It would be nice to see you talk about some of the proposed SLS launch versions, like Block IA (Advanced Boosters with ICPS), Block 0 (no 2nd stage), Block III (5-engine core) and the Dynetics LRB SLS.
My favourite fact about the block IB SLS is that it has Saturn heritage. The Saturn I S-IV second stage was 5.5m in diameter. Over the years 5.5m tanks have been suggested for both Shuttle Boosters and the Ares-I second stage. The EUS oxygen tank is 5.5m in diameter. The block system is a really clever way to get around some of the limitations of govt-funded development. In such a thing, peak funding is the limiting factor. By spreading the peak funding between multiple waves, you can get bigger and more powerful rockets at the cost of time
So happy to hear a take on the SLS that isn’t “wahhhh the SLS sucks :(( we should just throw it away even though it’s the only rocket currently flying capable of getting to the moon and back” like if I say even *one* positive thing about the SLS on Reddit, I get crucified for not thinking that the *Starship* isn’t the best rocket for the program. It doesn’t matter that the Starship can’t make a full trip to the moon and back. It doesn’t matter that it’s heavily optimized as a LEO vehicle. It doesn’t matter that it can’t get to any other celestial body and return to Earth without in-situ propellant generation. In their eyes, Starship is the *objectively best rocket of all time* and it can take anyone anywhere and is literally perfect and every other rocket that exists is already obsolete even before the Starship has flown
Fr, the fact that Starship can barely make it to GEO is kinda detrimental to its commercial viability. Even as a Mars transport it's highly inefficient
Good video! Although when showing numbers (3:26, 7:33, ) it would be good to slash height and thrust units in metrics, as some viewers can not be familiar with the imperial system of units. I also want to say that it is really nice to have you! You explain well the reasons why NASA will upgrade the rocket and everything behind the SLS. Oftentimes, I find that NASA communication doesn't explain very well the technical reasons behind the changes. Q: I didn't knew that the OMS stackover of the Shuttle will run out by Artemis 6. Given it is used on the ESM, will it be replaces by another motor or will a industrial develops a new Service Module? I guess NASA still wait for more Artemis mission before making a choice?
Thank you! And yes, a new engine will replace the OMS, but from what I know it will pretty much be identical to the shuttle oms but with minor modifications
For me the 10m fairing option on SLS Block 2 is probably among the most exciting things about SLS. Imagine what kind of telescope we could fold up in there. The JWST needed to fit in Arianne 5 with a 4.57m diameter space inside the fairing, it folded out into a 6.5m primary mirror. The Luvoir A concept would fold a 15.1m mirror into a 8m fairing. What kind of monster could we pack into a 10m fairing? 18m? 20m?
Boeing has also been looking at producing carbon composite EUS tanks, which would reduce the weight of the stage significantly and would increase the SLS's lift capacity to be in the ballpark of Constellation's Ares V.
I can definitely see the block 1B launching, since congress loves the idea of a lunar space station, and the 1B can carry a crew and a piece of the station.
David Willis, I think you have to edit the description of the video because there are no Music names and no Credits (i really would like to know what is the name of this music from the beginning of the video)
I heard that there's a chance NASA will use two upper stages for Block 2, one which is the EUS we all know about and other which is way more powerful but less propellant efficient Great video btw
@@innosam123 we don't know guess it's J2X since it's the easiest to develop because rocketdyne has everything to continue development since it was halted in 2013
@@cynbloxy The only other one it could be is BE-3, but after the proposal was made, no progress has been made. Considering the nightmare the ‘commercial’ manned lander and spacesuit has been so far for NASA, it’d be silly to replace the 2nd stage with a commercial 2nd stage after EUS already is partially finished. Also, BE-3 is less efficient- and AR has the also mostly-finished RL-60 lying around, which was designed to have 4 times the thrust with similar efficiency and size (and was proposed for the SLS as well).
Some of the information in here is not quite correct. The SRBs and RS-25s aren't "tHe ExAcT sAmE" for example. Space shuttle at liftoff was 7 million pounds of thrust. You don't get 1.8 million extra pounds of thrust from just adding one RS-25. Second, the block 1 has different sub-configurations as do the others. Those configurations are certainly more similar than they are different, but there are major differences internally.
