What do you think? Will we see a Starship land on the Moon in 2025? Let me know in the comments! Merry Christmas and a happy new year soon!!! Thank you for watching WAI in 2024! Here's to a crazy 2025!
Completely possible! We did it once being led by a ladies sewing circle. Now we are led by Elon Musk! One question is how much NASA will slow him down?
@@tedthedragonslayerholliday7077. Most flat earthers are social misfits desperate for attention. They simply read from a script that gets the reactions they seek. They don’t really believe what they’re claiming.
Let's see. So far we've gotten an unloaded Starship to orbit twice and recovered Superheavy once. Now all that is left is to get a fully loaded Starship to orbit, figure out if we can actually accomplish orbital refueling, launch the Moon lander followed by 16 to 20 additional refueling launches, recycle Superheavy each time, and land a tall, skinny rocket on an unprepared lunar surface without toppling. And do all this within the next 12 months. Piece of cake.
@@ThatOpalGuy it's not because It can't. It used the same amount of fuel to get into a different trajectory as it would to get into an orbit. They want to make sure everything works first so that an explosive skyscraper doesn't fall on a city. Now that they've proven that raptor engines can be relit in orbit, it shouldn't be long before they go all the way.
They won’t learn either way. They’re trying to sell off their spacecraft division but I can’t imagine why anyone would want to buy such a failing program.
@@annasdad8008 No one will buy it, if i was the US Gov / NASA id make Beoing meet the letter of the contract and keep sending there shit up and back totally empty untill they have proven to be reliable. They wanted the contract they got it, now its time to deliver!
@@jameslopez5652idk what is long term about waiting every 2 years for supplies and emergency rides. We have never stayed on another planetary object for a long term period and so much could go wrong. So why not practice somewhere far safer, cheaper, easier, more convenient and accessible. A moon base could also be useful as a transition base for mars. Jumping straight to the end point, especially with spacex track record is a recipe for disaster as they are usually quite late and end up having unplanned rapid deconstruction of their developing products. The space race is not about profits, it's literally supposed to be a human effort, this is what kept the peace between the late ussr and early russia with the Usa and other western powers. And what exactly are we there in space to make money? Nothing has even been developed to exploit anything in space, it would be harder and incredibly expensive to transform and transport anything.
I work for an aerospace manufacturer, and while I don't know what these rockets will be taking to space, I do know that for the last 6 months Space X has been slowly increasing the parts they order. So far 2025 looks like the increase of orders will continue, but is not limited to only Space X. We also have recently started making parts for Blue Origin, and it sounds like U.L.A. will be starting to order parts again.
When they say orbital refuelling means they can deliver 100 tons to ANYWHERE in the solar system they mean it. As the great Heinlen once said "Once you're in orbit, you're halfway to anywhere."
I am laughing at the people saying none of this will happen - the same people who said a rocket wouldn't land on legs, and especially they said a chopstick catch was impossible - but they did it on the 1st attempt.
@@pawthecowboycorgi Vtol rockets were already done in the 90s, but it wasn't economically viable. Perhaps still isn't and that's why they go for chopsticks? ;) Anyway, often when it said "it can't be done" they refer to it not being economically viable from a business perspective or just not really worth the risk.
@@AndriesdeHaan Many people said the catch as impossible. I was on NSF live that day with the chatters. Even some science people said it was impossible.
@@pawthecowboycorgi ok weird... so there were people on the Moon, there are rovers driving on Mars, we had vtol rockets in the 90's, SpaceX showed ones again it's possible to land rockets on relatively small pads, etc etc, but catching a rocket is impssible to them? I mean... ok... some average Joe with the knowledge of a tomato, but people in science you say?
@@AndriesdeHaan They were not average Joes. It was on NSF live and they were quoting some big names (physicists) who said it couldn't be done. Anyways, it was done.
@@pawthecowboycorgi Odd. Ahwell, perhaps they meant longterm / that if it goes wrong 1 time out of 10, it isn't a "working" solution. Catching it 1 time says very little ofcourse. Just find it hard to believe that people who know a little about technology, will claim it's impossible to catch a rocket. Definitely with in mind whats already has been done.
@FelixSchlang Man, thanks a lot for your work on putting all this together. We space enthusiasts appreciate all of your energy and stamina on providing the news. Also the quality of the video is top notch, the supporting content is always clear and give us a perfect context of things. Keep up the great work, and greetings from Brasil.
The first starship lunar lander payload should be the material and equipment needed to make a safe landing pad. Eliminating the risk of damage while landing from debris kicked up by the rocket exhaust should be top priority.
They probably will. They should also put an airbag system on the ship in case it tips over on uneven ground. Then it could be rolled over to deploy cargo.
@@tedthedragonslayerholliday7077that is another level of speculation, tell me was all of that necessary 60 years ago also how many accidents did nasa have landing on the moon with people?
@@Pigeon_Birb60 years ago the bottom half of the lander stayed behind and acted as a barrier to debris kicked up during launch. Also it protected the return module during landing. Also it did not have an engine creating 200 tons of thrust digging into the surface.
@douginorlando6260 exactly, it was part of the lander what is being suggested is unrealistic especially on the moon where non of the satellites that make pinpoint accuracy plausible. Yeah starship hls is heavy af for no particular reason for the mission. You are just proving why the idea proposed is not good and hls is not good.
Felix - You didn’t mention one very big exciting (in my opinion) SpaceX thing to look forward to next year. Given I don’t think we know the timescales, maybe you could justify it as being in the unknown stuff you mentioned at the end although we know for sure it will happen sometime, on your doorstep, and I suspect we’ll see a lot of activity on it in 2025. The “on your doorstep” comment has almost certainly given it away - I am of course talking about building Starship production and launch facilities at KSC/Roberts Road. Having another launch facility at KSC, or at least seeing 2025 getting construction of one well underway, will be a hugely valuable addition to SpaceX in terms of future launch cadence. It’s also going to be fascinating to see what sort of design SpaceX will use for its built-from-scratch production infrastructure at Roberts Road after all the lessons it has learned from Boca Chica construction. I assume that the RR Starfactory will be equally huge if not bigger than the BC one but the bays will be interesting. Might RR just build one huge Gigabay (a Terabay?) perhaps directly connected to one side of the Starfactory so that no components ever get moved around outside but only complete Ships and boosters come out at the end? Whatever happens, it will also be good to see SpaceX adding significant production capacity in 2025, or at least being seen to make tangible progress towards that. Yes, 2025 is going to be SO exciting on so many levels.
You mention how the reduced cost to launch will cause an explosion of missions and that is something I am very excited to see. In just a couple years, it will be possible for many universities and businesses to fund a probe, rover or satellite on their own. Can you imagine what we'll learn when dozens of missions are launched EVERY year? And the commercial opportunities? Thrilling!
Hey folks! Editor here. I made a mistake when we enumerated the three crew launch vehicles currently in use as some may have noticed already. My bad entirely! The capsule China is currently operating is Shenzhou, not Mengzhou.
