I hope they realize that it’s better to cut your losses and start with a new design rather than push forward with a poor design that’s already proved it’s plagued by delays and engineering problems. Here’s hoping they come to their senses earlier rather than later. Glad to hear that you’re feeling better Kevin 🎉❤
If they remove the Lunar Gateway, they will not only gain many years, and multiple billions of dollars, they will remove many points of potential failure and get back to the Moon much quicker.
THANK YOU for keeping your comments to the end. It nice watching the video, THEM hearing the comments unlike most who have to keep on interupting and breaking the flow of the video. Thumbs up.
Gateway is mostly a jobs program to gain congressional approval. Elements are constructed in many states by many contractors that benefit from building it, even if its value is minimal.
A smaller lunar lander version of Starship could be built for moon and mars landings & lift-offs while the largest version could serve as a gateway station or habitat.
Put an adapter on it and that's it. DO NOT confuse it with the adapter for other space companies, or you will take them all to space and throw away the wrong ones.
@@chrisbraid2907 No doubt. Years ago I thought he was a con man. 😂 But at this point he’s done so much amazing stuff that I’m in favor of just writing him the check and getting out of his way. They should just turn control of NASA over to him.
Maybe the new nasa administration will see the issues with this version of gateway take any usable technology scrape the rest and designe this lunar gateway station to just be a couple starships that have a docking port that lets them connect into 1 major station
Stating the obvious NASA has built adapters before. Remember the Soviet and US in 1975? Those vehicles used two different atmospheres. We have time to make one before the mission.
when NASA presented its program to return to the moon with the "lunar gateway" I said to myself: great, another program like "Battlestar-Galactica" the fiasco of the "90-day report" in the 90s was not enough it seems. in this program All NASA departments have obtained that their research is integrated into the final program (even if it was clearly stupid) after the selection of the Starship as a lander it is clear that the gateway is not only useless but its maintenance is totally stupid. who would want to travel 3-4 days in a Ford T (orion) to arrive at the "port" the size of 5-6 "beetles" (the gateway) to finally do the last kilometers in a "tesla semi" (the starship) of almost 1000 cubic meters which was designed to make the trip not to the moon but to mars. the problem is that eliminating SLS, Orion and the Gateway means that NASA has been wasting US taxpayers' money for 50 years and that NASA personnel are incompetent. as "we" cannot say that "we" prefer to waste money
Yep, the Lunar Gateway will make getting to the Moon harder, less safe, and more expensive. Whoever decided to go ahead with such a fiasco should be fired.
The Lunar Gateway is not necessary to get to the moon. I say, get to the moon in the most efficiant way possible (Starship), THEN worry about a space station orbiting the moon.
The point is it doesn't need to be made compatible at all. It's easier and quicker to send Starship to lunar orbit than it is to rendezvous with a hypothetical LG. Why go to the LG before going to the lunar surface?
The starship is on track to launch to low earth orbit a 150 ton payload for under $500 million dollars. And the costs are expected to go lower than that. So for 10 billion dollars, or the cost of the Artemis program to date, we would be able to launch 3,000 tons into low earth orbit on 20 missions minimum. I assume we could get a thousand tons to the Moon for that cost using the starship. There's a goddamn moon base right there
Are you saying that is THEIR cost, or the cost to the customer? Those are two very different things. SX will charge the most that the market will bear based on competitave pricing. F9 launches are very competative, but there much higher than origonally estimated, even after allowing for inflation. Musk might control 80% of SX, but his ownership is half that. The many investors demand ROI.
If not for the contracts in place, the smarter move would be to use Sierra Space's eventual crew version of Tenacity. Why use a horrible capsule like Orion that keeps having problems to splash in the ocean when you can just have them in a reusable mini space plane with more cargo room? Why not also use that to go between ISS and The Gateway, then use Starship HLS to the surface? Totally agree Starship would make a better space station than Gateway. Just convert 1-2 Starships into a station with a central connecting PPE hub and you're done. Even Axiom is making better progress than Gateway. Gateway won't even be relevant once a fuel depot can be created on the moon.
