Man that sucks! I work in manufacturing and was laid off last month from a job I really loved, so I know that feeling. Luckily I've got a good resume and I've already got a couple good opportunities coming up.
Interesting how employees are suffering while giving their day and night for the company but shareholders are getting big returns while doing nothing for the company
I remember back in the day when so many complained about your "in the wood" background. They all said it was fake because the background was clearly in focus. Yet today your background is the wooden book case (looks like Joe Scott's old one BTW) and it is out of focus......yet I don't hear anyone complaining about it being fake? LOL
The Chinese will get to Mars long before NASA gets anywhere near the place, perhaps NASA could ask the Chinese if they could be kind enough to pickup their samples while they are there :-)
The biggest bar to space exploration is the fact Boeings mission for 40 years has been to filter money through nasa to their share holders, not to creating the next generation of space technology to make things cheaper.
I have a LOT of faith in Blue Origin. They get most of their funding from Jeff Bezos himself. They recently got the contract to launch a Mars satellite later this year, and they have a working mock-up of a lunar lander for Artemis in 2029. They deserved the original contract over SpaceX.
@@markharmon4963 Would not surprise me whatsoever if Blue Origin takes NASA to the moon before SpaceX. Have you seen the lunar module SpaceX is going to provide???? Hint: No one has. It doesn’t exist.
@@joeybulford5266 It sounds like a dead-end approach. Good for propaganda...maybe. For an ongoing sustainable exchange with the Moon, it does not sound feasible. We have landed on the Moon. The challenge now is to develop ongoing science, development and industry. How is Blue Origin's Lunar Lander going to accomplish that?
@@markharmon4963 I’m actually very glad you brought all that up. For starters the Blue Origin lander is at least HALF the size of the SpaceX rocket that is supposed to land ass-backwards on the moon. Do you know how many resupply missions it is going to take to get the SpaceX rocket to the moon one time? 20 rockets. They’re going to have to send 20 separate rockets to fuel up the Falcon Heavy for one singular landing. That’s insane. And NASA is finally, FINALLY taking a critical look at just how insane that is.
@@coulie27 Yes, of course, they would open their pockets in a heartbeat because the defense budget ensures the US capitalist death-cult empire projection abroad and in the future, space as well. Everything else is secondary. Maximum funding for death and crumbs for life. Would be nice to cut down the insane Pentagon budget for space exploration, universal health care, public services & transportation, free education, environmental protection & development, stringent regulations for corporations, scientific research, etc. But it is very easy to demonize all those good things in the eyes of the average american... Just say: "that's socialism!, are you a socialist?"... Red scare brain seizure ensues and everyone goes back to dick ride capitalism, until the next round. Works every time...
I’m a contract mechanical technician at Nasa Glenn in Cleveland and this is for sure concerning news. If those specialized techs at jpl can be let go it doesn’t inspire confidence in any of the other nasa centers contract workforces.
The major problem with the contracts is that once they are signed, they are making assumptions about committing NEXT years budget to the projects. If next year is worse, then even the continuing project WITH committed money get cut. which then runs into contract penalties for cutting the project.
Once you lose knowledgeable people it is about continuity and returning years or tens of years back. This will not save economy, but will ruin so much work and knowledge that you can get only the hard way and cannot "buy" it on the market "just in time". As kids we saw NASA as "Pantheon" of knowledge and spaceflight craft resides. Now... ... ... This is about societal will. We put effort in things we value, unfortunately, the values seem to be nearsighted and materialistic without future.
It is also interesting to see, how long SpaceX can run without government money. They also have commercial launches (other than their own), so it should be longer than NASA, though.
Question: how "sharp" is the event horizen of a black hole? Is it: here you are outside but one picometer to the left you are inside? Is there any "fuzzyness" to it? In space or in time?
@CaseyDrier Thank you for highlighting what's happening at Goddard. From personal experience, the hemorrhaging of contractors at GSFC is taking a huge toll on the center, and it's awful.
It’s economic. Inflation is through the roof. The money they did get was borrowed. That creation of money through borrowing increases inflation even more. Not an anti-space/nasa issue.
ikr, but there is a reflexive: blame the gop in certain circles. Usually, the shutdowns are short enough that Caltech floats the salary, but what you said.
The Chinese suffer from the same issues as we do. When funding dries up, space programs get delayed or gutted. Their economy is not doing as well as it did in decades past. Money is no longer growing on trees in Beijing. If their economy does not pick up, Chinese space programs are likely to be delayed, scaled back, and canceled.
This question has nothing to do with this video but you want questions I have one. Not sure if it has been asked before but, with the talk of the famous 9th planet that has been found with math, affected orbits, and an estimated mass between Earth & Neptune, how possible is it that it could be a black hole orbiting our sun?
Some questions: 1. The biggest differences between Orion and Crew Dragon are life support duration and the ability to reenter at 11km/s. Orion has cost $21B since it started as part of the Constellation Program two decades ago. Crew Dragon was developed on a commercial basis with less than $1B from taxpayers. Justify. 2. What are the astronauts on Artemis II and Artemis III actually going to achieve that could not be done without risking human lives? Why is Artemis III only spending a few days on the surface? With the BO or Dynetics landers they are dependent on solar power, but the payload capacity of Starship HLS could deliver a nuclear reactor, supporting a standard 6 month shift like the ISS. Why not use robots to build the Moon Base first and only deliver mushware when it is already established?
