Have a great week everyone! For those interested in the presented Curiosity Stream episode, you can check it out at Curiosity Stream at curiositystream.com/marcushouse If you already have it, the direct link to the episode is curiositystream.com/video/6360.
Your brief examination of ion propulsion reminded me of an old joke; Two atoms meet in a bar and one says to the other "I think I lost an electron" the second atoms asks "are you sure?" and the first one replies "yes I'm positive".😁
16:00 A video on ion propulsion will be interesting, and it will be *really* interesting if it covers the idea of using it for Starship tankers to the Moon. Will it use krypton (inefficiently carrying a 3rd propellant) or can the Hall effect use oxygen efficiently enough? It certainly can't use xenon, the amount needed is prohibitively expensive.
Why not just use water and steam propulsion?).. on demand water heating is existing technology.. maybe add a microwave magnetron or lasers to impart the most possible energy on the departing steam.. but that's pretty old school.. a large rail-gun for starships on the moon would be the ticket to Mars i.m.h.o.
@@andretokayuk8100 Water and steam is inefficient per ton of propellant. That is why chemical rockets are used currently. Ion and Nuclear propulsion are drastically more efficient than chemical rockets, which themselves are more efficient than steam.
The information density and production quality of your videos is top notch, and your release schedule is insane. Thank you for the quality content, Marcus.
Space and particularly spacex has become an oversaturated area on YT. There are so many channels dedicated to spacex that are not very good and just repeat the same thing over and over. Marcus House is...and has been one of the best ones for some time, and also covers a wide range of space topics.
If it video thumbnail has Elon crying/praying/looking angry, or claims of "Tesla Nuclear-powered Bots Destroy Besos," keep scrolling. I hate that these low-quality accounts can keep spamming all this BS "content." I think one is GREAT SPACEX or something like that. Often using fake images of things and claiming they are the new SpaceX tech. I report them when I see them making BS claims, but the worst is the bot accounts making dozens of live video feeds with keyword-stuffed titles and replay some old Elon interview with a frame around it trying to scam crypto. I've reported hundreds of these, and TH-cam emails me letting me know they've suspended dozens of the ones I've reported.
@@Exitof99 I agree, the crumby thumbnail thing is spot on. Swiftly followed by a terrible text to speech narrative that just copy's what all the reputable channels have said weeks ago, or the same American dude I have heard on so many channels and is just paid to narrate because he sounds good.....peace to ya.
@@cfiregaming9050 Hey there, the channels you mention, and the ones other people have in this thread are the really space good channels. I'm just fed up with all the spam spacex channels I keep seeing.
I appreciate the fact that you have a timer clock going on the bottom of the screen during sponsor times. Not that many TH-camrs do this and it makes such a big difference! Thank you so much!!!
Great video as always. It's a definite yes from me for that video on other propulsion technologies!! I love Everyday Astronaut's videos, but your's are a lot more accessible and you explain things in a far easier to digest manner.
I wouldnt sweat it man. In just a couple of years SpaceX is singlehandedly running CREW missions with their Dragon capsules over and over and over. It may feel like slow engineering but the speed they are innovating and adapting, they will have the starship rockin and rollin permanently before we know it.
Yeah l admit I'm not a big Musk fan but I'm sceptical about manned space flight in general. I would always support man's efforts in space paradoxically because in the end I'm only expressing an opinion. It's like with moonshots. At the time of Apollo science pundits predicted we would be shuttling tourists to and from the moon routinely by the year 2000. Many don't believe we were ever on the Moon. NASA says it has moon rock brought back by the Apollo crews so that's pretty solid evidence they went there. When l think of the missions in detail l struggle to understand how Apollo happened. Miraculous!
@@leonardgibney2997 Politics, is basically how it happened. Astronauts had to fight to get the approval for experiments on a lot of their missions to the moon because the government was more interested in beating the Soviets than doing any actual advancements.
A really good and thoroughly produced video, thanks very much from a grateful Patreon supporter. I'd certainly back the idea for a deep look at the ion spaceship propulsion! Well done Marcus; a great slant as usual, unique alongside other space broadcasters. 👍
7:00 OK, a crew-rated spacecraft is needed to complement the non-crew-rated Starship for launch from Earth. But why Orion? Why in lunar orbit? You're keeping us in suspense over the glaringly obvious option of Dragon->LEO->Starship->lunar orbit->HLS Starship. A regular Starship fitted with crew quarters cloned from HLS (thus already NASA crew-rated for space operations) can take over the Orion part of the mission. This assumes Starship is a success - but Artemis already depends on Starship's success to do the tanker missions to LEO for the HLS. Have your experts check the figures, but a fully fueled regular Starship can go LEO->NHRO->LEO with no refilling in NHRO required. It will just have to carry a limited amount of cargo, but any amount will be more than Orion can, and this JSS (Journey StarShip) is simply swapping in for Orion.
Yes, this should have been mentioned. If SLS and Orion wouldn't exist today, it would be the obvious way to go until Starship is human rated, then they probably no longer need the lunar gateway either, although NRHO that does make it easy to land on the poles. However, for Artemis 2 or 3 they are going to use SLS and Orion.
Personally this is what I hope happens, we might be able to push for a video like this but we'd also need the 3D artists to be working around the clock for it, hopefully it will come out of the woodwork at some point.
It’s unlikely that Starlink or other launches could contribute their excess propellant to the depot before landing. The depot will be in one orbit; the launched Starship will be in an entirely different orbit - most likely not even in the same plane. Maneuvering between orbits like that can take considerable delta-V, using up some or all of the excess propellant and making the whole thing moot. More likely SpaceX would start doing combo launches whenever possible: satellites could hitch rides on depot refueling missions. The energy required to maneuver a single satellite from the Depot orbit (or one en route to it) to its destination orbit would be a lot less than that needed to move the whole Starship.
Assuming the depot is at the same inclination as Starlink, you can get there through orbital precession for very little delta V. That can take a lot of time though, so in most cases I doubt the increased turnaround time on the ship will be worth the fuel you'll deposit.
Agreed. Plus there's no good reason to launch Starlink missions with more propellent than needed. Every kilogram of mass to orbit requires several kilograms of fuel to get it there...As far as ride share on tankers goes. Tanker Starships are likely to be little more than flying fuel tanks. Adding the ability to launch satellites to them would add significant mass that still be with the tanker even when they didn't have a ride share payload. IMO at best Tankers may be used to launch something like CubeSats from the tail cone as the payload launcher could be added or subtracted without significant modification to the Tanker and those types of payloads neither weigh very much or are very picky about what orbit they end up in. In fact the The fuel depot and Tankers are likely to use an orbit significantly lower than most satellites. One that requires frequent boost just to stay in orbit. Which is just about a perfect for CubeSats that are not intended to stay in orbit for than a several months or at best a year or two.
Not sure why SpaceX can't launch a few tanker Starships along with a manned Starship. Like a small convoy. Go about anywhere they want. That's what the Navy does I think. Just take enough tankers along. Skip Orion completely (or we'll be waiting until 2300 for this to finally happen). Maybe I'm missing something?
That is assuming all rockets use exactly same propellants and they can be accumulated in the same depot tank. I have not began to consider Tybee extra weight of all the docking mechanism needed to dock with the depot and safely transfer fuel. Sounds like a very stupid idea even for a movie like gravity
@@kalebbruwer Maybe it doesn't make sense to bring the starship to the tanker via precession, but maybe it makes sense to align the tanker to the next Starlink launch. You'll have more time between flights that the tanker is up there otherwise doing nothing. If you could count on the tanker being where you needed it I think it really changes the cost/benefit. I'm not sure we know whether Starlink launches on Starship are going to be mass or volume limited also. That might change the maths a lot as well.
Just discovered this channel... let me just say thank you so much for all of the hard work and dedication. You really couldn't make these videos any more interesting and informative. It's exactly what I want to watch.
If you do a video about high efficiency engines, you really need to consider the cost per unit of thrust-work. If Methane Raptor engines can get things to the moon with terrible "efficiency", but a lower cost it is still better. The additional costs of R&D for a new engine, the capital costs for a new factory to build them, the electrical generation needed to produce it, the engineering time to design, build and test, and the much much more expensive ion fuel all matter and frequently get swept under the rug when discussing this. Everyone just measured kg of fuel per thrust-work done completely ignoring that the two fuels and engines that use the fuel are absolutely not equal.
@@nighttow8780 For methane you need to add carbon atom to hydrogen and that is nowhere to find on the moon, unless polar craters contain dry ice too. On Mars there is carbon dioxide atmosphere for that.
...or you use shuttles (sharship and starship lander) at both ends for landing. You use a Starship fitted out with ion thrusters, a pair of liquid salt thorium reactors extra radiation shielding and top off in orbit with Krypton instead of Methyl-Ox. This is the ferry and never lands. Shuttle between Earth orbit and Lunar orbit every two months to ferry supplies. Add other ferries to accelerate supply.... or build a much larger version in lunar orbit after mining is in full swing and ferry larger loads or even take up asteroid prospecting.
Thanks Marcus, that filled in a lot of the gaps in my knowledge about the relationship between the two Moon programmes. Please keep these midweek videos coming!
Hey Marcus, I know you are more of a news Channel, but I have a video suggestion: What industry would require 0 g or the resources from the moon? Any kind of Basic Research that could lead to 0g production in space.
@@MarcusHouse I believe this person may be referring to magnetogravitic and electrogravitic spacecraft propulsion. These two concepts were first documented by the DoD when studying recovered nonterrestrial spacecraft in the late 1940’s/early 1950’s. Certainly, these means of propulsion are still classified or “locked up in black projects”, as it were, though it would be nice to see rockets put to obsolescence by sharing this more efficient technology with all of mankind.
3D printed manufacturing is much easier in 0g as you don't have gravity deforming your structures, so you can print intricate 3d models in metals, plastics, and organics and have them solidify / cure / develop in their desired forms.
@@DFPercush As things are right now, your perspective is definitely understandable. Unfortunately, our reality is such that, the only ‘conspiracy’ or widely-misunderstood idea that I know of, is the conclusion that NASA is our nation’s most advanced space program, which it unfortunately is not.
Cool episode, Marcus - hope we're all still around to see the Mars landing! It would be super cool if the NASA transport (19:40) took its design queues from 2001's "Discovery One", IMHO.
