Disaster! What U.S Space Force Revealed About NASA SLS Will Shock You While Starship...

[@samsanchez8997]

A lot of people forget that it was Congress that forced NASA into the using the SLS and utilizing contractors from across the country to build it. I am sure NASA would honestly prefer to not spend that kind of money on old technology.

[@stephensfarms7165]

Cancel SLS, it’s too costly and StarShip can do it all . SLS costs way too much. All that money wasted on this vehicle, maybe this will be Elon’s first thing to cut cost and cancel it. ‼️‼️‼️

[@colonbina1]

👍👍👍

[@tedarcher9120]

It won't be cancelled precisely because it costs so much. Why do you think that is

[@stephensfarms7165]

@ Trump will cancel it. Overruns. Falcon Heavy will replace it. And StarShip will be flying soon, next year.

[@LelandReview]

Have you even compared the costs ? SLS took 20 Billion and ten years to make and it works. Starship has already wasted 10 billion and its nowhere near getting to the Moon. It still has hundreds of billions in developments costs to go. lol. And it likely doesn't even work...

[@randyalerci7370]

NASA doesn't Scrap it Elon Musk is going to scrap it with his new position in the White House

[@gmeister03]

He doesn’t hold a position. He’s a consultant

[@theerathamleartsakulpanitc1155]

He will definitely not scarp because spaceX is funded by nasa a lot of the pennies spaceX used is given by nasa

[@vibeguy1]

The administration would have to find a way of doing that without making it look like Musk has ulterior motives

[@ravydavy2306]

@@vibeguy1Not when you can prove to the public he can do it for a tenth of the cost!! Nothing below the belt about that.

[@vibeguy1]

@ i agree on the cost savings! Just sayin that the critics will scream “conflict of interest”

[@Apex-fc7ng]

SLS is welfare for Boeing.

[@petesteelman5562]

This is a sign of poor management.

[@colonbina1]

Exactly

[@DavidBate-l8l]

SLS is a flagship?? More like a boat anchor costing billions a launch!

[@andrewnadolski7701]

Enough is enough. You would never hire or pay a contractor to refinish your kitchen over budget and behind schedule. America can no longer waste money and time.

[@LelandReview]

Exactly ! SLS is ready to fly today. It already took Orion to the Moon and back. Starship is still decades away from being ready... And chances are it will never work... Elon is wasting billion of US tax dollars on this pipe dream.

[@patrickmchargue7122]

Yeah - the problem with canceling the SLS is that the program stopped being about space and became a jobs program years ago. So, Congress would have to, effectively, cancel a jobs program, which is a different calculus for politicians.

[@michaelw3897]

"The best part is no part" Elon

[@colonbina1]

Exactly! Complexity is not difficult, simplicity is difficult

[@craigchase4150]

Scrap Launch System!!!!!!!!!!!!🚫

[@tekteam26]

All of Artemis could be launched using Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy alone. This would still cost less than half of what SLS will cost.

[@colonbina1]

Time to stop this waste

[@ilkoderez601]

I forget how many years ago I was reading articles about SLS contracts, that were cancelled but were still being paid out...

[@djrutley]

I would love to see Crew Dragon take astronauts to space, then dock with the already fully fueled SpaceX lunar lander in orbit, which would then take the astronauts to the moon, landing and then back to Earth orbit and re-dock with Dragon for return to Earth. This seems to me to be the simplest solution for a manned mission to the moon. The big question is whether the lunar lander Starship would have enough fuel to do this, given that it would already be in Earth orbit? Also, how would you transfer cargo and supplies from an Earth return Starship to the lunar lander Starship?

[@UtahVideoMan]

Scrap the program. Cost of a throw away spacecraft is a huge waste of money.

[@joseeoliviero6078]

I love this channel, but I'm so frustrated that they use "Click Bate" titles. Can't the title of the video be more reflective of the content? You should be able to do a better job.

[@33-MotoX]

No cry babies 😂

[@rudddude5294]

DOGE needs to make a visit to NASA!!

[@rudddude5294]

NASA needs to be out of the ship building business!

[@chrismantonuk]

4:50 I wonder how many Mechazilla towers could SpaceX build for $2.7bn?! 😅

[@LelandReview]

Just building Starbase cost 3 billion.

