7 Things Russia's New Super Rocket and NASA's SLS Have In Common
Вставка
- Опубліковано 20 вер 2024
- New Rockets coming our way!
The question is ... when?
Russia wants to build something called "Yenisei" while NASA focuses on the SLS. Both are super heavy rocket designs that could even go to the Moon.
🠴Join me to stay in the loop for more KSP stuff and general madness, Kerbal, space or otherwise!🠶
▶ Twitter - / the_shadowzone
▶ Instagram - / the_shadowzone
▶ Facebook - / the-shadowzone-3045600...
▶ Patreon - / shadowzone
🠴Interested in the vehicles I make in Kerbal Space Program? Check out my KerbalX🠶
▶ kerbalx.com/Th...
▶ steamcommunity...
🠴Music🠶
"Invictus Outro" (c) The ShadowZone
Get my Music here:
▶ Spotify:
open.spotify.c...
▶ Apple Music:
itunes.apple.c...
▶ Google Play:
play.google.co...
▶ Deezer:
www.deezer.com...
▶ Tidal:
tidal.com/brow...
"District Four" and "Movement Proposition" all (c) Kevin MacLeod ( incompetech.com... )
Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 3.0
creativecommons...
🠴Sources for this video🠶
All SLS and Orion footage (c) NASA
Energia, Buran, Soyuz and Proton footage (c) Roscosmos
Source for Putin/Rogozin talk: en.kremlin.ru/e...
General excellent source for Russian space things: www.russianspac... by Anatoly Zak
🠴HELLO everybody and welcome to the ShadowZone🠶
Here you can find weird and funny videos about Kerbal Space Program and other video games. In general, if you like space, space ships, space stations or any space related video game, this channel is the right place to be!
I try to deliver you fascinating creations, tutorial and how-to videos about KSP and other video game content.
I also compose my own music from time to time.
Stay a while and join the shadowzone community by subscribing to my channel or following me on those social thingies up there.
Point of note, the RD-25 engine might be "old" technology, but it also holds a unique record, a 100% success rate. No RD-25 Engine fire for a lunch has ever failed! Only one other engine had that success rate, the F1!
While I have my personal issues with the SLS and the Orion system, as an Engineer I now there is a time to re-invent the wheel and a time to reuse the past. Being a good engineer means knowing when to such.
i find the F1being kind of an exception
We are absolutely sure Russia is not just a reskinned KSP, right?
Haven't been there yet, need to check.
@@ShadowZone Let me know if you see any little green mob bosses xD
The KingTeam
They use a graphics reskin
RRO - Russian Realism Overhaul.
i am russian but usa's roskets are better
"Both SpaceX and Blue Origin have proven the viability of reusable orbital-class first stage boosters."
No, only SpaceX has. Leave out the "orbital-class" and you can include Blue Origin.
Wanted to write the same comment word for word xD Glad someone is in the top comments with this clarification :)
Well I think he was referring to the New Glenn
i know it's state of existence is, so far, aparently "lesser" than even the StarShip, but, as you will see, this is actually the other way around.
GLenn's design is prettymuch finalised and the sponsored monsystack is already there, so you can pe pretty sure it will get built and it will work ... before you call me out on being biased, I do acknowledge the achievments of SpaceX, but, from an engineering standpoint, everything they did was (debatably) tried and trusted (Vertical landing rocket research was already being conducted in the 90s, strapping 3 rockets together to make a heavy variant, as cool as it looks, it just that : strapping together 3 rockets to make a heavy variant (given that the boosters can already land themselves on their own) ... CrewDragon while FUCKING AWESOME is actually pretty simple in design and so on ...) as you can see, What SpaceX is attempting with StarShip is just SO RADICALLY different than ahything ever attempted, (I believe it can only be remotely compared with the Venture Star (but even that was not designed to land on other planets)) I can confidently say, given previous examples of "Elon Time" that there will be a considerable length of time when New Glenn will have time to develop and reach a good share of the heavylift market before StarShip enters service.
