NASA Has A Problem With Artemis 

Man what on earth are talking about!?

@@juhopuhakka2351 What are YOU talking about?

@@bidipbo Im trying to improve my digital foot print by imitating "good people".

💯💯💯💯💯💯

These same issues existed during the program. The larger capsule uses more advanced technology, rather than just cork and ablator, and are meant to survive far into the future. Test flights are also far more expensive and there's no deadline to meet. If the capsule isn't man-rated, men don't fly to the moon. They'll fix it. What's slowing the program down is mostly bureaucracy and contractor work, which really only started a few years ago. All the Apollo infrastructure that was dismantled in the 70s and 80s needs to be rebuilt and reworked for modern techniques and new contractors. It's a massive headache. No such thing as an "insignificant" problem with this kind of thing, and these kinds of problems are generally fixed within a few months.

Do your home work.

beacuse they fake it from begining

Cold Hard Caaaaaash

We do, thats how we were able to fly the first mission without losing Orion. There were even similar issues with the heat shield on Apollo and none of them returned without some issue of concern. Dont forget Orion is a large craft then Apollo as well.

Because the wheel was faked back then

I believe ethically it SHOULD. Whether they’ll value life over cost remains to be seen.

@@mostlyvoid.partiallystars No, it doesn't necessarily require another unmanned test flight. The Demo-2 Crew Dragon had similar heat shield abrasion problems and SpaceX thickened the area that abraded too much for Crew-1. It's possible that Lockheed Martin may be able to do the same as NASA and Lockheed Martin have been researching this extensively already.

@@steveaustin2686 they can always choose not to re-fly and probably will - I don’t dispute that. But ethically I believe it’s the wrong choice. What SpaceX did does not dissuade me of that, and I work in a closely linked industry to these. There are not humans on my rockets but I understand the systems engineering process and steps to mitigate risk and limitations to tolerable levels. That tolerance when humans are on the stack should, IMO, ethically, be much much smaller.

We were doing this routinely in the Sixties. Did we lose that know-how since then?

@@ronniemask5921 For some strange reason Nasa destroyed all that knowledge...

cuz it's the gov't. they get to make their own rules

This very good thanks

Just wait until Starship makes fifteen flights for one trip to the moon... in 2030. That's when we discover they needed to blow up a few more Starships to figure out the One More Problem.

@@The-KP With the Artemis campaign, NASA will kill the first woman and first person of color in space.

@@chrislyon7147 Christa McAuliffe and Ronald McNair were the first woman and black man killed while on journey to space, aboard the last ride of the Challenger, STS-51-L. Also the first Asian American died aboard that trip, Ellison Onizuka. A sad day.

For Boeing...start using the theme music from "Lost in space".

@@MrGchiasson "Danger, Will Robinson..."

That's the best line, I love that part of the movie every time​@@ArmstrongandTumbler

