How To Develop The Moon ALL PARTS
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 2 เม.ย. 2024
- This is not a new video! This is all six parts of the lunar development series put together in one convenient place.
Patreon: / lunardevelopment
My book: www.amazon.com/dp/B0CMMKPBFM
(I'll mail Patreon members a signed copy!)
Join this channel to get access to perks:
/ @anthrofuturism
My Social medias: linktr.ee/ianlong
Written, Produced & Narrated by Ian Long
Pedantic Nerds:
When you put regolith into the cell out comes oxygen gas, aluminum, silica, and low-purity molten iron. Molten Regolith Electrolysis. Then you can take that low-purity molten iron and feed it back into the cell, refining it into high-purity iron. Molten Oxide Electrolysis. The difference is the purity of the iron, and to make steel we need very high-purity iron.
Since the steel-making process involves two electrolyzing steps we should specialize them and deliver two of these to the Moon. - วิทยาศาสตร์และเทคโนโลยี
![[Watch Party] RoV APL 2024 Bacon VS TDT ( AlmonP Wanoiz )](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/LvZvKzu3VSk/mqdefault.jpg)
This is not a new video! This is all six parts of the lunar development series put together in one convenient place.
Hi, if making steel on the moon with on-site resources is viable, you can bet Elon will plan to build Starships destined for Mars, on the moon, making much larger payloads possible. Maybe even 1000 tons to lunar orbit, and 500 to Mars.
@@paulmichaelfreedman8334 Yeah you don't need to make them aerodynamic either and can power them using nuclear fission engines
How about the leave the radioactive exhaust off the moon by limiting the nuclear earth-moon ship transport between a LEO SpacePort and a Lunar orbit SpacePort?
@@paulmichaelfreedman8334 Yeah Elong likes his stuff vertically integrated. I like @Anthrofrofuturisms thoughts on commoditising space objects and travel. Imagine the infrastructure we could have :) And for peanuts in the grand scheme of government policy.
The question I have is what economic benefits is there to development? We didn't go to the "new world" just to explore, we went to exploit. You also have to consider what a nightmare it would be to have a long term settlement on the moon which nobody does thinking it would be "cool" to live on another planet. You'd want to look up Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station and how people deal with being basically locked inside a building for 6 months.
A man's water is his own, his carbon belongs to the colony - Mune, Book II
Hehe.
And on Arrakis, the order is reversed.
Sonif you pass of the colony do they remove your carbon?
Bless the maker and his regolith
*Lune
Let this sink in: We could have built a bloody base on the moon, but instead we got 32 Marvel movies. Humanity is doomed.
Imagine what the world would be like if the US government gave the same amount of funding they give to the military to NASA instead
Not humanity...America son...just America.
@@SpinoSam probably enveloped in a global war. Maybe if NATO countries actually spent what they promised the US could devote some GDP to science and space
Infinity War was well worth it
This is not a base, it's an expensive camp site with no use. A Marvel movie has a use, although it is only entertaining some people for a short period of time.
The most important questions are why should we send people to the moon to stay there and what can people do there we can't do on Earth? All I have seen in this video is a guy spending hundreds and hundreds of millions of (taxpayers?) dollars just to have some people on the moon with no purpose.
thanks now I have to go play kerbal space program
1 or 2?
@@007hansen no one plays 2
This is the channel I’ve been looking for a channel that contemplates and discuss the vast scientific and technological advances that would be made by colonizing the lunar surface.
Well met lol
Isaac Arthur channel is very good too.
UK's Nuclear Division of Rolls Royce's are developing Reactors for the moon and beyond
Small Modular Reactors. They're being developed not just for the moon and beyond, but primarily for here, on Earth. Put one of these at the South pole and you can power a village there with energy to spare. Just to say. They beat, both financially and practically, the huge nuclear stations that take many years to build, as they are modular and can be built like on an assembly line. Best of all, they can be disassembled and transported to a new location if needed. And because they use liquid fuel (dissolved) a meltdown is practically impossible, unless someone finds a way to hack it and sabotage the system in some way, which is extremely unlikely.
@@paulmichaelfreedman8334Of course they have to say they're building it for the moon to hype up the interest.