We need one picture! Starship docked with the ISS. This would look like the Titanic docked with a super cargo ship. I wonder if we can use eddy currents to change the re-entry issues with the heat shield. The size of the eddy changes the results in fluid dynamics on Earth.
The design is too antiquated to Keep up with SpaceX and the new technology. It needs to be discarded and start over. Mean while The SpaceX HLS can be both a gateway and a lander.
The problem with the Lunar Gateway isn't so much its cost, the time it will take to build and place in orbit, or the technical and technological challenges it faces, the problem is that it adds absolutely NOTHING for the attempt to return to the Moon. The LG in fact is a boat anchor for a manned mission to the Moon. It requires an inconvenient and time consuming orbit, it requires two rendezvous instead of one on the way to the Moon, and contributes nothing that can't be achieved in any number of better, easier, or cheaper ways. If NASA wants to get to the Moon before the Chinese, it must, I repeat, MUST immediately cancel the Lunar Gateway!
OOHH❗️oooh, LUNAR Gateway is in heep of trouble. Surely, J. Isaacman of NASA will soon decide wht's BEST FOR HUMANITY. I wld choose SpaceX-Starships. Thank, U kev🌟🌾✨️ keep looking UP ❗️ ~😸 📝: I am cramming, packing my clothes 🙃 😅. I jst decided to taste one too many corona flavored 🍺 drinks over mole enchiladas 😋 🤣
If not for Elon Musk it would be another 50 years before we return to the moon... smh. With all those 'refueler tankers' being needed, how hard would it be for SpaceX to take a couple, (1 at a time) already in orbit, and tow them to lunar orbit behind a lander or 2? Just a thought.
Taking refuelling tankers to lunar orbit wouldn't work because you would need so much more fuel to get them there. Much better and no matter where you want to go, it's far more efficient to refuel in low Earth orbit.
@@chrisantoniou4366 No matter what you take it's all the same equation. A more massive object requires more fuel than a less massive one, yes. But you've got more there when you get there... But that's the idea... I'm just suggesting that, since those objects are already up in space, having served their purpose to bring fuel there for another mission, may be efficient to take one or two and,, utilizing the momentum they already possess, add a bit more with the momentum you're already going to create to bring the object they were refueling to the moon, and perhaps it may save some economy to add a bit of that momentum to it at the same time and voila! It's not rocket science, or is it? O.0
@@Reyajh Ummm, well it may not be rocket science, but it is the "science" of never getting a free lunch. Yes, it's the same equation, but it always takes more fuel to take fuel to the Moon and refuel there than it takes to refuel from low Earth orbit, always. The counter argument is that it takes less fuel to leave the Moon for Mars than to leave Earth for Mars, but people forget that you need to first take that rocket to the Moon. So it still takes less fuel to send a rocket into LEO, refuel there and send it to Mars than it takes to send a rocket into lunar orbit along with its fuel, refuel there and then go on to Mars.
We need a lunar gateway and a LEO space station accessible to Starship. The LEO space station could provide a fuel dump for Starship and also a port for lunar tugs to the Gateway.
@@scottre3220 if we can get a nuclear reactor onto the surface of the Moon at the south pole, then we will be able to process the water into fuel there and launch it much more easily, especially if we get a small Mass driver going as well
That is rubbish! For the LG to act as a "fuel dump" for anything, you still have to get the fuel there and the fuel used to get the fuel there can be better used to refuel in low Earth orbit. There is absolutely no way the LG can be used as a fuel dump without huge inefficiencies. Also, why would a "lunar tug" need a port?
Why don't we forget about Orbital Reef and focus on building Vera Station from Gateway Spaceport LLC. The concept is awesome and seems doable with enough funding. (if you don't know what that is , check them out) 👽👍
I'm imagining Starship to have huge cargo bay doors to off load building materials. Like a Rocket Truck. I think about welding stainless steel in space/ weightless environment.
This is really something. SpaceX cannot even make a docking mechanism to go with NASA Gateway. If we had to depend on them we would never gone to the Moon in 1969.
It's not that SpaceX can't make a docking mechanism, it's that the Starship is so much bigger than the LG that the LG will need to dock with Starship. And why? Who knows? Surely it's easier for Orion to dock directly to Starship in a normal orbit around the Moon than to achieve the rectilinear orbit required by LG just so they can each independently dock with it before proceeding to the Moon.
