I really like this video, and whilst starship is my favorite of the two, SLS will be an awsome sight to see launch. I just really hope Nasa can move away from cost plus contracts, and have boeing build SLS for a fixed price.
@@HypersonicWyvern Starship isn't even comparable to the level SLS is in terms of completion. Starship can barely last long enough to test out landing techniques. Nor does it have a functioning core yet. More importantly, Starship only makes economic sense if they can get a cost/kg significantly less than Falcon (which is much simpler). Otherwise, due to the number of launches required for each mission (depends, but 16 is the usually cited number) , you'd easily go above SLS cost numbers.
@@innosam123 Starship has many booster stages waiting for orbital flight pending approval from FFA / USA government. Starship the upper stage has flown many times, during testing. What is not tested is landing in the tower, in many ways you can say Starship is more tested then SLS.
@@kjetilhvalstrand1009 So? Doesn’t matter if they can’t stop blowing up. Even Elon has acknowledged prototyping is far easier than actual flight units, and the 80-20 rule applies here as well.
If you want a channel that is just completely biased, check out 2 the Future channel. ruclips.net/channel/UCUF-OfqZ3hFCxnnKJ-lG1yg Their really hardcore fans of Starship and they try to bash SLS whenever they get the chance. Safe to say, not a big fan of their channel.
"These monster rockets are being built for NASA's Artemis Program" No… neither of them are. SLS is expected to be primarily used for that, but it wasn't built for any specific purpose. Starship is being built for Mars, but will also serve as a crewed lander for Artemis. You used the tank burst test to illustrate SLS delays… but that was a success. This is like something Thunderf00t would do, but you're a fan of SLS. I'm so confused!
Look my guy. They are currently being built for Artemis. Are they not? And if you can find ANY footage to illustrate delays then I’d love to see it. It is merely b-roll for the video
True what you say, but it makes more sense to do test flights to the moon, then going to mars something you can only do every 2 years. Building a moon base and testing out technology for building structure in low gravity, is also worth it. space telescope on the moon can also be really useful no light pollution, no atmosphere, and you can build things really big. With 1/6 of earth gravity.
@@kjetilhvalstrand1009Imagine if we could get an upsized JWST style mirror on the moon, imagine the possibilities. Lunar dust is a problem, but by then we should have ways to counteract that.
Also, once starship on it’s own has landed on the moon. How is it gonna return? If it carries the dragon from the Falcon, then it can’t land payload. And if they are gonna launch another Falcon, that’s one more docking and launch.
My brother who works for Boeing in St. Louis, Missouri doesn’t think that the Starship isn’t gonna work but I told him that for every mistakes the Starship makes will always be corrected for the next launch 🚀. I’m for the Starship going to the Moon and onward to Mars. My brother says that the Mars missions will be a failure. Yes it’s true that the first people who settled to live on the Mars will probably die but there will always be adjustments to these failures just to make it better next time. Do you agree or not?
@@DavidWillisSLS Nope he works as an AI (Artificial Intelligence) programmer for airplane ✈️ it Boeing of Seattle or somewhere in California that makes the SLS Rocket.
@@Mawyou If you think it’s funny, then look at what happened to the pre-Apollo years. There were failures & yet those engineers strived to make it better. They succeeded by sending men to the moon & back home from safely. ‘Nuff said 😏? Lol.
