What NASA just declared on Lunar Starship unlike any others! Is SpaceX in big trouble??? (mix)

The moon has always been the target destination for human space exploration, wherein the 20th century we first set foot. Therefore, returning humans to the moon is the main goal of all humanity in this century. To do that, we need reliable and powerful vehicles. Under the Artemis program, NASA is responsible for reliving America's glory days, given that they intend to re-establish a human presence on the moon for the first time since the Apollo 17 mission in 1972. And they revealed two vehicles capable of serving this historic mission, SpaceX's Starship HLS and Blue Origin's Blue Moon lander. But two questions have cropped up. Do we really need both? And which one is the best choice for NASA? Let's find out in today's episode of Great SpaceX. First of all, let's have an overview of these two vehicles. In 2023, NASA awarded a contract valued at $3.4 billion to Blue Origin to develop a lunar lander to deliver crew and cargo to the Lunar Gateway under the Artemis V program planned to happen in 2029. To do that, Blue Origin has partnered with a group of companies called the National Team, including Lockheed Martin, Draper, Boeing, Astrobotics, and Honeybee Robotics. They've been building a type of reusable lander vehicle called Blue Moon. The 16-meter long vehicle can carry 20 tons of cargo in a reusable state and 30 tons one way as well as carry four astronauts into orbit. It'll be powered by BE-7 engines powered by liquid oxygen and liquid hydrogen, which provide a thrust of 44.5 kilonewtons or 10,000 pound-force. Liquid hydrogen stands out for its high efficiency and clean energy. But at the same time, it is very dangerous because it is flammable, volatile, and is a low-density fuel that leaks easily. Remember the tragic explosion of the Space Shuttle Challenger that killed all seven crew members on board in 1986? It comes from the fact that a gasket on the external rocket booster failed, causing hot gases to rise. The hot gas then weakened the hydrogen fuel tank. It's possible that the hydrogen liquid easily leaked, causing a powerful explosion that burned the entire vehicle. Despite the inherent risks of hydrogen evaporating in space, Blue Origin is still determined to apply it to its engines, such as the BE-4 and BE-7. Under the program, they guarantee to make the liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen complex storable by developing and operating a solar-powered 20-degree Kelvin chiller and other technologies needed to prevent the boiled-off liquid oxygen and liquid hydrogen phenomenon. Additionally, Blue Origin's spacecraft are required to meet NASA requirements such as in-orbit refueling, gateway docking, endurance time, and the ability to send the required payload mass and crew safely. Alright, so now let's move on to Blue Origin's competitor, SpaceX. The company founded by Elon Musk won the contract back in 2021 against Blue Origin to serve Artemis 3 and 4. Indeed, SpaceX received a $4 billion grant from NASA to build just one crewed HLS. Thus, Starship HLS was born. Like Blue Moon, SpaceX's HLS can also be reused, refueled in orbit, docked at the Gateway Space Station, and has a long operating time. It looks bulkier than Blue Moon with a length of 50 meters, and because it is designed not to re-enter the atmosphere, it has no heat shield or flight control surfaces. Thus, its weight will be significantly reduced and will only consume half the tank capacity in four tanks compared to eight on the regular version. In contrast to Blue Origin's multi-stage lander, Starship HLS is truly a unified whole. The spacecraft will be powered by the super-powerful Raptor rocket engine and use methollox as a propellant, which is a combination of liquid methane and liquid oxygen. Its initial launch is scheduled no earlier than December of 2025. Now that we've gotten that out of the way, let's go into deeper details on which one is better. The first thing we need to talk about is the engine. Frankly, there aren't many details about the BE-7, and its latest news is about the fourth series of the booster tests three years ago. The only thing we know is that Blue Origin's seventh version of the BE engine is considered the latest high-performance engine in the Blue Origin family with 10,000 pound-force of thrust. Looking at the image of the BE-7, you can see that it resembles Raptor Version 2 in its simple design style. Its predecessor, the BE-4, has a similar thrust to SpaceX's Raptor V2, and will also use methane and oxygen that will power the new Glenn rocket to launch a Blue Moon lander in 2029. But its chamber pressure is only at 134 bar, half that of Raptor's second version, since Jeff Bezos does not dare push it to the final frontier and then upgrade it. By settling the engine down, he hoped to get the engine off the ground soon, particularly aiming to use it to power the Vulcan Centaur rocket in 2020 under the contract with ULA. However, BE-4's continued delays due to unexpected technical problems frustrated both the ULA and the public. Its first flight is now pushed to late 2023. Meanwhile, the Raptor engine is undergoing an evolution from Version 1 to Version 3. Its second version was launched last April, and is currently in operational status for upcoming flight testing with Starship. Without a doubt, I prefer the Raptor over the BE engine, as well as many others. The first thing that's the most eye-catching is both of their designs. As you can see, for Blue Moon, the crew cabin at the bottom of the vehicle allows the astronauts to get access to the surface of the moon. In contrast, for the Starship HLS, I don't really like the placement of the habitation module on the top of the vehicle. Perhaps the astronauts will use a mobile elevator, rope, or something similar to climb down from a height of 50 meters, not to mention climb up. You can only then imagine how difficult it was to do that in a vacuum when they are wearing bulky spacesuits with heavy backpacks on their back. In regards to the interior of the lander, since Artemis 3, 4, and 5 focus on carrying people, the life support system here plays an important role. That's