@@iblard Google: "How much did starship development cost taxpayers" then switch starship out with "falcon 9". both will report back that spacex was the primary funder for them. what do i google to find your information? they got money for the dragon capsule.. they get money for contracts fulfilled.. however, according to google they are the primary funder of both rockets. so i ask again what do i put into google to make it say ALMOST ALL their funding comes from NASA?
@@JeraXO no, you see, alphabet(google's parent company) owns 7.5% of spacex which means google is lying to protect spacex. its oligarchy in action!(this is a joke if they where to protect spacex they'd shut down the crypto scam streams that promote themselves as spacex channels) fun fact: if you google "oligarchy definition" you get three definitions. two definitions use the word they're defining in the definition. the other says nothing about wealth. thanks oxford!
NASA is making the same mistake now and has always made. They have a space station, move it to the moon! Problem solved! You want a space station NASA should build it!
SpaceX Dragon & super heavy seems to be a working technology But ............ Starship is a two-stage fully reusable super heavy-lift launch vehicle ......under development by American aerospace company SpaceX. ....... Apollo was on the moon in the number ot test launches so far, ,,,, is anyone confident about starship ?
For security and assurance,the Gateway is NEEDED. After all, we are on the Moon. Also, the versatility of Extended[fillet & ion] BlackStar could give astro -nauts an ACRV better than Orion. Commuting between Station Earth orbit and Lunar Gateway is requisite[Mars too]. Which means, all spare parts used up, Nasa should be ready for Lockheed's HCV orbital(30- 130t pyl) and X-33 or Falcon for lighter pyl. Nasa's Own RLV should be getting 'Online' as true Shuttle replacement to service Moon, Mars, Deep Space, and Interstellar probes. AS-V, Trekkie, and derivatives are all up for discussion.
Get well. The Gateway project was doomed the moment Starship came to fruition, but it is not fully ripe, yet. The US cannot change directions until the Starship goes to the Moon, and there are a lot of steps before then. Once you change directions you lose funding for the Gateway, jobs are lost and momentum stops, and if Starship fails then all that has to be started again. By that time those engineers and employees are gone to other jobs and the funding, well, kiss that goodbye. One step at a time, as they say. Get it functional before discarding it. That is not to mean we can't plan ahead for Starship to take over, but not yet. Nasa doesn't control funding, and everything has to go through Congress. Even rumors of NASA changing directions will have every representative building forts to protect the State's jobs where parts for the Gateway Station. In two years the congress will change again. Politics suck. It is not saving money for Congress, it is saving jobs, with emphasis on JOBS (Just Our Butt Saving).
A boondoggle is a boondoggle no matter what good intentions may go along with it. NASA is still thinking it is 1970s and the Artemis project is now just a joke. It was a great idea until Space-X proved that their thinking was antiquated and flawed. The entire thing should be cancelled ASAP because it just won't work.
The Lunar Gateway is a hindrance to a return to the Moon and needs to be cancelled. It was always a political decision to involve many other countries and as a way to use the SLS because it's no good for anything else.
Disaster....... Again. Click bait again. I got one word. Adapter. Helloooooo!!!! All the haters say starship cant do this or cant do that. Right now elon is working on getting the system which by the way. HAS NEVER BEEN DONE!!! HELLO 👋. EVERYONE acts like starship cant be adapted for whatever payload. Everyone is SOOOO narrow minded and stuck in a box. I dont know if y'all know this but starship is not something that was conceived in a box. Its a extremely OUT OF THE BOX CONCEPT. To think that what your looking is exactly what its going to be are very much stuck in the box and your comments reflect this. New Glenn. I'm for New Glenn. I doubt how well it's engineered. But. If you look at IT. IT is just a really big rocket. It is very much a in the box rocket with some out of the box stuff from SpaceX. STARSHIP is wildly out of the box. Its crazy. Its like nothing EVER!!! some say its just another rocket. I guess if you dont have imagination and your glancing through a keyhole you can say that. Most people who say stuff just dont like Elon and judge his company and thousands of people who work for SpaceX. I think Rockets are amazing. Starship is going to change the WORLD. as long as narrow minded people dont ruin it.
