The Artemis Gateway and SpaceX's Human Landing System: The Race for Return to the Moon
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 29 авг 2022
- Gateway is a critical part of NASA’s deep space exploration plans, along with the Space Launch System (SLS) rocket, Orion spacecraft and human landing system. As astronauts prepare for missions to the lunar surface, they will need deliveries of critical pressurized and unpressurized cargo, science experience and supplies, such as sample collection materials and other items. In March 2020, NASA awarded SpaceX as the first U.S. commercial provider under the Gateway Logistics Services contract to deliver cargo and other supplies to the lunar outpost on the SpaceX Dragon XL logistics module.
The agency’s powerful Space Launch System rocket will launch four astronauts aboard the Orion spacecraft for their multi-day journey to lunar orbit. There, two crew members will transfer to the SpaceX human landing system (HLS) for the final leg of their journey to the surface of the Moon. After approximately a week exploring the surface, they will board the lander for their short trip back to orbit where they will return to Orion and their colleagues before heading back to Earth.
NASA’s Artemis program will land astronauts on the Moon and reveal new knowledge about the Moon, Earth and our origins in the solar system. At the Moon, NASA and its partners will gain the experience necessary to mount a historic human mission to Mars.
Gateway model credit: Andreas Engevold
andreas93609.artstation.com
#starship #spacex #artemis 
Наука
I like the fact that Starship is commically large compared to the the Gateway Station. Cant wait to see this in real life!
Hahah yes
i mean it’s comically large on it’s own
There's a reason NASA's official website for Artemis doesn't have it docked to Gateway or Orion, it makes both look bad.
No habrá problemas de estabilidad ?? yo reduciría el tamaño del modulo lunar o aumentaba la estación lunar.
>could I have a lunar lander?
>only a spoonfull
The Starship Lunar lander is an absolute unit. I always knew it was big but only when it is side by side with the other craft, you see the difference.
When JFK's speech started I genuinally got goosebumps. Artemis 1 had some problems on the launch pad, and some may laugh at it, but those same ones may not remember how many difficulties NASA had to go through in the 60s "To Go to The Moon". And as John F. Kennedy said "Not because they are easy but because THEY ARE HARD!". But like back then we will eventually solve this problems and the many ones to come IN ORDER TO LET MANKIND HAVE ANOTHER LEAP FOREWARD, ON THE MOON SURFACE AND TOWARDS A BRIGHT NEW FUTURE!
Moon is not very bright. 🤔
I was a boy in the early 60's..watching a rocket blow up on the pad...was routine.
But they fixed the problems and went forward.
Fix Artemis and keep going forward.
@@MrGchiasson Going foreward is the only way. Faliure is the only way to learn in rocketry. Criticism and jokes are simply not allowed for such grand projects. We have the tech, the knowledge and the abilities to go once again to the Moon, eventually build there a colony, and even land on Mars. No step back once the battle is set. NASA must learn from it's errors and going on until the Objective is archived. For all Mankind and the sake of the generations to come... my sons and my grandsons (I am 25). What I want is that when they will ask me in 50 years what it was like to live in this times I will tell them of the courage and genius behind all this, watching them stare in amaze just like how I reacted when my grandpa and grandma told me of the Apollo mission, the Saturn V, and the '69 Moon Landing. So, keep going and never look back, NASA and SpaceX.
Don't worry we are going...and the next generation will go to Mars and the following will mine the astroids. Humans always try to go higher and faster.
The problems so far are very common and minor
Hazegrayart this is so beautiful! by far the most visually spectacular and detailed representation of Gateway, Starship HLS I've seen on RUclips. What's unbelievable is that this won't be the stuff of epic 3d renders for long... We are going!
SLS is going but what about HLS.. M
@@quadaerospacespacecat8061 The Lunar Starship shown in the video is under the HLS Option A contract for two landings, an unmanned test one and Artemis III. Since the Lunar Gateway seems to have at least 4 modules in this video, this would be after Artemis V, so would be under either the HLS Option B contract or under the Lunar Exploration Transportation Services (LETS) contract.
Visually stunning as always from this channel - those who say the concept looks wrong- I am old enough to remember the articles laughing at lunar orbit rendezvous and the Apollo spacecraft not looking like starship !
Does anybody else feel that it makes more sense if the Lunar Starship was the station itself?
Agreed. Send 3 or 4 starship there and add connecting module
no, crew cabin is tiny compared to size of the entire vehicle structure which is an empty shell, which was literally confirmed recently
@@alrightydave Source?
Think about it. It DOES make more sense, but why have the LG in the first place. Starship can do everything the LG is supposed to do plus carry people to the lunar surface. The LG is completely irrelevant and adds nothing to science or space exploration.
@@alrightydave Maybe they could vent out or burn the remaining fuel for water and convert the emptied tanks into pressurized habitats ("Wet Workshop")
If Starship is part of the project, the Gateway can certainly be built a lot larger, something like a rotating space station with sections of lunar and martian gravity.
Agree
Could build something like the Polaris station in for all mankind!
If
But if they can do it... then expansion of Gateway pass its original plan is inevidable in my opinon.
But why
KSP POWERS ACTIVATE!!!
I love how with HLS docked, Gateway will technically become the largest space station ever in terms of interior volume.
