The Real Reason SpaceX Won The Moon Lander Contract...
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 25 авг 2024
- The Real Reason SpaceX Won The Moon Lander Contract... Blue Origin and Jeff Bezos were not happy to see Elon Musk and SpaceX win the NASA moon lander contract... so lets dive into the real reason SpaceX won the contract...
Last video: SpaceX Makes Major Changes To Starlink
• SpaceX Makes Major Cha...
► Subscribe to our sister channel, The Space Race: / @thespaceraceyt
► Subscribe to The Tesla Space newsletter: www.theteslasp...
► Get up to $250 in Digital Currency With BlockFi: blockfi.com/th...
►You can use my referral link to get 1,500 free Supercharger km on a new Tesla:
ts.la/trevor61038
Subscribe: / @theteslaspace
🚘 Tesla Videos: • Why Tesla Will Destroy...
🚀 SpaceX Videos: • SpaceX Videos
👽 Elon Musk Videos: • Elon Musk Developing C...
🚘 Tesla 🚀 SpaceX 👽 Elon Musk
Welcome to the Tesla Space, where we share the latest news, rumors, and insights into all things Tesla, Space X, Elon Musk, and the future! We'll be showing you all of the new details around the Tesla Model 3 2021, Tesla Model Y 2021, along with the Tesla Cybertruck when it finally arrives, it's already ordered!
Instagram: / theteslaspace
Twitter: / theteslaspace
Business Email: tesla@ellifyagency.com
You can use my referral link to get 1,500 free Supercharger km on a new Tesla:
ts.la/trevor61038
#Tesla #TheTeslaSpace #SpaceX
Follow up video will be live tomorrow on this channel! Come on over and subscribe for more Space content.
Do you have an ETA?
Hi
Hello
I want to help how can I be there to help?
You always need the outside the box thinker or the person who understands how the walls of the box works as if the box was made to hold more than its supposed to be able to but yet its light you see what i mean..? A cardboard box how its made its durability is outstanding but yet its light do they make rocket walls like this? Or they solid and insulated and solid again with air chambers to balance and shift weight or angle adjustment with water weight or even and aird angler thatd shfit the force direction without thrust or gas or feul. Water has electric ions or as whatever keeps it together in a liquid form use water from all around buid a turbine for it exactly and harness the water and the power from it. As well as air holes with air turbines inside to build a charge. And why cany we, say take a magnifying glass and the sun you focus the beam and its powerful so why not do it with solar panels for solar power magnifying its rays received and harness more power faster and continuously
Blue Origin was incredibly arrogant to propose putting astronauts on an untested spacecraft. I don't understand how their experienced partners went along with BO. Seems to me they weren't serious.
Plus Jeff is a big super mad he lost
Me too! This baffles me especially Boeing already has lots of experience, skilled engineers and proven spaceship X-47 or X-47B. Boeing also has the resources including financial. Is top management of Boeing too dumb or has undertable dealings?!
I guess their plan was to win the contract first, then raise the costs and push the timeline later. So if NASA would not want to send astronauts to the Moon on an untested vehicle, they could pay more and give more time for testing. The National Team put all their effort in lobbying to make their win granted regardless of the design flaws of their proposal. But then elections happened and former NASA administration had nothing to lose by choosing the best candidate and now congress can not force to change the decision without raising NASA's budget.
@@zulfakaraspar2311 They are no nimble, UNIONS!
Elon's way of doing business is completely alien to the aerospace cabal. After years of working with them, I can tell you that unlike Spacex, they have financial loss built into their system. They throw money around like it was nothing. Musk, on the other hand runs a tight ship and you can easily get fired for saying something ill-considered when he is listening. Not the case for large aerospace companies like Boeing and others.
Didn’t miss an opportunity to throw in blue balls wherever it fit, love it 🤣
Lol at "Lex Luther"! 😩🤣
Yes Let Luther Fake Musk was mostly pee recorded until 1992..
Thus you will notice. The young room in some. Video.. Then a 16 years later or so ELON... All within 9 years.
2012 to 2022.
But mostly rerecorded up-to 1991.
