Elon Musk Reveals SpaceX Is Making Major New Changes To Starship!

[@TheSpaceRaceYT]

The Tesla Space & Space Race Merch Store Is Live! Shop our first release while quantities last: shop.theteslaspace.com/

[@typerightseesight]

looks like people living in those underground bunkers really expect to launch off into space forever one day.

[@jinnmidianite3862]

Build Flying Saucers In Mountain of Chile

[@stanj7223]

The piers don't go down to bedrock (800-1000ft) but only 110-140ft to the clay layer. Also, by the time the video was released the white propulsion building had been demolished, and they'd removed Low Bay. The Ground Fabrication building has been deconstructing for about a week already. It'll be gone in a week.

[@aquireeverything9382]

Is it normal to have such deep non rock layers? Is this a sea level feature? It’s easy to reach bedrock where I am. Less than 20 feet down.

[@stanj7223]

@@aquireeverything9382 This area is all alluvial outflow from the continent, so yeah, bedrock is a long way down under the junk fill. They're purely lucky to have the clay layer.

[@williamkash7162]

Yep; it looks like a foundation based on (friction) piles driven into the underlying load bearing layer; lots of visible pile caps.

[@donaldnewman4597]

It's called the hard pan

[@TraditionalAnglican]

That’s as far as they’re allowed to drill down & something the Japanese have been doing for decades - They all survived a 9.0 earthquake in 2011…

[@citizenblue]

A very important point to remember is that higher mass to orbit capability with such a large payload volume means that payload can be designed in lower-tech ways, since saving each and every gram of mass doesn't matter as much. This means PAYLOAD costs can decrease dramatically as well, further lowering the cost of satellites and space stations. This is an important, if not well understood concept.

[@stevep8485]

I also think this is an incredibly important point, which I try to make as often as I can. We no longer need to make every gram count and make things on the cutting edge of technology. Another point is that with the old model, your minimum cost is, say $100m because of the launch costs. Then you might as well spend $30m developing your satellite and another $20m testing and hardening it. If your launch costs drop to say $2m because of starships resusability, the maybe you can get by with some off the shelf, mass produced parts, and make a satellite for $1m. It's already being done anyway with starlink.

[@citizenblue]

@@stevep8485 💯

[@The-KP]

Starship is roomy! Starship is not cheap! Starship weighs a LOT! The cubic capacity of Starship far exceeds its payload mass capacity. 1000 m³ vs 150mt. For a water payload that's 150m³, or just 15% of payload volume! You always want lightweight payloads, to avoid exceeding launch parameters. And because you want the most tech lifted to orbit (or wherever) for your launch cost. Besides, the machines delivered to orbit by SpaceX already have designed-in mass limitations. For example, satellites experience orbital decay. That means periodic altitude adjustments, which means thrusters, and fuel. Fuel requirements expand proportionally to vehicle mass. So you design to reach the minimum possible dry weight, so you can carry enough fuel to support the designed lifetime, yet still have a rigid enough structural platform to support all onboard mechanics, electronics, solar panels, and thrusters and fuel. And be strong enough to also survive the acceleration and vibrations of launch. You want to transport the maximum technical functionality for your investment in building and transporting your machine.

[@rlh12345]

@@The-KP I'm certain weight will be much less of a concern if launching costs are 50 times less. I'm not certain that starship will reduce launch costs that much.

[@The-KP]

@@rlh12345 SpaceX mission prices have gone up, not down. They will never be 50 times lower. That was marketing. You drank the Kool-Ade, and then you believed it. Sorry, mate.

[@gaius_enceladus]

Great video! One thing I'd LOVE to see - more startups focusing on *cleaning up* orbiting debris around the earth. THAT is a thing that's just crying out for some brilliant creative thinkers to get onto!

[@bradhaines3142]

the problem is making money off it, not a lot of ways to get money for that

[@Cycy-om9sp]

Yes, they ARE trying to rechange starship from the evolution of the falcon 9 to the BFR, Although it takes them quite a long time and the risk of bad stuff happening with starship is high.

[@JT-Works]

I feel like SpaceX is taking the eye off the prize of creating the MVP (Minimal Viable Product) of the Starship. I get being nimble, but optimizing the current design seems like it would faster than redesigning the Starship to be larger.

[@PapaOscarNovember]

It does seem like feature creep.

[@rxcited9474]

I think Elon planned this all along by estimating how the Raptor would evolve. This isn’t really feature creep as much as a simple stretch of the tech and manufacturing they have already worked out.

