G K i.e. moon base to create fuels and build spacecraft

@@psychozouk How? There are no fuel sources on Moon and they can't be "created".

賴志偉 from ice on the moon you have h2o water which you can break up into hydrogen and oxygen

@@psychozouk well its not methane and oxygen but right here on YT check out "Moons helium 3"

@@user-dc1ud6px3s There's a special compound on the moon called H2O which can be electrolyzed into rocket fuel and oxidizer.

Mun based refinery, old 2nd stage as fuel tug, very early to save those funds in the hard mode where everything costs a lot.

I agree, but there's no feeling like executing a gravity assist.

@@AlohaMilton Yep I do it too in KSP - Mun Refinery Base + Low Mun orbit Station + High Mum Orbit Station + Low Kerbin Orbit Station + Fuel Carrier Ship between station. It use lot of money to develop in career mode. But if finish you can build long run ship that don't need the whole ship to launch from KSC anymore and reduce the cost of overall interplanetary flight in the process.

KSP has is a better teacher of orbital mechanics, the rocket equation and how big things should be (with realism mod) than all the math/physics teachers ever.

@@AlohaMilton Great idea though I prefer Minmus for its lower gravity!

Yup, when we see space-based mining sending materials to space-based manufacturing facilities, you'll know we're off to the races.

@@frasercain And even ground based manufacturing. The platinum group metals all have many uses that would revolutionize the industries the products would support. The only thing preventing this is the fact that the supply is so limited. Imagine gold being cheap enough to use for electrical wiring.

There is a stumbling block there... Cheap/reliable/practical deep-space refueling is necessary , in order to run extensive and complex operations there. This basically mandates fuel/logistics depots using "unbreakable" propellants . The best analog is the refueling-stations of the old-west ; storing and dispensing coal/water under physically tough conditions . This propellant combination was completely reliable , as must a deep -space combination be . Only purified hypergolics (H2O2+Hydrazine) can fit this bill ; they freeze at 》0°C , and offer better performance than a methalox propellant combination does . These frozen fuels will not boil-off to space , even if their container is punctured by micrometeorites , so they are completely reliable . They are also far easier to store than cryogenic propellants , and thus much cheaper to use overall . *To examine rocket-type engines that might eventually be used in near-future deep-space operations , link to : quora.com/How-do-impulse-engines-work? ^Concentrate on my post/comments .😎

SpinLaunch sucsesfully completed a suborbital launch test that cyntrifugally flung the rocket up. I belive this is the first step in efficiently getting ice upto a low earth orbital fuel processing and refuelling station.

@@kreynolds1123 Not impossible, but I think its less likely. The centrifugal approach works well for certain payloads, but not for all of them. It works better for smaller and for solid payloads for example compared to bigger payloads with liquid or pressurized materials like fuel. If Starship is successful it can put +100t of fuel into orbit rather cheaply. Even the bigger Spinlaunch concepts stay far below 1% of that. If I had a small satellite I want to get to orbit Spinlaunch sounds like a more flexible solution. But big payloads are not its strengths.

The Q&A was delayed, so the releases ran into each other : )

Thanks!

That's about when ULA proposed building their ACES system, so we could have been a decade into learning how to make it work.

it is too expensive to lift all that fuel from the earth surface...

@@ne1cup No more expensive than launching any other payload. Mass is mass, the contents of that mass don't matter to the engines at the bottom of the stack.

It's too expensive if you throw away the rocket after a single use, but if you can just land and refuel the rocket, you're only paying for fuel and ground support crew, not millions for an entire rocket AND fuel and ground support.

Easier said than done. SpaceX is still struggling to reduce refurbishment time under 3 months for their first stage and score a 4th reuse. And all that will be far more difficult with a second stage that will have a far greater kinetic energy than the first stage.

Thanks for watching!

if its locked up in rocks its not easy to extract. plus future loonies might take issue with you stealing all their precious water ice for fuel. it might spark a war!