The more G’s, the better!! They’ll reflect our minds, technology, and more!! G strings!! 👙 👙👙👙 Our brains look like gum!! 🧠 Juicier the better!!!🍏🍋‍🟩🫐🍍🍎🍌🍈🥥🍐🍉🍒🥝🍊🍇🍑🍋🍓🥭 Love everything until it loves you back!! Mosquitos too!!🦟 ❤ Each of us and each galaxy would represent a cell!! 🦠 We’re stars putting ourselves back together again!! Like Humpty Dumpty!! 🥚 🐓 The sky is blue because we’re meant to imagine it as a diamond!! The auroras then create the rest of the spectrum!! 🌈 💎 A purple sky would reflect the heart of the ocean!! An opened mind!! 🤯 The earth purring more!! Purrrrrple rain!!☔️ 🐈‍⬛ 🧶 Each thought to me is a solar flare, which shifts us into parallel worlds!! It’s hard here!!! I’m a peaceful dude, yet my life here has been super difficult!!🥹 Alpha Centauri represents a shift in consciousness!! Dog planet!! We’re riding the alpha waves!! Woof woof!!🐶 🐾 This is our world peace and enlightenment for the world and universe!! All is one!!😇🥳🥰🤩 We’re each a mini universe!!🌌 The 3 Body Problem represents our gut brain, 🍱 heart,❤️ and mind!! 🧠 The moon is a black hole!! 🕳️ A neutrino!! The planet is a colonized moon!!😇🌍👽 The sun is a shapeshifter!! 🌞 Are you and I sculpting together as a team or as individuals??? 🧑‍🎨 Using the moon as a tool!!! 🪨 The Sun is the eye!!👁️ I love the tool/word grinder!!!😮 We’d be Bumping and Grinding!!😂 The Earth is like a refrigerator and the atmospheric pressure is melting or defrosting the stars above, as if they’ve been in the freezer!! 🥶 It would also reflect us krystalyzing and becoming diamonds in the sky!! 💎 💎💎 Lucy becomes Maisie!! 🐒 👽 We could be stars from above aka heaven, melting everything from above, as well! Like a River Running Through It!!! 🌊🌊🌊🌊🌊 Gravitational waves or our thoughts raining down on us!! 🌧️ Unlocking a Secret Garden within and outside of us!!🤫 An Oasis!!!🏝️ 🏝️🏝️🏝️🏝️ Flowing!!! It helps a lot to flow!!!🌊🌊🌊🌊🌊🌊 Letting go, so we can concentrate more and work on our project!! Heaven On Earth!!🌍 👼 Flowers!! 🌺 🌸 💐 and Flow-Ers!!🌊🌊🌊🌊🌊 I know energy is still impurrtant!! 😻 And of course imagination!!! Love!!!💗 🐶 🎾 🧶 🐈‍⬛ To create heaven On Earth, the galaxies collide!! 🌌 Twin flames connect!! 🔥 🔥 We’re creating quantum entanglement!! Ghost particles merging, becoming more like the Stay Puft Marshmallow Man!!👻👻👻👻👻👻👻👻 The universe is still the Earth!!⭐️🌍⭐️ We’re seeing it from the insides!! 🕵️ Like we’re inside a volcano 🌋 or wishing well!! The stars and galaxies are like coins!!🪙 The Goonies vibes!! 💀 We’re treasure!! Antarctica is treasure island!! 🐧🇦🇶 Unlocking antimatter!! 🐜 Booby and booty traps exposed!! Planet X!! Hubba Hubba!!🥰 Everything and everyone has been our teacher!!👩‍🏫 3D is like the murky bottom of a bong or volcano!!🌋 The fourth dimension, representing Mars is like the stem of the bong or the volcanos vent!! 👽 Experiencing higher dimensions is like the smoke or magma reaching our mouths 😋 and then circulating through our bodies!! We are the Earth!!🌍 👼 The road less traveled!!!🧳 🌹 Straight up!! 🎈 🎈🎈🎈🎈We’d be super condensed or extremely packed neutron stars!! Like Rigel!! Blueberries 🫐 Antioxidants!! Betelgeuse has evolved into a neutron star!! 🧊 🦖 🧊 🦕 🧊 🦣 Our long winding road, exploring different dimensions, finally straightening out!! I’m getting Pee Wee vibes!! Large Marge sent me!!🚴😂 We’re vaporized, as if we’ve been smoked or roasted!! 💨 The smoke representing again those compressed neutron stars climbing the higher dimensions of the universe like a chimney!! I’m Mary Poppins, y’all !! ☂️ 🧞‍♀️ It would also represent us as a comet traveling through a wormhole!! 💫 Who me, I’m just a worm!!🐛 🫖 Solving a labyrinth!! 🦉 Solving amaze!!! 🦋 Different energies tell a different story!! 📚 We’re storytellers!! Artists!!🧑‍🎨 We’re energy first!! 🐝 A 12 inch boner is like receiving a foot of snow!!⛄️ 😂 When powered by neutrons and a magnetar energy field, one is like the energizer bunny!!🐰 They’ll keep going and going and going!! 🐇 🐇🐇🐇🐇 If you’re destined to have more than one twin flame, you’re like Frogger, playing leap frog!! Lucy is a sucker for Lillies!! 🐸 🍀 🐸 🍀 🐸🍀🐸🍀🐸 G Force!!!🥳👙🥳👙🥳👙🥳👙🥳

Exactly

LMAO, do you think this is just a funding problem? The chief of NASA even mess up common knowledge about the Moon.

