Im subscribing finally someone who talks about SLS in a respectable and logical unbiased manner. Re-usability is a tradeoff not an abject upgrade. Im so sick of that argument being beaten against SLS like a dead horse. If it didn't have a purpose NASA wouldn't have put so much effort in bringing it together despite having to deal with Boeing's BS. Jim Bridenstein in kinder words basically had to tell Boeing to get their heads out of their Glasses (Not an auto-correct completely intentional) to get the core-stage ready on a timely manner. I more than understand the frustration with Boeing as a whole but lets not take that out on SLS itself. SLS is going to be a marvel to behold and I can't wait to finally see it fly.
Well, it’s worth mentioning that Congress literally mandated that NASA build SLS with the funding they were given. So at least as far as the “NASA wouldn’t be doing this if it didn’t make sense” point, I don’t know that that necessarily follows. If NASA did have some design that they did prefer compared to SLS, they wouldn’t be able to pursue it, because the funding they do have to build a launch vehicle is all conditioned on it being used to build SLS specifically. (And, in fairness, the Ares rocket family NASA was previously pushing has a decent amount of similarity with SLS; at least as far as the bigger-picture “big expendable hydrolox rocket based on parts made by existing Shuttle contractors” type stuff.) (Not trying to make any particular argument for/against SLS here. Just pointing out that NASA doesn’t really have a lot of decision-making latitude here as to what sort of design they specifically build.)
I share your frustration completely. The average space fan brought in by Musk's fantasies is completely sold to the idea of reuse or nothing. Time will tell whether SLS is worth its weight and if SpaceX is doing anything special.
Totally agree. So many channels blow off the SLS as a thing of the past. It can in reality do many things Starship can not. I am tired of them saying starship can do anything better. There are different kinds on rockets for different reasons. Starship is good for some things but it is not 1 size fits all.
@@DavidWillisSLS I just don't know why NASA should choose Apollo style old technologies of space capsules and expendable heavy lift rockets to go back to the moon? A 21st century Apollo style moon landing which used old technologies of space capsules and expendable rockets is very meaningless.
@@DavidWillisSLS SLS rockets and Orion capsules are essentially very old technologies of Apollo era! It's a shame to use Apollo era old technologies to go back beyond LEO in 21st century! I just don't know why NASA doesn't use new technologies such as in-orbit assembly, space tugs, space refueling depots, and plasma or nuclear propulsions!
Note that all proposals that assume reuse on more than just the core engine are optimized for LEO, with large second stages that do most of the heavy lifting. This is why Starship proposes to use tens of refuelling flights for missions to the Moon and Mars, as it’s completely impractical beyond LEO otherwise (and honestly still iffy even WITH refuelling… the method makes more sense when you have some way of bringing in propellant from a lower-energy gravity well than Earth.) I do still think core engine reuse may make sense at decent launch rates (say, 4x a year), considering the RS-25s are designed to be reused anyways (Shuttle-C proposed a method like this at similar launch rates.)
Now, here is good deal: put docking port on SLS core, and send dragon with some fancy tools. We make new space station out of it. EDIT: Wait a minute. Smart reuse with ablative heatshield is problematic. But... Why use ablative? So i got this idea moment ago. Origami+ shuttle tiles. We already are looking at different ways of folding solar panels. What if we could do same thing with heatshields? Have it fold out like a sheet of origami paper. Id say far bigger challenge than heatshield is plumbing and actually separating engine section
NASA tested almost 20 years ago umbrella style foldable heatshild, with center sections fixed and a extended skirt made from some kind of fabric from ceramic fiber, sustained by deployable arms. But that project was abandoned.
@@ke6gwf SLS core litelary reaches orbital speeds. If it flew to standard circular trajectory, lets say 300 by 300km it would reach it with no problem, in fact it could carry some payload, lets say, smaller hab with tools, docking port, RCS and airlock. Back in the day (2013)there was SLS block 0, which had no second stage and could carry like 70t into LEO. Today stuff got optimised when we look at numbers so i bet block 0 would do even better with today's core
The thing with SLS is that it's a strategic asset for the US government. It is not designed to be economical. It has to do one task, at maximum effectiveness, and it cannot fail or prove to be unreliable. In that regard, it's much more similar to a military asset.
2 things I would like to critisize: 1) While the music is quite funky I actually think it is a bit loud and distracting at times. 2) Your calculations regarding reentry heating seem a bit off. Sure, total heat load goes up with the cube of the velocity, bit this does not translate linearly to peak heating. Radiative heat transfer goes up with the temperature to the power of four, meaning you'd loose energy fairly quickly, the hotter it gets. Another concern is how that total heat load is being distributed troughout reentry, which can be influenced by flight profile. In this regard I would expect the near orbital flightpath of SLS's engine section to allow for a much shallower approach than for Vulcan, meaning longer breaking time and even lower peak heating. You might even end up with lower peak heating, despite higher entry velocities. Although I will say, that I have not done any proper calculations on this.
Temperature(s). Total heat loading on the craft would have to be calculated as a function of time (how long that temp is applied) & shock geometry (how close the plasma wave is to the shield / body to transfer that heat efficiently). And then of course once you know the heat load, then you know how thick the shield needs to be to protect the innards.
i feel like you're kind of forgetting that developing reuse is expensive and challenging, heavily reliant on launch cadence to be worth it, and that expendable launchers are able to match reusable ones in price (for example the H3)
The only people who know for sure if reuse is worth it is SpaceX… and the company has 0 transparency. Probably by design. This allows people to argue reuse is a game-changer, despite any hard evidence to back that claim up.
@@innosam123 in other words, you think that SpaceX is lying? Remember that while they may not have public transparency, NASA and NSA and such have much deeper insight into the actual costs, via various audits and such, and they trust SpaceX deeply, and if SpaceX was lying about this, it would become obvious. In addition, SpaceX has a lot of private investors, who DO have access to this information, and if SpaceX was lying, they would lose this investment, because it's the low cost of reusibility that is really driving the company. Another important factor that plays into cost savings from reusibility is production capacity. By reusing parts, they don't have to invest into increasing the production capacity of the factory. So for Falcon 9, they produce 1st stage and fairings at a low rate, while they have to have more capacity for the second stage. Look at how long it takes to build a single SLS. Imagine if NASA wanted them twice as fast, they would have to build an entire new production facility to build two at once. Rocket Lab realized this cost savings aspect as well, which is why they are working on reusibility.
