in

Starliner loses more money! AND the best way for SpaceX to land on Mars!



Boeing just took another $100 million hit from NASA. We’re not sure why, but the consequences could be significant for Boeing and NASA. Plus, I’ve talked many times about how difficult it will be for SpaceX to land Starship on Mars, but here’s some new breakthroughs that could change everything!
#space #nasa #spacex

Support my channel! EARLY VIDEO RELEASES AND EXCLUSIVE CONTENT PLUS 15% OFF MERCH!
https://www.patreon.com/AngryAstronaut

If you already pre-ordered your Angry Astronaut sunglasses, please email me at [email protected] and we will send you a form to fill in your shipping info and send you an invoice!

WE STILL HAVE 18 PAIRS LEFT out of this 250 pair limited edition!!!

If you want to reserve a pair of ANGRY SUNGLASSES, please send $20 US, Australian or Canadian to:
https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/AngryAstro
The FINAL price is $40 US plus shipping

Subscribe to Liftport Group
https://www.youtube.com/c/Liftport

Subscribe to Max Fagin
https://www.youtube.com/c/MaxFagin

Lunar Space Elevator Article
https://www.academia.edu/34646188/The_Lunar_Space_Elevator_a_Near_Term_Means_to_Reduce_Cost_of_Lunar_Access_Read_More_https_arc_aiaa_org_doi_abs_10_2514_6_2017_5372?email_work_card=view-paper

31 Comments

  1. Space elevator, (lift for us English!) No, just no. I just cannot see a way that this can be feasible. I feel by the time the cost and risk became acceptable, a better method will be available. Same as the hair-brained scheme of tethering a asteroid for mining is kind of like having a M.O.A.B hanging over your head!

  2. Would be good to see NASA billing Boeing for the losses they've incurred resulting from Boeing's incompetence.
    The problem of having a space elevator in Mars is that Phobos is in the way of the cable (it would hit your cable once every few days), and Deimos is close to GEO but not quite. Both moons are a pain in the behind. You'd have to shoot down Phobos, somehow, AND ideally adjust Deimos' orbit to make it geostationary and then use it as the station. Of course, none of this is very doable.
    A lunar elevator yes; that would be doable.
    EDIT: How on Mars do you figure it's not a big challenge to avoid Phobos? The elevator car can use thrusters to move sideways, I suppose, but I'm not sure how the cable would respond to the car's sideways pull. More ominous is the fact that it becomes a disaster waiting to happen. One day the car runs out of fuel for the jets, or any technical mishap occurs, and we have a car full of cargo, workers and colonists smashing into Phobos…

  3. Boeing… the same who brought you the unforgettable Boeing 737 MAX.
    Boeing… run by business people in Chicago, not by engineers in Seattle.

  4. The Martian elevator using Phobos as the Station and Deimos as the counter weight and just relocate them accordingly would be pretty amazing to accomplish🙂

  5. Luna L1? L1 is the least stable point, like trying to balance a ball bearing on the edge of a razor blade. L5 is way more stable but even then objects corkscrew in their orbits which wouldn't work for a cable going slack then taught. SpaceX may not like it but I think they're gonna have to use parachutes to even think of landing on Mars. On the plus side, the parachutes could be recycled as building materials.

  6. Any space elevator concept is such exotic technology now that it would require extensive testing to establish enough confidence for a human rating. It can’t be tested here obviously but perhaps it can be tested in Lunar orbit. I say perhaps because Lunar orbits themselves are so uneven and difficult to maintain that we keep having to invent awesomely exotic new variants just to execute anything long term. With the laundry list of stated objectives for Artemis I find it unlikely that NASA will prioritize this anytime in the next ten years at least. That said; it would be a great project for some Axiom type company to do it themselves as an eventual profitable venture once we already have Starship (I.e. less expensive) cargo connectivity with Mars orbit.

  7. The problem with using a space elevator to get things from Mars' orbit to the surface of Mars is speed. You have to have massive amounts of propellant at hand to bring any spacecraft from earth to a mars-stationary orbit. This would reduce the amount of payload from Earth to Mars significantly, I think.

  8. If the Russians take off their part of ISS in 2024 Boeing may never get a chance to fly humans on the turdliner and they may want to fix that glitch with cabin pressure cause breathing is good.