[@YohXoX]

I didn't read it that way. More powerful engine is a core foundational improvement it gives more versatility to their designs on all fronts. Elon said smth about increasing Starship size by 10m but that's just one way how extra power can be utilized maybe they will scrap it and do smth else.

[@aaronm9478]

To do real work on the moon or Mars is going to require very heavy equipment be transported to space. This new engine will give the Starships of the future more lifting power...but that's not to say they will be the go-to vehicle for general operations. This doesn't say they are abandoning the MVP idea; they have yet to get a Starship to orbit, so I'd say the MVP will be in play for a long time to come. Looking to the future is what SpaceX and Elon Musk does, this is a natural evolution of the launch system (more power, bigger, more capacity).

[@lordgarion514]

If your ship isn't big enough to hold what you want to launch, then making the engines more reliable is irrelevant. You still can't put what you wanted in it...... A highly reliable 1 liter engine in a pickup truck won't move 60,000 pounds of cargo across the country. But a bigger vehicle, like an 18 wheeler, will do just that. And they never stop trying to make engines more reliable. But you want them to make a better engine that they can't use, simply because the ship won't hold it.

[@johnrday2023]

Spacex doing great innovative, advanced concept/design/manufacture - construct/install/test, etc. Shows great team work. Well done !

[@creeib]

You are directly paying for it😂

[@memonk11]

And blowing up rockets, destroying launch pads, AND polluting the environment.

[@ElijahWatkins-l3y]

Elon plans to counter act that they have a video about it

[@nickl5658]

@@creeib $2bn a year via NASA

[@whousley]

What folks don't get is that flight was a test of an atypical tank pressurization method that needed a flight test before advancing on other things. THAT was a success and so what if they have to gather debris off the shore, replace a few tanks, and rebuild the pad. The flight termination system was only surprise failure. Ok, they thought the pad would be hold up, but they also seemed to have known that it was borderline.

[@johnrday2023]

However Starbase need to complete their update/improvements to OLM. Their new watercooled steel plate must be fully tested with 6, 20 then 33 engines operating up to XX seconds at up to XX full thrust before they can contemplate a new launch date. We need to realise it is all experimental until they reach reliabilirty. We are counting on them and wish them well !

[@lillyanneserrelio2187]

Don't see the problem there. They seem to have no problem with those stages - they already did all that with every previous version. Anyway you want to slice it they are far ahead of the competition

[@citizenblue]

Why would they need to test multiple different engine configurations when a 33 engine burn will be the only thing the pad sees?

[@nickl5658]

@@citizenblue Cause if the pad gets damage on a 6 engine test... than you know it will just blow up on a 33 engine test which may then damage the engines.

[@sweetshon]

Less time SITTING on the launch pad LIT may help too!

[@citizenblue]

@Nick L I mean, I figured that was the logic, but it's an unnecessary step. One 33 engine static fire will sort that out real quick. It can start at min thrust, then another at 75%, then full if you want to progressively test the pad.

[@bazoo513]

risking to sound like a broken record, SpaceX would be well advised to focus on Raptor reliability rather than chasing thrust and chamber pressure records.

[@salland12]

Finally a lick of sense. Raptor is indeed unreliable, and after 5 years of tests and development they aren't even close yet

[@bazoo513]

@@salland12 Yep - plenty of engine rich exhaust at that test launch...

[@skybattler2624]

Isn't it proven already that even NASA applauded the realibility of the Raptor Engine?

[@bazoo513]

@@skybattler2624 I am not aware of it, and it would be very strange if they did. _Merlin_ engines, OTOH, are very reliable - out of well over 1000 "trips" (nine+1 (or 27+1) per launch) Raptors only failed twice, and in neither of those cases was the mission jeopardized. Then again, I am not aware of a single RD-180 failure. Production rocket engines fail very rarely. Raptors are still _very_ unreliable, but, despite the pace at which SpaceX churns them out, they are not yet production engines, but practically test articles. I _do_ believe they will mature eventually; I just think that this, not chasing the records, should be SpaceX focus.

[@abamd5634]

I'm new to your channel, but I watch a number of videos on the subject. I wanted to give you some feedback, drones aren't allowed near the production or launch site. The only place people are able to get views with drones are near the old Massey's gun range. The arial photos you used from RGV are from an airplane at 10500 ft.

[@critterfestsanctuary2446]

Here's the real kicker.... surprise America. China is going to the moon in 2024.

[@EdwardTilley]

Good video. Those factory floor concrete pillars are likely gantry crane supports. The tented factories all have cranes that run the length of the floor and larger footings mean larger-capacity cranes.

[@bricefleckenstein9666]

2:04 The N1 was *THE* record holder for most powerful rocket to ever launch prior to 20 April. PERIOD. There is no "one of the" involved.

