Those 43 minutes honestly felt more like 15. Awesome clear and informative diagrams, good narration, unbiased and well informed opinions. Very well done. Looking forward for future videos ^^
@@Apogeespace It's true! I have never seen a better comparison. I came here to watch the whole thing after your most recent video on the reveal. Great work, love the format of your videos!
In a purpose built Starship Base, there are another 1,500 cubic meters of volume in the fuel tanks. Especially with preinstalled open grid flooring (anti-slosh as well). So 2.5 Aircraft Carriers of fully renovated volume.
except nasa isnt looking for a fishing boat. nasa's goal isnt just to plant another flag on the moon. so you'll need something a lot more substantial than what the national team and dynetics were offering.
gotta love how nasa picked spacex moonship over the rest since the moonship is half the price of the dynetics lander and quarter of the price of the national team lander, and is 200 times larger than the other two. having the dynetics and national team landers scaled properly alongside the star/moonship makes them look pathetically smol in comparison! in fact scott manley did just that in his latest video and joked about it xD
This is very impressive, especially considering that this video is your first! You've followed a very clear, very unbiased cost/benefit analysis. The alpaca deserves more love.
Thanks so much for watching. Going in I thought ALPACA would run away with it. And honestly a lot of analysis is subjective so they very well could’ve come in first as it was so close. I still feel like the ALPACA is the best choice for NASA at the moment, especially if they can only select 1.
NASA’s selection document is out-turns out Alpaca has a “negative mass margin”…couldn’t even work as currently designed. Hopefully they fix that for the next round of bids!
Two years later that is still a great video putting things in a historical as well as technical context. Many thanks for making such a detailed and thoughtful video. I'm writing a children's book trilogy about the first kids in space and on the Moon. The human story is one thing - that's a kind of political thriller (as space exploration essentially is!) but working out a possible, but realistic, fantasy near future for the technology is difficult and can sound outdated before a chapter is finished! lol
Great video. There are so many clickbait BS Space Channels out there but this seems like the real deal. Looking forward to seeing more of your content.
I loved the quality of the research, analysis, and presentation. I experienced it as very thoughtful and well-considered. As someone who values high quality information, I valued this much more than offerings from many other channels reporting on space-related topics. A fantastic debut offering!
Well that conclusion didn’t age well, maybe nasa watched your video and preferred your criteria after all. Let’s hope spacex can get it done. Good first video btw :)
Looking at budgets, NASA cannot afford to advance a second lander if National Team is selected. If they want to select two, it will have to be Dynetics and SpaceX
It makes sense to have 2 solutions, as we have learned from NASA relying on one spacecraft (the shuttle) and the subsequent issues of no vehicle if the single spacecraft type runs into problems. At the budget for the SpaceX and Dynetics, it is a no brainer to back those two, which means NASA, being the government agency that it is, will back the National Team. I've been following NASA since the mid 1960's and my father was lifelong friends with Capt Gene Cernan (the last man to walk on the moon) so I love to see NASA do great things...but they really are a completely different agency than they were in the days of Mercury, Gemini and Apollo. It is a government agency being run by politicians bound and determined to reward aerospace giants like Boeing and Lockheed, even when these companies take forever to get their programs off the ground and ALWAYS go way over in their costs after winning bids with lo-ball offers. Then we have Congress and Presidents that are mostly made up of the most scientifically ignorant (and stupid) people on earth, controlling the programs with their special interests and budgets.
I almost skipped this video thinking I already know everything about the HLS Glad I gave it a chance because it turns out I didn’t know nearly as much as I thought I did. You keep up this type of quality content and you’ll do well on TH-cam. I’ll be able to say I subscribed before 1k when you get big.
And holy shit what a winner! It's like I can't believe this to be true! www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/04/16/nasa-lunar-lander-contract-spacex/
Just watched nearly your entire catalog. Definitely one of the BEST channels covering the various aspects of space exploration. Can't wait to see you and the channel blow up from the quality content. 🚀
For me it's clear: NASA should go SpaceX first and Dynetics backup. If SpaceX fails, there's still the backup lander. If SpaceX succeeds, Alpaca can be used anyway: Cheaply refueled by Starship tankers and this way do cheap and quick sorties to many places where a "normal" Starship might be too big or too propellant consuming to go. How many Starship tanker flights are needed to refuel one (or several) Alpacas?
