What Happens to the Moon Race Now? | Q&A 430

With the New Glenn explosion and Starship having problems of its own, what is a realistic setback for NASA's Moon base plans? Do they need to look into alternative propulsion methods? And in Q&A+, will Europe ever catch up in space domain? All this and more in this question show. It's time for the question show, your questions, my answers, as always wherever you are across my channel. If a question pops in your brain, just write it down, gather them up, and I will answer them here. Alright, let's get into the questions. Nicola P. Byte is 2020 still a realistic target after the last Starship flight and the New Glenn explosion? So we're in a funny limbo state right now, but it feels like we're always in these kinds of limbo states. But we're in another limbo state right now, where we don't really know what the future holds for human space exploration. Previously it was because we didn't know what was going to happen to the space launch system. We didn't know if Starship was going to be able to deliver when that was going to be able to deliver, you know, what's going to happen with Starliner? Was it going to be able to deliver humans to the space station, like things were just in flux. And so now we live in this other state of flux, where space launch system has definitely been able to deliver astronauts to space took them around the far side of the moon. But it is a ludicrously expensive rocket cost $4.1 billion per launch and Congress is going to run out of appetite to light money on fire at that rate to see more of those space launch systems fly. It is the old school rocketry way. And so you've got new space, we've got SpaceX, and SpaceX has been taking us through all of the tests with Starship, I think we've gone through 10 flights so far with with Starship. And we saw the V1, we saw the V2, and there was a bunch of issues. And then just last week, we got V3. And you know, there were a lot of problems with that launch, the engines on the super heavy booster cut out prematurely. And that caused it to tumble and crash into the ocean. That was not the plan. The plan was for it to recover and land gently like this is the first time they've done the V3 super heavy, it'd be nice to have that thing work, but the first time you ever use one of these rockets, it's not going to work the way you want. And then Starship failed to keep all of its engines ignited all the way up into orbit. But it had a failsafe and was able to handle that. And then it was able to deploy a bunch of dummy satellites and see a selfie of itself. And then it was able to reenter the atmosphere and land relatively safely and explode in the ocean, but in a controlled manner. So some of the things weren't completed as planned. Other parts were completed. And so really with SpaceX, it just comes down to the cadence. Was this a, we've got to fix these problems, and it's going to take us another six months to get there? Or is this, oh, I know what the problem was, it's computer software code. We should have this fixed, and then we're going to do some more tests. But really, we're not going to know we're on our way to seeing progress until a couple of things happen. One is that we see the reusability of Starship, like right now, they've ditched 10 Starships after the launch. We need to see these things go into orbit, return to the launch pad, get caught safely by Mexico by the chopsticks. That is not actually totally mission critical, that if SpaceX wants, they could just make disposable Starships. It's going to be more expensive than what they were originally planning. But if they have to, they can make disposable Starships and not catch them, just let them burn up or let them crash into the ocean, or use them as tests and see what happens or just leave them in space. But the real issue is, can they demonstrate transferring propellant in orbit? And can they get the human launch system ready for Artemis 3, which is due next year, I mean, we are a year away from the test of Artemis 3. And there's no like great indication that this is going to be a gigantic problem. I mean, it feels like the issues that happened with V3 are solvable. I mean, the fact that rocket took off, the Starship went to space, like these are solvable problems. And so we'll find out how quickly they're going to do their ongoing cadence of this. And it'll be great to see them be able to get to a place where they're able to demonstrate the docking capability, fuel transfer capability. And then that gives us a nice runway to get to Artemis 4. Blue Origin is another story. You know, that explosion on the launch pad that we saw last week was catastrophic. They lost a rocket, they terribly damaged all of the facilities that are around the rocket at the launch pad. You're looking at the launch canter, you're looking at the transporter, you're looking at other hardware, refueling the deluge system, all the stuff was around and deployed, and all took some level of damage. And you can imagine, you know, if this rocket exploded and all this debris went all, you're not gonna go, yeah, I'm sure it's fine, right? Like, I'm sure that deluge system is fine. No, you're gonna need to go and examine it very carefully and swap out any parts that took damage, and get yourself back to a place where you are operational. And they have to figure out why the problem happened, and they have to prove to the government and the regulators that that problem isn't going to happen again. And so that means they're gonna have to redesign the rocket, they're gonna have to do more tests, more wet dress rehearsals, more test firings of the rocket. And it looks like the explosion started down in the engine area of the New Glenn. And so if this is a problem with the engine, this problem is going to affect other companies that are using the Blue Origin's engines. Specifically, you've got United Launch Alliance with the Vulcan rocket, that's using Blue Origin engines as well. And so this is going to kind of cascade. And Blue Origin is on a tight timeline. You know, they were able to worm their way back into the government's good graces and be potentially a serious competitor to be able to provide landers to the surface of the Moon. Now the rocket blew up. This is a problem. So we have no