Poor kid, you're living in Elon Musk's fantasy universe. We're nowhere NEAR to building the Lunar Gateway. 2025 is going to be known as the Year of the Great Letdown. Sorry not sorry to burst your bubble, but It's all a clown show, all a charade. Musk is a multi-billionaire con man who is going to be broke in a couple of years (or less) when his government contracts dry up as they realize the utter impossibility of the sales pitch he has been giving to his investors. Mark my words, you read it here first, Musk may be the richest men on earth now, but in a few years (possibly months) he will be deep in debt and penniless. Regarding his StarshipX Moon landing and Mars colonization fantasies, as Porky Pig say's, "That's a bunch of b bull b b b bull b bull, Ah manure!!' It's all stuff and nonsense. Musk is getting desperate because he knows that we are not anywhere near to going "back to the Moon" anytime soon, if ever, and so he has to have this great show of low earth orbit fireworks and fanfare to keep people's attention away from the awful reality: We are stuck here on earth; the Apollo Moon missions were a gigantic psy-op to show that we were ahead of the Russians in the space race and thus by proxy had military superiority over them as well, hence the Moon landing fraud, and now we are staging all of this smoke and mirrors to distract the public from the truth: No one, not NASA, not SpaceX Starship, not China nor any nation or company on earth will be sending humans to the Moon anytime in the near future.
Starship is still in development so it can be made reliable and cheap. Also, the main problem with Starship lies with the heat it develops on re-entry, something the lunar lander doesn't need to do.
Even Starship has made it to space and then landed in the water. It could have stayed up there for as long as they wanted but they are figuring out landing and reusing, not orbiting. They already have that figured out.
America needs a lunar gateway, but not NASA's lunar gateway.
NASA has too much BLOAT
No one needs a Lunar Gateway.
If NASA had been in charge of exploration in 1492, they'd still be sending un-manned sailing ships across the Atlantic.
I hope they realize that it’s better to cut your losses and start with a new design rather than push forward with a poor design that’s already proved it’s plagued by delays and engineering problems. Here’s hoping they come to their senses earlier rather than later. Glad to hear that you’re feeling better Kevin 🎉❤
If they remove the Lunar Gateway, they will not only gain many years, and multiple billions of dollars, they will remove many points of potential failure and get back to the Moon much quicker.
THANK YOU for keeping your comments to the end. It nice watching the video, THEM hearing the comments unlike most who have to keep on interupting and breaking the flow of the video.
Thumbs up.
Gateway is mostly a jobs program to gain congressional approval. Elements are constructed in many states by many contractors that benefit from building it, even if its value is minimal.
Just Our Butts Saving... 😐
Interesting, thanks.😊
A smaller lunar lander version of Starship could be built for moon and mars landings & lift-offs while the largest version could serve as a gateway station or habitat.
"Urgent? We don't do 'urgent'. We do pork!" - Boeing, allegedly. 🤨
Put an adapter on it and that's it. DO NOT confuse it with the adapter for other space companies, or you will take them all to space and throw away the wrong ones.
Just give the 5.2B to Musk. He will do it better and cheaper.
I think he’s already working on a solution …
@@chrisbraid2907 No doubt. Years ago I thought he was a con man. 😂 But at this point he’s done so much amazing stuff that I’m in favor of just writing him the check and getting out of his way. They should just turn control of NASA over to him.
DUMP SLS, DUMP THE GATEWAY.
The Luna Gateway Is A Waste Of Money. It Needs To Be Cancelled, And The Resources And The Money Needs To Be Put Towards A Luna base.
Probably soon
Absolutely correct. The original decision for an LG is difficult to understand and must have been made by ignorant children or drunken NASA officials.