You get 1.8 million lbs more thrust by adding 1 more RS-25…. AND 2 extra SRB segments What sub configurations? Other than cargo NASA has released no other configurations for SLS
Block 2 is inevitable, you cant run away from it no matter how much you questioned it, it will always come ;P EDIT: Bout block 2, isnt it supposed to have RS-25F eventually?
@@DavidWillisSLS Maybe, but I personally fail to see any real scientific benefit from a sustained (human) lunar presence, that could not be achieved by a much cheaper rover. On the other hand just imagine what amazing deep space missions you could achieve with just a fraction of the Artemis budget and all that payload volume!
@@louisr6560 lunar mining and industry would be insanely beneficial to further space development, something that can’t be set up and done with a simple rover
Has anyone actually figured out how the new ULT is supposed to work yet? Better delay that block 1B launch until we throw 10 years and 20 billion dollars at it.
Its complicated . At some point Block 1b and 2 will probaply cheaper becouse keep in mind the first ones are always the hardest and most expsensive but inittely block 1b will be a bit more expsenive then Block 1 but Block 2 wont be more expensive. So yeah Block 1b and 2 SLS donst cost much more a unit or is evan cheaper . But what will cost somthing is developent but for Block 2 that devlopment is mostly been completed for Block 1b .
It almost seems like it would have been cheaper and quicker to just put all the original Space Shuttle hardware in a museum and skip straight to the block 2 I guess that’s just not possible with politicians in charge tho
The EUS is the most underrated aspect of the SLS Program IMO, there may not even be a need for a Block 2 with that thing around. NASA should try to make it refuelable in orbit, maybe add those new RS-25E's to it to swap out the RL10's and then have a monstrous amount of delta-v and C=3 available for outer solar system or interstellar payloads. Maybe they can even stretch the EUS for that purpose for even more performance and launch it on Super Heavy instead of SLS therefore saving all the development money/effort on a new Block 2 and instead maximizing the ROI on EUS, and allowing them to make more EUS' per year to launch more stuff. I swear I'm more of a fan of the EUS than the SLS at this point, I mean when was the last time NASA had a dedicated hydrolox upper stage that could be this versatile and have this much potential, not since SIV-B and even that was 6m while EUS can have a 8-9m fairing, go EUS!
It takes 4 RL10s to make 100k lbs of thrust, a single RS-25 makes 500k lbs thrust and can throttle down to 65% or so. I think you'll be crushing the payload with an RS-25 when the tanks are near empty...
@@sirmicro Exactly. And when you have a powerful core stage with giant srbs it makes more sense to pair it with a low thrust, high efficiency engine. That allows you to achieve really precise insertions that can be more difficult with a monster like the RS-25 and save lots of propellant in the process. Not that the RS-25 can't do those things, it just makes it more challenging. Use the correct tool for the job at hand.
In addition of what Cody Ruthko said, there is also the question if the RS-25 can be turned on in space. Remember, on the Shuttle and SLS, first stage's RS-25 are turned on with the help of a little hydrogen on the launch pad. But yeah, go EUS!
Well done. This was a good explanation. It seems unlikely that SLS block 2 is actually going to fly. The cost per a launch is massive, and by the time would be flying at the earliest, it is highly likely that SpaceX's Starship will be flying, and even without that Blue Origin's New Glenn will also be flying, and although NG won't have the same lift capability as SLS, the sheer cost difference would by itself make a massive difference. I'll be surprised if block 2 flies.
The thing is that Starship and New Glenn need to prove commerical viability if they want to last long. If either are unprofitable to run then they'll die. SLS doesn't have this problem.
@@hussarregiment7045 That's true, but commercial viability here shouldn't be that hard if they can actually work. If Starship can do second stage reuse, then it will likely quickly become cheaper than any rocket which isn't doing at least single stage reuse for even very small payloads. And NG is being built to be efficiently and cost effectively reusable from the ground up. (If I were to guess a problem with NG, it would be that reuse for it turns out to be harder than they expect, or they end up losing more than they were expecting early on.) And of course, there are all the other new rockets coming online also (see for example, Tory Bruno's comments about the possibility of a Vulcan Superheavy).
