The New Space Race: Does Artemis have a chance with Starship?

[@mustang607]

Nearly every episode I watch on this channel sounds like it's a summary of some brand new thesis that earned a master's degree.

[@joebloe1401]

immigration is at the root of all our problems that have diluted our sense of neighborly cohesion and identity!!

[@terranspaceacademy]

Thank you so much!

[@miguellopez3392]

Well to bad the guy making it is a dunce who can't do any real reaserch. At 3:10 he pretty much ignores that space X starship is a 2 stage re usable moon rocket with twice the thrust of the saturn V, something that was not possible in the 70s, he's doing it to make China look more ahead then it actually is when it's program is dumping rockets in vilages, no our problems your not different, China is by far worse.

[@revmsj]

Yeah, man, that Chat GHB is something else, init?! 🤣 I’m only kidding! This dude’s been badass since before anyone knew what a Chat was…

[@bagel1200]

Boiling is another issue that needs to be considered

[@PeeTree-bx6lp]

I think space x knows what there doing

[@kipkipper-lg9vl]

1969 - one launch to the moon surface 2024 - 18 launches to get to the moon Lol

[@terranspaceacademy]

One is disposable. The other is reusable. Big difference.

[@terranspaceacademy]

I do too but a double check is always nice.

[@Codysdab]

​@@kipkipper-lg9vlboth use one rocket, key difference. It could be 100 launches if it's just using fuel, it doesn't matter.

[@snakevenom4954]

​@@kipkipper-lg9vl It's 5 launches, max to get to the Moon for Starship. Only 3-4 refueling Starships to fill HLS. Starship can bring over 50t of payload to the moon while Apollo was less than 1t

[@baahcusegamer4530]

As a matter of history, the US fights hardest after getting a proverbial black eye.

[@mikenicholas7132]

Yeah, you'd think we'd learn by now 😂

[@AdamosDad]

I was a 20-year-old kid out in the Pacific for the Apollo 11 splash down, I was full of hope that by my old age we would be exploring the outer solar system, you must have dreams to become a success, I guess the country stopped dreaming.

[@GrigoriZhukov]

Agreed.

[@lanesaarloos281]

The Woke bacillus rules.Perverts at the Olympics. Paid influencers on social media pushing it.

[@antoinedestoop6732]

I am 21 living in Austin, hours from starbase, I also have this hope! 🤞

[@AdamosDad]

@@antoinedestoop6732 🕘🚀🚀

[@AdamosDad]

@@antoinedestoop6732 I hope you see it my friend.

[@samedwards6683]

Thank you for your continued dedication to this channel and everything that you do. But, it would be better if, as you note the USSR's failures, that you'd also note the price that our Apollo 1 astronauts paid on the launchpad. As well as two sets of our wonderful Shuttle astronauts. I know that we all hope that Butch and Soni would not join this list.

[@terranspaceacademy]

Thank you. I have had some memorial portions of lessons but should always consider the total cost.

[@danwhiffen9235]

Let’s hope new Glenn is not a pipe dream… I would like to see way more progress from BO before we start counting those eggs before they’re hatched… As it stands today, sX is the only hope.

[@terranspaceacademy]

Indeed. No one else seems to be even trying...

[@snek9353]

BO should just rename themselves Nole, that's all they appear to be, anti-Elon.

[@danwhiffen9235]

@@terranspaceacademy I’m sure they are, but the (effectively) radio silence from BO sucks. I want a fight between the two, but not legal nonsense BS. The competition will bring out the innovation and hard work. And maybe the space race against China is all that we can feed off of. But surely is can’t be just sX against the CCP…

[@danwhiffen9235]

@@terranspaceacademy I’m sure they are, but the (effectively) radio silence from BO sucks. I want a fight between the two, but not legal nonsense BS. The competition will bring out the innovation and hard work. And maybe the space race against China is all that we can feed off of. But surely is can’t be just sX against the CCP…

[@markedward4290]

Over the last 20 years cell phones hypnotized most of our potential young talent into complete submission. As far as I can tell there aren't even any bread crumbs for them to follow back.

[@terranspaceacademy]

Hopefully just a transitional phase.

[@jamesowens7176]

Not only that, but it will need reusable 2ns stages and propellant depots to so. The long game here is that we're building out an infrastructure to continue lunar exploration. When SLS inevitably is canceled by Congress, Starship and the infrastructure it creates will be there to pick up the pieces.

[@terranspaceacademy]

That's my estimate, James. I was very skeptical at first but the math works out...

[@modelmaker007]

Your assumption that starship will leave the surface at 180 tons, is pure speculation. My money is on spacex having a well thought out plan that will surprise everyone.

[@terranspaceacademy]

You are probably right.

[@PowerLineRacing87]

Thank you for the analysis. I wish we were less divided as a nation and would focus more of our resources and energy on scientific endeavors.

[@terranspaceacademy]

Me too.

[@snakevenom4954]

How did you get your numbers for Delta-V? I used the Artemis progam's Delta-V requirements and from my calculations Starship needed something like 9,000 m/s of Delta-V. Something I think you missed is that Starship cannot go straight from a trans lunar injection into LLO. It has to go to NRHO first, then to LLO, then land. Same with ascent where it has to go to LLO first, then go to NRHO. To reach the 9,000 m/s I had to remove the Sea Level Raptors and instead used 6 Rvacs. Another point to mention is that HLS Starship will most likely be a Starship Block 2. Meaning it'll contain 1,650t of propellant instead of 1,200. Removing all the landing weight might shave off 50 tons. From the flaps to the heat shield, motors, batteries, etc.

[@joebloe1401]

immigration is at the root of all our problems that have diluted our sense of neighborly cohesion and identity!!

[@GawainNYC]

The HLS might gain some of that weight back in upper landing engines, because using aft facing RVACs might cause an engine damaging regolith storm similar to IFT-1's fondag storm.

[@terranspaceacademy]

It doesn't stop at NRHO... I covered LOI and adjustment. These are lean numbers but our navigation and control is much more precise now.

[@terranspaceacademy]

That is such a ridiculous statement. How many of our Nobels come from first generation immigrants? Most of them.

[@snakevenom4954]

@@terranspaceacademy Huh? I didn't say anything about immigrants.

[@bagel1200]

The Chinese are planning to use two long march 10s to land on the moon rather than a long march 9 which is still just a ppt eye catcher

[@terranspaceacademy]

But 10 isn't flying yet either.

[@alt5494]

The dark oxygen being produced by natural metal nodules on the Ocean floor. Was interesting news this week. Opens a novel research path for constant passive separation & pressurization of oxygen & hydrogen from salt water.

[@joebloe1401]

immigration is at the root of all our problems that have diluted our sense of neighborly cohesion and identity!!

[@terranspaceacademy]

I've been watching that. I hope they have more on it soon.

[@user-vo8zx2uj1p]

The sole fact that this question is asked so many time to the point it need debate show that there are many things wrong with the whole thing

[@terranspaceacademy]

Do you have a better plan? It's all we've got right now.

[@user-vo8zx2uj1p]

@@terranspaceacademy Of course i don't have one, that's not on me or you to think of it that's supposed to be the job of bill nelson and associates... But it's still better to figure out something new now than just working on something flawed from the begining and losing more time, energy, and money for no results.