[@lordgarion514]

But they had zero successful launches.....

[@bricefleckenstein9666]

@@lordgarion514 The N1 got off the pad all 4 times it launched. They never had a successful FLIGHT with it. It's most successful launch failed a few seconds before Stage Separation - so Starship isn't THAT much more successful of a rocket *SO FAR*.

[@lordgarion514]

@@bricefleckenstein9666 Getting off the pad doesn't make it a success. It kinda has to work until stage separation. And I never said Starship was a success yet. In fact, neither of them completed testing. Of course Starship will probably finish testing.

[@bricefleckenstein9666]

@@lordgarion514 Getting off the pad is a LAUNCH success - and the N1 is ahead of Starship on that, with 3 unarguable successes and one "iffy" that did get off the pad but might not have cleared the tower before it started to fail. It is not a FLIGHT success - which the N1 and Starship have no success at *yet*.

[@lordgarion514]

@@bricefleckenstein9666 A launch success doesn't make the rocket a success...... You might as well claim a concept car is the fastest car ever produced.

[@Relou4e]

Moon, Mars ... it will only work with a functioning tanker-base in LEO. This is more difficult in 0gravity than Musk thought. Because it is not publicity. He does not know (because there is - so far - no usable concept at all), but the key to space is the LEO-base

[@john.dvollins6284]

As always thank you so very much Mr. House

[@markdefelice3700]

Expendable ship components (stage 1 & starship) should be used in space infrastructure as in space stations !

[@trace9130]

The James Webb telescope isn't designed to be serviced do to it's distance from earth. But comment is true about Hubble. 10:33

[@balaji-kartha]

SpaceX vehicles would be outrageously audacious and huge, that we can be sure!!

[@lovro4744]

The Scale of this operations is impressive .

[@Jaxvidstar]

Big question now is: Can the water deluge panels underneath stage0 handle multiple new powerful raptor engines?

[@Meatball2022]

Can’t be any worse…

[@furyiv]

The earth beneath the base of the mount compacted under the force, causing the concrete to break up. They have put a lot effort into strengthening the base of the mount, so even without the deluge system, we're not likely to see a repeat of the last launch damage-wise.

[@Meatball2022]

@@furyiv that’s not what happened. That’s what they THINK might have happened. There will always be earth below the base and that earth will always compact under the force. Will the water help? Who knows. The last time they thought something would work was an epic fail. You know what absolutely will work is a flame diverter…. They insist on solving a problem that they created. Their other problem is that they insist on solving 126 problems at once instead of isolating one issue and it’s variables and solving that They’ve done some amazing things but they’re destined to fail if they keep up this stupidity…

[@CMT_Crabbles]

@@Meatball2022 could have a steam explosion when tons of water is flash boiled 😅

[@user-fr3hy9uh6y]

Interesting can't wait to see what they come up with for a reusable, large cargo door.

[@marksadventures3889]

At last, excellent. Now moves seem to be going in the right direction. What about SpaceX starbases worldwide? Australia, India and elsewhere?

[@bazoo513]

Just to note that Falcon 9 launch cost per kilogram is about half of that of most competitors, and on par with the cheapest of those (Russians and Chinese). The projections of turnaround time and launch cost of SH/SS are wildly optimistic, and are very unlikely to materialize in a decade, if ever.

[@salland12]

Falcon 9 after 6 years still hasn't reached the target of 10 times cheaper. now its about 10"% cheaper and that is with re-usability.

[@bazoo513]

@@salland12 Exact numbers are hard to come by, but Falcon 9 seems to cost per kilogram about 60% of Proton cost, and about 30% of Ariane 5. Falcon Heavy is even cheaper per kg. It did miss the breathless projections (just like Shuttle did), but this is still quite impressive.

[@TraditionalAnglican]

@@salland12 - Falcon 9 has an internal cost of $35 million & can launch 16.8 t in reusable mode. The internal costs of Atlas 5 were still 4 - 7 times that depending on the variant (number of SRBs & engines on the 2nd stage). Meanwhile, SpaceX Crew Dragon breaks even at 3 seats (the 4th is pure profit) at $54 million each, while Starliner doesn’t break even & become profitable until the 4th seat is sold at $94 million per seat. Sorry but that sounds like less than 1/3 to me!

