How SpaceX & NASA Plan To Establish The First Moon Base!
Vložit
- čas přidán 25. 05. 2023
- How SpaceX & NASA Plan To Establish The First Moon Base!
Get Early Access and Discount Codes to The Tesla Space & Space Race merch store by signing up here: shop.theteslaspace.com
Last video: New 2023 Tesla Model Y Update Is Here!
• New 2023 Tesla Model Y...
► Patreon: / theteslaspace
► Join Our Discord Server: / discord
► Subscribe to our other channel, The Space Race: / @thespaceraceyt
► Subscribe to The Tesla Space newsletter: www.theteslaspace.com
Subscribe: / @theteslaspace
Welcome to the Tesla Space, where we share the latest news, rumors, and insights into all things Tesla, Space X, Elon Musk, and the future! We'll be showing you all of the new details around the Tesla Model 3 2023, Tesla Model Y 2023, along with the Tesla Cybertruck when it finally arrives, it's already ordered!
Instagram: / theteslaspace
Twitter: / theteslaspace
Business Email: tesla@ellify.com
#Tesla #TheTeslaSpace #Elon - Věda a technologie
There was not much about a moon base in this video, except for the title...
Establish, not build or make.
@@ScottWhalen81
not "establishing a plan for a moon base",
but "establishing a moon base". That was the title.
@@richard--s establish, not build or make. Meaning what they may be starting with to make it happen. & GJ liking ur own comment lol.
Radiation poisoning is not cool ....A moonbase should have been done 3 decades ago? Scared of Aliens? Cowards
We’re gonna land on the moon for the first time, how kool :)
some corrections: 1. The tankers will be reusable so they WILL have flaps on them for return to earth. 2. The principle reason for the thrusters at the stop of the lunar starship is to avoid the regolith issue of it coming back into the engines on landing, as well as avoiding forcing all the regolith plume into lunar orbit hindering further missions to the moon. - Not for steering.
why don't they design 3 boosters to taka a forth booster in space?
@@reasonerenlightened2456 that is literally what they are doing, but it will effectively take 4 boosters to get the starship from orbit
there are limitations with the size of the launch platform, as is, starship's booster was so big that it completely obliterated the launch platform, it would need maybe 8-10x as many rockets if it wanted to do it your way,
keyword is reusable, and that launch platform is at least 10s of millions of dollars, so we don't want to be constantly obliterating them, plus the chopstick tower can only catch 1 booster at a time
some corrections: the earth is flat.
It shouldn't be too difficult to return. It's all downhill, isn't it?
@@WSCLATER Yep, just gotta fall off the moon and Earth has got your back all the way home!
I think one consideration a lot of folks forget about. Even though technology has come a long way since the late 60s. The biggest hurdle that will always remain is a fuel to weight ratio. Rockets haven't magically become several time more efficient and fuel hasn't magically become several times lighter. That has been and will always be the large hurdle to traveling to other bodies in space.
Saturn 5 max lift to LEO was 118,000kg (41,000kg to the moon). Starship predicted lift to LEO is 150,000kg. The luner lander Starship could be all the payload and 1 or 2 reusable tankers to fill the orbital tanker. It's not going to be problematic and remember the Starship isn't going to be and aluminium suitcase with 3 guys inside.
*with our current understanding of physics
the only thing that got better are thrusters, and material, some new material are lighter then they were.
even with traditional rockets we are nowhere near the theoretical limit to the amount of change in velocity they could have for a set volume and mass
@@slightlySuperior I was going to say something inflammatory then read your user name, there's nothing for me to say 😃
Thanks for your interest and reply 👍😊
Let's be fair. They have all the time they need to make this happen. I'm super excited to see this happen when it's ready.
True, as long as it doesn't take 20 years I'm fine with it.
@@gj9157 5 Years, 15 Years Mars if we don't destroy ourselves
@legacy8369 Seems plausible, maybe we'll officially start sending people to Mars by 2030.
well there are 4 countries that have their hands over the big red button as we speak so for having all the time they need im not too sure about that it all can flip in a second
Yes, the Problem ist Musk will promise you evething in the world to look good. If its true is different question
Excited to learn about the new merch site! Congrats!
The Wealthy. need a space ship to escape when the nukes begin to fly.
3:58
“And then it exploded”
A more truthful account would be that it (the Starship) lost hydraulic power and the went off course and had to be detonated. Yes, it was coming apart on its own in a big way, but it did not explode. And they fact that it did not just explode with the rolls and flips it performed after of the loss of hydraulic steering show how strong the structure is.
