Numbers are false. NASA has sunk 12 billion into SLS development already. With 10 planned missions that is 1,2 billion per launch without any actual hardware, ground services ect.
Because NASA isn't innovating in new technology, they are RE-USING and re-purposing old technology which is less risky for them I guess but even when they have proven technology in their hands, it still costs a whopping billions of dollars to design a rocket while SpaceX is basically all on their own. Something is not right with NASA, someone is not thinking clearly.
And what's wrong with that exactly? I'm betting you are a libtard anti Trump supporter. You do know your hero Obama approved the rocket which the Republicans fought hard to get whilst Obama gutted NASA back in 2010.
James Lincoln What? How is pointing out the lack of progress on an over budget project at all pro left? How did you take that as any form of political statement?
@@jameslincoln92 that's not about left or right or whatnot, it's just that people are sick of seeing politicians trying to keep their office by using public funds through projects like this (no clear direction, no definitive budget, and most of the money going to private contractors only half assing the work and cashing in the checks) when a company like SpaceX as already shown everyone that you can really undercut R&D and production costs...
I don't believe it. Not because I have any technical reasons to doubt it, but because theres been so many false dawns in the space age that I don't want to get my hopes up. I'll believe it when it flies and people can actually buy Saturn V class launches for $7m
BFR FTW I weigh 63kg, according to these numbers I can fly on the BFR for $2,940. Even if the $/kg doubled or tripled, that'd still be a good deal :D Getting to space for less than $10,000 bruh!
You need a bit more than your own weight to survive in space. ;p But yeah, it does basically make a trip to Mars potentially accessible to a lot of people, which is the idea.
I wish NASA could distribute its budget as it saw fit, but that is not the reality of it. NASA is told to build the SLS by congress, so if we disagree with that decision, voting on politicians that support a different target for NASA dollars is the proper course of action! Great video, Tim! Really informative and entertaining -- always looking forward to the next!
Oh brilliant! Hey everyone he solved the eternal dilemma. Just vote one of 2 people in, neither of which has any knowledge or interest in space, and who has a thousand other opinions you may or may not agree with. People who believe politics offers a solution are naive idiots.
Ok I’m 11 and like, you’re one of the coolest channels, my teacher plays you in class, but not straying from what I was going to say, it’s kind of sad that most people don’t appreciate the sheer beauty of older rockets, in class I was admiring the rocket haha
11:42 it is so fun to watch old videos like this. Back then, it felt like, although of course not exclusively, the general idea was that this has to be an unattainable/exaggerated goal. Yet, here we are with 74,400 kN, way higher than the mentioned 52,7.
SLS is like our Angara rocket. They built it for almost 10 years, launched one medium one, one heavy one. All in 2014. After that they say that Soyus is cheaper. Now Roskosmos don't even know that future rocket they want. One day they say Angara, next time - new Soyus-5 which is only a project. NASA and Roscosmos are giant bureaucratic dinosours.
NASA should be focusing more on faster propulsion, living/sleeping modules, energy, fuel /oxygen production, laser communication relays, preventing bone/muscle loss & protection against cosmic/solar radiation, supplies, greenhouses, surface transportation, hell even artificial (centrifugal) gravity... Anything that keeps a permanent base going, the physical & mental wellbeing of these pioneers and the tech that expands our reach into the solar system. NASA should spend their time and effort on the actual equipment they'll have to transport to these destinations to set up shop with. Affordable and reusable heavy lifters is a huge step, but only the first half.
@@isaachoffman6450 Well, in a month from now both are going to be true. SpaceX vehicles carrying NASA astronauts. It will be SpaceX & NASA vehicles And guess what, SpaceX has signed a contract with TWO (yes, two) commercial companies. One from Axiom (private space station module attached to ISS) & two from Space Adventures (sending to >1000 km orbital altitude). Both will be occurred sometime in 2021
Unfortunately being a government agency, operating under government contracting rules, once money is allocated by congress for a program, that money can ONLY be spent on that program. Case in point.... Back in the 90’s money was budgeted by congress for renovation of military facilities in Germany. Several years later, a reduction in forces resulted in there no longer being a need for those facilities. However since the renovation was budgeted, the renovations were done at tax payer expense and then the buildings given back to the Germans who promptly tore them down to construct a shopping mall. This is how our government works. SLS is nothing but our government funneling pork to private contractors for political favor. This is the way it has been for the last thirty years. Private, for profit industry can easily do the job better and cheaper but can’t be as controlled by congress. Hence the reason for SLS.
Seems like enough evidence to assume that all of Musk's cost predictions are right. The BFR will surely be superior in every possible way and meet all of the expectations that were placed before it, before it was even in development.
@@nerdzy8454 SpaceX: Nothing to show whatsoever NASA: Rocket almost finished "SeEmS LiKe EnOuGH EviDenCe tHaT MuSk iS gOd, aNd tHat EvEry LuDicRoUs GoAl wIlL Be AcHeiVeD DeSpiTe hAvInG ZeRo ExPeRiEnCe"
When the last Space Shuttle launched back in 2011, George Diller said "..And lift off! The final liftoff of Atlantis, on the shoulders of the shuttle. America will continue the dream." 7 years later, NASA is still fumbling around without a clear cut vision, while Elon Musk and SpaceX are continuing that dream of Space Exploration. NASA has suffered through cutbacks over the last 7 years and lacks that cohesive vision for space exploration it used to have. I hate to admit it, but NASA seems content to let that dream die. What NASA needs to do is stop fumbling around. Launch SLS once, cancel it, and then partner up with SpaceX. Think of what they could do together?
It's not NASA fault. It's politicians. Somehow they convinced the public opinion, that NASA is swimming in federal money, while in fact it gets pennies. So when they need to justify another bullshit F35, Zumwalt, railgun or a naval carrier it's NASA that gets it's budget cut. And nobody cares, because everyone thinks they are over-funded anyway. That forces NASA to constantly change it's projects, spend ever more money on adjustments, and eventually cancel them altogether.
i agree they just worry about the jobs that the current programs create and not the jobs that will be creeated in the future..they are killing the future to save the present and it is killing me
What bothers me with the SLS is that the "developement" costs are so high even though it is reusing old parts and tech. Seriously, $12 Billion+ while using engines from the 80s (maybe late 70s), a pretty standard tank, and slightly upgraded boosters from the Shuttle. There are reasons as to why it costs so much and why it is taking so long, but those are mostly excuses only. And none of it is reusable. It would have been better to rebuild the Saturn V. Just wasteful spending, nothing more. The SLS may end up having a more useful upper stage, but that is it. And even that is another $10 Billion+ to design. SpaceX needs some good competition so that they don't become greedy, but the SLS isn't it.
