Invest in the future of Space with Linqto. Use code SPACERACE500 at checkout for a $500 discount on your first investment. Click the link below and take advantage of this limited time promotion today! l.linqto.com/spacerace
In order to participate in the Program you must (3) be an “accredited investor” as defined in Rule 501 of Regulation D ahah well that sucks for the 99% of us. cant sign up.
AntiGravity Aircraft The Next generation Spaceship Work base on Gravity just spinning by using car's engine can fly in bad weather plunge in the ocean even in outer space Earth which weight predict 600 trillion ton does not fall at the Sun because of centrifugal in orbitting, on the contrary it does not be thrown far go out the orbit line of hold by gravity at the Sun as orbit center. Gravity and centrifugal is equal called Equillibrium, thats why until now Earth which we was inhabited always rotate and circulate the Sun. Now we justly take example : how if the gravity used and centrifugal is negated? The Earth will float far leave the Sun. So that centrifugal can be used to fly far away if gravity eliminated. Finally how to eliminate gravity? It’s way rotate part of aircraft by horizontal. When that rotation faster centrifugal force getting greater and the gravity getting smaller, finally it lose the gravity and the aircraft start flying. Of course people would surprise: how the aircraft can keep rotate without fulcrums? Thats why we named that aircraft Shuttling System that is aircraft likes two disc adjoining attached in the midle as fulcrums: A. The Top part, we name Positive rotate to right, and the edges is getting thicker and havier. B. The Buttom part, we name Negative rotating to left, and the edges is getting thicker and havier. C. Middle Part , we name Neutral, air crew placed and also machine and everythings turning Negative and Positive at the same time. The aircraft can liftup added with explosion from the engine. However that aircraft construction later, let the engineer doit it, and we are sure the aircraft will bulletproof and also waterproof. . . In modern civilization where human being generally using flying saucer as vehicle, will a lot of change in lives either in materialism and in psychological. In materialism area will apply the change in life like. People no longger need roadway and rel road which spend large of energy, money, places, things and time, object place and time. People would utilize that area for habitat or for other need:
Yeah pretty irritating to say SpaceX is planning this. I’m pretty sure that is just not true. It would transform to a very interesting story if they could prove me wrong with a reference.
1960’s with better graphics We’ve already sent people to the moon nothing there but rocks and dust Title should be why they never went back ? Because there’s nothing there .LoL 😂
You presume he thought about it. He did not. This is more of a "How I fantasized about building a moon base" Anyone past first year engineering will give you a bunch of reasons this is ridiculous.
1:40 the reason why you would want white paint is to deflect as much solar radition/heat as much as possible. White is known for its best deflection of all visible wavelengths. The Northrop Grumman Moon lander had that thermal blanket Kelvar to protect it's equipment from the exteme heat and cold. So no it's not a marketing choice.
Exactly!Stainless steel under certain wavelengths (IR being one) is like having black paint. Extra hot in the sun, and extra cold in the dark. I'd suspect the white is not only paint, but some kind of insulation capability as well. A good example is the SpaceShuttle main fuel tank that had foam insulation on the exterior. White on early versions was more cosmetic, as the tank never achieved orbital velocity.
Well, if you need a horizontal interior in a Starship, then why not send one that has a mostly horizontal interior from the start. During the travel in space there is no gravity so not preferred orientation. The few hours during take-off/landing they can manage in some orientation adjustable seats like they have in Dragon. Furthermore, if they want to put the starship from vertical to horizontal on the moon, then they can already at some extendable supports, hinges, hoisting structure etc. on the starship from the start. It is not that you fly the Starship to the Moon, land vertically and then decide that it might be a good idea to put it horizontal. Planning is everything in space flight.
@@CrisHelmare1 Draco engines may not be sufficient and other engines may be too complex, bulky and heavy. Adding a whole system to also land horizontally seems more difficult that putting it flat on the Moon surface, but it could be an alternative idea.
I also think they should have specific REFUELING starships that have basically ZERO interior space for crew ( make them autonomous & use the space for BIGGER fuel tanks. This would cut down the number of trips needed to refuel in space ( i heard It'll take 10 starships to get the fuel needed ) that's WAY TOO MANY ( 5-7 will save ALOT of MONEY )
Idea: What if we ONLY have horizontal rockets? It would be fine if the rocket travels sideways because it would travel in places with little to no air resistance. And yes, I’m aware that the starship is probably going to have to travel in the atmosphere for a bit, but that’s fine (I think).
@@richardbloemenkamp8532 Fire the Dracos on the "top'' side to start the fall and fire the ones on the bottom to slow it's descent and provide a soft landing. Prepare the regolith cradle before you start.
That conversation from vertical configuration to a horizontal configuration is never gonna happen and is a mental idea. Much more sensible would be to launch it like that, but presumably it would have to have no crew aboard.
@@alicelund147 Exactly. Full of fuel and all of the tank components for that. If these Tesla robots are what we are being told, I can totally see them going up and making handling this. It sounds crazy, but the way Elon talks about them, why not?
The ideal solution would be for Space X to make HLS modular. Essentially if the crew portion of the ship could pop off and be lowered down via crane it could function as a lunar habitat without the need for renovations. Add a dedicated transport vehicle and it could be relocated anywhere. By placing them into a hexagonal ring, connecting them together via corridor, Space X could create a 7 module lunar base with each module possessing 4 stories. Next, use the crane to set down the fuel tanks so that they can be converted into a storage facility, laboratory, garden, machine shop, rover parking, and etcetera. Moreover, if the legs could pop off and be pop into pre-built hard points on the fuel tanks sides, it would stabilize the tank and mitigate the need for digging a trench to stop it from rolling. This could be made easier through the use of pre-built doors that could be bolted on with built-in cutting guides for astronauts to cut a clean hole. Once renovated and reinforced, both the habitat and storage facility can be covered with compacted and hardened regolith to finish Stage 1 of the lunar base.
I agree. But I am somewhat skeptical about any deconstruction of the Fuel Tanks inside these rockets. Being far away from Earth. I consider that to be too much trouble for the small benefit. Maybe Robots with cutting torches? If Space X is already planning to Mass-Produce these rockets. Then why waste time and energy gutting Starships? Just make the living quarter sections (almost 1/2 of the Spaceship) removable and design the interiors of those particular ships to be horizontal. Then, like the I.S.S. Send a bunch of them up there. One by one. You could slowly assemble the modules to form a habitat. No deconstruction. After it's finished. Robot Rovers could slowly cover the habitat up with regolith. Granted. You would have a lot of left-over empty fuel tanks. But perhaps they could be used, later on, for storing the production of Hydrogen, Helium 3, Water and Fuel. I would also presume. That the ideal landing sites on the Moon would be near the polar caps since that is supposedly where the possibility of frozen water is located. However, the pictures of the Moon seem to indicate that those areas are rugged, jagged and covered with numerous mountains. This could present a serious challenge for finding a place to land and construct a Moon Base. But if anyone could make it happen. Elon is the guy.
Oboy. All right, let's start with the simple bits. (1) The basic structure renders this idea ludicrous. The 2nd stage tanks are NOT insulated; the ship exterior is the tank exterior. SO the temperature swings every 2 weeks will go from around boiling water in sunlight to -130c in lunar night. How much insulation mass will need to be shipped to render the whole tube survivable? (2) Internal bulkheads are not removable. They form the top and bottom of the fuel and oxidizer tanks, and are integrated into the external structure. You would have to be able to vent both systems completely, wash the interiors down to prevent flash fires and toxic fume conditions, and there would have to be airlocks built into each dome that could withstand cryogenic temperatures without leaking. For the platform, those airlocks would have to be offset, which would make the stress pattern change asymmetrically. This would require an entirely new proofing program to prove your ship won't blow up randomly, or fail structurally. (3) 5 meters of regolith? How? NONE of the proposed lunar rovers have plow blades or back hoes on them. They don't have the ability to pull something over like a John Deere; they are more like half assed dune buggies, able to bounce over non solid ground but no real traction. Hydraulics would likely be out due to temperature variations, which leaves electric. The regolith would get into the actuators and grind them to shreds very rapidly. The same would happen to robots, Tesla or otherwise. You couldn't power them without building a full blown power grid there. They couldn't handle dirt movers much bigger than an old fashioned shovel. Then there is the issue of them having 'learned' how to move in a 1g gravity well and suddenly being turned on in 1/6th G. The things would be helpless unless they could retrain themselves on the fly. Which they can't at the moment. (4) 'Laying the vehicle on it side' is far more complicated than portrayed. The crunchy regolith under the landing skids will shatter and compress, and its just as likely that the aft end slides out from under the supports as it is that it lays down. There's the long term life support systems to install. The power systems. Multiple air locks. Some kind of passageway to connect other 2nd stages when needed. All the interior fittings. All the science instruments. All of which will have to be small enough to carry in via air lock, or else you regularly depressurize the whole thing for outfitting and maintenance. It would be far easier, cheaper, and safer to build the base around the internals than try and 'reuse' a rocket in that fashion.
@@rodrigooliveiraborges4269 1. The fuels are methane and Oxygen so no cleaning is required. 2. The moon dirt is part of the insulation. Other could be spray foam. 3. Inflatable air locks with some light weight framing. 4. Track hoes/ dumps trucks for moon operations are not outside current engineering capabilities. Not the best way to make a moon base but it's do-able. The thruster could be used to tilt the starship over and a cradle attached to the "down" side to better support the structure.
That is kind of what I said a few comments way up there ... :) Why not just build horizontal, and land them - "on their side". It would be like a VTOL aircraft, where the rocket thrusters should be on both ends of the rocket "case" facing 90 degrees from horizontal. If you've seen Space: 1999, the Eagle Transporter (ship) has a passenger module that is located under a framework, and there are 4 "thruster packs", 2 per "side", on either end of that module. I think you'd have to look that up to get an idea of what I'm talking about. Synchronizing the fuel starts could be tricky ... :)
@@kumbah2006 I'm quite familiar with a lot of sci fi, both text and tube. You would fold the vehicle if you tried such a scheme. There is NOTHING inside in the way of structure. This isn't a NASA vehicle; its a capitalist wet dream, meaning its cheap as they can get away with. The 2nd stage is a steel tube that depends on autogenous pressurization to keep it from collapsing under its own weight at the best of times. Putting the mass of engines at each end would collapse the center, just like folding a toilet paper tube. Could you reinforce it? Yes. And that added mass subtracts from the cargo capacity, as that is your only mass variable. 200 tons is not a lot of mass when you are talking about structural members, and if you devote your cargo capacity to creating a science fiction ship that was designed for looks over function, then you have an unusable ship. Never mind the fact that those Space 1999 engines were nuclear in some capacity, which doesn't exist atm. Fuel consumption in methylox engines in that configuration would likely triple the fuel requirements than a vertical landing plan would need. Or more. So you would have to scrap the whole 'starship' idea and design an entirely new vehicle from scratch.
