Could they really cancel the big plan with SpaceX and Commercial Space?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 26 янв 2024
- Secure your business effortlessly with a 3-month NordPass trial! Use ”'marcus”' activation code at nordpass.com/marcus. Limited time offer!
Welcome back my friends to another exciting week of space news. Today, loads of Starship Updates from Starbase in Texas, then we dive into former NASA Administrator Michael Griffin ripping the current Artemis plan apart. Could they really cancel the big plan with SpaceX and Commercial Space if Michael Griffin had his way? SpaceX Starlink had a launch with a broadcast hiccup, but beautiful landing footage. Virgin Galactic took flight with Galactic 6, and JAXA’s SLIM lunar lander touched down nose first. Weird! Sierra Space conducted a full scale burst test of their inflatable LIFE module, and sadly we see the end for Ingenuity, the Mars Helicopter Tech Demo mission! With any luck, one day, human hands will retrieve our favorite little helicopter, and carefully restore it for display. It’ll be the ultimate exhibit in a future museum. Perhaps one on the surface of Mars itself. Thank you to the teams at NASA’s JPL and thank you Ingenuity for being the first of its kind to soar through the Martian skies!
Ars Technica - Former NASA administrator hates Artemis, wants to party like it’s 2008
arstechnica.com/space/2024/01...
👕Like this shirt? Pick it up on any product you like here.
marcus-house.myspreadshop.com...
and in reverse
marcus-house.myspreadshop.com...
🎁 Marcus House Merch - marcus-house.myspreadshop.com/
You can support me on:
Patreon - / marcushouse
Join my Discord - / discord
RUclips Shorts - / @marcushouseshorts
Follow/Subscribe on Twitter - / marcushouse
TikTok - / marcushouse
The production crew:
GameplayReviewUK, TiagoCruz, Mr Pleasant, Virtu, Orbitly
Support from the below is always massively appreciated:
📷 NASASpaceFlight - / @nasaspaceflight
📷 RGVAerialPhotography - / @rgvaerialphotography
📷 Randolph Visuals - / cosmicalchief
📷 Greg Scott - / gregscott_photo
📷 Starship Gazer - / starshipgazer
📷 Cosmic Perspective - / @cosmicperspective
📷 LabPadre - / @labpadre
📷 Epic Spaceflight - / @epicspaceflight
Set models:
😍 Mini venting Starship/SLS - stardesk.peachs.co/a/marcus-h...
😍 Starship, & Crew Dragon by - morethan3d.com/
😍 Moon/Mars Mova Globes - www.movaglobes.com/
😍 Saturn V - LEGO - www.lego.com/en-au/product/le...
😍 Space Shuttle - LEGO - www.lego.com/en-au/product/na...
3D artist magicians:
✨ Tony Bela - / infographictony
✨ Ryan Hansen Space - / ryanhansenspace
✨ Erc X - / ercxspace
✨ Corey - / c_bass3d
✨ Alex Svan - / alexsvanart
✨ DeepSpaceCourier - / ds_courier
✨ SpaceXvision - / spacexvision
✨ Stanley Creative - / caspar_stanley
✨ Matt Ryan - / mattr5226
✨ TijnM_3DAnimations - / m_tijn
✨ Christian Debney - / christiandebney
✨ Evan Karen - / @evankaren
✨ 3D Daniel - / 3ddaniel1 
Наука
Secure your business effortlessly with a 3-month NordPass trial! Use ”'marcus”' activation code at nordpass.com/marcus. Limited time offer!
Well done Marcus , thanks for keeping us up to date every week . Peace and Love brother!
So, he wants to go back to Apollo, huh? Well, then they need to resurrect that generation of Americans: the ones who were inspired by the President's challenge to go to the moon before the end of the decade, and who loved the country and were committed to winning. Because the current generation? "Slow down! This project is going to put my kids through college." Just like some unionized road crew who takes 9 months to do a 3 week job. Sorry, no. Can't go back. Today's NASA can only hold SpaceX back. SpaceX needs to go to the moon on its own and not let NASA make their failure an option.
They really should have put a 12ft lever arm on the brace. Then pull from the ground on that with a near horizontal chain on that dent. Where are the mechanical engineers when you need them?? lol Lateral stability would be a concern of course.
No thanks
When I was a kid I was a terror with a BB gun. One thing I found interesting, is that a crossman pump BB gun will put a BB through 1/8 plywood, but not a flaccid plastic garbage bag... The bag absorbs the BB's energy by deflecting and so isn't punctured.
Lol "Your private plan is too expensive, lets use SLS instead" fuck me dead!
They are going to absolutely use the SLS anyway. The plan was never to scrap the SLS. SpaceX is working alongside NASA and the Artemis mission will include both rockets, used for different aspects of the same mission.
The original Apollo mission could not have been done without the 10,000 private businesses that made 80 percent of the components.
This seems like a Biden hates Musk type move. I cannot fathom why they think doing it all in house is a good idea. At my mechanical engineering workplace, everyone knows taking on massive objectives completely in-house is horrendously ineffective and inefficient. If NASA wants to "do it themselves" (which they never have and never will)... they should do what any other respectable enterprise would do any simply acquire the companies with the needed expertise...then leave them as is and project manage. NASA is looking to make absolute fools of themselves if they go expendable to the moon.
And SpaceX wouldn't be a thing, if not for the 60 years of the industry that came before it.
@jeffmcdonald101 they didn't say anything about doing it in house.
They just want to pick a realistic solution. Like the other 2 companies tendered for. Not this POS that is going to put the industry back 2 decades.
@@jeffmcdonald101TBF, Biden has nothing to do with the subcommittee. That's run by the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology, which is as of last year chaired by Rep Frank Lucas of Oklahoma (R).