[@josesuro3981]

@@LelandReview And we didn't pay a penny for it

[@LelandReview]

@@josesuro3981 Space X has already wasted billions from NASA / taxpayers.

[@LelandReview]

@@josesuro3981 Actually Elon wasted billions of tax dollars on it. Where did you think he got the money from ? He also lost a fortune on Twitter.

[@KasperLidegaard]

Put all of SLS hardware in the Inefficiency Museum

[@tomstokes8192]

Scrap Artemis. Recover the waste and repurpose it into a more efficient solution.

[@nickrobertson9533]

Why on this planet would anyone consider not scraping orion right beside Artemis!?!? Both are simply not and never have been appropriate for this mission.

[@walterlyzohub8112]

IMO the SLS will still look good if SpaceX didn’t happen. But SpaceX did happen. No one can properly predict the future.

[@stevecoe6260]

So, SLS isn't even good enough for government work!

[@howardross9614]

Excellent summary of all the issues surrounding SLS and Artemis! Full marks dude! Keep on trucken Kevin!!!

[@colonbina1]

Thanks for your great comment. Keep following and discussing on our channel ☺️

[@camarosspr]

6 SLS launches $6B Block 1B-2B $6B Lunch tower ML2 $2B Gateway - say $1B What $12 billions buys in starship?

[@apollobukowski4275]

Soooo much money wasted on obsolete tech. SLS doesn’t deserve to continue.

[@ChosenSquirrel]

I like the idea of using Falcon Heavy and a Dragon Capsule . Might require a bit of modification but the system is mostly functioning . No SLS , most new tech is the Lunar starship. Its just enough that it could be done quickly. The only concern would be the heat shield . Might want to leave Dragon in Earth orbit . Board the starship there after refueling. Then leave for the moon and return . Landing on earth with dragon. The counter to that would be DeltaV questions with the starship.

[@colonbina1]

👍👍👍

[@leverman7517]

Orion is a BIG part of the problem. About as cost effective as Harris' campaign...

[@Gregory-j7i]

Launch Lunar Starship unmanned, then launch the crew with Dragon, after Starship is fully refueled in low Earth Orbit.

[@curtisquick1582]

Launch crew on Crew Dragon to dock with Starship in LEO to transfer crew. Then go all the way to the Moon and land with Starship. Hang out for a few weeks and then head back on Starship to LEO and dock with Crew Dragon to take the crew home. Less than one tenth the cost of SLS and ten times more often.

[@colonbina1]

Agree

[@tuckercase2449]

I envision a mashup of the current plan: 1. Starship gets people into orbit. 2. A Starship lunar cycler gets them to the moon. 3. A lunar lander Starship drops them on the surface and then back up. Rinse and repeat. You read it right here on the internet folks, it must be true.

[@RodrigoPalma700]

Thanks.

[@minion7156]

Scrap lunch Sandwich !! Idk, I'm watching during my lunch break

[@MidnightOtter-19]

You really don't need to bring HLS back to earth surface. Have a different spaceship to pick in them up and reuse HLS for the next mission.

[@ArizonaVideo99]

SLS is way too expensive and cant compete with starship but it should be a fine rocket until it is replaced by a cheaper system. The motors are made, send them up and just dont make more.

[@jstrotha0975]

Why can't a Falcom 9 launch crew to LEO and transfer to and from Starship there?

[@colonbina1]

Great idea

[@EddyKorgo]

Actually you are right, they can set up Crew Dragon in orbit awaiting Starship arrival from the Moon and take Astronauts down to the ground and Starship could be refuel for next trip to the Moon. waw okey. Hope someone from SpaceX will think of that

[@jaldeborgh]

Someone needs to say it, the government is throwing billions at SLS, an economically unviable long term alternative while SpaceX is funding the development of StarShip which can easily fulfill the Artemis mission requirements at a tiny fraction of the cost and on a much shorter, more reliable timeline. There is enough data now to have confidence in the StarShip platform, making SLS unnecessary. Starship is far and away the better option.

[@kevinmello9149]

Keep what has already been built, and start looking for less expensive alternatives

[@stevenI613]

Why cant you put SLS upper stage ontop of spaceX stage 1 booster, even if it was not recovered surely it would be 10% of the cost of 1 SLS.