Bring a backhoe. Dig it into the surface, say around 25 feet below lunar surface level at the top side. Now you also don't have to worry constantly about micro meteorites which over time are going to be a real problem; you also have all the insulation you need from "on the moon" resources. We also need to formulate a chemical mix which can turn all the moon dust into concrete like materials. We may need to go to the asteroid belt and get a couple of large ice balls and bring them back. Or, Colonize Titan instead.
Leave it vertical and re-use the tanks, with pre-installed floors as perforated tank baffling, for expansion space. Have 2-3 floors of finished hab with extra equipment to be moved into the lower decks later. The ship and tanks can be shorter than currently designed, since there is no intention to leave the moon, and less likely to tip over. Living/storage/exercise/sleeping quarters on the lower levels and shield the bottom of the ship with regolith, bulldoze, sandbag or 3d print bricks. Circumferential water-wall on higher levels.
Instead of tipping over the vertically landed StartShip on Moon and Mars, Space X can simply build a StartShip version that does a flip maneuver just before it touches ground and make it tip over gently with cold gas thrusters on top cushioning the impact on legs installed on the SIDES of the Ship
It might be easier just to launch a starship mostly configured for horizontal use and landing. Then use another Starship or a tug of some sort to move it to the moon.
@@kensmith5694 assuming dry_mass = 100,000 km/s exhaust velocity = 3.4 km/s delta_v = 1.7 km/s we need 65,000 kg of fuel (ChatGPT did the rocket equation math for me). Starship carries 1,200,000 kg, so that's only 6% of the fuel load. This feels like a custom design could do this - maybe a small boost tug / decelerate stage?
@@dpjanes ChatGPT can't be trusted on math stuff. Putting a payload down on the moon is not an easy problem. Remember there is a de-orbit burn then the decent and then the positioning when landing. The best way to work it out is to start with the last thing you use the rockets for and work backwards towards the start.
Landers and/or shuttles are a good solution. Taking the chance of landing an upright rocket of that size on an unprepared surface is a disaster guaranteed to happen.
when they use the hull of lunar starship as a moon habitat enclosure, they need to bring a second starship that brings the crew back to lunar gateway at least. And each starship needs 10-12 more starship launches to be refilled in LEO. Then you only have an empty hull. All the modules for ceilings ,walls furniture, and machinery still needs to be brought as cargo/ payload extra. if you install optimized inflatable moon habitat modules and cover them with loose regolith. you can fit all the required components into the cargo compartment of one starship and this one starship is available for leaving the moon again
Why waster fuel returning good useful metal? Just return the tip with small vacuum thrusters to lunar orbit to meet a seperate earth return ship. Leave the tip behind as a future moon taxi or keep it attached as the only crew space for a specialized lunar to earth return ship that optimized just for that function. The crew would ride to earth on a normal manned LEO Starship.
@@joelpedigo9299 - like back when the LEM and service module were "the thing"? Was a decent system, but now we have better materials. Service module stayed in orbit, and the lander with the capsule, went to the moon. Then later (after the mission) - just the capsule part, blasted off the moon and headed to moon orbit, leaving the lander part on the moon. The capsule lifted off to join up with the service module, to return back to Earth. The capsule was quite cramped though, back in the 1960's and early 70's. They really just need to make them larger and more comfortable. Should be able to build something way larger nowadays ! :)
@@johnstewart579 The reuse of the booster is a far easier problem. There is no reason to go to the moon so there is no reason to make a system for the job.
Send a big drill onto the moon, drill down 20m, create tunnels in crater mountains or drill vertical tunnel shafts. Disassemble the hull of the rockets. Use the hull parts as double layered tunnel covering, with some isolation foam for warmth and fire protection between. Use the "heads" of the rockets as locking part of the vertical tunnel shafts. Cover those with material. Later build large halls below those layers. A moon base needs heavy construction machinery on the moon, fully automated/remote controlled with some humantyp robots for maintenance. You need to store water and food for months, before the first human moon settlers arrive.
It would be easier to split the starship in half just before landing, and land the top containing the people or robots on the soil next to the bottom with the draco engines and letting the bottom half soft-crash itself. Then unpack whatever tools are needed to build an inflatable base that gets covered by regolith by a lunar bulldozer brought along. It takes away the risk of tipping, it takes away the risk of high tower unloading, and it allows for far more practical use space then trying to recycle the lander, it also allows the scrap of the lander to be repurposed for other things, like using the rolled steel to cut simple tool replacements from or fabricate layers of covering to reinforce the regolith. This would reduce risk because the astronauts have a safe complete shelter from day one without risk, and have more flexibility to produce a bigger more permanent shelter. Also this way bots can do this before any astronauts land
But the idea to cut Starship in two is good. The tank section is only needed to get out of Earth orbit. They can leave it there already. Any further and its only dead weight, wasting fuel.
It takes about 1.7 Km/s of DeltaV in order to land on the moon, it takes a farther 1.87 Km/s of DeltaV to lift off (both figures from LLO). Lunar starship has a dry mass of about 90 tons, if we cut this into thirds this for the dry mass of just the crew module, we get 30 tons. The Isp of a SuperDraco is about 235 seconds. The ratio of Hypergolic fuel to oxidzer is about 1:1, so we can just average the value. We can then figure out the Wet mass of starship by taking the average of the density of the fuel and oxidzer (we can only do this because the ratio is 1:1) and then multiplying it by the available area. If we assume we can put aside 100m^3, and that SuperDracos are powered on Monomethyl Hydrazine and Nitrogen Tetroxide (0.880 g/cm^3 and 1.55 g/cm^3 respectively), that the SuperDracos can actually lift the mass of the rocket, that the SuperDracos can run at 100% Throttle for the full duration of the burns and that SuperDracos can relight. We can now get an average density of 1.215 g/cm^3, which is the same in tons/m^3, then we multiply it by the 100m^3 allocated for fuel, we get a fuel mass of 121.5 tons, which is a wet mass of 151.5 tons. The equation for figuring out the DeltaV of a rocket is Isp * g (This is Earth gravity, as Isp is calculated based on Earth gravity) * Math.log(WetMass/DryMass). We can then plug in values and get the equation 235 * 9.807 * Math.log(151.5/30). This gives us just barely enough DeltaV to finish the mission (3732.1150179507868m/s^2, with 162.11501795078675m/s^2 of margin). In conclusion, this means that a starship separation is just barely possible, but with a payload of likely only a few tons. The low payload means that there is no way of bringing all the required materials for the outlined mission. There is also the issue of the lower stage exploding and damaging the upper stage (As it will likely still have a few tons of Methalox on board). A better plan using a starship base would be just to leave a lunar starship with small barriers in it's main fuel tank (a hole in the middle allows for fluid to move up and down the starship) and a small airlock located next to the main engines, on the bottom of the ship on the surface of the moon, and then draining the fuel tanks, RCS tanks, pressurization tanks, and other miscellaneous fluids on board. You can then use some cargo stored on another starship to get the base ready for humans. Also, on the moon, you have to bring the air required to fill inflatable base modules, as there is no atmosphere to get it from. You can use electrolysis to gather oxygen on the moon, but pure oxygen environments are not safe for humans.
Also, will the inital lunar Starship have wet-workshop capability, maybe not pressurised but to use the empty fueltanks as storage? I don't think they'll be any starship tipping for a long time, the effort it would take to remodel the interior in-situ is crazy, better off sending a lunar starship up that has inflatable modules that can be covered with regolith - which could be done using automated rovers. I don't think we'll see any "building" done on the moon within the next decade, but a moon brick factory using regolith and 3d printing would be cool. Furthermore, will the lunar starship have some sort of cover on the nose solar panels? I'd be surprised if they're not damaged on the way up due to the extreme speeds. Is there going to be a backup ladder to get down/up?
I'd send starships with horizontal interior ahead so they can be tipped and used, and go there with the starships that land and re-launch to moon orbit.
@richkhalilsonicjunkee2203 That defeats the purpose of an inflatable habitat. Inflatable habitats can be larger than fairings as they inflate. Why would you do all that just to have it be the same size as the fairing? The fuel area is pressurised anyway, just drain it and use the empty space.
@@xXSwaghetti.YoloneseXx-uf2bb - if you drain the fuel, maybe store it and create a "moon gas station" for other starships or vehicles? Not sue, but that's what zipped across my brain. :) lol
Very well explained, written and produced. The graphics were simple and direct, no “glitz” to get in the way of this particular presentation. Thumbs Up 👍
AntiGravity Aircraft The Next generation Spaceship Work base on Gravity just spinning by using car's engine can fly in bad weather plunge in the ocean even in outer space Earth which weight predict 600 trillion ton does not fall at the Sun because of centrifugal in orbitting, on the contrary it does not be thrown far go out the orbit line of hold by gravity at the Sun as orbit center. Gravity and centrifugal is equal called Equillibrium, thats why until now Earth which we was inhabited always rotate and circulate the Sun. Now we justly take example : how if the gravity used and centrifugal is negated? The Earth will float far leave the Sun. So that centrifugal can be used to fly far away if gravity eliminated. Finally how to eliminate gravity? It’s way rotate part of aircraft by horizontal. When that rotation faster centrifugal force getting greater and the gravity getting smaller, finally it lose the gravity and the aircraft start flying. Of course people would surprise: how the aircraft can keep rotate without fulcrums? Thats why we named that aircraft Shuttling System that is aircraft likes two disc adjoining attached in the midle as fulcrums: A. The Top part, we name Positive rotate to right, and the edges is getting thicker and havier. B. The Buttom part, we name Negative rotating to left, and the edges is getting thicker and havier. C. Middle Part , we name Neutral, air crew placed and also machine and everythings turning Negative and Positive at the same time. The aircraft can liftup added with explosion from the engine. However that aircraft construction later, let the engineer doit it, and we are sure the aircraft will bulletproof and also waterproof. . . In modern civilization where human being generally using flying saucer as vehicle, will a lot of change in lives either in materialism and in psychological. In materialism area will apply the change in life like. People no longger need roadway and rel road which spend large of energy, money, places, things and time, object place and time. People would utilize that area for habitat or for other need:
.......And electric cars.😅 Hay, to get those government grants that has substantial amounts to try out one theory is still worth it.😊 He dose make some progress , he finds brilliant minds to help him pull off a lot.😅
My Take. Is that the first starship to land on moon inside a crater cave or very very close to a cave mouth and land on its side. The head of ship detaches and it is actually a Boring Tunnel Worm, that would immediately bore a tunnel unto the ground connecting the moon-lava-tunnels or accessing Lunar-Cave. The rest of starship cargo are lunar rovers and Optimus's and they will work on sealing the formed tubular caves with regolith tiles and , pressurizing the tunnels , and cementing living spaces. Next Starship are Human Colonists of the Moon that will install other infrastructure, mapping out , human type of jobs, etc. A full Starship could be an entire farm for greens, mushrooms,oxygen source, water facility and it is also landing on its side on the Lunar Colony.
