This is one of the most technologically advanced rockets in history, it is the first step to solar colonization, it is the rocket that will bring humans to the moon, and you are asking why it costs a lot?
Yeah man we should buy some stuff manufactured in Bangladesh or China because we haven't managed to move all our jobs overseas. We need to reduce the entire country to abject poverty! That will be so cool.
@@seth047 sure if you ignore the fact that it’s a recycled used dinosaur. Made by good ole boy politics. So advanced they should have just asked Elon how to fix it.
@@seth047 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.
At least it works. Orion has flown beyond expectations twice, and SLS performed just as flawlessly during Artemis 1 Meanwhile... how is Boeing doing with Starliner?
“All states are mission critical for Artemis” Translation: this ensures that every member of congress has a vested interest in continuing funding this.
Thankfully at least Artemis is far more streamlined than Constellation. For a project NASA was basically forced to continue, they did create a proven spacecraft and booster, as well as rebuilt much of the infrastructure that was previously torn down. Meanwhile,... how is Boeing doing with Starliner these days?
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!
@@sanyemrus Do you ever know the Space Transportation System (STS) which NASA proposed in 1969 to replace the Apollo capsules and Saturn V and Saturn IB expendable rockets? The system's major components consisted of: 1. A modular space station in a 270-nautical-mile (500 km) low Earth orbit, and as well as a permanent lunar orbit station. 2. A chemically fueled Earth-to-station shuttle. 3. A chemically fueled space tug to move crew and equipment between Earth orbits as high as geosynchronous orbit, the space tug also could be adapted as a lunar Earth Moon transfer vehicle to ferry crew and cargo between low Earth orbit and the moon. 4. A nuclear-powered ferry using the NERVA engine, to move crew, spacecraft and supplies between low Earth orbit and lunar orbit, geosynchronous orbit, or to other planets in the solar system. As Apollo accomplished its objective of landing the first humans on the Moon, political support for further crewed space activities began to wane, which was reflected in unwillingness of the Congress to provide funding for most of these extended activities. Based on this, Nixon rejected all parts of the program except the Space Shuttle, which inherited the STS name. As funded, the Shuttle was greatly scaled back from its planned degree of reusability, and deferred in time. The Shuttle first flew in 1981, and was retired in 2011. A second part of the system, Space Station Freedom, was approved in the early 1980s and announced in 1984 by president Ronald Reagan. However, this also became politically unviable by 1993, and was replaced with the International Space Station (ISS), with substantial contribution by Russia. The ISS was completed in 2011.
@@sanyemrus I think reusable space tugs, in-orbit assembly, space refueling depots, nuclear propulsioned ferry tugs, and reusable delta-winged spaceplanes are very good ideas and are much better than Apollo style hardwares of space capsules and disposable heavy-lift rockets.
@@powerfulstrong5673 spaceplanes can't do anything beyond low Earth Orbit. Pure and simple. But Artemis isn't going to low Earth Orbit, its going beyond, where reusability is a moot point
@@k1productions87 Space Shuttle or Spaceplane was never intended to go beyond LEO. The Space Shuttle was only intended to be one component of the Space Transportation System which includes Space Tugs, and Space-Tug-based reusable Earth Lunar transfer vehicle which transfer crew and cargo back and forth between LEO and Lunar orbits! Spaceplane or Space Shuttle was only intended to be trucks to carry crews and cargo back and forth between LEO and Earth!
The contractors have two years & $5B worth of deniability & good will that is now an expectation of almost 100% failure. They’re hoping Nov 16th fails & NASA cancels so they can just walk away after paying some nominal “performance penalty” fees.
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.
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 starship is the only even possibly viable vehicle - and it's only been a concept for a few years anyway. Artemis was conceived in 2011 iirc, and reusability wasn't even on the table. And yes, we now have crew dragon, and are likely to see significant increases in reusability I'm the future. But for the next decade, even the fate of starship is uncertain, and I suspect that heat shield reliability and bellyflop reliability will make it a long while before starship is rated for earth based crew launch. Basically: anything but SLS is uncertain and at the time Artemis was started it was literally the only practical choice. I do believe that 2 decades from now reusability will be the stus quo, especially for the moon.
@@powerfulstrong5673 Save for in orbit assembly, literally none of those has ever been demonstrated. All are still in the research and development phase. SLS is the only way to return to the moon in under a decade. To be clear, a nuclear engine has been fired, but never designed for spacecraft integration. Most of these are on the way to reality but far Enough away to not put too much trust in them.
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.