JPL employee here who got laid off. I am concerned about Europa Clipper. So many critical people on Clipper were let go. It’s going to be super painful for JPL to meet the October launch date. This is just THE WORST timing.
Dude, if you put some quiet ambient forest track in the background, I for real would have thought that you were legitimately just oot chilling in the woods. The lighting is spot on.
News like this makes my blood boil. Cutting non-military spending when the military gets the lions share of the money already. This is why we can't have nice things.
I thought the mission was designed so if anything got screwed up in the transfer of the samples there were backups on the surface left behind by the rover, no?
I hope the how to piss money up against the wall mission is still going strong. Look what spacex has done on a 10th of the budget others have been gifted.
SpaceX Starship in just the last couple of years, with a mix of private funding and subsidies : $2bn spent in 2022 + $2bn spent 2023 + $2bn of the HLS $3bn contract paid by NASA in 2023. Total: $6bn. And probably more than $10bn since 2018. And around $18bn or more, until an hypothetical 2018 Artemis 3 landing, if you take the estimate of Musk himself on spending $2bn each year on Starship. They took and will take a lot of money... And Musk do very much like subsidies (that and private funding rounds), as SpaceX regularly applies for federal funding programs (and was denied the last one directed at Starlink). I don't know why you are saying they have been "gifted" one tenth of the budget of others like, SLS? It's ridiculous.
Why not send a more advanced Mars rover to study the samples? If we can't get them back to Earth, at least get some science out of them at a fraction of the cost of MSR.
I got laid off not from them but from another center. Its bad. Horribly bad. I left before the start of the fiscal year, and was already in limbo with layoffs for over a year. Ended up finding a new job outside of space. I wish I can go back but yeah, couldn't even find work in my industry I love.
With the abysmal record of problems with Boeing Orion maybe this is a good thing. Maybe the money should go to other outfits like SpaceX, private rocket companies who are making impressive progress instead of excuses.
The Orion is built by Lockheed Martin and its service module by the Airbus Defense & Space... Boeing is in charge of the SLS core stage. Problems are to be expected and costs overruns and delays are almost a given when it comes to corporations, as well as political shenanigans, SpaceX included. The latter has already gobble up $6bn the last couple of years in private funding, subsidies and two of the HLS $3bn contract already paid by NASA. So at least $10bn spent since 2017/2018 on Starship and super-heavy development. Two IFT carried out as of now but no HLS mockup. And they still have to work-proof LEO refuling, the high launch cadence for it and a proof-landing test on the Moon. At the very least. If 2028 is an optimistic Artemis 3 landing "date", SpaceX has 4 years to make it work. And they will spend an additional $8bn or more on it. At the end of the day, HLS/Starship will be a 10+ year project costing north of $20bn. I don't know if that's impressive but not really surprising for sure. After all, rockets are hard as they say...
the point at 48:00 is serious. JWST is providing publications for many, many young scientists seeking tenure. MSR...you don't get tenure over "formulation" conference presentations.
yea i think its because of politics Christians wont like it because it contradicts the bible and some far left people don't like it because its just a conspiracy theory and "we got earth problems to deal with"
Call me a pessimist (I am...) but I don't think that Artemis will ever launch. It's too expensive and there are better rockets (ie Starship) available (or will be hopefully)
Seem like I'm even a bigger pessimist than you. Starship won't be ready for even cargo missions for years, the way things are going and probably never for manned missions.
yea i am sure it will be cancelled over politics at the last moment similar things happened in the previous decades were they had a long term plan. and then a new president got elected and just cancelled everything
Dumping 4 space shuttle motors in the ocean after each launch is too wasteful, building cities on Mars is too optimistic, blank cheque waste had to be reigned in.
We want blue origin to succeed because they are the only possible competitor? The word hooped comes to mind. ULA? maybe, Sierra? maybe. Both ULA and Sierra are ahead of BO. Yes a competitor is needed but don't look for BO to do that.... even Boeing is ahead of BO and they may not "make it". BO seems to have started out with the same "culture" that is killing Boeing now. Rocket Lab is at least presenting some competition right now, certainly more than BO. Will this change in the future? It may but I honestly think ULA (if they survive) will remain the first real competitor. I can't see BO changing enough to really compete. New Glen is becoming just Glen and by the time it flies may well be Old Glen. I am glad ULA is back in the race, less glad their engine supplier is so unreliable.
@@robertanderson5092 I was not asking anyone not to succeed. I do in fact expect BO to eventually get to orbit. They may even compete with someone but I don't see them as a competitor to spacex any time soon. I will say that in the long run spacex may not be the main way to get to space. Their focus adds too many blind spots.
The BE-4 was reliable enough for Vulcan first launch to succeed... I wouldn't discount BO too fast. They are almost done with New Glenn, aren't they? And I think they will manage the engine demand. They have been very, very quiet about their progress the past what, four or five years now? But they obviously did work very hard. And keep in mind that they are aiming for orbit and a Moon landing (teaming with others) without prior experience like SpaceX. And with a big, big rocket as well. If they succeed, it's going to be a pretty enormous feat to be proud of. Honestly I'm not too worried about them. Neither am I about the SLS. I'm more skeptical about the HLS architecture of SpaceX. I'll see if I'm wrong or right in a few years, but it doesn't look good, imho.
