Best Moon Lander? Starship HLS vs. Blue Moon

NASA has selected to landers for their Artemis program: SpaceX's Starship and Blue Moon from Blue Origin and the so called National Team.
Both have their strengths and weaknesses. Which is best suited for what? Let's find out by using Kerbal Space Program!
🠴Join me to stay in the loop for more KSP stuff and general madness, Kerbal, space or otherwise!🠶
▶ Discord - / discord
▶ Twitter - / the_shadowzone
▶ Instagram - / the_shadowzone
▶ Facebook - / the-shadowzone-3045600...
▶ Patreon - / shadowzone
#starship #bluemoon #nasa
0:00 Two Landers for NASA
0:33 Blue Moon isn't really new
1:29 Starship HLS details
2:24 Kerbal shenanigans
3:00 Blue Moon details
3:55 The problem with refueling
6:59 Which is best?
11:39 More competition is good for everyone
🠴Interested in the vehicles I make in Kerbal Space Program? Check out my KerbalX🠶
▶ kerbalx.com/The_ShadowZone/
▶ steamcommunity.com/id/the_sha...
🠴Music🠶
"Invictus Outro" (c) The ShadowZone
Get my Music here:
▶ Spotify:
open.spotify.com/artist/0F8ZM...
▶ Apple Music:
itunes.apple.com/ca/artist/sh...
▶ Google Play:
play.google.com/store/music/a...
▶ Deezer:
www.deezer.com/de/artist/5298...
▶ Tidal:
tidal.com/browse/artist/10500010
"District Four" and "The Show Must Be Go" all (c) Kevin MacLeod ( incompetech.com/music )
Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 3.0
creativecommons.org/licenses/b...
🠴HELLO everybody and welcome to the ShadowZone🠶
Here you can find weird and funny videos about Kerbal Space Program and other video games. In general, if you like space, space ships, space stations or any space related video game, this channel is the right place to be!
I try to deliver you fascinating creations, tutorial and how-to videos about KSP and other video game content.
I also compose my own music from time to time.
Stay a while and join the shadowzone community by subscribing to my channel or following me on those social thingies up there.

[@skywatcher2025]

Glad you came to the conclusion that both are roughly equal when weighing all areas (with different strengths and weaknesses). Unfortunately the comment section doesn't seem to be as unbiased.

[@ShadowZone]

I see it in a positive light. People are excited for space. And that is great! Now they just have to realize this isn't about two teams or two tribes against each other. We're all striving for the same goal.

[@skywatcher2025]

@@ShadowZone Agreed!

[@davidstevenson9517]

Nice to hear balanced comments, guys. Many SpaceX Fans refuse to accept that NASA and Congress demand competition. NASA needs backup and versatility. Will Alpaca get a future contract in a light role if it switches to lunar LH2/O2 burning engines, fueled by NASAs future in situ program, as is planned for Blue Moon?

[@nightlightabcd]

BS, NOT EVEN CLOSE!! People/videos that mention SpaceX and Blue Origin together are people that know nothing about what is going on!! Videos are still trying to equate SpaceX with Blue Origin which indicates that these people know more about making videos and getting attention and hyping failed Blue Origin than the reality!

[@stanleydavidson6543]

Yes perhaps but HLS lander is in testing and has a booster to fly on

[@GreenGj-]

The dynetics HLS/ALPACA is the one I prefer, although we had the best option already: Altair. Altair would have not been re-usable, but the decent stage could be used as a lunar outpost for future missions

[@snakevenom4954]

Ik the information wasn't out at the time, but ALPACA has a negative thrust/mass ratio. It can't land

[@gptiede]

One disadvantage for Blue Origin's lander that was only hinted at: Not only is the rocket engine right next to the crew compartment making it noisy, but upon liftoff the engine and crew compartment seem to be less than 1 meter above the surface. What is the probability of debris puncturing the crew compartment upon liftoff? SpaceX just gave us a demonstration of the "debris tornado" caused by rocket engines above a rocky/sandy surface, and while Starship's total thrust is massive compared to a moon lander's, Starship's pressurized crew compartment is over 100 m from the engines, not less than 1 m.