Look 2017 jack mau vs elon musk ,then look at his Heroin Addict Acne pitted Face as it looks now
Lol lex Luther can cure cancer but doesn't cause it isn't profitable... that sounds like our boi
Thank God for SpaceX, they basically saved NASA
Wow! I didn't know that blue balls was going to use untested engines. No wonder NASA didn't want to go with Blue Origin!
the comedy for this one was on point my g, keep it up
If NASA had more than relative crumbs for funding....... there would likely be less challenges for more dynamic approach.
A billion $ per launch for the SLS is crumbs?
@@ZacLowing Reference is for tax percentage at .05%, rather than arguably at minimum 1%, and optimally 1.5-2% or more, given how disproportionately the world benefits from their expentiture over decades - especially now when being forced to curb redundancy (aside how I am glad Tesla was chosen over/regardless of Blue Origin).
There are far more emerging matters on the horizon, as well wanting to ensure there are *ZERO* budgetary reasons that JWST and such future monumental projects are delayed/compromised.
@@ZacLowing when looking at the percentage of the budget, yes it’s crumbs. In FY2021, the US spent $6.8T. The FY2021 NASA budget was $23B. While yes, that’s a lot of $$, it’s only 0.33% of the budget. The US spent 10x that on debt interest ($249B). Space exploration (which is very important) aside, NASA has contributed some of the most important innovations in our history and it’s damn near criminal that they receive so little.
Maybe spending more on NASA as opposed to hiring 80k new IRS agents and boosting IRS funding by $80B would be a good idea 🧐
Space Force anyone?? NASA has all the funding it needs, just not the civilian/consumer side. We have now privatized and militarized space travel(reaving).
maybe the possibility of transporting military equipment any where on earth quickly could have been a factor, maybe.
Real space marines
It would be faster way of transportation than airplane and if you could fit a lot of troops and military equipment in those pods it will be a great military asset.
@@shadowslayer9988 a problem is that it would follow a predictable path and so it would be targeted.
@@stephenbrickwood1602 It wouldn't be that easy.
For start satellites and all big radars which normally do space tracking would be under severe attack !!
Starship also doesn't have to land to drop the cargo, according to the concept it will just drop pods
I love this video… for a non science person… this is perfect. Thank you for not speaking to fast… as all the information and words are new. Space Race sounds interesting also. 👍👍
Giving flat earthers migraines.
"Ok, SpaceX. What have you build to go on the SLS to the moon"
"Well, first of all, our Rocket eats your Rocket for breakfast, so you can keep the SLS ...."
Space x was my vote before I heard their plan’s.I’ll choose them hands down.
The Lunar starship should depart earth loaded with 100 or more tons of food, equipment, vehicles, experiments, habitats building materials and solar panels. In LEO it will refuel and maybe dock with the ISS. Then a few Crew Dragons or even a re entry starship will go to ISS and transfer over all personnel and late loads. The re entry starship goes back to earth or hangs at the ISS while the LS goes to the lunar surface. The crew works on the moon for weeks going through the dual air locks and doing shift work on the moon. The LS returns the crew to the ISS and transfers the 1000 pounds of samples and garbage to the waiting Starship to return to Starbase while tankers are refueling the now free orbiting LS.
Oh yea, the crew will have NASA patches on their suits and garments.
Nice fairy tale you've imagined there 😂
While I initially thought HLS Starship would be pretty light, it is going to have to contend with propellant boil off. I suspect the solution will make it not so light, but I think it can be held down to a manageable level.
This video will have 1 milllion views
I think they re-designed the Alpaca so you don't need to ditch the tanks anymore....I think! Good vid! Nice and concise!!
That's right.. but they lost anyway.
@@hawkdsl don’t forget about appendix N, the contract for regular moon landings compared to spacex’s contract which is unmanned landing and a manned one after that
@@anguscovoflyer95 SpaceX has a huge advantage in appendix N, so the are likely to have a contract with additional contracts being awarded in appendix N.
I Honestly Love your videos! I have unsubscribed to several dozens of channels because they don't come up with there own content and just copy old news over and over again... Your Channel always releases new content and I always learn several new things! Keep up the Great work! I'm looking forward to your next video. Thanks!!!
What a great video! Super in depth. Well researched. The fastest subscribe I've done in months
The "Acceptable" accolade is a bit weak in the light of the superior carrying capacity of Starship.
