Artemis Showdown: SpaceX Starship vs. Blue Origin's Lunar Lander | 2023

How Will Humans Gets Back To The Moon?
⚡ Get your Ekster Wallet Today! Enjoy up to 35% for Fathers Day using the link shop.ekster.com/NSF and use code SPACE at checkout ⚡
Join us as we delve into the Artemis Program's two lunar landers, SpaceX's ambitious Starship and Blue Origin's Lunar Lander. We compare the intricacies of their designs, infrastructure, engine readiness, and overall readiness for their upcoming missions. Whether you're a SpaceX or Blue Origin fan, we provide an objective, comprehensive analysis of the cutting-edge tech being deployed for our future missions to the Moon.
🔗 NSF Store: www.nasaspaceflight.com/shop/
⚡ Become a member of NASASpaceflight's channel for exclusive discord access, fast turnaround clips, and other exclusive benefits. Your support helps us continue our 24/7 coverage. Click JOIN above to get started.⚡
🤵 Hosted & Written by Adrian Beil (@BCCarCounters)
🎥 Video from Justin S, Jack Beyer (@thejackbeyer), Space Coast Live, Starbase Live, and Stephen Marr (@spacecoast_stve).
✂️ Edited by Sawyer Rosenstein (@thenasaman).
💼 Produced by Kevin Michael Reed (@kmreed).
🔍 All content copyright to NSF. Not to be used elsewhere without explicit permission from NSF.
L2 Boca Chica (more clips and photos) from BC's very early days to today.
🔗 forum.nasaspaceflight.com/ind...
(Join L2 and support NSF here: www.nasaspaceflight.com/l2/)
#SpaceX #BlueOrigin #ArtemisProgram #LunarLander #Starship #Artemis3 #Artemis4 #Artemis5 #NASA #SpaceTechnology #SpaceExploration #LunarMissions #BE4Engine #RaptorEngine #LunarEngine #NewGlenn #HumanLandingSystem #PropellantTransfer #InOrbitRefueling #HydrogenFuel #LOXLH2 #ReusableSpacecraft #InterplanetaryTravel #LunarSurface

[@NASASpaceflight]

⚡ Get your Ekster Wallet Today! Enjoy up to 35% for Fathers Day using the link shop.ekster.com/NSF and use code SPACE at checkout ⚡

[@greghouston2521]

I just bought an Ekster wallet! Thank you.

[@AndyOO6]

I could hear him putting jeff who's check in his pocket...

[@xyzzyx7812]

this presenter is annoying AF for some reason. probably accent

[@Fanten25]

"We never get concrete information what killed the Engines", good one Adrian ;D

[@mauricegold9377]

No shortage of concrete, a lot of it travelling quite rapidly, just a bit too fast to catch though.

[@davemanmartin]

That's a bingo, but I don't think that was an intentional pun

[@tryhardfpv5351]

I think you would need to be at least 56 years old to remember watching even the last moon landing.

[@davidpaulsen1510]

The first time TVs were in a classroom

[@Grandwigg]

My grandfather recently turned 94. The videos and articles from NSF helps me stay informed for my conversations with him. We talk about the new rocket and space development, and he tells me about the stuff he saw and lived well before my time.

[@AndySpicer]

I’m 58 and I don’t remember it.

[@StMyles]

😂😂?????…. I’m 63 yo and was stretched out on our floor mats (A Beach towel) in 4th grade summer school assembly in the Cafeteria. The school had moved the 8 TV set arranged in a circle facing out with the kids and teacher facing in. I remember it well because I was also sneaking peeks at Mrs. Fields boobs because she was on the floor with us. I may be old…. But, I’m not dead yet.

[@GavinEarnshaw]

I was about a month old so don't remember. 😂

[@davidhuber6251]

Great video. I hope people at both companies are thinking about what would be required for their vehicle to rescue astronauts from the competitor's vehicle. Dissimilar redundancy is good.

[@danclemmensen4474]

Worst case: use xEVA suits and use the airlocks. Works both in space and on the surface. With some thought the IDSS ports may be usable in space, but not on the surface, and IDSS port orientation is actually very constrained since each IDSS port has exactly one +Z direction, which is itself constrained by the +Z of the IDSS port on Gateway.

[@hawkdsl]

There is no possible way of a rescue of any kind.. There simply isn't enough infrastructure in place. That's why "redundant" or "back up" systems are nonsense, at least in this moment. Anyone needing a rescue from the moon would have to wait for a rocket to be launched, and at least three days to get there. In the case of a Starship, 7 launches for a refueling to get to the moon. Only SpaceX might have the hardware ready for a launch in a reasonable time, but by the time they got to the Moon, it would be all over.

[@danclemmensen4474]

@@hawkdsl depends on when this happens. It will be after 2028. I took this as "IF both spacecraft are there for some reason, then how can the crew transfer form one to the other?" launching a BO HLS will take forever, because of SLS/Orion, but by (say) 2032 a Starship HLS may be part of a complete Starship ecosystem with lots of HW already in space.

[@hawkdsl]

​@@danclemmensen4474 In your scenario, that would be possible, but they would still have to contend with travel time to the Moon. Responding to a real emergency is probably not possible, even with the infrastructure in place. The best way to handle any emergency would be on site. Have lots of habitats/base buildings they could evacuate to, and wait for help.

[@GreenBlueWalkthrough]

@@hawkdsl It's also less then a week to the Moon so if you made a vehicle last a month then I'm sure Space X could send a crew dragon with an extended range module and a middle stage for speed to rescue either vehicle.

[@markhuebner7580]

Seems to be some acknowledgement from SpaceX that the Starship orbital test used old Raptors (new at assembly time) and old style actuators, both abandoned due to problems seen in early testing. Launched as a test of early result validity.

[@hawkdsl]

Well that was pretty much well known by everyone before the launch.

[@rolandtaylor1397]

Elon dick ridder

[@MD.ImNoScientician]

Great Job Adrian ! I love how you all are expanding on the news theme you bring us weekly!

[@willneal-boyd7161]

Really cool video! Super organized and I liked the editing style of it!

