Ex-NASA seriously Warning SpaceX Starship Refueling Problem, DUAL SLS System to Replace...

Again, the former NASA chief is criticizing the structure of the Aremis program, arguing that Starship should be removed from the architecture and replaced with a dual SLS approach. Many are now questioning whether this proposal is meant to be taken seriously. Meanwhile, NASA has announced another delay affecting the Orion Artemis 2 rehearsal, and SpaceX has reached a major launch milestone in its history. Let's explore the details in today's episode of Great SpaceX. The moon has become one of the most debated subjects in the space industry today, especially as NASA prepares to transition to a new administrator. Much of the current controversy centers on differing views about the direction of the Aremis program and what architecture the US should rely on as it attempts to return humans to the lunar surface. Among the most outspoken voices are former NASA leaders who repeatedly challenge the existing structure of Aremis. They warned that without significant changes, the US risks falling behind China in crude lunar missions and long-term exploration capabilities. At the center of this criticism stands former NASA administrator Mike Griffin, who continues to express strong doubts about SpaceX's Starship HLS, or human landing system for short. Although he rarely mentions the vehicle directly, his arguments often point toward the complexity of the orbital refueling system that Starship requires. He highlights the fact that the mission depends on multiple refueling flights, precise docking operations, and an unprecedented scale of propellant transfer in orbit. In his view, this degree of complexity creates too many points of failure. He argues that the concept is very unlikely to succeed, and in some statements, he has gone as far as to say that it simply cannot work. While Griffin is skeptical of the current American approach, he and several other former officials speak with admiration about China's progress. They point out that China is following an architectural model similar to the Apollo program, which has already proven capable of placing humans on the lunar surface. They argue that this straightforward architecture is more reliable than the ambitious multi-step design chosen for Artemis. Based on this, Griffin concludes that the current plan should be abandoned starting with Artemis 3. Instead, he proposes returning to an approach he supported nearly 20 years ago, a dual SLS system in which one space launch system rocket would carry the lander and the other would carry the crude spacecraft. The two vehicles would then meet in lunar orbit. The crew would transfer to the lander, descend to the surface, complete the mission, return to orbit, and finally reunite with the spacecraft for the journey home. In this scenario, the architecture would rely entirely on NASA controlled systems. The lander would almost certainly be similar to the Apollo lunar module built by whichever contractor NASA selected for the job. On paper, this approach sounds simple and traditional. However, when we look deeper at the costs and schedule implications, major issues immediately appear. And before we explore those challenges, it's important to remember why the original architecture that Griffin supported was eventually abandoned. The reason was not technical feasibility. The reason was cost. It was far too expensive to sustain. Even one SLS rocket has required enormous financial resources. Just developing the vehicle for Artemis 1 took over a decade and consumed tens of billions of dollars. When we imagine doubling that requirement, the expenses grow to staggering levels. Two SLS rockets would require their own lengthy production timelines each with dedicated hardware and extensive testing. In addition, both rockets would need separate mobile launchers. Building one mobile launcher is already extremely costly. Building another only increases the financial burden. The lander presents another challenge. Blue Origin currently plans to launch its Blue Moon lander on the company's New Glenn rocket. However, in Griffin's proposed architecture, New Glenn is removed from the equation entirely because everything must launch on SLS. That raises a major question. Is Blue Moon even compatible with the SLS? If it's not, NASA would need to pay for a redesigned lander or an entirely new lander program. Either path would add significant delays and costs. Developing a lunar lander from scratch is not cheap. History has already shown this through the Apollo era program, which took years of engineering and enormous funding to complete. Even after all the hardware is built, the mission costs themselves would be extremely high. Launching a single SLS and Orion capsule for Artemis 1 cost nearly roughly $4 billion US for NASA. With two SLS rockets and a new lander added to every mission, the expenses would more than double. Eventually, the price of sustaining such a program will become too burdensome for NASA's budget, especially as Congress reviews spending priorities each year. Beyond cost, the timeline presents another major obstacle. We are approaching 2026 and Artemis 3 is currently scheduled for 2027. Rebuilding the entire lunar architecture at this stage would guarantee additional delays. It's difficult to imagine how NASA could construct two operational SLS rockets, two mobile launchers, a new lunar spacecraft, and a lander within the remaining time frame. The answer is almost certainly that they can't. As a result, shifting to Griffin's plan would not only increase the cost of Artemis, but would also push the return of American astronauts to the moon further into the future. When we compare Griffin's criticisms with the realities of his proposed alternative, it becomes clear that the issues he raises are overshadowed by even greater problems in his solution. Yes, the current Artemis architecture is ambitious. Yes, it challenges the boundaries of engineering with orbital refueling and reusable systems. But attempting to replace everything now would cause even more disruption, more delays, and more financial strain. Continuing to develop the existing systems appears to be the most reasonable path forward. Starship, despite its challenges, remains central to this long-term lunar strategy. I agree that SpaceX often appears focused on Starship's broader potential, sometimes at the expense of clarity regarding near-term lunar milestones. NASA should hold them to firm expectations. NASA should require transparent progress reports. And NASA should help accelerate development by improving the efficiency of licensing and approval processes. But even with these concerns, the long-term importance of Starship is difficult to deny. If the United States aims not only to land on the moon before China, but also to maintain a sustainable presence afterward, then a vehicle like Starship is essential. Its enormous cargo capacity, large