Dude. SpaceX is great but they have launched just one interplanetary mission till now and it is unmanned and it is OFF COURSE! Imagine sending humans in vehicle to Mars that goes off course! SLS is an interplanetary mission. First to Moon and then to Mars. And it has to be human certified. Nasa might be extremely careful after the Challenger and Columbia incidents. So they are building SLS by using tried and tested technologies from previous missions. So it takes time to test all the components together. So stop with this Spacex obsession! They have neither the budget nor the experience to build interplanetary missions without help from NASA.

SpaceX needed like 10 years to develop just the reusable falcon 9

@@luigiking89 No, 4 years if you consider the first time the first stage landed, or 5.5 years if you consider when landings stopped being tests and when they started reflying them

what?!?! spacex sucks, crew dragon is nothing new and this ,,starship" thing is kamikaze at its best

@@cynbloxy Falcon 9 started dev in around 2005-2006, and it took them 10 years to make it reusable (even more for the final variant, Block 5)

it will be AWESOME when it launches!

Same!! It's gonna be epic to see it finally fly

No, SLS is (98m) while Saturn V is (110m)

SLS block 1b which is already under construction, is larger than the Saturn V

No... Slightly more powerful at launch, but shorter and with less payload capability. The bottleneck here is the ICPS upper stage. The full capability of the rocket will be unleashed only when the Exploration Upper Stage will be ready (if it ever will).

Yeah it's very sad spacex fanboys decided to make it a competition

@@SV7-2100 it’s ridiculous. Like who cares, at least we’re going back to the moon finally

90% of SLS comes from the shuttle? That’s not very true. Might need to make a video on that

​@@DavidWillisSLS I would agree with you that it's *not* true that the 90% of SLS came from the shuttle (or more precisely, the Shuttle STS). What I actually meant was that roughly 90% of the *technology* came from the shuttle. Specifically: RS-25D (almost entirely unchanged from the Shuttle), SRB (changed from 4 segment to 5, and changes to nozzle and control systems, but otherwise the same basic technology), and first stage (it use major technology components from the ET such structural elements and TPS , but with significant redesign of tanks and the addition of the thrust structure). Therefore, I would guesstimate that in terms of core technology development for the SLS, roughly 90% was inherited from the Shuttle era (not including the ICPS, which of course comes from the Delta IV). I recently discovered your channel, and I consider it one of the best, if not the best, on SLS and it's history -- keep up the awesome work!

Really appreciate that! thank you!

thankz!

Saturn V took 6 years to develop

Nope 7. Congress made it into law in 1960 and it flew in 1967. If you want to say 6, then SLS is only 9

@@DavidWillisSLS ooh alright.

Correct!

Much appreciated!

Saturn V did the same thing SLS did to an extent. The third stage of the Saturn V had flown 3 times before Apollo 4

The first Saturn - Saturn I, didn't have to develop engines from zero - they were new, but strictly derived from older ones (H-1) or already in advanced developing for other programs (RL-10). Still, it took six years from the beginning (1958) to the first flight of a complete Saturn rocket (SA-5 flight - january 1964)

thank you!

No. Orange Rocket + Shiny Rocket = >>> For everyone

@@SpainSpace Yeah bro, it was just a joke. I support all, NASA, SpaceX, ULA, etc.

Thank you for that 🙏 I do plan to return to this channel soon, though my efforts are, for the moment, centered around a channel called “Epoch Now” and getting that up and running.

Ok thanks for telling me you are crimnely undersubscribed . And also amazing how fast you responded

@@AerospaceAdler lol it’s because I stopped uploading and was dropped from the algorithm. But don’t worry, I should have a starliner video out before launch that you can enjoy!

Nice i have hype for that starliner video now keep up making good videos . I think i will start working on a video about SLS or somthing that includes it tommorov .

Took a little longer then i said as i didnt have a idea but i made a video about SLS building block 1 and 1b in KSP

thank you! and thats odd.. try the one on my channel banner. that should work!

If that were actually the case I would’ve mentioned it in the video. Here’s a general rule of thumb, if an explanation makes sense without the need for ulterior motives, then there were no ulterior motives

@@DavidWillisSLS Yeah, Occam's Razor.

Then wait like 2 months lol

@@DavidWillisSLS I'll watch it again after the launch. :)

@@DavidWillisSLS nope

Well, it has flown now.

@@HalNordmann Yes it has.

Politics never played a role during the entire video, and I pretty adequately explained very delay

hahah! you were right! thank you!