Anthony Pelchat The RS-25 is even older than that. Granted, it's a thing of beauty, but like you said it's not at all new. Development costs for SLS are just screwballs to me.
Th3L05t not really, I’m not sure they understand building rockets in the first place. Tell them that we use US private companies to send rockets and that states can make the different scientific components for the mission is probably the same vocab for them as we build rocket components in different state. The only difference is more missions. No, I think it’s a fail safe in case BFR doesnt happen, or is indefinitely delayed as it is the only vehicule that could do what the SLS is planned for. Just wait until BFR comes out and you’ll see that NASA’s plans will change quickly!
I love the SLS and Orion and hope to see it fly soon. I also hate to see my beloved Space Shuttle Orbiters retire and wish I could have seen it Launch and Land in person! Also I wish I could have seen the Apollo Saturn V and Apollo Saturn 1B Launch! I also love the SpaceX Falcon Heavy, Big Falcon Rocket, Blue Orgin New Glenn, United Launch Alliance Delta IV-Heavy, Vulcan, and Vulcan Heavy. I look forward to seeing the New Glenn, Falcon Heavy, and SLS fly! I've seen Falcon 9 Block 5 Full Thrust, Atlas V 501, Atlas V 531, Atlas V 541, and Delta IV-Heavy Launch in person but none of the others! Awesome video from Everyday Astronaut! Keep them coming brother! We have a Blue Orgin New Sheppard with NS-17 in the morning. 🇺🇸👨🏻🚀🚀
NASA needs to finally be given more autonomy from Congress, it’s 2018. SpaceX is making a mockery of them. It still needs insight and budget brackets of course, but the SLS is a shining example of the atrocious efficiency of their current system.
Hi, Tim. As an old, really old, science and space reporter who broadcast over a hundred space shuttle launches starting with SRS-3 and ending with the last one, I watched your SpaceX v NASA vids with interest as you came to essentially the same conclusion as I on the viability of SLS. In 2014, a day after covering the Orion heat shield test flight, I wrote a blog piece about NASA'S future as essentially a space junk dealer rather than an innovator. The NASA PR department was not happy about it but it's what I believe. Keep up the good work, I get a kick out of your videos but do you really HAVE to wear that suit?
I think NASA should continue with the SLS program till BFR is flying. What if SpaceX doesn't achieve it's goals? It's to risk for your country not to finish the SLS now. If SpaceX really deliver what they are promissing, then NASA can stop their program once and for all.
A risk how? A risk to deep space missions? The SLS is too expensive to really use for that anyway. A risk to moon or mars exploration? The SLS is too expensive to make those plans a reality. A risk to the deep space gateway station? That can be built with the falcon heavy for far cheaper, that station actually becomes more likely if the SLS is killed. The risk of losing something powerfull enough to lift the Orion? If the FH has more flights it can become human rated and if NASA gives a quarter of the budget for one year of the SLS to SpaceX they could update the dragon 2 to easily reach and return from a lunar orbit space station. And that is all based on the risk that the BFR will not fly, which I have more faith in the BFR flying twice then the SLS.
Jacques Loubser I would argue the SLS is not capable when you consider the cost and launch rate, and its not like the atlas and delta rockets will go away. Plus there is omegA (orbital ATK) and new glenn, NASA has plenty of rockets without the SLS
The first cost comparison isn't super fair I think as NASA had a huge amount of development costs. SpaceX started with all that development already done. About the bfr, we will have to see. Musk makes many claims all the time and it seems like it's just to keep the public interested and look innovative
@@alexanderx33 Well then isn't it time to recognise that SpaceX are not the only players in this? Besides, SpaceX, ULA and Blue Origin would not be viable without _some_ government input, which kind of makes NASA an essential part of it. I don't think space exploration can ever be a totally private venture. Certainly not while things are the way they are today.
It's like the F35 project with Boeing. Money pit. But we can raise the DOD spending $100 billion with no debate. We need clear goals and they must be only altered by scientists for the purpose of that goal. Congress hands until the program goal is complete.
*My* dream would be for NASA to send robotic craft to the moon to begin to *seriously* prepare a _permanent_ moon base. Send up a baker's dozen of Bigelow Aerospace B330's to be connected as a moon base. Have robots cover them in regolith for radiation and thermal shielding. Then, SpaceX would send up crews to live on the moon for long duration missions. Begin mining operations and creating manufacturing processes to build spacecraft _on the moon_ . A BFR or SLS departing from the moon would have an *_insane_* amount of Delta-v to carry crew and supplies because of the ⅙ gravity of the moon. Then, launch "pre-supply" missions to Mars with advanced AI robotics, who could begin creating an environment of breathable air, food and water for the first arrivals. I believe an "incremental" path to Mars would be a long-term project. Anybody remember how quickly we all became bored once we got to the moon? There problem was that there was no ongoing plan. Returning to the moon with a follow-on to Mars is the way to go. My 2¢...fwiw
+Pavel Hranický You still need rocket engines to maneuver once you're in space, unless you have RIDICULOUS precision and something to catch your vehicle at its destination.
You sound like a 'Surviving Mars' game player. I belive we should develop asteroid mining technology first. But not just mining - space refineries and simple assembly lines / factories as well. There are massive amounts of basically free (and constant!) heat in space. One needs just crude parabolic mirror to melt/vaporize rock. Or even distill it. Then we could use that material to build power plants. Not necessarily solar panels. Primitive Stirling engines would do just fine. Imagine what we could do with electrical power and some refined materials available in situ. Sure, there will be shortages of certain materials or equipment that the base simply can not produce itself. That's where mining exotics and trade with Earth comes in.
+theuncalledfor I can't even tell you who Isaac Arthur is...and I'm just an old fart who grew up with Sputnik and dreamed of space, so no brilliance claimed.