So....i don't see a problem here...

Is possibile that the Apollo heat shield was not green😉

Reminds me of when I was working at Ford. They were having major problems with the roll-up windows in next year's model. A very angry man from HQ came out and listened to the explanation of the issue. He then very deliberately asked "How long has Ford been building cars that had windows that go up and down and WHY are we changing the mechanism?" Design reverted to the old design that week and the new model year rolled out on schedule. Dear NASA; If it's not broke, DON'T FIX IT.

saves costs, more $$$ for the snow addicted glue sniffing managers

10-4

Because Orion is expected to do more (with a MUCH higher re-entry speed) with a budget 10 times smaller. Would you like to go back to a 1960's higher tax rate to compensate? 😆

Is all the content here as thin analysis as it is in this clip?

Asteroid mining isn’t for earth dwellers. That doesn’t make any economic sense. It’s for projects in earths orbit and beyond. You can get a lot of asteroids below the 9.4 km/s delta-v fee of earths gravity. The peak concentration of Main Belt Objects is around that, leaving a lot of objects being less costly to bring material from than from earths surface. Most Near Earth Objects are below that. As for how hard it will be… we’ll just have to wait and see. We don’t actually know much about the composition, it’s all just speculation based on meteorites and only now some small amount of pebbles from the surface of two of them.

@@ParameterGrenze *How about this model: **_Mine the far side of the Moon._* Its low-but-present gravity will stabilize the mining and delivery machinery in a way known by gravity dwellers but essentially absent on asteroids. The lack of atmosphere and the low gravity are two less impediments to 'tossing' it to Earth. The basalt 'oceans' from ancient lava flow pulled toward the Earth on the near side mean the far side has more exposed mineral bearing rock, less digging. The refining would be _in situ_ thus less mass to accelerate toward Earth and the tailings remain on the Moon. The transit time is not important once the process is underway so the delta-v can be just enough to get the 'tossed' (launched) product captured by Earth's gravity. At the Earth end of the chain both asteroid mining and Moon mining face the same final delivery problem posed by the atmosphere. Perhaps tailings could be an ablative coating that is not available from asteroids because of _in situ_ refining difficulties in zero-G. 'Tossing' from the Moon can be simple leverage (or angular momentum as being researched by SpinLaunch) as opposed to the requirement of engines to provide delta-v from asteroids. (I didn't edit this post, please forgive spelling and grammar goofs, just trying to get make the case quickly over lunch.)

@@ParameterGrenze If they had started seriously making moves towards asteroid mining back in the 70's the first asteroids could have already been in Earth's orbit. They could never get anyone on board with the idea of unpowered capture because it would take so long and they could barely explain the concept to politicians let alone drum up public support. Now the economy isn't in a fit state to support to support anything but unpowered methods.

Just FYI, ULA is a 50/50 joint venture between Boeing & Lockheed Martin. Your point is absolutely correct as well!

After shenanigans in competing for USAF/NRO contracts, Boeing and Lockheed Martin divested their medium space launch divisions into the new ULA company in 2006. While ULA is owned 50/50 by Boeing and Lockheed Martin, ULA is a separate company with its OWN managment. Lockheed Martin makes the Orion capsule. Boeing is the lead contractor for SLS. Northrop Grumman does the SRB's and for the first 3 flights, the ULA Interim Cyrogenic Propulsion Stage (ICPS) is the second stage for SLS. Boeing's Exploration Upper Stage (EUS) is slated to replace the ICPS in the Artemis IV+ missions.

Dont you trust science?

one, they are. two, orion is bigger. three, orion is faster. look up a side by side comparison of the capsules before making these comments please

Nice try igor the bot.

@@juhopuhakka2351 XD, whatever.

That's why we all keep saying that Nasa should scrap the SLS system and just go with Starship!