[@ShadowZone]

Yes, I talk about it near the end, but we don't know how well shielded the bottom of the vehicle will be, or if the engines are at an angle to avoid blasting the surface at a right angle. Also, two BE-7 engines (~90kN combined) will be a lot less powerful than even a single Raptor (over 2200kN), like miniscule. They will do an uncrewed mission, we'll see how it goes then.

[@gilbertanderson3456]

As Shadowzone stated, the Raptor engines will not be used for lunar landing and takeoff and it is not yet known if Spacex will be using methalox (Raptor propellant-less reliable but easier to replenish) or hypergolics (SuperDraco propellant-absolutely reliable but difficult to replenish) for the landing motors but they will be at the base of the cargo area roughly ten meters below the crew.

[@_mikolaj_]

In space engine will create very little noise, since only source of sound are turbopumps and combustion chamber. In atmosphere majority of sound you hear comes not from the engine itself but from hypersonic exhaust interacting with surrounding atmosphere

[@goetzvonb123]

2:51 never seen such a smooth spaceship entrance - at least the right kerbal hit on first try.

[@bigdogben]

That JWST is insane! Your builds are amazing, great recreations.

[@mrman5517]

the more i look at these proposals, the more i become in favour of single-use Apollo LM style craft! having the redundancy of an entirely separate stage (and the option to use the landing stage as a crumple zone and/or debris shield) makes sense when k̶e̶r̶b̶a̶l̶s̶ humans are involved.

[@unownyoutuber9049]

sure but it only made sense for apollo because apollo was never meant to be a permanent thing. It was a quick solution to beat the soviets. Artemis is trying to make a sustainable presence on the moon which a 2 stage lander is not really fit for.

[@Zacharysharkhazard]

Nah, still disagree. Gotta think long-term; building individual, single-use landers for large crew/cargo transports to the surface will never be economically viable when the goal is a large-scale lunar colony in the next few decades. The first 10-20 Artemis missions I believe could implement multi-stage landers, but Starship will be *necessary* for transport once the official plan for a large-scale colony is established, maybe 2040s. Better to start implementing the infrastructure now so we'll be ready imo.

[@jdoe9518]

Totally agree. 100% mission success. Well except for Tom Hanks in Apollo 13. Even so what was achieved in 8 years during the 1960's is unrivaled in every way 50 years later. To send humans into space with reckless abandon worked 100% of the time and saw 12 men return home to earth in perfect health after walking the lunar surface. Humanity is clearly less capable now than 50 years ago and well just a bunch of pussies. I say we collect all the Apollo components from the museum's and ask Buzz if he wants to go back and show all the nerds how it's done!

[@briancox2721]

H2 will never be truly storable. Even if you keep the stuff at temperature, it still leaks through valves, tank walls, everything. Plus it's hard to pump on the ground, let alone in zero g. Maybe some day the specific impulse of an NTR transfer stage will mean it makes sense, but for now, my vote is for starship.

[@hubbletrubble7875]

6:22 While very similar, that diagram is actually from American Rockwell in 1972 about a Reusable Space Tug And Lander

[@ShadowZone]

Given that Blue Origin's first HLS proposal was basically NASA's own reference design, just a little refined, and that Blue Origin is always proud of their "heritage", I would not be surprised, if there will be MANY similarities with that design.

[@kman2747]

for the propellant comparison, imho, blue moon also has a good thing going for it, in that you can get hydrogen on the moon. Methane is a lot harder to come by. They are both incredibly capable landers and I am very excited to see them both

[@gaius_enceladus]

Ok, I love what SpaceX is doing but yeah, this Blue Moon lander does look GREAT! Kudos to them for coming up with a great design! It has a hint of the "Apollo" look to it - a bit like a much smoother and cleaner-looking Apollo lander! They *do* need to work faster though but if they can get this lander built then best wishes to them!

[@mikekopack6441]

One could also argue that assuming Water Ice is found on the moon, having an LH/LO based system would tip the balance in favor of B.O. when it comes to Propulsion - can mine fuel right there on the moon. Methane is a lot harder to make on the moon (but is quite doable on Mars, which is what it was intended for originally).