[@sagecoach]

Getting off and on Earth is the hardest part of space travel and hauling. It should be a reusable system built for that job. That is happening now. Once in orbit fueling and transfer capability should provide for sustaining craft in space for space work like Moon landings. That has started to build. Mars craft will evolve as we experience that reality. Faster and more frequent travel may require an earthlike system as Mars develops. SLS learnings.

[@Docjonel]

The Shelby Largesse System

[@AngelLestat2]

I am criticizing Orion and SLS since 2014, screaming that should be cancel because it has none sense from the cost perspective and from the few types of missions that would be able to achieve even if would be finish. At that time everyone call me dumb for saying that. The point is that no public agencies or companies should step up on design and develop hardware, because as they are not risking their own money and all their incentives are all backward, there is no way they can be efficient (plus we know that all public funds are used for corruption). The whole role of NASA should be quite different, just scientist trying to find answers for their questions and providing a "reward" for each piece of data their need to complete their research, that way private companies can look that "reward" list and design hardware (risking their own capital) to collect the higher amount of required data at the lower cost.

[@dongraham7881]

Scrap Launch System. It was always in the name.

[@junkyardzombie13]

We should just stick a dragon capsule in the cargo bay of the starship.

[@stormyridgegirl5229]

In the near term (2028), a Lunar Dragon/FH based on the ISS deorbit vehicle (under contract) meets up with HLS Starship in LLO (not NRHO), then Lunar Dragon brings them home. Later(2035), with some Lunar LOX production, a new Lunar Starship does it all, with full reuse.

[@2ndhandjoke]

Artemis has cost us more than the entire Starship program development combined and has only flown once, Starship has 5 orbital flights and as many suborbital test flights with more in the near future. And ELON is paying for most of it not us like the Artemis program is doing (paid by taxpayers). Cancel it, there will be an American flag on Starship

[@SilverMachine-bm4sj]

Starship hasn't reached full orbit yet, and SLS/Orion has been to the moon and back. I know SpaceX will get there, but until it does SLS will keep going.

[@648546lllooolll]

Nasa should focus its time, money and energy on technology to put into space and other planets and sub contract the rocketeering to spacex.

[@richardcorwin1828]

I still say that NASA and the "legacy" space companies need to be relegated to having support roles for the new space companies but get rid of the DEI programs first.

[@Doofwarrior88]

Honestly it is very stupid to scrap the entire SLS program right now. There is nothing to replace it right now. There is no other heavy lift rocket capable of putting humans in orbit around the moon right NOW. People talk about how expensive this is. But cost actually doesn't matter, when it's the ONLY lift rocket at this moment. Until Starship is certified for human occupation. It doesn't matter what the cost is. It's still cheaper than a Saturn V launch. The whole Artemis Program is 1/5 the cost of the Apolo program. It is foolish to abandon the program so close to the finish.

[@graciasthanks4771]

Money doesn't grow on trees. Add to that that SLS human rating is based on extrapolations from other platforms and never actually tested. Thus, the risk level is still high, regardless of it have been rated based on theoretical analyses. Why a blank check when it isn't needed? Better to wait until someone has a good efficient, cost effective option. I suspect Space X will have it much earlier than SLS is even ready to be launched. If they don't, it's better to delay some months than paying scandalous amounts of money.

[@SilverMachine-bm4sj]

@@graciasthanks4771 It's inevitable that SLS will be replaced and ended, but not until another rocket is ready to go. Starship is getting there, but still has a ways to go to prove it can get to the moon and back.

[@MrStash777]

QUESTION: Pending cancellation of the SLS, could the assembly operations of Starship be conducted there?

[@TheHatManCole]

Probably not for two reason: first of all I am sure that NASA will try to find a way to use the space of the VAB. The second main reason is why would SpaceX want to operate there? VAB was built on ancient assembly considerations, and starship wants to be mass produced which is why we are getting starfactory.

[@DavidJohnson-sf2vs]

Scrap it total

[@JustAThought01]

How about a video comparing the capabilities of SpaceX Starship booster to SLS first stage?

[@Richard-f4b4r]

NASA became too comfortable wasting taxpayer money along time ago. Thank you for the video and the information!

