How To Develop The Moon ALL PARTS

This is not a new video! This is all six parts of the lunar development series put together in one convenient place.
Patreon: / lunardevelopment
My book: www.amazon.com/dp/B0CMMKPBFM
(I'll mail Patreon members a signed copy!)
Join this channel to get access to perks:
/ @anthrofuturism
My Social medias: linktr.ee/ianlong
Written, Produced & Narrated by Ian Long
Pedantic Nerds:
When you put regolith into the cell out comes oxygen gas, aluminum, silica, and low-purity molten iron. Molten Regolith Electrolysis. Then you can take that low-purity molten iron and feed it back into the cell, refining it into high-purity iron. Molten Oxide Electrolysis. The difference is the purity of the iron, and to make steel we need very high-purity iron.
Since the steel-making process involves two electrolyzing steps we should specialize them and deliver two of these to the Moon.

[@Anthrofuturism]

This is not a new video! This is all six parts of the lunar development series put together in one convenient place.

[@paulmichaelfreedman8334]

Hi, if making steel on the moon with on-site resources is viable, you can bet Elon will plan to build Starships destined for Mars, on the moon, making much larger payloads possible. Maybe even 1000 tons to lunar orbit, and 500 to Mars.

[@Anthrofuturism]

@@paulmichaelfreedman8334 Yeah you don't need to make them aerodynamic either and can power them using nuclear fission engines

[@chammockutube]

How about the leave the radioactive exhaust off the moon by limiting the nuclear earth-moon ship transport between a LEO SpacePort and a Lunar orbit SpacePort?

[@007hansen]

​@@paulmichaelfreedman8334 Yeah Elong likes his stuff vertically integrated. I like @Anthrofrofuturisms thoughts on commoditising space objects and travel. Imagine the infrastructure we could have :) And for peanuts in the grand scheme of government policy.

[@fuzzywzhe]

The question I have is what economic benefits is there to development? We didn't go to the "new world" just to explore, we went to exploit. You also have to consider what a nightmare it would be to have a long term settlement on the moon which nobody does thinking it would be "cool" to live on another planet. You'd want to look up Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station and how people deal with being basically locked inside a building for 6 months.

[@FredPauling]

A man's water is his own, his carbon belongs to the colony - Mune, Book II

[@nicolasolton]

Hehe.

[@AncientEgyptArchitecture]

And on Arrakis, the order is reversed.

[@rwm1980]

Sonif you pass of the colony do they remove your carbon?

[@hermeticxhaote4723]

Bless the maker and his regolith

[@dr.vikyll7466]

*Lune

[@NeovanGoth]

Let this sink in: We could have built a bloody base on the moon, but instead we got 32 Marvel movies. Humanity is doomed.

[@SpinoSam]

Imagine what the world would be like if the US government gave the same amount of funding they give to the military to NASA instead

[@armaniwebb4467]

Not humanity...America son...just America.

[@ConReese]

​@@SpinoSam probably enveloped in a global war. Maybe if NATO countries actually spent what they promised the US could devote some GDP to science and space

[@aidanmurphy6779]

Infinity War was well worth it

[@WhereIsTheSpartan]

This is not a base, it's an expensive camp site with no use. A Marvel movie has a use, although it is only entertaining some people for a short period of time. The most important questions are why should we send people to the moon to stay there and what can people do there we can't do on Earth? All I have seen in this video is a guy spending hundreds and hundreds of millions of (taxpayers?) dollars just to have some people on the moon with no purpose.

[@MrFranklitalien]

thanks now I have to go play kerbal space program

[@007hansen]

1 or 2?

[@SpahGaming]

@@007hansen no one plays 2

[@cboy-ou2hr]

This is the channel I’ve been looking for a channel that contemplates and discuss the vast scientific and technological advances that would be made by colonizing the lunar surface.

[@Anthrofuturism]

Well met lol

[@verdi2310]

Isaac Arthur channel is very good too.

[@esterhammerfic]

Imagine you've come to a examine a dead planet. On the moon you find this little base, long abandoned.

[@bigjohn697791]

UK's Nuclear Division of Rolls Royce's are developing Reactors for the moon and beyond

[@paulmichaelfreedman8334]

Small Modular Reactors. They're being developed not just for the moon and beyond, but primarily for here, on Earth. Put one of these at the South pole and you can power a village there with energy to spare. Just to say. They beat, both financially and practically, the huge nuclear stations that take many years to build, as they are modular and can be built like on an assembly line. Best of all, they can be disassembled and transported to a new location if needed. And because they use liquid fuel (dissolved) a meltdown is practically impossible, unless someone finds a way to hack it and sabotage the system in some way, which is extremely unlikely.

[@bobweiram6321]

@@paulmichaelfreedman8334Of course they have to say they're building it for the moon to hype up the interest.