Remember that Lunar Starship was chosen for the lander because Congress decided to cut the budget for the lander, to the point where NASA decided to gamble on a vehicle whose basic components were already in development rather than one specifically designed for the function. As the video points out, Apollo was self contained. One launch per landing, and a proven concept (yes, I was paying attention that they want to do it in two SLS launches, but it isn't really the point). SpaceX requires, among other things, as yet undeveloped orbital refueling technology using a tanker ship that hasn't been fully fleshed out. Considering Musk's other... I'll just say 'issues'... may be giving not only politicians but investors cold feet, as well as the fact that Starship hasn't made orbit yet, it isn't surprising that the people who simply want to see something happen are looking at other options.
I believe we all can thank Musk for the threat of Starship shaking Boeing out of its cash-cow complacency, but SLS has once again taken the lead with those who want to see actual working systems. It's once again SpaceX's turn to catch up. I'm hoping they can.
If Griffin's ideas/suggestions of NASA going to the moon without commercial partners somehow goes ahead, I would love to see SpaceX send their own private moon mission ahead of time and for cheaper, just as a giant up yours to Griffin. I mean, he is right that their commercial partner system is unnecessarily complex, and that the full Artemis system is overpriced and inefficient. He's just a little confused about whether it is the private or public side of the endeavour that's creating the uneccessary cost, delays, and complexity.
Yep! 🚀
I have no doubt Musk would do it, even as a test for the Mars mission.
@@NotAnAlchemist_Ed Is that the mars mission timeline the 2024, 2026, or the 2029 timeline? It gets hard to keep track when Elon just changes his deadlines all the time, kind of like how he has been promising full self driving every year for ten years, or how hyperloop isn't the hard, it's just a tube with a giant air hockey table in it.
@@NotAnAlchemist_Ed the government will not allow Musk to do this before the state, this is politics
@@kirillperov3843 If Elon Mush could do it at all, then we wouldn't even be having this conversation.
Just think. The door plug, which wasn't made by Boeing, and that Boeing forgot to use bolts to install, had more successful flights than Boeing's capsule.
The burn! It is savage! Well done 😁
The Starliner! I forgot that existed. Holy cow it's been a while.
that boondoggle should be enough to prove that Boeing should not get a penny more in tax payer money. Bezos might even be less of a risk.
Oof 😮
NASA “cost plus” projects are all about maximising the cost. Boeing just got a bit over excited on that. Poor them.
So essentially, Griffin wants to go back to the Constellation program?... Like when he was the head of NASA. Yeah he's stuck in the past. 😅
Thankfully he's the 'former' admin. 🤮
He's not just stuck in the past. He's shilling for ULA and the fucking suits trying to get more money.
He didn't have anyone onboard during the hearing
Grumpy old bureaucrat waves his fist at the sky and yells, 'Get off my launchpad!'
Guess my comment where I swore hasn't been approved. The dude is shilling for ULA.
I'd like to pay huge respect to all who were involved in any way with the Ingenuity project. What an amazing feat to have surpassed the expected mission time by SO much.. to have completed 72 missions over a 3 year time period, that's just astonishing. Wonderful work to all those engineers and everyone else involved. What an achievement! This will surely go down in the history books as a good thing to have happened!!
Do you have any theories on what ultimately caused the failure of the rotor blade?
Just FYI Marcus, those large torches they were using on the tank are called "Rosebuds" by the welding community. They're used to put out a lot of heat on an area to warm it up.
They look a bit like the propane ones sold for melting snow on sidewalks.
I always wondered what torches were for.
@@sebione3576Torches are used to illuminate an area or point. Heating torches are used to heat an area or point.
Are they trying to anneal the sheet metal?
@@Ugly_German_Truths warming it to assist in pulling the dent out.
Great video, Marcus! Very much appreciate you covering our full-scale burst test for our commercial space station. We have a few more burst tests planned for later this year and look forward to sharing. If you ever come out this way let us know, we would love to show you some of the exciting things we’re working on. 🚀
Have you guys developed or demo'd some interior configurations for these modules yet? Curious to imagine what it might look like to live & work in one!
Might want to keep your module away from the view of F22 pilots
You've gotta go on a trip to @SierraSpace now Marcus! Take your camera.
Are the inflatable habitats repairable?
Have always agreed with your approach to living habitats in a vacuum. It just makes sense..! Light weight, affordable launch , and increased volume living space that research backs up as essential for LONG term occupation of Space...! keep going..!
Hi, Marcus. Thank you very much for your tribute to the Ingenuity helicopter. I agree with your assessment--the little device did perform very well. A tribute to JPL and all the engineers and software developers who created the "little beast".
The funny thing is , even if NASA cancels Artemis , Starship program will just proceed as planned . it just makes it more likely that private investors will finance a Moon base . Thats IT!
Sure buddy.
Wishful thinking. Unlike space X ,Blue origin and ULA are 100% funded by the government
😂😂
Thats a small detail this old fart didnt realize, its too late to stop the train. He would have a lot to explain to a lot of people around the world to why he cancelled Starship (if he could). He would get prosecuted for undermining human right to survive, spread and thrive. I think a lot of people, like a LOT, would gratefully hate him
@@More_Row tell me why not . I don’t think the $2-$4billions that nasa provides will make a huge difference in starship development. Additionally, once starship is operational , the cost to do moon mission will be in Range to be financed by private entities .
Hello Marcus and crew! Thank you for putting out quality content each week I look forward to every Saturday morning when I watch a new episode of your channel. There are so many channels that remind me of click bait rather than news.
I know compiling information for all of spaceX news and what not takes a lot of your channels resources but I also miss the other space content you use to put out. Are you able to make some videos like you use to? Learning the intricacies of space radiation and artificial gravity was exciting and helpful to make a comprehensive picture of all the challenges of space.
Keep up all the great work! 🙏
I was surprised when Japan showed us what happen , at the time of the landing I also noticed that the graphic showed it flipping and landing head down at the time I thought it was weird and a mistake but it was 100% correct amazing and the act that it was just like Kerbal so I guess the Japanese also play Kerbal also! Thanks Marcus . Waiting unpatiently for Third Launch and going into Orbit! Biting my nails off while waiting!