[@colonbina1]

Thanks for your comment

[@jameswalker758]

Why get the lander to land on Earth? It needs tankers to get to the moon, & the delta V is much lower entering Earth orbit. the HLS could orbit the Earth in LEO and retank and load with the next payload to the moon

[@harrisonyoung2445]

Build a few SLS rockets, put them on the shelf and keep them as a backup, cancel all future iterations from there. Lean on blue origin and spacex for the all of Artemis program.

[@keithromig]

I kno you all gonna hate on me but nasa is the pioneer they are the reason we do the things we do. I absolutely love space x it's all I watch anymore but you gotta understand that nasa has all the test facilitys and all that critical knowledge that space x uses. And if it weren't for nasa space x wouldn't have all this work to do. The sls might be 2 expensive but they would have gotten the clipper there in 3 yrs rather than 5 years but once starship is ready we essentially won't need sls so it's coming

[@kevinmello9149]

NASA has indeed done some incredible things over the last 60 plus years. Most of our aeronautic technology as well as our space technology is directly due to their efforts. We need NASA. However... NASA suffers from the same problem all government agencies do... an extremely inefficient way of doing business. The very system the government uses to procure any project is set up to allow for overruns and corruption from contractors. Add to that design changes during the construction process that increase delays and add money to the bottom line. NASA, indeed the entire space and military industrial complex need to adapt a more cost effective and efficient way of doing business or more and more projects will be cancelled due to incredibly bloated budgets. In an environment where every penny depends on what Congress will allow, and that mindset changes like the direction of the wind, being able to develop something on time and under budget needs to become common place, rather than a blue moon event.

[@brianw612]

@@kevinmello9149 NASA is the customer for SX, not a competitor.

[@kevinmello9149]

@@brianw612 I didn't mention SpaceX in my comment. What I was talking about is the inefficient and expensive method of procurement that all US agencies use, cost plus. This type of contract favors the contractor at the expense of NASA, i.e. the US taxpayer. And this refers to all contractors, Boeing, Lockheed, Grumman, etc etc. The US government needs to adopt a less wasteful procurement method that sets a fair price without rewarding contractors (ANY contractor) for waste and corruption.

[@itisDivit]

Just human rate the falcon heavy and slap orion on it

[@EddyKorgo]

no need Orion. Staship can fly back to Earth orbit and use Crew Dragon (or commercial Starship) to pick up Astronauts

[@greghouston2521]

Scrap SLS! New Glenn, Falcon Heavy, Starship will handle the load. Other launchers will come on line this decade from Rocket Lab and Relativity Space.

[@donaldtrammel2475]

Good morning, let’s get on with it!

[@colonbina1]

What are the real benềnits here?

[@richardrigling4906]

Lunar Dragon requires significant changes. Heat shield upgraded to handle much higher re-entry velocity (25,000 mph vs 18,000 mph). Radiation hardening of crew cabin and all electronics. Upgrade batteries, O2, and other consumables. This list is known but long. Also, HLS parked in lunar orbit for reuse, must refueled and reprovisioned, plus cargo transfer in orbit. This requires Starship tankers and cargo to be upgraded for higher speed reentry to Earth and same upgrades as Dragon above. Again, long list of upgrades all of which drive costs and add mass. Replacing SLS is a net gain, but Starship needs a LOT of engineering, development, and testing needed to get there

[@HaroldBauer-rd2sc]

Way to go SpaceX

[@Groqx]

Using side boosters (full falcon heavy system) for starship launches should get the fuel needed to orbit faster. If Spacex developed its own space plane (aka shuttle) or adopts/uses SIerra’s then we have our streamlined answers to a lot of the issues brought up in getting us to the moon.

[@peterkowalcheck8465]

Side boosters would require a structural redesign of the Super Heavy Booster, and a costly and time consuming redesign of the ground systems, (Stage Zero). SpaceX doesn't need a "space plane" if it can land boosters. The mission architecture utilizes tankers to refill, and the next generation of Starship will have a larger tank in the second stage, (Starship) which hopefully requires fewer tanker launches.

