850,000 overtime hours! Are you freaking kidding me? And they're always years behind on completion dates? If anyone in the private sector were the project manager they would be fired and their financials would be audited!
The money keeps coming, because Boeing is 'too-big-to-fail', and too large a part of the military/industrial/commercial[MIC] ecosystem that is much bigger than Boeing. There's so much waste/fraud/corruption in that company that has been allowed/promoted , and too many political pots.Boeing needs a 'attitude-change' more than 'executives-with-attitude, GET TO WORK, BECAUSE IF BOEING FAILS ...the fallout get real ugly real fast, with the entire US aerospace industry. It's too bad the commercial space industry have robbed Boeing of the most talented scientists, engineers, technicians in the world. All that's left are the bean-counters, the factories, and the unions.
Clearly you are lacking in criical hinking abilitties. By tour logic there would be no armed forces, no police, no educaion, no federal reserve, no courts etc etc. A recipe for total anarchy.
@@rogerphelps9939 There are alternative(s) to centralized government. Collective social agreements for example. But government run or funded schools won't tell the students that. They will always push "government is a necessary evil". And focus on how to improve on that paradigm.
I kinda like not eating 'corporate-poison'[PFAS] food and water. But I get the sentiment "when the paperwork takes longer than building the spaceship"(?)
@@stephensfarms7165 they don't need the government money they get all of it from The revenue that is generated by falcon 9 and starlink. Don't let the government get involved in SpaceX keep them the f*** away.
The SLS will never be cost-effective. It is fundamentally flawed. This was clear at the start when they decided to base it on an old engine design. We just need to bite the bullet and cancel this program.
How did we rush and send someone to the moon 50 years ago in a single try and yet the SLS can’t do it for $25B and years of development and test after test? There is failure after failure in different systems. What is the cap on this effort?
The company that make the body, the engine, and orion spacecraft like boeing, lockheed, northrop grumman, aerojet rocketdyne are the company wants more money from nasa 😂😂😂
Once SpaceX demonstrates the ability to relight its Raptor engines in orbit for the de-orbit burn (which I expect to see on IFT-6) and successfully orbit Earth and land (which I expect IFT-7 to accomplish in 2025Q1), the last major hurdle to Starship traveling about the inner solar system is in-orbit refueling. Recovery of both fhe booster and the orbiter will allow SX to concentrate on the refueling part of the flight and additional internals for various purposes. SLS cannot compete with Starship.
They do it with Merlin engines 'all-the-time' so no worries about that, and reigniting in atmosphere under immense pressure/altitudes/precision; WOW(!)
@rockycata6078 Absolutely correct. However, Raptor-3 is not Raptor-2 which is not Raptor-1 which is not Merlin. I think they need to demonstrate the ability to restart a Raptor for the de-orbit burn.
*Over the last 5 years SpaceX has lowered the cost of refurbishing the 1st stage of the Falcon 9 from $13 million to just $1 million...* *That means that every day they have lowered the cost by approximately $7200. (about $300 an hour)* *As you read this comment and one or two others SpaceX has lowered the cost of any launch by at least $5.* *Can you imagine how much it will cost to send something into space next year?* *I can't wait to send the bureaucrats at the FAA into space.*
Doc: I’ve been to the future, Marty! Marty: what’s the space program like? Doc: in 2950 SpaceX cunducts its first faster than light starship flight…meanwhile the SLS was delayed again
$4 billion just to send Orion to the moon!😲 Starship still has a ways to go towards being fully operational, while the Chinese are also making rapid progress in reusability, leaving NASA & ESA in the dust.
With the government involved in Artemis you automatically have multiply every cost by a factor of four. And it's still technology from an era that's outdated.
Give SpaceX the $24 billion that SLS has sucked up and SpaceX could produce dozens of Starships and Superheavy boosters. The cost of refurbishing the shuttle engines is astonishing.
There's no refurbishable parts on SLS. Shuttle main engines are no longer part of the package now it's BE4 and the SRBs are modified shuttle components but they don't retrieve them anymore they toss them away like tissue paper.
@@TLH442 I should have been more clear. The refurbishing cost to which I'm referring is refurbishing the Shuttle engines in order to make them flightworthy. Those engines will not be re-used. I have not read the report that BE-4 engines will be used instead of the Shuttle main engines.
It should have been cancelled years ago. We already have a heavy lift vehicle going to the moon, but they need another one that costs over $4 billion per launch, just to launch a tiny capsule that will dock with the Starship, so why have the SLS?
@@garymccann2960 Actually there are lots of aerospace jobs that depend on it and their representatives in congress have to keep them happy. Practicality and cost are nott important and neither is sound engineering.
The discussion about financial inefficiencies really hits the mark. It’s vital to rethink strategies when new technologies, like reusable rockets, clearly outshine older models, thanks for sparking an important conversation!
NASA should cancel SLS, Artemis, Boeing Starliner and Blue Origin. With the huge savings, SpaceX will get us to the Moon and Mars much quicker and cheaper.