@@innosam123 I mean, prices for expendable vs reusable launches on F9 or FH are public information. So not zero transparency. Sure, it doesn’t tell us what the actual internal costs are; and sure, it’s technically possible that maybe SpaceX actually somehow manages to spend more than the price of a new first stage to reuse a previously flown one, and is just subsidizing reusable launch prices for sheer optics purposes. But that seems like a rather far-fetched scenario.
@@innosam123 Additionally: Rocket Lab seems to have determined that reuse is worth it for them and that it makes sense to do. And Blue Origin plans to do reuse whenever they finally actually launch New Glenn, and they think it’ll be worth it. I think (particularly with Rocket Lab) that’s a fairly solid basis from which to glean that actual rocket companies launching (or at least planning to launch) actual rockets have run the numbers themselves and concluded that it is worth it.
@@jgottula Rocket Lab’s Electron does it in a different way (without anywhere near as much payload loss due to capturing the booster mid-air)- and Neutron has yet to even come remotely close to existing. Without the sort of massive decrease in performance, the situation is a little different. It’s more like SMART reuse than F9 reuse, and not applicable to larger rockets (too big.) The loss in economies of scale *might* counteract the cost. However, we ALSO don’t have any real data from Rocket Lab. The Shuttle remains the only example where we have the data to make a proper analysis on reuse. The engines made sense to reuse (halving cost, apparently), but not the solid boosters. Also, SpaceX ALSO took data from all previous reusable launcher attempts available. Unless they have spies in SpaceX (which is illegal), I doubt they have data from F9.
I personally feel like the reason that nasa should look at reuse for SLS is to try and increase the launch rate. If we don’t need to throw away the whole core stage, or heck even if we can get back some of the engines that could help and increase the number of launches. I agree that price is not a issue but I do have issue with the 1 launch a year. So if we can re use some parts and get to 2 launches a year that would be worth it for me.
0:04 what are you talking about?.... If you are talking about using propellant to land a booster, only 2 companies do this (iirc). And Rockets have been recovered via parachutes for decades now....
Today marks 36 years since the loss of Space Shuttle Challenger. The space shuttle was a magnificent vehicle, but it was not designed to be fully reusable. I hope everyone remembers the original design concept, pitched by the major aerospace companies in the competition: an orbiter would sit atop a carrier aircraft (a 747 or equivalent), be cut loose at 40,000 feet or so, and thrust the rest of the way to orbit. Both vehicles would fly back to landing sites. Of course, that orbiter was smaller than what we got, being intended for crew transport but minimal cargo. Due to government skimping on development money, design compromises made the STS more expensive and more dangerous than it might have been.
The RS-25 engines have been reworked and will operate at over 100% capacity, damaging themselves beyond repair during launch. NASA did this on purpose to maximize lift. No point in recovering them.
I just thought of something regarding engine reuse. What if you gave each RS-25 a separate smaller heat shield. Even if you could only put it on 1 or two of them and not all that would still help. Doing this each one would be ejected and recovered separately. Im no professional but it was an outside the box thought so tell me if you think it has merit. Looking forward to the next part.
The RS-25 engines have been overhauled and reprogrammed to operate at beyond 100% capacity, so reuse is not an option. They will actually damage themselves beyond repair during launch to absolutely maximize performance. NASA designed them this way on purpose to achieve maximum lift capacity.
ok your points all make sense and i agree with them. except for the lox tank shortening for the engine reuse. why can't they also move the attachment point? it's not like the main fuel tanks are from the shuttle days, they are new
because you cant move the engine section down since the SRB's flair out but the srb's also have to attach to the intertan because thats where the thrust beam is
"cost aspect of sls is essentially a non-issue" This attitude is holding back the space industry. If it were cheaper we would have had 10 SLS launches every year.
@@DavidWillisSLS less cost per unit = more money left over to build more infrastructure. 1 launch per year is a terrible cadence. von Braun/Korolev would be very sad if they were alive
@@freiherrvonbraun6942 With the funding constraints established by Congress, one launch per year is likely the most that can be done at this time. Combine that with the complexity of the SLS which far exceeds the Starship and one launch per year is the best we can probably expect from NASA.
@@DavidWillisSLS "Michoud assembly facility has no where near that capacity to produce that many cores per year. " Imagine saying that at the beginning of any industry or sector of humanity ever. Do you think that the capacity to build huge fleets of aircraft existed one week after the Wright Brothers? This excuse just demonstrates a fundamental lack of awareness of the commerical and industrial world and seems to be common among people who are passive aggressive to SpaceX and/or reusability.
@@michaeldeierhoi4096 With the design that was forced on NASA by the Senate, yes. If had been given free reign to design their own, mission specific rocket instead, it could have been done cheaper.
28000km/h is 7.7km/s. NASA's LOFTID inflatable heat shield (which SMART is based on/ related to) was already successfully tested at 8km/s. So peak velocity really isn't the issue here, the question is can the inflatable heat shield slow the engine section down enough while still in the thinnest parts of the atmosphere, I.e. how large does the inflatable heat shield need to be. LOFTID had a tiny payload, consisting of essentially only avionics, sensors, a data recorder and parachutes, the 4 RS25 engines would weigh a lot more and be harder to slow down. Peak reentry heating is also not only a function of speed, but also the angle at which you are reentering the atmosphere, the Vulcan skirt will likely reenter at a much steeper angle, as it isn't as close to orbital speeds.
This is a lot of words wasted on not answering the question posed by the video title, by focusing on something entirely unrelated. What the title is asking is: Why was SLS designed to be expendable. What you answered was: Why does it not make sense to reuse this specific design that was put together with expendability in mind.
SLS will almost certainly work. Falcon 9 definitely works, so Starship might well work. If it does it will then be the only game in town. If it doesn't then NASA will still have the capability of returning to the Moon. It will just cost more.
I like your reasoning, however, Starship is a COMPLETELY different animal that F9, so it is not wise to extrapolate the one's success to the other. Starship is very unlikely to work, as Musk is trying to do too much with one rocket. Even if it does fly, the flight architecture has excess risk due to many potential failure points: large number of engines thermal tiles numerous in-orbit refuelings mechazilla landing system etc
@John Houbolt His bluffing might be psychopathic, because a launch explosion of a fully fuelled Starsip would destroy adjacent sanctuaries and Boca Chica. What specific problems do you see with putting humans on Starship?
@John Houbolt My prediction is that Starship will never make it to orbit, let alone carry humans. The FAA should not even let them test, as the site is not suitable for a rocket of that size.
