The Real Reason NASA's Moon Rocket Has Already Failed

[@TheSpaceRaceYT]

The Black Friday Space Race Merch Drop Is Live! From bold new designs to fan-favorite styles, this collection was made with you in mind - shop.theteslaspace.com/

[@bjorntorlarsson]

How are those jobs "good"? They cost alot. They earn well. Is being a robber a "good" job? They cost alot. And can earn well. "Good" jobs are defined by creating great VALUE. Need to use the concept VALUE.

[@HontasFarmer80]

IMHO. Star Ships HLS cannot just be like the current second stage that will land on the moon. It'll have to be something that will look more Apollo era in some ways just bigger. A big Fing capsule or big Fing lunar lander which once there can be used to get up and down from the Moon a few times with refueling. We should think more of a system of systems rather than a single do it all spacecraft like out of sci fi. Maybe someday but not right now.

[@jantjarks7946]

Is my realism too much for this channel? If so, then let's say goodbye to each other. 👋🤷

[@bjorntorlarsson]

​@@HontasFarmer80 That crane from the upper part of the Starship doesn't look ideal. Especially not for putting down a single piece of very heavy equipment. Like a section of the boring machine that's supposed to make tunnels for the settlers to live in under the frozen vacuum desert of Mars. (Not my vacation dream, but people climb Mt. Everest, so it will happen!) It's Tintin 1950s stuff! Especially for the non-atmospheric Moon, a special reusable landing vehicle from Lunar orbit would be a good idea for any longer term presence there. But that's not in the Artemis project, that's just another flag and footprint mission. And our Elon hasn't showed much enthusiasm for the Moon. He's got Mars fever, that's another virus.

[@EyeoIsis]

DOGE is not an official dept since it has not been approved by Congress. Also in every article I've read said DOGE is an ADVISORY panel with no real power unless Congress give it to them. Why are y'all so enamored with Elmo?

[@patrickmchargue7122]

The SLS is working out exactly as it was supposed to: a multi-billion dollar jobs program.

[@publiconions6313]

Exactly

[@EaglePicking]

Exactly. A scheme to distribute tax payer money to political friends. The longer it takes, the better for them. Hopefully DOGE will put an end to this incompetence.

[@nicosmind3]

The irony that people call these programs "jobs" programs, when they should be better labelled as *job destruction problems.* The amount of people these programs could have employed in the private sector is far more considering the wages. Or less tax means a higher standard of living (if people have more money in their pocket that also equals more spending and jobs), the money spent on this infrastructure would have equalled jobs, or factories which cash-flow (make a profit) so sustainable jobs. Or the billions borrowed (as much of this is done on borrowed money) would never have needed to happen in the first place, meaning less inflation, a stronger dollar, more savings, higher purchasing power, and less tax needed to service the debt. It's not all destruction, but it's close enough. No one calls their local Mafia's protection money as being jobs programs. They can see the Mafia is leeching off them. But government leeching often goes unnoticed!!

[@EaglePicking]

@@nicosmind3 Maffia calls it "protection programs". Politics calls it "jobs programs" or "inflation reduction" or something else misleading to cover the true intent, which is always corruption.

[@vitorneves3054]

@@nicosmind3 Yes, I agree (talking from Brazil)

[@Ilikemycomments]

Don't blame taxpayers for contractors losing their jobs; Blame Boeing for being a corrupt and inefficient contractor. They've have had their doors blown off by SpaceX and the gap will only continue to widen.

[@genius1a]

It would have been a desaster even without Space X. The amount of money consumed with tiny results in the overall picture is just insane in any scale of measurement. As the narrator pointed out: Inflation corrected, SLS cost as much as the whole space shuttle development! That included the engines, they are currently using as main engines in the SLS program. That's ridiculous! And they did not even surpass expectations with that advantage, but had massive delays and cost overruns.

[@Ilikemycomments]

@genius1a I think they've (Boeing) always been a financial disaster. The difference now is that one company, SpaceX, is now producing significantly more advanced and reliable craft at less cost and at a faster rate of production. This extreme contrast combined with the newfound excitement regarding the space program creates a significantly more informed public, especially in the Internet age.

[@edthompson9569]

“Doors blown off…”. Nic.

[@mikeottersole]

Boeing executives need more swimming pools and maybe some Caribbean Island beachfront property. I mean how is that their fault?

[@Ilikemycomments]

@@edthompson9569 the one thing that they wish they could blame on SpaceX...

[@letsgetoutsidenow]

Ha, not surprising that the Senate Launch System would be: inefficient, over budget, and behind schedule.

[@filonin2]

So much bloat with only .3% of the budget. I wonder if the other 99.7% of the budget might be more significant?

[@takanara7]

@@filonin2 The problem is that NASA's budget for actual cool stuff like robotic landers is like 10% of the money and the rest just gets thrown down a sink hole that is SLS.

[@kiverix]

​@@takanara7and the ISS. And Hubble. And JWST. And everything else that is still active today.

[@leverman7517]

Built by Portk Barrell

[@weissfox5857]

@@filonin2 Almost $100b has been spent on the SLS cumulatively, it's averaging around 10% of NASA's budget and over 26% of the whole budget for the artemis program. It is without a doubt dragging NASA and artemis (and humanity's space efforts in general) down by a significant amount.

[@criticalevent]

Everything Boeing touches dies now.

[@jolttsp]

Literally rescheduled a flight because an A321 was leaving just 1.5 hours before my intended flight on a 737-800 😅

[@konkam744]

@@jolttsp good for you, saved yourself a hairline. Imagine 600mph wind hitting you in the face after a door blew off XD XD

[@patrickwalsh2086]

Everything Boeing touches turns to 💩

[@Semprefi]

Especially their Whistleblowers

[@a22024]

They want to D.I.E.

[@phillipkalaveras1725]

It was a jobs program that was never meant to actually go to the moon.

[@eherrmann01]

The Artemis program as designed was doomed to fail from the beginning. SLS was pitched to congress as a cost effective way to use existing technologies and left over hardware from the Shuttle program. What it really was was a way to keep the employees at Boeing and Lockheed employed. The congress loved it because they have constituents in their districts working in those plants around the country, and keeping them happy gets the congress critters votes. The big problem with Artemis is that there are just too many moving parts. The fact that 60 years ago, we were able to go to the moon and come back with just one rocket, and now we need not one, not two, but three different versions of the same rocket just to get people there, then more, totally separate hardware (plus a space station, don't forget Gateway) to get to the surface and back is just ridiculous.

[@DrMackSplackem]

Don't even get me started on Lunar Gateway.

[@mowogfpv7582]

Starship HLS is part of the madness. We do not need a 12 storey tall lander that requires multiple refueling flights before it can leave LEO. Starship *is* a more ambitious rocket than SLS. But the ambition does not align. It is a Mars transport system that doubles as a LEO comm sat launcher. It's not a moon lander.

[@trevors6379]

Well you know, Artemis 1 did already go to the moon and back lol. And remember there were 10 Apollo missions before they landed with Apollo 11..

[@fukhue8226]

It's called a Pitch. They pitched them a cheap offer and they went for it. There is no cheap way to get out of here and away from Humans. GOD invented Gravity for more than 1 reason!

[@blueskies792]

SpaceX Starship has produced nothing of value at the high cost of US tax dollars. You arent going to the moon and nobody alive today is going to Mars.

[@stevecam724]

6:28 Boeing/NASA would lose well trained workers if SLS was cancelled?? "Quality control issues at Michoud are largely due to the lack of a sufficient number of trained and experienced aerospace workers at Boeing."

[@lukestrawwalker]

One of the fundamental "goals" of SLS/Orion was to reduce the enormous "standing army" of highly trained technicians and personnel that were necessary in the shuttle program just to maintain the capability of flying shuttles... The problem with SLS was, the knowledge base and technical skills for designing and building launch vehicles had left NASA decades before with the completion of the shuttle design and development. INDUSTRY has been developing all the new launch vehicles flown after the shuttle, up until SLS, and we now see what a boondoggle dinosaur it truly is... and how breathtakingly expensive...

[@Barbaroossa]

"Boeing" - there's your problem

[@Phase52012]

And they used to be so good at what they did.

[@StarLightDotPhotos]

What people don't understand is that starting with the space shuttle, NASA has been more of a jobs program than it has been a human-spaceflight exploration program.

[@mikeottersole]

It's ok to do both.