I really like how you are doing comparison that in the end there is just one goal we all share to explore the Space and each of the organization has a part of it. So lets do it! Tip: By the way for my head its easier to wrap around numbers like 52,700kN thrust of BfR to see it in more everyday human way like “It’s as powerfull as a gravitational force of the earth to human with a mass of 5,377,551 kg! Wouuu” Okey that analogy with giant human didnt help but you know what i mean. :D
Wait! reusable Falcon Heavy cost | payload | $ per Kg 90 M | 30000Kg | $3000 /Kg expendable Falcon Heavy cost | payload | $ per Kg 150M | 63800Kg | $2351 /Kg The expendable Falcon Heavy is cheaper! somethings wrong!
It sort of makes sense but we would need more info. They would be stripped down purpose built expendable boosters. No grid fins(especially the expensive titanium ones), no landing legs, aluminum engine mount(not the new inconel), no heat shielding anywhere(not recovering so not needed), and that’s what I can think of off the top of my head. I question if they might be used engines near the end of life but I doubt it. They seem to be a matched set so they could take the nine engines off a inconel engine mount(after 10ish or whatever launch quantity they determine), mount on the expendable booster but that’s a lot of effort. Might be worth it though? Just speculation at this point.
I think that's the price at which SpaceX sells the stuff. They already said that the real costs are lower and R&D into reusability is expensive. That making a booster reusable and recertifying it is still slightly more expensive for the public than using disposable rockets. One reason is the still new process to recertify rockets. That should change with every iteration and every new innovation into reusability.
Dude I'm just saying you should have more subscribers. I am kinda surprised you don't have a million subs. You show us amazing details good examples and you are also really good at explaining. I guess I'm kinda a space nerd and love space so much to understand other people like other things🤷♂️🤷♂️🤷♂️
Most of the time I think some of the jokes come off just a little cheesy and overdone but that rockets to rockets *pause* was brilliant writing and made me laugh out loud. Or it could be that I'm a little tipsy on Cinco de Mayo haha :) love your channel, keep up the hard work.
I'm gonna be honest I feel like NASA has no real purpose. Looking for life on Mars with curiosity. Wtf let's go to mars instead of looking for bacteria.
I remember being sad the day I found out that the shuttle program was ending. I lamented the end of the space vehicle that my school would all gather around to watch launch. But grown up-ish me agrees that NASA needs to get out of the low Earth orbit game and keep us expanding our knowledge. Well said as always. :)
SpaceX doesn't use anything that can't be tested repeatedly before flight. Once you light a solid rocket booster, you can't stop it until it's used all it's fuel and then you have to get a new one. You can't test the same booster that would be flown.
SRBs are not the answer. The Space Shuttle had them because they were cheaper to design and build than the original design's liquid-propellant boosters. Their use was a tradeoff: cheaper to design and build initially but far more expensive to maintain. And it wasn't really NASA that made the final decision but the OMB (Office of Management and Budget). The Nixon administration was still tied up with the Vietnam War and cut other budgets, including NASA's to compensate. A truly reusable Space Shuttle was one of the things sacrificed for war, something that is still happening.
How many rovers has SpaceX put on mars? How many probes has SpaceX put into deep space? The SpaceX/Elon Musk dickriding in these comments is hilariously stupid
Lewis Walker No, because it actually does stand for that in its family friendly version. You have to be able to call it something appropriate in front of the kids. Of course any adult with some sense knows it also stands for Big F***ing Rocket too. Still, if the little ones are around, best to keep it PG.
Completely agree, Tim! You talked about "is not this country vs that country", would be great make video comparing each space program, which organization has the best/curious program? Thank you!
I have just subscribed your channel, so I have a right to ask a question :) I noticed an amplifier in your room. Are you a guitar player? Give us some riffs!
@A Random Orca So the US is actively bombing 8 countries dropping more than 7 thousand bombs a year with a 80% civilian kill rate. So you would like that to be reduced to only 4 countries a year? You know none of these countries even attacked you and all your government is doing is looting resources. No better than terrorists.
Not true! SLS have very clear specific purpose - to channel as much public money as possible in to pockets of few selected corporations. And it is performing marvellously in that. Great success!
I know that everyone is going to hate me for this but I honestly think that SpaceX’s plans for the BFR are not going to go as they presented to us as there is no current exact* plan for the BFR with calculations. Adding on considering it’s size, fuel capacity, engine efficiency and payload capacity it gets quite hard to put the 2 rockets next to one another and still think that the BFR is going to be so much more powerful and efficient. Considering those, it is also said that the BFR will be completely reusable however there is an exponential difference between landing a medium sized rocket and landing a rocket bigger than the Saturn V not a direct one. So to sum up I think that the BFR is too big and too ambitious for our time as the technology and engineering required would cost almost 10-q5 times more than the total amount of money spent on the SLS. I say YAY SLS!!😄 and meh BFR😒 PS: that was longer than what I was expecting to write.
Even if BFR was a colossal failure, SLS would still be a incredibly expensive solution looking for a problem. FH and New Glen are and will be far cheaper/ton. So that leaves SLS for niche launches that require >63 ton LEO payload capacity in a single launch. This also assuming New Armstrong doesn't pan out.
Well, if you turn out to be wrong you can enjoy eating crow in a few years or so. If you turn out to be correct (which I personally doubt) then you can feel smug and tell everyone on the internet that you told them so. Even if you somehow turned out to be right, Falcon Heavy is still better than the SLS which has no actual mission other than to spend huge amounts of money for Congressional jobs programs. But if you're a fan of wasting money, then whatever... 😔
AlienChicken First off I’m not saying that the BFR is going to be a colossal failure, as for something to be a colossal failures that thing has to be made first and considering Tesla’s current situation it is either going to get cancelled from the start or is going to get delayed, delayed a lot. Adding on the SLS is not being built for commercial competition, it is being built to be reliable and technologically advanced. As that is what you need for an interplanetary mission carrying living breathing humans.
So what I'm taking from this is more "NASA should leave the launch vehicles on the bottom of the rocket to SpaceX, and get to working on the spacecraft that sits at the top of these oh so cheap rockets." ...Makes sense in my mind I think.
NASA should be more like DARPA for space . NASA does well at making the impossible be possible. do not ask NASA to build you a rocket. NASA should stop building rockets. it is a waste of there time and effort.
