4:28 new glenn isnt fully reuseable

Yup I do believe so, it has massive congressional support, and the OIG continues to lump stuff in with SLS's cost. Such as the European Service module which isnt even paid for by NASA in a monetary way, its traded for this by taking care of ESAs on orbit/station maintenance and costs. Commercial entities also are nowhere near close enough to send humans to the moon on their own vehicles, Starship hasnt even attempted to fly to orbit, so the idea that we would throw away SLS solely because some people think the price tag is too much, is absurd. It creates far more money in the economy each year than is spent on it. If you really cared about journalism and the facts you would look into these things before just stating in the title of your video no less, that SLS is likely to be canceled. When in reality it does far too much to the american economy and creates far too many jobs, for congress on a whim to just go out of its way and cancel it. Another note is that your figure for SLS and Starship and their payloads is a bit misleading, Starship can send 100+ tons after 10+ refuelings on orbit. And as you go into your next segment, you blatently spout the 2 million dollar figure that Elon has mentioned before, with little to no research into how that number can/will be possible(hint it likely wont). I would ask someone with a finance major at your office to educate you all on fixed costs, and how at the beginning of the year SpaceX will incur billions of dollars in fixed costs for its facility maintenance, vehicle maintenance, personel salaries, insurance, housing, etc etc. A lot goes into fixed costs, and any fixed cost attributed with starship must be added into the launch cost, meaning that that 2 million dollar price tag is just the cost to launch it with fuel and whatever materials to refurbish it, not counting the money spent on facilities so that they can even launch/land and refurbish it. It's highly unlikely the cost of starship gets below 100 million from internal estimates ive seen, if it even approaches that figure i would be surprised. Being reusable also doesnt ensure that it will be cheaper, it will allow for faster reflight, which then allows for more launches in a given timeframe to distribute the fixed costs across and therefor be less expensive. Overall, please do more research before you go on to give SpaceX stans more ammo to hate on SLS and other programs solely because they arent doing things the way SpaceX would

@@bedwarscrypt New Glen will be, eventually...they're copying Starship's s/steel booster concept.

@@rocketman1104 ...Says completely nobody. Opinion isn't fact 'ol boy..

@@tonyelsom6382 Care to elaborate about what you just said instead of acting like you are dropping a bombshell and leaving? Also New Glenn isnt copying starship in the slightest XD, the belief was that they were experimenting with a new upper stage to improve mass fraction, it isnt known if they are proceeding with the design or not however.

Boeing and their cost-plus contract.

The SRBs are still reusable like they were on the shuttle. I wouldn’t be surprised if the same SRB recovery ships from the shuttle program were being used again.

And you gotta remember that it’s a monster. And is 15% more powerful than Saturn V. The SLS also is a direct flight trip

@@Trainlover1995 It's only single-use for SLS.

@@TheWizardGamez The SLS may have a higher lift-off thrust than the Saturn V, but the payload capacity to LEO will be only 95 tonnes for its first version (Block 1) vs. 130 tonnes for the Saturn V. Only the Block 2 version will be comparable to the Saturn V in that respect - if it ever flies.

Nope... it sounds like NASA intends to sell SLS launches to the private sector for only ~400M a launch, letting the taxpayer subsidize the rest.

its not as simple as that, nasa develops the technology that's why it costs so much, if they buy the service from spacex then the technology still belongs to spacex, that's why the price has to be much lower to remain attractive

Sure, in Elon-Time they will be there at 2050 ... SpaceX talked about flying to Mars since 2012 first estimated to be there in 2016. Starship booster never flew or even fired all engines at the same time. We will see in the next few month how good they perform. P.S: SpaceX never flew outside of GPS

Science is not Simple. Business is overly optimistic. Failure is only natural in both cases.

@@benjaminmeusburger4254 Not true. I did some research and in 2012 he planned to be there by 2024 - 2027 which is still his prediction to this day. Doesn't seem like he ever predicted we would be there by 2016.

But politicians DO know basic economics. It's called "I give inefficient aerospace companies big contracts. They put jobs in my district and contribute to my campaign. I get to continue operating in a government I am clearly not qualified for". Sounds like a positive ROI for the politician! Ohhhh, you mean a positive ROI for the COUNTRY 😁

Let's employ 70,000 people to build an already obsolete rocket and call it a "success". Instead of a waste of time and taxpayers money. What is going to happen to those jobs when the project is scrapped Mr politician? Your failure Mr. politician is not realizing the real and immense potential of off world everything! Mining, manufacturing, power generation, biomedical and science research.