Prove space first
It's nice to see someone in the comments realize the fact starship was exploded not that it exploded on its own.
@@alfredotto7525 It's sad to know that there's supposedly fully grown functioning adults still believing in space
@@davidsheckler4450 space is real bruh have you see the videos 💀💀
The failure was due to Stage 0 debris disabling several rocket engines and most probably the hydraulic system. Without all of that, it might’ve made orbit.
Concise, great visuals, good reporting...Thanks
@JohnSmith-se9yl
The video may be "concise", but it's bullshit reporting.
Great video! Keep up the good work!
@williamrobson8876
It's a "great video" for a simple-minded fool like you, that enjoys fake videos. You would be better off watching "Star Trek"; at least it doesn't pretend to be real.
I'm very excited about this opportunity. I'm looking forward to seeing the missions carried out by both space agencies.
@Cc-09482
Don't get too excited, it's all hype. NASA did not even send man to the Moon the first time round.
I think you will like what is coming much better. We've had contact with ET for over a decade. Questions submitted by the entire internet. what we have learned is so incredible. It literally changes everything. Nothing can stop what is coming.
@jimflask1164 I'm looking forward to it.
Prepare for a disappointment.
Yeaaaa, we’re gonna land on the moon for the first time :P
7:53
So you say here that the tanker variant will not have a heat shield or landing flaps? This is the first we have heard of this. So you think that with 4 or five fillings lunar starship will need in LEO that they will let the re enter and burn up?
Somehow I don’t think that is the plan.
Thank you.
That's not even bad research. That is no common sense.
Where is the emergency exit in the pod? I only saw one door. Bad planning 😂.
Hadn’t heard about the refueling bit. Ambitious!!
I think this was meant to be uploaded on The Space Race channel lol
This is "The Tesla Space" and it is devoted to ALL things Elon Musk.
@@anthonyshiels9273 Yeah but I want real content not no Hollywood shit. Believing in Space & the Moon Landing is like a grown man believing in Santa 🎅
I think you're right
@@alphagodvon I’m trying to figure out what your motives are. Anyways I’m 420,69% sure you’re satire but what you are implying is that believing in these achievements is as stupid as believing in god and a above all flow I’d believe in Santa more likely than any religion. Religions are just placeholders.
@@alphagodvon ???
That's a lot of work for SpaceX to do in a year and a half!
yeah, they might be a bit behind plan.
but its also not "that much" like the biggest problem right now is just take of and landing, rest is actually fairly simple in comparison
@@MouseGoatbiggest problem right now is stage separation, which should've been easy, know tech. They have not proven the tanker, fuel depot, or the on-orbit fuel transfer. Not to mention landing on the moon. Starship has yet to even reach earth orbit, so they're way behind.
@@MouseGoatit will never happen, ever. They’re all talk. They say ridiculous things just so Congress will bite and give them money but Congress won’t.
The "tanker refilling" sounds like a Benny Hill skit.
Apollo didn’t separate in orbit, “1:45” that happened on the way to the Moon or TLI and leftover shuttle engines were not already good to go “10:25” they had to be redesigned. Just saying.
Actually, it did. then the Apollo capsule then docked with the LEM before departing for the moon.
Nice Work
Just tumble one statship into its side and you have one hell of internal living space. I know its not that easy but its one hell of pressurized starting space you dont have to build from Zero
Do you live in Russia perhaps ? Do you watch the RED GREEN show on Cable TV ? (handy man show)
I don’t think it’s big enough that you could comfort@but spin it enough for significant gravity without people getting sick.
@@JosephNordenbrockartistraction As a proud Canadian I watched Red Green when it originally aired; and i also have sugested this idea. Send two starships to land close together, one with a robotic earth mover, and one with a self-assembling gantry crane, and use them to lay the starships down next to eachother in shallow ditches, and bury them to protect from solar and cosmic radiation. then the earth mover can be used to make a nice level and reasonably compacted landing site- this would work both on the moon and mars.
A small point a bit off the main topic: Starship did not "explode" as if that was a malfuction. It was deliberately signaled to self destruct.
All who works in NASA, also knows, EARTH IS A CLOSED SYSTEM, NOBODY CANNOT LEAVE EARTH, THERE IS NOWHERE TO GO. They all know it, yet willingly deceive.
+ they are in the masonry club - that says it all.
NASA deals with CGI and Hollywood basements, making “SPACE”, to deceive mankind.
