What Will Happen If America Cancels the SLS and Starship Moon Rockets?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 1 окт 2024
- Will America Destroy Its Lunar Landing Program? And Can America Catch China on the Race for the Moon? And What Else is New in Space?
Sierra Space is Surging Forward wtih New Innovations! Dream Chaser will fly soon on the new Vulcan rocket system by ULA. Listen to their team explain the development of these amazing systems including the Dream Chaser Reaction Control System and the LIFE Habitat Module.
Shop the Academy store at...
shop.spreadshi...
Please help support our channel at...
/ terranspaceacademy
Thank you so much for watching!
Ad Astra Pro Terra
Artists
/ c_bass3d
/ labpadre
/ neopork85
/ hazegrayart
/ alexsvanart
/ _fragomatik_
/ nickhenning3d
/ rgvaerialphotos
Companies
/ nasa
/ spacex
www.cochranex.com
/ blueorigin
/ space_ryde
/ virgingalactic
/ relativityspace
/ neutronstarsys
Credits
ULA
NASA
CNSA
SpaceX
Bigelow Aerospace
Starship Troopers Invasion
“Make NASA great again!” should be the mantra for the space industries.
That and limit contracts to Boeing until they fix their numerous QC/QA issues.
I can’t believe they fixed the 737 Max bolt issues this quickly.
They also should not be allowed to bid on the Next Gen fighter project after the disastrous Starliner build.
They didn't. Just tightened them down. The problem was QC. If you "remove" the panel, taking off all the bolts, it must be inspected but if you "open" the panel, which also requires removing all the bolts, no inspection is required.
@@terranspaceacademy Boeing is the worst company in America. It's a revolving door, where the gov folks that award them Billions and Billions, then get hired in exchange for directing the contracts to Boeing. NASA and the DOD keep giving them huge contracts for stuff that they never end up delivering. It's totally outrageous.
Boeing isn't going to because they derive from incompetent managerial decisions which are not going to be reversed -- the Invisible Hand of the Market is guiding us towards more dangerous air travel.
I'm glad that Sierra Space greatly exceeded the strength specs. With launch costs dropping, i hope they won't try to remove every possible gram from the module's mass. Being overdesigned should lead to a longer lifespan in orbit. Note that one Russian module was (probably) designed to spec, and it's gradually failing due to unexpected stresses.
Indeed. The helicopter on Mars shows the benefit of going above and beyond.
While I commend Sierra Space highly for their DreamChaser and LIFE modules, from the way they talk, it would seem that they launch on Sierra Space rockets. Which they don't.
I noticed that too. And the "We're working on solutions for THIS planet" dig at SpaceX. Planetist!
Dreams chaser, Starship they all should be sustained by NASA. Starship has its role to play and nothing prevents SpaceX to builds the second stage that will be different then the actual Starship or adapt the heavy booster for the Dreams Chaser also.
What is your tough about different roles to play.
They could put a dozen Dream Chaser's in a Starship I think :-) The first Starship "space station" in orbit will obviate almost everything else. Then use Dragon to crew and Dream Chaser as a life boat/low g experiment return capsule. They'll be a great combination.
@@terranspaceacademy "Dream Chaser's" means "belonging to Dream Chaser"; the apostrophe is never used to pluralize -- "Dream Chasers".
I didn’t know Sierra space is in Wisconsin. I’m right on the Illinois Wisconsin border. Maybe a visit is in order. Ad Astra pro Tara.
Take pictures! You can be our remote correspondent!
Let's go Professor!
Enjoy!
I do thank you for your video. @@terranspaceacademy
I still think Alpaca was the best lunar lander for bulk and large cargo.
It was cool but SO expensive!
No, ALPACA never existed and it does not exist, but it may yet exist. The failure to use the subjunctive mood and the blurring of the lines between the tenses renders meaningful communication very difficult or impossible irrespective of the subject.
@@terranspaceacademy No, it wasn't a cool or uncool lunar lander; it wasn't because it has not been built. "It was a proposal ..." (Spacecraft Wiki). All of you failing to draw any lines between the real and the unreal have a great time exchanging words with one another, but you don't make much sense.
Too expensive and would take too long.
@rdbchase
Quit being egotistical and playing semantic and/ or syntactical games. No on cares.