[@MinerBat]

2:56 well at least one of them got in :)

[@verdigo1482]

I think this was a very well thought out review of the two landers. Before Blue Origin revised their lander I was in favor of the Space-X design. (Actually my favorite was the Dynetics Alpaca design, but I knew NASA wasn't going to go for anything less than a "fully reusable" design.) Now I think the Blue Origin and Space-X designs are evenly matched. If Blue Origin can refine their design a little more I think it will win out easily. The main issue I see with the Blue Moon design right now is the engine placement, it's too close to the ground and crew. The issue I've always had with the Space-X design is that it's too tall verses its base, any uneven terrain with and incline and it could tip over.

[@GHOSTOFENGLAND]

Tbh the issue with Moonship possibly tipping over would only be for the first few landings before a landing pad gets constructed.

[@bradwooldidge6979]

Blue Origin **hasn’t even made it to orbit yet!**

[@hurgle3197]

I wish Sierra Nevada corp made it further their design seemed pretty revolutionary and useful

[@CoreyKearney]

I thought it was a good design to, but Sierra was out to lunch on the math and mass estimates. Just on that, good idea or no, they had to go.

[@patricktho6546]

Also Starship may be a first base on the moon. So there is also 2 different tasks for the 2 landers

[@mburnzy9269]

I wonder if the top of the Starship could be detached from the drive section? While the descent(the top)stage lands, the drive section refuels. Multiple Starships in Lunar orbit might make such a scenario work because Artemis is looking very shaky.

[@SpaceT3]

The fact that starship is bigger than gateway 💀

[@danclemmensen4474]

The $4B for Starship HLS included two crewed lunar landings. The $4B for National Team's lander includes only one crewed lunar landing.

[@redderthanmisty6762]

Does Starship dock with the gateway? Or does the gateway dock with Starship?

[@NeroDefogger]

that's the real question

[@eekee6034]

My thought exactly! :D

[@plainText384]

I don't know if crew/ cargo capacity should be a factor for judging the best HLS moon lander. At the end of the day, anything NASA wants them to land on the moon will be delivered via SLS and Orion. With SLS Block 1B and onwards, SLS WILL have the capability to Co-Manifest an additional payload with the addition of the payload attached fitting and the universal stage adapter. With some re-docking (Apollo CM/LM style), maybe Orion could deliver this larger payload to HLS Starship and maneuver it into the cargo area via the doors for the lift. However this would likely require the addition of a robotic arm to allow for birthing of the cargo, which I have not seen SpaceX talk about. Also this will often be used for Gateway modules etc., not necessarily payloads NASA wants to land on the moon. Everything else (Especially for Artemis 3&4 with SLS Block 1) needs to fit on Orion and through the docking adapter. Additional, unnecessary capabilities just mean added mass and cost. At the end of the day we need to judge these designs based on their ability to complete their assigned missions. For crewed HLS landers, I don't think the Blue Moon lander is ever going to be the limiting factor. That being said, for CLPS missions cargo capacity becomes much more significant and definitely opens up options. Still most payloads NASA wants to land on the moon will likely be light enough to land on spaceships much less beefy than Starship (Astrobotic peregrine lander can deliver just 265kg to the lunar surface).

[@zachb1706]

SLS will be dumped once New Glenn or Starship have been proven to be reliable

[@plainText384]

@@zachb1706 That's very unlikely.

[@zachb1706]

@@plainText384 the SLS is a joke. $24 billion in development, 6+ years behind schedule, cost to launch is $2 billion. It will be replaced after Artemis.

[@plainText384]

@zachb1706 Maybe, but Artemis and SLS will stick around for a long time (if congress doesn't cut funding). From a base on the moon to paving the way to Mars, the Artemis program has ambitious plans for at least another decade.

[@arieldario3849]

IMHO Dynetics had the more cheaper, safe, and fast proposal for 2025, with technology and concepts already proven, and even better: would only required 2 Vulcans, or 1 SLS launch, with the flexibility to adapt and be able to even docking with the Moonship...

[@albert_vds]

Exactly. The best thing about Dynetics' lander is that it doesn't require a lift or a 12 meter(I'm guessing this based on the size of the lander) long ladder. Sure it still has a ladder, well actually more like stairs which is much better.

[@Papershields001]

I’m still extremely skeptical of either vehicle getting onto the moon’s surface before 2030. The technological hurdles of involved in on orbit refueling are huge on their own.

