NASA Has A New Problem With The Moon Mission (Artemis)
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 15 ก.ย. 2024
- Sign up for the weekly Space Race newsletter here: www.thespacera...
Last Video: The Real Reason Nuclear Energy Is The Key To Elon Musk's Mars Colony
• The Real Reason Nuclea...
►Sign up for the weekly Space Race newsletter here: www.thespacera...
►Become a member today: / @thespaceraceyt
►Support the channel by purchasing from our merch store: shop.theteslas...
► Join Our Discord Server: / discord
► Patreon: / thespacerace
► X/Twitter: / thespaceraceyt
► Subscribe to our other channel, The Tesla Space: / theteslaspace
Mars Colonization News and Updates
• Mars Colonization News...
SpaceX News and Updates: • SpaceX News and Updates
The Space Race is dedicated to the exploration of outer space and humans' mission to explore the universe. We’ll provide news and updates from everything in space, including the SpaceX and NASA mission to colonize Mars and the Moon. We’ll focus on news and updates from SpaceX, NASA, Starlink, Blue Origin, The James Webb Space Telescope and more. If you’re interested in space exploration, Mars colonization, and everything to do with space travel and the space race... you’ve come to the right channel! We love space and hope to inspire others to learn more!
► Subscribe to The Tesla Space newsletter: www.theteslasp...
Business Email: sean@creatormill.com
#Spacex #Space #Mars
Sign up for the weekly Space Race newsletter here: www.thespacerace.news/subscribe
Getting a NASA contract or any government contract is like hitting the lottery. You can do unsatisfactory work not meet a single deadline and still get paid 400x the quoted price lol.
Wait until President Trump is in the WH, the game will end...
Yes, perhaps today, but during the 60's it ensured your company would go down in history for as long as there is true history, like the Grumman aircraft company, which built all the Apollo lunar landers that performed flawlessly, including the one that saved the Apolo 13 astronauts!! :D
Stop bashing spaceX! they are trying to do their best....😉
Cost plus pricing is the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard of. It’s basically an open scam and probably a way for people to allow their buddies in the private sector to massively profit. There has to be corruption involved.
Like Boeing and their failure of a capsule. In the unsatisfactory case specifically.
One thing's for sure, Bechtel can stay a family company for the next 200 years with what they've raked in on this order.
They must know where the bodies are buried to remain independent like that.
They made "yuge" profits during the Gulf War, Iraq invasion, Afghanistan, etc. No-bid contracts have fed them well.
Knapp
Giving a government contract to the lowest bidder on a cost-plus contract is hiring the biggest liar and paying him for every promise broken.
Well, as a proud owner of a house, I can say it is the normal way of doing things in the construction business :(
@@ngamashaka4894SLS is a bit more complex than even your house.
@@StillAliveAndKicking_More complex, but in the end they make you pay extras once they've made holes in your walls and say they find complications that require you to pay right now or they'll leave you that way and leave... I've already been there, it's not that complex, it's just a scam...
@@StillAliveAndKicking_we all know sls is more complex than a house why’d you say that
@@tbounds4812 Best comment award here so far!! LOL
Cost Plus contracts are a way to fleece the govt. These companies do not care about the end result because they know they will get paid, regardless.
Congressional mandates.
Blame Congress. And NASA.
They are not fleecing the govt. they are fleecing the tax payers. Which is why NASA was never capable of performing within a budget. Just as it is with anything the govt. participates in.
@@jamesogden7756 yes, and congressional budget cuts of NASA, in the 70's, ensured that we would not be on Mars by the 80's or 90's! And Carter even let out first space station, Sky Lab, crash to earth!
Good'ol boy aerospace. Congressman bought and paid for.
Yep.SpaceX and Elon claimed they would reduce cost to orbit by 90%. Instead they cost more than ever.
But he got friendly w the administration and got a ridiculous contract.
As a non-American, please forgive my ignorance, but how does a lunar rover (VIPER) get cancelled for going 30% over budget, despite being nearly complete, but a mobile launcher is allowed to go more than 500% over budget and still move forward?
NASA and other US Federal projects depend heavily on congressional friends. My impression is that VIPER was too small to have big supporters. Projects like SLS and companies like Bechtel have old, powerful friends in many states that help keep projects from getting canceled despite their obvious insanity in the new world of reusable rockets.
