if you told head of NASA in 2010 that all of this was possible they'll look at you like you're crazy now seeing the live launch of this pretty hard now to believe
Name one company that built the biggest flying object of all time sent it into space then made it come back down for a hot landing catching it with a crane like structure that was around in 2010?
@@anthonylundgaard6575 Even Falcon9 wasn't around in 2010 and people thought Musk was crazy talking about landing boosters on floating platforms in the ocean. Cost of launching payload to orbit has dropped by an order of magnitude since 2010 and if Starship is successful it will reduce it by another order of magnitude.
UA-cam does an absolutely terrible job at combating bots. Scam financial advisor bots…. Scam fake creator giveaway bots, political bots, even exploitive material bots. They are way out of control.
I tried to complain about bots in a reply to you but UA-cam auto deleted my comment. It was a perfect example of how UA-cam is doing a terrible job at combating bots….
I'm not sure if you'll read my comment, but I want to say that your channel was very realistic three years ago. For three years, I eagerly awaited Mechazilla's success and your discussion about it, but surprisingly, you never mentioned it at all.
there's a couple reasons i can think of but your gonna have to fact check me. Firstly, SLS is the only certified rocket to carry human life into deep space. Secondly, starship is highly experimental, and also doesn't operate like any other rocket in history logistically speaking. It doesn't need to carry everything in one launch.
You read too much musk-cheering and too little actual progress reports. SpaceX is so incredibly far from deliverng what they promised to have ready years ago? Makes governemental promises look positively rosy by comparison. Starship HLS is at this point 3 years late, more than twice the cost and doesnt even have execution of most contractual promises in realistic view. Even the base vessel - not the certified HLS - hasnt reached orbit yet, and is already scheduled to be replaced by a V2, which somehow supposedly will have double the carrying capacity - which will STILL not be enough to fulfill the original contracts. Its all interesting work they do, but experimental af. Far, far, faaaaar away from practicable, reliable, usable technology.
Or scrap the damn thing and develop a viable solution that makes sense and is concieved & designed by actual engineers. Starship is never going to bring astronauts to and from the Lunar surface. But Musk doesn't care because he gets billions from the government to screw around with instead of his own billions.
Refuelling. That is the near term goal. I think flight six must have engine relight in orbit, to fully test the starship. Then it will be used to test orbital refuelling. Catching the starship looks to be very achievable…it has very good control in landing configuration already.
@TrinitysTalons They weren't asking specifically about flight 6. Just where future flights will test starship catch or in orbit refueling first. I believe orbital refueling is higher on the list and so will be done first.
One thing I've noticed in common with a lot of the NASA programs is that there are very firm decommisioning plans and all replacements/new programs are getting way behind and overbudget, by factors of at least 2x. This is happening as NASA tries to shift to fixed cost rather than cost plus contracts. Given that incentive isn't working to get these programs on time and budget, and the companies involved are practically 'too big too fail', I wonder if it's time to include prison service as a result of failure to meet obligations?
@@BobsYourUncle429 Where are they going to get the money that's already gone? It's impossible, that's why I don't see it as a feasible 'stick'. There needs to be a change in behavior, and I think if the c-suite start going to gulags others in that class will start wising up to not making false promises.
If they may go to jail for failing to meet a project I don't think a single company will contract with them. Not even if they already have the product.
@@MrNote-lz7lh Typically I'd agree with that. However given the nature of these companies steadily trends closer to being like OKBs of the Soviet Union due in part to being integral to the US military posture, I don't know if fiscal punishment or market forces are enough.
@@12pentaborane Well. You just gotta let them fail and fund upstarts. Threatening jail time isn't the way to do this. Like I said even if they already have the asked for service or product at hand nobody would take the contract as the money wouldn't be worth the potential jail time in the case of some bureaucratic slip up.
I do not understand, maybe i'm missing something. Why are the SLS and Orion Capsule needed? Why not do everything with super heavy, starship, falcon and dragon?
(Amateaur understanding so anyone who sees a flaw please correct me) The goal is getting back as quickly as possible and then making it efficient and more cost-effective to return repeatedly. It's just more efficient to use Orion (if it wasn't paired with a very expensive launch vehicle) because Orion is currently the only TESTED deep space capable capsule, particularly in terms of what it was designed for. The dragon capsule could probably accomplish it, but the process would likely entail reengineering critical parts of the vehicle that could take years when Orion has already been tested without a crew. I believe a dragon concept called Red Dragon was sort of like this but was created for landing on mars before they ultimately decided to use starship instead. Using superheavy would just be plain expensive and I don't think they'd be able to reuse it after. For example the europa clipper launch saw all the fuel from both the main stages and boosters in order to put the payload on an escape trajectory. I believe Orion is about twice as much weight as europa clipper. Basically, every time they launched superheavy, they'd have to discard the stages to maximize fuel use, which is contrary to the entire point of reusable rockets. As for not using Starship, a starship outfitted for lunar landings wouldn't be deepspace or reentry capable and would be docked to a station for crews of the orion to take to the lunar surface. From my understanding the mission plan is that, Starship would transport any cargo required to the landing site ahead of time, aswell as construct the lunar gateway. Then the dedicated starship landing vehicle would be docked to the gateway and the crew would be transported to and from earth via the Orion capsule. If you want an easy to understand comparison look up a size and power comparison of Starship, Saturn V, SLS Falcon 9/Falcon Heavy. They are just vastly different launch vehicles built for different purposes.
@@mutilatedpopsicles thank you for your reply! As for dragon I had the doubt it was not meant to go that far into deep space! As for starship I meant using a 3rd one! Like having a starship there and waiting and using another one to get to that one!
@@stayfrosty1758 The biggest limiting factor for Dragon 2 would be station-keeping with the crew onboard. Orion capsule is rated for 21 days of free flight without any support, while Dragon 2 is rated for 10 days of free flight. Orion subsystems are also rated for deep space flights with an increased space radiation exposure, that could fail the electronics on board.
NASA needs to stop making rockets. Why are we building a rocket that costs $4 billion dollars, of our tax dollars, per launch. They need to stick to probes, rovers, and telescopes, and contract out the launch vehicles. I mean starship has a $100M per launch goal…. 1/40th of the cost of ONE Artemis launch, and this isn’t even accounting for the fact that NASA is terrible at keeping a timeline….
its all about the MONEY... not ACTUALLY completing the Mission.... they have done this BS for 50+ YEARS and people STILL buy into their BS... NASA is a Money Vampire.. thats all there is to it.... its all FAKE BS.