Don't get me wrong, I love SpaceX and I root for them, but we just have to face the reality that conservative design approach is a strategy that WORKS ... it's not fast, nor very innovative, but it works, and BO like to take their time with things
We also need to consider the fact that we can't really call StarShip and BRF a consistent product in development for 3 years because it simply isn't ... those were just pitched ideas meant to please the public and raise PR while the real hard work was done making the Raptor engines (which are, basically the holy graal of rocketry, a FULL FLOW combustion cycle)
StarShip was a good strategy to build hype and find sponsors, but you can't call it a finished product, design-wise, not even now... I mean for 2 years they basically had no idea what they were doing and now they kinda sorta have a system that maybe could satisfy their targeted goals but there's still a lot of work to be done
Meanwhile, BO likely refined their conservative design to the last nut and bolt and when they roll out production it's going to be for real
We both know BocaChica was basically just a nerd-pleaser ... I mean it's clear that they didn't want to do any meaningful testing with the first one because when the nosecone blew off, they didn't rebuild it because they just wanted to test their engine in a vertical position and say they "Hopped" the ship while they were at it ... again : this is not a bad thing, it just shows that SPaceX cares very heavily about their PR and their fans ... once they fired the engine vertically, it was immediately shipped back to McGregor for inspection and further testing while Elon started building another even larger, inexpensie fuselage that is far from taking to the sky, but mainly there to build hype
bottom line : Its easy to get excited about Starship, upon a closer look, you realise that the real hard work and engineering acomplishments reside in the Raptor Engines, which is the only part of the starship that's engineered (rest is just sketches (not even real CAD ... just a guideline... because developing something like Starship is going to take a LOT of hard work and time ))
Mihai Lazar I don’t think that can be called proven, though. Likely to virtually guaranteed, but proven has the implication that it has been done already
@@mihailazar2487 A paperlaunch is not a proof. First recovered LEO launch means it makes sense. A couple of successful launches make a proof.
@@TheZoltan-42 okay, I get what you're saying, I didn't exactly use those words in the strictest sense, but you do understand where I'm getting at ... I mean if you were to get money on it, wouldn't you find it easier to bet on New Glenn that it will succeed ... Do I have that right, do you agree with me ?
1.) Giant rockets, capable of moon missions
2.) Non-reusable
3.) Will probably never launch more than a few times
Yenisei and Don - are derivatives of the Angara rocket, but with additional blocks, etc. Complete unification. They are created for multiple launches. Work on reusability is also underway. It is possible that individual boosters will be made reusable, similar to the Energia 2 project, but the rocket will be disposable.
Я живу в России и могу с полной серьезностью заявить, что:
1) We don’t have enough money to compete with SLS
2)
our space industry is in a systemic crisis because:
2.1) small salary of engineers - 439-785$
2.2)
The loss of Soviet technology
2.3) poor education specialists
3)
Systemic crisis in the Russian economy, which will not allow to allocate big money for a rocket
4)
Many Russians live very poorly, they don’t understand why to spend money on space, when you can spend it in the country
Conclusion: the second space race between Russia and the United States can not be. If only between the US and China
It took humankind 58 years from sustaining a little bit of flight off the ground to putting a living human into orbit. The first moon landing was 50 years ago and now we have slightly improved faceliftrs for tech which operates mostly in low earth orbit... WTF happened?
But then there were big chances that something could go wrong and now they are trying to make it safe.
A lot of techlonoly needed to evovle and and be invented. The development of cheaper and better technologi has made it possible for private companies to venture in to space. The reason we saw a lot of space activity in the 60-90 was due to -------> War, or rather, cold war.
Most people think space is a waste of money and you live in a democracy happened
There's been no world wars to force rapid change. Because the world has been so peaceful since the end of WW2, and especially when the cold war winded down in the 70's, new ideas started to stop.
Let's say that the US congress were all brainwashed to feel a need to fund aggressive space expansion:
Democratic voters: "Why are they giving 10% of the GDP to shoot rockets into space? That money could go to schools and free college and healthcare!"
Republican voters: "If we have enough money to burn on rockets then why the hell am I paying X% of my annual income to the government? Lower my taxes."
In either case, the general public feel that space achievement is a low priority.
In both cases, they will probably not vote for their pro-space brainwashed representative in the next election. A conventional Democrat or Republican puppet will step in and it will be back to the stupid crabs in a bucket ideology.
Russia needs to get the Energija back online.
Oh totally, that rocket was a beast!
And it worked fine as well with payloads close to what the new ones claim to lift.
Sadly though its is not possible. Most of the tech is lost due to the collapse of cooperation between the thousands of companies that were spread all over the former union
Vasiliy Kryuchkov actually apparently they are currently looking into it, but it would most likely be altered
@@rundownpear2601 sadly they looked into way to often into getting Energia out of retirement (or to be precisely getting Buran out of retirement but Buran without Energia is not that useful I assume) that I doubt they will fly Energia again. When I recall correctly, correct me if I'm not, they said it in 2003 after the Columbia Disaster and in 2011 after the Space shuttle retirement. And at least once before 2003. Sadly never happened I would've love it. It feels like Russian/Soviet Spaceflight is always underappreciated imao.
