Elon Musk's New Starship Moonbase design update...

Elon Musk's New Starship Moonbase design update...
===
#greatspacex #elonmusk #spacex #nasa #starship #moonbase #spacexstarship
==
Advertisers who want to place ads on our channel, please contact the email manager: [e-mail]
===
SpaceX Starship SN
Be the first to sponsor us Thank you.
www.patreon.com/GreatspaceX?f...
===
iamVisual:
/ visual_iam
www.youtube.com/@iamVisualVFX...
Soter: / sotirisg5
João Montenegro: / johnmontenegro
C-bass Productions : / cbassproductions
Bowen Cameron: / bojay_stellar
Stanley Creative: / @stanleycreative
===
Elon Musk's New Starship Moonbase design update...
In 2020, Elon Musk declared that SpaceX's Starship 'can serve as part of Moon Base Alpha, with no need to bring early ships back.' Over a year later, NASA announced Starship as the victor among two other competitors, securing a $2.9 billion contract to construct the Artemis lunar lander.
The November 18 test flight of Elon Musk’s Starship, launched from Boca Chica on the Texas Gulf Coast, signals the impending reality of this mega-rocket. Future iterations hint at its readiness for missions to the Moon.
This progress prompts questions: How might a lunar base assembled from Starships take shape? What could life be like there? This marks an update on the design of the Starship Moonbase!
----
We use images and content in accordance with the KZbin Fair Use copyright guidelines: kzbin.infoen/about...
Any questions about copyright please send us via Gmail: [e-mail]
To be resolved, thank you.

[@thomassisk7669]

SpaceX should make the SpaceX Bar and Grill Lunar location and then throw a Welcome to the Moon party when NASA actually gets there in like 200 years

[@MichaelBrown-np1kc]

Great Plan now tell the Government to leave SpaceX alone and let them Launch as often as they can!!! Go SpaceX!!!

[@TheEvilmooseofdoom]

Sure, it's not like having no oversight can ever make things go bad. You're being simple.

[@Roarmeister2]

@@TheEvilmooseofdoom I think he was implying the rumour that the Government wanted to take over SpaceX for military only purposes.

[@marytennison6155]

We will see it happen! Keep up the good work, Elon and SpaceX team! To the Moon, Mars, and Beyond! 🚀🚀🚀 😁 ❤🔥

[@TheRevilocean]

I imagine the earliest Lunar Starship missions bringing as many chunks of Boring Machines out there as they can carry.

[@StrawberryFlavouredCat]

Can’t wait till Artemis is in full swing! People will finally be able to go back to the moon and colonise it. It could act as an outpost to get to mars. The base can just refuel the rocket and let it take off with less gravity and no atmospheric drag. Amazing.

[@Kiddington-Oh]

I'd suggest a special "Stay-ship" design that lands on its belly on a prepared pad (the retro-rockets would be along the sides). The engines and fuel tanks are designed for easy removal. Separately delivered containers are inserted into the freed-up space (for manufacturing, processing, lab work, or living). Four stay-ships can park nose-on in a star pattern to access a common area created from one of the removed fuel tanks. The others can be used for storage, specialized tasks, or satellite bases.

[@garyrooksby]

Fascinating

[@philsmith4058]

I wish that our government would invest more money into that instead of war.

[@kurtisengle6256]

Returing a rocket engine to Earth would cost much more than building a new one. Having a spare engine on the Moon could come in real handy if the need to replace one came up. Having several dozen spare engines sounds like a repair base. With low gravity. So they could lift more.

[@erickessler6094]

Wow, what a great report and intriguing concept. Such an exciting future!

[@the80hdgaming]

Makes sense in the end....

[@SolomonDragon]

That nomination was earned back handedly

[@lyleshoostine1683]

I would go further....modified Starships for Earth space station, Earth to Moon transports, and Moon orbital space stations. A gateway alternative. I hope Elon will think about these possibilities.