I like “unpatiently.” It’s the same as “Impatiently,” but its newness makes it somehow more … more.
Griffins stand comes off the back of Destin's talk (smarter every day)at NASA about how overly complicated the Artemis mission is, in particular the 15 or so estimated rockets required for refuelling. This is untested as yet. There is also the weird landing approach they have which would take days.
Yep, I was thinking of SmarterEveryDay's talk too.
@@xvor_tex8577 Yes. However, it has grossly underestimated the development time as well as the cost of Starship. SLS's development delays and going over budget With starships fatigue progress Is looking Similar as more time goes on..
Well Destin had some valuable concerns but it is also not the evolutionary way at all. Designs used or made at the frontier of science nearly always become more complicated rather than simpler.
Trickled down designs are the ones which become simpler but those are never at the forefront, those are the ones regular citizens use.
Additionally, the payload quantity and type is vastly different now than the Apollo program.
Having said all this though, it is most certainly not at all efficient.
If they build the launch tower any taller, it will be a space elevator 😂
Edit: Wow, thank you everybody! I didn't expect to get this many likes. This is quite a surprise. Thank you!
“Burg Boca Chica becomes tallest man made building, designed to catch other buildings flamey side down” I can see it now.
As you can see, UA is already in space. Hell - they have a lot of USD to dance in a vacuum - no offense. And what about gun purchases, the world will help.@@Epitath6045
Going up. Lingerie, mini sats. Next floor random debris.
Don’t give Musk ideas.
Space Elevators are the Future!
You can see the base of the tower is suffering from spalling caused by the heat of the exhaust at launch. Adding some metal shielding is necessary before the erosion becomes serious. I bet there will be many changes to shielding over the coming year as the wear characteristics of launch mount and surrounding surfaces becomes better understood.
They want spaced armour sheeting.
I wonder if there'd be any value in some form of weak ablative cover/blanket to protect the metal sheets? Could be replaced even quicker than the sheets themselves
As well as tower 1 upgrades over the coming year it will also be interesting to see how they do the protection for tower 2 since that design will presumably have been updated to incorporate what SpaceX currently considers optimal protection from the outset. It’s just possible that we might see things we don’t see on tower 1 (yet) that are practical to incorporate into tower 2 during the initial build but aren’t quick and easy to retrofit to tower 1 in the time available between test flights.
Once both towers are built then they can take one of them off line for long enough to do potentially extensive/lengthy upgrades, especially if there is also Starship launch capability at Florida, so in a year or two’s time we might start seeing some very significant evolution of Stage Zero design.
@@phillipbailey70 I don't think these sheets are close enough to need an ablative surface. Concrete is a problem because quite low temps can cause the surface to crack and flake off but steel is much more resilient at those temps.
@@julianfp1952 Yes, I would expect to see the kind of retrofit shielding from the first tower incorporated into the design and also to see some of the compromises on the first tower properly resolved. Will be interesting to see how the top of the launch mount is protected, maybe we will see the addition of water deflection system similar to under the launch mount as there is significant ablation of the steel with every launch on the current mount.
Thanks Marcus for another amazing video! Your site is my first stop on the weekend to find out what I missed each week.
The Griffin plan is just crazy. We'd be MUCH better off ditching SLS entirely.
It's the only part of the plan that is semi working at this time. Everything else is still in development And in funding limbo.
Pork-Barrel Politics, the old way puts something in every state so they can get funding.
What, SLS? Saying it's "working" is stretching the meaning quite a bit. It had one experimental launch. Every engine in the main core (JUST the engine) is more expensive than a Starship stack. SLS+Orion is $4B per launch, including development costs. The Griffin plan would have us spending a huge amount of money for what would essentially be an Apollo re-do... a few people with minimal cargo/instruments on the surface for a short period of time. It's expensive and pointless.
@@user-kg2jw3we6b
Starship is going to be built, one way or another, at far, FAR less cost to NASA than SLS.
His comment about the complexity is so out-of-touch it's insane. Yes, using Starship means you need to do more in space... but unlike the Apollo era we now have a lot of experience with that. And perhaps more importantly, we NEED to create heavy industry in space: long-term it will become far more economical to move mass around in space than to get it out of a gravity well.
If Grandpa Griffin hasn't had his pudding, he gets confused and irritable. They never should have let him testify in that condition.
Awesome job, Marcus and team! Many thanks!
Thanks Paul!
Love your videos, but could you please start using labelled time stamps / chapters for each of the different topics in your videos? They're really useful, especially when we want to revisit something you said about a topic at a later point. Thanks Marcus!
Time stamps are preferable when on mobile.
The usual excellent space content, thank you Marcus. I particularly enjoyed the segment on Ingenuity.
Thank you Marcus for everything you do to bring us the updates in commercial space flight
On the JAXA lander, if i am not mistaken, the ship lost the nozzle on an engine. They were able to spot it on one of the frames taken during landing. Which explains why they had more than 50% thrust.
And it's the 3rd one too. Something tells me they need a redesign.
Scott Manley's video was very good on this landing.
There was a conspiracy theory that corporate espionage was involved. But I don't understand why and for what purpose.
@@user-kg2jw3we6b Those are the least important parts of a good conspiracy theory.
Thanks for this! I appreciate your summaries of what is going on w/ space exploration. Your videos fuel a lot of conversations w/ my STEM crazed family.
I feel a little silly, but I actually shed some tears over Ingenuity.
The little chopper really lived up to its name. I think a lot of hopes and dreams ride on these machines we build, it's no wonder we invest a bit of ourselves in them, even from a distance as observers.
The same as when Opportunity sent its last message. My battery is low and it's getting dark. 😢😢
Yes that is silly, please stop
I bet Dr.griffin is invested or has an opportunity to invest in a company that would benefit scraping the commercial HLS because if anything space X has proved that they can do crew safety and not spend billions on each flight
Or success of HLS would make his own record look really, really bad. Given his judgement with his new plan, it’s probably true that he ran NASA poorly
Boeing ran NASA while he was in charge and now he wants to return to only using Boeing for launch. Bought and paid for.
