Isaac Arthur has talked about some actual physics-based concepts for a space elevator, or at least equivalents to a space elevator. Definitely not simple, but not impossible.
@@BillPalmer Dry air is 1.29 kg/m^3 at sea level according to nasa. Didnt he say that rope is 1m in diameter? You'd need to go about 100 m to displace 77kg of air.
@@tippyc2 I suspect, for earth, it is effectively impossible. Fun to think about I suppose. Theoretically is fine and dandy, but reality is shockingly different. Even if you could stitch together atomic carbon (or whatever element for that matter) in a perfect tensile atomic lattice, there are a few things which are big problems. One is lateral drag from turbulence causing bending, shear, oscillations in the system - maybe minimized by having the start of the elevator in the upper atmosphere, but now you have to get to this weird platform way above the clouds, which kinda ruins the point of easy access to space. The logistics of building continuous strands of graphene or whatever. The reality of splicing discontinuities - very difficult for ultra strong materials. The tractive mechanism on the band not inducing flexure. Sadly, It would be easier to invent anti gravity…
If the rope is one meter in diameter, that’s .78 sq meters. Or 1209 sq inches. Sea level pressure is 14.7 lb /sq inch or over 17,000 lbs for that .78 m of atmosphere. Vs 169.4 lbs for the graphite elevator.
Graphene was described and called Graphene in 1962 by Hanns-Peter Boehm. Btw there is just as much daylight on the Farside of the moon as Earthside gets. Apollo had to land Earthside to maintain communication with Earth. Apollo was also restricted by temperature and daylight, after lunar dawn but before the heat of noon on the moon.
It is always facing the sun. Oy got it wrong. Sometimes the light of the sun is blocked by earth itself but it do not change the fact that that side is always facing the sun. Apollo landed in the side that is always facing the sun, in daylight side of the moon. It do not matter if you can see the moon at night AT EARTH, in the moon where Apollo landed is always day!
@@AthosRac Nonsense. The side facing the earth is always facing the Earth, by definition, not always facing the Sun. The lunar landing missions occurred during the lunar day (14 earth days when the near side is in sunlight), not during the lunar night (when the near side is not in sunlight). You're also confusing this with eclipses.
I came here to say the same thing. It's crazy that a RUclips channel dedicated to space thinks the far side of the moon is the "dark side". There is no dark side of the moon.
@@Wesley-wg2qi Pink Floyd would beg to differ with you. LOL. Seriously, we only call it the dark side of the moon because we cannot see it from Earth. It always faces away from our planet. And yes, it gets 14 days of sunlight and 14 days of dark, just like most other parts of the moon. It might be a bit different at the poles.
President Nixon canceled the Apollo program in part to use the money for the Vietnam War. The NASA budget was much higher in relative terms during the 1960’s than in the last five decades.
@@jamie8732 They did. (btw, don't even try with the conspiracy nonsense, I've seen that the CCP have been promoting it since this mission) There's even now a restored broadcast here on RUclips, that explains a lot of what has caused denialist talking points like how the flag was kept straight.
Apollo had enough fuel to go polar. The only problem is polar orbit only offers a return window or TEI window every 14 days. So, Apollo would've needed breathable and edible consumables to last 3.5 days to the Moon, 14 days in Lunar orbit or surface operations plus, almost 3 days to return to the Earth. So, a total of 21 days in space. As far as I can recall the longest lunar missions were about 12 days. It was all about consumables not fuel.
Yes, that caught my attention too. The angular velocity/gravity at the pole vs equator is negligible on the moon. Why are you saying there is a 14 day launch window? Orbit eccentricity? Wouldn’t all missions face this?
If I recall correctly, one of the cancelled Apollo missions actually WAS planned to land near the south pole of the Moon. So Apollo *was* capable of such a mission. Every Apollo mission extended the spacecraft capability and operational knowledge of how to get more performance out of it.
That Apollo mission was cancelled because it wasn't capable. Claiming they were then not going through with it means they didn't want to admit they actually weren't.
With extended J series Lem's I also recall Tycho crater being a potential landing site, its in southern highlands. That was unfortunately one of the cancelled Apollo 18-20 flights.
@@shortkari Many don't want to accept the evidence. It's not just stories, it's radar, videos, countless whistleblowers over the years, etc. I doubted this truth for a long time, and now I know that NHI are here.
Consumption of beans produces methane when the starches are in the form of oligosaccharides. In my experience, starting with dry beans, soaking overnight and then placing in a rapid boil for ten minutes before simmering virtually eliminates flatulence. Canned beans are the worst, meaning, they cause the most flatulence. I should think NASA could put some R&D into food preparation and preservation to get acceptable results.
Thank you for not politicizing these developments as between China and the world. Space loaned earth its existence and it will take it back one day. It's too big for politics. Love this episode.
The "Dark" side of the moon isn't really dark, as it gets the same amount of light as the side facing the Earth. The problem was 1) communications, because for radio communications it requires line of site or a satellite in lunar orbit. 2) Apollo was not capable of landing on the south pole, and to do that would have to have a polar orbit at the moon, and that would require a polar orbit at earth, and because of that you don't have the same departure velocity, because the spaceship can't use the additional velocity from the earth's rotation. So, Apollo could have only landed near the equatorial regions on the side facing the earth.
9:09: "They had to set down in daylight therefore always on the side of the moon that faces us" Wrong conclusion Angry! Daylight also exists on the side opposite of us/Earth.
@@Spherical_Cow It was both, so they didn't have to carry loads of lights to see what they were doing, the lunar day is 14 earth days, but I agree it's a little confusing as though "that side facing always has sunlight", was implied.
I don't know why it is a challenge to the US since they already sent people on the moon. Looks like they are back in square one how to sent astronaut to the moon.
Bon chance winning that argument with an American. My girlfriend is a Kentucky girl and she "corrects" me every time I mention Bombardier. Which happened enough I tried once to explain to her the root language but she calls that all baloney and then proceeds to pronounce Louisville looville or Appalachia, Apple-at-cha. Linguistic melting pot it's awesome.
@@PrometheusBound Seems pretty easy to solve to me, start incorrectly pronouncing her name every time and unless she is an actual idiot she should understand her error
Shows how we don't know Jack until someone has gone there and looked. Every time all the grand theories have to be rewritten. Yet we go on claiming how stars in distant galaxies work or what happened a millisecond after the big bang.
It’s good news, but 80% of the weight of the propellant for a Starship is liquid oxygen. The 20% remaining is methane of which 15% is carbon by weight and the remaining 5% hydrogen. So, by mass 85% of the fuel required is already on the moon if you needed to haul the carbon there to make methane. The lack of methane isn’t really that big of a problem if you have a lunar lander that can bring 100 tons of supplies every trip. Or you could simply haul some extra methane and obtain 80% of the needed propellant in the form of lunar liquid oxygen.
Exactly. And for my childhood dreams to come true, maybe in 50 years will be extracting carbon from asteroid impacts, along with lots of minerals for infrastructure building.