I was always more excited by Asteroid Redirect (AR), than Mars Sample Return. We will go to Mars one day, so why hurry to get some early samples? Asteroids may not be as sexy, but in the mid term we can do more with them. I would like to see a Falcon 9 style of AR. By that I mean development of mass produced, cheap asteroid seeking probes, bringing back lots of small asteroids that can be taken to Earth or Moon orbit for study, experimentation, and resource utilization. Eventually we could bring back something a little larger (10 to 50 metres perhaps) and put habs on it. Yeah, I know I'm dreaming. 🤓
Extremely interesting. I had already read about space politics and agents months ago. Unfortunately, many people don't even realize what prerequisites are needed and how many good scientific and space travelprojects have already died, even though some of them were already very far along. The fact that this wonderful facility, JPL, of all places is affected is very, very bitter. Of all places where there is so much potential, both in terms of people and all other requirements. Unfortunately, as we said in the conversation, causing such difficulties for such an institution always has serious consequences that no one can really want. A suggestion about the Mars sample return mission: Canada and your many European viewers could motivate their joint space agency ESA to help. Or ask the Arab states interested in space travel or our friends at JAXA? Maybe so that US politicians feel motivated to do more? China's announcements should probably be taken extremely seriously, and not just from my point of view. These are not only preparing a permanent lunar station, but also a sample return from the Mars mission. They talk about this often and have been able to work on a huge amount of their plans. This was given far too little information to the public. But this could probably help motivate taxpayers and voters...
So internal review for the psyche mission (which is JPL) said management and workforce issues caused the project to be delayed a year (years factoring in travel time) and go 300 million over budget (almost 30%). Even more if you go off the proposed cost from the start. You can search for more details but apparently they botched the software. This caused the cancellation of the Venus VERITAS mission. That kind of performance shouldn't be rewarded. I wouldn't be surprised if they conducted a massive internal workforce review after that and got rid of a lot of people because of it and also clamped down on expenses with others.
@@Bitchslapper316Your response on the Psyche mission is spot on. However, VERITAS has _not_ been canceled. Per Wikipedia: “On 4 November 2022, NASA announced the postponement of the mission launch from 2027 to 2031, citing institutional problems at JPL delaying the launch of Psyche. The mission's Principal Investigator Suzanne Smrekar has counterproposed a November 2029 launch date, which she argued would require only modest "bridge" funding and compared to the 2031 option would offer lower overall cost and fewer conflicts with DAVINCI and EnVision; this position obtained endorsement by a Congressional committee in October 2023.”
Since science is funded by society, science must be responsive to the desires of society. Decadal surveys mean nothing if society does not want to pay for them. If science wants something that society does not value, science needs to find another funding mechanism than taxpayer dollars.
NASA has been it's own worst enemy by pissing away so much money on a few programs. JWST is wonderful, but the overruns killed many programs. Artemis is mind bogglingly expensive for very little, and desperately needs a major rethink. The Mars sample return mission is way too complicated and is bound to go far over budget. Better planning at NASA would help.
We are talking about NASA here. That is the organization that killed 14 heroes through bad management. I am therefore skeptical of leaving responsibility for safety to these idiots. The safety of space missions, for example determination of when a vehicle is "crew-rated", should not be entrusted to an agency which so obviously puts political objectives ahead of safety.
Cool, you have the forest in your backyard. Find extraterrestrial life for the first time will happen only once. Even if it's just microbes on the subsurface of Mars. The first Space Agency(ies) to bring the samples back will take the credit for that historic achievement.
That brings up an interesting thing to ponder about, how would it be different if countries WERE allowed to militarize space. Would it also drag many of our peaceful enterprises out into space in the wake of the world's militaries and their space/arms race, or would it just speed up our potential undoing
What's preventing anyone from militarization of space? Every country capable has fired rockets/missiles over the Karman line. Almost every astro/cosmonaut has been either active or former military, multiple nations have fired off nukes in space or shot down satellites, spy sats and secret space planes applenty, virtually anything you put up there with the capacity to do high energy/mass/velocity science can be used as a weapon... Space already sounds pretty militarized.
Perhaps JPL needs to learn how to design spaceprobes that use fewer custom parts. For example how about using mass produced satellite buses instead of designing one of a kind backbones. The HST for example used an assembly-line core. With Falcon 9 SpaceX cut the cost per kg to orbit in half, and Starship will cut it by a factor of TEN. How about figuring out how to build a space telescope that only costs $1B instead of $10B? The Mars Sample Return mission was inflating into multiple billions to return a few kg. Probably in 2026 SpaceX will send a Starship to Mars orbit. It could deliver 100 tonnes of commercisl payload. And then bring back 100 tonnes. That 100 tonnes is enough capacity to deliver 100 Mars Rovers to 100 different spots, but if EACH Mars Rover costs billions that ain't gonna happen. Could Musk reprogram one Tesla assembly line to manufacture 100 Mars Rovers for say $200M?
I wonder whether the robots at a Tesla GigaFactory could be programmed to build a Mars or Lunar Rover? Admittedly a mass-produced rover or probe would probably mass a tonne more than the custom-built rover, and using off the shelf cameras and other instruments would add more mass. But Starship can deliver over 100 tonnes to Low Mars Orbit by 2029, and probably at least 20 tonnes by 2027. This is assuming that the first prototype of an orbital refilling station will face storage problems with cryogenic fuels, and will not be able to fully fill a Starship, and that Starship will lose much of its fuel during the 6 months en-route to Mars. However I note that JWST can keep its instruments at less than 50 kelvin using just an aluminized kapton umbrella! That is 40K below the boiling point of liquid oxygen and 5K below the *freezing point*. The five layers of the JWST sunshield have a total of 1,500 square metres of area. For some reason no public source indicates its mass as a portion of JWST but I doubt it is more than 100kg. So I presume that by 2028 both the refilling station and any beyond-Moon missions will have aluminized kapton sunshields.