I suggest use the well proven Falcon Heavy to deliver the lander module to the Moon's surface for docking with a prepositioned Super Heavy moon base, delivered to the moon well in advance.
I think the whole starship moon lander is only a covered-up way to get more funding for developing Starship. Once SpaceX have their normal Starship for Earth re-entry finished, they will come up with a radical new design for a Moon lander. There is no good reason for a moon lander to look like a Starship. For example in space their is no atmospheric drag, you can live with very little thrust over a longer period. For landers it is important to first determine if you want a given lander to come back into orbit around the moon. If not, then the optimal design is completely different from landers that you want back in orbit. In both cases the Starship does not look ideal because you can achieve roughly the same functionality with much lower-weight landers with a much lower center of mass and easier to cover with regolith. Getting from earth-orbit to moon-orbit takes about 4000 m/s delta-V (3100 LEO-TLI and 900 TLI-LMO (low-Moon-orbit)). When you arrive at LMO you don't want to bring a half empty fuel tank to decent on the moon and come back up. BTW you need about 4500 m/s to start from LMO, land on the moon and back to LMO. A single starship cannot do this because it does not have more than 8000 m/s even with minimal payload and refueling on the moon surface is a problem because the Moon has no CO2. So now we are refueling starships in LEO with up to 10 launches per starship and then we need to refuel them again in LMO. We may end up with over 30 launches before we have one starship land on the moon and come back to LMO. This seems unsustainable to me. Instead I would suggest to send an unmanned rocket with a land-able habitat/laboratory to land permanently on the moon. Use robotics to cover it on the moon with regolith. Then when finished, send people with a system that is much closer to Apollo style, but maybe a bit more reusable, maybe methane, better computers and landing guidance. Fuel for launching from the Moon back to LMO can be for example be delivered with the land-able habitat/laboratory or some other lander craft. SpaceX are good and landing spacecraft, this part is probably best left to them.
@@richardbloemenkamp8532 Lunar starship doesn't have to be aerodynamic, it is because it's cheaper to use an already designed and built vehicle, although I do agree with you, starship is not a good choice for a lunar lander
Interesting video, thank you. On one point, you can't simply tip a Starship over and let it fall, another method would need to be used. It will likely be badly damaged (probably broken into peices) due to the kinetic energy of the top section when it hits the ground based on its very high mass and impact velocity. This would be like dropping the nose from 8.3 meters on Earth. If a object will be damaged by dropping it on Earth from a specific height it will be damaged on the Moon at 6 times higher. So if the nose cannot survive a 8.3 meter free fall drop on Earth without being damaged, it wil not take a 50 meter drop on the Moon without being damaged. A drop from 8.3m on Earth and a drop from 50m on the Moon will hit the surface with the same velocity and thus the same kinetic energy (destructive energy).
Tipping Starship over onto its side would be pretty rough on it and would probably crush it, even at 1/6 gravity. I think they will be better off hauling compact inflatable habitat inside Starship and off loading it onto the surface and pumping it up there.
Can use the inflatable habitat inside as a pillow after blowing it up, then with starship safely nested, slowly deflate it, pull it out, move then reinflate, boom now you have the starship habitat and the inflatable habitat combined.
The thing to remember about starship as a cargo ship is pretty similar to the A380. Despite the fact that the A380 has fantastic payload and range capabilities, it’s never been made into a cargo plane. The internal volume is just too big. Anything big enough to fill up the internal volume of an a380 is going to be too heavy for the plane to lift. Bigger doesn’t always mean better and I wonder if a starship moon base will face the same problems. Maintaining life support for such a large space when you aren’t using it seems unsustainable. Better to have starship deliver modules requiring no construction work to the surface than to build habitats out of starships themselves.
Another thought. Below the tanks install a boring machine. When the spacecraft lands bore straight down lowering the ship straight down into the surface of the moon. Then cover the top with the refuse from the boring operation and have an exit / access hatch at the very nose of the buried craft. No remodel, no redesign, no tipping and no burring after the fact. The former fuel tanks can then be converted to water storage and supplied by a supply ship.
Im wondering about the structural stability of the horizontal starship when it's covered with dirt. Even in low gravity, that dirt is going to be heavy and will apply a crushing force on the horizontal starship. When vertical, it's structural stability is pretty good, but when you look at ring segments which are laying down on the side at Boca Chica they just collapse. Seems like you would need to add a lot of circular stabilizing members to keep it from being crushed, even in the low gravity.
breathable air as we have on earth has a pressure on one bar. that means 100kN /m2 compared to the lunar vacuum, equivalent to the weight of 10 metric tons per m2 on earth. You could pile up 30-36 meters of regolith on starship, before the weight of the regolith outweighs the force of the inner pressure. so, you more have to see it as an inflatable structure since the inner pressure has a much higher effect in the structure than the weight
That whole design is nuts. The starship can deliver cargo inside it, such as a mooner lander, semis in space, and already-made homes, labs, etc., for the moon that can be delivered like cargos.
I grew up in the 60s and was 11 when Apollo 11 landed on the moon. It was fascinating for a kid my age. At 66, I hope to live to see us go back to the moon.
Back to the moon? Sure we might tuch a boot on the moon within 20 years. But building some kind of base on the surface or launching hundreds of starships, eeeeh NO never gonna happen.
People in general lost interest anyway. Twelve people have walked on the moon, but I'd wager that not one of a hundred people could name four of them. But the reason the missions were discontinued fifty years ago was the tremendous expense of manned lunar missions.
Yes, we'd all like to know -- EMWTK ... Why does Musk need to go? So that some poor French guy can go instead, and run out of money? You're quite rich, aren't you? lol /sarcasm :)
Another idea I have is to build a ISS in the shape of a cube. It could be assembled real easy, by just docking space station modules together. Perhaps it could spin and have artificial gravity. (Centrifugal Force) Also perhaps a million people could live on it. Also perhaps it could travel to the moon / Mars. Also it could be a cycler. Cargo pods could be attached to it. Perhaps a train of cargo pods could be attached to it. 🙂 Another Idea that I have is to make a mobile moon / Mars base out of space station modules. Strap the modules on an electric chassis driven by remote control. When the modules reach their destination, they could be docked together. After they are docked together, they will make a good size moon / Mars base.
Might be best to make it land vertically. Put landing legs on the front, middle and back. Put the draco thrusters front, middle and back. If it's going to stay and not come back. Make the insides for this type of stay.
@@paulmichaelfreedman8334 ..cause hes a con man that has screwed over every business partner hes ever had, from paypal to tesla... Hes illegally withholding his Tesla stats in over 17states (including california), and the cars are STILL rated as some of the worst according to JD Power/Consumer reports.. He's said the government shouldn‘t provide subsidies to companies, (after receiving billions in subsidies from the U.S government himself) ..500$ for a roofing torch that you can buy for less than 50$.. ..I guess starlink is cool if you live in an area without internet and have thousands of dollars to blow on the equipment.. ..Hyperloop is a clear scam to anyone with a basic level of laws of physics understanding.. (just another way to wash billions) ..He's known for cutting corners in his factories.. so good luck putting any chips in your brain with his name on it.., if his cars are any example, your brain will need to be recalled before you leave the parking lot.. ..He paid $50k to a 'private investigator' aka an ex felon and convicted scammer to dig up dirt on one of those cave divers who saved those kids trapped in cave cause he wanted them to be a 'pedo'.. (he has tantrums and 'attacks' random people on the internet, thus defaming their character and is constantly sued for it).. But he gave the worlds biggest donation to charity! (yeah his own charity so he could wash even more of his billions from taxes).. I mean how much time do ya got? Elons not a great dude. Its not a mystery.. but dont feel bad, most of the people at the top are scumbags, its how they got there. They are the people with zero empathy for their fellow human beings and dont care how many lives they have to ruin just to get one more peg up the ladder.. but i do have some tesla stock thats finally in the red aft many years, so get back out there and believe the hype!
With China setting to return by 2030 I wonder if Elon will just send a starliner with a landing/return stage to the moon using 3 Falcon Heavies (1 take transfer stage, 1 to take fuel/supplies, 1 to take lander/return and people) and just get it over and done with. Could use a mixed American/Canadian crew (he has Canadian citizenship), could potentially be the second organisation to land on the moon and the first private company. The maths checks out, but it would be hard to get a lander/return capsule done in 5 years especially with all the other stuff going on.
@@rogerwilco1777 mmm, maybe, maybe not... Starship development is in acceleration phase. You'll be surprised how much speed they are going to gain. I see a manned landing well before 2030 having good chances.
Colonists hundereds of years ago used to brake up their ships to build shelters. It’s the best way of setting up a colony on the moon. Go there with the intention to stay and let human ingenuity figure it out.
Since you're pointing out how Starship is structurally designed to also allow being on its belly, then why couldn't Lunar Starship perhaps descend and land on the Moon in a bellyflop orientation, instead of descending tail-first?
So essentially take the idea of using shipping containers to build homes, but in this case you send up various vehicles to land on the moon which can be joined together to create a habitat. Not a bad idea. Probably the best way to do it. Like an RV starship
For an HLS habitat module you don't need to have full propellent tanks because you will never be launching from the Moon. The HLS habitat module (HLS-HM) should land horizontally after a vertical deceleration with the main engines. This will mean redesigning the landing thrusters from high up on the ship to pointing down when in a horizontal position. The landing thrusters will only be needed the last 100M to the surface. Landing legs can be installed at the ISS before translunar injection. With this approach you don't have to gut out the internals and then refurbish the inside to a horizontal configuration, it just comes that way from Earth. The much smaller propellant tanks could be used for water or some other kind of storage.
There's already a workable solution. The sci-fi series Space 1999 has already solved the moonbase. Use Boring machines. Also connect lavatubes. The micro-meteorites and cosmic radiation are a no-go...
This. There is a line of craters that NASA was ready to race the USSR for back in the day before the USSR collapsed and NASA lost the main political reason for moon funding. They are a perfect 76-78f year round because they are always in shadow. Use boring machines (boring company is literally making them perfect sized to put on a super heavy if the machine was covered in a shell, they are also making prototypes small enough to fit inside a starship) and dig in to the floor/ walls of those craters to best protect from solar radiation and asteroids.