@@theharshtruthoutthereBS. get off yt conspiratard.
Great summary!👍
this is insane.
I wonder if they plan on having a space rocket garage to keep the rockets safe from micro meteorites or other damaging space weather they dont know about.
Nope. Going space commando the whole time.
Sometimes I wish I were immortal just to see how far we can go.
Watching this high is so much better
I think it's interesting that NASA is back to rockets, and the moon is back in the picture, after decades of Space Shuttles. The Artemis program is super interesting.
@Shevock
It's not interesting, this goes to show that NASA has not advanced in technology since the 60's. Anyway, this video is all hype!
and two disasters during the shuttle time. a poor design by committee. Artemis is much less interesting (and 4+ billion for every launch) than Starship.
@@jessepollard7132Two disasters for 135 missions, totalling over a year or more in orbit
The space shuttles were....wait for it...SHUTTLES. Cargo transport used to ferry parts to build the ISS (international space station). Different tool for different job. It's like asking a screwdriver to do a hammer's job.
Why don't they use the Lunar Starship instead of the SLS system and its small crew module. They fly with the smaller spaceship - SLS - to the moon and than get in a real, big spaceship - Starship - to land?
Building a pad to accommodate a starship launch from the moon will be a huge challenge.
... its the moon it has almost no gravity firing the engines for 1-2 seconds would be sufficient.
@@renkuria Mass drivers
less of a challenge. solutions already designed.
Just look at prints from 60s....😅
Can they do some sort of vertical rail-gun to the stars on a craft using an internal gyroscope to help with the g force?
nope.
That isn't something a gyrosope can do.
The other observation I would make is that the cost for the first rocket launch is based on research and development as much as the hardware and fuel. The cost will decrease if the production of the Artemis & Orion continues and the original cost become spread across multiple launches. Or the first one costs a squillion and subsequent flights are calculated solely on the hardware and fuel.
I believe the $4B cost per launch of SLS launches, is based on 9 SLS rockets being built, The cost per SLS would go up if less than 9 are built.
the cost of SLS doesn't decrease - and neither did the Saturn V.
NOPE. The cost goes up. SLS does not get cheaper as each launch requires an entirely new rocket. With all the vulnerabilities repeated with just as much (if not more) testing before launch. Hence the cost of 4+ billion for each launch.
sorry, no - each SLS launch costs the same 4.2+ billion dollars.
@@jessepollard7132 Space X is a private company run by Elon. The rockets gonna get cheaper with time. Don’t compare it with NASA. As an institution NASA ran out of steam when it ran out of Nazi’s lol.
I am not convinced by the star-ship lander. The angle of the landing site must be so close to horizontal that it really limits the possible landing sites. The L.E.M. had a base to height ratio (and yes i do know that's a simplistic view) of a round one to one but the Starship lander, at least in its concept view, is nearer 1 to 5. That seems like trying to balance a pencil on its butt, fine if the surface is firm and horizontal... Also is it just me or does the Starship look like a a ship from 1950s pulp SiFi?
Lets not forget that the moon has 1/6 the gravity of earth. This means less force to topple it over.
That will cancel out SOME of the concern of leaning. Just a thought.
Don’t see any link to the new “space race” channel “in the description below”
Wouldn’t it be safer to have a moon base rather than an orbiting space station? I say that then I think about how cold the dark side of the moon gets along with asteroid collisions. I’m sure from the moon we’d see the coming sooner from that direction atleast. I wonder what it would be like to bring a telescope to the moon if you could see the other planets or maybe not at all. Maybe you could see them on the dark side of the moon
moonquakes those exist
Ummm, in theory the HLS version of Starship will be reusable. It will not only carry humans but also cargo to the moon on each mission.
So my question is HOW WILL NASA/SpaceX reload new equipment while the HLS is in Earth or Lunar orbit!?
Modularity. Smaller items will just go through the hatch. For bigger items (like a rover?), A SpaceX official last weekend said that the HLS airlock was going to have the volume (but not shape) of two Dragon spacecraft. That's pretty big. I envision a robotic arm (Canadian, probably; they have proved over and again that they can do it) aboard a cargo Starship. Pull the rover out of the cargo bay and into the HLS. Not impossible.
Umm it’s all up to your imagination 💭.
