Moon Denied? SpaceX Starship Won't Make It To The Moon With Artemis III?
Injured in an accident? You can start your claim with Morgan & Morgan at www.forthepeople.com/whatabou...
SpaceX Starship flight 4 work continues! The tiles are back!
Massive changes at the tank farm. Why are there so many sparks? Artemis III's plan changed? Starliner rolls out for launch! Relativity increases its tempo!
#SpaceX #starship #elonmusk #starbase
▶️Patreon: www.wai.to/patreon
▶️WAI Hub: www.whataboutit.space
▶️Redline Helicopters: wai.to/redlineheli
▶️Merch Store US: whataboutit.myspreadshop.com/
▶️Merch Store EU: whataboutit.myspreadshop.de/
▶️WAI Orbit: In collaboration with our friends at SkyFi: / skyfiapp
▶️X (Twitter): www.x.com/FelixSchlang
▶️Instagram: / felixschlang
▶️Facebook: / waispace
▶️WAI Spotify Playlist: spoti.fi/39tmULH
Editing: John Young, Alex Potvin, Stefanie Schlang
Photography: John Cargile, John Winkopp & Stefanie Schlang
3D Animation: Voop3D
Script & Research: Eryk Gawron, Oskar Wrobel, Felix Schlang
LIVE Production: Astro Roadie
Host: Felix Schlang
Production: Stefanie & Felix Schlang
Graphics & Media Processing: Jonathan Heuer, Felix Schlang
Credit:
⭐SpaceX
⭐NASA
⭐Rykllan on X: / _rykllan
⭐SpaceX 3D Creation Eccentric on X: / bl3d_eccentric
⭐SpaceX 3D Creation Eccentric on KZhead: / spacex3dcreationeccentric
⭐TijnM on X: / m_tijn
⭐TijnM on KZhead: / @tijn_m
⭐Jessica Kirsh on KZhead: / @jessicakirsh
⭐Jessica Kirsh on X: / jessica_kirsh
⭐Ryan Hansen Space on KZhead: / ryanhansenspace
⭐Ryan Hansen Space on X: / ryanhansenspace
⭐Ryan Hansen Space on Patreon: / ryanhansenspace
⭐Starship 3D on X: / dstarship3
⭐TDSN on X: / tdsn19
⭐ChromeKiwi on X: / ashleykillip
⭐Alex Delderfield on X: / alex_adedge
⭐LabPadre on X: / labpadre
⭐LabPadre on KZhead: / labpadre
⭐VirtualSpace_3D on X: @Lolomatico3d
⭐VirtualSpace_3D on Patreon: / vs_3d
⭐Nick on X: / chameleoncir
⭐Jerry Pike on X: / jerrypikephoto
⭐Tony Bela on X: / infographictony
⭐Ryan Hansen Space on KZhead: / ryanhansenspace
⭐Ryan Hansen Space on X: / ryanhansenspace
⭐Virtual Space_3D on X: / lolomatico3d
⭐The Ring Watchers on X: @RingWatchers
⭐Lunar Caveman on X: / lunarcaveman
⭐The Space Engineer on KZhead: / thespaceengineer
⭐Starship Gazer on KZhead: / starshipgazer
⭐Starship Gazer on Patreon: / starshipgazer
⭐Starship Gazer on X: / starshipgazer
⭐Greg Scott on X: / gregscott_photo
⭐www.nasaspaceflight.com
⭐Nick Henning on X: / nickhenning3d
⭐ErcX on Twitter: / ercxspace
⭐Alex Svan on X: / alexsvanart
⭐Caspar Stanley on X: / caspar_stanley
⭐Neopork on X: / neopork85
⭐Corey on X: / c_bass3d
📄Links for this Episode:
www.spacex.com
www.spacex.com/starship
Injured in an accident? You can start your claim with Morgan & Morgan at www.forthepeople.com/whatabout?s=86%3A4165 What do you think? Would a light version of Artemis III make sense, or should NASA aim directly for a full-scale lunar mission?
Commercial too long for one that is US specific, a lot of us are from the rest of the world ,
I think that it really depends on what stage the program is in 2026/7. It is probably best to do a bigger mission since Artemis 4 will also take a few years to launch. (Better make the best out of the opportunity)
I really think they should ditch "tiles" and move to panels, larger sections, easier to inspect, better fitting over complicated areas, and quick to inspect/remove/replace and they would have more fixing points to ensure they stay on.
Felix, personally I think the heat tiles are ultimately going to seriously impede the rapid turnaround times ELon Musk wants to works towards. Do you think they will ultimately try other methods for re-entry protection?
@@JamesTyrrellOnline Single-use thermal ablative blankets wrapped around starship's main body, and fixed in a way that it/they can be discarded in-flight after the re-entry heat phase. Back on the stack, mechanical arms could wrap a new blanket around starship. turnaround time: less than a day, with tiles that time is considerably longer. Of course the fins require a more sophisticated approach, but maybe the tiles will be enough for them. Which option would Elon choose?
lets hope the doors are well fitted to Starliner ;)
Good thing it doesn't have wheels to fall off either...😂
I wanted to like your comment, but 69 is better than 70.
the fact that boeing has been cleared to launch humans in a capsule that has yet to make a successful test flight tells you everything you need to know about government corruption when dealing with big business legacy corporations.
Hopefully, Starliner's door doesn't fall off after take-off.
Better than bloody exploding every test flight like Starship.
@@LeonAust at least with Starship it's expected to go boom
@@LeonAust im sorry are you comparing a fully reusable rocket prototype and a crew capsule which was finalised and ready to roll out? (one of which has objectively been more successful than the other (starship))
The Rockets are not assembled at the Discount company that messes up so many planes though.
@@LeonAust that is why it is a test in iterativ development, it's not expected to survive, but to show up the next weakness to go after. With Flight 7 or 8 nothing will explode anymore. Just like with Falcon and with the first upper Stage tests. Why do poeople that comment on this "problem" generally show they have a total lack of understanding how that works?
"The first test launch will include 2 astronauts" are scary words, coming from Boeing.
No way I'd be one of those Astronauts. I wouldn't trust anything Boeing had built recently.
It is a shame that Boeing's name is now mud when it is McD Douglas's culture/management that took over and is to blame after the merger.
