range - so you don't have to separately equip sea-level and vacuum-optimized nozzles. An aerospike is a good 'universal' solution, that does well in all regimes - but as so often happens, a Jack of all trades is a master of none. In vacuum, a good vacuum-optimized bell nozzle will beat the tar out of an aerospike, in terms of overall efficiency.
They work just as well in vacuum and have much less mass...
ive always said we should be sending seniors , especially for long duration monotonous trips. Set up a bingo display , load up the geritol and they will do just fine. Not to mention theyre aquired wisdom is invaluable
Sign me up, young'un. 😅
Shit yeah! I go when I age up!!
If it's so invaluable why are we sending them on a one way trip to a dead planet? (Just anticipating a counterpoint from grandpa :-)
I can see a viral demand for Mooncoin.
We just need to have some!
Would it make sense to add 2-3 additional boosters to Falcon Heavy?
Four instead of two? I don't see why not. The problem is fairing size... But it would be a good way to get a nuclear reactor into space :-)
Not a rocket scientist here... just a trucker. So please be kind 😅
Given that Starship is the truly revolutionary part of the Starship/Super Heavy combination, and it seems like they've got the design for the booster pretty well dialed in, it would seem to make sense to have some kind of non-reuseable second stage to put on top of Super Heavy.
Essentially, BFR. That way, they could start making use of all that lifting capacity while waiting for Ship to be ready.
It's very doable yes, but it's a question of wanting to do it, which they likely don't.
It wouldn't take much to take the wings off and have the top just be a dumb hull or fairing above the fuel tank portion of Starship, but it kinda flies in the face of what Musk is trying to do with reusability, wastes at least 6 engines per flight, and complicates their assembly line by needing a separate branch for it.
Interesting idea in theory, but most payloads that need high lift capacity will probably fit on a Falcon Heavy, which is also more flight proven.
@@liquidsnakex that makes sense. I also feel like they'd do it if asked for.
I agree. I think they should go nonreusable like they did with Falcon 9 until they get the landings down...
The delta-V to get into Low Lunar orbit is ~680 m/s, not 68 m/s.
This reduces the landed payload by ~19% for MMH+NTO or by ~17% for Methalox.
Apollo carried ~1090 m/s for TLI-LLO, and ~2410 m/s for lunar descent. That's 3500 m/s, way more than the 2000 m/s you used. That's a 45% payload reduction for MMH+NTO or 39% reduction for Methalox.
IM-1 had ~3750 m/s
SLIM had ~4050 m/s
Chang'e 4 had ~3500 m/s
Also, you want a descent TWR when landing ~2. Apollo DM had a 1.85 local TWR.
More stuff:
Based on NASA's Vehicle Performance Estimator, Falcon Heavy can reliably get ~15.6t to TLI. You need 3500 m/s for LOI+Landing, and the descent module can have an Apollo DSM-like 20% dry mass.
With this, we find that an expended Falcon Heavy can land a 3.1t rover using hypergolics, or 4.2t using Methalox. This is probably being generous, since LUPEX lands 350 kg but weighs 6t after TLI.
Doesn't that count the LOI? LLO from TLI should be a lot less than that I thought...
@@terranspaceacademyThe orbital velocity 100km above the moon is ~1630 m/s. The Moon's escape velocity is ~2380 m/s. 2380 - 1630 = 750 m/s, which is close to the 680 m/s.
I've made many lunar lander, rovers, sample returns, and even manned-landings in KSP RSS. I usually bring 1000 m/s for TLI-LLO, and have 50-150 m/s remaining.
@@terranspaceacademy"Odysseus completed its scheduled 408-second main engine lunar orbit insertion burn and is currently in a 92 km circular lunar orbit. Initial data indicates the 800 m/s burn was completed within 2 m/s accuracy. 1/4 (21FEB2024 0920 CST)"
Intuitive Machine's official Twitter post
@@terranspaceacademy "Odysseus completed its scheduled 408-second main engine lunar orbit insertion burn and is currently in a 92 km circular lunar orbit. Initial data indicates the 800 m/s burn was completed within 2 m/s accuracy."
- IM
Actuslly we can use the 9 meter booster, of Super Heavy, Starship add in a second stage to the moon orbit, and we can release a fully fueled lander and return launcher, to bring back the samples. We can build a massive faring, and send a 50 tons payload to the Moon.
Lifting a shuttle main tank would be cool. Light, efficient, and 8.5 meters diameter I think. Would need a steel "cage" for support.
Al Gore Rhythm!!!👍🏾
Yes... He was President from 2000 to 2008 in our dimension... Then McCain...
Frist Lunor Starship, should be Cargo vrsion, caring lunor robot setup becan [help next lunor starship landing], Constrution [level Landing site],, and setup power/ comunicatio .