idea. Like, we just have no idea. And I think, you know, if you go back to the very beginning of when Elon Musk announced the interplanetary transport ship, when you go to when Donald Trump announced the Artemis program to carry humans to the Moon by 2024, when you go to all of the various announcements that were made, things have slipped and things have slipped. And here we are. And I think the unspoken concern that is the through line from this is, is the US going to put humans on the Moon before the Chinese do it in 2030. Now, obviously, the Americans have already done this, there is no race to the Moon, the Americans have already won the race. But I think there is a certain amount of natural pride to try and get back there before the Chinese demonstrate. And maybe that the Chinese will have a more sustainable ongoing continued presence on the Moon while the US might be going down this route of a $4.1 billion per launch based launch system. It's just going to be too expensive, and they're just going to go forget it, right? Because going to the Moon costs a lot of money. It costs all the monies. And you've got to be serious that this is a thing that you want to do. And you've got to have this long term commitment, and you've got to be able to fund into the various technologies that are going to take you back there. And if you take your eye off the ball, if you just if you if you let budgets creep down, if you let pressure make engineers retire early, the thing will come off the rails in a thousand different little ways. And then we'll be 2035 and someone will say, weren't the Americans going to go to the Moon at some point? So I've been watching the conversations that Jared Isaacman has been having. And so far, I'm actually really impressed. You know, he has provided a level of focus on the kinds of priorities that I that I think match what people in the space exploration community would like. I think, you know, there was a lot of damage that was done to NASA and with sort of before he came on board, and especially when it comes with science programs, Congress and the Senate have been able to block that. And so we haven't seen the really deep mission cuts that had been requested by the White House administration. But now hopefully, we're going to see some kind of leadership that is not just going to preside over cuts that aren't as bad and a workforce that is feeling unappreciated, that we're actually going to see some kind of vision and some kind of encouragement and a return to the scientific greatness that NASA has has exemplified in throughout its history, right? That's like, I don't know, I haven't had this conversation with people at NASA. But if I was somebody at NASA, especially someone late in their career, I would be feeling pretty unappreciated at this point. And it's really hard to get an audacious goal completed with a workforce that is feeling a little down. So we will see. I think 2028 is is ambitious. I would not be surprised if that slips and it feels like it's starting to move towards it's going to be a squeaker. But we'll keep you posted. We'll watch every twist and turn of this. It's time to shout out our new patrons at the $5 level and above. Ian Kilmister, Christopher Sizal, William Cook, Frank Hanna, Scotty, Michael Blumhart, Jake, Jupiter Jared, Nicholas Ault, and Stephen Lenz. Join the community at patreon.com slash universe today. Rage Tale 3. Is NASA progressively looking into solar sail technology? Absolutely. They have recently launched ACES, a solar sail that they were demonstrating. They had another solar sail, the NEA Scout, that they had put on the Artemis 1 mission. And that was going to be a solar sail that was going to take it to an asteroid. Unfortunately, that one failed. They've got other solar sails in development right now. And there's like a real hardcore group of engineers that are really proposing solar sails. We see suggestions for putting solar sails on on various missions, even back when the Deep Space Gateway was being developed. One of the ideas for station keeping was to put a solar sail on the Deep Space Gateway as a way to save propellant. So NASA is very familiar with the technology. They've done a lot of the development of this technology and upcoming missions will probably take advantage of this. But they're not the only ones. The Japanese Space Agency had their IKONOS mission a couple of years ago. The Planetary Society funded the LightSail 2 mission. And so we've got enough data points to show that solar sails will work in some situations and can provide some benefits. Some of the coolest ideas, like for example, the trying to send a mission out to the solar gravitational lens may just absolutely require a solar sail. There's no way to get out there, except you dive down very close to the sun. You know, you then do a quick gravitational slingshot around the sun, gathering as many photons as you can while you're super close and then use that to speed your way out to the solar gravitational lens any reasonable amount of time. So at Universe Today, we are constantly reporting on new solar sail ideas and technology. You know, and perhaps that's just because it's something that I'm so excited about that I'm always recommending it to the team. But still, we are definitely seeing a lot more development into solar sail. It's funny, there was the Breakthrough Starship Foundation that announced the whatever $100 million several years ago, and then it has come to light that they never really paid over much money. And a lot of people have been just continuing to develop the underlying technology for light sails, solar sails, powerful space based lasers, communication arrays, all the bits and pieces of an interstellar mission on their own. And there is funding, there's NASA's NIAC grant, there's National Science Foundation in Canada, there is just like, in different countries, there's different pots of money that is being directed towards these ideas. Crystals, light sails made of crystals, like a lot of really cool ideas, and ones that I've reported on and so on. I think you're seeing a lot of flowers blooming right now that will pay off into actual tested technology in the coming decades. And I don't think we need to just rely on NASA. There's a lot of people that are working on