Blue Origin-Led HLS National Team Mockup

well i mean returning is better then nothing. But i get your point

@@milchael Yeah, you're right -- I just feel like the branding in this video is a bit dishonest

@@Fanunic I thinks its the fact that this lander(descent element+transfer element) could land over 14 mT on the surface. That is enough for a habitat the size of ISS Destiny module.

@@Matthew35333 well im tjat 14 ton there is need for a return engine. So not.much usefull space look at the capsule it 1 by 2 meters

by leaving a lot of trash and parts of the lander behind we create a 'permanent' "pressence"

I too want to say I'm on #teamspace - but that said, I want Dynetics to win, possibly with starship taking it to the Moon. The national team's lander looks dangerous. A ladder that tall is a horrible idea.

I would like to be supportive of #teamspace, but Blue Origin’s recent conduct in how they’re handling the HLS situation is so petty and underhanded. Yes competition is good, but I believe that it should be a mechanism to make the rivals push themselves to perform better, not put each other down. Blue Origin have missed the point and are in fact hindering the Artemis project, not helping it! And that goes to show that they’re NOT driven by their so called “vision” of millions of people living and working in space. It’s all about corporate greed. I’m so disappointed in them and their recent behaviour. So so disappointed.

Go brrrr

SpaceX: “hur hur Starship go who00osh!!!

Pokenaut7 SpaceX: Moon Starship go rocket soundss

Not every problem is a nail just because you happen to have a hammer.

Remember: Starship doesn't exist yet :)

Have you read about the National Team's more long-term plans? This video just details the initial configuration of HLS.
Also, "to stay" doesn't mean "permanent presence." NASA themselves have been clear on that. Yeah, many of us want there to be a straight-up permanent presence moon-base. And hopefully that will happen. But just because the first steps aren't the final steps doesn't mean they'll never materialize.
It strikes me as way too early to be pooping on any of the 3 systems.

@@OptimusNiaa You are right. The video could have been more inspiring though. I spent years in a cubicle - the video reminded me of committee approved corporate videos. Maybe this is Bridenstine's job to sell America on a inspirational moon base that we can all look forward to. I still say the video lacked context. It left me with the feeling of: "we already did that, what's the point?".

@@marvinegreen Agreed that the video could be more inspiring. But that might not be the point of this one, considering the other video they posted the same day ("Blue Origin-Led HLS National Team's Mission to the Moon") seems to lean more in that direction. But even that video doesn't talk mid-term and long-term.

@@OptimusNiaa I just sent my congressman, (majority leader, Hoyer): "Strong support for NASA and Bridentsine's survival through President Harris' 2nd term." Now THAT is inspirational!

@@marvinegreen Regardless of who wins the elections in November, I hope the Executive and Legislative branches continue to give NASA strong support, both in terms of funding and priorities, and I would love for Bridenstine to be kept as Administrator.

@@On_2_The_Future. I follow your channel and wasn't expecting that from you, saying: "Starship is far too radical for NASA's taste. "
In a past video, you have rightly said Bridenstine is playing chess, so needs the National Team as a carrot to get Artemis accepted by Congress. Also, were Starship too radical for NASA's taste, Starship would not have been chosen for both CLPS and HLS.
BTW I have a doubt. You really should have an authenticated account. Edit; Oh, I just realized! It suffices to click the username to see if it really links to the channel, and it does.

Dyanetics lander is much better

Doubt it ever flies.

@@RogerWilco1 I wouldn't - 3 contractors are sure to have problems.

dcb1138 link please

The race is getting exciting

Its NOTHING compared to what Elon is doing. Actually they are too slow.

@Barry Soetoro - Agree 100%.... 3 parts ?? 3 Contracts ?? give me a break

Straship fits the job

You are, but not saying, the SpaceX Starship which is HUGE in comparison and will put tons of cargo on the moon toward a permanent moon site.

P.S. And the Starship leaves no junk and can remove any unneeded items on its return to earth!