Thank you! I appreciate that!

it gets fueled on the launch pad, not the VAB

NASA keeps doubling down on their support of Starship.

@@sycodeathman Not necessarily Starship, but specifically HLS. The reason being they're currently the only of the companies to have a somewhat working proof of concept unlike the others, some of which are still in their design phase.

@@jrc1606 For HLS to get to the Moon, Starship needs to have a decent flight rate (which requires working reusability) and functioning propellant transfer. NASA betting on HLS is a bet on the whole Starship architecture.

@@sycodeathman I'm aware. I phrased it poorly. What I meant to say is that NASA doesn't seem to be really betting on Starship to transport crew from Earth to the Moon any time soon. They're betting on SpaceX to build a lander and heavy lifter for cargo which they seem to believe is possible.

@@jrc1606 SpaceX's strategy has always been to get Starship operating smoothly before putting people on any launches. Whether that takes 5 years or 15 isn't a huge concern, since Starship's biggest advantage is its extreme cumulative launch capacity and low cost. Eventually they'll use it to bring up people, but in the mean time Dragon 2 could ferry crews to LEO and transfer them to Starship.

This year

Mood, from the KZfaq audio library i believe. if not its one of the others in the description. all from you tube's audio library

@@DavidWillisSLS i cant find any of them in the audio library...

@@LampYeeter kzfaq.info/get/bejne/mtmUjKR-yLTHp30.html

@Mudkip909 Starship is a space-worthy craft capable of carrying people. The test craft that flew can do neither.

@Mudkip909 By choice. Orion is capable right now. The erroneously named "Starship" doesn't have the hardware nor has gone through the extensive required testing. As I said, just technology demonstraters built to test the design and new concepts before the actual space ship is built.

@Mudkip909 Neither does my bicycle, which as about as much space flight ability as the current starships did. Just big model rockets. SLS is a REAL rocket that flies next month for a lunar visit, and it's gonna be awesome. CHEAPER is not always BETTER. SpaceX is great, Musk is unpredictable. I'd feel a lot better if the US space program was not at his mercy and whim, so hooray for SLS. Well worth the investment, wait and see. There is a lot of wisdom behind the decisions made.

4 minutes into flight and no stage separation. 😂

Very true!

@@DavidWillisSLS Some would say SLS is inherently flawed.

@@genxlife it is. It was born to please politicians who wanted to keep old shuttle jobs in their states. Same reason Ares V and 1 was born.

to build the hardware, you have to build the tools to build the hardware. shuttle tanks were built on their sides, while SLS tanks are built vertically, as such new tooling needed to be built. i shoulda mentioned this

@@DavidWillisSLS True. There is a lot of new tech in building SLS. Later builds will come quicker as experience is gained.

Sorry. I don’t want my vids to get copyrightstriked

No excuse for the off cue selection

Go for the atmospheric at least

Bit of research dude

@@DavidWillisSLS it deserves better is what i meant

Only thing politics has to do with any of this is that congress wanted it done by 2016. Which was extremely unreasonable

thank you for that! i appreciate it! and yes i totally understand the music situation. im tying to work on getting that fixed.

@@DavidWillisSLS Yes. Music too loud. Make video less good. Dave fix? Please.

@@dr4d1s I am still hoping for a remix of this video. The content is so great and I can't get through the background music (hard of hearing... background noise is a problem)

Really?

The first launch is in February of 2022 a far cry from 2030

@@DavidWillisSLS Yeah, like I said, and the next launch will be in 2030. If ever. A far cry. :)

@@ebenwaterman5858 the launch after the first one will be in 2023

@@DavidWillisSLS OK. :)

@@DavidWillisSLS nope and nope

Actually it is Vehicle. According to Wikipedia it used to be Vertical, but was changed to Vehicle

That's cool, 'cause Blue Origin's looks like a ......

@@Doggeslife thin mushroom?

i actually tried to find an answer to this but never found one. if i were to guess, it would be that Michoud was repaired enough for operations to resume, but there were still ongoing repairs that slowed the program down

scheduling maybe?

@@jm56585 perhaps

Definitely did not look like just "weeks" worth of damage to me...

By a few weeks though. nothing too big

@@DavidWillisSLS you were saying?

Shame on NASA for taking their time? Do you remember STS 51L?