@John Houbolt Perhaps, however the one thing that could stop everything is if one of his tests injures or kills people. Boca Chica is well within the hazard zone if a fully fueled Starship explodes.
On orbit reuse is best reuse, strap 4 cores together, upgrade the RS-25 so it can be relighted and build it out into an MTV (Mars Transport Vehicle) with Starship, then refuel it in Orbit. Suddenly the U.S. government is doing things SpaceX wouldn't be able to do on their own, but also the government wouldn't be able to do without SpaceX.
@@darksars3622 Engine section recovery is dumb for SLS as the RS 25s are fired at 109% cpacity so evan if we could bring them back with a inflatabel heat shild that can survive 28000 kilometers a hour the engines would be non reusebl so you just bring back basickly dead engines so it wouldnt be worth it
The right question is why SLS wasnt designed to be reusable because its definitelley possible to do that but i already know why, the truth is no matter how SLS would have been designed it would still be more expensive than any alternative i mean SLS although it isnt just taking parts from the shuttle and slapping them together it is still mostly constructed out of old and proven technologies with a few modifications yet its developement cost so far according to google is over $20 bilion while F9 and crew dragon total developement cost so far is around $1.6 bilion yet you could argue that f9 and dragon dev was much more complicated
Why wasn’t SLS reusable form the beginning? Because when SLS was started, the space shuttle was still operational, and NASA saw just how bad the shuttle was at actually being reusable. It’s a very simple answer actually. Why would they want to do they exact same thing again? Remember the saying “insanity is doing the same thing again and expecting a different result”
@@DavidWillisSLS "The right question is why SLS wasnt designed to be reusable because its definitelley possible to do that but i already know why" the last part
@@mmb3006 SLS was designed to minimize risk and maximize lift capacity for human missions beyond LEO. Making any part reusable would impair both of those factors.
“Massive amount of taxpayer money” Have you bought a pizza this year? Yes? That pizza cost more money than all of your taxes that went to SLS this year
@@DJ-bh1juWatch this other video from this channel about the SLS which help you to better understand why it has been so delayed. th-cam.com/video/CPWNuQMIVDQ/w-d-xo.html
This about as much makes sense as saying a horse and buggy needs to have a harness because it uses horses when everyone else is using reusable cheaper and better alternatives in the form of CARS. Sure as far as disposable rockets go the SLS is the best but it's like saying Lake Placid is the best movie made about alligators hiding in lakes.
No I tell you why SLS is not reusable because they don’t need to worry about money is taxpayers money so who cares right but musk can’t do that he needs to save money as much as possible
It was technically never canceled. However it’s develment has been paused indefinitely. So it’s basically unofficially canceled since no work is being done, nor planned to be done
Reusability isn't just something you can slap onto a rocket. Of course it doesn't make sense to reuse the SLS. What does make se se though is designing SLS to be reusable from the get go. Oh wait that's just starship
@@brianchan8 i didn't mean to modify the current SLS for VTOL. I mean if NASA had started with a clean sheet design that wasn't influenced by greedy politicians.
But if reusing the core stage didn't make sense because it is equivalent to a second stage, it also wouldn't make sense to reuse the second stage of Starship. But in fact it does make sense to reuse the second stage of Starship. So it can't be the case that reusing the core stage doesn't make sense because it is equivalent to a second stage. Basically Modus tollens.
Because the starship second stage is specifically designed to be reused. It has an aerodynamic nose cone, two sets of maneuvering flaps, and a massive heatsheild. That’s impossible to do with the SLS core stage
All great points and well demonstrated. The problem/frustration is; it’s all old technology, which is not only over budget but it’s cost per launch continues to grow. I get it’s a budget problem but it seems like a complete patchwork program, costing us taxpayers billions, to throw away. Yes it will be spectacular to see launch but that’s it. IF and/when Starship makes it to orbit, all SLS will be for naught. Want something done, do it right.
SLS was done right, and costs a fraction of what NASA previously paid for their other rockets. Starship has no baring on SLS at all since starship won’t even be sending people to orbit for several years to a decade. It’s first crewed application will be a lander, to which crews will get to Via SLS
@@DavidWillisSLS A lander that requires.... how much? Four, five superheavy launches to be deployed for a single landing? A very convoluted plan. I think that any BLEO plan using that mammoth Starship, in any form, should be preceded by the building of an architecture... an orbital fuel depot, already operational at the time of the first lunar mission, and constantly refueled and keep ready for other BLEO applications.
@@DavidWillisSLS SLS is BILLIONS over budget. Cost per launch is overwhelming. NASA has been looking for anyone to build the darn thing, going forward. Recent inspection reports state the costs are unsustainable. Btw: the previous comparison of SLS was to Falcon Heavy. While I believe in the requirement of having multiple launchers. I understand that’s primarily National Security issue. Now that BE4 engines have demonstrated full duration burn , that’s another big lift vehicle.
Doesn’t matter to me, as an American taxpayer, how much it costs. It’s still a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a penny per taxpayer dollar. I spend more on a pizza from papa John’s than I do in taxes to SLS each year
About the future SRBs, why don't NASA use helicopters to grab those SRBs like Electron, I think that would be better and cheaper than recovering on the ocean
ALU Ori Normal worker My House Here have been change timing Mother Ship Gray Service using Blow Back Rocket Saturn V Plus Copy Nescafe ALU Ori Normal worker change timing Blow Back Copy Nescafe timing have not completed timing change to Blow Back ON and then inned in water- audio YellowStone.
SLS didn`t really have a mission when the program was born and it changed a couple of times afterwards. It was not specifically designed to bring humans to the moon at the time. It`s just that it has to do the job right now, since it is what NASA has right now and it likley won`t be cancelled because senators love their money. A Rocket is worthless if there is nothing that gets you to your finaly destination, which would be a lander. It would have been great if NASA would be allowed to be more independend from politics and follow goals without programs beeing cancelled every now and then. I really hope Artemis will stay in the long term and that we can look at large expanding base on the moon and first steps on mars in this or early in the next decade. Fully agree on why SLS is not reusable. They started the rocket basically beeing dictated to use certain technologies and rockets like F9 weren`t a thing to consider back then. It doesn`t make any sense to make SLS reusable. If the y wan`t reusable rocket in the super heavy lift class, then start with a clean sheet of paper. Starship is just around the corner, so we will see what the future holds for us.