I love Russian Spaceflight and the Soyuz will always be my Favorite Rocket 🚀.
Good night from Germany.
Pascal S. So the things in 2003 was correct I think but than the Buran hanger collapsed finally ending any hopes. But recently they have been looking into doing what nasa is doing with the shuttle to energia. Using the old fueltank and engine designs to create a proper super heavy booster. But these plans are, as with most Roscomos projects, very unstable.
“Multiple orders of magnitude“? 5 billion is ONE order of magnitude less than 40 billion. But yeah, you’re absolutely correct about the cost increases due to political “pork”-if for no other reason than higher integration and transportation costs.
Exactly! at 3:48 : "multiple order difference" the presenter with funny accent can't be trusted :)
AntiangelRaphael Comparing Falcon 9 to SLS is unreasonable
@@AmbientMorality he meant starship and superheavy not falcon 9
the reusability will make it multiple orders of magnitude cheaper ;)
@mPky1 You don't understand the word 'donation'.
@mPky1 It was, as is this. Anyway, the point is that contracts for launches are not donations. They are contracts.
I like how he pronounces Russian words with Russian accent perfectly
I had an idea that the sls could have 2 falcon nines on its sides rather than 2 srb’s😂 that way it’s a bit more reusable
I had the same idea abt the shuttle 😂, but in order to make it land, it might not have the same lift capability of SRBs...
however, if this were the case, they wouldn't be able to put on as much of a payload, falcon 9 still uses its engine to re-enter and land, so it would need to save some of its fuel to land.
What they both have in common is....they don't exist yet and neither may never fly.
HA!
Very interesting opinion
I dunno, Starship seems to be coming along well enough. It's following the same trajectory (heh) that the Falcon 1 did way back when. We all want it to get done faster, but I don't see any evidence it will get cancelled.
@@General12th J.J. Shank Starship is the next generation SpaceX super heavy launch vehicle with their new methalox powered raptor engines. This video is about the SLS and the new Russian rocket under development. Neither of which are from SpaceX. It's quite possible that SLS may only end up flying a couple missions by the time it's development is finished at it's current rate. The commercial crew program has been making much faster progress than NASA lately but they'll be fine in the end since they reap the benefits of whatever successes are made in commercial spaceflight.
@@faceplants2 I'm sorry. I misread the whole situation.
Incorrect, only SpaceX has shown capable of reusing orbital class boosters. Blue Origin has never flown an orbital class rocket.
thanks for typing this for me
Thanks mate was just about to post this.
exactly. So far, BO has gone to space... a completely different thing from going to orbit.
you can get balloons to reach the Karman line, like New Shephard. You can't get a balloon to reach orbit, or to reach 1/4 orbital speed while pushing a second balloon stage to orbital speed.
Louis Visagie thank you sir.
@@rogeriopenna9014 The highest altitude ever achieved by a balloon is 53 kilometers, incredibly high, but nowhere near the Karman Line.
"The Buran 2: Post-Soviet Boogaloo"
It was said by the nation wich failed main part of their space rockets , killed all kosmonafts in their furst realistic launch and use russian engines for all successful starts
As far as SLS.. I think delays will be the potential killer. If spacex can get BFR looking like it will happen and happen on a reasonable time scale there will be more and more pressure to cut SLS and just farm out the heavy lift capability.
Enjoying your non-KSP videos as well, keep them coming!
Everyone complains about NASA projects costing billions, but it's the companies NASA contracts to do the project are the ones jacking up the price because it's a NASA project. It's partly government ineptitude and partly corporate greed.
When people say stuff like SLS system, or GPS system, I lose my shit!
Like; THE LAST LETTER STANDS FOR SYSTEM!
My guess, they'll both get 1 or 2 launches but SpaceX and Blue origin will have been cheaper and better for years at that point and they'll be seen as dinosaurs from the start
What they have in common is that both will massively over-budget, but the difference is that only NASA can afford that. Even Angara is slowly dying as it becomes obsolete even before it went into full production.
1:10
"russia isnt playing on sandbox mode right"
Absolute legend
My guess: Space X lands an unmanned Starship on Mars before either the SLS or Yenisei get out of low earth orbit.