That's creepy. I just wrote the same thing almost word for word in my post above. Copy+paste: "Why is 2026 not realistic? A fully reusable 2 stage rocket isn't what NASA wants or needs, they want a single use lander with no heat shield or ability to come back home. They wanted a lunar lander, which got them a bunch of Apollo 2.0 designs, but they chose the flying skyscraper. There is only one more major milestone left for Artimus, that's the orbital refilling of a starship. SpaceX have already done an internal fuel transfer from one tank into another of starship, so what remains is allowing a starship to transfer fuel to and from an orbital fuel depot. That could be as "easy" as taking the grid fins off a booster and launching it all the way to orbit without a starship attached. The entire situation now is that SLS is redundant. Why waste $4bn per launch of a disposable rocket with a small capsule and crew to Lunar orbit so they can transfer to the waiting Starship,, when they could instead just put them into the Starship while it is still on Earth and not launch SLS or their lunar gateway nonsense. Putting landing legs on a Starship isn't difficult, and neither is using one with a heat shield so they can return all the way back to the very tower they launched from. This is the 21st century and NASA is being run by your grandpa's hero. They should focus on what they do best, making probes and rovers, and leave the launch vehicles up to the new kids on the block who are aiming to be 10,000% cheaper per KG to Earth orbit, the Moon, and Mars."
@@ReddwarfIV It's politics that specifies the design of the SLS and that's the problem. When the space shuttle program ended a whole lot of factories were going to close and that made a lot of senators unhappy. So they cooked up a new program that reused obsolete space shuttle parts and bloated budgets to keep Washington happy. NASA needs to get out of the rocket game and focus on the science.
@@ReddwarfIV That would be like contracting out a taxi to take you on a 1000 mile drive to almost your destination, whereby your neighbour in a Winnebago will follow you all the way there so you can hop inside for the last mile to the hotel. When you're done at the hotel you can get back into the Winnebago for one mile, then get back in your car for the other 999 miles while your neighbour again follows you in his empty, huge Winnebago. Oh, and by the way, the Winnebago can sleep 100 passengers. NASA's final frontier is itself.
SpaceX catching the booster on the first attempt has moved the Starship timeline forward a lot. No one, including SpaceX themselves expected it to work first time and this has probably put them a good 6 months further forward because not only did they catch the booster but it went perfectly meaning there is very little dialling in and improvement needed and they can move on to other parts of the test program. It also gives the engineers a fully intact booster to check over to determine if there are problems and areas that can be refined. HLS timelines are really too ambitious in my opinion, sure they could get something similar to Apollo cobbled together for 2026 but they really need HLS Starship to make it worth going with it's 200 tons payload. With 200 tons to the lunar surface they can really start to set up a base.
I really don't see how they are going to land humans safely on the moon using a Starship rocket. A lunar lander is a proven design that makes much more sense.
@@chrimony It will not be a Starship, it is going to be a purpose built lander just with an overall shape similar to Starship. It has no flaps, no heat shield, has landing legs, has engines specifically for moon landing. A very different vehicle. It is essentially just a very large lunar lander.
@@schrodingerscat1863 The lunar lander used on the Apollo missions was a squat, spider-looking vehicle with a low center of gravity and landing gear spread out over a large radius. The HLS is a giant, long tube which essentially has the same dimensions as Starship. They are completely different in design. One is appropriate for the mission. The other is designed for failure.
@@chrimony By the time Starship HLS landed on the moon it too would have a low centre of gravity as the fuel tanks will be half empty and all the engines on the bottom provide significant mass too. For a moon landing the legs on Starship HLS would also be wide set and quite spindly as gravity is so low. One of the reasons for the wide set legs on the original lander were down to compensating for human error in orienting the ship as it landed. That isn't a concern here, also there is detailed topographical data for landing sites meaning level even ground can be found. Technology has moved on so much since 1969 that many of the original challenges are just not valid now.
@@schrodingerscat1863 Even to this day, SpaceX blows up rockets on landing on Earth. Saying it's not a concern is just plain wrong. Designing in safety factors accounts for both human pilot errors and engineering errors. More than one lander in recent years has toppled over on the moon. I take your point about the fuel and engine mass, but note there are two tanks in Starship, one of which is in the middle of the ship. Also note that regardless of there being more mass at the bottom, a long tube proves a lever to tip over. It's inherently more unstable. As for the surface of the moon and finding an "even" spot, you can do your best to optimize the landing spot, but it's still the moon. There are going to be variations, including rocks, lying around.
Maybe juuuuust maybe, next Starship to go around the globe and have it land right where the last “Hot staging ring #5” was dropped, to see how it handles mimicking a landing, and then recover whatever is left. 🤷🏻♂️
@@jameswilson5165 ….Exactly! I agree with you. I think NSF talked a bit about it and the info was that Elon had no interest for that @ the moment if I remember correctly. Even a NSF member was asking why wasn’t this being done. And I absolutely agree, but if I’m not mistaken SpaceX hasn’t definitely developed or designed a proper landing system for Starship. So who knows why really. However, although Blue Origin hasn’t send its big booster for anything , I do like their landing legs, that might give an idea for Starship to have a similar look. The more landing tests are done, the more data they’ll have and have a bigger chance landing on both Moon and Mars.
@@MaxKito2 The reason for component catching with the tower is to maximally reduce cost per kg to LEO, which is the bottleneck limiting human access to the solar system. Every kg of dry mass savings brings exponential dividends and integration at the base tower allows turnaround times measured in minutes instead of days. All the same, there can be infinite variations of Starships and some will not require reaching orbit at all. Some may not even require the Superheavy booster. Here I'm thinking primarily of the DOD's interest in delivering materiel, troops and provisions to any point on the Earth's surface within 60 minutes, no matter how remote. Obviously, the requirement for legs to land without existing infrastructure means sacrificing some payload capacity for the privilege.
Starship doesn’t even have public interior designs yet. The starship versions with interior equipment would need to be tested too, assuming SpaceX has a successful starship landing in 2025. End of 2026 is too idealistic.
I'm more confident that SpaceX will have the HLS make a successful uncrewed Moon landing and return before the end of 2026 than I am that the SLS will be ready for the Artemis 2 mission (yes, 2, not 3) before then.
well technically the only progress within the artemis mission so far is that space x are closer to producing the lunar lander, and there has been almost 0 progress from nasa since the artemis 1 mission and its all been the contractors that have made progress
Its all just fanboy-ism. "Orange rocket bad, shiny rocket good". Artemis has its issues for sure, but no matter how you swing it, SLS as a system is far more complete than Starship could even hope to be within the next year or so. Its expensive, a political mess, and boring, but the technology at least exists - more than you can say about Starship. Artemis is currently waiting on SpaceX. Until theres a lander, the entire program is dead in the water.