You mean 3rd test launch. It flew 2x already. Then NASA told them that their Starliner was FUBAR and they had to make major changes to it.
I'm not confident in Starliner and wouldn't fly in it ever. That said for the sake of the astronauts I hope that if there is a failure it strands them on the ISS till a Dragon can bring them home. Best of luck to the astronauts, I'm afraid you will need it.
I'd ride Dream Catcher before I'd ever set foot on Starliner
Once the issue with the heat shield has been resolved the program will move on to other concerns. SpaceX knows what works, learns from their mistakes and makes corrections that they test with each launch. I have no doubt they will solve the tile issue. Starship will survive re-entry and will become reliably reusable. I am eagerly waiting for the announcement of the next launch.
SpaceX is building and testing ships more like developing software than the way other companies do it. Build a prototype knowing that it's not perfect. Launch it and let the bugs surface. Fix the bugs and relaunch. Musk said designing ships is easy and the hard part is production. Now he has a production line that pumps out prototypes.
@@longshot7601 Can`t wait to be the `test` astronaut on Mars !
Achieving successful water landings at this point, is more important than achieving a permanent heat tile solution. Even if they have to glue them on like the shuttle. They have many more flights to resolve the heat tile issue.
Why don't put tiles on whole starship,with just one side one little roll and you are dead
You need to have a good imagination to take all this seriously🤪
"Temba, his arms wide" made me laugh out loud!
Clipka, his eyes open.
Pumba, his arse emitting thunder.
When the walls fell!
6:07
Yeah, talk about an obscure TNG ref.
I was expecting this Artemis III flight change. For one thing, Starship's development cycle is not looking like it will be fully ready with the tankers to go all the way to the moon so quickly. Apollo was an agile program that changed flight plans according to hardware availability. I always thought jumping from an Apollo 8 style mission to an Apollo 11 style mission was simply ridiculous. Apollo was a crash program, but they had enough intelligence to build expertise and test hardware incrementally. I would not be surprised if we had an Apollo 9 style test as you mention and maybe even a long stay test drive of Starship in lunar orbit before a landing. That might be achievable with little to no refueling if the payload of Starship is kept small on that flight. They might even have enough payload on SLS to carry a translunar "tug" stage to take Starship to lunar orbit without refueling and leave the Orion in Earth orbit for ascent and reentry to Earth. For that matter, Dragon 2 could fill that role without a need for another expensive and slow-to-build Orion. The automated unmanned lunar landing of Starship will stand in for the Apollo 10 dress rehearsal mission. That will prove out the refueling plan and the safety of the landing profile for such a top heavy beast. I wouldn't be surprised if the first SpaceX automated landing fails to meet all the goals and NASA will require a second test. Unlike Apollo, which had delta-V to burn with the Service Module blunderbuss and the Lunar Module engines, Orion doesn't even have the Delta-V to get itself out of a low lunar orbit and get home on its own. The Starship lander, and the other designs are the only way Astronauts could get back to the Gateway station from low lunar orbit. The Artemis 2 mission is sort of puny when you consider Apollo 8 injected itself into low lunar orbit, made 10 orbits of the moon, and then blasted itself back toward Earth all on its own. Artemis 2 Orion is going to stay on a free return trajectory the whole way and never enter a stable orbit around the moon. That leaves an awful lot to prove during the lunar landing mission.
Yeah but he tried to blame it on HLS delays totally ignoring the fact that HLS depends on Starship and Starship is way behind. It's payload capacity right now is 50% of what was promised, and even at 100%, we're talking 15 flights to fill up the orbital depot, requiring massive proof of reuse, on-orbit fuel transfer, mitigation from boiloff, engine-relighting in space or on the moon after days of sitting there off, being able to handle lunar dust, and on and on. There's so many unknowns, so many risks, there's no way in hell they're gonna land with HLS in 2026. At this point, 2030 is pushing it.
@@RayCromwell exactly, and it is one out of many many issues i dont really believe apollo missions happened as they told us. Maybe astronauts landed, but surely lots of photo/video material was shooted in a studio. Too much oddities, like the unreal jumps and acrobatics on the surface. But it is also possible that they sent exclusively robotic ships.
@@zdenekburian1366 the soviets would have been monitoring the Apollo flights very closely, if the us was faking anything they would have opened their mouths instantly, to think any bit of the Apollo program was fake is extremely stupid, how could you possibly say that some movement is unreal if you yourself have never been to space.
@@zdenekburian1366 There's always one moon denying nut...
Sokath, his eyes uncovered!
Shaka.When the walls fell.
Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra
@@jefffane1731 Arms wide open! My goodness, the impact of that TNG episode really was EPIC. Nobody needs to explain the reference.
@@paulmichaelfreedman8334 But you did,..
Oh , oh , I know what this is from !
When I was 14 when landed Apolló 11 to the Moon. A want to see the next Moon landing! :-)
I was around yet so I want to see A moon landing!
When I was a kid, half the boys my age wanted to be astronauts when they grew up.
@@michaelmicek I was one of them - in 1969, seeing that grainy footage of Appollo 11 landing turned me into an instant space nerd.
I was about 5. They woke me up for it because it was on TV late at night. It was BORING and I told them so. This is stupid. They told me this was a historic event. These people are on another world. I said, They do that on Star Trek every week. They told me, That's just some stupid show on TV. I said, THIS is a stupid show on TV. This is dumb, I'm going back to bed.
Born in 1974, thus sadly I have never witnessed it live. But luckily I do get the chance twice in the upcoming few years with both China and the US going. As things look now they will both go in 2028. I am already excited for it, and can't wait to see both nations land safely tbh. 😊✌
If they use a virtual tower, SpaceX should be able to use a real camera to show in real time the virtual catch.
Maybe. Depends on how far out the landing is. They don't want it to be too close to land in case it fails, and they don't want to risk a ship nearby either for the same reason. Hoping that it will be close enough though for a camera. Should have at least the onboard cameras if nothing else, but hoping for more.
Virtual tower Actual failure
It'd be quite challenging, actually. To have good superposition of the video and the virtual tower, you would need very precise position and direction of the camera. Beyond what GPS can provide. To compensate that, you would need fixed points of reference, which are tricky to setup at sea.