- Russian Government: _Okay comrades, we need a rocket that is better than SLS_
- Roskosmos: _So, how many boosters should our engineers attach?_
- Russian Government: _Yes_
- Roskosmos:
3:45 you said "multiple orders of magnitude less" which is wrong, since multiple order of magnitude means at least 100x cheaper, and last time i checked 5b is not 100x cheaper than 40b.
good video though.
I am from the future and SLS now costs only 4.1 billions of dollars and spaceX managed to reduce the cost of starship to only 2 million and is planning to make it way cheaper in just thousands of dollars in the future
1:20 "SLS System" ... Space Launch System System? :p
XD well done!
@@Boof_dQw4w9WgXcQ spacex technology's.
Smh my head
lol out loud
0:15
Proton:
I'm I a joke to you :'(
It's not multiple orders of magnitude. It's one order of magnitude, i.e. 10 times more.
As a fellow Austrian, I regret not having a Rocket and launchpad in Europe.
Wait for PLD Space
Europe is too densely populated
Where would you even put one? The U.S. has two coastlines to launch from and Russia and China have wilderness, but Europe would have to launch their rockets out at sea or from an overseas territory like French Guiana.
@@CountArtha Italy sounds good
We have a launch pad in Europe, in French Guyana, where it makes sense, and rockets, Ariane. What we need is a human-rated rocket. Germoney would have to fund it.
What's funny is that, with the "Oh, we will launch an upper stage on a Commercial HLV", the USA is running the exact same plan Russia is planning for moon, with Angara A5, KVTK, and Federasya (PPTS)
Except that neither the KVTK nor the Federasya exist, nor are likely to.
«Top 5 resons why Shadowzone IS a Scott Manley» ;D
I doubt seriously that either of the rockets will ever fly. That is the eighth thing they have in common. Certainly if SLS flies, that is a minimum of a year away. Russia is optimistically saying Yenisei might fly 2028. Even allowing for normal delays in such a program, you can expect the early 2030s. That is, if Putin were actually to commit the resources to do it. Anybody want to bet on that happening? Either way, BFR is likely to fly in the next two to four years, rendering both launchers obsolete. I think it would be really unfortunate if Russia committed to developing the Yenisei, only to bring out a completely irrelevant rocket in ten of fifteen years time. Bringing out Yenisei then would be like introducing a propeller driven airliner in 1965.
The MLM Nauka module for the space station is now twelve years behind schedule, and nobody knows if it will ever actually be launched. Based on that, I doubt seriously that the Federation spacecraft will ever be built. If it is, it will be introduced into a world dominated by Big Falcon Spaceships. Again, it will be like introducing a propeller driven aircraft in 1965.
Except that the prop-driven aircraft had - and still have - their niches. Hyper-expensive expendable rockets aren't like to have any.
I guess transport issues is why they didn't just bring back Energia in it's original form though it had an even heavier version with eight Zenit boosters called Vulkan Hercules which would have lifted 175 tons.
On the cost of SLS I wonder if NASA should have just built the evolved Shuttle which addressed a lot of the deficiencies of the original STS deign such as a lack of crew escape or Shuttle II which was an all new TSTO design and just assembled deep space missions in LEO.
You can *not* have crew escape from a fully fledged, multi decked, space SHIP. Only from capsules. Did you hear about the airliner that went down a few days ago, killing all aboard? No ejection seats, no parachutes. Did you hear about the cargo plane that went down a few weeks ago, killing all three of the crew? No ejection seats, no parachutes. Ejection or abort are possible with small enough craft, fighter jets and space capsules, but not with larger ones, like airliners and space ships. There is no such thing as safe. There are only acceptable levels of risk. If safety is is your paramount, overweening priority, then don't go. That is the only way to guarantee safety.
Nothing will beat Saturn V and her 140 tonnes of man and machine cargo capacity. Not anytime soon anyway.
BFR in orbit refueling.
Saturn V was capable of 127 mT to LEO
Wikipedia isn't always the best source of information
not anytime soon because nobody wants, or sees it as economically viable, etc.
you just need one crazy billionaire (Bezzos could do it if he was more crazy) to built a 500 tons to LEO Sea Dragon!!
or a crazy US president to bring back Project Orion, and send crews of 50 scientists to explore Titan, aboard an Orion Project Nuclear Pulse Propulsion craft...
@@rogeriopenna9014 Yeah, and spread nuclear fallout all over the place.