@@danielroden9424 The the technology and process isn't difficult. It just requires plenty of energy. With the moon geting more intense solar roughly 24/7 near its poles, energy is much less a problem, it's mostly the will to do it.

Consider the Navy's rail gun is already powerful enough to lunar launch over 20kg to a lunar orbit. Consider SpinLaunch sucsesfully completed a suborbital launch test that cyntrifugally flung the rocket up. I belive these are the first steps in efficiently and cheaply getting ice upto a low earth orbital fuel processing and refuelling station. Or better yet, from the moon to a refueling station in earth moon L1.

Yup, that would be cool. The more infrastructure, the better.

Fantastique , Mr. Muller ! That mitigates the rocket-equation , now all we need is a maintenance-free fuel/oxidizer combination that will never leak, experience boil-off, degrade it's equipment, or be lost due to meteoroid-strike . Wait ! There actually IS such a combo ! Frozen hypergolics , read that hydrazine and hydrogen-peroxide ..😯 100% formulations of these freeze solid at ~ 30°F , making indefinite storage around the solar-system possible . These are guaranteed to be available whenever future astronauts need them , and provide a specific-impulse slightly above that of methalox . *To examine this subject in greater detail , read my post at : quora.com/How-can-rocket-fuel-be-changed-in-the-future/

Ah, the wet workshop concept - von Braun was big on that. To me, seems like too much work for habitation (cleaning, refurbishing, repurposing in space). For reuse for storing fuels/consumables, maybe a different matter?

me too woot woot

@Nick Jorge I'm actually a KSP modder :3

Time for Solar System Truck Simulator 2 :D

Someone should make an 'app

Sounds like Kerbal is messing with your expectations. :-)

This is why I use TAC Fuel Balancer.

I think by the time we can mine lunar ice economically we will be done with chemical propulsion most likely using some sort of fusion based engine but the moon will still be important because it is rich with helium 3.

@@cancelanime1507 You'd still need to mine reaction mass for any fusion based engine. Unless you just make a fusion-powered laser sail.

@@cancelanime1507 That's a little too optimistic. It is far more likely that a system of refuelling in space will proceed fusion by a wide margin. What is being described in this video is tech that is available to build NOW, but blocked by political shortsightedness. Fusion is still experimental and will be for at least the next 50 years.

@@Shaiyo5 even using fission (well proven and safe in stationary reactors) is still extremely risky when used for rocket propulsion, just look at the recent failed missile test by the russians. facts are still extremely vague, but looks like they tried to build and test a ballistic missile powered by nuclear reactor, which killed/wounded/irradiated several people. so I think fusion powered rocket engines are still a long, long way off, at least 100 or 150 years, probably a lot more.

Baking regolith for oxygen perhaps because thats plentiful and solar energy is plentiful in certain places, but taking away scarce lunar ice perhaps better needed at the lunar bases? No. Also I'm not to sure It will make business sense anyway when the time comes.

I think there's enough of a case for it now, since the development of large rocket systems rises exponentially as you make them bigger and bigger. It makes the most sense to build the most reusable network of rockets and refueling depots that you can.

@@frasercain yes absolutely. Also this refueling infrastructure opens up possibilities (in the future) of using asteroids/Moon as a source of fuel instead of earth, which might also require less delta-wee, than launching fuel from earth.

@@frasercain Is launching two medium size rockets (i.e. one for the fuel, one for the spacecraft) really cheaper than a single large rocket? I guess it’s cheaper if you are already mass-producing the medium size rocket. You could also just strap several of them together like SpaceX does with the Falcon Heavy (would be best with true asparagus staging, of course) to avoid any kind of in-orbit refueling.

@@Mike-oz4cv I think it comes down to reusability. If SpaceX or Blue Origin can master having boosters used 30 - 50 times, safely/reliably, under manageable refurbishment/maintenance costs/regimen, possibly (as in a 50/50 chance over the next ten years)

Yup, these all go hand in hand.