They really can’t because if they mess up the trajectory they are gonna get hit by a 200 ton bullet going Mach 4…
I think it wouldn’t be too much a challenge to overlay virtual catch arm models that sync their rotation to their plant model of the catch arm rotation controlled by software (basically SIL, software in the loop). I think they could easily cook that up before launch
Think back when Felix would say the names of all Patreon individuals. You've come a long way!
Ditch SpaceX as a lunar lander, change it to a super heavy lifter for cargo to LEO. Have Blue Origin do the moon landing. Make another contract to shuttle cargo from LEO to lunar orbit. Make a small space station around the moon. Delay landing until like 2036 or something (no way it'll happen sooner).
space X will do everything. the Starship Factory,
The U.S. Military WANTS Starship to work. GOODBYE red tape!😎
Good luck I don't want my tax money propping up befuddled billionaires.
But it doesn't work. Now, it can nolonger lift 200 tons but just 50. They forgot the most obvious part. The rocket equation. Maybe Elon should stick to spouting garbage on X.
Even the Mil gave up on SDI(Star Wars). Nothing has a never ending budget.
Seems like they won't need luck as you're literally witnessing the systematic series of events that completely takes luck out of the picture and turns starship into a reliable space vehicle just like falcon. SpaceX launches more reused rockets a month than other agencies launch in a full year.
@@ThatOpalGuy The Military Industrial Complex is a prime example.
Congratulations to the brilliant sharp pictures we are getting to see on a bi weekly basis. Awesome production value.
We'll either see a perfect crewed launch from starliner or just a crude launch. It's a tossup at this point.
At this point I hope the astronauts live but the launch fails so we can stop pouring money on this dumpster fire.
or a screwed launch....
That pfp 😂☠️🤡
@@Munchmalloww Yes, we are pro russia here, like musk
@@franzfrikadelli6074 As everyone should be.
We're having a safety talk at work on Friday. The image of the welder standing on the rail at <a href="#" class="seekto" data-time="430">7:10</a> should give everyone a good laugh. Thank you.
I once had to argue with a guy using a cutting torch to cut cut the last support on a heavy ladder while he was on a platform lifted by a tow motor. He was leaning THROUGH the ladder and nothing would keep it from falling on his back (hundreds of pounds and the impact point was 1/4" steel vertical to his back) once he cut that last support. Another guy ran to get his boss as he would argue but not understand. At the least it would have severed his spine at the worst cut him AND his hoses in two killing him and causing an explosion. Blithering idiot.
Can I intern for free
At my work, this would be a safety violation in the same class as a LOTO violation, which is generally termination.. But when Amazon is the customer you have to follow their very strict and ever changing rules
Real men just get it done…and some don’t survive it … the panty waist crowd want to make sure no one can possibly get hurt.. That’s why NASA hasnt done anything in decades to brag about.. The feminizing and wimping of male jobs… It ruins all adventure and achievement.
Obviously using the same health and safety regime as tesla.
I really enjoyed your enthusiasm during this video about SpaceX's Starship; Blue Origin and whatnot! I cannot wait until the launch of IFT4 and the resulting testing and practice landing presumably in the Indian Ocean! Well done, Felix and your awesome Crew!
Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra
..lol. my ui loaded the "translate to English" for this comment. That is just to funny. 👍😄
When starship fell
Darmok and Jalad on the ocean
Tower, his arms open
Boeing, ears closed, at rest.
landing on chopsticks with fifth flight... jeeez.. anxiety will be 1000%.
I do think spacex wouldnt mind it too much to rebuild stage zero probably. Look at starship and the rapid iterations, improvements and so on to the next prototype. While we do see upgrades to stage zero it is much harder to implement these improvements into existing infrastrukture and hardware compared to rebuilding stuff. Not saying SpaceX expects or wants stage 0 to basically get bombed, but I think it probably wouldnt delay things all that much. The fact this thing is still working properly is actually pretty amazing given when they built it they massively underestimated how intense launching the super heavy would be.
It's embarrassing for Elon and his rocket scientists, that the starship doesn't have much much more robust and far-reaching landing legs, at least 1500% wider than those tiny stick legs which don't stick out much at all, allowing for easy tip-over upon landing ..... It would be a rather simple design yet a necessary part of any stable landing on a rock-filled and sometimes squishy regolith lunar surface. Am I a rocket scientist, you might ask? No. But I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.
I am excited about it. The engineering phase is the best part. Once it works, it will just become commonplace
@@LunnarisLPI agree to a point with you but remember the 2nd stage 0 is already being worked on as we speak and space x is not going to try this until the booster can accurately relight and do a last minute hover above the virtual tower
@@miketobin2324the legs are not a big concern since the booster will return to the tower almost completely empty of any propellant and the legs they designed for the actual ship have already proven to work they kept it simple and I believe it will only be implemented by on ships that will be used as landers only so moon missions and things of that nature
I'm split on the idea of an Artemis-lite mission, but I am in favor of any mission that takes us forward, and even though it would be disappointing to not see a full blown mission it's still a step forward so who am I to complain? My biggest 'wow' news is Relativity's speed. I thought the mechanics and engineers on Raptor were fast but this is a whole new level.
<a href="#" class="seekto" data-time="365">6:05</a> I caught that 😂 Darmok!
Wow, look at the size of that 3D printer. Amazing tect on a large scale with multiple apps. 💯
NASA should be more flexible with HLS schedule. They should make it first come, first serve, instead of designating SpaceX to Artemis 3&4 and Blue Origin to Artemis 5. If Blue Origin's team can get an HLS lander ready first, they should do Artemis 3 with BlueMoon instead of Starship. Imagine if NASA had insisted the first commercial crew flight to the ISS was done with Starliner, we would still be waiting until today.
If BO gets ready first and Starship is heavily delayed, they will absolutely restructure the flight plans. Question is will BO be ready anywhere near A3 or A4? After all, their lander requires New Glenn. And it isn't slated to fly until later this year. They also need several New Glenns to be able to launch all pieces, fuel, and get everything assembled in space. If I'm not mistaken, they also need to have at least one uncrewed landing, just like Starship.
BO is moving at glacial speed at everything it does. Expecting them to have a lander ready sooner than starship is pure fantasy
@@sotosandroid6139vulcan: worked first launch. Starship??
