Does NASA & SpaceX's Plan with Artemis Make Sense?
Переглядів 680,037
Рік томуSign up for Curiosity Stream at curiositystream.com/marcushouse
Does NASA & SpaceX's Plan with Artemis Make Sense? The journey to Mars! Over the past few decades, there have been some fascinating proposals to define which method, and what associated hardware, crew will use to make the trip. Though each mission profile is seemingly more feasible then the last, all have been far too expensive and potentially dangerous to justify the risk. That is changing. With the release of NASA’s ‘Moon to Mars’ strategy, we finally have a proposal that inches us ever closer. Of course SpaceX's Starship is set to lower the cost of ‘Mass to Orbit’ by orders of magnitude giving these proposals a real chance to be implemented, and in this video, we’ll take a look at what this path to Mars might look like and how it could evolve.
💌Join the mailing list to be notified when I release a video.
marcushouse.space/email-list
👕Like this shirt? Pick it up on any product you like here.
marcus-house.myspreadshop.com...
Or in reverse
marcus-house.myspreadshop.com...
🎁 Marcus House Merch - marcus-house.myspreadshop.com/
You can support me on:
Patreon - / marcushouse
Join my Discord - / discord
Follow on Twitter - / marcushouse
The production crew:
Brenton Myers, Brendan Lewis, GameplayReviewUK, TiagoCruz, Aeneas, Mr Pleasant
Support from the below is always massively appreciated:
📷 NASASpaceFlight - / @nasaspaceflight
📷 BocaChicaGal - / bocachicagal
📷 RGVAerialPhotography - / rgvaerialphotography
📷 Greg Scott - / gregscott_photo
📷 Starship Gazer - / starshipgazer
📷 Cosmic Perspective - / considercosmos
📷 LabPadre - / @labpadre
📷 Zack Golden - / csi_starbase
3D artist magicians:
✨ Brendan Lewis - / _brendan_lewis
✨ Erc X / smallstars - / ercxspace / / smvllstvrs
✨ Tony Bela - / infographictony
✨ Owe BL - / bl3d_eccentric
✨ Corey - / c_bass3d
✨ Neopork - / neopork85
✨ Alexander Svanidze - / alexsvanart
✨ DeepSpaceCourier - / ds_courier
✨ SpaceXvision - / spacexvision
✨ Stanley Creative - / caspar_stanley
✨ Ryan Hansen Space - / ryanhansenspace
✨ Matt Ryan - / mattr5226
✨ TijnM_3DAnimations - / m_tijn
✨ Christian Debney - / christiandebney
✨ Evan Karen - / evankaren
✨ 3D Daniel - / 3ddaniel1
#SpaceX #Starship #ElonMusk
@MarcusHouse Рік тому
Have a great week everyone! For those interested in the presented Curiosity Stream episode, you can check it out at Curiosity Stream at curiositystream.com/marcushouse If you already have it, the direct link to the episode is curiositystream.com/video/6360.
@donenzonen Рік тому
Hey Marcus, there is a guy here in the comments pretending to be you, saying they got a surprise package. Obviously a scam.
@TerkelOlsen Рік тому
Yeah guessing so too
@Waikatotek Рік тому
Warning: Scammers doing that telegram thing on your channel again. Scumbags.
@TerkelOlsen Рік тому
@@Waikatotek yeah i fell into the first part of the scam before I realized it probably wasn’t Marcus
@firstnamelastname9918 Рік тому
If you do that deep dive, don't forget to look at sublimable iodine ion engines!
@dazuk1969 Рік тому
Space and particularly spacex has become an oversaturated area on YT. There are so many channels dedicated to spacex that are not very good and just repeat the same thing over and over. Marcus House is...and has been one of the best ones for some time, and also covers a wide range of space topics.
@Exitof99 Рік тому
If it video thumbnail has Elon crying/praying/looking angry, or claims of "Tesla Nuclear-powered Bots Destroy Besos," keep scrolling. I hate that these low-quality accounts can keep spamming all this BS "content." I think one is GREAT SPACEX or something like that. Often using fake images of things and claiming they are the new SpaceX tech. I report them when I see them making BS claims, but the worst is the bot accounts making dozens of live video feeds with keyword-stuffed titles and replay some old Elon interview with a frame around it trying to scam crypto. I've reported hundreds of these, and UKposts emails me letting me know they've suspended dozens of the ones I've reported.
@thomasjones4893 Рік тому
There's a few good ones, Scott Manly, Matt Lowne, The Everyday Astronaut and of course Marcus House to name some of my favourites
@dazuk1969 Рік тому
@@Exitof99 I agree, the crumby thumbnail thing is spot on. Swiftly followed by a terrible text to speech narrative that just copy's what all the reputable channels have said weeks ago, or the same American dude I have heard on so many channels and is just paid to narrate because he sounds good.....peace to ya.
@dazuk1969 Рік тому
@@cfiregaming9050 Hey there, the channels you mention, and the ones other people have in this thread are the really space good channels. I'm just fed up with all the spam spacex channels I keep seeing.
@steveaustin2686 Рік тому
@@dazuk1969 Or the text to speech directly quotes wikipedia articles on the bad channels.
@whotknots Рік тому
Your brief examination of ion propulsion reminded me of an old joke; Two atoms meet in a bar and one says to the other "I think I lost an electron" the second atoms asks "are you sure?" and the first one replies "yes I'm positive".😁
@sonpopco-op9682 Рік тому
ouch, not just a Dad joke, but a grade school science teacher joke.
@andretokayuk8100 Рік тому
@@sonpopco-op9682 at least it wasn't a health teacher joke..)/*
@eribertoacedo9505 Рік тому
Good man I appreciate that kind of humor I think I will use that joke of yours thank you.
@donjones4719 Рік тому
16:00 A video on ion propulsion will be interesting, and it will be *really* interesting if it covers the idea of using it for Starship tankers to the Moon. Will it use krypton (inefficiently carrying a 3rd propellant) or can the Hall effect use oxygen efficiently enough? It certainly can't use xenon, the amount needed is prohibitively expensive.
@musaraza5195 Рік тому
I second this!!
@walterlyzohub8112 Рік тому
I say we should use argon for propellant.
@bruceconnor6535 Рік тому
Yes,yes indeed! Hall effect deep dive would be much appreciated.
@andretokayuk8100 Рік тому
Why not just use water and steam propulsion?).. on demand water heating is existing technology.. maybe add a microwave magnetron or lasers to impart the most possible energy on the departing steam.. but that's pretty old school.. a large rail-gun for starships on the moon would be the ticket to Mars i.m.h.o.
