Lunar Descent Element Demo Mission

You definitelly mean a humanned one, dont you? :D

If it doesnt i will personally spank blue for making a lander in the 2020's without them..

@@tod4y “Crewed” seems to be the term used nowadays

Maybe a Starship crew can film it.

@Alpha Centauri I agree, but there’s been a push for more gender neutral language in the last couple of years, it just seems like the way the wind’s blowing now. I personally don’t mind, manned and crewed isn’t a huge switch, but it’s tough to kill old habits, I still use them interchangeably here and there.

Spacex: *laughs in starship*

@@renew1572 Is that before or after they crash in a big fireball?

@@Nowhereman10 both

@@Nowhereman10 Starship: Conducts multiple test flights, uniformed conclude that the vehicle is a terrible idea, meanwhile SpaceX already has a new vehicle on the pad, and is producing new test articles at a surprising rate, all of which we can be seen being built
New Glenn: It's coming soon!
🦗🦗🦗🦗🦗🦗🦗🦗🦗

@@Nowhereman10 You mean in a controlled test flight where a landing failure is expected because its an entirely new maneuver that's never been done before by anyone (Flip n' Burn)? The company that actually learned how to land orbital-class 50 x 9-meter boosters that can carry New Shepherd to orbit on its second stage?
Falcon 9 took 5+ landing attempts before they finally got it going. Now, landings occur with every flight these days. Falcon 9 has only been operational for 5 years and has 100+ flights.
Starship will fail to a point of engineering redundancy, because unlike Blue Origin and others - SpaceX doesn't rely on computer simulations to tell them how to improve their engineering.
Blue Origin will do something one day and will likely do it well, but they are a "tell, don't show" company. SpaceX is a "show, don't tell".

I think 95% of Blue Origin's budget goes to animation designers...

Jeff Who? But in all seriousness, I'm excited about NS-16. Possibly BO first New Shepard human flight.

@@SpaceNewsPod To see that we have to hope that Tail No. 4's second flight goes well in a few weeks. The word has it that NS-15 will be a big rehearsal for NS-16 that will include crew at the pad and passengers getting in and out of the vehicle before it launches.

From fresh news Bezos has left CEO chair of Amazon. Seems like he is focused on Blue origin.

I get that feeling as I want to see NG fly, but as I understand it the HLS elements can be launched on other commercial rockets.

I think Dynetics is the best option - it is mostly reusable like Starship, but not overkill. It has just enough. It also doesn't have an incredibly deadly looking ladder. Imagine falling off National Team's lander.
Starship isn't ideal either with it's massive height, but at least the astronauts don't have to climb up it. I bet it would get incredibly tiring to climb a tall ladder after an EVA.

@Aerokenises master Starship is very capable, but I think _too_ capable for early lunar missions. On Mars, the size makes sense - missions need to be much longer, and therefore need more cargo.
Lunar missions however can be as short as a few weeks. Early missions also will only take a few astronauts to the surface.
Then you have the issue of Starship's size sending regolith everywhere. Maybe the lunar variant can fix this issue, but it just seems like Starship will be great for the Moon _eventually_ rather than right now.

@Aerokenises master No, I haven't.

@@WasatchWind if a half empty Starship can allow you to do the same mission as a fully loaded smaller vehicle at half the cost of that smaller vehicle, that's the one you want. The lunar Starship's landing thrusters are high up the vehicle. We'll see if that solves the debris problem. They sure seem to like putting them near flying debris already.

@Proxima CentauriThe national team's cost estimate was twice as high as Dynetics, which was higher than SpaceX. Considering it's a fixed price contract, SpaceX can't increase the price until after the contracted missions.
Wasn't the 5 refueling ships for Mars, with less for the moon? Especially as the Starship will land mostly empty due to being ridiculously oversized for Lunar missions, and doesn't need to do a TLI burn itself on the second mission. But true, not a point that should be forgotten.
The biggest part of the cost of a rocket is not raw materials, but the wages of the people assembling the components, and the high end components themselves, and the high end components of the components. But there is maintenance indeed, and I don't see a lot of Starship maintenance happening off earth.
If Starship costs more than F9 per launch, it's a failure. It's waaaaay too big to use the full payload capacity on a regular basis. The only way it lives up to its promise is if it replaces F9 entirely. The way they hope to do this is by cutting out complex systems like helium pressurization (COPV's are not popular at SpaceX, having blown up two of their payloads), using a material that's far cheaper to work with, using commercially available cranes etc for launch pad operations (slashing launch costs relative to custom built systems), no strongbacks, etc etc. 40-50 million, comparable to F9R price today, is probably doable. They already cut 20% of their expendable price, which was already the cheapest option. If Gwynne Shotwell says it can be done, I tend to believe her. I hear no off the cuff 2 million per launch, 500k for a ticket to Mars brainfarts from her 😁

lol

KSP 2 moment

... well, we had a small step and a giant leap, now it's time for 'one giant fall for mankind'

@@silentepsilon888 The first douche to land on the moon: One giant backflip for mankind

and to see Starship crew descend onto the surface using elevators. :)

I thought he looked familiar.
Good luck Blue Origin.