The thing that is going to make a lot of people wrong is that orbital refilling capability will turn out to be rapidly gained. Every successful test will be lunar-bound prop and the flight rate will be at least monthly. Hey presto we will have a pipeline to space, and a Starship landing to show for it. I will be surprised if we don't see at least a first lunar starship fully refilled in LEO.
I'm expecting the propellant tanker tests to continue until the depot(s) are filled enough for both Moon and Mars missions. Every time a better depot design is launched, they will transfer most/all propellant to the newer version.
I think the first lunar landing should be an uncrewed land and stay. It could even carry an emergency ascent stage like the top of the Eagle from the old Apollo program. Maybe only 1 or 2 refueling to get to the moon and land. Easily done in 2025. Subsequent launches 2026 could be fully refueled land and return. But it would land next to the 1st Starship and leave some equipment. The manned launch would have the benefit of redundant, emergency and rescue systems already on the moon.
Not to mention the first landing should be a hollow husk. Very little internals, as it would only have the bare minimum to prove the "there, I landed on the Moon! Told ya!" part. Subsequent missions would have a heavier and complete Startship.
The HLS demo flight doesn't just have to land on the Moon, it has to lift back off of the surface and achieve some sort of orbit. And since the service module on the Artemis Orion system has such a pitiful Delta-V, the HLS has to get back into the eliptical Halo orbit. Anything less will demonstrate less than adequate performance for a manned vehicle. That's why Kennedy added ".... and bring him safely back to the Earth...." in his Apollo speech at Rice University. My bet is on late 2026 for the full HLS demo to be successful.
When Musk pitched for your Tax Dollars to fund his Starship debacle the catching of the launcher was not considered important enough to put as a milestone on their timeliness. The fact that now it is being promoted as an achievement is because having spent all the original budget which was to pay for a 2024 mission to the moon has produced a partially reusable launch vehicle able to deliver a 50g fruit in a fireball to the Indian Ocean. Let us remember that the 6th flight of the Saturn V put Apollo 11 on the moon.
@@Withnail1969 Never, ever seems like a really long time. You seem quite certain of this. On what basis do you make this claim? I suppose everything seems either impossible or magical until it happens. I mean, there was a time when transoceanic exploration seemed impossible - check. There was a time when man flying seemed impossible - check. There was a time when man in orbit seemed impossible - check. There was a time when man on the moon seemed impossible - check. Surely, if we can figure out how to detect gravitational waves and HIggs bosons, we can figure out a way to get to Mars, even if it's just for curiosity's sake?
@@Kube_Dog In 1969? No. Nobody even knew what a VCR was back then. I think in 1981 my neighbor bought a VCR. It was one of those clunky top loaders. That's what they had back then.
@@protorhinocerator142 Yes, that's all true. But there were ways to record TV in 1969. If nothing else, 8mm video. Expensive and very rare to find anyone doing so, but man landing on the moon is also rare so I thought it was at least possible they might have recorded it since they were passionate enough about it to keep their young son up all night to see it.
Another great video, thanks! Consider overdubbing your audio, will save you massive time & deliver perfect audio. Your current audio is great, but overdub would help you a lot.
25 missions are not realistic imo. If they can get 12 done successfully or mostly successfully it would be huge still. I don’t even see a moon landing in 2026, refueling is no joke, logistically and technically. But we all know that bold claims are the name of the game in modern space flight. Having caught the booster on flight 5 was an awesome achievement, and progress is made across all manufacturers and countries every single month. That alone is nuts, just look back 10 years when NASA was basically the only player with 3 or 4 meaningful launches per year. So nothing to be sad about if bold goals are not reached. The industry is moving, and that’s what counts.
@ Starship is still only a tech demonstrator. They are doing the right things, but they need to develop it into something useful. That takes time and testing. Speed is cool, but in space flight things need to work. And they won’t pee away 150 m$ per launch just to reach a bold number claim, they want progress. But 25 sells well, of course. Secures further governmental and private funding for sure. It’s like at the gym: The numbers don’t matter, only the result. If I can build muscle better with 4 sets of 12 reps at 80 lb, that is precisely what makes sense. No other numbers.
I haven't watched the video yet, but here is my off the top of the head answer to your question. #1: It would be quite risky ... *BUT* ... remember that "distance" is not very important in space ... you can just drift along for enormous distances with no fuel or thrust or controls due to "zero gravity". #2: The gravity of the moon is 1/6 that of earth ... therefore much less thrust and much less fuel is necessary to land on the moon, and the approach can be much slower. The biggest "problem" is ... much is learned through incremental approach to taking all the steps necessary to complete a task like this. So if they don't do several attempts before trying the full landing (with humans) ... they're taking a very substantial "experience" or "learning" risk.
There are a lot of posters here that are missing the Critical point of Mars vs Moon rovers and Mars vs Moon habitation. Can you guess? It is the fundamental question that we are searching for an answer for. Rovers on the Moon won't answer the question.
What is one example???? The only times I know of that slowed him down were the FAA holding up launch authorizations. Please provide any others because I can't even find on Google what you could be talking about.
not very rapid until they can reliably catch all starships and boosters. when you have ten certified, reflown starship stacks, reuse becomes pretty dang rapid for super heavy payloads
If they can get refueling down to a standard process ,they could do it in 2025. They need to show the starship can land on uneven ground,and they need to test landing legs. They can do it next year without too many problems.. let's go form it . Good luck.
The issue for me is how many refueling flights will be needed to get the Lunar Starship to the Moon, SpaceX only have a max of 25 flights in 2025. If it needs 12 then unlikely in 2025, but 6 refueling tankers maybe 2025 is possible, guess that will need v3.0 Boosters using Raptor V3.
@@ThatOpalGuy they brought it back in one piece 3 times in a row now.., well it was one piece until it hit the ocean and engines ate themselves anyway xD
They did test the hell out of it before hand to make sure it was as perfect as possible, and every future catch will only improve it, personally i believe a booster catch is easier than landing on legs, as the tower does most of the work, the vehicle just needs to be in kinda the right spot to make it work.
Yep. The naysayers are the same ones who said that cars would never catch on, and TVs would never be popular. That air travel could never work and that humans would die if they ever tried to go to space.
Idiotic. How is another rocket on the moon anything to do with any of us? I would prefer to see a reversal (or even serious mitigation) of the Holocene extinction event. We just got a keystone species (some beavers) reinstated in the UK, this excites me so much more than another billionaire sending another rocket.
I so hope that you are right about 2025. I am old enough to have seen the moon landings live and I really hope to be able to see the first human Mars landing! So excited to see what the next few years are going to bring. Keep up the great informative videos! 😊❤️🚀
well, i figure they need to at least try to land a test ship on the moon.. can’t wing it later. Curious how they’ll slow the ship down on approach to the moon. It’s not a small capsule ..I’m guessing a refuel in space would provide the fuel for these variables.. I’d guessing in the future, SpaceX would build a Starship docking station where the Starships could remain in space and refuel ships could just fly up to the dock and fill the current ships docked.. crew would launch in a Dragon Capsule to the docking station. It seems somewhat pointless in the long run to have Starship return and land on Earth for most missions unless cargo needs to be removed and tested. or for repairs.. This could limit the need to build a ridiculous amount of boosters..
