NASA canceling Moon landing for Artemis 3! PLUS - Starship Update!!

The latest Starship news, PLUS behind the scenes, it appears that NASA is finally pulling the plug on a Moon landing and investigating other options.
One of these options is a good one, but the other makes absolutely no sense!
#space #nasa #spacex
Please support my channel!
DISCORD MEMBERSHIP, EXCLUSIVE CONTENT AND EARLY RELEASES PLUS 15% OFF MERCH!
/ angryastronaut
www.paypal.com/paypalme/Angry...
Follow me on twitter:
/ astro_angry

[@dks13827]

I am old, retired......... I just want to see a manned lunar orbital flight now !!!!!!!!

[@Ryan-mq2mi]

Well if you're old you probably already saw one. 🤷🏻‍♂

[@alvermillioncranky8360]

Same here.

[@leeoflincoln7062]

I saw six! I am profoundly disappointed that even now, I have not seen a seventh! But, thanks to Elon, I believe that before I die I will.

[@korana6308]

@@leeoflincoln7062 I thought it was the opposite... thanks to Elon, I believe you won't see a seventh before you go...

[@lazerithlazerith4012]

@@Ryan-mq2mi I am old and i did not see shit. I am 47 so I waited a long time to see something shit anything but just going around the planet.

[@jphgaming1]

If the FAA was around during the Wright Brothers. We would never have Airplanes.

[@CyFr]

And a lot more dead people. We already see what happens when the FAA leaves engineering inspections to Boeing.

[@American_Moon_at_Odysee_com]

Actually, neighbors during Goddard's rocket experiments complained of his rockets falling on their barns and causing fires. No doubt, Wright brothers heard similar fears. Human psychology is to force those around us to conform to some uniform behaviors. Any doing other face disapproval. It's rare when people are flexible to the new and different. People or things.

[@damianousley8833]

A real chicken and the egg situation. No FAA as there were no manned aircraft. Though a lot of large models had flown before the Wright brothers.

[@simonethier5793]

No need for FAA here. Just a brick wall in the face of progress

[@cyh4031]

A single person test flight on a deserted beach is a far cry from the most massive potential methane bomb to ever be constructed. Use your brain please.

[@wesleyashley99]

I would give starship a couple more flights before getting too pessimistic. They refine things based on data from previous flights. Some things can't be tested any other way. They will probably find the best way forward pretty quickly.

[@davidstevenson9517]

SpaceX Apologist.

[@johnsegal445]

@@davidstevenson9517more like just being a reasonable person. Space X is the entire industry at this point. Being against them is idiotic

[@GH-jb6bq]

Pessimistic? Each of the three flights has shown significant improvement over the previous. Old enough to remember Vanguard?

[@benjaminmeusburger4254]

@@GH-jb6bq "improvement over the previous" this is 100% correct On the other hand they failed to open a garage door, fly straight/stabilize with RTS, lost tiles and rammed with mach 1 into the ocean When they get to another step in their mission plan, then they will need another 7 test flights to complete everything - and that is ~1.5 years before actuall adjust the mission to a full orbit

[@viperswhip]

@@benjaminmeusburger4254 Nobody can produce ships as fast as SpaceX, they will have 5 more ready to go by the end of the year.

[@bierce716]

Agree there won't be a lunar landing in 2026, but I'll wager as much as an old man can afford that the holdup won't be starship.

[@EvanCurrie]

But... it already IS. Starship was supposed to be human rated THIS year. SLS and Orion flew two years ago.

[@ytrefugee113]

Yeah, SLS flew... after being delayed for 6 years... and at a 33% cost overrun. And the 2nd flight has been delayed several times now, looking like sep 2025, if there are no further delays. 🙄

[@EvanCurrie]

Sure, and have you crunched the numbers and delays on Starship? It's 2-3 years behind, and even IF it flies, it's going to require between 6 and 20 refueling flights to do a moonshot. According to the project costs posted by NASA and Space Force for SpaceX launches, that's going to run quite a bit more than SLS.@@ytrefugee113

[@EvanCurrie]

Sure, and have you actually crunched the numbers on Starship? It's currently 2-3 years behind, and even IF it flies it's highly optimized for LEO operations, not a moonshot. That means it requires between 6-20 refueling launches. Once you factor project costs into the launch costs, the cost for Starship balloons. @@ytrefugee113

[@GH-jb6bq]

@@EvanCurrie You can't restrict the test flying of the system then blame the organization being restricted for the time lapse in launches

[@robertjohnson5227]

Corrective actions are Not from FAA but from the company launching the rocket

[@imdawolfman2698]

Take it easy on old Elon, he's got three companies to run into the ground at the same time, plus experimentation on developing a personality.