Maybe the new nasa administration will see the issues with this version of gateway take any usable technology scrape the rest and designe this lunar gateway station to just be a couple starships that have a docking port that lets them connect into 1 major station
Stating the obvious NASA has built adapters before. Remember the Soviet and US in 1975? Those vehicles used two different atmospheres. We have time to make one before the mission.
when NASA presented its program to return to the moon with the "lunar gateway" I said to myself: great, another program like "Battlestar-Galactica" the fiasco of the "90-day report" in the 90s was not enough it seems.
in this program All NASA departments have obtained that their research is integrated into the final program (even if it was clearly stupid)
after the selection of the Starship as a lander it is clear that the gateway is not only useless but its maintenance is totally stupid.
who would want to travel 3-4 days in a Ford T (orion) to arrive at the "port" the size of 5-6 "beetles" (the gateway) to finally do the last kilometers in a "tesla semi" (the starship) of almost 1000 cubic meters which was designed to make the trip not to the moon but to mars.
the problem is that eliminating SLS, Orion and the Gateway means that NASA has been wasting US taxpayers' money for 50 years and that NASA personnel are incompetent.
as "we" cannot say that "we" prefer to waste money
Yep, the Lunar Gateway will make getting to the Moon harder, less safe, and more expensive. Whoever decided to go ahead with such a fiasco should be fired.
Instead of Starship docking with the Gateway, the Gateway will have to dock with Starship. 😹😹
The Lunar Gateway is not necessary to get to the moon. I say, get to the moon in the most efficiant way possible (Starship), THEN worry about a space station orbiting the moon.
At $10B per launch, nobody is going anywhere in any meaningful manner.
👍👍👍👍👍
Starship is still in R&D it can just be made compatible
The point is it doesn't need to be made compatible at all. It's easier and quicker to send Starship to lunar orbit than it is to rendezvous with a hypothetical LG. Why go to the LG before going to the lunar surface?
When you watch other companies, most people are under 50 years old. You look at NASA and everyone is over 70 years old.
The starship is on track to launch to low earth orbit a 150 ton payload for under $500 million dollars. And the costs are expected to go lower than that. So for 10 billion dollars, or the cost of the Artemis program to date, we would be able to launch 3,000 tons into low earth orbit on 20 missions minimum. I assume we could get a thousand tons to the Moon for that cost using the starship. There's a goddamn moon base right there
Are you saying that is THEIR cost, or the cost to the customer? Those are two very different things. SX will charge the most that the market will bear based on competitave pricing. F9 launches are very competative, but there much higher than origonally estimated, even after allowing for inflation. Musk might control 80% of SX, but his ownership is half that. The many investors demand ROI.
If not for the contracts in place, the smarter move would be to use Sierra Space's eventual crew version of Tenacity. Why use a horrible capsule like Orion that keeps having problems to splash in the ocean when you can just have them in a reusable mini space plane with more cargo room? Why not also use that to go between ISS and The Gateway, then use Starship HLS to the surface? Totally agree Starship would make a better space station than Gateway. Just convert 1-2 Starships into a station with a central connecting PPE hub and you're done. Even Axiom is making better progress than Gateway. Gateway won't even be relevant once a fuel depot can be created on the moon.
Does this sound like a - - - GOVERNMENT PROGRAM ??? :D ROFLMFAO !!!
We need one picture! Starship docked with the ISS. This would look like the Titanic docked with a super cargo ship. I wonder if we can use eddy currents to change the re-entry issues with the heat shield. The size of the eddy changes the results in fluid dynamics on Earth.
The design is too antiquated to Keep up with SpaceX and the new technology. It needs to be discarded and start over. Mean while The SpaceX HLS can be both a gateway and a lander.
A single Starship can be converted into a gateway and fitted with multiple docking ports.
Starship doesn't need a "Lunar Gateway".
The problem with the Lunar Gateway isn't so much its cost, the time it will take to build and place in orbit, or the technical and technological challenges it faces, the problem is that it adds absolutely NOTHING for the attempt to return to the Moon.
The LG in fact is a boat anchor for a manned mission to the Moon. It requires an inconvenient and time consuming orbit, it requires two rendezvous instead of one on the way to the Moon, and contributes nothing that can't be achieved in any number of better, easier, or cheaper ways.
If NASA wants to get to the Moon before the Chinese, it must, I repeat, MUST immediately cancel the Lunar Gateway!