Really? Artemis is going to be less of a risk than Starship? At least SpaceX is hiring. Artemis has taken how long to launch once? With supposedly proven technology, for how much money? The only reason it’s still on is for political reasons. There are alternative plans: example, use Dragon/Falcon9 to rendezvous in LEO with Starship, ride it to the moon, land, explore and return to LEO, rendezvous with the Dragon, return to Earth. Way less expensive, so more missions/year, money left over to fund a Blue Origin alternative plus actually build a base on the surface that can do much more. It’s funny that your arguments against the Mars Sample Return also apply to Artemis.
Why not launch the Artemis crew to orbit on a Dragon spacecraft, then transfer them to the Lunar Starship in Earth's orbit before setting off to the Moon and landing? Upon return, the Starship could dock with a Lunar Refuel Depot before returning to Earth and rendezvousing with the Dragon capsule for the journey back. Subsequently, the Starship could remain in orbit, ready for another mission to the Moon.
The lunar starship isn't taking them from earth to the moon. The Orion spacecraft is. The current plan: Orion launches on SLS, travels to the moon, the crew transfers to the lunar starship, lands, takes off, crew goes back to orion and goes home The dragon isn't designed or rated to go that far. It's just an orbital craft.
It is absolutely certain that the launch and landing on Earth will be done in a NASA spacecraft, not SpaceX or any other. There's more than the quest for scientific discovery at play here. Mostly politics and marketing.
Ugh we can keep pumping money into endless war. But we can’t afford to invest in the future of humanity. If we don’t get this problem in check we are going to get what we deserve. Unfortunately.
Cant blame Ukraine. Russia needs to be stopped. Blaming Ukraine is only going to help Putin. Blame radical Republicans who like to hold onto power to appease their ignorant base.
Space budgets are political animals. Either you get massive public backing, or you must have corporate political backing. Politicians will only provide the vote for space programs if they think their constituents will vote for them to get reelected, or if their corporate sponsors will fund their reelection campaigns. Unfortunately, SpaceX is not one of the corporate sponsors that politicians look to fund their reelection campaigns. I suspect that NASA will get no political support if they arrange to work with SpaceX in any way that threatens the mess that is SLS/Orion.
![[UA] Eternal Fire проти NAVI | EPL Season 20 Malta](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/chvlsDygrZM/mqdefault.jpg)
This is by far the best, most accurate description of the ongoing chaos. Really insightful, thanks for telling this story Casey!
yeah, its definitely this video, and not the most recent tucker carlson interview
I work at Lockheed and JSC and we are feeling these cuts heavily.. it’s super frustrating..
The contractors and suppliers are going to get hit hardest, I think.
Man that sucks! I work in manufacturing and was laid off last month from a job I really loved, so I know that feeling. Luckily I've got a good resume and I've already got a couple good opportunities coming up.
Interesting how employees are suffering while giving their day and night for the company but shareholders are getting big returns while doing nothing for the company
@@okman9684 not quite NOTHING, the shareholders make more money because they are the biggest resource contributor, i.e money
without shareholders money, the engineers and other couldn't work
The forest location on the intro was cool. I suggest doing it again occasionally.
21:00 the mental image of a mars rover pinging for its next assignment and receiving no response 😢
I remember back in the day when so many complained about your "in the wood" background. They all said it was fake because the background was clearly in focus.
Yet today your background is the wooden book case (looks like Joe Scott's old one BTW) and it is out of focus......yet I don't hear anyone complaining about it being fake? LOL
Nasa's plan to pick up samples years after collection seemed pretty sketchy from the start.
Barring a crewed mission, it was going to be years regardless. And a crewed mission is still decades off.
The Chinese will get to Mars long before NASA gets anywhere near the place, perhaps NASA could ask the Chinese if they could be kind enough to pickup their samples while they are there :-)
yea they basically got 4 to 8 years to launch something before the next president shuts everything down and starts from scratch .
@@X5493-c7p erm.. NASA is literally all over Mars right now and the Chinese are still trying to get a firm footing on the moon and samples as well.
@@FirestormX9 I meant BEFORE humans on a NASA mission get anywhere NEAR Mars
Wow, Fraser this is great! Going in depth on Breaking News. Thanks for helping to break this down for us.
Really really informative and thoughtful. Thank you so much.
The biggest bar to space exploration is the fact Boeings mission for 40 years has been to filter money through nasa to their share holders, not to creating the next generation of space technology to make things cheaper.
I have a LOT of faith in Blue Origin. They get most of their funding from Jeff Bezos himself. They recently got the contract to launch a Mars satellite later this year, and they have a working mock-up of a lunar lander for Artemis in 2029. They deserved the original contract over SpaceX.
@joeybulford5266 Faith is the key when it comes to Blue Origin.
@@markharmon4963
Would not surprise me whatsoever if Blue Origin takes NASA to the moon before SpaceX. Have you seen the lunar module SpaceX is going to provide????
Hint: No one has. It doesn’t exist.
@@joeybulford5266 It sounds like a dead-end approach. Good for propaganda...maybe. For an ongoing sustainable exchange with the Moon, it does not sound feasible. We have landed on the Moon. The challenge now is to develop ongoing science, development and industry.
