NASA canceling Moon landing for Artemis 3! PLUS - Starship Update!!

The latest Starship news, PLUS behind the scenes, it appears that NASA is finally pulling the plug on a Moon landing and investigating other options.
One of these options is a good one, but the other makes absolutely no sense!
#space #nasa #spacex

Please support my channel!
DISCORD MEMBERSHIP, EXCLUSIVE CONTENT AND EARLY RELEASES PLUS 15% OFF MERCH!
Follow me on twitter:

[dks]

I am old, I just want to see a manned lunar orbital flight now

[jphgaming]

If the FAA was around during the Wright Brothers. We would never have Airplanes.

[wesleyashley]

I would give starship a couple more flights before getting too pessimistic. They refine things based on data from previous flights. Some things can't be tested any other way. They will probably find the best way forward pretty quickly.

[kevinvanhorn]

It's silly to say that problem's with the RCS thrusters pose a serious danger of Starship re-entering at the wrong point. They're too weak for that.

[bierce]

Agree there won't be a lunar landing in 2026, but I'll wager as much as an old man can afford that the holdup won't be starship.

[jamskinner]

Control issues didn’t change the strip where they were planning to crash into the ocean. The flight was suborbital for that exact reason.

[robertjohnson]

Corrective actions are Not from FAA but from the company launching the rocket

[curtisquick]

RCS thrusters on Starship affect the orientation of the spacecraft, not the direction or path of the spacecraft. Malfunctioning RCS thrusters would not cause Starship to crash in Africa! However, to properly control what happens when the engines on Starship are fired up to bring about reentry, you certainly do need to have properly functioning RCS thrusters to orient the spacecraft. But, if you are aiming Starship to land in the Indian Ocean, and you do not relight the engines, you will land in the Indian Ocean, not Africa, regardless of the operation of the RCS.

[MrGeneralScar]

On the other hand, we had never seen an orbital class booster land and be reflown... Until we did. It's fine to be sceptical of Starship, its new tech trying things that have not really been tried a whole lot before.

Your narrative seems to heavily suggest that once again, Starship is the only component holding up Artemis 3. Its a bit tiring that almost every piece of content on Starship has a negative spin.

[iflycentral]

Totally agree on the Dragon to Starship docking. Way more cost effective than using Orion.

[DeanIllinger]

Nice heads-up. Lunar Starship can also practice docking with Lunar Gateway in the first option. Currently, the Demo mission is just to send the HLS prototype out to lunar orbit, and descend to a (safe?) landing. It's been said that NASA isn't insisting Lunar Starship on the Demo mission take back off of the lunar surface, but I'm not buying that. I don't think the astronaut corps that has a lot of sway on manned missions will buy that either. But if Gateway were out there for lunar starship to also practice docking with (separately from when Orion would fly out to practice its docking), then it would be a doubly-good idea. Deano

[christopherdaffron]

Detailing what failed during the third flight in the mishap report seems relatively easier than knowing what the corrective actions should be to put in the mishap report.

[nzoomed]

Not a big deal about the heatshield with the FAA, the whole point of doing the re-entry over the ocean was to mitigate any risk to property.

[WaxPaper]

"Everyone knows" that Starship wouldn't be ready by 2026, eh? And when did "everyone" come to that little realization? Because from where I'm standing, nobody wanted to believe it until the reality of the situation finally started forcing people to admit it.

[lucabenedetto]

I almost agree with the analysis that redoing the Apollo 9 mission with the Orion and Starship would not make sense...or maybe it might make sense if they were considering using Starship not only for the descent to the moon but also for the leo-moon-leo trip, and maybe not using Orion but Dragon for earth-leo!

[arnoldsmith]

the booster has a better landing option engines take the heat of landing through the atmosphere im 76 years old and want to see more

[richierich]

If one death results in years of delays, then we're back to Old Space again.

[pyotrberia]

I think that the FAA is a great scapegoat to blame for Elon Musk, once again, failing to deliver what he promised. If it was not for the FAA, SpaceX would not have to waste time analyzing the failures of the last flight and fixing the problems before the next flight.

[jeffweber]

Here's a crazy idea. Scrap Lunar Gateway and take that money to build a base on the Moon. Use regolith to cover the base so no one just hangs around and sucks up lots of radiation. Once you get a bit of manufacturing set up, you can start to build elements for base expansion on the Moon. You can also grow food, make oxygen and probably get water too.

[jameshorner]

You make a good point about saving money by testing starship controls using dragon instead of Orion. However that only makes sense if we are indeed doing lunar gateway before Artemis 3. Lunar gateway would surely take several years to assemble/have humans stay on it, which could set the moon landing back significantly. However that may not be a big deal, considering how long Space X would likely take to get to the moon.