Why NASA Chose Starship | Human Landing System

NASA has made the decision to move forward with SpaceX's Starship lander to bring humans back to the moon for the first time in over 50 years. In this video, I break down the new information NASA released about the 3 proposals, and what went into their decision to pick Starship. I also go over some of the implications this decision has on the space industry as a whole.
Thanks for watching, remember to subscribe, share, and leave your thoughts below!
Want to support Apogee? Consider becoming a Patreon supporter and earn access to exclusive live-streams and patron-only discord channels - / apogeespace
Checkout the official Apogee Website for awesome merch! - www.apogeechannel.com/
Join in on the discussion on the Apogee discord server, open to all - / discord
Follow me on Twitter for updates - / apogeespace
Timestamps
0:00 - Intro
1:53 - National Team
7:06 - ALPACA
10:14 - SpaceX
13:07 - Why NASA Chose Starship
19:10 - NASA Funding Strategy
21:32 - Implications
24:18 - Final Thoughts

[@Apogeespace]

I should have more thoroughly described what I meant by “ALPACA cannot land”. What I mean when I say that is it wasn’t able to complete the mission objectives of bringing people from Orion to the surface of the moon and back up to Orion. It is likely that it was able to land on the moon, but was unable to make it back up to Orion. Sorry for the lack of clarity on that part!

[@Qver-gd9bg]

Even though your prediction wasn’t totally right, you WERE correct that national team seemed to find a way to lower their cost below that of dynetics.

[@QuasiRandomViewer]

Excellent analysis and fantastic video. Some critique: 1. Your analysis largely matched my understanding, but you brought up a couple of points I hadn't considered. Very good. 2. Yes, you could have phrased "ALPACA cannot land" better. Good pinned comment. (So sad that good looking lander fared so poorly.) 3. I've not watched your #2 video yet, but compared to #1 ... Thank you for toning down that background music! It is no longer highly distracting as it was in #1, though I think you'd still benefit from tweaking it down just a touch more. (I'd even suggest that you don't need any background music outside of the intro (and outro, if you wish) -- nothing wrong with your voice that you need to cover up -- but I assume it's a stylistic choice. Fine, but please do keep it this low or lower.) 4. Giving your speaking style, I listed at 1.5X, but even at that your presentation in #1 dragged a bit, taking too long getting to each point (and leaving more time to be distracted by that music!), but your pace here is excellent. This script is much tighter. Great job! 5. Very minor nit-pick. At 20:44 you mention the "Option B" on-ramp. HLS Appendix H Option B was the plan to award followup landing contracts to up to two of the Option A winner. I *think* that instead of amending the terms of Option B, they have tossed that name altogether, and this new solicitation will be under a different name. (But I'm not 100% certain there. Just maybe they are retaining the Option B name ... but I don't think they are.) OK. Off to video #2. .... Woah! 68 minutes! Well, 45 minutes at 1.5X, but I sure hope it's packed with info.

[@Hokie2k11]

Keep up the work man, I think your channel is really gonna take off at some point this year. I'd wager you'll have over 10,000 subscribers by the end of June!

[@espenha]

It probably can land and return to Orion/Gateway. Just not with the minimum contractually required payload. (Still bad.)

[@chammockutube]

It can land, just with a thud, and everyone on board probably dead 😲 and the vehicle so damaged, it can’t take off....your description is fine!!

[@halex9075]

Congress: Sorry nasa, we can't give you the money you want. Nasa: Forced to not do what congress wants because of limited budget. Congress: :0

[@joannewilson6577]

the agency is facing budget constraints and is not expected to meet its goal of returning astronauts to the Moon by 2024, which would also push back Mars.

[@tomatop6754]

Both sides of Congress are all lobbied by amazon no shit their pissed that blue origin didnt win. Thank god NASA grew some balls

[@NightDescendant]

I didn't think about how starship is the only option that performs refueling in LEO. Definitely a win here

[@zzubra]

Refueling for the first mission clearly happens in LEO. The big question is where refueling for subsequent missions (reusing the same lander) will happen.

[@zzubra]

@@brendandennis7165 Even with reduced dry mass and extended propellant tanks, Starship doesn’t have enough delta-v to travel LEO-MoonSurface-LEO without some additional refueling along the way.

[@jonbong98]

@@zzubra Leo, best all-round solution.