We never bothered to construct an artificial gravity ring at or in proximity to the ISS, so we are pressing ahead without certainty as to the long-term health effects of Martian 0.37G. If 0.37G is insufficient for biological humans, then we are colonizing Mars with automatons, radically genetically modified humans, or building O’Neill Cylinders for artificial gravity. All those solution reduce the relative value of Mars significantly. If 0.37G is insufficient for humans, then after the Moon it’s on to asteroids, not Mars. Gravity for humans is critical for Mars, otherwise it’s really just another rock with the penalty of sitting at the bottom of a gravity well.
Mars have the potential for manufacturing rocket fuel by only using local resources. Not sure thats possible on an asteroid or the moon. At least not as easily. And low gravity may be more beneficial then zero gravity for a ton of things we already do and have the tech for. Also things like genetically modified humans and O´Neill Cylinders are so far away. Regardless of the "better" long term strategy mars is available far sooner.
Couldn’t you just use Dragon to ferry astronauts to LEO? And a Mars skyhook is a great idea as well; it could use a minor amount of drag from the Martian atmosphere to burn off the Delta V it absorbs from incoming rockets…at least until it is time to give up that Delta V to launches.
A video on deep space propulsion would be very interesting. Ion Engines, VASIMIR engines, nuclear thermal, and similar. One of the hardest problems to solve with electric engines is where will all the power come from? Large solar arrays? Small nuclear power plants? Truly a fascinating subject.
Marcus, you are the one I turn to for your weekly updates. I do think we are getting ahead of ourselves wrt Starship. An excellent storyline for sure ... but for all the conversation and hype, Starship has not left the ground let alone returned from even low Earth orbit. Hopefully, we'll all be in awe of a magnificent series of launches for the big bird but we should be humble enough to know this storyline could stretch out for quite a while without success.
Another thing is going to be training. Those astronauts are going to need to train for the SLS and Orion but then also train on Starship. I don't think that's ever happened before. Astronauts train for their one system. These 4 people, whoever they'll be, are going to need to know both systems like the back of their hand. Double the training will take double the time.
Yea but this is 2022. Anything flying in space is 99% automated and have like 5 backup systems. The idea and image of astronauts as pilots is mostly a fictional remnant so scifi media can have its stereotypes. Yes there will be training. But the training will be a lot simpler then apollo times. I would even argue the only real reasons there are manual controls are mostly for human mental security and not actual need. Remember your phone have more compute power then apollo lander had.
Your forgetting that crew are/were trained for sputnik and dragon, some were also trained on shuttle. Also all of the systems are Fully automated and Not actually flown by the crews.
Marcus.. Of course we want to hear more about the efficiency of ion engines. We all are students of the universe and the science involved in exploring it. Great content from your team as always.. keep up the good work my friends.
The amazing thing about a Low Earth Orbit (LEO) Fuel Depot, is that whenever there is leftover that would otherwise be wasted, that's leftover that costs a lot of energy to extract, refine and fly there. Storing it in LEO means the fuel in the depot is kind of a SUPERFUEL: It contains the potential energy of bringing it there. It doesn't inherently contain any extra energy that would break thermodynamics, but one metric ton of fuel already in orbit would require a ridiculous amount of fuel on a ridiculously sized vehicle to leave from Earth Surface directly to another destination, say Mars, without refueling. It's getting to any EO that sucks most of the energy. That's why in most proper Sci-Fi, Interplanetary or Intergalactic vessels are built in Orbit, ideally at a Lagrange Point.
Minor correction. At around 1:10, you said there have only been 24 humans who went to the moon, with only 12 setting foot on the surface. There were actually 27 humans sent to the moon. Apollo 8 went to the moon, Apollo 9 tested the LEM in Low Earth Orbit, then Apollo 10 tested the LEM in lunar orbit. (NASA deliberately left Apollo 10's LEM tanks with insufficient fuel so the astronauts wouldn't be tempted to make a lunar landing!) Apollo 11, 12, 14 through 17 made it to the moon's surface, while Apollo 13 had the famously aborted mission. All told, that is 9 Apollo missions that at least went to the moon, with three astronauts each, a total of 27 astronauts who all saw the far side of the moon.
@Pete Comps : ah, but....... Three astronauts travelled to the moon TWICE ! Jim Lovell - 8 & 13 John Young - 10 & 16 Gene Cernan - 10 & 17 Meaning, in total, only 24 humans have left L E O. Smiles
@@BMrider75 Touché! I forgot about those guys getting two tickets. It made Lovell's experience on 13 all the more tragic. He got close twice, but never got the cigar.
@@BMrider75 Marcus probably looked at it the same way Pete did on the preview viewing. sometimes things are wrong but usually we stop them getting through the net😅
As in the TV series “For all Mankind” could we just build a space station in earth orbit and then propel it to Mars as a jumping off point for easy planet access.
I mean yes. But design of a station and a ship is rather different. Assembling a ship with functioning fuel lines and electric systems in orbit is probably hard. I mean transferring propellant for refiling is already going to be a problem. Now imagine that problem in the middle of your ship that needs to be reliable for a trip to mars.
That makes no sense at all. It would be far cheaper, quicker, safer and far more useful to build a ship capable of getting to Mars with people, landing them and bringing them back. As for any hardware you want to place in Mars orbit for communications or on the surface, like habitation modules, supplies, and rovers, you could send those on ahead and ensure they land safely and are working before sending people.
I've often wondered why we're building the lunar gateway at all. It seems a much smarter use of government funds would be to launch and fill the HLS in low earth orbit and then use the Dragon to transport astronauts to the HLS before it takes off for the moon. This would be more of a lunar direct approach and then on return do the same thing. Dock with the Dragon and transport returning crew like we do currently from the ISS. This removes the huge boondoggle SLS from the equation and dramatically reduces the budget dollars needed for these missions. It also leaves the HLS in earth orbit where it can be refilled and reused again.
The advantage of having a lunar orbiter is that it can hold the propellant necessary to get from lunar orbit back to the Earth, and that propellant doesn't have to be carried to the lunar surface or hoisted from the moon back into lunar orbit. That is the reason why all the Apollo missions used a "command module" that didn't land on the moon but remained in orbit. That approach is more efficient in propellant use.
Lunar Starship would be out of propellant once it gets back to lunar orbit after the surface mission is over. Also Lunar Gateway will do science around the Moon as well. The NRHO is a very stable orbit with very little propellant needed for station keeping each year. Lower orbits around the Moon are not stable, as there are mascons on the Earth side of the Moon, so the mass of the Moon is lopsided. A Starship Shuttle could replace SLS/Orion for the LEO to lunar orbit and back to LEO trip, but the Artemis III launch cadence is too slow for that. Per the GAO report denying the HLS complaints, it will take up to 10 Starship flights to get Lunar Starship to the Moon (pg 27 & Musk's updates to those numbers). The cadence per the SpaceX plan is one Starship launch every 12 days (pg 12). Lunar Starship can only wait in lunar orbit for 100 days (HLS Option A Statement pg 9), so it would take too long to get a Starship Shuttle to the Moon at first. Once Starship is down to about a once a week launch, then the up to 8 Tankers, a Starship Shuttle, Crew Dragon, Starliner, and at least one cargo Dragon would be just over $2.1B, even at the HLS Option A cost for a Starship launch. So it could replace SLS/Orion then. NASA has already procured the parts for 8 SLS launches, so they will likely fly a lot of them.
Given an absolutely abysmal track record for some time now why, would provision of vehicles by Boeing be a foregone conclusion? A truly vast distinction exists between systems already in late stages of development like Super Heavy and Starship and vehicles of any kind 'proposed' by NASA and Boeing that are not yet even subject to development including 'Rovers'.
We feel the mention of Boeing here is a vestigial left over from years of NASA's mars proposals. It is only in the video so people can see where that would sit in the NASA Moon to Mars timeline. Personally I think most of the hardware will be derived from SpaceX parts and the current plan is mostly what NASA had up until around the selection of HLS. I would image the next iteration of this plan will make even more sense and that it will come well before Artemis III, but for now this is the path that has been proposed by NASA.
Rovers is not rocket science. Its beefed up electric camper with life support systems. They have a mass restriction sure. But not a big one for their job. And i like criticizing Boeing but its silly to dismiss them as incompetent. The biggest indicator of their performance will be how the contract looks. If they can drag their feet and get nasa to pay the bill for an extra half year they will. If they start getting hit in the wallet they will speed up. Simple normal profit driven corporation stuff.
Great question. SpaceX has handwaved the life support needed. They haven't even provided a better toilet for the ISS; Endurance by Mark Kelley goes deep on how finicky the current model is.
SLS and Orion wouldn't really be needed at all, right? Given that Starship works as expected it would be able to do it all with the human launch/ landing part on Earth initially being managed by Falcon 9 & Crew Dragon.
the transfer point is the Gateway Station not Earth Orbit, you would have to get Crew Dragon to that rectilinear halo orbit around the moon (which is like 10 times the distance away from earth as a geostationary satellite, so i'm not sure F9 could do it with the mass of Crew Dragon) or you would have to fly the HLS all the way back to Earth Orbit every time thereby doubling the number of ignition cycles on the Lander that is part of the reason why the crew transfer happens at lunar orbit and not earth orbit, they want to maximize the number of landings possible per unit.
@YT the Delta V required to brake earth orbit is greater then the Delta V to get to orbit, so distance from earth is related to Delta V to some extent.
@@DanielRichards644 The point is humans can just transfer in orbit right before going to the moon on hls. Building a second hls just for landings will be relatively trivial. Man spacex needs a fleet just to refuel in orbit anyway. An extra hls unit while not free is nothing in the grand scheme of things. But i predict SLSs lifespan is entirely dependent on spacexs ability to offer a price embarrassingly enough to force the senate to stop its mandatory use.
@@RasakBlood second HLS? that would only be good for moon landing, you are now suggesting 3 space craft, one to get off Earth, one to go from Earth to the Moon then a third for Moon Landing, thats just foolish and no I'm not advocating for SLS, that thing is a money pit and should have been abandoned years ago, it's just until Starship is Crew Rated and can do the whole Earth to Gateway then SLS do Gateway to Moon we are gonna need SLS, there will also be huge benefits once Starship is Human Rated because more people will be able to be transported to the moon and far more supplies then anything SLS could ever conceivably do. Maybe they could Maybe SpaceX could rig something up with Falcon Heavy and a second stage between falcon heavy and Crew Dragon (as Crew Dragon would need someway to return back from the moon) and that maybe could work depending on vehicle mass. Remember the more vehicles you add to the system the higher the odds something will go wrong. In theory if Starship got Human Rated for Launch and Landing they could "waste the mass" of the flaps and heatshield and fly a land-able on earth Starship to the moon. We just need time to come up with a better option then SLS.