In all honesty, alot of me wants the SLS to launch just to hear/see the RS-25 launch sequence again. I hope they have a camera in a position to watch that.
The cost difference between the SLS and BFR is disgraceful.
221 b i like your profile picture
Especially when you take into consideration where the money comes from.
Numbers are false. NASA has sunk 12 billion into SLS development already. With 10 planned missions that is 1,2 billion per launch without any actual hardware, ground services ect.
221 b I repeat the cost difference is disgraceful.
Because NASA isn't innovating in new technology, they are RE-USING and re-purposing old technology which is less risky for them I guess but even when they have proven technology in their hands, it still costs a whopping billions of dollars to design a rocket while SpaceX is basically all on their own. Something is not right with NASA, someone is not thinking clearly.
RAPID UNSCHEDULED DISSASSEMBLY
RUD
A phrase all KSP players know, and even adore, with most of the things we try to launch, the bigger it is, the more glorious the explosion.
Lets just call it RUD.
The Y is from why did this happend.
Haha I wouldn't count a rocket than never made it to space as being one of the biggest.
>Esc> Revert to Launch
With the statistics shown: Cost/KG will be...
*SLS: $7143/kg*
*BFR: $47/kg*
Truly a mindblowing significant decrease...
SLS is more like 10500/kg to orbit. Less than half of what Shuttle cost and about 5 times what a Falcon 9 costs per kg.
Big Fake Rocket against Senate Launch System.
@@ncrean66 less fake than your moms dignity :D
@@romanplays1 this is everything a spacex's regular fan can reply)
$47/kg ... that's cheaper then some UPS quotes I've had!
Man, I love the phrase, "rapid unscheduled disassembly." I'm totally going to use that. ^_^
The first time I’ve seen that is in SpaceX’s video, “How to not land a booster rocket,” I think that’s where it came from but I’m not sure
@@ChromeShade Nope. Stolen from the Kerbal Space Program community, known as RUD.
@@vietnamhuey2051 ahh Elon, using so many references xD
RUD xd
SLS has a clear objective - keep as many people employed in as many congressmens' districts as possible.
And line the contractor's pockets....SpaceX is trying to make a profit.
And what's wrong with that exactly? I'm betting you are a libtard anti Trump supporter. You do know your hero Obama approved the rocket which the Republicans fought hard to get whilst Obama gutted NASA back in 2010.
James Lincoln
What? How is pointing out the lack of progress on an over budget project at all pro left? How did you take that as any form of political statement?
James Lincoln
You hear that, bruh?
That’s the sound of nobody asking.
-Someone that’s annoyed by modern politics.
@@jameslincoln92 that's not about left or right or whatnot, it's just that people are sick of seeing politicians trying to keep their office by using public funds through projects like this (no clear direction, no definitive budget, and most of the money going to private contractors only half assing the work and cashing in the checks) when a company like SpaceX as already shown everyone that you can really undercut R&D and production costs...
It's mind-blowing that the BFR will be cheaper to fly than the Falcon 1....
Johnny Horan
Well..... Maybe.
I don't believe it. Not because I have any technical reasons to doubt it, but because theres been so many false dawns in the space age that I don't want to get my hopes up. I'll believe it when it flies and people can actually buy Saturn V class launches for $7m
It's the future boi, you gotta believe.
If everything goes well... Ideal situation... Never happening, but there is hope :)
Pete Hague No one believed SpaceX would land their rockets until they did it. Have faith in Elon...
Congress: Let's put men on Pluto!
NASA: -_-
Johnny Horan like it will be 1 day until sls is finished then congress will say build another rocket
smh NASA should just tell them theres trillions worth of resources out in space (its the truth too!). thats all america needs to know
Johnny Horan What Congress, we do not have one. Ones we have is too greedy.
SpaceX:We'll do it!
I was exactly the 110 person to like this.😊
BFR FTW
I weigh 63kg, according to these numbers I can fly on the BFR for $2,940. Even if the $/kg doubled or tripled, that'd still be a good deal :D Getting to space for less than $10,000 bruh!
Don't forget the 6 months of food you will need to stay alive for the trip haha.
Ben Veenstra i want to die in space, dont need any food to achieve this
I was going to say insurance cost but ... :D
The Capacitor there's also the oxygen supply, the pressurized suit, and radiation protection (optional)
You need a bit more than your own weight to survive in space. ;p But yeah, it does basically make a trip to Mars potentially accessible to a lot of people, which is the idea.
2019:Tesla in space
2020: *The titanic in space*
Me: *oh wait its 2020*
*PLEASE STAND BY*
2021: Tesla factory in space
2022: Rocket factory in space
2023 *EARTH FACTORY IN SPACE*
2024 house is spacee
2024 we are on mars
When a rocket fails in real life "BUT IT WORKED UN KSP!?"
Yes I feel that
KSP goes: bbbbrrrrrr
Realism overhaul
In*
Xd
Happy Star Wars day guys!
May the 4th be with you!
May the 4th is laaaammee... Sorry
May the 5th over here
May the 4th be over xD
Thank you for this comment may the 4th be with you too in this glorious day!!
Star wars fans uniting /\
I wish NASA could distribute its budget as it saw fit, but that is not the reality of it. NASA is told to build the SLS by congress, so if we disagree with that decision, voting on politicians that support a different target for NASA dollars is the proper course of action!
Great video, Tim! Really informative and entertaining -- always looking forward to the next!
you do know most of congress doesnt care beyond the jobs that the progams create...that is how the U.S. space industry works
Michael Ford Indeed. That's why you vote different people in that won't do that
Oh brilliant! Hey everyone he solved the eternal dilemma. Just vote one of 2 people in, neither of which has any knowledge or interest in space, and who has a thousand other opinions you may or may not agree with. People who believe politics offers a solution are naive idiots.
so woke
Too bad gorv control scientits
My opinion BFR> SLS
That's is not just an opinion that is a fact.
It's my opinion that i like it better. But yes, it is better ;)
heres another fact
bfr's existence = because of NASA
Here's another fact.... That's my opinion.
Yup.