@@bobweiram6321 They're serious about all use cases, earth, moon, mars.
RYCEY IS THE GOAT!!!
@@paulmichaelfreedman8334 They actually DID have a nuclear reactor at the south pole. They scrapped it in favour of diesel engines, for some dumb reason.
Each of those tourists would get a space suit for free? The cost per unit is more ose to 20 millions today.
1:50 : belly flop doesn't work on the moon!! To land sideways you need additional rocket motors at the nose and at the stern/ or a 90° gimble capability + structural reinforcements to carry the bending forces - a completely different rocket!
Yeah, i had to stop the video to look for this comment. The landing maneuver shown in the video is not very realistic at all.
Watch the tear-down of Starship hulls. Those 4mm tank rings are super flimsy after depressurization.
I have more inclination to believe that buried inflatable habitats are the way to go. Dig out trenches as deep as possible so the cover mounds are not tall, inflate the habitat, inflate structural members with rigid foam, backfill and cover with regolith/binder concrete.
Maybe polyethylene/regolith composites on Mars. Use some binder that's more heat resistant on the Moon.
As soon as I heard the dialogue about the belly flop landing, I knew this video wasn't coming from somebody who knew anything about physics. This is for entertainment purposes only
@@michaelwilliams2593 that’s a little harsh. I wouldn’t say that it’s only good for that. I do agree that the bellyflop idea isn’t terribly practical, but it would probably be possible to land a starship vertically, and then lay it down on its side
@@mahatmarandy5977 Agree. There are many techniques with hoists, jacks, supports, partial digging etc. that would make it possible. And indeed if you can already ensure that it is partially in a (newly-dug) trench then covering it in regolith will be a lot less work. Still hoisting down equipment and vehicles from a vertical starship might work quite well too (in KSP that is almost undoable. ;-)). I like the rough ideas in the video but I think many ideas can still be improved upon with some thought.
You grossly underestimate the problem of the dust. The Apollo suits were wrecked in 3 days.
Well, you should also consider that tourists may not spend as much time outside on the lunar surface as the Apollo astronauts did. But say that was an integral part of the experience that they were offered/paid for. Consider that those suits are 50+ years old, and we probably could make something much, much better that lasts ~1 month, and then since we have an actual lunar base we can (instead of planning to return in 3 days and never use them again) take them inside the lunar base to refurbish them, potentially allowing you to use it for years and years.
Magnetic arrays solve this problem
Yah, there's a whole lot of underestimation here.
The best way to get up and running on the moon is self-assembling systems and robots. Way too risky, dangerous, expensive and inhospitable for humans to do the grunt work, get the infrastructure installed and then ( maybe ) people can move in.
@@Anthrofuturism
Can magnetic arrays solve non magnetic regolith problems?
@@sidharthcs2110 it's electrostatic
watching again so the algorithm picks it up
Wow thank you!
It's my % money please! So space 🌌 can get accounted for at FBI &CH@ suger hc hd qh
Fantastic 4 losers of space 🌌🌐! Lol who cares about weaker superheroes that lags est ! It's all about them vs galaxy 🌌!? Apps VR sector for JupitersS _----Ajax organic?
Thanks for helping me discover this channel :D
@@SisavatManthong-yb1ynI had a stroke reading that.
Set a Moon colony for half the price of what was spent on JWST?
I guess every generation should have its own Popular Mechanics covers.
Imagine you've come to a examine a dead planet. On the moon you find this little base, long abandoned.
"Correlating the two past civilizations, is likely the "temple" present on their natural satellite composed of trace, manufactured elements, was a vacuum-base of one of the past societies of Terra. Digital text scrubbing of their old hard-drives in their derelict launch site in what they called "Cape Florida," point to references of "Lunar-bases," along with "firework" designs corresponding to the delta-v capacities, necessary to exit their atmosphere and enter a significant heightened trajectory beyond the gravity well at the time."
Translated from Minecraft Enchanting Language: Galactic Standard
Dude!! This is such an awesome project and I love how the effort you put into it shows
Thank you!
If you knew the most basic things about spaceflight you would know they didnt put any effort into this garbage within two minutes of the video.
so... why do we have to send a steel shipping container to the moon again?