@@richard77231 thank you, good point.

SLS and Orion have always been a NASA jobs program for post Space Shuttle.

@@richard77231 Spot-on!

Bezos announced last year that BO will develop a reusable 2nd stage/ship for New Glenn. No timeline was announced and the currently planned 2nd stage will fly first. Like you, I like RL's company culture. Neutron is a very interesting design. However, the company has a lot to do to make it work. I'm confident they will, and hope they can achieve a good timeline. Using a composite reusable 1st stage instead of a metal one will give an interesting contrast.

@@donjones4719 it will definitely be interesting to see its development for sure.

Rocket Lab are definitely a space to watch. They are set on competing with SpaceX with a very interesting take on cost optimization, even doing away with the launch tower and fairing recovery, all of the first stage back on the pad while making a cheap as possible second stage, that's just a motor, some tanks and the payload fixed on top, it even hangs inside the first stage, getting rid of the need for most the structure. Bezos hasn't even got an orbital class rocket yet, putting him behind a whole bunch of companies that are already testing orbital class rockets.

As an engineer working at Blue Origin working on New Glenn, you don't even know how wrong you are.

@@blitzen9849 ohhh nice. I will be so happy if I am wrong. I am sooooooo want to be wrong. Please do your best to make me wrong. BUT, as far as SpaceX competition subject goes, you guys are still farrrrrrrrrrrrrr away in all measures and factors that can be considered the competition to them. Please do acknowledge that fact.

It also is using solid rocket boosters which is too risky and so expensive, and they are still using liquid oxygen which is so expensive compared to methane which give off the same propellant

@@harry258 Both Starship and SLS uses liquid oxygen for their main engines, as it is a relatively cheap and safe oxidizer. The only difference is the fuel, SLS uses liquid hydrogen, and Starship uses liquid methane.

@@kornelrokolya hydrogen is cul and awsum

@@harry258 change liquid oxygen for hydrogen. And hydrogen propellant is extremely efficient. The entire premise of methane based fuels is for future on site manufacturing. But that is all years away. Methane and even kerosene are arguably worse than hydrogen.

Inflation makes it seem worse than it is, plus SLS will only launch once a year, whereas Shuttle was launching many times a year. Over the course of a year, the SLS program is actually only slightly more expensive than the Shuttle program. Which is part of why this video is wrong, and SLS will keep on going.

I've heard about that. They probably dropped the idea for two reasons. For the Apollo/Saturn launch vehicle weight was always an important issue. Adding a few thousand pounds for the parachutes would have added unnecessary weight. Also, during Apollo money was not an issue. It was more of a brute force, get us to the moon as soon as possible approach. So reusing any part of the entire vehicle was probably not a major design consideration.

@@joevignolor4u949 Perhaps not, as NASA considered upgrading the rocket. There was talk of adding two solid fuel boosters, one on each side (shades of the STS), upgrading the F1 engines to a hydrogen oxygen mixture, even adding another F1 to the first stage. Of course, that would cost money which didn't seem a good prospect at the time, the attitude being we beat the Russians and won the race. I grew up during the space race and remember all the plans under discussion for further exploration. That required vision that seems to have vanished. (Cark Sagan questioned the need for manned exploration, expresing his opinions when a guest of Johnny Carson. And he wasn't the only one. One can only imagine what might have been...

@@joevignolor4u949 Money became an issue in 1967 when Lyndon Johnson started cutting NASA's appropriation. A second block of Saturn Vs was planned, but the order was rescinded by James Webb.

@@dalethelander3781 a POTUS does make budgetary allocations or appropriations. That is Congress' job. The Executive Branch makes budgetary proposals, but it is Congress that actually makes the appropriations. So a President can propose cutting NASA's budget, but Congress could ignore that request and allocate more funding than requested, or vice versa. This happens on a regular basis.

Canceling Saturn development and replacing it with the Shuttle was the worst thing to happen to the American space program.

