🔴 YOU WANT TO SUPPORT THIS CHANNEL? 🔴
😎 Join us on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/techchasm
😉 Or become an official Maiorianus member on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCUF-OfqZ3hFCxnnKJ-lG1yg/join
🤗 One-Time Donation?
– PayPal: https://paypal.me/JS2TheFuture
– Bitcoin: bc1qv4lsfsplvfecrrgvmfclhga28we7mvh9563xdj
🔗 Share the video with anyone who might be interested (it helps a ton!)
🎦 FILMING EQUIPMENT WE USE: 🎦
Green screen: https://amzn.to/3ycrrRt
Camera: https://amzn.to/3yfpFyV
Cam link: https://amzn.to/3WCCQ6i
Ring light: https://amzn.to/3Yl1Ujq
Microphone: https://amzn.to/3Ynj1kO
Disclosures: Some links in the description are affiliate links which means that if you purchase something by clicking on one of them, your host Sebastian will receive a small commission at no additional cost to you. In this way you will be supporting the channel to improve the video production quality at no extra cost to you.
📬 Contact us: [email protected]
#TechChasm
source
Your back !!! So good to see you and the program back. Best wishes. I will definitely be watching the programs.
Missed you it like meeting an old friend
We are stuck with SLS for now , all this starship stuff could work , in 20 + years , and china will already be there , in the best places for landing and living , and the chinese are spending billions , with no congress giving the orders with , what 9 diferent launch systems now , they seem way way more determind to get there than the USA , and to get there first
Good to see you back in the space-discussion topic!
Rather than sending the lander back to Earth orbit… why not stick with the smaller return vehicle but just boost the Lander Starship into a higher, more long-term stable lunar orbit? The reason doing this might be worth while is that each subsequent lunar mission adds another orbiting lunar lander… those could be designed to dock to one one another to create a defacto orbiting lunar space station and fuel depot. If you were willing to sacrifice some of the fuel tanks for habitable volume, the internal volume might be quite high. I imagine a ring of 20 of these things spinning for artificial gravity!
Great video Sebastian. These are the ones I always like the most! One question, has SpaceX been working on the landing legs? Or are they gonna strap on some rockets and land a mechazilla lol
It would indeed be cheaper, but I don't think NASA will agree to put its astronauts in a spacecraft that doesn't have a rescue system in case of a problem during take-off.
No, you need a rocket that could reach orbit and more
Thanker only need to be lunched once, once its in orbit it can stay, so the follow up flights needs fewer lunches.
I hope someone from NASA is watching this.
🔴 YOU WANT TO SUPPORT THIS CHANNEL? 🔴
😎 Join us on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/techchasm
There are at least “a few” ways to look at this situation… albeit, I do think that SLS is a massive waste of money… I am also not working for one of the many SLS contract providers, providing a living for my family and not a member of the unemployed because the SLS project was cancelled. Not all of them could say… go to work for SpaceX, Rocket Lab, ULA, ESA or Blue Origin… so there would be an impact on all of those families.
Long time you back on YouTube.
Tech still rising so well done for the update.
SLS is still there only to save financially Boeing who are on the verge of bankruptcy.
Using "Starship" as it's depicted is silly.
It has never made sense to take the second/upper stage that gets you off the ground, beyond LEO.
Maybe you could, but it sacrifices utility.
Use the SH and an equivalent upper stage to lift pieces like the "Mars Direct" tuna can habitats and other cargo assembled and fueled in orbit.
Aside from Elon's PR shows and fanciful YouTubers, I have seen nothing to the point that NASA has ever been considering the "Starship".
It's a tanker, not a cargo carrier, not an interplanetary transit hab or surface lander.
It is also never going to lift people to orbit, and it's a stupid waste of resources to look at that.
SLS is hyper-expensive not just because it's expendable, but that's just the way it and the Shuttle before it was built.
They deliberately try to involve as many subcontractors as possible to spread as much $ around as many congressional districts as possible.
What a great analysis! 🚀🚀🌚🌚
I am not sure In-situ resources are the best way to go. It's hard enough to land and build a base. On top of that, they have to build a chemical plant. With heavy lift rockets coming online, maybe it's best to keep sending fuel to the moon pre made.
This is what I've been thinking.
I've heard this idea before. Because Spacex is responsible for the vast majority of the pieces to this puzzle, progress will be very quick. But since all of the launches will from the US, the NASA and FAA bureaucrats will want to have some control. Thus progress will be slow. I hope Donald Trump will get elected because Elon will have a major say in how bureaucracies will operate.
I appreciate the last portion of the video, i think using Starship as a Habitat and bringing with it all the cargo it needs, filling up every part of Starship excluding the command deck. Once it is landed on the Moon, lay it down or leave it upright, but laying it down would make sense or even have the top portion that is livable space removed or detached from the rest of the fuel portion and place it on the ground? we know that Moon Starship is not coming back, however if you left it in orbit, you could put it up with docking rings, you could bring forth other starships or modules like Artemis would use, to build out a space station?