@@DanielRichards644 No just a second HLS. How do you think it gets to the moon to begin with silly. :/ Why would you need a new design when HLS is already crew rated and have life support systems etc. Its not like an apollo lander that needs to be carried to the moon. It can go there from earth orbit on its own. Gods.
What I’m not sure about is having the orbital space dock. Why not just do it all on the Moon instead? It seems like unnecessary additional cost and complexity. Just land starships with all needed equipment. The refilling can happen with it.
The Moon surface is the problem. The sharp dust is a nightmare for equipment and space suits. The original moon crew wouldn't have lasted another week, with the damage to their suits and gear.
@@prachurgupta9719 that's pretty much politics. Look at what is going on with the new green bill that Biden is trying to push and so far it's getting delay because of one person in Congress. Anything related with government comes with politics and delays, unfortunately it's just how it's been
Refueling in orbit is going to be a sticking point. So far we haven't done so on a small scale, and even if we had there's a lot in engineering that doesn't scale up well. personally, my prediction is add one year to any estimate to get refueling working.
There have been small scale experiments with refueling in orbit on the ISS. SpaceX has a $50M contract to demo Starship to Starship refueling in LEO by the end of 2022. They will likely miss that target date.
NASA has demonstrated we can transfer cryofuels in LEO on a small scale. But yes scaling it up is going to be the next big mile stone to hit after achieving orbit and landing.
Love your videos, Marcus! And yes, one on ion propulsion would be interesting as well. I agree with you that we'd learn a LOT from establishing a base on the moon before heading to Mars, & that a LOT of what we learn on the moon will also be applicable on Mars. Which means we probably shouldn't send people to Mars until we've done some of that learning. While I generally like Musk (as long as he keeps his mouth shut!) & I'm very impressed with all that he's been able to achieve, I think his intense focus on Mars, even at the expense of the moon, is somewhat misguided. I also think that we (he) would learn a lot from orbital space stations. Since he's going to have to setup refueling stations anyway, why not make them inhabited? Methane & LOX aren't that dangerous in space, as long as you keep them separated. Maybe put them at opposite ends of the station, with piping delivering them to the refueling port. It will all be fun to watch!
Thank you Marcus and the entire team for the midweek deep dive. A lot to digest as we head into the new frontier. All for more more episodes focusing on the challenges that are needed to be overcome on missions that are yet to become reality 👍
It's going to be funny when they crawl out of that little Orion capsule into a giant starship. It's like a cruise where you spend 90% of your cruise following a cruise ship in a dingy and then when you get to port you climb on-board the giant cruise ship to use the dock..
Yep NASA don't realise yet - they expected a small cramped lander just big enough for 2 people which is why their plan was to leave 2 people in orbit. But starship is like something out of science fiction - so big it can have multiple airlocks, crew room, private sleeper bunks , a kitchen , laboratory , toilet , gymnasium and could easily take all 4 crew to the surface in comfort. The 2 guys who NASA pick to stay in Orion are going to be crying. !
@@stephenhumble7627 Of course NASA realizes this. Even still, Orion is much larger compared to the Apollo capsules (%50) more volume and there will only be two in the capsule during landing. Apollo astronauts would've killed for the luxury.
@@HoHhoch The Apollo only had one person left in orbit. So per person is not much different to Apollo. Another concern is the longer mission duration and those in the capsule are exposed to more radiation than if the went in the HLS. The HLS will have the moon blocking radiation as well as it being larger craft with better shielding all around. The 2 people left in the Orion capsule are going to be space radiation guinea pigs - just hope they don't come down with radiation sickness if is a solar proton event.
A thought crossed my mind about Artemis, I was thinking "do a test launch" as if it were reusable. Man, it really is backwards thinking to make such an expensive 1-use rocket that you can't even "kick the tires" with and take it for a test drive.
It has been done this way for the entire history of rocketry, and it will be done this way until there is a reusable rocket capable of carrying such load... Remember, Starship still doesnt exist, its still in development and needs many tests to make it a reality.
Awesome stuff mate. Ive often wondered why Elon wont make a specific interplanet ship, I mean having two set of engines, wings, heat shield and landing gear on every Starship to ferry stuff from Earth to the moon or mars seems inefficient. Would it not be more efficient in the long run to have specific lander ships that are really tough and then a specific interstellar freighter that would depot stuff in orbit for the landers to ferry down?
Indeed and hopefully he moves away from chemical propulsion to the nuclear assist engines. This would cut travel time to Mars in half and make exploration of the rest of the solar system more feasible. Of course such engines would only be in transit from orbit to orbit .
Better yet you can have a 'cycler spacecraft' in an orbit that comes close to the 2 bodies you want to ferry between. It would only need to be refueled for the delta-V pertaining to the net cargo.
There have been ideas for putting a long haul habitation unit in a synchronous orbit that only needs minimal station keeping / fine adjustment burns. It doesn't save you any dV, but since you don't have to bring all the structural elements to accommodate the crew, it's less fuel and weight overall. You just send the crew in a tiny pod to rendezvous with the freighter, and then you live in that during the journey. Doesn't include the lander though.
The thing with Starship going to Mars or back to Earth is aerobraking. Yes, it takes more fuel for transfer burn due to extra mass, but you don't pay for arrival. Now on the Moon it does make sense to have a separate lander (lighter frame due to less stress, no wings, vacuum-only engines, lower TWR), while using the regular Starship to get to lunar orbit and back to Earth. At least with chemical propulsion it's probably similar expenses between a lighter transfer ship that can't enter the atmosphere and a heavier one which can aerobrake - at which point getting the entire Mars ship back to Earth may be more lucrative long-term option (if launch expenses get low enough). Speaking of Moon landers: even if mining enough water for refueling turns feasible, carbon is more scarce there, so no methane for Elon's ships. But there apparently is plenty of sulfur in the regolith... What about fueling a lander with H2S ?
@@AlchemistCH you make a good point with aerobraking, it would probably offset the extra weight and then some to Mars. Id think in the long run if mining for fuel on the moon would turn feaseble would splitting water to hydrogen and oxygen not make most sense there even if SpaceX would have to develop a hydrogen burning engine. I dont know how a compound of sulfur would work as fuel but well worth a look!
GREAT OVERVIEW AND PRESENTATION! YOU ARE AMAZING! THANKS FOR YOU AND YOUR TEAM = STILL THE BEST STUFF ON TH-cam! I would like to learn about ion engine. Also, hearing rumbles about a nuke engine - what's that all about?
All this complexity is because of NASA's requirements to "let the other kids play". SpaceX by itself could do the missions much faster and more efficiently. I'm not saying don't do anything. NASA and their other subcontractors could work on the habitats. But leave the transportation part to SpaceX.
By the time NASA gets to Mars they'll be greeted by a welcoming committee of SpaceX employees along with a government employee to make sure they have the proper documentation for entry.
I love spacex and think they will bring the key tech for the future. But nasa is a government agency. They cant put all their eggs in one basket and hope spacex delivers. Also nasa is for ever locked in the battle of politics. They need to contend with having the senate approve their budget and the for ever changing president and administration. Not to mention how spacex is like that one in a billion company that is not mainly driven by annual profit to please shareholders and unlock CEO bonuses. Spacex is an anomaly not the norm.
@@Bugsey35 Thats silly thoughtless anti government nonsense. Spacex will be payed by nasa to help with the mars program. Just like they are with the moon right now.
If the first lunar Starship is to be returned to the moon as a permanent lunar habitat it only needs enough fuel to land on the moon a second time. Given a Lunar starship does not need anything near full tanks to complete its demonstration mission and it has a lunar cargo upmass of more than 100t. I see no reason it couldn't carry enough fuel to return to the moon without refueling. In fact I'd bet a single Tanker Starship could provide enough fuel to run a second round trip to and from the lunar surface. After all the Delta-v needed for a trip to and from the Lunar surface is about half what it takes to get from LEO to Lunar orbit and the Lunar Starship will be way less massive once it's in Lunar orbit from the demonstration mission. Moreover with it's heatshield a tanker needs only a relatively tiny amount of fuel to return to earth after refueling Lunar Starship.
Lunar Starship is out of propellant after it returns to lunar orbit once the surface mission is done. It takes up to 10 Starship launches, up to 8 of them Tankers, to get a Starship to the Moon. A Starship Tanker in lunar orbit will have used a significant portion of the propellant to get to the Moon and needs propellant to return to Earth. So sending Tankers to the Moon to refuel Lunar Starship will take a lot of Tankers to get them there. It takes over 3.9km/s dV to get to the Moon and a further over 1.7km/s to land on the Moon. At the SpaceX target of 380 ISP for vacuum Raptor and 1,200 tons of propellant, that is 7.5km/s, so over half of the propellant is used just to get to the Moon. The return trip for the Tanker can use aerobraking, so it won't need all of that dV for the return. So it is possible one Tanker might be able refuel a Lunar Starship to land again, IF SpaceX hits their targets. Of course, that 380 ISP is a best case, as the three center engines are sea-level Raptor and will have a 330 ISP target. With a 355 ISP (avg) that is 7km/s dV for a Starship.
@@steveaustin2686 The information in the GAO is a dramatically outdated worst case scenario. That's based on what SpaceX knew for sure they could deliver to NASA at that time. Raptor engines are now lighter, more powerful and more efficient. The Boosters are lighter and more powerful. All variants of Starship are now lighter, more powerful, more efficient. When SpaceX initially bid for HLS they knew Tankers could delver 50T of fuel to LEO and hoped they could deliver 100T. Bezos's crazy claim of 15 launches for Lunar Starship was based on 50T refueling launches. Refueling the older heaver Lunar Starship design. By the time SpaceX was chosen knew they could do 100 to 150T per tanker launch and knew Lunar Starship itself would be lighter increasing the amount of fuel it could initially launch with and reducing total fuel need for a mission. The GAO report was based on the new worst case of 8 launches. Now Tankers are expected to deliver 150 to 200T of fuel to LEO and Lunar Starship will be even lighter than before which is why the currant projection is 4 to 6 launches for the HLS mission.