Great footage from Sierra Space 🙂 I wish them luck. Start in April!
Indeed! I've been pulling for them for a long time.
Thank you @GreyDeathVaccine and @TerranSpaceAcademy, we are looking forward to Dream Chaser's first launch.
About Boeing´s decision to throw out engineers of top management: When I studied mechanical engineering half a century ago, we used to tell science students "Scientists dream of changing the world. Engineers do it". Instead of scientists, the same applies to decision makers unaffected by knowledge of engineering.
It was a very sad choice...
have they inflated and then shot it with a 30-06 ?
bursting it is required however hitting it with a "micro meteorite" or space junk would be the next logical step
I would love to see the results
I like that but this is Murica! 50 cal BMG!!!
I agree. NASA should get at least 1% of the US budget, by LAW. That way we (NASA) could fund more companies like Sierra Space. While I admire China's successes, they scare me.
Exactly! It is a matter of national security.
I think it needs an increase but it also needs less waste.
The last few missions to the Moon - from Roscosmos and Jaxa - have failed because of some thrusters.
From the time of Gemini 8, when Armstrong and Scott were imperilled, and the mission terminated, because of a defective thruster, the first SLS mission where some of the 12 thrusters of the Orion capsule failed, to the latest Russian and Japanese mission were lost because of the thrusters, it got to be something, don't you think, because the thrusters fail so often? It is the actuator valves to fail usually; they must control the flow of some nasty chemicals - like hydrazine or nitrogen tetroxide. But there are no excuses: in the Apollo missions, not one thruster's valve failed.
The most disastrous valve failure was onboard a Soyuz, where a cabin air pressurisation valve was stuck open after deorbiting, when for the occasion the cosmonauts weren't provided with a pressure suit.
The valves are indeed the problem often. Hypergolics corrode them, cryogenics cause them to "weld" etc.
The Japanese lander failed due to a main engine failure - one of the two engines had a nozzle blow off on landing.
Citizens United, was one of the worst things ever from the supreme Court.
We agree. Legalized bribery.
Particularly since it doesn’t differentiate between US and foreign companies.
Donald Trump pocketed millions from foreign governments via his companies while President.
Why, Elon will start taking colonists to Mars all the sooner, of course! What a silly question! You know what SpaceX' slogan is, don't you?
Mars or Bust! No wait. Ad Martis Pro Elon! That's it!
@@terranspaceacademy Can't be a fanboy and a realist; they're mutually exclusive.
A big problem is making rocket fuel on Mars. It may be technically possible, but very impractical. The power and equipment needed might require dozens of Starship landings before a single starship can make the trip back to Earth. And that would be in addition to everything else that is required - habitats, food, science stuff, etc.. Finding water may not be easy when it's ice as hard as rock, who knows where, contaminated with perchlorates and regolith. It will need to be mined, transported, melted, and then purified - requiring even more power. And that is just the water part.. you need more power for the Sabattier process to make the Methane! I would not let SpaceX send ANYONE until they can prove there is a realistic way home. . otherwise, they will be marooned.
@@ericmatthews8497 Starship has yet to achieve Earth orbit, but the fanboys long since imagine it will make innumerable trips to Mars.
Humanoid robot use in space?
"Welcome to the Terran Space Academy, where we prepare robots for a great future in the space industry." ;)
They'll all have AI brains soon. THEN we'll see who's laughing :-)
As for Mike Griffin's "bring back Constellation" speech - he was by far the most technically competent NASA administrator we've ever had. He has multiple engineering master's degrees and a PhD, as well as an MBA. And yet he was one of the least effective NASA administrators, because he seems to not understand Congress and how to navigate budgets and government contractors. He also seems to be locked into the Apollo 2.0 mentality rather than moving on to a more sustainable space future. His second successor, Jim Bridenstine, by contrast was barely qualified technically, and yet he was the most successful administrator I've worked under (27 years now) because he was a Congressional insider, giving him mad skills navigating committees and budgets, and also knew how to leverage the excitement around space being generated by private companies and mold that into excitement about Artemis. Griffin should take a page from Bridenstine and move into the 21st century. where we're already on the path to a space economy worthy of our hopes and dreams!