If they wait for Boing, they will be waiting a long time indeed...Why can't people just ride on Starship all the way and back. Boing could not even bring people back from the ISS
Just give the private sector the go ahead. You will see how quickly they can get moving and yes by the books. Yes we know how delays happen, its part of the process, but that process is somewhat our of date. Lets fly
@@sIXXIsDesigns Coming from someone who thinks Elon Musk "isn't smart," could you share with us all just what exactly is "all fake anyways"? We're waiting...
Probably NASA will have its own module attached to a larger commercial space station. This station itself nay be continuously inhabited and NASA will use their own module as often as their mission requires.
Melroy wants to go back to having astronauts in space for 1 month at a time. While, the chinese and Russians plan on have a permanent manned presence in space until the sun scorches the Earth, destroying all life.
The ISS is not all the same age. It was built up over many years out of several different modules. Why are all of these modules suddenly all going bad at once? It's enormously expensive to get stuff in space. Why not ONLY throw away that which is actually bad, and replace and upgrade ONLY that portion? You don't get a new car when it gets a flat...
So it's really a race between SpaceX and China then? Everyone else sees to be being left in their wakes, certainly as far as inspiration planned developments are concerned.
Space X's Starship progress is accelerating. I'm not sure what goes into the moon landing vehicle but as far as the base vehicle goes I think SpaceX will be ready. I wouldn't be surprised if SpaceX sends vehicles to the moon just to test things, because they can. I find it ironic that SpaceX needs to send an empty vehicle to the moon before a manned one is sent. SpaceX knows more about everything space related than anyone else. But sending an empty vehicle to the moon fits in with how SpaceX tests things.
I think it's very reasonable to think that SpaceX will complete their first moon landing within when you're not too in fact two seems like a long time for SpaceX to do anything.
The Munich New Space Conference started today and during the first two panel discussions nearly everyone mentioned Elon Musk (rather than SpaceX, oddly).
Flight 5, upper stage "splashes down" into the Indian Ocean. What does that mean exactly? Splashed down, sunk, and is now resting comfortably on the bottom of the ocean? Splashed down and somehow remained floating? And if floating, how was something this heavy ever fished out of the ocean and placed on a ship? And what was the ship doing out in the middle of the Indian Ocean? Did Space X never really intend to attempt a launch pad capture on Flight 5, so a ship was standing by the whole time? Why?
Unpopular opinion: I think NASA (and Boeing/other Gov. Contractors) should continue trying to build rockets. Of all the things to spend a little tax money on, rocket engines and related technologies that bring us closer to the stars are among the least objectionable things imop. Obviously more taxes=bad but NASA’s budget really isn’t very large in comparison to other expenditures. At the very least, it mostly lines the pockets of engineers and scientists rather than bureaucrats.
What you are advocating is like a chain smoker trying to become a marathon runner without quitting smoking. Sure, it's possible but it will take far more effort than if the underlying inhibitor is altered, the way NASA is allowed to proceed with budgeting and mission structures.
Yeah your core desire is good, it just is so inefficient. Better for private launchers to hire those engineers and scientists and keep the costs much lower. The issue of having IP owned by private sector instead of public - I don't know enough to comment on that issue or possible solutions. Maybe they can buy some IP for use in the military... I dunno.
Do a video on if Spacex sends volunteers on there ships to start mars colonization. With the technology we have now and the risk. What would the feasibility to build and losses be. Colonization of America had high losses to expand colonization. So do a video on a what if scenario with the technology we have now.
Doesn't the 'deployment to the moon' require about a dozen other vehicles to be launched to carry up enough fuel? (not to mention the logistics of the fuel transfer itself being developed?)... Does the 'build / launch' rate of the vehicles really meet this fleet size requirement in that time frame? ...
China's research is so ambitious. I get the feeling they may win many of the future "races" in areas of fundamental cosmology/physics to lunar and Martian human expansion. Interesting times indeed.
delay after delay after delay till 2050 or later , and one day people said we landing on the moon 6 time continuously in 60's , but 100 years later we still can't go back even one
Flights 4 and 5 proved Starship's ability to de-orbit and navigate to a landing zone. I'd love for them to make a lunar landing the goal for the re-filling demo mission. Even getting into lunar orbit w/a hard landing would be a great use of a starship that might otherwise be abandoned to the ocean.
I don't think Starship has de-orbited, they've all been on sub-orbital trajectories. I don't think there's ever been a second re-light of Raptor engines.
@@12pentaborane Technically correct though Flights 4 and 5 achieved near-orbital speeds. It's my understanding that adding another 15-20 seconds to the Starship's first burn would put it in LEO. The point being the orbit / de-orbit potential has been demonstrated. I believe there have been 2nd re-lights on the test stand... but I don't think that'll be a big obstacle.
@@jacquedegatineau9037 I'm pointing out that we haven't seen it do an orbit or get orbital. Admittedly it is closer to orbit than Alan Shepard's flight but we haven't seen a suite of in-space maneuvers that gives me confidence that it could de-orbit in a controlled manner, eg stay in orbit for 2 days then orient itself in whatever direction necessary to de-orbit, then orient for re-entry. I don't know what Starships they are using for IFT 6 and 7 but I'm hoping they'll put a beefy RCS system on, I think the Raptors will need it. Test stands have gravity, space doesn't.
government is so inefficient it's crazy! ive worked both for govt and private space/engineering companies. all serious, long-term space travel and work will go thru private companies - and it's not even close.
NASA's greatest problem will be acting as a customer. For years they've been used to being the only game in town and always getting their own way, from the color of the paint to the size of the windows.
Flight 6 will prove Space X Booster catch was not a lucky fluke. Starship probably gets another ocean landing. Starship IFT-6 was ready to launch timewise, during the IFT-5 FAA licensing issue. Wonder if Space X has had time to incorporate any IFT-5 booster and starship improvements into IFT-6 before the next flight?.
Use two sets of legs, one for reasonable landing, and the other hydraulic level control or one set of legs with photo imaging for auto leveling at landing problem solve anything else you need to know
Thank you for mentioning China, but skimming on Russia seems unfair. In my opinion Russia has the best potential for the best space station (ROS) along with it's interplanetary exploration mission program called Zeus.
