One step for the American man one giant leap for the Orbán! This is what we have always fought for We are not a mixed race and we do not want to become a mixed race We want to be like we became 1100 years ago here in the Carpathian Basin We will be able to maintain Hungary's biological future without migrants”
This is pocket change for them...they do this kinds of things in all states of the US and many countries in the world. Something like this megaproject is how the war in Iraq started
@@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...
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.
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
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.
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.
My understanding is that unfortunately government space projects are more of a money distribution scheme than actually goal oriented in the last few decades. Enough of congress doesn't actually care about the results that they'll just vote whatever promises their favored states the most money and jobs for the most years. A job that actually gets done below budget is the enemy of these kind of projects. The 30% over thing was likely just lip service so they don't look like fools for cancelling it.
@@stevenobrien557 but my question is why? I heard it's a new rule that projects can't go more than 30% over budget, hence the VIPER cancellation, but why doesn't that rule apply to other projects? Either it's a rule or not. Either apply it to everything or rescind it altogether.
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!
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.
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.
What rubbish. No one can exactly predict the cost of materials and labour in the future. You can only make educated guesses then when you throw in pandemics, global conflicts etc...
@stevenobrien557 you are correct, but I think you can get it pretty close at least, probably millions of contractors do it every day, ford essentially created a boom town around, one of their new plants amidist a material shortage and haven't really had much financial problems aside from one contractor that was known to be a shiester
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."
@@edwarddesposito4476 The first generation builds up the business, the second keeps intact the business and the third brings through the business. Not sure how many, not just family businesses went through that cycle. 😉
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
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.
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
@@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.
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.
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 🤷♂️
A cost plus contract should have never been an option. They are not developing and inventing any technology from scratch. They are building essentially what has already been built with changes to the configuration and size.
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.
Us military budget-841 billion NASA high end budget- requesting 2.1 billion Cost per launch of Apollo Aprox-400 million = 3.5 billion today. NASA is requesting 2.1b to complete everything and launch and that is less than one Apollo launch it’s crazy people should be more excited and 2.1 billion is nothing considering what it’s going towards
SpaceX already has it's own suits that it tested on Polaris Dawn. It will likely fly Starship unmanned to the moon before Artemis III, and I wouldn't be surprised if it landed people on the moon independently before NASA is able to.
Why is a Lunar gateway needed? Launch equipment from LEO to the Lunar surface using Starship cargo vessels. When enough components are on the surface launch a crew to LEO to the HLS using Crew Dragon (which has a LES) and send them to the Lunar surface. They would set up the base, a solar farm, and construct a landing pad then return to LEO and back to Earth on Crew Dragon. All this depends on a LEO propellent depot which I think should be 3 Starship tankers with 2 more Starships with cryo-chillers and solar panels. Since Starship is design to launch multiple times per week it would just keep launching to keep the propellent deport full on a continuing basis similar to Starlink. It doesn't need to be tied to a mission.
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!
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
@@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.
@@SpottedHares that’s incredibly dumb. SLS has had a single launch after 20 years of development and in its current configuration it can’t land anyone on the moon. One vehicle is designed to be discarded after a single use and the other is designed to be fully reusable. Starships launches are just tests for the basics of what it will be doing. Which by the way SLS still needs starship to even land on the moon. There is no Apollo 11 without starship.
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.
Idk if ESA will join both since the sanctions on Russia because of the war and because the Europeans are at the whims of the USA . ROSCOSMOS AND CNSA will cooperate and give a serious run at the moon and mars
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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.
Space x the company that can’t get past low earth orbit is gonna get to the moon faster then a rocket that has already done so? Are you stupid, or just a blithering moron?
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.
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.
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.
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.
@@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.