internal volume, and ability to transport large crews, offer capabilities that traditional landers simply cannot match. Starship could deliver habitats, rovers, scientific equipment, and even full-scale infrastructure to the lunar surface. In time, its design could allow segments of the vehicle to become part of the base itself, reducing the time and materials needed to construct long-term settlements. Achieving these goals requires a robust orbital refueling capability. This is precisely the system that Griffin has criticized. Yet, many other leaders see it as the technology that will unlock the next era of deep space exploration. Among them is Jared Isikman, the current nominee for NASA administrator. He argues that dismissing orbital refueling is a mistake and that both SpaceX and Blue Origin rely on it in their designs. He points out that the private sector is investing significant resources into the technology, reducing the burden on taxpayers, and when the system succeeds, it'll transform missions far beyond the moon. Isaacman raises a vital question. Are we trying to recreate what was done in 1969, or are we working to develop the technologies that will open the entire solar system to human exploration? If the goal is to compete with China in the decades ahead, a modern program cannot simply echo Apollo. It must use scalable systems, sustainable missions, and vehicles capable of supporting human life for long durations. The US now faces its most significant exploration challenge in more than half a century. The pressure comes from China's rapid progress toward its own crude lunar landing, but it also comes from within as debates continue over cost, architecture, safety, and long-term strategy. Both immediate and long-term objectives are crucial. We must reach the moon before China, and we must build a program that can endure long after the first landing. SpaceX has dealt with skepticism from the beginning. Even now, many question whether Starship can fulfill its goals. This may be the moment for SpaceX to show steady, transparent, and consistent progress. If they do, they will remain the strongest choice for returning astronauts to the lunar surface. If you support ongoing Starship development and the vision of a sustainable future on the moon, leave a comment saying, "Keep progressing." Don't forget to like the video and subscribe to follow every step of SpaceX's journey back to the lunar surface and beyond. It's becoming increasingly clear that relying solely on NASA's internal systems will make the return to the moon far more challenging. That point was reinforced once again when Orion, the spacecraft for Artemis 2, encountered another setback. According to several reports, the four Artemis 2 astronauts were originally scheduled to conduct a launch day rehearsal inside Orion on the 19th. However, an unexpected issue forced NASA to delay the exercise. In an update last month, mission commander Reed Wiseman explained the situation. >> It's been kind of an interesting week because we were supposed to be at Kennedy Space Center for Countdown demonstration test, but we have delayed that test into December. It won't affect our launch schedule, which is fantastic. Charlie Blackwell Thompson and her team at Kennedy are working hard getting this vehicle ready for us to go. But that kind of gave us a free week almost. So, we spent the bulk of this week sitting down with our flight control experts and and our teams here at Johnson just working through all the questions that we've had leading up to today. >> His comments made it clear that the team needed more time to evaluate concerns before moving forward with such a critical rehearsal. The delay appears to stem from a stain discovered on Orion's thermal barrier. NASA explained that before the planned countdown demonstration test, teams intended to conduct a day of launch closeout demonstration. That rehearsal was paused when a blemish on the crew module's thermal barrier prevented the hatch from closing. Repairs were completed on November 18th, and the closeout demonstration finished successfully on the 19th. NASA then chose to move forward with water servicing first and schedule the countdown demonstration test afterward so that lessons from the closeout rehearsal could be incorporated. Although the statement outlined the issue, it did not clarify how the stain interfered with the rehearsal or provide a new date for the countdown demonstration test. Even so, NASA emphasized that the setback will not disrupt the overall mission timeline. Wiseman reassured the public by stating that the launch schedule remains unaffected. Still, the pattern of recurring technical problems is hard to overlook. Each delay highlights how delicate and demanding the Aremis infrastructure has become. Relying entirely on NASA's current hardware for future lunar missions appears less realistic with every new complication. For now, all eyes remain on NASA as it decides how to proceed. Now, let's return to SpaceX and its latest major milestone. SpaceX has successfully launched another Falcon 9 mission from SLC4E in California, delivering 28 Starling satellites into orbit. The payload was deployed exactly as planned, and the booster completed a clean landing on the drone ship, adding another smooth and predictable mission to the Falcon 9 record. At first glance, it may seem routine, but it carries meaningful weight. This launch marked the 156th Falcon 9 mission of the year and the 573rd Falcon 9 flight overall. When combined with the 11 Falcon Heavy missions, 11 Starship flights, and five Falcon 1 launches, SpaceX has now passed the 600 launch milestones since its founding. Crossing 600 total missions is a remarkable achievement that highlights the company's unmatched pace and capability. Year after year, SpaceX expands its cadence, breaks its own records, and pushes the limits of modern space flight. With this momentum, future milestones such as 600 Falcon 9 launches or even 700 and a,000 total missions appear well within reach. And this is only the beginning. Once Starship reaches a higher operational cadence, it's expected to fly far more frequently than Falcon 9. If development continues as planned, Starship's flight rate could surpass today's numbers and propel SpaceX into a new era of capability. So far, SpaceX has completed 156 missions this year, leaving just 14 more to achieve its goal of 170 annual launches. With several weeks remaining and a steady manifest, the company is firmly on track. With this latest milestone behind them, the question becomes simple. What will SpaceX accomplish next? In any case, folks, this has been Kevin with Great SpaceX. Don't forget to like the video and subscribe if you haven't already to stay up to date with yours truly on the latest milestones in SpaceX's journey. Thank you so much for watching and always remember, curiosity, imagination, and inspiration will follow you so long as you keep looking up.