As you can see, UA is already in space. Hell - they have a lot of USD to dance in a vacuum - no offense. And what about gun purchases, the world will help.@@bignades1
He's clearly out of touch with reality if he thinks the 10b over budget and 10 years behind schedule SLS is the answer to anything. More than likely he just wants more government funding for obsolete projects.
@@priceringo1756 - Yeah, that was my first thought: Boeing. Sure, we want spacecraft with doors that blow off in flight! I wonder how many congress critters are already hearing about the juicy campaign donations they'll get.
The guy who wants constellation back was admin when constellati was the program
Thanks again for the usual space updates mate 👍
3:02 “ I probably would not try that on a liquid oxygen tank though” lol 😂
My laugh for the day was the upside-down Kerbal Moon landing. Thank you!
Very thorough and informed update.Thanks Marcus!
Thanks for the update on the Space program, Marcus. It is fascinating and amazing that we are doing this. I wish them and Musk luck. These efforts are amazing.
Nothing shocking about ex government officials letting ego, bias and corruption hinder progress. But I still very much believe Elon will get to where he wants to be with or without the help of the US government.
Couldn’t agree more! Kathy Leders has done more damage to space exploration through her corrupt activities than I ever thought possible!
Would would probably be still on track to land on the moon if she picked one of the other 2 companies!
Look like I must have accidentally hit a No no word that got my reply removed 😅 Probably her first name as I do see it showing up in a lot of those dodgy “finance people” replies all over RUclips (at least I hope that was the issue as don’t see why we would be able to talk about some ex-admins in the comments but not others) 😝
Anyways, as I said, completely agree! Leders did more damage to space exploration in her time at NASA than I would have ever thought possible!
Without the apparent quid pro of her selecting SpaceX in return for a job there, we probably would still be on track for landing on the moon!
Yea not all all like the Woman who awarded SpaceX the sole HLS contract of 4 billion dollars with blatant backroom and illegal tactics, in the time between administrators and then immediatly started working for SpaceX. Musk appologists are really the worst.
Could it be that they (the government) wants to bankrupt Elon and Twitter ("X")?
@@bear4278lmao, NASA shill detected.
The explosion cloud of the Starship upper stage really looks like any nebula in deep space! After all it's the same principle, it's an explosion.
Griffin is like that old person who thinks all of things are better with the old style
More likely lobbying on behalf of a bloated space contractor $$$$$$$.
Absolutely hilarious that people think its a personal preference choice
Old people have old ideas. But that being said, within those old ideas are things they tried and didn't work. That's why you NEVER get rid of your old engineers. They know what doesn't work! They can save you a lot of pain in your development. And Simple is always better. That's why you are seeing more Analog Computers starting to pop up. Digital isn't always better, it's not as tough and much more prone to failure.
In 1969 it took NASA ONE rocket with one launch to get to, land, and return from the Moon. Today, with all our advancements and it will take Artemis 16 rockets for EACH landing. Let’s hear it for advancements!
I think he's absolutely correct. Starship's orbital refueling requirements have ballooned out of control. It's a severe increase in the operational and logistic complexity of the Mission that will likely cause the entire program to be a failure. "Going back to stay" is just SpaceX fan-boy marketing speak to justify all this complexity. It's doesn't alleviate the complexity that will make it impossible to go back ... at all.
"The commercial plan is unsustainable, inefficient, and won't produce lasting results. Instead, let's use SLS" is one of the more insane things I've heard in a bit
I’m pretty sure the LR-11,000 crane is being broken down to be reconfigured to have a double boom to start the assembly of the second launch tower.
Hey Marcus, it is a wonder how the helicopter Ingenuity was able to function as long as it did! Hopefully they will be able to retrieve it one day in the future.🎉😮😊
I wonder if it could still fly albeit badly
There would not be scientific gain, so I doubt it.
@@tcales9180That robotic repair job is doable. Be great if some distant public school superintendents got together a high school technology program to link schools from different states to design the repair plan and the robot to do it.
@@tcales9180You'd have to risk smashing it into many pieces.
@@guyh3403 If spacex is able to get their mars base up and running, I could see it being viable. It's not like it would take up much room in a starship.
thx for your good job informing us
Hey! Hey! Marcus, yet another week gone by and I can't wait...
Why do these people have such a difficult time with understanding that the Apollo lunar lander was built by the commercial sector?
Because they were actually built by a top-down soviet style command economy, which always turns out to be unsustainable
Hi from Warsaw, Poland!
THOSE SHOTS OF STARSHIP GIVE ME CHILLS !!!!!!!!!!!
Thanks so much for creating and sharing this informative and timely video. Great job. Keep it up.
It boggles our minds as to the speed SpaceX repairs and progresses the Boca Chica complex facilities. Not to mention the speed MARCUS HOUSE gathers information and resulting presentations on a weekly schedule!
yeah, only ten months from the first launch and they are still working on repairs.
It boggles the mind that SpaceX HAD to repair the launch pad after a launch - a launch pad that was supposed to be rapidly reusable.
Bad engineering on display.
It boggles my mind how delusional Elon stans are.
@allangibson8494 The launch pad they were planning to rip out and replace? I don't think you've been following this.
Michael Griffin. Isn't he the same guy that overrode the NASA safety official that said a Hubble servicing mission represented too great a risk, given the still documented problem of foam loss on Shuttle liftoff?
Isn't he the guy that said that although he agrees that the Earth is warming, he doesn't see it as something we humans should "wrestle with"?? (Yeah he was Dick Cheney's boy all right.)
My go to space update, thanks Marcus 😊
Thank you for your commentary regarding Nasa's congressional testimony urging a revitalized Apollo type mission. You are one the most credible sources of information on rocketry of all kinds and you have a good head on your shoulders. Your comments were spot on. I urge you to create a short editorial and post it on any platform you can find. NASA cannot be allowed to backtrack to 1971. I know. I lived it. The modern vision is much better, really forward looking and old farts of NASA past must not prevail.
