The Real Reason Artemis 1 Failing Is Good For SpaceX & Elon Musk!
Вставка
- Опубліковано 9 вер 2022
- The Real Reason Artemis 1 Failing Is Good For SpaceX & Elon Musk!
Last Video: Major New SpaceX Starship & NASA Artemis 1 Updates!
• Major New SpaceX Stars...
► Join Our Discord Server: / discord
► Patreon: / theteslaspace
► Subscribe to our other channel, The Space Race: / theteslaspace
Mars Colonization News and Updates
• Mars Colonization News...
SpaceX News and Updates: • SpaceX News and Updates
The Space Race is dedicated to the exploration of outer space and humans' mission to explore the universe. We’ll provide news and updates from everything in space, including the SpaceX and NASA mission to colonize Mars and the Moon. We’ll focus on news and updates from SpaceX, NASA, Starlink, Blue Origin, The James Webb Space Telescope and more. If you’re interested in space exploration, Mars colonization, and everything to do with space travel and the space race... you’ve come to the right channel! We love space and hope to inspire others to learn more!
► Subscribe to The Tesla Space newsletter: www.theteslaspace.com
Business Email: derek@ellify.com
#Spacex #Space #Mars - Наука та технологія
seems like SLS is either ; 1) good old trusty gear , or 2) make random things fit together that are old and break all the time
This exact same thing thing happened with JWST. I think it was in 2018 when they were doing a simulated launch, the thing started falling apart. They spent billions and almost 20 years building that thing only to have screws fly out during a simulated launch. It was obviously a test but still.
I was for this massive rocket when it was first shown!! 10+ years ago!! But instead of getting a brand new rocket that will lead the way for new rocket technology to come was tossed for instead a Rocket made of old hand me down equipment that wasn’t really anything new groundbreaking rocket technology and now today we see the future massive rockets are fully reusable and able to return and land to be rapidly reused in a quick turnaround rate!! So I’ll say if SLS Doesn’t launch by the end of 2022 then scrap it to then be used as inspiration set up in nasa’s Smithsonian museum giving future rocket engineers inspiration to not make the same mistake NASA did by letting Politicians who know nothing about rocket engineering decide the future of NASA’s heavy lift capabilities!!!
Money for all this is provided by the U.S. Congress, spending the peoples' tax money the way or not the way they want. All money, for anything, comes from the peoples' pockets who actually work in this country, not the homeless bums you see everywhere on the streets. Most working people would like to see their tax money spent wisely but have no real say in the actual buget process in the House of Representatives, led by Nancy Pelosi, if so, they would not have wasted billions the current administration has on green new deal and student loans, for example. NASA's budget is puny compared to the US social welfare budget each year of about a trillion in several worthless programs to "help the poor". And they are still homeless! Like it or not, no decent budget equals no money for NASA to develop and buy new space technology. Since the old one worked well enough 50 years ago, they go that route. They'd rather not. Sure, if they had say the budget of any of the many US social welfare departments, they could do anything they wanted, and rather quickly.
Vote the right way if you want more space pending and less welfare spending, that is all we can do or now. China has no problem with spending, they just starve and abuse their people and spend on military and space too if they want. Want to see progress in space, why not move there? ;D
BUT WHAT ABOUT ALL THOSE POOR CONTRACTORS WHO LOBBIED SO HARD FOR THIS?!?!?!?!? THEY NEED THE PORK!!!!! AND THE CHILDREN!!! THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!! WHAT ABOUT ALL THE CHILDREN IN ALABAMA AND WASHINGTON AND UTAH!?!?!
@@alexanderstone9463 If in CA, Newson would say: "Let them eat cake"!! LOL
Why would you use these new technologies if you can do the same thing with the old stuff?
@Richard Gilley LOL, funny! ;D
I think you hit the nail on the head with this one. Everything about the SLS just didn’t make sense whenever you have spaceX that can reuse the rockets and produce more and cost less.
In your dreams dude. Starship is a shitshow almost burning down the entire boca Chica complex . It won't do half the things they are selling you on it. SLS and Alpaca HLS will get us to the moons south pole, hopefully before 🇨🇳. Starship is a billionaires pipe dream and isn't even going to orbit this year.
Spacex is just barely able to re supply the space station, so I will give them that , but only with alot of nasa's help.
@@jimmystrickland1034 Not barely. It can take all. NASA has not given them all the ISS re-supply contracts. And also SpaceX's launch capability is limited by the availability of the launch sites. SpaceX does not own any launch sites. All launches site are US government facilities. SpaceX's Boca Chita facilty is not permitted to launch.