How is Blue Origin's Lunar Lander going to accomplish that?
@@markharmon4963
I’m actually very glad you brought all that up. For starters the Blue Origin lander is at least HALF the size of the SpaceX rocket that is supposed to land ass-backwards on the moon. Do you know how many resupply missions it is going to take to get the SpaceX rocket to the moon one time?
20 rockets. They’re going to have to send 20 separate rockets to fuel up the Falcon Heavy for one singular landing. That’s insane. And NASA is finally, FINALLY taking a critical look at just how insane that is.
Imagine a world that the military budget and NASA budget are reversed.......
25 vs 877
That would be pretty amazing.
I bet if there was a prospect of Star Wars there'd be more funding.
If the US didn't have such a large military budget Russia and China would dominate the world. The space program is nice to have but not a necessity.
@@coulie27 Yes, of course, they would open their pockets in a heartbeat because the defense budget ensures the US capitalist death-cult empire projection abroad and in the future, space as well. Everything else is secondary. Maximum funding for death and crumbs for life.
Would be nice to cut down the insane Pentagon budget for space exploration, universal health care, public services & transportation, free education, environmental protection & development, stringent regulations for corporations, scientific research, etc.
But it is very easy to demonize all those good things in the eyes of the average american... Just say: "that's socialism!, are you a socialist?"... Red scare brain seizure ensues and everyone goes back to dick ride capitalism, until the next round. Works every time...
I’m a contract mechanical technician at Nasa Glenn in Cleveland and this is for sure concerning news. If those specialized techs at jpl can be let go it doesn’t inspire confidence in any of the other nasa centers contract workforces.
10:35 Caltech is NOT The University of California. It is a private institution..and JPL employees are officially employed by JPL/Caltech.
Err... he said Caltech is a university in California, not the University of California.
Including Howard Holowitz.
Keep up the great work
Thanks!
@@frasercain no thank you!
Good to see your forest after all these years!
Thank you, Fraser!!!
The major problem with the contracts is that once they are signed, they are making assumptions about committing NEXT years budget to the projects. If next year is worse, then even the continuing project WITH committed money get cut. which then runs into contract penalties for cutting the project.
Once you lose knowledgeable people it is about continuity and returning years or tens of years back. This will not save economy, but will ruin so much work and knowledge that you can get only the hard way and cannot "buy" it on the market "just in time". As kids we saw NASA as "Pantheon" of knowledge and spaceflight craft resides. Now... ... ... This is about societal will. We put effort in things we value, unfortunately, the values seem to be nearsighted and materialistic without future.
Northrop Grumman, RTX (Raytheon), Lockheed, etc. here in SoCal are hiring based on contracts from the Defense Dept.
It is also interesting to see, how long SpaceX can run without government money. They also have commercial launches (other than their own), so it should be longer than NASA, though.
Greetings from Sweden
Hur kallt är det där?
Crisp bread and potatoes!
Howdy from TX. U.S
Greetings from New River, Arizona-!!!
Question: how "sharp" is the event horizen of a black hole? Is it: here you are outside but one picometer to the left you are inside?
Is there any "fuzzyness" to it? In space or in time?
@CaseyDrier Thank you for highlighting what's happening at Goddard. From personal experience, the hemorrhaging of contractors at GSFC is taking a huge toll on the center, and it's awful.
I really miss the days you were filming outside, I mean, you an outside green screen wallpaper.
Great video! Thanks
It’s economic. Inflation is through the roof. The money they did get was borrowed. That creation of money through borrowing increases inflation even more. Not an anti-space/nasa issue.
ikr, but there is a reflexive: blame the gop in certain circles. Usually, the shutdowns are short enough that Caltech floats the salary, but what you said.
The Chinese suffer from the same issues as we do. When funding dries up, space programs get delayed or gutted. Their economy is not doing as well as it did in decades past. Money is no longer growing on trees in Beijing. If their economy does not pick up, Chinese space programs are likely to be delayed, scaled back, and canceled.
This question has nothing to do with this video but you want questions I have one. Not sure if it has been asked before but, with the talk of the famous 9th planet that has been found with math, affected orbits, and an estimated mass between Earth & Neptune, how possible is it that it could be a black hole orbiting our sun?
Some questions:
1. The biggest differences between Orion and Crew Dragon are life support duration and the ability to reenter at 11km/s. Orion has cost $21B since it started as part of the Constellation Program two decades ago. Crew Dragon was developed on a commercial basis with less than $1B from taxpayers. Justify.
2. What are the astronauts on Artemis II and Artemis III actually going to achieve that could not be done without risking human lives? Why is Artemis III only spending a few days on the surface? With the BO or Dynetics landers they are dependent on solar power, but the payload capacity of Starship HLS could deliver a nuclear reactor, supporting a standard 6 month shift like the ISS. Why not use robots to build the Moon Base first and only deliver mushware when it is already established?
Is JPL on the metric system?
"Show of hands... Who wants to go on an away mission?"
Follow the layoffs
JPL employee here who got laid off. I am concerned about Europa Clipper. So many critical people on Clipper were let go. It’s going to be super painful for JPL to meet the October launch date. This is just THE WORST timing.
I was worried this would happen. It sounds like it's going to put a lot of missions at risk.
What about Solar Warden Dark Fleet??
Dude, if you put some quiet ambient forest track in the background, I for real would have thought that you were legitimately just oot chilling in the woods. The lighting is spot on.