@@ArmstrongandTumbler starship cant get back from lunar orbit, dragon capsule cannot survive reentry from lunar velocity, so they need to either upgrade dragon or starship, which will not happen soon, but maybe before nasa gets their shit together

First to land on the moon? Yes because that's the whole point of the HLS. But now I'm wondering if SpaceX will just be ready to launch a solo moon mission before orion is ready, even if SpaceX does still need at least 3-4 years for that.

SpaceX needs ~12 missions to orbit and refueling with a 100t vehicle to fulfill their part of the mission. At the moment they still have issues to open a door and fly straight or keep the tiles on the hull + everything is one-time use how long do yout think they need to have a fueled starship in orbit?

@@benjaminmeusburger4254 late 2025

The wear was deeper than expected, but did not compromise the spacecraft. For the Apollo spacecraft, they were one-use, so if the heat shield mounting got a little damaged, no big deal as long as the system did the job. For Orion, Crew Dragon, and Starliner, they want the heat shield to take all the damage and leave the mounting hardware untouched, so that they just put a new heatshield on for the next flight. Crew Dragon had a similar heat shield wearing away more than expected for Demo-2. SpaceX increased the thickness for Crew-1. Lockheed Martin will likely do the same for Orion, once the research is done.

Crew Dragon and Starliner don't have the range or life support to go to the Moon or even just return from the Moon. The ISS is in low Earth orbit (LEO) and is roughly 250 miles (400km) above the Earth. The Moon averages 238,900 miles (384,400km) from Earth. Also the ISS is in the wrong orbit than is used to go to the Moon, so it would take extra propellant to get to the ISS. The ISS also only has 2 IDA docking ports for cargo Dragon, Crew Dragon, Starliner, and Dream Chaser, so the ISS is too busy anyway.

Yes, of course, but it was made from 1960’s era components that aren’t made anymore.

​@@Scotto_desugotta be a blueprint somewhere.....

@@johndoepker7126 yeah, the point is that there are thousands of parts that there is no supplier for. This means that they'd have to convince / pay big bucks to manufacturers to make specialized ancient tech parts for which there is no market now. That would come at an eye-wattering premium. And, all of those parts would have to be space-certified and tested out the wazoo from scratch. It's much easier to design around proven available technology with an established supplier base.

@@johndoepker7126 The blueprints are all there. The problem is that in the sixties, engineers would have a basic design on paper, but a lot of the details and specific manufacturing was just in the heads of the workers in the factories. Can we make an F1 engine according to specs? Sure. Will it be reliable by just building it from specs? No, it won't, because many details that were added while manufacturing, are not in the specs.

Much of SLS is based on using leftover shuttle hardware for cost saving. So yeah, it was considered.

Imagine if we would have just kept going with the Apollo program and upgraded them as we went instead of abandoning it for decades. It reminds me of how many of the American shipyards went out of business, and now we don’t have the manpower and money to build all the ships we need.

The wear was deeper than expected, but did not compromise the spacecraft. For the Apollo spacecraft, they were one-use, so if the heat shield mounting got a little damaged, no big deal as long as the system did the job. For Orion, Crew Dragon, and Starliner, they want the heat shield to take all the damage and leave the mounting hardware untouched, so that they just put a new heatshield on for the next flight. Crew Dragon had a similar heat shield wearing away more than expected for Demo-2. SpaceX increased the thickness for Crew-1. Lockheed Martin will likely do the same for Orion, once the research is done.

Several reasons. 1. Funding isn't what it was during the apollo program, adjusted for inflation NASA had nearly 10x the budget at the height of the Apollo program. 2. Safety, the space race during the cold war saw some massive risk taking, numbers thrown around indicate a 50% chance of actually landing on the moon, and a survival rate of between 73% and 90% depending on sources. (Neil Armstrong said in an interview that he had a 90% chance of returning alive) That is obviously unacceptable in todays climate, anything below 99% survival rate won't be launched. 3. Apollo was single use, Orion is reusable with refurbishment, public opinion could be expected to be negative if you throw away complex space hardware for no reason, it is also more expensive in the long run. 4. Nasa is aiming to set up a permanent solution, not a hand full of one off missions like Apollo was. 5. Nasa is conducting research into many more areas of space flight and stay, Nasa has 10% of the budget they had during the Apollo era, and they have 10% of the budget they had back then. 6. New capabilities, the Orion capsule will be able to do many things the old Apollo ones couldn't, ranging from different experiments, sample returns, extended stays and so on, it's a bit like asking why we have modern cars when you could drive a 1930 Ford.

