2:30 Try operating a 747 out of a regional airport with a 5000 foot runway. Think of Starship as a new stainless steel shuttle.
@simian_essence24 күн бұрын
Blue Origin is old school. They're focused on government contracts - and they're - SLOW; Gradatim Ferociter... with a strong emphasis on the Gradatim. Their methods are old school. NOT an impressive company.
@darksars362228 күн бұрын
Waht in the name of von brown am I looking at 6:40
@marcuslin2363Ай бұрын
Wow
@Photostar625Ай бұрын
What about an EUS on a superheavy? The Superheavy would kick it almost into orbit, and the EUS could then very easily complete a translunar injection -- even with a comnifested lunar lander. Even better, the EUS is 8.4m in diameter, very close to the 9m of Superheavy. (just 1 foot on each side.)
@RoBear-xo6zwАй бұрын
Hi, I have been learning about Starship for the last few months… I have come to the same conclusion as you, but my focus is on the need for Starship HLS to have an abort system during lunar landing. As you have so logically pointed out, the economic efficiencies become self evident, once the SLS and Orion are removed from the equation. The Crew Dragon with the HLS tow truck can be modified such that the aft docking ring is also a pass through port into the HLS from Crew Dragon. In this Crew Dragon aft configuration the HLS tow truck can then land on the moon and then either depart from the moon with the HLS attached or separate from the HLS leaving the tow truck at the moon base. The HLS tow truck can also be launched from the moon base or move its location , etc… at later dates. Ideally, the HLS nose cone will be modified to incorporate an interior pass through, abort command module. The ACM, would serve the same functionality as Crew Dragon. The Starship needs an abort system for all ascents and descents from the moon, earth, mars… etc… and for any ship failures. I found your video by intent, looking for abort system graphics of the type abort system I have envisioned… I too, seek to promote the awareness within NASA and SpaceX the relative ease of modifying Starship and to press upon them the absolute necessity, for safety… My experience in life is that governments, corporations and individuals can be put upon to do the right thing, when the matter at hand is beyond a shadow of a doubt… and creating a win win for everyone involved. Elon, seems to think he can dictate no abort system for Starship and I vehemently disagree. A campaign such as this reaches to Congress in this case along with NASA, FAA, SpaceX and the general public. Perseverance is key… and always works… when such issues as human life and safety are the story. Starting with a KZfaq coalition combined with a presentation and graphics… will get everyone’s attention. So, are you interested in being recruited and lobbying the powers that be? Robert
@RoBear-xo6zwАй бұрын
Hi, I have been learning about Starship for the last few months… I have come to the same conclusion as you, but my focus is on the need for Starship HLS to have an abort system during lunar landing. As you have so logically pointed out, the economic efficiencies become self evident, once the SLS and Orion are removed from the equation. The Crew Dragon with the HLS tow truck can be modified such that the aft docking ring is also a pass through port into the HLS from Crew Dragon. In this Crew Dragon aft configuration the HLS tow truck can then land on the moon and then either depart from the moon with the HLS attached or separate from the HLS leaving the tow truck at the moon base. The HLS tow truck can also be autonomously launched from the moon base or move its location , etc… at later dates. Ideally, the HLS nose cone will be modified to incorporate an interior pass through, abort command module. The ACM, would serve the same functionality as Crew Dragon. The Starship needs an abort system for all ascents and descents from the moon, earth, mars… etc… and for any ship failures. I found your video by intent, looking for abort system graphics of the type abort system I have envisioned… I too, seek to promote the awareness within NASA and SpaceX the relative ease of modifying Starship and to press upon them the absolute necessity, for safety… My experience in life is that governments, corporations and individuals can be put upon to do the right thing, when the matter at hand is beyond a shadow of a doubt… and creating a win win for everyone involved. Elon, seems to think he can dictate no abort system for Starship and I vehemently disagree. A campaign such as this reaches to Congress in this case along with NASA, FAA, SpaceX and the general public. Perseverance is key… and always works… when such issues as human life and safety are the story. Starting with a KZfaq coalition combined with a presentation and graphics… will get everyone’s attention. So, are you interested in being recruited and lobbying the powers that be? Robert
@lizadonrexАй бұрын
Because they see as a hobby.
@RoBear-xo6zwАй бұрын
Tactical “nuclear “ explosive…. Equivalent 😂
@RoBear-xo6zwАй бұрын
Tactical “nuclear “ explosive…. Equivalent 😂
@rdmshАй бұрын
Would love if you started making videos again
@topphatt1312Ай бұрын
I feel like you've forgotten the problem of landing a FIFTY METER TALL VEHICLE on the infamously uneven surface of the moon, not to mention the fact that there's going to be people and cargo aboard. Just a 4 meter tall lander, the IM-1, tipped over during landing how the hell is a 50 meter tall HLS going to?