SLS is reusing shuttle hardware, which may seem to be a way to make use of usable equipment rather than waste it, but it's far from as good an option as starting from scratch and building an all new system of superior capability and sustainability. SpaceX wins.
Bureaucracy is the underlying problem. NASA has tons of bureaucracy - classic government. Space-X has very little bureaucracy. Remove it to lower the cost and raise innovation. Unfortunately, it's nearly impossible to do so at NASA because it is a government program.
SLS needs to be scrapped. There are too many over runs because of the old billing system of `Cost plus' and greased Congressional hands (i'll vote for it as long as a percentage of the project goes to a company in my voting district...). All future contracts must be fixed price so that NASA can maximize the utility of it's minimal budget. Rocketdyne and all the SLS firms need to be Audited to validate the excessive over runs (beyond those created because of mission drift).
@@rogerphelps9939I doubt that considering the appeals court is throwing out the one case & the GA case is also getting thrown out. Trump is innocent, his only crime is talking bad about the corrupt politicians
One question I have that I wish someone had an answer to. If starship has twice the power of Saturn V, then it has the power to go to the moon, but it can't on one tank of fuel because of weight. My question is how easily can it lose that weight? If it replaced the starship with a capsule, and kept the current booster, would that be enough or does the stainless steel booster make it still to heavy? The starship is very tall compared to a capsule. What if the booster length was increased to hold more fuel, and when the capsule is added on the top, the total is the equivalent length as the original two stages, would that get the capsule to the moon? I believe if SpaceX can do so easily, they should pull the rug underneath the SLS project by launching a modified starship to circle the moon and return.
The word "morden" in your thumbnail speaks volumes about your ability to intelligently present information on tech issues. It also speaks volumes about your viewer base.
*Hate to say it, but in SLS' defense, it is currently the only rocket that can deliver astronauts to the moon in a single shot. Conversely, Starship would need at least a dozen in-orbit refuelings to reach the moon. Perhaps a future, much MUCH larger version of Starship could do the job, but not Starship as currently configured*
They would have to prove to me they can actually deliver anything to the moon and back . Right now, it's just another story about the one that got away. Even if everything you say is true. How long do you think it will be before the budget hawks come to claw back some of that money? The private sector is the only way to ensure that we can explore space.
well nasa has been defunded only getting 0.25 of the national spending if it had more money and alot of the restrictions nasa has taken off it would definitely be better
SLS is an embarrassment to NASA. Cancel SLS and move the Starship launch licensing under NASA. We need to move on this and stop spending Billions on a failed effort.
It migh be an embarrassment to NASA but it is a pork barrel project designed by committtee with pretty much its sole aim being to preserve aerospace jobs.
SLS looks like a sunk cost. It has been outinnovated by SpaceX regarding the cost reduction of mass to orbit ($'s per kg). NASA should consider reallocating its talent to work on the "Tethered Ring" Launch platform as it could be an even cheaper (and cleanest) option of launching supplies and people into space. It is expensive but compared to the amount of money we have so far given away to Ukraine, we could have built *three* of them.
NASA mistake was not to bankrupt Artemus-SLS.. maybe they will still do this.. and the backlash will go directly to Congress like a sharp knife. I am of the belief now, that SpaceX is needed as a advisor to assemble a competitor to its self.. so it is not a monopoly (LoL)...
If nasa really want use ORION they probably pay less if ask spaceX a special upperstage on super heavy booster... in fact in cost of developpement for spaceX this stage could cost almost nothing.. just a starship without nose and tiles lmao
Nothing to do with that. His hands are tied by congress which directs NASA on what and where it spends its funding. There is a lot of pork barrel politics involved.
The problem of NASA is that they are not the builder of rocket they are the goverment for rocket, they give to the company that build the parts NASA just assemble them in VAB if NASA build there own rocket like space x for sure they can decrease the spending
A viable alternative to SLS 1st Stage and SRBs is SpaceX's Super Heavy. Using now proven Super Heavy either expended or reused would be much cheaper than an SLS. NASA cannot afford SLS at $2.2 billion a launch. A fully expended Super Heavy is estimated to cost $500 million. The Orion and Exploration Upper Stage (EUS) stack fueled has a launch weight of only ~68 metric tons. The Fully fueled mass of Starship is ~1,200 metric tons. Super Heavy clearly has the lift to put the Orion and Exploration Upper Stage (EUS) stack into orbit with boost to spare. The Super Heavy would probably have to stage the EUS had a higher altitude and speed that would make recovery impractical. The EUS, at a higher velocity can put Orion in Trans Lunar Injection (TLI). SpaceX needs to man-rate the Super Heavy. NASA needs to work with SpaceX to design an adapter for the Super Heavy Orion stack. I might add, SpaceX's PICA-X heat shield material is more advanced, cheaper and reusable than NASA's Avcoat heat shield material used on Orion. That said if the Avcoat heat shield's issues are considered manageable and resolvable, it might be more practical to continue improving Avcoat rather than overhauling the entire heat shield system.