Well, SpaceX should first fly it's new rocket a couple of times successfully before speaking up. Falcon 9 is hugely successful and reliable, so we can think they should get it straight. But it's still a totally new design and a totally different scale, so let's wait and see ..
Both SLS and Starship have not yet orbit launch ready. However Starship technology is far superior and have better attributes. SpaceX Raptor rocket engine is the most advanced engine ever built. It is small, powerful, highly reusable, most fuel efficient, low cost, easy to manufacture, use methane as fuel and not hard to handle hydrogen. You are comparing a VW Beetle with a Porsche.
This channel deserves more subscribers... Very informative content
Glorified Jobs programme and pure corruption.
When the X-33 failed Congress got cold feet at new technologies. That is why they demanded the next rocket be built with already existing and functioning systems. From the non-engineering view, with politicians who didn’t understand and were afraid, the SLS made sense after the Venturestar failure.
Corruption exists in both government and private sectors.
Private sector, free enterprise is limited in corruption/incompetence/greed by the need to compete… except where government can create/enforce monopoly. Government has guns, jails, & a monopoly on violence & license to steal. Government is inherently & inescapable corrupt, incompetent, greedy, wasteful… always has been, always will be, can’t be fixed. Government can only be minimized & decentralized to reduce what it can steal, screw up, corrupt, bankrupt.
Nailed it.
Excellent presentation!
Well done!
I appreciate your insights and yes there is far too much bashing of NASA going on. After all that's our money they're spending. Anyway keep up the good work and cheers
Umm, did you call Starship an interstellar rocket? So far it's a suborbital rocket and I am not aware of any intentions for it outside of our solar system. Guess I'm missing something here.
Voyage I has been traveling in interstellar space for more than nine years. It was launched by a Titan IIIE rocket, a vehicle much less capable than the full Starship stack will be. So in that sense, Starship will be interstellar, i.e. more capable than the Titan IIIE to launch some sort of payload beyond the gravitational influence of our Sun.
@@enscroggs Voyager still hasn't left our stellar system, if you include the Oort cloud (the outer fringes). It won't for many years to come. It's still in interplanetary space, for all intents and purposes.
@@enscroggs You make a very good point! Thanks!
This really gets yah scratching the noggin on how NASA was able to accomplish the Apollo program so easily in the 1960´s. Those guys back then must have been superhuman geniuses.
IKR! 🤦♂️
They didn't care about safety and just got lucky.
@@TheMoneypresident
Luck had nothing to do with it, and safety was a top priority.
It was not easy
Oh?
So now it took "superhuman genius" to operate a movie studio?
Know this: man landing on Moon is same as 'Moon is made of cream cheese' -- all fiction and fantasy. lol
realy intresting 😁👍 keep up the good work 💪💪
"interstellar rocket"
??? it seems i missed a few pat from that system, exactly where is the warp drive?
Really loved your take on a possible transfer of resources from sectors of the traditional space industry to the next generation of private companies. The US proves its mettle best when faced with stiff competition and I believe that as a whole, the space industry will reorganize its components in order to match the Chinese challenge the most effective way it can. That is, shifting NASA’s business model and functions towards that of DARPA, the Defense Advance Research Programs Agency fostering and financing innovative areas of R&D and companies, with the hope of integrating new technologies on the battlefield. I can see a future where Space X supplants Boeing as a 360 space transport company, with Starship becoming a modern iteration of the 747 jumbo jet. The real question is whether the coterie of old boys, lobbyists, politicians and the likes will bow out quietly into the night or try to hinder Space X’s progress. One way or the other, at 48, I had given up on space exploration almost 20 years ago. It’s definitely an exciting time to be alive, tantamount to a prequel to The Expanse saga.
Movies again, eh? Yes, to what you said, maybe the space force will lead the way. NASA was a nice idea for the time but time now to get some real bucks into the space program, and where to find it is two places: social welfare programs or the military. Guess which government spending programs will be tougher to eliminate, food stamps or space exploration?!! ;D
Brilliant. Thank you from France.
Living near these lunch pads and watching launches on a regular basis. Launches are scrubbed on a regular basis. Also after speaking with some engineers that work at Nasa they said that after looking at the data they probably could have launched on their last attempt. Being that this is an initial launch for this program they are playing it even more safe than usual. Space x is a long ways from having a functional rocket with this payload. While they should get there they are not yet.