[@TraditionalAnglican]

@@salland12 - I think I need to remind you that Starship has cost less than $5B in development costs (including construction on Starbase), while SLS has cost $38B to date, which means those costs will be easier to amortize, especially once it starts launching 2 - 3 times a week, which is what SpaceX will do once they can get it flying reliably. Raptors cost ~$1 million each to build, unlike $146 Million for each RL-25 on the SLS…ATST, Stainless Steel is sold by the ton, while Carbon-Fiber is sold by the Kilogram, & SS allows much lower manufacturing costs than Carbon Fiber. SpaceX has been building 4 Raptors a week and has assembled 5 Starships that haven’t even been launched yet!

[@randallbevansr5200]

Hmm,the horizontal assembly building at BLUE ORIGIN at Cape Canaveral,has a 90 foot ceiling

[@Jimjon24]

Dude, your interpretation of the spacex vision for starship earned a sub 👍

[@mikeruchington4882]

One solution to orbital refuelling would be to utilise the massive payload of Starship and simply eject a miniature starship out the nose cone towards the moon. Like an exact replica just smaller.

[@nicholasklangos9704]

With that thrust power they will need a serious redesign of their launch platform systems to prevent the damage like last months test launch caused!!

[@berretta9mm17]

And you think they haven't done this already? You don't pay much attention.

[@stevep8485]

Satellite buses aren't like vehicles. A bus in engineering terms is a part of a modular structure with power, comms, propulsion, navigation. It's a platform you can build the rest of your satellite on so you don't have to worry about engineering all that.

[@shanemeyer9224]

As far as the lunar lander goes I’ve been really curious to see how they plan on pulling off the landing seeing as it very tall and top heavy, they really needs some big ass legs or to land somewhere as flat as possible

[@JonnoPlays]

Did you see the SpaceX ad they released on their channel today? It got me pretty hyped! 🚀 🌕 💫 🌎

[@keithmcknight7646]

❤ these episodes 😊

[@dropnoelfield295]

One of Elons stated goals is to lift "as much as possible " to orbit. Its a step in the Mars mission

[@davidmcdonald77]

Take Elon with you.

[@indycar1007]

Starship will also bring a large amount and size of batteries to LEO where they can be recharged in space. Along with an additions of putting many kick stages that can do deorbit space junk with ion engines.

[@tanren5432]

I wish they would make a change so it could actually reach space.

[@hattrick2219]

Direct ascent with a vehicle of this size is a fatal mistake.

[@TAmzid2872]

whats your take on it?

[@hattrick2219]

@@TAmzid2872 It's extemely dangerous to attempt to land a very heavy 150' tall vehicle on a soft surface and keep it upright. Even if you're able to safely land the crew has to negotiate a vertical decent and vertical climb to exit and enter the capsule. The original Apollo direct ascent plan was dropped in favor of LOR with the LEM.

[@brownstone43]

We are so behind on an up to date space station that it will set us back 15 years. Can't figure out why we are still building these old style stations that have no future

[@bertrandvillee4487]

Very interesting video as always. Question : what kind of engine/2nd stage/spacecrafttype would be needed to take ISS to a stable lunar orbit in order not to waste its materials and make it possible to reuse its materials in the far future for infrastructures on or around the Moon ?

[@berretta9mm17]

@SPACEX: There is something that eludes logic for me, no matter how I think about it: If Stardhip really did what it did to the platform that was specifically made for it to launch from (and it surely did), then how is it going to SAFELY land on, and take off from the Lunar surface? - You won't know what kinds of rocks, boulders, dust, or whatever, are beneath it when it lands, which could potentially destabilize the craft, making it sit at an extreme angle, or even tip over and fall (a catastrophe I can't even imagine the repercussions of) - or severely damage the engines, because the moon's surface has (under that Regolith), Basalt, Titanitm, and an array of heavy metals. - those engines may be damaged to the point that maybe they are not fit to get back into space with - let alone voyage back to Earth and land here. - On lift-off, after whatever damage was done to the engines and the bottom of the craft - not to mention the damage to the surface it is still (hopefully) standing upon, how will you be assured that the craft even has a CHANCE to lift off, given the damage to the remains of whatever it landed on? - You may have this all worked out, SpaceX, but can anyone with extensive knowledge of the internal discussions at SpaceX explain this to me? After watching what the first launch did to its platform, and later even more damage - even to the earth BELOW the platform - how will you land and then take off from the moon, Earth (if landing on an unprepared spot), or on Mars? Especially on the Moon and on Mars, with so many unknowns, and no "platform' at all?

[@phaysyk]

I like Elon as a space x guy, not a Twitter guy.