Interesting idea about the space elevator. It stands to reason that a prototype would be tried on the moon long before it is done on Earth. Fun fact. Lunar Synchronous orbit is just over 130,000 miles (From the surface of the moon)
It only needs to be about 60000km (37000 miles) from the moons surface towards L1. However, you need about 150000 tons of graphene or carbon nanotubes to make it, because around 20Gpa tensile strength is needed. And it needs to be a full strength strand the entire length. Global anual production of graphene is about 20000 tons and around 100 tons of carbon nanotubes. The longest graphene strand made to date is 5cm (2 inches) and the longest carbon nanotube strand is 14cm (6 inches). You need to get the material to the moon though, which would be very expensive too. You could make it on the moon, but you need to process 20000 tons of regolith to get 1 ton of carbon. At 150000 tons required to make the strand, that is 3 billion tons of regolith. The largest mines on earth process around 2-3 million tons of ore per year. In total the iron ore, copper ore and lithium ore processing turns over around 6 billion tons on earth per year…
@@Barskor1 lol that sounds inefficient and illogical for the US.... if the US are going to bring their home with them, they better plan it all before squeezing it into a little rocket..... if the US thought space missions were expensive 70 yrs ago!!! then lugging a caravan into space and making it liveable will cost the Americans a frikking arm and a leg!!! better stop those wars then
@@antwango For the US government sure as they couldn't save a penny to save their own lives for SpaceX that is another kettle of fish. Space missions 70 years ago did not have reusable rockets have a nice day.
One potential mineral resource evident in the CUDOs (Compact Ultra Dense Objects) in the asteroid belt might be present on the moon. What if impacts of CUDOs are responsible for the moon's Mascons, areas of dense mass and therefore higher gravity? Gravitic influence on nearby objects indicates one or more unknown stable elements of extreme atomic weight comprising asteroidal CUDOs. What might be the properties, uses, and value of such elements?
May I suggest Kibblesworth Station as the first stop in the lava-tube train? There are *excellent* ramen noodle shops there, one is Ichiraku, and Temari is quite good
@@jenniferdeen3527 he said the Apollo missions needed to land on the near side because they needed to be in daylight. What he should have said was that they needed to land on the near side to be in constant radio contact without multiple orbiting relays.
As a person with Irish, English, and German blood - born in the USA, for some reason, I have always been drawn to the United Kingdom, and it's amazing and varied People. Starting with "the Sword in the Stone" to Star Trek, and Star Wars - the ideas of Monarchy, and Empire - verses Democracy, and Corporatocracy, as well as the Human Spirit, and Vastly Higher forms of intelligence seem to adequately summarize all that is great, and all that is degenerate about Humanity. these organizational themes - have an essential bearing on our future. Lastly - Clarke's ideas about Non Human Intelligence , and its impact on Humanity.... may just be the Most consequential effects ... to come. Thanks for all your "nuts, and bolts" details on these matters.
It is possible the moon was originally carbon-deleted, but we can expect carbonaceous asteroids (C-type) to pelt the moon on a regular basis. It should be concentrated specifically in those impact sites with some minimal fallout over a wider area, That they think it is connected with vulcanism is surprising. Remember you can have that same kind of high temperature with an asteroid impact.
It’s absolutely silly to think that a few moon rocks from Apollo missions lacking carbon means the rest of the entire moon has the same concentration of carbon. Nothing is that consistent on any planet. Obviously, finding any location having what you need is still a challenge but don’t act surprised at such things.
I doubt this will aid Artemis 3. For ISRU to be effective, you'll need the hardware and infrastructure setup there in order to support that. Not to mention the need to develop, deploy, and test that hardware in the first place, seeing as how we've never actually done anything like this before.
@@JoePistritto Baby moo, baby… Plus, it was joke. Although, it isn’t a joke to consider how to make use of waste. Collecting methane is one. Also, earthworms can detox contaminated soil and help it by killing bad bacteria, and cultivating good bacteria in their guts. They spread a substance called chitin, which is beneficial to plants. Hydroponics and aquaponics are good, but disease can take out a system quickly, as can other issues. Setting up growing tunnels with a soil based on treated humanure would create a renewable biome. Solar powered lights, water, a digester, earthworms, and compost from foods and plant waste. Self pollinators or perhaps introduce honey bees. I’d set up for fish and chickens, both of which add nutrients for soil. On the down side, worms like to eat fungus, so balancing the necessary fungi and worms would be important. Mini cows could provide milk, if there is someday a way to grow their fodder. Mini jerseys that have A2A2 genes, for less protein problems. Or sheep. Goats are good, but they can be destructive. They ate the screens on the feed room windows. But they do smell…there is a definite sheep and goat odor, although, maybe their lanolin would be useful? Imagine a large tunnel in a circle. The cows move through it, a section a day. The chickens follow and scratch up the missed poop that doesn’t go to compost or digester. The grass recovers and grows until the animals come back around. There would need to figure out uses for urine. The salts are harmful and build up. Enzymes break down the salts, but there needs to be a use for the component molecules. Well, that was fun… Have a good one!
why is it so hard to build a self sustained colony on the moon? whatever happened to those 3d printers that used to be talked about so much a few years ago
They can launch "gas stations" into lunar orbit. Keeping the refueling station in orbit would save you the fuel needed to land it tanker on the moon. Having it in obit would also allow follow up missions to mars or whatever to top off their tanks.
The Moon aka Luna aka a battle damaged Andromedan biosphere from the last planetary war that destroyed Mars atmosphere and planet Tiamat aka Maldek with debris settling on earth and the asteroid belt.
What kind of equipment will it take to mine and refine rocket fuel from the environment? What powers that? I’d like to see such a unit run here on earth
Four basic pieces of equipment that all exist and have been tested over and over in many university labs and research labs across the world. The tech for each bit of equipment has been understood for 100 years or more, the trick is to design it to operate on the Moon and Mars, to meet your mission goals, to be compact enough to fit in your spacecraft, and durable/reliable enough to function autonomously for a long time without needing a human to adjust or repair something. The equipment: 1. A reverse water/gas shift reactor (RWGS reactor) - this is basic chemistry, not a nuclear thing. 2. A Sabatier ("sabat-yay") reactor (ditto) 3. A cryogenic liquifyer (the parts of which are old tech honed to very high performance: compressors, heat exchangers, expansion turbines, etc.) 4. A cryogenic liquid storage system for both the oxygen and the methane (or hydrogen), which obviously need to be kept separate, and kept at cryogenic temperatures/pressures indefinitely, so you still have them when you need them Oh, and one important system that's relatively new but already in use exactly as it will need to be used anywhere there's a fuel depot: the pipes, compressors, valves, attachment interfaces, etc. to pump your ISRU rocket fuel into the craft you are refueling! Note how "lossy" these systems are. Rockets end up venting a significant amount of off-gassed cryofuel during the fueling-up process on Earth. There are probably ways to reduce those losses or recover and re-liquify those gases; will it be worth it to do so on the Moon, or should we just account for the overage we'll need? Probably both...
If this allows Starship to make fuel for the return would it be a bonus to make a surplus and partially refuel the tanker Starship in LEO? Regain some of the fuel in the orbital depot by taking advantage of the lower gravity of the moon.