@@odysseusrex5908 right because space is such a small place where nothing else is radioactive and one human sized radioactive engine will surely rip through space time itself!
I love this channel, not only does he play literally the best game ever, but he talks about real life AS WELL.
You should do a video where you build those winged boosters in KSP.
NASA is like a 90 year old man...can't get it up anymore !
@@RandomNameLastName811 Curiosity rover,InSight,Artemis project,Juno,X-
57 Maxwell plane and a lots of other small projects
No, how dare you say that! I'm not American, but NASA is awesome! Their SLS is almost ready for it's mid-2020's launch this year!
RandomName Last Name it’s not because NASA is “bad” like you like to say, it’s because politics have been limiting what NASA can do. If NASA has twice the budget and was only subject to policy/budget changes by the government every 4 years I guarantee you that NASA would have made SLS not only reusable, but more powerful than the Saturn V. Unfortunately politics has had its way, so this is the best NASA can do with what it has.
That they don’t exists ? We don’t know that the Buran was more capable that the shuttle , we don’t even know of it was truly reusable . The shuttle was also a paper marvel. One week turnaround and all the good stuff
I have a sad feeling that none will ever fly
I don't find it sad. If they end up being too expensive it is not justified to build them. And there is the private industry that will gladly sell cheaper services to governments. The new exciting missions will be done even if government rocket projects don't work out.
They are both really cool rockets tho
Nice vid, Scott! Shadowzone made a nice review of the Docu Apollo 11
maybe the competition will make the sls finally start moving forward
Neither Russia's 'river' rocket nor SLS are needed. It would be nice if they were ready, but they are not. So, NASA is looking at a tandem launch of Orion using Falcon and Delta.
Very informative and mostly correct. In both cases, politics trumps all. I hope the Russian rocket gets made, SLS will fly, but how often and in what capacity is an open question
@@JakeOchs I agree. NASA's initial plan was to have private companies service LEO missions, and they would be free to pursue deep space. Hopefully the BIG rocket will fly. But, meanwhile contingency plans have to be made.
"not reusable"
Elon: **wheeze** 😂👌
Hey look everybody, it's that Brazilian guy!!
@@dosmastrify
Hello there chum :)
It wasn't designed to be reusable. That would have added years to development and cost much more. If we keep waiting for something better our goals will never be met.
@@billinct860
I know bruh... I only made a joke c'mon
@@theimperfectgod7140 sorry... just seems so many think the SLS is useless because it won't come back.
If the Starship works out, no one will understand what the point if the SLS even was. Early retirements and turn out the lights.
SLS and Yenisei: not reusable
*Elon Musk did not like that*
Rogozin while sipping Louis XIII... "well, taxpayers would pay anyway..."
Never thought we'd see the end of the old Korolyov Cross
One thing you forgot to mention. Russia is FAR more likely to actually build and launch their rocket than the SLS, on time and on budget. My children will have grandchildren before NASA accomplishes anything.
Wow. Is it just me, or did the Energia tilted like crazy at 05:38? It levelled out eventually, but that looked like it was heading for a spectacular launch failure for a while. What mission was that, and did it really tilt, or is the low-quality video somehow making it look that way?
If I remember it right, this was the first launch, getting the 80 ton Polyus military laser satellite into space. The tilt was "normal" due to the payload being mounted onto the side of the booster.
Number 7 is actually quite wrong at least for SLS
Its currently tracking a fall 2020 launch and most flight hardware has been finished or will be finished by fall
It's quite close to it's first launch
I am thinking that SLS will not launch until 2022. I would not be surprised if Starship launches before SLS.
@@curtisquick1582
I guess it's okay if you think that but I think 2022 is completely unreasonable
As far as I know about how the scheduling works , EM-1 is going to be launching about a year after the first core stage rolls out of MAF
That is currently on track to occur about 7 months from now especially after a lot of recent very important milestones
The hardware speaks for itself I think
@@brokensoap1717 If I am wrong, I would be the first to admit it, but these last several years the SLS schedule has been sliding to the right one year for every year on the calendar. I don't have any sense that SLS is getting closer to an actual launch. Besides, if Boeing and Lockheed Martin keep to the schedule they make less money. They have every incentive to delay SLS as long as possible. They know that SLS is their last big government rocket and so their aim has to be to milk the US taxpayer out of as much as they can before Starship and New Glenn/Armstrong come on the scene.