[@aq_ua]

I don't like Elon as a guy His companies are cool tho

[@alecbrown66]

We have rapidly got used to falcon and superheavy rockets, in both their huge step forwards in tech, size, reusability, compared to the old shuttles. But on the other hand, we keep forgetting that starlings is still a prototype as is its booster stage. The raptor 3 upgrade is just the latest and most obvious difference between the old NASA updates post catastrophes, and that spacex is totally different, with all its engines, boosters, dragons, superheavy, and starlings are subject to constant review, reassessment, prototype and upgrades when it makes things simple, reliable, efficient, cost effective, and moving forward. It's just that we don't see 90% of their work. Just remember, until falcon 9 evolved from their troublesome first flights, they are now being reused 10 to 15 times each, made return landings routine, and hands down fly more rockets a year than any other past agency worldwide.

[@trollking202]

The falcon 9 is more expensive than the starship😮

[@thunderheartgaming1238]

SpaceX is Star Fleet, and SpaceX is going to build on the Moon to Build a Big Ship and explore variant ship and transport ship. Starship is the key to unlocking the impossible to possible.

[@salland12]

dream on

[@fl00fydragon]

Spacex should prioritize making the raptor engine more reliable first before trying to increase it's thrust, It's caught in a violent cycle of promising more and more features to secure more funding to keep promising new features. Speaking from experience, there's a point in a project where you have to pull a line and say "whaat's possible up to now must be refined and delivered otherwise we should see why it doesn't work and fix that and only when a working system is out can we move to make the next stage of development". Spacex is unwilling to draw that line and it will cost it greatly and it threatens to harm the entire US space program with it.

[@wxb200]

269 Tonnes of Force?!?! JEEZUS!!!

[@YouDontSay2or1]

00:48 starshape observers

[@virtualspacetravel]

Wow. I really hope the next version of the starship goes well, ‘cause that’s the rocket that is going to bring people to the moon.

[@Stuff_happens]

Maybe… if it can push the debris far enough.

[@o-wolf]

It isn't

[@salland12]

To put it simply, Starship is never going to be human rated. it doesn't have a launch escape system. all their current designs don't allow for one. starship to the moon in 2025 forget about it.

[@o-wolf]

@@salland12 this. no one ever seems to remember this REALLY important little detail They just keep spinning this wishful thinking pentagram in hopes it'll just magically solve itself away.. hell it actually makes perfect sense when u realise only reason eloon even GOT those contracts over the other bids in the first place was musks (or more accurately Gwynne Shotwells) close relationship with former NASA chief Kathy Leuders.. who awarded spacex ALL their current NASA spacex contracts &surprise surprise now has a lucrative spacex position after leaving NASA 🙃🙃🙃💀

[@TraditionalAnglican]

@@salland12 - The problem with the Shuttle Challenger wasn’t the lack of a LAS - It was being strapped to the side of a giant fuel-air bomb that was strapped to an SRB whose O-Rings had frozen solid. Shuttle Columbia burned up because the insulation on that same tank tore off several tiles. And Shuttle Atlantis was saved in a similar situation to Columbia by a thick piece of high temperature steel that refused to melt in 1988. I don’t see an LAS saving any of those. Remember, NASA is human-rating SLS after ONE launch (they don’t have much of a choice at $4B/launch) & was going to put humans on board Starliner in spite of its many problems. NASA will need to consider human-rating Starship after 100 successful launches & landings… Meanwhile, Lunar Starship just has to do what any lunar lander does, land & take off from the moon and sustain its inhabitants while they’re on the moon…

[@CosgroveNotts]

Only one launch pad is very short sighted. More thrust equals more destruction

[@martiannomad]

Was graphene mixed in to there cement?

[@mikesanders4012]

More thrust goes faster, getting there faster, using less fuel. I'm guessing.

[@ascherlafayette8572]

No

[@wadestewart5504]

18m wide starships

[@pgnrr]

A Part of the starfactory is already built😂😂 theyre just expanding to be be even bigger

[@Cup815]

1:41, the stronger the better, why not? 9:10: Why can't we just use longer range satellites to minimize the amount needed to use?

[@jozefstreicher]

So, what can we expect? Even bigger detonation? I'm in!!! Great fireworks. A little expensive, butt still cool.

[@HHowardHH]

what are those big water reservoirs for?

[@berretta9mm17]

You didn't watch any of the reconstruction videos?

[@knowledgeisgood9645]

No drones other than SpaceX's are allowed near any of its sites. The images are all from the ground or from airplanes flying above the TFR.

[@wannabe4668]

I sure hope so the last one blew up

[@trollking202]

Is it the wings small or the ship is big😮

[@berretta9mm17]

This ship is as big as a skyscraper.

[@whousley]

Ok..."We don't need our rocket to be any more powerful," said no one in rocketry ever.

