NASA Officially Announced NEW Major Design Cargo Starship To The Moon...

[@darrenlee8981]

With SpaceX and NASA now working well together at last , SpaceX is showing NASA how it’s properly done.

[@djohannsson8268]

Space X is planning many variants of Starship, each optimized for different type of mission profiles. NASA engineers and designers must be estatic working with Space X on the Starships Moon lander and having such a huge working volume. The first ships should be focused on cargo with compacted space for the crew. The more spacious crew models are for longer voyages.

[@chiaricharlie6608]

Less windows, hopefully tons of cameras to cover all views and angles would be amazing. Thanks for the great video.

[@marklawko7319]

yes bring lots of cargo in advance to the moon remotely with starship. its just good safe planning.

[@darrenlee8981]

I fully expect SpaceX to develop artificial gravity in the near future. Nobody does it better than SpaceX!

[@On-down-the-road]

It exists, it spins, and humans get sick from spinning.

[@ANGRY_AMERICAN]

It's funny how all the recent fines and delays of license came right after Elon held a Podcast with Trump on X

[@rimwoold9247]

Как говорят у нас в России хотя я из Эстонии "Совпадение? не думаю"

[@briansilcox5720]

Hilarious….when the first leftist in America gets held accountable for anything. 😂

[@lukestevens8735]

More likely Elon knew the fines were coming so did the podcast with Trump in retaliation.

[@rayjay848]

Conspiracy theory. 😊😊

[@thexboxpc]

i feel like someone with a likely ai eagle head coming through the american flag would say this because you are not bias at all no of coooouuurse not

[@VAMobMember]

BONUS The garden wil help with CO2 I would also consider Nuclear Reactors, at least for cargo only ships. NASA has a reactor design that has been operating for over 45 years,, they are on Coyger 1 & 2 launched in 1977 and operating ever sense. And you can combine the reactor with batteries to handle surges in power demand.

[@drmasroberts]

The time lag in communication just takes me back to my youth when we wrote letters. The sense of isolation is perhaps more akin to the experience of early explorers and pioneers traveling into the interior of the North and South American continents until rail roads and thousands of communities were built, so not so difficult to imagine people choosing to “suffer” such hardships.

[@Dcassimatis]

Using Small Modular Nuclear Reactors is the only way to go

[@JohnParker-of2cy]

Molten salt reactors. Very reliable, small, cannot melt done, and thoroughly tested.

[@Leontestedevorant]

This will be a big step for humanity.

[@ronaldlebeck9577]

There's a possibility of modular Starships -- instead of making each one purpose-built, swap out pre-made modules, such as for passengers, cargo, fuel, research, power generation, etc.

[@rayjay848]

Renders need a fifth leg and more compression length given the lander height and it’s meant for more rugged terrain.

[@stephenwalling5878]

It's a submarine in space. I lived on a submarine for 3.5 months with no contact with the outside world. We ate good, watched movies, listened to music and worked. It's not that hard. We're raising a bunch of kids.

[@quietcanadian5132]

I really appreciate this video. No hype, just facts. I have now subscribed.

[@ASDasdSDsadASD-nc7lf]

Pure foolishness. A huge number of garbage filler words that say nothing.

[@uweporth9337]

none of this will happen if the FAA is not forced to get out of the way.

[@oktc68]

Starship hasn't made orbit yet, it's frankly pathetic performance has nothing to do with the FAA. Just another failure in a long list of epic failures. SpaceX should be prosecuted for repeated violations at Boca Chica (allegedly)

[@thexboxpc]

@@oktc68 it was sub orbital so if something went wrong it would come back on its own as it only doing test flights at the moment the plan is to catch both stages and it hasn't caught one yet because they are testing it and want to make sure it works how they want it to

[@hughwitherington7956]

The question of power during the Mars return Transition is a BIG ONE. But the question itself is bigger than one might first think. Starship + people + accommodation + facilities etc all contained within Starship Mars must all be maintained at life support temperatures inside a stainless steel can where the outside temperature is close to absolute zero. This is not a summer holiday/vacation but a Captain Cook style journey, but facing the challenge of time and space. Power and warmth inside Starship will be a huge problem and I look forward to seeing the solutions developed !!