@@DavidWillisSLS no ... doing things the right way in a safe, cost effective and an efficient manner is one thing. NASA has failed to deliver on at least 6 major programs to develop, build and deploy a launch vehicle since before the shuttle was retired. But .. you should know that as someone who carries water for NASA.

​@@TheFiscallySoundI'd rather be safe than sorry.

and you can come up with a better title?

@@DavidWillisSLS Why is SLS taking so long to fly

@@tom7779 Boeing is a joke

@@DavidWillisSLS you title is now applicable. I am truly glad it finally did fly

If that’s the case why was I able to make an entire video about this topic without even mentioning that

@@DavidWillisSLS well I wouldn't put down something that you've already mentioned in the video

It’s not NET august 29th. That’s THE LAUNCH DATE, with backups on the 2nd and the 5th

@@DavidWillisSLS kinda just sounds like NET with extra steps

@@jS-ph8ce it is a launch date. There are then 2 backup dates. It’s not the same as a NET, because the NET is August 23rd

@@DavidWillisSLS turned out to be a glorified wdr

Aaaand it launched now.

No one is building a Sea Dragon anytime soon. If you want big, cheap cargo use Vulcan-Aces with orbital refueling or Falcon Heavy with docking in orbit. Or just use Starship/Jarvis.

Basic requirement of lunar program. The physics hasn't changed since Constellation, which required 150T Ares V cargo + ~50T Ares I crew. Change for SLS was that instead of 2 rockets, only do one ~100T crew/cargo rocket which gives you the same 200T uplift.. just organized different: 100T cargo + 100T crew/cargo. Big savings for NASA because they only need 1 rocket to do big lunar shots rather than 2 separate systems. SpaceX is developing systems that are more like Shuttle, LEO lifters. Could do a lunar program with SpaceX, but it would be gimp like if we had done it with Shuttle, which people talked about but never happened. The missions themselves would be much more complex staged from LEO, which is why NASA didn't go that way with Apollo, although in some ways in might have bee easier or cheaper.

LMFAOOOOO

Still gonna be epic to see it fly though

Now 2022

I think you might be somewhat pessimistic about a completed rocket not flying sometime soon

It just flew.

bro got silenced 💀

If you’d like to watch my other video on why falcon heavy can’t replace SLS then you’re free to do that. I suspect you won’t go watch that though

@@DavidWillisSLS Wow, that's an amazing attitude to have for a subscribed viewer of your channel. Really. You don't have a clue how to engage with fans, do you? EDIT: I just looked, the video you've referenced was the first video of yours I ever watched. It's why I subscribed. Sorry if I didn't remember every fact and figure and had the audacity to ASK A QUESTION.

@@TheBetterGame you’ll have to forgive me. I make content about SLS, and positive content at that. So when I see a comment about why it should be canceled for falcon heavy, I didn’t assume you were a subscriber, especially a subscriber who subbed due to that falcon heavy video

False spec. SLS is designed for growth. Block 1: 95 metric tons (209,000 lb) Block 1b: 231,000 lb Block 2 (late 2020's): 290,000 lb Falcon Heavy can only lift 141,000lb to LEO if all three stages are thrown away. When you land/recover all 3 cores then payload to LEO is cut in half. And most important, SLS belongs to us. The Falcon series belongs to him, and I don't want our American space program to be at the mercy of that fickle and childish billionaire.

@@TheBetterGame sounds like you just didnt listen to the facts

Really?

i guess my next video need to be on why SLS isnt a waste of money then!

@@DavidWillisSLS how could 4billion per launch not be a waste of money?

Because it’s not 4 billion per launch

Nope. Orion is a separate program from SLS, and has been to space before, but never on SLS. It’s a payload who’s cost should not be counted into the cost per launch of the rocket. Thus that number isn’t the real cost per launch, and if you actually decided to read further down you would see that the actual cost is only half of that. But I’m sure you didn’t and stopped reading at the big 4 billy number because you don’t care about anything other than being right

@@DavidWillisSLS That is a ludicrous argument, since the entire point of SLS is to launch Orion. To pretend the 2 are not an integrated system, or without entangled costs is willfully ignorant. Stop being a breathless fanboy about wasteful spending by the government, it's not a good look. Was gonna sub, but your treatment of commenters has turned me off to you. You're welcome for the comment, though. Good luck being right all the time yourself, I guess?

completely understand. im still trying to find good music. most of the music in you tube's audio library is garbage, and this is the "good music"

@@DavidWillisSLS You should include subtittle so I can enjoy the video sound less but knowing what you tell ;)

@@tontonpascal1988 thank you! I’ll keep that in mind

@@DavidWillisSLS Epidemic Sound.