That was one of the most hilarious parts.
You don't. The reactor design just needs to be able to fit into the volume of a steel shipping container, so that the entire unit can fit within a rocket faring and be landed on the moon in one piece. Probably similar to the skycrane model the Curiosity and Perseverance rovers used. Then you build the containment vessel around it once it's on the lunar surface, and run the power cables to your base.
@@blackepyon4042 oh I see, first they leave room for a shipping container in the rocket then they package the reactor into said shipping container to make sure it'll all fit. then you might as well just put the entire shipping container in there since we know there's enough room. no need to even break out the measuring tape 🤣
@@typicallucas It depends on how you want to get it there. You COULD use a shipping container, if you really wanted to, but a different design might work better for a given reactor output, depending on what they plan for. Launching it on it's own rocket and using a skycrane contraption to set it down might be a better way to go, or it might not.
@@blackepyon4042 nah, it's fine, 4 tons of steel is but a drop in the bucket. especially considering sending rockets to the moon is basically free, and it's easy, and rich tourists will buy cruises to the moon instead of spending their money on private airplanes
I read an article saying Idaho is developing mini reactors that can power 10 homes I think. Also in Idaho was one of the first American cities to have nuclear power in the past
Can't wait!
I'm pretty sure scientists are working hard trying to figure out how to transplant Idaho to the moon.
@@AncientEgyptArchitecture huh
@@AncientEgyptArchitectureyeehaw! Lunar corn farms!
@@ancapftw9113 Exactly.
40 some minutes in and I just realized This channel doesn't have the half million subs I was assuming it did BC of the quality of the video. Tip of the hat to you my man.
Thank you! Maybe one day!
Iron ore on earth has almost no carbon, its mostly consists of oxides, carbon comes from iron ore smelting that uses carbon as reducing agent.
But don‘t forget one important detail: people/crews on the moon have to rotate, like ISS crews, due to lunar gravity similarity to weightlessness. So, a full-fledged colony is impossible, but you could still do a tourist resourt, a mining base or a scientific outpost etc. just don‘t leave people longer than 6 months on the moon, to maintain their health.
And no, physical training is *not* enough to compensate for the missing gravity (the moon only has ~1/6th surface gravity of the earth!)
The second problem: the regolith is made of extremely sharp micro-crystals, which are another health-hazard. The third problem is radiation from solar flares, galactic radiation etc.
Even on Mars, the weaker gravity will become a *massive* problem, long-term.
And there‘s no easy solution in sight, either.
@@dot1298 he addressed this in the video. He said that on the ISS you can easily leave ppl for a year at a time. And the ISS has NO gravity. So the little bit of gravity on the moon will only extend that number to far beyond 6 months
There is almost no communication lag between the earth and the moon. You can remotely control robots that will be the first things to send so they can set up the infrastructure.
Wow what a great video! I love that you take your time to actually cover all potential details even in hypothetical situations in order to present a realistic possibility of a colonized moon! Please continue making more videos on this subject, I’m glad I found your channel and I know your channel is gonna explode with popularity!
Thank you so much!
@@Anthrofuturism Do you think it's possible for people to begin to actually live there in the long term? What effect will that have on humans over massive periods of time?
I don't see many people mentioning the life support systems needed on the ferry vehicle. The space needed+the cost of such systems would increase the cost of each flight, and mean that less people could go on said flight. This is nowhere near exact, but it could cost upwards of 50x more per passenger, which makes this highly unprofitable, even with all the other improvements listed here. Correct me if I'm wrong, but this seems like a huge oversight.
Great video.
I must express that the nuclear tug section of the video is highly optimistic at best, and science-fantasy at worst. Yes, nuclear thermal rocket engines have been developed and tested, but NOT open-gas-core which you mention, they are as complex or more than nuclear fusion reactors. You also don't count propellant they will use, they don't run on uranium alone, which will need to be supplied from Earth or Mars.
I hope to see this future you describe, and I very much want to see more content from you. Good work.
Also the open cycle means they chew through uranium pretty fast, which isn't cheap either.
Great video! Seeing the view count made my mouth drop, you deserve alot more!
Wow thank you so much!