The current VAB is huge mainly because it has to accommodate the huge mobile platform moving in and out of it. How big is SpaceX's vertical assembly building by comparison? If the launch platform was fixed and the rocket was assembled on the launch platform then all that really needs to be mobile is the shell that protects the rocket and launch platform. The shell would only be a fraction of the current VABs size. The shell would basically be a movable version of SpaceX's VAB. It could be built at a fraction of the cost of the mobile launch platform. It would be quick to build by comparison as well. The only reason not to assemble the rocket on the launch platform is that the launch platform would not be usable for launches while the rocket was under construction. But NASA's launch cadence is so long between launches that this is unlikely to be ab issue. Think about this. Imagine you had a clean slate and two options were presented. One was to build a fixed launch tower complete with in place fuelling systems, communication, power, cooling, elevators, etc. The rocket parts would be transported to this launch tower and assembled in the spot where it will eventually be launched from. Around the launch tower is a shell that would protect the rocket and assembly workers from the weather. The shell being made movable. Second option, Build the rocket and launch facilities on top of a vehicle inside of a building far away from the launch site. Then after building your extremely valuable rocket very carefully and slowly drive the rocket and launch tower down the road to the launch site. Once at the launch site begin connecting the mobile launch platform to the infrastructure including fuelling systems, communication, power, cooling, etc. Which option sounds like it has the bigger risk? Then there is the scenario of a launch scrub for say unexpected weather or a rocket or launch platform fault. Now you have to go about disconnecting the fuelling systems, communication, power, cooling, etc. Then very slowly drive the mobile platform all the way back to the VAB so the problem can be fixed. Compared to just wheeling the shell back in place and fixing the problem or waiting for the weather to clear.
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.
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.
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.
Since the Bechtel contract is "cost plus" that must mean the cost is likely approaching $2B. Incredible. SpaceX concept of stacking on the launchpad eliminates the mobile launcher. Even if a temporary structure is built around and over the launchpad I doubt the cost would be over a million.
Some genius figured out to line the road the crawler drives with river rocks. Its saves the bearings on the crawler. Apparently you can hear them popping as they are pulverized.
Each rocket was slightly different than the last. Technicians literally were jotting changes down in notebooks. They simply just knew how it had to be built. The human factor was a bigger part of the program back then. Those notebooks are long gone.
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.
the launch resistance /their own inertia is making them scale up too heavy . They need launching on a rail system that takes the huge inertia out the craft . I dont mean a double a train track btw lol ,something scaled up heavily optimised for a rockets great bulk..with a nice easy raise so the end of the track is a few hundred meters high .
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.
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).
@@TheSteveSteele so it can go faster than the solar wind? and increase untill when? voyager have passed the point in witch the wind decrease. It doesnt work like the normal wind on our sail ships. It can work if you want to go in our solar system but not to others
Cost plus is possibly legitimate for truly ground breaking projects; but there is nothing particularly ground breaking about a rolling platform. Mining companies probably have this scale of stuff in a catalogue! And it should never be given to any company who has failed to hit budgets in the past.
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.
If we only worry about speed, and safety. Then cost becomes a non issue. With this said, explain to me why isn't NASA using SpaceX falcon heavy? If we built the space station in low earth orbit, and then move it to the moon. That should be a lot quicker.
@@TheSteveSteele build it in low earth orbit, launch a second stage rocket that is similar to the star ship. As in similar to the refueling in orbit bit, and attach it to the space station. Now obviously I am not talking about launch the space station all at once to orbit, but the parts for it. Which last time I checked, falcon heavy is able to handle heavier payloads compared to falcon 9. Therefore should be able to send up there the modules required to build the space station in question. Now obviously I know it's more complex than that, but it is doable, and you have to be a fool to think otherwise.
It really looks like the crew that lands on the Moon again is going to need to not just ride the SpaceX HLS Starship from orbit to the surface and back, but all the way from Earth to the Moon. So much for the SLS...
![ILLSLICK - KILLSHOT REMIX [FULL VERSION]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/RIK8RrqIAzE/mqdefault.jpg)
Sign up for the weekly Space Race newsletter here: www.thespacerace.news/subscribe
One step for the American man one giant leap for the Orbán!
This is what we have always fought for
We are not a mixed race and we do not want to become a mixed race
We want to be like we became 1100 years ago here in the Carpathian Basin
We will be able to maintain Hungary's biological future without migrants”
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
Like Elon's goose stepping family.
This is pocket change for them...they do this kinds of things in all states of the US and many countries in the world. Something like this megaproject is how the war in Iraq started
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
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.