Because it is not Apollo-style old technologies. The technology is not only much improved but also much cheaper. Lest we forget, developing Apollo was 5% of the nation's GDP. These days, NASA gets barely 10% of that, and is expected to do MORE with it. Expendable heavy lift rockets are in fact cheaper, because much of the cost in reusable rockets (especially engines) was in refurbishing them. Its what made the Space Shuttle so damned expensive. All of the refurbishment needed after each flight was about the same cost as building a brand new one from scratch each time. And that's WITH all the extra complexity built in to MAKE it refurbishable in the first place. Cut out the complexity and you drive down the cost considerably. Further, when you build a rocket stage to come back down to a safe landing, all of that fuel required to make that controlled descent and touchdown is taken away from payload capacity. And lets be clear on something, capsule-based spacecraft design is the most efficient and capable spacecraft design possible. For all those who point to the Space Shuttle, it was a glorified freight truck, nothing more.
@@k1productions87 Do you know the Space Transportation System (STS) which NASA proposed in 1969 to replace the Apollo capsules and Saturn V and Saturn IB expendable rockets? The system's major components consisted of: 1. A modular space station in a 270-nautical-mile (500 km) low Earth orbit, and as well as a permanent lunar orbit station. 2. A chemically fueled Earth-to-station shuttle. 3. A chemically fueled space tug to move crew and equipment between Earth orbits as high as geosynchronous orbit, the space tug also could be adapted as a lunar Earth Moon transfer vehicle to ferry crew and cargo between low Earth orbit and the moon. 4. A nuclear-powered ferry using the NERVA engine, to move crew, spacecraft and supplies between low Earth orbit and lunar orbit, geosynchronous orbit, or to other planets in the solar system. As Apollo accomplished its objective of landing the first humans on the Moon, political support for further crewed space activities began to wane, which was reflected in unwillingness of the Congress to provide funding for most of these extended activities. Based on this, Nixon rejected all parts of the program except the Space Shuttle, which inherited the STS name. As funded, the Shuttle was greatly scaled back from its planned degree of reusability, and deferred in time. The Shuttle first flew in 1981, and was retired in 2011. A second part of the system, Space Station Freedom, was approved in the early 1980s and announced in 1984 by president Ronald Reagan. However, this also became politically unviable by 1993, and was replaced with the International Space Station (ISS), with substantial contribution by Russia. The ISS was completed in 2011.
And this is the answer to the question: Why is it costing so much!?
This is one of the most technologically advanced rockets in history, it is the first step to solar colonization, it is the rocket that will bring humans to the moon, and you are asking why it costs a lot?
Yeah man we should buy some stuff manufactured in Bangladesh or China because we haven't managed to move all our jobs overseas.
We need to reduce the entire country to abject poverty!
That will be so cool.
@@seth047 sure if you ignore the fact that it’s a recycled used dinosaur. Made by good ole boy politics. So advanced they should have just asked Elon how to fix it.
Bc contractors charge more.
@@seth047 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.
As much as I love NASA... This was basically Congress-proofing the vehicle 🙄
At least it works. Orion has flown beyond expectations twice, and SLS performed just as flawlessly during Artemis 1
Meanwhile... how is Boeing doing with Starliner?
And one dude in texas is building a rocket that can put over 98x the payload of SLS on the moon for the same price as one sls launch
Wyoming ✅
“All states are mission critical for Artemis”
Translation: this ensures that every member of congress has a vested interest in continuing funding this.
Thankfully at least Artemis is far more streamlined than Constellation. For a project NASA was basically forced to continue, they did create a proven spacecraft and booster, as well as rebuilt much of the infrastructure that was previously torn down.
Meanwhile,... how is Boeing doing with Starliner these days?
I can’t believe this is seen as a good thing. Pork in the budget. Congressional payoffs. Does it work?
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!
No, Orion and SLS are a next next step technologies comparing to Appolo and Saturn V era.
@@sanyemrus Do you ever know the Space Transportation System (STS) which NASA proposed in 1969 to replace the Apollo capsules and Saturn V and Saturn IB expendable rockets? The system's major components consisted of:
1. A modular space station in a 270-nautical-mile (500 km) low Earth orbit, and as well as a permanent lunar orbit station.
2. A chemically fueled Earth-to-station shuttle.
3. A chemically fueled space tug to move crew and equipment between Earth orbits as high as geosynchronous orbit, the space tug also could be adapted as a lunar Earth Moon transfer vehicle to ferry crew and cargo between low Earth orbit and the moon.
4. A nuclear-powered ferry using the NERVA engine, to move crew, spacecraft and supplies between low Earth orbit and lunar orbit, geosynchronous orbit, or to other planets in the solar system. As Apollo accomplished its objective of landing the first humans on the Moon, political support for further crewed space activities began to wane, which was reflected in unwillingness of the Congress to provide funding for most of these extended activities. Based on this, Nixon rejected all parts of the program except the Space Shuttle, which inherited the STS name. As funded, the Shuttle was greatly scaled back from its planned degree of reusability, and deferred in time. The Shuttle first flew in 1981, and was retired in 2011.