SLS actually was designed to send orion to the Moon. When Ares got cancled, Orion was left behind, and so NASA designed a new rocket with exactly enough payload to send Orion to the moon. That’s why even back to the very first renders of the rocket in 2011, you see Orion sitting on top
Downer Blow Back Drill idea ME, A My house here is Downer Blow Back Balancing GND Planet Saturnus here have been P from many yesterday ( 500million years balancing GND Planet Saturnus in flame& forest& Earth B).
Reusable rockets are a long way from being proven superior to expendable. They are looking promising to LEO, but beyond that is unknown. SLS was made expendable on purpose to minimize risk and maximize lift capacity for risky human missions beyond LEO.
@@iamarokotmanson A heavy lift rocket to lunar orbit AND landing AND reusable is very "heavy lift"! 😅😂. Elon himself is uncertain if Starship will work because it is a very hard project. There seem to be many naive people out that think that simply because Space X has the F 9 that is reusable to LEO and is working on starship which is designed to go to the moon and even Mars that it is a foregone conclusion that everyone that isn't building reusable rockets is wasting their time with inefficient regressive rocket designs.
@@jamese9283 but why does it have to be expendable? Just launch an upper stage, refuel it, dock with it and pew. Off to the moon. It'd require a Centuar V type upper stage to send Orion to TLI so 3 reusable Falcon Heavy launches. $270m compared to a sustainable SLSs $1.5b per flight. Even if you were to double my figure because a crew vehicle and stuff it's still only $550m. A third the cost of SLS and the mission could be done by other rockets such as New Glenn or Vulcan. Pretty robust tbh.
@@philippeferreiradesousa8673 because that’s not a lot of money at all. Apollo took 100 billion dollars in today’s money. And the ISS was like 250 billion
Disliked because not HD
Comedy gold
-Lumineer "Cock Destroyer" Fins
Comment Rocket Only in Germany having worldwide Leads.
Imagine hating
Also for using the metric system.
A simple but excellent and effective video detailing why SLS cannot be recycled. Now I know. Many thanks!
Im subscribing finally someone who talks about SLS in a respectable and logical unbiased manner. Re-usability is a tradeoff not an abject upgrade. Im so sick of that argument being beaten against SLS like a dead horse. If it didn't have a purpose NASA wouldn't have put so much effort in bringing it together despite having to deal with Boeing's BS. Jim Bridenstein in kinder words basically had to tell Boeing to get their heads out of their Glasses (Not an auto-correct completely intentional) to get the core-stage ready on a timely manner. I more than understand the frustration with Boeing as a whole but lets not take that out on SLS itself. SLS is going to be a marvel to behold and I can't wait to finally see it fly.
Well, it’s worth mentioning that Congress literally mandated that NASA build SLS with the funding they were given.
So at least as far as the “NASA wouldn’t be doing this if it didn’t make sense” point, I don’t know that that necessarily follows.
If NASA did have some design that they did prefer compared to SLS, they wouldn’t be able to pursue it, because the funding they do have to build a launch vehicle is all conditioned on it being used to build SLS specifically. (And, in fairness, the Ares rocket family NASA was previously pushing has a decent amount of similarity with SLS; at least as far as the bigger-picture “big expendable hydrolox rocket based on parts made by existing Shuttle contractors” type stuff.)
(Not trying to make any particular argument for/against SLS here. Just pointing out that NASA doesn’t really have a lot of decision-making latitude here as to what sort of design they specifically build.)
I share your frustration completely. The average space fan brought in by Musk's fantasies is completely sold to the idea of reuse or nothing. Time will tell whether SLS is worth its weight and if SpaceX is doing anything special.
Totally agree. So many channels blow off the SLS as a thing of the past. It can in reality do many things Starship can not. I am tired of them saying starship can do anything better. There are different kinds on rockets for different reasons. Starship is good for some things but it is not 1 size fits all.
I just found the best comment thread for SLS ever and I’m so very happy
Skylab II using a wet workshopped SLS core stage would be nuts.
Indeed it would be!
Relevant: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skylab_II
@@DavidWillisSLS I just don't know why NASA should choose Apollo style old technologies of space capsules and expendable heavy lift rockets to go back to the moon? A 21st century Apollo style moon landing which used old technologies of space capsules and expendable rockets is very meaningless.
@@DavidWillisSLS SLS rockets and Orion capsules are essentially very old technologies of Apollo era! It's a shame to use Apollo era old technologies to go back beyond LEO in 21st century! I just don't know why NASA doesn't use new technologies such as in-orbit assembly, space tugs, space refueling depots, and plasma or nuclear propulsions!
@@powerfulstrong5673 because SLS works.
I am amazed how much intro is needed to justify SLS! It's really amazing.
Most of my intros are the same length. 50-60s
This one is a mere 40s
If that’s too much let me know
not really. How's this: proven technology that works now and is the safest crew transport in history.
Note that all proposals that assume reuse on more than just the core engine are optimized for LEO, with large second stages that do most of the heavy lifting.
This is why Starship proposes to use tens of refuelling flights for missions to the Moon and Mars, as it’s completely impractical beyond LEO otherwise (and honestly still iffy even WITH refuelling… the method makes more sense when you have some way of bringing in propellant from a lower-energy gravity well than Earth.)
I do still think core engine reuse may make sense at decent launch rates (say, 4x a year), considering the RS-25s are designed to be reused anyways (Shuttle-C proposed a method like this at similar launch rates.)
If we have a flight rate of 4 a year the engines will be new anyway and do bild for price and expendability.
@@stekra3159 Eh, the Shuttle flew 4x+ a year, and apparently it halved the costs on the engines… so it can’t hurt to try.
Starship is designed for hundreds of launches a year.
@@celdur4635 So was Shuttle. We all know how well that went.
@@celdur4635 On paper. Reality often hurts
How aren't you making these videos at a loss? These are such high quality and sooooo underrated
Hahah thank you!
This really changed my opinion on the SLS, I loved your point on the SRB, which was my main criticism before.
Neat video, though the freestyle Eric Berger diss track went on a little long and I'm not quite sure it even belongs in the middle of the video.
Now, here is good deal: put docking port on SLS core, and send dragon with some fancy tools.
We make new space station out of it.
EDIT: Wait a minute. Smart reuse with ablative heatshield is problematic. But... Why use ablative?
So i got this idea moment ago. Origami+ shuttle tiles.
We already are looking at different ways of folding solar panels. What if we could do same thing with heatshields? Have it fold out like a sheet of origami paper.
Id say far bigger challenge than heatshield is plumbing and actually separating engine section
NASA tested almost 20 years ago umbrella style foldable heatshild, with center sections fixed and a extended skirt made from some kind of fabric from ceramic fiber, sustained by deployable arms. But that project was abandoned.