There ya go...you've found the answer, which many of us knew all along. SLS is just a big make work project for the big space industry player companies.
Very very good explained and conducted
except they still haven't launched the bfr or the starship and are still having problems with raptor motors
They did launch a Starship(several times) and landed it(once safely). Not orbital but you didn't specify that. And they are testing raptor 2s and finding any problems. That's what you do when you can actually TEST your rocket. At least they can keep their fuel from leaking so badly they couldn't even do that.
Also because SLS is a one off every time, they have a much harder time FIXING problems. This hydrogen leak could be a major problem because it was caused by an overpressure. If they damaged something other than the seals they may have to scrap the entire section(basically the entire main tank). Something like that happens on a Starship/SuperHeavy and they can replace the part in a couple hours or days or even just build a whole new ship in a month or two(eg just take the next one off the production line as its ready).
@@NScherdin empty not containing the full design specs and again as you have said not orbital, many companies have successfully launched but not with methane as a primary, the raptor motors like blue origin are experiencing issues but to put it into the same league as SLS with systems that have launched into space is a stretch and they are experiencing problems with the raptor 2 still without any real test except ground fire
All of those signs I'm still excited for it. Ever since I went to the Kennedy space station as a kid I've been obsessed with the space. Feels like we're on the cusp of something big between the space station going down Russia going to China space station and the SLS. It's getting wild
2:02 -You said Interstellar Rocket. I suppose that Interplanetary, is what You had in mind.
Ok: SLS is a fully developed system, all included. Starship is, at this point, a fuel bucket with some engines attached. Space-X has harvested the steep part of the diminishing return curve getting where they are, but now they're entering the shallow part, and this is far less impressive. Very similar to self-driving for Tesla, where the steep part was used to overpromise, and now delivery is still not happening for a long time to come. So, are you serious?
Even if SLS at all will at some point be obsoleted by private launch vehicles of that magnitude is questionable. Apart from Space-X planning to use their own launcher for their own project, there is simply no big enough market for a heavy launcher of that magnitude, as shown by the very few launches of the F-heavy.
And by the way hydrogen: Is American hydrogen any way different from European? Or why does it work well enough for the Ariane?
Same thing I said. Until SpaceX prove itself that starship really works, SpaceX won't be launching shit to the moon for NASA.
We are surrounded by rabid SpaceX fans, who are known for many things but logic. Their sorta like the German public of the late 1930's. Hook, Line, sinker, and black hole sucked all the way in. It took years for them to even acknowledge "Elon Time". In their minds, in just a couple of weeks, everyone will be sipping whine on the promenade deck of the Gleaming Starship on their way to Europa (and radiation poising and bone mass loss). I for one love the Starship idea, and think SpaceX is an excellent company run by a really smart and capable person... Gwynne Shotwell. I think her biggest job is keeping Elon from messing it all up. Just bring in that sweet, sweet hedge fund money Elon, and don't touch any buttons!
This may well be true but let us have our dreams while we can.
@@scottjensen7555 You can have dreams at any time. It doesn't stop with the eradication of naviete.
I dissagree. SLS is not a fully developed system until it successfully flies, maybe more than once. It may be peiced together from bits and peices of from formerly fully developed systems, but SLS itself is a whole new Frankenstein that is bit-peiced together in a whole new system configuration, and developing it to make it work is a completely different and difficult task, as anyone with eyes and common sense can tell.
Liquid hydrogen happens to also be the more environmentally friendly option for rocket fuel. I get tired of hearing from people who are not rocket engineers that SLS which is the only heavy lift vehicle right now needs to be scrapped. Starship cannot do what SLS can offer, Starship is not ready and produces more pollution per launch.
Almost all of the launch thrust of the SLS comes from the SRBs which put out much more toxic waste than methane, which only emits water and CO2, while even the RP1 of Atlas and Falcon 9 also produces a lot of complex hydrocarbons, usually called tar, which you can see as the bright yellow in the exhaust.
@@jamescobban857 methane leaks will contribute 80 times more to global warming than CO2. So what SLS produces 25% of its thrust with a clean rocket fuel. Starship produces 0%.
