in

How to get to the Moon WITHOUT SLS or Starship!



SLS has experienced many problems, and will only visit the Moon once a year, even if it does work. Starship is the obvious answer, but there could be unforseen problems with the most powerful rocket in history. Is there another way? Well, yes there is. And we wouldn’t have to invent anything all that new.
#space #nasa #spacex

Support my channel!
https://www.patreon.com/AngryAstronaut

Scrubliner Merch!!
https://stay-angry.creator-spring.com/listing/scrubliner

New AA Logo Merch!!
https://stay-angry.creator-spring.com/listing/2022-official-angry-logo

If you want to reserve a pair of ANGRY SUNGLASSES, please send $20 US, Australian or Canadian to:
paypal.me/AngryAstro
The FINAL price is $40 US plus shipping

The ugly truth
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=1577

Using Centaur V and fuel depots to get to the Moon
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2019/1/3/1823273/-Utilizing-the-Centaur-V-and-ACES-68-for-Deep-Space-SLS-Missions

49 Comments

  1. It's a good thing that companies like SpaceX and Rocketlab exist to loosen the influence of senators hindering progress in space because jobs.

  2. there is another cool way to skin this cat that you didn’t mention and very few people know about

    A shuttle MK2 concept would be bigger than Dreamchaser but smaller than shuttle with a functional payload bay, lifting body versatile crew vehicle for LEO AND the moon

    Payload bay would carry Methalox and you’d have BE7 engines to do TLI, then switch to traditional hypergolics and AJ10s at the moon

    No second stage to do TLI needed, just a launch vehicle to get the thing to LEO like starship, it’d be about 55t so perfect for it, or new Glenn

    Could also work with LEO depots

  3. 8:50 Bullshit. If you include spacecraft mission costs with SLS then do the same here. It’ll be an extra $900M at least

    SLS is only $1B in launch costs and that’s for block 2 capability with all that extra co manifest which this block 1 system doesn’t have

  4. Fuel up StarShip in orbit, use crew dragon to get crew to StarShip, leave crew dragon in earth orbit for return to earth.

  5. 3 day journey and 240K to 260K one way! It is still very dangerous journey too! Same type of technology as the 1968 Saturn and Apollo mission in 2024 Moon mission? NASA is thinking outside the box on the planning this for sure! 😱😵‍💫

  6. Drop the Falcon 9/Crew Dragon launch. Launch the crew directly on the Orion. The crew would still be facing a docking with or without Dragon. And Vulcan will need to get human rated for Dream Chaser Crewed launches anyway. Or even better, launch the crew with Orion and refuel Centaur with a Falcon 9 launch. Cheaper and more efficient.

  7. Did these corrupt idiots ever consider that if NASA was more successful that there would be more and bigger projects to come, and it would be much easier to get support and massive amounts of funding?
    Instead they have achieved nothing and their funding is never secure.

  8. Not a bad video, it's a topic worth discussing… but the fact is that any 'new' NASA solution, even the proposed, will require an outrageous amount of funding and put the program back by likely 5+ years. At that point you'll just wish you'd gone with SLS/Starship.

    My biggest issue is that any solution not involving Starship is just 'more of the same', Apollo 2.0. A total waste imo.

  9. Listening to Jordan we would think that governments goal is to go to the moon and Mars. How easy it is for those of us who are hoping for human colonization of other worlds, that this is not our governments goal. If it was our governments goal then as pointed out by Jordan in past videos it is within our governments power to give a sufficient enough budget for NASA to meet its goals, they are not doing so. So I figure that their will be no colonization in this century. Guess I should change my name to glass half empty.

  10. So what's the gripe for LEO refueling? That the physics is problematic? That it's dangerous for astronauts to be on a craft while it's in process of being refueled?

  11. Well, we wouldn’t be there yet with ULA’s proposal because we don’t have Vulcan and we don’t have Vulcan because Blue Origin can’t deliver rocket engines.

  12. Great video! We also need to utilize "atomic rockets" as well — I think Starship beyond LEO works better with a nuclear rocket as it would require less refueling.