Whatever your fantasize that’s what will happen. Man hasn’t even traveled to the lowest parts of the Oceans 🌊 & You believe in Space & the Hollywood/Government Fake Moon Landing that took place in Area 51. 😂
imagine they will have fuel tankers in orbit to refuel, equipment would already be aboard before they get moon gateway station up
They won't reuse them -- why bother to send fuel (which would by itself require many flights) all the way out to an old, obsolete ship, when they can build, fuel, and send a brand new ship for less money? Reuse is most important for refilling the depot.
@@dancingdog2790 i think they said starship would need to be refueled in earth orbit to make it to moon because it uses most of the fuel to get to orbit
Put Bob Lazar in charge of the project !
All problems solved (as long as we can find some Moscovium, element 115)
not going to happen.
@@jessepollard7132 just a bit of humour there Jesse
not going to find any such element any element above 92 is so unstable that you can't keep it.
This should be SpaceX's first priority. Build a moon base, orbiting spacestation, and make it so we can launch rockets from the moon to mars.
I'm interested in StarShip 2.0 that has 8 times the internal volume of the current StarShip. StarShip 2.0 is a ship that can carry 200 science and engineering personnel comfortably with all the Star Trek equipment and redundancy to make it worth their efforts. With that compliment of crew including a doctor, nurse and a dentist along with the most well equipped pharmacy ever created to support a 3 year exploration. Star Ship 1.0 is really good for working out what a to do with a human space ship and going relatively short distances to the moon and staying there. Like super oil carriers bigger is better for transporting. You really do what a crew size that allows for a great deal human maintenance and support.
why don't they design 3 boosters to taka a forth booster in space?
Imagine put 200 of the best and brightest in a combustible tube. Not sure if that's a great idea
@@ericvelasquez1282 to point where they decide to 200 people they probably master starship so not a combustible tube.
rockets combastion system is for emergensy or something like that you can search.
Why hasn't SpaceX built an interior Starship mock-up to prototype all the interior equipment necessary for life support, like toilets, water recycling, food storage, air scrubbers etc?
@@brendanpells912 I don't think they have taken even one star ship into space yet.
If I am curious on how spacex or NASA is going to make a landing/launch pad on the moon with it's surface is dust like sand.
They aren't going to do shit lol.
With metal plates that are assembled on the moon.
The Moon only has about 1 cm of dust depth - and was never a problem for landing.
sand is not dust.
@@jessepollard7132 Umm...pretty much every image from the moon says that statement is bullshit.
Good video! Just one thing: Metric 'tons' is incorrect. It should be spelled 'tonnes'. The difference in spelling indicates the difference in the measurement unit.
wow! thats really cool!
its not that cool bro chill
well i think its cool
your opinion sucks
take your meds schizo
They need to build a giant fuel station in space constructed in orbit using multiple starships and then before the main launch they would fill up the orbital fuel station using starship launches and then launch the main mission ...
I'm pretty disappointed that Rocket Lab hasn't been mentioned. They did the Capstone mission to lead the way for the lunar landings
Why does the lander have to land vertically...Couldn't it be oriented to lay on its side. Would not that take care of the legs and lowering gantry. Seems like these options would reduce a lot of the weight requirements.
Interesting Thanks for Update Sounds lot. Of. Work Safety
Am I the only one that noticed the remarkable similarity of the picture to something else?
Lets say... well, you are.
Not the only one.
I'd like to see a moon base composed of 100 or so geological majors to take and advance drill cores of the moon''s surface. This could be of great interest and enthusiasm for grade school and older person's. There is a great deal of "Flash Gordon" results pushed by space research, but geophysics is exciting in itself depending on the results. 100 graduates geologic students operating on the moon would uncover a great prosper higher achievements of education to everyone.. This is a project worth funding and supporting.
Douglas Eagle...indeed. Imagine the work opportunities for AI and CGI editors. It will be great if they could include some of those guys in the team. We sure have a lot to look forward to!
The Wealthy. need a space ship to escape when the nukes begin to fly.
"uncover a great prosper..."???
I think it would be a better idea to send 1 geological major and 99 English majors.
@@michaeljorgensen790 and the english majors don't even have to go.
That would make one heck of a summer internship!!
Okay well and said but how do you plan on getting past the Van Damme built?
Maybe I missed it, but couldn’t they get supplies to the moon via autonomous one or two way ships and then then have robots building the necessary initial infrastructure before people need to be there?
not cheaply.
If they had time, the end is here. The thing they need is a automated solar power brick maker a machine that uses a ROV to collect rocks and turn them into bricks by using emp to liquify and mold and then track them in a way to create a airtight container.