[@avgjoe5969]

@@terranspaceacademy Yes. Use Dragon to put the astronauts on the Lander after refueling in LEO. You save $5billion per trip by doing this. SLS/Orion is a pork project and so long as we keep embracing that (and all the Congressional interference) we will see alot of effort go nowhere (we already put 2 people on the moon digging for rocks thank you). This is why the space program stalled for decades. Take the $4.5 billion pork from Orion/SLS and put it into Dragon/Starship Lander and the price drops from $4.5+$0.9 billion to about $1.1 billion per trip (including all the refueling/depot/etc). Pork and lack of focus (because of pork) is the problem. NASA is a congressional piggy bank. No overarching focus, just money making schemes (SLS). For example: The Mars Sample Return mission. They want to spend $7billion on a small one-off lander for a mission in the 2030s. They Just spent $3billion to have Spacex to build a massive, general purpose lander to land on the moon in 2026/7. Why not finish the 6ton nuclear reactor, the CH4 in-situ processing plant and give Spacex another $3billion to adapt the lunar lander to go to mars (HAL thrusters), use modified Teslabots to grab the samples with the rover they built and this mission becomes a test for all the components needed for future manned Mars missions And returns the samples. They need to test this for the planned manned mars mission in Any case.

[@mikenicholas7132]

I appreciate that you respond to comments. Way to go👍

[@terranspaceacademy]

Always happy to Mike!!

[@Qwarzz]

Refuelable nuclear powered ferry between Earth and Moon sure would be a nice thing to have in the future. Starship could take cargo into orbit with it's full reusability and more efficient crafts would then take the cargo where it needs to go. Mars could also have it's own Starships too if it turns out feasible to actually land it there. Moon could probably use something smaller between surface and orbit. I do hope space economy starts really going during my lifetime.

[@terranspaceacademy]

And use hydrogen on the Moon... Much simpler than methane. Methane is for Mars!

[@Qwarzz]

@@terranspaceacademy Yea. Can easily make Hydrogen and oxygen on the Moon.

[@MKJ8888]

9:00 That was exactly what I firstly thought when I heard about that hotfire test.

[@terranspaceacademy]

Right!?

[@yanniklemm4108]

The Spaceshuttle orbiter only had a mass of about 24,3 Tons. Depending on which specific orbiter we are talking about. But not 79 Tons. Great video tho

[@terranspaceacademy]

Thank you. Are you sure? Columbia had a dry mass of 81,600 kg | Discovery was 78,000 kg (I averaged to 79mt)

[@paranaenselol]

​​@@terranspaceacademy pretty sure its true, space shuttle weights almost as much as orion fully fueled, but i could be wrong, been a long time since i searched abt space shuttle

[@polishkerbal6920]

24 was the payload mass

[@millamulisha]

Pretty sure the JWST would be impossible in 1972. 🤷‍♂️

[@joebloe1401]

immigration is at the root of all our problems that have diluted our sense of neighborly cohesion and identity!!

[@terranspaceacademy]

They could get it where it needed to go. That's not space progress, that's computer and sensor progress. Of course they couldn't make an iPhone back then.

[@nicosmind3]

As someone whos studied economics its nice to hear someone outside of my field know that China is a (mostly) market economy. Seems like a lot of people think theyre communist cause of their party's name, but as you said, theyre not even socialist nowadays.

[@terranspaceacademy]

I think too many people are stuck on label's. I always remind people that the Republic of Korea is the one where people vote and can leave, while the Democratic Republic of Korea, is the one where they can't.

[@Codysdab]

I think they still maintain the political features of communism, but have adopted the open market model. It's not pure capitalist/democracy it's a hybrid capitalist/socialist model. You can see this in their social control, they're more interested in regulating the population, less so the market.

[@izuaff04]

China is a mix of market and command economy...best of both worlds

[@TSBoncompte]

honestly when most of the economy is public sector i don't know how "free market"they are, but they're not the Soviets either, it's its own thing i figure

[@nv7213]

Well one reason that NASA has "fallen" is that its budget is under a quarter of what it was during the Apollo missions. The Saturn 5 was an extremely expensive way to get to the moon.

[@airgunningyup]

I have a good video idea,( maybe terrible idk) I think a video explaining the thrust needed at takeoff compared to the thrust needed to get into orbit and then the delta V to escape on different trajectories and how they compare would be interesting ..A break down of lets say a trip to the moon , and then a trip to mars and what the astronauts would experience ( in G forces) at each phase of the mission.

[@terranspaceacademy]

That would be interesting!

[@stocky9218]

Great video. I really like the idea of an expendable upper stage for the superheavy booster. Watching the development of the raptor engines and the stainless steel propellant tanks confuses me a little, it's so rapid that I can't imagine why an expendable upper stage wouldn't be a good idea in terms of cost. How much additional payload or propellant (used to fill the reusable starship in leo) could you gain? How much would starship weigh if it was just the propellant tanks with raptors? I'm certainly not arguing against starship at all since most commercial launches won't even make use of even 100 tonnes of payload but I just wonder if re-fueling a lunar starship in leo would be cheaper if done with expendable upper stages since it would result in less launches.

[@Wisald]

This adds a tanker that needs to reach Moon's orbit and even more refulelings so it might not be worth it in terms of complexity and cost.

[@avgjoe5969]

LEO refueling is Absolutely required if we're serious about space colonization. For any substantial load to go from Earth to any other body, you need Much larger loads than a one rocket to x can get you. Starship can put 100t or 100 people on the moon or 400 Teslabots. The V3 version may be capable of more. Keeping using the Saturn V model and you will never get more than 20-40 tons to the moon. Good luck setting up more than a hut and a handful of astronauts with a few science experiments. Can't colonize jack that way. We are currently stuck in "Exploration" mode for 50 years. Hundreds of billions. For what? Go big or spend the money on something else. Regards cost: Spacex can use Dragon and Starship, Depot and 8x refuelings for about $1billion. Dragon launch = $200m, Depot = $200m (mod Starship), 8x Starship reusable tanker runs @ $50m each = $400m, Lander =$200m (after the first launch of any of these items post development). Recurring cost Dragon/Spacex Lander: $1 billion per Lunar launch/return Recurring cost SLS/Orion (no lander): $4.5 billion per launch/return The "complexity" of using the Spacex lander is still Far below the cost of SLS/Orion and Spacex is ramping to build dozens of Starships per year (the actual claim is 100 per year), mostly at their Own cost (they have already have built three factories to do this and have massive funding from Starlink... allowing them to operate without Congress messing with them constantly. The problem is that you are thinking about this is a one off mission... that really accomplishes nothing we didn't do 50 years ago. This time we landed 4 men, not 2... yay humanity! The spacex design assumes we want to set up a Real useful colony on the moon to mine minerals and do useful stuff with hundreds of people and thousands of robots. 5x the capacity for 1/4 the ongoing costs. ...or we can diddle around for another 50 years sending tiny probes to hither and yon... because that's simpler.

[@vernepavreal7296]

Thanks for doing the mathematics for refuelling the lunar starship I’ve wondered if that were feasible would love to hear more Also I love the music you’ve played this one and a previous one a few episodes ago can you tell me what it is I tried to find reference to it on KZbin but my access is somewhat limited being that pesky blind subscriber Cheers

[@terranspaceacademy]

You are most welcome. The Great Ascension by Christoffer Moe Ditlevsen :-)

[@richardpavlov442]

Another sputnik moment is needed

[@dsdy1205]

Another moment for politicians to overreact to a perceive weakness, creating a crash program that forsook sustainable long-term capability buildup in the name of a one-time moonshot? No thank you.