[@bernardopercyvant5206]

Boa noite! Gostei das ideias! Todas elas. Com o Starship operacional, tudos os sonhos serão possíveis. Parabéns! Que venha o futuro!!!!!!!

[@LG-qz8om]

As these starships are deaigned to transfer fuel they remain an ideal fuel storage container for any deployed base. Any fuel created would have a container to store it

[@LG-qz8om]

I'm looking forward to a Lunar Pool Party under a dome and wild slow-motion waves. That'd be a blast !!!

[@inspectormills3290]

Will believe it when I see it. Let's see starship achieve orbit first

[@stephenconnell2689]

Shows how much better the private companies can perform over government only efforts.

[@LordDustinDeWynd]

The whole "bidding" process is what takes forever.

[@sp66-know-try-think]

There are a lot of other companies besides SpaceX and they don’t cause as much excitement. It's not so much about the form, but about the business qualities of a particular person, his ability to see a problem and find really effective solutions.

[@user-mz3ek4rm7f]

❤❤ excellent🚀🚀🚀🚀🚀🚀

[@4metroscuadrados]

Cool ideas for the return to the Moon... I hope they can make it work properly..., when I was 7 years old, I saw Live the Launch of Apollo XVI (16) from the beach right accross the water from NASA..., this programs have come a long way... Really COOL

[@mcsmith7606]

Throw in a few solar city roofs, power walls and Cybertruck bulldozers and the settlement is a regular Jamestown!

[@00kt86]

Elon Musk with his Starships, a boring company, Cybertruck and battery research, robots. to the Moon, to Mars...I mean damn, this guy is brilliant.

[@kaiwheeler64]

Space 1999 Eagle Landers would be useful.

[@garylester3976]

Getting a crane and a carrier to the moon, would be less efficient than designing modules that landed on their sides. Say with rocket engines in pods that rotated. Also no need to send so many engines with lower lunar gravity. Would be better to create a secondary booster stage, that stays closer to Earth, or returns to earth immediately, and use fewer engines longer to get to lunar orbit, and to land there. Also on the moon, you could use something like inflatable ship rollers to move sections around to hook them together. Just have a crawler to push and pull, and also to trench for them and backfill over them. Also one could use disposable solid fuel engines to get to lunar orbit, and land on the moon. They could be designed to repurpose into pressure tanks for gasses or liquids. No reason to send Raptors to the moon just to pay the freight bringing them back. One would be better off using thrusters designed to repurpose for use on Moon Hoppers for point to point transportation. In space, the addage needs to be; "Waste Nothing"....

[@sp66-know-try-think]

The topic of inexpensive transportation of goods to the Moon is worth much more attention than what is given to it in current plans.

[@garylester3976]

@@sp66-know-try-think Yeah, theres alot of holes in their logic. I've done multiple writs in comments about all these issues, and offered up potential solutions. And considered this idea of getting expendable Starships on their sides to be a move in the right direction. But still not anything like we should be thinking... why not just build designed to purpose habitat sections with systems to land on their sides? Why do we need a tube ship if its just doing a one way trip to the Moon, we could do hex shaped sections designed to link up and stack into larger complexes. They could be the space version of shipping containers, so as you used up supplies you got more Moon base... This logic is like building a PT boat to run up on a beach to make a house out of. Gee? why not just build a barge system that delivers beach houses? We need systems that do the right things, not cobbled up ideas exibiting limited imagination and limited knowledge of practical realities. I think we need more input than from Science Fair Nerds.. Maybe input from people who actually build things and do stuff. And who pay for alot of this work in taxes. This is what happens when you create Academic Elites, no connection with how you actually do things to get good results.

[@sp66-know-try-think]

@@garylester3976 many holes, little sober calculation and strategic view of the task...