Why do it with SLS, when you can do exactly the same thing with Starship, and MUCH cheaper?
@@ke6gwf it's bigger in LEO, that's the reason, oh and has stronger tanks.
@@_mikolaj_ SLS doesn't have the ability to reach LEO, SSTO isn't practical, but Starship is designed for it.
@@ke6gwf SLS core litelary reaches orbital speeds. If it flew to standard circular trajectory, lets say 300 by 300km it would reach it with no problem, in fact it could carry some payload, lets say, smaller hab with tools, docking port, RCS and airlock.
Back in the day (2013)there was SLS block 0, which had no second stage and could carry like 70t into LEO. Today stuff got optimised when we look at numbers so i bet block 0 would do even better with today's core
The thing with SLS is that it's a strategic asset for the US government. It is not designed to be economical. It has to do one task, at maximum effectiveness, and it cannot fail or prove to be unreliable. In that regard, it's much more similar to a military asset.
You make an interesting point. SLS was designed to minimize risk and maximize lift for human missions beyond LEO.
Congrats on reaching 1.000 subscriber
Thank you!
2 things I would like to critisize:
1) While the music is quite funky I actually think it is a bit loud and distracting at times.
2) Your calculations regarding reentry heating seem a bit off. Sure, total heat load goes up with the cube of the velocity, bit this does not translate linearly to peak heating. Radiative heat transfer goes up with the temperature to the power of four, meaning you'd loose energy fairly quickly, the hotter it gets. Another concern is how that total heat load is being distributed troughout reentry, which can be influenced by flight profile. In this regard I would expect the near orbital flightpath of SLS's engine section to allow for a much shallower approach than for Vulcan, meaning longer breaking time and even lower peak heating. You might even end up with lower peak heating, despite higher entry velocities. Although I will say, that I have not done any proper calculations on this.
Congrats on 1k keep up the good SLS excuses🤣👍🏼👍🏼👍🏼👍🏼👍🏼👍🏼🚀
Haha thank you!
It's a heavy lift. Reusability limits lift. SLS is maximum performance.
Great video! Just a note at 10:15, are your referring to heat or temperature?
Temperature(s).
Total heat loading on the craft would have to be calculated as a function of time (how long that temp is applied) & shock geometry (how close the plasma wave is to the shield / body to transfer that heat efficiently). And then of course once you know the heat load, then you know how thick the shield needs to be to protect the innards.
i feel like you're kind of forgetting that developing reuse is expensive and challenging, heavily reliant on launch cadence to be worth it, and that expendable launchers are able to match reusable ones in price (for example the H3)
The only people who know for sure if reuse is worth it is SpaceX… and the company has 0 transparency. Probably by design.
This allows people to argue reuse is a game-changer, despite any hard evidence to back that claim up.
@@innosam123 in other words, you think that SpaceX is lying?
Remember that while they may not have public transparency, NASA and NSA and such have much deeper insight into the actual costs, via various audits and such, and they trust SpaceX deeply, and if SpaceX was lying about this, it would become obvious.
In addition, SpaceX has a lot of private investors, who DO have access to this information, and if SpaceX was lying, they would lose this investment, because it's the low cost of reusibility that is really driving the company.
Another important factor that plays into cost savings from reusibility is production capacity.
By reusing parts, they don't have to invest into increasing the production capacity of the factory.
So for Falcon 9, they produce 1st stage and fairings at a low rate, while they have to have more capacity for the second stage.
Look at how long it takes to build a single SLS.
Imagine if NASA wanted them twice as fast, they would have to build an entire new production facility to build two at once.
Rocket Lab realized this cost savings aspect as well, which is why they are working on reusibility.
@@innosam123 I mean, prices for expendable vs reusable launches on F9 or FH are public information. So not zero transparency.
Sure, it doesn’t tell us what the actual internal costs are; and sure, it’s technically possible that maybe SpaceX actually somehow manages to spend more than the price of a new first stage to reuse a previously flown one, and is just subsidizing reusable launch prices for sheer optics purposes. But that seems like a rather far-fetched scenario.
@@innosam123 Additionally: Rocket Lab seems to have determined that reuse is worth it for them and that it makes sense to do. And Blue Origin plans to do reuse whenever they finally actually launch New Glenn, and they think it’ll be worth it.
I think (particularly with Rocket Lab) that’s a fairly solid basis from which to glean that actual rocket companies launching (or at least planning to launch) actual rockets have run the numbers themselves and concluded that it is worth it.
@@jgottula Rocket Lab’s Electron does it in a different way (without anywhere near as much payload loss due to capturing the booster mid-air)- and Neutron has yet to even come remotely close to existing.
Without the sort of massive decrease in performance, the situation is a little different.
It’s more like SMART reuse than F9 reuse, and not applicable to larger rockets (too big.)
The loss in economies of scale *might* counteract the cost.
However, we ALSO don’t have any real data from Rocket Lab.
The Shuttle remains the only example where we have the data to make a proper analysis on reuse. The engines made sense to reuse (halving cost, apparently), but not the solid boosters.
Also, SpaceX ALSO took data from all previous reusable launcher attempts available. Unless they have spies in SpaceX (which is illegal), I doubt they have data from F9.
Great video David!
Thank you!
Ayyyye it's my man Jamison!
My rant aside this is a great video and I saw you post it on Reddit after watching. Hope you make more.
Really well done, thanks!
I personally feel like the reason that nasa should look at reuse for SLS is to try and increase the launch rate. If we don’t need to throw away the whole core stage, or heck even if we can get back some of the engines that could help and increase the number of launches. I agree that price is not a issue but I do have issue with the 1 launch a year. So if we can re use some parts and get to 2 launches a year that would be worth it for me.
Due to its design SLS can't really be reused. Sustainer stages suck.
Didn’t you pay attention to the video?
The video cover is shocking！
Never knew you made such good videos. Subbed.
thank you!
Good breakdown of components
Thanks!
0:04 what are you talking about?.... If you are talking about using propellant to land a booster, only 2 companies do this (iirc). And Rockets have been recovered via parachutes for decades now....
Pretty much everyone is working on reusing rockets dude
@@DavidWillisSLS sorry, I got ahead of myself and thought you were talking about operational reusable rockets and not ones in development
AMAZING.