[@jonbong98]

@@zzubra we don't have fine enough resolution of Luna StarShip design as yet, but the subject was addressed in the previous video.

[@rednammoc]

@@zzubra Correct, though this matters for vehicle reuse rather than being critical for the Artemis missions. The risk of beyond LEO refuelling will also be mitigated through maturation of this technology and implementation with significant use in LEO.

[@wouterrosenbrand3201]

I want this channel to blow just because his high quality videos deserve more views

[@ojomaze7777]

agreed.

[@mohammedmwandungo3523]

From KENYA, but this video is soo educative. As a country we haven't launched anything to space but am glad USA is doing it.

[@FloofyMinari]

Its hard to filter out all the robot narrated clickbait videos that just rehash known information without adding anything substantia.

[@datsthebesticando]

My prediction: This channel is going to blow up real soon. What a great video clearly going through the motivations behind the selection. looking forward to the future starship series!

[@az09letters92]

Yup. This will be one of the big space flight focused channels.

[@frantisekzach6057]

I agree, but also there are others channels, that make videoes in this level of quality (or slightly bigger). But most of the channels generaly (even unsuccesful ones) during first year or so improves their's production quality in big way. And what I am looking forward to is this improved quality content, which (I belive) this channel will offer, because THAT will be awesome. Sorry for my english and thanks for all your work.

[@williamthirry9914]

He will probably get 100 subs a day in 1 year.

[@Crunch_dGH]

Needs a PayPal funding link.

[@jonbong98]

Content comes before everything

[@ptx855]

Being a space enthusiast and dedicated follower of all related channels like SManley, MHouse, EvryDayA, Eng2Day, SpXcent, AngryA, 2TFut, SStars, WAI, NASASF, LPadre and so on, the discovery of your channel was such a nice surprise. Great stuff!!! Congratulations and keep this superb work!

[@1ndragunawan]

Spaceflight Explained also did very good technical videos, give him a sub.

[@jimshreve83]

@ptx Nice job on the abbreviations.

[@dalethelander3781]

CE3K, ANH, TESB, ROTJ, ST2TWOK, ASAP.

[@ViperEye]

Starship is built for the future; reusability, lowering costs, base building, colonization. *This* is what you need to get sustained human presence throughout the solar system.

[@erwina4738]

100% agreed the other two are dog shit that wouldn't help us expand into the solar system, let's be real here.

[@dino4812]

@@erwina4738 yeah, starship is cheap, and can carry tons upon tons of cargo.

[@georgesealy4706]

There are two major problems to solve, and then a myriad of smaller ones. The major problems are gravity and radiation. Starship might not overcome them for a long, long time.

[@joannewilson6577]

@@georgesealy4706 and Solar flare and enough food for years because on Mars you cannot send a mission more then every 2 years and the life support for years and the 300 tons needed before any human go on Mars and the logistic will be enormous....and of course the cost of a journey on Mars...you have to send many unmanned Spaceship with cargo and robots before any human can go there to build a little base......

[@joannewilson6577]

@@georgesealy4706 Celestial mechanics means that every 2.2 years a launch window opens for efficient, cost-effective rides between Earth and Mars, and vice versa. Earth takes 365 days to orbit the Sun and Mars takes a slower 687 days. ... So just over every two years Earth catches-up on Mars and the planets briefly line-up.

[@stevensargent2063]

NO: HERE'S THE POSITIVE: STARSHIP IS A LUNAR BASE ALL BY ITSELF.

[@tarmaque]

Consider this: A Starship that doesn't need to accommodate ascent fuel basically doubles its living and working space. Just land it and call it a permanent base. (Personally I'd give it some method for laying down on its side so it can be covered in regolith, that being a fantastic way to shield it from all sorts of nasty. But upright has its advantages too. For instance, having solar panels higher off the surface.) Then have a crewed HLS Starship land a hundred meters away and transfer the crew.