@@Yattayattanot 10% about 40-50%

@@Yattayatta but that is exactly my point. NASA has but a fraction of the budget they had when they were running the Apollo program. Hence why they should look into revamping and making that “old Ford“ run again - with modern improvements to make it safer and reusable - instead of always going for new technologies. If India can land on the Moon on a small fraction of the budget of Artemis - mainly by keeping their systems simple yet effective - you have to wonder if NASA still has the right people with enough innovative and creative drive to effectively run these projects.

@@thesilentpearl8575 The Apollo NASA had 3-4% of the US budget and no other big programs besides Apollo. Currently, NASA has less than 0.5% of the US budget and is also running the ISS at the same time as Artemis.

@@davidst-cyr5277 When Congress cut the Apollo funding, the hundreds of thousands of people and hundreds of factories making the Apollo hardware moved on to other things. Redoing Apollo requires remaking all those factories with hardware that had a higher chance of failure than allowed today. After the Demo-2 manned test flight, the Crew Dragon heat shield had similar issues of abrading too much that Orion has. SpaceX just thickened the heat shield in those areas, something that NASA and Lockheed Martin will likely do with Orion, after their research is done.

Yea we could just give them petrified wood rocks to shut up.

If they are going to hire an astronaut, get someone who has been to the ISS

🙏🏿🙏🏿

Dont get rid of fire Marshall Bill. 😆😆😆😆😆😆

“You can bet ya boots the other side of the moon is always in darkness “ 😂

At least they aren’t gonna die yet.

1 time use craft, not multi use, so orion is using a completely different technique for its headshield.

@@Yattayattaactually no orion still uses an ablative shield Also to answer OP’s question - even Apollo was slower than this

@@thesilentpearl8575 The Apollo capsules were one use and the Orion is planned to be reused, so you can't use the exact same thing as Apollo. After the Demo-2 manned test flight, the Crew Dragon heat shield had similar issues of abrading too much that Orion has. SpaceX just thickened the heat shield in those areas, something that NASA and Lockheed Martin will likely do with Orion, after their research is done.

@@steveaustin2686 i guess? the thing about ablative heat shields is that they are usually replaced tho

@@thesilentpearl8575 It is not quite that easy, while Apollo did also use an ablative heat shield, Apollo was single use so the heat shield carrier could take part of the heating. Apollo used a brazed steel honeycomb structure impregnated with phenolic epoxy resin for it's ablative substructure, which was both very heavy and very labor intensive to make. Orion won't replace the substructure, just the ablative coating. The substructure is also about 500kg lighter than on Apollo, so both being multi use and shedding 25-30% weight is quite the difference.

NASA had 3-4% of the US budget in the Apollo program. Now NASA has less than 0.5% of the budget and is running the ISS already.

I would say they were far better.

They had constant problems from 1961 to 1972.

@@gunternetzer9621 Agreed, but they got it done by the time past now by the NASA of today.

@@vc7393 The Apollo NASA had 3-4% of the US budget and no other big programs besides Apollo. Currently, NASA has less than 0.5% of the US budget and is also running the ISS at the same time as Apollo. Apollo 1 was a pretty big problem during the Apollo program.

@@steveaustin2686 No argument with you there, however how is it that Elonusk can build a larger building for 3.8 Billion, and NASA builds something similar (Both to build their systems) and it costs NASA 18 Billion. I am not arguing the money differences from them and now. It's how they seem to waste the money they have. Also, what the hell is wrong with Artemis, now you have to admit, this has become embarrassing, all of this tech of today, and still so many issues. I really wonder, if the guys from the sixties had it, how many times would we have been back to the moon, and I mean in the 2020's. I know there is insane politics within NASA and it hinders them immensely.