Good luck!

P.S. what is the rumoured 'Starship Killer' project

@@devindykstra we know that they’re working on a New Armstrong vehicle, and that’s about it

They are awfully quiet about almost everything. This makes their PR lose to SpaceX as they can't build any sort of fan base.

@@devindykstra Whatever it is, it's apparently worked-twice! ;-]

@@devindykstra Only rumored by idiots, so pay no attention.

Lmaoo

lol

"We're gettin' some wicked shimmies"

Do people think reaching orbital is a requirement to get a nasa contract or something. There seems to be the pattern
Or is it just “I don’t like them so they shouldn’t get it”

@@dummyjoe7895 I don't care if they get a contract or not. They're a company that's been around for 2 decades and still haven't sent a single fuckin thing into (real, orbital) space yet. They're practically a grift at this point.

@@Muonium1 umm maybe because they were never focused on orbital launch from the beginning. Blue Origin was focused for tourism with what its doing now doing that, they announced new Glenn in 2016, 4-5 years its been and they are Expected to launch new Glenn this new or next year. Plus they didn’t need contracts to stay alive like SpaceX does.

DummyJoe ahh yes, they don’t need contracts, but they do need the worlds richest man pumping money into it every year to poach SpaceX employees because otherwise no high level or even aspiring engineer would want to work for Blue Origin instead of SpaceX

@@TheOsamaBinLiner actually a lot of people leave SpaceX after 5-10 years because the work load is just so high, many of SpaceX employees go to Blue Origin or other companies because it’s a better work situation/ environment then SpaceX.

Yes, because the moon needs a cellular tower.

No no they need to orbit first

in a factory, just hidden from us cuz jeff wont show us until its like a few days from launch 😡

Tbh, mars is not happening anytime soon. Be enthusiastic about occupying the Moon 🌝 instead. It is another planet (at least a smaller one)
We CANNOT skip steps. Space is UNFORGIVING and RELENTLESS. We struggle even to live on Earth atm. What makes you so sure we could handle a radiated, unbreathable, desert world with EXTREME cold, terrible dust, NO plants/food, lack of gravity, and a plethora of other undiscovered, but bad things?
Practice makes perfect 👌. The Moon is the first step and future generations will walk on Mars

@@apexpredator1018 Well, its not skipping a step its adding one we are lucky to have if we choose to use it. Also i would call the moon another world but not a planet. Planetary body yes, but thats basically anything big enough to walk on. But schemantics lol however thats spelled, auto doesnt know either. But lets be clear, we dont have a clear definition to what is what beyond a star being a sun or not.. So say whatever you like i suppose.

C'mon this is not playstation vs Xbox, even Elon has admitted a competition environment will push the race forward, I for one am enthusiastic about both

Actually, ILV is more ahead than Moonship. They've already submitted their option A, have a whole mockup and a pathfinder for the DE element. Cygnus and Orion heritage are on this vehicle, and I remind you Cygnus has flown for years. They've got the BE-7 figured out and have made a range of tests.

@@apexpredator1018 a moon is not a planet - not even a smaller one

Soon after they do one then they will put it up. Prob Q4.

Orbital.. Sheppard is cool but i dont really care to see anymore of those, let them be their 10 minute joy ride, but get onto the real stuff please!

soon enough, within a year or so.

@@clancy5600 new Glen?

*New Glenn or Vulcan

As others have said, that's unlikely - especially when you consider it wouldn't even fit in a SpaceX fairing.

lol indeed, both New Glenn and SLS will be awesome, but so many variables and differences in how thing can or should be done that there is huge differences in what we see during the process. Some shoot for the moon, but yeah, one shoots for yes...

me too, I am guessing I'll be watching this on my screen in my SpaceX condo on Mars when they get their first lander on the moon

@@arnavg7401 you actually subscribed to hate 🤨

@@arnavg7401 it doesn't have to be one or the other. It can be both.