[@owly0014]

If Elon can push to get all this done before he passes, he'll go down in history as the person who accomplished the most in history. I hope he does!!!

[@ASDasdSDsadASD-nc7lf]

Utterly not true. The people involved with railroads in the 1800's will never be matched.

[@glengray8467]

There will need to be two or more successful unmanned starship landings before a maned one. This will allow the preposition of infrastructure and supplies.

[@davidwebb4904]

Not in your lifetime, if the FAA has anything to say about it.

[@georgeveghte6459]

Laser Communications will be used in the near future, for a space ships, in order to use this form of communications, The Space Ship would need to maintain a proper orientation and a fixed stable position to send and receive the high speed light pulses.

[@petepeterson8420]

Have you ever seen parabolic antenna's on any NASA deep space probes? Many are anchored to the probes frames indicating you are correct. However, that's 60's tech. With ship to ship lasers, smaller deployable and manuverable parabolic antenna would use signal strength to fine tune antenna direction, much like the earthbound dishes commonly in use globally to capture the low strength ISS, Shuttle and so on comms. Hmmm, how hard would it be for Elon-SpaceX to request Elon-Starlink to deploy a lunar web for comms, laser or radio? Or even deploy around Mars with more powerful transmitters? These are all engineering (not theoretical physics) problems and Elons crew are engineers first and last.

[@jroar123]

SpaceX needs to create artificial gravity by locking a cable in between two ships. Then spin both around to artificially create gravity. It will save bone density loss during the trip. And, make going to the bathroom more enjoyable.

[@Leontestedevorant]

Dies wird ein großer Schritt für die Menschheit sein.

[@jroar123]

Mental well-being can be achieved by staying busy and dedicated to the mission. Who would be the perfect people to go to Mars? I would consider those who have served on submarines.

[@jroar123]

The gravity on the Moon is only a fraction of that on Earth. Why not use a space-to-ground cable system to get on the surface? With our current technology, it's impossible to run a space elevator on Earth but the Moon is a different story.

[@craiganthony6532]

It will never be that luxurious. They're going to cram every square inch they can with equipment and the crew will barely be able to squeeze around.

[@mikesimons1544]

You didn't cover the "bunker" needed in case of solar flare(s). Likely surrounded by water.

[@TobyCatVA]

Now if the FAA would F-off.

[@RealSugam]

100% They are just jealous its not them doing all this and they hate it so much for being so insignificant.

[@gregtroublemaker1862]

For communication purposes, Space X should deploy small sats on the way to Mars

[@haydenuwu]

Wouldn't improve communications during the journey. You're still contending with the speed of light and relativity.

[@andremartel828]

Since when is the Moon 1.4 million miles away from earth. It's 238000 miles away.

[@brandonmoore9621]

Maybe the trip is 1.4 million, not the real distance between the two

[@darknase]

@@brandonmoore9621 oh ... that would be new that they count the orbits, especially as they are not fixed orbits, meaning circumstances leading to more or less ... No this BS. 385 000 km is the distance. But may be said miles be meant negative fathoms.

[@TobyCatVA]

The moon gets about 1 inch further away from the Earth each year so that distance is the new distance from Earth the moon will be at after the FAA approves the flights.

[@ghost307]

I'd also send separate solar arrays that can be set up on the ground. That can be part of the astronauts' tasks in the first few days.

[@TexanUSMC8089]

One of the biggest problems with Hydrogen power is it uses more electricity than it makes. Another battery option is graphene batteries. There are several companies making them. They're lighter and less effected by temperature than lithium ion or lithium iron phosphate.

[@JonathanMensah-f4h]

You're right, graphene, C-fibre, are also structural aside use as solidstate fuel for iON; Callisto & Titan here we come. We're not far from Interstellar probes with JWT-style eqpt and Curiosity's gamut.

[@andrewhamilton7803]

Where's the header tank gone, how does it work without it.

[@TexanUSMC8089]

I've wondered if they can use a fueling system similar to the fuel arm that connects to Starship on the ground.

[@PersonalityMalfunction]

Good episode, thanks ALFA TECH.

[@alphatech4966]

Have a good day!

[@ingridhohmann3523]

Love the idea of ,,a garden,, ❤ 👍

[@daviddiehl-gy2sq]

Why have they yet to put in a medical bay.