Say what you will about the size difference I'm just glad Artemis crew at Gateway will not be cramped up there when HLS is docked but instead have a volume almost equal to that of the ISS with both gateway and HLS combined
Great animation as always! I feel an irony with that Apollo speech.
It's sad to compare Apollo and the current underfed US Lunar Program: Issues with SLS, issues with spacesuits, issues with ML-2 launch platform which may not be ready for SLS Block 2 in time...
But who knows, it's still possible for NASA to return there ahead of Taikonauts.
What do you mean by underfed?
They are not getting enough funding
ML-2 is needed for SLS Block 1B for Artemis IV though Artemis VIII. SLS Block 2 doesn't come along until Artemis IX+. With how expensive SLS/Orion are, if Starship gets near its goals and matures a fast enough launch cadence, SLS Block 2 might not be made at all. The Artemis program is funded through Artemis V so far, which is through getting 4 modules of Lunar Gateway into the NRHO at the Moon.
Apollo had many problems too, and 10 times the budget. A bit hard to compare.
I grew up about 90 miles away during the Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo programs, and I remember the excitement and energy of those days. Currently, only SpaceX and their rapid pace of Starship development has that same "feel".
The addition of JFK's speech is quite a nice touch. Well done mate =)
Having such a large lander must be nice for the astronauts. More room to move about and lots of cargo space.
And I bet once the program really gets underway at the end of the decade, the older starships will be converted into huge surface bases. (Restrcture the inside a bit and clear the propellent tanks for living space, cover the whole thing in a thick layer of ice and regolith for radiation sheilding and boom).
I bet they ones that are staying at the station would get very sad that all that space is going down there for some time
Looks amazing. Also makes you wonder why not just use two starships. One for getting to to the moon and back then another as the lander/lunar base.
I'm confident using another Starship instead of SLS/Orion will happen, but only after Artemis 3 draws the attention of the wider public, and animations like this show the absurd difference. Artemis 4 will probably fly with Orion, and then the remaining Orions will end up in museums.
Nasa prefers to waste more than 5 billion per launch it seems.
Because it’s takes A LOT of time to certify a spacecraft for human flight (especially for atmosphere re-entry). Orion is ready to go, Starship will take time.
The number of refueling flights needed and the initial Starship launch cadence for Artemis III. Per SpaceX's plan, the Starship launch cadence for Artemis III is 1 launch every 12 days (GAO pg 12). Per that same GAO report (pg 27) and Musk's ~150 ton payload update, it will take up to 10 launches to get Lunar Starship to the Moon. Per NASA (pg 9), Lunar Starship can only wait 100 days in lunar orbit, so the flghts needed for a second Starship to get to the Moon with crew, would likely take longer than Lunar Starship can wait in lunar orbit. Just like the Falcon 9 matured to a once a week launch cadence over 12 years, Starship will likely also take some number of years to mature to a fast enough cadence for something like a Starship Shuttle to take crew to lunar orbit and back to LEO.
@@AlePrecise Starship has to be human rated for spaceflight for HLS anyway. It doesn't need to be rated for launch or atmospheric entry with what Matthew is proposing.
It takes less Delta-V to fly to NRHO and back than it does to fly to NRHO, land, and get back up to NRHO, so Starship HLS easily has enough performance to act as a big roomy shuttle taking people between LEO and NRHO without ever touching the atmosphere or landing. You can even still use the other landers with this method.
Beautiful. The music and of course JFK is the perfect background. Time to make a movie.
OMG The first transatlantic flight was only 35 years before Kennedy gave that speech. That's, like us looking back to 1988.
Wow, that's a mind-blowing observation!
43 years. (1919 to 1962)
Well done,your attention to detail is amazing,one of the most enjoyable space animations i have ever seen. And the speach of JFK stills gives me the goosebumps many decades later. Also congratulations on 100k
Pretty cool to see Dragon XL and Starship together.
Indeed! It's easy to think that Space X would ditch Falcon, but sometimes, Starship is too big to just deliver a simple ressuply vehicle
These videos are always so spectacular
The difference in size is just crazy
Gateway is docking to Starship HLS, not vice versa
This is a perfect combination of the images, music, and speech. I wish I could give it more than one thumbs up. Thank you.
HLS seems to be more suitable as a gateway.
Probably the most well earned 100k subs ever. Early congrats 🎉
Incredible work!
This is like using an island to get to a ferry boat
You are brilliant dude! So well done!
Gorgeous. Thank you!
Wow, This brought me to tears.. Thank you. 🌹
Didn't expect this and yet I'm not complaining
That was amazing! Inspirational.
This is why you NEVER see Starship HLS and Gateway in the same NASA PPT slide.
That Kennedy speech gets me every time! It is so inspiring!
Beautifully done.
This is gorgeous!
Absolutely gorgeous
Looks pretty cool
Why can't 3-4 srarships dock together and function as the gateway? Given the massive volume and being the "sole lander" to its advantage.
politics
Idk ask nasa they rejected HLS being LEO station. Gues strapping together rocket tanks doesnt solve all the problems
Amazing work as always Haze, looks incredible! Hey, is there any chance to have a bit more variety on the music? I know the music isn’t the point here, but as a fan who watches every one of your videos, I feel like they all recycle the same small handful of songs. Just a thought from a fan. Keep up the great work!