Nice work. I learned a lot ;) Regarding the musics (I know, again ;) ) Please, just get ride of the one used from 14:30 (or so) : too much clubby and the volume seams lowder on this one, resulting a distraction. All other tunes are more than ok :D
Nice video! May I suggest a pop-filter for your mic... I think (not very knowledge though) your mic is good enough and it is only the missing pop filter that makes it metallic popping -__- (maybe there is some echo, too... not sure)
@@DavidWillisSLS the pop filter is a (can be) cheap addition to your existing mic, back when I did youtube (and had just started) I just used a sock and a LEGO frame :P
i think you got the dev cost bit too high. Elon said that around 10% came from outside, however, keep in mind NASA has not transfered 2.8 Billion to spacex yet. So i dont think they had already spent 28B on this thing
@@DavidWillisSLS so either your assumption is right, or the 10% is just the amount of payment already payed... so 300 million this would mean 3 billion spent on Starship Dev so far🤔
@@Br0nson_0 Elon said starship is 90% self funded. Meaning 10% comes from outside of spacex. Thus that means that the 2.8 billion from NASA has to be that 10%
I fully get the logic behind not canceling SLS, but there is one tiny flaw in your logic I wanted to point out. If something were to go wrong in flight, HLS SS can‘t get back to the surface, but a regular starship with landing legs and heatshield could get back. They would just have to refuel it more to account for the extra dry mass of the heatshield and flaps.
@@DavidWillisSLS I know, I was just saying in theory they could manage a lunar landing with a regular starship. The only problem I see are the engines, even one raptor would dig a trench so big it would make ww1 generals proud.
14:34 why do you think spacex won't do private missions with the hls variant? until they have ground infrastructure on the moon, all starship moon landings will be hls variant i think but with hls potentially not needing seperate landing engines, this may be wrong. i don't know
Because the HLS is NASA’s variant that they are paying for for their missions. It’s not like anyone else can send crew to the moon other than NASA anyways so
Starship HLS was specifically designed to compete with other contractors making their own HLS. Doesn’t the HLS have only a few seats compared to their variants 100 give or take? Plus theirs would work a lot better with the rapid reusability concept. HLS has to stay in orbit and get refueled by several tanker launches while the normal variant has reentry capability and be refilled way quicker at the launch pad
@@ConsumableTanks the different engines to land on the moon, the legs, solar pannels, everything can be used for another hls vehicle with more seats for private missions.
I wouldn't really count on Starship for Artemis missions all that much. I wouldn't also count on anything that Musk says when it comes to the development and capabilities of Starship. The SLS, like many other NASA programs may indeed suffer delays and cost overruns but in the end it is safe and effective to operate for the Artemis missions even if it costs significantly more that what Starship would. Besides, SPACEX's Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy are already proven, capable cost-effective vehicles that could support the Artemis program if NASA deemed it necessary.
Why doesn't spacex put the habitat on the bottom allowing easier access to the ground and the engines on the top pull rather than push starship also it be best to keep the fins and thermal tiles in case of emergency abort and controlled dive. Starship vs. sls cargo capacity last I checked is nearly 3%mass vs. 2%mass ratios.
I'm not sure that Starship really did cost $28bn to develop. If NASA awarded the $2.8bn for Lunar Starship, then Elon may not have been counting that, if he was answering a question about the development of the normal Starship.
That 10% is the Lunar Starship portion. $8 mil per launch is defo not possible if 25.5B in costs need to be recovered, at one M profit per launch, it could take over 25,000 launches & decades of time to recover the investment on a vehicle designed to last a few dozen launches.
i can't find this anywhere so i'm just gonna ask, will astronauts switch from orion to Starship on moon orbit and then land, to later on get back to orion and return to earth? i'm asking this since NASA removed the gateway from it's "critical path" to the moon, and i don't know what will replace it
If Dearmoon happen in 2023 which Gwynne Shotwell said is planned and still a go. IF it happen would any one think maybe few others would be planned at the same time has moon landing so they can watch it live. What if you had few other star Ship there at landing doing the 3 days to and 3 days there and 3 days back and have other planed over the whole missions . If there are people paying Space x will give them First classes Rid . Any one eles this might happen ?
How about combining SLS and Starship in a different way by using the Starship Super Heavy booster as a replacement for the SLS core stage and SRBs. This would lower the cost by getting rid of expensive RS-25 engines and SRBs, but leave the Orion capsule with escape system and EUS upper stage for TLI. Northrup Grumman SRBs and Aerojet Rocketdyne RS-25s would lose business, but Boeing and Lockheed would still have major contracts. Some obvious issues would be getting stacked booster to fit in the VLA the building. SpaceX might have to make shorter version of Super Heavy booster just for Orion launches. NASA was looking for proposals to lower SLS costs and this might be a good compromise acceptable to Congress.