Boosters are already capable of being caught and reused. A special version of Starship, called a tanker, will be used for propellant supply and depot accumulation. Tankers and Starlink delivery missions will be the most common launches.
There are less than 20 Falcon 9 boosters to support a hundred launches a year. For the same number of launches, Starship would need even fewer boosters, as refurbishing between uses should be quicker.
@@BabyMakR They are already behind schedule. Initial plan was for men on moon in early 2024. Gov/NASA paid SpaceX 3 billion and they already used it all up.
Step 1: Felix sends recorded audio to editor with no delay. Felix stands by. Step 2: Editor takes the 20 minutes to confirm that everything is on-script. Step 3: Re-take suggestions are sent to Felix, who then quickly completes them. Streamlined, no time wasted, and no need to add oneself to the pile of content creators who can't be arsed to sidestep having to sheepishly notate gaffes in the only take available.
Mass pollution increases. The rivers are dying. The billionaires are lying. Global conflict increases. Holocene extinction event continues and is accelerating How are these good things?
Once they can catch the booster and Starship itself, even if it takes weeks to refurbish them, the number they have to fly over and over again will rapidly increase. They're going to have to figure out a better way to get Methane to Starbase, whether it's a pipe or a tanker parked off the coast.
A new liquid natural gas plant is being built in Brownsville, TX. I think the real bottleneck is the number of air liquefaction plants in the USA. We will need more. Maybe the permit for the Starbase plant will be approved soon.
With all the trouble NASA is having getting just a manned flight to orbit the moon, by the time they finally land there SpaceX will have a small settlement and a "moon arrival official" waiting to stamp the astronauts travel visas, if everything is in order.
@@TheMoneypresident Nasa provides contracts for SpaceX to make money doing their thing, without NASA - SpaceX would do it anyway but getting a NASA contract is just the cherry on top, remember, the owner of SpaceX has $400B+ to spend and is willing to spend it all so SpaceX is never going to be short of funding.
Of the last 11 attempts to put a lander on the moon Successfully, - the only 3 that worked were Chinese. All the other attempts thought they "seemed like a worthwhile exercise"-
There are no deadlines. It gets done ASAP, but no sooner. I mostly wonder if enough LOX can be produced nationwide for Starship. Is the air liquifaction plant essential at Starbase to facilitate the desired launch cadence?
@@jamesengland7461 What does "LITERAALY" mean here? Do the engines on a jet airliner get used over and over, forever, with no refurbishing? It's RELATIVE.
Launching to Moon and Mars is certainly possible, but requires dependable reuse of Starship tankers. A successful landing is a trial experiment which could fail in many ways... Still, SpaceX will be striving to advance missions for both Moon and Mars simultaneously. And momentary failure is an option.
8:00 "100T of payload to anywhere in the solar system"? "With full re-use"? Come on Felix, love your channel but that's real "fanboy" language since in the first place both of those things are mutually exclusive (any second stage sent to a planet will never return) and secondly the fuel costs of even a 9 month trip to Mars compared to a 3 day trip to the moon are insanely different!
Nice video like always - keep up the good work. Greetings from Germany! 🫶🏼 You rock! When will mechazilla catch shirt be available in German stores again? :D
If they manage to reach orbit with Starship while carrying a payload bigger than a banana and then successfully land the orbiter by the end of the year I will be surprised.
getting the flaps robust enough to withstand reentry and land will be done, certainly, but getting them robust enough to handle the stresses and be reusable in an hour.....LOL. I have my doubts.
I hope you know that Nasa lost the original footage due to poor management of the arquives. thats what they say.... Besides the video tapes, some paper documents, blueprints, and technical records from the Apollo program have been lost or are difficult to locate due to poor ''archival practices'' in the early years. of the most important thing they've done, VERY BELIEVABLE... not... lol
They were contracted to land spring 2024. They also wanted to land four ships on Mars but they do not have a rocket that can reach orbit with a payload, so they are not going anywhere.
@@EpicSqu1rrel considering their reputation and success, and as much as I hate Elon, I wouldn’t doubt them much; they kinda have their shit together as a company.
Starship is like a cult. Everyone not under its spell points out the obvious. It's not reusable and never will be. It's never landing on the Moon. It can't even fully orbit Earth. It's not cost effective. It's way over budget. Even SLS costs less. Cue the cult saying Starship costs less without including the development. Lol
@@Robweisenhowser Actually a cult is defined by blinding following a charismatic leader with fantastic claims that aren't based in reality. I don't follow anyone blindly. I question everything.
2025 will be a very good year it seems for not just Space X but many other company's world wide , the Moon may become a much easier to get to and explore, set up habitat dwellings but only time will tell when this will actually take place
Not sure why this is so hard if we did it before (people have different views on this). The moon makes more sense than Mars, if you can’t get to the moon, you have no hope in getting to Mars. Would certainly be cool to see a live landing on the moon with modern cameras capturing it (cameras on the rocket that is).
So I have a question. Do you think these starship are empty shells as in not built on the inside. And if they are built on the inside do you think spacex has cameras on the inside to see how the interior structures stand up against landing and launches? Yes it's very important that the outside of the ship survive obviously but the interior structure durability is important also. Walls getting warped will cause doors to be stuck or come of the hinges, or other pieces breaking free and becoming projectiles, and if something fails you will have possible particles of broken plastic and paint flying free. I'm just curious since all the focus is on the outside of the ship and we haven't heard anything about the interior nor seen any interior footage from during flight
Honestly we should build a large rotating space station first. Use it as a transfer hub to escape Earth's gravity well. Instead of doing orbital refueling. Fly Starship from the Earth to the station, then have a transfer vehicle to get us to the moon, even Mars. We absolutely need to go to the Moon first. Learn to Live and build in a hostile environment only 3 days away. Once we have perfected building structures/water extraction/food/power, then go to Mars...
Has SpaceX ever given any thoughts on the possibility of using a regular/modified big construction crane , equipped with a special catching appararus; to catch the starship and booster??? By preventing those vessels from burning the infrastucture upon return;along with the extended reach that those cranes are capable of. Maybe they could try that possibility at another launching site.
I assume they'll make the first lunar landing Starship as light as possible (no heavy payload as well) to not need as many refuels, basically just the bare minimum to demonstrate the capability. Could also be it doesn't need to take off after landing? I love Vast is calling their first station Haven-1. I hope there's a computer called Bob on board as well.
I read that Musk plans to attempt a return to orbit on the first mission demo. Exercise most NASA criteria for later crewed missions. The earlier they discover issues, the better.
Sure, and full self drive is 100000% coming this year. So is the Tesla Semi, the Hyperloop, SolarCity shingle cells, the Tesla Roadster, car tunnels under every major city, cold gas thrusters on the Roadster, the Tesla robot that will do all your housework, the rocket that will replace airliners, and Robotaxis
@ Only a handful of the Semis have been delivered, around 100. Real volume isn’t set to start until 2026, 5 years behind schedule… assuming it doesn’t get delayed. The units they’ve delivered are basically test units. They haven’t even built out a charging network for them yet. So I’d say it’s a bit of a stretch to consider that one checked off the list.
