ESA starts Building Bold New Spaceship Better than Dragon! While the US is losing the Moon Race!
Vložit
- čas přidán 21. 12. 2023
- The European Space Agency has gotten serious about building a large reusable crewed spaceship called SUSIE. While the United States' moon landing program is falling farther and farther behind. With the lengthy delays in Starbase launch approvals, there is no way Starship will be ready on time.
Shop the Academy store at...
shop.spreadshirt.com/terran-s...
Please help support our channel at...
/ terranspaceacademy
Thank you so much for watching!
Ad Astra Pro Terra
Artists
/ c_bass3d
/ labpadre
/ neopork85
/ hazegrayart
/ alexsvanart
/ _fragomatik_
/ nickhenning3d
/ rgvaerialphotos
Companies
/ nasa
/ spacex
www.cochranex.com
/ blueorigin
/ space_ryde
/ virgingalactic
/ relativityspace
/ neutronstarsys - Věda a technologie
im now 71 yrs old,Rocket men were my heros as a kidd. our country school teacher had a radio on in class and we all listen to the first Mercury launches..16 yrs old with the first moon landing. probally not live to see our return . i have followed your videos from the start. i think your the best.
Thank you so much John. You have seen an amazing amount of history! Hang in there! We are on the cusp of a revolution in medicine... we want you there for historical perspective :-)
This isn't a lesson, it's more of an opinion
It is a lesson on our opinion. But then all lessons are someone's or a collection of someone's opinions.
I find it interesting that there are always several things left out when videos are critiquing the current Artemis program. #1 is that the program is designed to work within the regular NASA budget. There is no additional funding for Artemis (with the exception for the Blue Origin HLS). Everything else flows from this point. The Lunar orbit, the SLS design, everything. The public loves it's space program, so long as it doesn't cost more then 25-ish billion dollars a year. That same public spends 700+ billion on bars and going out every year, but anything north of 25 billion for NASA is a National Crisis. I stand and clap that NASA figured out a way to do this under ridiculous circumstances, and even managed to help fund the next level of space hardware (all the commercial companies like SpaceX, Blue Origin, and etc). It is what it is because that's what the public is willing to pay for. Sit back, and enjoy it.
I believe that the main cost problem comes from the requirements of the members of parliament whose interests are 'what is the advantage for the state I represent ' , no advantage, no funding.
This is why billions extra are required to to make multiple unnecessary versions of SLS, and why the gateway is required.
It it just to get the funding.
At some point however a NASA administrator has to have enough of a spine to say well if we do this right, we can save these billions of dollars that can then be used for projects that their states can be involved in like habitats, exploration vehicles, robotics, etc.
What I am saying is that although much of the cost-time overruns etc are caused by the government,
NASA admin needs to grow a spine and stand up.
@@davidhenry5128 That is precisely what Jim Bridenstine did when he created the Artemis porgram. Prior to that, there was a nebulous Moon to Mars ambition, and there was the SLS program (which was mandated by the Senate in response to the previous NASA admin that stood up to them and said "we're cancelling Constellation because it's unaffordable"). But Bridenstine had the advantage of being a Congressional insider, formerly on the committee that handles NASA in the House of Representatives. He navigated through the Congressional morass and focused most of the available resources on Artemis. This included created Commercial Lunar Payload Services, which will eventually be launching some of the robotic missions that the Professor mentions. He was also instrumental in assuring that we had a viable lander option. I still remember Bridenstine's speech after the DM-1 crew launch when he said something like "we've got to get SLS flying! We've got to get Starship flying!" Then he high-fived Elon as he took the stage. Bridenstine knew back then that Starship was going to play a pivotal role in our future in space, and he was willing to buck Congress if necessary to help it along.
@@jamesowens7176 Excellent post. People say "over priced jobs program", or similar nonsense without even understanding how any of this works.
Thanks, I am glad to find that there are administrators that make the effort.
Always the case...
You can trace the failure in moon exploration back to the Apollo program. Everything was optimized for speed in getting to the Moon, leaving us with no space infrastructure.
We could have built on Apollo and gone on to succeed if we hadn't ditched everything that was working.
It's easy to forget that the Space Shuttle was approved while men were walking on the moon. The Shuttle was meant to do so much more then it got to do. It was meant to build that infrastructure.