@anthonypelchat Рік тому
@@andretokayuk8100 Water and steam is inefficient per ton of propellant. That is why chemical rockets are used currently. Ion and Nuclear propulsion are drastically more efficient than chemical rockets, which themselves are more efficient than steam.
@donjones4719 Рік тому
7:00 OK, a crew-rated spacecraft is needed to complement the non-crew-rated Starship for launch from Earth. But why Orion? Why in lunar orbit? You're keeping us in suspense over the glaringly obvious option of Dragon->LEO->Starship->lunar orbit->HLS Starship. A regular Starship fitted with crew quarters cloned from HLS (thus already NASA crew-rated for space operations) can take over the Orion part of the mission. This assumes Starship is a success - but Artemis already depends on Starship's success to do the tanker missions to LEO for the HLS. Have your experts check the figures, but a fully fueled regular Starship can go LEO->NHRO->LEO with no refilling in NHRO required. It will just have to carry a limited amount of cargo, but any amount will be more than Orion can, and this JSS (Journey StarShip) is simply swapping in for Orion.
@Gerard1971 Рік тому
Yes, this should have been mentioned. If SLS and Orion wouldn't exist today, it would be the obvious way to go until Starship is human rated, then they probably no longer need the lunar gateway either, although NRHO that does make it easy to land on the poles. However, for Artemis 2 or 3 they are going to use SLS and Orion.
@GameplayReviewUK Рік тому
Personally this is what I hope happens, we might be able to push for a video like this but we'd also need the 3D artists to be working around the clock for it, hopefully it will come out of the woodwork at some point.
@jeffreykoek4296 Рік тому
I love your videos, Marcus! Having that said, I would love to know more about ion engines!
@MarcusHouse Рік тому
Noted. I'll get right on it Jeffrey!
@craigelectric5241 Рік тому
😁
@AndronOcean Рік тому
It’s unlikely that Starlink or other launches could contribute their excess propellant to the depot before landing. The depot will be in one orbit; the launched Starship will be in an entirely different orbit - most likely not even in the same plane. Maneuvering between orbits like that can take considerable delta-V, using up some or all of the excess propellant and making the whole thing moot. More likely SpaceX would start doing combo launches whenever possible: satellites could hitch rides on depot refueling missions. The energy required to maneuver a single satellite from the Depot orbit (or one en route to it) to its destination orbit would be a lot less than that needed to move the whole Starship.
@kalebbruwer Рік тому
Assuming the depot is at the same inclination as Starlink, you can get there through orbital precession for very little delta V. That can take a lot of time though, so in most cases I doubt the increased turnaround time on the ship will be worth the fuel you'll deposit.
@THX..1138 Рік тому
Agreed. Plus there's no good reason to launch Starlink missions with more propellent than needed. Every kilogram of mass to orbit requires several kilograms of fuel to get it there...As far as ride share on tankers goes. Tanker Starships are likely to be little more than flying fuel tanks. Adding the ability to launch satellites to them would add significant mass that still be with the tanker even when they didn't have a ride share payload. IMO at best Tankers may be used to launch something like CubeSats from the tail cone as the payload launcher could be added or subtracted without significant modification to the Tanker and those types of payloads neither weigh very much or are very picky about what orbit they end up in. In fact the The fuel depot and Tankers are likely to use an orbit significantly lower than most satellites. One that requires frequent boost just to stay in orbit. Which is just about a perfect for CubeSats that are not intended to stay in orbit for than a several months or at best a year or two.
@JohnSmith-cb6qx Рік тому
Thank you! Whatever spare fuel a Starlink loaded Starship has would be wasted by changing orbit for a rendezvous with a tanker. Unfortunately it's not as easy to zip around LEO as movies like Gravity make it appear...
@DriverDad58 Рік тому
Not sure why SpaceX can't launch a few tanker Starships along with a manned Starship. Like a small convoy. Go about anywhere they want. That's what the Navy does I think. Just take enough tankers along. Skip Orion completely (or we'll be waiting until 2300 for this to finally happen). Maybe I'm missing something?
@LaeeqKhan01 Рік тому
That is assuming all rockets use exactly same propellants and they can be accumulated in the same depot tank. I have not began to consider Tybee extra weight of all the docking mechanism needed to dock with the depot and safely transfer fuel. Sounds like a very stupid idea even for a movie like gravity
@thejesuschrist Рік тому
This was really great! Thank you!
@flooskesky764 Рік тому
Your name is familiar, where do I know it from... 🧐
@slendreraffy5441 Рік тому
oh hey Jesus
@FloatTheBuizel Рік тому
how are you verified? XD
@mikelentz833 Рік тому
Is it true that you're friends with THE Joel Haver?
@MarcusHouse Рік тому
Thanks for watching Jesus! 😀
@Ainalom Рік тому
I wouldnt sweat it man. In just a couple of years SpaceX is singlehandedly running CREW missions with their Dragon capsules over and over and over. It may feel like slow engineering but the speed they are innovating and adapting, they will have the starship rockin and rollin permanently before we know it.
@leonardgibney2997 Рік тому
It'll be another round of postponements
@rorychivers8769 Рік тому
@@leonardgibney2997 Ok everybody, the SpaceX schedule isn't kept tight enough for Leonard Gibney, let's shut the whole thing down, send them all home!
@paulschulte1064 Рік тому
@@leonardgibney2997 Landing Falcon was postponed again and again. Oh the horror!
@leonardgibney2997 Рік тому
Yeah l admit I'm not a big Musk fan but I'm sceptical about manned space flight in general. I would always support man's efforts in space paradoxically because in the end I'm only expressing an opinion. It's like with moonshots. At the time of Apollo science pundits predicted we would be shuttling tourists to and from the moon routinely by the year 2000. Many don't believe we were ever on the Moon. NASA says it has moon rock brought back by the Apollo crews so that's pretty solid evidence they went there. When l think of the missions in detail l struggle to understand how Apollo happened. Miraculous!
@HoHhoch Рік тому
@@leonardgibney2997 Politics, is basically how it happened. Astronauts had to fight to get the approval for experiments on a lot of their missions to the moon because the government was more interested in beating the Soviets than doing any actual advancements.
@a.h.5413 Рік тому
This ist great stuff as always. I'd love to see a deep dive into efficent spaceflight 🤩
@flaumandrum Рік тому
I second this motion ...
@executivesteps Рік тому
Can we please retire the terms “deep dive” and “game changer”?