[@TheJMBon]

Problem is vision. Even today with SpaceX, the vision is better but still the problem. We are focused on launching from Earth to get to other bodies. Instead, we should be building an orbital construction yard around 2500km up and build our ships there. Then we don't waste fuel as we do now, meaning we go further and faster. Our ships could also be MUCH larger, holding far more crew and supplies. Second, we're still fixated on chemical propellants when we should be utilizing nuclear rocket engines and pouring money into even more advanced engines that don't rely on chemical fuels. Vision is the real problem.

[@Andythespacekid]

The agency has been systematically defunded for decades never allowed to grow again. It defunded to make government “look bad” and private companies good great when they get billions of tax payer money. I bet you you give nasa a real budget theyll blow SpaceX out if the water within 5-10 years

[@half_real]

@@TheJMBon That would be way off. We're still just planning the next space station.

[@burnlootmurder5348]

It's ugly. America's most beautiful rocket was the Saturn 5.

[@jeffbrown66]

Many within NASA never liked SLS from the start. This program was never sustainable under NASA's budget. Unless the budget for NASA is dramatically increased then SLS is doomed.

[@michaelbizon444]

The best of NASA works elsewhere now. What's left are diversity hires and 20 years of quota promotions.

[@ronschlorff7089]

right, like anything, "no money, no nothing"!

[@fredgarv79]

thing of what they could do with 4 billion that won't be spent per launch. multiple robotic missions to mars, europa venus titan, etc. We could send a fleet of small missions to mars, flying drones, etc instead of one of two launches of the SLS

[@ronschlorff7089]

@@fredgarv79 yes, ai probes to the stars too.

[@markschroter2640]

The whole program is a Rube Goldberg Device.

[@raspas99]

As soon as he said Boeing I was like Oooooo.. fuuuuu**.. I'm pretty sure where the rest of the video is going

[@OldMan854]

We need to totally get away from single use equipment. It’s too costly and not necessary.

[@Jordan44752]

@@OldMan854 it will definitely happen within the next 10 years. There are multiple reusable rockets currently being developed by at least a half dozen companies besides spacex. There are a still a few niches that single use currently fill but there are way too many smart people working on this and way too much money at stake. The cheaper the launch the more people will want to launch.

[@UniqueMappingSequence]

spending on reusables would have long term benefits

[@darkgalaxy5548]

Depending on how one does the accounting, each shuttle launch costs as much as a saturn v rocket.

[@TheGeffry]

@@darkgalaxy5548 Not even the Falcon 9 achieved "full rapid reusability" since it's first landing. Believing that the steel barrel will ever get to that point is therefore borderline insane. Sure, the SLS is dumb, but NASA has it's hands tied by politics... The video summed it up pretty well, but missed it's own point because of misguided optimism. The reason America won't get back to the Moon in the '20s isn't SLS, it's because there is at the moment no human landing system on the table that has a snowballs chance in hell of working. Starship is inherently dangerous and at the point not even capable to haul it's own weight in to orbit, not to mention that it needs to be refueled in space for which the technology doesn't even exist... I'm with China on this one. They tend to keep to their schedules.

[@Oldman5261]

Nice handle. Wonder how many of us there are?

[@larrygilbert7273]

I worked at MAF in the 80s, in maintenance. That's where the External Tank was built for the STS. A lot of the production workers had either worked on the Saturn program or were trained up by old workers from the Saturn program. This was true in production and maintenance, as well as prevalent in engineering. I suspect that, when the Shuttle program ended, most of those people either retired or went to work elsewhere. All that accumulated experience was lost. When the SLS program was started, most of the people who knew how to properly build the tanks and maintain the equipment used to build them were gone. Boeing had to start over with new people and train them. Unfortunately, Boeing had lost or discarded the importance of good engineering, good production techniques, and good maintenance. (Plug doors on aircraft held in with tape anyone?) Before you suggest the people who build the Saturn boosters had to be trained, too, I'll say two things. First, Boeing still placed high importance on engineering and production techniques in the 60s. Second, most of those people had worked in the aircraft industry or had been building rockets since the 50s. I also hate to think it, but I worry that Boeing has lost sight of the Zero Defect Concept. You can never achieve it, but your engineering, your production work, and your maintenance work must always strive for zero defects when building manned flight hardware, whether for space or air.

[@sleepysheep792]

Welp, i now believe I won't see actual moon landing as gen z now, just born in right time where all evil shit are exposed everyday, at this point i guess next 50s 60s 70s is when space program was making any progress. I watched so much space man made stuff that i kept seeing this channel keep talking same building for 4-5 times now. Literally nothing new for years

[@gilbert1975nf]

2:38 - now that's the perfect definition: inefficient, bloated, wastful bureaucracy, that do not produce results.

[@regolith1350]

7:23 "Yes there are some issues with [Orion's] heat shield, but that's more a problem around reusing the capsule. It's not going to pose any danger to the crew." That is incorrect. Orion was never going to be re-used (aside from a few token internal components like the avionics computer, which is largely "reuse" PR instead of genuinely useful & cost-effective reusability), so the problem isn't with reuse but with its first & only REENTRY. The heat shield damage (which NASA euphemistically described as "charring" in a classic gaslighting/obfuscating move) was significant (large chunks broke off) and more importantly, is still not well understood (or NASA does understand it and are not telling us because it's even worse than we fear). If the problem isn't well understood, and the cause not identified, it cannot be declared safe. By definition.

[@texasfossilguy]

What do you mean its not working out? It literally orbited and splashed down safely on Flight 1.

[@mikeottersole]

A billion here, a billion there, pretty soon we're talking real money.

[@carldavies4776]

Dirksen lol

[@andyx6766]

"...our first mission to the surface of the moon in seventy years" Huh? Our last mission to the surface was 1972, not 1952.

[@ronschlorff7089]

right, but the great sci fi movie "Destination Moon" (check it out if you have not seen it, kids) was made about then, (early 50's) and it was all Private enterprise!!! And the moon ship, "Luna", was a beautiful stainless-steel thing, coincidently!! LOL ;D

[@mikeottersole]

They can't comprehend simple math, whether it's years or budget dollars.

[@sailordolly]

@@ronschlorff7089 Unfortunately, it had to be NERVA-powered in order to make a direct ascent flight profile possible, and it was a major plot point in the movie that they had to throw away every bit of weight possible in order to make it back to Earth.

[@ronschlorff7089]

@@sailordolly right, and water fuel powered too, is that possible? still love the movie especially the "drifting doc" scene!! LOL ;D

[@sailordolly]

@@ronschlorff7089 Actually, liquid hydrogen (with no oxidizer) is the optimum fuel for a NERVA engine. Water can be used, but it will give an impulse about equal to hydrogen/oxygen combustion (400 seconds vs. the 1000 seconds possible for hydrogen-NERVA).

[@Jordan44752]

SLS is the best rocket for 20 years ago. We can do better now.

[@dantyler6907]

SUPRISE: X is already doing it. Work to make a company better or blow borrowed money for nothing... Hmm... this might take some ti... Got it! X is the better option. Shame X has to advertise for nasa. Not just bordering on, this is full-on pathetic!😮

[@stephengalanis]

SLS is the only rocket that can send Orion, astronauts, and cargo directly to the Moon in a single launch. If another rocket needs 10 refuels in orbit to get to the moon, that's not better.

[@Jordan44752]

@stephengalanis but it literally costs the equivalent of 40 falcon heavies which are 100 miilion each. So even if it took 10 launches it would be the better option by far. Using SLS is a bad idea in every single way.

[@Hannodb1961]

SLS is like the battleship. Obsolete before it was completed.

[@Melkur1981]

​@@stephengalanisRight? Let's see Starship manage that feat before dumping our only current option.

[@markxfarmer6830]

SLS has always been a kludge and Artemis is a bad joke.

[@laurogarza4953]

There is a HUGE difference between being "cancelled" and "failed."

[@markfisher8380]

You can't keep factories open just to keep jobs. With this thinking we should still have steam train factories and telephone exchange centers. The jobs will still be there just at another factory. They are not the first workers to change industries or move home for work. If anything, people taking aerospace technology out it to other industries would be a bonus

[@JamesConnolly1994]

SLS is such a waste of resources it would be better to cancel it immediately, continue to pay people out of work, spin up multiple better projects and employee those people when they are needed. Cost would be the same but you’d actually have useful outputs.