Because cost-plus contracts are an infinite money glitch where as in house projects are doomed to be killed by congress so they can get cost-plus contracts for the companies they hold shares in.
Bechtel knew exactly how much the ML2 launcher would cost, every piece of metal, every weld. This is what they've done for over a century. Their cost hikes were planned from the beginning. It's corporate extortion, plain and simple.
Agree. Every NASA contract is "cost plus" for the specific reason of back channel election campaign funding.
Joe Biden appointed his Senator BFF Bill Nelson to make sure the DNC spice would flow no matter what the conditions were for project viability. Politics first, Moon and Mars second. Artemis is failing because Trump is so stubborn and will not die or drop out so more money has to come off the Artemis project to fight Trump.
And they're not a public company. They're owned by one family. Give that a thought....
I just don’t understand why the government is still using 60s techniques and ideologies 85 years later.
Makes yu think maybe we never really upgraded in technology
Because congress told them they had to. There were a bunch of companies in congressional districts that lobbied for the contracts and so congress required nasa to use outdated parts so the contractors could get them off their hands.
yup, maybe, but the work force was much different then too. If you did not "cut it", for your job, you got fired. And of course there is a "big elephant" in the room, saying "don' t try to fix what ain't broken", regarding the moon, and then points, with its long trunk, to 6 "stellar" examples of what it means by that! ;D
In less than 3 decades they'll be using '60s technology in the '50s!
Because it's the governed.
When I was in engineering school in the late 70s, and in engineering in the 80s, Bechtel had a stellar reputation. SIGH!
yup, long before today's "hiring practices". You actually had to know stuff for the job at hand!
Back then, so did Boeing.
The future of Boeing has never looked dimmer then right now you mean . 😂
Boeing is hoping Elon can get Dragon to fetch them 😂
Meanwhile, SpaceX uses off-the-shelf technology to move the Starship.
And built another tower from pre built levels ,,that crane was cool to see being assembled..
ok, but they're still building this huge rocket that isn't necessary....and NASA stupidly made the lunar program dependent on it. The contract should have said, "lander must fit on same stack as Orion, and be light enough that it can be launched on the same launch as Orion."
@@neutrino78x I'm hopeful that some of these newer rockets coming online will produce a better plan. Perhaps a revisit of the Dynetic HLS will be in order. I love StarShip and am a huge fan of the Mars project but I'm not a fan of the Starship Lunar program. It will eventually work but it's not optimal for NASA. I feel like no one involved ever thought we were really "going."
@neutrino78x no no no no. Nasa stupidly made the SLS... Nasa needs to give up on rockets and just do payloads. Saving tax payers billions.
SpaceX sucks!
300 million ..
Now 2,7 Billion !!!
FTS !!
10 LAUNCHES FROM FALCON...
HALF A BILLION ..
with a few
Falcon Heavies included
honestly at this point if the government started pouring taxpayer's money into spaceX instead of nasa's stupid contracts we would already have a moon base and mars landings.
litreally 2.7 billion to build essentially a mobile barebones steel platform with tracks attached to it.
@@skgamer-zs6en I can do a moon and Mars colony at the same time, with that kinda money.
NASA needs to get there sh*t together and stop wasting money!
Congress requires nasa to spend in certain categories. The White House recommended that funding for sls and orion be cut dramatically, but congress raised them instead. Meanwhile they cut funding to basically all the other programs we love and care about. NASA isn’t the problem, lobbyists and congress people are.
They're wasting about .5% of your money compared to how much the military wastes. You think NASA burns cash in cost plus contracts? Look into a few military contracts if you want to be triggered about the govt wasting your money...
@@vosechu True, every word! I just heard that a "certain candidate" has mentioned they will be getting Elon as a government program auditor to seek out and destroy gov't waste, fraud, and excessive spending. I imagine Mr. Musk might have some interest in certain agencies more than others. So, you all know what to do in a few months, if you like space! ;D LOL
I love the outro’s on this channel! There’s no like and subscribe or join this or that! When the information stops, the video stops! I like it!
Yes, agreed. I do like a channel I like, like this one, but I don't need to be asked to like what I instinctively know I'm likely to like!! :D
@@ronschlorff7089 exactly
Artemis is a joke. Bring back the old 1960 Apollo rockets and astronauts out of retirement that knew how to fly them and land on the moon. It’s embarrassing that we basically have to re-teach ourselves what we accomplish 60 years ago.