@@vc7393 What buildings are you comparing? After the Apollo program reached the Moon before the Russians, most of the US lost interest in the Apollo program for other concerns. So Congress cut the funding. NASA now is trying to run Artemis on a fraction of the budget while also running a big program in the ISS at the same time. Again, NASA had many problems with Apollo, they just are fogotten in the rosy glow of history now.

That's half of the problem. The other half is corporate greed.

Yes! If we just have the same spirit that we had back in times of Apollo.

@@ronniemask5921 Wrong answer. Try again

You can thank Obama for NASA's tiny budget. Most of it was repurposed for obamacare. So thanks for nothing.

No. The problem is time after time NASA becomes a faux research organization that pisses away money without actually finishing anything.

Because the Apollo crap didn't work either.

Oh dear @@straydog02

When Congress cut the Apollo funding, the hundreds of thousands of people and hundreds of factories making the Apollo hardware moved on to other things. Lockheed Martin will likely end up doing what SpaceX did for the Crew Dragon heat shield issues, just thicken it in the areas where it abraded too much.

That's the problem - the technology is archaic and the requirement is very different and they are trying to do more with less money.

🙄 When Congress cut the Apollo funding, the hundreds of thousands of people and hundreds of factories making the Apollo hardware moved on to other things. Lockheed Martin will likely end up doing what SpaceX did for the Crew Dragon heat shield issues, just thicken it in the areas where it abraded too much.

@@gunternetzer9621 This is the one thing this certain croud can not wrap their head around, we just can not take 1/3 of nations budget for this now.

NASA wouldn’t have problems if congress properly funded them…

In the capsule bringing the crew back to Earth.

@@steveaustin2686 I'm talking about when they are mining tons of material from an asteroid not just samples

@@ahuels67 Mining in space to bring the ore back to Earth isn't likely to be economical anytime soon. Any large scale mining for the foreseeable future would be for colonies off Earth. Colonies off Earth aren't happening anytime soon either.

The NRHO was chosen so that Gateway would need minimal propellant to stay in orbit. The low lunar orbits (LLO) are not stable, as the mass of the Moon is distributed unevenly with mass concentrations (masscons) clustered on the Earth facing side of the Moon. Something has to support Orion for the longer missions after Artmemis III. It's planned to be a few days to the Moon, about a week on the surface and a few days back, which Orion can do on its own. Later missions will be 2 weeks to a month or more on the surface, so something has to support Orion for that long. Gateway is that something.

They have. It’s bigger and heavier now, which is partly the cause of the heat shield problem.

​@@peterfireflylundvery well said. People don't seem to realize that the weight of the reentring object has a huge impact in the stress on the heat shield for fast reentries (like when coming back from moon or aerobraking in Mars)

Right? That was irritating me too 😅

strip mining isnt used for finding diamonds anymore, we need to explore cave. Are you stuck in 1.16?

No, Orion is made by Lockheed Martin. After the Demo-2 manned test flight, the Crew Dragon heat shield has similar issues of abrading too much that Orion has. SpaceX just thickened the heat shield in those areas, something that NASA and Lockheed Martin will likely do with Orion. The ESA makes the European Service Module (ESM) to support Orion for the mission.

You can use gravity do decelerate as easily as you can use it to accelerate.

What did you smoke dude?

This should become a national security concern and the EPA should be told to mind its own business or be completely disbanded

@@RedRyan 🙄Then you end up like Russia, with a lake so radioactive, you can't stand on the shore without receiving a lethal dose.

The FAA vs SpaceX is not really a thing, except for clicks by some YT channels. After all, the FAA defended SpaceX in front of Congress in Jun 2021 over the unauthorized SN8 flight. The 'NASA delaying Starship until the SLS flies' was just as silly, since NASA needs BOTH Starship and SLS for Artemis. SpaceX had approval for orbital launches of the Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy from Boca Chica since 2014. They could also fly sub-orbital tests of reusable spacecraft. SpaceX went through an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to get that approval in 2014. Since SpaceX wanted to fly orbital flights with Starship, that has roughly 3 times the propellant as the Falcon Heavy, out of Boca Chica, a relook was in order. So the FAA review was to see about adding Starship to that existing approval, without having to go through another EIS.