[@paulmichaelfreedman8334]

@@bobweiram6321 They're serious about all use cases, earth, moon, mars.

[@jbdawinna]

RYCEY IS THE GOAT!!!

[@blackepyon4042]

@@paulmichaelfreedman8334 They actually DID have a nuclear reactor at the south pole. They scrapped it in favour of diesel engines, for some dumb reason.

[@hermannkorner3212]

1:50 : belly flop doesn't work on the moon!! To land sideways you need additional rocket motors at the nose and at the stern/ or a 90° gimble capability + structural reinforcements to carry the bending forces - a completely different rocket!

[@monsterlair]

Yeah, i had to stop the video to look for this comment. The landing maneuver shown in the video is not very realistic at all.

[@imconsequetau5275]

Watch the tear-down of Starship hulls. Those 4mm tank rings are super flimsy after depressurization. I have more inclination to believe that buried inflatable habitats are the way to go. Dig out trenches as deep as possible so the cover mounds are not tall, inflate the habitat, inflate structural members with rigid foam, backfill and cover with regolith/binder concrete. Maybe polyethylene/regolith composites on Mars. Use some binder that's more heat resistant on the Moon.

[@michaelwilliams2593]

As soon as I heard the dialogue about the belly flop landing, I knew this video wasn't coming from somebody who knew anything about physics. This is for entertainment purposes only

[@mahatmarandy5977]

@@michaelwilliams2593 that’s a little harsh. I wouldn’t say that it’s only good for that. I do agree that the bellyflop idea isn’t terribly practical, but it would probably be possible to land a starship vertically, and then lay it down on its side

[@richardbloemenkamp8532]

@@mahatmarandy5977 Agree. There are many techniques with hoists, jacks, supports, partial digging etc. that would make it possible. And indeed if you can already ensure that it is partially in a (newly-dug) trench then covering it in regolith will be a lot less work. Still hoisting down equipment and vehicles from a vertical starship might work quite well too (in KSP that is almost undoable. ;-)). I like the rough ideas in the video but I think many ideas can still be improved upon with some thought.

[@johnthomasriley2741]

You grossly underestimate the problem of the dust. The Apollo suits were wrecked in 3 days.

[@jakammor4449]

Well, you should also consider that tourists may not spend as much time outside on the lunar surface as the Apollo astronauts did. But say that was an integral part of the experience that they were offered/paid for. Consider that those suits are 50+ years old, and we probably could make something much, much better that lasts ~1 month, and then since we have an actual lunar base we can (instead of planning to return in 3 days and never use them again) take them inside the lunar base to refurbish them, potentially allowing you to use it for years and years.

[@Anthrofuturism]

Magnetic arrays solve this problem

[@AncientEgyptArchitecture]

Yah, there's a whole lot of underestimation here. The best way to get up and running on the moon is self-assembling systems and robots. Way too risky, dangerous, expensive and inhospitable for humans to do the grunt work, get the infrastructure installed and then ( maybe ) people can move in.

[@sidharthcs2110]

​@@Anthrofuturism Can magnetic arrays solve non magnetic regolith problems?

[@Anthrofuturism]

@@sidharthcs2110 it's electrostatic

[@Cammymoop]

watching again so the algorithm picks it up

[@Anthrofuturism]

Wow thank you!

[@SisavatManthong-yb1yn]

It's my % money please! So space 🌌 can get accounted for at FBI &CH@ suger hc hd qh

[@SisavatManthong-yb1yn]

Fantastic 4 losers of space 🌌🌐! Lol who cares about weaker superheroes that lags est ! It's all about them vs galaxy 🌌!? Apps VR sector for JupitersS _----Ajax organic?

[@MegaHarko]

Thanks for helping me discover this channel :D

[@ebonaparte3853]

@@SisavatManthong-yb1ynI had a stroke reading that.

[@godcreator8432]

I read an article saying Idaho is developing mini reactors that can power 10 homes I think. Also in Idaho was one of the first American cities to have nuclear power in the past

[@Anthrofuturism]

Can't wait!

[@AncientEgyptArchitecture]

I'm pretty sure scientists are working hard trying to figure out how to transplant Idaho to the moon.

[@godcreator8432]

@@AncientEgyptArchitecture huh

[@typicallucas]

so... why do we have to send a steel shipping container to the moon again?

[@AncientEgyptArchitecture]

That was one of the most hilarious parts.

[@blackepyon4042]

You don't. The reactor design just needs to be able to fit into the volume of a steel shipping container, so that the entire unit can fit within a rocket faring and be landed on the moon in one piece. Probably similar to the skycrane model the Curiosity and Perseverance rovers used. Then you build the containment vessel around it once it's on the lunar surface, and run the power cables to your base.