Just scrap the artimis program at this point I’m sorry but it needs to go the spacex starship , new Glenn, falcon heavy ,falcon 9 are more practical vehicles
The 1400+ German gentlemen you mean. Hmmm
They could do Saturn V again but that misses the point of a permanent base on the moon.
@@high-captain-BaLrog And with 20x the budget of current NASA.
Update:: they're dead.
Artemis needs to be restructured even if it pushes things back. Dump SLS. Use a modified dragon to get astronauts to space. Rendezvous with starship. Cancel gateway.
If only it were allowed. Congress requires nasa to spend in certain categories. The White House recommended that funding for sls and orion be cut dramatically, but congress raised them instead. Meanwhile they cut funding to basically all the other programs we love and care about. NASA isn’t the problem, lobbyists and congress people are.
Go to mars.
Oh Damn,Bechtel? They did "The big dig" in boston. Guess they Haven't gotten any better since
They built the largest electric power plant in Wisconsin
At this rate SpaceX will have a base on the moon before NASA does!
spoiler: the Chinese do it first.
SpaceX is launching NASA's moon base though so that doesn't make sense. SLS is only to launch the crew.
@@amentco8445 China still hasn't built any of the required infrastructure to do it.
@@filonin2 My point is with the progress being made with Starship it could be able to support every aspect of the Artemis program without the need of launching a single SLS.
You are right it would still be NASA but with all SpaceX technology. That was my point not that SpaceX would go off and build a moon base without NASA's support.
@@amentco8445 I highly doubt that.
And people are complaining that the Starship program is taking more time than first promissed.
And some of that do to the FAA's bullshit
Lol they blew though all theit money and still haven't successfuly made it to orbit with test cargo.
@@samus598probably because it’s a fully reusable vehicle. Their tests have been for reliability, including their orbital tests. The next one is going to attempt a landing, after that will be cargo and further refinement.
So far it’s the most powerful rocket on earth and it’s cheaper than SLS.
It's gotta be cheaper to just scrap all this and start from scratch with NO cost-plus contracts--to Space X.
I would add in other companies as backups.
If only it were allowed. Congress requires nasa to spend in certain categories. The White House recommended that funding for sls and orion be cut dramatically, but congress raised them instead. Meanwhile they cut funding to basically all the other programs we love and care about. NASA isn’t the problem, lobbyists and congress people are.
@@vosechu both are. But congress wants the pork to roll in in order to get votes.
Just film it again in studio or do CGI as always.
Should make Boeing pay for it. The way I see it they owe NASA some money.
Destin from Getting Smarter explained in great detail why Artemis has so many problems.
I can't see it happening at all.
But some people will make a great deal of money, and that's the important thing!
SLS is obsolete! It's a piece of technology from a bygone era and it should have stayed in that era.
Blame Congress (from 10-20 years ago) for wanting to save shuttle era jobs.
Congress requires nasa to do this. The White House recommended that funding for sls and orion be cut dramatically, but congress raised them instead. Meanwhile they cut funding to basically all the other programs we love and care about. NASA isn’t the problem, lobbyists and congress people are.
I like how abruptly these videos end.
yes, and I like how "abruptly" they come back again, in a few days!! ;D
I don't know why, but I can't stay tuned into this guys voice. I apologize, but I can listen to the original guy all day.
Try speeding it up to 1.25 speed. i do that with other videos when the speaker seems to be dragging it longer than I'm willing to spend. Just a suggestion.
@@bobdougmckenzie5755
Good suggestion, thank you.
NASA's biggest obstacle? NASA. In a relatively short period, China (CNSA) has caught up to and equaled the combined efforts of NASA, ESA, JAXA, and ROSCOSMOS when it comes to manned space operations and exploration. It totally makes sense that ROSCOSMOS and CNSA will start teaming up and I wouldn't be surprised if ESA joins them in the near future.
ML1 was only designed for the A1X. It was not designed to support the weight of the larger Constellation Program Rockets or SLS.