That would be a good idea. Land an escape vehicle with a Falcon Heavy before sending anyone :-)
I think your LOI dV numbers are a little low. More like 800dV to low lunar orbit plus at least 2000-2100 to land and take off from the moon (gravity losses).
Apollo budgeted 2,400 but by later flights was able to get that down to about 1,800. LOI dV numbers depend on your trajectory... High or low orbit and if you come ahead of the Moon letting it pull you back. Low and ahead gives a better gravity slow down and you need less dV but more precision.
Getting cargo and rovers to the lunar surface is one thing. Getting humans there and back is a different story. Sure, use cryogenic propellant for cargo and landers, that's fine. If it's my ass on the line. I would like something more reliable, like hypergolic. As long as Boeing doesn't design the manifold, it should be good.
I think that's a good point for the ascent/escape vehicles until we have rescue services available.
We need to stop screwing around and get back to the moon. I think we need lots of machines, but a few humans too. I just turned 50 and I"m ready to go.
Not sure about the plan to use Falcon Heavies in expendable mode. Either we plan to use the starship, or send up modules in heavies with 2 or more launches. It's not like the 60's where we aren't sure we can rendezvous and dock in orbit. So what if we send up a CM and lander on separate launches. Plus as it stands now the Heavy isn't human rated either. Praying we stop screwing around and get he Starship on the moon soon and then hopefully we can get enough mass there to make a strong and quick foot hold.
SO what is your take on seemingly small solar storms turning into large geomagnetic storms recently? Seems all out of whack to me. Might give us some other issues in space soon.
The Chinese will land in five I think.
We should not ignore the old Surveyor design.
Equipped with up to date gear, this proven, reliable bus won't tip over.
made of modern materials it would be ultra light.
That's right... Why do we ignore brilliant solutions that WORKED!!
Starship 13:17 Heavy fairing -- YEAH Baby! Oh wait...
Falcon Heavy.... Starship Heavy it TOP SECRET and I'm not supposed to talk about it :-)
Suppose we used a Super-Heavy booster as our first stage, and a Falcon-9 as a second stage. Would that help?
That's pretty cool. I like a Superheavy booster with a space shuttle main tank in a steel cage... :-) (Support)
Great ideas! Fear not, I think Elon's dream of lowering the cost space flight will open up all these possibilities.
We do too my friend!
Just a brief thanks. I really enjoy how you play with the math and show how we might achieve things.
You're very welcome!
It will test Lunor Starship will tranfer equipment to moon, or Space X need redesgn it.
Good point.
I’ve been thinking for some time now, and hope that it’s a viable idea, that we could perhaps develop a 100% reusable spacecraft that’s potentially even larger than starship super heavy, uses turbine jet engines on 1st stage, mix of turbine jet and SCRAM engines (or whatever the upcoming state of the art hypersonic jet engines are) for 2nd stage, and for the 3rd (or however many stages this method winds up taking) stage, you would then use either whatever Vac optimized chemical engine u want to use, or depending on the circumstances you could implement several large Hall effect thrusters, VASIMER (sp*), fission, fusion, solar sail, Warp drive…(obvious joke) or even a combination of the above engines. It would seem that these 1st and 2nd stages could be flown back to LZ w/ SO much less risk and cost as you wouldn’t have to pay for oxidizer. Also much more efficient as there’s no mass penalty for oxidizer. Plus these engines are inherently hella more efficient and need less upkeep than rocket engines and experience less stresses et al. Idk to me it just seems like an obvious next step although I’m just not convinced that jet engines scale up like rocket engines do. I’d be super interested to find out. I’d like to research this topic now…🤔
Turbojets have much lower combustion chamber pressures, and thus are way less effective than rocket engines. Single digit vs. ~300 bar pressures.
You are quite correct. But they have their own oxidizer supply... So, if you use one to get to Mach 10+ in the atmosphere, they may be worth the mass. If you are going vertical you don't spend enough time in the atmosphere to make it worthwhile.
5:44 GOES-U
8:36 Odysseus
13:19 Falcon Heavy
15:49 SERV
For the lunar lander, why don't we consider the SkyCrane architecture from the Mars missions. If scaled up, it could be reusable after dropping it's cargo. What would the mass and fuel numbers be for that?
your pointing out why it will never happen
The Moon is a different story than the Earth or Mars... You could lower a "sky cable" from a low enough orbit with a massive ship and "hook" a transport container on the Moon. Reeling it up...
10% dry mass for a metalox rocket seems pretty high, this is usually a value for pure hidrolox rockets, but in this case you have higher specific impulse to compensate for the higher mass ratio , if you re-make the calculations with 5% dry mass everything will look better.
