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)

[@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

[@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.

[@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...

[@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..

[@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...

[@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?

[@phillipkalaveras1725]

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

[@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.

[@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.

[@raspas99]

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

[@gilbert1975nf]

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

[@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.

[@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

[@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.

[@Barbaroossa]

"Boeing" - there's your problem

[@Phase52012]

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

[@laurogarza4953]

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

[@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

[@burnlootmurder5348]

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

[@mikeottersole]

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

[@carldavies4776]

Dirksen lol

[@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.

[@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.

[@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.

[@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.

[@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!

[@xlynx9]

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

[@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...😂😂😂

[@markxfarmer6830]

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

[@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)?

[@texasfossilguy]

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

[@T_Mo271]

I despise the Orange Menace heartily (the man, not the external tank). But if clobbering SLS is the result, the election was not entirely a bad thing.

[@ObscureNemesis]

SLS sent Orion around the Moon. Starship so far has delivered a banana to the Indian ocean.

[@Wayoutthere]

SLS is a one trick pony..

[@TheBooban]

Yeah but there is nothing wrong with SLS. If you give falcon heavy to Boeing it also wouldn’t work. If you give Vulcan to them, it also wouldn’t work. The problem is Boeing. Just give SLS to SpaceX.

[@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.

[@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

[@calc1657]

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

[@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

[@haikalferdiansyah4517]

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

[@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.

[@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. 😂

[@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 . . .

[@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.

[@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.

[@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.

[@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?

[@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.

[@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?

[@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.

[@peterderycke5766]

Perfect and clear presentation

[@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.

[@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.

[@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.

[@PaddyPatrone]

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

[@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

[@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.

[@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!

[@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.

[@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.

[@Trumplestilskin]

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

[@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.

[@Lenthium]

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

[@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.

[@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?

[@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.

[@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.

[@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.

[@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...

[@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

[@RobertChandra149]

Someone at DailyWire really likes Final Fantasy

[@xXSwaghetti.YoloneseXx-uf2bb]

They could do the entire thing in 3 falcon heavy launches. 1x FH for ESM/transfer stage 1x FH for Lander 1x FH for Orion + Fuel Take the ESM, Transfer, Lander and Orion (TOLE) to the moon. Land, leave lander in lunar orbit, come back. Leave the ESM/transfer stage in earth orbit. Renter using Orion. In future 1x FH for orion and fuel could be used. Dock with transfer/esm in earth orbit, dock with lander in lunar orbit. Hardest thing would be making a lander. Lunar Starship is great, but doesn't it need like 8 orbital refills - requiring 2-4 starships/superheavies and orbital boiloff solved plus everything is. Making a bare bones "plant a flag" capable lander sounds much easier.

[@lukestrawwalker]

"Plant the flag" is ridiculous.. we "planted the flag" over 50 years ago... the whole idea now is a SUSTAINABLE "permanent" lunar presence... and SLS/ORION ain't it! Not at $4 billion dollars a launch JUST FOR THE ROCKET!!! That ain't even including ANY mission costs beyond launch, for hardware or training or equipment or ANYTHING else... Lunar starship is too big for what's needed IMHO. Maybe at some point it'd be useful but to start it's using a sledgehammer to kill a gnat...

[@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

[@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.

[@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.

[@garymacpherson1535]

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

[@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

[@jiri187]

Why not to use Crew Dragon to get astronauts to the orbit, then transfer to Starship, make the trip to the moon and transfer to Crew Dragon for deorbit on the way back? I'm pretty sure that HLS can actually make that trip and it doesn't need a heatshield then.

[@stevecam724]

9:25 "The objective of NASA's Artemis II mission is to test the Orion spacecraft and Space Launch System (SLS) rocket for the first time with a crew of astronauts. The mission will also assess NASA's capabilities for deep space exploration." A 10 day mission without a luna landing.

[@sailordolly]

Apollo 8 and Apollo 10 went to lunar orbit without landing, so having just one lunar orbit test of Orion doesn't seem bad.

[@Oldman5261]

Suggest that NASA replace the SLS with a reusable super heavy booster, an expendable starship as a second stage, and an Orion/ESA service module on top.

[@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.