[@ghazman6141]

I hope to live to see a permanent moon base.

[@josebasgil4339]

Nuclear power would be better. The US is developing this tech for space. I think spacex should assemble a bigger spaceship in orbit merging different techs like nuclear propulsion as well as nuclear power source, starships and heavy loads that land on mars

[@haydenuwu]

Nuclear doesn't make sense for Earth -> Lunar transfer, but it would for Earth -> Mars. The reason is primarily the engine efficiency. Nuclear propulsion is VERY efficient, far moreso than traditional chemical rockets, but that comes at a cost of thrust. The thrust put out by nuclear is dramatically lower than chemical, and because of that, wouldn't work for the Starship use case. For going to the Moon, that's not much of an issue as you don't need a whole lot of dV for a lunar return mission from LEO, whereas you need a substantial amount to get to a low martian orbit from LEO. The thrust put out by the Raptor RVACs will be perfect for circularisation around Earth, as well as capture and circularising around the Moon.

[@ingridhohmann3523]

Aggree 👍

[@peterpetrov6775]

Sounds like sales speech for cruise ship to Mars 😊

[@MBD-ec8wn]

You forgot about the girls... Both Sleezy and Demure... 😅

[@pjqziggy]

How do you keep something that size pressurised?

[@Leopoldo888]

I's just 1 atmosphere (the difference between our atmosphere and the space)... the submarines fight against multiple atmosphere of pressure and they are ok...

[@mollymillions5438]

The twenty seven minute communication delay is very normal for the kids today. My kids never call , they message me and don't care about the 12 to 24 hour delay this creates.

[@stuartgraca]

Consider if Apollo had continued uninterrupted for a further 50 years , what would be the situation now regarding space exploration, I would say that their initial work was far more revolutionary than any program being developed now.

[@JonathanMensah-f4h]

I agree, as I was saying before, v-B did the maths on iON drive to Mars+. Pres Clinton got iON vasmir underway. Crippen got the Photon, emw(ɓ)drives. Elon isn't the one who originated iON. Let's thank Nasa, Chang,and SiV.

[@JonathanMensah-f4h]

You'll be surprised to know Star Trek should have flown 2017. We have no goodwill, there are designs on sails, nuclear iON, also solar electron iON and nasa vehicles out of this world.

[@laxplayer99]

nuclear > batteries

[@MarcoLandin]

(7:01) 1.4 million miles to the moon eh? I think your AI script writer needs to stop daydrinking 🤣

[@ASDasdSDsadASD-nc7lf]

A huge number of garbage filler words that say nothing.

[@frankmcgowan9457]

You cannot get there by traveling a straight line.

[@bobkephart2086]

Why not a starship variation that is a power module that is put in to a GSO or parking orbit. First ship has solar panels and some batteries and then is loaded with more to capacity. Its fuel tanks are topped off. The shop to the moon or Mars hooks up to it just like a tanker Starship would, and off they go to the moon or Mars. It get left in orbit and when the come back up, hook up and head home. At earth it gets left in a parking orbit to be refueled and charges it batteries back up for the next trip. Why does a craft have to have everything when you and connect in a group to make the trip from earth to moon or Mars?

[@johnhanson6039]

Best power source is a small nuclear reactor

[@ghost307]

Agreed for longer missions or landing where there isn't a such sunlight.

[@Fitness4London]

Westinghouse Electric Corporation are developing micro nuclear reactors. Maybe they can collaborate!

[@grummelameise]

so, how do you cool the reactor?

[@ghost307]

@@grummelameise The same way that NASA has been cooling the reactors that they've been launching for decades, whatever that is.

[@flabianricci283]

SEría bueno que esté traducido al español!

[@BastoneFranc]

SALUDOS, they could send Giant battery's ahead before they get to mars , even a Rover and all the toys they need, making the ship safer and lighter on the first try

[@laurentitolledo1838]

how sure are we the FAA will issue the required launch licence in time for the required slim launch window....

[@joewilson2258]

I have a question about SpaceX how many people have suffered from any of SpaceX rockets as compared to those of nasa?