@@donmiller1245 I agree that Starship is a better option but I'm commenting on THIS video, not a video on Starship.

Don't worry, this is the only HLS proposal that uses Hydrolox, and thus the only design whose fuel can (relatively) easily be produced on the moon. It _is designed_ to be able to eventually be refuelled and then re-used, leaving no waste behind!

No ironically the Blue Origin Element is not reusable although they pioneert reusability with new shepherd and the lockheed-martin element is the only reusable one. The Dynetics and Spacex lander proposals at least look way better tho.

Also, assuming it becomes a successful project for a while, there's no reason it can't be upgraded or succeeded by a more re-usable version.

I think if you have fuel production on the moon you ideally won't need the decent element any longer. You can probably get enough extra delta-V just by removing the unneeded engine and pumping the fuel from the crew module into the lander.

@@Musematt11 after they first spend a few billion

I would imagine one thing you could do would be to unscrew all the various bits and use that handy material to build something else on the surface. Now that they've spent all that money to get it to Moon, might as well put it to work, right?

MK I mean, his lander is probably the least promising of the 3 currently.

@(S)-Riley Dunn 4 companies known for not delivering anywhere close to schedule or on budget..... I would agree with Barry

SLS doesnt have the payload capacity that Saturn V had.

It can deliver more people and more cargo to the lunar surface than the LEM, go to more parts of the moon, parts of the architecture can be reused, and by depending on multiple commercial rockets we can avoid having to end a lunar program because a big rocket is too expensive.

@@stoffers6419 SLS sounds worse with every thing I hear about it....

@@kazsmaz Well to be fair SLS is significantly cheaper. People like to point out how expensive SLS is but Saturn V was much more to develope from scratch when SLS is Shuttle derived.

@@stoffers6419 That's why people complain. SLS is shuttle derived and yet it's over-budget and years late in the game.

I doubt Lunar Starship will be ready in that timeframe -- but I reckon NASA will keep providing _some_ funding, because Lunar Starship's capabilities are pretty irresistible, and NASA will want to remain embedded to some degree in the project.

@@cacogenicist Even so Starship is a New Glenn killer BO new rocket won't last much 3-4 years in best case scenario? They need a bigger fully reusable better rocket. Bezzos is the richest man in the world I think he can take this competition more seriously

@@cacogenicist In fact the lunar starship is only a lander. It will not carry crew at launch. Pretty sure that human rating a lander is way easier than a rocket.

@@fjandro9646 - Yeah, I don't see what New Glenn's niche is in a world featuring a fleet of operational, fully reusable Starships. More capable in every way, and way cheaper ...
I would think BO would want to get cracking on a fully reusable New Armstrong as soon as possible. ... although they aren't, you know, particularly known for being speedy.

@@johntheux9238 I would think so, but base Starship systems need to be developed, and Super Heavy has to be ready, and orbital refueling has to be hammered out, etc. It's a lot to do.
But boy, being able to land _that_ much mass is crazy. Highly desirable, to put it mildly. Too much to resist.
But if I had to guess, I'm gonna say that the initial mission will be won by Dynetics. Very cool concept. Seems doable. And they don't have to build an insanely huge booster from scratch.

Not quite. The TE can deorbit the HLS which saves more fuel for the lander, allowing more cargo on either a crewed or uncrewed landing.

@@Nowhereman10 Which would imply that afterwards, the TE has to flip 180 quickly and thrust back into an orbit to avoid impacting the lunar surface?

@@brianhabing5076 which, if you recall, was often what the Apollo CSM would do for the LEM, especially for the early missions.

They don't even know what the hell they're talking about. Just a load of horse shit coming from their mouths.. As long as a "women" is on board is all they care about.

dcb1138 Just go away, would you.

Well, new Shepard is an hydrogen rocket that can land. It's pretty close in term of weight and moment of inertia.
But it never landed on the moon ^^

Blue origin does not know hoe to land on the moon but all of its launchs at the moment are suborbital propulsive landings ehich is the same regime as the lunar landings will be in. So it shoudl be easy enough.