I am in the forest. The editor faked the green screen effect. 😀
News like this makes my blood boil. Cutting non-military spending when the military gets the lions share of the money already. This is why we can't have nice things.
52:31 ***BURP!***
If space program fades like high speed rail and particle accelerator, it's very disappointing and will be a turning point of the world power.
It would be enough to make us vumberable to our enemies. However, the real enemies are within destroying our nation.
Yayyy I miss the forest!
I thought the mission was designed so if anything got screwed up in the transfer of the samples there were backups on the surface left behind by the rover, no?
Yes, there were 10 samples(I believe 10 was the amt) that they dropped last year on the surface as a plan b for retrieval!
Wow seeing Fraser in the woods was wholesome a f
Great infos.
It's too bad about the cuts, just temporary layoffs, and you lose good talent, which is hard to replace later.
I hope the how to piss money up against the wall mission is still going strong. Look what spacex has done on a 10th of the budget others have been gifted.
SpaceX Starship in just the last couple of years, with a mix of private funding and subsidies : $2bn spent in 2022 + $2bn spent 2023 + $2bn of the HLS $3bn contract paid by NASA in 2023. Total: $6bn. And probably more than $10bn since 2018. And around $18bn or more, until an hypothetical 2018 Artemis 3 landing, if you take the estimate of Musk himself on spending $2bn each year on Starship. They took and will take a lot of money... And Musk do very much like subsidies (that and private funding rounds), as SpaceX regularly applies for federal funding programs (and was denied the last one directed at Starlink). I don't know why you are saying they have been "gifted" one tenth of the budget of others like, SLS? It's ridiculous.
Why not send a more advanced Mars rover to study the samples? If we can't get them back to Earth, at least get some science out of them at a fraction of the cost of MSR.
MSL did that.
I got laid off not from them but from another center. Its bad. Horribly bad. I left before the start of the fiscal year, and was already in limbo with layoffs for over a year. Ended up finding a new job outside of space. I wish I can go back but yeah, couldn't even find work in my industry I love.
With the abysmal record of problems with Boeing Orion maybe this is a good thing. Maybe the money should go to other outfits like SpaceX, private rocket companies who are making impressive progress instead of excuses.
The Orion is built by Lockheed Martin and its service module by the Airbus Defense & Space... Boeing is in charge of the SLS core stage. Problems are to be expected and costs overruns and delays are almost a given when it comes to corporations, as well as political shenanigans, SpaceX included.
The latter has already gobble up $6bn the last couple of years in private funding, subsidies and two of the HLS $3bn contract already paid by NASA. So at least $10bn spent since 2017/2018 on Starship and super-heavy development. Two IFT carried out as of now but no HLS mockup. And they still have to work-proof LEO refuling, the high launch cadence for it and a proof-landing test on the Moon. At the very least.
If 2028 is an optimistic Artemis 3 landing "date", SpaceX has 4 years to make it work. And they will spend an additional $8bn or more on it. At the end of the day, HLS/Starship will be a 10+ year project costing north of $20bn. I don't know if that's impressive but not really surprising for sure. After all, rockets are hard as they say...
I(s better to make another space telescope than return samples from Mars.
Oh no. :(
We need data on dark matter and dark energy. Sending people to space is waste of money with little or zero knowledge in return.
We appreciate your dedication to us even in crappy times. Ty brother!
That's a seriously advanced greenscreen: it makes you wear gloves, and your breath steam!
Amazing interview, not that he needed much guidance. Very very easy to follow and understand while multitasking around the house lol
Maybe because they found something they don't want us to know about
no.
nada.
zip.
forget it.
More nature backgrounds! Yeeey!
I missed the old green screen so so much!
the point at 48:00 is serious. JWST is providing publications for many, many young scientists seeking tenure. MSR...you don't get tenure over "formulation" conference presentations.
Where does Space X get their money from?
Get a powerwall or two
We're working on it.
Do you get the sence that NASA doesn't want to find life elsewhere?
No. Politics in this case has to with money.
yea i think its because of politics Christians wont like it because it contradicts the bible and some far left people don't like it because its just a conspiracy theory and "we got earth problems to deal with"
I love you Fraser
Call me a pessimist (I am...) but I don't think that Artemis will ever launch. It's too expensive and there are better rockets (ie Starship) available (or will be hopefully)
Seem like I'm even a bigger pessimist than you. Starship won't be ready for even cargo missions for years, the way things are going and probably never for manned missions.
Did Artemis 1 happened in a parallel universe or what?
yea i am sure it will be cancelled over politics at the last moment similar things happened in the previous decades were they had a long term plan. and then a new president got elected and just cancelled everything
Dumping 4 space shuttle motors in the ocean after each launch is too wasteful, building cities on Mars is too optimistic, blank cheque waste had to be reigned in.
The sad thing is both Artemis or MSR can fail because NASA is not rule by people have realistic goals and realistic self assessments.
Caught it on Spotify Superhero!!!!
We want blue origin to succeed because they are the only possible competitor? The word hooped comes to mind. ULA? maybe, Sierra? maybe. Both ULA and Sierra are ahead of BO. Yes a competitor is needed but don't look for BO to do that.... even Boeing is ahead of BO and they may not "make it". BO seems to have started out with the same "culture" that is killing Boeing now. Rocket Lab is at least presenting some competition right now, certainly more than BO. Will this change in the future? It may but I honestly think ULA (if they survive) will remain the first real competitor. I can't see BO changing enough to really compete. New Glen is becoming just Glen and by the time it flies may well be Old Glen. I am glad ULA is back in the race, less glad their engine supplier is so unreliable.
