SpaceX and NASA have an UPDATED Master Plan for the Moon and Mars!



NASA has done very little to publicize their detailed plan to establish a permanent presence on the Moon and a 2030s mission to Mars. Here’s the details and why it will definitely fail without SpaceX!

https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/moon-to-mars-objectives-.pdf

Please support my channel! EARLY VIDEO RELEASES, DISCORD MEMBERSHIP AND EXCLUSIVE CONTENT PLUS 15% OFF MERCH!
https://www.patreon.com/AngryAstronaut
https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/AngryAstro

SUBSCRIBE to Nick Henning!!
https://www.youtube.com/@UC0k6WvuPJUp7BKkbCOjefsg

source

46 thoughts on “SpaceX and NASA have an UPDATED Master Plan for the Moon and Mars!”

  1. Great job. The analysis is spot on. Lots of things can go wrong but Musk is determined much more than others or even governments, excluding China, to make this happen. Keep the great work and I hope you pass 200k subs in 2023!

    Reply
  2. I would like your input on something that bothers me.
    Why are we talking about a permanent presence on the Moon and Mars when we know that low gravity adversely affect people.
    I think that a Von Braun station (rotating artificial gravity station at 1G) would need to be the basis for any permanent presence, which would rotate aroind the Moon/Mars and then have shorter stints to the surface for work/research.

    So research and development would need to be focused around this strategy which would need to include radiation protection research.

    I'd like to have your thoughts regarding this.

    Reply
  3. wing-internal mounted flat ramjet directional thrusters (light only at after the neck point, it will flow like rocket stove, even just pu-238 heat thruster, for planes)

    Reply
  4. Why wouldn't you subscribe?
    W.T.F ! !
    it's…..wait for it….free !
    Subscribe for Christ's sake.
    The videos will get even better. Do it ! Please.
    …..Now ! ! Thaaasnk you.
    Thank you.

    Reply
  5. Remember when we were all going to be living on the seabed, farming kelp and mining manganese nodules? "Inner space" they called it back then. Never happened though did it and that's a relative stroll in the park.

    Reply
  6. I am sorry but NASA is out of date, and runs on "Take as much time as possible and Spend as much as possible" while SpaceX runs on "Spends as little as possible and move as fast as possible". there is no way they can integrate unless SpaceX lowers down to NASA's point of view, then we will all be dead and gone before anything happens!

    Reply
  7. I will argue that to get a million people living on Mars by 2050, or as soon as possible after 2050, a moon base will be imperitive. Launching from the moon to Mars will be massively less fuel demanding than launching directly from earth. For that a permanent shuttle service from Earth to the Moon will have to be created for people and cargo. Building Starships on the moon , if possible, would be the most efficient way to build a fleet bound for Mars. Building the infra on the moon is not a SpaceX thing, but BO and Bezos have the knowledge and experience of controlling large infrastructures. I say BO would be best suited for that task, with its New Glenn rocket, when they get it flying. Forget Kuiper. He can make way more money by taking on building the infra on the moon. Now I am being optimistic because New Glenn is not capable of moon missions, so it will be a while before they have a rocket capable of that. All they are building now is a moon lander. Unless Bezos swallows his pride and uses Star ships for hauling building materials to the moon, he's never going to get any success out of this massive undertaking.

    Reply
  8. It's 2023. The Chinese already have their Moon Base module built and ready for the 2027 landing. The United States has barely launched a Rocket they worked on for over 10 years to a trip around the Moon with a stuffed animal on board. Who do you think is going to win the Moon Race?

    Reply
  9. Orbiting rocket fuel depots are coming, of course, but from 2035 onwards most depots will start holding rocket fuel mined on our Moon, i.e. liquid hydrogen/oxygen rather than holding liquid methane/oxygen (Starship rocket fuel) from Earth. Lunar launch costs are only 15% of terrestrial launch costs, whatever you launch, and methane CANNOT be mined on our Moon. SpaceX will have to launch every tonne of fuel from our Earth at 6 times the cost everyone else pays. How can SpaceX possibly afford this?

    Reply
  10. Regarding "throwing away a Starship" on other planets: whether or not this is useful can be determined through economics.
    If bringing back a Starship from another planet, or making it ready for return into active mission service from its current position, is more expensive/difficult than building a new Starship on Earth, then it is better to just build a new one. In the beginning of a colony, even just leaving a Starship without any purpose might be more economical than reusing it, as it can be used for raw materials and replacement parts. Given that such materials and parts are more valuable on the colony planet, than back here on Earth, the economics clearly speak in favor of not bringing it back.
    It's kinda one of those dilemmas with how cheaply Starship can be produced, due to SpaceX wanting to build so many of them. Reusability makes a lot of sense for orbital missions, but less sense for interplanetary missions, at least currently.

    Reply
  11. You can de-tank the propellants in the fuel tanks and use that as an incredible amount of living space and send the engines back on another ship. Not every ship is needed to do that.

    Reply
  12. Born in 1956… I've been following the manned space program as a hobby the whole time.
    And as much as both the moon and Mars interests me, I can tell you unless we solve micro gravity issues for long term stays neither will become permanent homes for man.

    Life threatening damage to the brain and body, will force the space ambulancing of people back to Earth. There is simply no way around this at today's technology levels.
    Man needs Earth level gravity to survive. The longer you stay the worse the damage.

    Reply
  13. Starship is going to unlock so much capacity & capabilities. Also cheaper access for new technologies from new companies. Essentially paving the way to a space based Industrial Revolution! Make it so!!!

    Reply
  14. I don't think any person is critical to NASA. As far as NASA – SpaceX relationship is concerned it's the taxi to the ISS and that's it !
    Boeing Starliner will be crewed on its manned inauguration flight to the ISS in April 2023.
    Despite all the BS NASA has no predilection towards Sole Source anything. After all its a facking taxpayer funded Government Agency
    not a piggy bank for fanboy club MAGA fascists who are attempting to overthrow the US Democracy.
    Musk is skating a fine line, buying twitter to muzzle critics and allow NAZI / Russian and right wing traitors back on and calling
    Joe Biden, the president a pig.

    Reply
  15. So the fuel tanks on rocket ships can’t be converted to usable space for the astronauts?🤔 not a fan of space Lego’s or have people living in a giant hamster habitat, and before you start making use of local Materials, you need a place to live. The StarShip is meant to be the most cost-effective per square metre then any other rocket ship, and with out being equipped for earth landing the amount of payload increases, so at the beginning of a off planet base, your argument seems a little week, but your argument would make more sense as they become more established. One of the first things you need on a moon base is a bulldozer to bury the starship.

    Reply
  16. Parking a starship vertically on the moon is just plain dumb. You are creating a very unstable weight to footing ratio as well as a whole bunch of problems getting any cargo on or off of it.

    Letting the the thing fall onto its side with a couple of legs at the front is the obvious solution. The thing already has the flaps that can be converted to legs. Then small thrusters at the top to get it vertical to take back off again.

    Reply

Leave a Comment