[@wormyboot]

You really made it seem like there was a Black Friday sale on ways to get to the moon. That was pretty funny.

[@richiexp2]

Decades buying black Friday tickets sales to the moon may be a reality...😂😂😂

[@Bamdd5]

The reality is that if SLS never launches again but people have jobs working on for the next 10 years, SLS will be considered an overwhelming success by congress and NASA.

[@bjorntorlarsson]

I owe thanks to Robert Zimmerman of the blog "Behind The Black" (on space flight and Mars geology) for helping me see this kind of end to the SLS disaster already 12 or so years ago. SLS has been extremely destructive for NASA. A huge part of its budget has gone to incompetence/corruption during these decades.

[@baahcusegamer4530]

Doomed from the moment SpaceX proved it could do it better faster cheaper. So much for the pick 2 paradigm

[@JayDeePLUS-BEATZ]

Starship isn't proven to safely transport humans to the moon and back but Artimas is a proven technology that needs no further testing or development it's ready right now and starship won't be ready for another 4-6 years at best.

[@edthompson9569]

@@JayDeePLUS-BEATZjust launch it with a Falcon Heavy.

[@ObscureNemesis]

Only thing starship had done is deliver a banana to the Indian ocean for $4 billion dollars.

[@sammorgan31]

@@JayDeePLUS-BEATZ Since when is Artemis proven?

[@sammorgan31]

@@ObscureNemesis It wasn't $4 billion TAXPAYER dollars. And all Artemis has done is launch an empty capsule for $80 billion.

[@leomoval]

We don't keep programs around simply to maintain jobs that we always knew were temporary. Though the jobs lasted YEARS longer than they should have.

[@runemasterish]

Let's make a really expensive rocket and throw it away every time we use it.

[@davebooth5608]

I know I’m in the minority but I love SLS! This Is my “Apollo!” I just don’t understand why it’s so expensive and costs keep going up. And there are more on the ready. NASA had the whole fleet of Saturn 5’s ready by 1967(I think). I don’t get all the politics behind it, I just want the US to get back to the moon asap. So frustrating!

[@robbannstrom]

" I just don’t understand why it’s so expensive and costs keep going up" - look up the word "boondoggle."

[@thefabulousplatypus8956]

Why go to the moon now? It's a certainty we can do it. It's like wishing to watch tv on a black and white tube tv with only 3 channels. The equivalent is mars or Titan. The Moon is just for test purposes as part of the big picture

[@Lenthium]

"There are cheaper ways to bringing orion to the moon: Black Friday" :D

[@a70duster]

Putting humans on the moon via SLS will require multiple technological miracles.

[@timothygermann780]

Miracle is right, since the SLS was not designed to go to moons surface it was designed to put a capsule on a trajectory to dock with a lander. It has already done that in Artemis I.

[@a70duster]

@timothygermann780 Either you are being nit-picky or you're dense. Via means "by way of".

[@timothygermann780]

@@a70duster Fair enough, but again. It has already done that. No miracle was involved.

[@a70duster]

@timothygermann780 the SLS has not put any humans on the Moon. Please read my first post.

[@NAC_Exec]

The strangle hold gov contractors have on the US dollar is stifling. You know it is bad when a basic space heater is $300 on GSA when I can find the same one at Walmart for $50.

[@BLD426]

Too much money, too little progress.

[@ronschlorff7089]

aka the Harris campaign!! LOL

[@ukk9031]

You mean Starshit vom Rocket-Jesus. I agree with you. That BS from Texas who gives us so nice Explosions in the past and future . . .

[@Sol24alt]

An interesting option with Vulcan and Falcon Heavy, The Vulcan has a max payload to TLI of about 12 tons, but that includes have that mass from liftoff, so the other option is an expanded centuar 5 which has the stated 27 tons as fuel and a bit more dry mass. This would provide about 25 tons of fuel to orbit and another say 2 tons for expanded stage and connector for Orion and ESM, this gives a wet mass of about 57 tons and a dry mass of about 32 tons, with an ISP of 453, If my calculations are correct with the rocket equation then this means it is likely a bit short of Delta V. Might be better with 2 falcon heavy’s instead

[@Bulletin-mf2dy]

The thing is, with Crew Dragon and Lunar Starship, then neither SLS or Orion are necessary. Just deliver the crew to the lunar starship with the dragon and have the starship ferry crew and cargo to the moon. Then for redundancy contract Blue Origin and ULA to develop an equivalent system.

[@notgreg123]

Lunar Starship can't get back to LEO...

[@nathanmays7926]

Bingo. People often forget that SLS is ONLY A BOOSTER. It doesn't include a service module. It doesn't include a lander. SLS literally relies on Starship to get astronauts to the surface of the moon, and yet the Musk haters still try to defend SLS while asserting Starship will never be successful.

[@mikza29_]

I don't think that the Dragon capsule is designed to go into lunar trajectory, I don't think it has the propulsion to go and get back from lunar orbit.

[@kaijenkins4513]

The problem is that right now, SLS is the only means of sending humans to at least lunar orbit. No other rocket with this capability is human rated and will take time. So unfortunately canceling SLS will doom Artemis.

[@nathanmays7926]

@@kaijenkins4513 Starship is literally the lander for the Artemis program. Starship will be able to get to lunar orbit, land on the moon, and launch again. Why not just cut out the middle man (aka SLS)?

[@calc1657]

The Dynetics Lunar Lander, which is in development, would be the best choice for an expedited mission.

[@joechan3388]

SLS just takes some old space shuttle parts and recycles them into a fully disposable rocket that can lob a crew capsule in the direction of the moon, and it has not achieved this low bar, it makes people believe that the American Landings on the Moon indeed were a production series in the Hollywood studios.

[@jamescarter8311]

Well, the Shuttle was never designed for the moon, but SLS could easily launch all Apolla era components if they were all remade today. The problem is a lack of vision and enthusiasm which put us back into LEO 40+ years ago. That and the absurd $4 billion per launch price tag.

[@Trottelheimer]

Have you forgotten Artemis 1? It has lobbed a capsule around the moon - that "low bar" has indeed been achieved on the first attempt.

[@ronschlorff7089]

Groan, and Yawn!! LOL :D

[@xlynx9]

Why is everyone assuming we need to use Orion? Orion is so heavy, it's what has caused the crazy high lift requirements.

[@frankthespank]

6:23 They’re not “out of work”, they’re just changing jobs. SpaceX can use those skilled craftsmen. Sorry if your kids made friends and like their schools ‘cause Dad is renting a U-Haul. Sorry🤷‍♂️

[@Jordan44752]

Not just spacex, the whole industry is booming with smaller companies like Firefly, stoke, rocket lab, and dozens of small satalite and non launch space companies. I'm not worried about anyone being unemployed for much time. Also, big projects laying off whole teams sometimes causes people with good ideas to try to make their own startup and that's always a good thing.

[@12pentaborane]

No they are out of work. Elon is about cutting the workforce to bare minimum and SLS is specifically designed to prolong contracts to STS suppliers.

[@GreenJimll]

But can SpaceX really use those people? They might have some useful technical skills but they come from a corporate world with a completely different organisational mindset. How many of them could adapt and fit in to SpaceX's way of working.... or worse could a large influx of them derail SpaceX's way of working?

[@Jordan44752]

@@GreenJimll spacex is far from the only space company and there is a space gold rush now. Just for launch companies there is stoke, rocket lab, ULA, firefly, blue origin, reletivity, and dozens of other non launch space companies with new made every year. We are beginning a golden age of space technology the jobs will increase for the foreseeable future, I would bet my life on it.

[@frankthespank]

SpaceX is growing and is about to EXPLODE (pun) once Trump gets into the White House and his new buddy, Elon, is gonna start pitching “ideas”. 😎 Space X is gonna need ANYONE with ANY experience making rockets. Seriously, he’s gonna need A LOT of people once budgets start getting passed and things really ramp up. I can’t wait to see what happens next. The key to space exploration is making it affordable. We can’t keep making amazing powerful rockets and then dump them into the ocean after one use, SLS is a “dated” (more like “dead”) concept.

[@greghouston2521]

Another exciting potential mission would be a manned free return trajectory to Mars. This could launch before the end of the next presidential term. Total flight time would be approximately 500 days. Most observers say that without boots on the ground this doesn't count. I recall Apollo 8 "counted". This would be a great leap forward.