@@joshuazelinsky5213 The thing is this is all built on hypotheticals, if Starship can achieve reuse, if it can have high turnaround, if it can refuel at the scale it needs to, if is cost-effective. None of this has been proven yet, and frankly I do have my doubts about 2 of these. However another thing is that SLS Block 2 has something no other rocket her can do send 46+ tons on TLI in one launch, at best Starship will need 10 if you believe Elon Musk, althouth it's probably 14-15. And unless you're using Elon numbers (5 million dollars to refurbish and get ready for another launch in 3 days) then I don't see how it's more cost-effective than SLS Block 2.
Not really, all they need to do is fly SLS 10 times, and afaik, Block 2 boosters are already in development and their components will be implemented into B1B flights over time. Recent FSB-2 test on July 21st had some Block 2 parts Arguably the largest and probably hardest thing to make for block 2 will be composite casings for the motors
I agree SLS Block 2 will never happen. By that time it is highly likely that Starship will be available. If NASA really needs a lot of payload launched in one go without refilling for some reason, they could even use Starship in a partially or fully expendable mode. That won't be cheap, but probably much cheaper than developing (and launching) SLS Block 2.
Lbs of thrust ? bro ut talking about science please use the metric system dont be like that ... if you were doing a video on real estate in the usa okay no problem but really ? here dude?
Too expensive to get in the 30s a rocket that barely surpass the Saturn V. This rocket can't compete with the upcoming Chinese rockets and using hydrogen from the first stage makes little sense. For the. time and the amount of money that it toke it had been better to create a new first stage and use the Delta IV less expensive rocker engines for the second stage (with an extension) and get a 90t to lunar orbit. The other option was to take into account the years NASA has on space assembly and use multiple launches to create a modular system for the Moon program.
Im not exactly sure if we'd see block 2, Id expect for the commercial industry to take over in launch services by that time, which would free up quite alot of cash for NASA
No it won’t. Starship is a joke, and the proposals for commercial manned lunar landers are 1. As expensive as those planned by the government (Altair vs commercial landers costs) when you account for the 2 models. 2. Require construction from multiple launches that add up to ~600mil (vs $1B for SLS) Also, SLS has a limited supply of Shuttle components that require the advanced boosters to replace, as the old Shuttle SRB factories are long dead and will not be reopened (they use outdated steel casings for the SRBs, which have long since been replaced by GEM-type casings.
Well this sure aged like a glass of milk, left on the countertop... Tune in tomorrow morning to watch Orion flyby the moon, courtesy of a lift from SLS...
NASA doesn’t have to worry about funding it because congress wants it. It doesn’t matter if there are alternatives. Those alternatives don’t come with the same benefits outside of spaceflight that SLS does
I want this to succeed, but I'm having doubts. I don't think NASA would be able to recover financially if this goes wrong. If this fails, we can say goodbye to NASA. Thank the smoothbrains in congress for not giving them an acceptable budget.
very bold of anyone to assume sls will fly past the mid 2030s. i hope we will see it fly for decades, but i don't think it will be competitive enough. once other rockets such as starship or new glenn have been proven reliable, there will sadly be no point in keeping sls around
Sorry it’s been so long since my last video. But I’m back now!
Great video as always!
@@ptolemythespacenerd thank you!
Cool! Great return video!!
@@jimseibyl5140 thank you!
Ok
It would be nice to see you talk about some of the proposed SLS launch versions, like Block IA (Advanced Boosters with ICPS), Block 0 (no 2nd stage), Block III (5-engine core) and the Dynetics LRB SLS.
I’ll save that for its own video, how about that?
@@DavidWillisSLS Nice.
I forgot about the J2-X/high-thrust 2nd stage as well, which would work really well if we wanted to replace the ISS.
@@innosam123 given that NASA is auctioning off J-2X, I don’t think that’ll ever happen sadly.
@@innosam123 Earth Departure Stage?
@@ConsumableTanks Well, an earlier version of it.
My favourite fact about the block IB SLS is that it has Saturn heritage. The Saturn I S-IV second stage was 5.5m in diameter. Over the years 5.5m tanks have been suggested for both Shuttle Boosters and the Ares-I second stage. The EUS oxygen tank is 5.5m in diameter.
The block system is a really clever way to get around some of the limitations of govt-funded development. In such a thing, peak funding is the limiting factor. By spreading the peak funding between multiple waves, you can get bigger and more powerful rockets at the cost of time
loved this video, I'm glad to see people showing more love for sls
Note: one of the reasons the RS-25E is better is because it's gimbaling range is lowered, meaning it has less weight.