@@THX..1138 Guess you didn't read the GAO report and Musk's update to it. The info in the GAO was 16 flights (pg 27), the propellant depot, 14 Tanker flights, and Lunar Starship. Musk responded via Twitter to that report, saying that with Starship having ~150t to LEO, it is up to 8 Tanker flights, so up to 10 flights total. Based on 1,200 tons of propellant for Starship (second stage) and 14 Tanker flights in the GAO report, that would be just over 85 tons of payload. Again, Musk said up to 8 Tanker flights after the GAO report came out. SpaceX's Starship User Guide (Mar 2020) says 100+ tons to LEO and 21 tons to GTO, so Tim Dodd asked Musk that if Starship can get 21 tons to GTO (Mar 2020), then it should be able to get ~150 tons to LEO. Musk concurred, but SpaceX has not updated the User's Guide. SpaceX was awarded the HLS Option A contract in Apr 2021, over a year after the Starship User's Guide came out. This was detailed in an Apr 2020 Inverse article by Mike Brown called "SPACEX STARSHIP USER GUIDE SUGGESTS IT COULD OFFER MORE POWER THAN EXPECTED" The 220t figure for Starship was with the booster expended, per Musk. Officially, SpaceX lists 100+ tons and Musk has said 150 tons to LEO.
Great video and thanks for making and sharing, just a small thing around 16:00 mark, the ion propulsion by JPL was already tested on NASA’s Dawn Mission with twin xenon ion thrusters. It worked for that spacecraft that’s now orbiting Vesta as an inert tiny moon. This tech I think can now be users for small satellites towards moon with non-essential supplies etc. Keep up the good work mate 👍
Thanks! Yes I was more talking the scale of pushing something like a fuel depot. The electricity generation and number of ION engines to push that would be staggering.
Great video Marcus, but I do have one request. Please ask the individuals that supply your renderings to provide you with what a colony on Mars will actually look like for the first 25 or 30 years. Without a viable means of mitigating the radiation and temperature swings structures will receive on Mars, it is much more likely we will be living underground until such technology is achieved.Elon Musk himself believes this to be the unfortunate truth, hence The Boring Company. There woill be airlocks that rover vehicles will ferry people to and from the launch/landing site(s) to the airlock, but almost all habitat will be underground. This may possibly be the case for the moon as well, as the ISS is well within the Van Allen radiation belt, and as such doesn't need to be as hardended against the radiation, where the Moon has no protecting belt.
Thank you for the great videos you produce and for the discount to Curiosity Stream. I just signed up and there is such a wealth of science content. Definitely worth the price of admission.
My enthusiasm for SpaceX remains but it is very sad how political Musk has become. My admiration for him personally is waning. If he desires to benefit humanity, he should not be screwing with platforms like Twitter.
Wow I am 67 years old and I am blown away how fast things are looking up for the space race. I am glad I get to see the beginning of all the taking shape. Love it... I sub your channel
Got a shout out on rgv lastnight and just wanted to extend my gratitude 🙏 to you aswell Marcus ur show has been a great relief over this last 6 months wile I've been in hospital had my surgery Friday and still didn't miss ur show Saturday many thanks my friend fantastic job many thanks 1❤️
Very professional delivery of well considered concepts, We are in the presence of greatness. I sort of flashed into the future to a very very old Marcus House reporting on news from space the entire world tunes in for every Saturday morning!!
Neal, that was a really great and comprehensive vid. Too much info to comment on everything. I personally have always felt that Starship would not be the best vehicle for the Earth to Mars trip. I think it's an excellent Ascent vehicle and lander but I feel that there are better Mars transport vehicle concepts that would be better suited for later missions. How ever we go on the first missions, due to a lack of space resources and avoiding an Apollo 13 type incident, I hope our first trips use multiple vehicles on a simultaneous mission. Please do the video on the more efficient electric propulsion methods that a cycler could use. Also, the number of sorties to refill a LEO tanker is also concerning to time, cost, and resources. That's a lot of refuel flights for just one mission past LEO! Considering the abundance of unwanted CO2 here and the abundance of various sources of O2 in space destinations, I'm surprised no one talks about sending highly condensed CO2 to space for processing. Maybe you could do a video on processing CO2 to Methalox in an in orbit facility. 100 tons of condensed CO2 in Starship plus O2 from other source, and the logistics necessary, would net how much Methaloz? If Exxon sells stock in Methalox, I'll buy their "ExoMethalox stock.
The crew compartment being high up on the top of starship, requiring an elevator. Let's hope there is a manual override, a simple ratchet system in case of failure of motor or control.
Absolutely loving these videos and updates, they make me extremely excited for the future and getting to experience all of this happening is one of the best things ever to witness. Quick question would it be okay if you made a video explaining all of these science terms and explaining what some of this stuff means? If not I completely understand.
@@MarcusHouse holy cow you actually responded to my comment that's amazing and mind blowing.🤯🤯🤯thank you so much and can't wait to see some more of your amazing videos and content. Thanks again and have a amazing day.
Would love to see some analysis of options for artificial gravity (by rotation). Given there's practically zero gravity and air resistance it should be easy to do some experiments with e.g. 2 tethered craft (though you definitely don't want that tether to break). Are there gravitational instabilities that make it difficult? As well as in-orbit or constant velocity travel, this could be for lower gravity planets e.g a rotating parabolic chamber like the recent Japanese Kajima concept (but doesn't need to be ridiculous with a lake and boats like that example). For decades we've been hearing about how Nasa is "studying the effects of microgravity on the human body". Guys, we already know the effects (reduced bone density, muscular atrophy, eye deformation, the list goes on), it's time to progress the investigation - how about controlled studies of how much gravity is enough to allay those effects. Have 1 astronaut in zero-g the whole time, another at e.g. 0.5g while sleeping, someone else doing a daily 2 hour workout at 0.5 g or whatever.
Would love to see a video on current and future ion engines and propulsion.( hall effect, VASIMR, magnetohydrodynamic drives, nuclear pulse propulsion, Oblique wave detonation engines) so many options other than the typical inefficient chemical rockets.
Waterjet + laser..)/* Or even nuclear steam..) With cryogenic propellant boil-off being an issue, it may just be easier to keep water unfrozen and use it for propellant, life support, and radiation shielding.
You have showed me a lot I did not know or was misinformed about. Think you for such a clear look at all of this. I think it be grate to see more about the future of how thins will move in space and anything that helps us all to be better us. The last 3 years should show us all how much we need to be able to explore. Thank you Marcus and your amazing team. An idea for a video is a look at what it tacks to get a video out each week.
I'd like to say thanks for all the work you do to inform us in these super concentrated info packed videos ! It is obvious you have a passion for this subject
Have a great week everyone! For those interested in the presented Curiosity Stream episode, you can check it out at Curiosity Stream at curiositystream.com/marcushouse
If you already have it, the direct link to the episode is curiositystream.com/video/6360.
Hey Marcus, there is a guy here in the comments pretending to be you, saying they got a surprise package. Obviously a scam.
Yeah guessing so too
Warning: Scammers doing that telegram thing on your channel again. Scumbags.
@@Waikatotek yeah i fell into the first part of the scam before I realized it probably wasn’t Marcus
If you do that deep dive, don't forget to look at sublimable iodine ion engines!
Your brief examination of ion propulsion reminded me of an old joke;
Two atoms meet in a bar and one says to the other "I think I lost an electron" the second atoms asks "are you sure?" and the first one replies "yes I'm positive".😁
ouch, not just a Dad joke, but a grade school science teacher joke.
@@sonpopco-op9682 at least it wasn't a health teacher joke..)/*
Good man I appreciate that kind of humor I think I will use that joke of yours thank you.
16:00 A video on ion propulsion will be interesting, and it will be *really* interesting if it covers the idea of using it for Starship tankers to the Moon. Will it use krypton (inefficiently carrying a 3rd propellant) or can the Hall effect use oxygen efficiently enough? It certainly can't use xenon, the amount needed is prohibitively expensive.
I second this!!
I say we should use argon for propellant.
Yes,yes indeed! Hall effect deep dive would be much appreciated.
Why not just use water and steam propulsion?).. on demand water heating is existing technology.. maybe add a microwave magnetron or lasers to impart the most possible energy on the departing steam.. but that's pretty old school.. a large rail-gun for starships on the moon would be the ticket to Mars i.m.h.o.
@@andretokayuk8100 Water and steam is inefficient per ton of propellant. That is why chemical rockets are used currently. Ion and Nuclear propulsion are drastically more efficient than chemical rockets, which themselves are more efficient than steam.
This ist great stuff as always. I'd love to see a deep dive into efficent spaceflight 🤩
I second this motion ...
Can we please retire the terms “deep dive” and “game changer”?
@@executivesteps could we have a game changing discussion that dives deeper into that statement of yours 😀
I concur
Agreed, I came here to post the same thing
The information density and production quality of your videos is top notch, and your release schedule is insane. Thank you for the quality content, Marcus.
True this Video answered all Question on how we will get back to the Moon
Space and particularly spacex has become an oversaturated area on YT. There are so many channels dedicated to spacex that are not very good and just repeat the same thing over and over. Marcus House is...and has been one of the best ones for some time, and also covers a wide range of space topics.
If it video thumbnail has Elon crying/praying/looking angry, or claims of "Tesla Nuclear-powered Bots Destroy Besos," keep scrolling.
I hate that these low-quality accounts can keep spamming all this BS "content." I think one is GREAT SPACEX or something like that. Often using fake images of things and claiming they are the new SpaceX tech.
I report them when I see them making BS claims, but the worst is the bot accounts making dozens of live video feeds with keyword-stuffed titles and replay some old Elon interview with a frame around it trying to scam crypto. I've reported hundreds of these, and TH-cam emails me letting me know they've suspended dozens of the ones I've reported.
There's a few good ones, Scott Manly, Matt Lowne, The Everyday Astronaut and of course Marcus House to name some of my favourites
@@Exitof99 I agree, the crumby thumbnail thing is spot on. Swiftly followed by a terrible text to speech narrative that just copy's what all the reputable channels have said weeks ago, or the same American dude I have heard on so many channels and is just paid to narrate because he sounds good.....peace to ya.
@@cfiregaming9050 Hey there, the channels you mention, and the ones other people have in this thread are the really space good channels. I'm just fed up with all the spam spacex channels I keep seeing.
@@dazuk1969 Or the text to speech directly quotes wikipedia articles on the bad channels.
I'd love to see an entire episode on ion engines. And I really enjoyed this in-depth episode on the Moon & Mars missions. Thanks so much for these.
