In Part 2 of our Flawed Artemis series, we examine why Lunar Starship, for all of its incredible capabilities, is completely wrong (and unsafe) for Artemis.
#space #nasa #spacex
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
Follow me on twitter:
https://twitter.com/Astro_Angry
Please support my European Tour! A $10 donation is good for a free digital copy of my book, PLUS a ticket to my upcoming tour!!
https://www.americaspace.com/2023/04/21/starship-orbital-test-flight-raises-serious-questions/
source
The space shuttle didn’t have an ascent OR descent abort. The lunar landers weren’t good for descent abort. The starship IS ascent abort capable. The argument against starship is fallacious.
If the Starship program was encouraged more and hindered less I believe it's likely a full Starship lunar lander with astronauts would be on the moon within three years.
Sunglasses: When you're cool, the sun shines on you ALL the time.
But seriously, you have a good look with your regular glasses.
Just think…Apollo got Man on the Moon with ONE rocket….
It's not just about sending Astronauts to the Lunar surface but also equipment that can be used for lots of mission afterward, not just an initial. There is no way NASA is going to send just 2 Astronauts into a basically empty Starship to simply land. So those Starship traveling Astronauts won't have nearly the extra empty space for comfort that this video suggest…just the extra stuff with them on the surface that will make the mission that much more successful and useful for future missions.
Back to the sunglasses 😎
Hells yeah!!
If NASA let starliner carry a crew whenever it gets around to the next launch then yes they clearly don't care about crew safety
You forget even if you sent 200 starship refuelling trips it should cost a hell of a lot less than one SLS,
Use Alpaca for men and Starship for food, fuel, habitat etc.
Send Starship first, if it lands well and all the stuff is ready, then send Alpaca.
Alpaca can get fuel from Starship, Startship will never come back to Earth.
You're missing the big picture. Trump mandated a landing by 2024 for one reason. So he could make a Nixon-like phone call from the Oval Office, and then brag how good of a president he is and they should all thank him. Trump's monstrous ego fueled all this. NASA had to pick something, so they went for Starship, but had then not had Trump's ego pushing for a landing during his second term, they would have rejected all three and told everyone to go back to the drawing board.
Hell Yeah! Stand for your way!
You don't need Gateway to land on the moon, it's just an expensive diversion. hash tag defundgateway
I blame Congress & NASA. They funded SLS and Orion, apparently missing the fact that you need a lander. Orion first flew in 2014. The HLS wasn't ordered until 2022. Why the 8 year gap between the orbiter (Orion) and the HLS lander? It smells of corruption. I wish Congress would investigate that.
Yeah! Glasses back! I remember searching for your channel after it randomly getting recommended. I enjoyed the content but couldn’t remember the channel name later. I found you again when i saw the shades in a thumbnail.
Seems like they need to expand the goals for putting people and equipment on the moon. Also, while it may not be ideal for the moon, it's still practice at putting starship into space and landing on uneven ground.
Well argued, if tragic.
sunglasses! 👋👌👍
HERGE was right¡¡
I won’t argue with any of your opinion based on today’s plans and knowledge however, since we all know SpaceX is not Boeing, can you do a follow up as to what may be as in what if starship is modified prior to 2032?
Consider the Booster remaining unchanged. But Starship can be split into 2 stages or a crew variant or…..
I don't see why a lander couldn't be carried by Starship instead of landing the whole thing on the Moon.