@@bradleylindsey3540 that's not the only criteria. Starships will refuel by holes on their 9meter wide bottom. Look. Stop overburdening the most revolutionary vehicle ever made in order to make the rest more viable. Even if you could fully refuel the dynetics or "natianal" team lander on orbit for free,they still are way to small to achieve anything significally better than apollo. Their stunned capabilities are just not enough to make the Moon a sustanable option. As time progresses it will become apparent that Starship is the only way
You do realise that a Starship could carry the other landers to the moon and drop them off at some convenient point. In fact, Starship could just carry Bezos' mockup lander to the moon. Blue Origin needn't do any more development on it. And half-jokingly, all 3 get their lander to the moon. Job done.
Great content and presentation. My suggestion, either drop the background music or turn it way down. Thanks for all your work and effort on this... nice job.
You did a really good job on comparing these different lander! You really viewed at this as an independent and I think that such views and videos must be rewarded! You are doing great and you seem very professional to me 😉. Keep up the good work!!
Wow, really great video. Definitly didn't feels like a 45 minute long video. I really loved the graphics and the narration. Can't believe this is your first video.
This is the best explanation I have seen for the HLS Contracts, I was unaware of many things especially the transition to full reusability I would choose the Alpaca lander if I could it is a strong contender and in the middle. Extremally impressive video, especially considering it was your first.
Such a great video! Great editing, creative graphics, and a well-written script. I think you will find patrons eager to support your work in the future 💪🏻
One big thing I think you missed with the alpaca: sls b1b comanifest. The sls b1b has enough, or very close to enough comanifest payload to carry alpaca's fuel in a single launch. Which, after gateway is complete and b1b doesn't need to carry modules, it can do.
Astonished that this was your first video! Immaculately put together from an editing standpoint, and we'll thought out and considered from a writing/analysis stand point. Great work, looking forward to the next project you release!
Your rating system was spot on, even if the conclusion was wrong. You assumed old NASA would be scared away by SpaceX's new philosophy, which is fair. I think the rapidity with which SpaceX has gotten to space combined with watching those SpaceX ships take off and land for the last several years, including with humans aboard, has proven to NASA there is a new way to approach space. This was an excellent video explaining the difference in the proposals and I really enjoyed every minute of it. Good Job!
Fantastic video. If I had any criticisms, I'd say that your voiceover could use some work, but overall a very well-made and informative showcase of these landers! I'm really excited to see what's next.
Honestly I don't think the National team is going to get it. I just don't. It's just too clumsy of a design. I'm leaning on both Dynetics and SpaceX getting it, and if they have to choose one probably Dynetics.
Never underestimate the power of lobbying. Your assumption are logical, but politics doesn't follow logic. The most sensible thing to do is using a starship in orbit to refuel the Dynetics lander at first, and then when you want to get serious about base building, make the moonship
But it is a proven concept. It's just a modernized eagel capsule. It worked 50 years ago and with even more reliable tech of the 2020s it will work again.
@@Apogeespace In any case, you provide valuable content which is a plus for science and humanity. You will have a bit of time to chat with your subscribers in the beginning. It will be impossible after some thousands of subscribers joining. Thank you again for what you are doing!
Solid analysis and great production value! I'm looking forward to seeing what comes next. Quick anecdote I have to add: I got the opportunity to do some human factors testing on the National Team ILS for a graduate research team. I can confirm it would be a bit cramped for two individuals when confined for a few weeks, but I can also say that I had very little issue climbing down the ladder in a full xEMU suit mockup (with Earth gravity). It was a bit clunky, but with one hand on the railing, and not rushing, I never had problems descending or ascending the ladder, and it should be much easier under lunar gravity. After that experience I would argue that people criticizing the ladder are being a bit harsh. That being said, a much smaller ladder is still better, and I didn't test trying to carry equipment on it.
Really enjoyed this, thanks! I do think more emphasis should have been put on ISRU in your final scores, however. While all the HLS proposals can benefit from regolith-derived LO2 propellants, the demand per mission has downstream effects on the size of the infrastructure required to support such ISRU operations. The Dynetics and NT landers are similar in scale and the Starship dwarfs them, meaning it will require more infrastructure to provide the increased propellant demand. Ofc, the Starship also has a a greater payload capacity to possibly allow for this... May have answered my own problem, but would love to discuss this further with anyone here.
One key point you may like to address is that Starship has enough delta-V to fly substantial cargo to the Moon, and fly all the way back to LEO, without refueling (even oxygen) on the Moon. With oxygen ISRU they can take something like 200T each way, which is absurd. The elephant in the room is that one of these proposals doesn't need gateway, orion, or sls. And of course even if NASA doesn't select SpaceX for HLS they will probably build and fly it anyway, but on their own terms and schedule. $2.2b might turn out to be a bargain to "own the system".