@@rogerphelps9939 Starship is not human rated. The road to human rate Starship I suspect will be a great deal longer than Super Heavy. Moreover, the Orion and Exploration Upper Stage (EUS) stack can go directly to the Moon. Starship will require multiple refuelings. Starship for a high energy reentry coming from the Moon will even take longer to human rate. What I suggest will take the shortest amount of time and the NASA time line is possible.
I think the Starship would be allot more stable if they attached 4 Falcon 9s to it, Land it like quad rocket. The Starship rocket looks like it's on fire every time it does it's thing. To many boosters close together interfering with each other. Yes it would add more weight, but it would have more redundancy, and stability. If I were an astronaut, I would not want to be launched into space with a Starship Rocket, that thing looks like it's gambling against blowing up every time.
Give it 12 months. Starship will become routine. Who knows, Maybe they will be able to to a super heavy version in the future with multi booster configuration. Either way SLS is just a waste of time and money.
Uh from 2190 here, starship has successfully colonized the solar system with 1 probe going to sedna and other transneptunion objects Boeing successfully docs with leo station, the colony on mars congradgulates them
Its all about jobs, theyre everywhere. NASA does a great job. Suck at time and project management. I mean, could you imagine having your entire company spread across the united states. Of course its going to cost stupid amount. Space x is streamlined. They practice everyday building ship after ship. While each sls is only worked on once ever couple years. Im my opinion the sls is only there as a redunancy like they love in the space world. And for good reason but the trajectory of access to space is making the worlds jaw drop thanks to spacex. NASA knows theyre winning no matter what. Theyre engineers and infrastructure is maintained and they have spacex as back up. Which will probably launch its own amd others space stations.
!I recently sold some of my long-term position and currently sitting on about 250k, do you think Nvidia is a good buy right now or I have I missed out on a crucial buy period, any good stock recommendation on great performing stocks or Crypto will be appreciated.
As a beginner investor, it’s essential for you to have a mentor to keep you accountable. Ruth Ann Tsakonas is my trade analyst, she has guided me to identify key market trends, pinpointed strategic entry points, and provided risk assessments, ensuring my trades decisions align with market dynamics for optimal returns.
I managed to grow a nest egg of around 120k to over a Million. I'm especially grateful to Adviser Ruth Ann Tsakonas, for her expertise and exposure to different areas of the market.
I don't really blame people who panic. Lack of information can be a big hurdle. I've been making more than $100k passively by just investing through an advisor, and I don't have to do much work.. Inflation or no inflation, my finances remain secure. So I really don't blame people who panic.
Without a doubt! Ruth Ann Tsakonas is a trader who goes above and beyond. she has an exceptional skill for analyzing market movements and spotting profitable opportunities. Her strategies are meticulously crafted based on thorough research and years of practical experience.
I disagree with delaying Artemis for other purposes in spite of the benefits that it might have to other programs. This is not the same Space race as we had in the 1960's with the Russians. If China were to get there first, since they have not signed any international agreements, China could claim the moon, or certain strategic parts, as a Chinese territory. China has vast interests in mining minerals and Helium 3 on the Moon. Starship is not an operation system. Cancelling Artemis to wait for a Man rated Starship could delay our return to the Moon significantly. Replacing Artemis with an operational Starship system makes sense, but now is not the time.
There is a huge difference bettween landing on the moon and mining any resources on it. Expect the Chinese effort tto be a rehash of Apollo, 60 years before it and with a similar lack of expansion potential. There really is no mineral for which it is evenyl remotely economic to mine the moon.
@@rogerphelps9939 That's quite naive and grossly inaccurate. Helium 3, proposed as a needed element for Nuclear Fusion, a rare element on Earth, is abundant on the moon. The Chinese first landings on the moon may somewhat resemble Apollo as they develop their technologies for a greater cause. But you can believe what you want. have a great day!
SLS and indeed NASA is a political and jobs agency. Economics and risk and cost and sustanability be that of the above or environmentally are lower down the priority list. Everyone in the industry knows this and thus none are shocked by the cost overruns and waste. SpaceX has just exposed to the tax payer and the world what is going on and that of the above insider game. The contrast between SpaceX and NASA/Boeing et al is sooooo brutally stark that u need to be dumb, deaf and blind to not come to the above conclusion. So the solution is to make the above a political electoral question . I do applaude NASA's initiative to open up space for commecial companies to bid for projects and win them. I think SpaceX totally surprised NASA in how effective things can get, but SpaceX is unique in that it has a mission of its own via Elon musk for rocket, booster and stage reuse and also making humans multiplanetary. This mission is not like other companies that depend 100% on NASA or the DOD. This dependency mixed with the commercial drive for profits - with cost plus contracts-, along with monopolies like Beoing are a toxic, costly mix for the US tax payer.