@@curtisquick1582 Well I disagree with that actually
Especially Boeing has been getting their engineers to work 24/7 even on weekends and holidays to get this done and they have been cutting corners as much as they can to make this schedule happen
And I'm pretty confident the current schedule will hold for a while since a big chunk of the risk has already been removed from the schedule
But I guess time will tell
@@brokensoap1717Well, it's a win-win if you are correct. The US taxpayer could sure use a break and Boeing getting SLS done earlier would certainly cost less. I sure would like that to be the case, but I am skeptical. As you say, time will tell.
My guess, the SLS will fly a couple of times then get cancelled. The Russian rocket probably will get cancelled due to the lengthy road map. Private industries will take over and NASA will stick to what it does best, sending satellites and rovers exploring space.
Why it will get cancelled if it works?
@@baussier134 just look at the X-33, that was SUPER close to actually flying, as in 95% of the research and work done. Then NASA decided "Well, we can't have these fuel tanks so we'll cancel the whole thing instead of using fuel tanks that WOULD work"
For the Shuttle being called "a failure" and "too costly", these estimates seem a lot worse. Maybe the inflation adjustments would help some, but it's still more expensive. The good old "space truck" was a very capable platform, re-engineering and rebuilding it with modern technology might have been the best option
Keep in mind the space shuttle was also unsafe. I think SpaceX and Blue Origin have the best ideas right now for re-usable, safe and inexpensive vehicles. If Starship is ever finished, might even end up being more capable than the space shuttle and much cheaper.
Firstly, fantastic video. However, as a massive SpaceX fan and Blue Origin fan, you incorrectly stated that SpaceX and Blue Origin have shown orbital class rocket re-usability capabilities. Although, only SpaceX have launched and landed orbital class rockets, Blue Origin on the other hand haven't even finished developing their first orbital class rocket (New Glenn), they've only shown the capabilities of New Shepard which is a sub-orbital rocket. Sub-orbital and orbital capabilities are substantially different from one another.
Both have huge sunken costs, that is possibly the main reason to keep them alive. Also, jobs.
Yo Shadow! Awesome content...👍🏻👍🏻 I really enjoyed my first video from your channel. I especially appreciate the animation and sarcastic humor in your voice...🤣 So...in regards to your channel...as The Terminator says...”I’ll be back”.
Huh. Didn't know Scott did these kind of videos...
I think 100 tons rockets are useful as a dino.
Why not take a few smaler vehikles and put the big unit for travel to moon or mars in the space - like it been done with the ISS?
Ironically, the constellation program wanted separate rockets for cargo and passengers.
Only problem; the ares 1 was a bit problematic and the program is officially canned anyways.
SLS - that's one small step for Boeing - and one giant step backward for the US space program.
The space shuttle was already a MASSIVE step backwards for NASA.
Welllll, thank youuuuu veerrrry much forrrrrr thissss videooooooo...
Let me guess... Neither of them will actually take humans to the moon without getting cancelled.
So both Russia and the U/S are saying, in effect, 'It will be ready on Thursday.' But they're not saying which Thursday. Meanwhile, what will India and China be doing? Even Europe might be a contender.
5 billion is not "several orders of magnitude" less than 40 billion, it's ONE order of magnitude less.
“I don’t know anything about Russian politics” he says in a heavy Russian accent.
When you count development and refurbishment costs. Shuttle was 1.5 Billion p/launch.
Commercial spaceflight FTW!
Upper stages of Enisei are completely new tecnology for Russia. Russia never used hydrogen on upper stages, rd-0146 was never used before and development stage of rd-0150 is unknown.
If the Russians want to go full Kerbal, they can modify the Yenisei to be semi-reusable! Replace the side boosters on the Yenisei with Energia 2.0's Zenit boosters that come with foldable wings. Update Buran's autopilot and fit it into the boosters!
* Falcon Heavy in semi-expendable configuration with its boosters doing a dual droneship landing after a ballistic trajectory can lift 55 tons into LEO, a minor reduction from its fully expendable configuration. If launched from Baikonur, the boosters should be able to do a SpaceX ballistic landing and glide to a waiting airfield.
* RD-170 was designed for reusability from the ground up, and can be relit in flight to do a SpaceX style entry burn to save itself from burning up. The RD-171MV on the Yenisei should be more than capable of doing what the RD-170 can already do!
* It's essentially a beefed up Falcon Heavy with gliding boosters!
SLS launch date is probably 3020
That's an optimistic estimate
@@sillaceestekay2069 at worst it probably won't ever launch
22.3 billion, this includes facilities to build...