Honestly, this all seems unnecessarily complicated. The more pieces you have to something the more likely one of those pieces is going to fail. This just seems like NASA didn't want to abandon the SLS after putting so much time and money into it, even though it is simpler just to use Starship to go all the way there
Politics and politicians are required to get the necessary funding for these missions, hence the complication.
Neverminding that without an effective static-cling mud washoff room any long term moon landing will be a problem
@ballking123 - did you not listen to the part of the video where they discussed multiple refueling missions to get Starship beyond LEO? That's hardly simple. Despite all the hype Starship simply isn't a lot of use beyond LEO without multiple support missions which adds to the cost and complexity - I think that it's usefulness is as a prototype for developing basic competencies like ship to ship refueling and the like.
Having said that, SLS is a bloated steaming pile of poo which demonstrates how spreading construction of a spaceship across multiple states to satisfy the pork barrel quota is grossly inefficient.
Key aspect: Elon Musk "Near future" = 5 to 10 years away. As of today Starship has been in development starting in 2009(Sources: Spaceflight101) with the beginning of the Raptor engine that's 14 yrs so far and still no orbital starship, Space X iterative development process is not fast but extremely slow compared to the development of the Space shuttle from paper (1969) to first flight and landing on earth (1981) 12 yrs. Saturn V took 8yrs from paper to landing on the moon. It will take Space X 20 to 25 yrs to do the same thing. It took them 13 yrs (2002 beginning of the merlin 1a engine to 2015) before the first Falcon 9 successfully landing on earth my bet is the moon by 2030 and Mars by 2040. Musk will be 68 yo.
The best way in my view would be to use the Lunar Starship after resuppy to transport the astronauts from LEO by using a Crew Dragon. This would mean no SLS or Orion would be needed and be MUCH better for astronaut comfort for the time traveling to and from the Moon.
Also the Lunar Starship can then be supplied while in LEO for reuse.
I was looking for info on the actual moonbase itself, the details of that. I wasn't looking for how they plan on getting to the moon. That info is somewhere, but no on this video.
Right move, that is okay in reality, Godspeed!
So the question that sprung to my mind was that the new rocket has more power than the Saturn V. So instead of burning all that fuel to get up there why don't they power down to the equivalent of the Saturn V and reserve fuel for the next part. Or, ya know, work out what they did with Artemis?
I agree with this question/statement......
what? throwing away the booster?
Thanks for this post..! Extending Humanity into our Solar System is a most worthy and exciting goal...! SpaceX has done more than most to make this possible... Yes the hard part in an airless world landing is the landing itself...., NASA knows this well....! If NASA and SpaceX works together well as they have been, then we will see Starship deliver massive tonnage to the Moon. Cheers
What a great time to be alive!!!! HISTORIC!!!!
Space 🌌✨✨✨✨✨
Why don't they simply launch a 10 KG test rocket to the moon ? They could make a whole bunch quickly and test different moon landing configurations quickly. Before doing that they could simulate the whole darn process inside a computer. I think they should land a rescue ship on the moon, before they land the manned ship on the moon, to help improve return safety options.
Joseph Blogs Excellent idea! They should just try to improve their simulation skills. I guess AI will now do a much better job. There is also a lot of footage from the movies AI can use. The only problem will be copyright....but, the tax payers will be happy to foot the bill.
This will take much longer, than anyone want to make us believe!
Artims program is awesome ❤
way way over priced - 4+ billion per launch.
I wonder if they considered moving the fuel tanks to the top and having the cargo and doors closer to 5be bottom?
Except the sound pressure and vibration when sitting right on top of the engine might turn the astronauts into goo.
@room temp well the vibration doesn't damage the ship. Also the engines are placed halfway up the ship on the lunar version.
@@timrobinson513 Without seeing the actual numbers it's hard to know for sure. But the ship is considerably more robust than an astronaut. And the ship was damaged on the last takeoff.
The designs I've seen so far indicate the engines placed halfway up are supplementary to the main engines at the base, not a replacement for them. So they can take off from the moon and get high enough to fire the main engines without blasting regolith back into the ship.
It does seem pretty awkward doing EVA's out of a tower though. No argument there.