[@anoniemw.222]

@@tarmaque I do not think starship should be a base. For starters that big elevator is impractical for a base (a weekpoint and something that could break). also the expansive engines would be thrown away for that and you would have an empty feul tank under your base (converting it may be possible, but not sure if worth the efford)The starship can also cary entire inflatable bases (way bigger) wich could be deployed on the moon en covert with lunar regolith to protect from micro meteors and radiation. It is designed for transportation and should not be used for transportating bases to the surface and not to become the base (same for a spacestations), because that takes the reusibility away

[@tfan2222]

@@tarmaque I agree with most of what your saying but I don’t think starships are built for holding themselves up on their sides, hence why they build them vertically

[@tarmaque]

@@tfan2222 Who says they'd build them the same for making a base? It wouldn't be difficult at all to add internal structures that would make it much stronger. In fact, just building the internal structures necessary as a base would strengthen it considerably. Consider this: a base would have to be insulated. Two inches of lightweight foam on the inside would stiffen the thing considerably. Bulkheads for work spaces, plumbing, electrical conduits. All that stuff adds up to strength. In all honesty, I'd rather fly in a dedicated base version of a Starship than in a regular Starship that depends on pressure for its ability to hold its shape.

[@FelonyVideos]

With a proper gyro stabilization, it could gently lay itself over on its side after landing. Cover it with dirt. Bam.

[@SomeoneNamedTygget]

I'm honestly still shocked that NASA picked Starship. It's such an amazing vote of confidence for the system, and the NASA oversight and resources are really going to help Starship (literally) get off the ground. Anyway, great video as always, man! Can't wait for the next one!

[@sac3528]

Oh it's real good at getting off the ground, it even does it when it's not supposed to.

[@spyintheskyuk]

I think it’s the right decision based on what we now know though previously I thought the Dynetics solution might have been best based on the first video as what seemed a safer compromise. The other choice simply seems a dead end more appropriate to the 70s/80s and offered no real advancement. Whatever delays or cost overruns the SpaceX solution has it still immeasurably moves forward space flight and if it does work as planned a massive advancement over what other solutions offer. Would be interested to know if the LM Mars lander design might be practical here mind if new entrants were considered later as mentioned.

[@jonbong98]

@@spyintheskyuk you missed something, No cost over runs, SpaceX has a Fixed price agreement in place already.

[@Levitiy]

Starship already got off the ground. Not the booster, admittedly.

[@imtheonevanhalen1557]

@@Levitiy ROTFLMAO......check out the MythBusters episode when they blew out a water heater....the Starship is almost there, lol

[@topsecret1837]

The best part about NASA’s hypothetical plan is that SpaceX plans to test fly SN15 on Tuesday the 20th. If that happens and it lands before Congress gets a hearing for Bill Nelson, it would rub in the fact that Starship will be ready where National Team and Dynetics aren’t.

[@bundubashing2591]

Sheesh those Spacex engineers must be sweating bullets

[@spyintheskyuk]

They will be far from ready success or otherwise. The launch vehicle for all will be flying in similar timescales if all goes well but none of the actual landers will/would have been produced by then far from it even if starship superficially looks similar.

[@Crunch_dGH]

SN15 needs to complete its 3-second static firing of the newly installed Raptors. Early testing scheduled for Wednesday, 4/21水. I'm betting on 4/26月 high altitude & landing flight, same day as TSLA earnings day (like last time).

[@jonbong98]

While good publicity, remember Luna StarShip is a different beast, no flaps, tiles, belly flop, not same landing, weight etc.

[@topsecret1837]

@@jonbong98 Right. Although it didn’t happen, it will very likely happen next week and won’t disappoint anybody but Congress if it succeeds or fails.

[@vilmospalik1480]

this is one of the highest quality space channels on youtube, keep up the good work

[@AlexNaylor]

I was surprised that he only had three videos because the quality was so good. I can't wait 'til he has more content!

[@softbreeze941]

idk how I found this channel but I am glad I did

[@Nazar_Melnyk]

Yes! Can't wait to see the Starship breakdown with your quality of the content! I wasn't joking when I said that you had already become one of my favorite creators. Couple of months of such great material and I will make or buy (in case you'll have started own merch) a T-shirt with your logo!

[@levysrugo6861]

Next up and coming space channel right here. Can’t wait to see what comes next!

[@prasadt772]

"betting your rocket knowledge against Spacex and Nasa". I couldn't have said it better myself. There are still few "experts" out there who completely disregard any progress that an aerospace company makes without a wholesome understanding of the subject matter in its entirety. Exciting times ahead!