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.
My understanding is that unfortunately government space projects are more of a money distribution scheme than actually goal oriented in the last few decades. Enough of congress doesn't actually care about the results that they'll just vote whatever promises their favored states the most money and jobs for the most years. A job that actually gets done below budget is the enemy of these kind of projects. The 30% over thing was likely just lip service so they don't look like fools for cancelling it.
Because if that rover was going to screw up the entire Artemis program then you bet they would get the needed authorisation.
@@stevenobrien557 but my question is why? I heard it's a new rule that projects can't go more than 30% over budget, hence the VIPER cancellation, but why doesn't that rule apply to other projects? Either it's a rule or not. Either apply it to everything or rescind it altogether.
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.
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....
What rubbish. No one can exactly predict the cost of materials and labour in the future. You can only make educated guesses then when you throw in pandemics, global conflicts etc...
@@stevenobrien557 Gahahaha! Look everybody! Another taxpayer scamming cost plus contract writer.
@stevenobrien557 you are correct, but I think you can get it pretty close at least, probably millions of contractors do it every day, ford essentially created a boom town around, one of their new plants amidist a material shortage and haven't really had much financial problems aside from one contractor that was known to be a shiester
The future of Boeing has never looked dimmer then right now you mean . 😂
Boeing is hoping Elon can get Dragon to fetch them 😂
Boeing is a dying lightbulb flickering right now.
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!
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.
What happens when kids take over the family business?
@@edwarddesposito4476 party party party, and "WTF, oh sh*t now what"? ;D
@@edwarddesposito4476 The first generation builds up the business, the second keeps intact the business and the third brings through the business.
Not sure how many, not just family businesses went through that cycle.
😉
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.
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.
300mil-2,7
That’s a good thing
Million😳
@@skgamer-zs6en ikr! pretty sure Caterpillar have something like this in a catalogue
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.
Yes the same problem the Apollo missions had and any manned mission.
Getting through the Van Allan bands.
I like how abruptly these videos end.
yes, and I like how "abruptly" they come back again, in a few days!! ;D
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.
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.
11:27 could not stop replaying this 😅
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 🤷♂️
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
@@rootvalley2 on time and on budget?
like Boeing they are very good at extracting money for their owners. Engineering? They are mid. Project Management? Not great.
A cost plus contract should have never been an option. They are not developing and inventing any technology from scratch. They are building essentially what has already been built with changes to the configuration and size.
ML1 was only designed for the A1X. It was not designed to support the weight of the larger Constellation Program Rockets or SLS.
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.
SLS can reach the moon, dragon can only reach low orbit. Are you a dumbass or a dumb fuck?
A little bit of hardship and youre ready to give up. No wonder were not on the moon..
@@eleventy-seven - Have to get to the moon first and learn from there.
Us military budget-841 billion
NASA high end budget- requesting 2.1 billion
Cost per launch of Apollo Aprox-400 million = 3.5 billion today. NASA is requesting 2.1b to complete everything and launch and that is less than one Apollo launch it’s crazy people should be more excited and 2.1 billion is nothing considering what it’s going towards
SpaceX make NASA look like it's stuck in the 80's, which of course they are.
Spacex looks like a dildo.
Gotta love that Cost Plus Plus Plus Plus contract
Should make Boeing pay for it. The way I see it they owe NASA some money.
SpaceX already has it's own suits that it tested on Polaris Dawn. It will likely fly Starship unmanned to the moon before Artemis III, and I wouldn't be surprised if it landed people on the moon independently before NASA is able to.
You nailed it in one phrase: "cost-plus contract".
We totally landed on the moon 55 years ago
Why is a Lunar gateway needed? Launch equipment from LEO to the Lunar surface using Starship cargo vessels. When enough components are on the surface launch a crew to LEO to the HLS using Crew Dragon (which has a LES) and send them to the Lunar surface. They would set up the base, a solar farm, and construct a landing pad then return to LEO and back to Earth on Crew Dragon. All this depends on a LEO propellent depot which I think should be 3 Starship tankers with 2 more Starships with cryo-chillers and solar panels. Since Starship is design to launch multiple times per week it would just keep launching to keep the propellent deport full on a continuing basis similar to Starlink. It doesn't need to be tied to a mission.