You are correct. But if I go 7% like I will today people say I'm too optimistic :-)
@@terranspaceacademy 7% is probably a realistic estimations for a metalox reuseble vehicle that needs TPS for re-entering, a expandable upper stage could be made with 5% dry mass, or even lower depending on the materials and design.
Ai is never going to drive rovers, AI doesn't even really exist the way people think
But AI, as its being called today, can indeed drive rovers. DARPA had the first one that was able to negotiate desert terrain in the 80s. Avoiding obstacles and looking for "interesting" rocks etc. is to hard for these systems.
Also, the lunar decent engine needed to throttle deeply. Can the aerospike do that? Might be easier to control several small engines. Also, 380 isp is close to the theoretical maximum for methalox. We will need to see that potential realized
The aerospike can throttle down to 15% full thrust because it is expander cycle turbopump fed like the RL-10 with an electropump to start and deep throttle below 15% :-)
@@terranspaceacademy that should do it
It is absolutely distressing that NASA didn't use robotics to start building human habitats on the moon. They could have tried a variety of approaches and learned from failures. What went wrong.
What would the point be
Exactly... We could have had prebuilt radiation shielded habitats and resource mining and refining up and running before the first people landed.
@@terranspaceacademy none of that would turn a profit though, it would be economically pointless which is why it has not happened yet
Link to this SSTO rocket we're to look at?
ruclips.net/video/3iUMpa9BkZc/видео.html
What is it that people are going to do on the moon? Going to the moon was awesome, but what is the value of going back?
Access to resources and low lift materials for orbital habitats and large shielded spaceships. Radiation is the greatest danger to spaceflight, and this is ameliorated by sufficient mass.
@@terranspaceacademy when you say radiation is the greatest danger to spaceflight, you are refering to manned space flight, so you are ultimately saying that we are putting people in space so we can put people in space. Again, what is the mission though?
Also, couldn't machines mine and smelt with less hazard?
I'd be happier if they dropped high-density asteroids on the Moon with valuable ores to be recovered, but that is too long-term for NASA.
Mining resources and building infrastructure to expand our knowledge and livable area.
1:20
2:40
Always an interesting journey, thanks.
Glad you enjoyed it
I want a wide starship hls somthing around 15m wide and 25m tall
Old school! I like it!
So many things to do but the army needs 1T$:(
Imagne if it were the other way round... :/ We would have a self sustaining mars colony by now
I mathed out a moon or mars base 1/2T each roughly this includes support companies.
we could build 30-50 stage 0 infrastructure to make an appropriate 26mo window with refulings
*social services need 2 trillion and produce nothing, unlike the military, which produces a lot.
@@afghanistandaily9175 Military produces war, death and terror. What irony. The only benefitor are those producing the weapons.
The military is necessary, it's the welfare state that produces laziness and dependents on the government, with absolutely no return on the "investment"
Thanks!
Thank you so much!
@@terranspaceacademy I didn’t know you would see that! I’m embarrassed with my lil 1.99
The angry astronaut we neeeded
at his angriest!
The worst aspect of the time we’ve lost in our space program as NASA sat on its hands for decades while continuing to waste taxpayer money and cash paychecks is that we can NEVER recover that time. 😢
Next time your phone connects you nearly instantly to the other side of the world, think about what you said about NASA “sitting on their hands” wasting taxpayer dollars…
@@Papershields001 absolutely right! I was bemoaning the unnecessary abandonment of the lunar program. Didn’t mean to tar the fine engineers at NASA.
@@Papershields001I agree that space funding has been beneficial, but that's a bad example. Only 1% of international communications go through satellites. It's 99% cables.
That's cool to know. I did not...
Unmanned construction on the moon is unfeasible. Compared to manned missions, it is far more expensive and more likely to break.
The issues with high development costs make it difficult, and the motivation for people to send robots is low compared to people.
@geocam2 That doesn't invalidate the desire to go to the moon. Millions of already people live in Canada and Siberia. There are tons of differences between the moon and the taiga.
On the equator, the day is 29.5 days long, and the gravity is 1/6 of Earth's. The sun isn't blocked by clouds, and you can study lots of charged particles on the moon. That's awesome. Canada and Russia owns that land, and the moon is free. They aren't interchangeable. Establishing moon bases is a fantastic idea.👌
I’m not convinced that unmanned lunar construction is infeasible, more expensive than manned construction, or untenable as you’ve stated. I get the sense that manned missions into any kind of space is hugely more expensive than any sort of unmanned mission due to the need for all manner of life supporting infrastructure such as O2, CO2 scrubbing, more precise temperature control for biologicals vs machinery and compute, food, water, waste, hygiene, all sorts of physical and mental upkeep, any potential medical emergencies may arise, sleep requirements, and any number of things I fail to conjure up here. Now multiply those needs by the total required personnel required per task and you’ve hauled up a butt ton of unnecessary mass! Not to mention all the money to train these people and the ground crew keeping tabs on these people. Then you’ll have to rotate out these people in perpetuity. I don’t believe it’s possible to do any real lunar construction in a reasonable amount of time and w/ a reasonable budget allocated by the US congress. OTOH, have you seen the leaps in AI abilities and their abilities to not just learn tasks in no time at all, but also to teach themselves w/out humans giving lessons?? They can do a thing in the virtual realm a million times and learn through trial/error before a human can watch the RUclips video on how to do it and they now master the thing before even being embodied! Now consider that Tesla will soon be cranking out thousands of their anthropomorphic robots each with proposed price tag around 15-20K USD! So u launch a mission on a 100% reusable spacecraft, w/ payload consisting of a team of Teslabot, materials necessary to get started, and the needed tools such as earth (regolith) moving equipment, large scale 3D printers, mobile power stations, etc.