[@garylester3976]

@@sp66-know-try-think Yeah, trying to get people to think. if you cant do something yet, you can at least think about it and refine concepts, and get steps towards better systems or ways to do things. Cobbling up stuff is never as good as things designed to purpose and to be able to get results and repeat getting results. Once out of the gravity well, shape becomes irrelevant. Also we are not limited to just launching tubes. nor are we limited to landing things on their ends. Nor do we need the transporter from Starbase to move sections on the moon. We need to let go of the 1950's pulp fiction cover art Moon bases, and work up systems starting now, where its a process that produces whats needed efficiently and doesnt stop. Same process and design should build orbital habitats, and eventually Transit ships, and eventually Mars bases, or be landed on Exo Planets. We arent just going into space to plant a flag and do a selfie and go home to post on facebook. Nor is it the Mayflower and picthing tents and buildung log cabins. We need basic and functional infrastucture and logistics. We need to adapt Military thinking. Create the equipment to do a serious beach head, To have systems to create power, and smelt ores, refine metals, and mill into structual shapes. We need to deliver tonnage, and not lowered 6 stories a pallet at a time with a divit winch or silly little elevator. We need drive off capability like a WW2 Landing Craft or a Navy LST. Why spend billions without permanent and well thought out plans?... I've been doing writs for months on this and everything else. And have moved the needle fairly often. Many concepts planted since Hopper now in use. I dont even know how they get to Elon, but they do. probably others taking credit. I dont care, I want progress and good thinking.

[@sp66-know-try-think]

@@garylester3976 It would be reasonable to focus on creating the really necessary things: reliable low-cost space cargo transport, robots and equipment to perform real tasks (exploration, energy, logistics, mining, industrial development) under lunar conditions. And people on the Moon will become only a ruinous and useless burden. Until everything works as it should, it is better for them to stay on Earth and manage the processes remotely.

[@LordDustinDeWynd]

Wait! Animation shows booster engine removal, not Starship engine removal.

[@clarencehopkins7832]

Excellent stuff bro

[@pliniomourao]

8:41 - Kahahahaha.... That's "Space Engineers" game!!!!! Really nice you use a game as an idea for display.

[@quietwarf1019]

I too am a space engineer. Lol

[@user-fd6rr4iz9m]

Those Starships look to high to land on the moon, dam things will topple over. One has to look at current unmanned landers that have failed many times recently toppling over and they have a lower center of mass!

[@camielkotte]

The shape of starship is a necessity to leave earth and get through the atmosphere . Hence max-q procedure. Once in orbit , that shape suddenly is less ergonomical for both travel in space and moon base. Its a pickle.

[@chriswhite3692]

I think it is better and more practical to have Starships transport inflatable habitats or the materials to either construct habitats OR for ISRU to build them.

[@societyofra75]

I like how GREAT SPACEX incorporated a photo of a "Space Engineers" (Xbox/PS5/PC) small grid mining ship @8:35

[@t4mor4]

What about the Boring Company machines? There has to be a plan for building tunnels as they are designed to fit into a Starship.

[@sp66-know-try-think]

The main task is not to bury money in the Moon, but to get an adequate and tangible return on the invested effort and money. In the meantime, instead of technically sound, practical plans and sober calculations, there are general words and animations.

[@Noid_Cave]

Space X needs to leave NASA behind and do this on their own. the lease potentials will far out shine what NASA is paying now, and NASA will not go through with Artemis anyway as they cannot justify the cost overruns with the SLS.

[@TheEvilmooseofdoom]

NASA is their customer. Lease to who and for what?

[@camielkotte]

It's a precarious situation since china doesn't comply to American rules about the moon. You would end up with China claiming land as theirs, possibly armed, and a commercial company. I think it's worth a movie though😂

[@Noid_Cave]

The biggest customer would of course be NASA, but the Control would be where it belongs. and hell I would sell my house for a week on the moon and the cost may well be that low soon.@@TheEvilmooseofdoom

[@sthnguy779]

I keep picturing 3 or 4 'Telsabots' rolling out solar panels and preparing quietly for the next landing.. 😎

[@briangman3]

Laying it sideways on the moon would be really hard, almost would have to land then do a sideways burn to put it on it side. Really hard

[@Alexwhine11]

mmm i don't think it'll be too hard given the moon has only 1/6th of earths gravity, im sure they could pack a giant dismantlable crane into one of the starships too

[@jamescarter8311]

@@Alexwhine11 The problem with landing is slowing down with no atmosphere. It's extremely difficult. Even Mars' atmosphere will slow you down to around 1000mph. On the moon, you're completely reliant on your rocket engines.