Yes, three years of playing Kerbal...

@@isbjorneliassen What BO is doing isn't Kerbal. It's research and development. They may not make themselves as visible as SpaceX (both via promotion and current missions), but it is unwarranted to assume that because you aren't seeing something it isn't happening. And remember, up until this year BO didn't have any sort of NASA contract for Blue Moon. Given the competitive element of the spaceflight industry, it would make sense for them to now show off.
I'm looking forward to seeing what they can do.

Now is the time to fund Artemis more then ever, the Government needs to be keeping Jobs, not losing them. This is the Transcontinental Railroad of our time! And just the same they built that in the middle of a Civil War! Fund NASA, Fund Artemis, Fund the Future!

You got em.

This lander looks stupid...hope they don't fall down the 40 foot ladder.

dcb1138 why bother even going to these blue orgain videos if your just going to hate on them

@@re2pecthebest130 I didn't come here to "Hate" on anything. I came here to see what their concept was...then I realized how stupid it is. 3 contractors ?? Really....that's not going to work. an ascent stage 40 - 50 feet off the surface....that's not going to work. Have we not learned anything from APollo ? They had 2 contractors working on the spacesuit and it was a nightmare... But 3 are going to make a lander. Good luck.But they have to throw in the mandate that the "first women land on the moon"...Give me a break. Who cares really.

dcb1138 Jesus... didn’t you even listen to this? They’re going to the South Pole of the Moon, which Apollo could not, because there they can harvest ice and use it to sustain life. That’s the whole point. Government/NASA haters and SpaceX fluffers are never going to understand that doing this all in one hit and basing all your faith on one rocket - Starship - is a very high risk strategy. That strategy has worked for SpaceX so far but deep space is a completely different business to building things for Earth orbit.

@@thethirdman225 - The Dynetics lander is much better

Um, they're actually working on their stuff as we speak?

I will support Blue Origin once they prove that they are more than just a funding black hole by producing something of substance.

Those are not flightworthy Starship's. How could you think that? Have you seen what Starship is supposed to look like and compared it with Starhopper?

@@OptimusNiaa Err, they have already FLOWN one. I would qualify that as "flightworthy". Not very high but it got off the ground. the only way this mock up gets into the air is if they throw it out of an airplane.

@@johnpombrio The SN5 test did appear successful, and was pretty cool. But while it is the same size as the real deal, it has fewer engines, no life support systems, etc. Those differences are significant enough that one would be hard pressed to consider the flight of SN5 to be a flight of Starship. It's a prototype, and a promising test flight. And the National Team doesn't have a comparable test flight of elements of their system. So, unnecessary snarkiness notwithstanding, you're right that as far as we know the Nat'l Team's system can't currently get into the air. SpaceX's rapid iteration and testing workflow seems to be on display.
Of course, even though SN5 was able to get into the air, Starship can't get to the Moon by itself, as it will need Super Heavy. That doesn't exist yet. Nor does ULA's Vulcan or Blue Origin's New Glenn, which the Nat'l Team's HLS requires. Dynetics' system also requires Vulcan. (The National Team and Dynetics could also use SLS, which is further along, currently undergoing green run testing. But the availability of an SLS for the launch of the Artemis III HLS doesn't look likely from what I've read. And none of the 3 proposals launch astronauts themselves, but instead depend on an Orion capsule launched on an SLS. So, as planned, they're all equal in that respect.)
Again, it just strikes me as way too early to be crapping on any of the 3 systems.

Bang my head into a wall. I love SpaceX, and am so impressed with what they've done. But some of their fans, the ones who are Specifically-SpaceX fans and not spaceflight fans, do grate on my nerves. Between the needless adversarialness and tribalism, to the often misinformed over-simplified understanding some of them seem to have, it's just discouraging.