[@Groqx]

The super heavy booster is already configured for side boosters (the Falcon Heavy?). But “reconfiguring” via iterative design is one of their specialties. Changing the falcon heavy booster for re-use will save them millions since they now only recover the side boosters. Once they can recover both stages of the falcon 9 then the cost drops even more. Since they can now recover the starship booster (a modified super heavy booster) this should not be that difficult considering the financial savings. A space plane makes sense for safety rather than catch, parachute/repulsive landing systems. That is when considering hundreds or thousands of launches each year in the future.

[@SimonBarlow-3Dkiwi]

SLS is dead 💀

[@colonbina1]

For a long time

[@ajaxpsu]

Scrap SLS.

[@anthonyschirillo4377]

Suggest setting up a space station. Then shuttle astronauts to the station where they will then transfer to a starship designed to complete the journey to the moon station

[@bobstrauss9413]

The Saturn V could lift a heavier payload into orbit. The SLS only had a higher liftoff thrust due to the solids.

[@angelarch5352]

get rid of SLS, spend that money to develop the new Artemis rockets and systems instead.

[@TacTechMic]

The American government needs out of space business, except through a qualified company like SpaceX.

[@logic-ally]

Question, as a private company, SpaceX, can deny partnership with NASA. Now, what will NASA do? The US government must have an alternative

[@brianw612]

Why, to prove some sort of point? Successful business like Space X don't become successful by sabotaging profitable business opportunities. That's a childish notion.

[@noyzmunky]

Nasa are the customer.....

[@ErickAlex1]

Straight to the scrap yard. No one wants to see this in a museum. It represents the opposite of progress.

[@jasons44]

SpaceX needs to work with NASA

[@ExploringCabinsandMines]

LMFAO

[@bezerker1960]

Amazing, with the inception of the new Government Efficency program, headed by Musk, NASA is lookig at its failed programs.

[@JonathanMensah-f4h]

I thought Zubrin was handling the Moon-Mars+ project. The problem with Orion heatshield is that, Nasa is using what it made for SpaceX instead of its own tested on WildOne capsule from asteroid, which was perfect, but expensive. People ask 'Zubbs' of Lockheed what's going down (fm, the horse's own mouth).

[@mlittleds9]

yep defiantly scrap it!

[@ArchieKnuckles-i4p]

NASA is a giant of a government agency. So much money people getting rich,sounds like big gov.

[@StanBarankiewicz]

NASA should purchase SpaceX's heat tile system for Orion and order a second stage to place Orion on top of a SpaceX Heavy Booster. Let's blend the two together to leverage what works now.

[@colonbina1]

I think so

[@Tornado1861]

How about, launch a Luner Starship, send multiple tanker Starships dock with it and fuel it up. Then once all gassed up, launch the crew in a Dragon, dock and transfer to the Luner Starship. Next, launch an smaller, updated Apollo type craft. Undock the Dragon, park it in orbit, dock the new 'Apollo' and head to the moon. Once there the crew moves to the 'Apollo' then the Starship lands, if all goes to plan, land the 'Apollo'. Hang out on the moon for awhile, when it is time to leave the crew launches in the 'Apollo' leaving the Starship on the moon for future use. The 'Apollo' heads back to earth and docks with the parked Dragon and lands. This use safe, known techniques and equipment.

[@luizcarlospereirafernandes5145]

The initial mistake was this... trying to use old technology from past missions. Orion is actually a modified Apollo and the SLS is a reuse of scrap from the Space Shuttles.

[@danthemanzizle]

Take the payload bay and fins off starship. And boom there ya go, 20x cheaper sls

[@barnowl6807]

Everyone is ignoring the political impact of job loss if SLS is cancelled. There is a lot of pressure on NASA to keep paying for this junk development program.

[@raytaylor2342]

So many States and Politicians have their hands in the SLS cookie jar that it's not funny. The whole SLS is nothing but waste.

[@metriczeppelin]

No one is "ignoring" the political impact of jobs loss if SLS is canceled. Having said that, do you propose we just keep this welfare program going for the sake of jobs? Times changes, technology changes. If you're not moving forward then you're falling behind, period!

[@chrissharpley-tu1us]

The SLS and related systems are too expensive, late, unreliable and are old school technologically. Scrap it now and use Starship.

[@brianw612]

SS is no where near ready. It isn't even viable yet. It might not even work out as intended.