[@piotrd.4850]

This is 100% politics, zero engineering. Yeah, I'm betting on legacy of Apollo and concepts of Mars Direct / Mars Design Reference mission rather than overblown, overcomplicated, politically motivated, risk ignornig Silicon Valley originated architectures. This decision means - among other - that Artemis now depends on: 1. TWO heretofore not developed and not flown superheavy, Saturn-V class boosters 2. multiple refueling attempts 3. development of additional tanker variant of Starship, literally, another vessel. After JWST NASA apparently really convinced itself that it has DoD budget...

[@josephpentony4804]

@@piotrd.4850 The problem is that the established technology and architecture in those previous concepts have proven themselves to be unsustainable. Apollo was canceled because the established architecture was to expensive to justify continued use after interest in further moon landings waned. Its immense cost made it difficult to even leverage much alternative use of Apollo hardware. The only thing that materialized from the Apollo applications program was Skylab. With the current political environment, justifying starting another project like Apollo will be difficult politically. Such a project would be doomed to die once congressional inevitably loses interest. Excessive cost and lack of immediate benefit killed the Apollo Program, Apollo applications program, the space shuttle, Constellation, and will likely do the same to the SLS. Previous solutions and methods have always exploded in cost, killing the project. Something new, radical, and low cost like Starship SLS is required if we actually want to see these projects to fruition.

[@erichimmelblau877]

The capabilities of Starship is really everything that NASA had hoped the Space Shuttle program would have been.

[@georgesealy4706]

The Starship is under development, and it has one successful landing and two blown up ones. That's all. When the Space Shuttle was in the same phase of development it never had a problem with landing, never. Let's see exactly what the actual Starship PROGRAM is and what its safety record actually is before saying how great it is.

[@cxmusicofficial]

@@georgesealy4706 You can't really compare these two designs. The Space Shuttle used known technology. It started normally with non reusable boosters. So far so easy. It's landing was like a plane. Starship on the other hand is a brand new all in one solution that can be fully reused. This thing never existed before and it needs to be developed. So sure, prototypes may blow up. Thats normal. The first rockets blew up too.

[@georgesealy4706]

@@cxmusicofficial It was Eric that made the comparison, not me. Tell me, how many successful human missions has Starship made? The answer is none. When Starship has completed 131 missions, then we can compare the programs. Hopefully Starship will do a lot better because the Shuttle program was a disaster.

[@myballsitchsomethingfierce6319]

@@georgesealy4706 Different design and payload and the shuttle was stupid expensive.

[@georgesealy4706]

@@myballsitchsomethingfierce6319 Good, so we'll see how it does in actual operation. People hyped the Shuttle back in the day too. That's all I am saying. Starship hasn't done squat yet.

[@owengallagher3992]

Dude- this is sick. This is some professional level content and it's incredible for only 3 vids. Keep it up, I'm exited to see what's next

[@Brixxter]

I really like your balanced look at things. Too many channels just ride the shiny rocket hype train and create mindless audiences, you provide reason and and encourage openminded thinking. Even though I don't agree with everything you say, I find your video style really appealing, enjoyable and informative. Keep it up!

[@topsecret1837]

I like this way of doing it too. Angry Astronaut tries to do this but fails to provide any reason and doesn’t leave any sort of openminded thinking.

[@igfalcomeira690]

Agreed, very good video. Best of the bunch by far.

[@lytomagbato1688]

I am just curious with your points on disagreement with what the video say.

[@karimrachid8738]

@@topsecret1837 Angry Astronaut is not balanced but opinionated and that's why we like him even if we disagree with him. Stay Angry about space!

[@FloofyMinari]

@@topsecret1837 I find his videos a bit boring. I like how this guy puts up the numbers on the screen and shows off infographics. My ooga booga brain needs some stimulation.

[@OwenCampbellMoore]

This channel came straight outa nowhere and is immediately one of my favorites. Keep it up!!!!

[@snuffeldjuret]

I second this :).

[@Grubbbee]

Propellant depot in LEO is inevitable. It just makes so much sense. And then imagine a starship could literally "stop for gas" and continue on its journey. By the way, all a propellant depot needs to be is a modified starship that can hold enough fuel for to refill a cargo/human vessel. Just wow....

[@carljohan9265]

Starship is made to be modular. Need a specific job done? Make a starship designed for that specific job.