What parts from your 2000 Honda fit your 2020 Honda, besides nothing. As great as the ISS has been for all these years there's nothing there that will work on the new ones being built now.
@@metriczeppelin Not talking the station as per se But talking more about some of the equipment on it and he kind of supplies stuff like that instead of letting it just go in and burn up, offload it to other space station I’m sure not only counting older equipment which yeah we wouldn’t want but some of the new equipment could be useful
Why was the Apollo program able to send astronauts repeatedly to the moon, but we have to wait year after year after year? Why don’t they just dig out the old launch/delivery/landing plans and make the necessary improvements and new and improved safety measures they have today? We have advanced technologically, right? What, the dog ate their homework? Did we even go to the moon before?
Starship HLS doesn't make any sense to me. How much fuel does it need for DOI, lunar landing and takeoff? How many Raptors does it need ? My uneducated gut feel is that it doesn't need 6 Raptors and full tanks. It makes no sense to land unnecessary engines and empty tankage for a vehicle that doesn't leave lunar orbit.
thats IF we can even make it there.... there is no way it takes +50 YEARS to make ANOTHER Manned Mission to the Moon.. NO WAY... these people have been scamming us for DECADES!
So NASA wants to rent out a hotel room and not run a B&B in space. Just provide the space station and rent it out. Next step will be to close the space hotel station and just provide Space RV parking orbit. You want to come here, bring your own Airstream.
There are a bunch of people here on earth, trying to cook rocks on toukmacs and laser beams, while the noble fuel, that will burn easily is on the moon, He3 (along with other rare earths). SpaceX will mine the moon cost effectively and every one will be driving electric car's.
No matter how fast starship develops, Artemis will not happen with their current plans😂. They can simplify the program dramatically and maybe even gain things in the process.
Now that the original $3 billion to put someone on the moon this year is all gone without even step one being accomplished and exactly zero promises fulfilled, I'm sure they can finance more failures for years to come. When they return to 'failure is NOT an option' instead of the current design parameter of 'just make it cool and trendy', progress can resume.
if the spaceX rocket reached the moon all ready and prepared to land. But SLS still have not even taken off carrying the crew. whose fault will that be?
The whole things a joke now, we should have had a manned moon base by 2010. At the rate we are moving it will be 2050 by the time we land on Mars and to be honest we probably should have had a manned Mars base by 2030 at the latest and an actual part civilian settlement there by around 2050.
Sign up for the weekly Space Race newsletter here: www.thespacerace.news/subscribe
If 1969 NASA could see 2024 NASA they would be utterly appalled.
There is a big budget difference though.
@@celdur4635 We have more technology and manufacturing of it is vastly cheaper. No real excuse apart from we have gotten lazy.
@@BlackThunderRC The budget difference is massive. There is also lack of political will and what little budget they have is lost in cost+programs.
@@celdur4635 Look at the people working at NASA then compared to now.
Yes the tiny budget would really shock them. NASA has been starved of funding for years.
Fully confident that the government will be behind schedule and over budget.🤔
Fully confident that SpaceX won't land on the moon as planned in 2026
@@javierderivero9299 Sure. They will probably launch a starship to mars before HLS is complete.
@@BLD426
😞
@@sakshamShukla_that would be even more interesting
@@javierderivero9299 Regardless of SpaceX readiness 2026 is not realistic.
Confucious say, man who catch rocket with chopstick do anything.
Confusius. 😉
@@jantjarks7946*Kong Qiu
@@jantjarks7946
With sufficient thrust pigs can fly
Wasn’t that Miyagi san?
Confucius also say, man who catch rocket with chopsticks want to do it again two hours later.
Calling ISS a laboratory in the sky is spot on. The old Skylab had the perfect name I think.
if you told head of NASA in 2010 that all of this was possible they'll look at you like you're crazy now seeing the live launch of this pretty hard now to believe
LOL nonsense.
Name one company that built the biggest flying object of all time sent it into space then made it come back down for a hot landing catching it with a crane like structure that was around in 2010?
@@anthonylundgaard6575 Even Falcon9 wasn't around in 2010 and people thought Musk was crazy talking about landing boosters on floating platforms in the ocean. Cost of launching payload to orbit has dropped by an order of magnitude since 2010 and if Starship is successful it will reduce it by another order of magnitude.
🤣🤣 Previous profits does not warranty future incomes
Bro why are there so many bots💀💀
UA-cam does an absolutely terrible job at combating bots. Scam financial advisor bots…. Scam fake creator giveaway bots, political bots, even exploitive material bots. They are way out of control.
I tried to complain about bots in a reply to you but UA-cam auto deleted my comment. It was a perfect example of how UA-cam is doing a terrible job at combating bots….
You are probably one
@@-TheMaskedMan- bruh
@@-TheMaskedMan-"beep boop" - this guy probably
I'm not sure if you'll read my comment, but I want to say that your channel was very realistic three years ago. For three years, I eagerly awaited Mechazilla's success and your discussion about it, but surprisingly, you never mentioned it at all.
Did you not watch his video on the catch?
Why do we need Artemis when Super Heavy is much more powerful?
It also looks as if SpaceX will be ready way before NASA.
Government make work jobs and contract kick backs to Biden and his corrupt pals.
there's a couple reasons i can think of but your gonna have to fact check me. Firstly, SLS is the only certified rocket to carry human life into deep space. Secondly, starship is highly experimental, and also doesn't operate like any other rocket in history logistically speaking. It doesn't need to carry everything in one launch.
You read too much musk-cheering and too little actual progress reports.
SpaceX is so incredibly far from deliverng what they promised to have ready years ago?
Makes governemental promises look positively rosy by comparison.
Starship HLS is at this point 3 years late, more than twice the cost and doesnt even have execution of most contractual promises in realistic view.
Even the base vessel - not the certified HLS - hasnt reached orbit yet, and is already scheduled to be replaced by a V2, which somehow supposedly will have double the carrying capacity - which will STILL not be enough to fulfill the original contracts.
Its all interesting work they do, but experimental af.
Far, far, faaaaar away from practicable, reliable, usable technology.
I wonder what will come first next for starship. A landing catch of the Starship instead of a splash landing. Or a in space refueling test?
Or scrap the damn thing and develop a viable solution that makes sense and is concieved & designed by actual engineers. Starship is never going to bring astronauts to and from the Lunar surface. But Musk doesn't care because he gets billions from the government to screw around with instead of his own billions.
for this next starship flight on november 11th, its going to have the same flight plan and objectives as test 5.