So happy to hear a take on the SLS that isn’t “wahhhh the SLS sucks :(( we should just throw it away even though it’s the only rocket currently flying capable of getting to the moon and back”
like if I say even *one* positive thing about the SLS on Reddit, I get crucified for not thinking that the *Starship* isn’t the best rocket for the program. It doesn’t matter that the Starship can’t make a full trip to the moon and back. It doesn’t matter that it’s heavily optimized as a LEO vehicle. It doesn’t matter that it can’t get to any other celestial body and return to Earth without in-situ propellant generation.
In their eyes, Starship is the *objectively best rocket of all time* and it can take anyone anywhere and is literally perfect and every other rocket that exists is already obsolete even before the Starship has flown
Fr, the fact that Starship can barely make it to GEO is kinda detrimental to its commercial viability. Even as a Mars transport it's highly inefficient
SLS Launch HYPE!!!
I'm so hyped for the launch!
Me too!!
Good video! Although when showing numbers (3:26, 7:33, ) it would be good to slash height and thrust units in metrics, as some viewers can not be familiar with the imperial system of units. I also want to say that it is really nice to have you! You explain well the reasons why NASA will upgrade the rocket and everything behind the SLS. Oftentimes, I find that NASA communication doesn't explain very well the technical reasons behind the changes.
Q: I didn't knew that the OMS stackover of the Shuttle will run out by Artemis 6. Given it is used on the ESM, will it be replaces by another motor or will a industrial develops a new Service Module? I guess NASA still wait for more Artemis mission before making a choice?
Thank you! And yes, a new engine will replace the OMS, but from what I know it will pretty much be identical to the shuttle oms but with minor modifications
For me the 10m fairing option on SLS Block 2 is probably among the most exciting things about SLS. Imagine what kind of telescope we could fold up in there. The JWST needed to fit in Arianne 5 with a 4.57m diameter space inside the fairing, it folded out into a 6.5m primary mirror.
The Luvoir A concept would fold a 15.1m mirror into a 8m fairing.
What kind of monster could we pack into a 10m fairing? 18m? 20m?
After finaly spending an other aircarfcarry worth of cash on a space telescope.
@@stekra3159 more worth it than an aircraft carrier tbh
Can’t wait for the launch! Gonna be epic.
Incredibly epic!
As always, I love your content, hate the loud background music 🥲
But thanks for posting, always a treat!
Great video David!
Thank you!
@@DavidWillisSLS no problem
Big Orange Rocket goes brrrrr
Starship virgins cope
Artemis 1 was a success and now we are going back to the Moon to stay 👍🚀
We sure are!
Very good explanations! Keep up the good work!
Thank you!
Boeing has also been looking at producing carbon composite EUS tanks, which would reduce the weight of the stage significantly and would increase the SLS's lift capacity to be in the ballpark of Constellation's Ares V.
Wow, that was fast, thanks so much!
Tried my best! Hope you enjoy!!!
@@DavidWillisSLS I just finished it, its very informative and well researched, also, on a side note, do you play KSP?
I do play KSP! Yes! And thank you!!
@@DavidWillisSLS No problem, I hope you are able to expand your channel more, you have a lot of potential!
@@mactherebellionleader5394 thank you!
SLS Block 1 cargo looks absolutely cursed
LETS GOOOO SLS
Fun fact the roll out will be on my 14th birthday :D
Happy early birthday!
I can definitely see the block 1B launching, since congress loves the idea of a lunar space station, and the 1B can carry a crew and a piece of the station.
That’s exactly right!!
great work David!
Thank you TJ!!!
David Willis, I think you have to edit the description of the video because there are no Music names and no Credits (i really would like to know what is the name of this music from the beginning of the video)
Thank you for this an amazing video!!!
Thank you for watching it!!
Can‘t wait to see the Block 2! It is the most powerful rocket in NASA history!🥳
I heard that there's a chance NASA will use two upper stages for Block 2, one which is the EUS we all know about and other which is way more powerful but less propellant efficient
Great video btw
Thank you!
Is it the J2-X or something else?
@@innosam123 we don't know guess it's J2X since it's the easiest to develop because rocketdyne has everything to continue development since it was halted in 2013
@@cynbloxy The only other one it could be is BE-3, but after the proposal was made, no progress has been made.