[@Rose_Harmonic]

I do like your science communicator voice. Smooth as space butter. You get to be one of the people I go to when I want multiple people to tell me how cool starship is each time something happens haha

[@Hokie2k11]

You have the absolutely greatest videos. I just don't say that... I don't go around complimenting videos. You know how to do it, your content, your cadence, your analysis... fantastic. I am truly excited for your future.

[@Dromfel]

nobody would pick to land on the Moon in those 2 tiny shoe box landers, if you can ride in a literal house that Starship is. Great video again! This channel will explode :) cheers

[@charlessublette]

You have 4K subs! What the Fffffff!! Apogee to the mOOn! Literally!! Can’t believe I was here before 100k subs 🤩. Congrats man. Brilliant channel 👏🏻👏🏻

[@boggybolt6782]

Seeing a massive NASA logo on a Starship seems like it would be really cool to see

[@Hokie2k11]

I've seen this video 5x now... nothing else is giving me my Starship fix... thank you again for your excellent work! IDEA: I don't know if your future videos will cover this, but I'd love to see an analysis of just how many tankers it will take for Starship to visit various locations that don't allow for localized refueling like Mars does. These could include: asteroids, our own moon (no firm analysis on that yet), the moons of Mars and even further out into our solar system (I don't see that happening for decades at best). As someone with an engineering background, I can't tell you how fascinating it would be to have someone really discuss the logistics and delta V required to visit various locations and return!!!!

[@spencerjensen1993]

That would be so cool!!

[@franksharkany5125]

Great presentation. You have a good future in Aerospace. Good luck!

[@samuellambert6152]

that was quick man! hope u keep up this cadence!

[@juriteller3688]

Dont kill this man.

[@Apogeespace]

The cadence won’t be quite this fast all the time, but it will be faster. Trying to do a run of ~20 minute videos. Close to a weekly cadence.

[@vilmospalik1480]

@@Apogeespace that's amazing!

[@igfalcomeira690]

@@Apogeespace that is awesome, I love your graphics, keep it up.

[@nielsnb11]

@@Apogeespace awesome videos, can't wait for you to get a patreon page 😉

[@jef_3006]

I absolutely agree that NASA would've picked SpaceX anyway, but let's be clear about the price thing. They didn't have a choice. I'm quoting from the Source Selection Statement here: "While it remains the Agency’s desire to preserve a competitive environment at this stage of the HLS Program, at the initial prices and milestone payment phasing proposed by each of the Option A offerors, NASA’s current fiscal year budget did not support even a single Option A award." "Although SpaceX’s revised proposal contained updated milestone payment phasing that fits within NASA’s current budget, SpaceX did not propose an overall price reduction." If you read the beginning of the statement, what it says on page three is that NASA literally couldn't afford to offer the contract to any of the bidders, and was only able to offer it to SpaceX after SpaceX agreed to shift some of their payments from this year into the future. NASA would have picked SpaceX no matter what, but no amount of negotiating or payment date shifting would have made the other options fit into NASA's current budget. They couldn't have picked any of the other options even if they had wanted to, because they were not allocated enough money from congress. And even in this super happy moment, I think that should remain concerning.

[@B2C2007]

Is your concern that Congress' heart isn't in it any more which could mean Moon mission funding being put on the backburner in later years? It could be that reducing the budget post-COVID is necessary but surely there is a clear opportunity to lead the world in the commercialisation of space?

[@jef_3006]

@@B2C2007 There's definitely a "clear opportunity to lead the world in the commercialisation of space". But first of all, Elon and the industry will probably do that at this point with or without the US government. And secondly... relying on Congress to see clearly has always been a bad strategy. The reality is that Starship will be built and flown with or without NASA/Congressional buy-in. But it probably won't go to the Moon without Congressional buy-in. Elon has been fairly clear that he's only interested in the Moon as much as NASA is interested in the Moon. So if Congress isn't there funding a program, Elon will head straight to Mars as fast as he can (my guess is 2030 is about the earliest that a human Starship flight to Mars can get regulatory approval), and we all wait for China to land before anyone returns to the Moon.

[@nolsp7240]

Aaand if something goes sideways and those progress payments get delayed due to reduced funding, NASA knows SpaceX is going to push through with the devleopment anyways.