Hi Sirwan surprised to see you here

@@Moritz_Space I love watchin "Newsthink"

That’s exactly right, I’ve never understood the cost plus contracts NASA hands out to these major private companies. It doesn’t promote the companies to work efficiently or reduce cost at all, but I guess due to many years of lobbying this is the situation NASA finds itself in.

@@jackanderson6966 It's kinda simple: "If you want these abilities you do what we dictate!" Basically blackmail. Since there were no alternatives NASA/Governments had to comply. Now things have changed fortunately

imo, SLS and other concepts of moon landers are much more feasible than the current starship plan

The FAA already partially has that role lol.

Yes the FAA pretty much do that already what NASA needs to do is fund or create stuff that SpaceX and other companies can't do at the moment either because it's not profitable or not yet feasible.

@@Thethyck4445 ….. I have no idea what you are trying to say.

@@BradyBaseball13 fix... try to say NASA should put the money to other things like robotic deep space misson, bigger space station, Interstellar thing, etc instead of rockets unless to help other with rocketry.

@@Thethyck4445 They are already doing that

So true. The public seems to love this myth that NASA and SpaceX are rivals and we must choose one or the other. NASA tends to be conservative and risk adverse while SpaceX will happily blow things up in order to learn quickly. NASA does not want to be in the rocket launch business, so it eagerly provides funding and technology to SpaceX. NASA and SpaceX are very different, but they are both awesome and their mutual success is intertwined.

No one saying that NASA isn't important, and they are important, SLS is complete trash thought.

​@@MISTAKEWASMADE4live That's the reality of politics. Members of Congress often dictate funding to NASA and other government agencies based on jobs for their respective states. The blame for SLS looks to be mostly on Congress.

Falcon 9 was NOT " completely funded by NASA" . Do you really believe Musk had nothing to do with it?

@@robertlarder1907 Elon Musk was completely broke af in 2008 and 2009 when the development of Falcon 9 started. Back then their only customer was NASA

@Don Jones I think NASA is over complicating the issue, which in turn means it gets to spend more money. There doesn't need to be a level of redundancy that they are trying to create. Having 2 separate Lunar Programs makes no sense what so ever. Reaching the Moon is not imperative to Human existence, so why spend 2x. NASA is turning into a jobs/funding division when it really should be just laser beam focused on advancing Space Tech for the USA.

The scope & scale of Federal Agency NASA’s incompetence, sloth, stupidity & waste is breathtaking. Orion is basically Apollo 50+ years later. NASA has blown over $21 billion on Orion, plus $60 billion more on SLS.. while private enterprise SpaceX produced vastly superior & reusable vehicles, Falcon 9, Dragon & now Starship for only $5-6 billion.. including SpaceX having to acquire/build launch & manufacturing facilities NASA already had at hand. Current NASA administrator Bill Nelson in 2011: “If we can’t do a rocket for $11.5 billion we ought to close up shop”.. Nasa’s SLS is now $60+ billion over budget 10 years later.. Defund NASA.

@@warrenwhite9085 Don't celebrate too soon.. SLS can do something Starship cannot - reach lunar orbit in a single Launch. Starship has not really proven anything yet, and may end up being a complete failure.

@@ericmatthews8497 Starship can do a million things SLS can never do… Reach Mars & other planets, land on the Moon/Mars, return to Earth, transport a hundred people, be reused, clean/green, affordable, scalable, mass produced, hundreds of launches per year, efficiently orbit payloads, transport cargo/people across the globe, etc. SLS Reaching Earth or Lunar orbit at $4-10 billion per launch, $100k+ per pound IS USELESS. Face it, SLS is another dead end unsustainable unaffordable NASA pork Piece Of Sh*t. SpaceX designed/built/flew the Falcon 9 hundreds of times, Starship has already flown multiple times. Both Falcon 9 & Starship are far beyond anything NASA is capable of. No one now working at NASA has designed or built a single successful rocket, rocket engine or managed a single manned deep space mission. SpaceX is spending private money. NASA is wasting my money. Defund NASA.

@@ericmatthews8497 F to Doubt

Space X already took a crew on the dragon capsule to the ISS?

@@Rhainee No one is talking about the Dragon.

SLS should not even be crew certifiable, it uses deadly SRBs which always kill the crew

Nope. USA has $4 billion to spare every year. It is your thinking that makes it not possible. Lack of ambition, drive, self-limiting thinking, lack of vision.