Wow! First video and you're easily as good as Tim Dodd, What About It or the Angry Astronaut. Thanks for all the hard work out into this. There's a ton of new stuff that I learnt today and it's bang up to date. Have you considered getting a Discord page going to create a community for ideas or research on future episodes?
Excellent! Please keep these coming. I am fllowing a large number of people on the and I learned more in your first video than I have from all the others. Thank you. And yes I watched it all the way through and may even watch it again. Seriously very good job!
Absolutley amazing video. That is an instant sub from me. Very well done, sir! My prediction is that NASA will keep all three in mind, but might pick Dynetics first with Starship as a close second. Transportation to the Moon: Dynetics. Keeping people on the Moon: Starship.
I might be wrong, but I think the requirement for HLS is just 2 astronauts to the surface, so you can't really fault Dynetics, and National Team likely is only 2 as well. Great video, thanks for taking the time to make a legit comparison. Now we just have to wait for the source selection statement to see how accurate this is.
How am I only just now finding your TH-cam channel... Great Video! Very informative, accurate and fair... You just got yourself a new Subscriber (Notification ON) will be looking forward to more videos from now on!
My personal opinion on those proposals: NT- not very special lander, maybe it has isru in mind, but it's not some revolution. However, it seems to be the fastest option, and despite having ladder thingy is rather safe.(idk if it's more dangerous than elevators, we never had elevator in space, so yeah.) Alpaca: if you are picking up 2, or even one, just pick this one up. Simple design, that can easly send various things down to the surface and has no ladders or elevators! Only issue with it is its methalox, and i wish they would adapt it to hydrolox once isru is up and running. Starship: if you are star wars fan and like a lot of risk, this one is for you. Well, it seems fancy, but honestly, leaves a lot of question. User's guide is more of propaganda, with no useful informations. Id question it's economics too, sure it uses the cheapest fuel, but it's also one of the most explosisive fuels, just look at SN11, insulation pieces were found 8km from launchsite. So you can't just land it and refly without any inspections. And this may add another problem, will refueling vehicles be able to launch fast enaugh? Methalox is still cryogenic and musk said himself that he doesn't care about boil off. So you need to launch them quickly before fuel boils off. I don't see that happening unless they build like, 7 launch pads and many refurbishment facalities. Shit, i wrote so much about starship... Anyway, my predictions. If NASA has enaugh funding, they will choose NT and ALPACA. If not, i hope it will be ALPACA, but i can't be sure.
Love the video. I don't agree with all of your evaluations on technical risk and development, but you've done a great job of putting your thoughts across in an easy to digest manner. Keep up the great content!
Watched this on April 21st and surprise!! NASA awarded SpaceX the HLS Contract. It put a smile on my face watching this till the end of the video. Good content and you just earned a new subcriber.
Hi from Alpha Centauri! Someone shared this video on this forum. And this work has amazingly good quality for the first video! This quality reminds me of Everyday Astronaut. I hope you will continue to make such a great content! Good luck! Of course, I liked and subscribed.
Ive been watching your videos the last 2 days, ive really enjoyed them. I know it must have taken alot of time researching all the info about these landers so thanks!
Excellent first video! Starship comes out pretty good in the comparison, although I also agree that it's probably the least likely to get picked due to the technical risk. Maybe they'll still get in it later with a cargo contract if it's cheap enough.
Well done for your first video! Informative. Small typos, but your opinions are based on published facts. Good graphics, no filler. Looking forward to more, although video length might be kept to 20-30 minutes. Great job.
As your channel in developing phase I can give some advice , your intro is great but if you use only black and white colour it will be awesome (blue and red rocket exhaust)
I wouldn't give LSS as much basebuilding points. It is great for a mission with limited time but micrometeorites will destroy its pressurehull over time. The other designs have "pods" that can be easily digged in or covered with regolith to prevent micrometoriteperforation.
How are you gonna properly shield it from radiation? I remember a couple months ago a NASA study said any long term base would need a few meters of regolith protection.
What a great video. Some very agreeable points were being made. Thank you. :) I especially agree, that while starship might be the Dream-Come-True of space flight, right now it's simply over-kill for our demands. What good are hundreds of tons of cargo on the moon when you lack the infrastrcture and personnel to support all of it.
Hundreds of tons of equipment would include full habitats, solar-power panels, air, food, water, mining and drilling equipment, electric buggies, science equipment. All for future missions, because if these is one place on the moon that is going to be routinely habitable, it will be Shackleton Crater near the South Lunar Pole. There are reserves of water ice under the regolith there. That would make oxygen and hydrogen, and melted and purified for drinking-water and other purposes. The infra-structure and personnel will follow.