Refuelling. That is the near term goal. I think flight six must have engine relight in orbit, to fully test the starship. Then it will be used to test orbital refuelling. Catching the starship looks to be very achievable…it has very good control in landing configuration already.
@TrinitysTalons They weren't asking specifically about flight 6. Just where future flights will test starship catch or in orbit refueling first. I believe orbital refueling is higher on the list and so will be done first.
But in that case they need to launch 2 Starships at once from the 2 Launchpads.
I remember when it was 2000, I read people will land on Mars in 2020-25
When I was a youngster we were meant to be living on the moon by 2000, not just visiting.
A crewed landing on Mars is _always_ 20 years in the future. And that applies whether you're talking about the 1960s or the present day.
One thing I've noticed in common with a lot of the NASA programs is that there are very firm decommisioning plans and all replacements/new programs are getting way behind and overbudget, by factors of at least 2x. This is happening as NASA tries to shift to fixed cost rather than cost plus contracts. Given that incentive isn't working to get these programs on time and budget, and the companies involved are practically 'too big too fail', I wonder if it's time to include prison service as a result of failure to meet obligations?
Failure to meet obligations should also mean full refund at current year adjusted dollars.
@@BobsYourUncle429 Where are they going to get the money that's already gone? It's impossible, that's why I don't see it as a feasible 'stick'. There needs to be a change in behavior, and I think if the c-suite start going to gulags others in that class will start wising up to not making false promises.
If they may go to jail for failing to meet a project I don't think a single company will contract with them. Not even if they already have the product.
@@MrNote-lz7lh Typically I'd agree with that. However given the nature of these companies steadily trends closer to being like OKBs of the Soviet Union due in part to being integral to the US military posture, I don't know if fiscal punishment or market forces are enough.
@@12pentaborane
Well. You just gotta let them fail and fund upstarts. Threatening jail time isn't the way to do this. Like I said even if they already have the asked for service or product at hand nobody would take the contract as the money wouldn't be worth the potential jail time in the case of some bureaucratic slip up.
I do not understand, maybe i'm missing something. Why are the SLS and Orion Capsule needed? Why not do everything with super heavy, starship, falcon and dragon?
(Amateaur understanding so anyone who sees a flaw please correct me)
The goal is getting back as quickly as possible and then making it efficient and more cost-effective to return repeatedly. It's just more efficient to use Orion (if it wasn't paired with a very expensive launch vehicle) because Orion is currently the only TESTED deep space capable capsule, particularly in terms of what it was designed for. The dragon capsule could probably accomplish it, but the process would likely entail reengineering critical parts of the vehicle that could take years when Orion has already been tested without a crew.
I believe a dragon concept called Red Dragon was sort of like this but was created for landing on mars before they ultimately decided to use starship instead.
Using superheavy would just be plain expensive and I don't think they'd be able to reuse it after.
For example the europa clipper launch saw all the fuel from both the main stages and boosters in order to put the payload on an escape trajectory. I believe Orion is about twice as much weight as europa clipper. Basically, every time they launched superheavy, they'd have to discard the stages to maximize fuel use, which is contrary to the entire point of reusable rockets.
As for not using Starship, a starship outfitted for lunar landings wouldn't be deepspace or reentry capable and would be docked to a station for crews of the orion to take to the lunar surface.
From my understanding the mission plan is that, Starship would transport any cargo required to the landing site ahead of time, aswell as construct the lunar gateway. Then the dedicated starship landing vehicle would be docked to the gateway and the crew would be transported to and from earth via the Orion capsule.
If you want an easy to understand comparison look up a size and power comparison of Starship, Saturn V, SLS Falcon 9/Falcon Heavy. They are just vastly different launch vehicles built for different purposes.
@@mutilatedpopsicles thank you for your reply! As for dragon I had the doubt it was not meant to go that far into deep space! As for starship I meant using a 3rd one! Like having a starship there and waiting and using another one to get to that one!
@@stayfrosty1758 The biggest limiting factor for Dragon 2 would be station-keeping with the crew onboard. Orion capsule is rated for 21 days of free flight without any support, while Dragon 2 is rated for 10 days of free flight. Orion subsystems are also rated for deep space flights with an increased space radiation exposure, that could fail the electronics on board.
@@mutilatedpopsicles I have not read anything that long since graduate school...don't intend to start now.
@@gmarie701 Good thing it wasn't directed towards you. I can tell why you failed
NASA needs to stop making rockets. Why are we building a rocket that costs $4 billion dollars, of our tax dollars, per launch. They need to stick to probes, rovers, and telescopes, and contract out the launch vehicles. I mean starship has a $100M per launch goal…. 1/40th of the cost of ONE Artemis launch, and this isn’t even accounting for the fact that NASA is terrible at keeping a timeline….
SLS is contracted out. It's just that the contract specifies the design.
its all about the MONEY... not ACTUALLY completing the Mission.... they have done this BS for 50+ YEARS and people STILL buy into their BS... NASA is a Money Vampire.. thats all there is to it.... its all FAKE BS.
That's creepy. I just wrote the same thing almost word for word in my post above. Copy+paste:
"Why is 2026 not realistic?
A fully reusable 2 stage rocket isn't what NASA wants or needs, they want a single use lander with no heat shield or ability to come back home. They wanted a lunar lander, which got them a bunch of Apollo 2.0 designs, but they chose the flying skyscraper.
There is only one more major milestone left for Artimus, that's the orbital refilling of a starship. SpaceX have already done an internal fuel transfer from one tank into another of starship, so what remains is allowing a starship to transfer fuel to and from an orbital fuel depot. That could be as "easy" as taking the grid fins off a booster and launching it all the way to orbit without a starship attached.
The entire situation now is that SLS is redundant. Why waste $4bn per launch of a disposable rocket with a small capsule and crew to Lunar orbit so they can transfer to the waiting Starship,, when they could instead just put them into the Starship while it is still on Earth and not launch SLS or their lunar gateway nonsense. Putting landing legs on a Starship isn't difficult, and neither is using one with a heat shield so they can return all the way back to the very tower they launched from.
This is the 21st century and NASA is being run by your grandpa's hero. They should focus on what they do best, making probes and rovers, and leave the launch vehicles up to the new kids on the block who are aiming to be 10,000% cheaper per KG to Earth orbit, the Moon, and Mars."