Then why not split Starship into 2 stages? The main engines and tanks in the bottom section and the habitable crew and/or cargo section in the top section, with a much smaller thrust section for completing the moon lading. The bottom section obviously providing the bulk of speeding up and slowing down for the journey, then detaches from the top section as it nears the lunar surface. If Starship is never meant to return to Earth, then the bottom section is expendable. This would make the top crew/cargo section much more accessible on the lunar surface. The discarded bottom section could probably be cannibalised for parts/material if needed for repair work on any permanent structure. And it would be greatly beneficial if the Optimus robots became functional and used in some capacity to help lay the ground work for human settlement on the lunar surface.
softbanks boston robotics or tesla optimus to build infrastructure on mars before human crewed mission to mars
Exactly my ideas on the design and approach too! Instead of a dangerous inflight refueling, just jettison the tank section link up with a set of fuel tanks already in orbit, would not need the raptor engines to land on the moon but some smaller thrusters mounted up higher also used for relaunch from the moon to link up with Artemis for the return trip. I still think a different lander system would be better more like a larger version of the LEM.
not paying attention? The bottom section is the superheavy booster. The upper section is what goes to the moon.
@@jessepollard7132 I'm pretty sure he meant splitting starship in 2 so 3 parts in total. As for why SpaceX wouldn't do that you need to understand that SpaceX is in it for going to Mars. the moon hls is just a way to earn some money. On Mars splitting the starship in 2 will not work, and so there is no incentice to do it for the moon either. A few refuelings is all it takes and an elevator to get down. That is much cheaper and simpler than developing staging for a single flight only
Nothing about establishing a moon base?!?
With things tipping over on the moon and the need for special landing gear to handle landing there. It seems like at some point it would be a good idea to grade out a landing aria of some kind. Even if you just find a flat spot and drive a truck over it back and fourth it would a least be packed down good.
Intersting on landing moon and discovery things
SpaceX is pretty much a public version of Lockheed Martin's skunk work. They don't have time to do the simple stuff anymore with all the hyperadvanced spaceships they are building for our galactic fleet😉
I know you're being sarcastic, I just don't understand why you would say that
@@TheRobidoux1 TicTac and all that jazz. I mean, they are probably not alien and I would not put it past the military to try it out on their own men
Galactic fleet!
Makes total sense that in the '60s we barely had computing power at all and yet every human being now carries around a phone in their pocket that has about 10,000 times the power yet we can't get back to the moon somehow
Alternative, 100k people conspire to fake landing?
it has nothing to with tech actually
we can but there really isin't any reason to at the moment
The computers NASA used at the time didn't need to fit in your pocket to perform the tasks necessary to get men on the moon.
@@Nell_HellI mean we are going back in November of this year.
I sure hope that they plan on landing an unmanned Starship on the moon first. Be good idea.
Okay, I'm obviously not a rocket scientist, but "Tanker-Rockets" that use most of their fuel capacity just to get to an orbital meeting point?If I'm not mistaken, Apollo used a six-second burn to send a capsule to the moon from earth orbit. Am I missing something?
I think if space x and nasa would just take an old shuttle refit it with all new technology attach it to space x's rockets and launch them all together to get back to the moon. Elon can launch separate rockets with fuel and other supplys to meet up at the half way point to the moon. Between both companies and all their supporters they can make that plan happen.
Can't refit. it would require an all new shuttle (and many many billions in funding) to make one.
The problem is. The first men on the moon knew there was no way to return. The technology to return still isn't available.
@@jimflask1164 BS. they returned, and even wrote books about the trip.
@@jessepollard7132 They didn't, because we met the people that were on the crater watching. We have had contact with Our space brothers for a decade. The government is lying about everything. The Van Allen belt caused intense radiation poisoning. They tried to protect themselves with lead blankets. They were going to die from the radiation anyway. The US government nuked the Van Allen belt to try and make a whole in it. The Earth is a cradle of development for 86 humanoid races from all over the universe. I'm only a few years ahead of you on the truth curve. Official contact is coming and in fact nothing can stop what is coming.
It's been said that a moon base already exists and has done for decades.
we may have built one 12=k years ago or not
It has been said that the whole moon launch program was a scam to make America look superior and to pocket taxpayer cash.
Where have you heard that was wrong
It's been said that unicorns live on the moon in secret enchanted forests. Both said things are bullshit.
I love the astronaut do a flip.
Right On
“Sir, you’d better take a look at this.”
“What is it son?”
“Idk but it looks like a giant…”
“Dick! Take a look out of starboard!”
“Omg, it looks like a giant…”
“Pecker!”
I think your narrative is a couple beers short of a clear head. SLS took over a DECADE to launch one single launch. Space-X has been working on the Starship for a few short years and has already had one test launch. You have the rabbit and the hare mixed up. IF SLS can launch again in the next 3 years it'll be a year with 2 visits from Santa.