[@kevinvanhorn2193]

It's silly to say that problem's with the RCS thrusters pose a serious danger of Starship re-entering at the wrong point. They're too weak for that.

[@saquist]

Correct. That is also what Flight Terminis for. If there is a potential for early reentry you blow it up. The Angry Astronaut is spouting nonsense from a layman's perspective.

[@robertthomas9564]

The hot gas thrusters were Tim Dodd's idea and the reason ship 28 lost control and burned-up. Here's his confession: kzbin.info/www/bejne/sJTCkKFjfdR9iLM

[@personzorz]

Unless they mess with pointing during the main engine burn(s)

[@jamskinner]

Control issues didn’t change the strip where they were planning to crash into the ocean. The flight was suborbital for that exact reason.

[@dmeemd7787]

Exactly

[@TitanIV_Pad_Rat]

Thank you for more great insight!

[@iflycentral]

Totally agree on the Dragon to Starship docking. Way more cost effective than using Orion.

[@curtisquick1582]

RCS thrusters on Starship affect the orientation of the spacecraft, not the direction or path of the spacecraft. Malfunctioning RCS thrusters would not cause Starship to crash in Africa! However, to properly control what happens when the engines on Starship are fired up to bring about reentry, you certainly do need to have properly functioning RCS thrusters to orient the spacecraft. But, if you are aiming Starship to land in the Indian Ocean, and you do not relight the engines, you will land in the Indian Ocean, not Africa, regardless of the operation of the RCS.

[@dmeemd7787]

exactly!

[@WaxPaper]

What do you think happens when you change the orientation of a spacecraft, adding or reducing drag when you don't want it? Then, what happens 10,000 miles away, based on that slight change?

[@MrGeneralScar]

On the other hand, we had never seen an orbital class booster land and be reflown... Until we did. It's fine to be sceptical of Starship, its new tech trying things that have not really been tried a whole lot before. Your narrative seems to heavily suggest that once again, Starship is the only component holding up Artemis 3. Its a bit tiring that almost every piece of content on Starship has a negative spin.

[@dmeemd7787]

Agreed

[@richierich8555]

If one death results in years of delays, then we're back to Old Space again.

[@bobboo1319]

May the 4Th flight be with you.

[@DeanIllinger]

Nice heads-up. Lunar Starship can also practice docking with Lunar Gateway in the first option. Currently, the Demo mission is just to send the HLS prototype out to lunar orbit, and descend to a (safe?) landing. It's been said that NASA isn't insisting Lunar Starship on the Demo mission take back off of the lunar surface, but I'm not buying that. I don't think the astronaut corps that has a lot of sway on manned missions will buy that either. But if Gateway were out there for lunar starship to also practice docking with (separately from when Orion would fly out to practice its docking), then it would be a doubly-good idea. Deano

[@keithhoward4069]

isnt Space X contracted to launch two new space stations with their heavy soon?

[@EMichaelBall]

@keithhoward4069 PPE/HALO (Lunar Gateway) on Falcon Heavy, and Vast Haven-1 on Falcon 9.

[@WaxPaper]

"Everyone knows" that Starship wouldn't be ready by 2026, eh? And when did "everyone" come to that little realization? Because from where I'm standing, nobody wanted to believe it until the reality of the situation finally started forcing people to admit it.

[@jeffweber8556]

Here's a crazy idea. Scrap Lunar Gateway and take that money to build a base on the Moon. Use regolith to cover the base so no one just hangs around and sucks up lots of radiation. Once you get a bit of manufacturing set up, you can start to build elements for base expansion on the Moon. You can also grow food, make oxygen and probably get water too.

[@fisterB]

Lunar Gateway was created to give SLS something to do, so we don't need SLS either. Starship should be the building block of a surface base.

[@simonallen4791]

@@fisterB A Space Tug capable of pushing a fully laden Starship Cargo out to lunar orbit should have taken precedence over Gateway. Getting heavy construction equipment on the lunar surface is the largest priority of Artemis. Without it staying isn't going to happen...

[@fisterB]

@@simonallen4791 Yes, what kind of tug vehicle do you have in mind? I also see some sense in leaving starships on the surface as crew life support and other facilities are already included whereas other starships are pure cargo. Maybe a smaller vehicle should be used for crew return to lunar orbit and that space tug again.