It's still up there. We just haven't fully figured out fusion power yet. Deuterium is easier to use (maybe?) and is much more abundant on Earth and Mars than on the Moon... but when we get fusion dialed in, we can scale up to He3 fusion, and bam, those lunar He3 deposits will be valuable. ...as fuel. Right now they are valuable for scientific study, they aren't "worthless."
I reckon SpaceX should attempt to send an unmanned starship to the moon on a one way trip as soon as they have reached the point of in orbit refuelling to make it possible, its probably going to be easier than waiting for a reusable ship that can return to earth and a crew dragon can be used to transfer crew.
The Apollo missions were cancelled because the old guard thought it easier to bleed money from warmongering than from space faring. We had Viet Nam or moon landings, but not both. Today the choice is more Ukraine (& similar) warfare or developing interplanetary civilization. Develop the dream or let let bullets scream.
How will exoplanetary resources be brought back to earth...in a cost effective manner? Is there any viable plan to actually bring back resources in a way that makes sense?
I imagine there will be a long ramp up period where we will put lots of money and resources to keep things going. If we can manufacture medicine stuff, fiber optics, etc, things that cost cheap but have high profit margins can be shipped by Dream Chaser. A different class of stuff are minerals, Earth has them cheap but they are expensive for LEO and Cis-Lunar economy, build stations and ships, propellants. At some point in 50 years we might have a moon industry for infrastructure development and structural components.
Keep in mind: by far, the #1 use for space resources is to enable the economical bootstrapping of further space development; actually being able to afford to STAY in space, since constantly having to transport every single atom needed from Earth is cost-prohibitive. (Just as: if colonists to the New World had to transport every single atom they needed from Old World to New World would have meant THEY never wouldn’t have been able to stay as well). It would take something totally unusual to actually be exported back to Earth economically. For example, in the original movie Total Recall, the guy who ran Mars became rich because a particular mineral was discovered on Mars that was a perfect energy source to power….weapons on Earth! Unfortunately a vey realistic-sounding way to export things to Earth to make money.
We could already build a space elevator in theory. the problem lies in manufacturing, studies have shown that a graphene strand has to be atom perfect in structure or it will rip apart and we have no way to reach such a perfection in an industrial scale.
A space elevator sounds great but for one thing, It can never be built on Earth while 10,000's - 100,000's of satellites are aloud to orbit earth, just one collision at 30,000+ km/hr and boom there goes the cable, cable car and all the passengers or cargo. A space elevator by nature has to be static, i.e. it sits over the same spot on earth along the equator and as it currently stands you cant have thousands of satellites a day whizzing past, even if they could take avoiding action, which by the way is currently a problem with the satellites currently in orbit and Elon Musk wants to put 30-40 thousand in orbit, Jeff Besos's Blue origin wants to add 10,000's more then there is every military and government agency around the world with there own satellites, not to mention all the other private space faring companies. Unless the earth is prepared to do without any satellites inside the orbit of the moon, a space elevator is DEAD in space.
Space elevator. Impractical. Because : conductor moving in a magnetic field. Might make a good engine or power plant. But that would require turning the problem (electricity) around, and taking advantage of it.
"By volcanic interactions..". I'm wondering how it would be different to Stellar Ejecta interactions. What happens on a planet when a great goop of stuff in ejected during a sun spot eruption and that hits a planet?
Hey Angry, why is it that there’s more footage of the Apollo landings than we have of the recent rover landings? The most I’ve seen is some footage from Chinas rover landing. It just strikes me as odd, plenty say there are things up there they don’t want us to see; but why else might more footage not be released to the public?
Even If they cannot make CH4 on the moon Making Oxygen has never been a problem so they always had the option of bringing along some extra CH4 and making the Oxygen to go with it in SITU of course making both is even better.
Elon said it will extensively use the Sabatier process to make lots and lots of methane (Mars atmosphere is 96% CO2). Since Mars has a much thinner atmosphere and low gravity well, it will use much less propellant than launching from Earth. You will be able to flight back if you are willing to wait 22 months fro the next orbital window.
Cool movies. Weird that China couldn't spring for a cheap camera drone to fly along there in low Earth orbit at 5:10 and take a few vid shots. Weird to have to rely on the animated films.
I was literally just thinking about this problem today and wondering if SpaceX might develop a hydrolox version of the Starship upper stage exclusively for the moon. That's a hell of a coincidence. Hopefully the carbon is abundant and easy to mine.
So what’s the ball park estimate on how long it will take the US to get its technology together to achieve a landing on the moon, as I’ve read by using the Starship launch system it’ll take at least 12 starship launches just to facilitate 1 single landing
Depends on who's talking, and whether they know you are listening. Most of the experts & enthusiasts whose judgment seems sound are guessing from four to ten years, depending on a lot of variables and on how certain things play out. For instance, the obvious random variable: it really is possible for Starship/Superheavy to successfully make orbit (a circularized one, with perigee well above the Karman line this time) and successfully stick both landings (the SuperHeavy catch and the Starship catch). Chances are slim, it would be a hat trick for sure, but it isn't impossible. It is equally possible that Starship might take two more years before making orbit, and an additional year (full of spectacular failures) before SpaceX can catch both of them successfully. Add two to three years to prove successful and substantial propellant transfer in orbit. Now you're at either three or six years from now (2027 or 2030). Assuming the Lunar Starship has been developed and ground-tested during all that time, that's your first Lunar Starship test flight... which will probably orbit the Moon and return to LEO without landing immediately. Depending on fuel boil-off rates and other test data, the Lunar Starship may need to be topped off or serviced somehow in LEO (remember, it cannot re-enter Earth's atmosphere, ever). That could take weeks or it could take most of a year. Now you're at mid-2027 or 2031, or somewhere in between. Now the Lunar Starship leaves LEO for LLO and lands, autonomously. Successfully? Let's assume so. It deploys a bunch of cargo on the lunar surface, testing its big outer airlock doors, its davits, the elevator platform, etc. then launches back to LEO. That whole mission might only last a week, if it's successful. It could return to LEO by Thanksgiving 2027... If for some reason the Lunar Starship cannot return to LEO (it crashed on the Moon, it stuck the landing but toppled over, it landed but couldn't deploy its cargo and is too heavy to return to LLO with its current minimal fuel load, something important broke, etc.), a new Lunar Starship had better be ready to roll out and launch, be refueled on orbit (ten additional refueling launches might only take five weeks or five months at that point). All the failure analysis and retooling of the second Lunar Starship could take a couple of months or it could take a year. We're calculating the longer timeframe, so let's add a year. The second Lunar Starship does its thing autonomously on the Moon and succeeds, returning to LEO by Christmas 2032. It needs refueling of course: assume weeks not months, by that time. Will it be human-rated at this point? It will have had a crewed flight around the Moon already, so probably, yes. Will the human crew be ready to go immediately? Or will the flight data need to be examined with a fine-toothed comb first? The latter is most likely. There you go. First Artemis Project crew lands a Lunar Starship on the Moon in 2033 or 2034 sometime, about ten years from now. This whole scenario assumes Starship success. I'm just showing you how it truly could be either five years or ten years, depending on good luck vs. bad luck concerning all potential regulatory issues, funding issues, SpaceX leadership or operational issues, whether equipment tests succeed or fail, etc. I hope this helps!