That does seem to be true James. Just like many former astronauts fought hard against commercial space...
If a design works, why not copy it? China only saving on design and development time...and their space station looks pretty nice and clean compared to the ISS. I didn't think DreamChaser totally removed the option for humans, just focussed on cargo at this point. How will things change now that NASA's monopoly on space access/launches has been at least partially broken? Will be interesting to watch. Thanks for another amazing video.
Good point and you are most welcome.
TOTALLY Agree..!!! 👽👽🤠👽🏗🚀
Thank you :-)
The problem isn't with companies donating money to political campaigns. The problem is the assumption that (contrary to the 10th Amendment) the Federal government has virtually unlimited power to do anything. When the government wields that kind of power, picking winners and losers, it's rational for companies and individuals to fund the people who will pick the donors as winners.
We could not agree more. Perhaps the Supreme Court will rule better on this one. It's in front of them right now.
@@terranspaceacademy So you want to end all federal regulation, which protects us! Trumpanzee?
@@terranspaceacademy You want to dismantle the system of federal regulation which has served to protect our food, air, and water, do you?
@@rdbchaseYou would sell your ability to take care of yourself to the government if they told you they’d protect you from Eurasia.
@@JayVal90 Unbelievably oblivious of American history. You cannot have read 'The Jungle' which provided the impetus to protect our food by means of the establishment of the Food and Drug Administration. You propose self-protection to combat threats to the environment, which is just nonsensical. Commercial air travel became safe due to government regulation and what has happened to Boeing is due to neglect in enforcing regulation -- "take care of yourself" is completely unhinged from reality. The history of federal regulation is generally one of protection of the American People against corporate threats, not the aggrandizement of government power and you would throw it all over to be replaced with nothing. I can't respond adequately or appropriately because of RUclips's insidious censorship.
11:12 I wonder if their whole operation depends on being first to market?
Good question...
@@terranspaceacademy I also wonder why they specifically stated that they were developing their tech/product for earth and they aren’t planning on going anywhere. It’s was a strange statement
@danwhiffen9235
A swipe at musk. They seem to dislike him. Despite the fact they would probably not exist if not for spacex rejuvenating the market.
That’s the second time you’ve referenced citizen’s united. It’s as if you are advocating for a govt for and by the people or something. Don’t the wealth shareholders of large multinational corporations have rights too?😂
Well of course I... BANG... thump.
When you see polite expert souls talking like this you must know something is almost very wrong and must be fixed with direct confrontation of naive hopes.
We can hope for the best and still prepare for the worst. Trust by verify.
It is so true that scientists and engineers no matter the race are always restricted by the degree of latitude and funding their bosses afford them. A little modification on the Dragon or Dragon XL and we could return to the moon before China sets foot on it and stake our claim. Then work on a base and space station of which a lot of projects are already in the works. I hope with all my heart that this can be so. Loved your video and it struck a chord with me and set me to typing. Just keep on dreaming and we may get there.
You too Kevy, and thank you so much for your kind words.
I disagree with the fearmongering over a Chinese Moon base. If the Chinese were to start shooting at American spacecraft, they'd be starting World War III. If WWIII starts (with a Moon base attack or otherwise), lack of a Moon base would be the least of our worries. In addition to the nukes vaporizing cities, both sides would start shooting at each other's satellites, creating a Kessler Cascade that would leave the Chinese taikonauts stranded with no hope of resupply, and nobody gets to go to space for centuries.
One way or another, zero-sum competition will get us all killed if we keep it up.
The Chinese cannot match us militarily on the Earth for decades. Take out our satellites and you haven't killed anyone but America's advantage is suddenly gone. Then a hundred million troops making it across because we can't track them all would settle the matter. They are playing the long game.
@@terranspaceacademy Can't think clearly about matters military either; no surprise. Ever heard of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD)? We do not have the means to prevent nuclear annihilation in war with a nuclear-armed adversary and neither do the Chinese -- this should impel rational people to turn to negotiation rather than fantasies of achieving some illusory sort of superiority, but crazier and crazier people are coming to power.
I know I've spoke of this before, but I still don't have a 3d printer to test it, so I can only talk about it.
...
Take a tube, closed but hollow. Full of *water.* the inner wall is textured and hidrophilic except in one inner end, at that end the end wall is smooth and hydrophobic.