Impressive video! please make a video of the moon landing!
Wow an amazing video
Amazing!!
Wooo!! Hype train!
Amazing
If I'm not mistaken Starship has about 7 times more internal volume than Gateway, perhaps they should reconsider whether to continue investing resources in the station when Starship is already part of the plan.
In addition, Starship can be converted into a permanent space station in orbit by emptying its propellant tanks and enabling them for human use, this really isn't that difficult.
The only thing that prevents you from using Starship as a main station is the same thing that prevents you from using a Falcon 9 to go to LEO and from there make a transfer to Starship, and that reason is bureaucracy and policies.
I don't want to sound like a brainless SpaceX fan, but if using a rocket with such immense volume is already part of Artemis' plan, continuing to invest billions in a modular station just doesn't make sense from a practical standpoint.
If I'm wrong please let me know.
While NASA is famously always bogged down in bureaucracy, said bureaucracy usually doesn't transfer to the engineering side of things. The plans may change, for example I'm confident SLS will be removed from the picture after the first handful of launches as Starship becomes more crew tested. Maybe they will realize that gateway isn't required, however these plans including those for gateway were designed and put through before SpaceX was chosen as the HLS. So it's also not really practical to abandon that project especially when starship itself hasn't even launched or shown such capabilities, yet, they're just theorized. NASA knows how to build space stations, they know how to make gateway, it's a safe bet for them at the moment. Furthermore, I think NASA would be more comfortable with a gateway esque station at the current stage then that of a retrofitted starship. Like I said though, these things can and likely will change in the future. We've never built a permeant settlement on another orbital body, we may realize we don't even need a station around the moon, time will tell.
@@Pengun3 I agree, although it's a bit frustrating that the speed of the Artemis program is going to be so slow during the first few missions, which are the ones that should show good results quickly to receive long-term funding.
Could they have financed a program to modify Crew Dragon or Starliner capsules so that they could be used to travel to LLO? Probably yes. Could they have designed Orion from the beginning so that it could be launched on multiple rockets, like Starliner, and thus have had a greater number of options, even before SLS? I think so too.
Maybe if they had done it that way we could avoid the low launch rate of the SLS and have accelerated the program much more, but I don't know, lamenting about the things that didn't happen doesn't make sense, especially when we are currently living what could be the it was most hopeful for deep space exploration so far.
alternatively they could build a modular space station out of rocket-launched components (as is the current plan), except with much much bigger modules launched on cargo starships instead of the ISS-sized modules they're currently planning for
Falcon 9/Dragon crew transfer to Lunar Starship isn't a workable way to bypass Orion/SLS
Even if you transfer the crew in LEO, lunar Starship is almost empty by the time it completes it's lunar mission and returns to NRHO
Unless you send a myriad of additional tankers to the Moon (likely expendable too, due to lunar re-entry speeds) to refuel it, it can't be reused and can't get back to LEO to return the crew to Dragon.
Of course adding even more launches to a plan that is already laughably complicated and mass inneficient (1400 tons to LEO for a 2-4 person Moon lander) isnt a good idea if you want to have a plan that will actually work.
Even the current Lunar Starship plan is already so complicated it might as well be considered unexecutable in the real world
NASA better make a wise decision on the SLD contract, assuming any of the options will actually make sense
@@brokensoap1717 Hello, I understand your point. However, what I mean is using a Starship depot in HEO orbit, as I have read despite being almost empty, at the takeoff from the lunar surface, Starship HLS should still have enough propellant to reach a high orbit around Earth, where it could be refullied, and return to Earth. Probably a Starship Depot could maintain itself in this orbit by making certain periodic altitude corrections. Please correct me if what I'm saying doesn't make any sense.
Regarding the complexity of the plan, yes, clearly sending 1400 tons to LEO to put 2-4 astronauts on the Moon is almost nonsense, but we should also keep in mind that Starship is an extremely capable lander, especially if used in a configuration not expendable (probably still a profitable option). This is important if NASA really wants to establish a stable presence on the Moon, as logically such a base should be at least partially independent of Earth (especially in water supply), and only the infrastructure necessary to do this surely will be extremely heavy, in this sense Starship makes more sense than any other lander (especially more than Alpaca, lol)
Also, if the Artemis program is successful, the ambitions of the Artemis program could increase, in which case Starship's capabilities would be sufficient to allow rapid scalability of the program.
Getting the launch rates and reusability necessary to make Starship really suitable is also a huge challenge, but at least SpaceX has a lot of experience in this regard.
Still, I am personally more in favor of other commercial options that can complement the SLS/Orion system and do not include Starship, at least for an early stage of the program. Having redundancy is super important, especially for a challenge as big as establishing a stable presence on the Moon, where so much can go wrong.
Kennedy's speeches are always inspiring.
AMAZINGNES!!!
I would like to see a comparison of starship to iss that would be cool!
*Gateway docks to Starship
Nice.
"Why does Rice play Texas?" Just a fantastic piece here, the imagery and a voice from the past (60 years ago), and the whole look, feel and mood. Great job!
I still want an ANSWER to that question!