Great ideas. Definitely reusing a ship as the shelter make a lot of sense. Would be nice if we could figure out how to send a ship full of robots in various configurations that could build the new base in advance. Or maybe send a few humans to oversee the work and keep the robots running :).
If you are going to tip over the craft to a horizontal position. Why not use the existing habitat levels as your internal housing. Design the habitat levels on pivot points and tracks so that after landing on the moon the tanks are evacuated out the bottom (what was the bottom or tail end) of the craft then separate the three floors of the habitat and rotate them 90 degrees to be horizontal to the moon surface and parallel to the spaceship. This motion can be designed into the craft and done automatically after the spacecraft has assumed its horizontal position. By designing the spacecraft in this manner there will be no need to redesign or remodel it for a habitat reducing significantly the amount of time needed to adapt the ship for long term stay on the moon. Another possibility is that the crew could remain in the craft during this operation.
Makes more sense to just build out the fuel tank vertically and use a bulldozer or something to just build a mound of dirt around it to the door, makes sure it doesn’t tip and insulates the fuel tank
Remember, this is going to be a habitat. One thing you NEVER do to habitats is tip them over, the resulting damage could end up being eventually lethal once it splits wide open on a hairline fracture created by the impact from tipping it over. The landing thrusters will need to be deployed to prevent that.
Outfitting the space with new equipment requires additional starships to bring it down to the surface. At that point, is probably a better idea to just transport outfitted habitats, possibly like the inflatable Bigelow stations. Or leave the top third of a Starship on the surface, lightening the remaining portion to return to Earth and make additional trips; a Lunar Tug of sorts. Or leave them on the surface to act as storage tanks for residual methane and oxygen. Or water, Helium 3, and minerals mined from the moon.
It's kinda sad to think that NASA 50 years ago could've been doing this had Congress not killed its budget. Now we have to rely on ambitious and benevolent billionaires to drive this dream. This is why I respect Elon, but a part of me keeps thinking how America lost its way.
Hi! Why not separate the tip from the tank section and rise the tip, the living and storage sections horisontal again, with the lift door at ground. Much complicated work saved.
Of course if you simply want to tip it over. Just collapse the landing gear in the direction you want it to fall. But if you want to be more careful. Spacex would run a simulation with descant thrusters to help control the fall. Once they work that out, they can modify the rocket to suit. With the thrusters able to turn and have enough force to help with tipping and soft landing once it starts to fall on its side. Final prep: Once the rocket was landed. They could get any last moment information and set the program with sensors and AI helping. After all, just because it can take a lot of stress one way does not mean it can take it in another way.
I like the idea of a Starship laying horizontally as not only a base. But with the first lander as well. By keeping the fins on the lander, tracks, like tank tracks can be built into the tips of the fins. The gravity is a lot less. So retractable tracks can be added to reinforced fins. A decent set of stairs can easily fold out of the crew compartment as opposed to the 150ft elevator and the problems that could bring. The ship will be able to move around on the moon. As for landing & takeoff thrusters. A long retractable tract of pivoting thrusters can run along the upper side of the starship. These thrusters with a sufficient heat shield pattern can provide landing and takeoff propulsion that will be far enough away from the surface to allow T/O & Landings without kicking up too much debris. I have drawn this idea out on paper and photoshopped a SS with tracks. But haven’t gotten it into a 3D animation yet. Hopefully soon and I’ll share it.
Musks Starship will never see the Moon. Setting all technical issues aside, the concept is the problem. Starship is designed to reach LEO with an empty tank. Refilling it takes another 12-20 Starships to be launched afterwards, docked and fuel transferred. This means ONE Starship mission requires the hardware and fuel from the entire Apollo Program while adding up all risks from all these starts together. Getting one there is crazy, a whole fleet absurdly mad.
Nope, they've already spoke about 3D printers that will use moon dust and it'll slowly write buildings. This will slowly make a base where scientists and astronauts can stay. They will do the same on Mars.
If SpaceX would go that route, it would have the layout for it as it is being build. About 90% of what is needed in the tanks would be built in, the cargo and crew area would have easy prefabs to go from vertical to horizontal. It would be guilt from the ground up for the purpose. jmpo
@@j.f.almeida9081 - I think the OP (above) - not you, is confused about what ship(s) brought those people to the ISS in the first place, and either doesn't know history, or believes that it's been the same ship all along. Starliner was the problem, not all those original spacecraft, as they've worked nearly flawless for many years. We all know, but Oswald doesn't appear to know, or is confused. SpaceX's Dragon saved the day! :) We all know better, as we've been keeping track.
Instead of remodelling 90 degrees, make a risk assesment for additional stage separation between main tanks top & the 1/3 top part of the rocket. Keep all things vertical. It will look good too.
No, he will have to tested and reteated and tested againe to make sure it aint got any liks...., then make a final version, tested it one last time...., then move the dates towards one posible date by December 30th....
The impact of smaller and larger meteors must be taken into account, which means that the cities of any base would have to be below the surface to be protected from meteors, and on the moon, meteors often hit
Lunar thrusters toward the top of the lander is primarily about not kicking up damaging lunar dust. To guard against tippage, it'd be best to put the thrusters near the top (as indicated in most renderings) - NOT near the center of mass, assuming the bottom is essentially a pivot.
I think the first Starship to land on the moon is not manned. If they wanted to tip it over then some adjustable landing legs would help. Also, instead if direct pulling a pulley system would substantially lower the needed force. Thirdly why not then deliberately land it so that it falls over. There can be also some airbag type of solution to make the fall less damaging. Just some quick thoughts without any further thinking.
They could just design and build the interior of the starship in a "horizontal orientation" here on Earth, that would make more sense. Also if they have those landing thrusters at the top maybe they could burn the ones on the right to get the ship to start tipping and then as it starts to fall ignite the ones on the opposite side for just an instant to slow down the momentum as it falls the the moons surface. Just a thought.
I wonder if the color choice is for preventing fuel boil off. I know in the past they've used gray around kerosene tanks on falcon to prevent freezing. But considering the lower freezing point, and far lower boiling point of liquid methane. It may help to retain some of the fuel for the long duration mission requirements. Given that most rockets expel their second stage pretty quickly, and Starship will need to keep fuel for at least about a month I'd assume, boil off becomes more relevant that freezing. I hope they eventually set up a shuttle between Earth and the Moon that never lands, but rather transports to and from launch and landing vehicles, while being constantly re-fueled in orbit. It'll at least take away the delta V requirements of launching the lunar Starship out of Earth for each mission. Sure is exciting stuff, thank you for your content!
Invest in the future of Space with Linqto. Use code SPACERACE500 at checkout for a $500 discount on your first investment. Click the link below and take advantage of this limited time promotion today! l.linqto.com/spacerace
Why don't use the side thrusters to tip the spaceship over?
In order to participate in the Program you must (3) be an “accredited investor” as defined in Rule 501 of Regulation D
ahah well that sucks for the 99% of us. cant sign up.
your delusional bro, your little d!ckhead hero Elon aint going to do sh!t
AntiGravity Aircraft The Next generation Spaceship
Work base on Gravity just spinning by using car's engine
can fly in bad weather plunge in the ocean even in outer space
Earth which weight predict 600 trillion ton does not fall at the Sun because of centrifugal in orbitting, on the contrary it does not be thrown far go out the orbit line of hold by gravity at the Sun as orbit center. Gravity and centrifugal is equal called Equillibrium, thats why until now Earth which we was inhabited always rotate and circulate the Sun. Now we justly take example : how if the gravity used and centrifugal is negated? The Earth will float far leave the Sun. So that centrifugal can be used to fly far away if gravity eliminated. Finally how to eliminate gravity?
It’s way rotate part of aircraft by horizontal. When that rotation faster centrifugal force getting greater and the gravity getting smaller, finally it lose the gravity and the aircraft start flying. Of course people would surprise: how the aircraft can keep rotate without fulcrums? Thats why we named that aircraft Shuttling System that is aircraft likes two disc adjoining attached in the midle as fulcrums:
A. The Top part, we name Positive rotate to right, and the edges is getting thicker and havier.
B. The Buttom part, we name Negative rotating to left, and the edges is getting thicker and havier.
C. Middle Part , we name Neutral, air crew placed and also machine and everythings turning Negative and Positive at the same time.
The aircraft can liftup added with explosion from the engine. However that aircraft construction later, let the engineer doit it, and we are sure the aircraft will bulletproof and also waterproof.
.
.
In modern civilization where human being generally using flying saucer as vehicle, will a lot of change in lives either in materialism and in psychological. In materialism area will apply the change in life like.
People no longger need roadway and rel road which spend large of energy, money, places, things and time, object place and time. People would utilize that area for habitat or for other need:
I'm reporting this as a scam, you are criminally insane.
so the title of this video should be "How do I think SpaceX will build a moonbase" -.........
More like “The Fairytales of Elon Musk”. The they can’t even get it to operate in earth orbit. It ain’t going to the moon, nor Mars, people. Wake up.
title should be "How my scriptwriter think SpaceX will build a Moon Base" 🤤🤫
Yeah pretty irritating to say SpaceX is planning this. I’m pretty sure that is just not true. It would transform to a very interesting story if they could prove me wrong with a reference.
1960’s with better graphics
We’ve already sent people to the moon
nothing there but rocks and dust
Title should be why they never went back ?
Because there’s nothing there .LoL 😂
You presume he thought about it. He did not. This is more of a "How I fantasized about building a moon base" Anyone past first year engineering will give you a bunch of reasons this is ridiculous.
1:40 the reason why you would want white paint is to deflect as much solar radition/heat as much as possible. White is known for its best deflection of all visible wavelengths. The Northrop Grumman Moon lander had that thermal blanket Kelvar to protect it's equipment from the exteme heat and cold. So no it's not a marketing choice.
Exactly!Stainless steel under certain wavelengths (IR being one) is like having black paint. Extra hot in the sun, and extra cold in the dark. I'd suspect the white is not only paint, but some kind of insulation capability as well. A good example is the SpaceShuttle main fuel tank that had foam insulation on the exterior. White on early versions was more cosmetic, as the tank never achieved orbital velocity.
White paint will help very little against all the high power cosmic/solar frequencies/radiation
Gold mylar foil would be better
Yeah yeah gold plate the fekker
Well, if you need a horizontal interior in a Starship, then why not send one that has a mostly horizontal interior from the start. During the travel in space there is no gravity so not preferred orientation. The few hours during take-off/landing they can manage in some orientation adjustable seats like they have in Dragon.