[@ShadowZone]

Prepare for a myriad of "this is why we test" sound bites from both companies.

[@ToaArcan]

Yeah, I don't really think either of these are going to work. As excited as I am for the Artemis program, at its absolute best, it's using three launches to do what Apollo did with one per mission, and leaving two of those three launches in the hands of egomaniacal billionaires.

[@ShadowZone]

@@ToaArcan Artemis and Apollo have two very different underlying goals. Apollo: put boots on the moon faster than the Soviets. The Lunar Module was minimalistic, just enough to get 2 people back to orbit with a dry mass just a quarter of Blue Moon.. Artemis wants to lay the foundation for humanity to have a permanent base around and later on the moon and prepare for our journey to other planets. We need a much more robust infrastructure for that. More equipment means more mass, means more propellant means more launches to get all of that into space. While I am no fan of either Bezos or Musk (at least their public personas, I don't know either of them of course), there are passionate people working for both SpaceX as well as Blue Origin that believe in the stated mission ("make mankind a multiplanetary species" and "for the benefit of Earth" respectively). That gives me hope they will each produce something that will work in the end.

[@ToaArcan]

@@ShadowZone I think Bezos could produce something that works... for a lunar trip. Eventually. Mars needs something bigger and faster to even make the attempt worthwhile. The boring practical parts like food, water, oxygen, and the human body not being made to survive long periods of microgravity (Yes, people have been up in space for longer than the projected time for a round trip to Mars. They needed a _lot_ of physical therapy when they came back down, because their bones had been significantly weakened) kinda put a dampener on proposals using current or even proposed technology. That the closest one to being fit for the job is in the hands of a guy who A) Skipped out on a flame diverter because he didn't want to pay the Army Corps of Engineers, B) Left his water deluge system (itself a ridiculous design that will likely either not work or exacerbate the issues it's meant to solve) unbuilt, C) Launched anyway, possibly due to a fixation on weed, which then, D) excavated a pit, shattered the launch pad, hurled car-sized chunks of concrete into a nature preserve, and into fuel storage tanks that are only 80 metres away from the pad for some reason... Does not inspire confidence in the future success of these missions. And that's if the thing ever actually gets human rated, which is a sizeable "If." I'm sure there are visionaries at SpaceX. I doubt they get to make major calls.

[@leefoster4133]

Well, the problem with Space-X version is that the CG is too high and could cause the vehicle to tip over. Where as the Blue Moon version doesn't suffer from this problem. I agree that losing so many stages make it a one shot operations which is negative to Blue Moon design. Capacity would be on the space-x side but the have to forget about landing on the arse and instead land on the side so landing and CG isn't a problem.

[@bigdogben]

Please use waterfall.

[@ShadowZone]

Ah, I knew I forgot a mod when I had to set up my PC again a while ago. Thanks for the reminder.

[@bigdogben]

@@ShadowZone no problem, i didnt even see this comment.

[@Fummy007]

3:18 forgot to turn on "clamshell" fairing, would have been more realistic.

[@roganthoerson1909]

blue origin being shorter it is probably easier to land in ksp and less chance to tip over. You are telling 2 isn't enough but Europe doesn't even have a vehicle to just even go to low earth orbit and no one has anything yet to go to the moon. I would be happy to see a moon landing in my lifetime because only my dad has seen that happening.

[@thorin1045]

hydrogen landing stage is stupid beyond reason, until you have a moon base able to make water, even after it is a strange choice. the starship elevators are so stupid, that not sure how they able to sell it. is there any backup idea, or if it is broken, than everyone just dies?

[@froniccruxis1049]

Starship HLS wont be as cheap as space X is selling it for but it will be far cheaper than Blue Moon. The lift is honestly the hardest to justify but everything else makes it the best choice

[@carltheshivan]

If the elevator ever breaks with the crew on the surface I hope Spacex will include a long rope with knots tied into it that dangles out of the airlock that they can climb up or something.

[@keshanranasinghe]

I'm sure they'd come up with contingency plans for such eventualities.

[@1ndragunawan]

Blue Origin should adopt Starship upper landing engjnes arrangement, adding more space to the crew cabin and better safety.