Now this const project gets cranked out in the background w/ minimal oversight and WAY less overhead! Also if there are any mishaps, no lives are lost! The insurance alone would be worth it…
Now I’m not discounting the idea that a small crew may be needed at the very beginning to perform site surveys, and perhaps spot check progress etc. but even that could be done by remotely “embodying” one of the on site anthropomorphic bots. The people piloting the bot could even do so from the nearby Lunar Gateway Station orbiting overhead in order to reduce latency and to facilitate any potential need to visit the site for hands on rectification of a potential issue should the need arise.
There’s absolutely no way that manned construction is a more viable option than unmanned robotic. Not for payload to orbit/moon, not for expense monetarily speaking, not for the safety of humans obviously, and it’s certainly not more likely to have “breakdown” issues either. There’s so much more crap to break down w/ humans present and if/when there’s a malfunction of any one of the hundreds/thousands of systems, no matter how seemingly tiny and insignificant we may believe it to be, then everyone has to abort and construction comes to a stop. That is if they are even still able to. A tiny failure could mean that everyone there dies or gets stuck. We are way more fragile than autonomous machines or robots…
Sorry about the novel I wrote here in response. Feel free to not read it….😬lol
Feel free to not read my reply. I don’t agree with the original comment and explain why but got a bit carried away…sorry😬
@@revmsj Well I agree about unmanned being far cheaper than manned, But there would be zeri need for anthropomorphic robots and even if I thought they would help, it certainly would not be with the Tesla non-real robots! Boston Dynamics would make much more sense because they actually have stuff that already works and much better and more capable than what Musk is promising!!
But you don't need it! The robotic rover is already capable and it would not be so hard to make it self repairable! Don't need a simulated human and we build all kinds of things without the need for humans or human looking robots. Might look cool, but it would be pointless.
The interesting thing too, is that the moon is not that far away and with a little buffering built in, virtually real time remote control should be possible. Not that hard to build safety margins in the sensors and functions like "go back or undo the last 10 seconds, The delay is only about 1.3 seconds one way. That is near enough to real time to be very workable for remote operation.
@@revmsj Holy wall o' text, batman! Consider editing in a few paragraphs.
should use Chain on Arms instead of Long Rails for catching booster - chain could self center - can wrap around booster some - -can use several catch hooks -
will catch on chain links and not Slide - fast adjust - tighten
Less chance of smashing booster - form arms/ chain n slight U shape Bowed - Strong - could also use a Cable with stops added on cable - Rail catch looks sketchy to me
Cables might be better...
Yep. The US is going to let it happen. Science fiction writers will start using Chinese Mandarin instead of English. Mandarin will be the language of Luna.
China’s population will fall by half in the next 30 to 40 years. They won’t be able to afford to do much of anything without a tax base and a bunch of old people that need care.
什么？为什么会发生这种情况
@@terranspaceacademy Politics.
It works with cartoons, India and China are poor quality, but they make it work. We used to make real good cartoons, space-x will get there, once they start using pastels.
Indeed! Pastels are the key!
You my friend, need to collaborate with the angry astronaut to bring about the real engineering enigmas that if we are to accomplish the moon, will need critical analysis and engineering sciences to overcome gravity.
Please no. That guy is an insufferable piece of work.
Would love to.
Lets call the coins Actual Luna! Best marketing begines at crypto's expense.
Luna! (Don't want to get sued) Lunar! ...Taken.
Lunas! That sounds good to me :-)
Well one thing Russia did was fly our boys and girls to the ISS for a decade after the shuttle finally fell apart. Keep it about rockets not your own political opinions please.
But they also kinda invaded Ukraine
Out of the goodness of their hearts of course, has nothing to do about the rates they charged for an accidental monopoly. 😂
Blame the cia for that
For an exorbitant fee and with threats of stopping over politics. You can't have it both ways. Either have a scientific detachment from politics or have the head of Roscosmos acting like a mafioso.
Indeed...