Why SpaceX Lunar Tourists Won’t Walk on the Moon? Top 4 Reasons

Why SpaceX Lunar Tourists Won’t Walk on the Moon? Top 4 Reasons


So far in human history, 12 people, —all
NASA astronauts — have walked on the moon. Twelve more people — again, all NASA astronauts
— have gone around it without ever setting foot on the surface. That second number may be set to climb, though,
now that Elon Musk has promised to send Japanese billionaire, Yusaku Maezawa, and six to eight
artists into orbit around our celestial neighbor aboard the SpaceX Big Falcon Rocket. Musk previously promised to put a tourist
around the moon by the end of 2018. This time, he said the ride will happen in
2023. Maezawa will pay for the pleasure cruise,
with what is presumably a hefty chunk of even his multibillion-dollar fortune. But whatever sum he’s paying, it will buy
him and his posse a rare view of the moon, but no landing or excursions onto the lunar
surface. That’s because, as challenging as safely launching
humans into lunar orbit is, it’s essentially a matter of designing a crew vehicle, that
can keep people alive for the voyage and a descent back into Earth’s atmosphere, and
building a rocket big enough to push it where Maezawa wants to go. Landing on the moon is a lot more complicated. Keeping that in mind in this video, Engineering
Today will discuss top 4 facts Why the SpaceX Lunar Tourists Won’t Walk on the Moon, why
getting back to the moon is so damn hard? So, lets get started. Moon surface is littered with craters and
boulders that threaten safe landings. Leading up to the first moon landing in 1969,
the US government spent what would be billions in today’s dollars to develop, launch, and
deliver satellites to the moon to map its surface, and help mission planners scout for
possible Apollo landing sites. But a bigger worry is, what eons of meteorite
impacts have created – regolith, also called moon dust. the moon is covered in “a fine, talc-like
top layer of lunar dust, several inches deep in some regions, which is electrostatically
charged through interaction with the solar wind, and is very abrasive and clingy, fouling
up spacesuits, vehicles and systems very quickly.” The Apollo missions “had a lot of problems
with dust.” “If we’re going to spend long durations and
build permanent habitats, we have to figure out how to handle the dust. There’s also a problem with sunlight. For about 14 days at a time, the lunar surface
is a boiling hellscape that is exposed directly to the sun’s harsh rays; the moon has no protective
atmosphere. The next 14 days are in total darkness, making
the moon’s surface one of the colder places in the universe. A small nuclear reactor being developed by
NASA called Kilopower could supply astronauts with electricity during weekslong lunar nights
— and would be useful on other worlds, including Mars. “There is not a more environmentally unforgiving
or harsher place to live than the moon. “And yet, since it is so close to the Earth,
there is not a better place to learn how to live, away from planet Earth.” NASA has designed dust- and sun-resistant
spacesuits and rovers, though it’s uncertain whether that equipment is anywhere near ready
to launch, as some of it was part of the Constellation program. If you watched the Apollo landings on TV in
the late 1960s and early ’70s (or one of the movies made about them later), you saw that
the Command Module — the ship that carried astronauts to and from lunar orbit — never
actually landed on the moon. Instead, each successful landing required
two astronauts to clamber into the Lunar Module — a sort of lightweight, space-faring dinghy
— and ride it down to the lunar surface while a third astronaut waited in the module
overhead. After each moonwalk, the astronauts would
hop back into the Lunar Module and blast themselves back into space, where their third companion
would pick them up for the ride back to Earth. That wasn’t always the plan, though. In the earliest days of the Apollo project,
NASA engineers seriously considered trying to land the whole Command Module on the moon. But they soon realized that a Command Module
capable of landing on the moon, blasting back off into space, propelling itself back to
Earth and surviving re-entry would have to be impractically gargantuan, even by Apollo
mission standards. Spacex Big Falcon Rocket is set to be more
powerful than the Apollo missions’ Saturn V rocket, but not by much. The company released a promotional video in
early 2018 showing a simulated Big Falcon Rocket crew vehicle landing on the moon, but
released no technical information suggesting that it’s actually overcome the technical
challenges involved. Actually, in theory, there’s no obvious, overwhelming
reason SpaceX couldn’t do this. The company has, after all, managed plenty
of tricky Earth landings that NASA couldn’t have dreamed of in the 1960s. And Musk has claimed — whether sensibly
or otherwise — that his company will one day land people on Mars. But the reality is that, if history is any
guide, designing and building a lunar lander is an entirely separate project that represents
a good chunk of the cost of building a rocket that can get to the moon in the first place. Between 1963 and 1973, NASA’s Lunar Module
program cost $2.24 billion, compared with the Command Module’s $3.73 billion and the
Saturn V’s $6.42 billion. Adjusted for inflation, the lander cost about
$17 billion in 2018. Its design, as lead engineer Thomas Kelly
recounted in a 2012 book about the effort, was a matter of endless downsizing to make
the module lightweight enough for the journey. The original design for the lander, Kelly
wrote, involved a seated cockpit with wide, glass viewing windows, so the astronauts could
watch their descent to the lunar surface in all its panoramic glory. By the time they had the thing stripped down
for its first uncrewed flight aboard Apollo 5 in January 1968, it included just a single,
little, triangular window and clip-in cable hoists, in place of seats, to keep the astronauts
standing. By the time NASA conducted a crewed test with
a lunar module in low Earth orbit aboard Apollo 9 in 1969, the astronauts had named it “Spider,”
thanks to its alien, many-legged appearance. That lander design carried just two astronauts
at a time to the moon, though later models did manage larger cargo loads. A SpaceX lander would presumably have to safely
ferry its entire paying passenger complement to the lunar surface, in at least marginally
more comfort and safety than NASA’s cable hoists and stripped-down navigational and
docking systems offered. And that gets to the biggest obstacle preventing
SpaceX from giving its passengers a real lunar excursion. If SpaceX’s goal were to explore the moon,
which at least nominally was NASA’s goal in the ’60s and ’70s, then the company might
have more options. Highly trained, expert astronauts can ferry
themselves around in limited craft that require everyone on board to contribute to the project
of landing, exploring, launching and docking — all while peering through a tiny, triangular
window to find their way. But no matter how much training SpaceX’s passengers
receive before their trip, they won’t be there as space pilots, nor experts in the operation
of spacesuits or other technical procedures involved in the landing. That means that if SpaceX were to attempt
to put people on the moon, they would essentially be dead weight, along for the ride and taking
up space while expert astronauts and automated systems handled the many technical challenges. Theoretical SpaceX tourist lander would have
to carry far more bodies, likely in more comfort and safety, than one carrying a NASA-style
pared-down crew of experts and equipment there for scientific research. So, instead, the tourists will at best be
left up in space, where they can enjoy looking down at the moon but won’t have much to do
in the way of groundbreaking exploration.