There was already a good amount of carbon on the moon "The presence of lunar carbon is mostly due to solar wind carbon implanted in bulk regolith. Carbon is present in carbon-bearing ices at the lunar poles in concentrations as high as 20% by weight. However, most carbon-bearing ices have a 0-3% by weight carbon concentration." The Lunar graphene found is relatively miniscule in quantity, and would require conversion. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_resources#:~:text=Carbon%20is%20present%20in%20carbon,3%25%20by%20weight%20carbon%20concentration.
A shout out and thank you to all those that are actively supporting Jordan. I appreciate it. I really enjoy his content, but not able to be a big supporter at the moment. Thanks to you. I can enjoy his content.
I think you mean a VERY future SpaceX mission. I mean it's not like you just plonk down and make fuel, store it and have a ready gas station ready for the star ship. I WISH IT WERE SO! :(
On Mars, it's almost that good, even if you have to bring the H2 initially. The trouble with lunar ISRU is that anything it has to offer is rock-bound.
Almost makes you wonder...what are the odds of life baring planets with a moon that would be in abundance of graphene? Are we just luck? Is it by chance?
Space elevators are not possible, The end point has to be geo-synched and in order to not fall back to Earth it has to be 40,000 km up. I don't know how you build such a structure or how much it will cost to build and ship or how you achieve the stability of the station or how you get the energy to move the elevator up or down or how you maintain the whole thing etc. etc. And most importantly- what for?
The methalox ratio for raptor is something like 4/5th oxygen. Hydrogen in situ may actually be more problematic than just taking 1/5th your propellent there in the foreseeable future.
Space elevators can't happen unless the orbits the tether & cars cross in clear of all objects - even a piece as small as a pea travelling 17,000mph will cause quite a lot of damage to those windows.
If you want to continue living freely, you and your children, CCP ruled China cannot be allowed to grow anymore then it has. And cooperation with China isn't a good idea. Stay informed about geopolitics. The CCP is dangerous and treacherous. It cannot be trusted.
There is a special case. Refine the oxygen on the moon, bring the methane from Earth, or even just blocks of carbon. Heat the lunar ice water to pressurised steam in a solar boiler and run it through the carbon to produce methane. Process the leftover oxygen compounds through electrolysis to recover the oxygen. The trick is that by mass oxygen accounst for 5/6ths of the total propellant mass. So even just supplying oxygen for the propellant greatly reduces the mass needed to be brought from Earth.
![Eminem - Temporary (feat. Skylar Grey) [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/ZaK9Wi5ho0o/mqdefault.jpg)
Can we just forget about the space elevator? To describe that as science fiction is an understatement.
Indeed. A 77kg rope that’s 100km long? I suspect that’s lighter than the airspace it occupies.
I really doubt those numbers.
Isaac Arthur has talked about some actual physics-based concepts for a space elevator, or at least equivalents to a space elevator. Definitely not simple, but not impossible.
@@BillPalmer Dry air is 1.29 kg/m^3 at sea level according to nasa. Didnt he say that rope is 1m in diameter? You'd need to go about 100 m to displace 77kg of air.
@@tippyc2 I suspect, for earth, it is effectively impossible. Fun to think about I suppose. Theoretically is fine and dandy, but reality is shockingly different.
Even if you could stitch together atomic carbon (or whatever element for that matter) in a perfect tensile atomic lattice, there are a few things which are big problems. One is lateral drag from turbulence causing bending, shear, oscillations in the system - maybe minimized by having the start of the elevator in the upper atmosphere, but now you have to get to this weird platform way above the clouds, which kinda ruins the point of easy access to space. The logistics of building continuous strands of graphene or whatever. The reality of splicing discontinuities - very difficult for ultra strong materials. The tractive mechanism on the band not inducing flexure.
Sadly, It would be easier to invent anti gravity…
If the rope is one meter in diameter, that’s .78 sq meters. Or 1209 sq inches.
Sea level pressure is 14.7 lb /sq inch or over 17,000 lbs for that .78 m of atmosphere. Vs 169.4 lbs for the graphite elevator.
Graphene was described and called Graphene in 1962 by Hanns-Peter Boehm.
Btw there is just as much daylight on the Farside of the moon as Earthside gets. Apollo had to land Earthside to maintain communication with Earth. Apollo was also restricted by temperature and daylight, after lunar dawn but before the heat of noon on the moon.
The assertion at 9:10 is just flat out wrong. The earth facing side of the moon is NOT always in sunlight. Anybody that has seen the moon knows that.
It is always facing the sun. Oy got it wrong.
Sometimes the light of the sun is blocked by earth itself but it do not change the fact that that side is always facing the sun.
Apollo landed in the side that is always facing the sun, in daylight side of the moon. It do not matter if you can see the moon at night AT EARTH, in the moon where Apollo landed is always day!
@@AthosRac
You’re wrong dude Lunar day =. 14 earth days. Same lunar night
@@AthosRac Nonsense. The side facing the earth is always facing the Earth, by definition, not always facing the Sun. The lunar landing missions occurred during the lunar day (14 earth days when the near side is in sunlight), not during the lunar night (when the near side is not in sunlight). You're also confusing this with eclipses.
I came here to say the same thing. It's crazy that a RUclips channel dedicated to space thinks the far side of the moon is the "dark side". There is no dark side of the moon.
@@Wesley-wg2qi Pink Floyd would beg to differ with you. LOL.
Seriously, we only call it the dark side of the moon because we cannot see it from Earth. It always faces away from our planet. And yes, it gets 14 days of sunlight and 14 days of dark, just like most other parts of the moon. It might be a bit different at the poles.
Stopping the nasa moon missions was the wrong way to go as it looks like
The should start by actually going…
China found carbon on the surface. I doubt that NASA ever got there to be honest.
President Nixon canceled the Apollo program in part to use the money for the Vietnam War. The NASA budget was much higher in relative terms during the 1960’s than in the last five decades.
@@jamie8732 They did. (btw, don't even try with the conspiracy nonsense, I've seen that the CCP have been promoting it since this mission) There's even now a restored broadcast here on RUclips, that explains a lot of what has caused denialist talking points like how the flag was kept straight.
We are about to have humans on the moon again, in 2030, and we'll have a moon satellite base soon. The US is far past China in any space ambitions.
2:38 Video starts
Apollo had enough fuel to go polar. The only problem is polar orbit only offers a return window or TEI window every 14 days. So, Apollo would've needed breathable and edible consumables to last 3.5 days to the Moon, 14 days in Lunar orbit or surface operations plus, almost 3 days to return to the Earth. So, a total of 21 days in space. As far as I can recall the longest lunar missions were about 12 days. It was all about consumables not fuel.
Yes, that caught my attention too. The angular velocity/gravity at the pole vs equator is negligible on the moon. Why are you saying there is a 14 day launch window? Orbit eccentricity? Wouldn’t all missions face this?
If I recall correctly, one of the cancelled Apollo missions actually WAS planned to land near the south pole of the Moon. So Apollo *was* capable of such a mission. Every Apollo mission extended the spacecraft capability and operational knowledge of how to get more performance out of it.