[@godfree2canada]

Starship will never be a lander

[@HDREal]

Says who?

[@jim6584]

Doubting a company that has landed around 400 Falcon 9 1st stages. Humm, seems like a smart bet. Do you understand the failure or the limits of Apollo. It was that tiny LEM that was a small weekend camper. Sure you could get to the Moon, snap a few pics and grab a couple of souvenir rocks to take back home but you couldn't build any infrastructure for a Moon base. That would require landing massive amounts (100's of tons) of equipment and supplies. Orbital refueling is a solution that physics demands it isn't a design choice that can be ignored. Building a small Apollo style camper lander again, puts us in the re-enactment business of doing the same things we did in the early 70's. It is a dead end. Want to take "the next giant leap", you need to land 100's of tons of equipment on the Moon/Mars. Again the laws of Physics will make it's demands and it can't be ignored along with the reality of it's costs. Throwing away rockets after 1 launch makes the costs too high.

[@puma7171]

@@jim6584 There is some truth in that. But Starship was not designed as a lander. Refuelling it in earth orbit with 10 other Starships and then again after a moon landing seems like a major waste of resources. Better to land something heavy on the moon, leave it there (as a station?) and come back easily with a small capsule. Or maybe manned spaceflight is just a dead end: there is no purpose for doing something actually useful on the moon as of today. I guess we need new types of propulsion, like nuclear, to actually go interplanetary.

[@timothygermann780]

@@HDREal Starship is tall and slender. Its not ideal for landing on a sloping cratered surface. Starship should have been in wave 2 after a pad or catcher is built to receive it. That is when it will shine.

[@timothygermann780]

@@jim6584 falcon 9 has always landed on a concrete landing pad, not a crater field.

[@wrightmf]

Yes, I would say SLS is a 20 year old program, sort of. When VSE announced in 2004 and then NASA Administrator O'Keefe talked about how much money will be saved by phasing out Shuttle. He was replaced by Mike Griffin who pushed Ares-I and Ares-V (that evolved into SLS). I think what makes SLS so difficult and Rocket Eqn inefficient is using same propulsion system as Shuttle. While that worked for the winged vehicle but using liquid hydrogen for first stage fuel is a bad idea (which is why nobody uses H2/O2 for first stage). But wait, SLS is basically a stage and a half based on Shuttle TAO. Doing single stage to orbit is fantasy, need at least two stages but stage and a half is a half-way solution which the physics will stymie the overall design. Then cryogenic H2 is a PITA to work with.

[@fireX30]

Dang. It’s a cool rocket, but the bureaucracy worked against it. They should just use commercial launchers, falcon 9/heavy and New Glenn. It would be a lot cheaper

[@EaglePicking]

It's not a cool rocket, though. It would have been quite cool in 1975, but for this space age it is literally outdated, because it's just old technology in a new configuration.

[@fireX30]

@ I mean cool looking. Very retro

[@EaglePicking]

@@fireX30 Oh yeah it sure is very retro cool looking :-)

[@thisguysgaming7246]

It’s not a cool rocket 😂 it’s actually a disgusting display of what happens when they wanna do money laundering. It’s all old tech from 1980 and it reuses the old space shuttle boosters. It’s literally just the boosters from the space shuttle they didn’t even build anything.

[@jamescarter8311]

SLS represents the bureaucracy.

[@steveshumway9735]

If you remember the first launch of the Starship, you may have noticed what happened to the launch pad underneath the rocket where unprotected concrete was exposed to the exhaust plume of Starship's 30 or so engines. In short it destroyed the launch pad and subsequently destroyed the engines. Now, imagine what it will be like to try to land the Starship on the moon. That will be entertaining to say the very least as the raw lunar regolith does a fair impersonation of the first launch of Starship. Second point: The Starship uses cryogenic fuel/oxidizers. Such fuels do not lend themselves to a long stay on the Lunar surface. Third point: Once Starship arrives in Earth orbit, the fuel/oxidizer tanks are empty. I've read that it may take as many as 8 subsequent launches of Starship to refuel the Moon bound vehicle.

[@Hobbes746]

You are assuming that Starship will land on the moon using its main engines. That assumption is incorrect.

[@jtjames79]

5:45 The sunk cost fallacy. With a touch of FOMO. You need some Wealth of Nations in your life.

[@appateticgamer9956]

nasa worked better when there where little to no privates.

[@AliasAlias-nm9df]

​​@@appateticgamer9956NASA wasn't working better there just wasn't a point of comparison.

[@orrabmas8991]

Excellent video, thanks. It's hard for me to see the money arguments because we currently spend $1.5 Trillion a year on the military and all other "national security" expenses. At least half that is unnecessary and the result of government/corporate/lobbying corruption. Those expenses include the interest on the debt incurred by past military expenses, the 16-odd offices of national and international intelligence, the NSA and FBI, the DOD programs associated with our nuclear arsenal, veterans' benefits, and several others. Just the "official" military budget is up around $900 billion annually, which is nine times the $100 billion cited in this video for all the "wasted" amount on the SLS program over decades. I'm an aerospace engineer, I've seen a lot through the decades, and I've grown deeply disappointed in this country, especially now because we are assisting Israel in it's genocide and ethnic cleansing, and we are funding proxy wars and fomenting wars with Russia, China, Iran, etc. The latter expenses could be the better part of a trillion dollars in itself. Some people believe that all this is going to be fixed by Trump. He will no doubt cut some wasteful expenses, but he'll also cut many worthwhile and needy programs. To me, he's the typical despot and the nation is the typical mob of different factions that have either misguided and erroneous beliefs or are simply too mentally challenged to understand anything about how a democracy should function. We have created a duopoly that is keeping us in a tailspin. Yes, we are circling the drain, and the trip to the moon is only a footnote. Then there's climate change. . . . . .

[@maerten9517]

Great vid, but I think you guys meant first human lunar mission in 60 years, not 70. I can't be that old!

[@ronschlorff7089]

I think Apollo 17 was the last, about December 1972!! Yes, I am that old!! Saw on TV, the 2 guys in their moon buggy happily riding around, spending our tax money. But I approved, considering what this last "lot" spent money on, hopefully Trump does better at not wasting funds. LOL ;D

[@haikalferdiansyah4517]

Did i just see an alien picture around 0:22?

[@lwaldron9745]

Abolish NASA.

[@rgberry69]

Cancelling SLS does not mean those jobs have to be lost. Sell assets with staff included. Reallocate some to other programs. NASA absolutely needs go get away from building stuff and focus on research, granting and pushing commercial entities to deliver the nasa objectives. I agree that Falcon Heavy and Vulcan are a great intermediary solution for getting astronauts to the moon. But, the starship moon lander doesn’t need to return to earth and be able to reenter the atmosphere. Orion can do that. It just needs to be refuelled in the moon orbit. Gateway can do that, using a tanker starship to deliver the fuel. So, hand over gateway to either Axiom or Sierra Space and give them funding and strict deadlines to meet, to pull forward the Gateway delivery date.

[@JoshBlack71]

Elon Musk Fan boys need to remember SLS got to the moon and back on its first flight, These Musk fans have the nerve to criticise NASA's timelines? Musk promised 4 Starships on Mars by 2024 and have yet to achieve orbit! The booster has some merit but Starship spacecraft is a lost cause and will fail. It is not even known how many launches of Starship will be required to get it to the moon (the most popular estimate is 12). Will this be cheaper? What happens if launch 10 fails? Is the whole mission aborted? The only reason SLS is in jeopardy is because Elon is in bed with Donald. SLS is the only moon rocket that works and quite frankly, the bottleneck in the Artemis program is STARSHIP!!!

[@ukk9031]

100% agree!!! All these fanboy idiots are just crying because they are slowly realizing that their Rocket Jesus is completely screwing them over. I laugh myself sick every day when I see YT posts like this one. It will be hard for the fanboys when they realize in 4 years that their heroes Donald and Elon have achieved nothing and have disappeared into the holes they once crawled out of.

[@JamaicaWhiteMan]

Thank you for introducing a dose of reality. I believe the current estimate for Starship launches to have one reach the Moon is 20. It seems pretty clear that the next humans to land on it will be from China. As for when Americans will reach it again? At this rate, never.