Thank you, Sebastian, for your viewpoint. I'm amazed that you decided to return to the spaceflight topic. It's worth it. I hope Jixuan is doing great. Sincerest greetings to her as well.
We need an orbiting shipyard to maintain all of these ships!
brain washed
I'm in favor of a big space bus/tug. Build a vehicle in orbit, capable of reaching moon orbit and return. It doesn't need to be aerodynamic nor have heat shields, so it would be mass effective. Use specialized vehicles to get people, fuel and cargo from the surface. Being specialized they should be efficient. On the first trip, it should bring with it one or more descent vehicles for crew. This descent vehicles could remain in moon orbit, and for the next trips you only need to bring fuel. Cargo descent vehicles could be expendable, and be recycled as part of the installations in the surface of the moon. This have to main advantages: Only the earth surface to orbit vehicles need to cope with aerodynamics and reentry heat. You can build a bus as big as you want, since it is not subject to the rigors of a launch from earth.
Good to see you back Sebastian. I love this space stuff and your explorations of different ideas.
On the CH4 problem, if a production facility is set up on the Lunar surface to break down Lunar ice into Oxygen and Hydrogen then (and I'm not a chemist so I really don't know) is there any reasonably accessible and not crazily energy inefficient process that could also be set up on the Moon to combine that Hydrogen with carbon to create CH4?
Since four out of the five atoms needed to create a CH4 molecule are already on the moon (the 4 hydrogen atoms in a CH4 molecule) I'm thinking that if such a process did exist then rather than bringing liquid CH4 to a fuel depot in Lunar orbit maybe it would be more efficient and easier to handle to bring just the missing carbon atoms (pure carbon in solid form) to the Lunar surface to feed into whatever CH4 production process was being used. That way an HLS Starship that was heading back to Earth could be refuelled on the Lunar surface and would then have enough fuel to climb out of the Moon's relatively weak gravity well and get all the way back into LEO without ever needing an orbiting depot in Lunar orbit. Also, cryogenic storage should be easier on the Moon than in Lunar orbit because the storage tanks could be buried under the surface, it would be easier to create solar shields over them, and assuming a robust power infrastructure (nuclear and/or solar panels) had been set up on the Lunar surface more power could be available for active cooling compared to what would be possible for a fuel depot/tanker in Lunar orbit.
And one other small observation on the CH4 issue. The ISS does use the Sabatier process to convert CO2 + O2 into CH4 + H2O (the CH4 is vented into space I believe). Admittedly that would not create anything like the volume of CH4 needed for fuel but in the spirit of wasting nothing it would make sense to use that process to scrub excess exhaled CO2 out of the atmosphere and that would contribute at least a teeny tiny bit of extra CH4 to the fuel supplies.
0:43 wrong question to be asking right now.don't ask what is wrong with Artemis, ask what is wrong with starship
7:00 ah ok, so the cost of a space launch is just fuel? Its so nice that all those people involved in each launch works for free ❤ so only 8 or so launches vs 1 for Artemis
One Starship can easily be a 10 storey hotel with 750 square feet per floor…
Glad to see that your back sebastian been missing my space news
Makes more sense to me. Spacex has proven their ability to do much more with much less. SLS, well, you know.
Surprised you didn’t recommend putting a tanker in cislunar orbit so starship can refuel at the moon more easily
I agree that SLS is useless, when starship finally will be operative. it just is a way to distributer taxpayers money to the national industry .
but it would make more sense to equip starship with hydrogen/oxygen engines right away. Then you do not need to bring methane to the moon. Even when the amount of methane is less than that of the oxygen. every kilogram of payload counts when it comes to provide enough delta V capacity to reach the moon and get back to LEO.
another problem is, that no facilities to mine and electrolyze water ice exist on the moon. so it need one or several starships that bring all the equipment first and we need time and people to install it. how will these get back in time, when the hydrogen and oxygen are not available yet ?
A couple points. 1: this would require insitu resource extraction to already be set up. 2: Why bring lunar starship back? It would not be able to take advantage of aero breaking to save fuel on the return journey like regular starship can.
Would this be better? Launch and refuel two starships. One for earth return one for lunar landing. Land the lunar one on the surface and leave the return one in lunar orbit. The lander can fly back up and everything can be offloaded and the return vehicle returns to earth saving fuel using aerobreaking. That way you don't have to waste the 5km/s or where ever it is to get from to the lunar surface and back. No insitu needed. You can leave the lander in lunar orbit to be used again if you utilize special refueling takers with heat shields.
La NASA esta quemando toneladas de plata con el programa ARTEMIS, una locura, deberian financiar a Space X