@@mauricegold9377 Yes, I agree. Your list contains what a hundred+ tons of cargo would most likely consist of. To be more accurately, maybe I should have asked how all of this is going to be financed. Because even without taking the means of transport to the moon into the calcualtion, right now it will be hard to find someone willing pay for a hunded+ tons of stuff on the moon. All that hardware isn't cheap either.
Great video, congrats. A question, maybe for a future video. Say SX can't figure out orbital refueling. How does a less ambitious SS look like cost-wise and time-wise? This "F9++" would be close to their current capabilities. And say that they don't figure out the second stage reusability after all (even if it seems most likely), how do SS's costs and timeline look like?
Those 43 minutes honestly felt more like 15. Awesome clear and informative diagrams, good narration, unbiased and well informed opinions. Very well done. Looking forward for future videos ^^
Wow! Thank you so much that really means a lot. I'll be working hard to make a lot more videos like it!
@@Apogeespace You deserve a sub from me my man.
wait this video was 45 minutes, wow it is really good!
This has got to be one of the absolute best videos covering the HLS landers.
Wow! That really means a lot, thanks!
@@Apogeespace It's true! I have never seen a better comparison. I came here to watch the whole thing after your most recent video on the reveal. Great work, love the format of your videos!
I second that. Only room for improvement is removing that annoying muzak loop in the background.
"starship is basically an aircraft carrier when you're looking for a fishing boat, but it's less than half the cost of the other fishing boat" 😂😂
In a purpose built Starship Base, there are another 1,500 cubic meters of volume in the fuel tanks. Especially with preinstalled open grid flooring (anti-slosh as well). So 2.5 Aircraft Carriers of fully renovated volume.
Combined!
except nasa isnt looking for a fishing boat. nasa's goal isnt just to plant another flag on the moon.
so you'll need something a lot more substantial than what the national team and dynetics were offering.
gotta love how nasa picked spacex moonship over the rest since the moonship is half the price of the dynetics lander and quarter of the price of the national team lander, and is 200 times larger than the other two. having the dynetics and national team landers scaled properly alongside the star/moonship makes them look pathetically smol in comparison! in fact scott manley did just that in his latest video and joked about it xD
I was reading this comment while he was saying it xd
This is very impressive, especially considering that this video is your first! You've followed a very clear, very unbiased cost/benefit analysis. The alpaca deserves more love.
Thanks so much for watching. Going in I thought ALPACA would run away with it. And honestly a lot of analysis is subjective so they very well could’ve come in first as it was so close. I still feel like the ALPACA is the best choice for NASA at the moment, especially if they can only select 1.
NASA’s selection document is out-turns out Alpaca has a “negative mass margin”…couldn’t even work as currently designed. Hopefully they fix that for the next round of bids!
Excellent job already in my top 5 channels. Pat yourself on the back my friend.
That wasn't supposed to be a reply.lol
Alpaca fixed the mass margin.
SpaceX just won the contract and trying to understand a bit more I found this video. Very well explained!
Funny enough Cost is the reason SpaceX won, Nasa didn't have the budget for the other two.
Got some Everyday Astronaut Vibes. Subbed!
Well that’s some high praise! Thanks for watching, more to come!
Ya i subbed too
@@SangeetaKumari-wc5fd and I also😁
I actually like each of his individual videos more than each of the everyday astronaut's videos.
This has got to be the best quallity first youtube video in history. Good job!
Really well put together. I hope this gets the attention it deserves!
Thank you so much for the compliments! And thanks for watching!
@@kenkirtland6757 My only critique would be to turn the music down slightly, just to keep the narration a little more clear.
It would be funny if Starship is not chosen, and then youtubers crowdfund and rent Starship to livestream the other landers landing on the moon.
dear moon mission will fly a starship around the moon by 2023, it will be carrying a youtuber.
Crewed starship wont happen until at least 2025
Starship won
Yeah. From the surface presumably, with a Welcome Tea all laid out. I know Starship won, but the image is still amusing :)
hello from the future! starship is not only chosen, but is the only one chosen! let the memes begin!! xD
This is one helluva debut video. Great job man
Two years later that is still a great video putting things in a historical as well as technical context. Many thanks for making such a detailed and thoughtful video. I'm writing a children's book trilogy about the first kids in space and on the Moon. The human story is one thing - that's a kind of political thriller (as space exploration essentially is!) but working out a possible, but realistic, fantasy near future for the technology is difficult and can sound outdated before a chapter is finished! lol
Great video. There are so many clickbait BS Space Channels out there but this seems like the real deal. Looking forward to seeing more of your content.