[@scottshinbaum1772]

I think your analysis is very fair. Both lander systems leave a lot to be desired at this point. It is also tough to know much about Blue Origin due to how "less exposed to cameras" their production is.

[@elmar_wermuth]

Totally agree with your rating, but I think both companies already have some surprises in their sheds, where we hopefully get some glimpse on soon 😊

[@RobisonRacing68]

Thanks for the updates on Artemis. Great job!

[@AlexRetsam]

This is great, you're really good in front of the camera. Thanks for the excellent update!

[@PirateRo333]

We'll need way WAY more than two. The article should have been entitled "Why do we have only two landers planned?"

[@stevecoates3799]

Nicely done Adrian, you have developed into an excellent presenter. Kudos!

[@FastSloth87]

The way he pronounces "develop" and "variant" trigger me so much, and I'm not even a native english speaker.

[@tubularap]

@@FastSloth87 - same here, and his "develop"s trigger me to laugh 🙂

[@gordonicus4637]

Agree. Except I think SpaceX are streets ahead of Blue Origin. They are able to develop their systems sooo quickly. Something which Blue have not shown themselves capable of up until now...

[@davidstevenson9517]

SpaceX are streets ahead of Blue Origin because "he" is running red lights thinking "he" can be gone in 60 seconds. But SpaceX pranged "his" Starship even before getting it out onto the highway (kids these days...). Now the Feds have pulled SpaceX over, suspended "his" licence and are demanding an explanation. Congress have shown themselves capable of patience with SpaceX, up until now...

[@rolandtaylor1397]

I would rather have a working rocket then one that they can make quick. Speed doesn’t matter when we are talking sending humans to the moon. All that matters is reliability which star ship has shown not to be

[@gordonicus4637]

@@rolandtaylor1397 Starship is still in early development. It's much too soon to know what it's reliability will be.

[@chadwickwood9843]

Yes, of course. Keep 'em coming.

[@corrinastanley125]

Great comparison Adrian, and yes please to the China updates. It would be interesting to see their plans analysed.

[@xeddog]

Didn't I read that NASA leased half of the VAB to SpaceX? If so, how does that fit in?

[@brianwatkins2974]

I believe it's one of the four bays.

[@xeddog]

@@brianwatkins2974 I didn't know that building has 4 bays, but OK. It should still give SpaceX another nudge up in the infrastructure department.

[@z-beeblebrox]

I've constructed a formula to answer the question posed in the thumbnail, for whether we need two lunar landers: spaceships * 2 = gooder I rest my case.

[@steveaustin2686]

Compelling argument. I agree completely.

[@jwortman1984]

I like the video. Thanks for doing it. I was hoping to have had more comparison with the 1960s program and the multiple bids for lunar landers they had then and more discussion on why we need both not just saying competition is good. The thumbnail says “do we really need two?“ and the intro said you would determine if you really need both, but there was basically no discussion on that other than just saying that competition is good

[@steveaustin2686]

NASA likes having redundancy for the commercial program fixed-price contracts. For the 2008 Commercial Resupply Services (CRS) contracts, NASA got both Cygnus and Dragon for delivering cargo to the ISS. It was a good thing, since the Orb-3 flight of Cygnus exploded just after launch in Oct 2014. NASA didn't have to worry too much, as Dragon was also flying CRS flights. It was the same when the CRS-7 Dragon mission exploded in Jun 2015, as Cygnus was flying on Atlas-V then. NASA is going to add Dream Chaser to the CRS rotation soon. It's a good thing that NASA selected a second Commercial Crew program (CCP) provider in Sep 2014. Because if NASA had only chosen the top bid for CCP, then the Crew Dragon might never have been built and NASA could still be relying on Soyuz to get crew to the ISS. For the HLS Option A competition, NASA wanted 2 landers for redundancy. NASA asked the 2020 Congress for $3.4B/year for 3 years to get 2 landers. But the 2020 Congress only gave NASA $928M/year, so NASA only chose the top bid, SpaceX. Blue Origin has came in second in the HLS Option A competition, so if NASA had got the HLS funding that they asked for, the Blue Origin ILV would have been the second lander already. NASA was able to get the new Congress in 2021 to fund the Appendix P competition to get the second lander that NASA wanted in the first place. Blue Moon beat out the Dynetics Alpaca design again, so they got the Appendix P contract. NASA really likes the low-slung Alpaca design, so hopefully the Alpaca can get some Commercial Lunar Payload Services (CLPS) contracts for cargo delivery to the Moon. Dream Chaser was third in Commercial Crew, but got a CRS contract 2 years later. Maybe Dynetics can be the same, so there is kind of a third backup lunar lander.

[@johnwiggill17]

Great Video!!! I can't really imagine that Blue Origin is ahead of SpaceX considering all the launches, satellite deployment, and delivery to the space station, but competition is good for both sides! Loved the video!

[@pferd5639]

LOL. "We never got concrete confirmation of what exactly killed these engines . . . ".

[@I_Am_AI_007]

Both the rockets and companies are purely amazing!

[@ross077]

Thanks for the information Adrian, especially on Blue Origin which is hard to come by. I'd enjoy seeing more comparison videos like this one - if nothing else, it prompts some interesting discussion on a subject I'm sure we're all passionate about. My opinion is that SpaceX and Blue Origin aren't really competing for HLS missions, they've both been awarded an affordable amount of seed money by NASA to sufficiently incenivise them both to make a long term investment in the future lunar economy. Furthermore, they've both partly been selected for their potential to add their own investments to make the Artemis programme a success. Given that there are limits to how much funding NASA will realistically be given by the US treasury, I think their HLS contracting strategy is actually quite prudent for making the available funding go as far as reasonably possible.

[@70agrr]

At this point I would say yes it is a prudent idea to develop 2 lander choices, to hopefully better ensure mission success, further down the road circumstances may change.

