Why haven't the U.S. caught up to Russia in landing the re-entry capsule on land? For Russia to be still doing this, it shows they've near perfected this aspect of capsule design. Now we'll have to load up another ship with cranes & helicopter to recover the capsule.
Russia uses re-entry on land because they have loads of flat area and large area of places to land but its easier for america to land in the ocean. they have the most experience dropping a capsule like russias soyuz i feel would be too dangerous over U.S thoug boeing starliner plans on doing something simular to what you're expecting but I think its just what they're used too and they use boats to recover the capsule. Helicopters are actually used to recover the soyuz or the shenzou or cars and a large rescue team. I don't think either is worse then the other
@@CryptidTactical The U.S only went 5 times. well 5 landings and around 7 manned orbits. Russia has sent living things into lunar orbit and sample return missions and rovers things the U.S hasn't done and also matched robotic probes this is if you include the soviet union.
2024, Core Stage-2 will be ready by early next year. And after that it's mostly integration with the already ready SRBs and ICPS. After that it's just a matter of finishing up the Orion Capsule, since the timeline of that is dependent on how Artemis 1 goes.
@@brianreed7145 Yes really. Biden cancelled the kinda redundant Orion program but then replaced it with a BLM version called Artemis where only blacks need to apply. The Orion capsule was then recycled into the Artemis program.
@@keithstevens5614 also, there is no Orion program, Orion is a SPACECRAFT, and was designed based on the Crew Exploration Vehicle for the cancelled Constellation program (which was cancelled by Obama)
If they would have used Elon Musk's reusable heavy lifter the expenses would be a lot lower and it is more reliable. The SLS is new but there is no real innovation. It seems like the real brain is still Werner van Brown that developed the engines for the space shuttle 50 years ago... 50 years in space science is very old. We use it once and it gets destroyed... and it is not even close as efficient as the turbo engines version built by Russia, because it bleeds un-burnt fuel! It is good that we go to the moon, but it has to be done with a fiscal budget that is sustainable in the future. Cost will kill this project; it cost about as much as an election; tough choice democracy or the moon!
I think that's because the project started around 2010 while the very first successful landing and recovery of a first stage was achieved by SpaceX in 2015. Nasa was already 5 years in development, I really believe you can't just scrap a billion dollars project because a new technology has just been found.
Does anyone have the temperature feed? How’d we get past 3000+ degres celsius? Thank you
very cool, enthusiasm for those who work in the proud section
How far is deep space for their program?
1 inch to 1000 parsecs
depends on if it went well or not
Roughly speaking, anything beyond GEO
Why haven't the U.S. caught up to Russia in landing the re-entry capsule on land? For Russia to be still doing this, it shows they've near perfected this aspect of capsule design. Now we'll have to load up another ship with cranes & helicopter to recover the capsule.
Russian hasn’t gone to the Moon 17 times though
Don’t use cranes.
Russia uses re-entry on land because they have loads of flat area and large area of places to land but its easier for america to land in the ocean. they have the most experience dropping a capsule like russias soyuz i feel would be too dangerous over U.S thoug boeing starliner plans on doing something simular to what you're expecting but I think its just what they're used too and they use boats to recover the capsule. Helicopters are actually used to recover the soyuz or the shenzou or cars and a large rescue team. I don't think either is worse then the other
@@CryptidTactical The U.S only went 5 times. well 5 landings and around 7 manned orbits. Russia has sent living things into lunar orbit and sample return missions and rovers things the U.S hasn't done and also matched robotic probes this is if you include the soviet union.
@@KukiNebproductions
The US landed 6 times
And orbit of the moon 9 times
Apollo 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 and Apollo 17
In regards to Orion, don't be surprised when we fly humans on Orion that we will hear about a few astronauts getting seasick.
Nice
Let's go!
Great! Now, when is the first *manned* mission?
2024, Core Stage-2 will be ready by early next year. And after that it's mostly integration with the already ready SRBs and ICPS.
After that it's just a matter of finishing up the Orion Capsule, since the timeline of that is dependent on how Artemis 1 goes.
For NASA 2122 will be the first man mission
As soon as they can find a Director just like how they did in '69.
@@RichardSanchez137 Here come the flat Earther conspiracy theorist nuts...
@@ct92404 how has this anything about round or flat earth?
Protection by aluminum tape😂
Wakanda Forever NASA - you can do it!
Really?
@@brianreed7145 Yes really. Biden cancelled the kinda redundant Orion program but then replaced it with a BLM version called Artemis where only blacks need to apply. The Orion capsule was then recycled into the Artemis program.
@@keithstevens5614 my guy Artemis was planned before Biden came into office
Do a little research beforehand perhaps?
@@keithstevens5614 also, there is no Orion program, Orion is a SPACECRAFT, and was designed based on the Crew Exploration Vehicle for the cancelled Constellation program (which was cancelled by Obama)
This is what NASA should have developed post Apollo, instead of wasting billions and decades on that ridiculous space shuttle!!!!
The Chinese Space Agency thanks NASA for its work. LOL.
If they would have used Elon Musk's reusable heavy lifter the expenses would be a lot lower and it is more reliable. The SLS is new but there is no real innovation. It seems like the real brain is still Werner van Brown that developed the engines for the space shuttle 50 years ago... 50 years in space science is very old. We use it once and it gets destroyed... and it is not even close as efficient as the turbo engines version built by Russia, because it bleeds un-burnt fuel!
It is good that we go to the moon, but it has to be done with a fiscal budget that is sustainable in the future.
Cost will kill this project; it cost about as much as an election; tough choice democracy or the moon!
I think that's because the project started around 2010 while the very first successful landing and recovery of a first stage was achieved by SpaceX in 2015. Nasa was already 5 years in development, I really believe you can't just scrap a billion dollars project because a new technology has just been found.
US can afford to do both.
The annual cost of Artemis is a fraction of a rounding error in the federal budget.