where I appreciate the Starship more in this regard. And why's that? Well, take a look at how the company designed the system in their Dragon Capsule. It's truly impressive. Adhering precisely to the best-part-is-no-part criterion, inside the capsule everything is run by automation and integration, as SpaceX has designed the IVA spacesuit specifically for use in Dragon Capsules. Indeed, every part of the suit, such as the helmet, the thigh port, or the umbilical cord, is connected to the computer system. Thanks to that, the software will automatically adjust necessary parameters including temperature pressure, or air-mixture ratio inside the suit without the need for manual adjustment. More importantly, SpaceX's life support system has proven to be reliable as the spacecraft has completed six manned missions carrying NASA astronauts to the ISS. If SpaceX showed that its system is superior through Dragon's performance, why don't we hold out hope that it will perform as excellently in Starship's HLS? Meanwhile, although Blue Origin was founded two years earlier than SpaceX, they've so far failed to prove their system is reliable. The new Glenn rocket is still in development, and the new Shepard spacecraft being developed for space tourism is expected to fly next month for the first time since a failed flight in 2022. So hopefully, Blue Origin does a better job at proving itself in the upcoming missions. To put it simply, in the three criteria, engine, interior, and exterior design, Starship is better than Blue Moon in the first two areas. Or in other words, Starship's HLS has the ability to surpass Blue's lander. It can be said, then, that NASA also realized this, so they chose SpaceX for the first crewed mission. But why do we even see Blue Origin on the list for Artemis V? As you may know, the agency always chooses two companies at the same time for each of its missions or even more for large projects like Artemis. For example, under NASA's Commercial Crew Program, in addition to SpaceX, they also offered contracts to Boeing. Despite Boeing's Starliner's severe delays of more than nine years, the agency has not yet canceled its contract with the legacy company. That's maybe because they fear a monopoly, meaning that there will only be one business providing products and services to them. It would then lead to the fact that consumers will lose their bargaining power. And in the worst case scenario, if that product or service crashes or is delayed, NASA may not be able to find a replacement immediately. Furthermore, the national agency also wanted to create a hidden competition among the companies that were selected to develop their vehicles, which would benefit NASA's goals. For example, let's take a look at the case of Blue Moon. The team led by Blue Origin has been very active in finding a solution to store a sensitive fuel like hydrogen in space. It's considered a new milestone in rocketry, useful for future lunar missions, and supporting capabilities such as high-performance nuclear thermal propulsion. Well, that's my analysis of the two new launchers for the Artemis program. Since it's all based on my personal opinion, errors are inevitable. That's why I'm now looking forward to hearing more perspectives from everybody, so please help me by commenting down below what you think. The success of NASA's Artemis 1 mission in 2022 created a lot of optimism and hope for all Americans regarding a future in which our country will once again set foot on the moon. We've been eagerly looking forward to the next mission, where the HLS Starship's presence holds the promise of directly carrying American astronauts to the lunar surface. However, NASA just declared no lunar starship landing on the moon. So what actually happened? And is the HLS Starship in big trouble? NASA's Artemis program is scheduled to land astronauts on the moon by the end of 2025, marking the first crewed landing on the moon since 1972. However, SpaceX's challenges with its lunar lander technology could potentially postpone the eagerly awaited mission. At a briefing at Kennedy Space Center in Florida in August, James Free, NASA Associate Administrator for Exploration for Exploration Systems Development and head of the Artemis mission stated, We may end up flying a different mission if that's the case. If we have these big slips out, we've looked at if we can do other missions. This demonstrates a clear intention that the U.S. space agency NASA may alter the scope of the Artemis 3 mission if there are substantial delays in implementing crucial components of the program. This ain't the first time NASA has expressed this concern, as even two months ago, NASA was worried about delays in the progress of SpaceX's Starship spacecraft. Free hinted then that the targeted launch date of late 2025 could be deferred to 2026 due to issues. Under the Artemis program, NASA is planning a series of missions of escalating complexity to return to the moon and build a sustained presence in order to develop and test technologies for an eventual journey to Mars. The first Artemis 1 flew an uncrewed spacecraft around the moon in 2022. Artemis 2, planned for November of 2024, will do the same with the crew on board. However, it is during the planned Artemis 3 mission in December of 2025 that NASA has outlined a return to the moon after 50 years since the last Apollo lunar campaign. This time, the mission targets the lunar south pole where ice can potentially be harvested and converted into rocket fuel. In addition to NASA's Moon Rocket SLS and the Orion capsule, SpaceX's lunar lander, the HLS Starship, also plays a pivotal role. They have secured a $2.89 billion contract to utilize a lunar lander version of the Starship to transport humans to the moon by late 2025. Subsequently, another contract valued at $1.15 billion signed last year outlines the Artemis 4 mission set for 2028. Before it can land humans on the moon, however, Starship has to carry out an uncrewed mission to the lunar surface first, which also involves launching tanking vehicles to Earth orbit so that they can fuel the vehicle prior to its journey to the moon. Demonstrating this to NASA will be crucial to influencing