At *that end* there's a ring, that is also textured and hidrophilic, and connected to the solid tube via engine.
I.E.
They spin counter to eachother.
So the inner wall now has spin gravity.
And at one end, that gravity is *reduced.* because they ring counters it.
*what Happens?*
There's a cycle of the water.
On the Floor/wall it flows toward the ring.
At the rings end, that spin gravity is reduced because of the ring(it moves counter to the tube) thus the water there have the opprotunity to go to the low pressure area in the inner volume of the tube.
I.E. flows in the center back to other end.
At the wall/floor, that flow is *slowed* by the same texture that shared with it the angular acceleration of the spin gravity. I.E. it takes some of that forward momentum.
On the inside, it just slows the cycle. So pushes at the ends both get reduced.
Interesting...
@@terranspaceacademy
Thanks.
If I was actuallt a maker I would have made it by now. Years ago really. Twenty years, but I never quite had the time and money to at best buy and use a 3d printer, or you know, make something like it...
But, I have no idea where to even begin.
Thank you for that. It was excellently presented and well said.
You're very welcome
Even if Starship technical challenges can be perfected - Catching Boosters, Orbital Fuel Transfers, Starship re-entry and thermal protection system, Starship landings, and (what I fear will be the most difficult) Rapid Reuse. Starship will still have at least one completely unmitigated issue. The number of Starship tanker operations required to support a single Deep Space mission has ballooned to unrealistic numbers. At 10 to 16 launches, this would be an extreme amount of operational and logistic complexity, that will drive NASA mission planners crazy. And Starship also may not be as "Sustainable" as everyone hoped. Starship tankers may wear out quickly from the wear and tear of such routine flights.
I wouldn't cancel SLS just yet. It may be expensive, but it can get a Payload to a Lunar orbit in a single launch. And of course .. Starship might just fail.
That is an issue. Which is why I think they should go non-reusable three stage for the first Moon missions.
Or just don’t reuse starship.
@@jamskinner Even then .. You're looking at at least 6 Super Heavy Boosters and Starships costing probably 1.5 billion dollars .. all in. A 2 billion dollar SLS to achieve the same goal with the simplicity of a single launch (and not a dozen) would be the right choice. If I were a NASA Mission Planner, I would take information to Congress and DEMAND more money for SLS. It's the better launch Vehicle. What we have right now from SpaceX .. is INSANITY. And I seriously doubt they can make it rapidly reusable. The Orbital Launch Mount alone is taking week to refurbish after every launch. What SpaceX is proposing just isn't helping NASA achieve success.
All this doesn't matter, because SpaceX signed the deal. They are contracted to provide HLS, and I think that NASA should hold them to that contract .. no matter what. They already have almost all of the 2.9 billion dollars, and will certainly not be making any profit on the Artemis program. in fact, they will loose billions. This combined with the Starlink dud will have a severe impact on this company .. as it should. Bad companies suffer their bad decisions.
Why do these guys always have to take swipes at musk? My guess is it’s political.
It's a lot of things... politics, jealousy, and legitimate gripes. If he would focus on what's important and quit saying inflammatory things just to shock people and get attention things would settle down. He burned through a tremendous amount of good will by being childish.
the surrection of mars should give humanity infinite economy -as all of earth is to export to mars and everything from mars will be valuable
(as eternal manifest as rockets -let rockets be totem for all of humanity )
I don't think google translate is doing its job... Didn't follow that.
@@terranspaceacademyto master a solar system as identity is a talent to explore -for everyone alive and everyone to come alive for all of eternity
(rockets are eternal )
Well another excellently outlined analysis of the situation thank you
You are most welcome!
There are a couple of cancelled reusable designs they could investigate. The SERV, or the Venture Star.
Anything that can only reach low earth orbit is somewhat useless. That was the big lesson from ISS. The only place you can get to from the ISS .. is back to the Earth.
I loved Venture Star...
@@terranspaceacademy Except that it wasn't very aerodynamical stable. What did you expect from a Flying Spud?
Better realistic criticism of systems that aren't measuring than blind acceptance of the mediocre. And China has come a long way. It is their culture to copy in substitute of innovation. Why do you think SLS will be canceled? Their Vulcan performed flawlessly first shot. Frankly space is too big to take our petty squabbles out there. There is plenty for everyone.