Someone send this video to nasa lol
Someone send this video to Congress.
triggered
On it
Ok I’m 11 and like, you’re one of the coolest channels, my teacher plays you in class, but not straying from what I was going to say, it’s kind of sad that most people don’t appreciate the sheer beauty of older rockets, in class I was admiring the rocket haha
- C - nice grammar
Saitama OPM in all honesty, I don’t know if that’s an insult or compliment, but thank you. ^^
- C - was a compliment most 11 year olds try to act like smartasses before checking their grammar
Saitama OPM lol, thank you ^^. Also, I love one punch man as well :>
- C - ok cool
As with every nice thing since the dawn of the Shuttle, It's Congress vs. everyone's hopes and dreams
Thumbs up if you didnt watch the previous vid.
i aint watchin it and he cant make me, yeet
r/madlads
I dont remember IF i have
#THUG_LIFE 😎
Not me
Two EA vids in a week?
AdmiralInsaneAerospace.EXE has stopped working. Windows is checking for a solution to the problem...
Very poetical an witty! Congrats!
Turn it on and off again amybe?
11:42 it is so fun to watch old videos like this. Back then, it felt like, although of course not exclusively, the general idea was that this has to be an unattainable/exaggerated goal. Yet, here we are with 74,400 kN, way higher than the mentioned 52,7.
Maaaaaan this was 18 months ago?!?! You've come so far since then ;) In fact the whole community has. Thanks in part to you. Great work mate!
SLS is like our Angara rocket. They built it for almost 10 years, launched one medium one, one heavy one. All in 2014. After that they say that Soyus is cheaper. Now Roskosmos don't even know that future rocket they want. One day they say Angara, next time - new Soyus-5 which is only a project. NASA and Roscosmos are giant bureaucratic dinosours.
NASA should be focusing more on faster propulsion, living/sleeping modules, energy, fuel /oxygen production, laser communication relays, preventing bone/muscle loss & protection against cosmic/solar radiation, supplies, greenhouses, surface transportation, hell even artificial (centrifugal) gravity... Anything that keeps a permanent base going, the physical & mental wellbeing of these pioneers and the tech that expands our reach into the solar system.
NASA should spend their time and effort on the actual equipment they'll have to transport to these destinations to set up shop with. Affordable and reusable heavy lifters is a huge step, but only the first half.
yes, yes yes! so much this!
This is exactly what NASA does. It's important to remember that NASA vehicles send people, while SpeceX's vehicles don't.
@@isaachoffman6450 Nasa vehicles ? Where is this vehicle ?
NASA should pave the way that SpaceX will travel
@@isaachoffman6450 Well, in a month from now both are going to be true. SpaceX vehicles carrying NASA astronauts. It will be SpaceX & NASA vehicles
And guess what, SpaceX has signed a contract with TWO (yes, two) commercial companies. One from Axiom (private space station module attached to ISS) & two from Space Adventures (sending to >1000 km orbital altitude). Both will be occurred sometime in 2021
Unfortunately being a government agency, operating under government contracting rules, once money is allocated by congress for a program, that money can ONLY be spent on that program. Case in point.... Back in the 90’s money was budgeted by congress for renovation of military facilities in Germany. Several years later, a reduction in forces resulted in there no longer being a need for those facilities. However since the renovation was budgeted, the renovations were done at tax payer expense and then the buildings given back to the Germans who promptly tore them down to construct a shopping mall. This is how our government works. SLS is nothing but our government funneling pork to private contractors for political favor. This is the way it has been for the last thirty years. Private, for profit industry can easily do the job better and cheaper but can’t be as controlled by congress. Hence the reason for SLS.
ACREDITO NISSO.
SLS first flight goals
2018
2019
2020
2021
Over the course of... 6 years
The SLS will launch in 2024.
😂
That's what happens when it's chronically underfunded, yes
SLS: Is actively being built by engineers and machinists.
BFR: Cool 3D render
Seems like enough evidence to assume that all of Musk's cost predictions are right. The BFR will surely be superior in every possible way and meet all of the expectations that were placed before it, before it was even in development.
@@nerdzy8454
SpaceX: Nothing to show whatsoever
NASA: Rocket almost finished
"SeEmS LiKe EnOuGH EviDenCe tHaT MuSk iS gOd, aNd tHat EvEry LuDicRoUs GoAl wIlL Be AcHeiVeD DeSpiTe hAvInG ZeRo ExPeRiEnCe"
When the last Space Shuttle launched back in 2011, George Diller said "..And lift off! The final liftoff of Atlantis, on the shoulders of the shuttle. America will continue the dream." 7 years later, NASA is still fumbling around without a clear cut vision, while Elon Musk and SpaceX are continuing that dream of Space Exploration. NASA has suffered through cutbacks over the last 7 years and lacks that cohesive vision for space exploration it used to have. I hate to admit it, but NASA seems content to let that dream die.
What NASA needs to do is stop fumbling around. Launch SLS once, cancel it, and then partner up with SpaceX. Think of what they could do together?
I think you mean fondling ...
k.
It's not NASA fault. It's politicians. Somehow they convinced the public opinion, that NASA is swimming in federal money, while in fact it gets pennies. So when they need to justify another bullshit F35, Zumwalt, railgun or a naval carrier it's NASA that gets it's budget cut. And nobody cares, because everyone thinks they are over-funded anyway.
That forces NASA to constantly change it's projects, spend ever more money on adjustments, and eventually cancel them altogether.
As for the US government, you need public interest to justify spending TAX payers money ...
i agree they just worry about the jobs that the current programs create and not the jobs that will be creeated in the future..they are killing the future to save the present and it is killing me
What bothers me with the SLS is that the "developement" costs are so high even though it is reusing old parts and tech. Seriously, $12 Billion+ while using engines from the 80s (maybe late 70s), a pretty standard tank, and slightly upgraded boosters from the Shuttle. There are reasons as to why it costs so much and why it is taking so long, but those are mostly excuses only. And none of it is reusable. It would have been better to rebuild the Saturn V. Just wasteful spending, nothing more. The SLS may end up having a more useful upper stage, but that is it. And even that is another $10 Billion+ to design. SpaceX needs some good competition so that they don't become greedy, but the SLS isn't it.
Anthony Pelchat The RS-25 is even older than that. Granted, it's a thing of beauty, but like you said it's not at all new.
Development costs for SLS are just screwballs to me.
NASA is like Boeing, at least they always have something that is in development ...