11:27 could not stop replaying this 😅
Cancel SLS , Orion and send them up on Dragon to transfer to HLS in earth orbit and ride it to the moon and back
If only it were allowed. Congress requires nasa to spend in certain categories. The White House recommended that funding for sls and orion be cut dramatically, but congress raised them instead. Meanwhile they cut funding to basically all the other programs we love and care about. NASA isn’t the problem, lobbyists and congress people are.
SpaceX will never deliver HLS. Musk may find them devoid of government contracts given his erratic behavior and drug use.
@vosechu They should have line item vetoed the program.
NASA could ask SpaceX to launch Orion on a Falcon Heavy and smaller parts of the lander either on another Heavy or Falcon and assemble in orbit.
If only it were allowed. Congress requires nasa to spend in certain categories. The White House recommended that funding for sls and orion be cut dramatically, but congress raised them instead. Meanwhile they cut funding to basically all the other programs we love and care about. NASA isn’t the problem, lobbyists and congress people are.
This is so sad and ridiculous how the country and nasa let all this happen
And spaceX just builds multiple towers for Falcon 9, Heavy and Starship. Did this within months and nowhere near a Billion for ALL Towers.
And that tells you what it really costs to build one of these. Now, try to imagine what else this money may be used for by Bechtel, which is a military contractor. ;-)
@lepidoptera9337 I don't know what is going on there with their "contract +" contracts where they pay 10% plus over all cost made. So the incentive isn't try to stay at budget but if more costs earn you more money, why would anyone manage cost overruns, if that is making it extra profitable. We are talking about Billions.
All dollar bills stacked are higher than the tower that they need to make. Why can't you make a good steel tower already with tens of millions of dollars. It is just a steel frame with pipes for fuel water electricity. Look how SpaceX stacked it last tower thought last week. NASA is just the same as boeing now, but NASA Gets budget boeing has to earn it. I don't see it happen all those companies together make the Lunar gateway and the plan to land on the moon.
If starship is twice as powerful as Saturn V you can get twice as much hardware to the moon. They just need to use the Booster and then make different stages for landing on the moon. And if you can refuel you can maybe bring 4 times as much as Apollo. But landing starship is empty weight 100 ton. That is a lot of dry mass to land. It has to be very light and well thought out.
@@LennardA320 Yes, the cost+ scheme allows the contractor to charge a lot more than the actual project cost, but not because of the 10%, but because they can quote an almost arbitrary cost base. Now, a naive person may assume that the contractor pockets that money and all the government project managers are idiots. You can hold that religious belief until you actually meet a government program manager. I have. They are not idiots. They know exactly how much materials and services cost. Some of the people I worked with were among the sharpest minded people I have ever met. So why does the government "let" this happen? Because they have other projects with Bechtel that are not publicly disclosed and that they do not want to show up as a Congressional line item. Bechtel gets paid for those projects with excess money from the NASA contract.
Did you never wonder why we are suddenly going back to the Moon? Because it's expensive and the US government needed an endless sink of money that they can hide secret programs behind. Unless, of course, you haven't noticed that there is a hot war going on in Europe and that the Chinese are also extremely active spying on us. Do you really think we are just standing by? Of course not. We simply aren't telegraphing either to the Russians or the Chinese what we are doing about it.
What you should be really worried about, however, is the Saudi Arabian city called "Neom". The Saudis are pretending to dig sand for tens of billions of dollars, which looks even more crazy than the current moonshot programs of both the US and China. Of course they are not digging sand. They are hiding tens of billions of dollars of spending on their nuclear weapons program behind that project. I am sure you can find many similar, although smaller examples of "ridiculous" government spending around the world.
You have to wonder, over the years, how many people were crushed by those tank tracks?
Just interns that didn't move out of the way fast enough.
It’s okay guys. Even when things start looking worrying, just know that humanity has done this before, and we WILL do it again!
No sorry, looking at this I begin to think we didn't,
just ordered my aluminum hat
The worrying thing is that China will probably be there before NASA,
@ngamashaka4894 we literally just went around the moon last year with the Artemis program it's just nasa doesn't have good funding
@@technicalproductions6474 Yes and now we are unable to do something we did 55 years ago. Are we a devolution of our grand-fathers?
@@ngamashaka4894 I just said it was because of funding 💀
01:26 VEHICLE Assembly Building, NOT "vertical"
SpaceX make NASA look like it's stuck in the 80's, which of course they are.
