we unfortunately must start with bad
news for NASA's Artemis program
NASA's fiscal year 2021 budget will not
be increased but will stay flat at 2020
levels at first glance this doesn't
sound too bad but we're going to tell
you why we think that this is actually
really really bad for the chances of
landing astronauts on the moon by 2024
and then another bombshell from NASA and
our favorite company Boeing starliner's
maiden flight review has been completed
and the results are just brutal
but then even more bad news some
environmental groups are urging the FAA
to conduct a new environmental impact
assessment for spacex's Boca Chica
launch site what does that mean for
SpaceX and what are the consequences for
starship and super-heavy and of course
we have to talk about the current
progress of starship at Boca Chica a lot
to cover again so stay tuned
so it has unfortunately happened what we
feared came true
we talked extensively about NASA's
fiscal year 2021 to 2025 budget request
and stated that this increase in NASA's
budget would be extremely important to
make the 2024 moon landing goal a
reality for example in this video here
because estimates showed that in order
to really make that ambitious goal NASA
would need 30 billion dollars in
additional funds but we also want that
it would be unfortunately likely that
this budget request would not pass
Congress and lo and behold so indeed it
came to pass but then you might say hey
come on don't be so negative
at least the 2021 budget will stay at
2020 levels that's not so bad right
because 2020 levels means twenty two
point five billion dollars that's almost
1 billion more than in 2019 and around 2
billion more than in 2018 so that's not
so bad right
poor Jim bridenstine tries to convince
himself of that and puts on his laughing
joker face wipes away the tears which he
is shedding secretly and pretends that
this is actually a quote important first
step in this year's appropriations
process well it's also a way to put it
this should be taught in future classes
as a case study on political correctness
of course poor Jim Bridenstine as we
often said has the most difficult job on
this planet and he cannot speak out the
obvious truth
but fortunately dear viewers we can what
this House Appropriations bill from the
7th of July actually means is nothing
less than the de facto death of the 2024
crewed moon landing before you brutally
flame us in the comment section which
you probably will do either way let us
elaborate NASA asked for twenty five
point two four billion dollars but got
almost three billion dollars less where
do you think the three billion will be
cut from SLS
please no of course the human landing
systems for Artemis
so the moon Landers for 2024 themselves
you know that not long ago three
companies were awarded a total of nine
hundred and sixty-seven million dollars
to develop a human Lander for the 2024
moon landing with five hundred and
seventy nine million dollars for the
lobby moon lander so here kids you
really see that lobbying does pay off
then two hundred and fifty three million
for dynetics team whose Lander we find
far superior to the lobby team's lander
and only 135 million dollars for the
absolutely totally superior moon
starship which could actually carry the
entire lobby lander as payload like in
this quite hilarious rendering here
whoever made this dear sir or madam
you are a genius but for the entire
human landing systems we can see that
around 3.3 billion dollars would have
been foreseen for 2021 which is this
difference here in exploration research
and development instead of 3.3 billion
dollars NASA now got a meager 628
million so only 19% of the request
19 percent so what Jim tries to sell us
as an important first step is actually a
total disaster because without a moon
lander obviously there can't be a moon
landing at least not in 2024 and let's
be brutally realistic if NASA would get
the needed budget only in 2022 that
would probably be already too late so
this here ladies and gentlemen means
nothing less than that the probability
of a moon landing by 2024 has just
dropped to a maximum of we'd say 10%
and the probability wasn't extremely
high before as it was and even though
Jim also tried to sell us the bill as
bipartisan of course super politically
correct as always in reality the
Republican Congress members seem to be
not so happy with the bill for example
Republican subcommittee ranking member
Robert aderholt called out the bill's
deficiency he said that the reduced
funding for Artemis is a rebuke
especially considering the quote passion
of the American people for a
reinvigorated space program as evidenced
by the launch of the demo2 mission full
committee ranking member Kay Granger
went even further she said quote this
bill makes new investments in science
but only selectively there's a
significant increase for the National
Science Foundation but there's not a
penny more for NASA specifically the
bill fails to provide adequate funding
for an essential component of NASA's
Artemis program the human landing
systems on which the first woman will
travel to the surface of the Moon the
inadequate amount included for landers
undermines prior-year investments in
deep space exploration
flat funding for nasa reveals a
deliberate effort to undercut our path
toward renewed American space dominance
this is short-sighted to say the least
being the world leader in space will be
expensive but it won't be nearly as
costly as letting China
dominate in space for far too long we
have allowed China to challenge us with
negative implications both for our
economy and our national security dear
mrs. Granger thanks a lot for saying
something about which we on this channel
have been warning about since day one if
the us lets the moon landing
effort slip China will certainly take
advantage of it and let's be crystal
clear
China is planning to land their people
on the moon by around 2030 if the US
doesn't get their own people to the moon
by 2024 there is a real chance that
we'll be looking at Chinese moon
supremacy so bipartisan hmm doesn't