[@rolandtaylor1397]

Agreed and also putting all our eggs in elons musk’s basket isn’t a great idea seeing all his other businesses that he makes crazy promises that he never planned on making happen

[@sdebeaubien]

Thanks Adrian. I would make Infrastructure a tie as well. BO is quickly building up their Cape production facilities, while SpaceX is continuing to work at a frenetic pace at Boca. The slight edge you gave to BO goes away IMO because of SpaceX's "Hardware rich" consistency. Again, this is only an opinion, but they build stuff and find flaws even before stuff launches! This is an incredible gold mine of innovation where they don't have to carry out extremely risky and hazardous end tests to find out stuff (to learn). It gives them some HUGE advantages in my book, that are (or at least have never been) not showing at BO. I think both landers have advantages and disadvantages, and much has yet to be done to support their success after launch. It's gonna be exciting! And as one commenter points out below, they'll have to at least agree on SOME standards, so they can support one another (and other NASA existing space hardware).

[@MichaelMacherey]

Born in 1972 I am waiting for a crewed Moon landing my whole life! 🤦

[@davidstevenson9517]

The last crewed landing was in 1972, 10 Dec. at the beginning of your life (falling on my 10th birthday). You're merely waiting for your 2nd crewed landing (I've enjoyed 6, so far).

[@edopiri]

Great presentation Adrian!

[@DipperDK]

Literally a FLY at 12:44 as Adrian is saying "Flying to LEO" 😅 EPIC video! Thanks Adrian and the rest of the NSF team. 😇🧡

[@markoconnell804]

Yes we do really need two. Why? Safety - Boeing’s handling of their space craft shows why.

[@pipersall6761]

I lost track of a little that you were saying trying to figure out how you were saying the word "development". Thanks for your report. Good job.

[@GazzyWazzyLol]

Very detailed video.. bravo bravo

[@jonnekjonneksson]

We need as many as there can be. It's a particularly healthy industry that is currently blooming, creating millions of new jobs and careers, while it serves science widely for the goals of space exploration. If we play that right and stay wise the space industry could take over globally in terms of financial booming and connecting everybody in a productive direction.

[@gmanengineer]

Yes, I’d love to see a video about the competing moon landing plans of NASA and China.

[@rickstandal626]

This should be viewed as a transportation system to take people from the Earth to the Moon. Starship with crew ans supplies from the cape to the moon OR capsule from Earth to moon orbit, lander from earth to the moon orbit , lander docked and from orbit to the moon. BTW If the Blue Orgin lander is used than you will need space x to bring the supplies to the surface as well.

[@steveaustin2686]

From page 27 of the GAO decision to deny the HLS complaints, here is the SpaceX plan for Artemis III. [DELETED] is apparently at least a propellant depot Starship variant from the context and SpaceX had the GAO redact that info. Added in Musk's payload update (~150t) and he says that it is up to 8 Tankers to fully refill HLS Starship, depending on HLS Starship's mass. My comments are in (). "SpaceX’s concept of operations contemplated ten total launches (down from 16), consisting of: 1 launch of its [DELETED]; 8 launches of its Tanker Starships to supply fuel to [DELETED] (down from 14); and 1 launch of its HLS Lander Starship, which would be [DELETED] and then travel to the Moon." Then once unmanned HLS Starship is at the Moon, SLS launches Orion to the Moon with the crew. When the surface mission is done, HLS Starship meets back up with Orion and the crew return home on Orion. HLS is basically out of propellant at that point. Blue Moon will be the same, in that once the unmanned Blue Moon lander is at the Moon, then Orion brings the crew. And the crew goes back to Earth on Orion.

[@rickstandal626]

@@steveaustin2686 HLS is a 60 year old term that needs to be retired. At least when Apollo made the trip it towed the HLS along and didn't need two ships to get to and land on the moon. Here's a new way of making the trip; meet Musk at the cape and jump on the starship along with everything you need for an extended say. Take off and make a pit stop at Ellon's stop and go, top off the tanks and blast off to the moon. Land and off load your cyber truck, roam around a bit and fly back to the stop and go ( or the space station) where a Dragon ship is waiting to take you back to old mother earth. OR hitch a ride on one of the fuel trucks that is dropping off the fuel for the next trip. The advantage there is you get a ride back to the Cape where you started. Also bear in mind the ULA may never get there capsule to work And Blue Origin may never fly the new Glen. So NASA will more that likely have to find a alternative. Thank you for your response.

[@steveaustin2686]

​@@rickstandal626 🙄🤡 HLS is the name of the contracts that SpaceX won. The Human Landing System (HLS) Option A contract is the first one SpaceX got for the Artemis III landing. The Human Landing System (HLS) Option B contract is the one SpaceX got for the Artemis IV landing. So the Starship Moon lander is called HLS Starship. This is not a hard concept. Your plan does not work as HLS Starship does not have the dV for what you propose. From page 27 of the GAO decision to deny the HLS complaints, here is the SpaceX plan for Artemis III. [DELETED] is apparently at least a propellant depot Starship variant from the context and SpaceX had the GAO redact that info. Added in Musk's payload update (~150t) and he says that it is up to 8 Tankers to fully refill HLS Starship, depending on HLS Starship's mass. My comments are in (). "SpaceX’s concept of operations contemplated ten total launches (down from 16), consisting of: 1 launch of its [DELETED]; 8 launches of its Tanker Starships to supply fuel to [DELETED] (down from 14); and 1 launch of its HLS Lander Starship, which would be [DELETED] and then travel to the Moon." After the HLS Starship is at the Moon, then SLS/Orion launch to take the crew to the Moon. After the surface mission is over and HLS Starship has made it back to lunar orbit, it is basically out of propellant. Which is why Orion returns the crew to Earth. Per page 10 of the GAO report, the SpaceX plan for Artemis III is 1 Starship variant launch every 12 days. Per page 9 of the Apr 2021 HLS Option A Source Selection Statement, "SpaceX’s quiescent lunar orbit operations capability will allow it to loiter for 100 days prior to rendezvous with the crew vehicle." So up to 9 launches (reusing the depot) would likely be longer than HLS Starship can wait in lunar orbit for the crew to arrive. It will likely take some number of years for the Starship cadence to mature to a faster pace, so SLS/Orion are needed for the early Artemis missions. Likely through Artemis V at least. ULA does NOT have a capsule. Lockheed Martin developed the Orion capsule for taking crew to the Moon. Boeing developed Starliner for taking crew to the ISS. New Glenn is not needed until the test landing for Blue Moon in 2028+. If you are going to blather, at least do a little research in the first place, so you have some idea of what you are talking about.