Furthermore, if they want to put the starship from vertical to horizontal on the moon, then they can already at some extendable supports, hinges, hoisting structure etc. on the starship from the start. It is not that you fly the Starship to the Moon, land vertically and then decide that it might be a good idea to put it horizontal. Planning is everything in space flight.
Why not build it to also land on its side, too?
@@CrisHelmare1 Draco engines may not be sufficient and other engines may be too complex, bulky and heavy. Adding a whole system to also land horizontally seems more difficult that putting it flat on the Moon surface, but it could be an alternative idea.
I also think they should have specific REFUELING starships that have basically ZERO interior space for crew ( make them autonomous & use the space for BIGGER fuel tanks. This would cut down the number of trips needed to refuel in space ( i heard It'll take 10 starships to get the fuel needed ) that's WAY TOO MANY ( 5-7 will save ALOT of MONEY )
Idea: What if we ONLY have horizontal rockets?
It would be fine if the rocket travels sideways because it would travel in places with little to no air resistance. And yes, I’m aware that the starship is probably going to have to travel in the atmosphere for a bit, but that’s fine (I think).
@@richardbloemenkamp8532 Fire the Dracos on the "top'' side to start the fall and fire the ones on the bottom to slow it's descent and provide a soft landing. Prepare the regolith cradle before you start.
That conversation from vertical configuration to a horizontal configuration is never gonna happen and is a mental idea. Much more sensible would be to launch it like that, but presumably it would have to have no crew aboard.
Based upon what SpaceX has done so far, I wouldn't underestimate them in accomplishing it.
why not just land it horizontally in the first place
@@Kzninja2 Give them some ideas to accomplish it.
It is full of fuel before consumed. Only the top is configured for people and cargo..
@@alicelund147 Exactly. Full of fuel and all of the tank components for that.
If these Tesla robots are what we are being told, I can totally see them going up and making handling this. It sounds crazy, but the way Elon talks about them, why not?
The ideal solution would be for Space X to make HLS modular. Essentially if the crew portion of the ship could pop off and be lowered down via crane it could function as a lunar habitat without the need for renovations. Add a dedicated transport vehicle and it could be relocated anywhere. By placing them into a hexagonal ring, connecting them together via corridor, Space X could create a 7 module lunar base with each module possessing 4 stories. Next, use the crane to set down the fuel tanks so that they can be converted into a storage facility, laboratory, garden, machine shop, rover parking, and etcetera. Moreover, if the legs could pop off and be pop into pre-built hard points on the fuel tanks sides, it would stabilize the tank and mitigate the need for digging a trench to stop it from rolling. This could be made easier through the use of pre-built doors that could be bolted on with built-in cutting guides for astronauts to cut a clean hole. Once renovated and reinforced, both the habitat and storage facility can be covered with compacted and hardened regolith to finish Stage 1 of the lunar base.
I agree. But I am somewhat skeptical about any deconstruction of the Fuel Tanks inside these rockets. Being far away from Earth. I consider that to be too much trouble for the small benefit. Maybe Robots with cutting torches?
If Space X is already planning to Mass-Produce these rockets. Then why waste time and energy gutting Starships? Just make the living quarter sections (almost 1/2 of the Spaceship) removable and design the interiors of those particular ships to be horizontal. Then, like the I.S.S.
Send a bunch of them up there. One by one. You could slowly assemble the modules to form a habitat. No deconstruction. After it's finished. Robot Rovers could slowly cover the habitat up with regolith.
Granted. You would have a lot of left-over empty fuel tanks. But perhaps they could be used, later on, for storing the production of Hydrogen, Helium 3, Water and Fuel.
I would also presume. That the ideal landing sites on the Moon would be near the polar caps since that is supposedly where the possibility of frozen water is located. However, the pictures of the Moon seem to indicate that those areas are rugged, jagged and covered with numerous mountains. This could present a serious challenge for finding a place to land and construct a Moon Base.
But if anyone could make it happen. Elon is the guy.
Fuel tanks can be used to store oxygen & water for crews, and can be filled up with supply ships.
Oboy. All right, let's start with the simple bits. (1) The basic structure renders this idea ludicrous. The 2nd stage tanks are NOT insulated; the ship exterior is the tank exterior. SO the temperature swings every 2 weeks will go from around boiling water in sunlight to -130c in lunar night. How much insulation mass will need to be shipped to render the whole tube survivable? (2) Internal bulkheads are not removable. They form the top and bottom of the fuel and oxidizer tanks, and are integrated into the external structure. You would have to be able to vent both systems completely, wash the interiors down to prevent flash fires and toxic fume conditions, and there would have to be airlocks built into each dome that could withstand cryogenic temperatures without leaking. For the platform, those airlocks would have to be offset, which would make the stress pattern change asymmetrically. This would require an entirely new proofing program to prove your ship won't blow up randomly, or fail structurally. (3) 5 meters of regolith? How? NONE of the proposed lunar rovers have plow blades or back hoes on them. They don't have the ability to pull something over like a John Deere; they are more like half assed dune buggies, able to bounce over non solid ground but no real traction. Hydraulics would likely be out due to temperature variations, which leaves electric. The regolith would get into the actuators and grind them to shreds very rapidly. The same would happen to robots, Tesla or otherwise. You couldn't power them without building a full blown power grid there. They couldn't handle dirt movers much bigger than an old fashioned shovel. Then there is the issue of them having 'learned' how to move in a 1g gravity well and suddenly being turned on in 1/6th G. The things would be helpless unless they could retrain themselves on the fly. Which they can't at the moment. (4) 'Laying the vehicle on it side' is far more complicated than portrayed. The crunchy regolith under the landing skids will shatter and compress, and its just as likely that the aft end slides out from under the supports as it is that it lays down. There's the long term life support systems to install. The power systems. Multiple air locks. Some kind of passageway to connect other 2nd stages when needed. All the interior fittings. All the science instruments. All of which will have to be small enough to carry in via air lock, or else you regularly depressurize the whole thing for outfitting and maintenance. It would be far easier, cheaper, and safer to build the base around the internals than try and 'reuse' a rocket in that fashion.
Finally someone sane on this channel. Excellent explanation. 👏🏽
@@rodrigooliveiraborges4269 1. The fuels are methane and Oxygen so no cleaning is required. 2. The moon dirt is part of the insulation. Other could be spray foam. 3. Inflatable air locks with some light weight framing. 4. Track hoes/ dumps trucks for moon operations are not outside current engineering capabilities. Not the best way to make a moon base but it's do-able. The thruster could be used to tilt the starship over and a cradle attached to the "down" side to better support the structure.
That is kind of what I said a few comments way up there ... :)
Why not just build horizontal, and land them - "on their side".
It would be like a VTOL aircraft, where the rocket thrusters should be on both ends of the rocket "case" facing 90 degrees from horizontal.
If you've seen Space: 1999, the Eagle Transporter (ship) has a passenger module that is located under a framework, and there are 4 "thruster packs", 2 per "side", on either end of that module. I think you'd have to look that up to get an idea of what I'm talking about. Synchronizing the fuel starts could be tricky ... :)
@@kumbah2006 I'm quite familiar with a lot of sci fi, both text and tube. You would fold the vehicle if you tried such a scheme. There is NOTHING inside in the way of structure. This isn't a NASA vehicle; its a capitalist wet dream, meaning its cheap as they can get away with. The 2nd stage is a steel tube that depends on autogenous pressurization to keep it from collapsing under its own weight at the best of times. Putting the mass of engines at each end would collapse the center, just like folding a toilet paper tube. Could you reinforce it? Yes. And that added mass subtracts from the cargo capacity, as that is your only mass variable. 200 tons is not a lot of mass when you are talking about structural members, and if you devote your cargo capacity to creating a science fiction ship that was designed for looks over function, then you have an unusable ship. Never mind the fact that those Space 1999 engines were nuclear in some capacity, which doesn't exist atm. Fuel consumption in methylox engines in that configuration would likely triple the fuel requirements than a vertical landing plan would need. Or more. So you would have to scrap the whole 'starship' idea and design an entirely new vehicle from scratch.
Bring a backhoe. Dig it into the surface, say around 25 feet below lunar surface level at the top side. Now you also don't have to worry constantly about micro meteorites which over time are going to be a real problem; you also have all the insulation you need from "on the moon" resources. We also need to formulate a chemical mix which can turn all the moon dust into concrete like materials. We may need to go to the asteroid belt and get a couple of large ice balls and bring them back. Or, Colonize Titan instead.
Can you imagine waking up and finding yourself on the moon..? Just for that split second it would be crazy ..
easier to deploy a "space tent", like Bigelow Aerospace Inflatable Space Habitats and cover it with regolith.
Leave it vertical and re-use the tanks, with pre-installed floors as perforated tank baffling, for expansion space. Have 2-3 floors of finished hab with extra equipment to be moved into the lower decks later. The ship and tanks can be shorter than currently designed, since there is no intention to leave the moon, and less likely to tip over. Living/storage/exercise/sleeping quarters on the lower levels and shield the bottom of the ship with regolith, bulldoze, sandbag or 3d print bricks. Circumferential water-wall on higher levels.
Instead of tipping over the vertically landed StartShip on Moon and Mars, Space X can simply build a StartShip version that does a flip maneuver just before it touches ground and make it tip over gently with cold gas thrusters on top cushioning the impact on legs installed on the SIDES of the Ship
It might be easier just to launch a starship mostly configured for horizontal use and landing. Then use another Starship or a tug of some sort to move it to the moon.
Placing it on the moon is not easy. Look up the numbers for how much fuel the LEM carried.
@@kensmith5694
assuming
dry_mass = 100,000 km/s
exhaust velocity = 3.4 km/s
delta_v = 1.7 km/s
we need 65,000 kg of fuel (ChatGPT did the rocket equation math for me).
Starship carries 1,200,000 kg, so that's only 6% of the fuel load.
This feels like a custom design could do this - maybe a small boost tug / decelerate stage?
@@dpjanes ChatGPT can't be trusted on math stuff. Putting a payload down on the moon is not an easy problem. Remember there is a de-orbit burn then the decent and then the positioning when landing. The best way to work it out is to start with the last thing you use the rockets for and work backwards towards the start.
Landers and/or shuttles are a good solution. Taking the chance of landing an upright rocket of that size on an unprepared surface is a disaster guaranteed to happen.
@@buddypage11 I agree that you don't want the lander to be tall. It is worth remembering that there is no air resistance.
when they use the hull of lunar starship as a moon habitat enclosure, they need to bring a second starship that brings the crew back to lunar gateway at least. And each starship needs 10-12 more starship launches to be refilled in LEO.