NASA should just drop SLS let Elon move some of his stuff to Florida or better yet. Florida comes to Boca Chico and then not only that but gives Elon the chance to build it NASA a new system something that isn’t left over from the shuttle program something that will actually work and won’t just suck up taxpayer dollars.
Yuo do realise, don't you, that practically every aspect of the running of the US is to some degree a socialist enterprise. This is true of all advanced democracies. The only place that the US is an outlier is in healthcare where they think it is a good idea to lavish billions of dollars on fat cat middlermen, let accountants,not doctors, allow or withhold treatment and allow medical bankruptcy. Charging for insulin for people who need i is obscene.
@@Егор-э2н Yeah, but there should always be three companies in the bidding. So say something from Russia, SpaceX, and Boeing. Now that Boeing has proven they can't do the job then it could be replaced with somebody else. If Russia fails then they could be replaced. Competition is good. We need it otherwise we get fat cats sitting on the money doing nothing. As seen with Boeing.
@@Gunter_Custom No it isnt... just go on the computer where money is created/exists and move the decimal point. Money is not real and even less so since records of it became digital
850,000 overtime hours! Are you freaking kidding me? And they're always years behind on completion dates? If anyone in the private sector were the project manager they would be fired and their financials would be audited!
The money keeps coming, because Boeing is 'too-big-to-fail', and too large a part of the military/industrial/commercial[MIC] ecosystem that is much bigger than Boeing. There's so much waste/fraud/corruption in that company that has been allowed/promoted , and too many political pots.Boeing needs a 'attitude-change' more than 'executives-with-attitude, GET TO WORK, BECAUSE IF BOEING FAILS ...the fallout get real ugly real fast, with the entire US aerospace industry. It's too bad the commercial space industry have robbed Boeing of the most talented scientists, engineers, technicians in the world. All that's left are the bean-counters, the factories, and the unions.
That’s OUR money being wasted ! 🤔
This is not just NASA! Every department of the government wastes money like this!
ALL government agencies should be abolished asap.
Clearly you are lacking in criical hinking abilitties. By tour logic there would be no armed forces, no police, no educaion, no federal reserve, no courts etc etc. A recipe for total anarchy.
@@rogerphelps9939 There are alternative(s) to centralized government. Collective social agreements for example. But government run or funded schools won't tell the students that. They will always push "government is a necessary evil". And focus on how to improve on that paradigm.
I kinda like not eating 'corporate-poison'[PFAS] food and water. But I get the sentiment "when the paperwork takes longer than building the spaceship"(?)
The Artemus project is an example of bureaucracy run amuck. Stop the Artemus project, and save the taxpayer's money.
Cancel SLS, and put that money into Starship..
@@stephensfarms7165 they don't need the government money they get all of it from The revenue that is generated by falcon 9 and starlink. Don't let the government get involved in SpaceX keep them the f*** away.
SLS is a jobs program for Politicians.
The SLS will never be cost-effective. It is fundamentally flawed. This was clear at the start when they decided to base it on an old engine design. We just need to bite the bullet and cancel this program.
How did we rush and send someone to the moon 50 years ago in a single try and yet the SLS can’t do it for $25B and years of development and test after test? There is failure after failure in different systems. What is the cap on this effort?
На Википедии указано, что общий бюджет СЛС-Орион превышает 60 млрд на данный момент)
They broke my 'slide-rule' and now they just punch buttons😂🤣
The company that make the body, the engine, and orion spacecraft like boeing, lockheed, northrop grumman, aerojet rocketdyne are the company wants more money from nasa 😂😂😂
We didn't
.
Hollywood magic
😂
Once SpaceX demonstrates the ability to relight its Raptor engines in orbit for the de-orbit burn (which I expect to see on IFT-6) and successfully orbit Earth and land (which I expect IFT-7 to accomplish in 2025Q1), the last major hurdle to Starship traveling about the inner solar system is in-orbit refueling. Recovery of both fhe booster and the orbiter will allow SX to concentrate on the refueling part of the flight and additional internals for various purposes.
SLS cannot compete with Starship.
They do it with Merlin engines 'all-the-time' so no worries about that, and reigniting in atmosphere under immense pressure/altitudes/precision; WOW(!)
@rockycata6078
Absolutely correct. However, Raptor-3 is not Raptor-2 which is not Raptor-1 which is not Merlin. I think they need to demonstrate the ability to restart a Raptor for the de-orbit burn.
comparing SpaceX to either China, or Boeing is like comparing their Falcon 9 to a bottle rocket with a whistling report...
SLS is like looking into the 70s from the present. Space X is decades ahead!
Predominantly 3D printed engines attest to that. Re-usability by landing rather than "crunching" down is the cherry on top, not to mention pricing.
Decades ahead for a different goal. If the goal is launching starlinks then yes. But if the goal is the moon or mars then no.