Counter ratio

That's probably a good 50 percent of the reason. It's why why Ares collapsed and SLS will just keep limping along.

It isn't. These things are very carefully looked on. For example, there can't be more money given than documented expenses - there are controls for that quite often.

The rollout that is literally happening in 6 hours and 52 minutes

Why would you defund NASA?

@@landonrounsavall1125 What is even the point of defunding NASA, the U.S. would basically go downhill.

"Defund NASA" Nah. If you really think Starship can do the job, just look at what happened 😂

Don't geg me started on Starship. 😂

Well copyright free music isn’t exactly going to sound amazing now is it?

@@DavidWillisSLS honestly it would be better without music. But it’s a good video

No I’m referring to the first flight

@@DavidWillisSLS the over $50b for Saturn V was for the total length of the project, and then we got the launch cost of $1,2b/launch compared to like over $2b on SLS. And when you put into perspective that SLS is a Shuttle derived launch vehicle that even uses the exact same engine, it's not so great anymore.

@@807800 of the 11 engines that powered the Saturn V, 6 of those flew first on the Saturn 1b. And the 3rd stage was flown 3 times on the Saturn 1b before Apollo 4. Saturn V reused as much hardware from the Saturn 1, as the SLS reused from the space shuttle

@@DavidWillisSLS So, 6 out of 11. What about SLS? Literally, nothing of it is new, since that's pretty much the idea behind SLS, keeping the old shuttle contractors alive. And of course, we are not in the 60s anymore. The Saturn V or just the Saturn family and Shuttle got many new things to address. While the SLS is pretty much designed from the ground up to use as much old tech as possible. Trying to paint the SLS project as not so bad compared to the 60s and 70s Saturn V and Shuttle is being disingenuous.

@@807800 That's like saying a 747-8 is old tech, or the f15s that continue to roll of the line, or any number of examples from aerospace and elsewhere. Some technologies, especially in aerospace, reach a high maturity level early on and remain impressive and useful for decades upon decades to come. Everything about the SLS is cutting edge state of the art tech and it'll likely remain an impressive platform for decades to come.

Yeah the Artemis program that is about to kick off in 16 days will be canceled any time soon

@@DavidWillisSLS wrong again

No.

Ares I literally would have killed everyone in an abort

Ares 1 was a POS and I'm glad its dead

This is actually untrue. They had actually solved those problems by the end of the program

You can't run a space program on wishful thinking and fairy dust. At the time of the Augustine commission it was estimated that launches would occur at the earliest in 2016, and SLS' current state more or less proves that even that date likely would have been missed. Constellation was overly-ambitions and insufficiently-funded. Also, if you're going to level "short-sighted" as an criticism of the Obama administration's handling of the space program you should probably take a step back and realize that much of the private space industry we have today is a direct result of that administration's push to expand the CRS program and its ilk. SpaceX would likley not exist today if it wasn't for those programs.

Ares 1 was very unsafe. The crew would not survive a abort.

this is an utterly TERRIBLE idea. cancel the ONE rocket capable of sending humans back to deep space? ARE YOU MAD?

LOL, Starship is not even close to completion.

@@luigiking89 It may well launch before SLS...

@@philippeferreiradesousa8673 Maybe, but the probability of it being a perfect flight is almost zero (even reaching orbit is iffy), while Artemis 1 has a very low chance of any failure. I ask, when will a Starship launch that is carrying crew, or doing a demo mission in precursor to a crew flight (which Artemis 1 is doing)? Not before Artemis 2, and DEFINITELY not before Artemis 1.

@@vulture4117 Correct. 2022 goal is putting Starlink satellites into orbit and attempting to recover both stages. In 2023 they should make recovery more reliable and try out building tankers / propellant depots / HLS. Launching depot / tankers and mastering orbital refuelling in 2024 with uncrewed Moon fly-by (only needs ). Uncrewed Moon landing in 2025. Unclear if Dear Moon mission happens in 2025 as NASA may not like it. Artemis 2 delayed to 2024 and Artemis 3 to 2026 with SLS and HLS Starship. Number of SLS launched in 5 years: 3 Number of Starships launched in 5 years: 50 (3 to the Moon too). The 3 SLS missions and the 50 Starship launches both costed $6B but SpaceX now has a satellite constellation with 5 million users ($6B yearly revenue).