Amazing can’t wait for the mars series’s continuation.
Clip choices were great. Well done.
If our moon was an icey moon like Europa we would already be on mars.
Interesting what if. Maybe I should make an alternate history type video about that.
@@Anthrofuturism You should it would be very interesting.
Absolutely loved this video!!! So inspiring!!!
Thank you!
Dude! Amazing video! Can't imagine how long this took you to create, but great job. Very interesting. I love following your logic and reason. It's impeccable! Well done!
Thank you! Years of research and about 4 months of work :)
Isn't the 'belly flop' maneuver an aerobraking maneuver? One does not need to aerobrake on the Moon. That said, bringing Starship down on its side makes sense- it puts the centre of gravity in a far more stable position than the backside down landing. I imagine, though, that Starship's centre of gravity whilst it is tail-sitting is still quite low. Weighing far more than the Apollo LM, I think landing Starship like something out of a Heinlein novel is as dangerous as hell. Starship HLS has landing engines situated between the crew compartment, and the propulsion compartment. It would be pretty simple to use those thrusters, once Starship has made contact with the Lunar Surface, to pitch the ship gently down on its (need to install) nose gear. And then up again for launch. Of course, Starship HLS can be modified as permanent habitats. Though wasting 33 Raptor engines for each permanent Starship habitat does not make practical sense. It IS better to have capacity left-over than to have not enough.
Yeah all correct and great point about center of gravity. A bit later in the video I discuss retrieving the engines.
Only six engines would be lost. Booster has 33 and those would be recovered
Yes, the poster does not actually grasp the complexities of a belly landing, nor do they understand the reasons why this approach makes sense in an atmosphere but not in a vacuum.
The Dynetics HLS landscape orientation is quite viable and also uses methalox. The HLS version of Starship is also going to use engines far forward on the hull for landing. SpaceX can build an HLS version that merges these two designs.
Likely, the ship would approach the landing vertically, and only more horizontally when it's a couple hundred meters from the ground and it's already slowed to a hear hover.
I had a similar idea, but didnt develop and put in the work and numbers as you did. Well done!
One thing that the first moon base should focus on imo besides the things you already mentioned is mining water and converting this to hydrogen and oxygen for rocket fuel. This is where the fuel station in leo should come from. This would really jump start a more affordable space economy.
There are three ways to do space (including moon, mars, asteroids etc.)
Do it small and fast, do it right, or don't do it at all. Unfortunately humanity tends to avoid the Do It Right option in most cases.
very interesting thanks, just bought the book looking forward to reading
This is probably the best video I have watched in the last couple of years about tany related subject
That's awesome to hear, thank you
You can tell this is pretty good by how 99% of the criticisms are "but the current design iteration of Starship might not be capable of supporting itself on its side on the moon". 50 minutes of ideas and calculations and that's the worst problem anyone can come up with?
Lol yeah and it's not an insurmountable issue at all either
Absolutely amazing video! Great work!
Interesting breakdown. Thanks for sharing!
Incredible video thanks so much for laying it out like this! LETS GO SPACE!!!
A lunar earth mover must have clam shell bucket. One shell most work against the other.
Why? The moon has reduced gravity, but it's still gravity. Just don't make sudden movements, and it will stay in the bucket until you dump it.
This channel is perfect for my weird niche little interests. Good thing I found this channel.
Very well done video. I absolutely love your voice/tone, it's perfect for futurist content.
Lol thanks
Dude your channel is awesome and extremely under viewed, over time i will try and watch all your old content, looks its well worth it. In time i bet you will be rewarðed with higher viewer ship much higher keepnup the great work
Thank you man
125$ to ship a frozen Pizza to the moon! Roflmfao.
Articulate, creative, and informative. Im definitely subbing
Awesome! Thank you!
They could land verticaly and lay the ship down later on.
Think if we had been spending trillions on this since the 60's instead of pointless wars
Lol love the Minecraft reactor examples provided
Glad this channel has more attention.
Me too;)
Amazing video!!! Didn’t know it was a series. I can’t wait for more content as a aerospace engineer student :)
More to come!
I think just bringing a tunnel boring machine would be a better idea... drill a base underground..