Considering the nightmare the ‘commercial’ manned lander and spacesuit has been so far for NASA, it’d be silly to replace the 2nd stage with a commercial 2nd stage after EUS already is partially finished.
Also, BE-3 is less efficient- and AR has the also mostly-finished RL-60 lying around, which was designed to have 4 times the thrust with similar efficiency and size (and was proposed for the SLS as well).
rad
Some of the information in here is not quite correct. The SRBs and RS-25s aren't "tHe ExAcT sAmE" for example. Space shuttle at liftoff was 7 million pounds of thrust. You don't get 1.8 million extra pounds of thrust from just adding one RS-25. Second, the block 1 has different sub-configurations as do the others. Those configurations are certainly more similar than they are different, but there are major differences internally.
You get 1.8 million lbs more thrust by adding 1 more RS-25…. AND 2 extra SRB segments
What sub configurations? Other than cargo NASA has released no other configurations for SLS
@@DavidWillisSLS By the way, I like your channel. Lot of good videos and content.
Thank you!
my favourite thing about it is that it uses SSME's
I may not like the politics involved, but gosh I'm so excited for Artemis I!
I may not like the politics involved, but gosh I'm so excited for Artemis II!
@@Shadow_The_Pad why did you comment the same thing under your own comment 5 months later
Something about this guy’s pfp makes me think he might make me know what he’s talking about when it comes to this topic
Can’t identity what tho
@@judet2992 😁🚀
How far along is “why is sls not reusable part 2” at?
I’ve actually kinda forgot went about that 💀
@@DavidWillisSLS did you un-forget?
Block 2 is inevitable, you cant run away from it no matter how much you questioned it, it will always come ;P
EDIT: Bout block 2, isnt it supposed to have RS-25F eventually?
Thanks for the cool video! Impressive technology, however sad to see it mostly wasted on that questionable Lunar Gateway project.
Thank you! But Trust me, gateway is necessary for a sustained lunar presence
@@DavidWillisSLS Maybe, but I personally fail to see any real scientific benefit from a sustained (human) lunar presence, that could not be achieved by a much cheaper rover. On the other hand just imagine what amazing deep space missions you could achieve with just a fraction of the Artemis budget and all that payload volume!
@@louisr6560 lunar mining and industry would be insanely beneficial to further space development, something that can’t be set up and done with a simple rover
@@louisr6560Spoken like a true bean counter.
very nice explanation!
btw, what's the bgm? sounds so cute and fun haha
Bgm?
@@DavidWillisSLS background music haha
W
Can’t we get to 10 million lbs thrust at launch?
Can we really say that Block2 has no heritage to the shuttle? Seems like a stretch to fit into a narrative. Thoughts?
Not a stretch at all. Everything that would’ve come from the shuttle is gone. That’s how block 2 is defined
It’d be nice to see Block 2 take Dynetics Alpaca to the Moon ( Angry Astronaut asked the guys if it’d fit… they think so👍🏻🤘🏻🚀
Will the B1B maiden flight be crewed, or is it a test flight type mission?
Crewed!
What happened to sls block 1 cargo?
Never gonna fly as all ICPSs are designated for crew
@@DavidWillisSLS ok thx
Has anyone actually figured out how the new ULT is supposed to work yet? Better delay that block 1B launch until we throw 10 years and 20 billion dollars at it.
I think NASA wont build the block 2 because it is too expensive. The block 1 is already a diet for the wallet
Block 1 isnt a diet . The ICPS is just as expensive as the EUS .
@@ILikeAlotofThings-SLS oh so making an SLS block 2 or 1B isnt that different in termos of price.
Its complicated . At some point Block 1b and 2 will probaply cheaper becouse keep in mind the first ones are always the hardest and most expsensive but inittely block 1b will be a bit more expsenive then Block 1 but Block 2 wont be more expensive. So yeah Block 1b and 2 SLS donst cost much more a unit or is evan cheaper . But what will cost somthing is developent but for Block 2 that devlopment is mostly been completed for Block 1b .
It almost seems like it would have been cheaper and quicker to just put all the original Space Shuttle hardware in a museum and skip straight to the block 2
I guess that’s just not possible with politicians in charge tho
cheaper in the long run, but far far far more expensive each funding round. which is what gets programs cancled
Anybody got a link or name and creator for the name of the first music used in the video?