[@slashd]

This channel deserves at least 100k subscribers

[@edbm1432]

I am completely blown away by this channel, 7k subs, and has produced 3 extremely well-thought-out, researched, put-together, and edited videos. Not sure if I've come across another channel that deserves way more hype than it's getting. Amazing work keep it up

[@Apogeespace]

Wow thank you so much! More on the way soon.

[@spencermanyet5336]

Very unique and in-depth look. I've been binging artemis content and you're reasoning was actually original and unique. Refreshing and respectable, subbed.

[@lolfreakwaca4328]

Saw the Video, clicked it and liked !

[@unoriginalusernameno999]

Honestly just shocked. Wonder how Gwynne, Elon and other early and current SpaceX-ers feels about this.

[@linecraftman3907]

happy of course

[@jonbong98]

They have certainly known for a while already

[@favesongslist]

The best overview I have seen so far, I had no hesitation in subscribing to your channel, Well done and I am looking forward to more excellent content from you.

[@chrismoule7242]

You have an analytical mind that can draw valid conclusions from what is there [a rare skill], but also from what is NOT there. This latter element is an even rarer skill, I can tell you. You are also not hidebound by pre-conceived opinions, especially your own, and that is also a hard thing to achieve - I should know. You should be able go a long way in whatever you choose to do, if you can find a career - or careers - that needs/need this sort of thinking. This is excellent stuff. And, by the way, you too see this as a longer political game by NASA to attempt to force more funding.

[@ecrusch]

I was compelled to subscribe by your total content presentation. Well done.

[@Lemurion287]

Another huge issue with ILS that you skipped over in your initial description of NASA's decision is that a necessary propulsion test had to be performed during the first crewed mission.

[@Apogeespace]

Yes I meant to include that. Very important indeed.

[@IsMaski]

A well done video. Kudos to all the research done.. Glad to have found your channel.

[@MrKikiGaby]

I rarely leave comments but the quality of your videos is too good to not say anything. Keep on doing this, and your subscriber base will grow exponentially.

[@tiigerpoiss2004]

I think i watched 3 different videos on this topic today, and yours was first that really explained everything understandable.

[@MACADEMIAC]

Amazing channel, great presentation. Subscribed.

[@GlanderBrondurg]

Ditto. I am very impressed myself and surprised this channel doesn't have more subscribers!

[@AcchaAadmi]

Great quality!! I was looking forward to your video as soon as the news hit about SpaceX!

[@surrealengineering7884]

wow, from 2 kto 3k in just a few days since i found you, congrats! I love the in-depth information of current events on your channel, please keep up the great work!

[@livingexcuse3767]

Under-rated, keep up the good work.

[@antyspi4466]

You missed that part: "Finally, numerous mission-critical integrated propulsion systems will not be flight tested until Blue Origin’s scheduled 2024 crewed mission. Waiting until the crewed mission to flight test these systems for the first time is dangerous, and creates a high risk of unsuccessful contract performance and loss of mission if any one of these untested systems does not operate as planned." BO was willing to turn the first landing on the moon after Apollo into their first integrated test flight in space and thereby risk the mission and lives of the crew. Just stunning. I somewhat doubt that BO´s substantial weaknesses in development, schedule and procurement can be remedied quickly enough to enable the award of Option B. Furthermore, if I interpret the documents correctly, BO would have to design a bigger lander for Option B, thus design it completely from scratch.

[@myvids4329]

Super high quality video, nice work. Some of the best content i've seen on KZbin and there is a lot out there. Keep it up and you are going to have a mountain of subs

[@dro56595]

Great content! Looking forward to your next one.

[@kumisz2]

Your presentations are awesome!

[@mukamuka0]

Brilliant analysis!! I'll look forward to more. Great jobs man!

[@saheem5647]

Thank you for uploading this.

[@chamberland]

Brilliant review - thank you for all the digging and very good presentation!!

[@thethirddimension8076]

This channel cool woow🤩🤩🤩🤩

[@Blueknight1999]

Good content man keep it up

[@mikegonsalves11]

This is the second video of yours and I'm impressed lots of technical information instead of wild speculation saying nothing. Keep up the good work. Thanks

[@ayushjaiswal.]

Amazing Video So happy that you have posted so soon ! Amazing work !

[@andrewshirley7105]

dude .keep up the great work.i love your videos alot. keep the space x and other space videos coming

[@DavidNagy03ER]

Great job man. I love these videos

[@Aria_Sora]

Fantastic video. I over-educate myself on this sort of news and you still managed to teach me stuff. Well made video, and very insightful too! Earned a subscription.