  13. Good video, the Stalled Launch System and Starship are too cumbersome for Lunar missions. Use ULA but also upgrade Dragon and FH and use Dynetics for the lander.

    Starship will prove to be too cumbersome for multi refuelling just to land two astronauts on the Moon. Also it will need nuclear rockets for Mars.

  14. The administration at NASA has become hostage to corrupt politicians and big financial players in the industrial/ military section. They seem to control the whole of NASA's budget because it all disappears mysteriously every year with 70% + on 'overheads' Which means maintaining facilities and engineers at great cost while they do nothing. To cut off the corruption you have to change NASA to being a research organisation only. Commercial space is then set free to lead the way in terms of new space hardware not through NASA facilities because we all know they will be ten years late and 5 times more expensive.

  15. ULA's moon plan is way more reasonable compared with all other plans. It is achievable in a short time especially if one is taking spaceX's Falcon Heavy in account.

  16. A cooperative strategy would accelerate space exploration by an order of magnitude. Space exploration is hobbled by the same thinking that gave us the F-35, Space Shuttle, SLS, Boeing Dreamliner and Boeing Starliner. Okay, so why did we abandon Saturn V? The F1 was improved by Dianetics and other companies, eventually developing 1.8 million pounds of thrust. And keep in mind that no F1 engine ever failed. F1 powered rockets would have far surpassed the Space Shuttle in terms of cost per kilogram to LEO. Political and corporate corruption have ruined what could have been and yet could be a fantastic adventure for mankind. I haven't had time to read this article, but wager it would give you a lot to think about. https://arstechnica.com/science/2013/04/new-f-1b-rocket-engine-upgrades-apollo-era-deisgn-with-1-8m-lbs-of-thrust/

  17. I think we are going to see an exponential rate of growth in space travel…access. Think Moores law. Once we really begin relying on space for products …as consumers we will NEED more at an exponential rate.

  18. Angry…please take a moment, ponder. in 10 years when real space utilization takes off and actual labor/opperators are needed en-masss in space….all us old farts will be ready for working in that environment. Imagine, at 70 working in a weightless environment….yupp…

  19. How to get to the Moon without SLS or Starship?

    Well, if you really, really, really have enough passion, and you truly want it, just flap your arms really hard and really fast, and then write a public letter complaining about what an awful person your company's owner is, he'll space you faster than you can say "Social Justice," and you'll just float to the Moon.

  20. A double ended rocket upper stage would be ideal. A rocket engine on either side of a craft. If one engine fails on one side. It could turn around and use the rocket engine on the other side. In LEO a mission could be sent to repair an engine if one fails. Gives extra redundancies.

  21. this channel should be renamed to “how to burn through as much taxpayer money as possible“.

  22. We need to start making STARSHIPS(and I don't mean the SpaceX Starship either)…

    Rockets, capsules, and spacecraft aren't gonna be how we do things forever. Better to actually start developing non-FTL Starships NOW than in the next century.

  23. Fuel Depots are a great idea. However, it's not exactly like it is fully mature technology. So far no one has ever even done orbital refueling yet. And of all the fuels, Liquid hydrogen is probably the MOST problematic from a boil-off and a leak perspective. Shit, we even have hydrogen leaks on EARTH quite often. Look at how much trouble the shuttle and the current SLS had/has with hydrogen leaks.
    So far, ULA always manufactures their equipment for single use. They have ZERO experience with reusability. I don't care if we have done experiments in "vacuum". Until we have tested a significant orbital tanking system in ORBIT and perfected it, it is still VAPORWARE. Maybe something that can be factored in later. But right now it is LESS further along than Starship. At least Elon is bending metal and launching shit. ULA hasn't even launched Vulcan yet.
    My money is still on SpaceX because they have found the sweet spot of Methalox for their systems. Not nearly the problems with boiloff and leaks that you get with Liquid Hydrogen.
    While it sounds really swell to use the lunar ice for rocket fuel, and it really sounds like a you have a bunch, I still think that is the most shortsighted idea ever. Talk about wasting a scarce resource you need to just LIVE on the moon by literally spewing out into space! Remember, rocket fuel is just ONE of the things you need water for. Humans living, breathing, farming, etc are a lot more important than spewing it into space. Surely, we can find an alternative rocket technology that would use less scare resources…. Perhaps aluminum powder with LOX from lunar regolith? Less efficient, but certainly more economical. Heatingf a bunch of lunar soil generates oxygen. Aluminum is common in lunar soil. All we need is power – Solar or Nuclear. ANYTHING but water/ice.
    Nice try. Keep thinking. But no…