We took cars up there ffs. USA is in a steep decline
Woulda, coulda, shoulda.
That Apollo mission was cancelled because it wasn't capable. Claiming they were then not going through with it means they didn't want to admit they actually weren't.
With extended J series Lem's I also recall Tycho crater being a potential landing site, its in southern highlands. That was unfortunately one of the cancelled Apollo 18-20 flights.
Gee if only any of the stated objectives of Apollo were real and not "duh fight soviets uhhhh"
finally a clean video with clean crisp science and practical science and no UFOS and conspiracy theories.
UFOs will be main stream science for the public in the future (hopefully). For the ones in the know today, the subject of UFOs is hard core reality.
@@shortkari Many don't want to accept the evidence. It's not just stories, it's radar, videos, countless whistleblowers over the years, etc.
I doubted this truth for a long time, and now I know that NHI are here.
The astronauts should eat navy beans to produce their own methane.
NASA needs to send their own sample-return probes to the farside and polar areas. ASAP.
@@WhiteWolf65 they should buy they are so far behind rn. Artemis will be delayed again most likely
Consumption of beans produces methane when the starches are in the form of oligosaccharides. In my experience, starting with dry beans, soaking overnight and then placing in a rapid boil for ten minutes before simmering virtually eliminates flatulence.
Canned beans are the worst, meaning, they cause the most flatulence.
I should think NASA could put some R&D into food preparation and preservation to get acceptable results.
humans in shell 'poop' farms like in the matrix😀
rich people with lots of money need something to care about
Thank you for not politicizing these developments as between China and the world. Space loaned earth its existence and it will take it back one day. It's too big for politics. Love this episode.
The "Dark" side of the moon isn't really dark, as it gets the same amount of light as the side facing the Earth. The problem was 1) communications, because for radio communications it requires line of site or a satellite in lunar orbit. 2) Apollo was not capable of landing on the south pole, and to do that would have to have a polar orbit at the moon, and that would require a polar orbit at earth, and because of that you don't have the same departure velocity, because the spaceship can't use the additional velocity from the earth's rotation. So, Apollo could have only landed near the equatorial regions on the side facing the earth.
Bill Nelson needs a telling off for saying “dark side” , “always in darkness “ 😬
9:09: "They had to set down in daylight therefore always on the side of the moon that faces us" Wrong conclusion Angry! Daylight also exists on the side opposite of us/Earth.
Yup. It wasn't about daylight; it was about a direct line of communication back to Earth (which the far side, by definition, doesn't offer.)
@@Spherical_Cow It was both, so they didn't have to carry loads of lights to see what they were doing, the lunar day is 14 earth days, but I agree it's a little confusing as though "that side facing always has sunlight", was implied.
But the NASA admin said its always dark on the other side!
@@MichaelWinter-ss6lx it is always 'radio' dark from earth
Glad I'm not the only one who picked up an eyebrow on this...
🚨🚨🚨 pronunciation police here: "Sabatier" is to be pronounced "sabat-yay", not "saba-tier". He was a Frenchman, and thats just the way it is.
😊😊😊
I say it sab-atire and you'll never catch me!
Another language butchered by Americans 😂
Most Americans do pronounce it "Sabat-yay", Jordan is the odd one out here...
🫡
9:14 that’s not what “dark side of the moon” means, it still gets sunlight, it’s just radio dark in relation to earth
had to set down in daylight != have to be on the side facing Earth... but Apollo did need direct comms with Earth, so thats why...
wrong, the dark side also has day light, just out of synch with Earth.. the comms need is true, though.
With today's tech, they can have sats in orbit to maintain coms from lunar farside while it is in daylight. So Hurry up NASA!
For China it was an easy feat to deploy a small relay sat for communication. All in one launch? That was like six missions in one!
People still confuse far side and dark side. Thanks, Pink Floyd
I don't know why it is a challenge to the US since they already sent people on the moon. Looks like they are back in square one how to sent astronaut to the moon.
He was French, it's "suh-bat-ee-ay" 😭
Bon chance winning that argument with an American. My girlfriend is a Kentucky girl and she "corrects" me every time I mention Bombardier. Which happened enough I tried once to explain to her the root language but she calls that all baloney and then proceeds to pronounce Louisville looville or Appalachia, Apple-at-cha.
Linguistic melting pot it's awesome.
@@PrometheusBound But... It's a proper name...they aren't subjective lol there is only one correct pronunciation
@@DmitriVanderbilt LOL she will disagree and like I've went thru extensive efforts on this with her because she thinks I'm the idiot now.
@@PrometheusBound Seems pretty easy to solve to me, start incorrectly pronouncing her name every time and unless she is an actual idiot she should understand her error
Shows how we don't know Jack until someone has gone there and looked. Every time all the grand theories have to be rewritten. Yet we go on claiming how stars in distant galaxies work or what happened a millisecond after the big bang.
It’s good news, but 80% of the weight of the propellant for a Starship is liquid oxygen. The 20% remaining is methane of which 15% is carbon by weight and the remaining 5% hydrogen. So, by mass 85% of the fuel required is already on the moon if you needed to haul the carbon there to make methane. The lack of methane isn’t really that big of a problem if you have a lunar lander that can bring 100 tons of supplies every trip. Or you could simply haul some extra methane and obtain 80% of the needed propellant in the form of lunar liquid oxygen.
Exactly.
And for my childhood dreams to come true, maybe in 50 years will be extracting carbon from asteroid impacts, along with lots of minerals for infrastructure building.
I guess you could process the odd astronaut or two into carbon 😆
How did you get these numbers? To me it looks as the methane tanks are much larger than the oxygen tanks.
🚀🏴☠️🎸
Well...15% is still 180 tons. Quite a bit, really.
@@MichaelWinter-ss6lx you need about 3.5 LOx : 1 Methane plus or minus .5 depending on how well you want to burn it
Getting the starship to stand upright on the surface of the moon will be challenging.
Interesting idea about the space elevator. It stands to reason that a prototype would be tried on the moon long before it is done on Earth. Fun fact. Lunar Synchronous orbit is just over 130,000 miles (From the surface of the moon)
It only needs to be about 60000km (37000 miles) from the moons surface towards L1. However, you need about 150000 tons of graphene or carbon nanotubes to make it, because around 20Gpa tensile strength is needed. And it needs to be a full strength strand the entire length. Global anual production of graphene is about 20000 tons and around 100 tons of carbon nanotubes. The longest graphene strand made to date is 5cm (2 inches) and the longest carbon nanotube strand is 14cm (6 inches).
You need to get the material to the moon though, which would be very expensive too. You could make it on the moon, but you need to process 20000 tons of regolith to get 1 ton of carbon. At 150000 tons required to make the strand, that is 3 billion tons of regolith. The largest mines on earth process around 2-3 million tons of ore per year. In total the iron ore, copper ore and lithium ore processing turns over around 6 billion tons on earth per year…
Debunked to death a decade ago.
2:02 - thanks for the mention. We'll keep on getting you where you need to get to.
First you. Gotta build the infrastructure ON THE MOON!
Or they just take it with them.