I ❤ this video. Wanna see in VR!
magnifica animación por cierto el aterrizador es inmensamente mas grande que la estación lunar
STARSHIP HLS IS HUGE COMPARED TO GATEWAY STATION!!!
Does anyone know the title of the music used in this video? I've Shazam'd and searched and it's starting to drive me a bit crazy.
the flag and NASA worn on the HLS reminds me a lot of the wreckage beamed aboard in the TNG episode "The Royale"
This actually reminds me that I'm mad it's taking so long for Kerbal 2.
its sad the sls got delayed
ik, so annoying
Would you like some station with that lander?
cool
Watching this make realise that NASA does have a sense of humour at our expense, or more correctly it's the senator armchair astronauts.
Dreams for a future to never be.
No Nuclear war! WORLDWIDE GENERAL STRIKE AND CEASEFIRE! ruclips.net/video/5amIEXd6J8I/видео.html
They really should Skylab a Starship.
Aka send one to orbit stuffed with tools and parts, to then gut it's tanks out and convert into habitable space, and use that as a station.
Could also remove the engines and land them back on the starship that'll bring workers for conversion.
It'd be extremely difficult to pull off, but it could happen. SkyLab was originally meant to be a "Wet Workshop" - i.e., it would have its interior have the bare minimum components that could survive being immersed in liquid hydrogen (so, likely just things like floors, ladders, bulkheads, lockers, and other metal parts), use the module as a fuel tank, then once all of the fuel was expended, fill it with oxygen and then have astronauts go in and fit it out with the rest of the equipment. However, it ended up proving far more difficult to pull off than they originally envisioned, and thus they went and just designed it as a "dry workshop" - or, in other words, just a regular space station module that doesn't hold fuel in it.
That's not to say that it can't be done, but there needs to be a sufficient trade-off between the difficulty of designing a wet workshop, and the usefulness of it being a wet workshop rather than just delivering it as a dry workshop with a rocket stage below it.
@@raptor2265 Payload compartment of a Starship by itself is worth a station. Then the tanks section could be left as-is, or repurposed somehow (waste tanks? Fuel depot?)
the fact that the ship is made out of plain steel, not some fancy composites, and that the last stage and the payload bay are already structurally merged, could allow for something that was not possible with Skylab tech, too...
There's just a single metal wall in the way. and well all the leftover methane.
Does Lunar Gateway is way much smaller than ISS?
Uhhh...Huston, where gonna need a bigger space station, over.
Hey #hazegrayart you just hit 100,000 subscribers! Nice job 👍🏻 you have worked on your videos for so long. And you’ve made it this far I am impressed of what you’ve done! And congrats for reaching 100,000 subscribers! Love you’re video’s ❤️
Love the references to President John Kennedy. Video almost made me tear.
The angle of the Sun angle is aesthetically pleasing, but in reality won't the Human Landing System need to be angled nose-to-the-Sun until it departs the lunar gateway to land in order to minimize propellant boil-off?
Congrats on your excellent video.
I think that SpaceX and NASA will opt to jettison the nosecone in LEO before the trans lunar injection (TLI) burn. Once outside the Earth's atmosphere, that nosecone is about 14t (metric tons) of useless mass. There's no reason to haul it from LEO to the NRHO to the lunar surface and back to the NRHO. It just needlessly wastes propellant to do that and that 14t can be payload instead.
And the dry mass of the Starship lunar lander has to be reduced to about 80t in order to perform the Artemis III mission without the need to refill the lander's tanks in NRHO. All refilling would occur in LEO before the TLI burn. Hence, the need to jettison the nosecone while in LEO before the TLI burn.
The payload bay on the Starship lunar lander is four rings tall or 433 cubic meters of pressurized volume. Skylab's pressurized volume was 350 cubic meters. There's plenty of room in the payload bay for two or four NASA astronauts and 20t of cargo. The payload bay would have a flat roof in which the docking port is installed and would be protected by the nosecone from liftoff to LEO. The payload bay would be divided into two levels. The top level would be for the astronauts and the bottom level would contain the cargo, the airlock, and the elevator.
What about reentry?
The Starship lunar lander never returns to Earth. Its job is to fly between NRHO/Gateway and the lunar surface and back. So that lander does not need a heat shield. The astronauts return to Earth in the Orion spacecraft, which remains parked in the NRHO while the astronauts use the lander to make the round trip between the NRHO and the lunar surface.
👍👍
Just gonna pre-emptively say: this didn't age well lol
how so..?
Fact: idk why elon is prepare starship slower... However sn15 is quick
Why have they gone with such a tall slim design for the HLS? It's not as if aerodynamics are a consideration on the moon.
I would have thought a short squat design like the Apollo would be better. If the LHS lands on an incline or one of it's legs, hits a boulder or sinks into the a softer portion of the lunar regolith - could this design be prone to tipping?
Wich one? If you are talking about Lunar Starship then the awnser is simple, it's based on Starship, wich is slim and tall.
Not only that, but it's supposed to have very big and sturdy legs to do it's job, giving it a wider base for landing.
@@davisdf3064 I know what it's based on - it just seems like an odd choice that's all.