[@netshaman9918]

China will make this, just because it is the first technological power in the world. USA are in the third world now.

[@steveadams7550]

The Lunar gateway is a great idea, but nasas program sucks. Gateway SHOULD be used to prepare for Mars. 5 months on gateway, 5 months on the moon, 5 months on gateway, then home. Next, 6 months on gateway, 6 months on the moon, and then 6 months on gateway, then home. After that, increase time on the gateway by 1 month until the time spent is the same as a mission to Mars. This way, we'll know a mission to Mars is doable, and we won't have slugs arriving at Mars.

[@lucabenedetto5381]

I almost agree with the analysis that redoing the Apollo 9 mission with the Orion and Starship would not make sense...or maybe it might make sense if they were considering using Starship not only for the descent to the moon but also for the leo-moon-leo trip, and maybe not using Orion but Dragon for earth-leo!

[@nzoomed]

Not a big deal about the heatshield with the FAA, the whole point of doing the re-entry over the ocean was to mitigate any risk to property.

[@christopherdaffron8115]

Detailing what failed during the third flight in the mishap report seems relatively easier than knowing what the corrective actions should be to put in the mishap report.

[@arnoldsmith5754]

the booster has a better landing option engines take the heat of landing through the atmosphere im 76 years old and want to see more

[@jameshorner2045]

You make a good point about saving money by testing starship controls using dragon instead of Orion. However that only makes sense if we are indeed doing lunar gateway before Artemis 3. Lunar gateway would surely take several years to assemble/have humans stay on it, which could set the moon landing back significantly. However that may not be a big deal, considering how long Space X would likely take to get to the moon.

[@carrollvance]

For the moon landing, I recommend the following. 1). Starship Super Double Plus-Heavy. Two side boosters, fully reusable of course, similar to Falcon Heavy. 2) EXPENDABLE second stage, almost the size of booster itself. This will boost Starship into orbit fully fueled. 3) Fully fueled Starship will be able to go to lunar orbit, then land, then spend a week, then take off back to earth, air brake and land. Advantages: 1). The whole stack will be quite impressive. Height = booster + 2nd stage booster + starship. It will be impressive at 233 + 233 + 165 = 631 feet height. 2) The possibility of three boosters exploding on the launch pad. 3) Fully fueled starship doing high speed flybye's of the ISS for the resident astronauts enjoyment. 4).Triple booster landing entertainment. Two landing on the Twin Towers. Center stage possibly sinking "Of Course I Still Love You" when it hits at high velocity like test flight 3. I think Elon is going to have to give up on the "fully reusable" fantasy for this "cheap and dirty" moon mission option.

[@michh9806]

Very good informations

[@saquist]

Not really. I like Angry Astronaut but these videos concocting non existiatant problems with Starship are just click bait just like his UFO videos that I avoid at all cost

[@monkeyboy4746]

It was flipping, flopping, spinning, and shedding everywhere.

[@pyotrberia9741]

I think that the FAA is a great scapegoat to blame for Elon Musk, once again, failing to deliver what he promised. If it was not for the FAA, SpaceX would not have to waste time analyzing the failures of the last flight and fixing the problems before the next flight.

[@robreid6195]

"One is a very good option, and the other is completely idiotic". Yup, I'm watching The Angry Astronaut 😆

[@grzegorzpiesik1781]

The gateway mission is the one that is stupid, because you need an ICPS if you waste an ICPS the next mission could only be done with SLS Block 1B with the bigger Exploration upper stage,whereas when you go to LEO you can basicly can do an Artemis III mission after that just with a diffrent number in the name of the mission,But there is more- the mission could also be named Artemis IIS sou you can have an artemis II after that flown by the ICPS.On the Starship side of things I think NASA just realized that orbital refueling might be a big problem in the timeframe and I think the more yopu test the HLS Starship the better,because it also is not ready to execute risky manuevuers in lunar orbit,and obviously softly and safely landing on the moon.And as i Said after this mission you can do a mission when Orion and Starship dock to each other cause you still have another ICPS,cause to get to LEO the ICPS is not needed.

[@irrefudiate]

Actually, there are only two issues, attitude control and heat shield tiles. So that's at least ten fewer problems than when they launched the first Starship, three launches ago. That's pretty good progress, IMO.

[@andrewgarley1400]

Excellent show

[@robertboudreau8935]

I agree with you on option 1. For option 2 I would like to see Lunar Starship dock with the lunar gateway. I think both option 1 and 2 be done. I also think its genius to control rovers from orbit. I had not heard that before. That makes a lot of sense for Mars. Starship would be great for that.