In reality only political reasons matters, because obviously Orion could be launched with a comercial rocket (but only to the LEO), and attached to a lunar starship all the way to the moon orbit, so you have all abort capabilities and more, because if Orion have a malfunction astronauts can use starship as a lifeboat at least temporarily( like on Apollo 13), are some advantages of traveling with two separate vehicles attached together.
Only falcon heavy has the capability to place Orion into orbit. Delta IV heavy doesn’t have enough flights left to lift it. But the problem with falcon heavy is that it’s not crew rated, and Elon has said there are zero plans to do so.
@@DavidWillisSLS in 2025 would be another two operational rockets with enough capability , New Glenn and Vulcan, and Vulcan will be human rated, but is a better reason to use a comercial rocket, SLS can be produced only at a rate of two each year, I don't see how a lunar base can be operated with such a low rate of launching, and Orion can remain operational only six months attached to lunar gateway, after that most be send back to earth, a higher rate of human flight is needed one each three months probably, which Orion can hold it but SLS not.
COLS is superior to both SLS and Starship - can replace SLS1/1B by using evolved Falcon/Vulcan derived launch vehicles along with Orion SLS block 2 could be replaced by putting EUS on top of an expendable Starship/reusable Superheavy stack - However if Starship fails, SLS B2 can’t be replaced and will be a good system if we reduce costs with RS25 recovery Starship will be successful commercially if they can get around the technical difficulties - I think will be more like $120M than $8-$20M, which would still make it very appealing and a lunar starship mission would be the same cost as an SLS launch, but for far more capability - 18 crew instead of 6, 50t to surface and back to LEO using Dragon and Dreamchaser crew LEO transport With lunar Starship, it makes sense to use commercial crew LEO transport instead of SLS and Orion - it should be a LEO-Cislunar transport vehicle rather than a lander - could be used for a Mars mission With pressurized volume cut in half - 50t instead of 100t, that nicely cuts refueling launches down by half along with cost - rest can be unpressurized volume for extended duration life support - 10 launches at $120M carrying 90t of prop each
Bruh 120 million dollars is delusional. You just logically can't have such low price for a skyscraper tall rocket. This 8s not ksp, you can't just catch a 120 meter tall rocket and fly it again the same day
One opportunity is still missed. Gateway. It could be built out of starship hulls, giving it potentially much more internal space and a self-delivery capability. In fact it could be made Skylab-style out of a single starship hull.
SLS is an obscene waste of money. Kept alive to milk the US tax payer. With the arrival of Starship, the SLS program is redundant and obsolete just like keeping your black and white TV next to your flat screen HD TV. Good video, by the way.
SLS is socialism for the rich.. all those who cry about socialism are very happy spending insane money on sls. Also why should something be funded if it doesn't benefit some states? Isn't this a national priority or has bribes become cool?
18:14 how anyone can look at that graphic and think that is viable is beyond me. America will not be getting back to the moon this decade with dumb decisions like 'lunar starship'
Congress won’t support that without SLS. Don’t believe me? They ONLY supported the original commercial crew program, on the sole condition that THEY got SLS
Musk simp lel
LOL not really. he's just really good for clicks lmao
@@DavidWillisSLS no doubt
Groid alarm
The best rocket duo of all time! Such capabilities combined.
I really like this video, and whilst starship is my favorite of the two, SLS will be an awsome sight to see launch. I just really hope Nasa can move away from cost plus contracts, and have boeing build SLS for a fixed price.
Starship and SLS complement each other in a wonderful way🚀
Starship is a fantasy rocket with fantasy promises compared to an existing machine. They should not be working together.
@@innosam123 to be fair SS nor SLS hasn't flown yet so they are both by definition fictional promises
@@HypersonicWyvern Starship isn't even comparable to the level SLS is in terms of completion.
Starship can barely last long enough to test out landing techniques. Nor does it have a functioning core yet.