@flaumandrum Рік тому
@@executivesteps could we have a game changing discussion that dives deeper into that statement of yours 😀
@jacquesbijleveld4344 Рік тому
I concur
@OBTX91 Рік тому
Agreed, I came here to post the same thing
@Beldizar Рік тому
If you do a video about high efficiency engines, you really need to consider the cost per unit of thrust-work. If Methane Raptor engines can get things to the moon with terrible "efficiency", but a lower cost it is still better. The additional costs of R&D for a new engine, the capital costs for a new factory to build them, the electrical generation needed to produce it, the engineering time to design, build and test, and the much much more expensive ion fuel all matter and frequently get swept under the rug when discussing this. Everyone just measured kg of fuel per thrust-work done completely ignoring that the two fuels and engines that use the fuel are absolutely not equal.
@noeoep Рік тому
@@nighttow8780 How do you make methane on the moon?
@srinivasvellore447 Рік тому
@@nighttow8780 you need carbon also to make methane
@noeoep Рік тому
@@nighttow8780 For methane you need to add carbon atom to hydrogen and that is nowhere to find on the moon, unless polar craters contain dry ice too. On Mars there is carbon dioxide atmosphere for that.
@johnzehrbach820 Рік тому
@@nighttow8780 Its in the rock themselves, hydrates, oxides etc, also some indication of subsurface ice.
@avgjoe5969 Рік тому
...or you use shuttles (sharship and starship lander) at both ends for landing. You use a Starship fitted out with ion thrusters, a pair of liquid salt thorium reactors extra radiation shielding and top off in orbit with Krypton instead of Methyl-Ox. This is the ferry and never lands. Shuttle between Earth orbit and Lunar orbit every two months to ferry supplies. Add other ferries to accelerate supply.... or build a much larger version in lunar orbit after mining is in full swing and ferry larger loads or even take up asteroid prospecting.
@StereoSpace Рік тому
I'd love to see an entire episode on ion engines. And I really enjoyed this in-depth episode on the Moon & Mars missions. Thanks so much for these.
@chillwill8438 Рік тому
I appreciate the fact that you have a timer clock going on the bottom of the screen during sponsor times. Not that many UKpostsrs do this and it makes such a big difference! Thank you so much!!!
@fredrick3009 Рік тому
Just discovered this channel... let me just say thank you so much for all of the hard work and dedication. You really couldn't make these videos any more interesting and informative. It's exactly what I want to watch.
@jonathancollins9231 Рік тому
A really good and thoroughly produced video, thanks very much from a grateful Patreon supporter. I'd certainly back the idea for a deep look at the ion spaceship propulsion! Well done Marcus; a great slant as usual, unique alongside other space broadcasters. 👍
@briangriffiths114 Рік тому
Thanks Marcus, that filled in a lot of the gaps in my knowledge about the relationship between the two Moon programmes. Please keep these midweek videos coming!
@calebcourteau Рік тому
The information density and production quality of your videos is top notch, and your release schedule is insane. Thank you for the quality content, Marcus.
@jeromeisaacs4428 Рік тому
True this Video answered all Question on how we will get back to the Moon
@pino6144 Рік тому
I would love a video about ion engines. I know there's heaps out there, but you are great at explaining things so that i understand them :)
@selectthedead Рік тому
Hey Marcus, I know you are more of a news Channel, but I have a video suggestion: What industry would require 0 g or the resources from the moon? Any kind of Basic Research that could lead to 0g production in space.
@MarcusHouse Рік тому
Interesting thought. Will put that in the vault.
@seankash8546 Рік тому
@@MarcusHouse I believe this person may be referring to magnetogravitic and electrogravitic spacecraft propulsion. These two concepts were first documented by the DoD when studying recovered nonterrestrial spacecraft in the late 1940’s/early 1950’s. Certainly, these means of propulsion are still classified or “locked up in black projects”, as it were, though it would be nice to see rockets put to obsolescence by sharing this more efficient technology with all of mankind.
@DFPercush Рік тому
@@seankash8546 I think you've watched too many fake conspiracy videos.
@bbirda1287 Рік тому
3D printed manufacturing is much easier in 0g as you don't have gravity deforming your structures, so you can print intricate 3d models in metals, plastics, and organics and have them solidify / cure / develop in their desired forms.
@seankash8546 Рік тому
@@DFPercush As things are right now, your perspective is definitely understandable. Unfortunately, our reality is such that, the only ‘conspiracy’ or widely-misunderstood idea that I know of, is the conclusion that NASA is our nation’s most advanced space program, which it unfortunately is not.
@MrFlopstar Рік тому
As engines develop I think talking about ion thrust is a good idea. Plus, thanks for the fascinating Artemis knowledge
@geofftus5683 Рік тому
Marcus my man, so courteous as to put a sponsor cooldown bar! You are the freaking man!
@adrianhjordan1981 Рік тому
Great video as always. It's a definite yes from me for that video on other propulsion technologies!! I love Everyday Astronaut's videos, but your's are a lot more accessible and you explain things in a far easier to digest manner.
@cbu5574 Рік тому
i have a lot of doubts about the proposed timeline, not because it isn't doable, but because politics always gets in the way.
@prachurgupta9719 Рік тому
Not politics exactly, but funding from congress.
@JesbaamSanchez Рік тому
@@prachurgupta9719 that's pretty much politics. Look at what is going on with the new green bill that Biden is trying to push and so far it's getting delay because of one person in Congress. Anything related with government comes with politics and delays, unfortunately it's just how it's been
@Astras-Stargate Рік тому
Bravo, Marcus House! This is a great video with lots of information. I really like the ion engine idea for the fuel depot. Would love to see a future video on this subject.
@mjbug1435 Рік тому
I'd like to say thanks for all the work you do to inform us in these super concentrated info packed videos ! It is obvious you have a passion for this subject
@KevinTheCaravanner Рік тому
Wow these Artemis missions are sure. Really brings it home what a massive achievement Apollo was.
@johnh9661 Рік тому
A TUESDAY UPLOAD?!
@graychev Рік тому
He does this sometimes.
@johnh9661 Рік тому
@@graychev 🎉 I’m new around here, so this is amazing news
@cipedead0777 Рік тому
You have showed me a lot I did not know or was misinformed about. Think you for such a clear look at all of this. I think it be grate to see more about the future of how thins will move in space and anything that helps us all to be better us. The last 3 years should show us all how much we need to be able to explore. Thank you Marcus and your amazing team. An idea for a video is a look at what it tacks to get a video out each week.
@dansiegel333 Рік тому
What a great video! The more I understand the plan, the more confident and excited I get!
@TheAnticorporatist Рік тому
Couldn’t you just use Dragon to ferry astronauts to LEO? And a Mars skyhook is a great idea as well; it could use a minor amount of drag from the Martian atmosphere to burn off the Delta V it absorbs from incoming rockets…at least until it is time to give up that Delta V to launches.
@zaguar3153 Рік тому
Cool episode, Marcus - hope we're all still around to see the Mars landing! It would be super cool if the NASA transport (19:40) took its design queues from 2001's "Discovery One", IMHO.