@dusanboricic201728 күн бұрын
1: It doesn't matter how tall the vehicle is. What matters is where the centre of mass is. And the HLS has 200t of fuel at the bottom of it. 2: IM-1 slammed into the ground at an angle while going 20km/h because its instruments failed. That is hardly a comparable situation
@almightysteven14543 ай бұрын
The calculations in this video are laughable. Even if Starship could take 120t to orbit, which has not been proved. Spacex has admitted that Starship’s Delta-V is 6,900ms. This is enough to get to the moon, but how would it get back? This has just been glossed over in this video. If Apogee wants to be taken seriously, as do any Muskite, show me their calculations of the whole round trip. The same goes for all the other destinations.
@zotfotpiq3 ай бұрын
wow, this aged like milk. At this point HLS seems like it was INTENDED to kill the artemis 3 landings. 🤷♂️
@craigw.scribner64903 ай бұрын
Great video--thanks! However, I'm not sure that six lunar landings can be called "many times." Still, thanks for your hard work and an excellent video. I'm a subscriber to your channel now!
@sidharthcs21103 ай бұрын
And none of this isn't proven
@ericchin7393 ай бұрын
SpaceX already got the Option B Its right on the NASA website. Funny how Starship has yet to get into orbit and is still being celebrated
@ericchin7393 ай бұрын
Artemis III will be cancelled by end of 2024 Just wait.
@zotfotpiq3 ай бұрын
Any Common Sense Skeptic fans in the house!? 🎉🎊🎉
@zotfotpiq4 ай бұрын
it's important for delivering starlink to low earth orbit. also rich guys are literally going to kill to have them as space yachts. landing something the size and weight of a Chrysler building on the moon or mars is probably asinine. i mean... just to get it to the moon you'd probably have to refuel the thing 16 to 20 times!
@zotfotpiq4 ай бұрын
how you use it is: propose it to kill the other realistic proposals. then a few years later artemis three has no hls. the same way one might use an unrealistic hyperloop proposal to kill a real technology like a high speed train. it's hard though because you're going to need to find stupid people who think they're smarter than everyone else and get them to shill for you and never admit wrong. see dunning Kruger.
@anthonypelchat4 ай бұрын
You got issues. First in thinking that Hyperloop caused delays in HSR. And then second in thinking that NASA had any better options than Starship during the first bid.
@zotfotpiq4 ай бұрын
@anthonypelchat Q: what's the difference between hyperloop and starship HLS? A: one is an unrealistic joke that's cost taxpayers billions and is never going to happen. the other is a train on an air hockey table! 🤣
@anthonypelchat4 ай бұрын
@@zotfotpiq Hyperloop was not ever an active project. No funds. And it had nothing to do with HSR. The HSR was delayed and massively over budget due to govt issues and contractor/govt corruption. It had nothing to do with Elon Musk nor any of his companies. When you repeat the junk about Hyperloop causing issues with HSR, you are literally repeating one random guy's comment on the matter from years ago that was debunked numerous times. For HLS, NASA hasn't paid hardly anything to SpaceX. And they won't until Starship hits certain milestones. The idea that NASA has already paid billions for Starship is ridiculous and is only something spread by lies from CSS and maybe TFoot. Further, if you research NASA's own details on the first bid, you will then see that Starship won the bid by default due to massive issues with the other 2. The National Team was over NASA's budget, had numerous issues with their lander, and it didn't fit the goals for the mission. Dynetics was even more over budget and couldn't land the required payload for NASA. The GAO went through all documents publicly and publicly stated that NASA's decision was legal and had no major issues. The National Team had to drastically change their lander to conform to NASA's requires AND they needed to reduce the price by nearly half. It wasn't until those changes were made that they were given the second contract. And even that required Congress to increase NASA's budget.
@anthonypelchat4 ай бұрын
@@zotfotpiq YTube being weird, so I have to split this. Hyperloop was not ever an active project. No funds. And it had nothing to do with HSR. The HSR was delayed and massively over budget due to govt issues and contractor/govt corruption. It had nothing to do with Elon Musk nor any of his companies. When you repeat the junk about Hyperloop causing issues with HSR, you are literally repeating one random guy's comment on the matter from years ago that was debunked numerous times. For HLS, NASA hasn't paid hardly anything to SpaceX. And they won't until Starship hits certain milestones. The idea that NASA has already paid billions for Starship is ridiculous and is only something spread by lies from CSS and maybe TFoot.