As for the space station, reuse, repurpose, recycle should be paramount and top priority. After all, the materials used in it's construction are not infinite and they would make great collector items if nothing else. Individually they are reusable.
The weight of a starlink cargo would be a lot less than the rocket could carry. They should fill the remainder with fuel and each time they post a starlink cartridge, part fill fuel into the fuel tanker
We can certainly see another booster and Starship every 6 weeks. A new liquified natural gas plant is under construction in Brownsville. SpaceX is requesting a license to construct an air liquefaction plant at Starbase. Launch rate may be limited mostly by the available LOX capacity in the US supply chain...
![Seungmin "그렇게, 천천히, 우리(As we are)" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/kAzmhLHePqU/mqdefault.jpg)
What do you think? Will we see a Starship land on the Moon in 2025? Let me know in the comments! Merry Christmas and a happy new year soon!!! Thank you for watching WAI in 2024! Here's to a crazy 2025!
Probably wreckage yes.
i doubt this year or the next.
if the legs are ready, they will definitely try
No.
Completely possible! We did it once being led by a ladies sewing circle. Now we are led by Elon Musk! One question is how much NASA will slow him down?
PLEASE PUT A SOLAR POWERED 4K VIDEO CAMERA ON THE MOON, FACING EARTH.
We need a 24 hour livestream of the blue ball spinning.
What a great idea. But flat earthers will still say it's fake. 😂
@@tedthedragonslayerholliday7077. Most flat earthers are social misfits desperate for attention. They simply read from a script that gets the reactions they seek. They don’t really believe what they’re claiming.
For the consiparcy memes if anything. That would be legendary to debunk
We have satellites doing that. Putting one on the moon where its batteries have to deal with the freezing lunar night is unlikely to go well
Plenty of cameras on satellite's taking live images of earth now
Let's see. So far we've gotten an unloaded Starship to orbit twice and recovered Superheavy once. Now all that is left is to get a fully loaded Starship to orbit, figure out if we can actually accomplish orbital refueling, launch the Moon lander followed by 16 to 20 additional refueling launches, recycle Superheavy each time, and land a tall, skinny rocket on an unprepared lunar surface without toppling. And do all this within the next 12 months. Piece of cake.
I doubt they will even be able to crash land a starship on the moon in the next five years.
starship hasnt even orbited once.
@@pr248 good to see realists in this comment thread.
OK, it might take more time. Nothing wrong with dreaming big, even when it seems like a pipe-dream.
@@ThatOpalGuy it's not because It can't. It used the same amount of fuel to get into a different trajectory as it would to get into an orbit. They want to make sure everything works first so that an explosive skyscraper doesn't fall on a city. Now that they've proven that raptor engines can be relit in orbit, it shouldn't be long before they go all the way.
Never say sorry to Boeing. They need to be called out or they won't learn.
They won’t learn either way. They’re trying to sell off their spacecraft division but I can’t imagine why anyone would want to buy such a failing program.
@@annasdad8008 No one will buy it, if i was the US Gov / NASA id make Beoing meet the letter of the contract and keep sending there shit up and back totally empty untill they have proven to be reliable. They wanted the contract they got it, now its time to deliver!
@@annasdad8008 only take it for free with the staff and try get it working for nasa then get a return at the minimum
Agreed. They should apologize to NASA. Boeing are in the way.
huh for all u know boeing has secret spacecraft carriers over 1km long wooooo!
Thanks!
Thank you very much! ❤️
it is a bit mad that we have rovers on mars, but not on the moon.
Why not have a moon base ? 😊
@@robertrossiter346 More $$ potential on Mars and better long term livability.
China has a rover on the moon
@@Chris-SomeguyWhy would a moon base be better than a space station?
@@jameslopez5652idk what is long term about waiting every 2 years for supplies and emergency rides. We have never stayed on another planetary object for a long term period and so much could go wrong. So why not practice somewhere far safer, cheaper, easier, more convenient and accessible. A moon base could also be useful as a transition base for mars. Jumping straight to the end point, especially with spacex track record is a recipe for disaster as they are usually quite late and end up having unplanned rapid deconstruction of their developing products. The space race is not about profits, it's literally supposed to be a human effort, this is what kept the peace between the late ussr and early russia with the Usa and other western powers. And what exactly are we there in space to make money? Nothing has even been developed to exploit anything in space, it would be harder and incredibly expensive to transform and transport anything.
I work for an aerospace manufacturer, and while I don't know what these rockets will be taking to space, I do know that for the last 6 months Space X has been slowly increasing the parts they order. So far 2025 looks like the increase of orders will continue, but is not limited to only Space X. We also have recently started making parts for Blue Origin, and it sounds like U.L.A. will be starting to order parts again.
When they say orbital refuelling means they can deliver 100 tons to ANYWHERE in the solar system they mean it. As the great Heinlen once said "Once you're in orbit, you're halfway to anywhere."
its more like 90% of the way tbh
True. Getting off the ground and reaching orbital velocity is the hardest part.
"they SAY" This musk guy SAYS a lot, confidently and nonchalantly.
Such nerds we are 😂😂
@@jackprier7727It's true, though. If you've ever played KSP, you would know.
Having been a space enthusiast for over 50 years, I am really excited at the current, and potential future advances.
And the advance is not being able to replicate 60 ies tech
@jooseppib1082 We can replicate, or produce more advanced tech easily.
@@SimonAmazingClarke sure
SpaceX just chooses not to?
@jooseppib1082 SpaceX is the easy route. SLS is the difficult route. Today's difficulty is cost and safety
@SimonAmazingClarke SpaceX is the blow all your government funding without accomplishing any of the stated goals
I am laughing at the people saying none of this will happen - the same people who said a rocket wouldn't land on legs, and especially they said a chopstick catch was impossible - but they did it on the 1st attempt.
@@pawthecowboycorgi Vtol rockets were already done in the 90s, but it wasn't economically viable. Perhaps still isn't and that's why they go for chopsticks? ;) Anyway, often when it said "it can't be done" they refer to it not being economically viable from a business perspective or just not really worth the risk.
@@AndriesdeHaan Many people said the catch as impossible. I was on NSF live that day with the chatters. Even some science people said it was impossible.
@@pawthecowboycorgi ok weird... so there were people on the Moon, there are rovers driving on Mars, we had vtol rockets in the 90's, SpaceX showed ones again it's possible to land rockets on relatively small pads, etc etc, but catching a rocket is impssible to them? I mean... ok... some average Joe with the knowledge of a tomato, but people in science you say?
@@AndriesdeHaan They were not average Joes. It was on NSF live and they were quoting some big names (physicists) who said it couldn't be done. Anyways, it was done.
@@pawthecowboycorgi Odd. Ahwell, perhaps they meant longterm / that if it goes wrong 1 time out of 10, it isn't a "working" solution. Catching it 1 time says very little ofcourse. Just find it hard to believe that people who know a little about technology, will claim it's impossible to catch a rocket. Definitely with in mind whats already has been done.