JAXA managed a soft tumble. So exciting! Space is hard. Go SpaceX!
That was such a Kerbal mission!
ok, that shot of the smooth tiles at 7:04 was WAY TOO SHORT! More please! Any info on what new techniques or technologies they are using to apply and hold the tiles?
Thank you Marcus.
Thank you Marcus…Great Show:)
What a nice tribute to Ingeniety. When I talked about Spirit to my daughter, she became quiet with tears in her eyes… For her - and myself - I had to add that someday, someone will come by and dust off the solar panels and she will be back again ❤️
SOME day she will be picked up, and placed in a (Mars) museum, I'm quite convinced of that :)
As always, the best review of space news for the week. Concise, well edited, and read buy a human in front of the camera. Excellent work
Chatgpt enters the chat 😂 AI has no favorites or bias 😊
Great content, thank you Marcus 🙏
Great content and presentation. Thank you.
Spacex are amazing! Everything they’re doing is cutting edge. The power they’re getting from the Raptor is astonishing and yet they’re still developing it for even more. What amazing engineers they are!
It seems incredible that such a huge rocket can be fully reusable, yet they’re getting there right before our eyes. The idea that they eventually hope to catch the booster and Starship on the chopsticks seems like madness, but when one sees the accuracy with which the Falcon 9 boosters land, there’s no wonder they think they can do it.
There are some clever people there, and with Elon’s dynamism and vision behind them, they really are adding interest to life. Thanks Marcus for bringing us another great video.👍👍
Never forget that its Gwynne Shotwell who gets things done.
Very nice video, thank you for that. Regarding SpaceX and Starship though, I have the impression that they cannot get their cadence up enough. They always have to repair and upgrade stuff at the launch site after a launch and building the second tower will probably need more than a year also. At the moment they are rebuilding parts of the berm and IFT3 doesn't seem like it will happen in the next weeks. And in Florida everything regarding Starship has come to a halt for years now: No progress with the tower and OLM there, no highbays being build and the tower segments they built are being transported to Boca Chica. In my opinion it will be a long time until SpaceX can rapidly reuse Starship and do those 10-12 needed flights to refill a fuel depot in Earth obit for just one moon mission.
Keep in mind that's the (very "ballpark") estimation of SpaceX. NASA estimated it at a minimum of 16 flights in total. Completely ridiculous... Thinks are going to change a lot in the coming couple of years, I suspect. Thanks to SpaceX, but I should say Musk, shenanigans... And the primary fault is probably on NASA, letting Kaitlin Leaders decide alone to choose SpaceX for the first HLS contract. What a mess.
Agree. We need more critical thinking about the whole Starship program. Not only on the very aspirational dates but also the very aspirational capabilities and costs.
They're still in the development phase, figure out what works and what doesn't. I agree the timeline for Artemis is a bit optimistic at this stage.
They don't need to reuse Starship to launch. Considering that it should still be considerably less expensive even when expended I don't see landing issues as a potential delay except in regards to the actual lunar ship.
@@CausticLemons7 : I believe that Lunar Starship was the specific subject of the original post in this thread.
Great work Marcus!
Thanks Marcus and co. Good update! RIP 'Lil 'copter
Very nice engineering, I really hope Starship launch 3 to be the greatest since Apollo Saturn 5 rockets, 😊
Yes but the Saturn V went from initial proposal to first launch (full test, all stages) in 7 years and the program never had a launch failure. SpaceX is 12 years in on Starship and has never had anything but launch failures.
Yes the blade was damaged, but even so it actually went up into the air. So they should still be able to use it for something, at least for a little while.
I think the biggest concern is the in-orbit refueling requiring half a dozen flights for starship to make it work. In my opinion, it may be better to use Starship as a 2 stage kick for a Falcon 9 stage 2 as a stage 3 and a lander as stage 3 so the delta V requirement would be appeased without the need for refueling. The current mission profile for the lunar gateway program seems improbable and risky given the NRHO around the moon providing only a weekly rendezvous with the lander and the need for in orbit refueling. I like the idea of having a starship on the moon as a base but it just seems like it's not the easiest approach. First principles thinking says it doesn't make sense due to the need for moving parts in the mission! In a best case scenario, the current mission profile requires too many launches... The falcon 9 second stage is a fantastic piece of hardware. Retrofit for the Starship payload bay would be difficult but it relies on existing technology. It is already a flight proven module so why not use what we've got and not stake the lunar gateway program on nonexistent technology like in orbit refueling and taker ships?
Morning Marcus !!.... I'm late but have been busy Sir, now watching for the 4th time as always !! Thanks you so much Marcus, Sir...!!
Woo-Hoo! It’s Marcus Day! I’m time poor but interest rich, this makes it so easy to digest. Still in mourning for Ingenuity.
Another fact packed video .. Shame about the Mars helicopter still it did a great job.. Thank You MH + Team for a great upload
Hey there Rob!
the quick disconnect arm on the tower is giving H. R. Giger vibes.
Brilliant! - as always.
Instead of SLS, send the lunar lander to LLO with Starship. It can also return to Earth inside Starship and be reused, at least the ascent part of the lander.
Starship IS the lander. Go back and take a look at the HLS contract with SpaceX.
@@jayford8479 : Honestly, I'm curious if NASA's secret plan was to only use HLS two or three times, or to tip it on it's side once a second lander is available and use it as a habitat expansion. The thing is way too large to use for anything other than lunar base construction...
@@jayford8479 Current plan is to land Starship, but this was about Griffin's idea to change the plan. I'm saying if they want to land smaller lander, it's better to use Starship than SLS to deliver it to LLO. With expendable Starship it doesn't even be refueled, still lot cheaper than SLS.
Thank you for another wonderful space video! As always you absolutely crush it.