@@ThatOpalGuy Vulcan is a legacy uninnovative rocket. ULA actually sold it as a low risk derivative of their legacy rockets. Starship is on the cutting edge and it would be impossible to develop with traditional processes (like falcon 9 which succeeded on its first flight also).
@@anthonypelchat Both Starship AND New Glenn are not slated to put payload into orbit until later this year. If New Glenn can follow in the footsteps of Vulcan Centaur and successfully deliver payload beyond LEO on their very first launch, then Starship is really not that far ahead of New Glenn. And NASA and BlueOrigin clearly seem to think this is at least possible, seeing as they will not be flying empty to a near-orbital trajectory, like SpaceX, but are instead planning to fly NASA's EscaPADE mission to mars on their first launch. BlueOrigin is also looking to fly their single launch, uncrewed BlueMoon Mk1 lander in 2025, while I don't think we've really had much in terms of a concrete timeline for a CLPS Starship. New Glenn is moving ahead at a good rate, it's BlueMoon Mk2, Lockheed Martin's cislunar transporter and the various modifications that will allow for refueling with New Glenn's 2nd stage that are further out and unclear. But the same can be said for Starship. We have not seen hardware or launchdates for tanker, depot or HLS versions of Starship. And while Blue Origin has shown us their BE-7 engine, we have not seen much of Starship HLS's landing engines. Currently neither team is on track to deliver an HLS lander in time for a 2026 Artemis 3 mission, with a GAO report in 2023 finding SpaceX (and also Axiom's space suits) probably wouldn't be ready until 2027. But if Artemis 3 is pushed much beyond 2027 we are running into the 2029 timeframe, when Blue Origin was initially supposed to be ready to support Artemis 5. At the moment there doesn't seem to be much incentive for Blue Origin's team to speed that timeline up, since it seems like they would just need to wait for Artemis 5 anyway.
Re Artemis lite: Normally I'd want more testing to make sure it works but the SLS is just so expensive it doesn't make sense to not go for the real landing. I was hoping to hear they would just ride in starship on the way to the moon too
You should be proud! Awesome work Felix and team great work! ❤ thank you! You Rock!
Love ur videos WAI and felix
Obviously, NASA finally woke up after the Smarter Every Day presentation and realised that Starship will never go to the moon.
NASA is drunk on the modern space interest of the public, but I think they are starting to realize if they F' this up they will never be funded again
yup
Every time very informative and at the same time very entertaining space news. Great work.
At <a href="#" class="seekto" data-time="760">12:40</a>, comparing the 16 pieces of visible safety wire confirms it is certainly the same QD. Having all 16 have the exact same angle is almost impossible.
Why not a soft water landing for Starship? Seems like such an obvious thing to at least try, nothing to lose
You need stable flight, fuel and working engines for soft landing. Those are not guaranteed to be avilable with next flight, as last time it was barely able to deliver itself to suborbital trajectory.
@@szewc0svd That was a test dummy
SpaceX is risking a lot by doing a catch on the launch tower. If the booster falls over, lands incorrectly, explodes, there will still be some propellent on board, the damage to the launch complex could be extensive. Why not build a separate landing facility away from the launch facility?
And the cult will still yell: SUCCESS!
Why not build a separate landing facility away from the launch facility? Probably because the Boca Chica site is too small/restricted to build anything at scale (everything is crammed there) and with enough "safety distance" in that specific case. And also probably because Musk doesn't care if things are destroyed (rock tornado much?), he spends everyone else's money on it.
You still don't know spacex.... 😂😂😂.... they test and test and test until it works.... very simple but many can't understand....
Test, retest, test again. Wake sure problem is fixed. If not, try something else.
You can relax. No catch attempts will be done before tower 2 is operational, so there will always be a backup. Furthermore, the KSC tower construction is back on the table and will probably start very soon.
Tiles on S29 are just glued because they should work. It's just quicker that way than stripping whole ship and go with new iteration that we SAW already on test segments few months ago. Smaller tiles, with different type of attachment (one whole steel hexagon, instead 3 small strips like in current gen). New heatshield we will see probably on v2 ships.
The load spreader centers the mass for the crane to lift. That is the function of a load spreader. The cut was done as it was solely to allow the cover to be lifted off of the tank without needing to lift it as high.
The evolution of starship has just begun. You'd think it was rocket science or something......... Keep the faith and chill people.
I know. people like thunderf00t and and a bunch others love to dance in circles as soon as the smallest things go wrong without understanding the sheer complexity of the starship program. I mean, they are only building the largest rocket alongside a massive tower that catches the booster, with the starship eventually being able to carry over 100 tons while still being quick cheep to build and fully reusable... sounds easy 😅
@@Shattered3582 that's exactly the problem, starship is too complex for it's purpose, it would be Cheaper, Quicker and Safer to, for example, launch an independent lander ON starship to LEO.
I should've mentioned that I'm talking about the lunar landing, which I would say is the most ambitious Starship mission
Well put 👍
@@wolfie3657 good idea, but i am sure they can do both. while spacex is developing their lander, another separate company could design a lander that would be comparable with starship. that way Artemis can have a short term lander ready in time, while having a heavy lander ready for future cargo supply missions
cool videos
While SpaceX will have made a lot of progress by sept 2026 the bottom line is that risking human lives on something as complicated as a lunar landing "must give us pause" as Hamlet declared. However I am confident that SpaceX will have been able to deploy an HLS in the NRHO around the Moon. The only advantage of Orion over Crew Dragon is its ability to fly to the Moon. Most essentially Crew Dragon cannot keep its crew alive for two weeks. So I hope NASA will at least test everything short of a landing during Artemis III. That is performing the equivalent of Apollo X. Transferring from the Orion to the HLS prototype in Lunar Orbit, riding the HLS down to periselenon at about 16km/10 miles, and then transferring back to Orion for the return to Earth.
the bit about moon habitat - if we are sending 15 tons at a time, then all of it has to have a long term purpose, such as the cylindrical out hulls of the 'ships' shown in most drawings. Else the outer-shell of the rocket may as well de-orbit to earth (if strong enough) rather than spend fuel getting it to the surface.
the fact that boeing has been cleared to launch humans in a capsule that has yet to make a successful test flight tells you everything you need to know about government corruption when dealing with big business legacy corporations.