[@JRIVERA1124]

SpaceX starship is the very best bigger and it can hold 250 ton, to carry to the moon and mars.....

[@undava7452]

New video!😊

[@stanleydavidson6543]

Blueorign cant get to orbit yet BE-4 is still being designed😅

[@mmeiselph7234]

What mod adds all the rocks?

[@mactherebellionleader5394]

parallax 2.0

[@mmeiselph7234]

Thx! @@mactherebellionleader5394

[@dr_birb]

I'll say the one that actually landed on moon with humans dozen times half a century ago.

[@Vindicator66]

Very interesting. As it stands, with their pros and cons, both systems are mediocre.

[@MrHichammohsen1]

2:42 i see nothing wrong here...

[@regolith1350]

It feels a bit absurd to give Blue Origin the advantage on propulsion. Blue has never put a single rocket or single gram of payload into low earth orbit, let alone anywhere near the Moon (even in May 2024, almost a year after you made this video). SpaceX has successfully developed and flown many engines: Kestrel, multiple generations of both Merlin and Raptor, Draco thrusters, SuperDraco abort motors, multiple generations of hall effect electric thrusters. And even though Starship HLS requires two separate engine types and we have no idea what the higher-up landing engine will look like, both Raptor versions (sea level & vacuum) already exist and have already flown in space. They've also landed well over 300 rockets. SpaceX probably knows more about propulsion, rocket engines, deep throttling, and definitely about propulsive landings than any organization on Earth. In my mind, that gives them the lead on propulsion over Blue Origin by a gigantic margin. Not even close.

[@scottbrooks723]

I'm no expect but I was reading that star ship would need multiple refuel ships to get out the moon ? might that factor into sustainability in the longer run ?

[@ShadowZone]

We don't know how many times Blue Moon needs to be filled up at gateway before being able to land on and return from the moon. They just say that they will refuel it, but not how often. Given that Starship is supposed to be fully reusable, the only cost will be fuel. And of course the added risk of multiple launches in short succession.

[@_mikolaj_]

​@@ShadowZone fuel isnt the only cost. Majority of spaceflight costs come from, well, paying workers, and operating vehicles. What reuse does is it provides potential for higher flight rate (at a cost of higher fixed costs), which if achieved, lowers fixed costs/launch, decreasing invidual flight cost. So sadly i dont think HLS cost will be just fuel, if that was the case entire mission would be comparable in cost to a Falcon 9 launch, especially given lander itself is expendable. While this number, as everything in spaceflight, isnt very informative, so far extension of spacex's HLS contract, for Artemis 4 landing was around a billion dollars, however its unclear how much of that goes to any development and how much is mission cost.

[@zachb1706]

All the landers required refuelling. It’s kinda needed if you want to send anything bigger than the lander they sent with Apollo

[@mactherebellionleader5394]

While I want what is best for NASA and the US taxpayer, I can't help but feel that Blue Origin is the better option. There are many reasons for this but I really feel the biggest ones are: that Blue Origin has more tested technology, Blue Origin actually has a more concrete crew design, and that frankly, Elon Musk and his companies are not to be trusted (look at military use of Starlink).

[@snakevenom4954]

NASA wants the companies to make something marketable so that this investment can fund the development of better ships and such. Blue Origin is doing none of that. They want to design a simple lunar lander and keep the profit. No one wins there. Yes we get to the moon, but nothing new is being made. The risk to human life was worthless. They both need to refuel in orbit. Which company do you want to depend on for refueling? Blue Origin? The company that hasn't even sent a pen into orbit? New Glenn hasn't even flown yet. Let alone landed because we know Blue Origin doesn't have many of those lying around and New Glenn needs to be reusable to be worth its investment.

[@snakevenom4954]

Also, Bezos is to be trusted? With all the corruption Amazon is intertwined with and Bezos purchasing a news outlet to better his image. Elon Musk isn't someone I would trust whole heartedly. But I trust Bezos even less

[@DJpiya1]

U forgot to mention a significant point. One company at least already has reached the orbit. The other is still dreaming to reach the orbit 😂😂😀

[@pricelessppp]

Blue moon can refuel via docked starship HLS in HALO orbit in long term.

[@_mikolaj_]

How? They are completly separate competing systems from different companies

[@Brixxter]

Long term, Blue Moon easily wins for me due to the possibility of ISRU.