@eckgolfkerman Рік тому
"Open the pod bay doors, Alexa"
@bradcarrick9921 Рік тому
Made my morning mate! Forgot you were dropping another video mid week. 🤙 love your work
@mmassassin Рік тому
Great stuff. Been a fan for a while , but now your videos are truly becoming little mini documentaries . keep up the good work
@glennscott8622 Рік тому
We never bothered to construct an artificial gravity ring at or in proximity to the ISS, so we are pressing ahead without certainty as to the long-term health effects of Martian 0.37G. If 0.37G is insufficient for biological humans, then we are colonizing Mars with automatons, radically genetically modified humans, or building O’Neill Cylinders for artificial gravity. All those solution reduce the relative value of Mars significantly. If 0.37G is insufficient for humans, then after the Moon it’s on to asteroids, not Mars. Gravity for humans is critical for Mars, otherwise it’s really just another rock with the penalty of sitting at the bottom of a gravity well.
@RasakBlood Рік тому
Mars have the potential for manufacturing rocket fuel by only using local resources. Not sure thats possible on an asteroid or the moon. At least not as easily. And low gravity may be more beneficial then zero gravity for a ton of things we already do and have the tech for. Also things like genetically modified humans and O´Neill Cylinders are so far away. Regardless of the "better" long term strategy mars is available far sooner.
@Zullun Рік тому
I've often wondered why we're building the lunar gateway at all. It seems a much smarter use of government funds would be to launch and fill the HLS in low earth orbit and then use the Dragon to transport astronauts to the HLS before it takes off for the moon. This would be more of a lunar direct approach and then on return do the same thing. Dock with the Dragon and transport returning crew like we do currently from the ISS. This removes the huge boondoggle SLS from the equation and dramatically reduces the budget dollars needed for these missions. It also leaves the HLS in earth orbit where it can be refilled and reused again.
@chrismuir8403 Рік тому
The advantage of having a lunar orbiter is that it can hold the propellant necessary to get from lunar orbit back to the Earth, and that propellant doesn't have to be carried to the lunar surface or hoisted from the moon back into lunar orbit. That is the reason why all the Apollo missions used a "command module" that didn't land on the moon but remained in orbit. That approach is more efficient in propellant use.
@steveaustin2686 Рік тому
Lunar Starship would be out of propellant once it gets back to lunar orbit after the surface mission is over. Also Lunar Gateway will do science around the Moon as well. The NRHO is a very stable orbit with very little propellant needed for station keeping each year. Lower orbits around the Moon are not stable, as there are mascons on the Earth side of the Moon, so the mass of the Moon is lopsided. A Starship Shuttle could replace SLS/Orion for the LEO to lunar orbit and back to LEO trip, but the Artemis III launch cadence is too slow for that. Per the GAO report denying the HLS complaints, it will take up to 10 Starship flights to get Lunar Starship to the Moon (pg 27 & Musk's updates to those numbers). The cadence per the SpaceX plan is one Starship launch every 12 days (pg 12). Lunar Starship can only wait in lunar orbit for 100 days (HLS Option A Statement pg 9), so it would take too long to get a Starship Shuttle to the Moon at first. Once Starship is down to about a once a week launch, then the up to 8 Tankers, a Starship Shuttle, Crew Dragon, Starliner, and at least one cargo Dragon would be just over $2.1B, even at the HLS Option A cost for a Starship launch. So it could replace SLS/Orion then. NASA has already procured the parts for 8 SLS launches, so they will likely fly a lot of them.
@mattslocum4677 Рік тому
Great job Marcus! Thanks for your thoroughness and dedication. It’s a very exciting time!
@terencedodge3249 Рік тому
Thank you, that was a great overview for me of the potential evolution cycles for this to happen.
@kb4342 Рік тому
One concern I have always had about the Lander is replenishing consumables (oxygen, water, etc.), waste disposal, not just fuel.
@Hoopaball Рік тому
Australia might not have the biggest space program but they certainly have the best launch countdown announcer guy on the planet!
@iandownie9848 Рік тому
Let 's not forget the "Square Kilometer Array" here in Western Australia and other projects.
@pcwizardstech Рік тому
Excellent video, Marcus! Really great insights as usual. Love the deep dive on these subjects. Fan from Cincinnati.
@vettetax06 Рік тому
Wow, what a video, loved the content and it's realism. Bravo Marcus and team!!!
@robfive2555 Рік тому
Seriously good video packed with extra chunky space goodness. . Thank you MH + Team for this excellent upload. .
@MarcusHouse Рік тому
You are a champion Rob!
@InnocentMan99 Рік тому
As in the TV series “For all Mankind” could we just build a space station in earth orbit and then propel it to Mars as a jumping off point for easy planet access.
@RasakBlood Рік тому
I mean yes. But design of a station and a ship is rather different. Assembling a ship with functioning fuel lines and electric systems in orbit is probably hard. I mean transferring propellant for refiling is already going to be a problem. Now imagine that problem in the middle of your ship that needs to be reliable for a trip to mars.
@aldunlop4622 Рік тому
The “Science” on that show is a lot more fiction than science.
@stephenhumble7627 Рік тому
Or we could just not spend yeas to build a space station and instead do as spacex propose and just fly direct to surface of mars.
@chrisantoniou4366 Рік тому
That makes no sense at all. It would be far cheaper, quicker, safer and far more useful to build a ship capable of getting to Mars with people, landing them and bringing them back. As for any hardware you want to place in Mars orbit for communications or on the surface, like habitation modules, supplies, and rovers, you could send those on ahead and ensure they land safely and are working before sending people.
@jonbong98 Рік тому
@@RasakBlood why is it going to be a problem?
@tfraz99 Рік тому
Marcus.. Of course we want to hear more about the efficiency of ion engines. We all are students of the universe and the science involved in exploring it. Great content from your team as always.. keep up the good work my friends.
@robertkerby2581 Рік тому
I really enjoyed this week's video! Well done, Marcus!
@whotknots Рік тому
Given an absolutely abysmal track record for some time now why, would provision of vehicles by Boeing be a foregone conclusion? A truly vast distinction exists between systems already in late stages of development like Super Heavy and Starship and vehicles of any kind 'proposed' by NASA and Boeing that are not yet even subject to development including 'Rovers'.
@GameplayReviewUK Рік тому
We feel the mention of Boeing here is a vestigial left over from years of NASA's mars proposals. It is only in the video so people can see where that would sit in the NASA Moon to Mars timeline. Personally I think most of the hardware will be derived from SpaceX parts and the current plan is mostly what NASA had up until around the selection of HLS. I would image the next iteration of this plan will make even more sense and that it will come well before Artemis III, but for now this is the path that has been proposed by NASA.