More importantly, Starship only makes economic sense if they can get a cost/kg significantly less than Falcon (which is much simpler). Otherwise, due to the number of launches required for each mission (depends, but 16 is the usually cited number) , you'd easily go above SLS cost numbers.
@@innosam123 Starship has many booster stages waiting for orbital flight pending approval from FFA / USA government. Starship the upper stage has flown many times, during testing. What is not tested is landing in the tower, in many ways you can say Starship is more tested then SLS.
@@kjetilhvalstrand1009 So? Doesn’t matter if they can’t stop blowing up.
Even Elon has acknowledged prototyping is far easier than actual flight units, and the 80-20 rule applies here as well.
Another great video! Well done! I'm glad more people are talking about the importance of both rockets working together. #TeamSpace
Excellent video!
SLS and Starship working together...as it should be
Starship is a fantasy rocket with fantasy promises compared to an existing machine. They should not be working together.
@ooga booga thanks! :D
Good and unbiased video David!
Thank you! I tried to be as unbiased as possible! So it means a lot to me that you noticed!
If you want a channel that is just completely biased, check out 2 the Future channel. ruclips.net/channel/UCUF-OfqZ3hFCxnnKJ-lG1yg Their really hardcore fans of Starship and they try to bash SLS whenever they get the chance. Safe to say, not a big fan of their channel.
Absolutely incredible! Keep up the amazing work!
David, well constructed video & ALL the salient points. Well done👊🏻
Thank you!!
Your videos are so good, it is clear that you evaluate both sls and starship objectively.
Thank you!
Amazing video!!
Good report on how the two systems will work together.
Great video as always. You make the points better then I ever could. Heres to hoping they make March.
Wait you're that David Willis guy from Twitter
Who?
@@DavidWillisSLS David Who?
Big rockets are very cool and this video about big rockets is as cool.
9:12 it's actually 29 engines for Booster 4 lol
Brilliant good work.
So happy together
Small nitpick, 29 Raptor's on booster 4. 20 outer engines and a cluster of 9 in the middle.
"These monster rockets are being built for NASA's Artemis Program"
No… neither of them are. SLS is expected to be primarily used for that, but it wasn't built for any specific purpose. Starship is being built for Mars, but will also serve as a crewed lander for Artemis.
You used the tank burst test to illustrate SLS delays… but that was a success. This is like something Thunderf00t would do, but you're a fan of SLS. I'm so confused!
Look my guy. They are currently being built for Artemis. Are they not?
And if you can find ANY footage to illustrate delays then I’d love to see it. It is merely b-roll for the video
True what you say, but it makes more sense to do test flights to the moon, then going to mars something you can only do every 2 years. Building a moon base and testing out technology for building structure in low gravity, is also worth it. space telescope on the moon can also be really useful no light pollution, no atmosphere, and you can build things really big. With 1/6 of earth gravity.
@@kjetilhvalstrand1009Imagine if we could get an upsized JWST style mirror on the moon, imagine the possibilities.
Lunar dust is a problem, but by then we should have ways to counteract that.
@@DavidWillisSLS i do agree thats the only way to show the delays
Also, once starship on it’s own has landed on the moon. How is it gonna return? If it carries the dragon from the Falcon, then it can’t land payload. And if they are gonna launch another Falcon, that’s one more docking and launch.
Yeah I feel like Elon is a biiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiit hopeful for this.
Starship would use a lot less fuel for landing than on earth, it also won't return to earth orbit, just to lunar orbit/lunar gateway.
Orange rocket good
No, orange rocket outdated. Shiny mars rocket better
It's not outdated if it's the first super heavy from a government agency since the Saturn 5.@@-SpaceNewsNow-
18:23 haha nice
Yeah lol. Gotta sprinkle a bit of BO slander to appeal to the hordes.
Nice to see your now video
*new
it flew!
It's not SLS vs Starship as some people put it.
Both rockets work together in harmony to bring humanity further!
#SLSgang !