Since when do you need facilities to build a big rocket? Just hire some water tower builders and order a stack of stainless steel plates... and build it on a beach... That's how Elon does it (for 5 billion)
Its brilliant to watch SpaceX with its water tank and silo builders knocking up an orbital class rocket isn't it. So hope it will fly, and show the others that you don't need a billion dollar clean room and VAB to build this sort of gear in. The complicated bits at the sharp and blunt ends need a bit of TLC, but the body... meh!
Personally I think that all of the government funded rockets will fly, with China's Long March 9 being the most likely to live out a full programme life (interestingly China is looking into developing their own reusable launchers for smaller payloads, a later reusable variant of LM9 isn't impossible). SLS and Yenisei probably won't last long amidst budget overruns, expensive operating costs and the availability of cheaper options (although I don't see Russia wanting to use American reusable rockets).
The commercial sector is really going all out on reusable heavy lift vehicles. SpaceX already has Falcon Heavy and are developing Starship/Superheavy. Blue Origin are well underway with their New Glenn rocket and have hinted at the mysterious New Armstrong rocket (I can't wait to hear more about that one). That's more heavy lift vehicles being developed by the commercial sector than every other nation combined! I reckon that something along the lines of the Commercial Crew programme but for manned missions to the Moon/Mars would do absolute wonders to drive more development and innovation in the private sector, as well as providing a sustainable (even profitable!) way to explore the solar system.
These are very exciting times.
Let's hope Hitchhikers will be able to get Russian Space Vehicles to mainly Russian build Space Station.
I can tell you what Nasa rockets and the Russian Rockets don't have in common right here. The number of times they've exploded.
We need to start making rockets with only 1 set of boosters which would be larger and more powerful to avoid space pollution.
The restriction to 4 m tank diameter makes no sense. Russia has access to transport planes and the core stages could be produced at Vostochny, too. The use of high energy propellants like hydrolox or methalox is important for core and upper stages. So far, SLS is ahead.
btw the Orion is from the constellation program
I hear Russia found a way to power their rocket with rust and depression, so it will be able to go to mars and back in like 15 minutes given their fuel supply.
what do you mean b wanting to "see the rocket live"? while being alive, online on the live-stream or with your own eyes from the distance?
I would like to see either (or all) of them with my own eyes up close and experience a launch - from a safe distance of course.
That stainless rocket spacex was making blew over in the wind a week or 2 ago and is now completely fucked
Out of the two neither I think Russia will turn to the "pvt industry" to go reusable, and nasa's sls is exactly as you described a job making machine it'll fly in the future a couple times till its redundant by reusable rockets.
Angara 5 heavy launched dec 14 2020!
Falcon Heavy's advertised mass to LEO was 63.8 tons, fully expendable, in 2018 . Since then Elon Musk has stated FH with Block 5 boosters is even more powerful, and indicated the upper stage has incrementally increased its capability. This means it could almost certainly perform the Artemis 1 (EM-1) mission, for a cost of about 95 million. Can certainly launch the Orion capsule and service module and Interim Cryogenic Second Stage to LEO, weight-wise. And very likely be able to place that stack in the special high orbit needed for ICSS to perform the translunar injection. (Likelihood based on the 3rd FH launch, which boosted the upper stage to a significantly higher velocity before it had to do its burn.) OK, it's not human-rated, but the Block 5 boosters and upper stage are.
The bigger SLS missions? If Starship disregarded... Falcon Super Heavy, with 5 boosters instead of 3. Center booster with an exoskeleton to support the increased payload. A new hydrolox or methalox upper stage, using existing engine designs. Ta da! Able to perform all SLS missions. Many with some boosters recovered. Very minimal development risk.
6:55 blue origin didn't...
yeah.
If the stainless steel BFR works I wouldn't be surprised if Russia cranked out some very similar vehicles not long after. The USSR was a pioneer in steel alloys for aerospace & while the Russian Federation has never lived up to them in space I'm sure they still have some relevant resources and capabilities...
Ooh, i hope there will be a new Era of Space Race!!
Pretty sure the SLS fuel tanks and boosters are rebuildable. I worked the canceled Constellation program back in 2010/2011 on the J-2X engine. The hydrogen fuel also drives a lot of inconel hardware which should let the engines be rebuildable theoreticly if they are scooped out of the sea.
the name "Восточный" has a literal translation as "eastern". the word "Космопорт" has a literal translation as "spaceport".