@RasakBlood Рік тому
Rovers is not rocket science. Its beefed up electric camper with life support systems. They have a mass restriction sure. But not a big one for their job. And i like criticizing Boeing but its silly to dismiss them as incompetent. The biggest indicator of their performance will be how the contract looks. If they can drag their feet and get nasa to pay the bill for an extra half year they will. If they start getting hit in the wallet they will speed up. Simple normal profit driven corporation stuff.
@xliquidflames Рік тому
Another thing is going to be training. Those astronauts are going to need to train for the SLS and Orion but then also train on Starship. I don't think that's ever happened before. Astronauts train for their one system. These 4 people, whoever they'll be, are going to need to know both systems like the back of their hand. Double the training will take double the time.
@RasakBlood Рік тому
Yea but this is 2022. Anything flying in space is 99% automated and have like 5 backup systems. The idea and image of astronauts as pilots is mostly a fictional remnant so scifi media can have its stereotypes. Yes there will be training. But the training will be a lot simpler then apollo times. I would even argue the only real reasons there are manual controls are mostly for human mental security and not actual need. Remember your phone have more compute power then apollo lander had.
@jonbong98 Рік тому
Your forgetting that crew are/were trained for sputnik and dragon, some were also trained on shuttle. Also all of the systems are Fully automated and Not actually flown by the crews.
@steveaustin2686 Рік тому
Astronauts trained for the crewed spacecraft and the ISS, so this isn't really different.
@johncook538_modelwerks Рік тому
A video on deep space propulsion would be very interesting. Ion Engines, VASIMIR engines, nuclear thermal, and similar. One of the hardest problems to solve with electric engines is where will all the power come from? Large solar arrays? Small nuclear power plants? Truly a fascinating subject.
@jasonguy1875 Рік тому
Absolutely loving these videos and updates, they make me extremely excited for the future and getting to experience all of this happening is one of the best things ever to witness. Quick question would it be okay if you made a video explaining all of these science terms and explaining what some of this stuff means? If not I completely understand.
@MarcusHouse Рік тому
Have been thinking of making a few basic explainer videos. Will keep this in mind.
@jasonguy1875 Рік тому
@@MarcusHouse holy cow you actually responded to my comment that's amazing and mind blowing.🤯🤯🤯thank you so much and can't wait to see some more of your amazing videos and content. Thanks again and have a amazing day.
@ptolemythespacenerd Рік тому
Perfectly timed! 51 years ago today Apollo 15 launched!
@mbj__ Рік тому
SLS and Orion wouldn't really be needed at all, right? Given that Starship works as expected it would be able to do it all with the human launch/ landing part on Earth initially being managed by Falcon 9 & Crew Dragon.
@DanielRichards644 Рік тому
the transfer point is the Gateway Station not Earth Orbit, you would have to get Crew Dragon to that rectilinear halo orbit around the moon (which is like 10 times the distance away from earth as a geostationary satellite, so i'm not sure F9 could do it with the mass of Crew Dragon) or you would have to fly the HLS all the way back to Earth Orbit every time thereby doubling the number of ignition cycles on the Lander that is part of the reason why the crew transfer happens at lunar orbit and not earth orbit, they want to maximize the number of landings possible per unit.
@DanielRichards644 Рік тому
@@yt45204 the Delta V required to brake earth orbit is greater then the Delta V to get to orbit, so distance from earth is related to Delta V to some extent.
@RasakBlood Рік тому
@@DanielRichards644 The point is humans can just transfer in orbit right before going to the moon on hls. Building a second hls just for landings will be relatively trivial. Man spacex needs a fleet just to refuel in orbit anyway. An extra hls unit while not free is nothing in the grand scheme of things. But i predict SLSs lifespan is entirely dependent on spacexs ability to offer a price embarrassingly enough to force the senate to stop its mandatory use.
@DanielRichards644 Рік тому
@@RasakBlood second HLS? that would only be good for moon landing, you are now suggesting 3 space craft, one to get off Earth, one to go from Earth to the Moon then a third for Moon Landing, thats just foolish and no I'm not advocating for SLS, that thing is a money pit and should have been abandoned years ago, it's just until Starship is Crew Rated and can do the whole Earth to Gateway then SLS do Gateway to Moon we are gonna need SLS, there will also be huge benefits once Starship is Human Rated because more people will be able to be transported to the moon and far more supplies then anything SLS could ever conceivably do. Maybe they could Maybe SpaceX could rig something up with Falcon Heavy and a second stage between falcon heavy and Crew Dragon (as Crew Dragon would need someway to return back from the moon) and that maybe could work depending on vehicle mass. Remember the more vehicles you add to the system the higher the odds something will go wrong. In theory if Starship got Human Rated for Launch and Landing they could "waste the mass" of the flaps and heatshield and fly a land-able on earth Starship to the moon. We just need time to come up with a better option then SLS.
@RasakBlood Рік тому
@@DanielRichards644 No just a second HLS. How do you think it gets to the moon to begin with silly. :/ Why would you need a new design when HLS is already crew rated and have life support systems etc. Its not like an apollo lander that needs to be carried to the moon. It can go there from earth orbit on its own. Gods.
@gregsulman8659 Рік тому
I always look forward to your video Marcus as they cover so much. Your mid weeks are even better. Please do one on Ion engines or similar. Another great video Marcus, thank you.
@MarcusHouse Рік тому
You got it!
@rodburnette5047 Рік тому
Well done Marcus. I'd like to see an "in-route" video. How a crew would live for the trip to Mars and the Moon.
@askingwhy123 Рік тому
Great question. SpaceX has handwaved the life support needed. They haven't even provided a better toilet for the ISS; Endurance by Mark Kelley goes deep on how finicky the current model is.
@TheWebstaff Рік тому
It's going to be funny when they crawl out of that little Orion capsule into a giant starship. It's like a cruise where you spend 90% of your cruise following a cruise ship in a dingy and then when you get to port you climb on-board the giant cruise ship to use the dock..
@GameplayReviewUK Рік тому
Mate that's hilarious
@stephenhumble7627 Рік тому
Yep NASA don't realise yet - they expected a small cramped lander just big enough for 2 people which is why their plan was to leave 2 people in orbit. But starship is like something out of science fiction - so big it can have multiple airlocks, crew room, private sleeper bunks , a kitchen , laboratory , toilet , gymnasium and could easily take all 4 crew to the surface in comfort. The 2 guys who NASA pick to stay in Orion are going to be crying. !
@HoHhoch Рік тому
@@stephenhumble7627 Of course NASA realizes this. Even still, Orion is much larger compared to the Apollo capsules (%50) more volume and there will only be two in the capsule during landing. Apollo astronauts would've killed for the luxury.