Compromises were made on space shuttle everywhere, to suit the wishes of the air force and government.
What survived to become the space shuttle was far less usefull, less safe and more expensive to reuse than the origonal design developed would have been.
Someone at NASA needed a backbone.
@@terranspaceacademy
It would have been incredibly difficult to build on Apollo.
Apollo required SaturnV. But NASA lacked to funds to build more than three per year. (seriously, look up the composition of NASA´s budget during Apollo)
With this background it made much sense to retire SaturnV and build a space shuttle. Sadly political meddling caused the space shuttle to fail practically all of its goals.
And then the Shuttle was - surprize ! - much more expensive than planned. Oversized crap. Solid boosters were actually prohibited from human flights. Until the Shuttle.
🚀🏴☠️🎸
Great lesson. I’ve never seen that Japanese robotic Rover pretty awesome.
It is amazing.
Go ESA! We, Europeans deserve some space sugar ;-)
Quality content, as always. Thx you.
You are most welcome!
I agree with the Professor in that we could certainly be leveraging the near-term capabilities of Starship better by developing a 3-stage system as payload to be launched from Starship in LEO. The Apollo CSM mass (28.8 mt) + LEM (16.5 mt by Apollo 17) was less than 50 metric tons total. Orion + European Service module is similar in mass to the Apollo CSM at 26.5 metric tons. A substantial lander for the 2-week Lunar stay could be had for 50 metric tons and still have leftover mass for a secondary payload like a pressurized lunar rover - all on a single Starship launch! No SLS or refueling flights required.
Thank you James! Nothing would get us there sooner.
SUSIE: 25 tons launch mass
Ariane 64: 21,65 t maximum payload mass to LEO
Hmmm...
Also SUSIE is not an upper stage despite its name. It´s just a reusable return vehicle.
I don't understand why you don't want to look at those two problems.
Ariane 66?
@@terranspaceacademy
Not planned. Not even discussed as far as I know.
And SUSIE is still no upper stage.
Not yet.
The whole point of the space station ISS was to learn how to build things in space, it seems like the Falcon 9, could put up all of the parts you need to go to the moon from multiple trips made by Falcon 9, it could even be self Assembled.
The other point of confusion is why do they have to build lunar space station near the moon? There is no rush to get the lunar space station to the moon if no people are aboard, so you could take the most energy efficient path to lunar orbit.
The Moon is the largest space station we'll ever have.
Joyeux Noël et merci !🎄
et toi mon frère !
Absolutely agree with your assessment.
Thank you Peter!
I think you're right about the US. Meaning, Apollo worked and we've just overcomplicated the crap out of the process.
We think so too. The solution was to increase Saturn V production and streamline the process. Not start something totally new and just as expensive.
Great video like always i think that this video would have been great Segway to elaborate on the 3 stages concept you proposed but it was too short this time I'll still give u a 👍
I've covered it more completely in other lessons...
Way to work in a plug for Tang, which the Apollo astronauts never drank!
Ah, but lots of kids did :-)
6:31 SpaceX should combine efforts with Dynetics and have ALPACA as lander. It easily fits inside Starship cargo space. It is almost done.
But that all still lack proper EMU for those fragile humans that we stubbornly want to send up there.
ALPACA is awesome but I can't understand how they came in at a price higher than even Blue Origin.
Exploring the Moon sooner offers only apparent advantage vs full reusability. Using the old formula to expend stuff might get us another 50 years of doing nothing. SpaceX's plan is a good one
Not if China has a rail launcher and free electron laser waiting for us.
Agree moon development by drones should have been in progress for decades. Although probably not started until after the soviets union broke up. Would like to see more work into metallic hydrogen & scramjets engines verses everyone trying to build a new reusable multiple stage platform.
But without reusability there can't be sustainable access...
@@terranspaceacademy Rockets are low efficiency burning huge volumes of fuel & oxygen simply climbing though the atmosphere. The idea is that because fuel is cheap that reusable platforms will provide "affordable" access to space. Will fuel prices remain low is the question with a thousand launches every month? Methane & hydrogen are also extremely attractive fuels for nearly everything demand will be substantial. Starship is considered bulk transport to space but cargo is still going to be a single digit percentage of launch weight. Heavy lift space plane has greater potential, & open options such as high altitude refueling or conformal retractable fuel tanks. Multi stage is also a option having the air breathing engines designed with fuel tanks into ejectable lifting body gliders is a possibility. GE DMRJ RDC engine program was a recent advancement.