Jacob when was the last time you heard about a methane leak? Vast quantities of methane are transported around the world and delivered to almost every building on the PLANET. That is BILLIONS of times the quantity of methane used by Starship. Hydrogen can leak THROUGH solid metal. Hydrogen makes the metal that it is in contact with brittle. Hydrogen must be handled at insanely low temperatures, temperatures at which most metals FAIL. Methane is the worst greenhouse gas but it is only released during a spin prime test. In a normal launch, or a static fire, it is released for a fraction of a second before ignition, and the first lick of thrust will ignite the released methane converting it into water and carbon dioxide. The solid rocket boosters eject a horrible toxic mess including aluminium compounds. Since Musk also manufactures systems to extract carbon-dioxide from the air to convert it into methane Starship can be made catbon-neutral, but there is nothing conceivable which can convert the exhaust of an SRB into something safe.
Bin SLS once Starship is up and running.
what should u change in a rocket, yeah 20 years is all right. when was the last update on falcon ? that is really not a problem
This video sums up surely what everyone is thinking!!!🙏🙏👌👌
The ones with grape kool-aid stained lips... yes.
Life imitates art. This is like a scenario played out in the series "For All Man Kind".
Love your videos.
Two corrections: one, Starship isn't an interstellar rocket, its an interplanetary one, and two, projected cost per SLS launch isn't $2B, its now $4.1B, making the case for using Starship instead even more of a no-brainer.
Ah yes the "Starship" a completely unproven concept and a waste of investors money. Man only if someone made an actual rocket with the safety of the crew in mind .
Less unproven than the sls. And, so its a waste of investorsmoney from investors that choose to pay their own money, but you don't think that 4.1B each is a waste of taxpayer money (in witch the tax payer don't have a choiche)
Well the Americans sure do love paying a lot more for their army. Taxpayers don't even pay 2 cents to NASA or something
Not exactly my point..
Technically, even if super heavy and starship are not approved for human spaceflight, it could be possible to launch astronauts on Falcon 9 dock with starship and head to the moon... The cost will still be incredibly cheaper... NASA should litterally throw SLS away. Plus, I don't understand how they can dare to fly astronauts on a rocket that would have flown just once ?
They flew astronauts on the Shuttle with zero flights. Those guys at NASA are pretty good with calculators. Only the Russians have a comparable space experience.
There needs to be more research into anti gravity.
Ever heard of physicists. and btw anti gravity isn't a thing. you can't just loose gravity, it would require you to have anti mass.
its the same shuttle technology correct? Thats like bringing out a 8 cylinder mustang and no one can get on to the track
I work on the range. 17 years. You could not be more wrong. Where do you get this insanity.
This program has multiple times made me gaze open-mouthed at my screen. Just like the JWST.
It is scary to let this thing go up, there will be loose nuts and bolts, probably on in and outside of it.
It is scaring.
3:45- end... has a contract for 10 and the OPTION FOR 10 MORE. Do you not understand the definition of option? So that definitely doesn't equate to 20 years.
Look, Apollo series had many many launch delays, this isn't anything new to NASA. Same can be said for STS as well.
It's true of Starship right now.
@@hawkdsl Which is to be expected in the rapid prototyping development scheme.
@@dammy That's a great marketing term.
Rocket Senators, theyre worried about jobs not innovation. Leave it to Space-X. Also its so good to see Charlie being talked about, great guy.
thank God somebody's finally getting to the bottom line. you nailed that shit. who's getting paid? The big companies. That's what's up.
well, Starship still has to proof its ability and reliability
So does the sls
Had the Artemis gone to Space-X it would have been in space on it's way to the Moon by Now. The SLS is a Failure of old technology
for a fraction the cost as well. I would love to see how fast SpaceX could have had Starship done if they had SLS funding outright.
@@NScherdin Keep in mind the many months everyone was shut down. I'm not sure SpaceX would be all that much further along.
You're probably right, although to be fair the rocket that SpaceX would have produced wouldn't be nearly as ambitious under NASA's guidance and oversight as the current Starship plans.
Mostly agree except the bit about starship can go to the moon no sweat, in a few ways the moon is as hard as mars, estimates show starship can’t carry enough fuel to get from Leo to the moon surface and all the way back to Leo without performance improvements or far less cargo. Then there’s the issue of an unproven refuelling and re-entry strategy, I am these will be overcome but no sweat? I think more like blood sweat and tears over several more years before starship is fully mature. The falcon took 8 years of launches before it reached block v .
hey lets make a race car out of old model T parts but only model T parts, no new stuff oh and its going to cost billions but will never run
2:00 - it's not an INTERSTELLAR rocket... try interplanetary maybe.
Paradigm paralysis is real
Isn’t inter-planetary a better categorical description of “starship” than inter-stellar, the ships name not withstanding? Unless your generalizing that in 100 years spacex will still be around.