[@nickl5658]

Can the components of the rocket survive more power? This rocket is suppose to be reusable. More power often means shorter lifespan due to wear and tear.

[@whousley]

@@nickl5658 Yeah. Elon commented that he doesn't think the engine can survive a flight-length burn at its newly discovered power level. To that, I would add the word "yet".

[@DigitalNomadOnFIRE]

You don't "need" more powerful engines, more is just better.

[@bradhaines3142]

you need more to carry more weight

[@NicholasNerios]

K2 tug boats cool.

[@Texas4x]

Go look back at the guy pouring concrete for the Star Factory pads WEARING SANDALS!! (7:29)

[@correyy]

That's not the star factory lol.

[@icare7151]

Very well stated!

[@DeryckThompsonChasingtheDream]

The size of the starship and the capacity to lift 250 -300 tons falls inline with Elons plan to transport his Boring machines to mars. Thats why he trying to achieve as large a capacity as possible. The Tunneling machines weigh 200 -300 tons and the diameters are similar to the diameter of the star ships. Does anyone else put these two together.?

[@Nerdmom1701]

Another great one!👍🏻

[@gnarly706]

Starship could bring satellites back down.

[@Chris.Davies]

No possible way can Elon put a Starship on the moon in 2025. Not in one piece, anyway!

[@tonycosta3302]

Will SpaceX build the rockets at Starbase and then fly them to the Cape for their orbital/lunar launch?

[@jinnmidianite3862]

Build Flying Saucers In Mountain of Chile

[@Jam-In-With-Ben]

hi

[@NikkiFrost14]

We can’t even get past the Van Allen belts…

[@markhuebner7580]

The audio says the new factory is 3,000 square feet the video text says 300,000?

[@bradhaines3142]

bruh 3000 is a house, definitely a typo

[@marspp]

Ummmmm... Blue Origin have been selected for the moon lander.

[@hugoramsden3120]

Ummmmm no it hasn’t

[@hugoramsden3120]

He’s talking about Artemis 3

[@jeffmentzer9186]

​@@wayneallen8469 No, they have nothing to do with the Artimes 3 mission. If you want to talk about missions after the 2025 Artemis 3 mission then fine but THIS video was referring to the Artemis 3 mission only!!!!

[@gilbertanderson3456]

Ummmmmm... The BO team has successfully browbeat Congress into paying for a second lander design. That does not invalidate the original SpaceX contract.

[@jimfarmer7811]

I think NASA is starting to realize that there will never be a starship moon lander. Musk knows this. He was running out of money and needed a government infusion to avoid bankruptcy.

[@Tommork-bq6ms]

Enough with N1 already... Two or three of us know....

[@Y3llowMustang]

2025 doesn't seem realistic for the Starship being ready for Artemis 3 mission

[@ready1player31]

2025 is a fantasy for artemis 3. More likely 2026 or 2027.

[@critterfestsanctuary2446]

They are also not talking about the fact that surprise America, China is going to the moon in 2024.

[@TraditionalAnglican]

I believe Starship will be orbiting by April/May, 2024 & safely landing 4-6 months later. The big trick will be orbital refueling. Once that’s accomplished, Lunar Starship will be doable… NASA still needs to develop Spacesuits, Rovers or Habitats, unless we want to use the old Apollo EVA suits & rovers & have people living in the landers for the 1 - 1-1/2 weeks that they’re on the moon!

[@TraditionalAnglican]

@@critterfestsanctuary2446 - The People’s Republic of china is actually aiming to land humans on the moon by 2028-9. That’s when they believe they will have the super-heavy lift (100 t to LEO, 35 t to TLI) they’ll need to do it. Remember, Saturn V was able to put 140 t into LEO & 48 t to TLI).

[@critterfestsanctuary2446]

@@TraditionalAnglican very good point. 👍

[@lancasterhypnotherapy]

Consider... Boca Chica entire infrastructure plus Starship plus Booster development during only 4 years of work...all for a reported $5 billion. NASA SLS is now going to cost American taxpayers an additional $6 billion. SLS is already a project that is WAY behind schedule and WAY over initial cost projections.

[@memonk11]

You mean the SLS that hasn't blown up?

[@eskieman3948]

@@memonk11 Gee, bedwetter, the SLS just doesn't get the job done. Thought you could figure that out by now.

[@memonk11]

@@eskieman3948 That's it? That's the kind of thing kids who have that problem say. Did you poop the bed too when you were a kid? Or are you still doing it? It's OK. We know.

[@salland12]

So is starship. Starship was supposed to fly twice a week in 2022, Elon said himself that wasn't a typo. Also most of what SpaceX does is with taxpayer money. At least NASA launched SLS without destroying the pad and the rocket. Hell it went to the moon and back..