@@OptimusNiaa I try not to be one of those. In the case of the HLS's, I actually think Dynetics should win. Starship is kind of overkill for missions landing only a few people on the Moon.
National Team though, really needs to realize that climbing up a ladder that tall on the Moon is a terrible idea.

Wouldn't it be hilarious if Elon built them a landing pad for their little lander.

...and they miss it

It won't be Elon, it will be paying customers, going there for a weekend.

*Jeff has sent a strike team to your house and they will be arriving shortly*

i don’t think elon will be, it think these guys will be first, but starship will be the best

It's a bit smaller than blue moon in this render:
i.redd.it/ix5zkoh0ulx21.png

Amazingly stupid...You climb down that 50 foot ladder. Then tell me how amazing it it

@@dcb1138 did you not see "looks" part?

Old training mockup from the shuttle days

The contract they lost to ULA and SpaceX is unrelated.

@@cacogenicist not talking about the contract. Space X is leading in every possible way. The only thing BO has is limitless money

Never

go space team

They also won a contract. Its not a race bro, its bigger than that

There ain't no race. SpaceX is looking to a further future. There lander the starship is a major departure from all other lunar landing craft manned and unmanned, while this one is more traditional. I do hope starship is online by then but i think realistically this lander will be first.

@Barry Soetoro tell me how it is useless please?

@@eannamcnamara9338 to be honest i don't care about us going back to the moon unless we stay and explore this time, i don't see how these traditional landers will be able to pave the way for permanent Lunar bases and human presence for long durations. Its obvious we need Starship

Eanna McNamara Just ignore him. He only came here to whine. He’s put basically the same rubbish in other post on Blue Origin.

They are also building the hydrogen engine and tank of the transfer element. Northrop Grumman is providing a Cygnus variant spacecraft bus for power/rcs/docking

@@ronsmith4927 oooooo.... Exciting. Such progress!

@@spacetourist247 they've made progress?

@@dguisinger these guys have all the history, all the money, all the buddies in high places and they are delivering Apollo mk2. Cool. But not revolutionary. It's similar to the excitement I have about seeing the next ford fiesta. Sure, it's nicer and has a four inch touchscreen but the future should be more exciting than this. I want to see people trying to build the first pyramid, not just another larger mud hut

It's a stretched variant of Blue Moon
@Callum same with me

Aaand, we're still waiting.....

Well, they have a few engines and a fairing...

@@johntheux9238 Just you watch, in a year or two there will be so many Blue Origin Stans it will make SpaceX fans look like a small nitch. People will start to rally behind Bezos, in part because they don't like Elon Musk. Starship will be the Iphone moment for the space industry. Suddenly normal people will have access to space. But by ~2040, Blue will have it's answer to Starship. Honestly, long term Bazo's dose have the better vision, terraforming mars probably will never work out and even if it can be done, we will still need & want O'Neill colonies long term. Can't wait for the Mars 2240 when House Musk is invaded by House Bazos, will the rivalry never end! Find out in Book 4!

@@JohnnyThund3r By 2040 starship 2.0 or even 3.0 will be operationnal... 18m+ fairing...

There are a lot of problems with the approach shown here but doubting Bezos' skill to achieve & dedication really ranks just about bottom of that list, IMO.

@@Yutani_Crayven Bezos had more money and same time to achieve orbital flight as SpaceX. He has so far not achieved even orbital flight. Imagine if since Amazon's inception instead of demonstrating a growing business Amazon was STILL showing only CGI movies of their 1994 book store? There was a 1994 bookstore that worked, then general purpose goods store, then profitability, then fulfillment centers, then AWS etc etc. There was demonstrable progress at every step. With Blue Origin there is only CGI so far and BS suborbital flights.