@@ScienceBreather you are the man

@@thierry4188 damm right

@@arnavg7401 Better is no reason to not believe in another.. Thats just being a tribalist ass hole.

I realistically don't think Blue Origin will catch up for a good while, but seeing that my cousin works there, I'd love to see more action going on in the industry.

@@WasatchWind It's a feather, so it's gonna be slow. But not as slow as NASA

Blue Origin have been, and are being, and until Blue Origin go out of business (which won’t take long); will forever continue to be COMPLETELY CRUSHED BY SPACEX because SPACEX ARE A SERIOUS COMPANY WHEREAS BLUE ORIGIN ARE A FUCKING JOKE.

If you need proof proof then watch Marcus House.

I especially love the giant tall ladder. I bet the astronauts will love climbing that after an EVA several hours long.

@@WasatchWind Yes sir it is quite a climb but its weightless so maybe not too bad

@@oldgeezer3269 Well like I mentioned, think about climbing this after hours sweating in a big suit, then needing to climb this gigantic ladder after.
It may seem like it wouldn't be that bad a fall with the lower gravity, and I bet it would be easier to recover if you fell - but a fall, even if not hard enough to cause injury, could result in puncturing your suit. Remember that the ground is gonna be covered in sharp rocks.

@@WasatchWind Yes i agree with what you are saying sir, i just checked out an astronaut weight with suit and equipment 500 lbs but on the moon he weighs 80lbs Did you see the feather and hammer test by an astronaut here is link its amazing krplus.net/bidio/e6ioY6Sbh6q-qGk

@@oldgeezer3269 Harrison Schmidt's test was actually what I had in mind in this situation - and that experiment also demonstrates the lack of air resistance on the Moon, another thing that wouldn't be in your favor in a fall.
Falling from a great height on the Moon or Mars would be pretty bad, because there's not as much, or no atmosphere to slow you down, so accelerate more quickly.

That would be an awesome outcome. Dynetics' lander looks amazing, and I'd hate to lose it. This one might be the safe bet, coming in part from 'old space'. Hopefully SpaceX doesn't need more help funding their rocket.

@@PassifloraCerulea SpaceX got some funding when they threw in their bid. It sounds like it isn't essential to them, but just a way to get some extra cash. At very least, they knocked Boeing out of the running.

I've heard that the prohibitively high cost of the National Team my prevent NASA from selecting two providers - it's either SpaceX and Dynetics, or Blue Origin.
Their lander better not win. It's expensive, inefficient, and dangerous (think about climbing that ladder after a strenuous EVA.)
Alpaca and Starship on the other hand could work quite well together. Alpaca could be the lander, and Starship could deliver it, and refuel it, as they both run on methane.
It's perfect, and I'll be pissed off if stupid politics ruins it.

Context:
National team ladder height: 10-15m
Dynetics ALPACA crew cabin: 1-2m above ground
Starship elevator height: 30-40m above ground

@@OzearEimaj But Starship’s is a elevator not a ladder

@@HeidenLam Indeed, you'll see that I even listed it as "Starship elevator" in my reply.
An elevator has moving parts and is therefore more prone to mechanical failures. Ladders have no moving parts, but an injured astronaut may not be able to climb one, so an elevator is advantageous in this regard. It's a trade off; assuming no astronaut injuries occur, then a ladder is lower risk.
Either way, the Dynetics ALPACA wins out in this regard as it is feasible for an injured astronaut to embark the vessel, whereas the Starship requires a functional elevator; not a guarantee given the aforementioned moving parts.

@@OzearEimaj indeed, the context agrees this is a freaking long ladder lol, remember when they left a rung off the bottom of apollos ladder to save weight? lol

@@Vatsyayana87 Are you absolutely certain that was for weight-saving reasons, or because the shock absorption systems (crush zones) would have caused any additional rungs to collide with the landing leg feet in the event of a heavy landing?

An apt comparison, as this will by far be the most expensive lander. Unlike Jurassic Park though, there are way better, cheaper, safer options.

Not Vs, leading and encouraging.

I'm sure it will get into orbit* next year.🙃
*(Launch by Starship)

SpaceX：Wanna hear a joke？
Blue Origin：Sure！
SpaceX：Orbit
Blue Origin：I didn't get it
SpaceX：Exactly

We had BE-7s 52 years ago?

@@OzearEimaj (yawn)

@@LuciFeric137 (does that mean "no"?)

How come? This lander is 2/3 reusable from the start and they are planning on making the DE reusable as well. It's the best option to get to the moon ASAP

@@OzearEimaj In 52 years we went from the Wright Brothers to the X-15 and Gagarin. What happened?