Oxidizer AND fuel.
Is it a case of NASA's top managers not wanting to "lose face" about decisions made many years ago?
The SLS contract was written in 2014. Starship didn't exist at that time. Starship will not likely be rated for lift off from Earth anytime soon. SpaceX could use a Falcon rocket to lift the astronauts to LEO, then transfer to starship during refueling. A second starship may be required for the return trip until a fuel depot can be built in lunar orbit, but all that can be done. So yes, SpaceX could do the mission for NASA without SLS.
I am wondering if Falcon Heavy can be improved to Falcon Super Heavy. Strap four boosters to the first stage and second stage and it will have more thurst than SLS.
@@catchnkill I was thinking something similar. Starship is not human rated for liftoff, but the Falcon rockets are. Starships could do everything except that. With enough fuel or send two or three to lunar orbit, the HLS starship could land on the Moon, and another starship could return them to Earth. One way or another, Starship is the backup plan if SLS is a no go. Starship still has to do its orbital and refueling test flights, but with all the extra time SpaceX has had to redesign it, I believe there won't be any problems with the tests.
SLS is a product of a legacy system. It will work. It will eventually be replaced when something better becomes available. A viable replacement is still several years away.
At the very least.
Most of the... more complicated was self-inflicted.
Looks like all we need is getting the "Greatest Generation" back from the dead and rebuild Apollo.
Who says SLS is a failure
Elon told them what to do but they ignored him
Hurray!
“ or can they “
Shouldda put some old vsaucy music there
SLS will go away when the starship is flying a regular time table to the moon, or maybe before.
But Starship is still a dream.
My bet is that Starship can launch to the orbit faster than SLS. SLS has scrubbed launches for three times. When they try again later this year, I think they will scrub it several times again and miss the 2022.
Money talks and the visionary reusable rockets like Star Ship will certainly make SLS "fade away"
The problem with SpaceX is that there hasn't been a successful launch of the starship, it has been a series of problems. SpaceX will get the deal when they have a successful test
" ... there hasn't been a successful launch of the Starship ... ". Yet!
Well there hasn't been a successful launch of SLS either yet. But even if neither succeed, it would be a lot less expensive to fail with SpaceX instead of yet another Boeing led fiasco.
I wonder how it is that a company, SpaceX, has been so successfull when it has not had dozens of politicians 'helping' by creating jobs in their electoral districts. Is it possible that SpaceX is also profiting from not 'investing' in politicians re-election accounts?
@@philipgrice1026 well, I hope SpaceX succeed with the starship. SLS is built on previous versions of launch systems, if NASA had taken it seriously there wouldn't have been any problem.
But when you say SpaceX hasn't had help, I will like to remind you about Obama's loan to SpaceX, multiple project grants from the government, NASA and even the military. I would love to see rocketlab or firefly to have those kinds of grants and loan
Neither does SLS. That thing has not launched yet and seems like it will blow up much like Space Shuttles Challenger and Columbia
Artemis: a job program, with a bonus rocket at the end...
Maybe NASA should buy a couple of Starship.
What’s with the cheap orange insulation?
Space is having their own problems with their starship. Nobody said space was easy. Yes, SLS is old technology, but art the same time it's mostly proven. The weakest link appears to be the H2 fuel handling.
Going exactly as I expected. Chronic failed launch attempts, leaks, more delays. Another year if they're lucky then the O rings fail.
But, seems as though Tesla slowed way down also
Yeah, about those solid rocket boosters - didn't they have a best before-date coming up pretty soon, after which they'll have to be taken apart and stuff?
@@rocketsurgeon2135 It's an artificial expiration. The fuel is more stable then bisquik. It's because of the various O-rings and joints. If it sits for too long, there is a compression memory potential. However with the redesign, that's not really a thing either. Because no one is going to be on it, they can stretch that out really.
It seems like the military industrial complex on steroids
$4.1 Billion per launch
NASA still contracted to Boeing... Not a good thing.
SLS will beat Starship :) but Starship 2 🤔
This isn't NASA hating, I'm all team space here, but I actually doubt many NASA employees would be able to move to private industry in a disruptive space. The systems, designation of responsibility and pace will be difficult at best. Even the subcontractors of long standing contracts will not be competitive in a free market.
This government SNAFU and commercial solution was predicted in 1988. But the commercial solution was pushed back on by some entrenched government contractors and workers more interested in their rice bowls than innovating lower launch costs.