@stephenhumble7627 Рік тому
@@HoHhoch The Apollo only had one person left in orbit. So per person is not much different to Apollo. Another concern is the longer mission duration and those in the capsule are exposed to more radiation than if the went in the HLS. The HLS will have the moon blocking radiation as well as it being larger craft with better shielding all around. The 2 people left in the Orion capsule are going to be space radiation guinea pigs - just hope they don't come down with radiation sickness if is a solar proton event.
@StingerNSW Рік тому
Thank you Marcus and the entire team for the midweek deep dive. A lot to digest as we head into the new frontier. All for more more episodes focusing on the challenges that are needed to be overcome on missions that are yet to become reality 👍
@francobenitez6810 Рік тому
Incredible video Marcus! Very exciting stuff
@michaelullman8574 Рік тому
Thank you for the mid-week treat! Great content!!! Cheers!
@DaveBo270 Рік тому
Marcus, you are the one I turn to for your weekly updates. I do think we are getting ahead of ourselves wrt Starship. An excellent storyline for sure ... but for all the conversation and hype, Starship has not left the ground let alone returned from even low Earth orbit. Hopefully, we'll all be in awe of a magnificent series of launches for the big bird but we should be humble enough to know this storyline could stretch out for quite a while without success.
@waywardscythe3358 Рік тому
Refueling in orbit is going to be a sticking point. So far we haven't done so on a small scale, and even if we had there's a lot in engineering that doesn't scale up well. personally, my prediction is add one year to any estimate to get refueling working.
@steveaustin2686 Рік тому
There have been small scale experiments with refueling in orbit on the ISS. SpaceX has a $50M contract to demo Starship to Starship refueling in LEO by the end of 2022. They will likely miss that target date.
@RasakBlood Рік тому
It could be super hard. Or it could be rather trivial, and everything in between.
@GameplayReviewUK Рік тому
NASA has demonstrated we can transfer cryofuels in LEO on a small scale. But yes scaling it up is going to be the next big mile stone to hit after achieving orbit and landing.
@jessepollard7132 Рік тому
The major part is done - the quick disconnect supply for Starship is the obvious first step and likely the one to be reused.
@MarkPierro Рік тому
Another superb midweek video Marcus, absolutely great stuff. Best channel on UKposts.
@Unit285 Рік тому
Very informative update! thanks for the midweek video!
@petecomps7260 Рік тому
Minor correction. At around 1:10, you said there have only been 24 humans who went to the moon, with only 12 setting foot on the surface. There were actually 27 humans sent to the moon. Apollo 8 went to the moon, Apollo 9 tested the LEM in Low Earth Orbit, then Apollo 10 tested the LEM in lunar orbit. (NASA deliberately left Apollo 10's LEM tanks with insufficient fuel so the astronauts wouldn't be tempted to make a lunar landing!) Apollo 11, 12, 14 through 17 made it to the moon's surface, while Apollo 13 had the famously aborted mission. All told, that is 9 Apollo missions that at least went to the moon, with three astronauts each, a total of 27 astronauts who all saw the far side of the moon.
@GameplayReviewUK Рік тому
geeze I think I forgot to include Apollo 13 when counting up, how silly 🤦♂
@BMrider75 Рік тому
@Pete Comps : ah, but....... Three astronauts travelled to the moon TWICE ! Jim Lovell - 8 & 13 John Young - 10 & 16 Gene Cernan - 10 & 17 Meaning, in total, only 24 humans have left L E O. Smiles
@petecomps7260 Рік тому
@@BMrider75 Touché! I forgot about those guys getting two tickets. It made Lovell's experience on 13 all the more tragic. He got close twice, but never got the cigar.
@BMrider75 Рік тому
@@petecomps7260 no worries. BTW, I've found Marcus so far to be pretty good/reliable with the history stuff ! Smiles
@GameplayReviewUK Рік тому
@@BMrider75 Marcus probably looked at it the same way Pete did on the preview viewing. sometimes things are wrong but usually we stop them getting through the net😅
@svOcelot Рік тому
Love your videos, Marcus! And yes, one on ion propulsion would be interesting as well. I agree with you that we'd learn a LOT from establishing a base on the moon before heading to Mars, & that a LOT of what we learn on the moon will also be applicable on Mars. Which means we probably shouldn't send people to Mars until we've done some of that learning. While I generally like Musk (as long as he keeps his mouth shut!) & I'm very impressed with all that he's been able to achieve, I think his intense focus on Mars, even at the expense of the moon, is somewhat misguided. I also think that we (he) would learn a lot from orbital space stations. Since he's going to have to setup refueling stations anyway, why not make them inhabited? Methane & LOX aren't that dangerous in space, as long as you keep them separated. Maybe put them at opposite ends of the station, with piping delivering them to the refueling port. It will all be fun to watch!
@maurywood492 Рік тому
Maybe your best video to date Marcus! I would love to see a video on ion drives from you. Thank you!
@NeverLetOff Рік тому
Yay, extra video this week!!
@techpappee Рік тому
What I’m not sure about is having the orbital space dock. Why not just do it all on the Moon instead? It seems like unnecessary additional cost and complexity. Just land starships with all needed equipment. The refilling can happen with it.
@dnomyarnostaw Рік тому
The Moon surface is the problem. The sharp dust is a nightmare for equipment and space suits. The original moon crew wouldn't have lasted another week, with the damage to their suits and gear.
@ericobut Рік тому
Yes on ion engines Also, during this period, what's going on with Mars? Is Musk going to just go ahead regardless of NASA?
@Dius21 Рік тому
I don't think he can or will. SpaceX will definitely require a lot of cooperation with NASA for human missions on Mars. As for un-crewed missions, yeah SpaceX will hopefully have launched more than one by 2028.
@iandennis1 Рік тому
Great documentary Marcus. Looking forward to the next one.
@R0bobb1e Рік тому
Fantastic stuff Marcus! :D I really enjoyed this.
@Exitof99 Рік тому
A thought crossed my mind about Artemis, I was thinking "do a test launch" as if it were reusable. Man, it really is backwards thinking to make such an expensive 1-use rocket that you can't even "kick the tires" with and take it for a test drive.
@matejzizanovic7959 Рік тому
It has been done this way for the entire history of rocketry, and it will be done this way until there is a reusable rocket capable of carrying such load... Remember, Starship still doesnt exist, its still in development and needs many tests to make it a reality.
@mrnicktoyou Рік тому
Is it safe to build bases on the moon out in the open like that? Seeing all the asteroids damage, wouldn’t it be better to build underground?