Don't see why any space enthusiast would want anyone to not succeed.
I don't really care, I just want to see a competitive landscape. Sierra would be great.
@@robertanderson5092 I was not asking anyone not to succeed. I do in fact expect BO to eventually get to orbit. They may even compete with someone but I don't see them as a competitor to spacex any time soon. I will say that in the long run spacex may not be the main way to get to space. Their focus adds too many blind spots.
@@robertanderson5092 True. Except for Musk cult members.
The BE-4 was reliable enough for Vulcan first launch to succeed... I wouldn't discount BO too fast. They are almost done with New Glenn, aren't they? And I think they will manage the engine demand. They have been very, very quiet about their progress the past what, four or five years now? But they obviously did work very hard. And keep in mind that they are aiming for orbit and a Moon landing (teaming with others) without prior experience like SpaceX. And with a big, big rocket as well. If they succeed, it's going to be a pretty enormous feat to be proud of. Honestly I'm not too worried about them. Neither am I about the SLS. I'm more skeptical about the HLS architecture of SpaceX. I'll see if I'm wrong or right in a few years, but it doesn't look good, imho.
I was always more excited by Asteroid Redirect (AR), than Mars Sample Return. We will go to Mars one day, so why hurry to get some early samples? Asteroids may not be as sexy, but in the mid term we can do more with them.
I would like to see a Falcon 9 style of AR. By that I mean development of mass produced, cheap asteroid seeking probes, bringing back lots of small asteroids that can be taken to Earth or Moon orbit for study, experimentation, and resource utilization. Eventually we could bring back something a little larger (10 to 50 metres perhaps) and put habs on it.
Yeah, I know I'm dreaming. 🤓
Extremely interesting. I had already read about space politics and agents months ago. Unfortunately, many people don't even realize what prerequisites are needed and how many good scientific and space travelprojects have already died, even though some of them were already very far along.
The fact that this wonderful facility, JPL, of all places is affected is very, very bitter. Of all places where there is so much potential, both in terms of people and all other requirements. Unfortunately, as we said in the conversation, causing such difficulties for such an institution always has serious consequences that no one can really want.
A suggestion about the Mars sample return mission: Canada and your many European viewers could motivate their joint space agency ESA to help. Or ask the Arab states interested in space travel or our friends at JAXA? Maybe so that US politicians feel motivated to do more?
China's announcements should probably be taken extremely seriously, and not just from my point of view. These are not only preparing a permanent lunar station, but also a sample return from the Mars mission. They talk about this often and have been able to work on a huge amount of their plans. This was given far too little information to the public. But this could probably help motivate taxpayers and voters...
So internal review for the psyche mission (which is JPL) said management and workforce issues caused the project to be delayed a year (years factoring in travel time) and go 300 million over budget (almost 30%). Even more if you go off the proposed cost from the start. You can search for more details but apparently they botched the software.
This caused the cancellation of the Venus VERITAS mission.
That kind of performance shouldn't be rewarded. I wouldn't be surprised if they conducted a massive internal workforce review after that and got rid of a lot of people because of it and also clamped down on expenses with others.
@@Bitchslapper316Your response on the Psyche mission is spot on. However, VERITAS has _not_ been canceled. Per Wikipedia:
“On 4 November 2022, NASA announced the postponement of the mission launch from 2027 to 2031, citing institutional problems at JPL delaying the launch of Psyche. The mission's Principal Investigator Suzanne Smrekar has counterproposed a November 2029 launch date, which she argued would require only modest "bridge" funding and compared to the 2031 option would offer lower overall cost and fewer conflicts with DAVINCI and EnVision; this position obtained endorsement by a Congressional committee in October 2023.”
The good news is... oh well
I love a good project manager
Isn't JPL what stands for Job Programing Language one of the oldest programing languages but also most used in NASA's space probes.
So Elon can lie about timelines because space is hard and he didn't know that?
You know the show "For All Mankind?"
Yeah, this is kinda the opposite.
Since science is funded by society, science must be responsive to the desires of society. Decadal surveys mean nothing if society does not want to pay for them. If science wants something that society does not value, science needs to find another funding mechanism than taxpayer dollars.
Build back better aye?
I thought it was Dan Murrell...😂
NASA has been it's own worst enemy by pissing away so much money on a few programs. JWST is wonderful, but the overruns killed many programs. Artemis is mind bogglingly expensive for very little, and desperately needs a major rethink. The Mars sample return mission is way too complicated and is bound to go far over budget. Better planning at NASA would help.
Safety is paramount ! Is it not ?
It is but we also wanna get to the moon you know… this century kinda hard to do the moon to mars thing without our companion
We are talking about NASA here. That is the organization that killed 14 heroes through bad management. I am therefore skeptical of leaving responsibility for safety to these idiots. The safety of space missions, for example determination of when a vehicle is "crew-rated", should not be entrusted to an agency which so obviously puts political objectives ahead of safety.
Cool, you have the forest in your backyard. Find extraterrestrial life for the first time will happen only once. Even if it's just microbes on the subsurface of Mars. The first Space Agency(ies) to bring the samples back will take the credit for that historic achievement.
Why don't they just cancel S.L.S.?
That was an amazing interview
That brings up an interesting thing to ponder about, how would it be different if countries WERE allowed to militarize space. Would it also drag many of our peaceful enterprises out into space in the wake of the world's militaries and their space/arms race, or would it just speed up our potential undoing
Space is already militarized. Yes it is and has pulled "peaceful enterprises" into space.