[@typicallucas]

@@blackepyon4042 oh I see, first they leave room for a shipping container in the rocket then they package the reactor into said shipping container to make sure it'll all fit. then you might as well just put the entire shipping container in there since we know there's enough room. no need to even break out the measuring tape 🤣

[@blackepyon4042]

@@typicallucas It depends on how you want to get it there. You COULD use a shipping container, if you really wanted to, but a different design might work better for a given reactor output, depending on what they plan for. Launching it on it's own rocket and using a skycrane contraption to set it down might be a better way to go, or it might not.

[@typicallucas]

@@blackepyon4042 nah, it's fine, 4 tons of steel is but a drop in the bucket. especially considering sending rockets to the moon is basically free, and it's easy, and rich tourists will buy cruises to the moon instead of spending their money on private airplanes

[@TheSpaceEngineer]

Dude!! This is such an awesome project and I love how the effort you put into it shows

[@Anthrofuturism]

Thank you!

[@Vatsyayana87]

If you knew the most basic things about spaceflight you would know they didnt put any effort into this garbage within two minutes of the video.

[@jdiluigi]

40 some minutes in and I just realized This channel doesn't have the half million subs I was assuming it did BC of the quality of the video. Tip of the hat to you my man.

[@Anthrofuturism]

Thank you! Maybe one day!

[@dot1298]

But don‘t forget one important detail: people/crews on the moon have to rotate, like ISS crews, due to lunar gravity similarity to weightlessness. So, a full-fledged colony is impossible, but you could still do a tourist resourt, a mining base or a scientific outpost etc. just don‘t leave people longer than 6 months on the moon, to maintain their health.

[@dot1298]

And no, physical training is *not* enough to compensate for the missing gravity (the moon only has ~1/6th surface gravity of the earth!)

[@dot1298]

The second problem: the regolith is made of extremely sharp micro-crystals, which are another health-hazard. The third problem is radiation from solar flares, galactic radiation etc.

[@dot1298]

Even on Mars, the weaker gravity will become a *massive* problem, long-term. And there‘s no easy solution in sight, either.

[@jakammor4449]

@@dot1298 he addressed this in the video. He said that on the ISS you can easily leave ppl for a year at a time. And the ISS has NO gravity. So the little bit of gravity on the moon will only extend that number to far beyond 6 months

[@constantinethecataphract5949]

There is almost no communication lag between the earth and the moon. You can remotely control robots that will be the first things to send so they can set up the infrastructure.

[@SpookyStationBOO]

Wow what a great video! I love that you take your time to actually cover all potential details even in hypothetical situations in order to present a realistic possibility of a colonized moon! Please continue making more videos on this subject, I’m glad I found your channel and I know your channel is gonna explode with popularity!

[@Anthrofuturism]

Thank you so much!

[@SpinoSam]

@@Anthrofuturism Do you think it's possible for people to begin to actually live there in the long term? What effect will that have on humans over massive periods of time?

[@xyzero1682]

Great video. I must express that the nuclear tug section of the video is highly optimistic at best, and science-fantasy at worst. Yes, nuclear thermal rocket engines have been developed and tested, but NOT open-gas-core which you mention, they are as complex or more than nuclear fusion reactors. You also don't count propellant they will use, they don't run on uranium alone, which will need to be supplied from Earth or Mars. I hope to see this future you describe, and I very much want to see more content from you. Good work.

[@massimocole9689]

Also the open cycle means they chew through uranium pretty fast, which isn't cheap either.

[@davidbartonjr]

Dude! Amazing video! Can't imagine how long this took you to create, but great job. Very interesting. I love following your logic and reason. It's impeccable! Well done!

[@Anthrofuturism]

Thank you! Years of research and about 4 months of work :)

[@verdi2310]

Each of those tourists would get a space suit for free? The cost per unit is more ose to 20 millions today.

[@lcinder815gaming7]

I don't see many people mentioning the life support systems needed on the ferry vehicle. The space needed+the cost of such systems would increase the cost of each flight, and mean that less people could go on said flight. This is nowhere near exact, but it could cost upwards of 50x more per passenger, which makes this highly unprofitable, even with all the other improvements listed here. Correct me if I'm wrong, but this seems like a huge oversight.

[@user-qz3um5rw4g]

Iron ore on earth has almost no carbon, its mostly consists of oxides, carbon comes from iron ore smelting that uses carbon as reducing agent.

[@GURken]

Set a Moon colony for half the price of what was spent on JWST? I guess every generation should have its own Popular Mechanics covers.