Not to mention that SLS costs NASA around 3 BILLION dollars per launch. Insane that anyone thinks that’s even remotely feasible.
The sls is a union run company and the democratic money cow for elections . Unions only support democrats and that's why democrats didn't include tesla in the ev
Starship had been worked on for at least 9 years. Most likely a decade or more. A few short years I guess?
@@victorbellew3759 4.2 billion and up.
What is the regolith issue ? What is the regolith plume? What is the regolith? Thanks
So... How do they plan to establish the first Moon Base... Never got to that in yhis video..
Couldn’t they use falcon heavy to send cased fuel dumps in to orbit that can be assembled in to a large fuel storage tank and refuel from there using a tether as opposed to spaceship acrobatics. If anyone smarter than me can tell me why that would be a good idea, I’d appreciate it.
Is it just me or does it seem to be taking a ton of time and money trying to figure this out. The Apollo spacecraft had a computer that was far less powerful than my watch and they landed several missions less than a decade after starting the program.
Seems to me they can just swing by the museum and copy that design. It’s weird that it’s harder now that we are more advanced.
There just gonna fake it again lol
Apollo was also incredibly rushed and unsafe. And even if it wasn't, it's not viable for establishing a permanent base on the moon, as is the goal of Artemis. Apollo could take a few astronauts to the moons for a few days. You can't use it to live there for months
Apollo was like crossing the atlantic in a wooden sailboat with only a map and compass. this time we're taking a cruise liner with gps and autopilot.
maybe because it never happened. They never talk about how they over come the Van allen belts
@@michaelyoungbar3659Not true it was explained 10000 times how they did it.
Never been to the moon as far as landing on it. But I think Elon can get the job done-- How can we say any craft made it to the moon if we have to fill up the Musk mobile 4 times just to get it there... How was this done before??
One time use rockets of course. Threw everything away except the command capsule that had astronauts in it on return.
Dad said he never went there.
@@jessepollard7132 sorry Jess uh what do u mean about the capsule... whats it showing please
@@billymellon9481 That was where the people were, Everything else was thrown away.
@@jessepollard7132 oh ok but why did they just keep the capsule? Cuz its a disposable system is that the point?
🎉nice
Send multiple unmanned trips with equipment and habitation materials so you have a head start first.
They'er going to launch a Dick & Balls house for the astronaughts?
I think Artemis will make a huge change in about a year. Starship will carry the crew and cargo from Earth to the moon and return to land on Earth. They've been working on the SLS for over 10 years. SpaceX will pass them in another year. SLS costs Billions per launch, and Starship costs millions. A huge Difference. Falcon9 costs about 50 million and Starship will cut that by a lot.
1:51 this maneuver did not occur in orbit. instead, it occured after the third stage fired for trans lunar injection (i.e. going from Earth to moon).
Sweet!
This just highlights the absurdity of the 1969 landing. Not one mention regarding radiation, i might add.
I thought the same.
Armstrong piloted the Lunar Module BY HAND. 🫡Veteran Navy Pilot. By comparison, how many computers have crashed lunar landers of late. Armstrong and Aldrin on the moon. That’s a lot of brain power and tripod-level testosterone.
Only real reason why anyone would go there is resources. Once precious metals can be obtained corporations will be rushing to get up there . Just to go up there to play golf and stick flag on it is dumb.
And this comment is why not everyone should have the vote
@@stevenesbitt3528 Why? I think it was absolutely absurd that those brave astronauts dared land there in spite of all those dangers. Don't you?
SpaceX will have to land a StarShip on the moon with just supplies before sending people. I have a feeling that SpaceX will do that and then send people to the moon before Artemis. I can see them move people to the moon's orbit where a space station will sand ready for the Artemis Astronauts. Once they get there, they are sent down to the moon with a pilot and co-pilot, maybe a sturdiness. How funny would that be. Once on the ground they are greeted by a SpaceX ground crew to act as technical support for the mission. This means that there really isn't the need for the project at all. However, if they want to waist taxpayer dollars like this then so be it.
They already have bases on and within the moon. This information is all slow leak to try and hedgeof full blown public chaos when it's all revealed...... then they'll lie and act like it was National Security BS.
5:57 "Weeeee!"
The liquid ejection module is on the right
Don't bet your life on them landing on the moon in this decade. Remember how badly the Artemis I launch slipped. With the uber bureaucrats at NASA running things there's really no upside to meeting any deadlines. I don't expect to see it but I would be surprised if humans walk on the moon before 2031.