[@Wandering_John]

I would suspect if this were to come about, SpaceX would go the "Landlord" route. They've spent a lot of money in R&D and should recover some. Putting together a crane to lift toe cargo section off of the booster section will teke a few trips but then I could see them eventually building a "Mechazilla Jr" to facilitate the removal. Eventually growing to a starbase outpost. they could start closer to the equator allowing for easier takeoff/landing then work inroads to Shackleton crater

[@TheCiardellas]

Really look forward to the colonization of the moon mars and beyond

[@chrisjordan7592]

The nose cone could separate, bringing the crew back to lunar orbit and leave the big living room behind for future use.🎉

[@gedw99]

Just like the Apollo program and ensures the astronauts can get back home even if the main engine nes are damaged. I agree with you

[@thornblackwell5749]

This all looks great, and it would be nice to see how they propose people do salvage and reconstruction on the Moon. Oh, I also love the Space Engineers vehicles used to illustrate the mining machines. Great game more people should play.

[@sakismpalatsias4106]

I can see musk using. Starship in the future to develop a dry dock in space. To create much larger vehicles.

[@russchadwell]

Aliens arriving at a new world, burrowing their spaceship into the land... Sounds like the beginning of War of the Worlds.

[@Georges_1959]

Ok, but how to turn the structure into horizontal position ... ?

[@Freedom2x462]

One good project ! How could we use sea water, fuel component?

[@mrchapin94]

After lunar star ships don't need to come back and he could send dozens of them and have actually a place for everyone to live and exercise on the moon. Then they could work on making the bigger habitats that are used to on Earth.

[@ne1cup]

I think Elon estimated the cost to build a Star ship at 10 million

[@mrchapin94]

@@ne1cup That would be pre-production numbers after production. Where does hundreds of them, the number and cost of making them will go down when the technology is mastered.

[@OnigoroshiZero]

This is interesting. Btw I saw a Gundam prototype at 8:51.

[@briangman3]

This is great !

[@colonbina1]

Hope that be real soon!

[@pauldannelachica2388]

❤❤❤❤❤

[@vulcan4d]

I knew Cybertrunks were meant for the moon

[@Rat-nl1xe]

I would also use the starship as CEAC lunar greenhouse.

[@chrisjenkins9978]

How does it go from standing straight up to laying on its side without being damaged?

[@MoskmaNZeta]

the moon has not the same gravity has earth, that can be solved.

[@Chromatic145]

How?@@MoskmaNZeta

[@MoskmaNZeta]

@@Chromatic14575kg in earth is like 12kg in the moon.

[@Chromatic145]

So what. How you going to tip it over sideways?@@MoskmaNZeta

[@MoskmaNZeta]

@@Chromatic145 you need to mount previusly the place where the ship need to rest, to tilt the ship sideway with a crane previusly placed, use your imagination , no need to make all in one step. Prepare the zone, place the equipment , start to build.

[@kiandrah8517]

My lunar block is off-limits until the deal is signed and delivered!

[@allanchurm]

Nice picture of them being on there side NOW how are they going to move into position said parts of the rocket FAIRY DUST ???

[@trickyricky2903]

Playing this video at normal speed, it seems slowed down. +25 bit too fast.

[@LordDustinDeWynd]

You're right! +.25 is getting squeaky, normal is slow drawl.

[@joelbesnier9834]

great video, thanks. Silly question: how do you put Starship from vertical to horizontal position? Thanks

[@dereksollows9783]

SIde thrusters? Low gravity might make them sufficiently effective. my best guess offhand.