[@terranspaceacademy]

Indeed. I think it will come when they land Taikonauts on the surface. That doesn't give them the Moon but it will wake everyone up.

[@GawainNYC]

@@terranspaceacademy "The cow just jumped over the moon. Maybe we should shut the barn doors?"

[@bkparque]

It would be interesting if you talked about liquid air batteries as a power storage option vs liion bat. Also how there gonna get nitrogen on mars

[@avgjoe5969]

Nice. Good to see the actual fuel calculations. Very much appreciated. However there are 2 points. You forgot about the economics and a Dragon/Starship lander option... granted, this option has been skipped over to give SLS something to do. A modified Starship tanker can launch to LEO to become a Depot. The 6 or more tankers can top off this Depot Tanker. Starship V3 is targeting 200t to orbit with reuse. As a dedicated tankers, they would use stretched tanks and no payload bay. If the lander used V3 specs, it would have a 2600t fuel capacity (more than 100t more fuel than V2). As you note, this is not needed and it works in either variation (V2 or V3 lander). So no change there save maybe even more tonnage to the moon. Your analysis holds. The Critical thing to note, however, is that it costs $100m to build a Starship (per Musk). He will have 3 fully operatinal Starship pads and 1 under construction by 09/26.. or maybe a slip to 09/27. His new Starship factory has a theoretical capacity of 100 Starships per year fully developed with a finalized V3 design (from circa 2025Q3 or so). Actual construction will likely be more like 2/month at this stage. So the Depot in LEO, 6-8 refuelings/lunar run with V3 would give more tonnage to the moon or more margin on fuel. Dragon + Starship Lander Cost stacks up against SLS/Orion + Starship Lander: Starship requires: 1 Lander $100m 6-8 Tank runs (reusable, per flight) 8x$50m= $400m (being very generous on the cost for a reusable rocket) 1 Depot $200m (more costly one-off design)= $200m Total = $700m to land 100t cargo on the moon Crew transport: 1 Dragon $200m (here the crew is loaded on Starship lander after refueling in LEO, NOT in Lunar orbit) The crew rides the ship to the Lander to the moon, lands, returns to LEO with the extra fuel capacity afforded by V3 design. Cost of this mission vs SLS/Orion/Starship Lander is: SLS/Orion/Lander = $6.15 billion - 4 men plus cargo to the moon. Dragon/Lander = $900 million - 4 men plus cargo to the moon. Savings of more than $5 billion per flight. Other notes: Dragon/lander flights can support Much higher tempo as Spacex will have the capacity to build (conservatively) 2 Reusable Starships per month by 2026 and the Starlink program will take maybe half of this but also generate massive revenue for starship production program (including the new E-band backbone service already built into all V2 satellites), making it mostly independent of government funding issues. Recall that F9 flight tempo with the same number of (separate) towers can support 120 flights/anum tempo this year. By 09/26, Spacex should have at least 16 Starships (matching the fleet of F9 ships currently existant) Closing: Love your video. Confirms much I had to guess at. Spacex model is more ambitious but Spacex has Far more resources today than China technically has right now. Both will expand going forward but Spacex's Starlink revenue and plans/current infrastructure expansions allow it to execute on those plans. Starfactory: (1million sq ft) capacity 100 ships/year (Let us say 1/4 of that by 2026 as Starlink launches drive production from mid to late 2025 as V3 is perfected for mass production... in turn swelling Starlink Revenue further still). 2 Raptor factories: (1/day from CA, 2-4/day from TX once activated - waiting on mass production req upon mature V3 design) 3 Starship specific launch pads with 1 completed, 2 nearing completion this year and 1 additional in planning 5 Crew Dragon capsules in fleet and 3 more cargo capsules all well seasoned with 13 Crew flights successfully completed. Spacex is scheduled to go to the moon 09/26 but probably 09/27. China expects to complete Longmarch 9 after 2030. A resusable version (presumably upgraded to match Starship) circa 2040. They will probably have a more temporary base before then. SLS/Orion aside, the US (via Spacex) is in an excellent position to develop a Real moon base on the Moon. By 2030 we can expect to be having monthly launches to the moon (at $900m/launch). NASA's current budget is $18 billion and they would not have to bear the total cost alone as the EU may wish to participate (maybe Russia) and Spacex as part of their Mars initiative (which will use a very similar lander). Spacex's Starlink revenue should exceed NASA's budget by a good margin by then and any such Lunar construction will aid in their goal to build a 1million pop sustainable city on Mars. Other financial information that drives Spacex contribution capacity: Spacex revenue for 2024 is estimated to be near $15 billion with an increasing portion being profit (they became profitable last year including Starlink) as Starlink rapidly expands through: F9 launches of Starlink v2mini, Starship launch of Starlink v2large, Growth of both Subscription and E-band backbone services (2000 plus satellites supporting it so far) pending FCC testing ongoing. From mid-late 2025, rapid production of V3 Starship should deliver 5x the number of V2large satellites to orbit per launch. The V2large has 2.25x the capacity of V2mini, so each Starship will launch the capacity of 10 F9 rockets. Expect the current launch rate of 1800 satellites/anum to double by the end of 2025 (in terms of capacity) and double again in 2026. Note that Spacex has requested FCC licenses for 25 launches/landings for FY2025 in Texas and more than 40/anum in Florida (these latter lagging 6-12 months for EPA hand wringing). Their financials will allow them to contribute more money than the NASA budget within 2-3 years in the persuit of the infrastructure to build their city on Mars. (This is why Musk has not allowed Spacex to go public.) They have 2 rounds of tender offers per anum for employees and investors to cash out their stock (the company currently valued at $210 billion with massive expansion seen in the coming years for reasons above). The company is looking at stock buy-backs from 2025. Suggesting cash flow substantially exceeding the rapid pace of capital spend on Starship/Starlink. They might also partner to expand into mining of 16Psyche or similar to continue to grow revenue to support operations to lead them to their goal. The point - Spacex will be a much more stable driver of Lunar development than the US congress going forward. Cities on Mars require colonies on the moon to build Massive ships in lunar orbit shipyards (Ships hauling thousands of tons orbit to orbit), requiring lunar mining... And there is a path to that (See Boring company tunneling machine, Teslabot robots) Just imagine a single Starship delivering 20 technicians and 200 dust/radiation hardened Teslabots every other month to the moon to start construction of a serious moonbase. (The Teslabots are scheduled to begin factory work in numbers by the end of 2025.) Tunneling machines mining regolith, ice and leaving lined tunnels (See Boring Prufrock) for habitation deep below the meteorites and radiation. Circular tunnels with maglev trains to provide 1g working environments leveraging the 6ton nuclear reactors that NASA is working on. We could have a substantial moonbase/mining operation/fabrication facility and orbital shipyard (moving materials to orbit with magnetic accelerators) with hundreds of people and thousands of robots by 2040/2045. Not sci-fi anymore.

[@terranspaceacademy]

Good points. A single landed Starship IS a Moon base in effect.

[@ricardoabh3242]

Do you have a video about advantage disadvantage of 2 vs 3 stages systems?

[@terranspaceacademy]

I've covered it in several lessons but it wouldn't be a bad idea to do that with a Starship detachable nose cone.