[@omar-um4ns]

Hello, I don´t understand (maybe because I not have enougth knowledge in space flights, of corurse), why not to modify a starship, like a second stage to reach the moon with a third stage, with a Orion and a lander, Apollo style? No orbital refuelling, no rendezvouz in lunar orbit and less money in less time to reach the moon Sorry for my english, is not my languaje

[@lukestrawwalker]

Because NASA cancelled their lunar lander development way back in like 2005 to free up more money on the roughly $9 billion or so they totally wasted on Ares I development back then, before it was cancelled in 2010 by Obama. Ares I was a bad joke but NASA stuck to that boondoggle long after it was shown to be a bad joke. Ares V, the cargo launcher, was hobbled by the extra weight it was going to have to launch to make up for Ares I inadequacies. THe main concern for the 'space industry lobbyists" paid for by Boeing and Lockheed Martin was to keep the money flowing-- if shuttle was to be retired, then a "shuttle derived solution" must take its place, ensuring they kept getting the money. Hence we got SLS, which was just "Ares V Lite"... Planning a moon landing when you're not even building a moon lander was just idiotic from the start. In the Apollo program, the Saturn V booster and Apollo spacecraft were both completed and ready WELL BEFORE the Lunar Module lander... NASA should have been working on a lander from the get-go, but they DIDN"T... didn't have the money and wasn't going to be given the money, and SLS and Orion were sucking up all the money they DID have... The whole program is a JOKE and a FARCE...

[@omar-um4ns]

@@lukestrawwalker Thank you for you contribution. It is so pity the whole situation. Boeing is a mess, I guess Lockheed is a same thing... and corruption is... corruption, evrytime, evrywhere, and so on. How disapointing

[@hellholder98]

In my opinion, it would be better to use SLS for Artemis 2 & 3 as it's the only launch vehicle capable of getting Orion to the Moon and most hardware for those flights are already built. After Artemis 3, i'm not sure. My guess is they'll either use Starship for lunar flights or Orion could be launched into LEO then have a Centaur-V pick it up and boost it to the Moon like said in the video.

[@savethedeveloper]

7:33 the heat shield is a no go for artemis 2. You heard it here first

[@CRod840]

I get it for efficiencies sake but it’ll be a shame to see the SLS go. I remember watching the launch broadcast, and rewatching it occasionally. Seeing it so loud and so bright. Making plans to see it in person for, hopefully, both Artemis II and III. If this video does come to be true it’ll still be amazing, like any rocket launch should be, but what it could be

[@markuswalden9186]

All we really need... Famous last words. This is the story of sunken cost fallacy. The right approach, is doing engineering with requirements for modern technology. I think the solution has to be two fold. Development of low cost process to transfer people in and out. The use of starships for cargo and base building.

[@cm1701a]

Your headline should say “possibly failing” it hasn’t failed yet- accuracy matters.

[@Trumplestilskin]

Fellow intelligence. Rocket propulsion needs to be replaced. I have been theorizing how to make an emf kite. The earth natural emf actually has a gravitational flow that I believe can be harnessed by rotating two discs of EMFs creating a push between the two magnetic fields and if we rotate them fast enough can we create a lighter emf that will pull you up into the emf current

[@hurgle3197]

The SLS is the best vehicle for launching lunar gateway nothing else will be able to compare in the near future, after that i think its cancellation can be worked around for artemis.

[@bnbcraft6666]

I think the lunar gateway should be canceled but it would be tragic to see artemis as a whole get canceled

[@massimomarchionni2262]

I'm interested in understanding how to dock Centaur to Orion, given the ESM engine sticking out. I'm not saying it's impossible by any stretch of immagination, just curious.

[@genius1a]

Very informative overview! But I think there is a logical mistake at the end: If the starship system (partly) works, there is no reason to stick with just the Lunar landing starship and its necessary tanker flights to LEO. Use a secon one that you need for testing beforehand anyways, to deliver the lunar gateway and boom - its exactly as it would have been handled with SLS. No need for Lunar starship to return to earth. Just use the orion capsule the way you described it. Do I find that likely? Of course not. As soon as the starship system is payload capeable and (partly) reusable, I expect dozens of flights in the first year, with a steep ramp up in the following years. Look at the flight cadence of Falcon 9! Remember how fast it got human rated! Imagine something like that with Starship - even cheaper per flight for many reasons. You could easily use several starships to build a privatly owned Space Station in LEO, dozens of tankers, a privately owned space station in Lunar Orbit and - as planned before - the Lunar Starship Lander. Yes, you could still use the Orion capsule for ascent and landing, if starship was not ready in time to get human rated for landings. But maybe Orion or multiple Space X capsules get lifted up to LEO by a starship at that point in time, as it seems to be very relieable in ascent already.