the agency's Artemis 3 timeline and suppliers working with SpaceX to ensure that Starship has the equipment to support crewed missions from lunar orbit to the lunar surface. That's a lot of launches to get those missions done, free is quoted as saying. They have a significant number of launches to go and that of course gives me concern about the December of 2025 Artemis 3 launch date. In fact, Starship conducted its maiden test flight in April this year, however the colossal rocket unfortunately encountered an issue preventing it from separating from the launch vehicle which resulted in a controlled explosion. If you have a background in aerospace rocketry, you'll understand that success in this field often begins a path of failure. This marks a promising beginning for Starship itself and SpaceX as a whole. At the very least, the rocket took off and cleared the launch pad, however, such an outcome didn't satisfy NASA. Free even suggested that Artemis 3 might involve a crewed mission orbiting the moon similar to the Artemis 2 mission planned for late 2024. Artemis 3 could also change based on the outcome of Artemis 2, and honestly, Free's statement is quite hard to grasp, especially when it comes to the exact interpretation. It could be that Artemis 3 might consist only of a crewed lunar orbital flight similar to Artemis 2 planned for late 2024. Alternatively, it could be taken as if the delays faced by Artemis 2 could trigger a chain of delays for Artemis 3. And how can this be? Well, let's first examine the current status of the SLS and Orion components. The costliest rocket is still under construction and its assembly process has been postponed due to an unidentified issue affecting the large tubes transporting liquid oxygen to its engines, known as downcomers. The SLS for Artemis 2 is undoubtedly falling behind schedule and incurring additional costs if the issue isn't resolved. Moreover, the Orion capsule is grappling with a significant issue concerning its heat shield, an essential component that shields the crew from the 5,000 degree Fahrenheit plasma upon re-entry into Earth's atmosphere. Based on information from Artemis 1, fragments of Orion's AVCOAT heat shield system unexpectedly broke apart into chunks instead of experiencing even and uniform erosion during re-entry. Hence, the heat shield predicament remains a substantial hurdle for the safety and success of the Artemis 2 mission. On the other hand, following the inaugural launch of Starship, SpaceX swiftly made improvements in preparation for the upcoming second launch. This includes the successful development of an extensive drainage system, creating a more robust launch platform, and implementing modifications to the rocket to address challenges from the initial launch. Booster 9, along with Ship 25, are also undergoing continuous testing and refinements at an accelerated pace and are nearly ready for an 85% launch readiness. The latest discoveries encompass images of the nose cone labeled with a person-sized door on the left side. Of paramount importance, we've observed the presence of a life support system, a crucial component in crewed spacecraft. Furthermore, to assuage NASA's concerns, SpaceX has provided the firm with an updated schedule and the HSE has visited Starbase to take a detailed look at SpaceX's milestones and hardware for a propellant demonstration and an uncrewed demonstration flight next year. SpaceX explained that the insight NASA gained from its visit was tremendous, with the 12-hour visit providing teams a chance to discuss the cryogenic propellant transfer mission. While all information is clear, Free added that NASA will release updates to the public shortly once it has had time to digest the information gathered during the Starbase visit. This signified that NASA still hasn't fully placed its trust in Starship, regardless of what SpaceX has accomplished in the past four months. It must be said, then, that in a fair partnership aiming for mutual benefit, it's important to have trust in the other party's maximum potential for success. NASA should also bestow more confidence in SpaceX based on its efforts and achievements. By doing so, the progress concerning Starship wouldn't cause as much commotion within the community. All attention is focused on Starship and its lunar mission, even from significant competitors. One of these competitive adversaries is China, a nation closely scrutinizing the progress of the United States in the realm of space exploration. Their ambitions for lunar dominance have become well-known as they announced their goal to land their crew on the moon by 2030, establishing their own presence on its surface to compete with NASA's Artemis. This has garnered special attention from NASA Administrator Bill Nelson. Naturally, I don't want China to get to the South Pole first with humans and then say this is ours, stay out, like they've done with the Spratly Islands. China is akin to a war horse in this regard. They have researched and developed launch vehicles, spacecraft, and various equipment, all geared toward their goal of sending humans to the moon. The leading China lunar research station is also in progress. According to Nelson, the United States and China are racing to see who can be the first to access the potentially trapped water ice reserves at the lunar South Pole. Finally, Bill Nelson highlighted the importance of safeguarding the community's interest against potential monopolization by China that might not be shared with others. To achieve this, NASA's lunar ventures need increased attention and acceleration. Each successful Artemis mission represents a significant stride forward in this competitive race. As for Starship, there are high expectations for 2023, anticipating one or two more successful launches. There might even be more until Starship proudly takes flight toward the moon. And that's all folks! If you want to support our channel and get access to exclusive content, please consider becoming a patron by clicking the link in the description below. We appreciate your generosity and your passion for space exploration, and as always, this is Kevin from Great SpaceX and until next time, keep looking up!