I also know it has legs - but they aren't very widely spread and the ship still seems like it could be top heavy and prone to tipping. Tall thin things are invariably more unstable compared to short squat things.
It also needs a crane to lift the astronauts to the top - just one more thing to go wrong.
@@eljay5009
It doesn't need the crane, it has a separate elevator for the astronauts.
Well, the reason why NASA chose Starship so quickly was because it was actually the cheapest, only 10 million or so compared to the hundreds of millions from other proposals, also, because Starship is really frickin big.
I think Space X might increase the Ship's legs by using an enlarged version of the Falcon 9's legs, that allow the Starship to have a huge area.
@@davisdf3064 Elevator, crane - whatever. It's one more thing to go wrong vs a simple ladder.
Just one small problem , Gateway will not exsist for the first Lunar landing scheduled for 2025!
Maybe even the first few missions.
the video does'nt say its the first mission
Esta película cuando se estrena? 😂
Didn't dragon XL get cancelled?
Unconfirmed yet, but I can bet that (& HLS Starship already served a transport between Earth & Moon anyways)
No. Like the various existing FH contracts, SpaceX will try to shift the work to Starship. To send cargo that should be an easy sell to NASA, although it shines more light on why ins't NASA using it for crew as well.
@@donjones4719 Because Starship doesn't have an abort system for launches and the flip-n-burn landing is VERY NEW. Parachues for a capsule are well understood and have been used for decades.
The number of refueling flights and initial launch cadence is why a Starship with capsules to get crew to LEO, likely won't happen for the early Artemis missions.
More like gateway docks to starship 😈
If Starship is so much bigger than the Gateway station then the logical question is, why the heck they are going to build the station in the way they built ISS, involving numerous launches and countless suppliers?
Because the Lunar Gateway was proposed and modules designed, before Lunar Starship was selected as the HLS Option A contract.
Crew cabin is a tiny fraction of the huge empty shell of Starship
@@alrightydave still bigger than gateway
Because Starship is not optimized to be a long-term space station. The near-rectilinear halo orbit that Gateway will be in will require frequent course corrections, which is why the station's propulsion module has powerful ion engines on it. Something the size of Starship would be FAR too large for an ion engine to move around enough to maintain that tenuous orbit. Plus, Starship doesn't have things like the micrometeorite shielding, insulation, radiation shielding, etc. that's needed to make a station that can operate for years on end.
More like the Gateway is docked to the Starship station
What's the point of SLS when starship seems more capable
Starship is still in early development and won't be crew rated for years, assuming that Starship can be reliable enough without an abort system. SpaceX's plan for Artemis III is 1 launch every 12 days (GAO pg 12), so with up to 10 launches to get a Starship to the Moon (GAO pg 27), that is longer than the unmanned Lunar Starship can wait in lunar orbit (NASA pg 9).
Because Starship hasn't finished being designed yet, and is not yet human rated. It's not yet proven itself safe enough for humans to fly on, and with the number of times we've seen Starship explode or crash and then explode during testing, it's safe to say that no astronauts in their right mind would be willing to ride it until it's proven itself first. Even Elon Musk has said that Starship will have to make over 100 successful launches and landings before they will allow people to fly on it.
Also, Starship is not that great as a deep space vehicle. It has to be refueled at least a half dozen times in LEO to give it enough fuel to get to the moon, and then you need to repeat the process to refuel several tankers so that they have enough fuel to get to the moon themselves so that they can refuel Starship in lunar orbit. Orion and SLS, on the other hand, can go to the moon and back in a single launch, with no need to launch tankers, no multiple rendezvouses and dockings, and most importantly, no massive transfers of literally hundreds of tons of propellant. We've barely even done small-scale testing of cryogenic propellant transfer in orbit, let alone transferring tens upon hundreds of tons of it to refuel something as massive as Starship.
Orion has already made its first successful test flight, and the crew for Artemis II have been selected and will be launching next year. Orion is effectively operational right now, while Starship hasn't even made its first unmanned orbital flight yet, let alone a successful landing, successful docking, successful propellant transfer, etc. - in other words, Starship has a lot of catching up to do.
So funny when the Starship show up. There is just no reason to have those other stuff..
Lunar Gateway is expected to be used for years and long term experiments are expected to be done there, so someplace is needed to do that.
I've said many times - I don't think Elon Musk actually expected to win that HLS contract... that he just put in a proposal to draw attention to Starship, to show how a vehicle like this could make a mockery of plans to simply repeat Apollo fifty years on. And videos like this really drive that point home...
Nah. SpaceX surely saw the advantage of practicing on the Moon, before going to Mars. Not to mention, helping development the hardware and skills needed for Mars. Of course the $2.94B didn't hurt.
@@steveaustin2686 Knowing Elon, I’d wager both are true.
I'd say the moon could give Starship some room for improvement for Mars.
@@fuzzyhead878 Everyone likes money. Even Bezos was reportedly upset when he found out how much SpaceX and Boeing were able to bid for Commercial Crew. Reportly, he asked why they didn't continue bidding on Commercial Crew after the first few R&D contracts.
@@steveaustin2686 Oh, not saying he didn't want to win... just that their proposal felt like "let's just throw this out there". I think he would have expected NASA to have looked at it with interest, but chosen something more traditional.