[@jim6584]

You're leaving out 1 rather important fact that makes all the difference. R&D costs to the taxpayer, for the SLS/Orion is about $80,000,000,000 and counting so far. It is also behind it's original scheduled launch dates. The cost to taxpayers for all SX Starship R&D is $0 right now. Spin it anyway you want but that is a lot less zeros. Especially for a new administration that wants to cut healthcare and SS and also spend hundreds of billions to deport 20 million illegals. The public isn't smart but they can see that difference in price rather easily. Yes, SX will get paid for the lunar lander but only after it has developed it. Also understand SX and Musk's stated goal from it beginning is to get to Mars NOT the Moon. Artemis/NASA did NOT have a lander for the $80 billion btw, or is that somehow Musk's fault too? So who is bailing out who here? SX is still building it Mars Lander and NASA is going to buy a few of them, to land on the Moon. SX isn't going to change it's Mars development schedule and hardware for NASA's Artemis program. I am sure NASA tried to get SX to develop a 3rd stage for Starship and a small lander but it would of side tracked them on their Mars goals. So NASA made up that 2024 timeline for SX to try to keep the Artemis program's funding alive. If NASA cancels the SX contract for a Lunar lander, now NASA has ZERO lander options and the whole program really seems beyond a stupid waste of $80 billion taxpayer dollars. BO and Boeing can maybe build something for $30 billion and maybe promise 2030 and deliver in 2035. That would bump up Artemis 3's cost to $200 billion, got to keep SLS and Orion's production lines going, too. I have a NEWSFLASH for you too, if Musk can land a few Starships on the Surface of Mars in about 4 or 6 years. Guess what the American public will be clamoring for? 2 choices, #1 an re-enactment of something that happened in 1969? Or #2 to land the 1st humans on Mars and plant an American Flag on the Red planet? Don't worry Trump will be gone by then. He is already a lame duck with no viable replacement in site. The current admin forced Musk to support Trump, when it delayed the test launches of Starship over some water on the ground and tried to block out Tesla over it's non-union policies. When you're forced to pick between 2 you have to pick someone.

[@FerociousPancake888]

Why not rework the Artemis program considering significant assets for the next 2 vehicles have already been manufactured. Cut off SLS after Artemis 3 and switch to a private contractor for the launch vehicle. Imo NASA shouldn’t be making launch vehicles at all. Stick to what they’re good at with telescopes, probes, rovers, and other payloads. I’m probably biased in my proposal considering I wanted to see Artemis 2 in person.

[@peterderycke5766]

Perfect and clear presentation

[@MattPerdeck]

Few more options: 1) Cancel the entire thing and just forget about building a manned moon base. Let the Chinese have the win. 2) Or: Let contracts to put people on the moon and bring them back - let the supplier take on all the risk and work out how to do it. Also, sell the SLS project with its IP to the highest bidder.

[@Martocciaweb]

Is this a vote? One of these options is much less expensive than the other. 😂

[@karlmahlmann]

Good assessment. We need to always have enough projects going so that good engineers are not out on street when a program like SLS is cancelled. When we lose technical expertise, it has to be re-learned all over again.

[@scottgarriott3884]

Well written and presented. Fascinating, but sad just how wasteful programs can be. The whole SLS story could be an excellent study for senior engineers and engineering managers who grew up being lazer focused on the nuts and bolts and somehow let an entire, stupendously large program fall over.

[@PeppaTurk-meme]

why don't we just use 2 starships: one acts like an orion, comes back to earth, and one is just the HLS

[@cirospaciari5015]

2 starships = 20 refueling launchs but yeah also we could just use 1 starship + quickstage + custom dragon, use the same starship to launch another quickstage + lander, no refill launchs required. Starship is an amazing alternative to put things at LEO even without refueling is useful and can do the job.

[@notgreg123]

Starship is a long way away from being a crew vehicle. We're not getting set back another 10 years

[@kaijenkins4513]

Adding Starship to the program is part of the reason why launches are being delayed. It’s not even human rated and is still in the testing phase. SLS was not the right design, but it’s the only design. Canceling this rocket is a huge mistake.

[@lukestrawwalker]

Starship is not designed for a lunar reentry-- the speed and heat is enormously greater... lunar reentry speeds are 25,000 mph versus orbital reentry speeds of 17,500 mph, a HUGE difference.

[@lukestrawwalker]

@@kaijenkins4513 SLS was a boondoggle from the start. Orion as well They had the option even back in 2004 when the retirement and replacement of shuttle was instituted and a new "Moon, Mars, and Beyond" plan was instituted (Bush II's "Vision for Space Exploration"), to do "spiral development" using existing rockets and evolutions of existing rockets, hardware, and designs, but that was quickly shot down by the existing NASA shuttle contractors that wanted their gubmint gravy train to continue whether shuttle was retired or not... thus the "shuttle derived solution' became an absolute necessity. Even when that proved unworkable with the cancellation of the Ares I and Ares V and Bush's Constellation Program along with it by Obama, the "shuttle derived solution" remained a requirement for SLS, which is why it became basically "Ares V Lite"... even though NASA's own RAC-2 study at the time showed that the most efficient and flexible and lowest operating cost design would be to create a new serially staged liquid fuel rocket with LOX/kerosene powered first stage, an LH2/LOX ascent second stage,, and LOX/LH2 powered in-space propulsion stage (sound familiar?? it's the exact same layout of the Saturn V!) and had the most growth options for increasing capabilities for future missions. SLS was a one-trick pony that requires basically entirely new redesign of major components in every new "block" adaptation, and they're all basically maxed out with that they're capable of doing or being adapted to do as-is-- no room for growth beyond. OF course such a re-created modernized Saturn V would by definition NOT be shuttle derived, so it was shot down as "too difficult to design and build" compared to the "simplicity" of reusing all the existing shuttle parts like SSME's, SRB's, and ET tank tooling and design work which was advertised as being a simple tweak to turn an ET into a core stage with a new thrust structure for four SSME"s underneath it. Of course in reality it turned out that basically EVERYTHING had to be redesigned almost from scratch ANYWAY, which is why SLS is SO pathetically behind schedule and breathtakingly expensive...

[@andrewtaylor940]

Artemis and SLS has a huge problem. It’s all one shot billion dollar single use hardware. In a world where more and more Space tech is becoming multi mission reusable. The death knell for SLS rang out when Space X landed and caught the Starship Heavy Booster. Beyond how impressive it was technically is its economic impact for space flight. Even if Starship itself never gets beyond the test stages. Never Carrie’s a human, never goes to the moon, that booster catch just made it all worthwhile. Fully reusable heavy payload rockets that can be services and turned around to launch again weeks later? Think about what a game changer that is. What does that cost per flight vs SLS’s billion $ per launch irrecoverable hardware?

[@OldMan854]

Especially since his buddy Elon would like to have all of the US space business.

[@rickbase833]

And if SpaceX can deliver affordable and reliable space missions, how is that a bad thing for us taxpayers and the safety of crews?

[@OldMan854]

@ not saying it’s not a good thing to use private companies to reduce costs and improve safety. I’m addressing the ethical concerns of a billionaire that close to the President AND in charge of an “efficiency department”. Musk is gonna make sure SLS is the first “recommendation” to the President and with a near 100% chance of acceptance. Are you aware of Russian oligarchs perhaps? See any similarities?

[@patrickunderwood5662]

@@OldMan854 I’m guessing Musk is smart enough to avoid not just the appearance, but the actuality of conflict of interest.

[@filonin2]

@@rickbase833 Tell me you failed middle school history without telling me you failed middle school history. "What could be wrong with a monopoly whose CEO is part of the government???" Wow.

[@filonin2]

@@patrickunderwood5662 ROFL

[@nerdwatch1017]

I was a huge fan of this thing back when I first thought it was all brand new rockets and technology fully then when I heard it’s basically older unused space shuttle equipment I was disappointed.

[@lukestrawwalker]

It's the most expensive REUSABLE shuttle bits used in EXPENDABLE mode... which is why it is absolutely ridiculously expensive... and basically required a complete redesign of all that hardware anyway! It was a boondoggle road to nowhere from the minute it was approved-- a jobs program for former Shuttle contractors, nothing more.

[@jamesgulland]

The thing is it is in NASA’s interest to have multiple vendors who can venture into space otherwise it will just turn into a SpaceX monopoly.

[@joebaxter6895]

No one is catching up to SpaceX at this point.