[@tonyug113]

why bother, the comms delay to the mood negligible, controll them from earth (only worthwhile for mars) -- and you still have to send excavators etc to moon, which at moment means unmanned starship -- or expect landers to land nose first as is the current style.

[@brianfirlie3693]

Starship is at least 7 years from becoming human rated.

[@djohannsson8268]

Space X is the one who writes up and supplies the report to the FAA. The report identifies key issues that occurred during the previous flight and the planned fixes. The FAA, verifies those identified key issues are fixed or are planning to be before the next launch. Here is hoping the next flight, the Booster and Starship make their slash down goals. Concerns: Orbital refueling is key to Starship success. I wish the nose of Starship was the refueling point. The side refueling is much more risky, we have 50+ years of jet refueling experience. Side refueling you have 3d forces of two huge Starships to contend with. With front refueling you can mitigate most of it with a flexible tether. Once orbital refueling is successfully repeated, then the rest just takes time. Many things can be parallelized to reduce that time.

[@Ryan-mq2mi]

I totally agree with you on the one mishap and it's gonna be stalled for a looooong time. It was like this after challenger. Elon already rushes enough, we all should be taking a deep breath and refocusing on what's important. I'd much rather they be thoughtful and safe then see another launch asap just because I find it so entertaining. This is serious biz. I think everyone is susceptible to getting caught up in the moment. Before Challenger they had gotten overly comfortable. Challenger should not have happened and was reasonably preventable.

[@GoldenTV3]

You're forgetting the part of going home. Will Starship HLS have enough to get from moon to home? If not, they will still need to use SLS for a return trip. But that's still hilarious that billions of dollars was used to create a "return trip" If Starship HLS does have enough fuel to return home, then that makes SLS completely redundant.

[@DeepDeepSpace]

Starship SLS isn't designed to return to Earth. It won't have enough fuel, and it won't have the thermal protection needed to re enter the atmosphere.

[@GoldenTV3]

@@DeepDeepSpace I should've clarified LEO

[@walshmjs]

Starship needs to review it's design. It cannot land a whole starship on the moon. Too dangerous. The surface is unknown, can it support a huge starship, I think no. It needs a lander that lands on the moon. Plus starship must use nuclear engines. That's a must. Or this starship will fail

[@keithhoward4069]

2 1/2 years is still quite doable if the next few launches are a success. SpaceX is not Boeing. Space X could do the whole mission. Launch the crew up in a dragon, fly 2 starships into orbit. One entirely with fuel and one for the moon mission, debark the dragon onto the moon ship after a fuel transfer and go to the moon and back including a landing there, drop-off of equipment. Leave the moon vessel in orbit and return to Earth in the Dragon.

[@HobbsBhipp]

Awesome eyeball effect in the reflections.

[@malshy]

If getting there is a problem, what about the coming back?

[@shaung949]

Artemis 2 is not due to launch till after sep 25 and they expect to have SLS and Orion ready to fly again within 12 months? How is Starship the only holdup worth reporting on?

[@genius1a]

Very good reporting and conclusions! Blue Origin got the reporting time it deserves as well. Using an SLS Flight for a docking manuever for the Lunar Lander of Space X would be outrageously expensive compared to a testing with Dragon capsule. Lunar gateway would be enormous prstigious, perfect for testing deep space equipment and habitats. But please start with testing gateway modules in LEO. Brought up by Falcon heavy for example, or Starship if it would be cargo ready by then.

[@dannyb3663]

Didn't SpaceX say Falcon Heavy would be the vehicle for going to Mars? Just use that.

[@charlesblithfield6182]

I have a gut feeling, and I feel unfortunate about it, but my gut says Starship won’t be landing people on the moon ever. Equipment and supplies maybe but there just seem to so many technical hurdles and complex steps where stuff can go wrong with the current plan.

[@swissbiggy]

It will, but it will just take a few more years than Elon planned.... First they have learn to fly this rocket into space and landing the boosters back on Earth, it will probably take one or two more years before this will be achieved... But then comes the hardest part... refueling in space... something that has never been tested or tried, thus this must be learned by making errors (Which will happen for sure.) .. I expect one or two Starships to blow up in LEO, which will delay everything further of course... But in six years from now, I do think that it must be possible.... Only big question that stays open is, what will NASA or the government do after a starship blowing up in LEO ? The debris this will bring in LEO will get a lot of international critisisme, you can count on that...