Yeah, back then they had a much higher budget, but I agree with you, you would think with the pressure of commercial companies being the future that they wouldn’t risk not making reusable rockets, yet they are still which is so sad and

@thePiercingTruth It had rope core memory instead of a hard disk drive. Hard disk drives weren't invented yet.

@thePiercingTruth Well obviously something that big and heavy wouldn't fit inside the Apollo guidance computer. Its a long way from the 15GB hard drives they have today that can fit in the palm of your hand. The Apollo guidance computer contained a small amount of RAM and the programs were stored in magnetic rope core memories. They were antiquated by today's standards. They were large, heavy, didn't have much storage capacity and to reprogram them you had to physically adjust the routing of the wires going through the magnetic cores. To build them they had little old ladies who would sit there all day long and weave the programs into the memories.

Space Race tbh, not much corruption or government and corporate socialism greed also.

they had a higher budget and a good president back

Yes moon landing was hoax

Then do I have the solution for you! Both Matt Lowne and Scott Manley do regular, easy to understand videos for people who want to know what's happening in space now. Matt Lowne does weekly videos of what rockets are launching each week, and Scott Manley covers space news, really teaching you what the things are.

Starship costing 200 million per launch is likely impossible, considering raptor engines cost less then 500k and they are the single most expensive part of starship when all added together.

@@therealist3495 he's trying to show how massively overpriced sls is

@@therealist3495 your forgetting it's reusable

Yes. The starship would require at least 8 refuellings (with unproven technology and there have never been such refuellings on that scale). Also it would be difficult to store all the payload needed for the mission inside the cargo bay, both with and without humans to do the work. Furthermore those would also requie refuellings with humans onboard in GTO, so therefore if something goes wrong they have no way back home.

The only thing you are arguably missing is that one can replace the role Crew Dragon plays here with a crew Starship and this architecture becomes substantially cheaper.

Yes, but at this point you could just launch 1 crew starship that carries humans to and from the moon

It was 70,000 jobs and that works out to $51 thousand/job. $4 billion/launch should have stopped this whole process right then. If it was their own money it would have.

@@wolfvale7863 Plot twist: It _IS_ your own money! Almost none of the government's departments give taxpayers their money's worth.

@@CountArtha Has there ever been a system of goverment that doesn't screw over the taxpayer? I doubt it. I am starting to wonder about their usefulness to average people. The mess is our fault too. Human habits are difficult to change. That is why we have to start moving our dirty habits off planet and let it heal. Expensive rocket, tiny payload how did this get green lit?

?

What ?

I think Mount Everest, they take a smaller backpack instead of all of their gear for the last day of hiking.

@@scientificapproach6578 Ahhhh. Yes. That sounds right. I have never (and I imagine WILL never) climbed Everest :)

The better analogy would have been a hiker who drops empty oxygen bottles on his way up to the mountain top.

I hope the next generation of politicians has a better understanding of everything. It is frustrating to watching them make decisions on technology.

yeah 100's of flights per year of a resuable heavy lift veihcle will enable an ecosystem far beyond the welfare economy of SLS.

@@tma2001 yeah imagine space construction company , mining company and much more

I bet you do, all that money going up in smoke !!!

@@davidodonovan4982 K

2m/launch is credible once they get a high flight rate going, but until then somewhere between 10-20/launch is plausible, considering Falcon 9 costs between 15-28million per launch with an expendable second stage, and starship will be fully reusable unlike Falcon 9.

That's a long term goal, short term it will be more

Sadly I suspect this comment isn’t getting much love because it is diving deeper into the situation at hand. Most people that watch these types of videos come to confirm in their head that shinny rocket good and orange rocket bad. It is not that simple. Both shinny and orange rocket good in ways and bad in others.

There is nothing scientific about SLS - it is reusing old components that were designed 40 years ago or more. Boeing’s only job was to engineer the parts needed to assemble those components in a new configuration that would fly into orbit. So far they have failed miserably, because they were incentivized by nasa and congress to fail miserably. LEDs weren’t invented by nasa, research in the field was done by companies such as Marconi, GE, Texas Instruments, Hewlett Packard and many more, with scientific work on the topic dating back to 1907, and major contributions by soviet scientists in 1927. This fetish that nasa somehow “invented” everyday stuff is rarely something more than an attempt to justify spending so much taxpayer money. Regarding jobs, paying qualified people money without any productive outcome is a waste of said money. 4 billion a year would be enough to employ 40 thousand well paid workers to dig ditches and fill them back up. The net result for the economy would be the same.