Wow thanks so much! I have a lot of topics lined up so stay tuned.
I didn't understand the refuelling part can you exaplain that?
I loved the quality of the research, analysis, and presentation. I experienced it as very thoughtful and well-considered. As someone who values high quality information, I valued this much more than offerings from many other channels reporting on space-related topics. A fantastic debut offering!
Wow thanks so much for the compliments! I’m hoping to make much more and improve along the way.
I am here after Space X getting the Contract !
By the way it was one of the best 43 minutes of my TH-cam Life !
Thanks for the amazing video ♥️
This was amazing! I can't wait to see what you make next!
Thanks so much for watching!
Well that conclusion didn’t age well, maybe nasa watched your video and preferred your criteria after all. Let’s hope spacex can get it done. Good first video btw :)
Looking at budgets, NASA cannot afford to advance a second lander if National Team is selected. If they want to select two, it will have to be Dynetics and SpaceX
It makes sense to have 2 solutions, as we have learned from NASA relying on one spacecraft (the shuttle) and the subsequent issues of no vehicle if the single spacecraft type runs into problems. At the budget for the SpaceX and Dynetics, it is a no brainer to back those two, which means NASA, being the government agency that it is, will back the National Team. I've been following NASA since the mid 1960's and my father was lifelong friends with Capt Gene Cernan (the last man to walk on the moon) so I love to see NASA do great things...but they really are a completely different agency than they were in the days of Mercury, Gemini and Apollo. It is a government agency being run by politicians bound and determined to reward aerospace giants like Boeing and Lockheed, even when these companies take forever to get their programs off the ground and ALWAYS go way over in their costs after winning bids with lo-ball offers. Then we have Congress and Presidents that are mostly made up of the most scientifically ignorant (and stupid) people on earth, controlling the programs with their special interests and budgets.
@@mikesanservino8306 spaceX won
VERY sweet video. Honestly, one of the best I've seen in a while, I really hope you continue to make them.
Thanks so much for watching! There’s more to come!
Like, subbed, shared. Hopefully the algorithm gets the message 😜
Thanks for watching and especially subbing! I can't wait to send more videos your way.
Does the YT algo credit thumbs on replies or just the replies themselves?
I almost skipped this video thinking I already know everything about the HLS
Glad I gave it a chance because it turns out I didn’t know nearly as much as I thought I did.
You keep up this type of quality content and you’ll do well on TH-cam.
I’ll be able to say I subscribed before 1k when you get big.
You, sir, just earned yourself a subscription
I hope it's not to early to celebrate, but I think we can start the party now.
And holy shit what a winner! It's like I can't believe this to be true! www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/04/16/nasa-lunar-lander-contract-spacex/
Just watched nearly your entire catalog. Definitely one of the BEST channels covering the various aspects of space exploration. Can't wait to see you and the channel blow up from the quality content. 🚀
For me it's clear: NASA should go SpaceX first and Dynetics backup. If SpaceX fails, there's still the backup lander. If SpaceX succeeds, Alpaca can be used anyway: Cheaply refueled by Starship tankers and this way do cheap and quick sorties to many places where a "normal" Starship might be too big or too propellant consuming to go. How many Starship tanker flights are needed to refuel one (or several) Alpacas?
Are they even compatible ?
@@reasonforlife214 yes. Alpaca uses methalox, same as Starship
@@bradleylindsey3540 that's not the only criteria.
Starships will refuel by holes on their 9meter wide bottom.
Look. Stop overburdening the most revolutionary vehicle ever made in order to make the rest more viable.
Even if you could fully refuel the dynetics or "natianal" team lander on orbit for free,they still are way to small to achieve anything significally better than apollo.
Their stunned capabilities are just not enough to make the Moon a sustanable option.
As time progresses it will become apparent
that Starship is the only way
You do realise that a Starship could carry the other landers to the moon and drop them off at some convenient point. In fact, Starship could just carry Bezos' mockup lander to the moon. Blue Origin needn't do any more development on it.
And half-jokingly, all 3 get their lander to the moon. Job done.
Great content and presentation. My suggestion, either drop the background music or turn it way down. Thanks for all your work and effort on this... nice job.
Wow! FANTASTIC VIDEO!! I don't give compliments that easy, so very well done! I subscribed, and am very excited to see future work from you.
Omg thank you that means a lot!
Your analysis and presentation is spot on. More like this please.