[@OnigoroshiZero]

A crane will lower the top slowly. They will probably need to prepare/even the ground there first, if not even construct a base of some kind.

[@sidstevens9035]

Inflatables would provide so much more internal space for a colony. Let's face it, if a meteorite hits a Starship it will do as much damage as it would to an inflatable.

[@valensquinn9009]

Thanks for this interesting video. Seems to make sense that given starship is so large, that it could be put to use on the moon if it is staying there permanently. Just a comment, sometimes I've noticed that your videos sound a bit unnatural, like you've been writing the script using chat GPT or some other AI. I know these can save time but they just don't really sound all that natural. Just a thought, keep up the good work.

[@tsmackenzie9065]

how to you get it horizontal? also need huge equipment to remove engines, etc.

[@sidstevens9035]

It's managed to get horizontal on It's last two launches ?

[@ThePinkus]

7:55 Are those Mimimis in the Mars base?!? I thought Barbagli's conquest of Mars got rid of those!

[@user-ml1ki8ml1z]

Very eXciting🥰

[@shaddouida3447]

The scale was originally designed in 1964 by the Russian astrophysicist Nikolai Kardashev (who was looking for signs of extraterrestrial life within cosmic signals). It has 3 base classes, each with an energy disposal level: Type I (10¹⁶W), Type II (10²⁶W), and Type III (10³⁶W). Other astronomers have extended the scale to Type IV (10⁴⁶W) and Type V (the energy available to this kind of civilization would equal that of all energy available in not just our universe, but in all universes and in all time-lines). These additions consider both energy access as well as the amount of knowledge the civilizations have access to.🌎🌍🌏🌐🌐🌐🌌🌌🌌🌌🌌🌌🌌🌌🌌🌌🌌🌠🌠🌠🌠👽👽👽👽👽👽🧘🧘‍♀️🧘‍♂️👫🧕👲👳‍♀️👦👧🏟🏞🏝🏜🏖🏕🗻🌋🏗🏛🏢🏤🏥🏯🏠🏡🏩🏪🏬🏯💒🏰🕍🛕⛪️🌁🗽🗼🕋⛩️🎪💈🎢🎡🎠🌉🌇🌆🌄🌄🏙🌃🌁🚉🚈🚇🚆🚅🚄

[@crax0r85]

the problem is, regolith is extremely fluffy, there is no way this rocket will stand on it without tipping over.

[@MrNote-lz7lh]

You are incorrect.

[@MoskmaNZeta]

you can build a landing zone before move big rockets.

[@crax0r85]

@MoskmaNZeta the point of starship was to transport the building/construction equipment there, so it's a chicken-egg problem. More likely, they would send a rover to survey the ground for a proper, safe landing zone and try there. But it wouldn't be 100% safe anyway.

[@IamJustJ.]

@@crax0r85I think, given NASA's previous experience on the moon, they would be able to identify what the best landing sites would be for SpaceX. That coordination seems a foregone conclusion with the funding SpaceX received as a result of winning a contract for this. I don't foresee an issue there. I see more technical issues popping up and unexpected issues unrelated to whatever contingencies we can conceive of at this point.

[@queredknight]

Could use a lunar orbiter spacestation.

[@flips300021]

I was so born too early.

[@triker53]

....I'm 70 and hope a moon base can finally be a reality before....well you know

[@inmate39ny]

Change the lander to a"Space 1999" design.

[@ChuckBaggett]

Terrible narration. I couldn't make myself listen to the whole thing. 😒

[@nemopoint1254]

Will this plan involve building a "crane facility" to first lift the Starship to the surface of the Moon and then lay it down horizontally?