It is sad that the requirement to reuse Space Shuttle technology yielded this piss poor 2.5 stage design. The SLS lugs that huge f'ing TANK most of the way to orbit, and uses HydroLOX on the BOOSTER stage. The Saturn V was a 3 stage design that used cheaper, simpler keroLOX engines on the booster, threw them completely away, and then saved the high performance HyroLOX for the second and third stages. By discarding weight by shedding stages along the way, the Saturn V could boost MORE PAYLOAD than SLS to orbit or the moon! There were also plans to upgrade the Saturn V with solid or liquid rocket boosters on the first stage, and some stretched upper stages so it would lift even more. With the success of the Falcon 9 so well documented and proved,
a modernized Saturn V-like design could have a recoverable 1st stage, (maybe even a recoverable second stage) and still lift more payload than this SLS design. It could also use the new MethaLOX technology to discard the dirty kerosene on the booster stage and liwuid side boosters.
And since the Saturn V was the same height as the tower, there would be no need to stretch it or build a new one.
And these stupid cost-plus contracts have to end.
Im calling it now, NASA dont put anyone on the Moon before 2030
Who knows when NASA actually gets their sh*t together, but unfortunately one thing is looking more likely, I'm willing to bet that China lands humans on the moon before NASA does. If China does that then even a basic Chinese moon base probably won't be far behind since whoever gets there first will be able to claim dibs on the best location with access to water ice.
A cousin of mine worked at the company who made the segments which when assembled forms the tracks of the original one.
Yes, there are always problems with space craft and rockets. I recall being a kid, "the space case" as I was called by my high school chums, in the 1960's, constantly skipping school to watch live space launches, on our glorious black and white TV, with "rabbit ears", which invariably, it seemed, got cancelled or postponed at the last few minutes. My poor mom had to write lots of "he was sick" notes for me. LOL. The teachers caught on and asked me to write a "news report" on all the space launches, when I was "sick", for extra credit in my science classes!! LOL :D
This lander sounds like a good excuse to cancel the whole Artemis project
Ok here’s what we’re gonna do. We’re gonna rebuild the Saturn V and give the astronauts a graphing calculator on board. That should update it enough to get the job done.
The aliens that were already there told NASA to back off, so they've got to come up with something not to go.
Great overview of what's happening in space. Many thanks.
Gotta love that Cost Plus Plus Plus Plus contract
50 years ago NASA rebuilt one of the Saturn V Launch Towers to incorporate “The Milk Stool” enabling the Saturn IB to operate off it to support Skylab. They also relocated the crew access arm on another to provide ground access into Skylab before launch. All on a shoestring budget 🤷♂️
You nailed it in one phrase: "cost-plus contract".
No problem. Launch SLS with an Exploration Upper Stage and a landing vehicle but without the Orion. Once in a stable LEO, launch the Orion on a Falcon Heavy and rendezvous with the Exploration Upper Stage. Go to Moon. Land and return.
I have a solution. Hire SpaceX to build it.
If only it were allowed. Congress requires nasa to spend in certain categories. The White House recommended that funding for sls and orion be cut dramatically, but congress raised them instead. Meanwhile they cut funding to basically all the other programs we love and care about. NASA isn’t the problem, lobbyists and congress people are.
That wouldn't work. They'd start by deleting the unnecessary parts, and oops! no more SLS!
Asking for a friend - is it not much more cheaper and SAFER to take 2-3 Falcon 9 Flights with a Lunar Lander - a power unit to deliver to Moon and a supply Flight?
Better to use falcon 9 and modified dragon to launch astronauts and starship to haul supplies to moon.
Seems like instead of one gigantic ridiculously expensive old-fashioned rocket, a bunch of cheaper reusable modern rockets would be more practical - if your real plan is to go to the Moon or Mars.
the rocket is fine they just don't get enough money, apollo cost more than 250 billion to complete, and even that was cut short
It's called BECHTEL because BILKTECH was too obvious.
Vehicle Assembly Building, not vertical.
Artemis is NASA’s last hurrah, flying rockets, that should not have happened. It’s a last ditch effort via legacy rocket technology, as they couldn’t grasp the idea that they may/would not ever fly in space again, now that SpaceX and others do it much better at far less cost.