Thanks for the compliments! I’ll be making more for sure.
I am here from Chris B's twitter!
Awesome video, I agree with pretty much everything you mentioned here!
You did a really good job on comparing these different lander! You really viewed at this as an independent and I think that such views and videos must be rewarded! You are doing great and you seem very professional to me 😉. Keep up the good work!!
Wow, really great video. Definitly didn't feels like a 45 minute long video. I really loved the graphics and the narration. Can't believe this is your first video.
Excited to be in your first 500 subscribers! If this is your first video, I can only imagine what you will produce in future!
I can't believe how many times I have re-watched your impressive videos... ready for more!
Very good indeed, however I'd put music volume a little bit lower to achieve perfection.
This is the best explanation I have seen for the HLS Contracts, I was unaware of many things especially the transition to full reusability
I would choose the Alpaca lander if I could it is a strong contender and in the middle.
Extremally impressive video, especially considering it was your first.
Great job! Very clear and unbiased. I can't believe this is your first video.
Thanks so much for watching and for the compliment!
Loved the Video Man! Can you do a similar style of video comparing space tourism options?
Thanks for the idea! Will add to my list for sure.
Such a great video! Great editing, creative graphics, and a well-written script. I think you will find patrons eager to support your work in the future 💪🏻
For the first video on youtube this was very well put togother and organized. Loved it
One big thing I think you missed with the alpaca: sls b1b comanifest. The sls b1b has enough, or very close to enough comanifest payload to carry alpaca's fuel in a single launch. Which, after gateway is complete and b1b doesn't need to carry modules, it can do.
Isn’t that just even more expensive?
No, since you're launching crew and alpaca with a silnge SLS, meaning the cost would be basically the same
Excellent quality production man. Really looking forward to your next video!
Wow, super impressive for your first video. I already subscribed before hearing this! Thank you for making this
Astonished that this was your first video! Immaculately put together from an editing standpoint, and we'll thought out and considered from a writing/analysis stand point. Great work, looking forward to the next project you release!
Your rating system was spot on, even if the conclusion was wrong. You assumed old NASA would be scared away by SpaceX's new philosophy, which is fair. I think the rapidity with which SpaceX has gotten to space combined with watching those SpaceX ships take off and land for the last several years, including with humans aboard, has proven to NASA there is a new way to approach space. This was an excellent video explaining the difference in the proposals and I really enjoyed every minute of it. Good Job!
By far the best video on this topic I have seen so far. Well done!
Fantastic video. If I had any criticisms, I'd say that your voiceover could use some work, but overall a very well-made and informative showcase of these landers! I'm really excited to see what's next.
Honestly I don't think the National team is going to get it. I just don't. It's just too clumsy of a design.
I'm leaning on both Dynetics and SpaceX getting it, and if they have to choose one probably Dynetics.
Never underestimate the power of lobbying. Your assumption are logical, but politics doesn't follow logic. The most sensible thing to do is using a starship in orbit to refuel the Dynetics lander at first, and then when you want to get serious about base building, make the moonship
But it is a proven concept. It's just a modernized eagel capsule. It worked 50 years ago and with even more reliable tech of the 2020s it will work again.
Great job! Glad to be in your first 200 subscribers. To the million!
Glad to have you! Much more to come we’ll see if we make it haha.
@@Apogeespace In any case, you provide valuable content which is a plus for science and humanity. You will have a bit of time to chat with your subscribers in the beginning. It will be impossible after some thousands of subscribers joining.
Thank you again for what you are doing!
@@Apogeespace 2022-09-17 - 1.8% of the million reached ;)
An excellent summary and appraisal of the different landers. Great work! I look forward to more videos from you.
Thank you so much. I look forward to making more.
As others have said, this was great for your first video!!! I look forward to future videos!
Thanks! Working on them ASAP.
Solid analysis and great production value! I'm looking forward to seeing what comes next.
Quick anecdote I have to add: I got the opportunity to do some human factors testing on the National Team ILS for a graduate research team. I can confirm it would be a bit cramped for two individuals when confined for a few weeks, but I can also say that I had very little issue climbing down the ladder in a full xEMU suit mockup (with Earth gravity). It was a bit clunky, but with one hand on the railing, and not rushing, I never had problems descending or ascending the ladder, and it should be much easier under lunar gravity. After that experience I would argue that people criticizing the ladder are being a bit harsh. That being said, a much smaller ladder is still better, and I didn't test trying to carry equipment on it.
I really enjoyed this and learned a lot. Excited for future content!
Thanks so much for checking it out! That really means a lot!