I love your videos, Marcus! Having that said, I would love to know more about ion engines!
Noted. I'll get right on it Jeffrey!
😁
I appreciate the fact that you have a timer clock going on the bottom of the screen during sponsor times. Not that many TH-camrs do this and it makes such a big difference! Thank you so much!!!
Great video as always.
It's a definite yes from me for that video on other propulsion technologies!!
I love Everyday Astronaut's videos, but your's are a lot more accessible and you explain things in a far easier to digest manner.
As engines develop I think talking about ion thrust is a good idea. Plus, thanks for the fascinating Artemis knowledge
I would love a video about ion engines. I know there's heaps out there, but you are great at explaining things so that i understand them :)
I wouldnt sweat it man. In just a couple of years SpaceX is singlehandedly running CREW missions with their Dragon capsules over and over and over. It may feel like slow engineering but the speed they are innovating and adapting, they will have the starship rockin and rollin permanently before we know it.
It'll be another round of postponements
@@leonardgibney2997 Ok everybody, the SpaceX schedule isn't kept tight enough for Leonard Gibney, let's shut the whole thing down, send them all home!
@@leonardgibney2997 Landing Falcon was postponed again and again. Oh the horror!
Yeah l admit I'm not a big Musk fan but I'm sceptical about manned space flight in general. I would always support man's efforts in space paradoxically because in the end I'm only expressing an opinion. It's like with moonshots. At the time of Apollo science pundits predicted we would be shuttling tourists to and from the moon routinely by the year 2000. Many don't believe we were ever on the Moon. NASA says it has moon rock brought back by the Apollo crews so that's pretty solid evidence they went there. When l think of the missions in detail l struggle to understand how Apollo happened. Miraculous!
@@leonardgibney2997 Politics, is basically how it happened. Astronauts had to fight to get the approval for experiments on a lot of their missions to the moon because the government was more interested in beating the Soviets than doing any actual advancements.
A really good and thoroughly produced video, thanks very much from a grateful Patreon supporter. I'd certainly back the idea for a deep look at the ion spaceship propulsion! Well done Marcus; a great slant as usual, unique alongside other space broadcasters. 👍
7:00 OK, a crew-rated spacecraft is needed to complement the non-crew-rated Starship for launch from Earth. But why Orion? Why in lunar orbit? You're keeping us in suspense over the glaringly obvious option of Dragon->LEO->Starship->lunar orbit->HLS Starship. A regular Starship fitted with crew quarters cloned from HLS (thus already NASA crew-rated for space operations) can take over the Orion part of the mission. This assumes Starship is a success - but Artemis already depends on Starship's success to do the tanker missions to LEO for the HLS. Have your experts check the figures, but a fully fueled regular Starship can go LEO->NHRO->LEO with no refilling in NHRO required. It will just have to carry a limited amount of cargo, but any amount will be more than Orion can, and this JSS (Journey StarShip) is simply swapping in for Orion.
Yes, this should have been mentioned. If SLS and Orion wouldn't exist today, it would be the obvious way to go until Starship is human rated, then they probably no longer need the lunar gateway either, although NRHO that does make it easy to land on the poles. However, for Artemis 2 or 3 they are going to use SLS and Orion.
Personally this is what I hope happens, we might be able to push for a video like this but we'd also need the 3D artists to be working around the clock for it, hopefully it will come out of the woodwork at some point.
It’s unlikely that Starlink or other launches could contribute their excess propellant to the depot before landing. The depot will be in one orbit; the launched Starship will be in an entirely different orbit - most likely not even in the same plane. Maneuvering between orbits like that can take considerable delta-V, using up some or all of the excess propellant and making the whole thing moot.
More likely SpaceX would start doing combo launches whenever possible: satellites could hitch rides on depot refueling missions. The energy required to maneuver a single satellite from the Depot orbit (or one en route to it) to its destination orbit would be a lot less than that needed to move the whole Starship.
Assuming the depot is at the same inclination as Starlink, you can get there through orbital precession for very little delta V. That can take a lot of time though, so in most cases I doubt the increased turnaround time on the ship will be worth the fuel you'll deposit.
Agreed. Plus there's no good reason to launch Starlink missions with more propellent than needed. Every kilogram of mass to orbit requires several kilograms of fuel to get it there...As far as ride share on tankers goes. Tanker Starships are likely to be little more than flying fuel tanks. Adding the ability to launch satellites to them would add significant mass that still be with the tanker even when they didn't have a ride share payload.
IMO at best Tankers may be used to launch something like CubeSats from the tail cone as the payload launcher could be added or subtracted without significant modification to the Tanker and those types of payloads neither weigh very much or are very picky about what orbit they end up in.
In fact the The fuel depot and Tankers are likely to use an orbit significantly lower than most satellites. One that requires frequent boost just to stay in orbit. Which is just about a perfect for CubeSats that are not intended to stay in orbit for than a several months or at best a year or two.
Not sure why SpaceX can't launch a few tanker Starships along with a manned Starship. Like a small convoy. Go about anywhere they want. That's what the Navy does I think. Just take enough tankers along. Skip Orion completely (or we'll be waiting until 2300 for this to finally happen). Maybe I'm missing something?
That is assuming all rockets use exactly same propellants and they can be accumulated in the same depot tank.
I have not began to consider Tybee extra weight of all the docking mechanism needed to dock with the depot and safely transfer fuel.
Sounds like a very stupid idea even for a movie like gravity
@@kalebbruwer Maybe it doesn't make sense to bring the starship to the tanker via precession, but maybe it makes sense to align the tanker to the next Starlink launch. You'll have more time between flights that the tanker is up there otherwise doing nothing.
If you could count on the tanker being where you needed it I think it really changes the cost/benefit. I'm not sure we know whether Starlink launches on Starship are going to be mass or volume limited also. That might change the maths a lot as well.
Just discovered this channel... let me just say thank you so much for all of the hard work and dedication. You really couldn't make these videos any more interesting and informative. It's exactly what I want to watch.
If you do a video about high efficiency engines, you really need to consider the cost per unit of thrust-work. If Methane Raptor engines can get things to the moon with terrible "efficiency", but a lower cost it is still better. The additional costs of R&D for a new engine, the capital costs for a new factory to build them, the electrical generation needed to produce it, the engineering time to design, build and test, and the much much more expensive ion fuel all matter and frequently get swept under the rug when discussing this. Everyone just measured kg of fuel per thrust-work done completely ignoring that the two fuels and engines that use the fuel are absolutely not equal.
@@nighttow8780 How do you make methane on the moon?
@@nighttow8780 you need carbon also to make methane
@@nighttow8780 For methane you need to add carbon atom to hydrogen and that is nowhere to find on the moon, unless polar craters contain dry ice too. On Mars there is carbon dioxide atmosphere for that.
@@nighttow8780 Its in the rock themselves, hydrates, oxides etc, also some indication of subsurface ice.
...or you use shuttles (sharship and starship lander) at both ends for landing. You use a Starship fitted out with ion thrusters, a pair of liquid salt thorium reactors extra radiation shielding and top off in orbit with Krypton instead of Methyl-Ox.
This is the ferry and never lands.
Shuttle between Earth orbit and Lunar orbit every two months to ferry supplies.
Add other ferries to accelerate supply.... or build a much larger version in lunar orbit after mining is in full swing and ferry larger loads or even take up asteroid prospecting.
Thanks Marcus, that filled in a lot of the gaps in my knowledge about the relationship between the two Moon programmes. Please keep these midweek videos coming!
Hey Marcus, I know you are more of a news Channel, but I have a video suggestion:
What industry would require 0 g or the resources from the moon?
Any kind of Basic Research that could lead to 0g production in space.
Interesting thought. Will put that in the vault.
@@MarcusHouse I believe this person may be referring to magnetogravitic and electrogravitic spacecraft propulsion. These two concepts were first documented by the DoD when studying recovered nonterrestrial spacecraft in the late 1940’s/early 1950’s. Certainly, these means of propulsion are still classified or “locked up in black projects”, as it were, though it would be nice to see rockets put to obsolescence by sharing this more efficient technology with all of mankind.
@@seankash8546 I think you've watched too many fake conspiracy videos.
3D printed manufacturing is much easier in 0g as you don't have gravity deforming your structures, so you can print intricate 3d models in metals, plastics, and organics and have them solidify / cure / develop in their desired forms.
@@DFPercush As things are right now, your perspective is definitely understandable. Unfortunately, our reality is such that, the only ‘conspiracy’ or widely-misunderstood idea that I know of, is the conclusion that NASA is our nation’s most advanced space program, which it unfortunately is not.
This was really great! Thank you!
Your name is familiar, where do I know it from... 🧐
oh hey Jesus
how are you verified? XD
Is it true that you're friends with THE Joel Haver?
Thanks for watching Jesus! 😀
Seriously good video packed with extra chunky space goodness. . Thank you MH + Team for this excellent upload. .
You are a champion Rob!
Cool episode, Marcus - hope we're all still around to see the Mars landing! It would be super cool if the NASA transport (19:40) took its design queues from 2001's "Discovery One", IMHO.
"Open the pod bay doors, Alexa"
Wow these Artemis missions are sure. Really brings it home what a massive achievement Apollo was.
Marcus my man, so courteous as to put a sponsor cooldown bar! You are the freaking man!
We never bothered to construct an artificial gravity ring at or in proximity to the ISS, so we are pressing ahead without certainty as to the long-term health effects of Martian 0.37G. If 0.37G is insufficient for biological humans, then we are colonizing Mars with automatons, radically genetically modified humans, or building O’Neill Cylinders for artificial gravity. All those solution reduce the relative value of Mars significantly. If 0.37G is insufficient for humans, then after the Moon it’s on to asteroids, not Mars. Gravity for humans is critical for Mars, otherwise it’s really just another rock with the penalty of sitting at the bottom of a gravity well.
Mars have the potential for manufacturing rocket fuel by only using local resources. Not sure thats possible on an asteroid or the moon. At least not as easily. And low gravity may be more beneficial then zero gravity for a ton of things we already do and have the tech for. Also things like genetically modified humans and O´Neill Cylinders are so far away. Regardless of the "better" long term strategy mars is available far sooner.
Couldn’t you just use Dragon to ferry astronauts to LEO? And a Mars skyhook is a great idea as well; it could use a minor amount of drag from the Martian atmosphere to burn off the Delta V it absorbs from incoming rockets…at least until it is time to give up that Delta V to launches.