[@XCX237]

0

[@XCX237]

0

[@XCX237]

0

[@brianw612]

There was at least one death and many injuries while building and developing SS.

[@Kevin-qj7fp]

imagine if the spacex spaceship which has 1 main body and cockpit and 2 boosters was DESIGNED like the sapce shuttle spaceship under spaceship is LARGE STORAGE CONTAINER to the left and right of the large STORRAGE CONTAINER 2 BOOSTERS

[@Kevin-qj7fp]

i say this idea mainly for INCREASEINIG the storage the red big fuel container on the sapce shuttle can be used for FULL storage for spacex if scaled up the 2 boosters can launch the entire thing into space

[@frankmcgowan9457]

It was the giant external fuel tank and the solid fuel boosters that destroyed two shuttles and killed all fourteen people aboard. Please, consider something else.

[@vmoutsop]

I think Starship HLS rocket should land horizontally instead of vertically. Yes, that causes issue with a return launch but I think it would be better than a vertical landing.

[@rayjay848]

Yeah, bringing back astronauts is highly overrated.

[@vmoutsop]

@@rayjay848 No, getting them there and getting them out, unloaded and working seems easier performing a horizontal landing. They can use a Dragon ship that gets attached to the front of Starship with a return service module to launch and return them back to earth.

[@rayjay848]

Added complexity.

[@jacklaird7967]

/of course all concerned understand that FAA will take a year to approve the enhanced unit.

[@alvermillioncranky8360]

11:03 Given that the Apollo was the ONLY spacecraft we had when I was a child, yes. Good to see a dream coming through.

[@JhonataCosmo]

Can't they use the new Starlink satellites that have lasers for faster communication?

[@cameronbechtold]

They do.

[@jroar123]

It's called Boil-off Gas (BOG)

[@ingridhohmann3523]

Nuclear energie for space travel ?????

[@kevinbindel6774]

I think they should use nuclear power they used it in the voyager spacecraft and they have worked well for over 40 years and that was 1970 technology

[@fluxmechanics]

The difference is Voyager is unmanned. The issue is providing the astronauts with sufficient protection of the reactor. Definitely sounds like the best option but is not easy which is the main reason for it not being done. Maybe as cold fusion evolves that will be utilized.

[@wakjagner]

The entire RTG array in the Voyager probes isn't even enough power to run a microwave.

[@mrbardel4363]

longer starship is good in space and on the launchpad . but not good as a Moon lander . Moon Landers need to be very stable . why not refuel by doking the Iss . ship to ship refuel seem to me extra complication .

[@JonathanMensah-f4h]

Right, you said it!

[@DanielMaritz-fb5ub]

If I was spaceX… SCREW THE FAA IM IMMEDIATELY LAUNCHING THAT ROCKET!? LIKE WHAT THE FRICK, DOES THE FAA OWN SPACE OR SOMETHING!?

[@thexboxpc]

no but they do regulate the sky that it has to get to before space and then they would probably fine spacex and potentially issue jailtime so not happening

[@DanielMaritz-fb5ub]

@@thexboxpc hell nah,I’m stealing a starship and going to mars. The FAA will never catch me😈🤣😎🔥🔥

[@thexboxpc]

@@DanielMaritz-fb5ub no it wont reach mars so you'll be stuck and they cant even house humans yet so even if you did have a starship with infinite food and water and air and had propellant pre loaded and modified it to carry you there is a chance I don't know how high of you getting shot down by a f15 carrying a missile

[@Yorky222]

What about nuclear power?

[@ingridhohmann3523]

Wouldn't it be the perfect option,...it was made for exactly this !!!

[@kevinmccarthy8746]

How far in the mission could SPACEX GO to the moon with out a re supple of fuel

[@ghost307]

All you need is a burn to raise to a transfer orbit and slow to lunar orbit, followed by the reverse to come home. Everything else is coasting.

[@Rocky-xx2zg]

Cargo? What? Candy, Depends, Popcorn, Coke/Pepsi......??????

[@robertbrander2074]

Ummm ... These are the Same Renders we have seen since the Beginning ! ... And the same BF Impossible Rocket isn't much closer to Flying ! ... or Landing ....Maybe , Try again Next Year ..... :-[

[@1701Larry]

OK ------- . Meet the new Space X Panzy Astronauts that Can't take being alone for 5 minutes or the slightest discomfort without falling apart and CRYING.