@anthonypelchat4 ай бұрын
YTube being weird, so I have to split this. Hyperloop was not ever an active project. No funds. And it had nothing to do with HSR. The HSR was delayed and massively over budget due to govt issues and contractor/govt corruption. It had nothing to do with Elon Musk nor any of his companies. When you repeat the junk about Hyperloop causing issues with HSR, you are literally repeating one random guy's comment on the matter from years ago that was debunked numerous times.
@zotfotpiq4 ай бұрын
turns out it was because spaceX paid off Kathy Llueders. HLS was never even intended as a realistic option and now congress is getting ready to pull funding for the entire program. yay for corporate space!
@anthonypelchat3 ай бұрын
SpaceX didn't pay off anyone. HLS was and is the most realistic out of the 3 original bids (National Team had a new bid that is better than they were back then and won a second round). And Congress isn't pulling funding for anything.
@anthonypelchat3 ай бұрын
Turns out we've already tried this conversation in another video. YTube doesn't allow responses randomly on here, so ending it now.
@zotfotpiq3 ай бұрын
@@anthonypelchat you should really go somewhere other than NSF fpr youur spa e news. you're very poorly informed.
@zotfotpiq3 ай бұрын
@anthonypelchat Kathy Lueders leaving NASA for spaceX directly after awarding them a fake contract for a system that won't be ready before 2030... (probably ever) were you born yesterday?
@anthonypelchat3 ай бұрын
@@zotfotpiq For one, we are on Apogee right now. And he even brings up the ACTUAL NASA documents. You should start actually watching other videos instead of just commenting without research. And no, CSS is not research. That guy has no idea what he's talking about and never did.
@fish24684 ай бұрын
third time coming back to revisit this video, love the professionally made content, the thoughts and effort is outstanding
@coltius5 ай бұрын
Just came by to say I hope you're doing alright and find time to make more videos at some point. Stay safe!
@David-wc5zl5 ай бұрын
LOL. This isn't aging very well at all. The MuskCult™ is so delusional.
@paulchen91456 ай бұрын
Haha this timeline couldn't be more wrong, but I like your optimism! ;) I would say a realistic year for the "next first" human moon landing (via Startship) will be the launch window in early 2031 I suspect the two biggest hurdles for the Startship program that could very well stop the progress of the program for a while are 1) orbital refueling and 2) catching via the launchtower-arms
@soup-nazi68246 ай бұрын
If you make the first stage metal then you have to have engines that are busting their bolts to get to orbit-carbon fibre is the difference between every other rocket company & rocket lab & is their field of expertise....
@shooraynerdrawing6 ай бұрын
Two years later that is still a great video putting things in a historical as well as technical context. Many thanks for making such a detailed and thoughtful video. I'm writing a children's book trilogy about the first kids in space and on the Moon. The human story is one thing - that's a kind of political thriller (as space exploration essentially is!) but working out a possible, but realistic, fantasy near future for the technology is difficult and can sound outdated before a chapter is finished! lol
@davidk13087 ай бұрын
I'm surprised there aren't comments about how Blue is actually looking to buy ULA, which I find kind of funny because you framed it as a speculative idea. Did Bezos watch this video and get a lightbulb moment? 😂 Another reason why Blue might want ULA is for their work on Cislunar-1000, which, while not nearly as ambitious as Blue Origin's goals of millions of people, I believe coincides nicely with a near term goal of establishing an early Cislunar economy. Plus ACES, and orbital depots.