36:50 just realize bro hasn’t factored in that vehicles will in fact be imported to the moon as well because who wouldn’t want to drive on the lunar surface
My squirrel brain really appreciates the animations. Keep killing it!!!
Squirrels are pretty smart tbh
Your nuclear reactor will cost you significantly more time and money than you expect. Given both the many outer space laws/treaties (and also self interest), a SIGNIFICANT amount of R&D will be required before publicly putting a reactor in orbit, then to the moon.
That's my first nitpick, here's some more:
Used costs of products intended for use on Earth.
Massively underestimated development times/costs.
Ignored required testing/support infrastructure.
Ignored required systems engineering (though this video serves as maybe the first .1% of a first pass).
Assumed everything works first try.
Things move slower at large scale (bueracracy).
Everyone loves starship. Starship won't love you. It's vibration environment will be hellish.
Testing for man-rated vehicles, habitats, etc is very time consuming.
This video was super entertaining though and I really enjoyed watching it; I just think it is overly optimistic. Though controversial, the saying "space is hard" is way too accurate.
Amazing video! You should do a similar one for Mars!
Very informative!
Music is very nice ❤ Happen to save a list of the tracks used?
Something to keep in nind about space is the need for redundancy. If something breaks down, kr goes wrong. Theres no quick or simple way to fix or replwce it. With that in mind, with items like the nuclear reactor, we'de bring twice or even three times the needed amount.
24:29 *I love vital information being locked behind paywalls* 😍😍😍
Very nice! Although I'd like to say one thing. They don't necessarily need to land horizontal, but just need to be positioned that way. A lunar base concept for Starship has instead a small construction crew use cables to carefully lay it down. This saves time on development of a horizontal landing system as well, which starship wasn't really ever designed for.
SUCH A GOOD VIDEO just finished it. Make more hypotheticals pls
Thanks, sure thing
All paths will be marked by stacks of rocks. The art of the kern will be the art of the Moon.
CAIRN
Got a follower out of me. I love content that makes my mind spin into the unknown, but knowable.
So I guess I can become an astronaut as a machinist. Science and technology in fractional gravity is probably going to offer amazing new developments that makes the moon extremely profitable. If only for the ability to put mass into microgravity orbits.
I just printed the transcript and restructure it into a proposal. Heading to Washington now, Thanks...
Amazing Video
Thus is incredible
You made of my thoughts! This is awesome!
It will happen the way this video describes or it doesn't happen, simple reality.
the starship won't belly flop to land sideways, it will land vertically and tip over onto it's side when it land like the last lander did... and it wasn't nearly as tall. But I think that before we think of going to the moon for the first time, we should figure out how to get a person past the Van Allen belt, since it is currently impossible for humans to get higher than low Earth orbit.
Earth-moon cycler provides a free return journey once a month.
Elevator pitch? Which elevator? A space elevator? lol. This is very useful to me.
How do you account for the weight of the regolith bearing down on the buried ships?
Actually, the weight isn't enough on the moon to balance the internal pressure. On Mars, where regolith would be much heavier, it would reduce the stresses of the internal pressure, which is slightly helpful. On the moon, it's much less help.
Great video!
Thanks!
You really did your homework there.
The only issue I have concerning the reactor is the difficulty of dispersing the heat. I fully agree that using a reactor on the moon is the most reasonable solution and the most efficient one, But getting rid of waste, heat is way harder in a vacuum than it is on the surface of plan because there is no medium to help pull the heat away like you would deal with water or air on earth. This is not an insurmountable problem, but it is a significant one.
Note that when I say “radiate heat” I’m not talking about radiation or radioactivity, I’m talking about a radiator. Something that allows heat to escape a machine in order to keep the machine and in this case people from overheating and dying
I mentioned it for the first outpost but it would apply to the others I just didn't delve into that as a minor detail but yeah radiators for basically everything will be extremely important. (I actually animated a radiator configuration for each outpost thing but didn't draw attention to it. )
What can we do as everyday people to help make this a reality?