OOHH❗️oooh, LUNAR Gateway is in heep of trouble. Surely, J. Isaacman of NASA will soon decide wht's BEST FOR HUMANITY. I wld choose SpaceX-Starships.
Thank, U kev🌟🌾✨️ keep looking UP ❗️
~😸
📝: I am cramming, packing my clothes 🙃 😅. I jst decided to taste one too many corona flavored 🍺 drinks over mole enchiladas 😋 🤣
If not for Elon Musk it would be another 50 years before we return to the moon... smh.
With all those 'refueler tankers' being needed, how hard would it be for SpaceX to take a couple, (1 at a time) already in orbit, and tow them to lunar orbit behind a lander or 2? Just a thought.
Taking refuelling tankers to lunar orbit wouldn't work because you would need so much more fuel to get them there. Much better and no matter where you want to go, it's far more efficient to refuel in low Earth orbit.
@@chrisantoniou4366 No matter what you take it's all the same equation. A more massive object requires more fuel than a less massive one, yes. But you've got more there when you get there... But that's the idea... I'm just suggesting that, since those objects are already up in space, having served their purpose to bring fuel there for another mission, may be efficient to take one or two and,, utilizing the momentum they already possess, add a bit more with the momentum you're already going to create to bring the object they were refueling to the moon, and perhaps it may save some economy to add a bit of that momentum to it at the same time and voila! It's not rocket science, or is it? O.0
@@Reyajh Ummm, well it may not be rocket science, but it is the "science" of never getting a free lunch. Yes, it's the same equation, but it always takes more fuel to take fuel to the Moon and refuel there than it takes to refuel from low Earth orbit, always. The counter argument is that it takes less fuel to leave the Moon for Mars than to leave Earth for Mars, but people forget that you need to first take that rocket to the Moon. So it still takes less fuel to send a rocket into LEO, refuel there and send it to Mars than it takes to send a rocket into lunar orbit along with its fuel, refuel there and then go on to Mars.
We need a lunar gateway and a LEO space station accessible to Starship. The LEO space station could provide a fuel dump for Starship and also a port for lunar tugs to the Gateway.
@@scottre3220 if we can get a nuclear reactor onto the surface of the Moon at the south pole, then we will be able to process the water into fuel there and launch it much more easily, especially if we get a small Mass driver going as well
That is rubbish! For the LG to act as a "fuel dump" for anything, you still have to get the fuel there and the fuel used to get the fuel there can be better used to refuel in low Earth orbit. There is absolutely no way the LG can be used as a fuel dump without huge inefficiencies. Also, why would a "lunar tug" need a port?
Why don't we forget about Orbital Reef and focus on building Vera Station from Gateway Spaceport LLC. The concept is awesome and seems doable with enough funding.
(if you don't know what that is , check them out) 👽👍
I'm imagining Starship to have huge cargo bay doors to off load building materials. Like a Rocket Truck.
I think about welding stainless steel in space/ weightless environment.
4 billion per launch, who on Earth would keep that going?
NASA like the armed forces,, employees people,,,
so,, no hurry to get there, being the moon
even if the Chinese want to repeat Apollo 11
Corporate Welfare and kickbacks
This is really something. SpaceX cannot even make a docking mechanism to go with NASA Gateway. If we had to depend on them we would never gone to the Moon in 1969.
they alway never go any where far than low earth orbit
It's not that SpaceX can't make a docking mechanism, it's that the Starship is so much bigger than the LG that the LG will need to dock with Starship. And why? Who knows? Surely it's easier for Orion to dock directly to Starship in a normal orbit around the Moon than to achieve the rectilinear orbit required by LG just so they can each independently dock with it before proceeding to the Moon.
Need to stop funding Nelson's Artemis woke & minorities to the moon ego trip,just cause only white man went
Shame the ISS can't be towed to the moon instead of destroying it
It's to big? That something she never says
Somebody watching??😂😂😂
I still like smallstars spacex space station with a fuel tank addition.
Is there enough Gravity on the moon to prevent muscle degradation as it does in zero G???
What is the gravitic pull of the moon 🌚 compared to earth 🌎 like 1000lbs on earth is 162lbs on the moon??? Is that correct???
Approximately 16.6% that of Earth, so yes, correct.