[@SR71ABCD]

NASA and spaceX should build a sea dragon

[@sophieberen883]

You work for 40yrs to have $1m in your retirement, meanwhile some people are putting just $10k in a crypto market for just few months and now they are millionaires , all thanks to Mrs Jane, God bless you madam 😇

[@anglebarboza5829]

I think I'm blessed because if not I wouldn't have met someone who is as spectacular as expert Mrs Jane, I think she is the best broker I ever seen.

[@scottreagan9796]

I'm from Canada 🇨🇦 I and two other of my friends tried her immediately we testified, her performing wonders

[@jameslarry3919]

Who's this professional everyone is talking about I always see her post on top comment on every KZbin video I watched

[@jameslarry3919]

I think I'm interested how can I get in touch with Mrs Jane

[@alexlucas7264]

I'm from Germany 🇩🇪 I used to take loan from the bank for surviver but after trading with expert jane she changed my financial status for real

[@JeremyMasters87]

Artemis seems like a complete waste. Just use starships for it all. NASA just can't get around the fact that they've wasted 20 years and $10billion for a non reusable can.

[@deanwcampbell]

WTF @7:28, laying concrete in flip-flops 🤣 Must be stock footage from India, definitely not Boca Chica!

[@lindawallace6750]

Yak yak yak....just GET IT DONE !!

[@berretta9mm17]

Did someone REQUIRE you to watch this? if not, don't listen to any explanations, and that way you'll know even less. But thanks for directing people who are working 24/7 to get an actual job done.

[@vinnylamoureux1187]

I dont know if eveybody knows this but Spacex mounded up a 40 foot high layer of soil on top of whatever sand that was there before they removed it all and built on the original sand. Wondering why? I was. It was to compress the exudting sand to give it more compressive strength. Hats off to people like Dr. Dirt and otger soil engineers who were involved in this project before anyone else and did the very best that they could to deliver the best base possible.

[@clarencehopkins7832]

Excellent stuff bro 💪

[@falvegas511]

Starbase, Lots of Tall-Modular Steel & Glass Buildings . Right on the Gulf, a Weather Sink for Hurricanes. But of Course we trust Space-X knows what they're doing.

[@joakimastro]

4:22 Not to mention human-rating it

[@salland12]

Starship is never going to be human rated, no launch escape system

[@joakimastro]

@@salland12 Yeah thats a point, but then it wont be HLS either….

[@futurespace2380]

Actually you're not allowed to fly a drone near Starbase. All the Photos and Videos from the community are made from the Ground or by Flyover with crewed small planes at 10000 ft. hight 😂 (4:29) And actually it isn't a doubling from 150 tons payload (fully reusable) to 300 tons (fully expandable) (2:38), of course 300 tons expandable is an increase over the 250 tons expandable assuming that this number previously appeared on SpaceX website is related to the current Starship with Raptor 2. 😅 ... also I believe one or two years ago they said the fully reusable payload mass ist only 100 tons and they are aiming for 150 tons with improvements over the years. It might be, that the 150 tons fully reusable is that goal with Raptor 3 (going along with 300 tons expandable) and the 250 tons expendable are related to the current Raptor 2 with something between 100 and 150 tons fully reusable 🤔🤨😄 On SpaceX's website there is still written 100-150 tons fully reusable ... and in the text: above the table: "capable of carrying up to 150 metric tonnes fully reusable and 250 metric tonnes expendable." and the tweet from Elon with the 250-300 tons expandable and the improved 6000 tons lift of mass is are the very new information, shortly after the Raptor 3 reveal with 350 bar also by Elon ...🧐

[@ThisBloke760]

Has anyone else seen the disconnect between Elon Musk building electric cars banking on climate change to sell them and building his space factory right beside the ocean?

[@justskot]

Elon can’t really be trusted…

[@bryansmith7706]

What if the launch pad was in a deep hole and the rocket would be boasted off with the engines and the use of the military rail gun system to get its initial takeoff.

[@bradhaines3142]

cheaper to use rockets than that magnitude of power. that would take gigawatts to make that much weight move, and they'd have to make custom parts to handle that much power

[@berretta9mm17]

Because anyone inside it would be a smear on the wall from the acceleration of the rail gun.

[@Snoodlehootberry]

Why would they make it taller when they could simply make it wider?

[@gilbertanderson3456]

Taller is very easy, just add more rings. Wider means modifying all of their production processes.

[@nickl5658]

Lower air resistance and ease of construction... most air resistance comes in cross sectional area. So tall and narrow has less air resistance than wider and shorter. And making a rocket taller is just adding more ring sections..while making a rocket wider means you have to redesign the jigs use to make the rocket ring sections.