[@colinbarnard6512]

Isn't the 'belly flop' maneuver an aerobraking maneuver? One does not need to aerobrake on the Moon. That said, bringing Starship down on its side makes sense- it puts the centre of gravity in a far more stable position than the backside down landing. I imagine, though, that Starship's centre of gravity whilst it is tail-sitting is still quite low. Weighing far more than the Apollo LM, I think landing Starship like something out of a Heinlein novel is as dangerous as hell. Starship HLS has landing engines situated between the crew compartment, and the propulsion compartment. It would be pretty simple to use those thrusters, once Starship has made contact with the Lunar Surface, to pitch the ship gently down on its (need to install) nose gear. And then up again for launch. Of course, Starship HLS can be modified as permanent habitats. Though wasting 33 Raptor engines for each permanent Starship habitat does not make practical sense. It IS better to have capacity left-over than to have not enough.

[@Anthrofuturism]

Yeah all correct and great point about center of gravity. A bit later in the video I discuss retrieving the engines.

[@colemantrebor1610]

Only six engines would be lost. Booster has 33 and those would be recovered

[@AncientEgyptArchitecture]

Yes, the poster does not actually grasp the complexities of a belly landing, nor do they understand the reasons why this approach makes sense in an atmosphere but not in a vacuum.

[@imconsequetau5275]

The Dynetics HLS landscape orientation is quite viable and also uses methalox. The HLS version of Starship is also going to use engines far forward on the hull for landing. SpaceX can build an HLS version that merges these two designs.

[@blackepyon4042]

Likely, the ship would approach the landing vertically, and only more horizontally when it's a couple hundred meters from the ground and it's already slowed to a hear hover.

[@rwm1980]

Dude your channel is awesome and extremely under viewed, over time i will try and watch all your old content, looks its well worth it. In time i bet you will be rewarðed with higher viewer ship much higher keepnup the great work

[@Anthrofuturism]

Thank you man

[@Lizkyyy]

Very well done video. I absolutely love your voice/tone, it's perfect for futurist content.

[@Anthrofuturism]

Lol thanks

[@johnthomasriley2741]

A lunar earth mover must have clam shell bucket. One shell most work against the other.

[@blackepyon4042]

Why? The moon has reduced gravity, but it's still gravity. Just don't make sudden movements, and it will stay in the bucket until you dump it.

[@AdamRaudonis]

Absolutely loved this video!!! So inspiring!!!

[@Anthrofuturism]

Thank you!

[@Kennanjk]

Amazing can’t wait for the mars series’s continuation.

[@Infinityand1]

Absolutely amazing video! Great work!

[@nicolasolton]

I had a similar idea, but didnt develop and put in the work and numbers as you did. Well done! One thing that the first moon base should focus on imo besides the things you already mentioned is mining water and converting this to hydrogen and oxygen for rocket fuel. This is where the fuel station in leo should come from. This would really jump start a more affordable space economy.

[@AstroBot_99]

Amazing video!!! Didn’t know it was a series. I can’t wait for more content as a aerospace engineer student :)

[@Anthrofuturism]

More to come!

[@The_Swordfish]

Incredible video thanks so much for laying it out like this! LETS GO SPACE!!!

[@tinytim71301]

Clip choices were great. Well done.

[@thefunfactory61]

very interesting thanks, just bought the book looking forward to reading

[@JordanTheMann]

Interesting breakdown. Thanks for sharing!

[@cHzism]

Great video! Seeing the view count made my mouth drop, you deserve alot more!

[@Anthrofuturism]

Wow thank you so much!

[@martythemartian99]

There are three ways to do space (including moon, mars, asteroids etc.) Do it small and fast, do it right, or don't do it at all. Unfortunately humanity tends to avoid the Do It Right option in most cases.

[@YouKnow11111]

Something to keep in nind about space is the need for redundancy. If something breaks down, kr goes wrong. Theres no quick or simple way to fix or replwce it. With that in mind, with items like the nuclear reactor, we'de bring twice or even three times the needed amount.

[@TheInterestingInformer]

SUCH A GOOD VIDEO just finished it. Make more hypotheticals pls

[@Anthrofuturism]

Thanks, sure thing

[@kurtmiller8773]

Articulate, creative, and informative. Im definitely subbing

[@Anthrofuturism]

Awesome! Thank you!

[@RetroRogersLab]

How do you account for the weight of the regolith bearing down on the buried ships?

[@toddpowers3620]

Actually, the weight isn't enough on the moon to balance the internal pressure. On Mars, where regolith would be much heavier, it would reduce the stresses of the internal pressure, which is slightly helpful. On the moon, it's much less help.

[@projectarduino2295]

So I guess I can become an astronaut as a machinist. Science and technology in fractional gravity is probably going to offer amazing new developments that makes the moon extremely profitable. If only for the ability to put mass into microgravity orbits.

[@forgilageord]

You can tell this is pretty good by how 99% of the criticisms are "but the current design iteration of Starship might not be capable of supporting itself on its side on the moon". 50 minutes of ideas and calculations and that's the worst problem anyone can come up with?

[@Anthrofuturism]

Lol yeah and it's not an insurmountable issue at all either

[@hermeticxhaote4723]

You made of my thoughts! This is awesome! It will happen the way this video describes or it doesn't happen, simple reality.