  9. Boeing is an aerospace company spiraling down the drain, much like Curtiss-Wright during and after WWII, making exactly the same mistakes – prioritizing bean counter economics and lobbying for government contracts while failing to deliver, rather than trying to do foster a culture of excellent engineering and producing great products. This is so different from the Boeing of the 1930's through the 1970s.

  10. The cable seems an ok idea before numbers. So for example: Dynema diameter 24mm, 50Tm breaking point, 0.267kg/m … looks good right? but we need 300.000km of it … about 80.000Tm!! That is equivalent to 5.340 starships full to the rim, to L1 Earth-Moon (285.000km), not counting many times more tankers…just for the naked rope. The numbers are just nuts!

  11. I totally disagree!!! falcon9 on earth and the lunar lander of the apollo land/ed with just thrusters, doing a lot of slowing down with thrusters, it is posible, I don't think it is impossible, maybe hard, but impossible?! it is definitely doable, you just need enough fuel and precision.
    and space elevators are horrible, I did maths and estimations coutless times, most times on earth, but some on mars too, they always seem extremely horrible, hard, dangerous, and not even worth

  12. No need for any space elevator Starship will land on mars or the moon just fine. Before starship is carrying people they will have performed over one hundred launches and landings. It will be more routine than the falcon 9 landings have become.
    The only space elevator spacex need is the one that goes from the payload section to the ground. !

  13. Bowing will make plenty from the Starliner the total contract value is over 4 billion. They may spend an extra 400 million or whatever due to delays and problems but it would have had plenty of padding for contingency so i think they will still be make plenty out of the contract not as much as they would have liked but as long as they eventually deliver it will be fine.

  14. ~ trillion dollar defense budgets and massive top end tax cuts, don't count on any money for this

  15. LOL Angry is always good for some CGI BS fantasy. Paraphrasing here, "not only is it possible now. It's cheap and easy." Only Angry.

  16. hey there’s a thought for slowing starship down for its landing on mars
    Its called parashutes. Not cool enough? Simple, cheap and probably lighter to take all the way to mars than taking the additional fuel for landing when diving down at 1000 km/h. Slow it down with chutes after flipping back into vertikal position. down to the landing speed of a little over 100 mp/h
    done!!! 👍

  17. There's just one problem with the Mars elevator: Starship doesn't have enough fuel to get into orbit. It's an express elevator to hell, going down!

  18. Depending on the rotational speed of the satellite it could be made just massive enough to hold it in orbit. That way the tension on the tether could be held to a minimum amount so the need for the tensile strength would also minimized.

  19. I’ve finally started watching “For All Mankind” on Apple* and saw their launch of the old Sea Dragon design. What do you think the chances are of someone dusting off that concept and using it to supplement/ compete with Starship? Could be a helluva video there, don’t you think?

  20. I learn enough in accounting to know that you can say whatever you want to numbers. So I do not believe one bit that Boeing has lost money on Starliner project ! On the contrary they probably diverted 20% of the money they received from NASA !!

  21. Seems like the only problem for landing on mars, is that it will consume more fuel than on earth… doesn't seem like a fundamental problem.

  22. So I Google, how far away is mars from earth. It showed to be 106,610,000 miles away. The fastest space rockets travel 17,800 mph. If you do the math it would take 12,169 years to reach it. Now Nasa clames do to the planets rotation around the sun the rockets would travel some 300 million miles in space to reach it. That would be roughly 34,256 years to get there.
    So now you can see just how full of 💩 all the space agencies are, they are stealing your money. And they (Nasa) have sent multiple rovers to mars now, HOW? WE'D ALL HAVE PASSED AWAY FOR CENTURIES OVER.

  23. Presentation is spot on again. This proposed landing maneuver is unworkable. The G forces and discomfort to humans is a show stopper. Starship will never land humans on Mars, and Musk must know this. The FAA would never grant a launch license for this scheme.

  24. The luner to near earth space elevator was shown to be possible by a couple of years ago, and included a cost estimate. How about an updated cost for lunar elevator and a cost estimate for the mars elevator

  25. If we really want to have a realistic exploration mission to Mars and do so on a realistic budget then a space elevator is out of the question. So is the industrial scale mining and processing infrastructure needed for something the size of Starship. Instead we will have to land people on Mars using a reusable, crew-only, full propulsive lander and ascent vehicle. This would require a tiny fraction of the ISRU resources needed for Starship.