@DeanRogerRay7 ай бұрын
Absolutely, the use of air vents for directing airflow in a space station could be beneficial not just for moving cargo, but also for managing fluids and responding to accidents in a microgravity environment. Additionally, integrating such a system with artificial gravity pathways and AI control adds another layer of functionality and efficiency. 1. **Fluid Management:** In microgravity, liquids behave differently, forming floating globules that can be hard to contain. Using directed airflow through vents could help guide these fluids to designated areas, preventing them from causing damage or interfering with equipment and operations. 2. **Accident Response:** In the event of a spill or the release of hazardous materials, controlled airflow could be used to quickly move these substances away from sensitive areas or crew members, directing them to containment zones. 3. **Integration with Artificial Gravity Pathways:** Your idea of using this airflow system in conjunction with rotating sections of the station for artificial gravity is intriguing. The air vents could help in smoothly transitioning objects or crew from the microgravity parts of the station to the rotating sections. This would necessitate precise control to match the speed and direction of the moving parts to ensure safety and efficiency. 4. **AI Control:** Utilizing artificial intelligence to manage this system would be essential for handling the complexities involved. AI could continuously monitor and adjust airflow, respond to changing conditions, and ensure the safe and efficient transport of objects and fluids. It could also coordinate with other systems on the station, like life support and navigation, to optimize overall functionality. This concept presents a multifaceted approach to space station management, leveraging the unique properties of the space environment and advanced technology to create a safer, more efficient living and working space. 3/
@AspynDoesStuff7 ай бұрын
Obviously, for the launch cadence expectations they were made a while ago so you cant blame him for getting things (very) wrong, but you couldnt possibly get a starship launch cheaper than or even near to the cost of electron or astra, becuase the operational costs of starbase would be absurd compared to the glorified amatuer rocket launch site that is electrons launch site. starship needs thousands of tons of fuel for each flight, instead of ~50 tons per electron
@PeteSty7 ай бұрын
Too many commercials to hear your opinion
@PeteSty7 ай бұрын
WHEN BO BUILDS A CAR, I'LL TAKE THEM SERIOUSLY
@daniel44128 ай бұрын
I have a bad feeling starship will be a failure like the space shuttle.
@David-wc5zl5 ай бұрын
The Space Shuttle was not a failure. Space will always be expensive. Falcon delivering lots of Sputnik level Starlinks doesn't change anything else.
@goldenshatter4 ай бұрын
@@David-wc5zl space shuttle killed people
@shanebailey91288 ай бұрын
WHY is it seemingly Beyond the ability Most Americans to understand the Simple Fact that “LEGO” is BOTH SINGULAR AND PLURAL?????🙈THERE ARE NO “LEGOS” ONLY LEGO! LOTS OF LEGO! LOTS OF “THEM”!!! Do you say “SHEEPS” NO, NO You DON’T! It’s the same!!!
@elijahhmarshall4 ай бұрын
be mad
@carcinogen60yearsago8 күн бұрын
Why do you let semantics control your life?
@Photostar6258 ай бұрын
watching this 1 year and 360 days after its release. why did nobody tell me about this?
@Photostar6258 ай бұрын
They redesigned the Neutron...again
@Photostar6258 ай бұрын
I've never been able to find this channel when I want some deep thoughts about space. Today I found it and subscribed so I don't lose it again. Keep it up.
@JoeJoe-gb2id9 ай бұрын
Yo pls upload
@veerendrapatidar29299 ай бұрын
You shall be hired may NASA you could save them a lot of mun mun
@smugnation204010 ай бұрын
32:24 have you considered the concept of them giving HLS a cargo-bay door and transferring cargo to it in Earth Orbit similarly to the way we regularly transfer cargo to the ISS?
@James-hd4ms10 ай бұрын
Where’s the door on the starship?
@James-hd4ms10 ай бұрын
Is the desire to go to Mars like the desire to change your sex?
@James-hd4ms10 ай бұрын
Couldn’t they feed them lots of beans; capture their farts (methane) a use that for fuel?
@akirasitumorang663410 ай бұрын
Apogee u still alive?
@Vatsyayana8711 ай бұрын
I very much enjoy your videos, though i have to disagree on some things, like starlink launching once a month when at the time of this video is was an average of 5 a month, and material/build costs being only barely cheaper, the materials of the main body are like 10 times cheaper and much cheaper to work on and statements such as "Engines are expensive, Spacex wont change that" when they make raptors for less than a million while other common engines are up to 100-250 million. But otherwise you do a very good job with descriptions and helping people understand how things work and how we should look at costs for systems such as rockets. Very well done.
@user-vu5yd2kg9f11 ай бұрын
Money grab
@Eddy525_violin11 ай бұрын
when they get better at doing the risky manoeuvres, can they just launch 20+ people to the moon at once on hls?
@NOM-X11 ай бұрын
Totally agree, and I have been writing about this forever. Start with landing the booster on land first to confirm its hovering capabilities, along with the ship then gos from there. Mechazilla is a shot in the dark without tested analysis. Ship is Already proven. Slow is smooth,and smooth is fast! (Military term). I know they have to get the hovering analysis first; but sea landing will only give them so much. Start strong then progress.. just don’t dump it in the ocean and learn a fraction, when u can use a drone ship to test. To much to say; very frustrating but optimistic at the same time. Would love to go deeper in this topic, but to much to write. Hope to ttys. - NOM