Then you only have an empty hull. All the modules for ceilings ,walls furniture, and machinery still needs to be brought as cargo/ payload extra. if you install optimized inflatable moon habitat modules and cover them with loose regolith. you can fit all the required components into the cargo compartment of one starship and this one starship is available for leaving the moon again
Why waster fuel returning good useful metal? Just return the tip with small vacuum thrusters to lunar orbit to meet a seperate earth return ship. Leave the tip behind as a future moon taxi or keep it attached as the only crew space for a specialized lunar to earth return ship that optimized just for that function. The crew would ride to earth on a normal manned LEO Starship.
inflatable cushion to gently tip Starship ?
@@joelpedigo9299 - like back when the LEM and service module were "the thing"? Was a decent system, but now we have better materials.
Service module stayed in orbit, and the lander with the capsule, went to the moon. Then later (after the mission) - just the capsule part, blasted off the moon and headed to moon orbit, leaving the lander part on the moon. The capsule lifted off to join up with the service module, to return back to Earth.
The capsule was quite cramped though, back in the 1960's and early 70's.
They really just need to make them larger and more comfortable.
Should be able to build something way larger nowadays ! :)
I'll believe when I see it.
this wont happen in any of our lifetimes
If you see it, you won't have to 'believe' it.
@@xergiok2322 of course you do. the brain plays tricks on you all the time..
@@rogerwilco1777 Not in the next 60 years?
@@rogerwilco1777
Ha. You wish. But realistically speaking we'd see the start within a decade.
The space colony topics are top notch
1st thing humans will build on the moon: cemetery
soon too I should imagine.
Was thinking distillery
Stripclubs.
Who wants to go to space atleast once in their lifetime
why just jump into Antarctic water and try to breath
@@tb7977 you will have space suits dum dum
And go back?
Landing the spaceX starship on the moon is too fantastical it won't happen anytime soon.
it will happen, then fall over
love the defeatism... 🐑
Similar skepticism was voiced by many many people about landing the first stage booster of Falcon 9.
@@websitemartian thankyou
@@johnstewart579 The reuse of the booster is a far easier problem. There is no reason to go to the moon so there is no reason to make a system for the job.
Send a big drill onto the moon, drill down 20m, create tunnels in crater mountains or drill vertical tunnel shafts. Disassemble the hull of the rockets. Use the hull parts as double layered tunnel covering, with some isolation foam for warmth and fire protection between. Use the "heads" of the rockets as locking part of the vertical tunnel shafts. Cover those with material. Later build large halls below those layers. A moon base needs heavy construction machinery on the moon, fully automated/remote controlled with some humantyp robots for maintenance. You need to store water and food for months, before the first human moon settlers arrive.
I could swear this was an episode from Star Trek. The one with Captain Archer, I think?
Really?
It would be easier to split the starship in half just before landing, and land the top containing the people or robots on the soil next to the bottom with the draco engines and letting the bottom half soft-crash itself. Then unpack whatever tools are needed to build an inflatable base that gets covered by regolith by a lunar bulldozer brought along. It takes away the risk of tipping, it takes away the risk of high tower unloading, and it allows for far more practical use space then trying to recycle the lander, it also allows the scrap of the lander to be repurposed for other things, like using the rolled steel to cut simple tool replacements from or fabricate layers of covering to reinforce the regolith. This would reduce risk because the astronauts have a safe complete shelter from day one without risk, and have more flexibility to produce a bigger more permanent shelter. Also this way bots can do this before any astronauts land
You literally explained how they landed on the moon in 1969 😂
But the idea to cut Starship in two is good. The tank section is only needed to get out of Earth orbit. They can leave it there already. Any further and its only dead weight, wasting fuel.
@@MichaelWinter-ss6lx Well, that's why using Starship as the Moon lander is a stupid idea to begin with.
It takes about 1.7 Km/s of DeltaV in order to land on the moon, it takes a farther 1.87 Km/s of DeltaV to lift off (both figures from LLO). Lunar starship has a dry mass of about 90 tons, if we cut this into thirds this for the dry mass of just the crew module, we get 30 tons. The Isp of a SuperDraco is about 235 seconds. The ratio of Hypergolic fuel to oxidzer is about 1:1, so we can just average the value. We can then figure out the Wet mass of starship by taking the average of the density of the fuel and oxidzer (we can only do this because the ratio is 1:1) and then multiplying it by the available area. If we assume we can put aside 100m^3, and that SuperDracos are powered on Monomethyl Hydrazine and Nitrogen Tetroxide (0.880 g/cm^3 and 1.55 g/cm^3 respectively), that the SuperDracos can actually lift the mass of the rocket, that the SuperDracos can run at 100% Throttle for the full duration of the burns and that SuperDracos can relight. We can now get an average density of 1.215 g/cm^3, which is the same in tons/m^3, then we multiply it by the 100m^3 allocated for fuel, we get a fuel mass of 121.5 tons, which is a wet mass of 151.5 tons. The equation for figuring out the DeltaV of a rocket is Isp * g (This is Earth gravity, as Isp is calculated based on Earth gravity) * Math.log(WetMass/DryMass). We can then plug in values and get the equation 235 * 9.807 * Math.log(151.5/30). This gives us just barely enough DeltaV to finish the mission (3732.1150179507868m/s^2, with 162.11501795078675m/s^2 of margin).
In conclusion, this means that a starship separation is just barely possible, but with a payload of likely only a few tons. The low payload means that there is no way of bringing all the required materials for the outlined mission. There is also the issue of the lower stage exploding and damaging the upper stage (As it will likely still have a few tons of Methalox on board). A better plan using a starship base would be just to leave a lunar starship with small barriers in it's main fuel tank (a hole in the middle allows for fluid to move up and down the starship) and a small airlock located next to the main engines, on the bottom of the ship on the surface of the moon, and then draining the fuel tanks, RCS tanks, pressurization tanks, and other miscellaneous fluids on board. You can then use some cargo stored on another starship to get the base ready for humans. Also, on the moon, you have to bring the air required to fill inflatable base modules, as there is no atmosphere to get it from. You can use electrolysis to gather oxygen on the moon, but pure oxygen environments are not safe for humans.
@@CrazyMage--0
Now remains the question.
Why build a base on the moon in the first place?
Also, will the inital lunar Starship have wet-workshop capability, maybe not pressurised but to use the empty fueltanks as storage?
I don't think they'll be any starship tipping for a long time, the effort it would take to remodel the interior in-situ is crazy, better off sending a lunar starship up that has inflatable modules that can be covered with regolith - which could be done using automated rovers. I don't think we'll see any "building" done on the moon within the next decade, but a moon brick factory using regolith and 3d printing would be cool.
Furthermore, will the lunar starship have some sort of cover on the nose solar panels? I'd be surprised if they're not damaged on the way up due to the extreme speeds.
Is there going to be a backup ladder to get down/up?
I'd send starships with horizontal interior ahead so they can be tipped and used, and go there with the starships that land and re-launch to moon orbit.
Using installed inflatable habitats in fuel section is the best solution for sure.
@richkhalilsonicjunkee2203 That defeats the purpose of an inflatable habitat. Inflatable habitats can be larger than fairings as they inflate. Why would you do all that just to have it be the same size as the fairing? The fuel area is pressurised anyway, just drain it and use the empty space.
@@xXSwaghetti.YoloneseXx-uf2bb - if you drain the fuel, maybe store it and create a "moon gas station" for other starships or vehicles?
Not sue, but that's what zipped across my brain. :) lol
Very well explained, written and produced. The graphics were simple and direct, no “glitz” to get in the way of this particular presentation.
Thumbs Up 👍
“The best part is no part”
Says the designer of the Vehicle with 33 engines plus 9
...of which a dozen have to be launched to get a single vehicle out low-earth orbit.
@@richardmetzler7909 yes, of course. So, when Elon says they are launching 1000 ships, its really 10,000 😂
you're right, but parallelization is a thing
@@richardmetzler7909yeah, thank you for correcting me. You need about 400 engines to get you there😂
I predict this and the mars base will go exactly like the Boring Company and the HyperLoop or the Tesla robots.
yep, I 100% agree. Think of all the hardware needed 'just' to get started.
I think they just said the ship is not going to the moon.
AntiGravity Aircraft The Next generation Spaceship
Work base on Gravity just spinning by using car's engine
can fly in bad weather plunge in the ocean even in outer space
Earth which weight predict 600 trillion ton does not fall at the Sun because of centrifugal in orbitting, on the contrary it does not be thrown far go out the orbit line of hold by gravity at the Sun as orbit center. Gravity and centrifugal is equal called Equillibrium, thats why until now Earth which we was inhabited always rotate and circulate the Sun. Now we justly take example : how if the gravity used and centrifugal is negated? The Earth will float far leave the Sun. So that centrifugal can be used to fly far away if gravity eliminated. Finally how to eliminate gravity?
It’s way rotate part of aircraft by horizontal. When that rotation faster centrifugal force getting greater and the gravity getting smaller, finally it lose the gravity and the aircraft start flying. Of course people would surprise: how the aircraft can keep rotate without fulcrums? Thats why we named that aircraft Shuttling System that is aircraft likes two disc adjoining attached in the midle as fulcrums:
A. The Top part, we name Positive rotate to right, and the edges is getting thicker and havier.
B. The Buttom part, we name Negative rotating to left, and the edges is getting thicker and havier.
C. Middle Part , we name Neutral, air crew placed and also machine and everythings turning Negative and Positive at the same time.
The aircraft can liftup added with explosion from the engine. However that aircraft construction later, let the engineer doit it, and we are sure the aircraft will bulletproof and also waterproof.
.
.
In modern civilization where human being generally using flying saucer as vehicle, will a lot of change in lives either in materialism and in psychological. In materialism area will apply the change in life like.
People no longger need roadway and rel road which spend large of energy, money, places, things and time, object place and time. People would utilize that area for habitat or for other need:
@@dadearinto5546 .... yes but does it come in corn flower blue?
.......And electric cars.😅
Hay, to get those government grants that has substantial amounts to try out one theory is still worth it.😊
He dose make some progress , he finds brilliant minds to help him pull off a lot.😅
Even rotating around a gyroscope located in the nose could possibly safely lay the craft on the moon from its upright position.
My Take. Is that the first starship to land on moon inside a crater cave or very very close to a cave mouth and land on its side. The head of ship detaches and it is actually a Boring Tunnel Worm, that would immediately bore a tunnel unto the ground connecting the moon-lava-tunnels or accessing Lunar-Cave.
The rest of starship cargo are lunar rovers and Optimus's and they will work on sealing the formed tubular caves with regolith tiles and , pressurizing the tunnels , and cementing living spaces.
Next Starship are Human Colonists of the Moon that will install other infrastructure, mapping out , human type of jobs, etc.