[@notgreg123]

@@joebaxter6895 yeah and that's a problem actually

[@balisongman07]

And it's like the other vendors aren't even trying. Flammable tape? An Apollo one change and they just overlooked it. They were incompetent from the start

[@notgreg123]

@@balisongman07 don't confuse Boeing with 'everyone'

[@jamescarter8311]

@@notgreg123 It's not a problem. SpaceX is way ahead at the moment. They do not have a monopoly and monopolies don't last anyway. There's a finite time in business when you have an edge. There will be competition and outright copycats who may even do it better, and that includes the Chinese.

[@princecharon]

The best use of SLS is not as a Moon rocket, but as a way of launching the Main Tank as a space station 'wet workshop' component.

[@lukestrawwalker]

Which was a bad idea in the late 60's when it was proposed for Skylab and remains so now. TOTALLY unnecessary and a complete waste of time, effort, and money. Why it was never implemented even for Skylab. Similar proposals existed for the shuttle ET's, inserted into orbit on each shuttle flight. Was found to be a terrible idea and never implemented. One insoluble problem was "popcorning" of the outer foam insulation layer in prolonged exposure to vacuum in space... the air trapped in the foam expands and eventually causes the foam to pop off in small chunks like popcorn, contributing enormously to the orbital debris problem. We can build modules and even inflatable modules which are purpose built and ready to use once inserted into orbit or delivered to the desired location in space (like Gateway). There is NO NEED for enormous expended propellant tank structures in orbit which woud have to be adapted for use as space station modules after serving as propellant tanks during launch.

[@geesehoward700]

theres no emergency escape system on the starship so thats an issue. hows it going to get flight certified without it?

[@ScoochieR]

Is an emergency escape system a requirement? Or does it just need to be safe?

[@thisguysgaming7246]

You do realize they will add that to star ship soon. They’re still testing it flight 7 is soon. By flight 20 we should have the interior and all the technical details for human safety right now they just testing it. By 2025 they will be able to go to the moon and 2030 mars hopefully

[@oremooremo5075]

Even the shuttle had abort modes for nearly all portions of flight​@@ScoochieR

[@GreenJimll]

@@oremooremo5075 And what was Apollo's abort mode for the two men sitting in the lunar lander about to press the button to leave the moon?

[@kiverix]

​@GreenJimll yes. They could abort the landing at any time. Even when it landed.

[@garymacpherson1535]

Where there is profit there is corruption, it is no surprise SLS based on old tech and nothing to show for it!

[@HumanAction76]

NASA's time as a rocket company is over. The future of NASA is as a certification agency like the FAA. Private companies can innovate faster and do it cheaper. NASA has held humanity back from exploring space to the point that we should be by now.

[@snowcrazed1]

NASA should = science!!!!! Why don't people equate it with that? Space x or anyone else wont be building $2 billion spacecraft to further science at one of the gas giants moons, find the origin of life, verify theories about planet formation, etc... They also did launches and human space flight but the main thing we get from this all is scientific knowledge. Launching people for commercial reasons is completely different. I'm so sad that everyone forgets this massive gift to the world that NASA is. Their data is available to anyone online for free to study. It's called the pds, Google it. Planetary data system I assume it stands for!

[@icy-uq3hk]

I dont really see how NASA has in you words "held us back"

[@randygraham926]

You seem to have missed the part where NASA contracted it out to Boeing and Lockheed Martin -- and they have accomplished little but burning through billions and offering a jobs program. So your ideology says one thing and reality says the opposite .... but don't let me confuse you.🙂

[@jim6584]

Humm, only 1 private company has been truly successful without the CostPlus model that encourages delays and cost over runs. You get rewarded for going over budget and being years if not decades late delivering a launch system. Finish on time and under budget you don't make as much money. A 1st grader can see the problem with CostPlus. Traditional aerospace company's sole objective was go get the CostPlus contracts and milk them for all they could get out of them. SLS get cancelled after $80 billion and only flies once, no big deal. Let's get our friends in Congress to approve another juicy CostPlus pork chop. Rinse and repeat. Boeing tried to use the fixed pricing model with Starliner. Hahaha, how did that work out? It was an epic failure.

[@timothygermann780]

NASA is not a rocket company. It contracts to launch providers such as SpaceX. SpaceX would not exist without NASA. NASA has also explored every corner of the solar system SpaceX has NEVER been to another planet. Exploration and science are not something that often provide a return on investment so Commercial launch providers such as SpaceX will NOT be doing these things.

[@puma7171]

Interesting, but landing a starship on the moon (with or without astronauts) sounds even more adventurous than getting an SLS up there. How many refuels to get to lunar orbit?

[@arctic_haze]

We need SLS to go there first and build the tower needed to catch Starship.

[@clinttown5549]

So not cancelled just click bate

[@jamescarter8311]

It will definitely be cancelled. Maybe one more $4 billion flight. Then it's over.

[@andymouse]

Bait.

[@carldavies4776]

​@@jamescarter8311not the same thing though is it?

[@PinoAstro]

Good analysis. I agree 100%. I like the Falcon Heavy and Vulcan architecture. Though, Elon has stated a number of times that SpaceX would not human rate Falcon Heavy, with all focus on Starship. IMO, it should have already been human rated! On the other hand, NASA has already paid for the next 2 launches of SLS, so why not use the equipment they've paid for, for Artemis 2 & 3... and change course after that to make going to the moon more sustainable?

[@aerohk]

I worked on the SLS exploration upper stage. Glad to know we never have to find out if the thing will work or not.

[@phonotical]

Two words:Elon musk If he hadn't lied and been biking nasa from day one, they would not only never have had to make and design their own on top of what money they ate paying him, now over 3 billion for a design which has carried zero payload, but they'd also have finished by diverting the actual funding into something that wasn't an utter scam

[@sammorgan31]

Fuck are you talking about? ULA has been sucking down cash for SLS and doing nothing with it.

[@lynnlamusga]

Well, assuming that you are going to bring the HLS back into LEO to be refueled for reuse anyways, why even use orion? Get them into LEO using a Dragon 2 on a Falcon 9 rocket, dock & transfer crew to Starship HLS, undock, go to the moon, land, do whatever, come back to LEO, dock with Dragon again, and finally come home. Alternatively you could take the Dragon capsule along with you to the moon, as an emergency backup/lifeboat (if you have enough Δv to do that) that can probably get you home if something ever goes wrong with Starship to/from/in lunar orbit. You'd have to develop an actual propulsion module for Dragon that is capable of a return trip, but it would be worth it to have that extra safety margin. You'd have to radiation harden the crew quarters in the HLS, but you should probably do that anyways if you intend to go to Mars with it someday.

[@anthonybellmunt3103]

Starship is the future, but I still wouldn't get rid of SLS until I know that Starship works! I think it was M. Griffin that said, "You don't want to give up something you've got for something that you might get!" You don't want to gift the moon to China!

[@lukestrawwalker]

the difference is China is going to the Moon with a realistic, pragmatic approach in measured steps that build on their existing capabilities and technology and expanding it in an intellgent way. NASA is going to the Moon to "beat the Chinese" using an overpriced dinosaur rocket demanded by politicians lobbied by the same industry that got billions for operating the shuttles, who didn't want to see their gravy train go away, and is encumbered by a backwards and ultimately unsuitable design due to political necessities and constraints, and have sacrificed everything even to barely achieve that... including sacrificing development of a lunar lander which makes it pretty well impossible to land on the Moon...

[@Melkur1981]

@@anthonybellmunt3103 Now that's sensible thinking.

[@genius1a]

With keeping the insanely expensive and slow building SLS in the pipeline, you ensure that china will take the lead. Maybe not for the first landing, but for the subsequent 20 next ones building a moon station and a permanent presence on the moon. You can't do that with SLS. Period.

[@DrMackSplackem]

@@genius1a The problem there isn't SLS per se but the entire Artemis plan, a giant mess of nebulous and unrelated goals which doesn't hold up to scrutiny. It's been polluted by vendor-driven nonsense like Lunar Gateway, which, if not canceled, will minimize return on investment of the humans put in harm's way. But that's not the only serious flaw. Another one is the halo orbit. This was chosen out of necessity due mainly to Orion's limitations, but the end result is that missions to the surface have just one landing opportunity every 7 days. Issues which threatened safe landings on Apollos 14 & 16 and required additional orbits (of under 2 hours) to work out would instead trigger abort-to-Earth scenarios in an Artemis mission, due to lack of consumables. Basically, Artemis was never serious in its stated goals. They can only be achieved if absolutely everything goes as planned, and even then, will produce little if anything to build upon in the future.

