NASA SLS is better than SpaceX Starship!! An alternative view.

Has Angry finally lost his mind? Well, playing devil's advocate doesn't technically count as insanity, does it?
#space #nasa #spacex

Use the code MUA10 for a 10% discount! Who will win the Battle of the Super Rockets??

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

[jtjames]

Are you okay?

If the Boeing hitmen are there right now blink twice.

[AdastraRecordings]

Considering the state of Boeing, the suicide of a whistleblower and the pending DOJ criminal investigation into the Alaska Airlines incident, losing Boeing from this space race is a good thing.

[sailingsomeday]

I like to look at both sides of things too….but you would need to recall that the budget that Apollo had is a big part of why it was canceled- and we are going back to stay, aren’t we?

[jamskinner]

You could make a disposable upper stage for starship and most of these problems go away.

[chrismuir]

If you ignore the price tag..." Unfortunately, we can't ignore the price tag, economics intrudes on everything, including space travel.

[Hokiek]

You seem to skip over something that is glaringly obvious - Starship can be modified, likely for not all that much, to carry the SLS upper stage as a payload unto itself. Under that scenario, you now have better delta V in the first and second stages plus the same upper stage. That works out to.... better performance for significantly less.

This raises what is, imo, a discussion that just doesn't come up enough - what type of performance can SpaceX get out of a 3 stage, fully expendable Starship. It sure as hell should be cheaper to develop a 3rd stage that maximizes the payload capacity of a fully expended Starship than it would be to fly using the SLS booster. What did Elon 250-300t fully expended to LEO?

[jhill]

As it currently stands, Starship lacks specific crew safety features that SLS, Crew Dragon, Soyuz and Starliner (as well as Mercury and Apollo) have.

[carrollvance]

Super heavy starship booster, with central booster surrounded by 6 starship boosters in hexagonal configuration would be an interesting addition to the "excitement guaranteed" school of rocketeering.

[DeanIllinger]

Jordon, you probably didn’t intend to, but it sort of trivializes your argument when in the early part of the video to express the difficulty with refueling Starship in Orbit, using Methane & LOX easily produced on Earth, then later laud how the Exploration Upper Stage can have such reuse versatility because HYPOTHETICALLY you can produce H2 and O2 from lunar ice, cryogenically liquify it and Get it back into Lunar Orbit, and somehow refuel EUS in lunar orbit??? I’ve attended two aborted SLS launch attempts due to Liquid Hydrogen, only to attend the Artemis 1 launch month 3 months later. And I attended one aborted Starship launch for a stuck propellant valve, which got fix and then launched 3 days later. See the difference in difficulty? Deano in DC

[michaelashby]

Money is always part of this. When a society says "money isn't a consideration" this is a society that in on the way out. History is full of examples. And every civilization has an expiration date. When a nation loses its vitality, then its coasting on fumes. And vitality doesn't mean spending money you don't have. Vitality is actually the ability to say "no" which is much more difficult than spending the future generation's inheritance. If your society isn't deeply concerned about future generations then you're done. And leaving them a mountain of debt is all we are doing.

[scottywills]

A Lunar Starship on its own is a Base.

[DeanIllinger]

As Musk says, the only metric is the Cost of Getting a Kilogram of Payload to the Destination … to Orbit … to the Moon … to Mars. Competing alternatives on meaningless criteria … like the number of launches it takes, and even reusability, is a misleading pursuit. Tax dollars do matter, and wasting $4B per launch on SLS, and $2B on a new launch tower every 4th launch really adds up. Why aggitate over how many supporting launches you need if they are little more than the cost of Methane & LOX. Who cares if Starship is made out of cheap & heavy Steel rather than pricey composites? Payload to destination is what we pay for. Falcon 9 has rewritten the book on launch economics to orbit, Starship will be adding more chapters. Deano in DC

[Ionut-bgvw]

Sls is s... Starship is better
But nice video can't wait for ift 3

[nobody_]

best option for early lunar missions:
- remove nose cone part of lunar starship
- stack orion + service module on top of starship hsl
- do lunar mission with one launch (plus refueling launches)
- orion waits on LLO or NRHO while starship lands and takes off on the moon

[davidrussell]

Makes me Appreciate Apollo even more . Let’s use SLS to get to the moon quickly even if it means reinventing the wheel and give Space x time to sort out the starship and it’s design challenges which I think will take a lot longer then people realise. Also don’t forget Blue Origin, New Glen could not only launch a lunar lander it could also launch an Orion capsule so maybe a falcon heavy and a New Glen could get us there for a fair price

[Adak]

Dude, it's all about the Math. SLS carries 4 and Starship could carry up to 100. So 25 trips to the moon versus 1. Plus why in the heck would I build 52 SLS to launch 1 week, when I could build say 8 Starships and launch once per day at an absolute fraction of the cost, where all the money not spent could be used for I don't know an entire moon This article should be titled how NASA could make sure they never go back to the Moon....

[Jeff-nelh]

Taking money out of the equation is akin to asking what if the space race never ended? It's fun to knock around but at the end of the day has little real value...

[jackf.]

The annual budget received for the Space Shuttle Program was 4 billion dollars which typically covered 7-8 launches. Now it will cost 4 billion dollars for one launch of the Senate Launch System (SLS). The SLS is using all heritage flight hardware, e.g., SRB’s, SSME’s installed on a new centerline liquid fuel tank. Why 4 billion per launch?

[cobbyclan]

Neither, Starship is too heavy and complex, SLS is too expensive. The answer, as it's always been, is a human rated FH with a bigger fairing.

[gillubecke]

We need to use Starship and Falcon heavy to put together a space train/tug that uses a cislunar orbit to transfer massive amounts of cargo on a continuous basis to the moon. Approach this like we approached the conquest of the west. Develop rapidly attachable pre-fueled thrusters that can be brought up in Starships faring, attached to the lunar train/tug to get it to and from the moon. Drop the cargo/modules in lunar orbit, return to earth orbit rinse and repeat. Ten launches to bring up engines, ten returns of spent engines. Return them to earth in the waiting starships for refurbishment. If we can make 2 or 3 we can have it scheduled regularly. This is just a rough, off the cuff idea developed in about five minutes, so not necessarily fully thought out.