First video? Wow. Watched start to finish, felt like a time warp of 5 mins. Incredible.
You created a masterpiece. Can't wait to see your next video.
great video dude! excited to see more from you in the future.
Thanks!
Really enjoyed this, thanks!
I do think more emphasis should have been put on ISRU in your final scores, however. While all the HLS proposals can benefit from regolith-derived LO2 propellants, the demand per mission has downstream effects on the size of the infrastructure required to support such ISRU operations. The Dynetics and NT landers are similar in scale and the Starship dwarfs them, meaning it will require more infrastructure to provide the increased propellant demand. Ofc, the Starship also has a a greater payload capacity to possibly allow for this... May have answered my own problem, but would love to discuss this further with anyone here.
Well, so spacex did win, as it should have. So you did fail your predictions, but excellent analysis and presentation
Amazing video and music selection
One key point you may like to address is that Starship has enough delta-V to fly substantial cargo to the Moon, and fly all the way back to LEO, without refueling (even oxygen) on the Moon. With oxygen ISRU they can take something like 200T each way, which is absurd.
The elephant in the room is that one of these proposals doesn't need gateway, orion, or sls. And of course even if NASA doesn't select SpaceX for HLS they will probably build and fly it anyway, but on their own terms and schedule. $2.2b might turn out to be a bargain to "own the system".
Great video you can tell a ton of effort went into this !!
Well, that didn't age well... but great presentation and analysis.
Hats down for your first video. The result was incredible. Very informative and professionally put together.
Excellent video. Hard to believe its your first. Well done !
Wow! First video and you're easily as good as Tim Dodd, What About It or the Angry Astronaut.
Thanks for all the hard work out into this. There's a ton of new stuff that I learnt today and it's bang up to date. Have you considered getting a Discord page going to create a community for ideas or research on future episodes?
If things continue well I’ll be starting a Patreon and discord soon!
Excellent! Please keep these coming. I am fllowing a large number of people on the and I learned more in your first video than I have from all the others. Thank you. And yes I watched it all the way through and may even watch it again. Seriously very good job!
Such a great channel :) Long-format, in-depth and well-thought-out discussions about space travel. Just what I needed. Keep it up!
Absolutley amazing video. That is an instant sub from me. Very well done, sir! My prediction is that NASA will keep all three in mind, but might pick Dynetics first with Starship as a close second. Transportation to the Moon: Dynetics. Keeping people on the Moon: Starship.
Fantastic video. Liked and subscribed, here's a comment for the algorithmic bump. I will definitely watch your next.
Thanks so much!
For a first video, this is very good ! Those 45min went really fast ! I’m subscribing
39:54 "safe to say that if NASA only had enough to fund one lander ...." 😂😂
Lol missed it by that much
I might be wrong, but I think the requirement for HLS is just 2 astronauts to the surface, so you can't really fault Dynetics, and National Team likely is only 2 as well.
Great video, thanks for taking the time to make a legit comparison. Now we just have to wait for the source selection statement to see how accurate this is.
You are right I should’ve pointed out that for the first missions only two is required. I was so focused on long term that this slipped my mind.
Good job on the video. Is this truely you first ever video, and not just first on new channel, becouse it shows skills.
How am I only just now finding your TH-cam channel... Great Video!
Very informative, accurate and fair... You just got yourself a new Subscriber (Notification ON)
will be looking forward to more videos from now on!
Glad we found each other!! Thanks for the sub, more on the way!
Man this video was so on point. You needed the time you took to explain all of that. Good job I can't wait to see more.
This video aged very well (other than the quick comment at 39:55)
Top notch quality! I really hope you keep up the great work. New sub!
To be honest, most people probably wouldn't have thought that either.
My personal opinion on those proposals:
NT- not very special lander, maybe it has isru in mind, but it's not some revolution. However, it seems to be the fastest option, and despite having ladder thingy is rather safe.(idk if it's more dangerous than elevators, we never had elevator in space, so yeah.)
Alpaca: if you are picking up 2, or even one, just pick this one up. Simple design, that can easly send various things down to the surface and has no ladders or elevators! Only issue with it is its methalox, and i wish they would adapt it to hydrolox once isru is up and running.
Starship: if you are star wars fan and like a lot of risk, this one is for you. Well, it seems fancy, but honestly, leaves a lot of question. User's guide is more of propaganda, with no useful informations. Id question it's economics too, sure it uses the cheapest fuel, but it's also one of the most explosisive fuels, just look at SN11, insulation pieces were found 8km from launchsite. So you can't just land it and refly without any inspections. And this may add another problem, will refueling vehicles be able to launch fast enaugh? Methalox is still cryogenic and musk said himself that he doesn't care about boil off. So you need to launch them quickly before fuel boils off. I don't see that happening unless they build like, 7 launch pads and many refurbishment facalities.