[@Arturo4586]

since when are there winds on the Moon ? Last I checked there is no atmosphere on the Moon. 3:36 ...high winds...

[@hussvrx4264]

this script is ai generated

[@haydenuwu]

He's talking about high winds during ascent from Earth I think. He was talking about aerodynamic properties of the landing leg assemblies.

[@edwardemanuel5337]

People do not want to know the nuclear ☢️ power is the right way to go? People afraid about nuclear power ?

[@BRAHHHHHH]

NASA 𓀐𓂸ඞ

[@Robertohenry1]

😊

[@terrypokorny3858]

There one power source you hsve not mention which is a nuculare power

[@fluxmechanics]

Because its currently to difficult to protect the astronauts from the reactor.

[@haydenuwu]

Nuclear power would involve a lot more radiation and concerns for reliability in microgravity. Solar just makes more sense here.

[@terrypokorny3858]

@@haydenuwu look at the pioneer voiger probes they use a reactor to power each space craft, also you donot activate it untill it is on the ground and placed a safe distance from the lunar facility.

[@stgeorgeist]

Having a house mwith a garagen for your mcar and a huge petrol vat under the floors would be condemmed as a massive bomb waiting to happen? so why a masive engine area and fule tranks under the main entry exit point People shopuld be able to walk or drive off A ferry does not hoist gars lorries of at a port?@ Design like fly catching is totally barmy

[@primemac3dstudio18]

I would say a dedicated video movie system on the ship that could store thousands of movies and a m9vie update upload monthly including movie request page for that movie a crew wants would only add to the entertainment on crew down time. Even a game system so they could team up or play on their own. With a library to pick from and game requests for later monthy uploads. In truth, that's not the real issue. A food source of 2,000 lbs per person per year would be needed. The plant system is rather small for the suggested crew. A wiser plan is a greenhouse already sent to the moon or Mars. In reality, a greenhouse for just 1 person would need a greenhouse 1,000~2000 Feet. You would need that much for some safety for anything that goes wrong. The issue is that no one's really doing this to figure it out. 100 people would require 200,000 pounds just for a 1 way trip to Mars. Yet that's the ideal time. We are not even accounting for the times when we are not in the ideal orbit. In these situations it would take 2~3 years to traverse the distance. So you would need to double the food to account for that. Then the need to add 1 extra year just in case situations. That's 500,000 pounds just in food. Water is another issue. Unless they are looking to use an osmosis to reuse water a rather smelly process that would need a filtering system of its own. They could even isolate this from the rest of the ship to keep the ammonia down. An average person per year drinks 7,242 ounces of water. With 100 people, it's a whopping 724,200 ounces that's 45,262.5 lbs. Remember, weight matters. Then you have the human waste. Now clearly, this could be converted and treated to be safe for a fertilizer. That said, it would need a air purification to deal with the smell and could be isolated but still needs to be managed. In truth much of this would come down to how big the greenhouse they are looking to build if it's viable. As for power. I think you've also forgotten about thermal electric or heat itself. A heating panel could produce enough power combined with battery source could be utilized as a power source and all through all 4 methods. In truth a thermal electric system could be lighter and more effective.

[@RealSugam]

that's great, now Elon's astronauts can get their orders in quicker for lunch when they build a Luna base for its first human launch to mars in the future. I am glad NASA found something they can finally do in space, the best outerspace food service delivery for those times then have a sudden hunger for pizza.

[@edwardemanuel5337]

Nuclear ☢️ power is the best thing to space or galaxy?

[@rktman1965]

A reactor would be the best choice to activate once in space as it is the lightest and smallest option putting out the most power , plus the tech already exists from subs and ships at sea.

[@queryw6982]

@@rktman1965it is in fact not the lightest option also it’s going to be a little bit difficult to refuel the reactor if your on the moon

[@rktman1965]

@@queryw6982 yes it is especially considering the fact that the crazy amount of shielding needed on a sub isn't needed in space add to that the short mission duration a reactor with a 5 to 7 yr life cycle without refueling is ideal , actually overkill.