really sound bipartisan to us we have
the strange feeling that a certain
political party wants to delay Artemis
as long as possible until after
2024 hmm we wonder why we wonder why
this could be fortunately
Republican congressman Michael waltz can
help us out here he said quote I'm a
little bit worried the president has
been clear the vice president has been
clear we want to get boots on the moon
by 2024 and you know I'm just being
probably more candid here than some of
our other speakers there are those that
don't want to see this administration
have that victory well well well what
can we say nothing to add here
and normally we'd say okay so what then the
u.s. lands on the moon by 2026 or 2028
where is the problem the problem is that
the next president in 2024 will most
likely just undo everything this one did
a good old American tradition so the
likelihood for Artemis being canceled
altogether is quite high that's the real
problem here so the only chance yes the
only chance now that the US has is to hope
that starship will be ready in the next
years and SpaceX will carry out their
own private moon missions to the lunar
surface in the next four to five years
because then Congress will have no
choice but to use starship for
America's return to the moon so let's
hope that it will happen like this
because if not then this here is what's
going to await us
but if you thought that the rant was
over we are just getting warmed up here
the results of the major review
conducted by NASA and Boeing of starliner's
maiden flight have now been
published and once again it confirms
everything we said NASA Commercial Crew
program manager Steve stich identified
insufficient NASA oversight on Boeing
which allowed multiple software problems
to go unnoticed before launch at the
same time there was increased oversight
over spacex's software development
for crew dragon he further said that
more resources may have been dedicated
to oversight at SpaceX due to their less
traditional approach of software
development compared to Boeing's method
with which NASA was more comfortable aha
so NASA was more comfortable with
Boeing's approach you know it's quite
funny because people often accuse us of
being too aggressive and too negative on
Boeing and that we might exaggerate
sometimes but we said in this episode
here exactly that that NASA is super
strict on SpaceX and far too lenient on Boeing and we all know why because Boeing
has good lobbyists and Boeing space
flight program is basically a giant NASA
funded job creations program they
lobbied lots of Congress people and have
strong political support even though
they have inferior products and inferior
software development as compared to
spaceX and the leniency of NASA almost
made the Starliner flight end in
disaster because Doug Loverro admitted back
then that the Starliner flight was a
high-visibility close call and now what
would happen with Starliner well nasa
has only 80 repeat 80 recommendations
for boeing to implement for the next
Starliner launch only 80 recommendations
I mean come on that's that's not so bad
so good luck for the next launch attempt
Boeing you will probably need it
this week is really brutal what's going
on we have even more bad news some
environmental groups are urging the FAA
to require a new environmental impact
assessment for Boca Chica members of the
Friends of the wildlife corridor are not
amused that spacex changed their Boca
Chica starship facility from a launch
site to a test site with quote ongoing
experimentation of untested technology
without doing the studies that would
ensure environmental protection and
Public Safety and without giving the
local community a chance to have a say
we can understand that some residents of
the area are now so happy about spacex's Boca Chica facility but SpaceX
has to conduct their tests somewhere on
this planet right and no matter where
SpaceX would build a facility you can be
sure that there would be wildlife nearby
we are pretty sure that there's also
wildlife at Cape Canaveral but that
didn't prevent the Satrun V to be
built and launched right so we hope that
the FAA will do the right thing because
as we said nothing less than the u.s.
dominance in space is on the line here
because SpaceX is the only one who can
land astronauts on the moon before
China no one else can do this but we
think that one of the reasons why SpaceX
wants to build floating platforms for
super heavy launches is in part exactly
due to that the fear that the FAA will
restrict super heavy testing at Boca
Chica with the floating launch platforms
spacex will be able to conduct
offshore launches not bound by any FAA
regulations and of course also solving
the noise problem of super-heavy at the
same time a genius move by Elon and
really necessary as you can see here
as for Boca Chica itself a lot is happening
as always
last week we were maybe a bit too
optimistic we admit this week we'll try
to remain more realistic so sn5 got a mass
simulator installed probably in order to
simulate the mass distribution of the
nose cone which will be important for
the upcoming hopping tests but of course
before the hopping tests SN5 will first
have to survive the static fire tests
which are according to current road
closure dates starting today with backup
dates on 14th and 15th of July so if the
static fire tests this week should go
well we might see the hopping test next
week meanwhile much to the dismay of the
Friends of the wildlife corridor SpaceX
has started building the giant
super-heavy high bay building where the
super-heavy will be stacked this
building will be an insane 81 metres
tall when finished and we can see the
giant cranes building this massive
structure meanwhile sections for a
further test tank and future starships
are already being transported around
indicating that work until at least SN10
is already being carried out and if
you are new to this channel and would like
to know why colonizing the moon in the
first place might be a very good idea
you can watch this video here so thanks
for watching the JS Space report then
I would say on 2 the future