It is quite difficult to explain the meaningfulness of the lunar gateway to critically thinking children. Also the Orion capsule... "Dad, why don't they fly directly with the big thing? You know, daughter, other companies also want to make money and for them the small things are good for.
How to assert dominance over congress and your competitors.
All I can think about is Elon doing T pose over them. lol
The only reason the "Gateway to Nowhere" even exists is because Orion doesn't have to power to reach the Moon. A Starship HLS has more than enough power to take heavy payloads and many astronauts directly from Earth orbit to the lunar surface and back. They won't even need those other hideously expensive white elephants.
Lunar Starship can not go to the Moon without refueling in LEO. That takes up to 10 launches to get Lunar Starship to the Moon (GAO pg 27 w/ Musk's ~150t payload update). SpaceX's plan for Artemis III is 1 Starship launch every 12 days (GAO pg 12). Once Lunar Starship gets back to lunar orbit, it is basically out of propellant, so it can not return to LEO. Since Tankers sent to the Moon to refill Lunar Starship would also take up to 108 days to refuel (see above), then SLS/Orion are needed until Starship matures to a faster cadence to be able to directly replace SLS/Orion with a separate Starship than Lunar Starship.
humongous
Starship not having a modular approach for safety redundancy, plus the refuelling required, could mean it never passes LEO. Alpaca looked more fit for Artemis mission goals.
Alpaca was over its own weight limit, so it came in third. Dynetics is trying again under the Appendix P competition to be the second lander. NASA really likes the low-slung Alpaca design, so if they solve their problems, they very well could be the second lander over the Blue Origin led National Team Integrated Lander Vehicle (ILV) that came in second on HLS Option A.
@@venturestar Starship was chosen mainly due to their lower bid. They were awarded the first landing missions, but not all of the landing missions predicted.
@@RogerM88 they were chosen because they were the best and most likely one to succeed, it's all written in the HLS selection statement. Being the cheapest is the icing on the cake.
SpaceX's proposal had vast amount of merits and many mitigations to overcome the expected challenges (refuel, crew safety redundancy, landing, propellent boiloff, etc), they have also done many calculations and reports that made NASA very impressed, thus being the only proposal getting an 'outstanding' in the management category.
you can read it up, very fascinating and exciting:
www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/option-a-source-selection-statement-final.pdf
Looking at the "Successes" of the SLS, I think more and more that the Starship will carry people to the Lunar Station, and Orion will remain in the trash of history.
Why Orion is bad?
@@tamtamich4 It's like with the Soviet lunar spacecraft, it may be beautiful, but it's no use without a launch vehicle
SLS is needed for the early missions, until Starship can mature to the point that it can replace SLS/Orion.
LOL no, cope and seethe, Starship might not even land crew and remain in the trashes of history. SLS is here and so is Orion
@@steveaustin2686 Only here, so far, the Starship is overtaking the SLS.
The first orbital flight of the prototype is coming soon, and the SLS has cancellation after cancellation.
Horrible tiny Cygnus Modules...but: Thankyou for the great animation!
Please explain why the Lunar Gateway is "critical" to deep space exploration. Nothing the LG is supposedly able to do can't be done cheaper, easier and more safely on Earth, Earth orbit or on the Moon.
Long term zero-G research out from under the Van Allen belts. You don't get zero-G on the Moon and LEO is under the protection of the Van Allen belts.
The NRHO is a very stable orbit, where Lunar Gateway can stay for years, with little propellant needed each year. It also affords comm contact with the surface base at the south pole for well over 90% of its orbit.
The crew staying in orbit has more room at the Lunar Gateway for experiments and Lunar Gateway can support Orion for lunar surface missions that are longer than a week. NASA wants to work up to month long surface missions, which would be roughly 2 weeks longer than the maximum time an Orion can fly on its own (21 days).
Learning how to assemble stations in orbit outside of earth? Yeah, I think that's pretty important for deep space exploration.
@@murphy1845 That has already been done wih the ISS. Now kindly explain how building the Lunat Gateway helps deep space exploration.
@@chrisantoniou4366 how are you supposed to have a permanent base on the moon when the nearest checkpoint is 4 days away? What about Mars? How are you going to establish a permanent base there when help is at least 2 years away? Do you seriously think humans will never have to establish an orbital station outside of earth? 100 years into the future and we still won't have built anything outside of LEO?
We'll never establish a permanent base anywhere with just a single lander because landers don't have enough endurance to stay on the surface. And resupplying them all the way from earth isn't feasible. Establishing a permanent human presence in lunar orbit gives us a much bigger margin for error. It means that astronauts on the surface aren't supported 230,000 miles away, but only a short hop into orbit.
@@murphy1845 How will you get help to astronauts on the Moon with the Lunar Gateway? The LG can't land and it's in a highly inclined orbit that takes time to get anywhere near the Moon so any lander attached to it would have to wait until the correct window opens up. However, if you have a lander in close orbit around the Moon or on the surface, you will be able to get back to Earth so much sooner. Quite frankly, the LG isn't going to be a help in an emergency and is just as likely to be a source of an emergency itself.
