It's so over budget NASA testified to Congress that the cost was "unsustainable", and that was at the 4.1B per launch cost.
They've had some more setbacks, so cost will probably go up even more.
And the cost problem was caused by Congress itself. It mandated NASA use "cost-plus contracts", which as anyone who hasn't recently been hit in the head with a hammer, knows is a horrible idea.
After NASA explained it to Congress, Congress turned right around and told NASA to keep using cost-plus contracts…..
Yeah, we're definitely getting screwed by the government. No lube or anything. Not even the common courtesy of a reach around.
I can see the benefit in the movie Moonraker where the lauch site was hidden away and didnt answer to any governments at all….why bother with all that wasted time…
Groupthink is a powerful tool! One has to have zero understanding of foundations to think that any organization could land a 50 m (160 ft) tall, 9 m (30 ft) wide craft, with say ¼ of its propellant fuel capacity alone, which is a quarter of 1,200 ton, or 300 ton, plus payload, plus vehicle weight onto an un-compacted, said to be soft powdery surface, full of rocks and boulders. A good analog is the Leaning Tower of Pisa, which just happened to be just a bit taller than the Starship, at 56 meters high. At it’s base is a solid foundation and without serious engineering efforts, it would have tipped over decades ago. Researchers wrote, “Considering the weight and height of the tower, physicists have said the maximum angle would be 5.44 degrees before the tower falls (at its worst, the tower once leaned briefly at 5.5 degrees. Everyone is still baffled that it didn’t collapse).” That’s just 5.5 degrees max on a compacted surface that covers the entire circumference of the structure. Starship will be sitting on four pads, making it orders of magnitude less stable, although center of mass adjustments can help somewhat. If tilted at any angle less than optimally 90 degrees, powering up engines could send the craft into the ground upon attempted liftoff. It is impossible to safely land a 50-meter-high spaceship on the surface of the moon without first installing a hardened surface at a perfect zero grade to set down upon. The catch-22 is that, one must land a spaceship in order to set up a landing pad. The entire concept is laughable to anyone with any knowledge of foundations or angle and slope stability. Simply stated, the taller the object, the greater the threat of toppling over as grade angles decrease from 90 degrees. Starship is the worst possible design to land on the moon. It will NEVER happen, ever.
One thing that all NASA employees above the pay grade of GS14 can agree on is that no matter how many delays or missed milestones, their pay is always deposited to their checking accounts on time and they can't be fired.
So the government is delaying SpaceX more so Boeing and NASA look better with their $12 billion failure of a fucking kit bashed rocket congress needs to shut down NASA reduce his budget to a payroll and divert all funding to SpaceX and give them the same legal right to fly and launch when they want Just like NASA
Which moon lander do you think will succeed first? Let us know below!
it is the FAA stonewalling Space X starship they have been ready for another launch for some time now.
Blue Origin Moon landing???
That's not going to happen. LOL
It's so over budget NASA testified to Congress that the cost was "unsustainable", and that was at the 4.1B per launch cost.
They've had some more setbacks, so cost will probably go up even more.
And the cost problem was caused by Congress itself. It mandated NASA use "cost-plus contracts", which as anyone who hasn't recently been hit in the head with a hammer, knows is a horrible idea.
After NASA explained it to Congress, Congress turned right around and told NASA to keep using cost-plus contracts…..
Yeah, we're definitely getting screwed by the government. No lube or anything.
Not even the common courtesy of a reach around.
I can see the benefit in the movie Moonraker where the lauch site was hidden away and didnt answer to any governments at all….why bother with all that wasted time…
At 1:05 I think you might have meant 3 and 4 right? IV is 4, not 5.
4:16 wrong, MK1 is not supposed to be HLS, its supposed to be a cargo version. MK2 is supposed to be the HLS.
Hey Fish and Wildlife- will you just FUCK OFF!!
Groupthink is a powerful tool! One has to have zero understanding of foundations to think that any organization could land a 50 m (160 ft) tall, 9 m (30 ft) wide craft, with say ¼ of its propellant fuel capacity alone, which is a quarter of 1,200 ton, or 300 ton, plus payload, plus vehicle weight onto an un-compacted, said to be soft powdery surface, full of rocks and boulders. A good analog is the Leaning Tower of Pisa, which just happened to be just a bit taller than the Starship, at 56 meters high. At it’s base is a solid foundation and without serious engineering efforts, it would have tipped over decades ago. Researchers wrote, “Considering the weight and height of the tower, physicists have said the maximum angle would be 5.44 degrees before the tower falls (at its worst, the tower once leaned briefly at 5.5 degrees. Everyone is still baffled that it didn’t collapse).” That’s just 5.5 degrees max on a compacted surface that covers the entire circumference of the structure. Starship will be sitting on four pads, making it orders of magnitude less stable, although center of mass adjustments can help somewhat. If tilted at any angle less than optimally 90 degrees, powering up engines could send the craft into the ground upon attempted liftoff. It is impossible to safely land a 50-meter-high spaceship on the surface of the moon without first installing a hardened surface at a perfect zero grade to set down upon. The catch-22 is that, one must land a spaceship in order to set up a landing pad. The entire concept is laughable to anyone with any knowledge of foundations or angle and slope stability. Simply stated, the taller the object, the greater the threat of toppling over as grade angles decrease from 90 degrees. Starship is the worst possible design to land on the moon. It will NEVER happen, ever.
We will never form a self sustainable colony outside of Earth before nuclear war resets civilization to the drawing board.
Yeah I don’t see space x lander
One thing that all NASA employees above the pay grade of GS14 can agree on is that no matter how many delays or missed milestones, their pay is always deposited to their checking accounts on time and they can't be fired.
1:06 III and IV “five” ?
I have a four door ski doo to sell yah !
That for the update. Interesting times a coming. Hope politics doesn't get in the way.
🇹🇭🇹🇭🥰🥰🥰
NASA employs too many wussies to ever get anyrhing done -Do they even have a mission?
Blue origin, moon lander is a Death trap for all U.S. astronauts…
NASA needs to work with SpaceX for the moon lander and the future base on the moon!
Let’s be honest,
SpaceX is on target, but the US government is holding it up, including those crazy environmentalist!
Bill Nelson is miss managing NASA and it’s over budget… due to Bill Nelson’s friends in Congress! 😮
Hi I'm Ariful Islam leeton im software engineer and members of the international organization who and investors public and private sector
So the government is delaying SpaceX more so Boeing and NASA look better with their $12 billion failure of a fucking kit bashed rocket congress needs to shut down NASA reduce his budget to a payroll and divert all funding to SpaceX and give them the same legal right to fly and launch when they want Just like NASA