US Government Rocket programs look so expansive vs the private American company's. If we spent the SLS development money on Falcon heavy launches we would be all set for a century of satellite launches!
As far as I understand, solid rocket fuel burns in a less unified manner than liquid rocket fuel, which got the first 2 minutes of a space shuttle launch to be very shaky, literally: up until the moment (2 minutes after lift-off) in which the 2 solid rocket boosters were jettisoned, the astronauts were subjected to violent shaking within the orbiter. My question is: if the Russian "Yenisei" will have 6 solid rocket boosters and, if I understand correctly, will depend more on these than on liquid rocket fuels compared with the SLS - won't it lead to vibrations that may be unsustainable for the astronauts (or cosmonauts...) in the capsule?
Yenisei is designed to be 100% liquid fueled. The boosters will be outfitted with RD-171MV engines which burn kerosene and liquid oxygen.
RIght so 6 totally wasted boosters per launch then.
The whole point of SLS was to be a shortcut, so SLS has already failed . . . . Unless the whole point of SLS was really to make work for Boeing, in which case it's worked exactly as intended.
Ironically, Obama scrapped the Constellation program just to create another similar program.
spaceX. becouse when 2 are fighting, the 3rd wins
Not in the case of v1 space race that NASA won. I think SpaceX could be the winners here, but I also think it could be NASA with the help of Space X and dragon 2. Good thing about Space X is they get shit done. With that attitude and NASA delegating launches to space X for the Lunar Orbital Gateway Platform modules, I feel like it could happen.
@@12supermatty SpaceX is a leader in the production of rockets.
Falcon 9 - the best of the heavy rockets in mass perfection. The only reusable heavy rocket.
Falcon Heavy is the only super heavy rocket right now.
Space X for the first time in the world successfully implemented a supermultimotor engine circuit. Their promising engine, the Raptor, is the most advanced engine in the world.
@@marxistilluminati9529 True, it is the only superheavy rocket that can carry like 64 tonnes right now. I think the sls has a max capacity of like 105 tonnes. Pretty much if NASA want to go back to the moon first they need the SLS to be ready, or else they will need to delegate more launches to space x. This is assuming NASA continues to get the funding for this project. But as there are other agencies paying in and contributing parts like ESA, hopefully it will keep things flowing. But Space X could be on the moon first if the BFR is successfull as well as the raptor engines. I think the bfr has a lot more testing to do to prove itself in regard to its non traditional lander design, it is doing things completely different to how it's been done before. For NASA however they are using tried and tested parts for the rocket, but obviously this Moon space station is new, but i guess is not to dissimilar to the lander/orbiter routine in the Apollo missions.
No. BFR can fail because of no safety system
@@12supermatty It is still worth replacing, SLS will be of various modifications. The heaviest is 145 tons in a low reference orbit.
By the way, many SLS / Orion and Yenisei / Federation is a repetition of the Apollo program. While BFR is a new step in rocket science
the first stage is not from a space shuttle it is basically the opposite
Good work Scott good work
JK
The Lego/Kerbal design of the SLS made a lot of sense when proposed, cost-wise. As you recapped, a sensible use of already paid for technology. Modest size increase of shuttle main tank, and just add a segment to the SRBs. Slightly develop the Delta upper stage, which already had a production line running. And even though the SSMEs were expensive, the development cost was already paid, and the first batch already paid for. So what the f#&k!ng hell went wrong!?! The NASA/Congressional/aerospace industry process of pork-barrel funding was disastrous, even for a government boondoggle. And so slow it was overtaken by real technological progress and private industry.
I've witnessed good and bad government spending since the 1960s, and this one horrifies me. I mean, the program to get to the Moon the first time famously cost 24 billion dollars. Just 7 billion dollars less than the current 17 billion SLS bill - and that was in 1970 dollars!!!
1 thing they have in common: Niether of them actually exist yet.
Correct me if I’m wrong. You are telling me Boeing and co are charging NASA 40 bil for SLS, which is recycled older technology? What the actual fuck???
Umm... that is wrong info on third point old tech. No space shuttle fuel tank was used for the sos main stage you are wrong on that one.
*sls
Think that states should now hand over the space race to companies as they are doing it cheaper and better. Also this video was great
SLS system? Soooo Space Launch System System?
Constellation program has a cooler name. Ironically, it was even so similar to what Obama replaced it with.
Looks like a falcon heavy with more boosters
OMG Kerbal is committing interstellar espionage
Diamond dealer from South Africa will save NASA.