<a href="#" class="seekto" data-time="653">10:53</a> “Premium Texan Dirt” Haha that reaction was premium
Still mind-blowing that we can drain a swamp/marsh and use it to launch the world's biggest spacecraft ever.
Starship has a serious problem with weight. It's current max payload looks more like ~50 tonnes to orbit, not 100. And the results of the iterative engineering development methodology seems to be putting weight on, not taking it off. Maybe increased raptor thrust can mitigate that some, but the gains must be in efficiency, not simply thrust, or the booster will just burn through fuel faster. Internal baffles to mitigate fuel slosh _reduce_ volume, and _increase_ weight. Didn't anyone at SpaceX simulate this? Baffling. That's a joke. Anyway, this looks like it's going to be a huge issue for Artemis HLS lander tanker flights. Requiring 15 to 30 tanker flights per mission is unsustainable. I'm worried. Maybe NASA is, too. Perhaps that's why Blue Origin seems to be getting more attention on its HLS project.
Thanks so much for creating and sharing this informative video. Great job. Keep it up.
Starship requires way too many on-orbit cryogenic refuelings to be a serious contender. At least 15 launches are required to send one Starship to the moon. It's a joke. Starship is too massive and too tall to do what NASA wants.
True! This thing is never going to the moon. Apollo did it in the 60s but somehow billions of dollars in lost rockets from SpaceX is a "success". We're living in opposite world
Put the Orion in Starship's payload bay and give it a lift all the way to the moon. That's how pointless Artemis is.
I see someone is unfamiliar with fundamental physics.
You should see Smarter Everyday's video about the Artemis program. The program is a mess, and Starship is probably the biggest part of this mess. It will require between 5 and 20+ refueling missions to refuel one single Starship to land on the moon. The 5-figure is an Elon number (absurdly optimistic). That's why Blue Origin sued NASA and that's why they also have a contract. And you want to put Orion inside Starship...
I love the way you always illustrate your explanations with drawings and videos. Good stuff.
It was amazing to see the starship enter the atmosphere
Wouldn’t get me on Starliner, happy to fly dragon though
I notice no one's asking.
The point is it’s got a 66.6% likelihood of just blowing up while all the SpaceX interns dance around high fiving each other.
I have tons of love for Starship but NASA needs a more practical vehicle for Artemis. I always liked the other landers better and could never understand why NASA would chance it on Starship.
There are opinions that starship Has been chosen for a lunar lander, so it can be funded and developed, there are no confirmations tho
Price, reusability, safety. Starship will end up being a better program across the board.
@@wolfie3657 That seems to be the reality playing out. I'm kinda worried for the program since Starship is still in it's very early stages of development with the final system requiring 15 or so launches along with fuel transfers to execute nominally. That's just one mission and that's a ton of raptors that must burn optimally. It's not that I don't believe in it. But jeez that timeframe is just fantasy at this point.
@@daironlubian6250 My real concern is Starship having any of those features ready in time for Artemis. On paper it looks good. But that's not enough to put boots on the moon.
Felix is awesome, as are the people behind the scenes we see. Thanks for presenting what's going on, keeps us all aware - and anticipating the future
Rapid reusabity mainly applies to stages 0 & 1. Ship can be more refurbishable, with dozens in pipeline.
First stage should be too, especially since it seems like as the ships evolve, the separation is going to be happening lower and lower.
@@POTheta001 I'm not sure what you're getting at. I was trying to say that the Booster (first stage) is supposed to return to the launch tower ("stage 0") for immediate (more than once per day) reuse. I understand there's a goal that Ship (stage 2) can also return directly to the tower, but it seems to me thst in general a given Ship will stay in orbit for a while, and you'd have a line of Ships waiting, so that you can take a couple of days to refurbish it before its turn comes around again.
I feel like Starliner really really needs another test flight before a crewed mission. They need to have a fully successful go without any issues. That's expected of everyone else, why not Boeing? I feel with the issues they've had, it more necessary now than ever.
I think they don't want to make it any more embarrassing than it already is and want to show success quickly. And I think this mindset could lead to disaster. I have a really bad gut feeling
Show me the astronaut that wants to fly on this thing after three failed launches? = certain death, one way trip.
Docking Starship with orion in LEO will send a very strong message to politicians. It's going to make a lot of people ignorant of space realize that Starship can take people from leo to the moon and back and that the ridiculously expensive, complex and risky orion isn't really needed for artemis. Seems like true space enthusiasts in NASA are trying to get rid of the porkrocket after all.
Lol. When will that happen? 2030?
Bold predictions for a system that hasn't even had one success.
@@ThatOpalGuy whenever it happens it will be a real sustainable exploration, not a boots and flags pissing contest like china is planning
What are you smoking? Please share
@@sidharthcs2110 great argument there little buddy
ONE-way FREIGHT landings, first. Starship is best for this. Also, the non-return minimizes their refueling requirement and speeds up the completion date. Only AFTER those successful freighter lands--verifying Starship's landing systems and vertical-axis stability--there is interim further testing. Including remote testing of its elevator, against the danger of vacuum welding. Still further preliminary pre-requisites, in those freighters: (1) lots of life support (including oxygen) in the freight hold, (2) a CME-resistant radiation storm shelter, (3) berm-construction equipment. ONLY THEN, human landings. Preferably in a small craft (e.g., Alpaca), minimizing flight-return fuel requirements. BEFORE astronaut departure, the Starship-hold equipment is used to construct a protective berm for the freighters, re the human transport's liftoff-generated ejecta. (Initially or later, one freighter contains a nuclear power plant and equipment for fusing regolith. Only after the construction of a fused-surface landing / launch pad--avoiding ejecta scatter--can lunar construction and the human presence move into high gear.)
Reliable landing of the Starship is an even more difficult task, which will have to be solved throughout the year.
The starliner crews should double check the door bolts are installed.
They really should just do a hop and catch. Coming in from orbit is a bonus, just hop and catch please first
Nice update, lots of things happening! Plus a live channel of coverage! No, YOU ROCK!
I think Artemis III Light makes total sense - Test all the systems before landing to shake-out any problems and then do landing on Artemis IV - This would manage-down risk further.