[@ShadowZone]

I didn't bring that up because Starship will need ISRU if it will go on roundtrips to Mars. Also, until ISRU is really viable, I believe we will already see the next iterations of these landers. Easily.

[@Brixxter]

@@ShadowZone Well, I was more talking about ISRU on the moon specifically. Regardless of iterations, methane ISRU is not a thing on the moon, at least to my knowledge. There might be small amounts of carbon monoxide in the lunar ice but I don't think the quantity has been entirely determined.

[@ShadowZone]

@@Brixxter True, with just water ice we'll probably have no better option than LH2.

[@ibluap]

ALPACA was way more realistic approach!

[@davidstevenson9517]

Apollo astronauts riding the 15tn Lunar Module stood inside with the ascent engine between them and the descent engine beneath their feet. The heat, vibration and landing debris weren't a problem then; Blue Origin and the National Team will protect Blue Moons crew (without the help of A Genius).

[@antonbr8183]

last

[@nightlightabcd]

There is no comparison except for Blue Origins law suits! Once should say SpaceX a hundred times before saying Blue Origin! The only reason why Blue Origin is even mentions is due to politics. Of all the rocket companies, Blue Origin rates last and lives for law suits and politics!

[@mkxxv8932]

I can agree that SpaceX is much better than Blur Origin, it’s just true. But blue Origins lunar lander just looks more “lunar lander” and cooler then a giant tower

[@Toasty-du3fl]

the difference is one is actually built and the other is still on the drawing board

[@odysseyvoyager2354]

@@Toasty-du3fl Neither of the landers are built. Only mock-ups exist of Blue's toroidal hab and of Lunar Starship's elevator. As many previous aerospace projects have proven, the words "variant" & "derived" often actually mean significantly different or redesigned as will likely be the case for Lunar SS vs normal Starship due to the significant requirements of designing a functional HLS.

[@mightylink65]

I see you went back to KSP1 for your demonstration videos... if this isn't an indication about KSP2's failure I don't know what is.

[@ShadowZone]

KSP2 does not have anything resembling robotics. Doing the lift or the landing gear for both vehicles would not have worked out in KSP2.

[@mikekopack6441]

Not a failure, just far from done and complete... The parts available are more limited right now, no robotics parts yet (like he said). It's EARLY ACCESS after all! Give it a year and I think we'll see a much more complete and interesting game. Right now it's just a limited sandbox mode...

[@alegsb3943]

@@mikekopack6441fr people be writing the game off before it’s even fully released yet. Modern gamers it seems cannot be asked to wait for anything or think about a game’s situation before calling it a “failure”

[@NoxmilesDe]

Blue origin will never have a spaceship capable of going into orbit

[@davidstevenson9517]

Lunar Starships' purported 100tn lunar payload is disingenuous; this can only acheived at the expense of Lunar Starship remaining stranded in lunar orbit. To return to Earth for reloading and refueling, this can only be achieved at the expense of reduced cargo for more fuel; reduced down to possibly as low as 25 tn. SpaceX has always been disingenuous of the capabilities of Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy; NASA knows this. Look at the skeleton version of Lunar Starship in this light.

[@zachb1706]

Okay?

[@stekra3159]

Blue moon is the better disine it only ways 40 tones indesd of 1000 and starship needing 17 lauches

[@dmclegg66]

Yeah I think the raptor is not one you want to use boom 4mins.

[@ToaArcan]

I'm personally not enthused by either of these ideas. Blue Origin haven't even made an orbital flight yet, and Starship is currently grounded after Musky's repeated bending of the rules, determination to ignore every lesson NASA and their Soviet rivals learned in the 50s and 60s, and fixation on weed resulted in America dumping several billion dollars of scrap metal in Mexican waters. The odds of either of them being ready for Artemis 3's projected 2025 launch date? Not something I'd put money on, but that's just me. Hell, I'd be surprised if Starship is _ever_ human-rated. I personally can't wait to sit here in 2025 and watch Artemis 3 launch, watch its separately-launched lander or its separately-launched fuel truck explode in the upper atmosphere, and then Elon tweets a weed pun and mumbles something about it actually being a success because they got data from it.