[@FrontGardeninNormandy]

Good job Adrian ! 💪

[@danclemmensen4474]

Like most other pictures and videos on the web, you do not show the two landers at the same scale. You also do not compare the lunar payload downmass and upmass for the two landers.

[@Veptis]

I might be limited in my knowledge. But is there a chance this will end in a similar situation as Boeing Starliner? They were parallel to SpaceX Dragon at a higher cost. And missed to fly their first crewed Test flight before Crew Dragon already finished their original 6 missions? Blue isn't Boeing tho

[@opcn18]

In this analogy SpaceX would be Beoing. The clear favorite to win the race with experience delivering who is set to go first but experiencing delay after delay after delay while the people running the company have all their attention on a dumpster fire problem of their own making elsewhere.

[@GreenBlueWalkthrough]

Great video and very fair Comparision which could you do one with the ISS/Sky Lab versus the Chinese Space station?

[@EpicFutureSpace]

Excellent comparison. I would agree that SpaceX is more likely to succeed, but Blue has so many partners who are invested in so many NASA projects that I think the Blue Contract is really a funding program to ensure that multiple peices of hardware are actually made and flown. I would have liked to see a bit more info about NASA's history of wanting as many redundant systems as possible and wanting multiple providers, but that may have doubled this video length. In any case excellent job with this video.

[@steveaustin2686]

NASA likes having redundancy for the commercial program fixed-price contracts. For the 2008 Commercial Resupply Services (CRS) contracts, NASA got both Cygnus and Dragon for delivering cargo to the ISS. It was a good thing, since the Orb-3 flight of Cygnus exploded just after launch in Oct 2014. NASA didn't have to worry too much, as Dragon was also flying CRS flights. It was the same when the CRS-7 Dragon mission exploded in Jun 2015, as Cygnus was flying on Atlas-V then. NASA is going to add Dream Chaser to the CRS rotation soon. It's a good thing that NASA selected a second Commercial Crew program (CCP) provider in Sep 2014. Because if NASA had only chosen the top bid for CCP, then the Crew Dragon might never have been built and NASA could still be relying on Soyuz to get crew to the ISS. For the HLS Option A competition, NASA wanted 2 landers for redundancy. NASA asked the 2020 Congress for $3.4B/year for 3 years to get 2 landers. But the 2020 Congress only gave NASA $928M/year, so NASA only chose the top bid, SpaceX. Blue Origin has came in second in the HLS Option A competition, so if NASA had got the HLS funding that they asked for, the Blue Origin ILV would have been the second lander already. NASA was able to get the new Congress in 2021 to fund the Appendix P competition to get the second lander that NASA wanted in the first place. Blue Moon beat out the Dynetics Alpaca design again, so they got the Appendix P contract. NASA really likes the low-slung Alpaca design, so hopefully the Alpaca can get some Commercial Lunar Payload Services (CLPS) contracts for cargo delivery to the Moon. Dream Chaser was third in Commercial Crew, but got a CRS contract 2 years later. Maybe Dynetics can be the same, so there is kind of a third backup lunar lander.

[@BreakingBarriers2DIY]

"we never had concrete evidence of what killed these engines..." Is he being funny?! LOL

[@steveaustin2686]

Musk says that debris didn't kill the first 3 engines to shut down at launch.

[@donculver153]

Great comparison. Boca Chica is undergoing a ton of upgrades and new construction. Don’t underestimate the potential for this testing and construction facility. SpaceX has a great record of launch experience.

[@wesselscreations]

I don't know if it is just me, but all of your videos, the audio for the intro is so much louder than the narration. I have to turn it down and then back to a suitable level

[@lspringerjones]

Pretty fair assessment.

[@stargot1]

With the money, instead of a second lander, I would prefer that BO build a moon station, since they invest already in space station in LEO.

[@davidstevenson9517]

Bill Nelson: "We want backup...two landers!". Congress insists (no SpaceX monopoly... and that's final).

[@joe2mercs]

I get the feeling with Blue Origin of a ‘big hat and no cattle’. An ‘impressive campus’ of large sheds at the Cape is a relatively cheap and easy substitute to having a fully stacked rocket and flight testing. SpaceX builds what it needs when it needs it and while the process may appear haphazard and chaotic it rapidly accommodates change. Once the launch pad is repaired and modified it is likely we will see a rapid succession of ‘all up, suck it and see’ testing of Starships to and from orbit.

[@123clickit]

Exactly. Infrastructure comparison here was severely lacking, a big box building is the easiest part!

[@keithscott1926]

I think we need as many diverse ships capable of landing on the moon, in case of an emergency.

[@thaonguyen-fv5gd]

Put effort , well performance and maitain of its, product, project and environment .... And at the end egrem

[@NOM-X]

We can only see what New Glen has to offer. It is a rabbit and turtle race, with X being the rabbit, and Blue obviously the turtle. But.. "Slow is smooth, and smooth is fast." (ARMY quote). but its going to take a while for X to successfully land on the Moon, But.... After IFT2, looks like 2028. But with all things considered, you just have to hurry up and wait. Thanks for another great episode. - NOM

[@hamzahkhan8952]

wont straship have different engines along the middle of the ship for landing so that they dont damage the bottom of the ship with the power of raptors 2s or 3s? im pretture sure they are based off raptor engines, but i dont think they have started developing those yet. Also, I though blue origin planned on refueling their lander in lunar orbit. is that incorrect?

[@richardzeitz54]

What you ignore where the Blue Origin entry is that it's not a single vendor system. And there's not even a hint of a concrete design, just some graphics. So BO's entry is part Boeing, part BO, part someone else's, I forget. That's going to mean at least three teams who will have to make three separate systems operate seamlessly. The BO offering will be years behind schedule. The one best thing about it will be the long term liquid hydrogen storage and orbital refueling. If that tech becomes common, it will be excellent for the entire interplanetary economy as it develops. If the BO offering doesn't result in a revolution in liquid hydrogen storage, it won't be any use. Just an overcomplicated mashup of several vendors which will multiply the development time by three times what's being predicted now. It BO time is like Elon time to the second power.