Today marks 36 years since the loss of Space Shuttle Challenger. The space shuttle was a magnificent vehicle, but it was not designed to be fully reusable. I hope everyone remembers the original design concept, pitched by the major aerospace companies in the competition: an orbiter would sit atop a carrier aircraft (a 747 or equivalent), be cut loose at 40,000 feet or so, and thrust the rest of the way to orbit. Both vehicles would fly back to landing sites. Of course, that orbiter was smaller than what we got, being intended for crew transport but minimal cargo.
Due to government skimping on development money, design compromises made the STS more expensive and more dangerous than it might have been.
The SLS block 1 doesn't have the margins anyways does it? If they tried to recover anything it wouldn't be enough to send Orion to TLI?
SLS Block 1 can only barely loft Orion to NRHO as it is.
The RS-25 engines have been reworked and will operate at over 100% capacity, damaging themselves beyond repair during launch. NASA did this on purpose to maximize lift. No point in recovering them.
Great video!
Tanks!
@@DavidWillisSLS Tanks
I just thought of something regarding engine reuse. What if you gave each RS-25 a separate smaller heat shield. Even if you could only put it on 1 or two of them and not all that would still help. Doing this each one would be ejected and recovered separately. Im no professional but it was an outside the box thought so tell me if you think it has merit. Looking forward to the next part.
It might work with less engines, but cramming all that hardware into the space of 4 engines might be difficult
The RS-25 engines have been overhauled and reprogrammed to operate at beyond 100% capacity, so reuse is not an option. They will actually damage themselves beyond repair during launch to absolutely maximize performance. NASA designed them this way on purpose to achieve maximum lift capacity.
ok your points all make sense and i agree with them. except for the lox tank shortening for the engine reuse. why can't they also move the attachment point? it's not like the main fuel tanks are from the shuttle days, they are new
because you cant move the engine section down since the SRB's flair out
but the srb's also have to attach to the intertan because thats where the thrust beam is
Did you have a link for the first song? Only the song name isn't that helpful tbh :)
All the songs are from the YT music library. I don’t have the link anymore but just search the name in their videos and you’ll find it
@@DavidWillisSLS found it :D
th-cam.com/video/dsdYAMcNcwI/w-d-xo.html
Any update on part 2?
No clue as of right now. Srry
Wen part 2?
Another solution would be to put the engines in a side mounted pod like Zubrin's Mars Direct launcher and that reenters like a lifting body craft.
Awesome
thank you!
Nice video Davey
Imagine any ordinary citizen dumping stuff in the ocean. But NASA can now dump its entire rockets.
rockets become artificial reefs after they land in the ocean. your plastic water bottle does not
This is kinda backwards. You’re taking the rocket as it is and then trying to work out how to make it reusable
Instead you should be saying “okay let’s make a reusable rocket that does what SLS does”
well if it started out as reusable, it would have to be so different from what it currently is that it simply wouldnt be an SLS.
But then the aim of the SLS isn’t deep space. It’s a rocket looking for a mission rather than a mission looking for a rocket.
@@DavidWillisSLS it would be the space launch system by definition
@@philipwhiuk it would have the same acronym as its name, but it would in no way be "SLS"
Another fantastic video. Where are you lately?!
Here and there mostly. Thank you!
"cost aspect of sls is essentially a non-issue" This attitude is holding back the space industry. If it were cheaper we would have had 10 SLS launches every year.
Michoud assembly facility has no where near that capacity to produce that many cores per year.
Cost has nothing to do with launch cadence
@@DavidWillisSLS less cost per unit = more money left over to build more infrastructure.
1 launch per year is a terrible cadence. von Braun/Korolev would be very sad if they were alive
@@freiherrvonbraun6942 With the funding constraints established by Congress, one launch per year is likely the most that can be done at this time. Combine that with the complexity of the SLS which far exceeds the Starship and one launch per year is the best we can probably expect from NASA.
@@DavidWillisSLS "Michoud assembly facility has no where near that capacity to produce that many cores per year. "
Imagine saying that at the beginning of any industry or sector of humanity ever.
Do you think that the capacity to build huge fleets of aircraft existed one week after the Wright Brothers?
This excuse just demonstrates a fundamental lack of awareness of the commerical and industrial world and seems to be common among people who are passive aggressive to SpaceX and/or reusability.
@@michaeldeierhoi4096 With the design that was forced on NASA by the Senate, yes. If had been given free reign to design their own, mission specific rocket instead, it could have been done cheaper.
28000km/h is 7.7km/s. NASA's LOFTID inflatable heat shield (which SMART is based on/ related to) was already successfully tested at 8km/s. So peak velocity really isn't the issue here, the question is can the inflatable heat shield slow the engine section down enough while still in the thinnest parts of the atmosphere, I.e. how large does the inflatable heat shield need to be. LOFTID had a tiny payload, consisting of essentially only avionics, sensors, a data recorder and parachutes, the 4 RS25 engines would weigh a lot more and be harder to slow down.
Peak reentry heating is also not only a function of speed, but also the angle at which you are reentering the atmosphere, the Vulcan skirt will likely reenter at a much steeper angle, as it isn't as close to orbital speeds.
if you want to make the sls cheaper, mass produce it
Where is part 2
Lost to the void
What is that song? It's a frickin bop
not sure lol. i use a few different ones. all of them are in the description!
Ayo this looks good my guy
This is a lot of words wasted on not answering the question posed by the video title, by focusing on something entirely unrelated. What the title is asking is: Why was SLS designed to be expendable. What you answered was: Why does it not make sense to reuse this specific design that was put together with expendability in mind.
No the title is “why is SLS not reusable” and I answered that question
Awesome!!
Thanks!
For nasa it would probably cost them 100 billion to make sls reusable lol
Wow that background music goes loud and distracting in waves.
Reusability pays off in case of a high flight rate. This is not the case, so a reusable SLS would be even more uneconomical.
SRB -- Stinking Really Bad!
Watch Scott Manley's video on the sophisticated engineering of the SRB. Manley uses reasoning and science to describe why SRB's are so useful still!
i feel bad that they have to work hard over and over again since it wasnt reusable..
SLS will almost certainly work.
Falcon 9 definitely works, so Starship might well work.
If it does it will then be the only game in town.
If it doesn't then NASA will still have the capability of returning to the Moon. It will just cost more.
I like your reasoning, however, Starship is a COMPLETELY different animal that F9, so it is not wise to extrapolate the one's success to the other. Starship is very unlikely to work, as Musk is trying to do too much with one rocket. Even if it does fly, the flight architecture has excess risk due to many potential failure points:
large number of engines
thermal tiles
numerous in-orbit refuelings
mechazilla landing system
etc
@John Houbolt I agree, but it is mystifying how many stages and heavy infrastructure Musk is building in Boca Chica, as if he has a completed design.