You'll like today's lesson.
@@terranspaceacademy Your idea is bold. If starship must be used I would prefer a massive linear accelerator launch tower with two thirds underground in a sealed tube. Zero added mass for .6-.8 mach before even firing the engines would yield a rather substantial boost to delta-v.
Hi TSA, not sure where to put a request for a viideo/lesson, so I am putting here.
Perclorates on mars and the common perception that they are a deal breaker for colonizing the planet, after some research it appears the toxicity is not as bigger issue as generally portrayed and those perclorates offer a valuable resource in we can get the oxygen from them easily with some simple biochemistry.
We can also use them as an oxidizer for solid rocket fuel or explosives for mining on mars.
I this worth exploring and communicating?
That is a good one... It seems that detractors think we will be dining on the lunar regolith. Perchlorates are handled on Earth by several extremophile bacterial species. Nothing within the realm of physics can withstand the combined power of intellect, will, and time.
One of the more interesting videos on this subject l watched was on a utube site called "Martian Colonist"
The video was titled "is the Martian surface toxic"
It is worth a wash
Apparently, 2 enzymes, when used together,
Perchlorate Reductise (pcrA) And
Clorate Dismutase
(Cld)
Are meant to be particularly efficient at separating o2 from perclorates.
Note I have 0 expertise in any fields involved here, I got curios, And still want to know, what are the facts?
Will review. Thank you.
Hey Doc, of the many I have rambling around my dust-filled cobwebbed brain, the leading hypothesis is not much of this will matter once Starship is operational. IFT-3 or 4 will reach orbit (and may deploy Starlink v2’s) by Q2 ‘24 then confirmed with flights 5 & 6. Dems out and Reds in to start 2025, now the fireworks begin. The Artemis program is CX and Starship is given the green light at Kennedy. Tower one is completed at 39B. Tower two at SLC-40 and finally SpaceX is awarded pad 39A. Two years after all KSC Starship pads are completed the Moon becomes the target. Simultaneously in Boca Chica, tower two goes up and all variant testing is conducted. i.e. tankers, LEO fuel depo and cargo variations.
Phase One: Lunar Gateway. (this is where I concur) Early expendable starships can deploy large gateway modules - with onboard TLI capabilities. Meanwhile, human rate FH and Dragon XL. Any number of companies can develop lunar landers and crew transfer vehicles from either Earth-Gatway (EGW) or Lunar-Gatway (LGW). Starship Lunar HLS scrapped. Methalox on the moon is impractical.
Phase Two: Aldrin Cycler. Rinse and repeat from phase one. Note; these are NASA only missions from KSC.
Mars HLS and cargo Starships from Boca Chica and the gulf.
I hope so brother. I just don't think we are looking at a competitive timeline for the Moon.
@@terranspaceacademy lDK, once LGW is up and running the competition can come in behind and flourish. SpaceX will just offer heavy lift transport, their real goal is Mars.
Indeed. Starship is optimized for heavy lift. It's the only way to make Mars or the Moon accessible.
I love Space X, but them trying to turn Starship into a Lunar lander feels a little stupid. Theyre taking a ship designed for one thing and making sub optimal changes so it can do something else. Rather than designing a lander from scratch. Thats not the Tesla way!
It is not optimal...
Companies like Atlas Robotics make robots with amazing capabilities...these should be on the Moon....and not just one or two. Have them all over the Moon, getting things ready for humans.
That's exactly right.
This is the first time I've ever seen the term 'Euronauts' before. Neat, but odd, since all the other '-nauts', like 'cosmo-', 'astro-', 'taikong-' and 'vyoma-', are sailing either the stars or the sky. Euronauts seems to be a misnomer in this case. Maybe Latin-rooted 'stellanaut' would be better? Don't know. Maybe they should just use 'Astronaut' as well.
Just a joke... All the good names are taken. Stellanauts? Not bad. American tourists qualify as "Euronauts." :- )
@@terranspaceacademy To our frustration we Europeans are always extra's on someone else's crewed space vehicle, so just for now call them extranauts. Maybe some politicians will take it as a hint.