My brother who works for Boeing in St. Louis, Missouri doesn’t think that the Starship isn’t gonna work but I told him that for every mistakes the Starship makes will always be corrected for the next launch 🚀. I’m for the Starship going to the Moon and onward to Mars. My brother says that the Mars missions will be a failure. Yes it’s true that the first people who settled to live on the Mars will probably die but there will always be adjustments to these failures just to make it better next time. Do you agree or not?
I think your brother sounds pretty cool! Does he work on SLS?
@@DavidWillisSLS
Nope he works as an AI (Artificial Intelligence) programmer for airplane ✈️ it Boeing of Seattle or somewhere in California that makes the SLS Rocket.
They will probably die, but we'll just make some adjustments to make it better. Lol
@@Mawyou
If you think it’s funny, then look at what happened to the pre-Apollo years. There were failures & yet those engineers strived to make it better. They succeeded by sending men to the moon & back home from safely. ‘Nuff said 😏? Lol.
Nice work. I learned a lot ;)
Regarding the musics (I know, again ;) ) Please, just get ride of the one used from 14:30 (or so) : too much clubby and the volume seams lowder on this one, resulting a distraction. All other tunes are more than ok :D
I’m not sure sls will ever be reliable launch vehicle
I thought this was just another click bait starship video cause of the thumbnail, still a good video tho :)
WE LIKE THE SLS
NO
@@iamarokotmanson DON'T WATCH THIS CHANNEL THEN
@@MartinTheGhost lmao 😂
Nice video! May I suggest a pop-filter for your mic... I think (not very knowledge though) your mic is good enough and it is only the missing pop filter that makes it metallic popping -__- (maybe there is some echo, too... not sure)
In the future I do plan to get a better mic. But not right yet
I have to admit its funny how many SSSSSSSSS are in this video.... StarShip SlS and So on :P
Yeah lol. Glad you like it 😄
@@DavidWillisSLS the pop filter is a (can be) cheap addition to your existing mic, back when I did youtube (and had just started) I just used a sock and a LEGO frame :P
i think you got the dev cost bit too high. Elon said that around 10% came from outside, however, keep in mind NASA has not transfered 2.8 Billion to spacex yet. So i dont think they had already spent 28B on this thing
Well he did imply that a large portion came from NASA right before saying the 90% thing. So it seems like he was accounting for that
@@DavidWillisSLS so either your assumption is right, or the 10% is just the amount of payment already payed... so 300 million
this would mean 3 billion spent on Starship Dev so far🤔
@@Br0nson_0 Elon said starship is 90% self funded. Meaning 10% comes from outside of spacex. Thus that means that the 2.8 billion from NASA has to be that 10%
@@DavidWillisSLS but NASA didn’t send the full 2.8 B yet, only like 300m
@@DavidWillisSLS did you understand my reasoning? thus far yeah... and the 3 billion has not been given to SpaceX yet as far as I know
Also Nasa is not using SLS for space station construction. they are using the falcon heavy and vulcan centaur for the construction of gateway
Nope. Falcon heavy is only launching the first two modules. All other ones are launching on SLS block 1b
ARTEMIS I has gotta be one of biggest drones in the history of the world
update: there not going to land on the moon by Artemis 3, this is due to time line issues with starship
Giant rockes awsome.
I fully get the logic behind not canceling SLS, but there is one tiny flaw in your logic I wanted to point out. If something were to go wrong in flight, HLS SS can‘t get back to the surface, but a regular starship with landing legs and heatshield could get back. They would just have to refuel it more to account for the extra dry mass of the heatshield and flaps.
Orion has parachutes and a heat shield already though ☝️
@@DavidWillisSLS I know, I was just saying in theory they could manage a lunar landing with a regular starship. The only problem I see are the engines, even one raptor would dig a trench so big it would make ww1 generals proud.
@@argus0018 a fully fueled normal Starship in LEO could land 25t on the moon and return with said cargo. Quite alot considering Orion/ESM is only 26t.