Can wait to see two masive steel skyscrapers in sand wetlands pop up in texas☺️ The✨most powerfull rockets✨next to them are just bonus!! 🥺
Same here!
It can hover, right? Let it hover for a few minutes. Stuff like that happens, in the future. "Stand by." "In hover."
Being risk averse when people's lives are involved is a good practice. Practicing "in Earth orbit" first, allows for verification of all systems and procedures prior to performing in orbit around the moon and establishes confidence in the system.
It's also a great way to lose public interest, support, and funding when it takes forever for NASA to do anything anymore while constantly moving the goalposts and kicking things out another 2 years, 5 years, another 10 years. Here's the problem... "The Vision for Space Exploration (VSE) was a plan for space exploration announced on January 14, 2004 by President George W. Bush. It was conceived as a response to the Space Shuttle Columbia disaster, the state of human spaceflight at NASA, and as a way to regain public enthusiasm for space exploration. The policy outlined by the "Vision for Space Exploration" was replaced first by President Barack Obama's space policy in April 2010, then by President Donald Trump's "National Space Strategy" space policy in March 2018, and finally by President Joe Biden's preliminary space policy proposals in spring 2021."
While an Apollo 9 style mission would be prudent, it would also be cost-prohibitive in the extreme. SLS costs $4 billion per launch. I don't think NASA wants to spend an extra $4 billion and NOT go to the Moon. It would be more cost-effective to have a Crew Dragon dock with a Starship in LEO than Orion.
They better should do an Apollo 10 style mission in lunar orbit.
I find it funny that people say” starship does t work it can’t work so give up” let’s not forget how many vehicles haven’t worked first time in the early days of space flight. keep going space x you got this and the space goes for blue origin. Eurouoe had this with Europa launchers way before Ariane worked . Have we forgotten that Ariane 5 went boom on its first flight and has had a long and mostly successful programme since that first failure!!!! This is the biggest rocket so far and even the Soviets didn’t get this far Everyone is doing great
these issues are more complex here though, there is practically no part of starship which has been truly succesful yet. Even after building and testing a couple hundred Raptor engines, we aren't even seeing them relight correctly. These guys are expecting to be able to light these multiple times, leave them in space for significant amounts of time and safely use them to return here. Currently this project looks like a complete joke. Its wild to think that blue origin may take over but spacex is flailing to a point its close to fatal for the business.
@@sickbailey21Nope, just nope. Way to early to make such a conclusion. And test launches are way too cheap. Spacex is playing in another league!
@@user-gv4cx7vz8t they've already blown 2.5 out of 3 billion of their gov funding and achieved none of their own goals so far. Spacex is hurting financially at the moment and if anything NASA is going to give them a much harder time for a future round of funding given these problems. I think a lot of people don't understand that starship development can bankrupt spacex entirely before it reaches success. Elon musk said this himself last year in his letter to the workers and they also failed to meet the majority of the criteria he laid out in that. I would like for them to succeed, they just aren't yet
Another problem with Starship is that, as disclosed by Elon during his recent Starbase presentation, the current launch system can "only" put 40 tons of cargo into orbit instead of the originally announced 100 tons. This means that it is probably not feasible to fill the orbital propellant storage and load a Starship with fuel. The consequence of this is that Starship will not be able to leave LEO for the Moon or Mars until we get Starship v2 which should hopefully be able to lift 100 tons of cargo (fuel!) into LEO.
What will be the difference in V2?
You do realize that ship 31/32 is gonna be the last v1 starship, right? I wouldn't be surprised if the first launch to put *anything* useful into orbit is on a v2.
ketamine addict Elon caught lying again 😂
regarding the virtual tower catch/landing attempt: I would have thought that SpaceX would mirror the virtual tower with the actual tower to see if it really does react as per the virtual one. After all, there is a lot of weight in those tower arms, and they have to move precisely. Or maybe they could run the result later I suppose.
NASA would be well advised to use Apollo landers to scout planned landing sites for starship before attempting to land a craft of the size of a Saturn 1b on the moon. In fact, NASA would be well advised to stop trying to reinvent the wheel, scrap SLS, and go back to Saturn/Apollo if they are serious about landing on the moon in this (or the next) decade. Back in the 1960's, NASA went from drawing board to landing on the moon in 7 years without today's computers and modern manufacturing techniques. In contrast, NASA has been working on the SLS/Ares/Artemis/ Constellation programs for the better part of this century and still does not have either a launch vehicle, crew capsule, or lander ready for a moon mission. I'd like to see them succeed, but we seem further away from the moon today than in 1962 when Kennedy made it this nation's goal to land on the moon before the decade was out.
Saturn / Apollo spacecraft were hand built / welded at multiple defense contractor locations outside of NASA, most of which are out of business. No engineering drawings exist and none were done in CAD. Can’t be done.
HLS UPDATE RAHHHH!!!
SpaceX and Starship are at least a year behind schedule for landing on the Moon. I would say they're closer to two years behind schedule. The number of totally unproven requirements yet to be achieved before landing safely on the Moon is still a mile long. NASA should have chosen the Alpaca for its initial lander.
Favorite channel. Most informative and reliable.
WAI is awesome but I really like Marcus House too. New video every Saturday morning!
There has been a rework regarding the heat tiles? With this change if it works the tile problem will go away. Personally I've had it with them.
How about the hot stag detach from the booster NOT the StarShip to act as landing plate for Mars and Moon.
Hard landing..( ie hitting said ocean at over 1000 jlicks per hour ..)
Having a capsule transfer astronauts to the lander after its tanked up would seem a no brainer. This can be done by Orion or Dragon 2. There is no point of taking a risk in Lunar orbit if it can be taken in LEO just as easily. That also means that astronauts will make the journey to the moon in the relative comfort of the lander with all that space and cargo for supplies if something happens. Don't see what the problems are that prevent 09/2026 landing. Spacex starship/lander is only accelerating. I Would, however, have a dry run with cargo only to land on the moon at the same site. This would massively increase cargo, could use human form robots to set up the colony weeks or months before the humans arrive. And setup a refueling station to begin making/storing O2 and CH4 for the return trip. The rocket with astronauts would just have to land within a few hundred yards so that they could run fueling hoses or use the cargo rocket for the return.