[@ncdave4life]

re: Department of Government Efficiency *_"If anyone thinks the words 'government' and 'efficiency' belong in the same sentence, we have counseling available."_* - Paul Tsongas (circa ~1991 or 1992)

[@JayDeePLUS-BEATZ]

SLS is still the best chance of america making it to the moon in this decade. SLS is already proven, doesnt need any further testing, SLS has fhe ability to launch from Earth, Reach LEO, perform TLI, Reach Lunar Orbit, Land on the Moon, Blast off from the moon and land back on earth all in a single launch which is something SpaceX starship might not ever be able to do in a single launch. Outside of needing to refuel Starship, Starship has no emergency escape system anywhere in the plans. So, not having an escape system will prevent starship from being human rated for being used to launch humans into LEO which i assume is why NASA only choose to use them to just land on the moon from Lunar orbit. If you want to use a Dragon Capsule on board of a Falcon Heavy i believe that Falcon Heavy would need to have a Third stage or it would have the same issue as Starship needing to refuel in LEO. But refueling a falcon in LEO would cost less and be faster than refueling a Starship In LEO. I really dont see Starship being a realistic option no time this decade or the next. Starship needs to slim down, add a third stage and add an escape system. The Starship that lands on the moon isnt going to be designed for a return to earth and neither is the Mars Starship. With the current design Starship at best is a one way trip which would diminish the point of reusability .

[@cat22_a1]

You say "SLS is already proven, doesn't need any further testing" but it hasn't done any of the things you then mention like "perform TLI, Reach Lunar Orbit, Land on the Moon, Blast off from the moon and land back on earth" I think you just assume it can do that. The biggest problem I see is the internal attitude of NASA, they have no intention of ever putting a human beyond LEO. That's why we are decades beyond the first lunar landing with no further progress. NASA also suffers from SOPM (spending other peoples money) which drives up costs considerably, where as private companies like SpaceX, ULA etc absolutely have to be cost efficient because its their money (mostly)

[@PaddyPatrone]

Just take the extra step and launch Orion on a Starship with single use upper stage.

[@vladvostok1723]

BIGGGGG MESSAGE TO NASA.........KEEP ARTEMIS ON TRACK TO THE MOON FOR 2026 LANDING.

[@Jordan44752]

@@vladvostok1723 They 100% won't make that without of complete overhaul of NASA. Although the overhaul may happen but in skeptical any of the promised changes in government efficiency will happen because of all the push back it will receive.

[@lukestrawwalker]

That ain't happening...

[@swissbiggy]

Keep on dreaming, but that will never gonna happen..... 2030 the earliest at the current pace, and that's fine....

[@aoeuuaoaou]

“Efficiency” is the key PR word, the key word for actual is “strategic incompetence”. Look at his nomination list

[@vosechu]

Saying that it’s been cancelled based on a single tweet from an ars author is not appreciated. I’ve made similar comments to the effect, so I think I’m just going to unsubscribe.

[@nzoomed]

I think this is expected, I just want to see it get a crew to the moon for the time being until starship is complete.

[@sooma-ai]

NASA's SLS rocket faces potential cancellation due to high costs, delays, and inefficiency. Alternative plans using SpaceX and ULA rockets are being considered for the Artemis moon mission. The program's future is uncertain with potential changes in US administration.

[@Conundrum191]

Part of me wonders if the endgame at least for now would be to launch crew on Dragon/Falcon 9, have them dock in LEO to Lunar Starship, refuel, and take that to the moon. Then they'd need to refuel in moon orbit (somehow), come back to Earth and decel back to LEO (somehow), dock with Dragon and come home, leaving Lunar Starship in LEO for the next mission.

[@swissbiggy]

Imagine what the US healthcare system could do with $ 100 billion, or the educational system, or how many highways could be fixed with that amount of money..... The US is turning into a second world nation with it's huge debts and crumbling infrastructure... At the current moment 50% of all taxe income has to be used to only pay the interest on the national debts of $ 37 trillion (The debt itself can't be payed and only keeps on growing by an extra trillion Dollar each hundred days...) But hé, why not waste a few billion more on a rocket that will never ever fly to the moon ?!?!?!

[@Halengar-o7]

that's not how canceling a space program works. where did all the money we "saved" on constellation go? not to mention the fact NASA is one of the only Gov agency's that actually return a net profit to the economy. you want more money for social programs ask your rep why a paper towel dispenser for the DoD costs 10,000$

[@RobertChandra149]

Someone at DailyWire really likes Final Fantasy

[@ziyad_aljassasi]

I have a suggestion for the channel , can you use less clickbaity thumbnails please, because many people see it misleading, thank you.

[@Jordan44752]

@@ziyad_aljassasi yeah, I love this guy's videos but he has the worst titles and thumbnails. It took me awhile before I paid attention to him because I thought he was one of those space pessimists who always bad talks space based on his titles.

[@doriandemaio280]

NASA is a relic of an aging operating system where technological innovation and challenging mission goals have taken a back seat to politics and job security like most government bureaucracies. And, cost effectiveness was always a secondary consideration for most NASA programs. Space X has demonstrated how to do more with less through highly motivated best of breed people. NASA needs a bottom to top reform.

[@kaijenkins4513]

While I agree that the design of SLS was not the right choice, replacing it now with Starship is an even worse choice to make. Everyone asking to cancel SLS for Starship is not grasping the fact that there is no other rocket that’s both human rated and capable of taking humans to the moon except for SLS. Replacing it even with Starship will take years to develop. Which will doom Artemis and we will all be left with an I promised program. The real solution for this nightmare is that Congress should give NASA the funding it needs in order to push forward.

[@jameswilson5165]

Won't happen. It can't happen. Trump has made way too many promises as it is. Why? Because HE Is The President Who Started Artemis! Do you Realllllly think Trump would tell the American people: "Ok. I screwed up." That's what the press would hammer away at. Not happening. He will turn to Musk privately and ask him to save Boeing. Mush will NOT destroy Boeing or buy it. He will find competent people to do what Boeing was paid to do. Like it or not, Boeing and SpaceX Have to Work Together to make this work within the time limits to beat the Chinese.

[@lukestrawwalker]

Artemis was doomed the moment it planned for a lunar landing mission WITHOUT building A LUNAR LANDER! The whole thing is a bad joke and has been since Bush II's VSE cancelled the lunar lander back in the early days of the Constellation program to free up more money for Ares I and Orion development... the long pole in Apollo was the lunar lander... the Apollo Capsule and Saturn V launch vehicle were ready YEARS before the LM, which was the most difficult part of the entire effort. When NASA canned their lunar lander development I said then they weren't going to be landing on the Moon anytime soon even IF they had Orion and Ares I/V (now SLS) ready... and so it is now...

[@DrMackSplackem]

@@lukestrawwalker Not just that, but Artemis's human spaceflight goals are only possible if _everything_ goes exactly as planned (which means not very possible), and even then, they must be done in such a way as to minimize return on the investment of placing humans into harm's way. Don't even get me started on Lunar Gateway, but suffice it to say, the only station we should be thinking about building is one on the lunar surface.

[@lukestrawwalker]

@DrMackSplackem yes, I agree to a point. Gateway itself isn't a bad idea, in fact it makes several goals of the program possible-- anytime return, and landing anywhere on the Moon. Anytime return isn't possible with Orion because of lack of Delta v capability, and orbital phasing requirements. Landing anywhere requires the lunar orbit plane be aligned with the landing site latitude... Which means the entire mission must be launched from Earth into the same latitude plane, accounting for differences in lunar orbit plane, greatly affecting launch orbital inclination and thus power and capability of the launch vehicle, as well as mission timing. Gateway removes those constraints because you can launch directly to gateway, then depart it at the inclination required to achieve orbital inclination around the Moon to access any landing site on the surface, and you can depart for the surface or return to gateway at any time, instead of having to time things to rendezvous with a spacecraft in lunar orbit. The weird extremely elliptical lunar orbit that Orion is only capable of achieving due to its mass and low Delta v capability only complicate things further. Basically a landing at the lunar poles would require launch into a near polar orbit from Earth, or massive plane-change propulsion capabilities of the spacecraft, neither of which SLS nor Orion is capable of. Hence Gateway...

[@user-80011]

Will the Artemis 2 project be permanently cancelled?