Exactly.

Yup, it just needs some leadership to start putting this infrastructure into place.

It's true for chemical engines. If earth was bigger it would still be possible but you would only be able to send severals kilograms into orbit...

Scott Manley has an aversome video on that topic (of course)

Perhaps they could develop other technologies for launching things to orbit instead of chemical rockets, such as mass drivers or spaceplanes

I'm no expert but I'm sure it's just a matter of energy. Chemical rockets may not have enough "specific impulse" to achieve orbital velocity on a super Earth, but something like an atomic rocket probably could. It may be just an issue of technology to overcome heavy gravity or thick atmosphere. I'm optimistic that if a civilization can survive to that point, they could take that step.

It's tough to get to space... but you already knew that. The Falcon 9 rocket can manage to put 22,800 kg into LEO while it weighs 549,000 kg fully fueled on the launch pad, a ratio of just over 4% cargo to total mass. And that's the expendable Falcon 9. The reusable version can get just 18,500 kg to LEO, 3.4% ratio. The nuttiest take-off velocity was that of New Horizons, the craft that flew by Pluto. In 2006 it was traveling at 16.23 km/s at the moment of engine cut-off. I'll take this to be the maximum we could ever launch anything and the fastest any ET could launch anything. Super-Earth could be 4.27 times heavier while staying the same size. It gets a bit easier if we let the super-Earth be the same density as Earth. If super-Earth rotated faster than Earth then there would be a bit more advantage by launching from the equator. This is all presuming that super-Earth has a nearly identical atmosphere. Any thicker and our rocket would need to spend more energy just punching through to vacuum. Super-Earth ETs could try a few tricks like a mass driver to give their rocket at least some kick before igniting their rocket. To get the most out of their launches they'd need to miniaturize their payloads as quickly as possible. Launching from as high an elevation as possible on their equator would help. Of course all bets are off if the ETs lived on a water world, or ice shell world. Pretty hard to get any decent technology going when you can't even light a fire, or even see the target.

Thanks!

It's best with a reusable rocket, but even if parts are disposed, it still makes more sense than building gigantic mega-rocket.

@@frasercain I means if you have a partially reuseble roket (when reuse only first stage) can launch a single one with payload and more with no payload(remainig fuel it's the payload), simply connect upper stages with payload and burn fuel without transferring from a roket to another, it's easyer to do, you only need automatic docking to make a multistage roket into orbit, I think that can be done faster than orbital refueling and indeed it's a alternative to a mega-roket.

Yeah, one of the biggest advantages is that it just gives you options.

No, because they would evaporate and disperse very quickly.

No, droplets of fuel wouldn't be a risk, they'd just get blown away by the solar wind.

My first thought as well.

It's really an inspiring system. I'm impressed they were able to get it to throw a payload so high.

@@frasercain if the payload cost were dropped enough, ice shielding from space radiation like cosmic rays and solar winds might become viable.

The description is accurate, but it's senseless to put it in lunar orbit. A fuel depot in LEO would be much easier and achieve as much. SLS gotta have *something* to do, I guess, otherwise it would just have been a waste :-\

you do realise that the gateway is essential to getting commercial launch partners involved in any sort of lunar missions?

When I say "functional" I mean in regard to delta-v, not in regard to making the moon marketable. Also, if a fuel depot was located at Earth-Moon L1, the purpose would be to source the fuel from the moon.