[@Jogeta5]

Now that's pessimistic.

[@charlesblithfield6182]

@@Jogeta5 it’s pessimistic true because I can’t reconcile the engineering challenges and the cost. I’m no engineer but can clearly see how SpaceX can do amazing things. The Starship in the form advertised just seems too complex with too many risk factors that have to go perfectly to function, as advertised. For example the need to have every refueling mission (8 or more?) go perfectly in sequence, chopstick catches included, just to get to the moon. The design seems like it is low cost enough however, that if this kind of thing doesn’t work out, there is still an economically viable system. 20 years out who knows? But for the Artemis timelines it doesn’t seem realistic.

[@Jogeta5]

@@charlesblithfield6182 F-ing KZbin took my comment before posting...🤦‍♂ SpaceX is ever improving at a faster rate and scale for the mass production of this rocket platform. They have the Falcon fleet they're learning from. 300 landings of the booster with the last failure back in 2021 e.g. The next several Starship launches will help determine the confidence in them and we will see soon enough where Starship ultimately will stand.

[@imdawolfman2698]

Thank you for being angry, now I'm angry too! This is our future they're wasting! It took us 200 years to get from horses to space ships, now we're stalled. Where's my flying car? I want an android body, beam me up, Scotty! Damn!

[@CrimsonTemplar2]

Excellent update Angry. The Lunar Gateway sounds like such a better goal, but the second option you mentioned sounds lower risk than going to lunar orbit.

[@philipkudrna5643]

Perfect analysis, Jordan. I fully agree with your conclusion. Wasting a 4 bn expensive SLS flight to go to LEO is the most stupid idea I have ever heard. Orion and SLS are designed to fly Astronauts to lunar orbit - and that’s what they should do by going to the lunar gateway!

[@simonmills9427]

less of the music its annoying

[@Virtueman1]

The glare in the sunglasses look like googly eyes

[@b0tterman]

Love the new shades.

[@AquarianSoulTimeTraveler]

I will have to say that I don't think it would be a waste if they docked with the lunar Starship and stayed attached to the lunar Starship and landed the lunar Starship on the moon with it attached to the very top then it can be used as the second stage to Starship which its engines should be in relatively good shape once landing on the moon and if we never landed on the moon with a actual Lander the Orion spacecraft might not work at all... this is why putting it on top of a Starship would increase its likelihood of success...

[@differenttan7366]

Moon race looks like it might get be getting warm, long march 10 is tentative for a test launch next year along with the capsule, if china pull that off and moves quickly to an Artemis 2 style mission they could close the gap by early 2027. With Artemis 3 doing something else in 2026 the two moon programs would be neck and neck. it’s then a case of who has a lander ready to go first. Spacex, national team or casc

[@American_Moon_at_Odysee_com]

Thank you! Good reporting. StarShip needs so many re-fuelings, ouch! But ULA, using those stacks of crisp $100 bills as rocket fuel. Neither are best for the job.

[@n228sk]

Is a mishap report submitted to the FAA a public document; i.e., will the Star Ship Flight 3 Mishap Report be available?

[@mustanggtwap8791]

have faith

[@DavidWilliams-ig5ec]

A Starship/Dragon dock would make a lot of sense - gain experience and be FAR more cost-effective.

[@marcfray757]

Good point having Artemis 3 key mission objective flying to the Lunar Gateway if HLS is not ready by 2026. Makes total sense!

[@Bitlox]

If they literally removed all restrictions from SpaceX going forward, how fast do you think they could be ready?

[@glike2]

Experienced TPS engineers really would help

[@treefarm3288]

Thanks. You are my only reference point for this topic. PS: what happened to the Dear moon project?

[@dmeemd7787]

It’s still there, it’s just gonna be on starship instead of falcon heavy like when it was originally proposed public. On Everyday Astronaut, Tim mentions how much more real it is that he’s going to “beyond that thing” with each IFT

[@mikefeierberg7712]

One good thing about the Earth orbit rendezvous mission is that no refueling of Starship is needed,

[@mattoverbee7632]

Good informative video. Thank you. The background music was a little loud and distracting though.

[@JOlivier2011]

Tiles need a thermal net/mesh/batting layer welded to the ship that they can be tied to in some way

[@markmarco2880]

I appreciate knowing from earlier reporting that Starship is off their target dates.