62 thoughts on “Why SpaceX Lunar Tourists Won’t Walk on the Moon? Top 4 Reasons

  1. We need to discover a way of making money by going to the Moon. Tourism is definitely one option. And I'm sure there are resources on the moon that are valuable

  2. They solved the landing issue by refueling the BFS in orbit after it reached space. It was always a fuel issue for NASA. But still, check this out. You can have an aerospike engine on a spacecraft that looks like the millennial falcon on the outside. It can be built on the moon and launch from the moon. It may not be able to launch from earth but it can launch from the moon park in an LEO and the turnaround and fly back to the moon and land. If it can be re-fuel like the upcoming BFR it would be a great design and lunar colony ships can look so awesome

  3. I often wonder if real moon landing conspiracy loonies are offended by these sorts of videos. Videos where reality is presented as it actually happened. Most probable, however, they never remove their heads from their own and their loonie friends' anuses, to actually confront reality.

  4. "Much Ado for Nothing"…
    Meanwhile China will complete Changzheng 9 , same level with Saturn V, and will LAND on Mars (and return to Earth) in mid 2020's … Checkmate USA 😉 And don't forget : Changzheng 8 will be reusable as much as Falcon Heavy or BFR(S)…

  5. Space-X's tourists will not walk on the moon, YET! But it's still early days, in these efforts. Eventually, these obstacles will be over come. Also, lack of current support infrastructure, is also a big factor. As support infrastructure gets developed, in space, such as a refueling station, on The Moon, & a landing platform, that may help with the dust problem, eventually, we'll be able to travel to, & land on The Moon, with ease.

  6. Space X can send working robots 1st and build lunar base and facilities, then they can send astronauts land allready build colony's, these goes Mars mission aswell

  7. If they only come back with some decent high resolution pictures of the surface that will be more than NASA has given us plus they won't be censored so if there is something NASA is hiding from us on the surface the cat will be out of the bag. I can't wait. Plus if they position the flight over the Apollo sites we will get once and for all confirmation of a cover up or confirmation the moon landing did really happen.

  8. The dust is a valid concern but I think you are omitting major innovation when it comes to landing and fuel. Yes, they had very limited fuel back in the Apollo days, but today, with orbital refueling, you can have a fully fueled BFS doing the landing. BFS is designed for much greater gravity forces. However, I think the main problem they had in the 60s was with deceleration due to lack of atmosphere, not with the very weak, 1/8th gravity. They had to slow down enough so the lander could safely descend and then again eventually reach moon's escape velocity. They couldn't bring enough fuel back then. This is now solved by SpaceX.