[@fuzkek9135]

Subscribed bro, awesome content :)

[@Br0nson_0]

Watching the first 30 seconds Already in for a good ride! Keep up the good work

[@econojon]

These videos are soooo good!

[@beares6281]

I love your video format and content Apogee, where have you been until now?? :D Thank you for your great videos, I am already a fan.

[@notabob7]

Very well thought out points. Extremely well presented for such a young channel. I wish you luck and hope your channel grows rapidly.

[@ready1player31]

Now that Starship is selected, do you think this will accelerate any plans NASA has for a sustainable surface presence? Starship is essentially a mobile, orbital class and surface outpost itself, but since it can carry 100k kilograms to the surface, now NASA can really start thinking of building a real and permanent base. And it can be more than just tin cans and a few solar panels, if Starship ends up being as good as it is which we all have great optimism for.

[@alexanderd2540]

You don't really need habitats if you have a starship, just land one with more windows and living space and anchor if and you are good to go for the first years 😄 I totally root for cypertrucks as new moonbuggys 💪

[@steveaustin2686]

@@alexanderd2540 Outside the Van Allen belts, you need a LOT more shielding to protect people from solar and cosmic radiation. Starship will certainly be VERY useful as a habitat at first, but I would think NASA would want some underground habs for better shielding. You will certainly need habs on the surface for experiments and the like, so even after habs are in the ground, Starship would likely still have uses I would think.

[@alexanderd2540]

@@steveaustin2686 I meant more like for the get go and early Artemis something like the first ten to twenty missions, that there is no way around Groundbased Habitats in the long run is obviously clear

[@steveaustin2686]

@@alexanderd2540 Oh for sure. Starship having so much room definitely helps early missions and with cargo capacity for all missions.

[@jonbong98]

@@steveaustin2686 absolutely. Horizontal and Regolith Sheltered, or built into cliffs, crater walls, or lava tubes, as soon as possible

[@KubaJurkowski]

Don't be hard on yourself everyone was betting for the National Team to get the single option. I mean it's in the name :P This channel is an absolute gem!

[@AlexanderJones88]

Great video, need the next episode! Much better format than the other mainstream space guys! they've stopped doing infomatic style videos, and just switched to news - which is really samey keep it up!

[@picarus2210]

Great video, well presented. Subscribed.

[@dusanboricic2017]

Love your vids

[@Jinkguns]

Amazing video. One of the best analysis I've read so far.

[@carsongbaker]

Awesome work! Subbed! Great content!

[@kanahn7402]

Top notch content. Appreciate the tailored imagery. Very on point.

[@lud3re384]

That SpaceX "Outstanding" management rating has Gwynne Shotwell written all over it.

[@HarrisonAdAstra]

Both Gwynne and Elon are written all over this, Elon for his employee selection and drive to make things happen, Gwynne for keeping up with this and refining all Elons ideas and managing the company very well.

[@cmax4692]

Best analysis of why NASA chose Starship so far. Kudos to Apogee.

[@UweKubosch]

Excellent video, yet again!

[@kevinsetterlund]

Great info, subscribed 👍

[@soulcrusher929]

Great video, and must be the only youtube video I've ever watched where the request to subscribe to the channel gave a convincing reason to do so

[@BryanBlock]

Great video! Really appreciate your clarity and thought process. You were recommended by Casey Handmer - and that's very high praise! He was right. :)

[@dust1209]

Amazing videos, great analysis!

[@matthewwiemken7293]

well put together:)

[@marknewlandmn]

Thanks your video was very interesting

[@shefles]

Im calling it. You will have atleast 50k subs by the end of the year. I love your content 🙌

[@orange_phoenix4774]

This has got to be one of the best space you tube channels out their and it only been around for 2 month cant wait to see what you do next.

[@nico_rico3185]

Great vid. Looking forward to more

[@Rikenm14]

this is one of the well researched video I have ever seen about this topic. Bell icon here I come.

[@Rikenm14]

when is the next video coming in.....

[@AimedGalaxy]

Honestly, great production, great info, good graphics, you’re going to grow a lot soon as starship lands successfully and interest peaks, great job

[@chrishaines6686]

Great informative content!