@@ReddwarfIV It's politics that specifies the design of the SLS and that's the problem. When the space shuttle program ended a whole lot of factories were going to close and that made a lot of senators unhappy. So they cooked up a new program that reused obsolete space shuttle parts and bloated budgets to keep Washington happy. NASA needs to get out of the rocket game and focus on the science.
@@ReddwarfIV That would be like contracting out a taxi to take you on a 1000 mile drive to almost your destination, whereby your neighbour in a Winnebago will follow you all the way there so you can hop inside for the last mile to the hotel. When you're done at the hotel you can get back into the Winnebago for one mile, then get back in your car for the other 999 miles while your neighbour again follows you in his empty, huge Winnebago.
Oh, and by the way, the Winnebago can sleep 100 passengers.
NASA's final frontier is itself.
Can't put a finger on why, but this is one of your better videos as of late. Felt relaxed and well paced, maybe
Thanks!
SpaceX catching the booster on the first attempt has moved the Starship timeline forward a lot. No one, including SpaceX themselves expected it to work first time and this has probably put them a good 6 months further forward because not only did they catch the booster but it went perfectly meaning there is very little dialling in and improvement needed and they can move on to other parts of the test program. It also gives the engineers a fully intact booster to check over to determine if there are problems and areas that can be refined.
HLS timelines are really too ambitious in my opinion, sure they could get something similar to Apollo cobbled together for 2026 but they really need HLS Starship to make it worth going with it's 200 tons payload. With 200 tons to the lunar surface they can really start to set up a base.
I really don't see how they are going to land humans safely on the moon using a Starship rocket. A lunar lander is a proven design that makes much more sense.
@@chrimony It will not be a Starship, it is going to be a purpose built lander just with an overall shape similar to Starship. It has no flaps, no heat shield, has landing legs, has engines specifically for moon landing. A very different vehicle. It is essentially just a very large lunar lander.
@@schrodingerscat1863 The lunar lander used on the Apollo missions was a squat, spider-looking vehicle with a low center of gravity and landing gear spread out over a large radius. The HLS is a giant, long tube which essentially has the same dimensions as Starship. They are completely different in design. One is appropriate for the mission. The other is designed for failure.
@@chrimony By the time Starship HLS landed on the moon it too would have a low centre of gravity as the fuel tanks will be half empty and all the engines on the bottom provide significant mass too. For a moon landing the legs on Starship HLS would also be wide set and quite spindly as gravity is so low. One of the reasons for the wide set legs on the original lander were down to compensating for human error in orienting the ship as it landed. That isn't a concern here, also there is detailed topographical data for landing sites meaning level even ground can be found. Technology has moved on so much since 1969 that many of the original challenges are just not valid now.
@@schrodingerscat1863 Even to this day, SpaceX blows up rockets on landing on Earth. Saying it's not a concern is just plain wrong. Designing in safety factors accounts for both human pilot errors and engineering errors. More than one lander in recent years has toppled over on the moon.
I take your point about the fuel and engine mass, but note there are two tanks in Starship, one of which is in the middle of the ship. Also note that regardless of there being more mass at the bottom, a long tube proves a lever to tip over. It's inherently more unstable.
As for the surface of the moon and finding an "even" spot, you can do your best to optimize the landing spot, but it's still the moon. There are going to be variations, including rocks, lying around.
Maybe juuuuust maybe, next Starship to go around the globe and have it land right where the last “Hot staging ring #5” was dropped, to see how it handles mimicking a landing, and then recover whatever is left. 🤷🏻♂️
How about they Stop with the splash and put real Legs on Starship and land it at Starbase?
@@jameswilson5165 ….Exactly! I agree with you. I think NSF talked a bit about it and the info was that Elon had no interest for that @ the moment if I remember correctly. Even a NSF member was asking why wasn’t this being done.
And I absolutely agree, but if I’m not mistaken SpaceX hasn’t definitely developed or designed a proper landing system for Starship. So who knows why really. However, although Blue Origin hasn’t send its big booster for anything , I do like their landing legs, that might give an idea for Starship to have a similar look.
The more landing tests are done, the more data they’ll have and have a bigger chance landing on both Moon and Mars.
@@MaxKito2 The reason for component catching with the tower is to maximally reduce cost per kg to LEO, which is the bottleneck limiting human access to the solar system. Every kg of dry mass savings brings exponential dividends and integration at the base tower allows turnaround times measured in minutes instead of days.
All the same, there can be infinite variations of Starships and some will not require reaching orbit at all. Some may not even require the Superheavy booster. Here I'm thinking primarily of the DOD's interest in delivering materiel, troops and provisions to any point on the Earth's surface within 60 minutes, no matter how remote. Obviously, the requirement for legs to land without existing infrastructure means sacrificing some payload capacity for the privilege.
@@DrMackSplackem ….Hi thanks for your feedback. 👍🏻
@@DrMackSplackemUnless Elon has antigravity plates being made by his Starbase Ompa Lumpas, he's going to need legs for HLS.
Starship doesn’t even have public interior designs yet. The starship versions with interior equipment would need to be tested too, assuming SpaceX has a successful starship landing in 2025. End of 2026 is too idealistic.
I'm more confident that SpaceX will have the HLS make a successful uncrewed Moon landing and return before the end of 2026 than I am that the SLS will be ready for the Artemis 2 mission (yes, 2, not 3) before then.
If you think NASA wastes money, you should take a look at some of the DoD programs wasting many times the entire NASA budget!
But the over two trillion dollar HHS budget is just fine with you American military hating, leftist moochers though, right?
Isnt an atmospheric landing much more difficult i think the issue is fueling transfer. And launch cadence.
Great video. I agree with the comment about relaxed
Keep it up! Your work is amazing!
Embroiled, not enthralled. NASA in embroiled in the Artemis program work. Enthralled means having excitedly fixed attention.
Findin all air moecules in the room corner seems ambicious but not impossible. 😄😄
I like how when something goes wrong the title is "NASA has a problem" but when the Artemis program is making progress its all about SpaceX.
Well, it’s kind of true. SpaceX is the one that made the progress NASA is the one that’s lacking with Gateway
True. If they didnt use such an outdated rocket they wouldn’t be having so many delays
Minus SpaceX, I'm not sure Artemis is making any progress.
well technically the only progress within the artemis mission so far is that space x are closer to producing the lunar lander, and there has been almost 0 progress from nasa since the artemis 1 mission and its all been the contractors that have made progress
Its all just fanboy-ism. "Orange rocket bad, shiny rocket good". Artemis has its issues for sure, but no matter how you swing it, SLS as a system is far more complete than Starship could even hope to be within the next year or so. Its expensive, a political mess, and boring, but the technology at least exists - more than you can say about Starship.