As for a "checkpoint", there's no such thing in space. If you want to establish a permanent base on the Moon it will have to be self sustaining, a space station in lunar orbit will be able to do nothing to contribute to it. Also, why is resupply from Earth not "feasable", you're going to have to bring any supplies from Earth to the Moon, lunar orbit, to the surface of the Moon, or to a hypothetical Lunar Gateway in the first place anyway. As for being "a short hop into orbit" you can't just go into any orbit with the LG, you have to rendezvous with it and that means waiting for a suitable launch "window" to open up and a catch up and docking procedure. Going directly to Earth will always be a better proposition during any emergency that it's possible to help.
Так себе идея. Родила мышь гору.
I wish the accurate non GAME ENDING renders with realistic crew cabin size were available to the public to make renders
Are we prepping to film vomit comet simulations of anemic space stations or are going to build a GD space faring civilization? I am not convinced, impressed, hell I'm losing interest. Your telling people to get excited about living in cramped Pop cans with no windows when Sierra is sitting on real production capability of inflatable modules with superior safety & volume? Nuts!
This all being ready by 2025 strains credulity. This massive rocket isn't going to land people on the moon, it's just going to ferry a few astronauts with no lander or equipment? We needed the biggest rocket in history to just carry a few people? And the lander is going to get there on a yet to be built BFR? OK, let me know when this is ready in 2030.
Seth I think you’re misunderstanding the purpose of starship HLS (human landing system), it’s designed to bring over 100 tones of cargo to the moons service, and could be outfitted to have 3 times the pressurized volume of the ISS if they decide to keep it there as a base. And it’s already being developed down in boca chica with the first orbital attempt just weeks away. Starship HLS is the exact same as the normal starship except without a heatsheild or flaps, all they have to do is paint it white and add some legs and solar panels.
The NASA IG expects Artemis III to slide into at least 2026, mainly from the suits, but possibly from Starship as well.
@@HarrisonAdAstra SpaceX isn't reinventing the wheel for the internal finishings per NASA, but there is a LOT of Starship development to go. Musk expects it to take multiple attempts to get Starship (second stage) in for a successful reentry and landing. Not to mention how a muff on a tower catch will set things back. There is also the development of the 24 engines up at the top of the tanks for the last bit of the landing and the first bit of the takeoff. They will be LCH4/LOX engines, so it's not like they could take them off the shelf. They are in a black ring between the US Flag and the solar panels at 3:10. So far in orbit on the ISS, at most, hundreds of kg of propellant have been transfered. For Lunar Starship to go to the Moon, ~150 tons per Tanker Starship have to be transferred to the depot for each flight and ~1200 tons of propellant have to be transferred from the depot to Lunar Starship. That is a BIG jump in propellant transfers. Just getting the [DELETED] Starship propellant depot refilled will require up to 8 Starship Tanker flights. Lunar Starship doesn't fly until the depot is full, so that if something goes wrong with the Dance of the Sky Tankers, Lunar Starship is safe on the ground. Just getting everything ready by 2026 will be a challenge.
@@steveaustin2686 I get your understanding of the situation but it doesn’t mean you are right. NASA did a feasibility study into spaceXs plans for starship and found it to be a sound plan, and it seems, judging by NASAs wording that spaceX have a feasible way to transfer propellant. We will just have to wait and see but NASA fell confident that spaceX can preform a test run by 2024.
@@HarrisonAdAstra Um, I not saying that is is not a sound plan, so you might want to reread what I wrote. The transfer of hundreds of tons of propellant has NOT been done before and that is part of the development that Starship has to under go for Artemis III to work. Propellant transfer is even MORE important than reentry, as Lunar Starship for Artemis III could be done with all expendable Starships, but it would be hella expensive. As I mentioned to the OP, the NASA IG is expecting Artemis III to slide into 2026, likely for the spacesuit development and/or Starship development.
can't wait for the national team or whatever it is they're calling themselves now to come through with an improved proposal that undercuts whatever it is lunar starship is trying to sell. ugly, overcomplicated ego project of a spacecraft that will fail in the harsh lunar environment.
Lunar Starship doesn't need to sell anything given that NASA already awarded it the HLS Option A contract. I'm pretty sure they wouldn't have done that if they weren't confident that it could cut it as a lander.
Of course, there always has to be room for redundancy, so if anyone else can develop a lander that meets NASA's standards and is competitive with Starship, more power to them.
@@astronut42 SpaceX has to sell nasa a design that works, and what we see is a stainless steel deathtrap detonating on the shores of Texas.
@@discflame I'm not sure how much more 'sold' NASA could be considering that they awarded Starship a major contract for one of the most critical elements of their flagship program. SpaceX clearly has a lot left to prove with their design, and failure is certainly one of the possible outcomes, but having risk-averse and cash-strapped NASA betting big money on it is encouraging to say the least.
If one of the other finalists had turned out to be better, then they would have been chosen. It's not just 'Elon Musk thinks it can be done' anymore, but 'NASA thinks it can be done'.
@@astronut42 The contract is for further development, not actually buying units. If Northrop Grumman with its institutional history and current industry partners comes up with a better (but mostly cheaper) option, NASA will spring for that one in an instant. The only reason spacex got the contract was because it could promise the moon landing at a significant percentage of the cost of the other two applicants. Starship doesn't have what Dynetics or the National Team lack, there isn't some secret technical revolution in Starship, it's purely a matter of cost.