One concern I have always had about the Lander is replenishing consumables (oxygen, water, etc.), waste disposal, not just fuel.
Thanks for the info, Marcus! Great work, as always
Thanks Ellie 😊
Australia might not have the biggest space program but they certainly have the best launch countdown announcer guy on the planet!
Let 's not forget the "Square Kilometer Array" here in Western Australia and other projects.
A video on deep space propulsion would be very interesting. Ion Engines, VASIMIR engines, nuclear thermal, and similar. One of the hardest problems to solve with electric engines is where will all the power come from? Large solar arrays? Small nuclear power plants? Truly a fascinating subject.
Marcus, you are the one I turn to for your weekly updates. I do think we are getting ahead of ourselves wrt Starship. An excellent storyline for sure ... but for all the conversation and hype, Starship has not left the ground let alone returned from even low Earth orbit. Hopefully, we'll all be in awe of a magnificent series of launches for the big bird but we should be humble enough to know this storyline could stretch out for quite a while without success.
Yes please do a video about ion propulsion. How realistic is it for sending a heavy Starship back from the Moon?
I understood this was the plan at some point not much deltaV needed to get back to earth orbit. Assuming you are not in a rush
Perfectly timed! 51 years ago today Apollo 15 launched!
Another superb midweek video Marcus, absolutely great stuff. Best channel on TH-cam.
Another thing is going to be training. Those astronauts are going to need to train for the SLS and Orion but then also train on Starship. I don't think that's ever happened before. Astronauts train for their one system. These 4 people, whoever they'll be, are going to need to know both systems like the back of their hand. Double the training will take double the time.
Yea but this is 2022. Anything flying in space is 99% automated and have like 5 backup systems. The idea and image of astronauts as pilots is mostly a fictional remnant so scifi media can have its stereotypes. Yes there will be training. But the training will be a lot simpler then apollo times. I would even argue the only real reasons there are manual controls are mostly for human mental security and not actual need. Remember your phone have more compute power then apollo lander had.
Your forgetting that crew are/were trained for sputnik and dragon, some were also trained on shuttle.
Also all of the systems are Fully automated and Not actually flown by the crews.
Astronauts trained for the crewed spacecraft and the ISS, so this isn't really different.
Marcus.. Of course we want to hear more about the efficiency of ion engines. We all are students of the universe and the science involved in exploring it. Great content from your team as always.. keep up the good work my friends.
A TUESDAY UPLOAD?!
He does this sometimes.
@@graychev 🎉 I’m new around here, so this is amazing news
The amazing thing about a Low Earth Orbit (LEO) Fuel Depot, is that whenever there is leftover that would otherwise be wasted, that's leftover that costs a lot of energy to extract, refine and fly there. Storing it in LEO means the fuel in the depot is kind of a SUPERFUEL: It contains the potential energy of bringing it there.
It doesn't inherently contain any extra energy that would break thermodynamics, but one metric ton of fuel already in orbit would require a ridiculous amount of fuel on a ridiculously sized vehicle to leave from Earth Surface directly to another destination, say Mars, without refueling. It's getting to any EO that sucks most of the energy. That's why in most proper Sci-Fi, Interplanetary or Intergalactic vessels are built in Orbit, ideally at a Lagrange Point.
Minor correction. At around 1:10, you said there have only been 24 humans who went to the moon, with only 12 setting foot on the surface. There were actually 27 humans sent to the moon. Apollo 8 went to the moon, Apollo 9 tested the LEM in Low Earth Orbit, then Apollo 10 tested the LEM in lunar orbit. (NASA deliberately left Apollo 10's LEM tanks with insufficient fuel so the astronauts wouldn't be tempted to make a lunar landing!) Apollo 11, 12, 14 through 17 made it to the moon's surface, while Apollo 13 had the famously aborted mission. All told, that is 9 Apollo missions that at least went to the moon, with three astronauts each, a total of 27 astronauts who all saw the far side of the moon.
geeze I think I forgot to include Apollo 13 when counting up, how silly 🤦♂
@Pete Comps : ah, but....... Three astronauts travelled to the moon TWICE !
Jim Lovell - 8 & 13
John Young - 10 & 16
Gene Cernan - 10 & 17
Meaning, in total, only 24 humans have left L E O.
Smiles
@@BMrider75 Touché! I forgot about those guys getting two tickets. It made Lovell's experience on 13 all the more tragic. He got close twice, but never got the cigar.
@@petecomps7260 no worries. BTW, I've found Marcus so far to be pretty good/reliable with the history stuff ! Smiles
@@BMrider75 Marcus probably looked at it the same way Pete did on the preview viewing. sometimes things are wrong but usually we stop them getting through the net😅
Don’t know why it has taken me so long to find this AWESOME channel??? I’m blown away. Epic! Thank you!
As in the TV series “For all Mankind” could we just build a space station in earth orbit and then propel it to Mars as a jumping off point for easy planet access.
I mean yes. But design of a station and a ship is rather different. Assembling a ship with functioning fuel lines and electric systems in orbit is probably hard. I mean transferring propellant for refiling is already going to be a problem. Now imagine that problem in the middle of your ship that needs to be reliable for a trip to mars.
The “Science” on that show is a lot more fiction than science.
Or we could just not spend yeas to build a space station and instead do as spacex propose and just fly direct to surface of mars.
That makes no sense at all. It would be far cheaper, quicker, safer and far more useful to build a ship capable of getting to Mars with people, landing them and bringing them back. As for any hardware you want to place in Mars orbit for communications or on the surface, like habitation modules, supplies, and rovers, you could send those on ahead and ensure they land safely and are working before sending people.
@@RasakBlood why is it going to be a problem?
Thanks Marcus, I've been wanting to hear about an orbiting fuel depot.
I've often wondered why we're building the lunar gateway at all. It seems a much smarter use of government funds would be to launch and fill the HLS in low earth orbit and then use the Dragon to transport astronauts to the HLS before it takes off for the moon. This would be more of a lunar direct approach and then on return do the same thing. Dock with the Dragon and transport returning crew like we do currently from the ISS. This removes the huge boondoggle SLS from the equation and dramatically reduces the budget dollars needed for these missions. It also leaves the HLS in earth orbit where it can be refilled and reused again.
The advantage of having a lunar orbiter is that it can hold the propellant necessary to get from lunar orbit back to the Earth, and that propellant doesn't have to be carried to the lunar surface or hoisted from the moon back into lunar orbit. That is the reason why all the Apollo missions used a "command module" that didn't land on the moon but remained in orbit. That approach is more efficient in propellant use.
Lunar Starship would be out of propellant once it gets back to lunar orbit after the surface mission is over. Also Lunar Gateway will do science around the Moon as well. The NRHO is a very stable orbit with very little propellant needed for station keeping each year. Lower orbits around the Moon are not stable, as there are mascons on the Earth side of the Moon, so the mass of the Moon is lopsided.
A Starship Shuttle could replace SLS/Orion for the LEO to lunar orbit and back to LEO trip, but the Artemis III launch cadence is too slow for that. Per the GAO report denying the HLS complaints, it will take up to 10 Starship flights to get Lunar Starship to the Moon (pg 27 & Musk's updates to those numbers). The cadence per the SpaceX plan is one Starship launch every 12 days (pg 12). Lunar Starship can only wait in lunar orbit for 100 days (HLS Option A Statement pg 9), so it would take too long to get a Starship Shuttle to the Moon at first. Once Starship is down to about a once a week launch, then the up to 8 Tankers, a Starship Shuttle, Crew Dragon, Starliner, and at least one cargo Dragon would be just over $2.1B, even at the HLS Option A cost for a Starship launch. So it could replace SLS/Orion then. NASA has already procured the parts for 8 SLS launches, so they will likely fly a lot of them.
Always appreciate a mid week video.
Given an absolutely abysmal track record for some time now why, would provision of vehicles by Boeing be a foregone conclusion?
A truly vast distinction exists between systems already in late stages of development like Super Heavy and Starship and vehicles of any kind 'proposed' by NASA and Boeing that are not yet even subject to development including 'Rovers'.
We feel the mention of Boeing here is a vestigial left over from years of NASA's mars proposals. It is only in the video so people can see where that would sit in the NASA Moon to Mars timeline. Personally I think most of the hardware will be derived from SpaceX parts and the current plan is mostly what NASA had up until around the selection of HLS.
I would image the next iteration of this plan will make even more sense and that it will come well before Artemis III, but for now this is the path that has been proposed by NASA.
Rovers is not rocket science. Its beefed up electric camper with life support systems. They have a mass restriction sure. But not a big one for their job. And i like criticizing Boeing but its silly to dismiss them as incompetent. The biggest indicator of their performance will be how the contract looks. If they can drag their feet and get nasa to pay the bill for an extra half year they will. If they start getting hit in the wallet they will speed up. Simple normal profit driven corporation stuff.
Well done Marcus. I'd like to see an "in-route" video. How a crew would live for the trip to Mars and the Moon.
Great question. SpaceX has handwaved the life support needed. They haven't even provided a better toilet for the ISS; Endurance by Mark Kelley goes deep on how finicky the current model is.
SLS and Orion wouldn't really be needed at all, right?
Given that Starship works as expected it would be able to do it all with the human launch/ landing part on Earth initially being managed by Falcon 9 & Crew Dragon.
the transfer point is the Gateway Station not Earth Orbit, you would have to get Crew Dragon to that rectilinear halo orbit around the moon (which is like 10 times the distance away from earth as a geostationary satellite, so i'm not sure F9 could do it with the mass of Crew Dragon) or you would have to fly the HLS all the way back to Earth Orbit every time thereby doubling the number of ignition cycles on the Lander that is part of the reason why the crew transfer happens at lunar orbit and not earth orbit, they want to maximize the number of landings possible per unit.
@YT the Delta V required to brake earth orbit is greater then the Delta V to get to orbit, so distance from earth is related to Delta V to some extent.
@@DanielRichards644 The point is humans can just transfer in orbit right before going to the moon on hls. Building a second hls just for landings will be relatively trivial. Man spacex needs a fleet just to refuel in orbit anyway. An extra hls unit while not free is nothing in the grand scheme of things. But i predict SLSs lifespan is entirely dependent on spacexs ability to offer a price embarrassingly enough to force the senate to stop its mandatory use.