If it’s going to cost 4 billion for one launch just give the money to spacex
*Over the last 5 years SpaceX has lowered the cost of refurbishing the 1st stage of the Falcon 9 from $13 million to just $1 million...*
*That means that every day they have lowered the cost by approximately $7200. (about $300 an hour)*
*As you read this comment and one or two others SpaceX has lowered the cost of any launch by at least $5.*
*Can you imagine how much it will cost to send something into space next year?*
*I can't wait to send the bureaucrats at the FAA into space.*
Notthing to do with he FAA.
NASA.....Just a big money pit....I use to be government employee, the overtime is a national disgrace 😡😡
Cost plus contracts are the problem. They need to go away!
Doc: I’ve been to the future, Marty!
Marty: what’s the space program like?
Doc: in 2950 SpaceX cunducts its first faster than light starship flight…meanwhile the SLS was delayed again
2950 ....😂
At the rate they are going at that will be more like 2150!
$4 billion just to send Orion to the moon!😲 Starship still has a ways to go towards being fully operational, while the Chinese are also making rapid progress in reusability, leaving NASA & ESA in the dust.
The Chinese thieves will literally steal your dental work out of your mouth if you yawn.
With the government involved in Artemis you automatically have multiply every cost by a factor of four. And it's still technology from an era that's outdated.
it's so bad!
"They broke my 'slide-rule', and now all these buttons attached to 'clowns-in-suits' are confusing engineering with economics"($!)
Could never understand Gateway's purpose
it is really redundant
Give SpaceX the $24 billion that SLS has sucked up and SpaceX could produce dozens of Starships and Superheavy boosters. The cost of refurbishing the shuttle engines is astonishing.
There's no refurbishable parts on SLS. Shuttle main engines are no longer part of the package now it's BE4 and the SRBs are modified shuttle components but they don't retrieve them anymore they toss them away like tissue paper.
@@TLH442 I should have been more clear. The refurbishing cost to which I'm referring is refurbishing the Shuttle engines in order to make them flightworthy. Those engines will not be re-used. I have not read the report that BE-4 engines will be used instead of the Shuttle main engines.
It should have been cancelled years ago. We already have a heavy lift vehicle going to the moon, but they need another one that costs over $4 billion per launch, just to launch a tiny capsule that will dock with the Starship, so why have the SLS?
Somebody gets a cushy job when they retire!
@@garymccann2960 Actually there are lots of aerospace jobs that depend on it and their representatives in congress have to keep them happy. Practicality and cost are nott important and neither is sound engineering.
sadly... they wont cancel it..... too many jobs on the line.... and too many politicians involved
Nasa needs a reboot so much waste there is something really wrong with it.
NASA needs to be taken over by spaceX
Very well done Description, Comments and Analyses. CONGRATULATIONS
NASA should scrap the sls and just contract out starship/falcon 9 for operations.
What about putting stage 2 of sls on starship booster?
NASA (27,500 kg) 1,5 billion orbit launch vs. SpaceX (22,800 kg) 62. mio. Orbit launch.
That's the difference between private sector and government projects.
Imagine if the Apollo program was not cancelled.
SLS 100% should be canceled and stop wasting billions of taxpayers dollars
NASA needs to fire the company that's building there launch tower and hire SpaceX to come in and build the new launch tower.
It’s either Incompetence or Corruption. Which seems more likely?🤔
How about corruption masquerading as incompetence?
Neither. It is dessign by pork barrel committee and the mistaken notion that money could be saved by repurposing old sttuff.
@@captainsoftheazulcarrib7491 The corrupt are incompetent. The incompetent are corrupt. They wear two masks one on either side of their head.
The discussion about financial inefficiencies really hits the mark. It’s vital to rethink strategies when new technologies, like reusable rockets, clearly outshine older models, thanks for sparking an important conversation!
Time to go!
Is Artemis the Edsel of Space Travel?
NASA should cancel SLS, Artemis, Boeing Starliner and Blue Origin. With the huge savings, SpaceX will get us to the Moon and Mars much quicker and cheaper.
After SpaceX caught there 23 story rocket booster everything else looks like the 1969 moon landing.
Haha! That’s right!
What is Morden (on the thumbnail) 😅
Good morning from CR
@@thehedge29 good morning!
More like our progress since 1969 had finally moved and advanced
Don't worry, I'm sure DEI gonna catch up with SpaceX any time soon lol
SLS is reusing shuttle hardware, which may seem to be a way to make use of usable equipment rather than waste it, but it's far from as good an option as starting from scratch and building an all new system of superior capability and sustainability. SpaceX wins.
Cancel SLS! Use starship for complete moon flight!
China just announced they discovered a map from 5,000 years ago showing the explored the moon, they call it the 900000 dash line!
Funny.
Bureaucracy is the underlying problem. NASA has tons of bureaucracy - classic government. Space-X has very little bureaucracy. Remove it to lower the cost and raise innovation. Unfortunately, it's nearly impossible to do so at NASA because it is a government program.
Silly idea, NASA should contract SpaceX to work on the SLS, as they may be able to make something out of this mess.
Thank you)
What happened to the Apollo era heat shields?? Why are we having issues in this area at all??