[@DPM_182]

Nice work. Keep it up!

[@anguscovoflyer95]

I think that SN15 will land. The Ship has had hundreds of upgrades including more mature raptor engines.

[@FiveThreeZero91]

I just have to point this out since you commented this on a lunar lander video. The landing maneuver they are trying to perfect is irrelevant to the lunar lander. The landing flip maneuver is exclusive to the starship that will go to and return from Mars.

[@anguscovoflyer95]

@@FiveThreeZero91 i know that im just saying that starship is gonna get more media scrutiny from now on due it being chosen by nasa even though these kinds od landings are irrelevant to the lunar starship hence why im trying to be optimistic for a successful SN15 landing so that the media leave spacex alone.

[@human9458]

@@FiveThreeZero91 Well u r not completely right. The tanker variant also need to perform those landing maneuvers

[@human9458]

@@anguscovoflyer95 Agreed. There'll be more attention pointed at Starship program now. Although I doubt it, I hope SN15 will stick the landing to shut the media for a bit

[@gamelauri9307]

This is my first visit to this channel. Great high quality videos on interesting topic. The only thing that I don't understand is that why spend so much time explaining the failed prediction. Nobody cares.

[@yanntrokhymenko9775]

Please don't stop making videos, they're the best. Literally all of my thoughts regarding Dynetics, Blue origin and the national team were discussed in this video.

[@sagarparmar-mp6hb]

Awesome video. Can't wait for next

[@lcdvasrm]

SpaceX has a path toward Mars. Nasa thinks a little further. Good video. >10% thumb ups.

[@JohnSmith-rf1tx]

That was generally a very good video, but your reading of the "negative mass margin" findings for the Dynetics lander is badly incorrect, which is especially unfortunate because you make the same wrong comment on it a number of times throughout the video. The negative mass margin doesn't mean the vehicle was unable to land on the Moon. It means that the current design was incapable of landing the required mass on the Moon and still returning the astronauts back to orbit with the required propellant margins to allow for below nominal engine performance. I.e. they couldn't do it while meeting the necessary safety requirements. Or, if the problem was bad enough, that they might not have been able to get back to the right orbit at all. But, in all instances, the problem is during the ascent, not the landing. And likely only while meeting the up- and down- mass requirements NASA set for the landers, i.e. if they didn't have to bring so much stuff or take back so many samples, it could do it.

[@kerblness551]

Excellent post-mortem! And especially good work on updating the lunar starship wireframes; that was quick!

[@maxredd6207]

Great stuff! Stumbled on your channel from this linked video in a Teslarati article. Looking forward to your future coverage!

[@solnol6814]

23:04 hmmmm that Sounds like something thunderf00t is saying

[@igfalcomeira690]

Agreed, so true.

[@commentsectionman8575]

Yeah man at first i love the way he debunked some of scam science technology, and then suddenly he said that falcon 9 reuse capabilities is useless. Like what? If it true why the fuk falcon 9 being the most launch rocket from usa for past 3 years. It just doesnt add up for me

[@rednammoc]

@@commentsectionman8575 Thunderf00t is human (as far as I can tell!), so is prey to the same human fallacies that we all have to deal with from time to time. The important thing is not rely on argument from authority, but to see the reasoning and to understand whether it is strong enough or has shortcomings.

[@solnol6814]

@@commentsectionman8575 Yes exactly if reusability really is not worth it why would spacex now try to make a new rocket that is even more reusability, and why would all other space agency also try to do it. It make no sense to not think that it is not worth it 🙄

[@piotrd.4850]

@@commentsectionman8575 Because it is and it is not a problem germane to Falcon 9 but reusable vehicles in principle. Can't beat rocket equation - take it from horses mouth, SpaceX itself and compare trajectory and payload penalty for reusable vs. expandable modes. Speaking of trajectories - Falcons are LEO taxis in general, especially in reusable mode.

[@nagaea7409]

216 likes and no dislikes That’s saying something about your channel

[@Hokie2k11]

You had to say something.... lol

[@nagaea7409]

@@Hokie2k11 ok

[@tarmaque]

You mean "The bots haven't discovered you yet."

[@alistersladen1212]

Great info and a surprise you haven't got a lot more subscribers....... I'm now subscribed ....good work

[@chemicheto]

This is becoming one of my favorite space channels on KZbin