[@MrGoesBoom]

2:01 Huh....I was completely unaware that we had in tank footage from the Saturn rockets... I was under the impression that views like that were a more modern thing, not something that existed even back in the sixties. Neat.

[@SixDasher]

The even have footage from the interstage where you can see the third stage fly away. It was shot on actual film and recovered fter it fell down to earth.

[@TaurusSpace]

@@SixDasher Thats from a Saturn 1B

[@douglasrichardson8111]

That was in tank views of the SpaceX booster tank

[@TaurusSpace]

@@douglasrichardson8111 No it wasn’t….

[@oldbloke135]

@@douglasrichardson8111 It actually says what it is at the bottom left of the picture, a Saturn 1B.

[@vangelissotiropoulos7365]

Wow! They haven’t reached orbit yet but somehow they will go directly to the moon?!!

[@steveaustin2686]

New Glenn is planned to fly Kuiper missions, before needing to do the Artemis V mission in 2029+.

[@CessnaDriver2]

Well I think we need like ten, and invading horde of lunar lander fleets, but maybe I'm out of touch. LOL

[@jonny3003]

When comparing infrastructure it would have been nice to get some info on why SpaceX stopped building the high bay and the orbital launch mount at the cape.

[@steveaustin2686]

Boca Chica is as much about learning how to build a Starship facility as it is about building and testing Starships. SpaceX is likely waiting on developments at Boca Chica to happen first.

[@davidkillens8143]

From NASA's perspective, they will need a lunar lander in a few years. From a government procurement perspective in critical hardware, one should avoid putting all of your eggs in one basket. This is common practice, where two developers face off and the best design wins. The F-22 competed against the Northrop YF-23. The F-35 competed against the Boeing X-32. In both cases they reached prototype status, a competition was held, and there was a winner. Competition improves the product, the public get the most bang for the buck. In ten years there will be just one lunar lander design, the competitor would have fallen by the wayside. Personally I appreciate how SpaceX does things and hope they win the contract. Despite my distaste of Blue Origins, if they come up with a better design, good for them, they deserve the contract.

[@steveaustin2686]

Incorrect. NASA wants TWO providers. They did that for the 2008 Commercial Resupply Services (CRS) contracts with Dragon and Cygnus taking cargo to the ISS. Dream Chaser is scheduled to join them this year or next year. The 2014 Commercial Crew program (CCP) selected contracts with Starliner and Crew Dragon. This program is a CLEAR example of why two provders are preferred. Because if NASA had only went with the top choice in 2014, Crew Dragon might not have been built and NASA could still be relying on Soyuz to get crew to the ISS. The 2021 HLS Option A competition was to get TWO landers, but the 2020 Congress only gave NASA 1/4 the funding that NASA had requested. So NASA only chose the top bid. NASA was able to get the 2021 Congress to fund the Appendix P competition to get the second lander that NASA wanted in the first place. In HLS Option A, Blue came in second. In Appendix P, Blue came in first, so they got the contract. Out of the 3 finalists for a lunar lander, NASA got the two top choices. The USSF also wants multiple providers, which is why ULA and SpaceX do NSSL payloads. For NSSL3, some of the less energetic missions will be open to others, besides SpaceX and ULA.

[@moosethompson]

Ooh US vs China moon mission comparison? That'd be way cool.

[@comediehero]

Great analysis but I disagree with the scores at the end. The scores where not weighted, nor very descriptive and seemed to focus more on schedule then on capability, technical feasability, cost, cadence, architecture and more. I would have liked to see a comperison more akin to Apogee's first lander video.

[@spacewatch]

Great video. only question I have is why can't Spacex launch HLS from starbase as it wont have crew on, so wont need to be human rated launch site. just a thought.

[@bryanillenberg]

I wouldn't have given the engine point to blue, and definently not infrastructure. Other than that, it's an excellent video

[@yummysatay]

Vulcan with BE4 still haven't fly yet. When is the launch, does anyone know? Is Vulcan suppose to reach moon orbit?

[@bryanillenberg]

@@yummysatay Vulcan's sending a lunar lander to the moon. Launch, last time I checked, was either NET July or NET September.

[@bryanillenberg]

In light of recent events, engine point definintly not going to blue...

[@andrewwilkie8209]

We need to start a drinking game everytime Adrian says Deevelop instead of develop :)

[@LovemyDrones]

Do you think the first test of the lander test on the moon will be unmanned? I don't know where I heard it but I heard rumors of something being sprayed on the lunar surface during touchdown to stop cratering by the lander itself.

[@NASASpaceflight]

You're thinking FAST from Masten Space... have not heard about anything like that being used for HLS. -Das

[@tukushtacos2518]

i feel like if space x didnt exist companies and the government wouldnt be as invested or at least motivated in space programs, nasa was looking pretty sad for a while the space shuttle era was ok i mean we built a space station in our orbit but they really showed lack of human safety prioritizing launch dates instead of listening to the many warnings of engineers and lowering the bar of quality by feeling content and comfortable with fact that almost every shuttle barely made it back never addressing the constant evidence of rockets almost exploding every time, pieces of the shuttle tearing off and just accepting it as normal wear and tear that would ultimately be the same failures that cost the lives of two crews

[@nickdiamond7595]

Of course we need HLS redundancy. Is Starship going to safely ascend from the lunar surface without engine damage from debris and regilith?

[@steveaustin2686]

The current plan for HLS Starship looks to be a ring of 24 smaller methane engines at the top of the propellant tanks. With these engines being roughly 25 meters from the surface, that should minimize the disturbance of the regolith.

[@basketvector7311]

Will lunar starship lander engines be based on draco?

[@FrelanceEQ]

It's a good theme. It's a topic I & surely others want to hear about. But this video was hella thin on substance, with the conclusion being more in the flavor of Kirk v Picard than a real analysis.

[@SuprememK4275]

Coool😊

[@BenjamenMeyer]

I'd give SpaceX the point for infrastructure as well as they know more about what they need. BO has yet to fire up New Glenn and know how their launch pad will even function, and even NASA was caught off guard by how much damage SLS did to it's launch infrastructure. SpaceX knows what will happen and what they need to solve and are already working on solving it. BO is really too conservative with their risks and they are going too slow. They may look good, but their lack of testing means they still have a ton of learning to do. Impressive facility or not they still haven't flown it, even for ULA. They also have a very big habit of slipping schedules, making Elon look good (he does it on purpose, but BO doesn't).