It's sad that Ingenuity has finally succumbed to a broken wing, but as you pointed out it's a been a wild success by any measure. Seventy-two flights! No doubt there will be many flying drones on Mars in the future, and other planets as well. The concept has been thoroughly proven. I love your idea of someone restoring Ingenuity and displaying it in a Martian museum. Hopefully some day.
I haven't read the article about Dr. Griffin's testimony yet (thank you for the link), but my uneducated first impression is that he's an old school NASA conservative who just doesn't trust private companies. It also seems like he feels no sense of urgency about going back to the Moon. The Chinese would have the South Pole completely mapped and claimed by the time his revamped Artemis got there.
the uninterrupted landing footage is always awesome to see
Thanks Marcus.
I don't think many in Congress will listen to former NASA Administrator Michael Griffin. He seems to want to go back to the Constellation program that was the plan during his tenure. Now it is 15 years later, and it is too late for that.
Griffins problem with commercial moon partners is they keep humiliating his beloved NASA and their traditional partners. Artemis has been nothing if not typical NASA in it's cost over runs and delays. Meanwhile companies like SpaceX and Sierra Space continue to surge forward.
Nasa and its traditional partners are humiliated because they cant get shit done, not because of newer space companies
NASA's problem is it is beholden to various elected officials who see the agency as a jobs program and nothing more.
Ironically, SpaceX Depended on NASA for its very survival. Most of it's competent leaders and top engineers are former NASA employees and astronauts. Three times in its history, SpaceX almost faced bankruptcy Until they received contracts from NASA.
Excellent show today!
9:24 ah yes, SLs. The excessively complex, unrealistically priced and way behind schedule solution to replace the excessively complex unrealistically priced and way behind schedule commercial options. Makes sense!!
Could Sierra Space make bigger inflatable modules if designed to fit inside Starship?
Yes, and they probably have some back-of-a-napkin designs worked out. Once SpaceX gets close to bringing Starship to market, they'll likely complete a full design (the same holds true for designers of space telescopes, FYI).
Nasa does not have the budget for a moon lander if SpaceX had not bid an absurdly cheap lander with its massive capabilities. If NASA did a lander normally as cost plus with an old contractor it would take 20 years and 30 billion like Orion and SLS have.
... or like Blue Origin who will, I predict, end up costing a fortune and under-delivering.
@@andrewdavie386 As if the rube goldberg machine spacex is proposing is any better..
@@ObscureNemesis possibly. But at least SpaceX has proven history in launching reusable (=cheap) rockets, literally thousands of satellites launched, remarkable agile development of rockets and spacecraft at rapid pace. What has Blue Origin done that is even remotely comparable? Pfft. Proof will be in the pudding; we'll have to wait and see.
What makes you think SpaceX will be able to complete HLS in a more timely manner? All of the contract money has been paid out, and the only thing we have seen recently is .. yet another new HLS design. No prototypes, no test articles, nothing.
@@ericmatthews8497Blue origin was founded a few years before SpaceX. Whereas SpaceX has 300 successful launches of their Falcon 9 rocket, delivering literally thousands of satellites to safe orbit, Blue Origin has zero. The culture of rapid development, testing, failure acceptance, refinement, have proven successful for SpaceX. They have delivered very cheap (compared to all other space/rocket companies) cost-to-orbit and done it rapidly. So in answer to your question - the comparative culture, proven history of successful rockets, extremely rapid development of their hardware/rockets/systems, and the brilliant engineers they have. Those are all reasons to think SpaceX will complete HLS more rapidly than Blue Origin. Another aspect is SpaceX's stated goal to get to Mars; HLS is a necessary stepping stone to that goal. The Starship is already undergoing that rapid test/fail/fix/repeat cycle, and based on past history with the development of the Falcon-9, there is every reason to believe they will succeed. I see the company as already having achieved remarkable successes, and their competitors being left in the dust. So I think there are very clear and credible reasons for expecting them to succeed.
On Sierra Space, this is great. But still needs some testing on the massive temperature changes when exposed to sun in space and not. In those layers didn't see radiation shield. Be careful about volume inside though. Like a poorly shaped appartment, not all space may be usable due to rounded nature of it. Amd remains to be seen whether walls, racks, ducting, pipes, wiring will be installed in space or prior to launch (in which case, the module would already be quite large.
My worry about these is the interface between the "fabric" and metal berthing rings, and windows. Any holes in the "fr" really compomises its strenght.
There have been a few (I think from Bigelow) in space before, so preliminary data should be available already. I'd expect them to hit a 10 or 15 year operational lifespan with no difficulty, it's 25 to 30 years that I'd wonder about.
As to interior walls/floors, those can be made of fabric and stretch out during inflation until taut. In microgravity you don't really want an open space too large where astronauts might get stuck and need help getting back to the edge. Maybe one large space for tourists/recreation where there is a tethered "life guard" on duty during use, but otherwise you almost certainly want walls in easy reach. Installing equipment will certainly have to be done manually unless you are willing to shrink the unit substantially for payload fit and weight.
What I'm most curious about is how these units would perform as part of a rotating station, whether a terminal barbell, or ring. I'm hoping that these inflatable structures could make one affordable and easily built, so maybe we can justify finding out how the human body and plants do long term in lunar and Mars gravity before sending people there for long term missions or permanent living. Space stations are too expensive to justify this now, but unless we are just willing to roll the dice, we should be getting this data sooner rather than later.
A suggestion for some content next week:
The Space Shuttle Endeavour has been having some activity as it's museum display is being updated. I wonder if others would find that interesting in your space news.
10:20 You do get it Marcus. It's not like the alternative doesn't cost anything. It's just those billions would be funneled elsewhere. And you can be sure he didn't make this speech and call out of the goodness of his heart. And people don't generally get convincted if they have nothing to gain from it. Just like we are about space because we all have lots to gain from it. Let alone the tech that makes it into commercialization along the way
This is what i was thinking the Dr. Was trying to do also,
He wants to keep the money in house. I dont blame him for causing congress some dought. Every 2-4-6 years you get gullable well intended people in congress who might reduce the money needed to keep nasa meaningfull.