What's preventing anyone from militarization of space? Every country capable has fired rockets/missiles over the Karman line. Almost every astro/cosmonaut has been either active or former military, multiple nations have fired off nukes in space or shot down satellites, spy sats and secret space planes applenty, virtually anything you put up there with the capacity to do high energy/mass/velocity science can be used as a weapon... Space already sounds pretty militarized.
Perhaps JPL needs to learn how to design spaceprobes that use fewer custom parts. For example how about using mass produced satellite buses instead of designing one of a kind backbones. The HST for example used an assembly-line core. With Falcon 9 SpaceX cut the cost per kg to orbit in half, and Starship will cut it by a factor of TEN. How about figuring out how to build a space telescope that only costs $1B instead of $10B?
The Mars Sample Return mission was inflating into multiple billions to return a few kg. Probably in 2026 SpaceX will send a Starship to Mars orbit. It could deliver 100 tonnes of commercisl payload. And then bring back 100 tonnes. That 100 tonnes is enough capacity to deliver 100 Mars Rovers to 100 different spots, but if EACH Mars Rover costs billions that ain't gonna happen. Could Musk reprogram one Tesla assembly line to manufacture 100 Mars Rovers for say $200M?
I wonder whether the robots at a Tesla GigaFactory could be programmed to build a Mars or Lunar Rover? Admittedly a mass-produced rover or probe would probably mass a tonne more than the custom-built rover, and using off the shelf cameras and other instruments would add more mass. But Starship can deliver over 100 tonnes to Low Mars Orbit by 2029, and probably at least 20 tonnes by 2027. This is assuming that the first prototype of an orbital refilling station will face storage problems with cryogenic fuels, and will not be able to fully fill a Starship, and that Starship will lose much of its fuel during the 6 months en-route to Mars. However I note that JWST can keep its instruments at less than 50 kelvin using just an aluminized kapton umbrella! That is 40K below the boiling point of liquid oxygen and 5K below the *freezing point*. The five layers of the JWST sunshield have a total of 1,500 square metres of area. For some reason no public source indicates its mass as a portion of JWST but I doubt it is more than 100kg. So I presume that by 2028 both the refilling station and any beyond-Moon missions will have aluminized kapton sunshields.
It’s like Oliver Twist
Please can I get some more
Half of my soul died listening about politics..
Really? Artemis is going to be less of a risk than Starship? At least SpaceX is hiring. Artemis has taken how long to launch once? With supposedly proven technology, for how much money? The only reason it’s still on is for political reasons. There are alternative plans: example, use Dragon/Falcon9 to rendezvous in LEO with Starship, ride it to the moon, land, explore and return to LEO, rendezvous with the Dragon, return to Earth. Way less expensive, so more missions/year, money left over to fund a Blue Origin alternative plus actually build a base on the surface that can do much more. It’s funny that your arguments against the Mars Sample Return also apply to Artemis.
That background is pretty, still snowy and moldy here sadly
😢
Why not launch the Artemis crew to orbit on a Dragon spacecraft, then transfer them to the Lunar Starship in Earth's orbit before setting off to the Moon and landing? Upon return, the Starship could dock with a Lunar Refuel Depot before returning to Earth and rendezvousing with the Dragon capsule for the journey back. Subsequently, the Starship could remain in orbit, ready for another mission to the Moon.
I don't see how we get $bn's in pork to the right congressional districts with this plan.
The lunar starship isn't taking them from earth to the moon. The Orion spacecraft is.
The current plan: Orion launches on SLS, travels to the moon, the crew transfers to the lunar starship, lands, takes off, crew goes back to orion and goes home
The dragon isn't designed or rated to go that far. It's just an orbital craft.
It is absolutely certain that the launch and landing on Earth will be done in a NASA spacecraft, not SpaceX or any other. There's more than the quest for scientific discovery at play here. Mostly politics and marketing.
What an impressive young man. Great interview
Ugh we can keep pumping money into endless war. But we can’t afford to invest in the future of humanity. If we don’t get this problem in check we are going to get what we deserve. Unfortunately.
Got to pay for the war in Uranus
Fight the gas in Uranus?!
Cant blame Ukraine. Russia needs to be stopped. Blaming Ukraine is only going to help Putin.
Blame radical Republicans who like to hold onto power to appease their ignorant base.
@@mementomori29231 Putin and Biden both need to be stopped.
I see what you did there... Didn't you? 😛
if we are going to have wars we should have them far from earth
Money is tight. Its sad but understandable
Back to the F….orest!! 😊🎉
Space budgets are political animals. Either you get massive public backing, or you must have corporate political backing. Politicians will only provide the vote for space programs if they think their constituents will vote for them to get reelected, or if their corporate sponsors will fund their reelection campaigns. Unfortunately, SpaceX is not one of the corporate sponsors that politicians look to fund their reelection campaigns. I suspect that NASA will get no political support if they arrange to work with SpaceX in any way that threatens the mess that is SLS/Orion.
Why would Congress reject delays in the Artemis program? It just means their "campaign contributors" get many years of additional taxpayer handouts!
I'm glad I'm doing electrician work as opposed to going into the Sciences.
Sad news.
Artemis was never going to happen. way to complicated.
I never saw how it was preferable to moon direct
@15.20
The sausage maker of the chef of the canteen manager might lose their jobs