[@saquist]

It doesn't matter. The dates were never possible from the beginning. Even if Starship was chosen for HLS. The contract was conceived WAY to late (2017) then (2019 awarded). NASA chose the MOST cost effective company. SpaceX took 3 billion but the other landers were between 7 to 10 billion just for landers! SpaceX may have had 7 years to develop the whole rocket system but NASA took a bet even if late this could replace SLS rocket but long run could save billions a shift nasa to build ground infrastructure and probes.

[@dks13827]

They can't even orbit the moon, they keep pushing that back year after year after year.

[@michaelreid2329]

Oh, they can. They have chosen not to. Soon, with Infia and China announcing their intentions for lunar landings the truth will come out.

[@eddiegoodman9267]

Thanks for the update and views 🇺🇲🇺🇦

[@pnolan64]

The biggest problem with Artemis is...Artemis. Don't blame Starship. BTW, The first Artemis launch was supposed to be in 2016.

[@davidstevenson9517]

Elon Musk originally promised to land Starship by late 2025, he is failing to deliver. That's why NASA and it's financier, the U.S. Congress, have invested in a 2nd Option Lander, "Blue Moon".

[@WaxPaper]

Starship was supposed to be orbiting the moon in 2020.

[@DouglasLippi]

8:25 not sabotaged. I think "scrapped" is the correct word.

[@j.scottanderson4417]

Maybe the FAA should spend their time on actual airline operations.

[@investmentgammler4550]

If they want to test a docking maneuver with Starship and Orion, they should do that in lunat orbit, in an Apollo 10 like mission.

[@anguscovoflyer95]

Not just starship is ready, also the spacesuits too.

[@davidstevenson9517]

Good point, Angus. Axiom and Collins each appear to have prototypes constructed but testing and "tweaking" is taking some time. I do wonder how China is progressing with their lunar EVA suits (and lunar rover) for their 2029 lunar landing mission.

[@korana6308]

@@davidstevenson9517 2029 is too far fetched. I don't think they will be able to land by 2029, as far as I know they are planning on 2030s. but Achieving a large milestone could be possible. Like launching a Long March 10 with the first Lunar orbital module. Seems totally doable.

[@shaung949]

Artemis 2 is not due to launch till after sep 25 and Nasa expect to have SLS and Orion ready to fly again within 12 months?

[@johnmstark]

Artemis 3 has multiple issues and not all are related to Space X to include issues with the new suit

[@andrewreynolds9371]

Funny, I don't remember Artemis 3 being scheduled to make a lunar landing.

[@shaung949]

Aretemis 2 is the fly round the moon with crew. Artemis 3 is fly to the moon and some of the crew visit the surface before returning.

[@andrewreynolds9371]

@@shaung949 the last timeline I saw, a lunar landing was still scheduled as "TBD". seeing as how NASA's current 'favorite' lander is the modified Starship landing system, that makes me wonder whether people should be blaming NASA for the delay, or SpaceX for not delivering on their initial promise to have the Starship up and running in time to have one ready to serve as a lander.

[@Jim37042Patterson]

I totally agree with the lunar gateway idea. Hell, NASA could even find a way to put rovers on lunar gateway that could be deployed from cislunar orbit get samples and wait wait RETURN TO LUNAR GATEWAY similar to a Mars return sample mission maybe? Just maybe JPL could use a similar platform of Curiosity with a way to bring samples of lunar ice back to the gateway would be great! I loved this video by the way!❤

[@PhilTParker]

Congrats on the success of your channel, AA. There is a new “reactionless” drive which is being announced. It actually has been reported to emit just over 1g of thrust. This is an astonishing advancement. All that is needed is power, and that of course can be supplied by compact fission or even fusion, and certainly if within limits of the sun’s energy, within our solar system. So no need to bring propellants along….

[@Spherical_Cow]

I wouldn't hold my breath. A goodly number of such projects have previously fizzled once tested properly - with the "propellantless" thrust shown to be an artifact of the experimental setup. Odds are excellent that this one will go the same way.

[@Violence0vAction]

Artemis 3 ? No moon for thee… 🤙🏼

[@markstacey876]

i was 14 when man first walked on the moon will i ever get to see it again im 67 😦

[@jematheny]

I wouldn't underestimate Musk's ability to deliver a lunar Starship on time. Quick question: Why does Starship need to be human rated? Launch it without humans and ferry humans to Starship with Falcon 9/Dragon. And return them the same way. Human rating required for decent to moon. That could be easy in one-sixth gravity.

[@kusumayogi7956]

Starship need 8-20x refueling in space, that is insane and complex and dangerous Yeahh we cannot sceptical with elon like when they tried to landing rocket, but this is different story!