Why is it harder things are supposed to have progressed
At the moment, for SLS to cost $2B per launch, it's incremental cost needs to be $1B per launch and it needs to launch 20 times, so that ($20B + 20x$1B) / 20 launches is $2B. Anyone honestly here believe SLS will launch 20 times, or that it can get down to $1B incremental cost per launch, when every trip back and forth along the road seems to cost $2B?
Tu t’emberlificotes dans tes milliards de dollars
SLS is financially unsustainable given todays competitive environment. But the delays are not unusual given the finances NASA has to work with. The old technology is proven and will eventually work.
Yup, starvation diet funds and delays have always plagued the American space program cuz it's privately financed by the people of the country. NASA has no money of its own, it begs from Congress and the IRS confiscates it from our people for all kinds of good and bad stuff Congress funds like space, and student loan forgiveness, for example lately!
interstellar rocket??.... since when?
Sorry thought this was Twitter ,keep scrollin
Time to go back to the Saturn 5 and real engineer’s that did maths and chemistry.
NASA and the whole world was laughing at Elan’s idea of reusable rockets, and now they are going to almost all depend on on him. Elan proved all the smartest people in the world wrong. Pretty crazy.
they need to reallacate these funds and stop wasting it on Artemis.
TFW: You have No idea about Congress
Well, when you put it that way..... WTF NASA?
You nailed it, Space Race guy! SLS was doomed from the jump based on its outrageous cost and lumbering flight cadence. Totally unfit for purpose (solar system exploration).
It was always a political jobs program whose unwieldy structure was required to get bring home the bacon congressional votes for early NASA programs which succeeded! Someone please call time of death and let’s move to a truly workable plan based on private market innovation and competitiveness, America’s strength. It’s a sad, difficult, and overdue transition.
Those pesky Star Ship "landings" tho... LOL ..........That "truly workable plan"!!? LOL LOL LOL LOL
@@ronschlorff7089 Were you laughing when SpaceX Falcon9's were blowing up while trying to land? Now that they've nailed 130+ landings, 14 launches with the SAME booster....who's laughing now? SpaceX will succeed because they WANT to succeed....they're a private company and need to be successful to endure. A Union 'make-work' program like the SLS is doomed to fail when faced with competition as they drag their feet doing the most simple of things. 'We need to replace the seals on the fueling coupler....shouldn't take more than a few weeks'..???? At SpaceX...this would take a few DAYS at most...and likely be successful where NASA can't seem to wipe their own asses without getting shit on everything. Very sad.
@@recoilrob324 Yeah zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz, yawn, usual fan boy! NASA did ok in the past, when it had the money, and even lately with JWST, eh? No, I did not follow falcon, only started following Tesla since some of my investments have the stock in their mutual funds. You know, making money, getting rich! Well, maybe you don't know!! LOL. :D
So yeah, Musk is a genius an all that. Delays, and real failures, are part of the deal for rockets, Star ship had a few too, but it is still a test, not operational, they have to stick a few more of their "highly successful" "landings" of that, so we'll see. LOL. Space is big, room for all who want to go, don't get the scrap the old and go with the new mentality. I guess if you if you are a guy who buys a new phone all the time, I could possibly get it. ;D LOL
@@ronschlorff7089 Yes...JWST IS producing some amazing stuff....and it's 'only' 10 years late and billions of $$$$ over-budget. Great success NASA!
When money is no object then I guess having programs routinely going billions over-budget and taking 3-4x longer than they were supposed to is OK...but money IS an object and NASA doesn't seem to be able to 'trim the ship' and every program ends up a country-wide 'make work' project.
The Mars Rovers are a wonderful success...but NASA only paid for them and the program was run by others who seem to have a better grasp on making things work in a reasonable timeframe.
What I'm seeing with Artemis is a 10 year commitment that will actually be 20 years+ and hundreds of billions over-budget before it's over....in other words, they should scrap it now and cut their losses.
Give that money to SpaceX and it'll get done.