[@queryw6982]

@@rktman1965 this mission is literally meant to be a precursor to PERMANENT colonization, what do you think is going to be more useful, something that doesn’t need to be refueled or something that does? Also 7 years? You do realize that the curiosity rover has been on mars for 12 years and it’s reactor hasn’t ever been refueled right?

[@rktman1965]

@@queryw6982 the two power sources for the curiosity rover are solar and nuclear the nuclear has been dead for a very long time leaving only solar . On manned missions to the moon and beyond the nuclear core can easily be changed out using automation or other means , the mars rover is a one shot so not so much for that one. Try again and do a little research this time kiddo.

[@ASDasdSDsadASD-nc7lf]

A huge number of garbage filler words that say nothing.

[@tomstetson8053]

Elon, please consider a THIRD stage. This would reduce weight to the surface of the moon. Also less fuel-ox. Less fuel needed to get back to L-MO. And NO elevator, much saver. Tom.

[@garethrobinson2275]

Thank goodness Spacex have you to help them out with this blunder!

[@jbdragon3295]

That is a waste of hardware that would have to be replaced over and over and trash just left on the moon. I think SpaceX know what they are doing. They have a lot of real Rocket Scientists.

[@marcusbeau]

trashrocket comic perspective

[@KamalaChameleon]

Have you ever thought of encouraging people to workout in the beginning of your video? Like "grab a chair or set up a exercise mat as we dig into today's episode of alphatech"... Or "join us in today's exercise challenge and do 50 squats".. I say this because i usually do 15 minutes of calisthenics or weightlifting while watching you on my living room TV

[@Fitness4London]

Great way to fit exercise into your day, without compromising KZbin viewing time. Impressed!

[@genusbit4172]

until we get reliable nuclear energy source each lunch and mission will be energy poor. it means challenges, compromises and experience on the edge of failure. E.g., those 4 solar arrays for the lunar mission bring less power and being less reliable than 1 MW fission power plant that US can put in. WE need nukes in space, especially for long range missions such as mars.

[@RealSugam]

we already can just do it but its just that its hard to get the needed support as everyone is scared of it while others profit in other industries by keeping it out.

[@thexboxpc]

The 1967 Outer Space Treaty bans the stationing of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in outer space, prohibits military activities on celestial bodies, and details legally binding rules governing the peaceful exploration and use of space.

[@frankmcgowan9457]

Not much new here.

[@timpeterson2738]

Good Canadian kid.

[@verypleasantguy]

Canadian ? That kid was from South Africa, man !

[@kevinstory872]

nasa designs stuff for 20x the cost and never builds it. they are a waste.

[@bigbcor]

TF are you on about troll? Yes, NASA totally never built Apollo, the space shuttle, international space station or SLS….SMH

[@mrowl7838]

I think hes that they take years before they actually dtart testing​@bigbcor

[@haydenuwu]

@@bigbcor Ignore him lol, he's just being dense. Considering NASA didn't _build_ anything for those except the Apollo CM and CSM, he's pretty uninformed I'd say

[@stgeorgeist]

ability to refule is a positive need also give more room for equipment human needs supplies Once in orbit fuel oxygen air and other needs can be piled up ready. Another thing is the extra ships can be used like a space station rondevouse orboitor.. Landing nlike a pencil if cargo crane fials from dust ware accidents It means the ship is a death trap waiting to happen? ease of exit entery is the main objective. Landing a machine with a flat long shape must be easier than fly catching a massive rocket because Trump enjoyed Karati Kid. Pencil for Earth to space, Metamophies with clip on fuel oxygen tanks 4 - 6 outside landing legs. Return mudulals could be landed in advance roboticay

[@RogelioAguasOk]

What a naive design, NOT A SINGLE WORD about cosmic and solar radiation shielding, as if didn't exist !!. Everything is a tale of the fifties or sixties, very unserious.

[@ASDasdSDsadASD-nc7lf]

Script uses a huge number of garbage filler words that say nothing.

[@JohnParker-of2cy]

That's been worked out since the Apollo program. It's not a problem. That's, in fact, a flat earth/moon landing denier conspiracy argument easily debunked. Don't take my word for it... look it up so you know. The answer is a simple 2 word technology. Space blanket.

