NASA Artemis II Launch TODAY Sending Human to the Moon…SpaceX Starship Somehow Better!

That was the defining moment of Artemis 1 and we are about to witness it again in just a few hours. The 10-day journey to carry a crew to the moon is now within reach and we will be following every step in the days ahead. But beyond the mission itself lies a deeper question. What about the launch vehicle? Even with a successful liftoff, the SLS may continue to face significant challenges, especially when compared to SpaceX's Starship. So why does the SLS encounter so many issues and why could Starship emerge as a stronger long-term alternative? Let's find out in today's episode of Great SpaceX. After more than three years, Artemis 2, the first crewed mission since Apollo 17, is now just hours away. There will be no landing this time, but it is still a historic flight as no crew has traveled that far in over 50 years. So are you ready? In this mission, the SLS plays a key role during launch. It performed well on Artemis 1, so after these first missions, it will likely remain NASA's main launch system for now. But the bigger question is, can it last in the long term? Looking back, the United States invested heavily in the Apollo program. At its peak, NASA received up to 4% of the national budget, with hundreds of thousands of engineers, scientists, and workers involved. That effort produced the Saturn V, a massive rocket standing 111 meters tall. Its F-1 engines became a symbol of power, and even today, no single rocket engine has surpassed its thrust. At that time, reaching the moon was the main goal, so cost and reuse were not priorities. The hardware was not designed to be reused. For example, an F-1 engine cost around $2 million back then, which would be much higher today. Because of this, the system quickly became too expensive to maintain. NASA ended the Apollo program and moved to the Space Shuttle, which introduced reusable technology to reduce cost and support long-term operations. The RS-25 engine played a central role in this shift, designed for reuse even though it produced less thrust than the F-1. After many years with the Space Shuttle, NASA entered a new phase in 2011, aiming to return to the moon. This led to the creation of the Space Launch System, or SLS, a rocket with a very unusual approach. At first glance, it clearly follows the Space Shuttle design, with its familiar orange and white look. Many of its core components and materials come directly from the Shuttle program. It also continues to use the RS-25 engines as the core stage. The reason NASA kept the older design for this rocket was likely to save time and make use of what they already had. They still had many Space Shuttle engines available, and they chose to build a new rocket by modifying existing technology instead of starting from scratch. However, the way the rocket was built is closer to the Apollo era. It's not reusable, which limits the value of the RS-25 engines. After each launch, the engines and boosters are discarded. As a result, NASA created a lunar rocket that took more than a decade to fly for the first time and cost tens of billions of dollars, with no hardware recovered for reuse. Because of this, its long-term potential is uncertain. After a few Artemis missions, the supply of leftover Space Shuttle engines will run out. It's still unclear if NASA will produce more, but if they do, it'll likely be very expensive. In addition, NASA depends heavily on external suppliers for another key part, the solid rocket boosters. These boosters provide about 75% of the liftoff thrust. Like the Space Shuttle design, they are not reusable. In today's launch environment, solid fuel boosters are considered less efficient and less flexible. There's also the issue of fuel. The use of hydrogen, inherited from older designs, continues to cause leakage problems. This has been a long-standing issue that NASA has not fully resolved. In short, while NASA presents the SLS as a modern rocket, it's actually built from many older design elements. This makes it harder to overcome its past limitations. Even so, NASA is still trying to improve the system. The upgraded SLS-1B version will no longer move forward. The Mobile Launcher 2 project has also been cancelled. At the same time, NASA plans to increase launch frequency to about once every 10 months. Another important change is replacing the Boeing-built Exploration Upper Stage with ULA's Centaur V. These are positive steps, but turning them into real results will take time, likely many years. So, do you think the SLS can operate in the long term, no matter the outcome of Artemis 2 and the success of Artemis 1? Let me know with a yes or a no in the comment section down below. And don't forget to like the video and subscribe to our channel to continue following SpaceX's development journey. Given the ongoing issues with the SLS, Starship continues to show strong and unique potential. First, it's important to recognize that Starship has not progressed as quickly as expected. It has not yet reached orbit. To support future moon missions, it still needs to prove several key capabilities, including reaching orbit, performing