Or ever.
Lol then you are the one who will be disappointed because they definitely will, SpaceX probably will too not long after them.
@@JohnV170 How about if I wait until I actually see it? FYI, I remember quite well Armstrong's "small step". I watched it live on television. I even recall how when the video feed started the image was reversed - like a photo negative.
They better hurry up before China claims the entire moon as their sovereign territory.
If they beat us there then that’s there right
There's a UN treaty that marks all non-Earth solar bodies as having the same status as international waters. Almost every nation has signed it, including big players like China. So no, it's not their right. Maybe it should be, since it would make space exploration more interesting to Earth governments, but there you have it. With the way China treats international waters on Earth though, I'd imagine those tensions will be the same off planet in the future, which is what I think the OP was referencing.
@@alangonzales7962lmao they’re about 54 years too late to “beat us” to the moon but ok.
The elevator still has to be strong because some of the things they're taking off are going to be very heavy.
In other words...things where better in the 60s 😂
*were
*were
Wym things were better in the 60’s? 😭 bruh it was a miracle they even survived 💀 the astronauts knew very well there was a very high chance they’d die. They knew they could’ve died before they even leave earths gravity. They knew they could’ve died on the moon. They knew every step of the way som could very well happen that’d result in their deaths💀 and there’d be barely jack shit they could do ab it. 😭 It was like they sent the marines into space 💀 space grunts if you will 😭 very smart space grunts.💀 And ppl ask why it’s taking NASA so long now when we already did it back in the 60’s, it’s bc ppl dying bad 💀 they don’t want ANYONE to die bc that’d be very bad for public support so instead of tryna win the “space race” they’re taking their time
Would love to see their face when they find the Alien base on the moon.. It will be a real knee slapper
That will be very well camouflaged.
That base has been closed for years and is not as interesting as you might think. Mostly pictures of Earth Girls.
@@rosselliot8971 which according to rumor are easy.
😂😂😂
Why would aliens have a base on the moon. Why wouldn't they just put it on earth at that point. It's pretty much the same thing. We can literally see every square meter of the moon's surface. It wouldn't be any more clandestine to have it there.
elon needs to make the first 1000 foot wingspan plane for air launch to orbit , hed save about 30% fuel per leo trip ( maybe not , some say the savings would barely crack 10%
For the first time ever. If we really went it wouldn’t be so hard to go again.
Don't be an idiot. We went. We just haven't for so long we grew rusty.
It's too complicated. It will not be done in time. Rising debt can not be maintained even 7 years from now, much less probably. I can not see this succeed soon.
hee Elon, hast du bei Perry Rhodan die Mondrakete mit dem Aufzug für das Mondfahrzeug geklaut ? grins Siehe "SOS aus dem Weltall" Minute 10:43
I'm interested to know how peoples bodies are going to deal with the low gravity.
probably better than the microgravity of the ISS. Even having enough gravity that there is an 'up' will mean less stress on the cardiovascular system and lessen the muscle and bone loss issues experienced on long ISS missions.
It's 2023, nasa can't even take a man to the moon.
1 min of silence to anyone who think the 1969 moon landing was real
Yeah this whole video is stupid &
I don’t know why he even posted it knowing damn well the Moon Landing 🛬 was A Hollywood CIA & NASA Script.
It isn't hard. There's a lack of will. NASA doesn't have anywhere near the budget it had back then, and the moon hasn't been worth going to when you're dealing with such a low budget.
If you can't do smth now doesn't mean you could not have done it in the past. For sure my grandfather can't run now, but he sure could. And for sure U.S. can't manufacture new space shuttles, but for sure it once did.
The idea that they faked the moon mission , has been debunked so so many times . Things have changed , they had a huge budget back then , now they have to do it on the cheap .😬
@@const1988horrible statement and analogy
The luna lander would really benefit from a horizontal landing profile. Imagine 4 legs that curl around the unit, then unfold, it would be easier to land that way in my opinion.
apart from the fact the engines would be on the side, or do you mean a belly flop approach at the last minute ? that might work, it would just need some meaty RCS thrusters on the sides.
I know what you mean though, it just seems so top heavy and if it lands on a slight incline it would be unstable surely.
To me, especially after watching this video the whole thing just seems like some kind of ruse to get money from NASA or something, they say things like "twice the payload of saturn 5 but don't say it needs refuelling in Orbit by a tanker doing 16 trips" WTF