[@ricardoabh3242]

@@terranspaceacademy I always thought the gear and dead weight of second stage engine was no good for the first stage total mass to orbit. But it seems it is a good strategy… my guess it’s function of fuel type & nozzle of each stage. For the BFR (like the old name) what I was hoping is for a larger diameter of the first stage with the crazy hope of another ring of engines lol that would crazy

[@avgjoe5969]

3 stages is better for putting up more mass 2 stages is better if you want to reuse your rocket. (It's worth noting that the Longmarch 9 has 2 iterations planned: 3 stage 2030 single use 2 stage 2040 reusable

[@medennis3467]

“Running the Numbers” illuminates the correct path. Hey Doc, I so wish I could articulate my points without sounding like a knuckle dragging Neanderthal but alas I’m incapable. I appreciate this episode so much for conveying what I can’t. Thx!

[@terranspaceacademy]

You are most welcome my friend! :-)

[@jobjed]

I think the CZ-10 and the YF-100Ks it's using would be the more pertinent comparison for events within the next 15 years. The current manned lunar landing plans are designed with CZ-10 in mind. The CZ-9 is a very ambitious and long-term program that makes the most sense when the space vehicle industry of the PRC as a whole finishes massive expansion. After all, what point is there of a ridiculous lifting capacity into orbit when the country as a whole doesn't make enough satellites and probes to use said capacity?

[@joebloe1401]

immigration is at the root of all our problems that have diluted our sense of neighborly cohesion and identity!!

[@terranspaceacademy]

That's a good point but to get to the Moon 54mt is a good number. I'll look closer at the 10. Thank you.

[@avgjoe5969]

They do now. They recently launched 18 satellites of their new comms satellite constellation. They are targeting more than 600 satellites in orbit by end of 2025 and more than 10k total (don't recall exact number). Still CZ-9 is not set to launch before 2030.

[@toledomarcos70]

The USA had fifty years to come up with an orbiting nuclear rocket and as always, they dropped the ball

[@terranspaceacademy]

Oh we had it. We just mothballed it...

[@jameswilson5165]

What do I gotta do to get NOTICES of these videos!! I am a subscriber.

[@terranspaceacademy]

I'm trying! I put out a post prior to the start! :-)

[@MrCPPG]

NASA needs you running the show.

[@joebloe1401]

immigration is at the root of all our problems that have diluted our sense of neighborly cohesion and identity!!

[@terranspaceacademy]

Thank you!

[@connerpearce1777]

Starship LEO payload capacity is stated as 100-150 metric tons in reusable configuration and around 200 metric tons in a fully expendable configuration. The Saturn V LEO payload capacity was 146 metric tons. Apples to apples (not that its necessarily that simple lol) Starship does out perform the Saturn V.

[@terranspaceacademy]

It will indeed... Right now it's about 50mt but it will be much higher by the end of this year I'm convinced...

[@john_hind]

What I still do not get is what the monumentally expensive Artemis components bring to the party. If we are dependent on Starship anyway, isn't it a better Lunar Gateway, a better fuel depot and a better LEO to lunar orbit crew transport as well as being the only lunar lander? Even if you do not want to use Starship for transporting crew to and from LEO, SpaceX could still have us covered with the proven and inexpensive Crew Dragon!

[@terranspaceacademy]

It makes no rational sense, now that Starship is flying, to keep paying for SLS or Lunar Gateway. It's just an exercise in the sunk cost fallacy.

[@GrapeFlavoredAntifreeze]

3:05 WOAH WOAH WOAH, HOLD ON. No. Starship is twice as powerful as the Saturn V, even now. Not sure why that blatantly incorrect statement is in there

[@terranspaceacademy]

Well, let's see... 5 x 6.77MN = 33.85 for Saturn V | Starship 33 x 2.26 = 74.58 | 74.58/33.85 = 2.2 x

[@mattgraham4340]

Well, He didn't specifically say power as measured by thrust. Could be "payload placement power" PPP 🙂, current version of Starship can barely put itself into LEO without payload. I assume that's why they keep announcing taller versions with more engines. SS/SH has much more shiny-ness power, and is a far superior wetland excavator. Also, is the entire booster and space vehicle stack now called "Starship"?

[@GrapeFlavoredAntifreeze]

@@mattgraham4340 Yeah thats why he responded with raw thrust numbers, right? Maybe pay more attention? Also that may be the most pompous response I have ever seen for how misinformed it is. “Pedantic shrug”, are you serious? And no, starship has no problem putting itself into orbit with its current engine configuration and fuel capacity, and it won’t have a problem with payload either. Starship design changes have nothing to do with its ability to actually reach orbit from the surface of the earth. They are only optimizing the vehicle for added payload capacity, among other optimizations. Not sure who is feeding you that line of crap. I find it particularly funny that you are still referencing IFT-1 as if it represents the current state of starship, when it is clearly well beyond that. You are clearly in the camp of anti Starship advocates, and are trying to come up with any insult you can no matter how weak and baseless to attack it, providing no other better solution as an alternative. And yes, the full stack has been known as “Starship” in many scenarios for a long time now, the only time it isn’t is when a distinction needs to be made between the starship vehicle and the superheavy booster. And regardless, why would we be comparing the Saturn V as a whole vehicle to just the starship upper stage? That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. You’re clearly on some rhetoric right now and it’s preventing you from being able to make an actual coherent point.

[@mattgraham4340]

@@GrapeFlavoredAntifreeze Who pissed in your cheerios? Did you think I was being totally serious? I am not anti-starship. I do think it's a terrible lunar vehicle. I'm very skeptical that it will be able to achieve the launch cadence and orbital refueling capabilities needed for viable lunar missions. However, I hope to be proven wrong

[@GrapeFlavoredAntifreeze]

@@mattgraham4340 Dude you came at me as pompous and douchey as humanly possible and you’re confused as to why I responded that way? Starship HLS is not the BEST for the first lunar landing, but that doesn’t make it a bad lunar lander option. Just not 100% optimized. However, in future versions it will be completely necessary to have a fleet of lunar starships to ferry materials between lunar orbit and the surface, for colony building. Its a great way to start breaking the vehicle in and start figuring out where it works and where it doesn’t. Refueling in orbit is not an easy concept to bring into viability, but it is no doubt absolutely necessary for future colonization efforts.

[@clytle374]

With all the world's countries "running as smooth as a pig on stilts" we see what happens. LOL

[@terranspaceacademy]

Indeed! What's the worst that could happen :-)

[@erikmoore7402]

How nice of you to check to see if it's even possible for the lunar starship to work, assuming half of your numbers and not knowing at all what the final version will be like. but you definitely know better than spacex. And if it is made out of aluminum and carbon fiber, it would be more expensive and more delicate. Right?

[@terranspaceacademy]

These exercises are to help people learn rocket science. Much more would be considered if planning a mission.

[@icare7151]

The head of NASA, Bill Nelson, needs to be fired as well as many department managers.

[@avgjoe5969]

Congress needs to be called out for meddling and lack of any long term focus (they keep designing one-off landers at a cost of billions instead of one large, general purpose lander to do many missions). Starship moon lander could land anywhere in the solar system). Despite its giant size, its Way cheaper than spending $7 billion on a sample return lander made just for One use... Madness. Nelson is a politician because that's the only way to get funding from congress. Musk proposed an Efficiency department to stop pork projects and unfocused government funded dithering (SLS). This is why NASA can't get anything done... why military weapons development is so incredibly expensive. Congress puts their hands in all their pockets at an incredible cost to tax payers. A few million dollars in donations might net tens of billions of dollars in contracts. Cost Plus contracts given out as candy to donors so the company can milk the US indefinitely (SLS).