@@Barskor1 lol that sounds inefficient and illogical for the US.... if the US are going to bring their home with them, they better plan it all before squeezing it into a little rocket..... if the US thought space missions were expensive 70 yrs ago!!! then lugging a caravan into space and making it liveable will cost the Americans a frikking arm and a leg!!! better stop those wars then
@@antwango For the US government sure as they couldn't save a penny to save their own lives for SpaceX that is another kettle of fish. Space missions 70 years ago did not have reusable rockets have a nice day.
One potential mineral resource evident in the CUDOs (Compact Ultra Dense Objects) in the asteroid belt might be present on the moon. What if impacts of CUDOs are responsible for the moon's Mascons, areas of dense mass and therefore higher gravity? Gravitic influence on nearby objects indicates one or more unknown stable elements of extreme atomic weight comprising asteroidal CUDOs. What might be the properties, uses, and value of such elements?
May I suggest Kibblesworth Station as the first stop in the lava-tube train? There are *excellent* ramen noodle shops there, one is Ichiraku, and Temari is quite good
Let's hope the Chinese are successful on a manned mission with positive results
The side that faces us is not always in daylight. Good grief.
Yeah, I noticed that. Whoever called the other side The Dark Side of the Moon did not think through the public perceptions.
I didn't hear him say dark side once. He said far side
@@jenniferdeen3527 he said the Apollo missions needed to land on the near side because they needed to be in daylight. What he should have said was that they needed to land on the near side to be in constant radio contact without multiple orbiting relays.
@@MattNolanCustom ok ty for clarifying, I missed that.
I think its great that China shares this data with the world.
As a person with Irish, English, and German blood - born in the USA, for some reason, I have always been drawn to the United Kingdom, and it's amazing and varied People. Starting with "the Sword in the Stone" to Star Trek, and Star Wars - the ideas of Monarchy, and Empire - verses Democracy, and Corporatocracy, as well as the Human Spirit, and Vastly Higher forms of intelligence seem to adequately summarize all that is great, and all that is degenerate about Humanity. these organizational themes - have an essential bearing on our future. Lastly - Clarke's ideas about Non Human Intelligence , and its impact on Humanity.... may just be the Most consequential effects ... to come. Thanks for all your "nuts, and bolts" details on these matters.
Brits became miscegnated only in recent history.
It is possible the moon was originally carbon-deleted, but we can expect carbonaceous asteroids (C-type) to pelt the moon on a regular basis. It should be concentrated specifically in those impact sites with some minimal fallout over a wider area, That they think it is connected with vulcanism is surprising. Remember you can have that same kind of high temperature with an asteroid impact.
My thought as well. 👍
@@wiregold8930same.
Yup.
He has a weird China thing going on I have never understood.
It’s absolutely silly to think that a few moon rocks from Apollo missions lacking carbon means the rest of the entire moon has the same concentration of carbon. Nothing is that consistent on any planet.
Obviously, finding any location having what you need is still a challenge but don’t act surprised at such things.
The variety on our planet proves that.
I doubt this will aid Artemis 3. For ISRU to be effective, you'll need the hardware and infrastructure setup there in order to support that. Not to mention the need to develop, deploy, and test that hardware in the first place, seeing as how we've never actually done anything like this before.
If we put the resources together and with luck we could produce as much as 1 L of lunar rocket fuel by 2054.
Excellent Reporting 👍
All commercials viewed over 45 seconds.
Maybe starship can bring 2000 cows and a digester 😂
'Space Karen' just might.
Starship can barely make a ballistic orbit.
at about 1400 lbs each, its going to take a few trips to get your herd to the Moon. theres also no grass on the moon ( yet)
@@JoePistritto
Baby moo, baby…
Plus, it was joke.
Although, it isn’t a joke to consider how to make use of waste. Collecting methane is one. Also, earthworms can detox contaminated soil and help it by killing bad bacteria, and cultivating good bacteria in their guts. They spread a substance called chitin, which is beneficial to plants.
Hydroponics and aquaponics are good, but disease can take out a system quickly, as can other issues. Setting up growing tunnels with a soil based on treated humanure would create a renewable biome. Solar powered lights, water, a digester, earthworms, and compost from foods and plant waste. Self pollinators or perhaps introduce honey bees. I’d set up for fish and chickens, both of which add nutrients for soil.
On the down side, worms like to eat fungus, so balancing the necessary fungi and worms would be important.
Mini cows could provide milk, if there is someday a way to grow their fodder. Mini jerseys that have A2A2 genes, for less protein problems.
Or sheep. Goats are good, but they can be destructive. They ate the screens on the feed room windows. But they do smell…there is a definite sheep and goat odor, although, maybe their lanolin would be useful?
Imagine a large tunnel in a circle. The cows move through it, a section a day. The chickens follow and scratch up the missed poop that doesn’t go to compost or digester. The grass recovers and grows until the animals come back around.
There would need to figure out uses for urine. The salts are harmful and build up. Enzymes break down the salts, but there needs to be a use for the component molecules.
Well, that was fun…
Have a good one!
i dobt it fake meat labs take up much less space and also row ut much faster. and no space to grow cow food cows on mooon very inifient.
lol, according to the text commentary you were "riding fairies" and not ferries lol
Makes you wonder what samples Apollo missions brought back.
Pieces of Captain Kangaroo's studio parking lot.
why is it so hard to build a self sustained colony on the moon? whatever happened to those 3d printers that used to be talked about so much a few years ago
They can launch "gas stations" into lunar orbit. Keeping the refueling station in orbit would save you the fuel needed to land it tanker on the moon. Having it in obit would also allow follow up missions to mars or whatever to top off their tanks.
Thanks!
Thanks so much for your generous support!!
Thanks for your effort on these videos, as a space fan they are greatly appreciated!
Commenting to help the algorithm
That doesn't look like it sucks to live there
Great report! Have a great space vaca!
I'm glad that you explained this. And, great graphics by the way!
Hopefully NASA won't let the astronauts 'strand' on the moon and discuss how to eliminate helium leak and heat shield issue on the ground
Hope you enjoy it over our side of the pond , it's cold up north but enjoy chap 👍👍
Glad you made it home safely! AA rules!
The Moon aka Luna aka a battle damaged Andromedan biosphere from the last planetary war that destroyed Mars atmosphere and planet Tiamat aka Maldek with debris settling on earth and the asteroid belt.
That's no moon!
Imagine their surprise to find both Moon and Mars currently 'occupied'... both human and otherwise. Interesting times ahead 😉
Its will be covered up like it always has been.
Anyone else thinking Isaac Asimov's Foundation series?
A lunar foundation?
wow, you did a positive spaceX starship video!!!
I watched the Shetland TV series and fell in love with the place and I envy you for being there.
Apollo had to both land in day light and with line of sight to earth 🌎. The latter restriction was what prevented landing on the backside of the Moon.
What kind of equipment will it take to mine and refine rocket fuel from the environment?
What powers that?
I’d like to see such a unit run here on earth
Four basic pieces of equipment that all exist and have been tested over and over in many university labs and research labs across the world. The tech for each bit of equipment has been understood for 100 years or more, the trick is to design it to operate on the Moon and Mars, to meet your mission goals, to be compact enough to fit in your spacecraft, and durable/reliable enough to function autonomously for a long time without needing a human to adjust or repair something.