Artemis is currently waiting on SpaceX. Until theres a lander, the entire program is dead in the water.
If they wait for Boing, they will be waiting a long time indeed...Why can't people just ride on Starship all the way and back. Boing could not even bring people back from the ISS
Just give the private sector the go ahead. You will see how quickly they can get moving and yes by the books. Yes we know how delays happen, its part of the process, but that process is somewhat our of date. Lets fly
Great episode!
That would be rad if 2026' is the year we go back to the moon. I feel privileged to be alive during this time. GO NASA!
go back? as if anyone was ever there, lol.
Is this the same guy who does The Tesla Space? I like your video style.
If you would post your Sources, that would be really nice 😀
its all fake anyways... what good with that do?
@@sIXXIsDesigns Coming from someone who thinks Elon Musk "isn't smart," could you share with us all just what exactly is "all fake anyways"? We're waiting...
@@metriczeppelindefinitely a space denier
@@metriczeppelinand a flerf
@@Icemode.. copy that 👌
SLS is NOT fully deep-space tested. Artemis did not do a full testing of SLS's life-suppory system.
NASA just should give SpaceX $20B and tell them to land someone on the Moon by the end of the decade. Forget SLS/Orion.
When I saw thumb nail first, i thought that they will send starship to the moon on 6th flight 😂
HAHA! Even Elon isn't that optimistic
Probably NASA will have its own module attached to a larger commercial space station. This station itself nay be continuously inhabited and NASA will use their own module as often as their mission requires.
I don't think the TOL will be ready that soon.😂
TOL - Topple Over Lander 🤔
Awesome update 👍
Melroy wants to go back to having astronauts in space for 1 month at a time. While, the chinese and Russians plan on have a permanent manned presence in space until the sun scorches the Earth, destroying all life.
Outstanding ❤
Actually, Artemis 2 is NOT going into lunar orbit. It is going to do a figure-8 flyby identical to that done by Apollo 13.
SpaceX could probably do it all
Collaborative Frontier!
What about setting up an O'Neill Cylinder?
The ISS is not all the same age. It was built up over many years out of several different modules. Why are all of these modules suddenly all going bad at once? It's enormously expensive to get stuff in space. Why not ONLY throw away that which is actually bad, and replace and upgrade ONLY that portion? You don't get a new car when it gets a flat...
You will when you have an electric car.
So it's really a race between SpaceX and China then? Everyone else sees to be being left in their wakes, certainly as far as inspiration planned developments are concerned.
Is launching private space company hard ??
Yeah, if they can build a Godzilla Tower to catch the ship on the moon, that would be the best.
Why is nasa still wasting tax money when Elon surpassed them already
"As we are having a hard time justifying our excuse..."
Space X's Starship progress is accelerating. I'm not sure what goes into the moon landing vehicle but as far as the base vehicle goes I think SpaceX will be ready. I wouldn't be surprised if SpaceX sends vehicles to the moon just to test things, because they can.
I find it ironic that SpaceX needs to send an empty vehicle to the moon before a manned one is sent. SpaceX knows more about everything space related than anyone else. But sending an empty vehicle to the moon fits in with how SpaceX tests things.
6:19 they're making Velociraptors in space!?!?! Wow Chuck Tingle's book's about to become reality XD
SLS and Artemis are unnecessary if SpaceX Starship lands on the moon; they become redundant and antiquated.
I think it's very reasonable to think that SpaceX will complete their first moon landing within when you're not too in fact two seems like a long time for SpaceX to do anything.
The Munich New Space Conference started today and during the first two panel discussions nearly everyone mentioned Elon Musk (rather than SpaceX, oddly).
That might be because Musk is actually paying for Starship out of his own pocket, AND he helps with the designing and fixing.
Musk IS SpaceX.
The Moon will be our stepping stone for conquering Mars.
Flight 5, upper stage "splashes down" into the Indian Ocean. What does that mean exactly? Splashed down, sunk, and is now resting comfortably on the bottom of the ocean? Splashed down and somehow remained floating? And if floating, how was something this heavy ever fished out of the ocean and placed on a ship? And what was the ship doing out in the middle of the Indian Ocean? Did Space X never really intend to attempt a launch pad capture on Flight 5, so a ship was standing by the whole time? Why?
We should be there already. Funding is the only reason it appears "ambitious"
Unpopular opinion: I think NASA (and Boeing/other Gov. Contractors) should continue trying to build rockets. Of all the things to spend a little tax money on, rocket engines and related technologies that bring us closer to the stars are among the least objectionable things imop. Obviously more taxes=bad but NASA’s budget really isn’t very large in comparison to other expenditures. At the very least, it mostly lines the pockets of engineers and scientists rather than bureaucrats.
What you are advocating is like a chain smoker trying to become a marathon runner without quitting smoking. Sure, it's possible but it will take far more effort than if the underlying inhibitor is altered, the way NASA is allowed to proceed with budgeting and mission structures.
Yeah your core desire is good, it just is so inefficient. Better for private launchers to hire those engineers and scientists and keep the costs much lower. The issue of having IP owned by private sector instead of public - I don't know enough to comment on that issue or possible solutions. Maybe they can buy some IP for use in the military... I dunno.
Do a video on if Spacex sends volunteers on there ships to start mars colonization. With the technology we have now and the risk. What would the feasibility to build and losses be. Colonization of America had high losses to expand colonization. So do a video on a what if scenario with the technology we have now.
Doesn't the 'deployment to the moon' require about a dozen other vehicles to be launched to carry up enough fuel? (not to mention the logistics of the fuel transfer itself being developed?)... Does the 'build / launch' rate of the vehicles really meet this fleet size requirement in that time frame? ...
China's research is so ambitious. I get the feeling they may win many of the future "races" in areas of fundamental cosmology/physics to lunar and Martian human expansion. Interesting times indeed.
ML2 is NOT required for Artemis 2, that will be needed for Artemis 4 and beyond
NASA has been successful in LEO
Melroy has a typical Democrat lead administration look at things “let’s settle”.
I prefer Elon Musk approach. Let’s go and never look back.
He speaks about ISS as if the Chinese space station didn't exist, calling it "the human presence in space."
interesting choice to show saturn closer to the sun than jupiter.
Saturnist propaganda
don't doubt Space X being ready.... if they aren't held back by feds
At 11:30 they got the order of the planets wrong.
delay after delay after delay till 2050 or later , and one day people said we landing on the moon 6 time continuously in 60's , but 100 years later we still can't go back even one
because in 1969 it was a hollywood moon.