  24. I miss the intro, maybe switch it to the outro to keep the history but still be you for the new guys. And for the critical thinkers out there, stop saying it's good enough, ask what can we do to make it better and stay tuned for that after you like and subscribe

  25. Could you please do a vid on , How & when could we go to the moon with just Starship ?

  26. the big problem with the ULA propositions being discussed is that they're the pipedream versions that they start with for sales purposes in order to find their lower cost (at the time) programs. it's a vision they want to put forward, but one that would never be realized and the folks that put it together know that. but they need the vision to keep the shareholders happy and to get the business to make the other stuff that actually happens.

    ULA being a conglomerate of all the NASA suppliers up through the Shuttle program, probably exhibits this behavior at it's worse because they all know that's the game (historically) with NASA and DoD – it's how all government contractors work

  27. What do you think of sending a starship to the moon and landing it on its side to make a temporary base to work out of. That way it illuminates the need for a elevator. And you could only install the RVAC engines and make them detachable. when it gets to the moon, you land it, detach the engine section and use the landing thrusters to move it up and turn it on its side. Once down you have a garage with a vehicle and a structure to work out of. I’ve got to be missing something.

  28. NO CONIDENCE FROM ME OR MY HOUSE. NASA SAID WE WOULD BE ON MARS BY 2000.qUIT THIS CHIT. Build a Braun type space station and migrate it to Mars and Moon.

    LD BE ON MARS BY 2000.qUIT THIS CHIT. Build a Braun type space station and mig

  29. All that freaking Effort and Freaking Money , to Go to the Moon or Mars ……. for WHAT ? … To take a Picture ? … Pick Up a Moon Rock ? … And THEN WHAT ?? … Try to Survive in a 100% Hostile Environment ? …WHY ? … So Man can be Interplanetary … WHY ? …. So we can be like Captain Kirk ? …… We got a planet to freaking SCREW UP ! … We are not Made to be Freaking Interplanetary ! … If we Were … We would already be that way … Nothing we know of is Interplanetary … NOTHING !! … Because it's POINTLESS ! ….. Spend all that effort and money on our Planet ! …. It's the Only One we got ! … Let's freaking LOOK AFTER IT !

  30. Yes. You are a reliable source of information and ideas and do not simply publish a sensational title loaded with old information. The variety you provide is outstanding. Thank you.

  31. ( I will probably get shot down for this but,) you only need to boost the speed to get Irion ( & What else) to Lunar orbit, so why not use solid rocket booster propulsion for a 2nd stage?.

  32. Shelby is an evil, unpatriotic P.O.S. who hobbled his country's space program. He should be in jail.

  33. Using LH2 for fuel may not work out well for a reusable ship. H2 has a habbit of making metal parts brittle.

  34. Sounds like SpaceX and ULA should do lunch.
    Can you imagine if the two hooked up and blew off NASA.
    Talk about "getting shyt done"

  35. Angry. I dare you to address the elephant in the room. Why did ULA not submit their ACES lander for the HLA contract? Are they opposed to winning a very big contract? Answer is, their parent companies. Insider(s) say so.

  36. Vulcan Heavy, powered with BE-4 engines. There is a need to launch a lot of heavy stuff to get this done.

  37. The thing is ……., it makes perfect sense and is totally cost efficient. So in other words nasa,ULA , especially New Glenn will not be able to do cost over runs for billions too fill their pockets with cash.