Your text to voice software's speed is slow.
It can if they reengineer it.
... at substantial additional cost to the taxpayers (which was likely part of the original plan).
SLS is obsolete.
When you say NASA . Taxpayers is
What were talking about.
Almost all SpaceX funding comes from Nasa.
@@iblard Google: "How much did starship development cost taxpayers" then switch starship out with "falcon 9". both will report back that spacex was the primary funder for them.
what do i google to find your information? they got money for the dragon capsule.. they get money for contracts fulfilled.. however, according to google they are the primary funder of both rockets. so i ask again what do i put into google to make it say ALMOST ALL their funding comes from NASA?
@@pukusNK I think you have to google 'What do crazy Elon haters say to detract from SpaceX achievements?' or something like that. 🤣
@@JeraXO no, you see, alphabet(google's parent company) owns 7.5% of spacex which means google is lying to protect spacex. its oligarchy in action!(this is a joke if they where to protect spacex they'd shut down the crypto scam streams that promote themselves as spacex channels)
fun fact: if you google "oligarchy definition" you get three definitions. two definitions use the word they're defining in the definition. the other says nothing about wealth. thanks oxford!
NASA is making the same mistake now and has always made. They have a space station, move it to the moon! Problem solved! You want a space station NASA should build it!
Humanity is steadily advancing to realisation their trip to the Moon is f….d. courtesy of space x.
It's not NASA's budget, it's what the US taxpayer's expense that is being overloaded. God's many Blessings to all. Thank you Kevin.
We only have one working rocket 🚀, I guess SpaceX will launch it into space.
ya the iss was a grand experiment that got us to a better building system so ya why not push it to mars?
I don’t think we are going back to the moon 🌕 it’s always been Elon Musk goal to get to Mars and the moon doesn’t help in that endeavor at all
Can't even....DOCK. And as always thumbed down. 👎
SpaceX Dragon & super heavy seems to be a working technology
But ............ Starship is a two-stage fully reusable super heavy-lift launch vehicle ......under
development by American aerospace company SpaceX. .......
Apollo was on the moon in the number ot test launches so far, ,,,, is anyone confident about starship ?
For security and assurance,the Gateway is NEEDED. After all, we are on the Moon. Also, the versatility of Extended[fillet & ion] BlackStar could give astro -nauts an ACRV better than Orion. Commuting between Station Earth orbit and Lunar Gateway is requisite[Mars too]. Which means, all spare parts used up, Nasa should be ready for Lockheed's HCV orbital(30- 130t pyl) and X-33 or Falcon for lighter pyl. Nasa's Own RLV should be getting 'Online' as true Shuttle replacement to service Moon, Mars, Deep Space, and Interstellar probes. AS-V, Trekkie, and derivatives are all up for discussion.
Please explain what the Lunar Gateway can add to the manned lunar program which can't be done any other way...
Get well. The Gateway project was doomed the moment Starship came to fruition, but it is not fully ripe, yet. The US cannot change directions until the Starship goes to the Moon, and there are a lot of steps before then. Once you change directions you lose funding for the Gateway, jobs are lost and momentum stops, and if Starship fails then all that has to be started again. By that time those engineers and employees are gone to other jobs and the funding, well, kiss that goodbye. One step at a time, as they say. Get it functional before discarding it. That is not to mean we can't plan ahead for Starship to take over, but not yet. Nasa doesn't control funding, and everything has to go through Congress. Even rumors of NASA changing directions will have every representative building forts to protect the State's jobs where parts for the Gateway Station. In two years the congress will change again. Politics suck. It is not saving money for Congress, it is saving jobs, with emphasis on JOBS (Just Our Butt Saving).
Yes, every government has its own perfect plan!
A boondoggle is a boondoggle no matter what good intentions may go along with it. NASA is still thinking it is 1970s and the Artemis project is now just a joke. It was a great idea until Space-X proved that their thinking was antiquated and flawed. The entire thing should be cancelled ASAP because it just won't work.