@John Houbolt His bluffing might be psychopathic, because a launch explosion of a fully fuelled Starsip would destroy adjacent sanctuaries and Boca Chica.
What specific problems do you see with putting humans on Starship?
@John Houbolt My prediction is that Starship will never make it to orbit, let alone carry humans. The FAA should not even let them test, as the site is not suitable for a rocket of that size.
@John Houbolt Perhaps, however the one thing that could stop everything is if one of his tests injures or kills people. Boca Chica is well within the hazard zone if a fully fueled Starship explodes.
On orbit reuse is best reuse, strap 4 cores together, upgrade the RS-25 so it can be relighted and build it out into an MTV (Mars Transport Vehicle) with Starship, then refuel it in Orbit. Suddenly the U.S. government is doing things SpaceX wouldn't be able to do on their own, but also the government wouldn't be able to do without SpaceX.
The ultimate mars plan
This is how the USA stays ahead of China's Mars Plan, permanently.
Wait why isernt an inflatable heat sheld for sls?
Because it doesn’t hold up temperature wise
@@DavidWillisSLS but cant we develop an inflatable heat shield that can survive that heat?
@@darksars3622 Engine section recovery is dumb for SLS as the RS 25s are fired at 109% cpacity so evan if we could bring them back with a inflatabel heat shild that can survive 28000 kilometers a hour the engines would be non reusebl so you just bring back basickly dead engines so it wouldnt be worth it
The right question is why SLS wasnt designed to be reusable because its definitelley possible to do that but i already know why, the truth is no matter how SLS would have been designed it would still be more expensive than any alternative i mean SLS although it isnt just taking parts from the shuttle and slapping them together it is still mostly constructed out of old and proven technologies with a few modifications yet its developement cost so far according to google is over $20 bilion while F9 and crew dragon total developement cost so far is around $1.6 bilion yet you could argue that f9 and dragon dev was much more complicated
Why wasn’t SLS reusable form the beginning?
Because when SLS was started, the space shuttle was still operational, and NASA saw just how bad the shuttle was at actually being reusable.
It’s a very simple answer actually.
Why would they want to do they exact same thing again?
Remember the saying “insanity is doing the same thing again and expecting a different result”
@@DavidWillisSLS as stated in my comment i know that
@@mmb3006 you never said that or anything close to that in your original comment
@@DavidWillisSLS "The right question is why SLS wasnt designed to be reusable because its definitelley possible to do that but i already know why" the last part
@@mmb3006 SLS was designed to minimize risk and maximize lift capacity for human missions beyond LEO. Making any part reusable would impair both of those factors.
#JupiterVGang
Hello David
Hello!
It wasn't designed to be re-used because Congress gave them a massive amount of taxpayer money that they didn't have to worry about it.
“Massive amount of taxpayer money”
Have you bought a pizza this year? Yes? That pizza cost more money than all of your taxes that went to SLS this year
Quality content 👌👌👌
SLS
corm
The reason why they wont reuse SLS is because of the fuel and delta v. More you burn, more delta v
Distributed launch
Start with Congressional jobs programs
SenateLaunchSystem
I mean SpaceX is cool but the two solid rocket boosters can be reused but why don’t they don’t use the other parts
Because it’s either too difficult to return them or too costly
And THIS is why Elon is building Starship...... SLS is already obsolete.
SLS is not obsolete
@@DavidWillisSLS I suppose not, not with a Gov't willing to spend any amount of money and absorb years of delays to keep it going.
@@DJ-bh1juWatch this other video from this channel about the SLS which help you to better understand why it has been so delayed.
th-cam.com/video/CPWNuQMIVDQ/w-d-xo.html
@@michaeldeierhoi4096 Been following it for decades... I watched Neil take the first step on the moon, and everything that's come since....
@@DavidWillisSLS hasn't launched yet
This about as much makes sense as saying a horse and buggy needs to have a harness because it uses horses when everyone else is using reusable cheaper and better alternatives in the form of CARS. Sure as far as disposable rockets go the SLS is the best but it's like saying Lake Placid is the best movie made about alligators hiding in lakes.
No I tell you why SLS is not reusable because they don’t need to worry about money is taxpayers money so who cares right but musk can’t do that he needs to save money as much as possible
Great video, although, I feel like they should have gone with Lumineer for Artemis instead.
Side comment: whatever happened to the J-2x engine?
It was technically never canceled. However it’s develment has been paused indefinitely. So it’s basically unofficially canceled since no work is being done, nor planned to be done
Reusability isn't just something you can slap onto a rocket. Of course it doesn't make sense to reuse the SLS. What does make se se though is designing SLS to be reusable from the get go. Oh wait that's just starship
Or NASA could've gone a more conservative route and go with just first stage reuse, taking advantage of their DC-X experience.
@@iamarokotmanson did you watch the video?
@@brianchan8 i didn't mean to modify the current SLS for VTOL. I mean if NASA had started with a clean sheet design that wasn't influenced by greedy politicians.
@@iamarokotmanson it started in 2011 long before Falcon 9
@@brianchan8 yes, but NASA already had experience with DC-X
But if reusing the core stage didn't make sense because it is equivalent to a second stage, it also wouldn't make sense to reuse the second stage of Starship. But in fact it does make sense to reuse the second stage of Starship. So it can't be the case that reusing the core stage doesn't make sense because it is equivalent to a second stage. Basically Modus tollens.
Because the starship second stage is specifically designed to be reused. It has an aerodynamic nose cone, two sets of maneuvering flaps, and a massive heatsheild. That’s impossible to do with the SLS core stage
@@DavidWillisSLS Okay the nose cone makes sense. (Though I assume flaps and heatshield could have been implemented on SLS as well.)
Noice
Copy Nescafe ALU Ori Normal to Blow Back is can be use in underwater.
All great points and well demonstrated. The problem/frustration is; it’s all old technology, which is not only over budget but it’s cost per launch continues to grow. I get it’s a budget problem but it seems like a complete patchwork program, costing us taxpayers billions, to throw away. Yes it will be spectacular to see launch but that’s it. IF and/when Starship makes it to orbit, all SLS will be for naught.
Want something done, do it right.