@@RasakBlood second HLS? that would only be good for moon landing, you are now suggesting 3 space craft, one to get off Earth, one to go from Earth to the Moon then a third for Moon Landing, thats just foolish and no I'm not advocating for SLS, that thing is a money pit and should have been abandoned years ago, it's just until Starship is Crew Rated and can do the whole Earth to Gateway then SLS do Gateway to Moon we are gonna need SLS, there will also be huge benefits once Starship is Human Rated because more people will be able to be transported to the moon and far more supplies then anything SLS could ever conceivably do. Maybe they could Maybe SpaceX could rig something up with Falcon Heavy and a second stage between falcon heavy and Crew Dragon (as Crew Dragon would need someway to return back from the moon) and that maybe could work depending on vehicle mass. Remember the more vehicles you add to the system the higher the odds something will go wrong. In theory if Starship got Human Rated for Launch and Landing they could "waste the mass" of the flaps and heatshield and fly a land-able on earth Starship to the moon. We just need time to come up with a better option then SLS.
@@DanielRichards644 No just a second HLS. How do you think it gets to the moon to begin with silly. :/ Why would you need a new design when HLS is already crew rated and have life support systems etc. Its not like an apollo lander that needs to be carried to the moon. It can go there from earth orbit on its own. Gods.
Dude.. I love all your contents ❤️
Greetings from Canada
What I’m not sure about is having the orbital space dock. Why not just do it all on the Moon instead?
It seems like unnecessary additional cost and complexity. Just land starships with all needed equipment. The refilling can happen with it.
The Moon surface is the problem.
The sharp dust is a nightmare for equipment and space suits.
The original moon crew wouldn't have lasted another week, with the damage to their suits and gear.
Yes please do a video on ion drives, and other efficient engines. Id watch that, and im sure many would benefit from its understanding :)
i have a lot of doubts about the proposed timeline, not because it isn't doable, but because politics always gets in the way.
Not politics exactly, but funding from congress.
@@prachurgupta9719 that's pretty much politics. Look at what is going on with the new green bill that Biden is trying to push and so far it's getting delay because of one person in Congress.
Anything related with government comes with politics and delays, unfortunately it's just how it's been
Refueling in orbit is going to be a sticking point. So far we haven't done so on a small scale, and even if we had there's a lot in engineering that doesn't scale up well. personally, my prediction is add one year to any estimate to get refueling working.
There have been small scale experiments with refueling in orbit on the ISS. SpaceX has a $50M contract to demo Starship to Starship refueling in LEO by the end of 2022. They will likely miss that target date.
It could be super hard. Or it could be rather trivial, and everything in between.
NASA has demonstrated we can transfer cryofuels in LEO on a small scale. But yes scaling it up is going to be the next big mile stone to hit after achieving orbit and landing.
The major part is done - the quick disconnect supply for Starship is the obvious first step and likely the one to be reused.
Excellent video, Marcus! Really great insights as usual. Love the deep dive on these subjects. Fan from Cincinnati.
Love your videos, Marcus! And yes, one on ion propulsion would be interesting as well.
I agree with you that we'd learn a LOT from establishing a base on the moon before heading to Mars, & that a LOT of what we learn on the moon will also be applicable on Mars. Which means we probably shouldn't send people to Mars until we've done some of that learning.
While I generally like Musk (as long as he keeps his mouth shut!) & I'm very impressed with all that he's been able to achieve, I think his intense focus on Mars, even at the expense of the moon, is somewhat misguided.
I also think that we (he) would learn a lot from orbital space stations. Since he's going to have to setup refueling stations anyway, why not make them inhabited? Methane & LOX aren't that dangerous in space, as long as you keep them separated. Maybe put them at opposite ends of the station, with piping delivering them to the refueling port.
It will all be fun to watch!
An efficient drive (ion or infinite improbability) deep dive would be much appreciated ~ thank you.
Thank you Marcus and the entire team for the midweek deep dive. A lot to digest as we head into the new frontier. All for more more episodes focusing on the challenges that are needed to be overcome on missions that are yet to become reality 👍
Hi Marcus house that was a really interesting video of the new space industry some really interesting things in this video thanks 🙏 David 🇬🇧❤️🙏
It's going to be funny when they crawl out of that little Orion capsule into a giant starship.
It's like a cruise where you spend 90% of your cruise following a cruise ship in a dingy and then when you get to port you climb on-board the giant cruise ship to use the dock..
Mate that's hilarious
Yep NASA don't realise yet - they expected a small cramped lander just big enough for 2 people which is why their plan was to leave 2 people in orbit. But starship is like something out of science fiction - so big it can have multiple airlocks, crew room, private sleeper bunks , a kitchen , laboratory , toilet , gymnasium and could easily take all 4 crew to the surface in comfort.
The 2 guys who NASA pick to stay in Orion are going to be crying. !
@@stephenhumble7627 Of course NASA realizes this. Even still, Orion is much larger compared to the Apollo capsules (%50) more volume and there will only be two in the capsule during landing. Apollo astronauts would've killed for the luxury.
@@HoHhoch The Apollo only had one person left in orbit. So per person is not much different to Apollo. Another concern is the longer mission duration and those in the capsule are exposed to more radiation than if the went in the HLS. The HLS will have the moon blocking radiation as well as it being larger craft with better shielding all around. The 2 people left in the Orion capsule are going to be space radiation guinea pigs - just hope they don't come down with radiation sickness if is a solar proton event.
A thought crossed my mind about Artemis, I was thinking "do a test launch" as if it were reusable. Man, it really is backwards thinking to make such an expensive 1-use rocket that you can't even "kick the tires" with and take it for a test drive.
It has been done this way for the entire history of rocketry, and it will be done this way until there is a reusable rocket capable of carrying such load... Remember, Starship still doesnt exist, its still in development and needs many tests to make it a reality.
Great stuff. Been a fan for a while , but now your videos are truly becoming little mini documentaries . keep up the good work
Awesome stuff mate. Ive often wondered why Elon wont make a specific interplanet ship, I mean having two set of engines, wings, heat shield and landing gear on every Starship to ferry stuff from Earth to the moon or mars seems inefficient. Would it not be more efficient in the long run to have specific lander ships that are really tough and then a specific interstellar freighter that would depot stuff in orbit for the landers to ferry down?
Indeed and hopefully he moves away from chemical propulsion to the nuclear assist engines. This would cut travel time to Mars in half and make exploration of the rest of the solar system more feasible. Of course such engines would only be in transit from orbit to orbit
.
Better yet you can have a 'cycler spacecraft' in an orbit that comes close to the 2 bodies you want to ferry between. It would only need to be refueled for the delta-V pertaining to the net cargo.
There have been ideas for putting a long haul habitation unit in a synchronous orbit that only needs minimal station keeping / fine adjustment burns. It doesn't save you any dV, but since you don't have to bring all the structural elements to accommodate the crew, it's less fuel and weight overall. You just send the crew in a tiny pod to rendezvous with the freighter, and then you live in that during the journey. Doesn't include the lander though.
The thing with Starship going to Mars or back to Earth is aerobraking. Yes, it takes more fuel for transfer burn due to extra mass, but you don't pay for arrival. Now on the Moon it does make sense to have a separate lander (lighter frame due to less stress, no wings, vacuum-only engines, lower TWR), while using the regular Starship to get to lunar orbit and back to Earth. At least with chemical propulsion it's probably similar expenses between a lighter transfer ship that can't enter the atmosphere and a heavier one which can aerobrake - at which point getting the entire Mars ship back to Earth may be more lucrative long-term option (if launch expenses get low enough).
Speaking of Moon landers: even if mining enough water for refueling turns feasible, carbon is more scarce there, so no methane for Elon's ships. But there apparently is plenty of sulfur in the regolith... What about fueling a lander with H2S ?
@@AlchemistCH you make a good point with aerobraking, it would probably offset the extra weight and then some to Mars.
Id think in the long run if mining for fuel on the moon would turn feaseble would splitting water to hydrogen and oxygen not make most sense there even if SpaceX would have to develop a hydrogen burning engine. I dont know how a compound of sulfur would work as fuel but well worth a look!
GREAT OVERVIEW AND PRESENTATION!
YOU ARE AMAZING! THANKS FOR YOU AND YOUR TEAM = STILL THE BEST STUFF ON TH-cam!
I would like to learn about ion engine.
Also, hearing rumbles about a nuke engine - what's that all about?
Marcus have you seen the suits that have micro wires weaved in to do active dust repulsion by using a electromagnetic field? Seems pretty nifty.
We wanted to dive deeper into things like that but we were so over time limit that it seems that space suits probably need their own video entirely.
Maybe your best video to date Marcus! I would love to see a video on ion drives from you. Thank you!
All this complexity is because of NASA's requirements to "let the other kids play". SpaceX by itself could do the missions much faster and more efficiently. I'm not saying don't do anything. NASA and their other subcontractors could work on the habitats. But leave the transportation part to SpaceX.
By the time NASA gets to Mars they'll be greeted by a welcoming committee of SpaceX employees along with a government employee to make sure they have the proper documentation for entry.
I love spacex and think they will bring the key tech for the future. But nasa is a government agency. They cant put all their eggs in one basket and hope spacex delivers. Also nasa is for ever locked in the battle of politics. They need to contend with having the senate approve their budget and the for ever changing president and administration. Not to mention how spacex is like that one in a billion company that is not mainly driven by annual profit to please shareholders and unlock CEO bonuses. Spacex is an anomaly not the norm.
@@Bugsey35 Thats silly thoughtless anti government nonsense. Spacex will be payed by nasa to help with the mars program. Just like they are with the moon right now.
Great video Marcus! I hope you had a relaxing vacation. A video about efficient ion engines would be fantastic!
If the first lunar Starship is to be returned to the moon as a permanent lunar habitat it only needs enough fuel to land on the moon a second time. Given a Lunar starship does not need anything near full tanks to complete its demonstration mission and it has a lunar cargo upmass of more than 100t. I see no reason it couldn't carry enough fuel to return to the moon without refueling.
In fact I'd bet a single Tanker Starship could provide enough fuel to run a second round trip to and from the lunar surface. After all the Delta-v needed for a trip to and from the Lunar surface is about half what it takes to get from LEO to Lunar orbit and the Lunar Starship will be way less massive once it's in Lunar orbit from the demonstration mission. Moreover with it's heatshield a tanker needs only a relatively tiny amount of fuel to return to earth after refueling Lunar Starship.
Lunar Starship is out of propellant after it returns to lunar orbit once the surface mission is done.