[@jimsuber6784]

Quite concerning. What I'm sure you know though, is that the Chinese are quite capable of calling complete totalitarianism into existance at any time. They have no underpinning human rights or religious constraints to prevent them from doing so. They are still quite capable of revisiting the Cultural Revolution that you described early in your video. As always, great video.

[@terranspaceacademy]

Thank you and you are quite right. Plus their citizens really can't resist.

[@ricardoabh3242]

China as a single vision, this is a boost.

[@terranspaceacademy]

Indeed it is.

[@avgjoe5969]

Spacex also has a single vision: Sustainable large city on Mars... and all the steps to get there.

[@wolfie3657]

You finished with: "1 starship equals 10 Long march 9's in terms of mass to moon" the thing is, starship has to launch minimum 13 times to refuel, I know that's not the same as wasting a whole rocket (except the first stage), but still, more lunches means more things can go wrong and more delays due to launch windows

[@terranspaceacademy]

That's a good point and is why if not reusable... This plan won't work.

[@avgjoe5969]

No. Jeff Bezos said 13 tanker loads (actually 16) were needed and he hates Musk. (People keep repeating that drek and don't mention where it came from). The actual number is 6 (per Spacex) so I would use 6-8. "More things to go wrong" is only correct if Spacex used the same resource poor model that NASA contractors use (There are 2 Starliners, ground and space.. the minimum. There are 5 Crew dragons and 3 Cargo dragons (Crew Dragons also carry cargo). Losing one wouldn't slow Spacex down one jot. Spacex is planning to build 100 starships per year about 3-5 years from now. They currently build 1 per 3 months and just finished 2 factories to support the (eventual) 100 per year. More realistically, in 2 years their production capacity would likely be 2 per month by 2026 after the V3 configuration of Starship is ready for mass production. This is fueled by the fact that Spacex launches Starlink satellites as fast as they can as these satellites bring in Big revenue (with a profit margin of more than 50%). They are completing a total of 3 launch pads to support this circa end of 2024 with a 4th pad circa 2026. So. Given that they definitely have much of the money needed today, they will have more than enough to support this in 2 years when needed (Starlink revenue is growing very rapidly). Why would they care if they send up 8 or even 10 tankers to top off the orbital depot (a modified tanker)? Launch cost and cargo is a good deal less than $50m with replacement cost of the tanker about $100m to Spacex (See "Chump Change"). They launched 98 F9 rockets last year and are on track for more than 120 this year. (Success rate: 1 fail of the last 300 successes). They have a fleet of 16 F9 ships ready to go with the lead cores having been reused 22 times. By 2026 Spacex Starship should have a tempo of at least 30+ launches/anum - their FCC applications were for 25/anum launches out of Texas and another 40/anum out of Florida (max). If one or even 2 tanker runs fail... so what? Send up more tankers. This is not NASA, they will have lots of spares and any given one can be used multiple times. By 09/26 they can allocate a dozen or more (reusable) ships as tankers. And as the orbital Depot is just a slightly modified tanker, they can send up a spare. This is not any other space company (or nation). They don't plan for "just enough" they use overkill and find synergistic uses for the abundance of resources (ships). They built about 550 Raptor 2 engines to optimize their production and testing... They will throw away at least 200 engines as they are now producing Raptor 3 and it will be used no later than their 7th launch. The end result is that their Raptor 3 engine is Far superior to its nearest competitor and 1/14 as expensive. That is not a typo. Raptor 3 costs about $500k to build in numbers (and they do build in numbers). The Blue Origin BE-4 costs $14 million for 2. So. It would be painful if anyone else lost one tanker. Its barely a bump for Spacex. Barring a destructive explosion at the launch pad (again, they will have 3), they would barely lose a week (more if the FAA grounds them, but the point still stands). As for fuel bleed issues, O2/CH4 bleed is far less than H2 especially if the Depot has a sun shade similar to the one used on Skylab or the JWTelescope. Also, Spacex has alot of experience with docking. There is nothing new or risky here and the truth is that this is the Only way to put large cargo onto another world. It is scalable. Making bigger and bigger rockets is not.

[@chrisbraid2907]

New Glen ? Can Blue Origin make a decent rocket motor yet ???

[@Qwarzz]

Two BE-4 engines worked perfectly on the first Vulcan launch. There should be more Vulcan launches next year. Don't now about New Glenn, it's supposedly being built and might fly within a year but we'll see.

[@terranspaceacademy]

They've got the engines down... At least for single use.

[@gregsutton2400]

Seems easier to me to get the astronauts into Earth orbit in a falcon 9 then put them on the lunar Starship take them to the Moon and back and then bring them down in the crew Dragon again. You're welcome.

[@terranspaceacademy]

It would be... As soon as a Starship goes into orbit we have a new Spacestation to rival the ISS. We need to start using this NOW.

[@wolfeman2120]

Your not taking into account the fact that China won't be able to build lm9 fast enough to compete with starships reusability and mass production.

[@terranspaceacademy]

Probably not, though they are working hard.

[@m4dalex828]

What’s the feasibility of a refuelled Starship taking a smaller lander (like Blue Moon) to a lunar orbit? Starship could return to leo to be reused.

[@mikenicholas7132]

I watched the first lunar landing as a student engineer and the subsequent lowering of American prestige since then. If we would only realize that 1. we the people are the govt (they are our representives we put there), 2. believe in the constition's preamble and in our pledge, one nation indivisible, 3. follow religious principles like he who is without sin... Then we would truly have E PLURIUS UNIUM! We gotta do better!

[@terranspaceacademy]

What a fantastic thing for a young engineer to see. And a sad next half century or so...

[@TheWadetube]

Of course we need a fuel that is not cryogenic to store in space for months at a time. I have that picked out but what about a good oxidizer? Is High grade Hydrogen Peroxide the best choice for long term oxidizer? Or is water with a means of separating it into hydrogen and oxygen at a fast rate. I am reminded of how the Hindenburg got it's hydrogen, not from electrolysis but I think an alkalie metal reaction, do you recall?I wonder what the oxygen left over was good for? Was it a metal oxide? If the same reaction could take place with a liquid metal and the oxide were also liquid I would think it would be quite powerful with a super high ISP.

[@terranspaceacademy]

What about solid perchlorates?

[@TheWadetube]

@@terranspaceacademy I love them in fireworks, especially with Strontium or Boron for red and green. Potassium Permanganate is also good and avoids the use of chlorine. I am no chemist but I am concerned with exhaust byproducts. Potassium Dichlorate has MORE oxygen... KCl2O7 O7! But there is an issue trying to use powdered metals in a liquid rocket engine, it needs to be mixed with another liquid and I suppose you could use hydrogen peroxide except that would probably blow up every perchlorate or permanganate you put into it. A possible solution might be a hybrid solid rocket engine that has solid Potassium Dichlorate and blows a fuel like methanol down the hollow of the engine stack. Not unlike Burt Ratan's blowing NO2 down a solid fuel rocket of butyldeinsomething rubber. Allowing a dethrottle or even a full stop. Lot's of smoke, but a reverse hybrid might be doable. Perhaps you can get some of your students to work up an experiment. You can get supplies at United Nuclear.com though they might not be the cheapest. I like the idea of Water on a long range heavey cruiser, and a nuclear reactor to break it down through electrolysis. An engine that could do that DURING the high pressure delivery INTO the engine would win a prize! Nuclear water engine, plus ionize the exhaust and shoot it out with thousands of coils... a particle accelerator/ion drive. But back to the booster. I know the perfect fuel, but liquid oxygen is still a cryogenic troublesome oxidizer and H2O2 might not be too bad, especially storing for long periods of time. My fuel requires LESS oxygen than other fuels and so I could send up 500 to 700 tons of just oxygen as payload to meet with an orbiting starship with depleted oxygen but excess fuel left. , say 2,000 tons and a small reserve of oxygen, they meet up and transfer the fresh oxygen before it can boil off and the ship can then go to MARS of the moon.