A full Starship could be an entire farm for greens, mushrooms,oxygen source, water facility and it is also landing on its side on the Lunar Colony.
I would suggest a separate lander module that can dock with the Starship on the moon.
That way if they have a crash landing and survive, they still have a functional Starship base they can get to.
I suggest use the well proven Falcon Heavy to deliver the lander module to the Moon's surface for docking with a prepositioned Super Heavy moon base, delivered to the moon well in advance.
Perhaps they can use a customised wide footed Dragon capsule with additional rocket boosters as the lander.
I think the whole starship moon lander is only a covered-up way to get more funding for developing Starship. Once SpaceX have their normal Starship for Earth re-entry finished, they will come up with a radical new design for a Moon lander. There is no good reason for a moon lander to look like a Starship. For example in space their is no atmospheric drag, you can live with very little thrust over a longer period. For landers it is important to first determine if you want a given lander to come back into orbit around the moon. If not, then the optimal design is completely different from landers that you want back in orbit. In both cases the Starship does not look ideal because you can achieve roughly the same functionality with much lower-weight landers with a much lower center of mass and easier to cover with regolith.
Getting from earth-orbit to moon-orbit takes about 4000 m/s delta-V (3100 LEO-TLI and 900 TLI-LMO (low-Moon-orbit)). When you arrive at LMO you don't want to bring a half empty fuel tank to decent on the moon and come back up. BTW you need about 4500 m/s to start from LMO, land on the moon and back to LMO. A single starship cannot do this because it does not have more than 8000 m/s even with minimal payload and refueling on the moon surface is a problem because the Moon has no CO2. So now we are refueling starships in LEO with up to 10 launches per starship and then we need to refuel them again in LMO. We may end up with over 30 launches before we have one starship land on the moon and come back to LMO. This seems unsustainable to me.
Instead I would suggest to send an unmanned rocket with a land-able habitat/laboratory to land permanently on the moon. Use robotics to cover it on the moon with regolith. Then when finished, send people with a system that is much closer to Apollo style, but maybe a bit more reusable, maybe methane, better computers and landing guidance. Fuel for launching from the Moon back to LMO can be for example be delivered with the land-able habitat/laboratory or some other lander craft. SpaceX are good and landing spacecraft, this part is probably best left to them.
@@richardbloemenkamp8532 Lunar starship doesn't have to be aerodynamic, it is because it's cheaper to use an already designed and built vehicle, although I do agree with you, starship is not a good choice for a lunar lander
somehow the idea of a trailer park on the moon is just funny to me, accurate but funny
who the hell would ever want to do this?
There is a long line of sheep saying yes…😂😂😂
Y'all are boring, I'll go mine some moon rocks.
Interesting video, thank you. On one point, you can't simply tip a Starship over and let it fall, another method would need to be used. It will likely be badly damaged (probably broken into peices) due to the kinetic energy of the top section when it hits the ground based on its very high mass and impact velocity. This would be like dropping the nose from 8.3 meters on Earth. If a object will be damaged by dropping it on Earth from a specific height it will be damaged on the Moon at 6 times higher. So if the nose cannot survive a 8.3 meter free fall drop on Earth without being damaged, it wil not take a 50 meter drop on the Moon without being damaged. A drop from 8.3m on Earth and a drop from 50m on the Moon will hit the surface with the same velocity and thus the same kinetic energy (destructive energy).
Tipping Starship over onto its side would be pretty rough on it and would probably crush it, even at 1/6 gravity. I think they will be better off hauling compact inflatable habitat inside Starship and off loading it onto the surface and pumping it up there.
Also falling on sharp edged rocks may puncture the ship.
Can use the inflatable habitat inside as a pillow after blowing it up, then with starship safely nested, slowly deflate it, pull it out, move then reinflate, boom now you have the starship habitat and the inflatable habitat combined.
Elon is such a genious and I hope he has a long and illustrious life.
The thing to remember about starship as a cargo ship is pretty similar to the A380. Despite the fact that the A380 has fantastic payload and range capabilities, it’s never been made into a cargo plane. The internal volume is just too big. Anything big enough to fill up the internal volume of an a380 is going to be too heavy for the plane to lift. Bigger doesn’t always mean better and I wonder if a starship moon base will face the same problems. Maintaining life support for such a large space when you aren’t using it seems unsustainable. Better to have starship deliver modules requiring no construction work to the surface than to build habitats out of starships themselves.
Another thought. Below the tanks install a boring machine. When the spacecraft lands bore straight down lowering the ship straight down into the surface of the moon. Then cover the top with the refuse from the boring operation and have an exit / access hatch at the very nose of the buried craft. No remodel, no redesign, no tipping and no burring after the fact. The former fuel tanks can then be converted to water storage and supplied by a supply ship.
Im wondering about the structural stability of the horizontal starship when it's covered with dirt. Even in low gravity, that dirt is going to be heavy and will apply a crushing force on the horizontal starship. When vertical, it's structural stability is pretty good, but when you look at ring segments which are laying down on the side at Boca Chica they just collapse. Seems like you would need to add a lot of circular stabilizing members to keep it from being crushed, even in the low gravity.
breathable air as we have on earth has a pressure on one bar. that means 100kN /m2 compared to the lunar vacuum, equivalent to the weight of 10 metric tons per m2 on earth. You could pile up 30-36 meters of regolith on starship, before the weight of the regolith outweighs the force of the inner pressure. so, you more have to see it as an inflatable structure since the inner pressure has a much higher effect in the structure than the weight
@@thomasherzig174brilliant
That whole design is nuts. The starship can deliver cargo inside it, such as a mooner lander, semis in space, and already-made homes, labs, etc., for the moon that can be delivered like cargos.
Actually here first for once
Awesome video ! Thank you for sharing . Happy Friday to you !
I grew up in the 60s and was 11 when Apollo 11 landed on the moon. It was fascinating for a kid my age. At 66, I hope to live to see us go back to the moon.
Back to the moon? Sure we might tuch a boot on the moon within 20 years. But building some kind of base on the surface or launching hundreds of starships, eeeeh NO never gonna happen.
I'm 69 and I hope so too!
@@N04hrk Why not?
People in general lost interest anyway. Twelve people have walked on the moon, but I'd wager that not one of a hundred people could name four of them. But the reason the missions were discontinued fifty years ago was the tremendous expense of manned lunar missions.
It was only a great movie for propaganda /cold war agenda to be better than Russians... but Now the truth is becoming the reality.
Exactly, if our Mars mission candidates can't do it on the moon how are they qualified to colonize Mars....
I'm glad a lot more people are now skeptical about Elon being able to actually accomplish the things that he claims he will do.
Find a cave. Live in the cave. We've done it before. For two million years.
A vital element to achieving all of this successfully is they need to get rid of Musk as soon as possible period
very stupid comment
Tell me why Musk has to go?
Yes, we'd all like to know -- EMWTK ... Why does Musk need to go? So that some poor French guy can go instead, and run out of money? You're quite rich, aren't you? lol /sarcasm :)
Another idea I have is to build a ISS in the shape of a cube. It could be assembled real easy, by just docking space station modules together. Perhaps it could spin and have artificial gravity. (Centrifugal Force) Also perhaps a million people could live on it. Also perhaps it could travel to the moon / Mars. Also it could be a cycler. Cargo pods could be attached to it. Perhaps a train of cargo pods could be attached to it. 🙂
Another Idea that I have is to make a mobile moon / Mars base out of space station modules. Strap the modules on an electric chassis driven by remote control. When the modules reach their destination, they could be docked together. After they are docked together, they will make a good size moon / Mars base.
I'm favoured, $60k every week! I can now give back to the locals in my community and also
support God's work and the church. God bless America.
How please. Help me I really need to gain my losses back...
It might be beneficial to consult with a financial advisor who can provide personalized guidance on your specific situation
I'm guide by. Jennifer Smith. God bless you ma'am
😳🙄Woah! what a coincidence
For the last yrs, expert ma'am Jennifer Smith has made impact on my financial and actual quality of life than any other job
SPACEX WILL BUILD STAR SHIPS FOR MOON ONE EVERY 72 HOURS.
Pure fantasie!
Might be best to make it land vertically. Put landing legs on the front, middle and back. Put the draco thrusters front, middle and back. If it's going to stay and not come back. Make the insides for this type of stay.
Best thing to do is the oppesite of what Musk says.
And why is that?
@@paulmichaelfreedman8334 ..cause hes a con man that has screwed over every business partner hes ever had, from paypal to tesla...
Hes illegally withholding his Tesla stats in over 17states (including california), and the cars are STILL rated as some of the worst according to JD Power/Consumer reports..
He's said the government shouldn‘t provide subsidies to companies, (after receiving billions in subsidies from the U.S government himself)
..500$ for a roofing torch that you can buy for less than 50$..
..I guess starlink is cool if you live in an area without internet and have thousands of dollars to blow on the equipment..
..Hyperloop is a clear scam to anyone with a basic level of laws of physics understanding.. (just another way to wash billions)
..He's known for cutting corners in his factories.. so good luck putting any chips in your brain with his name on it.., if his cars are any example, your brain will need to be recalled before you leave the parking lot..
..He paid $50k to a 'private investigator' aka an ex felon and convicted scammer to dig up dirt on one of those cave divers who saved those kids trapped in cave cause he wanted them to be a 'pedo'.. (he has tantrums and 'attacks' random people on the internet, thus defaming their character and is constantly sued for it)..
But he gave the worlds biggest donation to charity! (yeah his own charity so he could wash even more of his billions from taxes)..
I mean how much time do ya got? Elons not a great dude. Its not a mystery.. but dont feel bad, most of the people at the top are scumbags, its how they got there. They are the people with zero empathy for their fellow human beings and dont care how many lives they have to ruin just to get one more peg up the ladder..
but i do have some tesla stock thats finally in the red aft many years, so get back out there and believe the hype!
@@paulmichaelfreedman8334 Its kinda obvious for everyone except for muskuitoes. Since you are asking im guessing you are one. 😂
@@ToneyCrimson Imbecile.
@@ToneyCrimson
By not answering the question you confess your own stupidity.
Good ideas, I wonder where you got them.
With China setting to return by 2030 I wonder if Elon will just send a starliner with a landing/return stage to the moon using 3 Falcon Heavies (1 take transfer stage, 1 to take fuel/supplies, 1 to take lander/return and people) and just get it over and done with. Could use a mixed American/Canadian crew (he has Canadian citizenship), could potentially be the second organisation to land on the moon and the first private company.
The maths checks out, but it would be hard to get a lander/return capsule done in 5 years especially with all the other stuff going on.
SpaceX will have Starship on the moon well before 2030.