That voice break at 0:16 GOLD! Great work on the video Felix!
I noticed it, too. Didn't think it would blow up into a comment... LOL!!
@FelixSchlang Man, thanks a lot for your work on putting all this together. We space enthusiasts appreciate all of your energy and stamina on providing the news. Also the quality of the video is top notch, the supporting content is always clear and give us a perfect context of things. Keep up the great work, and greetings from Brasil.
Thank you so much!!! Merry Christmas and greetings from Florida! ❤️🔥🎄🙏🇧🇷🇺🇸
The first starship lunar lander payload should be the material and equipment needed to make a safe landing pad. Eliminating the risk of damage while landing from debris kicked up by the rocket exhaust should be top priority.
They probably will. They should also put an airbag system on the ship in case it tips over on uneven ground. Then it could be rolled over to deploy cargo.
@@tedthedragonslayerholliday7077that is another level of speculation, tell me was all of that necessary 60 years ago also how many accidents did nasa have landing on the moon with people?
Was any of that necessary 60 years ago?
@@Pigeon_Birb60 years ago the bottom half of the lander stayed behind and acted as a barrier to debris kicked up during launch. Also it protected the return module during landing. Also it did not have an engine creating 200 tons of thrust digging into the surface.
@douginorlando6260 exactly, it was part of the lander what is being suggested is unrealistic especially on the moon where non of the satellites that make pinpoint accuracy plausible. Yeah starship hls is heavy af for no particular reason for the mission. You are just proving why the idea proposed is not good and hls is not good.
Felix - You didn’t mention one very big exciting (in my opinion) SpaceX thing to look forward to next year. Given I don’t think we know the timescales, maybe you could justify it as being in the unknown stuff you mentioned at the end although we know for sure it will happen sometime, on your doorstep, and I suspect we’ll see a lot of activity on it in 2025.
The “on your doorstep” comment has almost certainly given it away - I am of course talking about building Starship production and launch facilities at KSC/Roberts Road. Having another launch facility at KSC, or at least seeing 2025 getting construction of one well underway, will be a hugely valuable addition to SpaceX in terms of future launch cadence.
It’s also going to be fascinating to see what sort of design SpaceX will use for its built-from-scratch production infrastructure at Roberts Road after all the lessons it has learned from Boca Chica construction. I assume that the RR Starfactory will be equally huge if not bigger than the BC one but the bays will be interesting. Might RR just build one huge Gigabay (a Terabay?) perhaps directly connected to one side of the Starfactory so that no components ever get moved around outside but only complete Ships and boosters come out at the end? Whatever happens, it will also be good to see SpaceX adding significant production capacity in 2025, or at least being seen to make tangible progress towards that.
Yes, 2025 is going to be SO exciting on so many levels.
You mention how the reduced cost to launch will cause an explosion of missions and that is something I am very excited to see. In just a couple years, it will be possible for many universities and businesses to fund a probe, rover or satellite on their own. Can you imagine what we'll learn when dozens of missions are launched EVERY year? And the commercial opportunities? Thrilling!
Hey folks! Editor here. I made a mistake when we enumerated the three crew launch vehicles currently in use as some may have noticed already. My bad entirely!
The capsule China is currently operating is Shenzhou, not Mengzhou.
13:10 if you missed it. Thank you!
YOU'RE FIRED 😂😂😂
Bless you? LOL
@@jamesengland7461hahahahahahahaha 😁👍👍👍
ALL Rocket companies big and small LET'S GO
Good luck to all!
Last but NOT least
GO STARSHIP 🎉
Hoping for lots of launches and catches 🙏
The thing that is going to make a lot of people wrong is that orbital refilling capability will turn out to be rapidly gained. Every successful test will be lunar-bound prop and the flight rate will be at least monthly. Hey presto we will have a pipeline to space, and a Starship landing to show for it. I will be surprised if we don't see at least a first lunar starship fully refilled in LEO.
I'm expecting the propellant tanker tests to continue until the depot(s) are filled enough for both Moon and Mars missions.
Every time a better depot design is launched, they will transfer most/all propellant to the newer version.
@@imconsequetau5275 who will be footing this bill? Because there will be no profit in space exploration until nuclear rockets are used.
I think the first lunar landing should be an uncrewed land and stay. It could even carry an emergency ascent stage like the top of the Eagle from the old Apollo program.
Maybe only 1 or 2 refueling to get to the moon and land. Easily done in 2025.
Subsequent launches 2026 could be fully refueled land and return. But it would land next to the 1st Starship and leave some equipment.
The manned launch would have the benefit of redundant, emergency and rescue systems already on the moon.
Not to mention the first landing should be a hollow husk. Very little internals, as it would only have the bare minimum to prove the "there, I landed on the Moon! Told ya!" part.
Subsequent missions would have a heavier and complete Startship.
A quite modest payload mass is actually specified by NASA for the first mission.
@@sysbofh
That's a great idea!
The HLS demo flight doesn't just have to land on the Moon, it has to lift back off of the surface and achieve some sort of orbit. And since the service module on the Artemis Orion system has such a pitiful Delta-V, the HLS has to get back into the eliptical Halo orbit.
Anything less will demonstrate less than adequate performance for a manned vehicle.
That's why Kennedy added ".... and bring him safely back to the Earth...." in his Apollo speech at Rice University.
My bet is on late 2026 for the full HLS demo to be successful.
I still can't get over the fact that humanity has caught a fiery tower with a not-so-fiery tower. The booster catch is mind blowing
It's not novel to recover a rocket.
Do you get excited over jingling keys too?
@@Israphel776maybe if they’re the keys to interplanetary travel..
@@chrishaberbosch1029
I hate to break it to you but catching a rocket isn't the key to interplanetary travel.
When Musk pitched for your Tax Dollars to fund his Starship debacle the catching of the launcher was not considered important enough to put as a milestone on their timeliness. The fact that now it is being promoted as an achievement is because having spent all the original budget which was to pay for a 2024 mission to the moon has produced a partially reusable launch vehicle able to deliver a 50g fruit in a fireball to the Indian Ocean. Let us remember that the 6th flight of the Saturn V put Apollo 11 on the moon.
@@Israphel776 Oh? How many companies are routinely recovering rockets?
I sure hope all goes well. My nephews might live to see a man on mars in their lifetime
Humans will never, ever, land on Mars.
@@Withnail1969 Never, ever seems like a really long time. You seem quite certain of this. On what basis do you make this claim? I suppose everything seems either impossible or magical until it happens. I mean, there was a time when transoceanic exploration seemed impossible - check. There was a time when man flying seemed impossible - check. There was a time when man in orbit seemed impossible - check. There was a time when man on the moon seemed impossible - check. Surely, if we can figure out how to detect gravitational waves and HIggs bosons, we can figure out a way to get to Mars, even if it's just for curiosity's sake?
@@Withnail1969 never is too long they said the same thing about the moon
Not a chance.
@@glennpearson9348 With what resources? Our economies are in the dumpster. It's just not possible.
Great summary of the history and 2025 and beyond ! Happy New to you and the family - Cheers to space!