One reason: One company flies to orbit every week, the other one does not have an orbital class rocket
If Jeff ever gets the BE-4 flying, he'll quit being the Lex Luthor we've come to love (or hate).
and resume being Dr Evil
It seems to me that Elon is "SEEMINGLY FOCUSED ON HUMANITY", while Bezos seems to be focused on "ME FIRST, ME FIRST", or am I mistaken?
@@anjetabreymann7179 no you are NOT mistaken
If “ifs” and “buts” were candy and nuts , we would all have a merry Christmas
I thought the post office did the last mile.
Lucky to get the correct address these days let alone get to the moon
I'm no engineer, but it sure seems easier and safer to use reusable pods for the refueling operation, kinda like swapping propane tanks on your BBQ grill ..
An incredible story. Looking forward to the actual mission!
You are forgetting some key issues:
1) StarShip can transport crew from Earth to the moon itself, when it is ready. (Not allowed in a long time thou.)
2) StarShip is meant to go to the Mars and beyond. This is extremely important issue that other companies doesn't even dream of doing.
3) StarShip can alter the whole space industry when ready, because it can deliver huge amounts of cargo to the Earth's orbit.
While all of these issues are not moon lander related, they are important for any space related issue.
Your content gets better and better every time dude. Love to se it, keep it G
Starship on the moon, I'm eager to see what Spacex comes up with for the Luner starship.
In terms of the back-to-back refueling mechanism, there are foreseen risks and disadvantage:
When two ships connect each other tail by tail, it forms a closed chamber with the hot Engines together, which might raise the ambient temperature during the refueling process. then:
1. The heated chamber may cause a fire to any leaked gases (LOX + CH4) during refueling.
2. Need extra time to cool down the Engine or pumping Liquid Nitrogen in.
3. The valves durability may decade for each contact then cause leakage of gases.
4. It always been a problem of some leakage when those valves breaking contact. In reference to air force fighters conduct air fueling operation, there always has some leaked fuel when breaking the gas pipe from the plane and spreading into airs.
5. Refueling empty tanks take time, a few hours?
Conclusion: Must be very cautious of the ambient temperature while applying the back-to-back refueling since the potential risk of gas leakage is always there.
Suggestion to Elon and SpaceX: modularized propellent tanks can be quickly swapped in space, no risk of gas leakage, fire, and time to refuel.
PREVENTING RISKS IN PRODUCT DESIGN STAGE IS ALWAYS A GOOD POLICY. ASPECTS FROM PROJECT MANAGEMENT VIEW.
They aren't going back to back anymore
“Lex Luther,” I love it lol
Great video--lots of pertinent information accompanied by appropriate video. I have a few questions and possibly some suggestions:
1. Will the SpaceX moon lander be able to re-enter Earth orbit without aerobraking? (no aero controls or heat shielding)
2. Would it be possible for SpaceX to maintain an orbital fuel cache?
3. Would cryo fuel loss in an orbital fuel cache be manageable?
4. Assuming atmospheric flight would be limited to its initial launch, would wider, fixed landing struts with outboard shock absorbers be preferable for their wider foot print and simpler design?
If (1) is a 'yes', then the lander could be used multiple times as an Earth-Moon ferry. The fuel penalty for launching into Earth orbit is paid only once during the life of that lander.
If (1 & 2) are a 'yes' fuel runs to orbit to maintain the fuel cache make launch cadence for re-fueling ships to the cache less critical and fueling operations between the fuel cache and Lunar lander are performed only once. after fueling of the cache is completed.
The lander could also be used for Human transport to and from the Moon, making launch to Earth orbit and return more economical with a single Falcon 9. The separate Earth orbit to Lunar orbit and return vehicle becomes redundant.
The SpaceX Moon Lander(s) will not return to earth so the issue of aero-braking is moot. My understanding is that it is currently proposed that a "Tanker" vessel be parked in orbit to be filled by a series of Starships launching from earth and returning. Ultimately both propellant and crew would be transferring to the vessels to take them to the moon/Mars and these vessels will be fuelled in orbit but never land on earth.
I'm so happy that Telsa is still pushing forward strongly.
Maybe because SLS would cost 20 times as much, offers a fraction of the performance, and would take four times as long?
The physics of going to the moon has not changed since the days of Apollo. There is a reason for things looking similar. The development of electronics has happened at a blistering pace but the development of chemical rockets has barely changed. While recovering and reusing rockets has helped lower the cost of LEO launches it hasn't done anything to change the cost of going to the moon.