New Glenn

Blue Origin are the best CGI animation company! For actual rockets you better look at SpaceX

Ah yes a fanboy who didn't watch the video

You cant say that man, they are also doing something I think

It's on the moon, maximum speed you can achieve while falling down is like, 5.6 m/s. They are also likely to have safety belt just like on apollo

It's actually able to land about 15tn of payload. In a recent Lockheed webinar this was confirmed. This landing demo is most certainly without the Transfer Stage.

It's a metric ton beyond the weight of the ship and other materials. That's actually quite a bit all things considered.

I did the maths on a lunar Starship:
- To get to LLO in the first place, you first need to fully fuel a starship in LEO.
- This requires up to 12 refuelling flights.
- After getting to LLO, the SS now has 401t of propellant and payload (combined), this can either:
[1] Land on the Moon with 27.1t of payload and ascend with 27.1t payload (the contents of the payload could change once on the surface, but must be equal mass)
[2] Land on the Moon with 74t of payload and ascend with no payload.
[3] Land on the Moon with no payload and ascend with 43t.
[4] Land on the Moon with 147t of payload, using up all of your propellant and stay on the Moon.
These numbers are very encouraging, but the issues start to arise when you consider how Starship will be refuelled once in LLO. Even if you substitute the payloads in [1] and [3] with liquid oxygen produced on the lunar surface and the corresponding methane is imported from Earth, this does not even provide enough propellant to land on the Moon again with NO payload! This means the Starship will have to rely on imports of both methane and oxygen from LEO, which means up to 12 more tanker flights for every refuelling trip to LLO. I'm assuming a methalox depot will be placed in LLO to facilitate lunar starships and every 12 refuelling launches from Earth can supply 244t to LLO and return to Earth from LLO (~5,200m/s dV round trip).
So while the Starship does have the advantage in terms of sheer brute force and has larger payload capacities, first we'll need a whole fleet of starships to support the 13 launches (1+12 tankers) for every trip/refuel to the Moon! EDIT: as a crude estimate, this reflects a payload to LLO of ~18t per starship launch which is comparable to a Falcon Heavy payload to TLI, albeit you do have the larger payload space to work with!
One thing which the Lunar starship clearly excels at is the ability to provide a large near-permanent living space in the case of [4] with plenty of supplies and/or ISRU hardware; this avoids the unnecessary chain of refuelling flights to support future lunar ascents. The BO proposal is modest in comparison and can achieve what it sets out in fewer launches of more "safe" LVs such as the New Glenn.

@@OzearEimaj In terms of efficient use of propellant, sure, a smaller lander is more efficient in this regard. However, it’s not yet clear what system will win in terms of economic efficiency. Refueling a Lunar Starship might well end up being significantly cheaper than refueling a National Team HLS (and replacing expended elements). Its certainly suggestive that the overall bid for HLS development (and initial mission operations) for SpaceX looked to be about four times cheaper than the bid from the National Team. It’s wildly speculative and seemingly unjustified to call New Glen a “safer” LV when it hasn’t flown yet. And, although the SpaceX architecture will require more launches, the mission architecture would likely allow a mission to succeed even if a particular launch of a Starship tanker were to fail, which seems less likely to be the case for other HLS architectures. The Starship approach may actually be a more resilient mission architecture in some ways. I hope NASA gets great progress reports from all three HLS contenders, and I look forward to seeing what happens.

@@zzubra The reason I referred to NG as "safer" is because although it is indeed unproven, it relies on reusability techniques demonstrated by the Falcon 9; once you look a bit deep, yeah it's completely unique from the propellant mixtures on both stages to the fairing diameter. I look forward to it too!

@@OzearEimaj finally a comment worth of my response.
For my calculations i assume Δν from earth surface to LEO is 9.4km/sec.
Δν from LEO to Lunar surface of 6 km/sec and LEO to LLO ABOUT 4.3Km/sec
So,either my numbers are wrong or yours are.
I got my delta-V maps from projectrho/mission tables (google it).
Assuming a Vex for raptor vacuum engines at 3600m/sec.
You are right about the refueling.
And actually the lunar missions require more fuel than Mars,since all the delta-v must be propulsive.
Starship with full payload has a delta-v of 6.4
So after 10-12 refuels (depending on the capability,assuming 120t to orbit max) a starship can land on moon with 268 tonnes of TOTAL mass.
Assuming again 120 tonnes ship dry mass,you'll have about 100 tons of payload and 48 tons of liquid methane left.
The fuel mixture for the raptors is 3.5:1.
Meaning in order to burn these 48 tons of methane i need 168 tons of oxygen.
So 216 tons of propelant alltogether.
Assuming the astronauts and their personal payload are at 30 tons,that will give us a delta-V of 3.2km/sec .
It takes 2.88 km/sec to enter Earth Transfer Orbit from lunar surface. So if i refuel with oxygen on the Moon,i will have more than enough fuel to get back to the earth (always assuming aerobreaking).
Now without refuelling at the moon your numbers are kind of correct.
But don't think that oxygen production at the moon is going to be that challenging.
In any case,right or wrong, you sir did your homework before replying,so i salute you !