It takes up to 10 Starship launches, up to 8 of them Tankers, to get a Starship to the Moon. A Starship Tanker in lunar orbit will have used a significant portion of the propellant to get to the Moon and needs propellant to return to Earth. So sending Tankers to the Moon to refuel Lunar Starship will take a lot of Tankers to get them there. It takes over 3.9km/s dV to get to the Moon and a further over 1.7km/s to land on the Moon. At the SpaceX target of 380 ISP for vacuum Raptor and 1,200 tons of propellant, that is 7.5km/s, so over half of the propellant is used just to get to the Moon. The return trip for the Tanker can use aerobraking, so it won't need all of that dV for the return. So it is possible one Tanker might be able refuel a Lunar Starship to land again, IF SpaceX hits their targets. Of course, that 380 ISP is a best case, as the three center engines are sea-level Raptor and will have a 330 ISP target. With a 355 ISP (avg) that is 7km/s dV for a Starship.
@@steveaustin2686 Not according to Musk, NASA, the GAO and the Federal Judge who both ruled against Blue Origin when they raised these same arguments.
@@THX..1138 I think you misunderstand. The info I am talking about from the GAO report is SpaceX's OWN plans and have nothing to do with Blue Origin.
@@steveaustin2686 The information in the GAO is a dramatically outdated worst case scenario. That's based on what SpaceX knew for sure they could deliver to NASA at that time. Raptor engines are now lighter, more powerful and more efficient. The Boosters are lighter and more powerful. All variants of Starship are now lighter, more powerful, more efficient.
When SpaceX initially bid for HLS they knew Tankers could delver 50T of fuel to LEO and hoped they could deliver 100T. Bezos's crazy claim of 15 launches for Lunar Starship was based on 50T refueling launches. Refueling the older heaver Lunar Starship design.
By the time SpaceX was chosen knew they could do 100 to 150T per tanker launch and knew Lunar Starship itself would be lighter increasing the amount of fuel it could initially launch with and reducing total fuel need for a mission. The GAO report was based on the new worst case of 8 launches.
Now Tankers are expected to deliver 150 to 200T of fuel to LEO and Lunar Starship will be even lighter than before which is why the currant projection is 4 to 6 launches for the HLS mission.
@@THX..1138 Guess you didn't read the GAO report and Musk's update to it. The info in the GAO was 16 flights (pg 27), the propellant depot, 14 Tanker flights, and Lunar Starship. Musk responded via Twitter to that report, saying that with Starship having ~150t to LEO, it is up to 8 Tanker flights, so up to 10 flights total.
Based on 1,200 tons of propellant for Starship (second stage) and 14 Tanker flights in the GAO report, that would be just over 85 tons of payload. Again, Musk said up to 8 Tanker flights after the GAO report came out.
SpaceX's Starship User Guide (Mar 2020) says 100+ tons to LEO and 21 tons to GTO, so Tim Dodd asked Musk that if Starship can get 21 tons to GTO (Mar 2020), then it should be able to get ~150 tons to LEO. Musk concurred, but SpaceX has not updated the User's Guide. SpaceX was awarded the HLS Option A contract in Apr 2021, over a year after the Starship User's Guide came out. This was detailed in an Apr 2020 Inverse article by Mike Brown called "SPACEX STARSHIP USER GUIDE SUGGESTS IT COULD OFFER MORE POWER THAN EXPECTED"
The 220t figure for Starship was with the booster expended, per Musk. Officially, SpaceX lists 100+ tons and Musk has said 150 tons to LEO.
Great job Marcus! Thanks for your thoroughness and dedication. It’s a very exciting time!
Great video and thanks for making and sharing, just a small thing around 16:00 mark, the ion propulsion by JPL was already tested on NASA’s Dawn Mission with twin xenon ion thrusters. It worked for that spacecraft that’s now orbiting Vesta as an inert tiny moon. This tech I think can now be users for small satellites towards moon with non-essential supplies etc.
Keep up the good work mate 👍
The Starlink sats also use ion thrusters, but with Krypton. Krypton has less thrust than Xenon, but it is cheaper.
Thanks! Yes I was more talking the scale of pushing something like a fuel depot. The electricity generation and number of ION engines to push that would be staggering.
@@MarcusHouse fair enough. 🙂
The video appeared "56 seconds ago", and I'm not even the first commenter...
Id expect patreon supports get early access
Marcus, the idea of a deep dive into ion engine technology would be really interesting seeing the size of the fuel transfer unit would be very large.
Great video Marcus, but I do have one request. Please ask the individuals that supply your renderings to provide you with what a colony on Mars will actually look like for the first 25 or 30 years. Without a viable means of mitigating the radiation and temperature swings structures will receive on Mars, it is much more likely we will be living underground until such technology is achieved.Elon Musk himself believes this to be the unfortunate truth, hence The Boring Company. There woill be airlocks that rover vehicles will ferry people to and from the launch/landing site(s) to the airlock, but almost all habitat will be underground. This may possibly be the case for the moon as well, as the ISS is well within the Van Allen radiation belt, and as such doesn't need to be as hardended against the radiation, where the Moon has no protecting belt.
Thank you for the great videos you produce and for the discount to Curiosity Stream. I just signed up and there is such a wealth of science content. Definitely worth the price of admission.
My enthusiasm for SpaceX remains but it is very sad how political Musk has become. My admiration for him personally is waning. If he desires to benefit humanity, he should not be screwing with platforms like Twitter.
Totally agree. Mala tempora currunt
Yeah god forbid he defend free speech and fight government overreach.
Nice to see you the beginning of the week it is always awesome good job sir love your chanel just amazing content 💯🙏😎
Wow I am 67 years old and I am blown away how fast things are looking up for the space race. I am glad I get to see the beginning of all the taking shape. Love it... I sub your channel
I really enjoyed this week's video!
Well done, Marcus!
Thank you, that was a great overview for me of the potential evolution cycles for this to happen.
Thank you for the mid-week treat! Great content!!! Cheers!
Wow, what a video, loved the content and it's realism. Bravo Marcus and team!!!
Got a shout out on rgv lastnight and just wanted to extend my gratitude 🙏 to you aswell Marcus ur show has been a great relief over this last 6 months wile I've been in hospital had my surgery Friday and still didn't miss ur show Saturday many thanks my friend fantastic job many thanks 1❤️
Great video as always. It was a pleasure to watch it. I would like to watch a video about ion propulsion.
Very professional delivery of well considered concepts, We are in the presence of greatness. I sort of flashed into the future to a very very old Marcus House reporting on news from space the entire world tunes in for every Saturday morning!!
Wow, this was really comprehensive, and beautiful animations.
Neal, that was a really great and comprehensive vid. Too much info to comment on everything. I personally have always felt that Starship would not be the best vehicle for the Earth to Mars trip. I think it's an excellent Ascent vehicle and lander but I feel that there are better Mars transport vehicle concepts that would be better suited for later missions. How ever we go on the first missions, due to a lack of space resources and avoiding an Apollo 13 type incident, I hope our first trips use multiple vehicles on a simultaneous mission. Please do the video on the more efficient electric propulsion methods that a cycler could use. Also, the number of sorties to refill a LEO tanker is also concerning to time, cost, and resources. That's a lot of refuel flights for just one mission past LEO! Considering the abundance of unwanted CO2 here and the abundance of various sources of O2 in space destinations, I'm surprised no one talks about sending highly condensed CO2 to space for processing. Maybe you could do a video on processing CO2 to Methalox in an in orbit facility. 100 tons of condensed CO2 in Starship plus O2 from other source, and the logistics necessary, would net how much Methaloz? If Exxon sells stock in Methalox, I'll buy their "ExoMethalox stock.
What a great video! The more I understand the plan, the more confident and excited I get!
The crew compartment being high up on the top of starship, requiring an elevator. Let's hope there is a manual override, a simple ratchet system in case of failure of motor or control.
Absolutely loving these videos and updates, they make me extremely excited for the future and getting to experience all of this happening is one of the best things ever to witness. Quick question would it be okay if you made a video explaining all of these science terms and explaining what some of this stuff means? If not I completely understand.
Have been thinking of making a few basic explainer videos. Will keep this in mind.
@@MarcusHouse holy cow you actually responded to my comment that's amazing and mind blowing.🤯🤯🤯thank you so much and can't wait to see some more of your amazing videos and content. Thanks again and have a amazing day.
Would love to see some analysis of options for artificial gravity (by rotation). Given there's practically zero gravity and air resistance it should be easy to do some experiments with e.g. 2 tethered craft (though you definitely don't want that tether to break).
Are there gravitational instabilities that make it difficult? As well as in-orbit or constant velocity travel, this could be for lower gravity planets e.g a rotating parabolic chamber like the recent Japanese Kajima concept (but doesn't need to be ridiculous with a lake and boats like that example).
For decades we've been hearing about how Nasa is "studying the effects of microgravity on the human body". Guys, we already know the effects (reduced bone density, muscular atrophy, eye deformation, the list goes on), it's time to progress the investigation - how about controlled studies of how much gravity is enough to allay those effects. Have 1 astronaut in zero-g the whole time, another at e.g. 0.5g while sleeping, someone else doing a daily 2 hour workout at 0.5 g or whatever.
Thank you for this breakdown. Very interesting and exciting.
Would love to see a video on current and future ion engines and propulsion.( hall effect, VASIMR, magnetohydrodynamic drives, nuclear pulse propulsion, Oblique wave detonation engines) so many options other than the typical inefficient chemical rockets.
Waterjet + laser..)/* Or even nuclear steam..) With cryogenic propellant boil-off being an issue, it may just be easier to keep water unfrozen and use it for propellant, life support, and radiation shielding.
Made my morning mate! Forgot you were dropping another video mid week. 🤙 love your work
Yes please for a video about the ION engines!
YES YES YES more content on these ion engines, especially VASIMR
You have showed me a lot I did not know or was misinformed about. Think you for such a clear look at all of this.
I think it be grate to see more about the future of how thins will move in space and anything that helps us all to be better us. The last 3 years should show us all how much we need to be able to explore. Thank you Marcus and your amazing team.
An idea for a video is a look at what it tacks to get a video out each week.
Great Video, Well Done!!!!
I’d like an episode covering all the planned Artemis missions.
Absolutely! The story behind the ion engine is mesmerizing.
I'd like to say thanks for all the work you do to inform us in these super concentrated info packed videos ! It is obvious you have a passion for this subject