@@recoilrob324 All peanuts in cost compared to student loan forgiveness at 750 billion and green new deal bill passed at almost that. And God knows what else in the next few months! NASA gets crumbs, annually, by comparison to welfare and other wasteful spending like I mentioned, and look what they did with that. Even NASA at the time of Apollo only got around 4% of the budget, and they made world history forever! :D
JPL is a part of NASA, has been since the first days. I went to their project mission lectures at Cal Tech, in Pasadena, when we first went to moon and Mars with early probes, back in the 60's. I lived in Glendale, as a kid in High School, a city close to Pasadena! I remember hearing techs give details about NASA launched and JPL controlled Ranger, Mariner, Surveyor, and other un-manned missions from those days. I even got "extra credit" for my written reports on them to my teachers in math, chemistry and physics at the time. Regarding SpaceX, those pesky star ship "landings" tho.... let's get that "done" first, before getting too excited! ;D
I said it about 4-5 years ago. NASA should just stick to building the probes and telescopes. Leave the rockets to Spacex.
Interstellar 🚀?!
Space Labor System
Bureaucracy was the major reason why Artemis is important to NASA is because of government contracts and also companies that NASA has contracts ( Sub,-Contracting ) with . NASA does not want to get rid of those lucrative contracts and that's the same way that a lot of companies invest money for military projects and contacts that don't work and unfortunately Artemis may be an albatross compared to SpaceX.
Space X minus the bureaucracy is a private entity which can deliver its research and development as well as manufacturing much quicker and cheaper than the bureaucratic mindset of our- hands- are- all -tied NASA .and it's continued contracts with various other corporations and companies involved in Artemis program these companies depend upon lucrative contracts through the federal government and so does NASA. As part of it's overall budget. In some ways like expensive military projects that lead nowhere. It seems like the Artemis program is a lot of fat and pork that NASA attached to it's budget just to keep its private industry partners happy with on going. Tax payers money going to these contracts and NASA and private partner hands.
Like others have mentioned; NASA SHOULD Stick to letting Space X do the Manned mission agenda itself while NASA conducts uanned mission objectives and scientific exploration. Finally, I've been very suspicious and skeptical about the validity of the SLS system going back to the Moon let alone Mars and beyond; I just feel that such an objective would be unattainable fool hearted at best ;filled with danger and wasted Tax payers money.
2b was the costt a stealth bomber.
And, it’s still an ‘O’ ring that’s failing.
Remember the Edesil
It funny how you said that these programs are just there to keep iconic american space adminstration alive or in short keep tummy full of ancient organisation. As a matter of fact i heard that this program initiated due unemployment issues faced by goverment so then nasa was funded and teams were hired. I know it is hard to accept, I myself is raised and has been inspired by NASA to become an engineer but now the time has changed and should accept the reality. I reckon that NASA should focus on interplanetary spacecraft missions such as web tele and perseverance rather than trying to fly an decades old huge steel can.
Yeah
NASA has always been good at both, "chewing gum and walking". Lately they've concentrated on chewing gum (JWST), but it's time to get walking (moon) again too!! Yes, Musk's new shiny grain silos in space will be cool too, if it weren't for all those pesky RUD "landings"!! LOL :D
Anyone thought of asking China to help ????
Sorry honey, that only happens in movies 😂.
If China offers to help, the USA will say China has ulterior motives and want to steal U.S. Technology.🤣🤣
If we imagine at least part of the reason bureaucracy is trying hold back Starship, is because they want this oversized orange stick to fly first, then them failing is definitely NOT good news for SpaceX. I can imagine Elon watching the live telecast and saying to himself "Come on, fly, lift off, and then get the hell out of our way!"
NASA and SpaceX are partners, and NASA is relying on Starship to be the lander. Only in your head is anyone trying to hold back Starship. Where does this nonsense come from? Jesus Christ.
@@hawkdsl That's why I said "If we imagine", I'm not saying this as a fact...
Also, well aware NASA and SpaceX are partners, mate. But Boeing and their lobbyists in Congress are not, if you know what I mean. This isn't NASA vs SpaceX, it's Boeing/Bezos vs SpaceX, if anything.
@@LeongGunners I can agree with that.
Hydrogen is a poor choice as a fuel. It takes much more volume to store it. The hydrogen atom. Is so tiny that hoses & pipes develop leaks especially when vibration is present. (As in rockets).
"Interplanetary Rocket." Not "Intersteller."
The SLS was never designed to be a success, it was designed to be a jobs project. Its literally an amalgamated legacy project that just recycles leftovers.
Listen to what you said. China is getting to "being able to match SLS."
Yeah, if China is only getting ready to be as good as that, we don't need to worry.
Not yet anyway. Now, if they start getting better like actually flying it and landing on the moon. Then we should worry.
Last I heard, China was redesigning their super heavy lift launch vehicle. However, there’s an implication that I’ve been seeing, that they might forgo using it and use a tug for their first lunar mission. Whenever that happens to be.