Because unless you actually made any of it in space then it ends up being ideally the same cost, or in reality a greater cost, to launch everything separately rather than together. In reality it's way cheaper to launch everything at once if you can because otherwise you end up having to purchase multiple launch vehicles. Due to manufacturing and operations costs of rocket launches, it's generally cheaper to buy a spot on a single larger rocket than multiple smaller ones. As well, for each "piece" that you split your mission into, you need to build a system around it to maintain it in orbit. Say you want to send up a ton of food and water for a mars mission prior to sending up the people and the ship itself. We'll you can't just put them in a sealed container and throw it into orbit. It will need to have a propulsion system to be able to adjust its own orbit after it gets deployed by the launcher. It will also need a computer and an array of sensors for monitoring its contents and for monitoring its surroundings. It will need a communication system so you can safely and remotely dock with it. It will then need docking hardware which likely needs a sealed connection to allow crew to retrieve the contents. It will also need solar panels and power management systems. With a few exceptions, basically all payloads need stuff like that (not necessarily docking equipment but you get what I mean) which all eats into how much of what you actually want can fit within the mass budget. So if you build your mission in pieces you end up with a lot of redundant weight. Once docked with the ship, the example of the food storage unit no longer needs its own computer, thrusters, power, air, etc and so most times it's just cheaper just to build everything more compactly and save mass by eliminating redundant systems (not redundant in a good way like "triple redundancy" because you couldn't rely on your food storage unit's computer to run the mission should the main computer fail). The refueling thing that ULA is looking at would basically be them paying to send up the fuel and you buying fuel after you already launch. Up side is you get more mass for your satalite hardware, downside is you have to pay for in orbit refueling. The money is saved by ULA profiting off an economy of scale (they can send shit tons up at a time). This works for fuel because everyone needs fuel, but not everything you might need in space for your mission is able to exploit an economy of scale as its only needed by a select few in space, like food.

That's interesting, I'm not sure, but it's a clever idea. Like an on-demand water heater.

Harambe's Ghost -- Hydrogen/oxygen still gives you a better Isp, and you can get water from the moon, comets, asteroids, etc. without having to lift it out of deep gravity wells.

@@donsample1002 Blue Origin plans to do that

Yeah, I can imagine a future infrastructure where there are fuel depots all over the place.

Yes. The refueling would still occur in orbit tho. Ideally the fuel would be catapulted from the moon into whichever orbit a space ship needs it to be.

@@DamianReloaded Indeed. The Moon is gravity well. Once you've escaped the Earth's gravity well, you don't want to enter another one until you've reached your final destination.

@@DamianReloaded a magnetic launch system like in the movie Moon so that pods of fuel can be launched at the same relative velocity into the path of the target spacecraft on a outer planet mission so that manoeuvring and expenditure of energy is almost zero for the spacecraft to receive it's extra fuel?

@@VunterSlaush1650 Exactly. Or steam rockets.

Yup, that's why everyone is so interested in exploring the Moon's south pole. kzfaq.info/get/bejne/p5iTatGLp5OUZGQ.html

Not an expert, but I believe the fuel is comprised mainly of oxygen, carbon, and hydrogen. Not easy to get hold of those things in space unless you capture an asteroid or two. And even then, I wonder how they'd convert those to usable fuel - maybe superheat them, capture the gas, and cool it again to purify it? No idea, just wild speculation.

Well, refueling make a lot of sense for >100 tons payloads because for smaller payloads you only need a bigger rocket with a third stage. Refueling mak a LOT more sense for reusable rockets because you only need one rocket. If you want to refuel a spaceship with expendable rockets it will cost more money than just to build a bigger rocket...

Moons comets and asteroids all have ice and carbon.

There is a thought going around that asteroids are predominantly extinct comets. Comets start off as a mixture of ice and dirt. Through repeated visits to the sun the outer layer of ices get blasted away leaving a thick layer of insulating dirt around a dirt/ice core. We may find that drilling just a little way into a larger asteroid will reveal quite a bit of ice. Failing that we know for certain that beyond the snowline, out past 3.2 AU, we'll find loads of ice-rich bodies. A few trips with an ice-mining scheme would probably provide all the raw materials for decades of refueling. For the brass ring we could mine Ceres which is expected to have an ocean mantle. For easiest retrieval we should aim for the water volcanoes that Dawn observed. With just .03G surface gravity it would be easy to launch huge amounts of water off Ceres.