@@fredhampton5227 lol, spare us your false nuance. SLS is the biggest government boondoggle ever. It is a badly administered program, managed by incompetent bureaucrats and funded by corrupt politicians. Its primary purpose is to give billions of taxpayer dollars to politically well connected aerospace contractors. With 50 years of technological improvements they built a rocket less capable than Saturn V, in twice as long, for four times the money. The only people defending it are base ideologues who think it is a competition between NASA and Elon Musk and can't stand to see Elon Musk win.

@@MoratoryBasil Lol! Have you net been paying attention? SpaceX have made fools of their critics for over 10 years now. There is no reason to believe they won't eventually be successful, and much sooner than BO.

@@MoratoryBasil they said the same about the falcon 1, then the falcon 9, then about landing the falcon 9, then about reusing it multiple times, then about them being able to build a crew rated capsule and so on.

@@MoratoryBasil you really think one KZfaqr has a better understanding on rocket science then the world's largest launch provider that consists of thousands of the world's best engineers?

@@MoratoryBasil NASA didn't build the rocket, Boeing did and it's not exactly like Boeing has a great track record at the moment

I think you are not really understanding the role of NASA

@@napobg6842 they’re basically there to enforce regulations put forth by the FAA at this point. Aeronautical technology is advancing at such a rapid rate. Independent companies are making breakthrough discoveries. The only way for them to stay in the game is to start putting restrictions on what can and can’t be done in regards to space travel.

But as far as rocket design, avionics, propulsion technology….they’re dinosaurs scraping together every penny they can from a country that is slowly becoming a second world power. The genius behind SpaceX is that they are applying a business model to space exploration. Something that has never been done before. This means making things cost effective, efficient, reliable, and even reusable. This is something NASA just doesn’t have the scope for. Anything funded by the Government means the exact opposite. Over budgeting, delays, payoffs, unions, securing contracts based on conflict of interest.

@@eyekilltv8968 If you think that's the only role of NASA you are in deep mistake. First of all there would have been no private industry without NASA. SpaceX is here because of NASA. Falcon 9 which is the first semi-reusable rocket and the most common single rocket launched today was entirely funded by NASA. Starship is also being funded by NASA as well. NASA is the single largest space exploration company in the world having send satellite even beyond the boundaries of the Solar system. Not to mention things like sending satellites and rovers to the nearby planets and moons. NASA is an R&D center they are not a rocket manufacturer. The are sponsors of talents and technologies. Many great technologies originated from NASA. They are a lot more than what you give them credit to be. And that Mars mission Elon is talking about is also spearheaded by NASA. SpaceX is working on how to get there and NASA is working on how to survive there. Even how to survive the trip to there in a first place. They are spreading the thin amount of money they have in testing and funding big, mid and small companies in their ideas. Don't underestimate them!

Also, speaking in terms of technology, the United States Government will utilize every resource they can to keep a plane or a piece of technology operational for decades just so they can have a legitimate reason to employ their personnel. This “new” rocket design is most likely engineered using old parts, old ideas, and old ideologies. This is probably why the price tag on it so high.

It is being delayed by the US government, not SpaceX. And yet again it is delayed and the FAA has no explanation why. They won't receive permission until after SLS launches, because it would be too politically embarrassing to the government.

SLS is staying for a long time, and the second launch will take place before starship can do anything meaningful

@@notflyingcereal3575 god damn right

They built SLS before reusability was a thing

They invented it but ok

There will be a fire at the facility or an explosion on the pad and the announcement "that due to design difficulties and substantial cost overruns NASA has decided to end the SLS program." It is cheaper to scrap it than fly it and that is what they will do.

"it is expected costs will significantly reduce as they get more efficient" These levels of naivete should be illegal.

Still. wonder how many Starships you can launch/tons into a orbit and beyond for 2.2 billions. So in long term yes SLS is still obsolete no matter how "cheaper" it gets. Its a simple math.

Yeah, had no problems operating the shuttle for 30 years, except that one little mishap, the huge cost overruns, that other mishap the put the nail in the coffin… other than that, no problems! Not everything that was acceptable and tolerable 50 years ago is going to be acceptable today

​@@denysvlasenko1865 Do you not understand how production works? SLS is massively complex machine and getting all the systems to work together is hard. It takes time for the insitutional knowledge for such a massive rocket to be built. While a the architecture is dervived from Shuttle, its not the same. It takes time and practice to get everything down. Especially when you only need to launch one rocket a year.

And this is why everybody needs to subscribe to David Willis! Free, reliable, trusted source of information on everything YOU need to know about SLS! Subscribe free today with notis!

Thanks David, love you No homo

Hi man from Twitter, I like your content

@@rocketman1969 thank you!

@@HypersonicWyvern thank you!

If they get a hundred tonnes to LEO, pray tell what is preventing them from taking that same 100 tonnes to the moon?

We were wondering that too but found this SpaceX guide that mentioned the goal is 100 tons to the moon www.spacex.com/media/starship_users_guide_v1.pdf (final page)

And then refuel in LEO, so it can go further. I'm not sure how much payload will it be able to deliver to the moon, but it will be a lot

The Starship is refuelable in orbit, the SLS is not.

Starship is designed to be refueled in orbit so it can even get 100 tonnes to Pluto

Yeah, they "just" have to scale up the x37. But it doesnt work that way when it comes to engineering unfortunatly. This is like saying you just have to scale up an DJI drone in order to get an electric vtol drone for human passengers. Those are two completly differrnt things, even though they do look similar from the outside.

Can’t tell if this is a sarcastic comment - just have to scale it up and make it reusable lol

Boeing would need 25 years to do that

What i meant about supersizing the x37c basically is to just build a new variant of it with a rough similar design but where it uses its own reusable booster as propulsion and is a part of the spacecraft, not launched via a separate Atlas V booster which would no longer be required. I know I know people are going to say it’s not possible because the fuel gets all spent at take off. That’s why nuclear needs to be the energy source and propulsion, or down the line if the tech becomes feasible, nuclear fusion. again, just throwing it out there.

😂

He said that during the 2020 presidential election when no one knew who was going to win .... Except the election officials in Georgia of course 🤡

Why? If you say SLS is still relevant then we should still be flying Apollos. Same technology. Why did NASA develop the "reusable" space shuttle? Why did the rules of NASA's X prize state that the winner had to take 3 passengers to LEO and return them to earth, twice within 2 weeks? Why don't airlines throw jets away after only one use?

@@wolfvale7863 No, I meant that more and more people these days get mad at NASA and SLS because it isn't reusable, and instead compliment spacex for their achievements. Well this is just straight up idiotic. The answer to the question "why nasa didn't make SLS reusable?" Is just that reusability is a very recent concept (I am talking about landing rocket boosters) and has been used only by spacex in the last 10 years or so. SLS uses designs of many years before reusability in a rocket could ever even be imagined. Making a moon rocket Is extremely hard, but Making it reusable would make it orders of magnitudes more difficult, expensive and time consuming. I hope SLS Block 1B arrives as soon as possible

SLS is obsolete because it's about 20 times more expensive than alternative. It does not really matter *why* it's more expensive. The cost is the final metric for the viability of the project, and SLS is dead on arrival on it.

@@denysvlasenko1865 yeah. It is obsolete because it is expensive (although the price is to drop with every flight) not because It is not reusable

The SLS uses four fully reusable old space Shuttle main engines, But they will be thrown away each SLS mission, as there is no way to land them with SLS. There is no money for upgrading SLS to Block 1B yet.

That maybe NASA's purpose. It is NOT the purpose of the SLS. Which has been a failure since it started.

No where close to what Boeing and ULA have.

"NASA's purpose -- which is to develop a space industry and to train engineers in highly specialized technical jobs." Turns out private space companies even do that better.

@@freeman2399 Exactly! But without the billions of dollars of research into rocketry, aerospace engineering, and human spaceflight that the taxpayers have funded, private companies would not be able to take the high risks and costs associated with the space tech R and D. Now that NASA has developed a 70-year knowledge base that private industry can use, yes, I would hope that they would find efficiencies and an eventual market for their business models. But so many people fail to recognize that false "visionaries" like Elon Musk (who is just a billionaire salesman, nothing more) are standing on the shoulders of giants and thinking that they're tall.

every single entity in the space industry "blown their budgets and timelines", so the way you phrase it is just pointless .

Still would cost 50 billion. If you say a starship launch is 100 million per launch which it probably will end being. You could launch 500 hundred starships for the price of launching 15 SLS. And after the 50 billion Spent you still have the booster and the starships.

Funny thing is, when SLS was proposed for the first time, SpaceX didnt even exists and for NASA it was the "best" option. And to be honest, SLS might have been great rocket but Boeing fucked it up 100% completely and fucked NASA and taxpayers from behind. If anyone is to blame and sent to court for felony, its Boeing and their mob mafia mischief.

I have never been a believer in the Mars mission. However I thought the return to the Moon would reap some benefits but like you Earth bound we still have to many problems to overcome.

The reason the numbers never work out for an economical case for a Mars colony is - there is no economical case. It has nothing to do with economics or getting a return. The goal is to establish a second location for humanity to live, the money flow is going to be one way.

Depends on what you mean by any time soon, but given that the only lunar lander planned for the Artemis Mission right now is Starship HLS, its safe to say that the expectation is for manned Starship flights to be occurring in the next year or two.

There were two main issues preventing us from returning and inhabiting the moon. The first was safety, what the US accomplished with the Apollo program was dangerous-it was sheer luck that only 3 of the astronauts perished in the program, but there were dozens of near misses. NASA was playing a PR game as much as they were anything else, and deaths do not play well in the media. The second was the expense. What we did with the Apollo program was essentially a military exercise meant to demonstrate that our technology was decades ahead of any other space capable country’s. All of that was massively expensive-it simply wasn’t sustainable. And to your point, as it’s currently laid out it won’t be significantly cheaper when adjusting for inflation, in fact it’ll be almost 2 times the cost for each of the first 4 launches of SLS. Starship could change that but it’ll be some time before we see manned missions of anything other than lunar starship, and even more time before we see missions with a destination any place other than LEO. As far as safety is concerned I’d argue that it’ll probably be safer, but there’s no guarantee-neither of the proposed rockets are flight proven yet so essentially they’re just paper rockets.

@@shelody1 Well there's no guarantees in anything life really. But I would think by 50 years we could figure out how to make it cheaper/safer and if we're lucky, faster. I mean look at how far computers have come in that time period...the very fact that us typing to each other in real time anywhere in the world is even possible.

@@JohnSmith-zw8vp I’m not saying it won’t be safer, just that we won’t know until we have flight proven hardware and software anybody can make any claim without proof. Boeing thought their starliner was safe and effective until it’s first flight-now it’s years behind schedule. We SHOULD be able to, but should and can are two vastly different things-especially since space hasn’t been a focus for decades (now it’s making a comeback).

Artemis III won't be coordinated with Starship/HLS. I predict SpaceX will be woefully late in delivering HLS. There is no way they can build a safe human-rated lunar-landing spacecraft, tested and ready go in three years.. or four years.. or probably even five years. it's just not gonna happen.

@@ericmatthews8497 you mean as woefully late as SLS, or even more?

@@HNedel Way more.. way, way more.

starship is the same but the backpack has a parachute and a jetpack

Starship for sure ..

Strictly speaking Starship has already flown, and more than once too, however if you mean which ship will fly a full mission, I'd guess SLS. The difference will be "which rocket keeps flying beyond the 2020's"? The answer to that one is Starship and possibly also Rocketlab's Neutron filling in the medium-lift role that Falcon 9 currently fulfills.

@@nirbhayatiwari5425 both are set for a june launch, and Starship has more chance of delay

@@youtubeisapublisher6407 SLS has the funding and demand until the late 2030s, its not going anywhere

If not for the delay by the FAA Starship would definitely launch first. 4/20 could launch before 4/20.

Yeah but starship is still so much cheaper and uses no solid rocket boosters, but let’s be honest, this is all about money and the less money it is to launch, the more testing you can do, the less problems you will have

@@harry258 We have no way to know how much Starship will actually cost until it actually launches in full Starship also uses a whole lot more engines and will inherently be less reliable because of it