[@bergonius]

This channel is perfect for my weird niche little interests. Good thing I found this channel.

[@Snookers_]

Your nuclear reactor will cost you significantly more time and money than you expect. Given both the many outer space laws/treaties (and also self interest), a SIGNIFICANT amount of R&D will be required before publicly putting a reactor in orbit, then to the moon. That's my first nitpick, here's some more: Used costs of products intended for use on Earth. Massively underestimated development times/costs. Ignored required testing/support infrastructure. Ignored required systems engineering (though this video serves as maybe the first .1% of a first pass). Assumed everything works first try. Things move slower at large scale (bueracracy). Everyone loves starship. Starship won't love you. It's vibration environment will be hellish. Testing for man-rated vehicles, habitats, etc is very time consuming. This video was super entertaining though and I really enjoyed watching it; I just think it is overly optimistic. Though controversial, the saying "space is hard" is way too accurate.

[@Kr0N05]

Well done! yah the Starship has to land horizontal to let off large equipment (Excavator, Dump truck etc,), and is the current design strong enough to have a lot of regolith on it, maybe a super beefed up version for those.

[@Anthrofuturism]

Thanks!

[@bobatesomemayo]

Very nice! Although I'd like to say one thing. They don't necessarily need to land horizontal, but just need to be positioned that way. A lunar base concept for Starship has instead a small construction crew use cables to carefully lay it down. This saves time on development of a horizontal landing system as well, which starship wasn't really ever designed for.

[@barnabasszanto]

Amazing video! You should do a similar one for Mars!

[@ottostoklund]

Really nice vid. All these plans remind me alot of the book "Critical mass" which dove into building a cis-lunar economy, though being started because of an asteroid mining mission. Anyways thanks for making a relatively realistic lunar development plan clear

[@mahatmarandy5977]

The only issue I have concerning the reactor is the difficulty of dispersing the heat. I fully agree that using a reactor on the moon is the most reasonable solution and the most efficient one, But getting rid of waste, heat is way harder in a vacuum than it is on the surface of plan because there is no medium to help pull the heat away like you would deal with water or air on earth. This is not an insurmountable problem, but it is a significant one. Note that when I say “radiate heat” I’m not talking about radiation or radioactivity, I’m talking about a radiator. Something that allows heat to escape a machine in order to keep the machine and in this case people from overheating and dying

[@Anthrofuturism]

I mentioned it for the first outpost but it would apply to the others I just didn't delve into that as a minor detail but yeah radiators for basically everything will be extremely important. (I actually animated a radiator configuration for each outpost thing but didn't draw attention to it. )

[@CC-iq2pe]

The same issue that we have with landing on the moon affects each and every launch from as-well. So somehow having a rocket launching system which does not interact with the surface regolith is absolutely essential for this purpose.

[@Anthrofuturism]

Mass driver later. Landing pad is also useful. Details details.

[@nekomakhea9440]

If the moon is industrialized, it brings down the cost of building an orbital ring considerably. An orbital ring is one of the few earth-to-space megastructures that can be built with normal steel, with surface-to-space train lines made from normal steel hung from it, rather than unobtanium supermaterials like a space elevator requires. It's also a very handy place to put things like terawatts of space-based solar power for both terrestrial use and its own use, slipways for building massive interplanetary ships, communications and astronomy equipment of absurd size, electromagnetic launch rails, and split-propulsion emitters like giant lasers for pushing laser sail ships. That would lower the marginal cost of moving mass to orbit enough that regular travel and trade in space can reach the level necessary to support millions of people in space rather than a few thousand.

[@Mbeluba]

Wait, what elevation would the ring be on? Is steel really strong enough to keep it together?

[@BenkOfTheKlery]

@@Mbeluba The steel ring would be in orbit, we power it and use the magnetic field generated to levitate platforms.

[@Mbeluba]

@@BenkOfTheKlery Are there no issues with ring staying in orbit? I assume it would need at least some thrusters to correct it's position. Are you sure ring of that size can stay together? I'm not sure what forces act upon it and how they cancel each other, but having a ridgid steel ring of more than 20 000 km in diameter must be complicated, even in microgravity. It's definitely spinning in relation to the ground, so is there any centrifugal force? And also what kinda platforms supported with electromagnets are you talking about?

[@BenkOfTheKlery]

"And also what kinda platforms supported with electromagnets are you talking about?" Imagine a static maglev with the form of a platform, that's it. The answer to the other questions is... there's no answer, there are so many variables to count for a design(if you didn't realize, I'm not an aerospace engineer yet). But if well designed the answer for them is "YES, IT CAN". It doesn't matter the size of an orbital ring if someone is planning to build something of that size sure that knows all the problems. A tip: IT'S A CONCEPT, JUST ENJOY IT.