[@nukl3argam3r38]

Why are you being so negative? Also, wdym Elon musk is grounded? Yes there are Legal fights between Environmentalists, The FAA and Starship, but I think its just going to delay the Approved Launch window. Also also, what are the Lessons NASA Learned in the 50s and 60s? Lastly, I think you misunderstood what the goal of Artemis is. Apollo Program: Put people on the moos before the Soviets do. Artemis: Lay the foundation to make Humans an Interplanitary Species, unlocking new Technologies and Energy Sources far greater than that we have today.

[@ToaArcan]

@@nukl3argam3r38 Starship was grounded at the beginning of the month, pending the FAA's investigation into the explosion. It will not be allowed to fly again until the FAA concludes that it doesn't pose a risk. It's also not just the environmentalists, concerned with the frequent damage to a protected space for critically endangered species, that are raising issue with SpaceX's operations in Texas. It's also the locals, who don't much appreciate having their windows broken, their houses covered in sand, and their roads closed with little warning every time SpaceX wants to do a launch. Lessons learned in the past that Elon is ignoring: 1) Build a fucking flame diverter. 2) Water deluge systems are equally important and don't work if you leave them in the flat pack (Also the design they proposed is just never going to actually work and would take huge amounts of pumps to achieve what NASA does with gravity). 3) Don't put your fuel storage tanks within 100 metres of the launch pad. Also, if you think we're getting to Mars in any of the current proposals, I've got a bridge to sell you. Starship is the biggest one on the market and it's just _too small_ to be a practical vehicle for a Mars trip, simply because any such vehicle would either need a massive amount of storage space for food, or a means of growing its own. They wouldn't be able to take animals, as animals do not live well in microgravity, and butchering them would be impossible. They'd also need a huge supply of oxygen, both for the actual flight, and for any landings on Mars. It's also just not safe for humans. The longest stay in space was 437 days. A round-trip to Mars would use up half of that just getting there and back. And human bodies aren't made for that much microgravity. Basically everyone that stays in space for longer than a few weeks ends up in physical therapy when they get back to Earth, and that's _with_ doing as much exercise as they can to try and keep themselves healthy. Just being up there makes your _bones weaker._

[@nukl3argam3r38]

@@ToaArcan 1. I must say Elon was kind of Stupid to Ignore a Flame diverter/ Water deluge System. 2. Wdym Elons water deluge System isn't going to work? Im not a rocket scientist, so can you Explain why? 3. It is true that Starship is too small to send a Crew to mars, but you missed s few Important points: 1) There Propably will be a Few Unmanned Missions to Mars first to Build a Base that Humans Can Survive in. 2) Who said you couldn't Send a Fleet of Starships to Mars all at once? One for Cargo, one for crew, one for ISRU, one for growing food, ect... 3) These Starships could be Tetherd together to Rotate and Produce Artificial Gravity, minimising those Microgravity Problems. 4. Also, I think you forgot the my Argument for the Artemis Missions.

[@ToaArcan]