Full scale lander should be the next step. Docking procedures have been done many many times, but a lunar landing, tis rare indeed and the world needs this next step to grow at the pace we generally desire.
It's embarrassing for Elon and his rocket scientists, that the starship doesn't have much much more robust and far-reaching landing legs, at least 1500% wider than those tiny stick legs which don't stick out much at all, allowing for easy tip-over upon landing ..... It would be a rather simple design yet a necessary part of any stable landing on a rock-filled and sometimes squishy regolith lunar surface. Am I a rocket scientist, you might ask? No. But I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.
And we’ve seen two landers tip over this year attempting to land and they’re ant size compared to starship
Lunar Starship has not been remotely finalized in design. Perhaps obviously? I feel like this doesn't really need to be underscored. This comment reminds me of when that one guy mocked Starship for looking hopelessly dented and threadbare-he was talking about SN8 and SN9. It's the same kind of complete absence of foresight.
@Asterra2 Any engineer can do a center of gravity calculation relative to tilt angle and then determine landing leg projection. His worries are not stupid and in alignment with physics. The moon regolith will have to be flat and compacted for narrow legs.
@@mefobills279 Here is what the fellow is doing: Scrutinizing fan-made animations and basing criticism (let's call it mocking, because it unabashedly is) solely on that. Three years is a very long time to flesh out a design. I won't blame the _fan animators,_ because all they have to go on is SN15's proof-of-concept landing using makeshift legs, but I will absolutely blame somebody for coming out swinging when we are three years away from a finalized product.
@@mefobills279 Ok wiseguy, tell all that center of gravity crap to the engineers who designed the last moon lander which tipped over upon landing attempt.
Musk could reaaally easily move SpaceX 2 miles across into Mexico, never talk to the FAA again, and anyone from US inc. NASA can pay double what they're paying now. Just saying. They should consider that when putting obstacles in his way.
You are a tad short sighted they will still have to liaise with the FAA for flights just not approvals
And about a 3 billion dollar cost
i really hope the FAA isnt making POLITICAL decisions
Mexicos govt doesn’t seem the most stable, perhaps? Murdering of govt representatives isn’t a good sign. Military in 10 years could be controlled by anyone and just take SpaceX by force. I mean it is a rocket company.
He legally cannot. Rocket tech is not allowed to leave us territory for national security reasons.
Truly amazing. Mind blowing stuff. Good 👍 luck and Gods' speed 🙏. To infinity and beyond.
Here's a stat for you. Each rivet, of the 1+ million rivets, in the Saturn V vehicle required 1/32nd of an inch of solder to ensure it was secured with 100% strength. If the tool which dispensed the solder for each rivet was 1% too much, the rocket would not have any payload capacity to LEO.
Why aren’t they using dragon for moon mission. They already have the super Dreco’s and would only need to attach a propellant module.
The dragon is not designed for lunar orbit. It'll not survive re-entry from lunar orbit
More info. starship to the moon is 10 years away. They need to prove the following technologies (tower catch for super booster, tower catch for starship, heat shield, propellent transfer technology (all software and tech needed for safety and functionality), the technology alone needed for the moon starship mission is probably 10 years away to prove functionality and safety --> Proof, docking to ISS was not an easy test). The best bet is Dragon with super drecos, hopefully, they do not realize this 3-5 years later. My estimate is 2035 for landing on the moon unless they get it together and start looking at dragon as the best bet.
@@andrewlyn8875 well they need that for rapid reusability. They only need to prove propellant transfer for Artemis.
@@sidharthcs2110Dragon was actually designed with Lunar reentery in mind.
Good question. I've never heard an answer. My guess is that the SuperDraco engines burn through too much fuel too fast for a powered landing on Mars no matter what other means you use to slow the Dragon down before using the SuperDracos for touchdown. Once this became clear (something SpaceX would not conclude without real-world testing, which is why they built and improved it so much IRL), Elon wasn't interested in continuing its development as a powered lander at all. It works great as a conventional capsule to and from Earth orbit, so that's how SpaceX is using it. But once they won a role in the Artemis program, I would think that SpaceX would have revisited the Dragon as a powered lunar lander. I mean, why not? Yes, yes, I understand that even with less than half the gravity of Mars, the Moon's lack of atmosphere means 100% of momentum must be killed with fueled thrust (no aerobraking, no parachutes, nothing else to help you). And if the Red Dragon wouldn't make a soft landing on Mars, it probably wouldn't make a soft landing on the Moon... but that lack of atmosphere, and that lower gravity, means you've got other options for the Moon that you don't have for Mars. Adding a second stage, for instance, either a braking stage that remains in lunar orbit or a landing stage that stays on the Moon (and possibly collapses into a hard dust-free landing pad, complete with navigation and guidance beacons?), and suddenly you have a small but versatile and flight-proven lander... So I agree, @andrewlyn8875, this deserves a careful look. (Your "propellant module" would be the braking stage or landing stage)
Wow, sleazy personal injury lawyer sponsor commercial. Guess they'll take money from anyone.
They could work for Fani Willis! 😂
Personal injury lawyers are the bottom feeders of society. They're the reason why our insurance rates get higher EVERY year.
Full scale all out Lunar moon missions with sights on future Mars missions
personally i think starship needs to launch alot more before it lands on the moon as a lunar lander so this news about artemis 3 being scaled down to low earth orbit docking between starship and orion with crew transfer could be true though.
Totally assinge that, that capsule got a crew rating when it's failed every times its flown. That capsule should have to completely start over with perquisite launches being redone to prove it's fixed or completely scrapped the first time it fails.
Red Line Heli is so Cool. Love it Dude !
I do not EXPECT their Starship to survive re-entry and no one who has been watching this development would expect it to.
Leaving the cargo ship in a prolonged orbit would allow for greater examination of the moons' geographic landscape and more suitable landing areas.
The Artemis three changes is a good idea if the moonlighting happens still kind of at the same time they could accelerate Artemis three and do it in lower orbit and still let Artemis for be the moon landing at the same time Artemis would have been.
Felix, you and the team are a national treasure!
If Starship v1 gets 45t into LEO, v2 will get ~80t, and v3 will get ~140t. This is assuming they don't get any tank-strength or specific impulse improvements.