[@user-cd4kh5cr9b]

Hey, Herr Beil, that was awesome! Glad to see you doing a real show on NSF. BO hasn't gotten to orbit. In 23 years with billions of dollars. Everything else doesn't matter if you can't get to orbit. A couple years ago with great fanfare they rolled out the New Glenn fairing (1). "Construction has begun!" Ah well, at least BO is paying for it mostly this time.

[@_mikolaj_]

So apollo 11 didnt matter?

[@steveaustin2686]

Grumman had never been to space when they built the LM for Apollo. Blue Origin via New Shepard, has experience with a spacecraft using LH2, robust life support, since the passenger cabin is a shirt sleeve environment, and a basic landing for the booster. Blue's biggest problem has always been long, slow development cycles. Bezos stepped back from Amazon to focus more on Blue Origin in Jun 2021. So we shall have to see if he can make a difference or not.

[@mauricegold9377]

@@steveaustin2686 Well, 2 years into Bezos' more.. er.. hands-on management, and we have nearly zilch, perhaps only the long-delayed BE-4 engine hand-over to ULA (I've got doubts about their reliability even now), certainly unit to unit performance variations are hopefully a thing of the past, but who knows? Still no New Glenn prototypes; still no 7-engine combos for test-firings (does BO even have 7 BE-4 engines? It's all smoke and mirrors at BO. Bezos prefers the pleasures and comfort of his 500 million dollar yacht, in contrast to Elon Musk, the driven, passionate capable engineer at SpaceX, and it shows.

[@steveaustin2686]

@@mauricegold9377 🙄 Just like Boeing, Blue Origin has to change the corporate culture. It's not like flipping a switch. That takes time. Blue is vey secretive, so it makes it hard to see what is going on inside. That hurts Blue's public perception. Blue is supposed to be spinning up a factory for serial production. That is one of the big unanswered questions, can Blue make engines fast enough for all the ULA Vulcan Centaurs (2 ea) and the New Glenn (7 ea). They did flip 180 degrees on how Blue Moon would work pretty quickly. Their mission is for Artemis V in 2029+. HLS Starship is in Dec 2025+. Blue has more time than SpaceX. HLS Starship has a LOT of development to go. Both Bezos and Musk are tools, just slightly different versions of tool.

[@michaelfink64]

Interesting comparison, but I think an important consideration is the companies' expertise in orbital flights and landings and no company can match SpaceX's performance in these aspects right now.

[@steveaustin2686]

Grumman had never been to space when they built the LM for Apollo. Blue Origin via New Shepard, has experience with a spacecraft using LH2, robust life support, since the passenger cabin is a shirt sleeve environment, and a basic landing for the booster. Blue's biggest problem has always been long, slow development cycles. Bezos stepped back from Amazon to focus more on Blue Origin in Jun 2021. So we shall have to see if he can make a difference or not.

[@mauricegold9377]

@@steveaustin2686 Life-support system is a bit of a misnomer. It only needs to keep people in a shirt-sleeve environment for about 2 hours at a time maximum. A capability not much (if at all), beyond everyday airliners. Maybe a bit more CO2 scrubbing, but that is it.

[@steveaustin2686]

@@mauricegold9377 It's robust enough that they don't need flight suits and can be in a shirt sleeve environment. That would be very redunant.

[@michaelfink64]

@@steveaustin2686 But Grumman didn't need to build the Saturn V, whereas Blue Origin has to build New Glenn to launch their lunar lander.

[@steveaustin2686]

@@michaelfink64 And Blue Origin has been working on the New Glenn for a while, so they have a head start on Grumman.

[@ErnestCF]

US VS CHINA comparison please🙏🙏🙏

[@kevin6666123]

For me given the capability of starship to orbit (hell expendable if need be) I think SpaceX will come up with a bespoke lunar lander

[@123clickit]

Infrastructure comparison severely lacked focus on right areas. Building a big enclosure is easy. Want a clean room? Add HVAC units and insulation. What does this have anything to do with actual rocket related infrastructure?

[@123clickit]

The rest of comparisons were good

[@queredknight]

I want actually see civilian space competition. They could actually get us settled in space.

[@scottymoondogjakubin4766]

The more competition the better ! The moon would be the first ultimate space station !

[@Geekofarm]

The point that is overlooked a lot is that SpaceX has other things it wants to do that are more important to the company's survival than making a lunar landing system for NASA. Sure, they can make a lot of Starships once they get them figured out, but they also have a lot of hardware that they need to make and launch for themselves. Which do you think will go on the back burner if there are delays?

[@Heinrich_Von_Schnellfahrer]

So after you go for the X Billion dollar goverment contract, and get the money, you just gonna say "sorry, I have more important things to do"? good luck.. that funding comes with strings attached. heck the only reason their still afloat is governemnt funding.

[@Geekofarm]

@@Heinrich_Von_Schnellfahrer Works for Boeing...

[@Heinrich_Von_Schnellfahrer]

@@Geekofarm Where did Boeing say that?

[@steveaustin2686]

@@Geekofarm NASA is the biggest customer for SpaceX and the USSF/NRO are the second biggest. Ignoring your biggest customer is a really dumb thing to do, especially when you second biggest customer is tied to the first. Boeing has to continue work on SLS and Starliner, contractually. SLS is cost-plus, so saving money there is not incentivized. Starliner on the other hand, is a fixed-price contract, so Boeing has been paying for the Starliner fixes.

[@estillings23]

SNC (Sierra Space) has a habit of gobbling up the industry's "also-rans." I don't think we've seen the end of Dynetics' Alpaca System either.

[@steveaustin2686]

Dream Chaser got a CRS contract after coming in third in Commercial Crew in 2014. Hopefully, Alpaca can get some Commercial Lunar Payload Services (CLPS) contracts to deliver payloads to the Moon.