The second after China announces a launch date, we ll be on the moon in a week 😂
😭😭
Haha 😂😂😂 exactly ‼️
Great overview of what's happening in space. Many thanks.
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!
This is so sad and ridiculous how the country and nasa let all this happen
Why can't they just pull out the plans for the apollo mission and use that? it worked so well 50 years ago.
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
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.
@@thedarkcorrupteryet after 4 launches it can’t even pull off a successful Apollo 4 while the SlS is at Apollo 8.
@@SpottedHares that’s incredibly dumb. SLS has had a single launch after 20 years of development and in its current configuration it can’t land anyone on the moon. One vehicle is designed to be discarded after a single use and the other is designed to be fully reusable. Starships launches are just tests for the basics of what it will be doing. Which by the way SLS still needs starship to even land on the moon. There is no Apollo 11 without starship.
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.
Idk if ESA will join both since the sanctions on Russia because of the war and because the Europeans are at the whims of the USA .
ROSCOSMOS AND CNSA will cooperate and give a serious run at the moon and mars
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.
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.
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
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
Its politicians jobs to waste it, something they're very very very good at.
@@connorhale599 certainly seems to be a job requirement!!
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.
Let Elon take over... He could do it for half......
This lander sounds like a good excuse to cancel the whole Artemis project
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.
By the time NASA astronauts get to the moon, they will have to show their passports to Chinese customs agents.
😂😂😂😂😭
Launch habitation lest goooo 🎉🎉
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.
Space x the company that can’t get past low earth orbit is gonna get to the moon faster then a rocket that has already done so? Are you stupid, or just a blithering moron?
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.
A cousin of mine worked at the company who made the segments which when assembled forms the tracks of the original one.
How tf is a tower of essentially trusses going to cost 30% more than the Burj Kalifa at 1/7 the height?!
Apollo Detectives on youtube has lots of video on NASA
Its ok SpaceX will go it alone.
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.
There is a MASSIVE underground launch complex. The crawler just moves the rocket 7 miles away from everything else incase it explodes.
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
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.
bro's source is his crack pipe
The current VAB is huge mainly because it has to accommodate the huge mobile platform moving in and out of it. How big is SpaceX's vertical assembly building by comparison? If the launch platform was fixed and the rocket was assembled on the launch platform then all that really needs to be mobile is the shell that protects the rocket and launch platform. The shell would only be a fraction of the current VABs size. The shell would basically be a movable version of SpaceX's VAB.
It could be built at a fraction of the cost of the mobile launch platform. It would be quick to build by comparison as well.
The only reason not to assemble the rocket on the launch platform is that the launch platform would not be usable for launches while the rocket was under construction. But NASA's launch cadence is so long between launches that this is unlikely to be ab issue.
Think about this. Imagine you had a clean slate and two options were presented. One was to build a fixed launch tower complete with in place fuelling systems, communication, power, cooling, elevators, etc. The rocket parts would be transported to this launch tower and assembled in the spot where it will eventually be launched from. Around the launch tower is a shell that would protect the rocket and assembly workers from the weather. The shell being made movable.
Second option, Build the rocket and launch facilities on top of a vehicle inside of a building far away from the launch site. Then after building your extremely valuable rocket very carefully and slowly drive the rocket and launch tower down the road to the launch site. Once at the launch site begin connecting the mobile launch platform to the infrastructure including fuelling systems, communication, power, cooling, etc.
Which option sounds like it has the bigger risk?
Then there is the scenario of a launch scrub for say unexpected weather or a rocket or launch platform fault. Now you have to go about disconnecting the fuelling systems, communication, power, cooling, etc. Then very slowly drive the mobile platform all the way back to the VAB so the problem can be fixed. Compared to just wheeling the shell back in place and fixing the problem or waiting for the weather to clear.
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 dont know where you get your information but you are 100% wrong.
This is nuts (and bolts). Very expressive ones.
Vehicle Assembly Building, not vertical.