This is what i was thinking the Dr. Was trying to do also,
He wants to keep the money in house. I dont blame him for causing congress some dought. Every 2-4-6 years you get gullable well intended people in congress who might reduce the money needed to keep nasa meaningfull.
This is what i was thinking the Dr. Was trying to do also,
He wants to keep the money in house. I dont blame him for causing congress some dought. Every 2-4-6 years you get gullable well intended people in congress who might reduce the money needed to keep nasa meaningfull.
This is what i was thinking the Dr. Was trying to do also,
He wants to keep the money in house. I dont blame him for causing congress some dought. Every 2-4-6 years you get gullable well intended people in congress who might reduce the money needed to keep nasa meaningfull.
This is what i was thinking the Dr. Was trying to do also,
He wants to keep the money in house. I dont blame him for causing congress some dought. Every 2-4-6 years you get gullable well intended people in congress who might reduce the money needed to keep nasa meaningfull.
NASA's new plan, is to design a completely new lander?This brilliant idea brought to you by the same people that took 2 decades and billions of dollars to piece together old space shuttle parts.
Dont make a fun of our business plan. How else im i stuff my pockets from you want us launching flying brooms to a space? Thats the only way, your tax money. Its a perfect plan. i make money and for the rest we glue something together to make a boom to satisfy your sheep brain
Not NASA's new plan. It was the previous plan that died after this former administrator retired. He spent decades working on his plan that got scrapped in place of Artemis. He'd apparently like to return the favor.
SpaceX is seriously lagging behind on HLS development -- it's worse that you think - having been paid almost all of the 2.9 billion dollars - they having almost nothing to show for it. Do you think really Elon Musk is going to complete this mountain of work out of the goodness of his heart? Straining SpaceX with a NASA program that will crush their profitability? SpaceX is probably going to bail on Artemis anyways, and Elon is going to bad mouth NASA in the process and the whole thing will end up in court.
NASA took five years to build the first LM from scratch (and still have the drawings).
@@blshouse Not true at all ...
The problem with Artemis program, is the ratio dollars spend vs efficiency, the delays are also too long, that their vehicles starts to begin obsolete, because the pace of other company's that are changing very rapidly. It's going all very fast, and they can't keep up. I said this a year ago, and here we are. IMO. This will be classified under historic blunders in the future. Altho as a space nerd, it's all very, unfortunately. But at some point you have to be realistic.
Thank you Marcus. Enjoy your weekly postings. Keep it up.
For those wondering Destin from SmarterEveryDay gave a presentation that may or may not have something to do with this. I enjoyed the presentation and i recommend watching it. Personally, I can see both sides of it.
Yes, I was reminded of Destin's presentation, too. The concept art of a VERY tall lander, with a hoist from the door near the top, all the way down to the ground ... did not sit well with me. Not for early crewed missions, anyway. Landing that thing on a surface that may not be flat, hard and level, with people on board, that's pretty bold!
@hermanrobak1285 My thoughts as well, on top of Starship just not having redundant systems. I'm sure this would improve. However, if too many things go wrong, I don't see the crew having the ability to do anything about it with it being such a large and complex ship. If humans go there in this thing, there would NEED to be habitations and systems in place to support them until we are able to can to go back to get them.
@hermanrobak1285 Perhaps having a more simple and therefore safe return ship separate from Starship there on arrival could be considered. As I do also agree with the sentiment that just doing it Apollo style doesn't align with the big picture. Though I'd argue that just proving that we can do it again at all would be significant as well.
@@14aartis Or just keep super-heavy but scrap Starship for a smaller spacecraft that wouldn't need 10 to 15 refueling flights to do the job. I rather see 15 flights with an accumulated 100t tons worth of equipment and 60 people reaching directly the Moon than 15 flights to dangerously refuel 1 ship for 100t and 4 people as a final result for each mission. Isn't it completely ridiculous?
@@14aartis Both the Apollo Lunar Module and the Service Module could fit inside Starship, and weight less than Starship's payload capacity, right? Using Starship as a Space Shuttle, with huge hinged cargo bay doors is perhaps less than trivial, though...
Elon will do it on his own. Elon will get StarShip to fly.
elon with the billions he received from Nasa.
If he could do that, then we wouldn't be talking about this. And Starship needs to do far more than just Fly.
@@ericmatthews8497
True. Starship needs to do much more than fly. By next year, the situation will be very different.
They will handle one or two engineering problems at a time. Orbit and tank to tank transfer are on the docket for IFT3.
For the booster, the boost-back would be icing on the cake. Booster soft landing in the water being more icing.
For Starship, orbit or orbital velocity is just about a requirement for the fuel transfer. A de-orbit burn would be icing on the cake to test that capability. The re-entry test would be another bonus, success or failure.
Once the booster can reliably make the flip and boost-back, recovery and reuse is a matter of time and refinement.
Once the Starship can reliably make orbit, successful re-entry is a matter of time. Successful re-entry makes soft landing, recovery and re-use a matter of time.
I think SpaceX can have both stages recovered and prepped for reuse in a year if they can launch every month or two.
In orbit refueling is the last major hurdle before heading for the moon.
The Construction Orchestra is the best on the planet. Thanks for the detail.
15:16
KSP nice reference. XD
I'm fine with NASA relying more on self sufficiency, but in order to do that they'd need, you know, vehicles? As you mentioned they don't have a lander, hell even the crew capsule is made by Boeing.
I'm all for NASA developing their own tech and using it, but the will and budget simply isn't there so the next best thing is to use private options.
NASA doesn't want to go back or possibly can't!
NASA was intended to kick start private sector space programs. It needs to continue passing the torch, not revert to the past.
I’m happy with NASA handling missions and science. If they don’t have to waste resources and money on vehicles then that’s for the best in my opinion. Let them put that all to work for exploration and learning
@@MattHTX43 did he tell you the reason why they can't go back or don't want to?