[@Mbeluba]

@@BenkOfTheKlery so you don't know. That's fine, just don't pretend you do.

[@hummingbirb5403]

A bit on the ground-side launch, if you really wanted to you could use a nuclear lightbulb system, a closed cycle nuclear gas core rocket capable of clean launches! That could massively increase passenger loads. If the public would still be squeamish at anything with the word “nuclear” in it, you could use a tethered ring to significantly increase throughput and reduce cost. If I’m being honest, something like a tethered ring or Lofstram loop is probably more likely than us seeing a nuclear lightbulb launch from earth. (I’d highly recommend Isaac Arthur’s vid on tethered rings!)

[@Anthrofuturism]

Yeah rings would be great but gotta develop the moon to build something like that

[@johnthomasriley2741]

All paths will be marked by stacks of rocks. The art of the kern will be the art of the Moon.

[@AncientEgyptArchitecture]

CAIRN

[@DD-bv6qh]

Consider landing a Starship at a 45 degree angle using penetration beams, like lawn darts. The cargo, head of the rocket could then angle down to the lunar surface as the rocket hinged like a double barrel shotgun. It would then be positioned to burrow into the regolith. Tunnel Shields like this would be useful on the moon

[@Anthrofuturism]

Good idea actually...

[@olveaustlid4383]

Great video!

[@Anthrofuturism]

Thanks!

[@floatingspaceman993]

At first I thought this was a shitty AI voice low effort video, but I watched the entire thing and was thoroughly entertained, your deadpan deliveries of jokes and editing style made me chuckle. Would love to see more like this in the future

[@v4riab1lity77]

36:50 just realize bro hasn’t factored in that vehicles will in fact be imported to the moon as well because who wouldn’t want to drive on the lunar surface

[@CoHu432]

My squirrel brain really appreciates the animations. Keep killing it!!!

[@Anthrofuturism]

Squirrels are pretty smart tbh

[@Coyote_Smith]

Lol love the Minecraft reactor examples provided

[@YouKnow11111]

Got a follower out of me. I love content that makes my mind spin into the unknown, but knowable.

[@theOrionsarms]

You don't think straight, transport logistics have sense only with reuseble spacecrafts, all the way from bottom to top, so logical thing to do would be to reuse all the vehicles in the transport chain, the only option that use chemical propulsion is to use a smaller lunar lander and transfer the payload and the propellant for lunar landing into lunar orbit from the earth transfer vehicle (it may be a starship) to a smaller lunar lander. You may ask, how the large payload fit into the smaller lander and is unloaded on the moon surface? Well the payload would be putted into large containers and attached externally to the lander(transferred from ship to ship into lunar orbit,and unloaded with rolled cables ) , that would allow a significant propellant saving, for example if the lander would have a dry mass of 25 tons (instead of 100 tons or so of fully sized starship), for landing on the moon surface and flying the lander back to moon orbit would require 1,75 of his dry mass in propellant(for methalox and with 380 seconds specific impulse) , but if you send down 100 tons of payload you need only 65% of that mass for that. So a 100 tons full size starship would need 175+65(240) tons of propellant into lunar orbit to deliver 100 tons of payload and be reuseble, but a 25 tons lunar lander 42,5+65(107,5) to deliver the same 100 tons of payload, that is only with the price of a lunar orbit rendezvous and one propellant transfer operation.

[@Rose_Harmonic]

Elevator pitch? Which elevator? A space elevator? lol. This is very useful to me.

[@1ndragunawan]

Circular tunnel with circular train that should be able to provide 1 G accomodations, minimizing the need to exercise to maintain bone density. For tourists, that's one less requirements for a lunar holiday.

[@lukeskywalker7457]

@9:00 opposite is more likely. Aluminum is more likely because for steel, as mentioned you require carbon. Carbon is really rare on the moon. Aluminum alloys requires less energy to make. Magnesium is available to make it an alloy if desirable. Temperature deficiencies can be compensated in the design if required.

[@constantinethecataphract5949]

But the production of oxygen?

[@XavierBetoN]

Not only nuclear engine has 4x the specific impulse, but also it doesn't need oxydizer to propulse, which means practical isp is 2.2x times more than the theorized one, since isp calculations are done only fuel-biased.

[@andrzejbachleda-kubanski456]

Hey could you do the same thing for other plants as well?

[@Anthrofuturism]

Possibly but the Moon is pretty unique and offers a lot mainly through how close it is to is

[@andrzejbachleda-kubanski456]

I understand. I just saying that because one day you might say all you beed to say about the moon and i would be a good idea to see what the other planets becouse they do have their on unique place for humanity future

[@ebonaparte3853]

Glad this channel has more attention.