@@steveforbes8287 As is. 🙄 Bill Nelson went so far as to suggest that Artemis to be a vile, ultra-expensive copy of the Apollo program. 🤦♂🤦♂🤦♂🤦♂
The Lunar Gateway is a hindrance to a return to the Moon and needs to be cancelled. It was always a political decision to involve many other countries and as a way to use the SLS because it's no good for anything else.
sls does not cost anywhere near 4 billion per launch
Really? How much does it cost?
Spacex have got this
Non dei nasa go to the moon easy.. Half a century later.... Dei nasa it takes a decade + to go to the moon with better tech
So much tax payer money has been spent, so adults can play spacemen/women. HOW’bout spending that here on earth? WE PRESENTLY RESIDE.
Disaster....... Again. Click bait again. I got one word. Adapter. Helloooooo!!!! All the haters say starship cant do this or cant do that. Right now elon is working on getting the system which by the way. HAS NEVER BEEN DONE!!! HELLO 👋. EVERYONE acts like starship cant be adapted for whatever payload. Everyone is SOOOO narrow minded and stuck in a box. I dont know if y'all know this but starship is not something that was conceived in a box. Its a extremely OUT OF THE BOX CONCEPT. To think that what your looking is exactly what its going to be are very much stuck in the box and your comments reflect this. New Glenn. I'm for New Glenn. I doubt how well it's engineered. But. If you look at IT. IT is just a really big rocket. It is very much a in the box rocket with some out of the box stuff from SpaceX. STARSHIP is wildly out of the box. Its crazy. Its like nothing EVER!!! some say its just another rocket. I guess if you dont have imagination and your glancing through a keyhole you can say that. Most people who say stuff just dont like Elon and judge his company and thousands of people who work for SpaceX. I think Rockets are amazing. Starship is going to change the WORLD. as long as narrow minded people dont ruin it.
Poor kid, you're living in Elon Musk's fantasy universe. We're nowhere NEAR to building the Lunar Gateway. 2025 is going to be known as the Year of the Great Letdown. Sorry not sorry to burst your bubble, but It's all a clown show, all a charade.
Musk is a multi-billionaire con man who is going to be broke in a couple of years (or less) when his government contracts dry up as they realize the utter impossibility of the sales pitch he has been giving to his investors. Mark my words, you read it here first, Musk may be the richest men on earth now, but in a few years (possibly months) he will be deep in debt and penniless.
Regarding his StarshipX Moon landing and Mars colonization fantasies, as Porky Pig say's, "That's a bunch of b bull b b b bull b bull, Ah manure!!' It's all stuff and nonsense. Musk is getting desperate because he knows that we are not anywhere near to going "back to the Moon" anytime soon, if ever, and so he has to have this great show of low earth orbit fireworks and fanfare to keep people's attention away from the awful reality: We are stuck here on earth; the Apollo Moon missions were a gigantic psy-op to show that we were ahead of the Russians in the space race and thus by proxy had military superiority over them as well, hence the Moon landing fraud, and now we are staging all of this smoke and mirrors to distract the public from the truth: No one, not NASA, not SpaceX Starship, not China nor any nation or company on earth will be sending humans to the Moon anytime in the near future.
And of course, Starship doesn't have any problems at all. Oh wait...
Ummm, cost of Starship Vs how many S.L.S.'s ? 🤣
Starship is still in development so it can be made reliable and cheap. Also, the main problem with Starship lies with the heat it develops on re-entry, something the lunar lander doesn't need to do.
journey ( back ) , ( return ) to the moon ? LIARS!!!
Don't forget that Starship explodes during every mission.
😩
relax junior
Space X in the testing stage. How can an untried experiment progress to success without some failures.
This is old stuff somewhat meaningless. You have said many times running out of content
Go Elon , get er done
Space X still haven’t got into space
How many falcon 9's (400). Bozo
Even Starship has made it to space and then landed in the water. It could have stayed up there for as long as they wanted but they are figuring out landing and reusing, not orbiting. They already have that figured out.
@ I believe you are going to Mars 😂😂😂😂🤡
@@rubberducky1707 I believe you have gone further then Mars 😂😂😂😂🤡
@@Artificial-Influencers A string of Emojis doesn't make anything you say accurate. You might want to work on that instead, Bozo!
Starship can't stop exploding anyway. It won't be going to the Moon.