Griffin is an unimaginative dinosaur who needs to just retire and find a tarpit to sink into. I have no idea why anyone would take his recommendations seriously. There is no lander system on deck that would or could be made mission ready within less than 10 years. His estimates on readiness times and budgets don't even reach the level of pie-in-the-sky speculation, they're even worse than that.
It always blows my mind seeing the size of these rockets. That shot of those workers in the top of the rocket is amazing. I think I saw somewhere that the combined weight of starship and booster is something like 11 million pounds. It's hard to believe that it can even lift off the ground. Amazing.
Cheers Marcus 👍
As for the Artemis controversy, do a search for Smarted Every Day’s take he gave at a TED style talk. Eye opening and well articulated.
The only eye opening part of that entire video was how he could do such a poor job of researching any of the topics he was discussing. Horrible video.
@@anthonypelchat Why? It was articulated. Please point out what's wrong with it, I'm interested.
@@classydave75 Multiple reasons. Probably the biggest is that he compared Apollo and Artemis while completely ignoring the goals for each. Apollo was to get to the moon first, no matter what. 3 Astronauts died and 3 more nearly died with a mission failure. NASA will never take that risk again. Further, the very first human landings for Artemis is planning to be on the surface of the moon longer than nearly all Apollo missions combined. And Artemis has the option to take drastically more payload both to and from the Moon than all Apollo missions combined.
There are many, many mistakes outside of that. Other examples are the focus on refueling missions while ignoring both the payload and reusability of the missions, the planned longevity of Artemis overall, the reusability aspect of all Artemis missions, and that he called out lack of communications when the communications are clearly there.
@@anthonypelchat Yeah I can agree to an extent, makes sense but I don't think it invalidates his points on the overall complexity of the architecture. You can have payload, re-usability and longevity without the "impulse" of wanting to put 100t of stuff there with each trip of Starship. Less with the others of course...
After all, if it is the goal to stay there, you have an unlimited amount of time, by definition, to do it slowly and carefully, with a more limited amount of equipment. Provided the whole project can survive political turmoil, which the Gateway is also for, acting as an ISS-like international commitment to ensure the longevity of the program.
As you said, it's not to get there first this time around, safety first. So why would you rush to choose something so ballooned and pretty risky like the HLS Starship architecture in the first place? Artemis must be safe first and foremost and something like Starship and its ~15 flights for 1 trip is not the most safe way to do it, imho. In that sense, Blue Origin and Dynetics make more sense.
And you are 100% right on NASA never going to put itself in the same situation as the Space Shuttle or Apollo 1 when it comes to risk taking. Reason why Starship will never be man rated for lift-off and re-entry on Earth. It will always be boarded in LEO or LMO...
Also, the problem of the rectilinear halo orbit is a direct consequence of the delta-V capability of SLS as you know. How much is that due to political shenanigans influencing the final yearly funding of NASA, impacting on its technological and operational choices? Versus just bad decision making on how to approach things at large and what type of architecture they finally decided on for Artemis? It's a complex subject and that SmarterEveryDay conference still is a very good startup point for those kind of discussions...
I think there is going to be significant changes in the future, looking at the actual, non ideal, situation. As far as SpaceX is concerned, there would still be the possibility of keeping the super-heavy booster which, if it succeed and become reliable, will be an excellent "truck", while maybe scraping Starship for something scaled down, that wouldn't required an insane amount of refueling to go to the Moon, even if that means taking less payload there.
Or maybe just don't fully load Starship... But I don't even know what its final capabilities will be. I doubt even SpaceX knows at this point in time...
Small steps. There is no rush as you said, if it's for the long term.
My two cents.
@@classydave75 what's unsafe about 15 more unmanned launches, when there are already going to be over 200 every year, especially when some of those drop toxic-fuelled boosters on the Chinese countryside?
I Was SCARED To Say This To NASA... (But I said it anyway) - Smarter Every Day 293 on RUclips.
This is a cogent and in depth argument that Artemis is taking on to much risk.
Yes. Too bad actual thought and well formed question are boring and thus no one will watch. Just promise to go to Mars and everyone goes crazy with clicks.
Its really not. Its a very naive and silly video that just shows that smartereveryday have no idea how nasa works. Not to mention his silly arguments like "we will be sending people on untested risky hardware!" like its still a time limited race with the soviets and not the modern day. Timelines are set for political reasons. Not actual reality. And they always change when they get close.
@@AudiTTQuattro2003 Not even that big of a "promise", just Musk saying whatever shit is enough to make some people wet their pants. Very sad state of affairs.
thanks for the great news videos
Excellent stuff bro
Very bizarre they would want to scap the whole mission and go in a different direction. Those who know can see through the b.s.
yeah a direction that was already done 50 plus years ago, and that was done just to be the first on another celestial body, not make plans to stay there permanently at the time.
@@Charles-7 something that has been hidden for decades is coming more to light, a profound truth being revealed.
The man obviously wants to re-establish the corporate welfare gravy-train
@@Charles-7 they deleted my comment to you.💯💪🎯
"They" don't, only Griffin, a terrible-engineer-turned-terrible-manager who's never had a successful program. 😞
Griffin's idea is incredibly boring. Why do another Apollo? We've had that already. Space should be about pushing boundaries and doing what hasn't been done before. Besides, the current program serves as a building block for future missions, something that doesn't show at all in Griffin's idea. Seems Griffin is reduced to just another old fart that has aged out of having any relevant opinion. It's best if we ignore the demented grandpa at the dinner table.
Apollo WORKED. Consistently.
Starship isn’t. It is a display of half assed rushed engineering.
It is repeating all the failures of the Russian N1 (which had five failed launches).
One common mistake is that thinking new techniques and materials make development go faster, when actually it takes longer because the new machine has to outperform whatever it's replacing and the easy gains have already been made
You should add dates to all the video clips and photos you show us so we can know exactly when it was so we can follow the timeline precisely