[@Fedaygin]

These are official designs 🤔

[@aaronscottmatthews7883]

doubt they would remove the engines and ship them back to Earth - no need to and it would use up valuable space

[@rays2506]

True. Those vacuum Raptor engines in a few years will cost less than $0.5M each fresh from the factory. That cost is so low that removing them from a landed cargo Starship and returning them to Earth is very non-cost effective. Those engines will stay put on those cargo Starships that are landed on the lunar surface.

[@2dollarbill3]

Detach the Raptor Engines in lunar orbit and use Draco engines for lunar landing. Use the Draco engines to control a vertical to horizontal landing, OR use a separate strongback to control the transition.

[@chriswhite3692]

The Dracos still need to be transported back. Probably best to keep the Raptors and when you hit a critical threshold, have a re-supply rocket haul them on the return launch.

[@2dollarbill3]

@@chriswhite3692 leave the Dracos on the starship. Sending the raptors back saves money and drops mass for the lunar landing. That or make the starship a modular unit. The habitable portion detaches from the drive section which acts as an earth lunar transporter. Kinda fun discussion

[@chriswhite3692]

@@2dollarbill3 Why not just bring the Dracos back then? Better yet- store a large inflatable habitat that can expand and put it in the fairing. Treat the rocket as a rocket. Never liked the idea of repurposing rockets for habitats, anyways.

[@2dollarbill3]

@@chriswhite3692 inflatable habitat would need to be buried or covered with regolith to shield occupants from radiation

[@chriswhite3692]

@@2dollarbill3 That will have to happen, regardless. Like in the case of these overturned Starships.

[@MrNeonz-fk2ky]

Really took inspiration from Odysseus huh? Nah that's a cool concept though.

[@TuckerPlayer2]

we are the aliens.

[@JohnDoe-de3km]

you are maybe :-) the rest of us is from here

[@TuckerPlayer2]

shhh you'll blow my cover@@JohnDoe-de3km

[@thomassullivan5911]

One starship would be the size of a hotel.

[@JohnDoe-de3km]

ill take 2 ;-)

[@aljawisa]

Barry-1 Satellite Which Only Has Dual IVO Quantized Inertia Propellantless Drives attached to starship.

[@RandyStalding]

How close in diameter is a boring machine to a star ship? Wouldn't it be interesting if a boring machine was designed to be a module in a star ship. This might make building an underground portion of a moon base mush more efficient.

[@user-fd6rr4iz9m]

Heavy very very heavy............a tunnel boring machine weight would not lift off earth and go to the moon. Aircraft and rockets and anything that goes to the moon are built totally different to earth moving equipment.

[@will2Collett]

Still waiting to see that BIG STEP!!! Lets hope the third time will be the charm . . . .

[@colonbina1]

Yeah. The third time will be the charm, hopefully!

[@willwatson3614]

Why does the voice in this episode sound a lot like an AI generated one?

[@KGTiberius]

LEGO style. Each launch is unique (or duplicate/redundant) components… eventually send The Boring Company machines to use the bored spoils as cover material, depth as environmental envelopes, habitats, and at 2km deep is geothermal energy (200-400’C). A parallel tunnel for ore processing and manufacturing facilities (environmentally sealed areas and use conventional welding for manufacturing, rails to the surface, construction economy). Start with Starship at the surface, then dig deep. Very much like the American Wild West mining towns - start small/basic/frontier, eventually economies, infrastructure, runways/landing platforms/chopstick towers, and cities. New launchpad with higher payload capacity (smaller gravity well), development of new technologies and manufacturing techniques, then deep space network/communications/observatories (solar-system Starlink, telescopes, etc.). Mars as round 2 (having learned from Moon operations and proximity to Earth/safety). Space is challenging. A LOT more difficult than we think - yet, conceivable and incrementally so.

[@KGTiberius]

Food? Already pioneering 3D-printed meat from stem cells. Antarctica has been pioneering hydroponics that are Lego-style in shipping containers. And there is always The Matrix nutritional slop consisting of synthetic nutrients, vitamins and minerals, protein, carbohydrates, fiber…

[@sergiotorres1069]

Use the fuel tanks as water tanks and u got ur self a fairy tale 😅😅😅😊

[@larky368]

Oh goody! More CGI!