[@Wdbx831]

Excellent insight into possible options. Now, the most challenging and difficult part - getting political support.

[@terranspaceacademy]

Very true!

[@donaldlynn57]

You forget the frist luner starship will land on moon surface, untiThell that happen.

[@rays2506]

The road to the lunar surface goes from LEO to low lunar orbit (LLO) to the lunar surface back to LLO and then to LEO (the Apollo route, not the Artemis route). Two Starships fly the route together, one Starship the lunar lander carrying passengers and 100t of cargo. And the other an uncrewed drone Starship tanker that carries about 450t of methalox into LLO. The Starship lander receives about 100t of methalox from the tanker, lands on the lunar surface, unloads arriving passengers and cargo, onloads departing passengers and cargo, and returns to LLO. The tanker transfers another ~100t to the other Starship and both Starships return to LEO. Assuming that a Block 3 uncrewed Starship tanker can deliver 250t of methalox to LEO, nine tanker loads are needed to refill the Starship lunar lander and the drone tanker in LEO. All Starships are completely reusable.

[@snek9353]

I see no reason to take all that dry mass to LLO. I'd think it'd be better to create a ship that fits inside the starship cargo bay, or was even the bay door/outer wall itself. Leave the heat shield and header tanks in place, with starship in LEO, the rest undocks does it's moon thing then comes back to LEO, docks, and re-enters. That's a whole other new technology that would take quite some time. But would be very efficient once done.

[@terranspaceacademy]

The cone! Just make a detachable cone! :-)

[@darelvanderhoof6176]

I call first post.

[@ryanmartin8557]

Dang it!!

[@terranspaceacademy]

Good job!

[@user-vo8zx2uj1p]

5:08 What crimes?

[@erikmoore7402]

The saturn v is more powerful at takeoff than even the current starship? Thats entirely accurate?

[@terranspaceacademy]

No. The Starship is much more powerful than the Saturn V. The Saturn V just has a higher mass to LEO right now.

[@differenttan7366]

New viewer opinion: This was an odd video, evidence and arguments jumped around a bit, Maybe because I don’t know the earlier material, or just format not to my taste. Nearly bailed at the politics bit, many us utubers can’t stop themselves veering into an endorsement of their party or denigration of another party. Well done for avoiding that toxic landmine.

[@terranspaceacademy]

I danced through the minefield. Always dangerous but sometimes necessary to get where you need to go :-)

[@ontheruntonowhere]

HLS will not be reusable and is not slowing SpaceX down during the development of Starship. HLS development continues in parallel, and as proven by IFT-4, SpaceX is currently capable of launching HLS. Technically, we could reach the moon today, though obviously not safely. China may still beat us, but we will not be far behind, and the moon is big enough for all of humanity.

[@terranspaceacademy]

That's very encouraging. And if China does an Apollo and we stay the success will go to the US.

[@revmsj]

Same thing happened in USSR, only earlier

[@terranspaceacademy]

Indeed.

[@matfax]

China has a mixed capitalist and communist system. They combined the worst elements of both. The US was also able to fund a super expensive moon program. It's just a matter of priorities. China seems to have a bigger need for external validation for its identity.

[@terranspaceacademy]

Good point. Which I think will push them to compete more but their military expenditure might drain resources.

[@kipkipper-lg9vl]

China doesn't care what you think, they have made almost no attempt to promote their culture or conquer anything

[@matfax]

@@terranspaceacademy If there's one positive thing about China's planned economy, it's their strategic planning on how to eliminate international competition. They ruined Germany's solar and wind market this way. They bought Germany's biggest robot and automation systems manufacturer. They try to push their hardware (Huawai, smart home robots, etc.) and software (TikTok, etc.) to have access for any future online warfare use. Space is just another angle.

[@mm650]

It 1:18 in this video yous said, referencing the US's "sputnic moment" you said "The United States of America is not what it used to be." Later, at :3:05, you say "There is not a single thing that America is doing in space today that it could not have done better back in 1972." This is just totally wrong. The US is miles ahead of where it was in 1972... Back then we had an archaic model of space exploration: NATIONS built massive rocket system to engage in NATIONAL space endeavors. National endeavors like that, with actual government-employee public-servants actually doing much of the work actual hands on work was a 17th century solution to 20th century problems. It worked mostly because NASA was still a new organization that had not yet fallen into bureaucratic decay and paralysis and because the modern private enterprise solutions were already starting to take over with private contractors doing many of the lower risk jobs. In short, Apollo succeeded DESPITE ITSELF! Today, the real space program of the US is private companies like SpaceX, Relativity Space, Blue Origin, etc. NASA's role is increasingly reduced to the only thing its still good at: cutting checks. And that is a good thing... it keeps them out of the way. The private sector taking over for the ever-more-obsolete public sector isn't a good thing JUST because private industry is much faster, more efficient, and more reliable. It is also approaching space from a much more useful angle than the public sector. It is approaching space from a Space-EXPLOITATION stand-point, not a space exploration stand-point. Private industry has always taken this point of view going back to communication satellites, and now monetizing Earth-imagery, internet constellations, and eventually private-sector space stations, direct from satellite cell-phone service, mining and fuels extraction. This matters because it marginalizes NASA even for the one thing it's good at... it makes the public sector JUST ONE MORE CUSTOMER. It can not be over-stressed just how important that is! When public funds recede to less than a tenth of the space industry's total income, then the space industry becomes essentially independent of congressional politics... this is all the more the case because, unlike many industries, it can move outside of US territories relatively easily if the regulatory regime becomes too burdensome. What you see as the fragility of the US space posture is really the fragility of an egg shell... The shell was always meant to crack eventually... and the private sector chick now emerging from it is the American Eagle of tomorrow that will sore far far further than you could have ever thrown that egg. China, maybe, is trying to lay an egg that will one day become a thriving private sector space industry. But I don't think so. We've seen Xi's regime crack down on China's tech industry, and we've seen his regime crack down on crypto currency, and we've seen his regime crack down on biotech research. Why did these crackdowns happen? Because independently wealthy tech billionares, like Ma, were... well, independent... and that meant effectively out of Xi's control. Similarly, crypto currency was designed to be unregulatable from the get go. Similarly, the biotech sector, with Ha's crispr babies and later scrutiny surrounding COVID became an embarrassment to the central government (I don't believe in the lab-origin-hypothesis, but it doesn't matter the scrutiny and thus embarrassment was real). In the end, as long as China is trying to simply copy Apollo's achievements without trying to incubate a truly independent space industry... they are no threat. Even if they are trying to incubate an independent space industry, and there is some evidence of that, that is still the work of decades, and our space industry isn't standing by idle in the mean time. In general there are three kinds of space-advocates in the USA: Von Braun (They see space as about grand international posturing), Sagans (They see space as about science), and O'Neills (They see space as about settlements... full disclosure, I'm in this group). The time of the Von Braun's is over. Space is no longer a playground for diplomats. The time of the Sagans is coming to a close in a sense... but it is also entering a golden age in a sense. Science and mere-exploration will no longer be the reason we go to space, but as a passenger on the O'Neill agenda, more science will be done in space than ever was performed when it was the reason we went. The O'Neill agenda is now ascendant because it has learned that the road to settlements is PROFIT MOTIVE. Capitalism is what the US space endeavors were missing in the 1980s-2000s. The same engine that has made everything else in our world work.