They were focusing on other things for a long time

@@chloemathon9327 They take THEIR time doing what? You understand that rockets require tests and test FLIGHTS? Crazy amounts of tests and often test failures. You can't take your time to build a rocket without copious amounts of real testing and real flights to be qualified to carry anything anywhere.
> Their system can be carried by other rockets.
Ok, but why would you hire a company that has ZERO demonstrable performance in space technology to do anything in space? Even Boeing fell flat on their face and they at least have a track record of several decades performing.

@@ignacydrozdowicz8107 Were they? So they are no longer doing New Glenn?? Strange, it's still on their website: www.blueorigin.com/new-glenn/
Again, BE-4 has not flown yet on any rocket, so what exactly were they focusing on all these years? So far BO has not demonstrated to be able to build any space-faring vehicles of any kind.

As long as the "First women" makes it down the 50 foot ladder.....with 3 contractors building major parts ... pfffftt......ain't gonna happen

Waiting for “cultural Marxism”...

Hey, it is a "team" effort with brilliant engineers from many different companies! They will find a way.

They are not SpaceX lite. They are on a different roadmap.

They only chose SpaceX

Ha ha ha ha . ::eyeroll:: Oy. None of these systems have been finalized, built, or qualified. SpaceX does impressive stuff, no doubt. And Starship looks like it could be great. But SpaceX also have failures and unexpected events and challenges that arise. Your hyperbole about immigration papers aside, you have no way of knowing which systems will actually make it to the Moon, or when that will happen.
I do not understand why so many Specifically-SpaceX fans seem compelled to crap on anything that is not SpaceX. It strikes me as myopic and needless. History has shown that having more providers with dissimilar systems is a more sustainable approach to spaceflight than sole providers (see the 70's, 80's 90's, 2000's, and 2010's). So the question is, do you care about spaceflight in general, or SpaceX only? Because if it's the former, then cheer on SpaceX, by all means (I certainly do). But also cheer on the others. Multiple providers competing on cost and innovation is with spaceflight, just as in other industries, the best way to get a true sustainable industry.

Wedge W 👏

@@OptimusNiaa What is there to cheer on about wasting money on non-reusable vehicles instead of investing in reusability? I'd be happy for competition for SpaceX, but right now there is none in the area that actually counts.

@@StrangeQuarkStar Re-usability is a wonderful thing, but it is not the only thing. To spend money on a journey that includes elements that aren't reusable isn't necessarily to waste that money.
It's worth noting that on a Moon mission using the National Team's system, there would be reusable elements. And on a Moon mission using SpaceX's system, there would be non-reusable elements.
And, again, beyond re-usability, dissimilar redundancy is important, particularly in spaceflight. Problems happen. Accidents happen. What if there's only one provider, and they somehow use all reusable equipment (so we're not even talking SpaceX here), but they have an accident and have to do an investigation, during which time the entire program is halted? No access.
I remember the aftermath of Challenger and Columbia. Multiple years where there was no American spaceflight, because we had one ride to space and it wasn't usable due to investigations, re-designs, and testing.
So I cheer because multiple providers competing on cost and innovation will increase access to space, prevent gaps in access, and lower costs. I also cheer because the hardware acquisition for the Artemis program is being handled the same way Commercial Cargo and Commercial Crew has been. NASA won't own and operate the hardware. They will contribute money of course, initially as partial investors (with much of the development costs being provided by private entities), but eventually just as paying customers...with the idea being that NASA will be just one of many customers. A real space-economy.
So, granting that re-usability is great, the picture here is so much larger than that.

@@OptimusNiaa I appreciate the thoughtful reply, and I agree about most of what you say in terms of Commercial Cargo and Crew. And I definitely hope there are multiple providers, the more the better, for obvious reasons! Nowhere do I say that SpaceX should be the only one company; my point is rather that the other companies should be more like them. I just can't stomach how there is money being poured into only partially reusable or completely expendable vehicles today, after the feasibility of reusability has been demonstrated. All I'm saying is that this money could be spent better - investing in future-proof technologies, rather than propping up outdated concepts. I wish the other providers were actually competing with SpaceX on this. Especially Blue Origin in this collaboration, who with their hydrogen engines could actually refuel on the moon, at least theoretically, unlike the Starship which needs to haul all its methane for descent and ascent on a single stage.
But what do I know, perhaps all this is already on the back of the other companies' minds, and they'll use the money they get from NASA for what they can quickly cobble together now to invest in actually sustainable technologies that would just take them too long to develop in time for Artemis.