[@marksmadhousemetaphysicalm2938]

And for faster travel…perhaps could link these starships to a nuclear thermal booster in orbit…to haul ass to Mars…45 days…then detach…re-enter…use them to build cities (bury them under ground…like that 100km linear city they’re building in Saudi-Arabia…and the nuclear booster can zip back to earth carrying fuel and people heading home from a vacation or whatever…if we master fusion propulsion we could do such a flight in a week…and reach Titan in 270 days…

[@zheka7691]

hows mars base doing pals?

[@GadreelAdvocat]

With water on the moon they could be refueled.

[@menotyou1234]

Starships can be loaded with H3 and precious metals for a return to earth, but how will we refuel them..??

[@Jogeta5]

Easier to return from the Moon than from Earth, but for different orbits, they would use the Starship depots to refuel if required.

[@TheEvilmooseofdoom]

There would be no ROI for that. Nothing on the moon can be had cheaper than it can be had on earth.

[@sp66-know-try-think]

The most reasonable strategy is to create on the Moon the main base for astronautics, energy, raw materials, industrial, and logistics. This will dramatically expand the capabilities of astronautics and reduce the burden on the Earth's economy. There is no need to try to transport moon dust to Earth, it is wasteful and stupid. It is also stupid to move people to the Moon. The Moon is even less suitable for people than the Arctic and Antarctic. Only a very free flight of imagination can draw paradise gardens on the moon.

[@BoudieBatsnikov]

KSP all over again...

[@thaiden03]

the moon is the deepest ocean.

[@johnwalker1553]

There is still the little energy problem. The current energy density is still suboptimal. Everything else is wishful thinking.

[@SalvaGian47]

Why we have to go to the moon? To look for water? Just wait for the next rainy day

[@fancymanwho]

It's to help with future explorations

[@blueskies792]

So parking these mobile homes on a level surface of the moon wont be a problem? If not then I'll order up my double-wide Starship moonbase home today please.

[@cokeiced7594]

welcome everyone to the moon,😄

[@BrianLenahan]

What if they bury a starship vertically down to the hatch?

[@sp66-know-try-think]

Riding a cart in front of a horse is problematic. Just because Starship will reduce the cost of lifting cargo from Earth to LEO, it does not follow that it will become cheap transport in space. Creating an ocean-going fleet from sea tugs, even the most wonderful ones, is not the best idea. Just like trying to convert a sea tug into a hydrofoil. For financially affordable mass transportation of cargo from LEO to lunar orbit, new technologies and new space transport with high energy potential are needed, not due to reserves of megatons of disposable chemical fuel with expensive delivery from Earth, but due to accumulated energy in capacious storage devices and/or due to powerful energy sources on board. And yes, one should not a priori consider people an effective and useful load for the exploration of the Moon. All these houses on the Moon are nothing more than a continuation of children's games in the sandbox. Just create suitable space vehicles, robots and equipment to perform real-life tasks on the Moon. It will be much more meaningful, more relevant, more effective, more promising, cheaper, faster. Deal with real problems, and not mindlessly draw air castles in the sky-high distances of the Moon with a cosmic budget and illusory returns.

[@tobyihli9470]

SpaceX had better design a moon lander with a much more robust landing gear than the little stubs it’s been showing in CGI. The first starship has to land in loose, uneven lunar regolith. It’s going to need lay down legs similar to Falcon 9’s wide lay down legs. Once we deliver enough equipment, then and only then can we build safe, flat, hard landing pads. They’re going to damn near need to drop a type of bulldozer down there! Whoever does deliver a bulldozer will own the moon. The moons bulldozer will give NASA the experience to build a bulldozer for Mars.

[@jonjosenna5581]

I think starship should concentrate more on Lunar missions. As Mars is just not viable, with current technologies.

[@TheEvilmooseofdoom]

It starts with the moon.