The same accusation of only copying and not innovating, was once leveled at Japan. China is merely pursuing the same general playbook: copy to catch up and industrialize as rapidly as possible, and _then_ start innovating once you're on par with the state of the art.
SLS is very expensive, and it's slooowwww (lots of delays). It's an easy target for Republican budget-hawks in an era when the US government can't even pass a normal budget.
Very true.
@@kevincrady2831 Starship is operationally and logistically complex. Oh yea.. and that is if it can be made to work perfectly. And even then, there are no crew safety systems planned for Starship. For NASA .. this is a deal breaker.
@@ericmatthews8497 Yep, and that's why the Starship "half" of the Artemis mission will also (probably) be canceled.
Hi 😊, saying I to all of my eñities🎉🎉
Cool :-)
❤❤❤❤❤
Thank you Paul!
There certainly is a risk of the current administration doing something crazy like cancelling Artemis solely to punish Elon. Hopefully this administration won’t be around much longer.
But what will the next one be like? I loved Bridenstein but who knows?
@@terranspaceacademy I like spacex’s odds a whole lot better not under Biden
Right -- you probably think that Traitor Trump is the victim of politically motivated prosecution too.
It's far more likely Elon will abandon the Artemis project since we have paid SpaceX nearly all the roughly 2.9 Billion dollars already...
And SpaceX is no where close to delivering anything - I think all we got a new HLS design a couple months ago.
One thing is certain.. SpaceX will lose big on the Artemis/HLS contract. It's time for financial markets to adjust SpaceX accordingly.
Elon should be punished by a court.
Thank You
Welcome!
I had the privilege of being present for most of Sierra's LIFE testing, including this full-scale burst test. It was preceded by a number of 1/3 scale tests for ultimate burst and for creep-burst. The pressure was triple for the 1/3 scale tests (to achieve the same stress in the shell), but because of the smaller volume there was less total energy. The full-scale burst was IMPRESSIVE! We were not allowed to test during work hours because of the hazard potential to the workers! It shook the block house where we were watching the test. (I was in the overflow room, not pictured in the video). The guy calling out pressures is the NASA test director. Most everyone else in that room was Sierra. There's a group shot of all of us by the test article that I've seen on some other videos, but it's not in the one you show here.
What! That's amazing! You are sooooo lucky.
@@terranspaceacademy Thanks. I've been working habitation from the NASA side, mostly on lunar surface and Mars transit. It's been great to see the testing from Sierra and from Lockheed-Martin. We have an in-house design too, which you can see in some public papers and presentations on the subject, but I feel confident we'll be choosing from one or both of these companies.
Fortunately; America isn't building Starship; so they can't cancel it.
And the upcoming space stations are going to be private, so those won’t be cancelled either. Not sure about gateway but the Axiom replacement for the ISS and Orbital Reef are the big ones and those are private.
Um.... Wrong. Sadly. And Elon Musk, as proud of him as I am, Needs to Keep his Mouth Shut, or Biden is going to destroy him. Anyone who doubts me needs to review history and look at what past presidents have done to captains of industry over the last 150 years.
Good point... But SpaceX won't go to the Moon in time otherwise.
@@terranspaceacademy
Spacex is only going to the moon for nasa money.
Their objective is mars.
Yes! Starship has proven its worth in two explosions -- it must be built!
Inflatable pressurised environments - in my opinion - should be for temporary use or for emergency lodging of astronauts.
The rationale behind my thought is that we don't know yet about the long term behaviour of tensile fibers under stress when they are continuously bombarded with high speed subatomic particles, x-rays, UV-rays; all of this while sustaining a continued - and brutal - thermal gradient.
I agree on building in orbit some of those pressurised habitats, and use them to store some supplies; after few years, if they didn't blew up, and the laboratory analysis indicate that the material hasn't degraded, at that point yes, authorise them for human Space activities...
Well, we will never know until we launch and assemble Stay Puff Marshmellow Station and find out.
Most studies show them to be more resilient than metal.
@@terranspaceacademy Correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't just one been flown and only briefly inflated? I suppose that translates to "extensively studied" on your alternate Earth.