  9. They will never walk on the moon and live through it, the dust will eat then up. It almost ate the lunar Astronaut's micro particles sharp as a razor that cuts your body like a million glass shards. Pipe dream, musk fantasy.

  10. The earth, sun and moon, are one working unit. Without the sun and moon, life could nor exist on earth.The three did not just come together by accident. The sun and the moon give light by day and by night, and their gravity causes our seasons, and tides and women's menstrual cycles. Without this, there would be no breeding, therefore no life. The trio were placed in their positions by our creator, so long ago, and he also placed protections around us to stop bad shit coming in and to stop us going out, and polluting the whole universe. So, he is certainly not going to allow the moon to be interfered with, after all this time. All the NASA moon landings were hoaxes, everyone with half a brain knows that, and so will Elon Musk's effort be a hoax. No one from earth has ever been to the moon and no one ever will, and that's why these actors will not walk on the 'moon '.

  11. You did not even mentioned the "free return orbit" method, which is the basic condition for how to go to the Moon and back without using any rocket power during the trip.

  12. Why does everyone, including SpaceX, state that 24 people travelled around the moon? 27 it was. Though they didn't go intro orbit, the Apollo 13 crew also travelled around the moon.

  13. Here's why you have a HUMAN do the narration than a computer-generated voice: There is NO "Saturn V" ("vee"); it was the "Saturn V" ("five", as in Roman numeral Five).

  14. Because SpaceX dont have the technologies to do the job. Thats why they will walk on the simualtor and will pretend that they are on the moon. Human mission requires much better spaceships and life support systems than SpaceX can build. Such task of put human on moon requires much better spaceships. Full frame technologies. pretty much like millenium falcon and star destroyer. A ship that can land horizontally/diagonnaly. And to be 1 unit. Not multistage rocket.

  15. I thought the BFR was designed to land on every solid body in the solar system. Maybe the real reason is that this is the first manned flight beyond earth orbit and they wanted to keep it as simple as possible. I can see suits as one reason not to go out walking around on the surface, but wonder why they aren't landing and just sitting there for a day or two. BFR has all those big windows. It would be nice to pull up a sofa and stare out at it for a while. If there was some way to scoop up a bunch of moon dust, space-x could sell little one gram vials of it for big bucks to help fund other BFR related projects. The idea of actually owning a moon rock or moon dust is still so novel, the first commercially returned samples could go for big bucks at auction.

  16. Valid questions, but tough to compare everything t o the 1960's. In 1969 my telephone was tethered to the wall with phone cord and I wanted information on something I had to go to the library…..

  17. Are you kidding? Space X does not know how to get to the moon. First, make a rocket that can carry men to the low orbit. that alone will take 5 years.

  18. They need to design and build, basically a captains gig that stays in orbit around the moon until a mission requires a trip to the surface, where as this mission would fly and doc with the "Captains gig", then depart for the surface. After finished, launch back into orbit, doc with the missions spaceship, transfer crew back to the ship, then leave the captains gig in orbit while they depart back to earth. This would obviously be 2 launches from earth. 1 is the lunar orbitor/lander, and 2nd would be the spaceship with crew. The only thing required to use the orb/lndr would be to refill the oxygen and fuel on the orb/lndr. The point is with all the savings of these spaceX rocket missions, they should make 2 launches on 2 separate rockets or 1 on 2 separate missions. Launch and deploy lunar vehicle and the launch and deploy crew vehicle with crew & supplies to refill lunar vehicle.

  19. CAN HARDLY WAIT UNTIL THE AVERAGE PERSON CAN GO TO THE MOON
    IN 50 YEARS IT WILL BE A COMMON DAILY THING, PEOPLE GOING TO THE MOON ON A DAILY BASIS. LOVE YOUR SHOW.

  20. Maybe because they won't have a lander… Never intended one.

    But to the question why haven't "we" been back, it's all due to desire and political will. Not just no desire to go back, but political will to not do so.
    Dust or radiation didn't stop us from trying. They decided not to try.

  21. WHY WHY WHY do otherwise reasonable quality youtube videos use synthetic voices that seem incapable of pronouncing "NASA", and many other words incorrectly and merging words together, pauses in the wrong places and suchlike. If you want someone to read the narration, I will do it for very little if only to prevent good content from being crap

  22. The real reason: The BFS has to be refilled in earth orbit to have enough fuel for a lunar landing and return. For LEO and lunar flyby missions this is not necessary. So the first manned missions will be without refilling, until it is rated as save.

  23. Why SpaceX Lunar Tourists Won't Walk on the Moon? Because rockets cannot fly in the vacuum of space.

    For many years, NASA has boldly stated, through documentary film and on their official website, that rockets do not require a body of atmospheric pressure to push away from because they fly using Newton's 3rd law premise of 'action-reaction'.

    This premise, however, is based on NASA’s flawed ‘action-reaction’ version of the 3rd law and not on Newton's actual 3rd law.