A second part of the system, Space Station Freedom, was approved in the early 1980s and announced in 1984 by president Ronald Reagan. However, this also became politically unviable by 1993, and was replaced with the International Space Station (ISS), with substantial contribution by Russia. The ISS was completed in 2011.
@@sanyemrus I think reusable space tugs, in-orbit assembly, space refueling depots, nuclear propulsioned ferry tugs, and reusable delta-winged spaceplanes are very good ideas and are much better than Apollo style hardwares of space capsules and disposable heavy-lift rockets.
@@powerfulstrong5673 spaceplanes can't do anything beyond low Earth Orbit. Pure and simple. But Artemis isn't going to low Earth Orbit, its going beyond, where reusability is a moot point
@@k1productions87 Space Shuttle or Spaceplane was never intended to go beyond LEO. The Space Shuttle was only intended to be one component of the Space Transportation System which includes Space Tugs, and Space-Tug-based reusable Earth Lunar transfer vehicle which transfer crew and cargo back and forth between LEO and Lunar orbits! Spaceplane or Space Shuttle was only intended to be trucks to carry crews and cargo back and forth between LEO and Earth!
The contractors have two years & $5B worth of deniability & good will that is now an expectation of almost 100% failure. They’re hoping Nov 16th fails & NASA cancels so they can just walk away after paying some nominal “performance penalty” fees.
"almost 100% failure"
And how's that working out for you
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.
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 starship is the only even possibly viable vehicle - and it's only been a concept for a few years anyway.
Artemis was conceived in 2011 iirc, and reusability wasn't even on the table. And yes, we now have crew dragon, and are likely to see significant increases in reusability I'm the future. But for the next decade, even the fate of starship is uncertain, and I suspect that heat shield reliability and bellyflop reliability will make it a long while before starship is rated for earth based crew launch.
Basically: anything but SLS is uncertain and at the time Artemis was started it was literally the only practical choice. I do believe that 2 decades from now reusability will be the stus quo, especially for the moon.
@@powerfulstrong5673 Save for in orbit assembly, literally none of those has ever been demonstrated. All are still in the research and development phase. SLS is the only way to return to the moon in under a decade.
To be clear, a nuclear engine has been fired, but never designed for spacecraft integration. Most of these are on the way to reality but far Enough away to not put too much trust in them.
😁😂🍬
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.
Because it is not Apollo-style old technologies. The technology is not only much improved but also much cheaper. Lest we forget, developing Apollo was 5% of the nation's GDP. These days, NASA gets barely 10% of that, and is expected to do MORE with it.
Expendable heavy lift rockets are in fact cheaper, because much of the cost in reusable rockets (especially engines) was in refurbishing them. Its what made the Space Shuttle so damned expensive. All of the refurbishment needed after each flight was about the same cost as building a brand new one from scratch each time. And that's WITH all the extra complexity built in to MAKE it refurbishable in the first place.
Cut out the complexity and you drive down the cost considerably. Further, when you build a rocket stage to come back down to a safe landing, all of that fuel required to make that controlled descent and touchdown is taken away from payload capacity.
And lets be clear on something, capsule-based spacecraft design is the most efficient and capable spacecraft design possible. For all those who point to the Space Shuttle, it was a glorified freight truck, nothing more.
@@k1productions87 Do you know the Space Transportation System (STS) which NASA proposed in 1969 to replace the Apollo capsules and Saturn V and Saturn IB expendable rockets? The system's major components consisted of:
1. A modular space station in a 270-nautical-mile (500 km) low Earth orbit, and as well as a permanent lunar orbit station.
2. A chemically fueled Earth-to-station shuttle.
3. A chemically fueled space tug to move crew and equipment between Earth orbits as high as geosynchronous orbit, the space tug also could be adapted as a lunar Earth Moon transfer vehicle to ferry crew and cargo between low Earth orbit and the moon.
4. A nuclear-powered ferry using the NERVA engine, to move crew, spacecraft and supplies between low Earth orbit and lunar orbit, geosynchronous orbit, or to other planets in the solar system. As Apollo accomplished its objective of landing the first humans on the Moon, political support for further crewed space activities began to wane, which was reflected in unwillingness of the Congress to provide funding for most of these extended activities. Based on this, Nixon rejected all parts of the program except the Space Shuttle, which inherited the STS name. As funded, the Shuttle was greatly scaled back from its planned degree of reusability, and deferred in time. The Shuttle first flew in 1981, and was retired in 2011.
A second part of the system, Space Station Freedom, was approved in the early 1980s and announced in 1984 by president Ronald Reagan. However, this also became politically unviable by 1993, and was replaced with the International Space Station (ISS), with substantial contribution by Russia. The ISS was completed in 2011.