It's a very interesting question, I'm not sure. In my experience many people don't think about these things, think it's sci fi or too abstract or don't understand the purpose. But also history shows frameshifting events like the development of the internet or vehicles typically don't turn on everyday people. These things seem to come out of nowhere to most people after being worked on for decades behind closed doors in small circles, but I also don't want to completely disregard the impact an everyday person could have. I would say maybe just getting people to understand why lunar development or space in general is important is probably the most impactful thing so when this stuff starts happening it encounters less resistance which is already mounting. But idk that's kinda a lame answer, maybe there are more impactful ways, I'll have to think about it.
There is no way a starship is just 80 million.
Thats like 500 bucks to red 20 times. And I still have some extra
“ Please sir , can I have some more “ , that’s what this whole shit is sounding like..this is some of your best work , Ben ..❤
Thank you :)
Maybe NASA can create a lightweight packaging material that is recyclable.
At first I thought this was a shitty AI voice low effort video, but I watched the entire thing and was thoroughly entertained, your deadpan deliveries of jokes and editing style made me chuckle. Would love to see more like this in the future
Underrated video
I think the fleet of nuclear ferries is both a captivating and exciting idea. Thanks for the video!
Yw!
I came through this video with my long term optimism even further strengthened and my short-term disgust with my own species treated likewise.
Also, just figured out you exist, I really appreciate your grounded economically based perspective on things. I dont see it anywhere near enough and it makes me nervous a bit.
Thank you I appreciate that
The same issue that we have with landing on the moon affects each and every launch from as-well. So somehow having a rocket launching system which does not interact with the surface regolith is absolutely essential for this purpose.
Mass driver later. Landing pad is also useful. Details details.
It's a start
this video is very budget over any safety, ignoring the issues with repurposing equipment not designed for the proposed usage, rovers and automation can conduct a lot of the labor of establishing the base saving on the radiation absorption as it will likely take months of work refining luna terf into enough material to make a small foot hold to bury
Steel shipping container was the funniest part. Honestly everything will just be 3d printed by robots. We have the tech to be able to do it
3D printing makes sense for complex geometry and small parts.
Very fun video and thought experiment
16:38 It’s not 8. It’s more than 20, SmarterEveryDay went through this and he was being conservative in favor of SpaceX.
I looked up the sources cited in the SmarterEveryDay video. That larger number of flights seems to be referring to the number of flights needed from the beginning of the program to a human landing. Including development flights. Not the number of flights needed to refuel one HLS vehicle.
As far as the flights needed to refuel, it appears that 5 to 8 is the program goal. Clearly the current vehicle falls well short of that, and so the design is changing.
Which likely means the number of development flights and operational flights to get to the first crew landing will be quite a bit over 20.
@@toddpowers3620 Jesus so it gets worse… why are they even doing this, the Artemis project structure… it seems so convoluted and horrendous on resources; who came up with that… and as Destin pointed out, there aren’t even redundancies and the program qualify is far inferior from Apollo. The execs haven’t even read the Apollo handbook.
We went to moon successfully without a single rocket failure, consecutively on Saturn V. Single Launch. Why can’t they single launch now. I guess it’s the higher payload requirement but they have no technology for actual lunar habitation and industry…. I really don’t think anyone involved in this (especially SpaceX given how much they lie in media and marketing) has any clue what they are doing. This is just a waste of taxpayer dollars that could be better spent in NASA
Brilliant!
Well done! yah the Starship has to land horizontal to let off large equipment (Excavator, Dump truck etc,), and is the current design strong enough to have a lot of regolith on it, maybe a super beefed up version for those.
Thanks!
You don't think straight, transport logistics have sense only with reuseble spacecrafts, all the way from bottom to top, so logical thing to do would be to reuse all the vehicles in the transport chain, the only option that use chemical propulsion is to use a smaller lunar lander and transfer the payload and the propellant for lunar landing into lunar orbit from the earth transfer vehicle (it may be a starship) to a smaller lunar lander. You may ask, how the large payload fit into the smaller lander and is unloaded on the moon surface? Well the payload would be putted into large containers and attached externally to the lander(transferred from ship to ship into lunar orbit,and unloaded with rolled cables ) , that would allow a significant propellant saving, for example if the lander would have a dry mass of 25 tons (instead of 100 tons or so of fully sized starship), for landing on the moon surface and flying the lander back to moon orbit would require 1,75 of his dry mass in propellant(for methalox and with 380 seconds specific impulse) , but if you send down 100 tons of payload you need only 65% of that mass for that. So a 100 tons full size starship would need 175+65(240) tons of propellant into lunar orbit to deliver 100 tons of payload and be reuseble, but a 25 tons lunar lander 42,5+65(107,5) to deliver the same 100 tons of payload, that is only with the price of a lunar orbit rendezvous and one propellant transfer operation.