The physics of going to the moon has not changed since the moon become of existence . Laws of physics never change, if we understand them or not ?
Great video 👍🦇
The Alpaca no longer needs to expend any fuel tanks. Great video, though!
I see what you did there at 13:40 Why SpaceX is the winner and Why Jeff Bezos (instead of Blue Origin), You Sir have my respect.
Excellent presentation. An obvious question: the Starship has immense cargo and passenger capacity as well as range; why not fly it all the way to the Moon, land then fly it back to the Earth again? We don't need the tiny and expensive Orion capsules.
I don't think it's ready for re-entry yet.
You Nailed it at ( 13:44 ) ......
I’ve never thought we would ever seen Lex Luthor face Iron Man
As exciting as a contemporary moon landing is, by far the most important aspect of all this is that it brings with it the opportunity to implement a full commercial infrastructure for all of humanity's future space exploration, including the red planet and beyond. I really look forward to seeing how the first permanent moon base will take shape.
I was under the impression that the number of SLS launches was hard capped by NASA's stock of RS-25 engines? Is this true?
Instead of refueling perhaps SpaceX could design the lander to swap the empty fuel tank for a full one to complete the last mile segment. Then when it leaves the moon it could rendevous with a third full tank for the journey back to earth.
The moment, they put a proper habitation module on the moon, even one as "Small" as the SpaceX rocket, the moon will be colonized, rapidly.
its called 30 trillion in depth, we dont need to go into space , those days are over., just sit back and enjoy the war.
Something does not add up here. What is SLS's purpose? If SpaceX was chosen to build the lunar lander for NASA, it certainly won't be Starship. What I'm saying is, SLS will not be launching Starship, and as far as I know SpaceX has no other designs for a lander. So, what is SLS's purpose?
Fantastic
Hey Elon, How about you start sending up your own space Lab parts and attach them onto the ISS Just similar to the Orbital Reef , when you have enough just let your station decouple.
Thank you for addressing the Blue Origin problem. Rather than proving to be a spoil sport, Jeff Bezos should work with his strength and produce Amazon Space. Supplies to space colonists need a shipping service and Internet links from a space-based media server. He did it on Earth; he can do it again in space.
The Lex Luther reference is perfect.
This was a very excelent Video and I agree with NASA's choice in awarding the Moon Contract to SPACEX !!
I'm not a engineer,but the lander base is way to narrow for such a tall spacecraft. The moon surface isn't flat. It has lots of craters, that being said if the lander touches down even on a small one the lander will topple over.
good video, thanks! But what's with all the flickering x's and little squares on the screen? Hugely annoying....
Those old, 1950's, Sc-Fi, videos of rockets landing on the moon showed vehicles with HUGE fins on the side. And looking at this proposed vehicle, which is long, narrow and sleek, I wonder if we should rethink the viability of this kind of vehicle compared to that of those old 1950's rockets. Specifically, HOW can Space-x guarantee they will have a level landing site in order to keep the vehicle from just toppling over, once the engines are cut and the vehicle comes to rest on the surface? Maybe they SHOULD add some huge, 1950's, fins to the side of the vehicle just to keep that from happening. Look, for instance, at how the Apollo Lunar Lander's legs stuck WAY OUT from the center line of the vehicle. That was done for a reason!
LOVE the animations - I really dig the Saturday morning cartoon feel
They got rid of the drop tanks on alpaka for appendix N.
Take 2 dynetics landers, connect them with trusses and cargo pods, and you have a Space 1999 Eagle transporter, uniquely configured to fly, hover, drop matl thru lava tube skylights etc. much like a Chinook.
Essential hardware for moon/mars.
MugtsentIrbytextmindragKTMwebbrigputtingueveryuni8th7twejunkIrbyeatenpunkUedatechunkurnchicseanounurgeyetiIMHO9th
Pending
Went from a block of metal to literal building
THANKSGIVING
By the way: Love that NASA couldn't manage to go to the moon in half a century but have the balls to rate SpaceX as "acceptable". That's like me rating Lewis Hamilton as an "acceptable" driver, while i have difficulty driving the kids to school.
Yes, GO SpaceX!