@@discflame HLS Option A is for developing the vehicle that will conduct the crewed landing on Artemis III. The Option B contract opens things up for other providers to design sustainable landers, but SpaceX automatically gets a place in that thanks to their Option A contract.
In terms of actual ratings, SpaceX got a technical rating equivalent to the second-place competitor in the final source selection statement (www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/option-a-source-selection-statement-final.pdf ) and their management rating was the highest of the three. Their lower cost was definitely a big factor in their selection but capacity, redundancy and crew safety are listed as clear advantages of their proposal.
Again, NASA is making sure they have dissimilar redundancy in place by bringing in other landers, but Starship is already pencilled in as the lander for Artemis III. Barring some major screwup on SpaceX's part before then, they're on the critical path for the US return to the Moon.
There's nothing stopping Dynetics or Blue Origin or someone else from building a vehicle that's more cost effective, has greater capability, or both somewhere down the line.
Gateway/Orion look ridiculous compared to SS/HLS.
This kind of waste is not going to cope with new-space's progress.
SX is going to fly people around the moon from Earth/LEO in SS. SLS/Orion/Gateway technically are already obsolete.
PS: nice CGI tho 👍
Nah, Lunar Starship needs up to 10 launches to get to the Moon per the SpaceX plan in the GAO report denying the HLS complaints (pg27 & Musk). Per that same GAO report (pg 12), the SpaceX plan for Artemis III is 1 launch every 12 days. Musk's multiple flights a day for Starship is a far off goal. Lunar Starship doesn't have the dV to get to the Moon, land, and return to LEO, so SLS/Orion are needed for the early flights, until Starship can mature to replace SLS/Orion.
@@steveaustin2686 I always saw SLS/Orion as our first foot across the threshold, with Starship maintaining the momentum once they get up and running.
@@fuzzyhead878 Until Starship came along, SLS/Orion was the plan for the future for the Moon and Mars. Starship's potential spells the end for SLS, once Starship matures to the point to be able to take over. Boeing has said that they want to cut the cost of SLS by half, from $2.2B down to ~$1.1B. That still leaves SLS/Orion at $3B as Orion is $1B, the ESM is $300M, and the GSE is almost $600M.
If Starship stays at the roughly $147M for Artemis III, $2.94B for 2 landings of up to 10 flights each, even with having to ferry crew to LEO, Starship can be cheaper than SLS/Orion once it matures to a fast enough launch cadence. SpaceX had the GAO redact the info on [DELETED], but we know it is at least a propellant depot from the context. If it is only a depot, why redact it, only to confirm it is a depot from the context? I think that [DELETED] is a crew transfer station as well as a depot. Most of the depot's mass is in the tanks the depot took to orbit in the first place. IF [DELETED] is a transfer station, then if Starship can't be crew rated for Earth luanches and landings, it STILL can replace SLS/Orion and do things like the Dear Moon mission. Something like Lunar Starship without the legs could be used as a Starship Shuttle between LEO, lunar orbit, and back.
Reuse the [DELETED] propellant depot that sent the unmanned Lunar Starship to the Moon and have up to 8 Starship Tankers refill it again ($1.323B). A Crew Dragon ($300M) and a Starliner ($360M) would be able to ferry up 8 crew. With the depot/station hosting the capsules, 1 each of the crew would stay to babysit the capsules and do experiments in LEO. The other 6 would head off on the Starship Shuttle ($147M) to the Moon. While 4 crew head to the surface on Lunar Starship, 2 would stay on the Starship Shuttle and Lunar Gateway for running experiments. With Lunar Gateway in the very stable NRHO at the Moon, long term experiments could be run on the Gateway with occasional crew input when they are there. While the lunar mission is going on, another Starship Tanker's worth of propellant ($147M) would likely be able to take care of any precession of orbit during the lunar mission. A cargo Dragon or Dream Chaser would be sent up to the depot to carry back any cargo that comes back from the Moon (~150M). When the crew returns on the Starship Shuttle, they transfer the cargo to all the capsules and everyone goes home on the capsule they came up in. The complete total would be roughly $2.3B and would be able to bring back tons of cargo instead of a 100kg or so. NASA would also get the LEO experiments out of this as well. Later flights could reuse the Starship Shuttle, but you would likely need a Starship cargo launch to refill the Starship Shuttle and depot anyway, so you would not save that $147M.
Starship needs a much faster cadence tho, and like Falcon 9 took almost 12 years to get to a once a week cadence, Starship will likely take at LEAST a few years to speed up its cadence after the 1 per 12 days plan for Artemis III. So this would be a replacement for SLS/Orion for the later Artemis missions.
What's ridiculous is that you need to send all that dead weight to the moon. That by your comment you did not know.
SLS/Orion/Gateway look like will end up being the only parts of Artemis that we will see flying in the foreseeable future, and from a feasibility standpoint they look like the only parts that actually make sense.
Selecting lunar Starship was massive mistake, I think we'll see the effects as the years of the decade progress and we see little progress on Lunar Starship materializing at all
Haha lol mu idiot frien think this is CGI I tol him it were reel but he dont believe me lmao! Also who is the britsh guy talking