If NASA was serious they would have started with the SLS block 1b or better and done away with the need for the lunar toll gate.
Indeed. The only reason the Gateway is needed is because without 1b SLS is not capable enough.
dynetics alpaca seemed like a much more sensible system. that blue origin got a contract all but ensures it will never fly.
It definitely looked the part, but NASA evaluated it very poor. If NASA had picked it, it would have been another money black hole to get it to work.
it had negative mass payload...it was to heavy to fly...it was small...very small...it wasn't some wonder lander that angry makes it out to be
@@SirDeadPuppy they solved the negative mass in the second iteration
That's what I thought too...
It was a great design... Just too pricey.
I think human rating unnecessary with Tesla’s Optimus fully AGI, without the human limitations. Think about it
😂 hahahahaha hahahahaha. He cant even make FSD work. After 6 years of promises.
Yes, yes... He is just so dumb.
How would completely remodeling Starship HLS into a 3-stage lander make it any safer or faster to develop?
Also Starship HLS is not planned to be reusable currently. So your argument makes not much sense.
By using a "booster top" for the Starship propellant tanks and the "cone" would be its own ship with separate engines running off the header tanks... Hot stage 2.
@@terranspaceacademy
And how would that make the development time any shorter or the resulting ship any safer?
Obviates about twenty refueling flights and allows an escape pod mode.
@@terranspaceacademy
Still wouldn't allow it to get out of LEO.
So tanker flights would still be necessary.
BTW I´m very surprised that you fell for the "20 tanker" story. Usually you are a bit better with math. What happened?
ESA "starts building bold new spaceship that is better that Dragon" Yeah, well let's see if they actually fund it and BUILD it first...talk is cheap...remember Hermes?
I do indeed! And HOTOL and Sanger... I'm trying to shame them into action.
Personally I hate Tang, so maybe they can send me??!! 😅
Deal! :-)
You are justified in criticizing the highly politicized, unconscionable waste of money and time that defined the USA space program since the early seventies. Sad to think of what a more rational, focused effort might have yielded.
It is indeed. Where could we have been by now?
There are no low hanging fruit. We know the moon, there is nothing more to find there besides earth geology and maybe He3. Even if this was all an excuse to fund starship development, I'd be ok with that. New knowledge lies only at the periphery of what's possible.
True indeed. But the resources of the Moon would be an incredible boon to humanity. Hey, that almost rhymes :-)
like what you said. but very true.
Thank you!!
The old lunar lander worked Every Time. Yes, we need a space truck if we are going to build a base on the moon, but for a space taxi, a modernized LL would have worked just fine, and by now, it would have been Ready! I would bet the old timers that are still alive are shaking heads in disgust at how all this has played out.
I still like Altair!!
I bet every Apollo engineer would salivate over the capabilities of Starship HLS.
The contingency mass budget of that vehicle is hard to fathom.
Also any other smaller lander would not have been ready any sooner. The development time is just as long (see whatever BlueOrigin is trying to do...)
Personally l like the idea of the mini starship that Dr Robert Zubrin advocates, for early missions to both the moon and mars.
@@davidhenry5128
A mini Starship would neither be cheaper nor faster.
It would need the very same development time, additional manufacturing spaces and machines and would still need to be human rated.
I love Dr. Zubrin for keeping the falme of Mars exploration alive for so many decades. But his insistence for a Mini-Starship is nothing more than clinging to his old ideas instead of embracing new and better ones.
A mini starship would be suitable for initial exploration missions while not requiring refueling missions and being suitable for launch from both starship and falcon heavy, I feel that would justify the expense.
I do understand the other mount of view however.
It's a shame that it's been so long since a human has been to the moon that we are in danger of none of them being alive before we go back. I kinda had to laugh at the title though. If someone was in the early design and building phase of anything and that thing was not better than what has been being used for years.... You should start over, or give up.
Sadly that's still the best we have.
@@terranspaceacademy Hopefully we get some major headway soon. At some point we are going to have to accept risk. I have a feeling that Musk is hoping for some shift in thinking to get the Starship human rated. If they get it as routine as the Falcon 9 launches and landings maybe we'll let people decide for themselves if they want to take that risk or not.
The US will wake up when China has a rail launcher and laser system installed on the Moon. Micrometeorite protection of course...