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.

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.

Waht in the name of von brown am I looking at 6:40

Wow

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.)

⁠​⁠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

⁠​⁠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

Because they see as a hobby.

Tactical “nuclear “ explosive…. Equivalent 😂

Tactical “nuclear “ explosive…. Equivalent 😂

Would love if you started making videos again

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?

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.

wow, this aged like milk. At this point HLS seems like it was INTENDED to kill the artemis 3 landings. 🤷‍♂️

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!

And none of this isn't proven

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

Artemis III will be cancelled by end of 2024 Just wait.

Any Common Sense Skeptic fans in the house!? 🎉🎊🎉

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!

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.

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!

third time coming back to revisit this video, love the professionally made content, the thoughts and effort is outstanding

Just came by to say I hope you're doing alright and find time to make more videos at some point. Stay safe!

LOL. This isn't aging very well at all. The MuskCult™ is so delusional.

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

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....

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

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.

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/

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

Too many commercials to hear your opinion

WHEN BO BUILDS A CAR, I'LL TAKE THEM SERIOUSLY

I have a bad feeling starship will be a failure like the space shuttle.

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!!!

watching this 1 year and 360 days after its release. why did nobody tell me about this?

They redesigned the Neutron...again

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.

Yo pls upload

You shall be hired may NASA you could save them a lot of mun mun

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?

Where’s the door on the starship?

Is the desire to go to Mars like the desire to change your sex?

Couldn’t they feed them lots of beans; capture their farts (methane) a use that for fuel?

Apogee u still alive?

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.

Money grab

when they get better at doing the risky manoeuvres, can they just launch 20+ people to the moon at once on hls?

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