[@user-fr3hy9uh6y]

"Development of the SLS began in 2011 as a replacement for the retiring Space Shuttle"!!!!!!!! NOT THE MOON! That is why Congress mandated the use of shuttle technology for a quick development. Only after it failed as a shuttle replacement was it re-purposed as a lunar launcher. That is one of the reasons why its mass to low earth orbit is so large, and the mass to lunar transfer orbit is so small.

[@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)

[@tomholroyd7519]

5:56 sunk cost fallacy, throwing pearls to swine, the front fell off Also, talented aerospace engineers will have jobs at certain other companies, don't worry about that

[@Hannodb1961]

If I take the trajectory of development for the last 5 years and extend it forward, I do not see a future in which the entire mission will not be done exclusively by starship.

[@danlemke6407]

Why not use the ISS as a service station. Send manned rockets there and return them to earth from there. The lunar lander stays in space. It refuels and goes on another mission, better equipped than last one by docking with the next mission equipment. Maybe even sending another with fuel and supplies to equip or even rescue troubled crafts from all nations.

[@t.a.r.s4982]

The centaure stage would have to be refueled in orbit too, it can't reach orbit by the vulcan booster only (I bet, to be checked), so again RnD, extra costs, delays, etc... Not sure it's a viable solution.

[@sailordolly]

Double Centaur. The first one is used as the standard orbital insertion stage, and the second one is the entire payload that is delivered to orbit.

[@user-ck9cw8fs5n]

A cool video idea: Since the RS25 engines (that SLS uses from the shuttle era) were made to be used again, "How feasible is making SLS reusable?"

[@lukestrawwalker]

It's not. The orbiter was the heat shield and return vehicle for the SSME's. The orbiters are all museum pieces, and couldn't be used on SLS anyway. The core vehicle of SLS achieves just shy of orbital velocity, so the core reenters and is burned up from almost orbital velocity. It was in no way designed for reuse, and cannot be. It'd have to be redesigned from scratch, and SSME's cannot be relit in flight unlike the Merlin engines. Even a 'reentry pod" for the SSME's, or a thrust structure with a heat shield and recovery parachutes/gear designed to separate from the core and reenter and land in the ocean was studied and found to be too expensive to design and build, and too heavy with additional mass that would cut too deeply into the payload performance capability required of SLS to ever be feasible. SO expending four SSME's per flight along with the core is just the reality of this dinosaur's design... Even the SRB's will be expended. The only test flight of a four segment shuttle SRB topped with a fifth dummy segment (Ares-I-X) proved that the five segment boosters would be bent beyond repair after parachuting into the ocean after a flight, so NASA sold off its recovery ships and did away with any plans of recovering five segment boosters, deleting the parachutes and equipment necessary for booster reuse which saved weight which increased the rocket's payload capability-- but again totally eliminated the reason for reusing shuttle hardware in the first place. SLS is TOTALLY expendable one-time-use rocket, made from the most expensive REUSABLE bits of the shuttle... which is why it is such a horrifically expensive design per-flight, when coupled with the ridiculously low flight rates that basically force each launch to carry the costs of years of sustainment program costs and infrastructure and personnel costs to maintain the capability to fly SLS over multiple years on every single launch... Shuttle at least amortized the sustainment and program costs and infrastructure and personnel costs over several flights per year, even if it was just two a year there near the end of the shuttle program... Designed to fly only once every 2-3 years or so, SLS will have breathtakingly high sustainment costs which is why each launch is around $4 billion dollars, JUST FOR THE ROCKET AND LAUNCH... NOT including mission costs, hardware flown, training, etc...

[@user-ck9cw8fs5n]

@@lukestrawwalker I mean let's try to make it reusable for fun really quick. Let's truly try. Instead of the SRBs, what if you strapped 4 falcon boosters to the core? It would provide a similar thrust as the two SRB's and a slightly longer burn time. 4 new drone ships can be in the ocean. Not sure of any ideas to reuse the core though. Maybe if they do some kinda starship heat tiles magic on one side or something with flaps.

[@cmdrchaos26]

personally I think if the SLS is canceled it would be a good thing. I hope the funding from it would also go into new or other programs

[@Kirovets7011]

A couple of days, i saw some images of the ISS, with the Orion serving as a supply capsule for the ISS. Is that right?

[@kiverix]

No.

[@notgreg123]

@@Kirovets7011 that was the plan during Constellation. Orion was meant to also be a crew transport to the ISS but they decided against it after cancellation