Shit, i wrote so much about starship...
Anyway, my predictions. If NASA has enaugh funding, they will choose NT and ALPACA. If not, i hope it will be ALPACA, but i can't be sure.
Love the video. I don't agree with all of your evaluations on technical risk and development, but you've done a great job of putting your thoughts across in an easy to digest manner. Keep up the great content!
Thanks so much for watching!
Wish I had seen this before knowing the outcome...... but equally fascinating to watch in retrospect!
Watched this on April 21st and surprise!! NASA awarded SpaceX the HLS Contract. It put a smile on my face watching this till the end of the video. Good content and you just earned a new subcriber.
This was fantastic please keep it coming. I watched it twice!
I'm sharing to Twitter and tagging Daddy Elon.
GOOD JOB, Apogee!!
Hi from Alpha Centauri! Someone shared this video on this forum. And this work has amazingly good quality for the first video! This quality reminds me of Everyday Astronaut. I hope you will continue to make such a great content! Good luck!
Of course, I liked and subscribed.
Awesome! Glad you enjoyed it. Thanks for checking it out, more to come.
Ive been watching your videos the last 2 days, ive really enjoyed them. I know it must have taken alot of time researching all the info about these landers so thanks!
Excellent first video! Starship comes out pretty good in the comparison, although I also agree that it's probably the least likely to get picked due to the technical risk. Maybe they'll still get in it later with a cargo contract if it's cheap enough.
Well produced video thank you for providing this content.
Thanks so much for watching! Much more to come.
Well done for your first video! Informative. Small typos, but your opinions are based on published facts. Good graphics, no filler. Looking forward to more, although video length might be kept to 20-30 minutes. Great job.
What an excellent video, very measured & rational. This feels like a full analysis. Well done ! :)
this was great !
really looking foreward to new stuff from you !
As your channel in developing phase I can give some advice , your intro is great but if you use only black and white colour it will be awesome
(blue and red rocket exhaust)
This video is about to blow up! Great work.
I keep coming back to watch this video because it's just that good.
Thank you it means alot. New videos on the way!
I wouldn't give LSS as much basebuilding points.
It is great for a mission with limited time but micrometeorites will destroy its pressurehull over time. The other designs have "pods" that can be easily digged in or covered with regolith to prevent micrometoriteperforation.
Yes
Great video, super presentation. Probably an accurate conclusion too.
Good video man! Looking forward to the next one.
Here from the NSF retweet. Great video.
This was a great video. Amazing quality for a first production!
Land Starship as a base to stay put. Use Dynetics as a sortie lander with more crew than it actually supports as a "base."
How are you gonna properly shield it from radiation? I remember a couple months ago a NASA study said any long term base would need a few meters of regolith protection.
29:35 "Nice". Bro I liked the video just for that, but even without the nice the video was awesome. Keep up with the good work!
What a great video. Some very agreeable points were being made. Thank you. :)
I especially agree, that while starship might be the Dream-Come-True of space flight, right now it's simply over-kill for our demands.
What good are hundreds of tons of cargo on the moon when you lack the infrastrcture and personnel to support all of it.
Hundreds of tons of equipment would include full habitats, solar-power panels, air, food, water, mining and drilling equipment, electric buggies, science equipment. All for future missions, because if these is one place on the moon that is going to be routinely habitable, it will be Shackleton Crater near the South Lunar Pole. There are reserves of water ice under the regolith there. That would make oxygen and hydrogen, and melted and purified for drinking-water and other purposes. The infra-structure and personnel will follow.
@@mauricegold9377 Yes, I agree. Your list contains what a hundred+ tons of cargo would most likely consist of.
To be more accurately, maybe I should have asked how all of this is going to be financed. Because even without taking the means of transport to the moon into the calcualtion, right now it will be hard to find someone willing pay for a hunded+ tons of stuff on the moon. All that hardware isn't cheap either.
Outstanding video. Great explanation and analysis plus awesome use of video and graphics.
Great video, congrats. A question, maybe for a future video. Say SX can't figure out orbital refueling. How does a less ambitious SS look like cost-wise and time-wise? This "F9++" would be close to their current capabilities. And say that they don't figure out the second stage reusability after all (even if it seems most likely), how do SS's costs and timeline look like?
Crazy! I literally have a video like this on my list! Don’t know when I’ll get to it but I will at some point.