@GameplayReviewUK Рік тому
most of the asteroid damage is ancient, there have been plenty of space craft surviving in deep space, however, in the long term yes. Initially we will have to deal with what we can land on the surface but eventually moon bases will be covered in regolith then even maybe become subterranean entirely .
@jessepollard7132 Рік тому
wouldn't matter - an asteroid impact would take out anything underground just as easily. what you are forgetting is that the astroid impacts have occurred spread over 4 billion years after thea collided with the earth. Most of the moon is just composed of parts of the original Earth.
@danswan1047 Рік тому
Once again…. An amazing video. Thanks so much for sharing all this great information with us. Hands down, the best source for space flight on the Web.
@macsterguy 9 місяців тому
Great video Marcus! I hope you had a relaxing vacation. A video about efficient ion engines would be fantastic!
@THX..1138 Рік тому
If the first lunar Starship is to be returned to the moon as a permanent lunar habitat it only needs enough fuel to land on the moon a second time. Given a Lunar starship does not need anything near full tanks to complete its demonstration mission and it has a lunar cargo upmass of more than 100t. I see no reason it couldn't carry enough fuel to return to the moon without refueling. In fact I'd bet a single Tanker Starship could provide enough fuel to run a second round trip to and from the lunar surface. After all the Delta-v needed for a trip to and from the Lunar surface is about half what it takes to get from LEO to Lunar orbit and the Lunar Starship will be way less massive once it's in Lunar orbit from the demonstration mission. Moreover with it's heatshield a tanker needs only a relatively tiny amount of fuel to return to earth after refueling Lunar Starship.
@steveaustin2686 Рік тому
Lunar Starship is out of propellant after it returns to lunar orbit once the surface mission is done. It takes up to 10 Starship launches, up to 8 of them Tankers, to get a Starship to the Moon. A Starship Tanker in lunar orbit will have used a significant portion of the propellant to get to the Moon and needs propellant to return to Earth. So sending Tankers to the Moon to refuel Lunar Starship will take a lot of Tankers to get them there. It takes over 3.9km/s dV to get to the Moon and a further over 1.7km/s to land on the Moon. At the SpaceX target of 380 ISP for vacuum Raptor and 1,200 tons of propellant, that is 7.5km/s, so over half of the propellant is used just to get to the Moon. The return trip for the Tanker can use aerobraking, so it won't need all of that dV for the return. So it is possible one Tanker might be able refuel a Lunar Starship to land again, IF SpaceX hits their targets. Of course, that 380 ISP is a best case, as the three center engines are sea-level Raptor and will have a 330 ISP target. With a 355 ISP (avg) that is 7km/s dV for a Starship.
@THX..1138 Рік тому
@@steveaustin2686 Not according to Musk, NASA, the GAO and the Federal Judge who both ruled against Blue Origin when they raised these same arguments.
@steveaustin2686 Рік тому
@@THX..1138 I think you misunderstand. The info I am talking about from the GAO report is SpaceX's OWN plans and have nothing to do with Blue Origin.
@THX..1138 Рік тому
@@steveaustin2686 The information in the GAO is a dramatically outdated worst case scenario. That's based on what SpaceX knew for sure they could deliver to NASA at that time. Raptor engines are now lighter, more powerful and more efficient. The Boosters are lighter and more powerful. All variants of Starship are now lighter, more powerful, more efficient. When SpaceX initially bid for HLS they knew Tankers could delver 50T of fuel to LEO and hoped they could deliver 100T. Bezos's crazy claim of 15 launches for Lunar Starship was based on 50T refueling launches. Refueling the older heaver Lunar Starship design. By the time SpaceX was chosen knew they could do 100 to 150T per tanker launch and knew Lunar Starship itself would be lighter increasing the amount of fuel it could initially launch with and reducing total fuel need for a mission. The GAO report was based on the new worst case of 8 launches. Now Tankers are expected to deliver 150 to 200T of fuel to LEO and Lunar Starship will be even lighter than before which is why the currant projection is 4 to 6 launches for the HLS mission.
@steveaustin2686 Рік тому
@@THX..1138 Guess you didn't read the GAO report and Musk's update to it. The info in the GAO was 16 flights (pg 27), the propellant depot, 14 Tanker flights, and Lunar Starship. Musk responded via Twitter to that report, saying that with Starship having ~150t to LEO, it is up to 8 Tanker flights, so up to 10 flights total. Based on 1,200 tons of propellant for Starship (second stage) and 14 Tanker flights in the GAO report, that would be just over 85 tons of payload. Again, Musk said up to 8 Tanker flights after the GAO report came out. SpaceX's Starship User Guide (Mar 2020) says 100+ tons to LEO and 21 tons to GTO, so Tim Dodd asked Musk that if Starship can get 21 tons to GTO (Mar 2020), then it should be able to get ~150 tons to LEO. Musk concurred, but SpaceX has not updated the User's Guide. SpaceX was awarded the HLS Option A contract in Apr 2021, over a year after the Starship User's Guide came out. This was detailed in an Apr 2020 Inverse article by Mike Brown called "SPACEX STARSHIP USER GUIDE SUGGESTS IT COULD OFFER MORE POWER THAN EXPECTED" The 220t figure for Starship was with the booster expended, per Musk. Officially, SpaceX lists 100+ tons and Musk has said 150 tons to LEO.
@darringreen8630 Рік тому
Great video Marcus, but I do have one request. Please ask the individuals that supply your renderings to provide you with what a colony on Mars will actually look like for the first 25 or 30 years. Without a viable means of mitigating the radiation and temperature swings structures will receive on Mars, it is much more likely we will be living underground until such technology is achieved.Elon Musk himself believes this to be the unfortunate truth, hence The Boring Company. There woill be airlocks that rover vehicles will ferry people to and from the launch/landing site(s) to the airlock, but almost all habitat will be underground. This may possibly be the case for the moon as well, as the ISS is well within the Van Allen radiation belt, and as such doesn't need to be as hardended against the radiation, where the Moon has no protecting belt.
@AndrewDocherty07 Рік тому
Yes please do a video on ion drives, and other efficient engines. Id watch that, and im sure many would benefit from its understanding :)
@Zietzfamily Рік тому
Don’t know why it has taken me so long to find this AWESOME channel??? I’m blown away. Epic! Thank you!
@Nifilheimur Рік тому
Awesome stuff mate. Ive often wondered why Elon wont make a specific interplanet ship, I mean having two set of engines, wings, heat shield and landing gear on every Starship to ferry stuff from Earth to the moon or mars seems inefficient. Would it not be more efficient in the long run to have specific lander ships that are really tough and then a specific interstellar freighter that would depot stuff in orbit for the landers to ferry down?