Return to Earths surface not LEO, that's too energy intensive
14:34 why do you think spacex won't do private missions with the hls variant? until they have ground infrastructure on the moon, all starship moon landings will be hls variant i think
but with hls potentially not needing seperate landing engines, this may be wrong. i don't know
Because the HLS is NASA’s variant that they are paying for for their missions. It’s not like anyone else can send crew to the moon other than NASA anyways so
@@DavidWillisSLS i don'T see a reason why spacex couldn't use it tho. even tho i think it is unlikely, it is definetly a possibility
Starship HLS was specifically designed to compete with other contractors making their own HLS. Doesn’t the HLS have only a few seats compared to their variants 100 give or take? Plus theirs would work a lot better with the rapid reusability concept. HLS has to stay in orbit and get refueled by several tanker launches while the normal variant has reentry capability and be refilled way quicker at the launch pad
@@ConsumableTanks the different engines to land on the moon, the legs, solar pannels, everything can be used for another hls vehicle with more seats for private missions.
Good video.
Let's go!
Just finished it, this is a brilliant video!
I wouldn't really count on Starship for Artemis missions all that much. I wouldn't also count on anything that Musk says when it comes to the development and capabilities of Starship. The SLS, like many other NASA programs may indeed suffer delays and cost overruns but in the end it is safe and effective to operate for the Artemis missions even if it costs significantly more that what Starship would. Besides, SPACEX's Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy are already proven, capable cost-effective vehicles that could support the Artemis program if NASA deemed it necessary.
At a cost of $2b+ a flight and a flight rate of one per year I find it incredibly hard to even consider it as "effective".
Yea I don’t trust a rocket with no emergency escape module, I’m sure NASA also due to the shuttle disasters
Why doesn't spacex put the habitat on the bottom allowing easier access to the ground and the engines on the top pull rather than push starship also it be best to keep the fins and thermal tiles in case of emergency abort and controlled dive. Starship vs. sls cargo capacity last I checked is nearly 3%mass vs. 2%mass ratios.
I'm not sure that Starship really did cost $28bn to develop. If NASA awarded the $2.8bn for Lunar Starship, then Elon may not have been counting that, if he was answering a question about the development of the normal Starship.
That 10% is the Lunar Starship portion. $8 mil per launch is defo not possible if 25.5B in costs need to be recovered, at one M profit per launch, it could take over 25,000 launches & decades of time to recover the investment on a vehicle designed to last a few dozen launches.
i can't find this anywhere so i'm just gonna ask, will astronauts switch from orion to Starship on moon orbit and then land, to later on get back to orion and return to earth? i'm asking this since NASA removed the gateway from it's "critical path" to the moon, and i don't know what will replace it
theyll do exactly what you said. just like during apollo
@@DavidWillisSLS oh, ok then, thanks
If Dearmoon happen in 2023 which Gwynne Shotwell said is planned and still a go. IF it happen would any one think maybe few others would be planned at the same time has moon landing so they can watch it live. What if you had few other star Ship there at landing doing the 3 days to and 3 days there and 3 days back and have other planed over the whole missions . If there are people paying Space x will give them First classes Rid . Any one eles this might happen ?
Sls is technically the delta v
I personally prefer Jupiter 4. But delta V works too 😄
How about combining SLS and Starship in a different way by using the Starship Super Heavy booster as a replacement for the SLS core stage and SRBs. This would lower the cost by getting rid of expensive RS-25 engines and SRBs, but leave the Orion capsule with escape system and EUS upper stage for TLI. Northrup Grumman SRBs and Aerojet Rocketdyne RS-25s would lose business, but Boeing and Lockheed would still have major contracts. Some obvious issues would be getting stacked booster to fit in the VLA the building. SpaceX might have to make shorter version of Super Heavy booster just for Orion launches. NASA was looking for proposals to lower SLS costs and this might be a good compromise acceptable to Congress.
It’s an interesting idea for sure. Would need a lot less engines though
15:39 that did not age as good as it could have
Huh?