Also, SLS is basically the Aries V rocket from the constellation program. And we aren't including that price
SLS: Senate's Laundering System
that statement is more accurate than I think most would like to admit
I hope they’ll listen. NASA needs to be science while SpaceX becomes rockets, isn’t it why they invested in the first place?
I bet Nasa knows that but i think ist much harder to explain that to a politician
Th3L05t not really, I’m not sure they understand building rockets in the first place. Tell them that we use US private companies to send rockets and that states can make the different scientific components for the mission is probably the same vocab for them as we build rocket components in different state. The only difference is more missions.
No, I think it’s a fail safe in case BFR doesnt happen, or is indefinitely delayed as it is the only vehicule that could do what the SLS is planned for. Just wait until BFR comes out and you’ll see that NASA’s plans will change quickly!
I love the SLS and Orion and hope to see it fly soon. I also hate to see my beloved Space Shuttle Orbiters retire and wish I could have seen it Launch and Land in person! Also I wish I could have seen the Apollo Saturn V and Apollo Saturn 1B Launch! I also love the SpaceX Falcon Heavy, Big Falcon Rocket, Blue Orgin New Glenn, United Launch Alliance Delta IV-Heavy, Vulcan, and Vulcan Heavy. I look forward to seeing the New Glenn, Falcon Heavy, and SLS fly! I've seen Falcon 9 Block 5 Full Thrust, Atlas V 501, Atlas V 531, Atlas V 541, and Delta IV-Heavy Launch in person but none of the others! Awesome video from Everyday Astronaut! Keep them coming brother! We have a Blue Orgin New Sheppard with NS-17 in the morning. 🇺🇸👨🏻🚀🚀
I almost stopped watching in the first 10 seconds because I thought I already watched this, glad I took a second to read the description.
NASA needs to finally be given more autonomy from Congress, it’s 2018. SpaceX is making a mockery of them. It still needs insight and budget brackets of course, but the SLS is a shining example of the atrocious efficiency of their current system.
“So let’s start with block 1 of SLS, since that’s what we know for will sure will here soon.”
Hahahahahahaha.
Hi, Tim. As an old, really old, science and space reporter who broadcast over a hundred space shuttle launches starting with SRS-3 and ending with the last one, I watched your SpaceX v NASA vids with interest as you came to essentially the same conclusion as I on the viability of SLS. In 2014, a day after covering the Orion heat shield test flight, I wrote a blog piece about NASA'S future as essentially a space junk dealer rather than an innovator. The NASA PR department was not happy about it but it's what I believe. Keep up the good work, I get a kick out of your videos but do you really HAVE to wear that suit?
This one has been excellent. Well prepared, well presented. Thanks mate.
I am so impressed with your videos. Keep up with your work Tim.
I think NASA should continue with the SLS program till BFR is flying. What if SpaceX doesn't achieve it's goals? It's to risk for your country not to finish the SLS now. If SpaceX really deliver what they are promissing, then NASA can stop their program once and for all.
Jose Roberto Baschiera Junior Zé
To me this is the one, and probably only, compelling reason to continue with SLS.
A risk how? A risk to deep space missions? The SLS is too expensive to really use for that anyway. A risk to moon or mars exploration? The SLS is too expensive to make those plans a reality. A risk to the deep space gateway station? That can be built with the falcon heavy for far cheaper, that station actually becomes more likely if the SLS is killed. The risk of losing something powerfull enough to lift the Orion? If the FH has more flights it can become human rated and if NASA gives a quarter of the budget for one year of the SLS to SpaceX they could update the dragon 2 to easily reach and return from a lunar orbit space station. And that is all based on the risk that the BFR will not fly, which I have more faith in the BFR flying twice then the SLS.
The must appreciate that NASA always need to have at least two(2) capable providers ...
Jacques Loubser I would argue the SLS is not capable when you consider the cost and launch rate, and its not like the atlas and delta rockets will go away. Plus there is omegA (orbital ATK) and new glenn, NASA has plenty of rockets without the SLS
Agreed. Even more more so if you have to ask Vladimir (or however you might spell it) Putin if you can have your next engine ...
The first cost comparison isn't super fair I think as NASA had a huge amount of development costs. SpaceX started with all that development already done.
About the bfr, we will have to see. Musk makes many claims all the time and it seems like it's just to keep the public interested and look innovative
“And that’s rockets!” 😂 🚀
Congratulations for your channel man...it really is a pleasure to watch.
“Rapid unscheduled disassembly” is the best euphemism I’ve heard in a long time. You maka me laugh mon!
its from Elon
Next: Starship HEAVY
The Falcon Heavy landed all three boosters, with the third landing on a water-based platform.
The comment is a joke, "water based", XD
perfect, you summed it all up
Thanks for this cool videos!!
It’s both interesting (giving current facts about technologies developments) and, of course, entertaining
Btw: Can’t agree more with that last message
LOL. "rapid unscheduled disassembly"
Is that a technical term? Definitely my new favourite expression
Spacex is like 10 years ahead of NASA🤔
On rockets yeah. Then again If space X could do it then NASA could too If they didnt have all the politicians in the way.
Spacex rockets are better but NASA is better.
I suppose it is if you are a Musk humper.
Certainly the development philosophy is superior. plus capitalism tends to decrease costs
@@alexanderx33 Well then isn't it time to recognise that SpaceX are not the only players in this? Besides, SpaceX, ULA and Blue Origin would not be viable without _some_ government input, which kind of makes NASA an essential part of it. I don't think space exploration can ever be a totally private venture. Certainly not while things are the way they are today.
It's like the F35 project with Boeing. Money pit.
But we can raise the DOD spending $100 billion with no debate.
We need clear goals and they must be only altered by scientists for the purpose of that goal. Congress hands until the program goal is complete.
Yeah, love how the "deficit hawks" who'd been resisting dozens of good programs for years suddenly folded on that 100 billion.
When you compete with Iron man's mind.
Reference: Iron Man 2
This video got dated fast, but that is how the spaceflight industry, especially spacex, works. Great job keeping up!
I think it would be nice if you start to put your sources in the video description. Either way great video.
- greetings from Germany
17:44 .........