That would be awesome, but we don't have a technology for this yet.

toughsf.blogspot.com/2017/09/low-earth-orbit-atmospheric-scoops.html

Sure, there are a couple of companies considering rocket-based launch systems. www.universetoday.com/138966/launching-rockets-from-balloons-is-about-to-be-a-thing-but-we-need-a-better-name-than-rockoons/

@@frasercain cool thanks!

or jsut from a mountain region close to equator.

@@mysund let's build a mountain

@@Phil_AKA_ThundyUK or an additional equator.

The SpaceX Starship really looks like the kind of stuff dreamed up in the 1950s. :-)

apparently mars? The starship becomes an SSTO in mars so im guessing its possible. Also im not a scientist, but people have said that you can mine rocket fuel in the moon aswell

Sure, it's idea to make your fuel in space, by splitting water into hydrogen and oxygen.

You carry it in dedicated fuel tankers. The key is to use smaller, cheaper and simpler rockets to carry the fuel.

Well, if you've got a steady supply of CO2, H2O, and electricity somewhere in space you can create methane and liquid oxygen on the go as a storage medium for the energy and reaction mass for engines such as raptor. This would be far more efficient and economically viable than bringing it up from earth.

Absolutely. But shorter term, it sounds like they are just talking about having a storage system for fuel sent up from Earth.

@@Gdub-ok7ur exactly

It doesn't matter. If you could put even 10% of the Saturn V's fuel into a parking orbit at a time, in ten launches you have the equivalent of a fully fuelled Apollo rocket with no atmospheric or weight constraints... and the Apollo missions went to the moon and back. Also also, you could use lighter engines, a lighter vehicle and more space on the vehicle for consumables such as water, food and oxygen.

@@tsdt4ever haha the apollo rockets didnt go to the moon and back- only a small part of them came back. And your not considering the cost per person it would take to get to the moon that way. Do you really think 50x appollo missions to get 100 people to the moon would be cheaper than once BFR launch? At this exact moment that might be true, but once the BFR is fleshed out, theres no way that making a new rocket 50 times is safer or cheaper than just sending one rocket to the moon and back. Not to mention, the plan isnt to just send 100 people to the moon, its to have thousands there. A real moon base. With survivable habitats and sustainable food and energy. Thats the goal of this lol. We cannot achieve that with apollo rockets. So yea, consider how much it would cost per person and per kilo, and if its still cheaper for the apollo missions then you are right. We dont know yet though, for me the best indicator is how much more efficient SpaceX'es rockets already are than the apollo. The Falcon Heavy already is about 10x as efficient as the Apollo lol. Why couldn't they do that with the BFR?

It's all about where you put the stations. You want them at the nodes that connect worlds, so you can refuel when you get anywhere.

@@frasercain A solar system wide deployment of refuelling stations, manned flights and robotic exploration coordinated like a symphony of science across a multitude of destinations would be an incredible and seemingly very doable future!

Turns out the mass of these things isn't very high. So keeping simplicity is probably worth it.

USB charging ports will be included, right?

That's the same as a staged rocket. Like I said, if you can get up to L2, you need a fraction of the fuel to make it to Mars.

That's interesting, I'm not exactly sure. Some kind of pressure system that pumps inert gas into the tank?

@@frasercain I thought of that, but you might just end up with your fuel floating around with the gas. I seem to recall Musk talking about ullage for Starship refueling, but that was on a previous iteration. I think I'll look into what Progress does. Thanks for the video, as always, making my wheels turn!

They will when the station passes over Oregon and New Jersey.

Starship uses methane.

Sure, you could use the hydrogen and oxygen for all kinds of things, but you need a fresh source if you're going use your drinking water and atmosphere for propellant.

The next shot a few seconds later shows that it is a test rig in an Earthian studio.

@@massimookissed1023 Ah. I didn't realize that those were the same device. Thanks.