[@terranspaceacademy]

What can we do now in space that we could not do better in 1972? We were landing on the Moon back then and now can't leave LEO. (Even Orion does not compete with Apollo)

[@mm650]

@@terranspaceacademy You asked: "What can we do now in space that we could not do better in 1972?" It's taken me a little while to answer this because i wanted to give some thought to HOW the answer can best be formulated. You see, your question is based upon a mission-centric perspective. You don't ask about HOW we are doing things in space. You don't ask about WHY we are doing things in space. You don't even ask Who, Where, When, or Whether, we are doing things in space. You are focused upon the MISSION... WHAT we are doing. * I could point to missions such as the Hubble of Webb or Gravity Probe B, or DAWN, or WISE, as things that were definitely beyond what could be done in 1972... but those are ultimately more sophisticated leveraging of space-launch capability, that is we are putting better instruments into space.... significant because they advance HOW we do things in space at least as much as what they are doing. * I could point to long endurance space stations like the ISS, Bigelow, or MIR as things beyond what could be done in 1972, but again this is more a matter of doing Sky-Lab like things but with a larger scale... They matter because they advanced HOW we do things, at least as much as WHAT we did. * I could point to the vast number of private astronauts that have flown both orbital and suborbital missions... that's something that we could have done in 1972 but wouldn't have because we were still shackled to an obsolete government-project paradigm.... Really more a matter of WHO is doing things in space. * I could point to advances in solid state devices, and ion propulsion, and high bandwidth communication, universal standard chassis like cube-sat, and the shift to off-the-shelf components, but that's again improving HOW we do things. * I could point to the existence of mega constellations of satellites with the number of objects launched to orbit per year now in the thousands instead of low hundreds, but that is a difference of scale not kind from a mission-centric perspective. * Similar to all of the above, and alternately driving and driven by it, is the dramatic drop of cost to launch a kg to LEO. From $5400/kg to LEO for your beloved Saturn 5, to $2600/kg for the Falcon9, and $1500/kg for the Falcon Heavy. (That's from Aerospace Securitie's survey of dedicated launch costs last updated in 2022... and they do not seem to fully include the savings of re-usability in the Falcon family)... but this is just a matter of cost to a mission-centric, damn the costs full speed ahead perspective like Apollo had. Truthfully though, a mission centric perspective is simply the wrong way to look at space industrialization. This is because it is INDUSTRIALIZATION not exploration. Exploration is organized into missions. Industrial development is organized into MARKETS. And that's why you feel like there is no progress in space missions... There isn't... All of the above are EXPANDING THE MARKETS of space endeavors while only providing ancillary advancement the missions. (Almost all of that mission advancement has been in reducing COSTS. We are doing more space per dollar, but also dropping the budget and dividing our attention across more projects so even with mor space per dollar the individual projects are mostly less ambitious). By expanding the space market, the advances are adding new kinds of customers; they are reducing costs to support products that would not have been worth it before; they are advancing the core tools of the industry to reduce investment risk; and they are building capital tools that allow space development to fund itself. None of this matters when your paradigm is Exploration, and you are doing it as a government prestige-project. But government prestige projects can never be sustainable... this is intrinsically true because when something becomes sustainable it also becomes routine and thus it ceases to have prestige... think it through. That's why the question that matters is NOT the one you asked: WHAT we can do in space?. The question that matters is: WHETHER we will do something in space... and the Answer, on any kind of long sustained timeline is: We Won't... unless we build the market for space. This is why building the market matters and the fact that we are not, currently, doing flashy stuff like landing astronauts on the Moon, simply doesn't. But if you need the flashy stuff to stay excited, then consider this: When the Eiffel Tower was completed in 1889, it was the tallest free-standing man-made structure ever. It remained the tallest for 41 years until the Chrysler Building was completed in New York City in 1930. After that, new sky scrapers took the title of tallest building fairly frequently. If the technology existed in 1889... why the 40 year gap? It turns out this is a pretty common phenomenon. Something is demonstrated possible in a research setting or a prestige project setting, and it shocks the world. But the shocking feat was only really possible given the special risk-insensitive, cost-insensitive, infrastructure-insensitive market-insensitive nature of the setting in which it was performed. The feat, or something like it, may eventually move into the mainstream but to do so it needs to build additional capacity to break free of all of those insensitivities that made it initially possible in a highly non-mainstream setting. This happens initially with niche markets that can allow it to shed just one or two of those insensitivities, and then slowly broadens out as more of them are shed and the field matures. This happened with steam engines, sky scrapers, rail-roads, nuclear power, transistors, solar cells, cell-phones, etc. It's not so surprising that it is happening in space too. Anyone looking at the Apollo era historically can see that the initial space race happened way way before the field was mature as a result of one-time-only historic dynamics like the Sputnik shock, the cold war, the legacy of the post WWII economic and demographic shifts, etc. Fortunately that and the long wait between the initial pioneering stage and the mainstream expansion are now coming to an end and we are starting to enter the exciting part where we see the mainstream adoption of space industrialization. The new feats of space that will eventually outstrip Apollo and leave it standing in the regolith are coming. We only have another decade or so to wait, mostly thanks to Musk, and when they happen, they will happen sustainably which means they will be exciting FOR REAL and not just flashy.

[@wrxsti1987]

HERE

[@terranspaceacademy]

Good to see you!

[@ludwigvanzappa9548]

Starship will hit a wall when it's time for orbital refueling. 15+ launches to refuel one ship in a short period of time is RIDICULOUS. That will keep Starship around Earth's orbit, not further.

[@iamaduckquack]

People said landing a booster on a barge in the ocean was RIDICULOUS and yet...

[@ludwigvanzappa9548]

@@iamaduckquack We will see soon enough...

[@iamaduckquack]

@@ludwigvanzappa9548 We'd still be living in caves if people only ever thought like you. Have some vision.

[@ludwigvanzappa9548]

@@iamaduckquack I have visions of the future. It's just not like yours.

[@alexanderpierzchala1615]

Are you seriously betting against SpaceX? Seriously?

[@TheWadetube]

Truly, your intellect is dizzying.

[@terranspaceacademy]

Thank you so much!

[@dancingdog2790]

Now you're just trolling (and playing with your AI-generated video clips). Unsubscribed.

[@terranspaceacademy]

Uhmm... I don't use AI to generate video clips but ok.

[@theOrionsarms]

Starship is over-hyped, currently can put into LEO only 18 metric tons(40 000lb) , that is what Elon said in the last interview that gived to Tim Dodd (everyday astronaut), it have huge parasitic mass and cannot put 100 tons payload in orbit until would be radically redesigned, I tryed to figure only how much mass have the gasses that are used for pressurizetion, and probably for current version is 30 tons, and version two probably 40 tons and for stretched version three 60 tons, if you ask why, this is the weight of the colder and high pressure oxygen and methane that you need for those huge tanks, for example one cubic meters of oxygen at one bar and - 133°C is 2,77 kg but at ten bar and the same temperature is 30,4 kg, they need to go back to the helium for the oxygen tank and maybe hydrogen for methane one, because for this purpose helium is ten times lighter than oxygen and hydrogen even lighter.

