@Green Leaf Space No, it didn't. That was the Aries 5. It might look similar, but they're quite different. SLS is mainly descended from the Jupiter Direct family of rockets.
@Green Leaf Space If you're saying you know about constellation, then why are you saying SLS started in the year 2000? Because it didn't, it started in 2011, and then any rocket before then that looked similar was never realized, let alone built.
@@jamesgavriel yes your right but wrong too. It's the last type of rocket but not the last count nor variant. There could be 5 SLS in the future and no other rocket since it could be the last
Let's also keep in mind that until any of these rockets (any of them) demonstrate that they can travel to the Moon with a significant enough payload to support humams; we have no Moon rockets. If the SLS goes first then this is the best technology available for humans to travel to the Moon. If Starship follows closely behind then it will be our best bet and so on.
SLS looking like beast. However the intended payload can be lifted by falcon heavy. Why waste a perfect rocket on such small payloads. With limited launch numbers not to mention cost. I recommend a collaboration of SpaceX falcon heavy, SLS, Starship working together for a return mission to the moon and mars. This will help humanity become a space fairing species. Well interplanetary species
Here is the fuel pump is a space sls launch with 567,000 gallons of liquid oxygen the sls wiok drop 1,000 degrees ferhight in flame trench in three lighting towers of construction the rocket the lightning towers to sls wilk takeoff the liftoff the moon
Except, starship isn't practical for SLS tasks. Just look at GAO reports, 16 launches just to send something to the moon. Starship is good for Low Earth Orbit stuff, maybe GEO with refueling. But for C3? It would make more sense to assemble Nuclear Thermal Propulsion space tugs in LEO with starship rather than using starship itself. Not to mention that in some C3 situations, you just have to expend transfer stage. This ship just isn't optimised for high energy payloads. Actually, people like to say how it's supposed to be cheap and blah blah... If it doesn't get launch price below 60-80mln USD(INCLUDING profit fee), we may question if it's worth it when there is SLS, that can do same thing with simpler mission plan. Like, in that case, we have 2 options that cost pretty much the same in total, except one requires several launches of world's largest and most complex rocket, and 10+ docking rounds, while other one is just, launch, and do TLI.
@@_mikolaj_ LOL, prepare to eat your words because this comment will look very backward looking a few years from now. 16 launches is actually more like 8, and the theoretical launch cost after optimisation is $2-3mil not 60-80.
It's going to be an exciting event. Can't wait to see the lunar footage when she rounds the Moon.
Somewhat reminds me of Saturn V launches. Those retract arms are kinda cool
My god it's massive, in that old school type of way.
Think of it as a Saturn 10! I mentioned that 12 years ago. Wile Artimus was being Blue Printed
@Green Leaf Space
No, it didn't. That was the Aries 5.
It might look similar, but they're quite different. SLS is mainly descended from the Jupiter Direct family of rockets.
@Green Leaf Space
If you're saying you know about constellation, then why are you saying SLS started in the year 2000? Because it didn't, it started in 2011, and then any rocket before then that looked similar was never realized, let alone built.
Watching this is so Apollo!
This event would be exciting heck even more exciting than the falcon heavy launch
sadly we will never experience this again since this will probably be the last rocket developed by nasa
@@jamesgavriel no ? The parts for the second rocket have arrived
@@jamesgavriel yes your right but wrong too. It's the last type of rocket but not the last count nor variant.
There could be 5 SLS in the future and no other rocket since it could be the last
Friggin cool to watch
Can't wait. Go Artemis!
Yesssss
Let's also keep in mind that until any of these rockets (any of them) demonstrate that they can travel to the Moon with a significant enough payload to support humams; we have no Moon rockets. If the SLS goes first then this is the best technology available for humans to travel to the Moon. If Starship follows closely behind then it will be our best bet and so on.
yep, starship probably is gonna be on the moon first.
@@pxgiovanni no
At least if one fails, we still have a backup.
@@Apollozy no
the swing arms moves back ,
When is takeoff?
SLS looking like beast. However the intended payload can be lifted by falcon heavy. Why waste a perfect rocket on such small payloads. With limited launch numbers not to mention cost. I recommend a collaboration of SpaceX falcon heavy, SLS, Starship working together for a return mission to the moon and mars. This will help humanity become a space fairing species. Well interplanetary species
Tbh, I’m excited but it’s like I’m already wanted nasa to move on from the sls because it’s a culmination of old hardware
but will it fly?
Its litterally fully asembeled
I hope John f kneedey was here so he will let nasa launch it quicker
Here is the fuel pump is a space sls launch with 567,000 gallons of liquid oxygen the sls wiok drop 1,000 degrees ferhight in flame trench in three lighting towers of construction the rocket the lightning towers to sls wilk takeoff the liftoff the moon
👍👏👏👏🙏👍👍👍😎😎😎
Should've been Falcon heavy no?
Falcon heavy is not powerful enough to carry orion to the moon.
This thing looks so dated
SLS will never make more than a few flights if that... it's about to become completely obsolete when starship is flying
It will fly at least 3 times
@@GreenPartyHat Watch how fast it gets defunded when congress realizes its an expensive, obsolete hunk of junk
@@ltrodd They know its a bad rocket. They only care about the jobs for their state. Its very sad but always how NASA has been run.
Except, starship isn't practical for SLS tasks. Just look at GAO reports, 16 launches just to send something to the moon. Starship is good for Low Earth Orbit stuff, maybe GEO with refueling. But for C3? It would make more sense to assemble Nuclear Thermal Propulsion space tugs in LEO with starship rather than using starship itself. Not to mention that in some C3 situations, you just have to expend transfer stage. This ship just isn't optimised for high energy payloads.
Actually, people like to say how it's supposed to be cheap and blah blah... If it doesn't get launch price below 60-80mln USD(INCLUDING profit fee), we may question if it's worth it when there is SLS, that can do same thing with simpler mission plan. Like, in that case, we have 2 options that cost pretty much the same in total, except one requires several launches of world's largest and most complex rocket, and 10+ docking rounds, while other one is just, launch, and do TLI.
@@_mikolaj_ LOL, prepare to eat your words because this comment will look very backward looking a few years from now. 16 launches is actually more like 8, and the theoretical launch cost after optimisation is $2-3mil not 60-80.