The Big Problem with NASA's Monster SLS Rocket

Newsthink is produced and presented by Cindy Pom

Thank you to our Patrons, including Igli Laci, Ronil Patel, Austin Grant, Tom Eng, Neo Ge

Thumbnail source:
NASA/Kim Shiflett (image edited by Newsthink)

Sources:
0:55 Paul Martin image: NASA/Paul E. Alers
1:27 Original image: NASA/Bill Ingalls (image edited by Newsthink)

Articles referenced in video:

[Newsthink]

*Do you think all of the planned SLS versions will actually come to life?*

[DontPanicVU]

I gotta contest the reason SLS is so expensive is because it's disposed after launch. Most rockets are one time use, and their launch costs are ranged in the hundreds of millions. Even accounting for the increased size, complexity, and payload of SLS, it should at worst cost half of what it does. The REAL reason for the expense is gifting contracts that know they can squeeze the taxpayer for just a little bit more. Because their senator demands the existence of SLS.

[jaylewis]

SpaceX could raise the price per launch to $2B to cut the expense in half and use the extra profit to go to Mars for free

[scientificapproach]

If only politicians knew basic economics. Unless something has a positive return on investment it cannot be considered an economic engine.

SpaceX is a good example of an economic engine.

[vuththiwattanathornkosithg]

New Glenn isn't fully reusable. Also they don't even have an engine that works yet.
Rocket Lab are the closest to SpaceX as a competitors eventhough the scale of tonnage, frequency of flights and reusability are still off to actually compare them.

[DaelinTV]

"a final hoorah for NASA" now that's powerful. I'm not crying you are 😭

[fredpagniello]

NASA had considered making the Saturn V first stage reusable, conducting preliminary wind tunnel testing on its feasibility. The stage would have been equipped with parachutes for a slow descent for an ocean recovery. A video of this testing was posted on YouTube a couple of years ago and may still be available.

[napobg]

I think you are very much underestimating the role of NASA. A lot of people in this comment section seems to forget that not only Falcon 9 was completely funded by NASA which on the other hand is now funding Starship but also they would have been no SpaceX without NASA. Also NASA and the military are funding Starship as well.

[mr.nne]

Good to see the channel is making videos on topics. Previously many were about Tesla, spacex, Amazon etc.

[richardmattocks]

Considering (I believe) the space shuttle worked out at $1billion a launch (and was considered insanely expensive) how can anyone think $4billion a launch is acceptable!

Don’t get me wrong, I want folks back on the moon, but heck, it’s a hefty price tag!

[subbuilder]

700, 000 jobs, and that’s why we have to pay 4 billion dollars per launch? What a hypocrite. Give that job to Elon. He can save us a lot.

[MarsChroniken]

Very well done! As much as I like to look at SLS, because it's awesome! It has no future! SLS is basically a scam by the contractors. It could have been ready years ago. But the contractors earn more, when they take longer to build. (cost-plus)

[sjTHEfirst]

NASA needs to become just the FAA for space flight and a provider of launch facilities. Let private industry do its thing and move us forward.

[jmstudios]

Yeah, coming from a "starship is the solution to everything" channel, I don't know

[donjones]

3:55 Using a regular Starship to go from the surface of the Earth to the surface of the Moon and return is a goal, and the way Elon Musk would prefer to do it. But NASA is concerned about damage to the ship from the main engines blasting up the lunar surface/dirt/rocks. Hence the specialized HLS version SpaceX is building for NASA which has landing engines mounted high up on the ship.

Starship can still easily replace SLS and Orion. The HLS version can go to the Moon uncrewed, as planned. Then a crewed regular Starship can launch to the Moon and dock with HLS in orbit. Surface expedition is completed, HLS returns to lunar orbit, crew transfers back to the regular SS. SS returns to the Earth's surface. 

A big advantage of using 2 ships is the crew doesn't have to rely on refilling the ship in lunar orbit. A moderately loaded regular SS can enter and leave lunar orbit using just the propellant it had when it left LEO. (Had been refilled in LEO after the initial launch.) IMO NASA would be concerned about depending on *lunar* orbit refilling to get the crew home.

Launching a Starship, several tankers, and the HLS will still cost a helluva lot less than SLS.

[claudiusdunclius]

I watch a ton of these sorts of videos. What every space fan seems to ignore is just how much work remains on SpaceX's Starship. Sure, they move at blinding speed and their innovation has transformed the industry. No arguments that they have become, in a remarkably short time, the hands-down global leader in launch services. But, that said, it takes enormous amounts of time and money to human-certify a new launch vehicle. Starship has a long journey ahead of it before it ever carries crew anywhere - LEO or Moon landing, much less Mars. Here's a SWAG: 6-8 years away before first human flight on Starship. 2028 if things go heroically smoothly, 2030 or later if things go as per the norm. I hope I'm wrong. But... Starship as the HLS for return to the Moon in 2025..?? Not a chance. Full stop. So, SLS will be around for a while - maybe a decade - even if it's a dinosaur at birth and only serves as a bridge to a human-rated and qualified Starship or New Glenn.

[damienspectre]

reusability has changed the world.
Before SpaceX : Launching billions of dollars into space and dumping them in the ocean? COOL
After SpaceX : Launching billions of dollars into space and dumping them in the ocean? NOT COOL.

[joevignoloru]

I still have trouble understanding why SLS is taking so long. The Saturn V went from conception to operational status in about 7 years even though it contained radically new technology like digital computers and huge engines that hadn't been designed yet. Then in 1969 NASA successfully launched four Saturn V's just in that year alone. One went into earth orbit and the other three took nine astronauts to the moon and there were two successful lunar landings. I wonder why SLS wouldn't have taken less time to fly than the Saturn V.

[skunkjobb]

If you believe Musk's talk about two million dollars per launch, I have a bridge to sell you.

[DavidWillisSLS]

This video MASSIVLY misunderstands the situation with SLS.

you're clearly thinking of SLS as if it is some kind of commercial rocket that has to compete with other rockets on a cost basis. but if that were the case, SLS would NEVER exist in the first place. SLS is not a commercial rocket. it exists because congress WANTS it to exist. and there is not going to be a circumstance where congress does not want it to exist because it provides, as bill nelson said, 70, 000 good paying jobs all across the united states.

you also made a false comparison to the massive amounts of money spent during the Apollo era. indeed that amount of spending did lead to the cancelation of Apollo, but SLS is not following an Apollo style budget, it's following a space shuttle style budget that NASA has been working with for over 30 YEARS. The cost per launch has no baring on how long it will last. it could cost 10 billion dollars per launch, but as long as it never exceeds the shuttle's yearly budget, and still provides good paying job's in congress's districts, you'll never see it go away.

you also proposed getting rid of SLS entirely for Artemis missions, but if you do that, you'd not actually make artemis cheaper, you'd just get rid of the Artemis program altogether. SLS is the financial backbone for the entire program, and all funding that the artemis program receives, is only received because SLS gets funded in the first place. Congress is not going to fund an Artemis program that gets rid of their SLS rocket that they've invested so much money into. as soon as SLS goes, so does HLS funding, so does gateway funding, so does CLPS funding. it all goes away. getting rid of SLS is not very forward thinking at ALL.

this video clearly shows your lack of knowledge on the subject of SLS, and i hope you take the opportunity to educate yourselves on it in the future before you try and make any more videos on the topic.