I can't believe we've finally reached the era where rocket luanches happen very frequently
LANDINGS
I was just 5 when we landed on the Moon. I would love to see it happen again.
Same here. It was boring and I told my parents so.
And it was like 3 in the morning. They kept me awake for that.
@@protorhinocerator142 Did they record it?
@@Kube_Dog In 1969? No. Nobody even knew what a VCR was back then.
I think in 1981 my neighbor bought a VCR. It was one of those clunky top loaders. That's what they had back then.
@@protorhinocerator142 Yes, that's all true. But there were ways to record TV in 1969. If nothing else, 8mm video. Expensive and very rare to find anyone doing so, but man landing on the moon is also rare so I thought it was at least possible they might have recorded it since they were passionate enough about it to keep their young son up all night to see it.
Howdy from Temple, Texas, USA! I hope y'all had a nice Christmas.
What a time to be alive to witness this.
Another great video, thanks! Consider overdubbing your audio, will save you massive time & deliver perfect audio. Your current audio is great, but overdub would help you a lot.
Thank you! 🙏 Isn’t overdubbing done in the music industry?
Felix great content as always
Thank you very much! ❤ Merry Christmas!🎄
25 missions are not realistic imo. If they can get 12 done successfully or mostly successfully it would be huge still. I don’t even see a moon landing in 2026, refueling is no joke, logistically and technically. But we all know that bold claims are the name of the game in modern space flight. Having caught the booster on flight 5 was an awesome achievement, and progress is made across all manufacturers and countries every single month. That alone is nuts, just look back 10 years when NASA was basically the only player with 3 or 4 meaningful launches per year. So nothing to be sad about if bold goals are not reached. The industry is moving, and that’s what counts.
The way SpaceX builds I would say it's not impossible 💪
@ Starship is still only a tech demonstrator. They are doing the right things, but they need to develop it into something useful. That takes time and testing. Speed is cool, but in space flight things need to work. And they won’t pee away 150 m$ per launch just to reach a bold number claim, they want progress. But 25 sells well, of course. Secures further governmental and private funding for sure. It’s like at the gym: The numbers don’t matter, only the result. If I can build muscle better with 4 sets of 12 reps at 80 lb, that is precisely what makes sense. No other numbers.
six would be amazing, but don't hold your breath.
@Urufu-san killjoy 🤣
25 Starship launches in 2025 is obviously yet another ‘stretch goal’.
I haven't watched the video yet, but here is my off the top of the head answer to your question.
#1: It would be quite risky ... *BUT* ... remember that "distance" is not very important in space ... you can just drift along for enormous distances with no fuel or thrust or controls due to "zero gravity".
#2: The gravity of the moon is 1/6 that of earth ... therefore much less thrust and much less fuel is necessary to land on the moon, and the approach can be much slower.
The biggest "problem" is ... much is learned through incremental approach to taking all the steps necessary to complete a task like this. So if they don't do several attempts before trying the full landing (with humans) ... they're taking a very substantial "experience" or "learning" risk.
We have a saying in the USA, “lead, follow, or get out of the way”
I love your enthusiasm. Subscribed!
Great video Felix! As always love the excitement but it is great to see you talking about space beyond Spacex (although they are clearly way ahead)
There are a lot of posters here that are missing the Critical point of Mars vs Moon rovers and Mars vs Moon habitation. Can you guess? It is the fundamental question that we are searching for an answer for. Rovers on the Moon won't answer the question.
Elon is not known for given realistic delivery dates , just saying
I think you mistyped nasa as elon
What is one example????
The only times I know of that slowed him down were the FAA holding up launch authorizations.
Please provide any others because I can't even find on Google what you could be talking about.
@@michaeljorgensen790 he is probably talking about Elon predictions for the first human on Mars
@michaeljorgensen790 I think it's pretty well known elon gives overly optimistic timelines. He even says it himself, better late than never.
@@michaeljorgensen790 Hyperloop, BFR schedule , solar tiles, Tesla semi, Tesla roadster, Full self driving, neurolink etc etc etc
not very rapid until they can reliably catch all starships and boosters. when you have ten certified, reflown starship stacks, reuse becomes pretty dang rapid for super heavy payloads
Thanks Felix-an excellent overview!
What a great, well written, professionally presented and memorable video. You should be very proud of your team. Thanks for all your efforts!
🤣
If they can get refueling down to a standard process ,they could do it in 2025. They need to show the starship can land on uneven ground,and they need to test landing legs. They can do it next year without too many problems.. let's go form it . Good luck.
they can barely manage to bring it back whole. time will tell, however.
The issue for me is how many refueling flights will be needed to get the Lunar Starship to the Moon, SpaceX only have a max of 25 flights in 2025. If it needs 12 then unlikely in 2025, but 6 refueling tankers maybe 2025 is possible, guess that will need v3.0 Boosters using Raptor V3.
@@ThatOpalGuy they brought it back in one piece 3 times in a row now.., well it was one piece until it hit the ocean and engines ate themselves anyway xD
@@favesongslist V2 Booster will use Raptor 3
@@tylersherrock7649 I did not know Raptor 3 was already in mass production, that's news to me.
They kind of scratched mechazilla's paint job on that first super heavy booster catch. Considering the scale of everything that's amazing.
They did test the hell out of it before hand to make sure it was as perfect as possible, and every future catch will only improve it, personally i believe a booster catch is easier than landing on legs, as the tower does most of the work, the vehicle just needs to be in kinda the right spot to make it work.
Excellent report Felix. So much to look forward to! Happy New Year!
Very optimistic vid, thank you !
Governments haven’t prioritized space exploration for a long time. It’s about time someone did, we’re Three decades behind schedule as is
I dig your Optimism man, despite all the naysayers in the comments...but, folks have repeatedly claimed "It will never happen" yet it does.
Yep. The naysayers are the same ones who said that cars would never catch on, and TVs would never be popular. That air travel could never work and that humans would die if they ever tried to go to space.
@@BabyMakR JAJAJAJAJAJA yesh, those immortals are so dumb
I certainly hope so! need something good and genuinely exciting to look forward too. bring us the future
Idiotic. How is another rocket on the moon anything to do with any of us? I would prefer to see a reversal (or even serious mitigation) of the Holocene extinction event. We just got a keystone species (some beavers) reinstated in the UK, this excites me so much more than another billionaire sending another rocket.
2025= Aliens+ SPACEX
Elon and SpaceX haters will blame him for aliens, saying he shouldn't have tried to launch so many times. 😅😅
Make Aliens Gods Again!
Don't get started on aliens for space. There are way to many secrets being kept from the public by many people controlling that info.
@@tedthedragonslayerholliday7077 probably...
Who says first contact has to be a bad thing?
I so hope that you are right about 2025. I am old enough to have seen the moon landings live and I really hope to be able to see the first human Mars landing! So excited to see what the next few years are going to bring. Keep up the great informative videos! 😊❤️🚀
The only thing I foresee is ramping up the number of Starship flights. This will pave the way for future Mars flights.
well, i figure they need to at least try to land a test ship on the moon.. can’t wing it later. Curious how they’ll slow the ship down on approach to the moon. It’s not a small capsule ..I’m guessing a refuel in space would provide the fuel for these variables..