@@steveaustin2686 thank you for the level-headedness and the good history lesson

@@steveaustin2686 I didn't say there was

That’s why Biden has a teleprompter “pause “

16 Psyche is a planetary core remnant that is made of Iron and other heavy metals including precious metals. Refined en-situ, thousands of tons could be brought back. So. while ice, titanium from the moon would be priorities and could readily be launched into lunar orbit to feed shipyards, building massive ships, this could Also be done. Becomes even more plausible with giant ships constructed in lunar orbit and human form robots massively complimenting a small human crew to work en-situ foundaries. Short version: You can do both.

When there is a constant space presence, so that asteroid mining is cheaper than launching material from Earth. So a future project.

After the Demo-2 manned test flight, the Crew Dragon heat shield had similar issues of abrading too much that Orion has. SpaceX just thickened the heat shield in those areas, something that NASA and Lockheed Martin will likely do with Orion after the research is done.

When Congress cut the Apollo funding, the hundreds of thousands of people and hundreds of factories making the Apollo hardware moved on to other things. Lockheed Martin will likely end up doing what SpaceX did for the Crew Dragon heat shield issues, just thicken it in the areas where it abraded too much.

The Apollo NASA had 3-4% of the US budget and no other big programs besides Apollo. Currently, NASA has less than 0.5% of the US budget and is also running the ISS at the same time as Artemis.

@@steveaustin2686 You think technology might have advanced a little in half a century?

@@billsimpson604 🙄 The technology has advanced. The first landing is the Artemis III mission that plans to stay a week or so on the Moon. That is over HALF of ALL of Apollo landings COMBINED.

There are two spaceports by Port Canaveral, Cape Canaveral Space Force Station (CCSFS) just to the north of Port Canaveral and the Kennedy Space Center (KSC) just to the north of CCSFS. SpaceX has SLC-40 at CCSFS, LC-39A at KSC, SLC-4 at Vandenburg Space Force Base (VSFB) and they just took over SLC-6 at VSFB. SLC-4 is broken up into the SLC-4E launch pad and SLC-4W landing pad. SpaceX also uses LZ-1 & LZ2 at SLC-13 on CCSFS. SLC-6 is going to be converted for Falcon Heavy at VSFB, as currently only LC-39A launches the FH. SLC-6 will likely do Falcon 9 launches as well, so SLC-4E can be converted to a landing pad for the FH side boosters to land at SLC--4E and SLC-4W as they do at LZ-1 & LZ-2 at CCSFS. Currently, LC-39A is the only location for Crew Dragon launches, but a tower has been built at SLC-40 for Crew Dragon launches as well. SpaceX has the orbital launch pad at Boca Chica, TX and is building a second pad there for Starship. They are building a Starship pad at LC-39A, but that seems to be on hold again, while they figure out what they want at Boca Chica. SpaceX and NASA are working with the FAA about one or more Starship pads at LC-49, which is an as yet unbuilt area to the north of LC-39B. It is on the edge of the NASA property, so that will take time to work out.

@@steveaustin2686 What does any of that have anything to do with my original comment?

@@regolith1350 It ALL relates to your point #2 and a little of point #3, providing more detail.

Yet the 1960-1972 tech worked.

@@christophercripps7639 absolutely true. And I’m not saying the design and engineering isn’t both valuable and useful. But I am saying that allegedly cost-saving in order to under-bid and win SLS on the basis of using old, remaining shuttle hardware is fine when there aren’t humans on top. But being that humans are about to be on that machine, we should be valuing quality a whole lot more than cost. Then again, ‘mericuh, capitalism, yadda.

@@christophercripps7639 In the same way that wooden sailing ships once worked, but would be considered quite ridiculous for any serious work today...

NASA HAS known about it since it happen and NASA and Lockheed Martin are researching it. After the Demo-2 manned test flight, the Crew Dragon heat shield had similar issues of abrading too much that Orion has. SpaceX just thickened the heat shield in those areas, something that NASA and Lockheed Martin will likely do with Orion, after their research is done.