Do people think reaching orbital is a requirement to get a nasa contract or something. There seems to be the pattern
Or is it just “I don’t like them so they shouldn’t get it”

@@dummyjoe7895 The pattern is people with eyes who can understand that 2 decades and $20 billion is a lot for doing nothing.

It's bigger because it uses hydrogen as fuel; it has a density of 70kg/m3 (7% of water). This means for the same propellant mass as a more dense propellant mixture like aerozine50/NTO (used on the Apollo LEM), you'll get bigger tanks.

@@OzearEimaj ill give you that but the ladder is still dangerously tall for being landed on a body without hospitals.

@@damitcam If we're going to assume astronauts are so clumsy that a ladder poses a problem for them, then they surely wouldn't have passed basic training?

@@OzearEimaj im not assuming they are clumsy im saying worst case thats a huge problem

@@damitcam Alright let's apply the same worst case scenario to all of the proposals:
Blue origin: 15m fall
Dynetics: 1m fall
SpaceX: 40m fall
Now do you see why I pick up on this point? In a worst case scenario, it doesn't matter whether the vehicle uses a ladder or elevator; the astronaut is going to fall.

I'm a huge fan of Starship. But let's be honest, Starship is far from finished. The SN8, SN9, SN10 (soon) tests are very early tests. BUT, Booster Number 1 may fly in a few months and Starship could get to orbit by the end of this year. SUPER EXCITING!

@@SpaceNewsPod agreed, starship is a very ambitious and awesome vehicle, even with a million people working on it it would still take much time to figure out and develope.

With current Blue Origin speed - 10-20 years? : P

2023 for the demo test, 2024 for the Artemis III landing. If Congress decides to fund HLS properly

@@clancy5600 it hasn't sadly

@@dBager *5 years

@@clancy5600 Really? asking government for funding, why not just look for private investors like spacex, or do rocket contracts

who?

No, dynetics >>>>>

@@alexandrexholtal696 I sure hope Dynetics wins. National Team's lander is extremely inefficient compared to Alpaca, and has a ladder that's dangerously tall.
Imagine ending a strenuous EVA, and having to climb that thing. Then imagine falling off it. There is real risk to these astronauts. Starship is a little better with its lift, but the height is still concerning.
Alpaca on the other hand is a small walk up some steps. It was designed with this in mind. The National Team lander however just feels like it was mashed together for pleasing congressmen.

The power of lobbying: You can have the worst lander, but still be selected.

Try taking a horse across a barren desert, then suddenly those "stupid" committee choices make a lot more sense.

@@TheOwenMajor Well, the "camel" can't compare with the others in the pack, especially ALPACA. The National Team lander expends most of the craft, has a dangerously tall ladder, and will end up being the most expensive.
Meanwhile, ALPACA is safer, almost completely reusable, and much cheaper. Starship is a decent option, but a bit overkill for early missions.
Despite that, I think either option is better for a sustained presence on the Moon, and for safety.

@@TheOwenMajor just because that camel can do something, doesn’t mean the committee was smart, it means they were, at best, lucky idiots!
Besides this is just an analogy for the complete design failure of this craft. No astronaut would want to climb up and down a 30 foot ladder on the moon when better (competing) designs don’t have this risk.

​@@richb2229 You keep making this comment about "Wow such a dangerous ladder"... you guys know the moon has less gravity right?
I did the calculation, if they fell from 30 feet on the moon, it would be equivalent to falling from 4.5 feet on earth.
So off your uber dangerous ladder is like falling over.

Yes, the National Team keeps trying to spin the cell tower ladder as a positive, but it's pure bullshit. Ever noticed how long it took the Apollo astronauts to climb and descend a ladder one third of its length?

Those are antistatic so you don't fry your expensive elctronics

Other person is right, they keep you grounded so you cant build up electricity that could be transferred to sensitive goodies.