[@Anthrofuturism]

Me too;)

[@gagegreen6863]

Thus is incredible

[@larry-om9tg]

Maybe NASA can create a lightweight packaging material that is recyclable.

[@v4riab1lity77]

24:29 *I love vital information being locked behind paywalls* 😍😍😍

[@keithrange4457]

Very fun video and thought experiment

[@shawnG6]

What can we do as everyday people to help make this a reality?

[@Anthrofuturism]

It's a very interesting question, I'm not sure. In my experience many people don't think about these things, think it's sci fi or too abstract or don't understand the purpose. But also history shows frameshifting events like the development of the internet or vehicles typically don't turn on everyday people. These things seem to come out of nowhere to most people after being worked on for decades behind closed doors in small circles, but I also don't want to completely disregard the impact an everyday person could have. I would say maybe just getting people to understand why lunar development or space in general is important is probably the most impactful thing so when this stuff starts happening it encounters less resistance which is already mounting. But idk that's kinda a lame answer, maybe there are more impactful ways, I'll have to think about it.

[@whites08]

“ Please sir , can I have some more “ , that’s what this whole shit is sounding like..this is some of your best work , Ben ..❤

[@Anthrofuturism]

Thank you :)

[@Gwagz]

make the cargo discharge and board from ports at the bottom if making it land sideways is a problem

[@Astroponicist]

gabion baskets would reduce the time to cover the station with regolith shielding.

[@Anthrofuturism]

Yeah I think something like this will be useful

[@Astroponicist]

@@Anthrofuturism perhaps a gabion wall robot could '3D Print' structures out of gabion baskets like making brick walls. Imagine a robot that sinters a road from site A to site B, the next robot places gabion walls on either side of the road, the next tops the road from wall to wall with a sheet metal roof, then sand bags cover that with solar panels on top. The sides banked with sand bags, & the inside temperature controlled but exposed to vacuum would provide a safe transportation corridor where a less expensive space suit would suffice for use.

[@Anthrofuturism]

@@Astroponicist several universities and companies are working on 3d printing regolith shells and printing habitats our of regolith the issue is you have to use water or sulfur which is a major bottleneck for large scaled production but probably useful in the beginning.

[@Astroponicist]

@@Anthrofuturism leave a simple job to a university & they will make it impossible. gabion baskets are easy to ship, easy to place, & easy to fill. they are cheap, reliable, effective; which is probably why they are not using them in their estimations.

[@AncientEgyptArchitecture]

I have to wonder....many, many caverns and lava tubes have been identified/mapped on the moon, wouldn't it make more sense to seek out and use those for shielding than to import the machinery to pile up many meters of regolith on top of landed structures, and then still have to deal with no shielding for personnel moving around and between them??

[@TheMastur]

It's a start

[@michaellefrapper5863]

Thanks for this info. Another great show. However, the does permit using water/electrolyte instead of petroleum and this only releases water into the environment. But you are correct, there is no avoiding the laws of thermodynamics. Keep up the great work. 😊

[@theoldknowledge6778]

Sir, this topic is amazing, your edition skills are outstanding, nice narration! But, I think if you were not so focused on cost speculations the video would be even better, maybe focusing on how the moon will evolve and the meaning of that to humankind, first cities when a person could choose to go to the moon and never go back

[@Anthrofuturism]

Thanks! Noted :)

[@jessekane6534]

I think the fleet of nuclear ferries is both a captivating and exciting idea. Thanks for the video!

[@Anthrofuturism]

Yw!

[@MrR3set]

There is no way a starship is just 80 million. Thats like 500 bucks to red 20 times. And I still have some extra

[@vid101.]

I guess the dart project could further lower the cost of launching resources to low earth orbit making the developing the moon project easier

[@mahatmarandy5977]

Thinking about it, the modified horizontal landing Starship is kinda too complex. It would require a LOT of R&D and testing, and has a lot of points of potential failure, whereas a tail landing has far fewer. I think a far easier solution would be simply to assemble a crane on the moon and then use that to lay a vertical Starship on its side.

[@PaddyPatrone]

They could land verticaly and lay the ship down later on.

[@dizbeliefdanbackhouse5807]

Brilliant!

[@Civil_Maniac]

Okay this is a neat video but I doubt we’ll use hollowed us star ships as shelters. I could see something akin to the Jamestown in For All Mankind being the first outpost. basically a big, glorified moon lander. then just dropping prefab structures with moon lander style tech. Getting an excavator and loader might require a dedicated descent vehicle as well but converting two starships sounds like an incredible hassle over designing 100% moon dedicated landers. It could be a bit more work on the moon end but no figuring out horizontal landing, how to convert a spaceship into a building, and finally having greater flexibility with a dedicated ascent and descent vehicle over rockets designed for both earth and moon landings.