[@robinholmes785]

Good topic and an interesting comparison. 🙂 So Blue has a Very Bad record for delivering anything on time! how many years have ULA's engines slipped and they haven't flown yet! On the other hand, SpaceX achieves the impossible on a daily bases and has turned the launch industry on its head!! Really there is no contest. the money going to Blue is to help it bring some chance of competition into the launch market. UlA's Valcon is never going to be competitive!

[@steveaustin2686]

To be fair, SpaceX missed both the CRS contract and the CCP contract dates. They did beat their competitors though.

[@NightsOfTheRounds]

I think we need two, i just want to see Space X progress more than BO.

[@miguelmouta5372]

How about transport fuel inside relatively smaller replaceable packs ready to be connected directly to the rocket motor inside the ship at orbit, instead of transporting fuel in big monstrous tankers for very dangerously filling spaceships reservoirs?

[@williamscoggin1509]

Blue origin needs to figure out how to make their rocket work instead of building the facility. You don't need a facility if you don't have a rocket. But Jeff bezos was more interested in building his to super yachts.

[@pskale]

Are the systems from SpaceX and Blue Origin compatible with each other? Can a SpaceX craft refuel at a Blue Origin depot?

[@Heinrich_Von_Schnellfahrer]

A SpaceX craft cannot currently refule with another SpaceX craft..so no.

[@steveaustin2686]

They will be using different propellants as well. HLS Starship uses liquid methane (LCH4) and the Blue Moon lander uses liquid hydrogen (LH2).

[@lukeclarkson5574]

First time in history where they are two human landers

[@_mikolaj_]

Not really There was LK, at the times of Apollo

[@lukeclarkson5574]

@@_mikolaj_ yeah but that didn’t even get a chance to go into space never mind land on the moon

[@dphuntsman]

Three, including the Chinese; which, in my view- since their first lunar landing will be done the quick, dirty, old-fashioned & non-sustainable way- are at least as likely to land humans on Luna next as SpaceX with a radical new vehicle.

[@chris6770]

They should have selected Dynetics Alpaca, not as a replacement for HLS, but rather a cargo/ robotic version to build a landing pad for HLS. A few solar recharged regolith movers under an Alpaca could increase chances of a successful landing of such a large tall vehicle.

[@alrightydave]

US program vs china’s would be great

[@P5ychoFox]

I still really like the one with the bunny ears.

[@steveaustin2686]

NASA really liked the low-slung Alpaca design as well. But in the HLS Option A competition, it was too heavy to fly. In the Appendix P competition, it had more problems than the Blue Moon lander. So the Blue Origin led National Team beat them twice.

[@markmurphy3578]

I think the infrastructure could be easily swung into Spacex’s favour if they can nail catching the booster. If the OLM can be finished then why not fly the booster in, rather than making it on site? Then the same could be possible with the Luna lander. It would be a good test. Just a thought!

[@Merigold83]

At the first glance, it sounds like a great idea. But is flying and refueling cheaper than deliver Starship & Booster per barges?

[@R0bobb1e]

The Artemis Program: Bringing Billionaires together for a Brighter Future! lol

[@sleepdeep305]

Dual redundancy at a macro scale

[@Makoto783]

So... I'm sorry for being a boring dude, but the question from the poster of the video is still bothering me: do we actually need two lander programs? Comparison is great (no sarcasm, video is amazing!), and I'd like to head your thoughts about the question you asked yourself.

[@steveaustin2686]

NASA likes having redundancy for the commercial program fixed-price contracts. For the 2008 Commercial Resupply Services (CRS) contracts, NASA got both Cygnus and Dragon for delivering cargo to the ISS. It was a good thing, since the Orb-3 flight of Cygnus exploded just after launch in Oct 2014. NASA didn't have to worry too much, as Dragon was also flying CRS flights. It was the same when the CRS-7 Dragon mission exploded in Jun 2015, as Cygnus was flying on Atlas-V then. NASA is going to add Dream Chaser to the CRS rotation soon. It's a good thing that NASA selected a second Commercial Crew program (CCP) provider in Sep 2014. Because if NASA had only chosen the top bid for CCP, then the Crew Dragon might never have been built and NASA could still be relying on Soyuz to get crew to the ISS. For the HLS Option A competition, NASA wanted 2 landers for redundancy. NASA asked the 2020 Congress for $3.4B/year for 3 years to get 2 landers. But the 2020 Congress only gave NASA $928M/year, so NASA only chose the top bid, SpaceX. Blue Origin has came in second in the HLS Option A competition, so if NASA had got the HLS funding that they asked for, the Blue Origin ILV would have been the second lander already. NASA was able to get the new Congress in 2021 to fund the Appendix P competition to get the second lander that NASA wanted in the first place. Blue Moon beat out the Dynetics Alpaca design again, so they got the Appendix P contract. NASA really likes the low-slung Alpaca design, so hopefully the Alpaca can get some Commercial Lunar Payload Services (CLPS) contracts for cargo delivery to the Moon. Dream Chaser was third in Commercial Crew, but got a CRS contract 2 years later. Maybe Dynetics can be the same, so there is kind of a third backup lunar lander.

[@will2Collett]

I'm greatly looking forward to Blue Origin, more than Space X. I know, slightly blasphemous to what they have done. I have always wanted to see New glenn and blue Origin. I don't like the vertical shape of Space X lander. It doesn't looks practical. the lower to the surface, the safer the ship will be. Case in point: Odyseus. Gravity is everywhere, why not the Moon - smaller as it is. Blue has a more stable looking vehicle. I don't think a LUNAR wind will knock it over ha ha ha and it has it's weight spread out. Great to hear About Blue and Glenn. Thanks so much

[@anthonypelchat]

BO's lander is more likely to tip over than Starship simply due to weaker legs. Even still, neither should ever have any issues at all. Neither will have the weight and cost constraints of Odyseus. The bigger benefit of BO's lander is that you're basically on the service from the lander, only needing a couple of steps down to ground. Starship needs an elevator to get down. But Starship does have a drastically increased landing capacity. So to each their own.

[@pedrorochapereira8998]

we need more ...... a bigger lander for base parts and 3D printers to planetary surface ......