Not at all

Won’t be long now.

Falcon heavy cant take any of the HLS lander due to fairing constraints lmao

starman jair I wasn’t taking about that plus bfr will I was saying space x is better hand have accomplished more

@@Frank-ee3iv well you literally said "Falcon Heavy baby" so i assumed that's what you were talking about

Christopher Carr yeah and there already trying to go to the moon🤦🏻‍♂️

SFS Planet First half of 2021.

they don t need a rocket, arent they using SLS?

@@unhommequicourt you mean the SLS that can't even reach the international space station?

@@Malimber ? it wasn t even launched yet, it s only design to go to the moon so yes i doubt it can reach the ISS

33%

Dynetics over 60%
Space X near 100%
Is National Team has anything better than them?

The main purpose of new Shepard was to develop blue moon. When you think about it both are hydrogen/oxygen powered, are the same size and can propulsively land.

Research and development. Just because you don't see stuff happening doesn't mean it isn't happening and isn't important.

@@OptimusNiaa We all know every company does R&D..All remember BO was founded 2 years before SpaceX. Even after all these years, they were just able to produce an inflatable model..

@@rajeshraghavan9881 The assumption that Blue Origin had intentions of taking the same development path at the same rate (and thus taking their lack of comparable flights being due to inferior ability or the like) are just that, assumptions. No doubt SpaceX has flown way more hardware. But that doesn't establish that Blue Origin wanted to take the same route but failed. It is possible that they intentionally were taking a different path. Indeed, they didn't even start pursuing orbital spaceflight until 2014, four years after the first Falcon 9 launch. So you very well might be making an apples to oranges comparison. Reality might be more complex than you're making it out to be.
Also, there's New Shepard, which is a suborbital rocket, but also not an "inflatable model." And there's the New Shepard's BE-3 engine. And well into development, so not final flight hardware but also not "inflatable models," are the New Glenn rocket and its BE-4 engine (which is also scheduled to be used on ULA's Vulcan). Also in development, and thus more than an "inflatable model," is the BE-7 rocket engine, scheduled to be used on the HLS.

Well, I am going to stop commenting as you are far more knowledgeable about BO activities than I am.

SpaceX will do much better on their own. They're light years ahead of the competition. Everyone else is just fighting for a very distant second place.

@@Hannodb1961 11 months the situation was a bit different

@@henktheblobfish2674 a bit, yes X-D

@@chloemathon9327 ikr fun fact the starship is completely un reusable on the moon due to fuel constraints I can already all these mad spacex fanboys lmao

That's how shit gets done, son.

Since this new generation only does gaming in their mummas's basement till 43, i guess WE have to go again..

Age has nothing to do with it. Good ideas are good ideas, bad ideas are bad ideas, myopic perspectives are myopic perspectives, etc. You are committing the genetic fallacy (a fallacy of relevance) if you are dismissing a claim merely because of the age of the person making it.
But freedom is your right. If you want to dismiss things because of people's age, you're free to do that. I personally am interested in good ideas, regardless of the source.

@@neildagasstrysome7216 Really? Tell that to the 89% of millennials that work at Space X and creating history DAILY!!!...

@@OptimusNiaa Old age equates to... OLD thinking... & It's pretty obvious that you rest within the realms of the geriatric group... and as such, feel the need to defend such a group... If our planet needs saving, do you think we will look to the nursing home's for help? No friend...

The mockup is for NASA to analyze the design and see what it wants to change. Also none of the rockets the HLS's will launch on are ready.

Can’t have the hardware without the mockup first little grasshopper.