It’s called “mood” and can be found in the UA-cam audio library
Ah , thanks a lot!
So its finally launched on november 16 2022
The EUS is the most underrated aspect of the SLS Program IMO, there may not even be a need for a Block 2 with that thing around. NASA should try to make it refuelable in orbit, maybe add those new RS-25E's to it to swap out the RL10's and then have a monstrous amount of delta-v and C=3 available for outer solar system or interstellar payloads. Maybe they can even stretch the EUS for that purpose for even more performance and launch it on Super Heavy instead of SLS therefore saving all the development money/effort on a new Block 2 and instead maximizing the ROI on EUS, and allowing them to make more EUS' per year to launch more stuff.
I swear I'm more of a fan of the EUS than the SLS at this point, I mean when was the last time NASA had a dedicated hydrolox upper stage that could be this versatile and have this much potential, not since SIV-B and even that was 6m while EUS can have a 8-9m fairing, go EUS!
Correction- Saturn V S-II was the largest hydrolox upper stage, 10m with J-2 engines
It takes 4 RL10s to make 100k lbs of thrust, a single RS-25 makes 500k lbs thrust and can throttle down to 65% or so. I think you'll be crushing the payload with an RS-25 when the tanks are near empty...
@@sirmicro Exactly. And when you have a powerful core stage with giant srbs it makes more sense to pair it with a low thrust, high efficiency engine. That allows you to achieve really precise insertions that can be more difficult with a monster like the RS-25 and save lots of propellant in the process. Not that the RS-25 can't do those things, it just makes it more challenging. Use the correct tool for the job at hand.
In addition of what Cody Ruthko said, there is also the question if the RS-25 can be turned on in space. Remember, on the Shuttle and SLS, first stage's RS-25 are turned on with the help of a little hydrogen on the launch pad. But yeah, go EUS!
Well done. This was a good explanation.
It seems unlikely that SLS block 2 is actually going to fly. The cost per a launch is massive, and by the time would be flying at the earliest, it is highly likely that SpaceX's Starship will be flying, and even without that Blue Origin's New Glenn will also be flying, and although NG won't have the same lift capability as SLS, the sheer cost difference would by itself make a massive difference. I'll be surprised if block 2 flies.
The thing is that Starship and New Glenn need to prove commerical viability if they want to last long. If either are unprofitable to run then they'll die. SLS doesn't have this problem.
@@hussarregiment7045 That's true, but commercial viability here shouldn't be that hard if they can actually work. If Starship can do second stage reuse, then it will likely quickly become cheaper than any rocket which isn't doing at least single stage reuse for even very small payloads. And NG is being built to be efficiently and cost effectively reusable from the ground up. (If I were to guess a problem with NG, it would be that reuse for it turns out to be harder than they expect, or they end up losing more than they were expecting early on.) And of course, there are all the other new rockets coming online also (see for example, Tory Bruno's comments about the possibility of a Vulcan Superheavy).
@@joshuazelinsky5213 The thing is this is all built on hypotheticals, if Starship can achieve reuse, if it can have high turnaround, if it can refuel at the scale it needs to, if is cost-effective. None of this has been proven yet, and frankly I do have my doubts about 2 of these.
However another thing is that SLS Block 2 has something no other rocket her can do send 46+ tons on TLI in one launch, at best Starship will need 10 if you believe Elon Musk, althouth it's probably 14-15. And unless you're using Elon numbers (5 million dollars to refurbish and get ready for another launch in 3 days) then I don't see how it's more cost-effective than SLS Block 2.
Not really, all they need to do is fly SLS 10 times, and afaik, Block 2 boosters are already in development and their components will be implemented into B1B flights over time.
Recent FSB-2 test on July 21st had some Block 2 parts
Arguably the largest and probably hardest thing to make for block 2 will be composite casings for the motors
I agree SLS Block 2 will never happen. By that time it is highly likely that Starship will be available. If NASA really needs a lot of payload launched in one go without refilling for some reason, they could even use Starship in a partially or fully expendable mode. That won't be cheap, but probably much cheaper than developing (and launching) SLS Block 2.
We ride to the moon in a firy Typhon. On solide fule and wire. Turn the Key and light the fire we leaving earth to day.