@@paulmichaelfreedman8334 we shall see
Yeah in 2026-2027 with artemis III@@paulmichaelfreedman8334
@@paulmichaelfreedman8334 not with humans
@@rogerwilco1777 mmm, maybe, maybe not... Starship development is in acceleration phase. You'll be surprised how much speed they are going to gain. I see a manned landing well before 2030 having good chances.
Colonists hundereds of years ago used to brake up their ships to build shelters. It’s the best way of setting up a colony on the moon. Go there with the intention to stay and let human ingenuity figure it out.
Send robots to built on the moon first then from the moon build facilities to send too mars
Since you're pointing out how Starship is structurally designed to also allow being on its belly, then why couldn't Lunar Starship perhaps descend and land on the Moon in a bellyflop orientation, instead of descending tail-first?
So essentially take the idea of using shipping containers to build homes, but in this case you send up various vehicles to land on the moon which can be joined together to create a habitat. Not a bad idea. Probably the best way to do it. Like an RV starship
Absolutely no need to establish a base on the moon. A waste of time and resources, an orbital station makes more sense.
For an HLS habitat module you don't need to have full propellent tanks because you will never be launching from the Moon. The HLS habitat module (HLS-HM) should land horizontally after a vertical deceleration with the main engines. This will mean redesigning the landing thrusters from high up on the ship to pointing down when in a horizontal position. The landing thrusters will only be needed the last 100M to the surface. Landing legs can be installed at the ISS before translunar injection. With this approach you don't have to gut out the internals and then refurbish the inside to a horizontal configuration, it just comes that way from Earth. The much smaller propellant tanks could be used for water or some other kind of storage.
There's already a workable solution. The sci-fi series Space 1999 has already solved the moonbase. Use Boring machines. Also connect lavatubes. The micro-meteorites and cosmic radiation are a no-go...
This. There is a line of craters that NASA was ready to race the USSR for back in the day before the USSR collapsed and NASA lost the main political reason for moon funding. They are a perfect 76-78f year round because they are always in shadow. Use boring machines (boring company is literally making them perfect sized to put on a super heavy if the machine was covered in a shell, they are also making prototypes small enough to fit inside a starship) and dig in to the floor/ walls of those craters to best protect from solar radiation and asteroids.
We want 8k video from the moon 🌙. No cuts.
Great ideas. Definitely reusing a ship as the shelter make a lot of sense. Would be nice if we could figure out how to send a ship full of robots in various configurations that could build the new base in advance. Or maybe send a few humans to oversee the work and keep the robots running :).
You don't need to cuss to make your point
To tip it over it could fire it's thrusters and then again to cushion the fall.
looks easy enough, lets go SpaceX
If you are going to tip over the craft to a horizontal position. Why not use the existing habitat levels as your internal housing. Design the habitat levels on pivot points and tracks so that after landing on the moon the tanks are evacuated out the bottom (what was the bottom or tail end) of the craft then separate the three floors of the habitat and rotate them 90 degrees to be horizontal to the moon surface and parallel to the spaceship. This motion can be designed into the craft and done automatically after the spacecraft has assumed its horizontal position. By designing the spacecraft in this manner there will be no need to redesign or remodel it for a habitat reducing significantly the amount of time needed to adapt the ship for long term stay on the moon. Another possibility is that the crew could remain in the craft during this operation.
Makes more sense to just build out the fuel tank vertically and use a bulldozer or something to just build a mound of dirt around it to the door, makes sure it doesn’t tip and insulates the fuel tank
Remember, this is going to be a habitat. One thing you NEVER do to habitats is tip them over, the resulting damage could end up being eventually lethal once it splits wide open on a hairline fracture created by the impact from tipping it over. The landing thrusters will need to be deployed to prevent that.
Outfitting the space with new equipment requires additional starships to bring it down to the surface. At that point, is probably a better idea to just transport outfitted habitats, possibly like the inflatable Bigelow stations. Or leave the top third of a Starship on the surface, lightening the remaining portion to return to Earth and make additional trips; a Lunar Tug of sorts. Or leave them on the surface to act as storage tanks for residual methane and oxygen. Or water, Helium 3, and minerals mined from the moon.
It's kinda sad to think that NASA 50 years ago could've been doing this had Congress not killed its budget. Now we have to rely on ambitious and benevolent billionaires to drive this dream. This is why I respect Elon, but a part of me keeps thinking how America lost its way.
Hi! Why not separate the tip from the tank section and rise the tip, the living and storage sections horisontal again, with the lift door at ground. Much complicated work saved.
The way this video sounds, the lunar starship is almost ready for launch & Elon Musk will have a huge city on the moon in the next 5 to 10 years
Of course if you simply want to tip it over. Just collapse the landing gear in the direction you want it to fall.
But if you want to be more careful. Spacex would run a simulation with descant thrusters to help control the fall.
Once they work that out, they can modify the rocket to suit. With the thrusters able to turn and have enough force to help with tipping and soft landing once it starts to fall on its side.
Final prep: Once the rocket was landed. They could get any last moment information and set the program with sensors and AI helping.
After all, just because it can take a lot of stress one way does not mean it can take it in another way.
I like the idea of a Starship laying horizontally as not only a base. But with the first lander as well.
By keeping the fins on the lander, tracks, like tank tracks can be built into the tips of the fins. The gravity is a lot less. So retractable tracks can be added to reinforced fins. A decent set of stairs can easily fold out of the crew compartment as opposed to the 150ft elevator and the problems that could bring. The ship will be able to move around on the moon.
As for landing & takeoff thrusters. A long retractable tract of pivoting thrusters can run along the upper side of the starship. These thrusters with a sufficient heat shield pattern can provide landing and takeoff propulsion that will be far enough away from the surface to allow T/O & Landings without kicking up too much debris.
I have drawn this idea out on paper and photoshopped a SS with tracks. But haven’t gotten it into a 3D animation yet. Hopefully soon and I’ll share it.
We can't even go outside low earth orbit because of the firmament which is an ocean of high energy councious cosmic/solar frequencies
Germans be like "Muss stoßlüften"
The moon is not made for industrialization, it’s a planet to hold the earth in balance.
Musks Starship will never see the Moon. Setting all technical issues aside, the concept is the problem. Starship is designed to reach LEO with an empty tank. Refilling it takes another 12-20 Starships to be launched afterwards, docked and fuel transferred. This means ONE Starship mission requires the hardware and fuel from the entire Apollo Program while adding up all risks from all these starts together. Getting one there is crazy, a whole fleet absurdly mad.
Nope, they've already spoke about 3D printers that will use moon dust and it'll slowly write buildings. This will slowly make a base where scientists and astronauts can stay. They will do the same on Mars.
why not land on it's side? moon gravity and all.
I think SpaceX side something about them having to be upright.
To renovate it use galvanised square steel
If SpaceX would go that route, it would have the layout for it as it is being build.
About 90% of what is needed in the tanks would be built in, the cargo and crew area would have easy prefabs to go from vertical to horizontal.
It would be guilt from the ground up for the purpose.
jmpo
Just when you thought SpaceX couldn't get any cooler, they drop plans for a moon base! Talk about aiming for the stars and beyond!
Buddy they won’t even get starship on the moon.
This won’t happen. We can’t even get two people home from the ISS. 😂😂😂
This. All these f*ing channels hyping...
People go and come back from the ISS for decades. You don't know what you are talking about.
@@j.f.almeida9081 - I think the OP (above) - not you, is confused about what ship(s) brought those people to the ISS in the first place, and either doesn't know history, or believes that it's been the same ship all along.
Starliner was the problem, not all those original spacecraft, as they've worked nearly flawless for many years. We all know, but Oswald doesn't appear
to know, or is confused. SpaceX's Dragon saved the day! :)
We all know better, as we've been keeping track.
Troll much?
Hey Oswald, go and check the history, your "not knowing" is showing ! :)
The battle over Tesla's Berlin Gigafactory | DW News
Instead of remodelling 90 degrees, make a risk assesment for additional stage separation between main tanks top & the 1/3 top part of the rocket. Keep all things vertical. It will look good too.
No, he will have to tested and reteated and tested againe to make sure it aint got any liks...., then make a final version, tested it one last time...., then move the dates towards one posible date by December 30th....
Soil and regolith are not interchangeable. Soil is made primarily from organic detritus. Regolith is mineral/metal/salt only.
The impact of smaller and larger meteors must be taken into account, which means that the cities of any base would have to be below the surface to be protected from meteors, and on the moon, meteors often hit
Elevator to the moon?! Is that a reference to the Halo movie?
space elevator!
There IS value in having a moon base, not for people or a colony, but as a contingency with safety as its function.
So why isn't the boring company involved in a moon/mars base plan? I do believe it's part of the plan in the long run or why would Elon bother with it
Lunar thrusters toward the top of the lander is primarily about not kicking up damaging lunar dust.
To guard against tippage, it'd be best to put the thrusters near the top (as indicated in most renderings) - NOT near the center of mass, assuming the bottom is essentially a pivot.
This is awesome
Space X yayyy
This is sooo great 👍 ❤❤️🚀👍🥰💫🦋🩸♾️💋💋💋💋💋💋
I ❤️U Elon Musk
Maybe meet one day ❤
I’d still love to be with you!!
Love Liz
Thanks!
We have to get to the moon first. 😂😂😂
I think the first Starship to land on the moon is not manned.
If they wanted to tip it over then some adjustable landing legs would help. Also, instead if direct pulling a pulley system would substantially lower the needed force. Thirdly why not then deliberately land it so that it falls over. There can be also some airbag type of solution to make the fall less damaging. Just some quick thoughts without any further thinking.
I really want to see this happen
I love it so much I would like to be a part of it
Might be time to apply to SpaceX 🚀
They could just design and build the interior of the starship in a "horizontal orientation" here on Earth, that would make more sense. Also if they have those landing thrusters at the top maybe they could burn the ones on the right to get the ship to start tipping and then as it starts to fall ignite the ones on the opposite side for just an instant to slow down the momentum as it falls the the moons surface. Just a thought.
I wonder if the color choice is for preventing fuel boil off. I know in the past they've used gray around kerosene tanks on falcon to prevent freezing. But considering the lower freezing point, and far lower boiling point of liquid methane. It may help to retain some of the fuel for the long duration mission requirements. Given that most rockets expel their second stage pretty quickly, and Starship will need to keep fuel for at least about a month I'd assume, boil off becomes more relevant that freezing. I hope they eventually set up a shuttle between Earth and the Moon that never lands, but rather transports to and from launch and landing vehicles, while being constantly re-fueled in orbit. It'll at least take away the delta V requirements of launching the lunar Starship out of Earth for each mission. Sure is exciting stuff, thank you for your content!