[@radekcuhel670]

I feel like this video is about the second gen of lunar bases. I am very optimistic and I think we will have to wait at least 30 years for these huge semi-independent colonies. Just look what NASA has done for the Moon since Apollo. Not much. We can only hope for China to keep performing well and spark up the second space race. That is our only hope to see something like this collny in our lifetime.

[@ritterkreutztrager]

Earth-moon cycler provides a free return journey once a month.

[@steveclark2205]

Love this so much. 7:00 a suction/ejection device vehicle would be ideal, in the same fashion that they make new land masses In the far east at sea?

[@Anthrofuturism]

Hmm well since you're in a vacuum you can't use suction or negative pressure but that's actually a really interesting approach and maybe there's some potential using magnetic fields. Never considered it, I'll have to think on that one, thanks!

[@Ionut-bg6vw]

Seen them all but nice

[@jjaProductions]

Amazing Video

[@badbat01]

Seriously enjoyable. Feasible guesstimation. Interesting focus on lunar tourism. There is however technological expansion in progress in quantum mechanics particle physics and states of matter combinatorics. This is all hampered by the time at which technology is transferred into productivity to achieve Interplanetary landing capabilities. So there's a multiplicity of directives here. Self-sustaining energy production and propellant manufacturing with efficient transfer systems must be 100% reliable., A sustainable progressive urgency for the right reasons is paramount for prosperity. The moon is our responsibility as are all accessible heavenly bodies. The Moon is an opportunity to do things correctly with mindfulness and consideration. What's the time on the Moon? Don't wreck my/your Moon.

[@gorzux2829]

But first, we have to get there~~~ Let's frickin go then!!!

[@_grigo]

I think there should be a place for Moon's lava tubes as a potential settlement place in this plan.

[@Anthrofuturism]

I'm all for it, there's just a lot of unknowns and unknown unknowns regarding those so I wanted to lay out a very conservative base plan and any additional information is a bonus. This is definitely subject to change but the goal is that all changes are improvements.

[@JanoschNr1]

I feel trapped in a timeloop, I've allready watched this video ...

[@jamesrussell7760]

The SpaceX belly flop is just a way to slow down before landing vertically. But you need an atmosphere to belly flop, which the Moon does not have. So, a belly flop maneuver on the Moon is pointless. Nor can the current version of the Star Ship land horizontally, even at 1/6 Earth-gravity. To convert a Star Ship to a horizonal habitat, you need an erector, operating in reverse - laying a vertical-landed Ship on its side. To operate the erector on a robotically controlled Star Ship, you probably need a crew of humans prepositioned on the Moon. I'm not an economist, so I cannot comment on your highly detailed economic analysis. But you obviously have expended a great deal of time and effort in that analysis. Also, I commend you for advancing the thesis of using the Moon as our stepping stone to the Solar System Kudos!!!

[@SAINT-ANTONIO]

How to settle on a Moon ◻️ PHASE 1 ▫️ Colonization area assessment ▫️ Georbital excavation laser satelite is moved into geostationary orbit. ▫️ LS-01 laser excavating several meter deep corridors, halls and establishment layouts. ( takes less surface material to cover subsurface corridors, with sealments, then piling a hill over a space craft ). ▫️ LS-01 glassing small crater surfaces to establish a solid and vaccum isolating surface. ◻️PHASE 2 ◽ Shipment craft loaded with: ◽Energy unit ◽UAGV excavators ◽Mining unit ◽Geologic refinery unit ◽Oxigen production unit ( Geologic state 1 production ) ◽Water production unit ◽Hydrogen production unit ◽Geologic ore smelting unit productinfg metal dust for 3D laser printer unit. ◽3D laser printer unit produces structural parts for created corridors, glasses crater dome. ◽3D laser printer creates double shell glass windows from refined Moon dust/sands. ◽Algee geel unit placed, producing X-Ray isolation gel, later filled into Glad dome window shells. ◽Robot logistics modules, deploying machines that allocate and move structural parts to their construction places for human colonist crew. ◻️PHASE ◽Astronaut colonist crews arrive, setting things together, such as corridor walls, operating excavators for final works, assembling the glas dome, filling the gel, mounting interrior. technical parts, pressurizing the areas, seeding aggriculture in Crater domes.

[@piotrd.4850]

Unpopular opinion: *activities of visible scale should be limited to Far Side of the moon*. Moon and Sun are basically only celestrial bodies we can still see with unaided eye. 4:30 you can rebuild lander to Space 1999 style Eagle/VTOL and it doesn't need to land - it may deposit cargo in Perseverance like manner. 6:30 - please - it was too exepensive to move military gear back from Iraq and Afghanistan.

[@Damian-Church-NZ]

I think just bringing a tunnel boring machine would be a better idea... drill a base underground..

[@matthewakian2]

I always thought landing a lunar ship sideways makes the best sense.

[@toddpowers3620]

The people who love this idea haven't tried it in KSP.