SpaceX : "U should have tried different speech this time"
*My* dream would be for NASA to send robotic craft to the moon to begin to *seriously* prepare a _permanent_ moon base. Send up a baker's dozen of Bigelow Aerospace B330's to be connected as a moon base. Have robots cover them in regolith for radiation and thermal shielding. Then, SpaceX would send up crews to live on the moon for long duration missions. Begin mining operations and creating manufacturing processes to build spacecraft _on the moon_ . A BFR or SLS departing from the moon would have an *_insane_* amount of Delta-v to carry crew and supplies because of the ⅙ gravity of the moon. Then, launch "pre-supply" missions to Mars with advanced AI robotics, who could begin creating an environment of breathable air, food and water for the first arrivals. I believe an "incremental" path to Mars would be a long-term project. Anybody remember how quickly we all became bored once we got to the moon? There problem was that there was no ongoing plan. Returning to the moon with a follow-on to Mars is the way to go.
My 2¢...fwiw
+Bosco Bob
Have you been watching Isaac Arthur videos? Or are you just naturally good at thinking things through?
U dont need a rocket to get off the Moon....there is no air, so u can go for el.mag railroad.
+Pavel Hranický
You still need rocket engines to maneuver once you're in space, unless you have RIDICULOUS precision and something to catch your vehicle at its destination.
You sound like a 'Surviving Mars' game player.
I belive we should develop asteroid mining technology first. But not just mining - space refineries and simple assembly lines / factories as well. There are massive amounts of basically free (and constant!) heat in space. One needs just crude parabolic mirror to melt/vaporize rock. Or even distill it.
Then we could use that material to build power plants. Not necessarily solar panels. Primitive Stirling engines would do just fine. Imagine what we could do with electrical power and some refined materials available in situ.
Sure, there will be shortages of certain materials or equipment that the base simply can not produce itself. That's where mining exotics and trade with Earth comes in.
+theuncalledfor I can't even tell you who Isaac Arthur is...and I'm just an old fart who grew up with Sputnik and dreamed of space, so no brilliance claimed.
I’m watching this in 2019 and a believe that the sls is now part of the Artemis program. So nasa has given it a clearer purpose
I really like how you are doing comparison that in the end there is just one goal we all share to explore the Space and each of the organization has a part of it. So lets do it!
Tip: By the way for my head its easier to wrap around numbers like 52,700kN thrust of BfR to see it in more everyday human way like “It’s as powerfull as a gravitational force of the earth to human with a mass of 5,377,551 kg! Wouuu” Okey that analogy with giant human didnt help but you know what i mean. :D
Very interesting video! Subscribed 👍
I think if Tim knew the sls wouldve been used for the moon today he wouldnt have said it needed to be rethought 😂
Wait!
reusable Falcon Heavy
cost | payload | $ per Kg
90 M | 30000Kg | $3000 /Kg
expendable Falcon Heavy
cost | payload | $ per Kg
150M | 63800Kg | $2351 /Kg
The expendable Falcon Heavy is cheaper!
somethings wrong!
I’m 95% sure we don’t have the full story but that’s what we’ve seen so far... time will tell but that’s the data we have so far
It sort of makes sense but we would need more info. They would be stripped down purpose built expendable boosters. No grid fins(especially the expensive titanium ones), no landing legs, aluminum engine mount(not the new inconel), no heat shielding anywhere(not recovering so not needed), and that’s what I can think of off the top of my head.
I question if they might be used engines near the end of life but I doubt it. They seem to be a matched set so they could take the nine engines off a inconel engine mount(after 10ish or whatever launch quantity they determine), mount on the expendable booster but that’s a lot of effort. Might be worth it though? Just speculation at this point.
I think that's the price at which SpaceX sells the stuff. They already said that the real costs are lower and R&D into reusability is expensive. That making a booster reusable and recertifying it is still slightly more expensive for the public than using disposable rockets. One reason is the still new process to recertify rockets. That should change with every iteration and every new innovation into reusability.
the expandable falcon heavys would be old falcon block 4s and 3s that they were going to discard anyway.
What are the rotating planets on your desk and where can I get one? Bdw, love your vids, cheers from Romania !!! :)
same question
Check the description. They are called Mova globes
AliExpress, it costs approximately 100$
MOVA makes them, and Amazon sells them for $160. Very nice!
Dude I'm just saying you should have more subscribers. I am kinda surprised you don't have a million subs. You show us amazing details good examples and you are also really good at explaining. I guess I'm kinda a space nerd and love space so much to understand other people like other things🤷♂️🤷♂️🤷♂️
Most of the time I think some of the jokes come off just a little cheesy and overdone but that rockets to rockets *pause* was brilliant writing and made me laugh out loud. Or it could be that I'm a little tipsy on Cinco de Mayo haha :) love your channel, keep up the hard work.
Are you going to Livestream the Block 5 launch?
ofc
I sure do plan to!
Everyday Astronaut , I can't get Spacing out!!! Why is it not on yet?
He have to ! New design, different appearance (white-black).
Everyday Astronaut in person?
Unbelieveable NASA burnt that amount of money for a rocket that is "only" some already developed parts slammed together...
McMicGera
They spent almost $1 billion on a launch gantry that will likely be used only once!
It's a Space Shuttle that is converted to a 2 stage saturn 5.
I'm gonna be honest I feel like NASA has no real purpose. Looking for life on Mars with curiosity. Wtf let's go to mars instead of looking for bacteria.
@@CloudDayLight So, forget the science and just send people there for the fun of it?
I still think nothing can beat Nasa's Saturn V rocket🚀🛰
BFR have change
LOLOLOLOLOLOL FALCON HEAVY BETTER THEN THE SATURN V
I remember being sad the day I found out that the shuttle program was ending. I lamented the end of the space vehicle that my school would all gather around to watch launch. But grown up-ish me agrees that NASA needs to get out of the low Earth orbit game and keep us expanding our knowledge. Well said as always. :)
Love your channel!!!!!!
4:15 Let's strap some SRBs to the falcon nine!!!! :D Cheaper, right??? xD
My thoughts exactly :P
SpaceX doesn't use anything that can't be tested repeatedly before flight. Once you light a solid rocket booster, you can't stop it until it's used all it's fuel and then you have to get a new one. You can't test the same booster that would be flown.
I was being sarcastic...
SRBs are not the answer. The Space Shuttle had them because they were cheaper to design and build than the original design's liquid-propellant boosters. Their use was a tradeoff: cheaper to design and build initially but far more expensive to maintain.