    Sorry if I'm bursting space bubbles here but, far from proving a rocket can fly in space, Newton's 3rd law irrefutably proves that a rocket CANNOT fly in space using 'action-reaction' alone. It is physically impossible and, as such, proves beyond question that space travel is nothing more than an egregious lie perpetuated by NASA since the early 1960's.

    This means that neither NASA, SPACEX nor any other 'Space Agency' has ever sent a rocket, manned or otherwise, into space. It's all fake. And that can be undeniably proven…

    Based on Newton’s actual 3rd law premise of 'action-reaction', the following video finally and irrevocably proves the space travel lie by demonstrating precisely why rockets CANNOT possibly work in space… https://youtu.be/FpQ3ynXrG_o

    And it cannot be debunked…

  24. This Guy is going to pay millions just to around the moon, and I wonder why Im still paralysed.
    If you want to make a big name for yourself find cure for something.

  25. The moon is just a reflection. The sun is not a tangable object it is the hot spot under the magnifying glass or dome if you will.

  26. I think one the most important points everyone is overlooking is that we have never been to the moon. NASA is fake.

  27. Musk has been talking to his mate Branson who has got a great scam going with Virgin Galactic. Can just imagine the conversation. Yep Elon you come up with this great space challenge throw it out there and wait for the suckers to bite. You set a date for a few years away then extend it and extend it and all you have to say is it’s very hard going into space and we want it to be completely safe. Yes I have been doing it for decades now have raked in a fortune. Best scam on the flat earth I mean planet wink wink.

  28. Please stop using text to speech software to narate your films as it sounds terrible try using actors charleston heston is one of yout americans better narative speakers
    Or even try using just about any of the British Actors over There patrick stewart's pretty good if you can get him to drop his yorkshire accent as you did for Star Trek!

  29. A defeatist attitude. Spacex's attitude, given enough time and money, will show how unimpressive was the general tenor of this video.

  30. Nonsense. All this narrator is saying is that it hasn't been done before so it can't be done in the future. Just negative nonsense.

  31. 3:29 "There is not a more environmentally unforgiving or harsher place to live than the moon." B.S. The surface of Venus comes to mind, but Mercury is very hot in the sun and the outer planets are very cold indeed. Nasty radiation around Jupiter I understand.
    6:44 The graphic is of the command module, something completely different from the lunar lander which the voice is talking about.

  32. Tourists??? strange term for the small handful of people who could ever afford, risk, or desire a "walk on Moon" vacation trip. With the supposed 100 person capacity of BFR … SpaceX could NEVER sell out that seating, LOL …. BFR just isn't going to be used for Tourism, commercial viability of BFR will largely depend on providing launch services to major space agencies and companies .. not "Tourists" … but with the trend toward smaller lighter satellites, BFR might be DOA financially. IMO, SpaceX should be producing SMALLER and lower cost LEO launch vehicles … ones that could be launched from a converted high altitude Jumbo Jet.

  33. I generally like your videos but this one is more of an essay than it is educational, and I knew all the facts in the video, it was all available elsewhere. By bringing opinion into it you only invite debate. That's fine if you want debate. 

    So here's my opinion.
    I disagree with your assessment. By simply doing the math, it is shown that with in-orbit refueling the Starship could land on the moon with their full cargo, something like 100 tons. The surface of the moon is well known now, so finding a landing spot is not an issue. Landing on regolith has been demonstrated as not a problem 6 times. With all that tonnage they could have plenty of room for experts and "dead weight" passengers. The do have to have adequate spacesuits & a crane to reach the surface. 

    In my opinion, getting the Starship to work at all is the main challenge, especially the active heat shield. But it doesn't make sense to compare NASA cost-plus research dollars with 1970's technology to the much more efficient in-house development model using todays technology. 

    The concept for Starship is that it is a general use solar system spaceship designed to go anywhere in the solar system with re-fueling as the key. This is a totally different paradigm than the specific mission design approach that has been common up to now. One reason it has a lot of small engines is to have a wide thrust range, so it can land on a bigger planet or small moon. The fins to be used in the belly first reentry are for control but also to accommodate different payload & fuel weights. The Delta-V required for all it's potential destinations is there. 
    So as I said, the biggest challenge is getting it to work in the first place. Once that is done, landing on the moon is a piece of cake, especially compared to Mars, with it's high reentry speed.

  34. A very negative outlook!
    Problems can be solved…….because they are problems!
    It seems Space X is pretty good at solving problems.
    I hope in the "up and coming" generations there will be more people like Elon Musk to venture humanity outward.

  35. But back to i1969 until 1972..was not a problem…? why today with more technology…..!& previous . knoledge will be at the least ..more asy than then….
    So….what happened…?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *