Relative to what? Whatever you're thinking of doesn't quite exist. It's just promises that may not materialize fully or may well cost the same, only with the richest man on earth and the investors he's attracted to subsidize the fulfillment of an unusual first contract. An SLS like launch platform was always going to cost an unprecedented amount because it IS unprecedented.

And also whats bad about having 2 moon rockets? If one is out for the time being then we can use the other to continue the efforts. We must learn to cooperate if we want to reach further into the stars

@Chrispy Not really. It's not making promises that are anywhere near as aspirational or unprecedented. It's actually about to launch and was not just built up haphazardly and uncomprehensively out in the open for a PR event backdrop, in a location it's highly unlikely to be approved to launch from anyway. It's nowhere near a certainty the way SLS is. Apart from the ever present possibility of something horribly anomalous happening during a rocket launch, SLS is fully expected to work and perform within specific well defined parameters.

@@UlmDoesAnything Sure, that'd be nice. But it's SpaceX that have promised all that they have, which is quite a lot. It's a massive collection of objectives and it's on them to actually show it all working as touted so early on. It's on us to be rightly hesitant to take their word for it in the meantime. Atm, we only have SLS.

@Chrispy Please watch the other videos on this very channel. There are unfortunate but mitigating reasons for the delays. It will launch within the year. No SpaceX has not achieved all that much in relative terms. It just looks impressive- way, way more than it actually is. When you think about how much it actually credibly represents towards capability, it's fractional at best. What they've pieced together is not capable of doing anything if it gets to orbit or off the pad at all. The engine version itself is already obsolete and running unreliably for something that's touted to be easily reusable following much harsher scenarios than shown. Barring aforementioned anomaly, no way Starship reaches orbit before SLS and doing that will be just a basic start to all the other things it has to demonstrate (in 3 different variations) for it to work as conceived. Again, it's SpaceX themselves who conceived it as such an ambitious craft, not I. So to not be so impressed by orbit (an impressive achievement on its own) should be perfectly expected.

@@snizami thats true and one of my concerns for spacex. Ambition is not bad but too much is and obviously elon just wants the pr Just saying tho to the SpaceX extreme simps who think SLS should be scrapped just because Starship may (or may not) be more successful:So what's wrong with having two?

SLS rockets and Orion capsules are essentially very old technologies, they are repeating the technologies of Apollo-Saturn. Why doesn't NASA use new technologies such as space refueling depots, in-orbit assembly, space tugs, and nuclear or plasma propulsion systems?

@@powerfulstrong5673 In orbit assembly of what? And also why does the age of the tech matter? It reuses parts from the shuttle and still gets the job done successfully as seen from Artemis 1 success. After a few flights, the SLS will have used up every part from the shuttle and will completely use its own tech for every flight after.

@@nachobasket 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.

@@nachobasket Disposable rockets and space capsules are not sustainable technologies for long range space explorations.

Sure they are. So long as congress continues to fund them they’ll be sustainable. And SLS is fully funded for the foreseeability future

5pm I think

@@DavidWillisSLS SLS rockets and Orion capsules are essentially very old technologies, they are repeating the technologies of Apollo-Saturn. Why doesn't NASA use new technologies such as space refueling depots, in-orbit assembly, space tugs, and nuclear or plasma propulsion systems?

Lmao they dont even have Lunar starship designed heck they havent even tried refueling Starship yet somehow they think they have a better chance of going to the moon first?

SpaceX is crying 🤣🤣🤣