I feel trapped in a timeloop, I've allready watched this video ...
Not only nuclear engine has 4x the specific impulse, but also it doesn't need oxydizer to propulse, which means practical isp is 2.2x times more than the theorized one, since isp calculations are done only fuel-biased.
"elevator pitch"
*looks at video duration*
_[ WHAT?!?! sound bite plays loudly ]_
Bro did his research 👏👏
this is way over board, just do the kiss principle
You cant keep it simple in space, it is alot more threatening than building on earth, a facility like this will need a lot of anti-radiation tools, all the building materials to make said base, and it will require a minor amount of sexurity officers (1 or 2, its not public so you dont need many) a lot of builders and scientists. It's not a simple thing because if you leak oxygen, that can lead to death, and it will need not only sealing but will also require security measures. Kiss flies in earth because there is room for error, on the moon, there is no room for error, its live or die.
Dude, bellyflop maneuver doesn't work without an atmosphere. The ship could touch down in any orientation on the moon, surviving landing in a sideways orientation would require a very flat, rubble free surface.
Really nice vid.
All these plans remind me alot of the book "Critical mass" which dove into building a cis-lunar economy, though being started because of an asteroid mining mission. Anyways thanks for making a relatively realistic lunar development plan clear
If the moon is industrialized, it brings down the cost of building an orbital ring considerably. An orbital ring is one of the few earth-to-space megastructures that can be built with normal steel, with surface-to-space train lines made from normal steel hung from it, rather than unobtanium supermaterials like a space elevator requires. It's also a very handy place to put things like terawatts of space-based solar power for both terrestrial use and its own use, slipways for building massive interplanetary ships, communications and astronomy equipment of absurd size, electromagnetic launch rails, and split-propulsion emitters like giant lasers for pushing laser sail ships. That would lower the marginal cost of moving mass to orbit enough that regular travel and trade in space can reach the level necessary to support millions of people in space rather than a few thousand.
Wait, what elevation would the ring be on? Is steel really strong enough to keep it together?
@@Mbeluba The steel ring would be in orbit, we power it and use the magnetic field generated to levitate platforms.
@@BenkOfTheKlery Are there no issues with ring staying in orbit? I assume it would need at least some thrusters to correct it's position.
Are you sure ring of that size can stay together? I'm not sure what forces act upon it and how they cancel each other, but having a ridgid steel ring of more than 20 000 km in diameter must be complicated, even in microgravity. It's definitely spinning in relation to the ground, so is there any centrifugal force?
And also what kinda platforms supported with electromagnets are you talking about?
"And also what kinda platforms supported with electromagnets are you talking about?" Imagine a static maglev with the form of a platform, that's it.
The answer to the other questions is... there's no answer, there are so many variables to count for a design(if you didn't realize, I'm not an aerospace engineer yet). But if well designed the answer for them is "YES, IT CAN".
It doesn't matter the size of an orbital ring if someone is planning to build something of that size sure that knows all the problems.
A tip: IT'S A CONCEPT, JUST ENJOY IT.
@@BenkOfTheKlery so you don't know. That's fine, just don't pretend you do.
Guests are reminded to keep their helmets on at all times when outside
Unpopular opinion: *activities of visible scale should be limited to Far Side of the moon*. Moon and Sun are basically only celestrial bodies we can still see with unaided eye. 4:30 you can rebuild lander to Space 1999 style Eagle/VTOL and it doesn't need to land - it may deposit cargo in Perseverance like manner. 6:30 - please - it was too exepensive to move military gear back from Iraq and Afghanistan.
Finally some one else who thinks we should colonize the moon first
It's so crazy to skip the closest most useful place next to Earth
But first, we have to get there~~~
Let's frickin go then!!!