this, and we'll get there from many different pathways. But I think it's such a good idea that it just won't go away. Did you know that you can watch the same video with no ads and get a bonus question over on Patreon completely for free? This week's bonus question, will Europe ever catch up in the space domain? And I'll put a link in the show notes. All right, those are all the questions that we had this episode. Thank you, everyone who put your questions into the YouTube comments. Everybody who joined me for the live show. Of course, we record this show live every Monday at 5pm Pacific time. So if you want to come and join that, it's a really good time. Now I'm going to chat about how I read papers. But first, I'd like to thank our Patrons. Thanks to Abe Kingston Andrea Pedretti Brian Bode Caretan Chuck Hawkins Commander Baylock DarkFinga David Gilton David Matz Enthraller Reading and Math for Toddlers Eric Lindstrom Evan.pro James Clark Jeremy Madden Jim Burke Jordan Young Marcel Sootes Michael Purcell Nordspace TheOneStepForAnimals.org Please follow my nephew at vbrick6994 Ren Kaidu Richard Williams Sean Sargent Stephen Foundland-Munley Team49 Telescopes Canada Vlad Shipplin Wolfgang Klotz and Zeldaborg Galactic Defender, who support us at the Master of the Universe level. And all our Patrons. All your support means the universe to us. So I got this question from Nicholas Radial Injection Model. Here's a question for you. Do you read only peer-reviewed papers or non-peer-reviewed as well? So I read everything. I have probably a thousand sources that I am staying on top of for various interesting pieces of news that I think we should be reporting on Universe Today. And then we task those to various writers. And then those turn into the kinds of stories that I'm covering on Spacebytes. You know, just to kind of break these down, like, there's a lot of space agencies, NASA, Chinese Space Agency, European Space Agency, JAXA. There's a lot of universities. So all of the various universities are doing astronomy related research. And these are published usually in press releases. Then there's kind of more informal sources. So I have people who reach out to me, tell me stuff they're working on, or I will notice some conversation in a discussion forum, people talking about something on Reddit. Stuff gets posted on Twitter or other various social media sites, Facebook and so on. So I'm sort of watching all of those as well. But the backbone really of what we cover on Universe Today are a lot of journals, a lot of research that scientists are doing. And I find it a very productive place to find interesting news, because we can get a scoop on it that nobody else is really that interested in going through all of the journals. They're looking for someone to compile it into a press release. And so it's it's a harder job. But that also means that we get a ton of the first people to report on something interesting that's happening. And so journals kind of break up into two places. The first one is the established peer-reviewed published journals. Think about things like Nature or Astrophysics or Physical Letters D. There are hundreds of journals. Some I find really useful. I would say like Acta Astronautica is probably my favorite journalist. Tons of just really cool mission ideas, robotic ideas. I always read the new version of Acta Astronautica. Stuff in the solar system, Icarus. Some really good journals. Those are sometimes open access and sometimes they are closed access, which means that that you have to have a subscription to the journal to be able to actually read the article. I don't have subscriptions to any of the journals. So if I see a paper that I want to read a report on that isn't in a open access journal, then I will reach out to the author and say, can I see a copy of your paper? And then because we'd like to report on it on Universe Today. And all of the journals allow the authors of the papers to give out copies of their papers for journalistic purposes. So if they're concerned, I show them in the policy that they can do this, and then often they'll send me a copy of the paper. But the question you really asked is, do I read the peer-reviewed or the non-peer-reviewed? And I read both. So the best place for non-peer-reviewed or pre-print is Archive, A-R-X-I-V. And this is sort of almost like a forum. It's a distribution list where researchers post their research. And often they're doing this in preparation for it to be accepted by a journal. But they're giving their colleagues a chance to look over their research and catch any mistakes and push back and whatever. And then often they'll do a revision to it for the stuff that actually makes it into the journal. And so it's a little risky because it has not been peer-reviewed yet. But in many cases, it is sort of well on the way to being peer-reviewed. But they do have a fairly high gate that you have to be able to cross. And that is you have to be part of an established research institution. You have to be part of NASA or part of a university. Something with some credibility before you can even post into Archive. And I have tried to get Universe Today a member of Archive, just so I can literally see more information about the researchers. And we keep getting denied. So we are not good enough to have an account on Archive. And I consider, you know, when I look at non-peer-reviewed journals, I'm very careful. I recognize that this has not been peer-reviewed yet. And we cover that when we report on Universe Today. And often we will tackle those with some of the more credentialed authors on the team. So, you know, we have three people with PhD, astrophysics PhDs on Universe Today, as well as access to tons of other people. And so if we feel like maybe this is a little on the edge, this is kind of sketchy, it's starting to trigger our skepticism, we will reach out and find out if something is legit or not. So I think, you know, if you're going to go to pre-print sources like Archive, you just have to be careful. But there's some just amazing ideas and amazing concepts that we're reporting on. And I feel totally confident that we are still doing a good job of being journalists by reporting through that. All right, I hope that explains that question. We'll see you next time.