[@amptunes]

As a person that has always been a lover of science fiction, extremely interested in science and physics we good grades. I only have my opinion. So I'll say starship could be a great freighter and space vessel for humans. BFR could boost ring sections into orbit for a low gravity wheel. But starship may not be the best thing as a landing craft for humans. It is a great work horse and a temporary moon base. I have concerns over a human landing and ascent vehicle. I believe other vehicles should be designed for these specific uses. I may be wrong time will tell and optional craft could come in very handy. And I am pretty sure additional concepts are on the table.

[@frankmcgowan9457]

On Earth, we have a range of vehicles for a range of loads and missions, all the way from small trail bikes, through automobiles, pickup trucks, 3-, 5-, 10-ton straight trucks to semis to railroad freight cars all the way to container ships. We need a range of capacities in space vehicles, too, for the same reasons. Not every load makes sense to ship via rail freight. Cost per ton doesn't really work if you must pay for a whole rail car to ship a quarter ton. Yes, we might have to for a while but that won't last. Starship has the capacity of a railroad freight car. Alpaca is about a crew-cab 10 ton truck. We need both and we will need both pretty early on. Get both ready, now. We will eventually need small ships to use as lighters, carrying freight and people between the surface and orbit in both directions as well as surface transport in various sizes, just like we use here. We need to use our imaginations more often and more intensely. Right now, SpaceX, Sierra Space and Dynetics seem to have used their imaginations more than the rest. They should be rewarded with contracts and I suspect we could fund all of them for what we will spend to throw away only two or three SLS stacks at $4.2B per launch, exclusive of development costs...

[@shaung949]

There will be crew smaller landers but most likely not until we have a station and base on the moon and those would be used as transfer vehicals with the big rockets flying crew to the station from earth.

[@walshmjs]

Think Elon needs to redesign starship. Serious issues Nuclear engines needed to be a true starship. You cannot use fossil fuels to propell a starship, requiring loads of refuellers. Second. Need stages of starship. You cannot land a huge ship like a starship on a planet surface. Needs to be a horizontal landing by a dedicated lander. It's rediculous to think you would land a multistorey shop vertically.

[@swapshots4427]

I think it's great the 'little' guys, Sierra Vast Stoke et al are going to be ahead of the game very soon. Orbital Habitats, Earth and Lunar. yesssss pleez

[@TimothyLipinski]

Great Video ! A Lunar Outpost near the Lunar South Pole is needed for Crew Safety ! Near the Lunar South Pole Outpost is the Fuel Depot supported by the Lunar Water Ice ! Also heated Lunar Water Ice (H2O) can be added to the Freeze Dried Meals to feed the Crews on the moon. NASA and others must learn to live off the land on the moon so lessons learned can be used on Mars ! The fuel made on the moon is fuel that is not needed to be made on earth and shipped to the moon for the return trip from the moon ! ! ! The Tech developed to return to the moon to stay, can take US and the world to Mars and beyon-Ad Astra... tjl

[@bgovero5516]

It's going to be hard to convince congress to spend more money on SLS when there's Falcon Heavy, Vulcan, New Glenn but most important Starship flying regularly for much less. But the time Artemis II launches, SLS will be universally seen as outdated, outpowered, and waayy over priced compared to Starship (and hopefully, at that point, New Glenn)

[@seasonallyferal1439]

I still think a spray on heat shield through a grid for expansion would work better and be less likely fall off.

[@Spherical_Cow]

Yeah, because spray-on ceramics are, like, toooootally a thing, ahhhyup

[@seasonallyferal1439]

@Spherical_Cow yeah and starship is just another copy of existing rockets. Good thing laser curing isn't a thing or other options might be viable.

[@Spherical_Cow]

@@seasonallyferal1439 laser curing... Are you actually confusing plastics with ceramics? And not just any ceramics, but the specific type used for TPS (where heat transfer rate has to be minimized as priority #1), which is actually like 50% air by volume...

[@seasonallyferal1439]

@Spherical_Cow your assumption that expensive ceramic tiles that can't hold on is somehow better than an ablative, easily replaceable composite is lacking real world examples. The shuttles tiles were stupidly expensive and required long refurbishment times.