[@terranspaceacademy]

Interesting... But I'm sure SpaceX engineers have thought of those problems. The are nothing if not practical.

[@theOrionsarms]

@@terranspaceacademy of course they thinked about that, but they aren't those who take the decisions (it's Elon Musk), and he chose the cheapest solution, but in this case the cheapest is the worst, obviously he couldn't say that would use helium in the end because isn't enough helium available for 1000 huge starship on the earth (so he need to say that wouldn't be 1000 starship anywhere soon) , but my opinion is that if he wants performance need to change back to helium like falcon9 does, or maybe find a creative solution for using hydrogen. The calculations made currently for starship are ignoring the problem of gasses mass used for pressurizetion, that isn't only for upper stage, for example the current booster uses 80 tons at least and future versions maybe 100 tons or more.

[@lyleblack194]

There is no serious future for a space industry primarily built on solid rocket motors. China is trying to build a future reliant on a technology employed during the Sung Dynasty in 960 A.D. As for the Chinese economy, it is a controlled economy dominated by state-owned entities heavily subsidized by both the Chinese Government and the U.S Congress. It is a matter of years before the Chinese economy begins a heavy retraction, especially after a likely invasion of Taiwan next winter.

[@dl2839]

They have RP-1 rockets, too. The failed static test was a rocket with a first stage that was meant to be reused and landed. The long march 9 is looking to use Methalox.

[@snek9353]

This vid is a little all over the place, a bit of a departure for you. Rewatching as I comment..... Certainly true that we aren't what we used to be, very sad really. In this vid it's starting to sound like you want to get into the cause for that. In many ways I think China is the Soviet Union on repeat. The Soviets also killed off a lot of their thinkers then rebuilt under a totalitarian regime in the same way China is now. This is many ways is the 60s again just with a different adversary and we're older now. All I can really say is thank god for Musk and Trump, if we're going to have a future in space not dominated by the Chinese these two men are why. I'm hopeful, we have a heck of a lead, we just have to not screw it up.... again. Chinas problems are way worse than us here in the US, I really don't see how you come to that conclusion. While they've realized there's a lot to gain in a free market, they're still very much a totalitarian ethno-state with very strict controls and very little free expression, thought, and ideas. Yes we worry about our government becoming totalitarian, but there's is. And while we can express our worry they can not. Verge of a civil war 4 years ago, come on, that's not even close to true. Now two weeks ago, maybe. The motto had nothing to do with it, it's all politics. The powers that be have decided that to have any chance at controlling us they must divide us and have been using the media to do so for decades now. I don't think China will win this new moon race, but sadly for the moment we're relying on Elon not nationalism. China may accomplish an Apollo equivalent before Space X get's there. But once Space X get's there it'll be about mass to the moon and China won't be able to keep up. We should hope they try though, we'd rather they spent their resources on moon rockets than missiles. In thinking about putting a capsule on starship, you mean externally on the nose? So it'd mean a starship that couldn't re-enter as it'd have no heat shield or header tanks? Kind of wasteful, I'd think it'd be better to create a ship that fits inside the starship cargo bay, or was even the bay door/outer wall itself. Leave the heat shield and header tanks in place, the rest undocks does it's moon thing then comes back, docks, and re-enters. That's a whole other new technology that would take quite some time. But would be very efficient once done.

[@mikenicholas7132]

Not Trump. That would be like saying we needed Hitler to have von Braun and land on the moon. The price is too high, we have to find another way.

[@snek9353]

@@mikenicholas7132 Ahhh good ole TDS.

[@terranspaceacademy]

It would take far too long and I would oversimplify :-)

[@SRQRay]

Give me a “Thanks” donation button please

[@terranspaceacademy]

Should be there now. Thank you.

[@dwightlooi]

The entire architecture is RETARDED. The simple solution is to put a bigger service module onto Orion or put the Orion on a bigger upper stage. Whatever that costs will be a lot less than trying to work around an unworkable architecture.

[@terranspaceacademy]

I'm not convinced... How much have they spent so far?

[@stevenanticknap6966]

I think your take on American politics is alarmist and simplified. China may actually get to the moon but on earth they are doomed.

[@terranspaceacademy]

Wake up call... Hopefully we'll pull it off.

[@marioluptak8476]

Education,no wars,population 5x bigger than USA ....you can dream big but that is not enough ...

[@YellowRambler]

China 🇨🇳 is taking the Thomas Edison approach to finding the right light filament material for the light bulb 💡, The Chinese are trying to find the best nuclear reactor using the same approach as Edison, sadly the Western countries have forgotten the Edison approach and anyone that trying to move beyond Uranium Pressurised Water Reactors, to make a Truly advanced fission reactor will Suffer bureaucratic red tape roadblock. The Chinese are known for their sweet-and-sour dishes and this is pretty much what happened, sad that an an Advanced fission technology conceived in the USA over 50 years ago has been completed by the Chinese and will most likely profit💴💶💷💰💵 from it, the good part of it is the whole world will be able to reduce carbon footprint with safe and efficient fission reactor the “Thorium Molten Salt Reactor “. Energy is so important in today’s Society I wouldn’t count the Chinese out of the race because there taking this seriously.

[@terranspaceacademy]

Well... Same size as US, 5 x the people. Equal economies. That's not the same. And if the US sees it as a military priority it will happen faster than any of us could imagine.

[@kipkipper-lg9vl]

Starship HLS is the most brain dead decision in the history of aerospace

[@terranspaceacademy]

I think it could be better but it's all we've got right now...

[@kipkipper-lg9vl]

I hope they make it work to be honest, I'm just skeptical about specex intentions with its design Seems like they conned nasa to fund their starlink deployment vehicle

[@GawainNYC]

@@kipkipper-lg9vl I think Starlink is there to help fund Starship, not really the other way around. If it was just about Starlink it would be a LOT simpler to build a larger fairing for Falcon Heavy for block 2 Starlink, than take on a project like Starship.

[@kipkipper-lg9vl]

@@GawainNYC maybe, i struggle to see just exactly what starship is supposed to do 1 - going to mars is a meme and will not be happening with starship 2 - going to the moon, it sucks for this as well cus it has almost no cargo capacity beyond leo 3 - dumping huge amounts of star link sats, this seems to be the only real use case i can think of no real use case for 100 or more tons to LEO exists or is likely to exist in our lifetimes

[@iamaduckquack]

​@@kipkipper-lg9vlYou're dreaming too small.

[@2276scorpion]

what planet is this guy from? more than half of this guys statics are very wrong.

[@terranspaceacademy]

I hate it when my statics are wrong! And I used anticling!

[@pimpshark]

You just go on the Internet and talk whatever’s in your head. 90% of it is incorrect.

[@terranspaceacademy]

So who's head are talking from? Of course it's from my head. And point out errors or stay silent. General abuse is unhelpful.

[@pimpshark]

@@terranspaceacademy Well where do I start. So Starliner could be used to deorbit the space station ? You do realize the contract has already been awarded to SpaceX.

[@sfd7833rg]

@@pimpshark Did you not realise that that was a joke?

[@pimpshark]

@@sfd7833rg OH so he’s a comedian. I didn’t realize. 🤡

[@GreyDeathVaccine]

@@sfd7833rg LOL. Of course it was. @pimpshark needs to remove stick from his..... ;-)

[@odril]

The staging orbit for Orion is not DRO, but NRHO. Getting from the surface to NRHO is 3000 m/s. For DRO it's more. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near-rectilinear_halo_orbit

[@terranspaceacademy]

Thank you!