Private companies have demonstrated they don't need NASA to get to space or to do science.
By the end of the shuttle program each launch was as expensive as a Moon Shot Saturn V!
NASA needs to be scrapped and a new approach taken. Save what’s working (like JPL) and cut the rest. Don’t be trapped in the sunk cost fallacy.
I just can't imagine how the returnable version of HLS will look like. But it will definitely save taxpayers money.
It's part of this administration, why would it be as fast as Elon's rockets, just suck the money up and sit on your launch pad.
Yepper I think SpaceX could do it 50 percent of what Boeing is changing NASA.
More like 10%
SLS needs to be scrapped. There are too many over runs because of the old billing system of `Cost plus' and greased Congressional hands (i'll vote for it as long as a percentage of the project goes to a company in my voting district...). All future contracts must be fixed price so that NASA can maximize the utility of it's minimal budget. Rocketdyne and all the SLS firms need to be Audited to validate the excessive over runs (beyond those created because of mission drift).
Follow the money…
NASA needs to scrap the SLS along with the Starliner. I'm hoping Trump will put a stop to this ridiculous spending.
No. A lot of his support comes from places with oodles of pork barrel funding. Anywat Trump is going where he deserves to be, jail.
@@rogerphelps9939I doubt that considering the appeals court is throwing out the one case & the GA case is also getting thrown out. Trump is innocent, his only crime is talking bad about the corrupt politicians
Its not their fault, they are moving at the speed of government
One question I have that I wish someone had an answer to. If starship has twice the power of Saturn V, then it has the power to go to the moon, but it can't on one tank of fuel because of weight. My question is how easily can it lose that weight? If it replaced the starship with a capsule, and kept the current booster, would that be enough or does the stainless steel booster make it still to heavy? The starship is very tall compared to a capsule. What if the booster length was increased to hold more fuel, and when the capsule is added on the top, the total is the equivalent length as the original two stages, would that get the capsule to the moon?
I believe if SpaceX can do so easily, they should pull the rug underneath the SLS project by launching a modified starship to circle the moon and return.
congress required NASA to deliver SLS
Correct. NASA has o do what it is told to do even if its people know ha it is a wase of money. pork barrel politics trumps sound engineering.
The word "morden" in your thumbnail speaks volumes about your ability to intelligently present information on tech issues. It also speaks volumes about your viewer base.
I don't see it 🚬 🗿
I like the color of that rocket, brown rusted for being there too long… 😂😂😂
Sls is just a lost dream....
*Hate to say it, but in SLS' defense, it is currently the only rocket that can deliver astronauts to the moon in a single shot. Conversely, Starship would need at least a dozen in-orbit refuelings to reach the moon. Perhaps a future, much MUCH larger version of Starship could do the job, but not Starship as currently configured*
They would have to prove to me they can actually deliver anything to the moon and back . Right now, it's just another story about the one that got away. Even if everything you say is true. How long do you think it will be before the budget hawks come to claw back some of that money? The private sector is the only way to ensure that we can explore space.
@@geocam2 That too !
It can also deliver your money into the toilet pretty well. We need a system for a moon colony not a redo of Apollo.
@@geocam2in ten years, Starship will have flown more than a thousand times.
@@geocam2by end of 2026 or sooner
Starship cannot take payloads straight to the Moon. It runs out of fuel on reaching LEO rendering it dead in orbit.
it will be able to refuel in space
Not a problem if it can be refuelled in orbit cheaply as promised.
Boing! That's all I'm gonna say...
with nasa your paying for the name quite literally
SLS is a money pit that should have never been built in the first place
well nasa has been defunded only getting 0.25 of the national spending if it had more money and alot of the restrictions nasa has taken off it would definitely be better
SLS is a Frankenstein project.
Pssst, it MODERN, not MORDEN.
SLS is an embarrassment to NASA. Cancel SLS and move the Starship launch licensing under NASA. We need to move on this and stop spending Billions on a failed effort.
💯
It migh be an embarrassment to NASA but it is a pork barrel project designed by committtee with pretty much its sole aim being to preserve aerospace jobs.
SLS looks like a sunk cost. It has been outinnovated by SpaceX regarding the cost reduction of mass to orbit ($'s per kg). NASA should consider reallocating its talent to work on the "Tethered Ring" Launch platform as it could be an even cheaper (and cleanest) option of launching supplies and people into space. It is expensive but compared to the amount of money we have so far given away to Ukraine, we could have built *three* of them.
he US has given away hardly any money to Ukraine. It is mostly stuff that was developed and paid for many years ago and on tthe verge of disposal.
Cost ×,tells everything!
NASA mistake was not to bankrupt Artemus-SLS.. maybe they will still do this.. and the backlash will go directly to Congress like a sharp knife. I am of the belief now, that SpaceX is needed as a advisor to assemble a competitor to its self.. so it is not a monopoly (LoL)...