SLS was done right, and costs a fraction of what NASA previously paid for their other rockets. Starship has no baring on SLS at all since starship won’t even be sending people to orbit for several years to a decade. It’s first crewed application will be a lander, to which crews will get to Via SLS
@@DavidWillisSLS A lander that requires.... how much? Four, five superheavy launches to be deployed for a single landing? A very convoluted plan. I think that any BLEO plan using that mammoth Starship, in any form, should be preceded by the building of an architecture... an orbital fuel depot, already operational at the time of the first lunar mission, and constantly refueled and keep ready for other BLEO applications.
@@DavidWillisSLS SLS is BILLIONS over budget. Cost per launch is overwhelming. NASA has been looking for anyone to build the darn thing, going forward. Recent inspection reports state the costs are unsustainable.
Btw: the previous comparison of SLS was to Falcon Heavy.
While I believe in the requirement of having multiple launchers. I understand that’s primarily National Security issue.
Now that BE4 engines have demonstrated full duration burn , that’s another big lift vehicle.
Doesn’t matter to me, as an American taxpayer, how much it costs. It’s still a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a penny per taxpayer dollar. I spend more on a pizza from papa John’s than I do in taxes to SLS each year
@@rogermarcoux8029 SLS is less costly than any other superheavy launcher ever developed by NASA.
Why no link to Part 2?
Cause I never got around to it
About the future SRBs, why don't NASA use helicopters to grab those SRBs like Electron, I think that would be better and cheaper than recovering on the ocean
Cause they weigh 95 tons each
@@DavidWillisSLS cool thanks
too much background music bro
The music 🔥🔥
3 months later and no part 2
Soon
@John Houbolt It’s much harder for reusable videos to match the view performance of expendable videos though.
@@DavidWillisSLS *2 months later*
Soon soon
Great video. The music is a little loud and somewhat annoying though :(
ALU Ori Normal worker My House Here have been change timing Mother Ship Gray Service using Blow Back Rocket Saturn V Plus Copy Nescafe ALU Ori Normal worker change timing Blow Back Copy Nescafe timing have not completed timing change to Blow Back ON and then inned in water- audio YellowStone.
Who tf disliked
ffairing.
its a tradition at this point
some asshole smh
@@DavidWillisSLS reasonable
@@notflyingcereal3575 There are minions from the unnamed Space X fan club who think all rockets should be reusable.
SLS didn`t really have a mission when the program was born and it changed a couple of times afterwards. It was not specifically designed to bring humans to the moon at the time. It`s just that it has to do the job right now, since it is what NASA has right now and it likley won`t be cancelled because senators love their money. A Rocket is worthless if there is nothing that gets you to your finaly destination, which would be a lander. It would have been great if NASA would be allowed to be more independend from politics and follow goals without programs beeing cancelled every now and then. I really hope Artemis will stay in the long term and that we can look at large expanding base on the moon and first steps on mars in this or early in the next decade.
Fully agree on why SLS is not reusable. They started the rocket basically beeing dictated to use certain technologies and rockets like F9 weren`t a thing to consider back then. It doesn`t make any sense to make SLS reusable. If the y wan`t reusable rocket in the super heavy lift class, then start with a clean sheet of paper. Starship is just around the corner, so we will see what the future holds for us.
SLS actually was designed to send orion to the Moon.
When Ares got cancled, Orion was left behind, and so NASA designed a new rocket with exactly enough payload to send Orion to the moon. That’s why even back to the very first renders of the rocket in 2011, you see Orion sitting on top
@@DavidWillisSLS SLS was designed to send money to specific defense contractors in specific Senators' districts.
Downer Blow Back Drill idea ME, A My house here is Downer Blow Back Balancing GND Planet Saturnus here have been P from many yesterday ( 500million years balancing GND Planet Saturnus in flame& forest& Earth B).
Video great. Background music loud. Make video less good. Do better Dave.
get rid of the annoying beats/noise/whatever you call the background sound
Dislike because Super Mario Background Music
I mean, Roscosmos is not making a reusable rocket.
Yes it is, look up Amur
@@iamarokotmanson huh, nice.
background music IS ANNOYING!!!!!!!!!!!!
terrible muzak and it is too hard
STOP the NOISE (music)!
Some of us hardly even notice the music like me. Imagine that.
im having digestive issues
SLS gives me diarrhea too
Loud and super distracting/annoying music. Why? You obscure your otherwise interesting presentation.
Because I haven’t figured out the proper music to audio ratio yet. I’m still learning
Disliked because too much HD
If all methods of reuse aren't worthwhile with the SLS design then SLS is a shit design
Cope and seethe
@@DavidWillisSLS keep thinking SLS is a great rocket that will help create a sustainable presence on the moon. It's funny.
Reusable rockets are a long way from being proven superior to expendable. They are looking promising to LEO, but beyond that is unknown. SLS was made expendable on purpose to minimize risk and maximize lift capacity for risky human missions beyond LEO.
@@iamarokotmanson A heavy lift rocket to lunar orbit AND landing AND reusable is very "heavy lift"! 😅😂. Elon himself is uncertain if Starship will work because it is a very hard project.
There seem to be many naive people out that think that simply because Space X has the F 9 that is reusable to LEO and is working on starship which is designed to go to the moon and even Mars that it is a foregone conclusion that everyone that isn't building reusable rockets is wasting their time with inefficient regressive rocket designs.
@@jamese9283 but why does it have to be expendable? Just launch an upper stage, refuel it, dock with it and pew. Off to the moon. It'd require a Centuar V type upper stage to send Orion to TLI so 3 reusable Falcon Heavy launches. $270m compared to a sustainable SLSs $1.5b per flight. Even if you were to double my figure because a crew vehicle and stuff it's still only $550m. A third the cost of SLS and the mission could be done by other rockets such as New Glenn or Vulcan. Pretty robust tbh.
Disliked because no 8K
So it was designed to suck up most of NASA's budget and we can't fix this by making it partially reusable, okay
NASAs budget is 24 billion dollars a year. SLS at its peak took up 2 billion a year.
That is not “most”
@@DavidWillisSLS Wow $24B, why haven't we a city on Mars already?
@@philippeferreiradesousa8673 because that’s not a lot of money at all. Apollo took 100 billion dollars in today’s money. And the ISS was like 250 billion
@@philippeferreiradesousa8673 only 24 billion for a city on Mars?? That wouldn't even cover launch costs.
@@DavidWillisSLS and to boot the whole Artemis Program from just 2020 to 2025 will be 35 billion
Dude turn down the fucking music
Exactly how do you propose I do that months after the video has been uploaded?
Chill bruh 😎