Flights 4 and 5 proved Starship's ability to de-orbit and navigate to a landing zone. I'd love for them to make a lunar landing the goal for the re-filling demo mission. Even getting into lunar orbit w/a hard landing would be a great use of a starship that might otherwise be abandoned to the ocean.
I don't think Starship has de-orbited, they've all been on sub-orbital trajectories. I don't think there's ever been a second re-light of Raptor engines.
@@12pentaborane Technically correct though Flights 4 and 5 achieved near-orbital speeds. It's my understanding that adding another 15-20 seconds to the Starship's first burn would put it in LEO. The point being the orbit / de-orbit potential has been demonstrated. I believe there have been 2nd re-lights on the test stand... but I don't think that'll be a big obstacle.
@@jacquedegatineau9037 I'm pointing out that we haven't seen it do an orbit or get orbital. Admittedly it is closer to orbit than Alan Shepard's flight but we haven't seen a suite of in-space maneuvers that gives me confidence that it could de-orbit in a controlled manner, eg stay in orbit for 2 days then orient itself in whatever direction necessary to de-orbit, then orient for re-entry. I don't know what Starships they are using for IFT 6 and 7 but I'm hoping they'll put a beefy RCS system on, I think the Raptors will need it. Test stands have gravity, space doesn't.
government is so inefficient it's crazy!
ive worked both for govt and private space/engineering companies.
all serious, long-term space travel and work will go thru private companies - and it's not even close.
"Crewed" sounds like "crude" to me, every time.
SpaceX needs tô sort two things. Landing legs. Dust and dirt plume at takeoff
NASA's greatest problem will be acting as a customer.
For years they've been used to being the only game in town and always getting their own way, from the color of the paint to the size of the windows.
Flight 6 will prove Space X Booster catch was not a lucky fluke. Starship probably gets another ocean landing.
Starship IFT-6 was ready to launch timewise, during the IFT-5 FAA licensing issue. Wonder if Space X has had time to incorporate any IFT-5 booster and starship improvements into IFT-6 before the next flight?.
Use two sets of legs, one for reasonable landing, and the other hydraulic level control or one set of legs with photo imaging for auto leveling at landing problem solve anything else you need to know
Use Falcon Heavy.
Screw SLS and ULA.
There is no reason why private space stations can't be ready by the time the ISS is de-orbited
Actually as humans, we have two stations on orbit now. If iss retire we still have people in css
Thank you for mentioning China, but skimming on Russia seems unfair. In my opinion Russia has the best potential for the best space station (ROS) along with it's interplanetary exploration mission program called Zeus.
Anything from the old space station that can be used in the new space stations should be transferred in LEO ...... and not wasted....
What parts from your 2000 Honda fit your 2020 Honda, besides nothing. As great as the ISS has been for all these years there's nothing there that will work on the new ones being built now.
@@metriczeppelin
Not talking the station as per se
But talking more about some of the equipment on it and he kind of supplies stuff like that instead of letting it just go in and burn up, offload it to other space station
I’m sure not only counting older equipment which yeah we wouldn’t want but some of the new equipment could be useful
@@robb8235 If you want to take the supplies back, might as well use an uncrewed dragon. I don't think it will be worth it.
@@sakshamShukla_
I’m referring to transferring it from one space station to the other, not to bring it back home .
Damn, so many bots in the comments, beautiful girls as avatars with almost the same sentences.
UA-cam owns those BOTS.... its been happening for WAY too long to just be by chance.
2:07 I do not agree I see it happening in 2 years without a shadow of a doubt
Why was the Apollo program able to send astronauts repeatedly to the moon, but we have to wait year after year after year? Why don’t they just dig out the old launch/delivery/landing plans and make the necessary improvements and new and improved safety measures they have today? We have advanced technologically, right? What, the dog ate their homework? Did we even go to the moon before?
No need for SLS or Orion.
Get rid of the FAA and anything is possible.
Artemis, you have got to be kidding. Artemis will NEVER get us to the moon. Don't yank our chain.
The ISS should be replaced in segments.🤔 Instead of scrapping the whole thing all at once. New segments replace old segments incrementally
Nasa lost sight of the moon...until the chinese says they're gonna land people there...then all of a sudden, the moon's back on the menu!
Why not integrate the dragon into the nose of starship. Doubles as a abort jettison and re entry vehicle and un Dock during refueling...
Starship HLS doesn't make any sense to me. How much fuel does it need for DOI, lunar landing and takeoff? How many Raptors does it need ? My uneducated gut feel is that it doesn't need 6 Raptors and full tanks. It makes no sense to land unnecessary engines and empty tankage for a vehicle that doesn't leave lunar orbit.
I want to aim for the moon.
thats IF we can even make it there.... there is no way it takes +50 YEARS to make ANOTHER Manned Mission to the Moon.. NO WAY... these people have been scamming us for DECADES!
So NASA wants to rent out a hotel room and not run a B&B in space. Just provide the space station and rent it out.
Next step will be to close the space hotel station and just provide Space RV parking orbit. You want to come here, bring your own Airstream.
There are a bunch of people here on earth, trying to cook rocks on toukmacs and laser beams, while the noble fuel, that will burn easily is on the moon, He3 (along with other rare earths). SpaceX will mine the moon cost effectively and every one will be driving electric car's.
Important is fueling management. When will the gas station open.
If SpaceX falcon heavy was human rated two launches and a smaller 30 ton lander and a 30 ton space craft could easily do it.
Space X does not need NASA they can do it themselves
Make Artemis2 an UNMANNED mission. Or else there will be astronaut martyrs.
No matter how fast starship develops, Artemis will not happen with their current plans😂. They can simplify the program dramatically and maybe even gain things in the process.
Space X will be on the moon within a year
Now that the original $3 billion to put someone on the moon this year is all gone without even step one being accomplished and exactly zero promises fulfilled, I'm sure they can finance more failures for years to come.
When they return to 'failure is NOT an option' instead of the current design parameter of 'just make it cool and trendy', progress can resume.
if the spaceX rocket reached the moon all ready and prepared to land. But SLS still have not even taken off carrying the crew. whose fault will that be?
The whole things a joke now, we should have had a manned moon base by 2010. At the rate we are moving it will be 2050 by the time we land on Mars and to be honest we probably should have had a manned Mars base by 2030 at the latest and an actual part civilian settlement there by around 2050.