I’d guessing in the future, SpaceX would build a Starship docking station where the Starships could remain in space and refuel ships could just fly up to the dock and fill the current ships docked.. crew would launch in a Dragon Capsule to the docking station. It seems somewhat pointless in the long run to have Starship return and land on Earth for most missions unless cargo needs to be removed and tested.
or for repairs..
This could limit the need to build a ridiculous amount of boosters..
Boosters are already capable of being caught and reused. A special version of Starship, called a tanker, will be used for propellant supply and depot accumulation.
Tankers and Starlink delivery missions will be the most common launches.
There are less than 20 Falcon 9 boosters to support a hundred launches a year. For the same number of launches, Starship would need even fewer boosters, as refurbishing between uses should be quicker.
Remember that this man promised to put people on mars?
So you're saying that people will never go to Mars.
@@BabyMakR They are already behind schedule. Initial plan was for men on moon in early 2024. Gov/NASA paid SpaceX 3 billion and they already used it all up.
@Albtraum_TDDC - NASA has not paid SpaceX to deliver anything to Mars. Yet.
@@Albtraum_TDDC So you're saying that people will never go to Mars.
@@BabyMakR Not in Musks lifetime.
Was catching a booster possible?
wdm? they already caught, if you mean flight 7-yes
@lev0824 "was" not "is"
Do you mean like past present or future
Yes. Obviously. It is shown multiple times in this video.
His point is that it was considered impossible until they did it on the first try
Step 1: Felix sends recorded audio to editor with no delay. Felix stands by.
Step 2: Editor takes the 20 minutes to confirm that everything is on-script.
Step 3: Re-take suggestions are sent to Felix, who then quickly completes them.
Streamlined, no time wasted, and no need to add oneself to the pile of content creators who can't be arsed to sidestep having to sheepishly notate gaffes in the only take available.
2025 will be the best year as many movies and games will come out :) (all likes and sub and comment appreciate)
YES
For Sigma boys
yet
Mass pollution increases. The rivers are dying. The billionaires are lying. Global conflict increases. Holocene extinction event continues and is accelerating How are these good things?
Until 2026
Hey WAI!
Hey Chicken! Merry Christmas! 🎄❤️
@ merry Christmas!!! 🎄♥️💗
9:28 - No chance, not even a crash landing. 🚀
I’m looking forward to the launches this next year. Especially Starship, space planes, the Neutron rocket, and New Glen launch!
The Interplanetary Skiddle-daddle is the one I can't wait to see.
Once they can catch the booster and Starship itself, even if it takes weeks to refurbish them, the number they have to fly over and over again will rapidly increase.
They're going to have to figure out a better way to get Methane to Starbase, whether it's a pipe or a tanker parked off the coast.
A new liquid natural gas plant is being built in Brownsville, TX.
I think the real bottleneck is the number of air liquefaction plants in the USA. We will need more. Maybe the permit for the Starbase plant will be approved soon.
With all the trouble NASA is having getting just a manned flight to orbit the moon, by the time they finally land there SpaceX will have a small settlement and a "moon arrival official" waiting to stamp the astronauts travel visas, if everything is in order.
Do you think nasa is a rocket company?😂 SpaceX works for nasa.
@@TheMoneypresident Nasa provides contracts for SpaceX to make money doing their thing, without NASA - SpaceX would do it anyway but getting a NASA contract is just the cherry on top, remember, the owner of SpaceX has $400B+ to spend and is willing to spend it all so SpaceX is never going to be short of funding.
@@TheMoneypresident So you've never heard of SLS? I'm guessing you're just a Musk hater, not a space enthusiast.
@Jack-The-Gamer- that would be rocketdyne, Boeing and Northrop Grumman. Not NASA.
SpaceX will be building a Dyson Sphere, while NASA spends 23.6 billion dollars on a drone that can reach space.
A Starship landing on the moon seems like a worthwhile exercise
Of the last 11 attempts to put a lander on the moon Successfully, - the only 3 that worked were Chinese. All the other attempts thought they "seemed like a worthwhile exercise"-
If SpaceX did a moon landing in 2025, then it would most likely be near year end.
🙂所以你们能不能先把你们滞留在上面的那两个人接回来？半年了吧，再不接回来要饿死了
LOL 😂
@@CJJerr
Really? The rest of us thought it'd be in mid-January.
I love the excitement surrounding Web3 Infinity. This might be the upcoming big thing!
1969 landing humans on the moon and back in first try. 55 years later we will try to put brick on the moon.
🤣🤣
Makes one think
it's also likely they never accomplished this and staged it, because much of the achieves are missing
Wast their first try
@@mmr4882 not a moon landing denier 🤦♂️
At the rate they are going now, I can see one in VERY LATE 2025 at least. Either way, it's going to happen, and there better be 4k video of it.
1080p streamed on X.
That thing will never carry any humans anywhere. None of the companies can even bring back 2 stranded astronauts. It’s a joke dude!
There are no deadlines. It gets done ASAP, but no sooner.
I mostly wonder if enough LOX can be produced nationwide for Starship. Is the air liquifaction plant essential at Starbase to facilitate the desired launch cadence?
Obviously, "re-usable" is a relative term.
reusable in this case means launching the same vehicle multiple times at a fraction of the cost of building a new one.
Obviously, SpaceX means to be taken literally with reusability.
@@tylersherrock7649 YES, I understand what it means FFFS. And there are different degrees of that. DUH.
@@jamesengland7461 What does "LITERAALY" mean here? Do the engines on a jet airliner get used over and over, forever, with no refurbishing? It's RELATIVE.
Yes. Tony Bruno is just planning to reuse the booster engines.
This would be seriously cool
Felix @ WAI has the best content Thanks for keeping us informed sir
Not gonna happen in 2025, perhaps 2028. There isn't no fucking way they are getting to Mars by 2028.
Moon, not Mars. Much easier to get to and land for starship
But Elon said……
Much easier to land, yes. We understand how to land on the moon whereas Mars aerocapture is an untried experiment.
@@gordon1201
Launching to Moon and Mars is certainly possible, but requires dependable reuse of Starship tankers.
A successful landing is a trial experiment which could fail in many ways...
Still, SpaceX will be striving to advance missions for both Moon and Mars simultaneously. And momentary failure is an option.
8:00 "100T of payload to anywhere in the solar system"? "With full re-use"? Come on Felix, love your channel but that's real "fanboy" language since in the first place both of those things are mutually exclusive (any second stage sent to a planet will never return) and secondly the fuel costs of even a 9 month trip to Mars compared to a 3 day trip to the moon are insanely different!
just entered the chat...
he wont change the minds of the faithful.
Felix und familien, Die besten Wünsche für das neue Jahr!
Nice video like always - keep up the good work. Greetings from Germany! 🫶🏼 You rock!
When will mechazilla catch shirt be available in German stores again? :D
If they manage to reach orbit with Starship while carrying a payload bigger than a banana and then successfully land the orbiter by the end of the year I will be surprised.
getting the flaps robust enough to withstand reentry and land will be done, certainly, but getting them robust enough to handle the stresses and be reusable in an hour.....LOL. I have my doubts.