The equipment:
1. A reverse water/gas shift reactor (RWGS reactor) - this is basic chemistry, not a nuclear thing.
2. A Sabatier ("sabat-yay") reactor (ditto)
3. A cryogenic liquifyer (the parts of which are old tech honed to very high performance: compressors, heat exchangers, expansion turbines, etc.)
4. A cryogenic liquid storage system for both the oxygen and the methane (or hydrogen), which obviously need to be kept separate, and kept at cryogenic temperatures/pressures indefinitely, so you still have them when you need them
Oh, and one important system that's relatively new but already in use exactly as it will need to be used anywhere there's a fuel depot: the pipes, compressors, valves, attachment interfaces, etc. to pump your ISRU rocket fuel into the craft you are refueling! Note how "lossy" these systems are. Rockets end up venting a significant amount of off-gassed cryofuel during the fueling-up process on Earth. There are probably ways to reduce those losses or recover and re-liquify those gases; will it be worth it to do so on the Moon, or should we just account for the overage we'll need? Probably both...
I'm more amazed you could get enough signal to upload from the Shetlands.
And the American didn't find any graphene in all the material they "brought" from the Moon! How "strange"!
If this allows Starship to make fuel for the return would it be a bonus to make a surplus and partially refuel the tanker Starship in LEO? Regain some of the fuel in the orbital depot by taking advantage of the lower gravity of the moon.
what happened to the helium 3 that was so abundant on the moon for a fuel source?
It's still up there. We just haven't fully figured out fusion power yet. Deuterium is easier to use (maybe?) and is much more abundant on Earth and Mars than on the Moon... but when we get fusion dialed in, we can scale up to He3 fusion, and bam, those lunar He3 deposits will be valuable. ...as fuel. Right now they are valuable for scientific study, they aren't "worthless."
We must assume Apollo samples are fake. You know why.
I reckon SpaceX should attempt to send an unmanned starship to the moon on a one way trip as soon as they have reached the point of in orbit refuelling to make it possible, its probably going to be easier than waiting for a reusable ship that can return to earth and a crew dragon can be used to transfer crew.
Thanks. New subscriber, appreciate the content, all the best
Shetland by Ferries to the Spaceport!
The Apollo missions were cancelled because the old guard thought it easier to bleed money from warmongering than from space faring. We had Viet Nam or moon landings, but not both. Today the choice is more Ukraine (& similar) warfare or developing interplanetary civilization.
Develop the dream or let let bullets scream.
A Space Elevator on the Moon is far more feasible at our current technological level & would pay huge dividends for lunar exploration & construction.
How will exoplanetary resources be brought back to earth...in a cost effective manner? Is there any viable plan to actually bring back resources in a way that makes sense?
I imagine there will be a long ramp up period where we will put lots of money and resources to keep things going.
If we can manufacture medicine stuff, fiber optics, etc, things that cost cheap but have high profit margins can be shipped by Dream Chaser.
A different class of stuff are minerals, Earth has them cheap but they are expensive for LEO and Cis-Lunar economy, build stations and ships, propellants.
At some point in 50 years we might have a moon industry for infrastructure development and structural components.
Keep in mind: by far, the #1 use for space resources is to enable the economical bootstrapping of further space development; actually being able to afford to STAY in space, since constantly having to transport every single atom needed from Earth is cost-prohibitive. (Just as: if colonists to the New World had to transport every single atom they needed from Old World to New World would have meant THEY never wouldn’t have been able to stay as well). It would take something totally unusual to actually be exported back to Earth economically. For example, in the original movie Total Recall, the guy who ran Mars became rich because a particular mineral was discovered on Mars that was a perfect energy source to power….weapons on Earth! Unfortunately a vey realistic-sounding way to export things to Earth to make money.
We could already build a space elevator in theory. the problem lies in manufacturing, studies have shown that a graphene strand has to be atom perfect in structure or it will rip apart and we have no way to reach such a perfection in an industrial scale.
A space elevator sounds great but for one thing, It can never be built on Earth while 10,000's - 100,000's of satellites are aloud to orbit earth, just one collision at 30,000+ km/hr and boom there goes the cable, cable car and all the passengers or cargo. A space elevator by nature has to be static, i.e. it sits over the same spot on earth along the equator and as it currently stands you cant have thousands of satellites a day whizzing past, even if they could take avoiding action, which by the way is currently a problem with the satellites currently in orbit and Elon Musk wants to put 30-40 thousand in orbit, Jeff Besos's Blue origin wants to add 10,000's more then there is every military and government agency around the world with there own satellites, not to mention all the other private space faring companies. Unless the earth is prepared to do without any satellites inside the orbit of the moon, a space elevator is DEAD in space.
Nice update.
Did Elon have reason to suspect in advance the Chinese would find what they did?
Space elevator. Impractical. Because : conductor moving in a magnetic field.
Might make a good engine or power plant. But that would require turning the problem (electricity) around, and taking advantage of it.
"By volcanic interactions..". I'm wondering how it would be different to Stellar Ejecta interactions. What happens on a planet when a great goop of stuff in ejected during a sun spot eruption and that hits a planet?
Hey Angry, why is it that there’s more footage of the Apollo landings than we have of the recent rover landings? The most I’ve seen is some footage from Chinas rover landing. It just strikes me as odd, plenty say there are things up there they don’t want us to see; but why else might more footage not be released to the public?
Even If they cannot make CH4 on the moon Making Oxygen has never been a problem so they always had the option of bringing along some extra CH4 and making the Oxygen to go with it in SITU of course making both is even better.
Starship requires SO MUCH fuel to lift off by itself.
How is that supposed to work on Mars?
One way Trips? Not for Me !
Mars is only 1/3 the gravity of Earth.
@@snorman1911 Earth will be very far away.
Elon said it will extensively use the Sabatier process to make lots and lots of methane (Mars atmosphere is 96% CO2).
Since Mars has a much thinner atmosphere and low gravity well, it will use much less propellant than launching from Earth.
You will be able to flight back if you are willing to wait 22 months fro the next orbital window.
@@davidmacphee3549 Orbital mechanics. Need fuel for take off and a few insertion burns, that's it, the rest of it is done on cold gas thrusters.
Dock to a mars orbit insertion stage of one of these DARPA nuclear engines?
Interesting. Thanks.
Maybe explain the effect on man and equipment, of “Moon Lung Disease”… and see how enthusiastic you can then be 😂
How are the astronauts going to pass through the Van Allen radiation belt?
Cool movies. Weird that China couldn't spring for a cheap camera drone to fly along there in low Earth orbit at 5:10 and take a few vid shots. Weird to have to rely on the animated films.
It’ll be interesting to see what other discoveries China makes. Or reports things that NASA has been hiding.
What could they be hiding? As I ask sarcastically.😂
Welcome to the UK😊 Hmmm lunar land grab for resources?
Funny that it takes 12 hours to get to the Shetlands in the UK from the UK, when you could get halfway around the world in the same time in a plane.
I was literally just thinking about this problem today and wondering if SpaceX might develop a hydrolox version of the Starship upper stage exclusively for the moon.
