Why NASA Chose Starship – Human Landing System


NASA has made the decision to move forward with SpaceX’s Starship lander to bring humans back to the moon for the first time in over 50 years. In this video, I break down the new information NASA released about the 3 proposals, and what went into their decision to pick Starship. I also go over some of the implications this decision has on the space industry as a whole.

Thanks for watching, remember to subscribe, share, and leave your thoughts below!


0:00 – Intro
1:53 – National Team
7:06 – ALPACA
10:14 – SpaceX
13:07 – Why NASA Chose Starship
19:10 – NASA Funding Strategy
21:32 – Implications
24:18 – Final Thoughts .

  1. I should have more thoroughly described what I meant by “ALPACA cannot land”. What I mean when I say that is it wasn’t able to complete the mission objectives of bringing people from Orion to the surface of the moon and back up to Orion. It is likely that it was able to land on the moon, but was unable to make it back up to Orion. Sorry for the lack of clarity on that part!

  2. Very well thought out points. Extremely well presented for such a young channel. I wish you luck and hope your channel grows rapidly.

  3. I hope NASA redoes the whole Artemis strategy and utilizes SpaceX for everything. Why do we need Orion, lunar gateway, etc… when Starship and its variants offer significantly more capability for a likely lower price tag

  4. Blue Origin is a total joke. They thought the National "Lobbying" Team would get them across the finish line. Thank you NASA for doing the right thing!

  5. I think that the lunar starship tanks were stretched cause that extra tank size will give them enough fuel to get from the moons surface back to LEO for more refueling.

  6. As Jim Bridenstein said – if Starship succeeds, NASA could NOT afford not to be involved. As you have hinted but not clearly stated – at virtually no additional development expenditure, NASA will have access to a ready-made 1,000 cu.m. moonbase if they decide just to park one permanently.

  7. Man your videos are awesome. I hope you'll continue this work.
    If you have time, I'd like to see some videos about companies like Virgin Galactic, Axiom and so on. Because, as a newcomer to space exploration, I have found a lot of articles adding small info about these companies and their plans

  8. You have the absolutely greatest videos. I just don't say that… I don't go around complimenting videos. You know how to do it, your content, your cadence, your analysis… fantastic. I am truly excited for your future.

  9. That payload to surface comparison is incredibly unfair. Your using the cargo mass vs the cargo mass with crew. ILS could bring 15tn to the surface in the cargo version.

  10. 24:00 This is actually a bad thing. Take a look at how Shuttle was originally cost effective, but ballooned into this behemoth money pit because some ridiculous ends ended justifying how everything was done.

  11. "betting your rocket knowledge against Spacex and Nasa".
    I couldn't have said it better myself.
    There are still few "experts" out there who completely disregard any progress that an aerospace company makes without a wholesome understanding of the subject matter in its entirety.
    Exciting times ahead!

  12. Speculation: Elon has said they are going to be using methylox thrusters for rcs. I suspect the plan is to just use a bunch of these for the landing thrusters. It saves development time and costs.

  13. Great video, and must be the only youtube video I've ever watched where the request to subscribe to the channel gave a convincing reason to do so

  14. Great video! Really appreciate your clarity and thought process. You were recommended by Casey Handmer – and that's very high praise! He was right. 🙂

Comments are closed.

Previous Post


Next Post

Einhorn takes aim at Chamath Palihapitiya, Elon Musk for role in GME squeeze

Related Posts