It was originally the Vertical Assembly building in line with the All Up Testing decision.
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.
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.
Since the Bechtel contract is "cost plus" that must mean the cost is likely approaching $2B.
Incredible.
SpaceX concept of stacking on the launchpad eliminates the mobile launcher. Even if a temporary structure is built around and over the launchpad I doubt the cost would be over a million.
cost+ contracts encourage inefficiency since the slower they go the more they make
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.
Some genius figured out to line the road the crawler drives with river rocks. Its saves the bearings on the crawler. Apparently you can hear them popping as they are pulverized.
Thank you for covering this infrastructure "uh-oh" (meaning MLP-2) that others either haven't noticed or don't appreciate the significance.
good thing spacex continues to march on despite all this.
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 😂
Thanks.
Did we ever land a man on the moon, why is all the information and paperwork on the Apollo in in Gemini missions all disappeared and gone!
Each rocket was slightly different than the last. Technicians literally were jotting changes down in notebooks. They simply just knew how it had to be built. The human factor was a bigger part of the program back then. Those notebooks are long gone.
It's called BECHTEL because BILKTECH was too obvious.
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
01:26 VEHICLE Assembly Building, NOT "vertical"
the launch resistance /their own inertia is making them scale up too heavy . They need launching on a rail system that takes the huge inertia out the craft . I dont mean a double a train track btw lol ,something scaled up heavily optimised for a rockets great bulk..with a nice easy raise so the end of the track is a few hundred meters high .
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.
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).
$2.7 billion? Well, thats still cheaper than giviang Ukrane another $20 billion for war...
ITs only the biggest transporter for the biggest rocket ever assembled... its not made of playdoh.
the solar wind is moving at 0,15% of the light speed or 1,5/1000 so how can it get us to other stars?
If you’re talking about a solar sail, the ship’s velocity would continue to increase over time.
@@TheSteveSteele so it can go faster than the solar wind? and increase untill when? voyager have passed the point in witch the wind decrease. It doesnt work like the normal wind on our sail ships. It can work if you want to go in our solar system but not to others
Cost plus is possibly legitimate for truly ground breaking projects; but there is nothing particularly ground breaking about a rolling platform. Mining companies probably have this scale of stuff in a catalogue! And it should never be given to any company who has failed to hit budgets in the past.
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.
Why does this video have a youtube disclaimer about the Apollo program?
Is the original Bigelo module still attached and working?
The aliens that were already there told NASA to back off, so they've got to come up with something not to go.
Love from Germany
It's not fair to take a straight line extrapolation. That's true. It could be parabolic.
Game Over - YEAH!!! 🎶🎵🎶
SLS is not outdated it’s the only launch capable of getting to the moon
Is that Hollywood studio still available?
You shoud do some longer deeper dives.
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
It’s story time for grown up toddler fan boys.
If we only worry about speed, and safety. Then cost becomes a non issue. With this said, explain to me why isn't NASA using SpaceX falcon heavy?
If we built the space station in low earth orbit, and then move it to the moon. That should be a lot quicker.
Falcon heavy isn’t equipped to haul that much payload to the moon. And how are you going to move a space station to the moon?
@@TheSteveSteele build it in low earth orbit, launch a second stage rocket that is similar to the star ship. As in similar to the refueling in orbit bit, and attach it to the space station.
Now obviously I am not talking about launch the space station all at once to orbit, but the parts for it.
Which last time I checked, falcon heavy is able to handle heavier payloads compared to falcon 9. Therefore should be able to send up there the modules required to build the space station in question.
Now obviously I know it's more complex than that, but it is doable, and you have to be a fool to think otherwise.
It really looks like the crew that lands on the Moon again is going to need to not just ride the SpaceX HLS Starship from orbit to the surface and back, but all the way from Earth to the Moon. So much for the SLS...
Wrong.
Artemis does not do lunar orbit. It does elliptical around earth and moon. 6 days.
Ares 1 was sufficient. Launch habitation that links to Orion and a reusable lander that can stay in lunar orbit.
Cost plus means “I own the risk of development instead of you”. Good work if you can get it.
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 💀