Sorry I was a space kid, but for the first time in my 70 years I don’t think we ever went to the moon. 50 years latter they can’t even get a rocket into orbit. NASA has seen its day and it’s time to go commercial
Even though I'm no fan of Elon Musk, I think it would be funny if SpaceX gets us back to the moon on its own just by using various crewed and tanker versions of Starship.
Thank you for covering this infrastructure "uh-oh" (meaning MLP-2) that others either haven't noticed or don't appreciate the significance.
At this point they should either abandon the project and start off fresh again or just replace SLS with Starship.
They are meant to work in concert as the Starship is not anywhere near human rated.
@filonin2
How many humans have flown on SLS? What shape was the capsule in after the first test flight?
Starship needs to refuel in space at least a dozen times. That’s something that’s never been attempted before. The SLS is not a bad design like some around like to think it is. Repurposing old hardware designs saves money. And the SLS has already flown to the moon and back. SpaceX is WAY behind at this point. They haven’t built the HLS, Starship still hasn’t completed a single orbit around earth. It’s not human rated, (obviously). SpaceX isn’t the “Willy Wonka” factory that people seem to think it is.
@@TheSteveSteele SLS is terrible. It can’t launch often. It costs over 2 billion a launch. The moon mission did not go smoothly.
As for starship it needs refueling, but we don’t know how many trips. Don’t just post a high number.
SLS will never be cheap or good enough. Better to scrap it now.
4:23 Pretty much spot on, Bechtel.
This is nuts (and bolts). Very expressive ones.
This might be a stupid question but why does every mission have cost overruns? Like if you genuinely go over budget EVERY time … change your methodology to be more accurate? Like they’re literal rocket scientists and cannot do basic math. Scary.
By the time NASA astronauts get to the moon, they will have to show their passports to Chinese customs agents.
I have to say that there is a lot of hardware being put together for ML2. The MLP is going and sections of the tower are being built at the moment
Why TF would you build a mobile tower!? I understand why the vehicle has to move... But why does the ground infrastructure have to? Not asking "Why?" in any project often enough, leads to cost overruns and eventually project's cancellation.
How do you propose they get the rocket from the VAB to the tower, without the rocket falling over? We could do like the Soviets and move the rocket lying down horizontally. But too much stress is placed on the rocket as it’s stood up. The mobile launch tower is the best way.
@@TheSteveSteele I don't want to propose solutions as I'm not an engineer. I merely stated the fact that by not asking "Why?" we are prone to inherit soft requirements believing they are hard requirements. They have an existing solution (a mobile launch platform) searching for a problem: "How to assemble and then launch the rocket?". Only this time, the rocket is bigger so the old solution might not be the shortest path to a launch, nor the cheapest path. It might be faster and cheaper to build a new mobile VAB with a fixed tower. When the context changes, reassess your requirements! Some of them might be obsolete.
Somehow they managed to NOT have such problems in 1960s. Well, eventually we may be landing there for the first time finally...
they are not serious about it, they are more concerned with diverse staffing than getting stuff done, China made a dam space station on their own already so things don't look good as far as competition goes
At this rate SpaceX will land on the moon by itself and then a few years later it will help NASA to do the same 😂
Having Artemis pretty much be a non reusable vehicle was the first and primary dumb decision made. I don't see congress writing big checks every time they need a new rocket. I think the whole project is going to eventually get watered down.
cost+ contracts encourage inefficiency since the slower they go the more they make
Ares 1 was sufficient. Launch habitation that links to Orion and a reusable lander that can stay in lunar orbit.
You want to bet it will go over no doubt that NASA needs to fire that contractor and have SpaceX come in elevate that platform. I think it won't make the cut of SpaceX.
At some point NASA has better things to spend money on than a mobile launch stand that will be destroyed every launch (seriously, enough, stop it, spend the money on f***ing SPACE!)
It would be interesting to know how the solar sail performs attitude control. Does it have reaction wheels? Thrusters? I follow all of the space news channels and nobody has mentioned how it works (aside from the obvious light sail part).
What some people are missing is that Bechtel had to take over from another contractor that started and did not finish. They had to redesign as the original was crap and start over. I would bet that NASA change orders also came in and caused more cost overruns.. They are back on track with progress though. The previous contractor vastly underbid. I think this fiasco is more NASA and Congress fault in trying to reuse and repurpose old tech from Apollo and Shuttle. They should transport this sucker on it's side and cheaply, then hoist it up at the pad.