Your comment on "entertaining Lex Luthor..." was priceless :) Great
to me it looks like we are moving backwards, we went from a shuttle for landing back to parachutes dropped into the ocean!
You did a great job recapping everything.
Hah Hah, Blue Balls/Lex Luthor. How appropriate. I love this.
Great video thanks
Why throw shade. Stay positive friend.
Please educate me, a small moon landing foot better than a large foot print and would it be possible to configure starship to land horizontally and not vertically?
It looks just like a space ship from 50s and 60s science fiction movies.
The real reason Tesla is going to the moon: Whaling expedition
Blue Balls team - Lex Luther {on another sister channel} - remind me to be Elon's friend.
Correction. Several have had successful flights and landing. They are now in mass production at spaceX.
They can just send up 1 ship with the mission. 1 empty starship and 1 more starship with fuel payload.
then transfer the mission and the fuel payload to the empty starship.
It's no secret. While Boeing and Blue Origin struggle to reach space with a satellite, SpaceX is regularly and safely ferrying human beings to the ISS. Then it's also soft landing the first stage for re-use, thereby achieving very good capital efficiency. The other companies aren't close to this level.
Space x basically said we're going hey nasa want to go for the ride?
Throwing shade at Jeff, sure----but don't forget to do the same to Musk as needed.
Elon Musk risked it all on his belief that space is worth exploring on a grand scale. And now, he deserves all the success he is reaping and more. We will all slowly begin to realize what a tremendous benefit to mankind this man is, especially when the first Starship actually lands on Mars in the years ahead. There is more to success than just money, and Musk demonstrates that everyday.
We would all be living in Europe still with that kind of thinking. New world? What is that?
@@idontcareexe9013 Your concerned about putting food on the table?
👍❤ good video. We aré whaiting to arrive with Space X to the Mon. Go ahead Space X.
Please dump the flashing and flickering icons around the periphery of your video.
Apart from that major distraction, excellent video.
Wait, so the competitors got already kicked out, even though no one has an idea, if the refuelling maneuver is even possible?
And in Boca Chica they're working on propulsive landing of the Mars version of Spaceship that is not even part of the Artemis mission.
I'm really confused now.
Ok, simple question here. Why couldn't SpaceX, just transfer the Payload instead of Cryo/Fuel??)))
If NASA was in charge of getting us back to the moment we wouldn't get there until the year 2700
was finally found a good video on these matters.
I love you man
Why use SLS at all! Instead use SpaceX lunar lander in earth orbit and then transport to & landing on the moon. Use crew Dragon (or another Starship) for transport to the orbiting lunar lander and the crew's return to earth.
I think the real reason Tesla is suddenly building humanoid robots is so that SpaceX can go to the moon, without waiting for NASA
Or they can take the lead to Mars and build everything ready for us to move into Mars
Hahaha first time I heard Lex Luthor I flipped lmao
“Sierra Nevada... delivered a prototype in Feb, 2021”
No, that was a mock-up, not a prototype. Two very different things. A prototype is an early development model in need of further refinement, testing, and with an immature feature set, but it is functioning hardware, meaning it actually does stuff. A mock-up is merely a visual representation of actual hardware and made out of anything from cardboard, plastic, balsa wood, or LEGO blocks, but in no way is it functioning hardware. It’s only a step or two above PowerPoint slide and computer render.
Facts we are goin I MARS.
Wonderful update !! Thanks !!
Hi guys thanks for your video of space x and everything space great 👍 guys David 🧑🚀🚀🇬🇧🇬🇧👍
We will never go back to the moon for reasons that they will never tell us, there are other entities on the moon if you think we're alone in the universe you are sadly mistaken.
4:20 Information on Dynetics Alpaca lander is a bit out-dated; apparently Dynetics quietly dropped the idea of using “drop tanks.” (Sorry, don’t have a reference to offer concerning this. Anyone else?)
Thanks. Good stuff.
Cool
Nice vid!
Elon Musk > Jeff Bezos
The idea of landing a SpaceX starship on the moon is hilarious. Won't happen within the time frame and cost. Don't hold your breath.
It might be a challenge, but so was ariel refueling. It will just take trials and practice to get it down to a routine and it's off to the races!
But what about the mental impacts to cows, by the violence of launches?
Lex Luther was not entertained