If nasa really want use ORION they probably pay less if ask spaceX a special upperstage on super heavy booster... in fact in cost of developpement for spaceX this stage could cost almost nothing.. just a starship without nose and tiles lmao
WHO APPOINTED THE CURRENT NASA DIRECTOR?.....EXACTLY.
Nothing to do with that. His hands are tied by congress which directs NASA on what and where it spends its funding. There is a lot of pork barrel politics involved.
The problem of NASA is that they are not the builder of rocket they are the goverment for rocket, they give to the company that build the parts NASA just assemble them in VAB if NASA build there own rocket like space x for sure they can decrease the spending
Uh Starship 6 already flew. And you're talking about 5? Read the news once in a while.
So far, SLS costs about a fourth of the Saturn 5.
But millions if not billions more than Starship
I feel robbed
A viable alternative to SLS 1st Stage and SRBs is SpaceX's Super Heavy. Using now proven Super Heavy either expended or reused would be much cheaper than an SLS. NASA cannot afford SLS at $2.2 billion a launch. A fully expended Super Heavy is estimated to cost $500 million. The Orion and Exploration Upper Stage (EUS) stack fueled has a launch weight of only ~68 metric tons. The Fully fueled mass of Starship is ~1,200 metric tons. Super Heavy clearly has the lift to put the Orion and Exploration Upper Stage (EUS) stack into orbit with boost to spare. The Super Heavy would probably have to stage the EUS had a higher altitude and speed that would make recovery impractical. The EUS, at a higher velocity can put Orion in Trans Lunar Injection (TLI). SpaceX needs to man-rate the Super Heavy. NASA needs to work with SpaceX to design an adapter for the Super Heavy Orion stack. I might add, SpaceX's PICA-X heat shield material is more advanced, cheaper and reusable than NASA's Avcoat heat shield material used on Orion. That said if the Avcoat heat shield's issues are considered manageable and resolvable, it might be more practical to continue improving Avcoat rather than overhauling the entire heat shield system.
Why bother? Just use Starship. Even with multiple refuelling flights it will be far cheaper.
@@rogerphelps9939 Starship is not human rated. The road to human rate Starship I suspect will be a great deal longer than Super Heavy. Moreover, the Orion and Exploration Upper Stage (EUS) stack can go directly to the Moon. Starship will require multiple refuelings. Starship for a high energy reentry coming from the Moon will even take longer to human rate. What I suggest will take the shortest amount of time and the NASA time line is possible.
I think the Starship would be allot more stable if they attached 4 Falcon 9s to it, Land it like quad rocket. The Starship rocket looks like it's on fire every time it does it's thing. To many boosters close together interfering with each other. Yes it would add more weight, but it would have more redundancy, and stability. If I were an astronaut, I would not want to be launched into space with a Starship Rocket, that thing looks like it's gambling against blowing up every time.
Give it 12 months.
Starship will become routine.
Who knows,
Maybe they will be able to to a super heavy version in the future with multi booster configuration.
Either way SLS is just a waste of time and money.
Uh from 2190 here, starship has successfully colonized the solar system with 1 probe going to sedna and other transneptunion objects
Boeing successfully docs with leo station, the colony on mars congradgulates them
congress required it😢
Its all about jobs, theyre everywhere. NASA does a great job. Suck at time and project management. I mean, could you imagine having your entire company spread across the united states. Of course its going to cost stupid amount. Space x is streamlined. They practice everyday building ship after ship. While each sls is only worked on once ever couple years. Im my opinion the sls is only there as a redunancy like they love in the space world. And for good reason but the trajectory of access to space is making the worlds jaw drop thanks to spacex. NASA knows theyre winning no matter what. Theyre engineers and infrastructure is maintained and they have spacex as back up. Which will probably launch its own amd others space stations.
Gee my ego is bigger than your ego! Just cut your losses and dump SLS!
So cringe
They need to cut the lost on this they just getting rob .
I'm ready to see space and to work out there that would be awesome
NASA has to follow DEI protocals. That costs lots of money and buerocrats to run it.
This has absolutely nothing to do with DEI. It's so implicitly racist to suggest that.
@@HansMcMurdy Always with the racism. Government waists money the private sector creates. That is a fact. Why wouldn't they?
!I recently sold some of my long-term position and currently sitting on about 250k, do you think Nvidia is a good buy right now or I have I missed out on a crucial buy period, any good stock recommendation on great performing stocks or Crypto will be appreciated.
As a beginner investor, it’s essential for you to have a mentor to keep you accountable.
Ruth Ann Tsakonas is my trade analyst, she has guided me to identify key market trends, pinpointed strategic entry points, and provided risk assessments, ensuring my trades decisions align with market dynamics for optimal returns.
I managed to grow a nest egg of around 120k to over a Million. I'm especially grateful to Adviser Ruth Ann Tsakonas, for her expertise and exposure to different areas of the market.
I don't really blame people who panic. Lack of
information can be a big hurdle. I've been
making more than $100k passively by just
investing through an advisor, and I don't have
to do much work.. Inflation or no inflation, my
finances remain secure. So I really don't blame
people who panic.