controlled landings for both stages, deploying payloads, building an in-orbit refueling system, and developing the Starship HLS version. Now, it's already 2026, and many of these milestones may not be reached until after Flight 12. SpaceX also paused launches for the last two months of 2025 and the early part of 2026, and Flight 12 may be delayed until later in the month. This creates strong pressure on SpaceX. They need to achieve many goals in a short time with high urgency and a high success rate. Clearly, SpaceX must push Starship's progress forward, and we will have to wait and see how it develops. However, these challenges should not hide Starship's potential, especially when compared to NASA's SLS. First, Starship's biggest advantage is full reusability. Unlike the SLS, which is mostly discarded after each launch, Starship is designed so that both the Super Heavy booster and the Starship vehicle can return and be used again. This allows for faster turnaround and more frequent launches. At the same time, the use of methane and liquid oxygen fuel helps reduce buildup inside the engines. This lowers maintenance time and supports repeated use. The use of stainless steel, while simpler than advanced materials, reduces cost, improves heat resistance, and supports large-scale production, helping to optimize the overall system. This changes the cost model in a fundamental way. Instead of spending billions of dollars on a single launch, the cost can be shared across many flights, greatly reducing the cost per kilogram of payload. Beyond cost, the ability to produce quickly and launch often is a key advantage. The SLS depends on a complex supply chain and slow, manual production, which limits how often it can fly. In contrast, Starship and its engines are built using a more industrial approach, similar to large-scale manufacturing. This could allow dozens or even hundreds of launches each year instead of one launch every few years. Even NASA's goal of launching every 10 months is far below what Starship aims to achieve. A higher launch rate not only lowers cost, but also speeds up progress for large space programs. Along with frequent launches comes strong transport capability. Starship is designed to be large and powerful, with the ability to carry over 100 tons to low Earth orbit in version 3, and possibly much more in future versions. This is far beyond the capability of current or planned lunar landers. Its large capacity allows it to carry complete structures, heavy equipment, and even living spaces without breaking them into smaller parts. This can greatly simplify mission design and speed up construction in space. In the long term, the use of methane and liquid oxygen also supports missions beyond Earth. Methane can be produced on Mars using carbon dioxide and water. This supports the idea of using local resources, reducing the need to bring fuel from Earth. While methane is not as efficient as hydrogen, it's easier to manage and less prone to leakage, helping avoid delays. Its higher density also makes it more suitable for long-term missions and refueling in space. Another key strength is flexibility. Starship is not just a transport vehicle, it can carry cargo, transport crews, refuel other spacecraft, and even serve as a base after landing. With its large size and strong structure, it can be adapted into a living space on the Moon or Mars, reducing the need for additional modules. In contrast, the SLS mainly serves as a launch system, and depends on other spacecraft to complete the mission. Overall, Starship represents a major shift in spaceflight, offering improvements in efficiency, cost, scale, and long-term use. The SLS remains a powerful system, but it follows a more traditional approach and may face limits in the future. Once again, Artemis II is very close. A journey the world has waited for, across years of hope and moments of disappointment. Now, all eyes turn to the four astronauts as they prepare to travel farther than any crew in more than half a century. We follow them with one simple hope, that they achieve their mission and return home safely. But even as this moment unfolds, the future is already taking shape. The long-term role of the SLS has never been fully certain. It is presented as a modern rocket, yet it still carries many legacy design choices, constraints that may limit how far it can evolve. And in a rapidly changing industry, limitations matter, because new alternatives are rising. Among them, Starship stands out. A system built on bold ideas, full reusability, high launch cadence, a fundamentally different approach to cost and scale. Though it still faces major technical challenges and critical milestones remain ahead, if those challenges are overcome, it may set a new benchmark, one that others will struggle to match. So for now, we watch. We wait. Two paths. Two philosophies. One shared destination. And the outcome is still being written. And that brings us to the end of today's episode. Thank you so much for tuning in. As always, this has been Kevin from GreatSpaceX. Until next time, keep looking up. First, it's important to recognize that Starship has not progressed as quickly as expected.