SLS launched already
How many ICPS exist?
3. 1 is in space. One is finished. And one is still being built. Those are the only 3 NASA will ever use
Try to disappeared all I T app this lsland
Jolkosun
Then
It goes even further beyond and becomes reusable like Vulcan
The SLS has not been around the Block yet
Wait when SLS 1B will be flying i will be out of school. Fu- ..
Around 2028-29
Yeah i know . Thats when i will be out of school. I better learn some patiance to see my Favorit rocket fly
Lbs of thrust ? bro ut talking about science please use the metric system dont be like that ... if you were doing a video on real estate in the usa okay no problem but really ? here dude?
Too expensive to get in the 30s a rocket that barely surpass the Saturn V. This rocket can't compete with the upcoming Chinese rockets and using hydrogen from the first stage makes little sense.
For the. time and the amount of money that it toke it had been better to create a new first stage and use the Delta IV less expensive rocker engines for the second stage (with an extension) and get a 90t to lunar orbit. The other option was to take into account the years NASA has on space assembly and use multiple launches to create a modular system for the Moon program.
SLS does not take any more money per year than the space shuttle did, and has more congressional support to boot. Cost is a non issue
Im not exactly sure if we'd see block 2, Id expect for the commercial industry to take over in launch services by that time, which would free up quite alot of cash for NASA
Almost definitely. Orbital refueling will make it completely unnecessary
No it won’t.
Starship is a joke, and the proposals for commercial manned lunar landers are
1. As expensive as those planned by the government (Altair vs commercial landers costs) when you account for the 2 models.
2. Require construction from multiple launches that add up to ~600mil (vs $1B for SLS)
Also, SLS has a limited supply of Shuttle components that require the advanced boosters to replace, as the old Shuttle SRB factories are long dead and will not be reopened (they use outdated steel casings for the SRBs, which have long since been replaced by GEM-type casings.
@@innosam123 how does that make SLS Block 2 not unnecessary? You're just saying completely unrelated stuff
@@innosam123 Altair was supposed to be $12b, ALPACA is $6b and the Old Guard was $10b. Starship is $3b
@@innosam123 how is that an argument for SLS B2?? You just proved distributed launch is better and cheaper
SLS is DOA
Well it arrived 2 months ago, and it’s still the most powerful and most capable operational rocket we have. So DOA it is not
@@DavidWillisSLS you forgot to add the most expensive
Saturn V was close if not evan more expensive per launsch and its development was 3 times the cost of SLS
SLS is too big to fail... If it fails tomorrow the whole Artemis program could be finished.
Yup. That’s why it’s very likely that the launch will be scrubbed. Slim chance this thing goes on it’s first try
@@DavidWillisSLS Artemis 2 is in 12 months
NASA's SLS Rocket is about to finally Launch ............................................. Um.......................Nope.
Y’all are actually a bunch of babies if you get upset over a scrub
Well this sure aged like a glass of milk, left on the countertop...
Tune in tomorrow morning to watch Orion flyby the moon, courtesy of a lift from SLS...
NASA is going to have a difficult time funding this beyond Artemis III. Private company's are going to win in the long run.
NASA doesn’t have to worry about funding it because congress wants it. It doesn’t matter if there are alternatives. Those alternatives don’t come with the same benefits outside of spaceflight that SLS does
I want this to succeed, but I'm having doubts. I don't think NASA would be able to recover financially if this goes wrong. If this fails, we can say goodbye to NASA. Thank the smoothbrains in congress for not giving them an acceptable budget.
Block2 will never fly It will have beenlong surpassed by Starship
Block 2 will fly, because there aren’t enough shuttle boosters for block 1b to fly forever
@@DavidWillisSLS Block2 will never launch.
very bold of anyone to assume sls will fly past the mid 2030s. i hope we will see it fly for decades, but i don't think it will be competitive enough. once other rockets such as starship or new glenn have been proven reliable, there will sadly be no point in keeping sls around
Starship and new glenn are cargo rockets, they’d have to make completely new lunar capable capsules
@@tonk2629 starship is a cargo rocket but with the end goal of sending humans to mars. let's see what spacex makes of it
@@FoxBoi69 The starship, in its current form, and even in future forms, is not fit to send humans to mars.
@@tonk2629 starship is in early prototyping
@@FoxBoi69 This comment age very poorly