@@DavidWillisSLS Artemis 1 launch is now delayed so it did not age the best
@@DavidWillisSLS Artemis 1 launch is now delayed so it did not age the best
@@kommandantgalileo but the time stamp you’ve given is talking about Artemis II
@@DavidWillisSLS shit, I meant to timestamp the Artimis 1
In reality only political reasons matters, because obviously Orion could be launched with a comercial rocket (but only to the LEO), and attached to a lunar starship all the way to the moon orbit, so you have all abort capabilities and more, because if Orion have a malfunction astronauts can use starship as a lifeboat at least temporarily( like on Apollo 13), are some advantages of traveling with two separate vehicles attached together.
Only falcon heavy has the capability to place Orion into orbit. Delta IV heavy doesn’t have enough flights left to lift it.
But the problem with falcon heavy is that it’s not crew rated, and Elon has said there are zero plans to do so.
@@DavidWillisSLS in 2025 would be another two operational rockets with enough capability , New Glenn and Vulcan, and Vulcan will be human rated, but is a better reason to use a comercial rocket, SLS can be produced only at a rate of two each year, I don't see how a lunar base can be operated with such a low rate of launching, and Orion can remain operational only six months attached to lunar gateway, after that most be send back to earth, a higher rate of human flight is needed one each three months probably, which Orion can hold it but SLS not.
COLS is superior to both SLS and Starship - can replace SLS1/1B by using evolved Falcon/Vulcan derived launch vehicles along with Orion
SLS block 2 could be replaced by putting EUS on top of an expendable Starship/reusable Superheavy stack - However if Starship fails, SLS B2 can’t be replaced and will be a good system if we reduce costs with RS25 recovery
Starship will be successful commercially if they can get around the technical difficulties - I think will be more like $120M than $8-$20M, which would still make it very appealing and a lunar starship mission would be the same cost as an SLS launch, but for far more capability - 18 crew instead of 6, 50t to surface and back to LEO using Dragon and Dreamchaser crew LEO transport
With lunar Starship, it makes sense to use commercial crew LEO transport instead of SLS and Orion - it should be a LEO-Cislunar transport vehicle rather than a lander - could be used for a Mars mission
With pressurized volume cut in half - 50t instead of 100t, that nicely cuts refueling launches down by half along with cost - rest can be unpressurized volume for extended duration life support - 10 launches at $120M carrying 90t of prop each
Bruh 120 million dollars is delusional. You just logically can't have such low price for a skyscraper tall rocket. This 8s not ksp, you can't just catch a 120 meter tall rocket and fly it again the same day
One opportunity is still missed.
Gateway.
It could be built out of starship hulls, giving it potentially much more internal space and a self-delivery capability.
In fact it could be made Skylab-style out of a single starship hull.
SLS is an obscene waste of money. Kept alive to milk the US tax payer. With the arrival of Starship, the SLS program is redundant and obsolete just like keeping your black and white TV next to your flat screen HD TV. Good video, by the way.
Vumehen
Been hearing this since 2004. SLS is a joke.
Pretty wild you’ve been hearing anything about SLS since 2004… since you know, it didn’t exist until 2010…
SLS is socialism for the rich.. all those who cry about socialism are very happy spending insane money on sls. Also why should something be funded if it doesn't benefit some states? Isn't this a national priority or has bribes become cool?
Please stop using this music. It’s horrible and deafening and ruined an otherwise great video
Tell you what! You find some really good, non copyrighted music, and if I like it, I’ll use that instead!
18:14 how anyone can look at that graphic and think that is viable is beyond me.
America will not be getting back to the moon this decade with dumb decisions like 'lunar starship'
Why doesn‘t it look viable?
Develop a lunar commercial crew program and cancel gateway
Congress won’t support that without SLS. Don’t believe me?
They ONLY supported the original commercial crew program, on the sole condition that THEY got SLS
@@DavidWillisSLS I don't mean instant cancelation just phasing out
That still won’t be supported. If they don’t get SLS, funding stops flowing. And any program that aims to phase out their Rocket will be shot down
It makes no sense. Only customer around the moon is NASA, there is no market. Also why would we cancel gateway?
Gateway, more like BASEDway or something idk
Ratio
No u
Ratio failed