The concept art at <a href="#" class="seekto" data-time="930">15:30</a> brings a question to mind. That greenhouse dome.. how does it cope with daylight temperatures on the Moon? And what about the dark/light cycle? 14 days of up to 121°C (250°F) sunlight (and even higher inside a greenhouse!), followed by 14 days of no sunlight, and -133°C (-208°F) temperatures, is something that I can't really see terrestrial plants being able to cope with very well. Millions of years of evolution in a 24 hour day/night cycle, is not something to ignore lightly.
Maybe an inner layer the extends or retracts to block the light. As for the temp, probably would need multiple layers of glass with each having a very strong Low E coating to block the majority of infrared and UV, the visible transmittance would probably end up at 20% rather than 80-90%, but since there's no atmosphere it's probably fine.
@@Jaker788 -And how many food plants do we know that can survive on 14 days of light without a break, followed by 14 days of darkness? Has anyone even attempted the experiment? Underground grow rooms where we have full control are one thing.. but I can't see a surface-based greenhouse on the Moon being at all practical.
@@Garryck-1 Well we already know what plants can and cannot handle 24/7 light with no dark period. You can look that up and find out if any food plant can do it. As for darkness, we can use artificial light we have have the electricity to do so, 14 days of darkness is too much for a good crop. And again, if constant light is too much, we can simply have a movable shade to control daylight hours during the moon day cycle. The artificial light part is the same for the 14 day night cycle, this wouldn't be any different than your idea of being underground.
@@Jaker788 - That's kind of my point. It would take so much effort, you may as well just set up your grow rooms underground instead, and get rid of all the risks entailed in having a vulnerable glasshouse on the surface.
I only believe that Starliner launches, when I see it launch. And then let’s pray that all valves and thrusters work this time!
That might sound stupid, but why SpaceX doesn't try to use a test capsule or something like this to check the TPS tiles efficiency ? Like a little secondary payload under the fairing of a Falcon 9, being dropped just before releasing Starlink satellites for example ? Would save a lot of time, right ? 🤷♂
Testing heat resistance is really simple with tools on the ground, even shock resistance is testable. It's a lot like testing insulation for R values or U factor, just at extreme temps with a torch. Everything else is specific to application on Starship only. Does the heating on Starship match with expectations, do the attachment points work on Starship. These questions are answered with integrated testing, like the integrated flight tests that get these answers to inform any changes that need to be made.
I do hope that my gut feeling is off..... But people around the world don't even want to fly in Boeing planes anymore..... I'm afraid that Starliner will fail and that people will die... After that the whole Artemis program will come to a stop. ... Please, please, please let me be wrong on this. I was born in '74 and never witnessed Apollo live, I will turn 50 later this year and do hope to see people land on the moon in my lifetime.... And no I do not care which nationality they have, American or Chinese that's all fine. Even better would be if they finaly started to work together, just imagine what could be reached in terms of science. ❤✌ Thank you Felix for yet another mindblowing video. 💯
Starliner is unrelated to Artemis. I don't see how a failure there would affect it.
@@lazarus2691 Nothing is unrelated in the end.... A deadly accident with starliner will put a stop on all other human space flight in the US too.
@swissbiggy That's just not true.Look at the history man Challenger didn't get Shuttle canceled, neither did Columbia. And Apollo one had a fire and killed 3 astronauts and then went on the land on the more 2 years later. astronaut deaths have no bearing on whether a program gets canceled or not.. Especially when that vehicle is completely unrelated to the program.
It’s almost as if NASA is changing it’s an approach. Iterative design seems the way to go forward, and old space may eventually shift as well.
Unfortunately, probably not. This is likely driven by the shelf-life of the SRBs, which were poured well in advance of when they were needed, and indeed are probably the only part of the whole program to be on-time. So NASA are probably trying to avoid being in a situation where they have to scrap stuff...and while expending an entire SLS on some kind of make-work mission is a horrible waste, it's better PR than "we screwed up project planning and wasted all the money spent on building those boosters". The former can be blamed on others with the support of SLS backers in government, while the latter will have heads rolling.
@@simongeard4824well, NASA can’t really help it that SLS was so expensive. Being required to use tech from previous space programs may be good for local job security, but it’s these kind of limitations that make the costs skyrocket (pun intended). It may not be good PR to delay Artemis 3 beyond the expiration date of the boosters they have on stock. But then again safety and pollution are pretty solid arguments to the general public these days. It’s not like it’s the 60’s again where NASA is taking risks because they need to beat the Soviets. Imagine the shitstorm caused by any fatal accidents. Most people don’t appreciate the achievement of going back to the moon anyway. They will be more like “meh… didn’t we do this in the 60’s?). I mean… just look at how the general media interpreted the immense successes SpaceX already had during the first 3 IFT’s. Hardly any mentioning of SpaceX’s approach. Hardly any realization that SpaceX is expecting things to go wrong, so they can fix it for the next launch. All they see and hear is: “Rocket go boom, must be bad”. And then again, the boosters going bad is a waste of money, but by throwing a whole SLS stack away, is just plain sunken cost fallacy. If you’re at a big loss in the casino, the solution isn’t to double down either. I like to think they have at least more reasons to change the missions.
I think epoxy glue might help the tiles, but if it's brittle, the something like Shoegoo might be better.
Circling the moon in Artemis 3 would be a plus - after first attempting docking in earth orbit. Starship should get both vehicles there and back.
Would be funny if Artemis had enough delays that SpaceX with working starships got impatient and went ahead with their own plans so that Artemis had a nice little moon base startup to visit by the time it got there. OK pipedream maybe but you know some at SpaceX has to have at least considered the possible, if improbable, option.
How does the propellantless propulsion technology affect Starship? I imagine even if nuclear powered it would suit flight landing in the situation of atmospheric re-entry.
Launching Artemis for anything less than a Moon rendezvous would be a horrific waste of money. This isn't the Apollo era. NASA was sending up multiple Apollo rockets per year back then. NASA doesn't have the budget to waste an Artemis rocket on a LEO rendezvous.
Falcon and Dragon can do it for a couple decimal point places cheaper.... And Artemis still can't even make it to the Moon without Starship.
Excellent sharp close up photography pictures and awesome commentary 👍 🦊
Das ist sehr entmutigend. Ich gehe davon aus, dass sie einen alternativen Moonraumlander haben werden.