[@grazynazambeanie5963]

Hey guys , we had to blow the first one up , let's change everything . NASA still has dollars to donate

[@deanminer2340]

There's no way artemis three will be ready in twenty twenty five baby twenty twenty seven at their rate

[@janellemccoy09]

Well they definitely need to breathe.

[@NikkiFrost14]

How did they do it in one trip in 1969 if Elon is saying we need at least 6 rockets of jet fuel to be up at the space station?

[@berretta9mm17]

You have misunderstood something, somewhere. It does NOT take 6 rockets of fuel to get to the ISS (and they do NOT use "jet fuel" for these rockets. They use Liquid Oxygen, and kerosine - in a special form. These are not jets - they are rockets. The ISS is in near-earth orbit, and they don't even need the craft that takes them at its max fuel level. I don't know what you heard, but if you are curious enough to ask the question, you should be curious enough to find what you didn't hear right.

[@jonvandergriend4298]

Failure to properly design a launch facility is causing SpaceX to struggle and fall behind schedule...seems like this simple statement needs to be stated in front of this pandering crew.

[@eskieman3948]

In other words, you wet your bed AGAIN lastnight - is this what you're trying to tell us?

[@memonk11]

@@eskieman3948 Uh oh. Elon has unleashed his army of bed wetting trolls.

[@gilbertanderson3456]

Yes, it's added 3-4 months to the timeline, but it remains to be seen if they struggle. SLS's first launch was delayed 5 years and it took SpaceX less than that to go from concept to first flight. For about 77% more than the price of one SLS/Orion spaceship SpaceX built the Boca Chica production and launch facilities, added Raptor test stands to the McGregor test facility, a few dozen test articles, a dozen Starship prototypes, eight Superheavy prototypes, about 80 Raptor v1 rocket engines, maybe 50 v2 Raptors and now they are beginning on v3.

[@gilbertanderson3456]

My estimates were flawed and were based on a reported 4.5 billion$ cost for Artemis1 and Elon's statement that 5 billion$ were spent on the Starship program prior to this year with 2 billion$ to be spent this year. Tim Dodd's recent N1 vs. Starship video reports the total development and production cost of Artemis1 at 30 billion$. He also stated that over 200 Raptors have been produced.

[@StuartwasDrinkell]

steel is erected not assembled

[@berretta9mm17]

Spaceships are assembled, no matter what their hull is made of.

[@MrDeancoote]

Why not build a rocket , float it out to sea .. Oriantate it upwards and launch. Use just one big raptor engine,, use another to get it up to speed. The rocket wouldn't have the confines of a land launched rocket,, longer , bigger and all of it re useable.

[@Buck9s]

The James Webb is 4 times farther away from Earth than the moon. It is decidedly not serviceable.

[@spinnymathingy3149]

Changes ?? Hasn’t got one flight worthy yet

[@asantebacala3365]

SpaceX will rip apart everything I Boca Cheeky

[@eskieman3948]

You are dumber than a pile of dog squeeze.

[@TAmzid2872]

@@eskieman3948 lol

[@johnathanmann1120]

Starshape?!?!?!?!

[@georgejones3526]

The reason the 4/20 launch of Starship failed so badly was probably because everyone at Spacex was high.

[@eskieman3948]

Like your mama?

[@gilbertanderson3456]

totally unrelated ...

[@georgejones3526]

@@eskieman3948 Nah. My mama’s been dead for almost 30 years.

[@andrewbrown6578]

I have not hear of spacex using ion engines for moving spaceships around in space. If used to move the spaceship to the moon and back or even for the trip to Mars the valuable fuel could be saved for landings and takeoff. Maybe create a multiple ion engine booster that attaches to the spaceship after launch and is removed for landings on the moon or Mars. With the size of spaceship a few weeks flight using ion engines would not be a concern as astronaut comfort could be amazing.

[@TraditionalAnglican]

Remember that an ion engine produces very little thrust over a long period of time & that a Starship with Humans & Supplies is going to be very heavy… You’d probably want to use Nuclear Thermal Propulsion or VASIMR for missions to the Asteroid Belt, Jupiter, Saturn & the Ice Giants (Uranus & Neptune). Meanwhile, we’ve sent payloads to Mars in 6 months using chemical propulsion (launch costs have forced people to use “cheaper” less powerful rockets in most instances), and the SpaceX engineers believe they can get that down to under 4 months with enough fuel.

[@berretta9mm17]

Do you have any idea how SLOOOOWWWWW ion engines are?