@serronserron1320 Рік тому
Indeed and hopefully he moves away from chemical propulsion to the nuclear assist engines. This would cut travel time to Mars in half and make exploration of the rest of the solar system more feasible. Of course such engines would only be in transit from orbit to orbit .
@CanalTremocos Рік тому
Better yet you can have a 'cycler spacecraft' in an orbit that comes close to the 2 bodies you want to ferry between. It would only need to be refueled for the delta-V pertaining to the net cargo.
@DFPercush Рік тому
There have been ideas for putting a long haul habitation unit in a synchronous orbit that only needs minimal station keeping / fine adjustment burns. It doesn't save you any dV, but since you don't have to bring all the structural elements to accommodate the crew, it's less fuel and weight overall. You just send the crew in a tiny pod to rendezvous with the freighter, and then you live in that during the journey. Doesn't include the lander though.
@AlchemistCH Рік тому
The thing with Starship going to Mars or back to Earth is aerobraking. Yes, it takes more fuel for transfer burn due to extra mass, but you don't pay for arrival. Now on the Moon it does make sense to have a separate lander (lighter frame due to less stress, no wings, vacuum-only engines, lower TWR), while using the regular Starship to get to lunar orbit and back to Earth. At least with chemical propulsion it's probably similar expenses between a lighter transfer ship that can't enter the atmosphere and a heavier one which can aerobrake - at which point getting the entire Mars ship back to Earth may be more lucrative long-term option (if launch expenses get low enough). Speaking of Moon landers: even if mining enough water for refueling turns feasible, carbon is more scarce there, so no methane for Elon's ships. But there apparently is plenty of sulfur in the regolith... What about fueling a lander with H2S ?
@Nifilheimur Рік тому
@@AlchemistCH you make a good point with aerobraking, it would probably offset the extra weight and then some to Mars. Id think in the long run if mining for fuel on the moon would turn feaseble would splitting water to hydrogen and oxygen not make most sense there even if SpaceX would have to develop a hydrogen burning engine. I dont know how a compound of sulfur would work as fuel but well worth a look!
@ellieinspace Рік тому
Thanks for the info, Marcus! Great work, as always
@GameplayReviewUK Рік тому
Thanks Ellie 😊
@simonsutherland814 Рік тому
Awesome as usual Many thanks
@TroyRubert Рік тому
Marcus have you seen the suits that have micro wires weaved in to do active dust repulsion by using a electromagnetic field? Seems pretty nifty.
@GameplayReviewUK Рік тому
We wanted to dive deeper into things like that but we were so over time limit that it seems that space suits probably need their own video entirely.
@VideoDotGoogleDotCom Рік тому
The video appeared "56 seconds ago", and I'm not even the first commenter...
@timnewell4015 Рік тому
Id expect patreon supports get early access
@crazypoultry356 Рік тому
Always appreciate a mid week video.
@mtsquad Рік тому
Thank you so much Marcus for making these videos. I love watching the step by step graphics of the missions. Am starting to feel like I did back in 68 anticipating the initial moon missions. They took us out of class to see the historical launchings.
@zlozlozlo Рік тому
All this complexity is because of NASA's requirements to "let the other kids play". SpaceX by itself could do the missions much faster and more efficiently. I'm not saying don't do anything. NASA and their other subcontractors could work on the habitats. But leave the transportation part to SpaceX.
@Bugsey35 Рік тому
By the time NASA gets to Mars they'll be greeted by a welcoming committee of SpaceX employees along with a government employee to make sure they have the proper documentation for entry.
@RasakBlood Рік тому
I love spacex and think they will bring the key tech for the future. But nasa is a government agency. They cant put all their eggs in one basket and hope spacex delivers. Also nasa is for ever locked in the battle of politics. They need to contend with having the senate approve their budget and the for ever changing president and administration. Not to mention how spacex is like that one in a billion company that is not mainly driven by annual profit to please shareholders and unlock CEO bonuses. Spacex is an anomaly not the norm.
@RasakBlood Рік тому
@@Bugsey35 Thats silly thoughtless anti government nonsense. Spacex will be payed by nasa to help with the mars program. Just like they are with the moon right now.
@S1nwar Рік тому
After already losing pretty much the entire plumbing of 30 raptors on the first of many tests i dont get the impression this project will be ready for artemis before 2026
@peterbondy Рік тому
If ever. It can’t work without the booster also proving feasible and reliable. That a long way off too.
@_mikolaj_ Рік тому
Yep
@joelblanco1800 Рік тому
Maybe by 2030
@barashimotty5727 Рік тому
Great video as always. It was a pleasure to watch it. I would like to watch a video about ion propulsion.
@CognizantApe Рік тому
Marcus is most definitely my go to for space news! ⚡ Great videos 🚀
@pyrsartur3675 Рік тому
My enthusiasm for SpaceX remains but it is very sad how political Musk has become. My admiration for him personally is waning. If he desires to benefit humanity, he should not be screwing with platforms like Twitter.
@youerny 6 місяців тому
Totally agree. Mala tempora currunt
@LGM090221 4 місяці тому
Yeah god forbid he defend free speech and fight government overreach.
@DanielCJones Рік тому
Marcus, the idea of a deep dive into ion engine technology would be really interesting seeing the size of the fuel transfer unit would be very large.
@calvincheney7405 Рік тому
Very professional delivery of well considered concepts, We are in the presence of greatness. I sort of flashed into the future to a very very old Marcus House reporting on news from space the entire world tunes in for every Saturday morning!!
@cosmicrolias3828 Рік тому
You really do spoil us with these videos! Thank you!
@tritiumrecords717 Рік тому
YES YES YES more content on these ion engines, especially VASIMR
@mattiasilverii3188 Рік тому
Please yes! I would absolutely love a video dedicated to ion thrusters! It's a technology I really am interested into and don't really know where to learn more about it
@therealjamespickering Рік тому
Thank you for the great videos you produce and for the discount to Curiosity Stream. I just signed up and there is such a wealth of science content. Definitely worth the price of admission.
@carlesmiquel Рік тому
Absolutely! The story behind the ion engine is mesmerizing.
@robertkerby2581 Рік тому
Great video! Well done, Marcus!
@tjedmabca Рік тому
i just encountered your youtube channel. Found the Nasa/Spacex Plan with artemis make sense vry informative. Will stick with you and hope to explore this great adventure with you as it proceeds.
@Puuch44 Рік тому
Brilliant, Marcus! Thank you!
@quinto190 Рік тому
Wow, this was really comprehensive, and beautiful animations.
Marcus House
Переглядів 722 тис.
60 Minutes
Переглядів 217 тис.
Канал Лучкова
Переглядів 26 тис.
Apple Explosion
Переглядів 20 тис.