[@youerny]

The lander is one of the biggest problem why Artemis is failing. It-is-to-big. Already in the 50s direct ascent was discarded because of the tilt problem

[@javaman7199]

The Russians tried the 30 engines to get to the moon 4 times. It resulted in 4 explosions.

[@jvtmotors]

They can't even get to the ISS and back

[@Danielspacex]

How about let's fix the fireball rudder issues first....

[@ghost307]

What fireball rudder issue?

[@Danielspacex]

@@ghost307 you don't remember Starship re-entry?

[@ghost307]

@@Danielspacex Yes, but the lander wouldn't be coming home.

[@bkdris]

Why would we need to go to that empty pointless rock.

[@kwichzwellbreck697]

Resources. Science. Because we can. Build a telescope. Build a fuel station for longer journeys. Many reasons.

[@joshualafontaine2116]

It's the jumping off point for all future space missions... It takes 1/8th the fuel to get off the moon... There are resources on the moon to make fuel and oxygen. It takes a day or 2 to get there, mars is 1 year away for a 1 way trip.

[@Leopoldo888]

You can stay if you want, but later don't ask for your benefits...

[@blueneptune-u8z]

Its not NASAs ship to play with.They should work on making weapons.They suck at building rockets.

[@thexboxpc]

nasa doesn't make weapons it stands for National Aeronautics and Space Administration

[@On-down-the-road]

The Apolo capsule, built by Boeing that cough fire during familiarize session, killing 3 air force officers sitting still. The very same capsule that was copied building starliner! They made it slightly bigger, and still copied the 1960s capsule, all that was new was computers. That is the downfall. 3 failed attempts! I am surprised that SLS performed well test 1. That capsule built by Northrup Grumman, also had defects with the heat shield. Boeing builds most of the SLS and NASA has inspected Boeing's work after delivery of its SLS build, and does NOT approve of the workmanship. So delays are mounting up. At this rate SpaceX will get to Mars before NASA will be able to get to the moon. SLS will not be ready to send SLS 3. A lunar gateway will never happen. 2030 will not be possable. SpaceX is our only hope to transport, and land Americans on the moon!

[@MustSeeInside]

1. The Apollo capsule was built by NAA, not Boeing 2. The Apollo 1 astronauts were not all USAF 3. Northrop Grumman did not have defects with their capsule heat shield because it has no heat shield. The capsule also doesn’t exist as Northrop Grumman never built any capsules. Your clueless statements on the past are the best evidence to ignore your statements on the future.

[@JonathanMensah-f4h]

Elon's earlier designs are not what we're seeing. Testbed is what is now. I know about super Dragon as Starship. Refuelling and Mars lander/habitat eus. So let's be patient. Nasa has the imperative, initiative and 'hubris'.

[@JonathanMensah-f4h]

Thanks, we need corrections and also to debunk old&wrong misconceptions. Nasa won't be pipped to the Moon, Mars & beyond.

[@lesterm.8706]

This design of the lander is very dangerous for landing on the moon. Leaving the lander is also dangerous. I think a rectangular lander would be safer and more practical. It would land horizontally.

[@qwerty112311]

Good to know a random KZbin commenter figured this out before they did anything. I’m shocked SpaceX didn’t think of this in the first place. /s 🤡🤡🤡🤡

[@Reptorex]

very poor quality of video lemme know if you need help

[@gr8dane626]

This system will NEVER safely deliver humans to the moon and return them safely home. It will either never fly or it will kill astronauts.

[@pauloravec9411]

might you add....why?

[@kurknielsen]

This thing is never gonna happen, design is pure crap.

[@garethrobinson2275]

Thanks, Rocket Scientist!

[@kurknielsen]

@@garethrobinson2275 You are welcome but you don’t have to be a rocket scientist like myself to figure that out. of course, elon is no rocket scientist and even he knows this is a just scam for the gullible and ignorant.

[@theorapheals7672]

Rocket scientist how many rockets have you built.jealous loser

[@ChatBot1337]

Since Starship can't get to orbit, I'd start there with a redesign. 😂

[@gregtroublemaker1862]

Pay attention bro, Star ships already been to orbit, more than once!

[@thexboxpc]

@@gregtroublemaker1862 it was sub orbital so if something went wrong it would come back on its own