[@randycoppola2069]

This has been a joke from jump, everybody knew it

[@Deramirezv]

I was on board until Bloomberg said it, anything he says is really bad for society in general! I'm now questioning if NASA should keep trying!

[@EddyKorgo]

Ehm. So, if SLS is out of question, how does the Astronauts get back to Earth? Will they carry Orion in a frunk for the return?

[@markl8111]

One alternative, SpaceX could build a base in orbit, dock the moon lander, and astronauts could easily transfer to vehicles able to land on earth.

[@colonbina1]

Interesting!

[@cbnc6861]

Scrap waste of tax dollars.

[@benjaminblair3619]

Cancell sls use star ship for all

[@JamesCovington-WX5JJC]

A LOT of robotic exploration missions have been put on hold to fund Artemis and the SLS. Clearly the private market can and will do it better, so that NASA can put its funding where it belongs, on exploration.

[@TheJMBon]

I wonder if anyone at SpaceX has given much thought to landing on the moon and taking off. The Apollo program proved that the lunar surface isn't exactly hard and even the lightweight lander sunk into the surface. Starship is orders of magnitude heavier and to my knowledge, NO ONE has done a study on if the lunar substrate can physically support the weight of starship, even in the reduced gravity. Even a slight tilt or differential settling would be disastrous. On top of that, Starship isn't going to have a launchpad to lift off from. The instant the engines ignite, they'll kick up HUGE amounts of debris, much of which will hit the ship and engines. Additionally, a crater will be gouged out under the rocket and if it doesn't immediately lift off, it WILL tip over.

[@kentgrewe4608]

You must be the only person on earth to consider that. Not. SpaceX will have it sorted out.

[@favesongslist]

The current Lunar Starship design is not capable to do a Moon landing AND return astronauts back to Earth.

[@ralphprice7365]

CORRECTION - Starship is planned to be reusable, it is not just yet.

[@JonathanMensah-f4h]

I'll also tell you SLS is slated to last or cover the next 50-70 yrs like STS served Nasa for 30yrs odd, building ISS, Cassini, Huygens, DoD et al. The extended BlackStar will save Nasa a lot of money, so too HCV cargo&crewed.(both, Boeing & Lockheed). Then StarTrek-like spaceplanes launching to stars telescopes(analogue Versions, STARSHOT).

[@DavidFMartin]

SLS I believe is the last of the old generation rockets, SpaceX if it can get the whole reusable system up and running successfully will make large one use rockets redundant. SpaceX can lift sections of an atomic power rocket to orbit where it could be assembled, maybe a number of atomic power rockets could be assembled in orbit. Then missions to Mars the Moon and beyond could be made with these vehicles and these vehicles refuelled for multiple missions.

[@LoCoNights]

Dump SLS! it is a massive waste of money.

[@ThomasTomiczek]

Save the money. Have congress redirect the money for building - together with SpaceX - a permanent moon base, including developing the technology needed for that, and maybe a proper space station (with artificial gravity via rotation?). Yes, the cost difference is that large - it is insane. And there is a lot to be researched there - even if the moon is boring (which it is not). Closed eco system, growing food in low gravity, manufacturing of structural components. This reminds me of a specific Lord of the Admiralty (UK Navy) that turned a small navy into the world dominating power - WITHOUT ADDITIONAL FUNDS. Why? Oh, efficiency ;) We are on a similar situation - NASA should focus on helping companies that are efficient reach the next goals and develop baseline technology for deep space research and - well - making humanity interplanetary. Yes, that is a cash crab for SpaceX - but then, they in the last decade or more put themselves so far ahead that they are the only partner possible.

[@efone3553]

Scrap sls

[@ozzyozzolium]

Dept of Gov Efficiency headed by Musk will give this program the kick,

[@colonbina1]

yeah! If that program is not efficient

[@Warchin007]

I think it's true that Nasa could better use SLS funds for other projects. This would result in creating jobs with more companies, which is a good thing. I see Nasa as great conductor of an orchestra of space companies for years to come. GO NASA ! 🌐📡🔭

[@stormyridgegirl5229]

Scrap launch system ... SpaceX it all

[@chuckcosby1681]

Scrape the boondoggle!

[@mydrynphillippe7530]

Scrap Launch System! ^0^

[@andrewmcduff666]

Scrap SLS. It's a God awful way to spend money.