Without a doubt! Ruth Ann Tsakonas is a trader who goes above and beyond. she has an exceptional skill for analyzing market movements and spotting profitable opportunities. Her strategies are meticulously crafted based on thorough research and years of practical experience.
nice! once you hit a big milestone, the next comes easier. How can i reach her, if you don't mind me asking?
I disagree with delaying Artemis for other purposes in spite of the benefits that it might have to other programs. This is not the same Space race as we had in the 1960's with the Russians. If China were to get there first, since they have not signed any international agreements, China could claim the moon, or certain strategic parts, as a Chinese territory. China has vast interests in mining minerals and Helium 3 on the Moon. Starship is not an operation system. Cancelling Artemis to wait for a Man rated Starship could delay our return to the Moon significantly. Replacing Artemis with an operational Starship system makes sense, but now is not the time.
Makes no difference who gets their first! China will discover a map showing they explored the mood 5,000 years ago; it will be the 9000-dash line!
There is a huge difference bettween landing on the moon and mining any resources on it. Expect the Chinese effort tto be a rehash of Apollo, 60 years before it and with a similar lack of expansion potential. There really is no mineral for which it is evenyl remotely economic to mine the moon.
@@rogerphelps9939 That's quite naive and grossly inaccurate. Helium 3, proposed as a needed element for Nuclear Fusion, a rare element on Earth, is abundant on the moon. The Chinese first landings on the moon may somewhat resemble Apollo as they develop their technologies for a greater cause. But you can believe what you want. have a great day!
Ok
SLS and indeed NASA is a political and jobs agency. Economics and risk and cost and sustanability be that of the above or environmentally are lower down the priority list.
Everyone in the industry knows this and thus none are shocked by the cost overruns and waste.
SpaceX has just exposed to the tax payer and the world what is going on and that of the above insider game.
The contrast between SpaceX and NASA/Boeing et al is sooooo brutally stark that u need to be dumb, deaf and blind to not come to the above conclusion.
So the solution is to make the above a political electoral question . I do applaude NASA's initiative to open up space for commecial companies to bid for projects and win them.
I think SpaceX totally surprised NASA in how effective things can get, but SpaceX is unique in that it has a mission of its own via Elon musk for rocket, booster and stage reuse and also making humans multiplanetary.
This mission is not like other companies that depend 100% on NASA or the DOD. This dependency mixed with the commercial drive for profits - with cost plus contracts-, along with monopolies like Beoing are a toxic, costly mix for the US tax payer.
Once operational, Starship will be a ground-to-LEO shuttle and a reusable alternative to launch the Exploration Upper Stage needed for Artemis.
Elon can put all the ships for the program in star ship, deliver them to the moon unload them and watch the show. Tecnology has total passed NASA up!
No. NASA will eventually do away with the Exploration Upper Stage. It will be pointless.
NASA should just drop SLS let Elon move some of his stuff to Florida or better yet. Florida comes to Boca Chico and then not only that but gives Elon the chance to build it NASA a new system something that isn’t left over from the shuttle program something that will actually work and won’t just suck up taxpayer dollars.
Morden💀
You know a channel is a joke when they can't spell the title correctly in the thumbnail.
NASA, Socialism on display.
wrong. This is CAPITALISM.
Yuo do realise, don't you, that practically every aspect of the running of the US is to some degree a socialist enterprise. This is true of all advanced democracies. The only place that the US is an outlier is in healthcare where they think it is a good idea to lavish billions of dollars on fat cat middlermen, let accountants,not doctors, allow or withhold treatment and allow medical bankruptcy. Charging for insulin for people who need i is obscene.
We should cancel Boeing and contract Russia.
Мне, как жителю России это, конечно, приятно) Но ничего лучше СпейсХ не существует.
@@Егор-э2н Yeah, but there should always be three companies in the bidding. So say something from Russia, SpaceX, and Boeing. Now that Boeing has proven they can't do the job then it could be replaced with somebody else. If Russia fails then they could be replaced. Competition is good. We need it otherwise we get fat cats sitting on the money doing nothing. As seen with Boeing.
@@CheapHomeTechdon't forget the Chinese, they have many space companies and are also on the brink to reusable rockets
Russia isn't our allie anymore. We should never work together again.
NASA should have contracted Sierra Space right from the start. Can’t wait until we see Dream Chaser launch.
The continued support of the SLS program is bordering on criminal activity. CANCEL SLS!!
Ang dami dami ninyo na nag gang up kay VP Sara, babae pa ang kaharap. These so called young gones are cowards sa totoo lang.
It cost NASA 200000000 billion just for one ... Elon Musk does it for 62 million.. now you do the math...
Yeah I'm going to have to
Because you said 200000000 billion ..
That's more money than the world has ..😂
@@Gunter_Custom No it isnt... just go on the computer where money is created/exists and move the decimal point. Money is not real and even less so since records of it became digital