[@EinzigfreierName]

With all these open questions, you don't need to be a pessimist to seriously doubt that man will walk on the moon within this decade.

[@opcn18]

Blue was critical of refueling for Artemis 3 because the 2024 mission they were bidding on was 30 months from when the contract would be awarded and everyone knew that that technology wouldn't be ready. (SpaceX was supposed to demonstrate it last year by their timeline, and they have been working this whole time, it was just not a realistic timeline to form the basis of a bid. Blue was talking about offworld refueling before SpaceX was, which is not surprising since Bezos was a student of Gerard O'Neil who was a major proponent of humans living in space. Also as I understand it Blue Moon Mk2 launches from earth on a New Glenn, rendezvous with Orion, lands on the moon, takes off from the moon, and again meets with Orion without any refueling, but is at that point adrift in orbit if they don't have refueling figured out. Starship HLS launches from earth on a superheavy, refuels with 6 -14 tankers, then meets up with orion>moon>orion after which point starship is set adrift in orbit unless they want to fly a tanker out at which point the tanker would be left adrift and the lunar starship would be reused.

[@schrodingerscat1863]

I believe Starship HLS could get back to earth orbit if fully fuelled before leaving earth orbit for the moon. It depends on how much cargo is on HLS and how much is dropped off on Orion and how much is left behind on the moon.

[@MrBragle]

If starship is designed to land on Mars, surely it has the fuel capacity to get to the moon and back

[@schrodingerscat1863]

@@MrBragle Surprisingly the delta V required for a trip to Mars and a return trip to the moon are not that different.

[@ernestgalvan9037]

Remember, the FAA delayed Starship by over a year, due to ‘environment’ concerns, among others.

[@opcn18]

@@ernestgalvan9037 I was surprised they let them launch at all from the middle of an estuary until I learned how hard NASA has been lobbying for them to approve. Texas is full of heavily grazed coastal pasture land, and they picked the middle of the most pristine spot south of galveston to set up heavy industry? But that left aside the problems that doomed the 4/20 launch were engine reliability issues that they really didn't need to launch to figure out. They started building the first prototype on site in 2018 and they waited for years to start the process to get approval for the expansion of impact in the middle of an estuary, and thumbed their nose when the ACOE reached out to discuss surface water impacts, They weren't exactly acting like a company that wanted to make sure they weren't held up by the regulatory process.

[@Grundewalt]

I try to answer the question in the thumbnail. Do we need two? well yes. Especially when we have here two choices that will , probably, default on their obligations. So why not three ? why not the only reasonable and serious enought third one ? You know who I am talking about, don't you...

[@steveaustin2686]

NASA liked the low-slung Alpaca design, but it was too heavy to fly in the HLS Option A competition. Blue beat Alpaca again in the Appendix P competition as the Blue Moon had less problems per the Source Selection Statement. Like how Dream Chaser got a CRS contract in 2016, after coming in third on Commercial Crew, hopefully Alpaca can get some Commercial Lunar Payload Services (CLPS) contracts to deliver payloads with their cargo version.

[@Grundewalt]

@@steveaustin2686 true. Back to the question. will spacex delay artemis? I have my money on my answer to that.

[@louis-markqabazi5696]

You forgot Rocketlab.

[@dannyarcher6370]

I thought the National consortium was given the boot?

[@steveaustin2686]

NASA wanted 2 landers for the HLS Option A contract, but the 2020 Congress gave NASA ~1/4 the funding. Otherwise, if NASA had got the HLS Option A funding that they wanted, the Blue Origin ILV would already be the second lander. This Appendix P competition was NASA getting the second lander that they wanted in the first place.

[@dannyarcher6370]

@@steveaustin2686 LOL. Trust the Dems and woke NASA to team up with big business to fleece the taxpayer.

[@mglenadel]

And, if all else fails, SpaceX can plop a functioning dragon capsule inside the lunar lander and use it as a life support system. They have more than enough room up there to do so.

[@steveaustin2686]

The volume may be there, but the mass of a Crew Dragon capsule would be a problem. HLS Starship needs to be as light as possible and the cargo mass is likely to be much less than 100 tons.

[@austyn8708]

Adrian!

[@JVoltCUAF]

i still dont understand what was wrong with dynetics it seems to be the better lander in general......but arent backed by the big boys.

[@steveaustin2686]

NASA liked the low-slung Alpaca design, but in the HLS Option A competition, it was too heavy to fly. So it came in last place (3rd). In the Appendix P competition, it still had more problems than the Blue Moon lander per the May 2023 Appendix P Source Selection Statement.

[@JVoltCUAF]

it just stinks cause the small modular design just made it seem like the easier design

[@opcn18]

@@JVoltCUAF Yes, it had a lot going for it. They should have worked harder with the hundreds of millions of dollars NASA gave them in April of 2020 ($967m split between national, dynetics, and SpaceX) to fix the engineering problems. they probably focused on the wrong things.

[@tribalypredisposed]

From an engineering perspective, the Raptor MUST be significantly more reliable than the BE4 just based on the BE4 having 20 times more parts. Sure the BE4 might still be a high quality reliable engine, but the odds of something going wrong will always be higher. We also have no idea about how capable Blue is going to be making the BE4 rapidly, which they will need to in order to fulfill their contracts. Easy enough to deliver two high quality engines you have been working on for a couple years, can they make one a week though?

[@steveaustin2686]

The BE-4 engine is reported to be done with development. The Raptor 2 engines are still in development, as they are being replaced by the Raptor 3 engine. Musk stated that debris did not kill the first 3 engines that shut down in the orbital flight, so that means that 9% of the engines didn't work. Having 9% of your engines not work, is not what you could call an operational engine.

[@tribalypredisposed]

@@steveaustin2686 the BE4 being done with development I believe, unfortunately. The Raptor II is also done with development because now Tesla is working on Raptor III. The engines on the first Starship test flight were all Raptor II, unknown if the next Starship has II or III for the engines. Yeah, lots of people and companies are super afraid of failure during development, SpaceX takes the opposite view and they are winning. Musk said before the launch that clearing the tower and not destroying it would be a success in his view. You think every engine had to be perfect. Well, he built SpaceX from nothing and you have done...?