@@nukl3argam3r38 The proposed Water Deluge System for Starship is a dodgy option for a few reasons. 1) Its inadequacy is visible from the video they put out of the test. Despite being visibly not at full power, the plasma jet from the engine overpowers the water and directly impacts the plate almost immediately. After the engine turns off, they cut the video feed very quickly, but the water spray has been visibly altered, now split in two, indicating that the system has likely been warped, or the central streams have been destroyed. 2) As the engine at lower power could damage the water jets or break the steel plate structure apart, 36 of them going at full blast could do a lot more damage. And as the proposed design for the pad has the plates affixed to the stand's legs... well, it could cause serious damage to the pad. 3) The setup used for the test allowed large amounts of the energy released to flow to the sides of the mounted plate, meaning it was taking less of the brunt. This wouldn't be possible for the real one. 4) Blasting extreme heat directly into that much standing water could cause a huge steam explosion. 5) The amount of water pressure needed to shift that much water upwards is comparable to water cutters, which is... generally not something you want pointed at the base of your rocket. 6) The plate might just end up reflecting the sound back at the rocket, increasing the amount of vibrations it has to endure. A lot of these are admittedly hypothetical, but they're problems that the WDS at KSC already solves with a very simple system. There are other issues too, and I'd recommend Common Sense Skeptic's video on the Starship Twitter Space for more details, as I might be misremembering stuff. Sending an entire flotilla of Starships just isn't practical, as the facilities to launch that many don't exist, and the ability to transfer supplies between all of them is... less than likely. As for the prospect of becoming a multi-planet species.... It's just not gonna happen. Mars is basically the only viable option, and its viability is overstated. It's less hospitable than Mt. Everest and the dry valleys of Antarctica. It's a dead world, literally, the core has cooled, with no accessible water, no nitrogen in the atmosphere (vital for plant growth), no protection from radiation, and planet-wide dust storms that are also radioactive. If you wanted to live on Mars, you'd be spending basically your entire life in a biosphere. And we tried to have humans living in such a structure. That was the Biosphere 2 project... and it didn't exactly go well. Biosphere 2 had an almost perfect environment, including animals that we just couldn't transport to Mars, and while we learned a lot, one of those things is that humans stuck in Biospheres for long periods of time tend to... go a bit nuts. Trying such a thing for real, on another world, with half the resources... isn't possible. If you try to go further out, good luck. Jupiter is much, much further away. A flyby of Jupiter (like the ones accomplished by the Pioneer and Voyager probes) takes about 550-650 days, which is much longer than the record for humans living in space. But that's a flyby, travelling at an absolutely massive speed. Actually getting into orbit around Jupiter takes even longer. You have to be going _slower_ in order to fall properly into its gravity well. Currently, the Juno probe is one of the only (if not _the_ only) craft orbiting Jupiter. It took Juno _1795 days_ to get there. Much of that time was spent bouncing around the inner solar system, building up velocity for the flight. And it's far longer than any human could manage. If you put a man in a can for that duration, he'd come out at the other end with rubber bones, atrophied muscles, kidney stones, and a shrunken heart, among other things. And Saturn? Saturn's right out. The fastest flyby of Saturn thus far was New Horizons, managing a breezy two years on its long journey to Pluto. But an orbital flight? Well, it took Cassini about six years and nine months, or 2451 days, to get there. The longest a human has ever been in space is 437 days. So what about going further in? Good luck. If Mars is dead, then Venus is about as close to Hell as you can get. The atmosphere is a choking cloud of CO2, with pressure great enough to crush anything in it. The sky rains acid constantly. The planet's crust is a solid sphere of rock that puts the mantle under constant pressure and results in massive volcanoes fucking everywhere. Venus will kill you before you even land on its surface.

[@nukl3argam3r38]

@@ToaArcan Ok, but who said that we Had to go to mars? IMO the moon Actually is a Better option for the Following Reasons: 1. Much closer, making trips to- and From the Moon much Quicker. 2. It doesn't have an Atmosphere, so bringing stuff to- and from the Surface is muxh easier. 3. Its much smaller, making Transport to and From the Surface even cheaper. 4. If we Crack Fusion, then the Helium3 on the Surface is a Good Energy Source, Battery AND a Valuable Resource that can be Exported to Earth. 5. It also has other Resources, including Water and Metals, and Assuming we can eventually do Lunar ISRU, we can Satart to Produce Fuel, Life Necessities and other things. 6. The Metals could also be Exported, either to the Surface of Earth or in LEO, where it would be Very Useful for Space Stations, Refeulling Stations and Orbitsl Habitats/O' Neil Cylinders. 7. Unlike on Mars, there is Nitrogen on the Moon. 8. Assuming we can Build a Self Sufficient and Profitable Moon Base, than that would make Colonization of the Solsr System SO MUCH EASIER!

[@reinsdyrmann4658]

Blue Moon is great for KSP but HLS may be best IRL

[@polishkerbal6920]

Everything gangsta till the lift gets stuck

[@maciejp2200]

None of them

[@Joshs4stro]

blue moon elon musk stans

[@gregorycoogle7621]

Your commentator seems to bias against Space X… 😂 Bluemoon is obvious inferior! And should be much more expensive! Getting in and out of blue moon is hazardous and dangerous! 😮

[@polishkerbal6920]

what even is this supposed to mean💀 this comment is the reason why gatekeeping exists

[@h.plovecraftn-4307]

all of it, starship and blue origin.