You can’t transport the SLS horizontally then lift it like the Soviets tried with the N1.
the Gatway exist. Its components are ready and stowed in Italy ready for lauch
Wouldn’t it be safer to design the inflatable modules out of a material that leaks before it bursts? Perhaps this cannot be done with woven fiber material they are using. Metals are heavy and they are not flexible but they can be designed so that they leak without exploding.
At this point, all I can hope for is that Artemis doesn't collapse... at least not before significant progress has been made so that at least private companies can take over...
It needs to change. The sooner the better. I just hope spacex is working on an upgraded dragon to use to ferry astronauts until starship is manrated.
How do you imagine private companies are going to help when they’re the ones fleecing nasa? You think they don’t fleece each other constantly? You just don’t hear about it.
Space X and the other startups poached all the talent. Anything run by the government is guaranteed to have cost overruns and delays. Its built into every contract.
Actually, the moon landing was never in danger due to lack of working hardware, once Spacex was selected to build the lander. The Orion and the Gateway were Never needed. The simple change of bringing the crew via Crew Dragon to the Lander after refueling in orbit obviates the need for Orion and a lunar orbit docking which would be riskier for no gain. Since the Gateway doesn't have hundreds of tons of fuel, it becomes pointless.
Send up a lander to refuel in LEO. Have dragon dock with it and drop off the 4 astronauts.
Have the astronauts travel to the lunar surface in a much larger and more comfortable ship, with far greater resources if something should go wrong. It is DESIGNED to support astronauts for months... Orion is Not.
Spacex will have the Lander ready for 09/26 or 09/27 at the latest judging from their current progress.
So just get the damn space suit ready and chuck the rest.
We Know Crew Dragon works. What do we need Orion/SLS for? How is this $4.5 billion padding of the budget at all necessary.
The only problem is that NASA politics are in the way.
They need Spacex to do the moon landing, because, apparently even the easy parts are too difficult for other vendors.
They need Spacex to rescue the Starliner crew.
They need Spacex for the sample return mission as Spacex is the Only vendor that already has a general use lander under construction origionally designed to go to Mars (With the new 6ton nuclear plant and In-Situ refueling capability... maybe an adapted (Heate/Radiation/Dust) Cybertruck and Teslabots.).
Their other offerings will involve blowing at Least $7 billion on a one use lander/launcher.... forgetting that's the Exact job of the giant ship the government already bought for $3 billion from Spacex.
Give then another $5 billion, the reactor, the in-situe fuel generator and Spacex can do the rest with a Much more capable rover (with a range of well over 400km (in case, there's no ice at the sample site).
Just have a pair of Teslabots drive Celestial Cybertruck from the ice bearing landing site to the sample site, have the robots put the samples in the truck and trundle back to the refueling/relaunch site).
Bring the ship back.
Musk will likely fund a 2nd trip if necessary as he is the one who wants to put a city on Mars.
Meanwhile they cancel a moon rover to avoid cost overruns... after it was completely built. Its like NASA is allergic to accomplishment.
Artemis isn't a space program. It is a jobs program.
Let Elon do it. It will work and be done next year.
This is why NASA is now trying to avoid cost plus from earlier administrations.
Sorry to say this but I think it’s time we held NASA accountable for its handling of our money. Contracts cannot be open ended and allowed to rise to 6x the agreed upon price without some ownership by the contractors. Heads need to roll at the Space Agency.
Best comment ever about NASA. Shalom
Congress requires nasa to spend in certain categories. The White House recommended that funding for sls and orion be cut dramatically, but congress raised them instead. Meanwhile they cut funding to basically all the other programs we love and care about. NASA isn’t the problem, lobbyists and congress people are.
I worked on this program from its beginning. I saw many very smart people make many bad decisions. If you were in their place, you would not do any better, probably much worse. You have to look higher up the food chain to see the real problems. My conclusion is that it can't be fixed. I doubt it can be improved. Enjoy the accomplishments, there are much worse ways to spend money.
Why does this video have a youtube disclaimer about the Apollo program?
5:31 I wonder what a couple dozen SPMTs would cost NASA...?