[@otterpossum9128]

We should be working with China rather than look at exploration as a competition.

[@titanicbigship]

No

[@ronschlorff7089]

Never going to happen. Germany never shared V-2's technology with England did they, they just gave them a brief "closer look" at them. LOL

[@edthompson9569]

You have to be kidding - or a bot.

[@Wayoutthere]

NO

[@atimholt]

If Artemis isn't cancelled, it'd be hilarious if SpaceX tested the lander's suitability by just landing civilian astronauts on the moon first.

[@The-KP]

Trump approved Artemis development during his first term. Meanwhile, everybody's fawning over HLS which requires at least fourteen superheavy launches just to fuel it for ONE trip to the moon! Much higher risk. And you have ZERO idea how much all of it costs bc SpaceX is a private company. You also have zero idea when it'll be ready for its first trip, bc Musk infamously does R&D by blowing things up instead of making a solid design beforehand. Imagine if SpaceX had built the Space Shuttle, which worked from the very first launch. The first dozen SpaceX shuttle launches would all have ended in disaster. With NASA at least you have a high degree of certainty. With SpaceX, you just never know when they'll be done or ready.

[@EaglePicking]

What you say is technically true, but misleading. NASA did indeed launch the Artemis program in 2017 under president Trump, but it was president Obama who, in 2010, ordered and approved the construction of the SLS. The SLS, which is, in essence, a corrupt scheme to take tax payer money and give it to political friends in various states to have jobs programs. The longer it takes to build it, the better for these bureaucrats.

[@ExHyperion]

This comment reeks of ignorance and misunderstanding. Every sentence a demonstration of the dunning Krueger effect… Allow me to elucidate, if you’ll even listen. 1. SpaceX launches more cargo to space than the entire rest of the planet combined and then DOUBLED. They launch close to 14 rockets every month at this time. If you think their reliability is to be doubted, then you’ll be losing that bet alongside the billionaires running ULA and Ariane Space who said that SpaceX could never survive with reusability. 2. The HLS program will require in orbit refueling, but that does not mean it needs 14 flights to go successfully in a row for the mission to happen. They’ll have a big tank in orbit, and they’ll have it full before the mission even begins. So as long as finalized starships can launch 14 times with fuel by 2028 (when Artemis 3 is slated to launch), the mission will be fine. You can store fuel in orbit much easier than storing it down on earth, no air to warm up the fuel to cause boil off. 3. SpaceX develops rockets and has the LUXURY of blowing them up. They build 10 rockets in less time than it takes for any other company in the US to build 1. The first 3 falcon rockets blew up, and there’s been 2 more explosions shortly after that. For the past 250 flights or so, falcon hasn’t so much as had an engine shut down early. So far only 3 starships have blown up and there’s rest completed their missions outstandingly. 4. If spaceX had developed the shuttle program, the shuttle wouldn’t have required crew to fly, which means that missions like Columbia and challenger most likely wouldn’t have had crew on board.

[@jacoblf]

1. the # of tanker launches doesn't matter. The cost of the system is 1000s of times less. The risk is mitigated. 2. The NASA HLS contract with SpaceX is a simple flat rate - it isn't cost plus. 2a. Because SpaceX is a private company they aren't beholden to shareholders or trying to protect the stock market value. They aren't worried about public opinion. 3. SpaceX is pushing beyond the envelope and finding the real failure points of the system, This is similar to what NASA did in the 1960s. 4. Unfortunately they didn't do similar testing on STS. Many lives would have been saved. NASAs SpaceShuttle did end in disaster. 5. NASA appears to be controlled by Congress. Things change every 4 years. And some really really stupid decisions. eg: Janus project - now in "cold storage". Total waste of millions of $s.

[@The-KP]

@@jacoblf #1 Check your numbers. You've learned how to produce the Musk Reality Distortion Field™. Guess who funds SpaceX, Starship and HLS development? NASA and the U.S. taxpayers, and it ain't cheap. #2 Nope, check your sources. #4 STS did do much testing, and now SpaceX have run up against the same limits of reentry protection material. The main reason they produced four Dragon crew capsules is it takes minimum four months to rebuild the bottom end of it. All the tiles have to be replaced, and structure too when burnthroughs occur, which they have on at least three flights I've heard. #5 and NASA produces some amazing science.. SpaceX wouldn't exist were it not for the nearly 70 years they've been in existence and producing fundamental science. And replace Janus with DART to remind yourself of that.

[@Quantorful]

I think you fundamentally misunderstand how much influence Elon will have with the "Department of Government Efficiency" (DOGE). I put it in quotes for a reason, because here's the thing: it doesn't exist. Government departments can only be made or removed by acts of congress, and there is no DOGE. Additionally, any changes like what Musk wants to do also require acts of congress to enable them, such as those which govern already existing departments. Elon has, in a very real sense, no direct control or influence unless he is appointed to a department or agency that actually exists. And if he is appointed to a single agency, then he can only act within that agency. I highly doubt he would accept such a position given how limiting it is. So realistically, as the structure of the US executive branch currently is, Musk won't have the ability to directly decide to do any of the things he's proposed. He could have _indirect_ control or influence, but the evidence thus far doesn't point to that being something he's likely to have much success with. There are 2 avenues of indirect influence he could take. The first is congressional lobbying, since congress needs to pass most of the changes Elon wants to make. Since Trump's election win, he's already made some attempts at congressional lobbying, primarily trying to get certain people into certain positions. Some of his other attempts have been related to repealing particular laws or policies. Of the things I'm aware of, the large majority of them have either already failed (every person he's backed has lost or is out of the running), or have been flatly rejected even by a considerable number of republicans. Only a few still have a chance of success. This is especially true on the biggest and most important things he's spoken about and devoted the most attention to, like Senate Majority leader. Basically, Musk's track record of congressional lobbying is thus far off to a very bad start, since nothing important that he's pushed for has gained any traction. The second method of indirect influence is through influencing Trump. Here the evidence against Elon's chance of success is less about his own track record, and more about Trump's history. In Trump's first term, almost _nobody_ could consistently influence him on anything, even when they were his allies and trying to help him achieve his goals. Not his confidants, not his hand-picked people. Even his own kids had very little influence on him. Trump isn't really the kind of person who listens to the ideas and suggestions of other people. He mostly just comes up with his own ideas and expects other people to make it happen. He also can't stand the idea of people thinking that somebody else has control of or influence over him, since he always wants to be perceived as the one in charge. This means that if Elon tries to exert too much control or influence, he's likely to get dumped and lose any chance of influencing anything. Elon hasn't really had any historical practice at influencing people since most of his career he's just been in charge, and that's what he's accustomed to. When he hasn't just been in charge, usually he either loses influence or walks away, like what happened with OpenAI. So frankly, he's not actually good an influencing or lobbying since it's very much opposite to how he normally operates. Because of these things, I doubt that he's going to end up having much of any influence, and thus little success with the things he wants to do.

[@arctic_haze]

Unless Trump gets rid of the Congress, like Palpatine of the Senate. I wonder if that would make Musk his Vader.

[@joseeduardobolisfortes]

The irony is that NASA expected to spend less money by converting the Space Shuttle's reusable launch system technology into a single-use rocket.

[@officialcheetahhopperz1]

SLS is flawed, but cant exactly be replaced, so we are kinda stuck with SLS but maybe there can be some modifications to it that can make it less expensive (even minor modifications)

[@haroldrose8056]

If China starts getting serious about their moon program watch how quickly the US government gets this rolling.

[@PerfectChemistrySolution]

EMF have a vortex at there top pole I theorize that rotating a high voltage lightweight emf could create a flat vortex rather than a normal. The goal is to have the emf vortex flatten to a magnetic field current found in the atmosphere. By increasing rotation speed you flatten and widen the emf vortex

[@kennymcnicol]

The way NASA build It's rockets and space craft for manned flight is just too dame expensive. Let private enterprises take over. NASA can handle oversight, astronaut training!

[@Andythespacekid]

That never plays out well. The best space programs are when governments control the companies and productions around it that gets results. Soviets and Americans in the 60’s did it and Indian and China do it now.

[@kennymcnicol]

@Andythespacekid In the United States, the cost numbers say otherwise!

[@konkam744]

Your videos' quality has risen lately, no AI commentary. You just have to use a bit more spice I think. This is just a commentary channel and it's doing quite good in relation to others