That's a hell of a coincidence. Hopefully the carbon is abundant and easy to mine.
So what’s the ball park estimate on how long it will take the US to get its technology together to achieve a landing on the moon, as I’ve read by using the Starship launch system it’ll take at least 12 starship launches just to facilitate 1 single landing
Depends on who's talking, and whether they know you are listening. Most of the experts & enthusiasts whose judgment seems sound are guessing from four to ten years, depending on a lot of variables and on how certain things play out.
For instance, the obvious random variable: it really is possible for Starship/Superheavy to successfully make orbit (a circularized one, with perigee well above the Karman line this time) and successfully stick both landings (the SuperHeavy catch and the Starship catch). Chances are slim, it would be a hat trick for sure, but it isn't impossible. It is equally possible that Starship might take two more years before making orbit, and an additional year (full of spectacular failures) before SpaceX can catch both of them successfully.
Add two to three years to prove successful and substantial propellant transfer in orbit.
Now you're at either three or six years from now (2027 or 2030). Assuming the Lunar Starship has been developed and ground-tested during all that time, that's your first Lunar Starship test flight... which will probably orbit the Moon and return to LEO without landing immediately.
Depending on fuel boil-off rates and other test data, the Lunar Starship may need to be topped off or serviced somehow in LEO (remember, it cannot re-enter Earth's atmosphere, ever). That could take weeks or it could take most of a year.
Now you're at mid-2027 or 2031, or somewhere in between.
Now the Lunar Starship leaves LEO for LLO and lands, autonomously. Successfully? Let's assume so. It deploys a bunch of cargo on the lunar surface, testing its big outer airlock doors, its davits, the elevator platform, etc. then launches back to LEO. That whole mission might only last a week, if it's successful. It could return to LEO by Thanksgiving 2027...
If for some reason the Lunar Starship cannot return to LEO (it crashed on the Moon, it stuck the landing but toppled over, it landed but couldn't deploy its cargo and is too heavy to return to LLO with its current minimal fuel load, something important broke, etc.), a new Lunar Starship had better be ready to roll out and launch, be refueled on orbit (ten additional refueling launches might only take five weeks or five months at that point). All the failure analysis and retooling of the second Lunar Starship could take a couple of months or it could take a year. We're calculating the longer timeframe, so let's add a year. The second Lunar Starship does its thing autonomously on the Moon and succeeds, returning to LEO by Christmas 2032. It needs refueling of course: assume weeks not months, by that time.
Will it be human-rated at this point?
It will have had a crewed flight around the Moon already, so probably, yes.
Will the human crew be ready to go immediately? Or will the flight data need to be examined with a fine-toothed comb first? The latter is most likely.
There you go. First Artemis Project crew lands a Lunar Starship on the Moon in 2033 or 2034 sometime, about ten years from now.
This whole scenario assumes Starship success. I'm just showing you how it truly could be either five years or ten years, depending on good luck vs. bad luck concerning all potential regulatory issues, funding issues, SpaceX leadership or operational issues, whether equipment tests succeed or fail, etc.
I hope this helps!
It will benefit everyone on the planet until something goes wrong!
What source of energy will be used to produce lunar rocket fuel? That would be question #1.
If Needed Liftoff Jets would be fitted or Spacex would find other solution. Or just send Extra Starship with return Full.
There was already a good amount of carbon on the moon "The presence of lunar carbon is mostly due to solar wind carbon implanted in bulk regolith. Carbon is present in carbon-bearing ices at the lunar poles in concentrations as high as 20% by weight. However, most carbon-bearing ices have a 0-3% by weight carbon concentration." The Lunar graphene found is relatively miniscule in quantity, and would require conversion. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_resources#:~:text=Carbon%20is%20present%20in%20carbon,3%25%20by%20weight%20carbon%20concentration.
Yes, that made me watch the entire video, this naming of names right at the start of the video.
A shout out and thank you to all those that are actively supporting Jordan. I appreciate it. I really enjoy his content, but not able to be a big supporter at the moment. Thanks to you. I can enjoy his content.
I think you mean a VERY future SpaceX mission. I mean it's not like you just plonk down and make fuel, store it and have a ready gas station ready for the star ship. I WISH IT WERE SO! :(
Better late than not at all.
On Mars, it's almost that good, even if you have to bring the H2 initially. The trouble with lunar ISRU is that anything it has to offer is rock-bound.
more investigation is needed. I don't believe a single word coming from that place...
Almost makes you wonder...what are the odds of life baring planets with a moon that would be in abundance of graphene? Are we just luck? Is it by chance?
Can the Raptors be switched to Hydrogen for the Lunar Lander? Booster/Sharship can use Methane while Lunar Lander is Hydro/Oxy combo.
That's what I was thinking.
But is Hydrogen not a lot more difficult to seal in tanks?
Flexfuel rocket engine who would have thought of that? lets call GM!
@@LG-ct8tw
😂
@@LG-ct8tw Merica!
Space elevators are not possible, The end point has to be geo-synched and in order to not fall back to Earth it has to be 40,000 km up. I don't know how you build such a structure or how much it will cost to build and ship or how you achieve the stability of the station or how you get the energy to move the elevator up or down or how you maintain the whole thing etc. etc. And most importantly- what for?
The methalox ratio for raptor is something like 4/5th oxygen. Hydrogen in situ may actually be more problematic than just taking 1/5th your propellent there in the foreseeable future.
Nice job
Space elevators can't happen unless the orbits the tether & cars cross in clear of all objects - even a piece as small as a pea travelling 17,000mph will cause quite a lot of damage to those windows.
the wolf amendment will end up being one of the worst geopolitical mistakes the US has ever done at this rate
Haha. One of many~
If you want to continue living freely, you and your children, CCP ruled China cannot be allowed to grow anymore then it has. And cooperation with China isn't a good idea. Stay informed about geopolitics. The CCP is dangerous and treacherous. It cannot be trusted.
I still can’t believe that humans walked on the moon…🙁
There is a special case. Refine the oxygen on the moon, bring the methane from Earth, or even just blocks of carbon. Heat the lunar ice water to pressurised steam in a solar boiler and run it through the carbon to produce methane. Process the leftover oxygen compounds through electrolysis to recover the oxygen.
The trick is that by mass oxygen accounst for 5/6ths of the total propellant mass. So even just supplying oxygen for the propellant greatly reduces the mass needed to be brought from Earth.
For every KG we elevate to the moon don’t we reduce the moon’s orbit by an equal and opposite amount?
Couldn’t that become disastrous
No. That's not how orbits work.
Go china, that's a heck of an achievement. They should be proud, every human should be proud too. Space brings us together
We all know what CCP wants with the moon and why it chose its operations on the dark side. China is great, CCP is a disgrace.
You'd think, but China is not a nice space neighbor. Don't expect China to share any samples without outlandish strings attached.
It's funny in that a quest to get off earth brings humanity together.
@venturefanatic9262 why would they share?
@@jeremygalloway1348 In the name of Scientific pursuit?
I know the Chinese use a mixture of kerosene and liquid oxygen to power their rockets. Why don’t they use methane, a better source of fuel?