But that’s besides the point. Having witnessed this spectacle, and the collective lack of interest shown by both Congress and (to a lesser extent) NASA itself, I’m pretty much convinced that China would beat us to Mars if it weren’t for SpaceX. In fact there’s no question in my mind. They have the motivation, enough money, and enough tech to do it. NASA only has the tech, neither it nor Congress has the motivation, and Congress will never, and was never going to provide the money. Even as it stands right now, SpaceX will basically be dragging NASA to the Red planet.
@@alexanderstone9463 Now, THAT would be embarrassing
@@williamburroughs9686 It absolutely would be. It wouldn't be quite as bad as if the Soviets landed on the Moon before us, but it would be close. I'm completely serious about it too. Even if the Chinese only have what we know about publicly, they are well on their way to having the ability to send people to Mars. I'd give them maybe a little more than two decades or so, assuming their still up to it after SpaceX beats them there of course. The single biggest reason why they'd do it, nationalism and vengeance over the "century of humiliation", ceases to be as meaningful if SpaceX gets there before them.
I've watched SLS get nowhere and cost a fortune and I've observed the asinine antics of the planetary protection office. Seeing these two spectacles caused me to realize that there is zero chance NASA would ever get to Mars first. Not unless a private company (like SpaceX) drags them there. It is a problem not merely of bureaucratic ineptitude on NASA's part, but also of Congress' attitude and spending habits when it comes to space policy. SLS costs a fortune not because of NASA, but because of Congress. Going to Mars would cost a lot of money even if the planetary protection office was outright abolished, and even if SLS had cost exactly what they initially claimed it was going to cost. There is absolutely no chance Congress would fund it.
You could argue that on the face of it, Congress' reasoning as to why they wouldn't spend the money, would actually be perfectly sound. It would be the same that any investor would give. Though the ulterior motive for their reasoning would be that the amount of pork needed to go beyond the moon represents only a fraction of that gained by developing things like an overpriced space launch vehicle (like SLS). But I digress, economically speaking, going anywhere beyond the Moon is an enormous risk that no investor would touch. There's a reason why space exploration is usually the purview of the government, with their only competition being some eccentric billionaires. You have no hard proof that there is anything valuable on Mars that cannot be obtained on Earth (or even the Moon) at a fraction of the cost. So why go there in the first place? Because we don't actually know that there's nothing valuable on Mars because we've never been there? Yeah, that doesn't really strike me as a good way to win over any investor. Whether or not that "investor" is private sector or public sector is not relevant. Therefore, it is not economics that causes us to explore space, but a nationalist impulse and a scientific curiosity to a lesser extent. China has about the same amount of the latter as we do, but considerably more of the former.
2:43 finding problems, more problems , fixing them ... sounds like software development to me ---- quite a pleasant source of income and I am doing that for a living
One SLS per year is not so optimistic. If we could fly 4 STS missions a year, we could fly 4 SLS missions per year. It’s the same hardware.
When Starship is proven out, it will replace SLS. Until then, NASA has to proceed as if Starship doesn’t exist.
More reasons why the government should never be in charge of anything
I love your channel and videos but these thumbnails are quite clickbaity
So if I was in charge of nasa’s future with rocket technology and it’s now the first day of 2023 I’m planning on tossing out SLS current incarnation and then giving a much more important mission for us to work on from ground up!! And that’s humanity’s first Nuclear space tug!! That ships like Starship can in fact dock with this Nuclear space Tug. In fact 3-4 Starships at a time!! This tug will cut the 6-8 month journey down to only 3 months Saving lives and keeping our men and women from all around the world even from China!! Because this voyage should be taken and a United from on A half of all of humanity working together to set up our future on a second planet in our system. During the off years we can still continue to send pre loaded starships with equipment food and water!!! Among other things!!! Like the best form of Mars Starlink satellite’s so that Mars will have full access Wi-Fi and phone satellite communication Then when the tug is making its way from earth to Mars it can drop some laser satellite rapid communication signal receivers and transmitters that can drastically cut the lag time between those on Mars communicating with those here on earth
Um.... Starship is not designed as an "Interstellar Rocket". Starship is designed and intended to be an "Interplanetary Rocket". In the future, with design changes involving new propulsion types, a variation of Starship could possibly be classified as "Interstellar"... but....... dont feel bad. It seems even some genius scientists seem to have difficulty expressing or telling the difference between Interstellar (between star/solar systems) and interplanetary (between planets within the same solar system) space themselves.