[@Spherical_Cow]

@@seasonallyferal1439 these ceramics are not inherently expensive; SpaceX is mass-producing them at its own facility, and the raw ingredients are cheap. The issue with keeping the tiles attached will be solved, eventually; there's no breakthrough physics required for that - it's just a question of which particular mounting technique results in the best hold for least weight and/or price. SpaceX is currently experimenting with multiple techniques side-by-side, on each Ship prototype they're launching. As for ablative heat shields, Starship is ultimately intended for frequent and rapid reuse, somewhat analogous to aircraft: there's not enough downtime between launches, to apply and cure a new heat shield. That's why SpaceX went with tiles, which are at least in theory rapidly and individually replaceable in situ on the pad, when or if necessary. That's after they analyzed some alternatives, including transpiration cooling by venting methane through pores on the windward side during reentry.

[@lorendavidsonmusic]

You're kind of presupposing that Lunar Gateway is likely to be at least somewhat ready to fly before Starship HLS. Yes, you can launch the individual modules on Falcon 9H, which exists and is reliable. Oh, and Congress asking why we're spending billions of dollars on SLS/Artemis year after year? They *should* be doing that. It's a boondoggle compared to Starship.

[@Mr.MarcusMario]

Hey angry can you talk about kodak blue?

[@MustafaKemal-oe8ie]

Spacex is fast.But Nasa is slow. So i think the Starship HLS will be ready by Artemis 3.

[@Steve-Richter]

The mishap report is not yet submitted because SpaceX wants to list all the corrective actions which have been completed. Why does the FAA have to take so long to read the report and give it the OK stamp? The government has no expertise in making rockets (remember, NASA has failed at that task in the post DEI era).

[@shaung949]

It's generally 2 weeks for the license from when the misshap report is confirmed to the launch license for previous flights. Spacex take their time and fix the problems before sending the completed document to the FAA for verification.

[@dominicm2175]

Until the lunar gateway is complete then whether or not Starship is ready is moot

[@OliverGrumitt]

If the Arthemis programme is to continue, the U.S. Government needs to provide more money. Crewed spaceflight needs to be properly funded, otherwise it should not be funded at all. Spaceflight is dangerous as it is even when fully and properly funded. Not funding it properly will almost certainly result in a catastrophe sooner or later, as was seen with the Space Shuttle programme. That was never given adequate funding, resulting in the loss of the Challenger and Columbia vehicles. The U.S. should not let history repeat itself and make a commitment to either funding Artemis properly or not at all, and scrapping it altogether.

[@hhf39p]

How is staying on the lunar gateway while exposed to Cosmic Rays supposed to work? What if there is a solar flare? Does it not generate its own magnetic field?

[@jimmyzhao2673]

6:50 Music is *too loud* from this point onward. Please adjust. Thank You.

[@skat915]

Could it be another elephant in the room is the actual spacesuit won’t be ready or certified for Artemis 3?

[@Zhiroc]

Is it even possible for Starship to re-enter "early"? It's on a sub-orbital trajectory, so as long as the initial flight path is nominal, nothing of what happens to attitude control in space is going to affect that trajectory as it is well above any altitude where the attitude could have any aerodynamic effect. So the question is where is starship once it hits the atmospheric interface. If that's beyond Africa, then there's no concern there. If anything, one would have to worry about it going long, not short. As for lunar gateway... given how NASA's budget is uncertain, as well as the development of the gateway to the point where it could be deployed, and then deployed successfully, is Artemis 3 completely committed to gateway-or-bust? If NASA might want to leave the option open for a gateway-less Artemis 4, or in a contingency where the gateway becomes unusable once the mission is underway, having an option where Artemis and starship can dock and carry out a return mission might well be prudent.

[@Spherical_Cow]

Artemis III will not, in fact, involve the Gateway at all. It has Orion departing Earth with a crew of 4, docking directly to HLS Starship in NRHO and transferring a crew of 2 to it; HLS lands its crew on the Moon for a week, while the other 2 continue to bounce around NRHO inside Orion that whole time; then HLS launches back up to NRHO to dock with and transfer its crew to Orion; then Orion flies the crew back to Earth for reentry and splashdown. No Gateway involved, at all.

[@markfinch2016]

Starship is a euphemism

[@georgea.9684]

I’m 61 and I’ve learned not to expect much of anything good from our government.

[@marcelnali]

Big fan of your videos. Not so much the music ;)

[@hhf39p]

Great video. I don't get the 'angry' part ... want to be there sooner? But good info.

[@JoesPalace]

Sadly I have to agree with you but Elon always seems to persevere and will get there eventually! Nice shades my man!

[@Dcassimatis]

A.K.A,.... The pessimistic Astronaut!

[@ianmelrose8590]

i think we are living in a dream world its all to technical, maybe in 20 yrs