I think that just proves how little you acually understand.
@@ThatOpalGuy You have NEVER had a clue..
I hope they land half a mile from the Apollo 11 landing site.
Just to shut up the idiots.
But then the starship landing was also fake they would say.
The morons will say they planted the Apollo modul
I would prefer they fly over but don’t disturb any of the Apollo landing sites. They’re historic locations that need to be protected.
I hope you know that Nasa lost the original footage due to poor management of the arquives.
thats what they say....
Besides the video tapes, some paper documents, blueprints, and technical records from the Apollo program have been lost or are difficult to locate due to poor ''archival practices'' in the early years. of the most important thing they've done, VERY BELIEVABLE... not... lol
There is a world full of idiots and a never-ending supply of new idiots, so maybe adjust your expectations.
Yes SpaceX will land on the moon in 2025
@@jeffreyfrank5766 🤣😂🤣😂🤣
Idiot Elon is a genius
@@elbob1491
I see Politics are consuming you. LOL
@@elbob1491 yet it is obvious you are consumed with the horrific loss your side suffered.
They were contracted to land spring 2024. They also wanted to land four ships on Mars but they do not have a rocket that can reach orbit with a payload, so they are not going anywhere.
I'm not usually one to jump into presales, but with Adaxum, I couldn't resist. This is a solid project with massive potential!
Adaxum ICO is still open, but not for long! The momentum is building fast. Get your ADX tokens now before prices skyrocket.
This won't happen. Elons full of it, starships a waste of space. Feel free to remind me at the end of 2025 if you want.
So how many toy have you launched into orbit a dream is what life is about when you no longer have them your six feet under or where ever
@@EpicSqu1rrel considering their reputation and success, and as much as I hate Elon, I wouldn’t doubt them much; they kinda have their shit together as a company.
Did they say in how many parts it will land?
If Elon Musk tells me it's sunny, I'll verify outside.
Starship is like a cult. Everyone not under its spell points out the obvious. It's not reusable and never will be. It's never landing on the Moon. It can't even fully orbit Earth. It's not cost effective. It's way over budget. Even SLS costs less. Cue the cult saying Starship costs less without including the development. Lol
Every one is a part of a cult with your definition of it. Even you.
@@Robweisenhowser Actually a cult is defined by blinding following a charismatic leader with fantastic claims that aren't based in reality. I don't follow anyone blindly. I question everything.
@@Robweisenhowser Nope , cult is defined by following a Eccentric leader passing off fantastic ideas as reality. I question everything.
@@LelandReview So how is starship “an object” a cult?
2025 will be a very good year it seems for not just Space X but many other company's world wide , the Moon may become a much easier to get to and explore, set up habitat dwellings but only time will tell when this will actually take place
Not sure why this is so hard if we did it before (people have different views on this). The moon makes more sense than Mars, if you can’t get to the moon, you have no hope in getting to Mars. Would certainly be cool to see a live landing on the moon with modern cameras capturing it (cameras on the rocket that is).
spaceX cant even get to orbit... :D ...but they will achieve bankruptcy in 2025 I think
Dumbest comment ever
We shouldn't feed the wildlife.
@@canow260
I'm particularly excited about the missions studying magnetic fields and solar currents.
We're already in space as far as most people will ever be!
New space station? Just link together a bunch of Starships. Just make the specific use upper stage modules and send them up.
So I have a question. Do you think these starship are empty shells as in not built on the inside. And if they are built on the inside do you think spacex has cameras on the inside to see how the interior structures stand up against landing and launches? Yes it's very important that the outside of the ship survive obviously but the interior structure durability is important also. Walls getting warped will cause doors to be stuck or come of the hinges, or other pieces breaking free and becoming projectiles, and if something fails you will have possible particles of broken plastic and paint flying free. I'm just curious since all the focus is on the outside of the ship and we haven't heard anything about the interior nor seen any interior footage from during flight
If it flies to the Moon and lands that will be pretty cool in itself!
Honestly we should build a large rotating space station first. Use it as a transfer hub to escape Earth's gravity well. Instead of doing orbital refueling. Fly Starship from the Earth to the station, then have a transfer vehicle to get us to the moon, even Mars.
We absolutely need to go to the Moon first. Learn to Live and build in a hostile environment only 3 days away. Once we have perfected building structures/water extraction/food/power, then go to Mars...
I just hope that when they get to the moon, they can devote some time to finding my cheese sandwich...
Ive been looking everywhere!
Has SpaceX ever given any thoughts on the possibility of using a regular/modified big construction crane , equipped with a special catching appararus; to catch the starship and booster???
By preventing those vessels from burning the infrastucture upon return;along with the extended reach that those cranes are capable of. Maybe they could try that possibility at another launching site.
Great info. Thanks.
I assume they'll make the first lunar landing Starship as light as possible (no heavy payload as well) to not need as many refuels, basically just the bare minimum to demonstrate the capability. Could also be it doesn't need to take off after landing?
I love Vast is calling their first station Haven-1. I hope there's a computer called Bob on board as well.
I read that Musk plans to attempt a return to orbit on the first mission demo. Exercise most NASA criteria for later crewed missions. The earlier they discover issues, the better.
5:46 when you highlight "MECHANICALLY caught rocket booster", it sounds like you're anticipating chemically/electrically caught rocket boosters next.
Sure, and full self drive is 100000% coming this year. So is the Tesla Semi, the Hyperloop, SolarCity shingle cells, the Tesla Roadster, car tunnels under every major city, cold gas thrusters on the Roadster, the Tesla robot that will do all your housework, the rocket that will replace airliners, and Robotaxis
I mean the Tesla Simi has started delivering, but fair enough to everything else lol 😅
@ Only a handful of the Semis have been delivered, around 100. Real volume isn’t set to start until 2026, 5 years behind schedule… assuming it doesn’t get delayed.
The units they’ve delivered are basically test units. They haven’t even built out a charging network for them yet.
So I’d say it’s a bit of a stretch to consider that one checked off the list.
As for the space station, reuse, repurpose, recycle should be paramount and top priority. After all, the materials used in it's construction are not infinite and they would make great collector items if nothing else. Individually they are reusable.
Love the Hindi Audio 😊😊 Thank you so much
The weight of a starlink cargo would be a lot less than the rocket could carry. They should fill the remainder with fuel and each time they post a starlink cartridge, part fill fuel into the fuel tanker
Barring any unforseen catastrophes, I bet we will see a Starship launch every 6-10 weeks.
within the next 2 months perhaps, after that think one atleast every month if not every 2 weeks.
We can certainly see another booster and Starship every 6 weeks. A new liquified natural gas plant is under construction in Brownsville. SpaceX is requesting a license to construct an air liquefaction plant at Starbase. Launch rate may be limited mostly by the available LOX capacity in the US supply chain...
Men walked on the moon in 1969. Relying on a computer which ran at 2.048 MHz! What took so long??
Motivation. Back then it was to beat the Russians, not to do something long lasting.