And it wasn't really NASA that made the final decision but the OMB (Office of Management and Budget). The Nixon administration was still tied up with the Vietnam War and cut other budgets, including NASA's to compensate. A truly reusable Space Shuttle was one of the things sacrificed for war, something that is still happening.
^
Pretty fitting Block 5 static fires on May the 4th and starts a new era of reusability.
when i look at SLS, i think "Which scientist thought KSP was a good enough for rocket designs?"
I actually did pause the video to watch the other one. Loved it, shared it.
I think they are waiting for super heavy to fly before they pull the plug on SLS.
You don't deserve 100K subs...
YOU DESERVE 1 MILION SUBS
You deserve 100 subs Tim.
He is getting close to 1M
He's getting there!
SLS is 30 years behind like everything NASA does
My mistake, i thought it was 40 years ....
Ouch! (true)
I thought it was 49 years
How many rovers has SpaceX put on mars? How many probes has SpaceX put into deep space?
The SpaceX/Elon Musk dickriding in these comments is hilariously stupid
@@teamtoken Maybe that's because spaceX is only a decade old..
Will we ever stop pretending BFR stands for Big Falcon Rocket?
Lewis Walker
No, because it actually does stand for that in its family friendly version. You have to be able to call it something appropriate in front of the kids. Of course any adult with some sense knows it also stands for Big F***ing Rocket too. Still, if the little ones are around, best to keep it PG.
Great as always! Keep it up.
Completely agree, Tim! You talked about "is not this country vs that country", would be great make video comparing each space program, which organization has the best/curious program? Thank you!
I have just subscribed your channel, so I have a right to ask a question :) I noticed an amplifier in your room. Are you a guitar player? Give us some riffs!
All the music in all my videos is original! So just keep watching and you’ll hear plenty!
SLS=Spooned Launch System
Senate's Laundering Spaceship
Small launch system
Gael Montalvo
If you think a SLS is small, I bet you haven't seen one on a scale comparison or you didn't check the dimensions.
18:23 wht the Earth stops spinning?
When that happens all of these topics above will be irrelevant ...
It does look like it. Good observation
We gonna die :(
I watched this whole video first than the other nasa vs spacex video you told us
Solid video, keep up the good work!
Scarp the SLS program. it's not needed.
Agreed!
In space, there is only a common humanity, united against a common enemy, and his name is Tsiolkovsky.
I wish I had a space suit...
true
I couldn't agree more! This is the best video I've seen you do... and I've watched many.
Well finaly, ITS BEEN SO LONG
❌Cancel NASA
✔️Cancel Military and SLS
How about just the military
@A Random Orca So the US is actively bombing 8 countries dropping more than 7 thousand bombs a year with a 80% civilian kill rate. So you would like that to be reduced to only 4 countries a year? You know none of these countries even attacked you and all your government is doing is looting resources. No better than terrorists.
Even if the military reduced its costs by 15% that would be enough to support a ducking lunar colony. But nooo, we need oil.
Kyle King not the military, heck no
*When you realize he has two colored eyes*
NASA: we have the most powerful Rockets
SpaceX: hold my Beer!
Well done on a sensitive topic! Excellent.
I love the rotating planets on the desk.
Not true! SLS have very clear specific purpose - to channel as much public money as possible in to pockets of few selected corporations. And it is performing marvellously in that. Great success!
Like 2019
Roscosmos Vs ESA?
Really ... any new technology there?
ESA, being European, is ambitionless and listless, and waiting for someone else to show them what to do.
Roscosmos = Putin.
Jacques Loubser space ≠ politics
Well ESA is doing stuff with Ariane 6 and Rockosmos... Well their doing stuff too but nobody knows exactly what.
Nice soundtrack at the end, you are doing a good job with that too.
I know that everyone is going to hate me for this but I honestly think that SpaceX’s plans for the BFR are not going to go as they presented to us as there is no current exact* plan for the BFR with calculations. Adding on considering it’s size, fuel capacity, engine efficiency and payload capacity it gets quite hard to put the 2 rockets next to one another and still think that the BFR is going to be so much more powerful and efficient. Considering those, it is also said that the BFR will be completely reusable however there is an exponential difference between landing a medium sized rocket and landing a rocket bigger than the Saturn V not a direct one. So to sum up I think that the BFR is too big and too ambitious for our time as the technology and engineering required would cost almost 10-q5 times more than the total amount of money spent on the SLS.
I say YAY SLS!!😄 and meh BFR😒
PS: that was longer than what I was expecting to write.
be careful with those words, musk fanboys tend to ignore actual statistics and only stick to what they're told by musk himself.
Even if BFR was a colossal failure, SLS would still be a incredibly expensive solution looking for a problem. FH and New Glen are and will be far cheaper/ton. So that leaves SLS for niche launches that require >63 ton LEO payload capacity in a single launch. This also assuming New Armstrong doesn't pan out.
Can Erkiralp well obviously SpaceX is better at making cheaper rockets, so i dont see where you are going with that comment.
Well, if you turn out to be wrong you can enjoy eating crow in a few years or so. If you turn out to be correct (which I personally doubt) then you can feel smug and tell everyone on the internet that you told them so. Even if you somehow turned out to be right, Falcon Heavy is still better than the SLS which has no actual mission other than to spend huge amounts of money for Congressional jobs programs. But if you're a fan of wasting money, then whatever... 😔
AlienChicken First off I’m not saying that the BFR is going to be a colossal failure, as for something to be a colossal failures that thing has to be made first and considering Tesla’s current situation it is either going to get cancelled from the start or is going to get delayed, delayed a lot. Adding on the SLS is not being built for commercial competition, it is being built to be reliable and technologically advanced. As that is what you need for an interplanetary mission carrying living breathing humans.
So what I'm taking from this is more "NASA should leave the launch vehicles on the bottom of the rocket to SpaceX, and get to working on the spacecraft that sits at the top of these oh so cheap rockets."
...Makes sense in my mind I think.
NASA should be more like DARPA for space . NASA does well at making the impossible be possible. do not ask NASA to build you a rocket. NASA should stop building rockets. it is a waste of there time and effort.
Awesome video!!!
In all honesty, alot of me wants the SLS to launch just to hear/see the RS-25 launch sequence again. I hope they have a camera in a position to watch that.
Scrap SLS NASA stick with science.