How is it that SpaceX is able to build a launchpad and tower faster and cheaper than NASA can? Contract SpaceX to finish the work.
Just make a permanent launch tower and make the vertical assembly building mobile. That way the mobile part of the setup doesn't have to be built to withstand the extreme forces of a launch and no mobile refuelling infrastructure required. The vertical assembly building could have attachment points for standard self-propelled modular transporters then add enough weight at ground level to prevent the wind pushing the building over when being transported. Then when located around the launch tower or at it's storage location the building would connect to fixed footings. This would have to be far cheaper than the transporter NASA is getting built. Especially as the vertical assembly building is essentially an empty box, yes, with gantries, hoists, etc.But I would think it was a simpler and cheaper task to move the vertical assembly building. Especially as the self-propelled modular transporters which would be a large part of the design are off the shelf and available from multiple manufacturers.
Make the VAB mobile? Really? Do you realize how big that building is?
@@TheSteveSteele Moving buildings is done all the time. Some of them made of stone and weighing thousands of tonnes. And those building were never made to be moved. Yet small teams manage to do this with a tiny budget compared to what NASA is paying for the machine to move their rocket.
The VAB is a strong steel structure which is welded and bolted together, not a massive Jenga stack of stone blocks. Putting the required lifting points on the building (and adding bracing and strengthening) to enable the self-propelled modular transporter modules to be bolted on would not be expensive.
Basically, attach a suitable number of transporter modules, unbolt the building from the foundation points. The transporter modules lift the building a foot or two. Then the whole structure is driven and positioned over identical foundation attachment points at the launch platform. The transport modules lower the building and the bolts are reattached. Attach any services that are required. Just like the mobile launch tower, the move would not be done in high winds.
Advantages would be a much lower cost. Much lower risk to the rocket. Off the shelf components for a low cost and rapid build. Any failures of the transporter modules would be easily and rapidly fixed by swapping out the faulty module. The rocket would be protected until just before launch as rolling the building aside would be much quicker than rolling out the whole rocket and tower. Teams of people that are experienced in moving buildings and working with mobile transporters already exist.
So many advantages. The fuelling system doesn't have to attach to a mobile launch tower, the tower would be fixed as would the fuelling system. The transport system wouldn't be exposed to the force of a launch. The building and associated transport modules would be far away from the launch area at liftoff. The launch tower could be permanently attached to solid foundations. The tower could be made as heavy duty as required as there would be no consideration needed for it to be transportable.
If somebody asked me to either move a very expensive, very fragile, rocket and launch tower. Or move a comparatively inexpensive steel building that had been braced and strengthened to be very strong. I know which one I would choose.
Is the original Bigelo module still attached and working?
BEYOND COMICAL
And it seems that NASA is promulgating such behavior of it's "Cost+" contractors.
pardon me, I'm just going to Eff your budget to smithereens while you try to figure out how to get your satellites into space...
The bean counters are bad for business and they exist in most of our industries. Keep them in accounting and out of the CEO position.
Se complican por que quieren. Usen y emulen exactamente TODO COMO LAS MISIONES APOLO Y LISTO!!
How tf is a tower of essentially trusses going to cost 30% more than the Burj Kalifa at 1/7 the height?!
A billion is if you spend $1,000 every day since the time of Jesus and you would have enough to keep spending $1,000 every day for another 715 years.
still not enough for some people
US military budget is about 800 BILLION.
So everyone from boards and upper management should be payed 0 or jailed for fraud
Tell NASA to cut off Government say so's
I want my tax dollar to build something to do something right now..
I don't have to ask permission to fix the pressure regulator I'm just gonna do it
I think nasa needs to cut its losses and just give the Artemis program to private companies! This is basically a over priced Saturn v which more complex than space shuttle
I still say, these huge rockets are NOT necessary. Scale everything to existing rockets used to launch large satellites, and just assemble it in space at the ISS. Then send the crew to the ISS and have them move into it. Then push away from ISS and light the candle.
I see these huge rockets as a huge waste of money.
Once you're in LEO, you're halfway to anywhere.
My opinion of Boeing is that they’ve been in the game too long without keeping up. Their business style & operation ossified in the previous century and aren’t fit for purpose. This includes their aircraft too. Too much lobbying and not enough innovation in designs and build processes.