[@sp66-know-try-think]

Transporting people to the Moon is wasteful and stupid. The Moon (with Mars) is even less suitable for humans than the Arctic and Antarctic. There are no conditions, no technologies, no opportunities for a normal life. Only a very free flight of imagination can draw paradise gardens on the Мoon. Human colonies must be founded on giant, man-made, mobile arks assembled in space from components produced on the Moon from lunar raw materials in robotic production.

[@leschortos9196]

In 25 years...

[@morganoverbay8783]

Laying the rockets down is dumb. At moon gravity, they'll make great pillars to build to, either as corner posts or in a row as 30' wide buildings, all 150 feet tall. Smaller footprint, building up has always been more economical.

[@Mic_Glow]

Whole point is to use the structure as it is, without construction. Consider you also need to pressurize and shield. Burying stuff underground is the easiest and cheapest option on the moon. Hard to do with tall structure, easier if it's flat. Also it's not like you need to consider the footprint, land is literally free on the moon.

[@raymondcramer1380]

As a retired engineer, I believe that SpaceX should DROP NASA and the world governments and do what was stated in the article. Musk would make more money than he even thought of with Tesla and others. Just my opinion!

[@TheEvilmooseofdoom]

Drop the customer? You clearly don't know much about business.

[@rays2506]

If SpaceX drops NASA as its primary customer for lunar and planetary exploration, my guess is that the immediate consequence would be that SpX would have far more difficulty obtaining FAA launch licenses for Starship. And doing what you suggest would be an insult to NASA, which had the courage to award the first HLS lunar lander contract to SpaceX and Starship in the face of intense criticism and backlash. For better or for worse, SpaceX and NASA are tied together permanently for crewed missions to the Moon and to Mars. And once the first crewed Starships land on the Moon, the military and international considerations will become intermixed with the purely engineering and scientific factors involved in establishing permanent human presence on the lunar surface. See "For All Mankind" and imagine what the next 10 to 20 years might be like for NASA, SpaceX and Starship. Side note: Like you, I'm a retired aerospace engineer with 32 years of experience (1965-97) on such programs as Gemini, Apollo Applications, Skylab, Space Shuttle, X-33, and a half dozen more non-NASA programs for the Air Force, the Army, and the Department of Energy.

[@woodlanditguy2951]

Make no mistake, SpaceX hasn't deviated from its goal to colonize Mars even slightly. NASA's goals temporarily line up with SpaceX so they are simply capitalizing on government funding. If SpaceX tells NASA to "screw off", they would lose billions in funding and face far more hurdles legally and financially than they do now. As long as SpaceX plays ball with NASA, the government agencies will continue to allow SpaceX to do what they must to get to Mars. I know Joe Biden told the "3 letter agencies" to go after Elon, but that is financial suicide for many of them if they do. They benefit from the billions that Elon produces and to hinder his progress is foolish. Same goes for Elon if he turns his back on NASA. I'm not saying any of this is right, but it is what it is right now.

[@CUBETechie]

If he didnt had NASA who Support him the company would be gone

[@jdmather5755]

Starship will never land on the moon with a human aboard.

[@matthewkeating-od6rl]

What aboutcall those millon dollar meteorites they be flying back with.

[@jamesbarry1673]

FYI''''''''''''''''''''''There will be NO windows.

[@nickolas4637]

lol cyber trucks on the moon

[@jimabbey9544]

Well let's get one to Orbit 1st! smfh

[@williamecolemansr1930]

For a long time, I envisioned starship landing horizontally on the moon, possibly connected together with other horizontal, landing starships make a huge star loaded with solar food supplies, solar generators I don’t know how weight would be the moon sure could be figured out

[@williamtaylor8950]

We need to be thinking about space tractors that can hall a lot of pree made mods to the moon and then a landing craft simpler to the one in the movie space 1999.. that would be a better idea than cutting into fuel thanks with thick bulky gloves then cut and weld in space come on..