This video was way better than expected. I loved Jim Bridenstine and one of the dismal side-effects of Biden assuming the presidency was that he had to go. I thought Nelson would be like Biden: too old to be effective in his position and very partisan. But he has been good. He genuflects occasionally to the administration, which is unavoidable as the NASA administrator, but mostly he plays it pretty straight, as one expects of a public servant. His near-perfect recall of the Apollo 8 mission is proof he's still sharp in the head. Said Christmas Day instead of Christmas Eve but he nailed all 3 crew members names off the cuff no problem.
In fact, it is not necessary to fill-up Starship's tanks in complete. 2 times the empty mass is sufficient for moon or mars. More makes it "only" more comfortable.
to master a solar system as identity has become a talent to explore (the surrection of mars should give humanity infinite economy - to surrect planets is how to live in a universe )
I hate it when someone as important as the Head of NASA doesn't even know the lauch dates of the most impressive feat of space travel we have ever achieved. The Voyager probes were launched in August 20th 1977 and September 5th 1977. He states in this video that they were launched in 1977 and in 1978. EIther he's uneducated in the history of NASA and the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, or age is starting to affect his recall capability.
@@InfoSopheri don’t see anything particularly bad except the fact he was against commercial crew, which he has now admitted that he was wrong about. is there a bit i’m missing?
@@Unbaguettable The main struggle in this area in the last 2 decades was whether to allow for new companies to be funded or to give all resources to incumbents. He, when it really mattered, was always on the wrong side. He still is. So what you have already identified is extremely bad. However, there is a lot more here. Let's go back to how this evolved: Under Bush Jr., the space shuttle's unsafety became evident, when the second fatal shuttle accident occured. This led to a phasing out of this system. Which in turn led to a search for an alternative program. This is why under Bush Jr. the uninspired and completely underfunded Constellation Program with the Ares rockets was startet. However, there was also a group of people pushing for giving new entrants a chance. Read this as younger people and outsiders with less money and connections. (And therefore far less ability to corrupt.) This ultimately lead to the COTS program and then commercial cargo and the commercial crew. There's a book about it by Lori Garver who was a key figure in this transition. Something similar had been tried in the 90s (or 80s? I forgot.) before without success. So here too the fact that Space Shuttle failed played a role in the search for alternatives. A few months before the first Falcon 9 flight, 4 years after the initiation of this program, Nelson was for shifting the long term funds away from SpaceX (and others) and towards old approaches (and mostly old industry players). See article "Sen. Nelson Floats Alternate Use for NASA Commercial Crew Money". Going back to those old companies and approaches: Constellation (Bush Jr program) basically was a reuse of old space shuttle technology - and companies that were involved in that. Under Obama, Constellation got cancelled. Because it was absolutely unrealistic. Absolutely underfunded, because inefficient to begin with. These are all giant non-reuseable rockets we are talking about. You can not fund something that is utterly inefficient. Because by definition it will require too many resources to ever make sense. Moreover, anyone studying the original giant rocket program (Apollo) as well as what followed it (Shuttle) will realize that the only reason why Apollo was cancelled was because of the one-time-use aspect of these rockets. They were inefficient. (This is why Shuttle was planned as a reuseable vehicle. Which however - in the end - turned out to be even less efficient the way it was done - for various and complicated reasons.) If you want to dig deeper into this, or any of what we're discussing here, I HIGHLY recommend the Planetary Radio podcast which has a monthly series within its regular schedule that's all about the interplay of politics and space. It's called "Space Policy Edition". They dived into many of these topics over the years. In particular in the first years of Space Policy Edition you will find much about these large programs. And so you can find episodes about all that interests you there. Going back to the timeline. Constellation was to be cancelled under Obama. This is when Nelson played a key role in keeping Constellation alive under a new name: SLS. Of course it was supposed to be cheaper and faster than it ultimately turned out to be. Since then, SLS ate up a ton of resources. It's THE main drag on NASA resources right now. Because money has gotten more expensive (FED funds rate = interest rate) NASA's budget does not creep up anymore as it did in the years before the pandemic and war. So now, SLS even starts eating up scientific programs. It is 100% clear that SLS has no use whatsoever. Because already everything that is done with one SLS rocket could practically also be done with 2 Falcon Heavy rockets. With some comparatively cheap adjustments. SLS does not lead anywhere. So it would be Nelson's responsibility towards the future of NASA and society in general to finally cull this program. It has already eaten up over 40 billion $ (inflation adjusted and taking everything into account it might be over 80, see graph in "SLS and Orion costs - the third rail of cost estimating") and will never be useful. Certainly not if SpaceX succeeds with the Starship rocket. Then there will not be any justification for it anymore. (But they will say that Starship hasn't flown often enough yet to be considered a proven launch vehicle.) The only debate to be had is whether SLS is still kept alive due to corruption, or because Nelson would have to step down if he nixed it now. Because of his huge involvement in it. Personally, I'd refound NASA. It's so completely misguided at this point. Most of its resources should flow towards long term, strategic, efficient tech development. Which is not the case.
@@InfoSopher Yea, I read Escaping Gravity by Lori Garver where she talks about the whole process of ushering in the commercialization of space, and how Bill Nelson was definitely part of the old guard. But literally everyone was, and he's updated his stance since then and as NASA administrator he's been doing great. NASA betting on SpaceX worked out, but it may just as well not have. Just look at Astra; they hired a whole Falcon 9 development team from SpaceX and they couldn't make it happen. We are where we are in commercial space today pretty much because Elon is a superhuman founder.
How does point to point rocket travel, (to be delivered in 2028) as promised by Gwynne Shotwell - manage to safely track through the flight paths twice with no threat to the flying public ?. Can the FAA advise the poor exactly how this will be achieved without delaying the vast majority ???. Isn't this simply nonsensical marketing over reality ???.
Just keep watching. You will be amazed. As most people are already by what SX has accomplished. They are doing things no other earth entity can do. The Chinese and others are trying very hard to catch up. Things like reusing boosters and fairings with 90+ launches in 2023. Manufacturing the most efficient rocket-cycle engine at a rate of 1 per day with the FFSC Raptor. One of the things they do is make most of the parts for these rockets themselves. You've heard of ULA's problems with valves on the Atlas V that was supposed to take Boeings Starliner to the ISS. They buy these things from other companies. SX makes their own. There is a lot more going on at SX.
@@stefanbaartman5893 Gwynne Shotwell obviously doesn't understand what the FAA's fundamental responsibility is to the travelling public. You don't get anything more fundamental than that......for someone supposedly an aerospace engineer !!!. It's only the engineers that are running this company ALSO.
@@stefanbaartman5893 she's simply a sales executive...... just like the super-salesman. Look at those old Popular Mechanics magazines and see the origins of the Spacex point to point rocket travel, and Hyperloop, Boring, FSD, Optimus Dojo hyperspeculation.. Elon's vision is simply a rehash.
Gwynne is an inspiration to so many people! Congratulations to you on your two decades of service and success at Space X!
A fine and inspiring forum for conversations among the leaders of humanity's future in space. Thank you.
SpaceX is the greatest company ever built. Gwen is a Goddess and a treasure
*Gwynne.
gjitha meritat. ju kini. ju deklaru askund as emri ime te shkruhet askund.
Any other recording which has louder sound?
This video was way better than expected.
I loved Jim Bridenstine and one of the dismal side-effects of Biden assuming the presidency was that he had to go. I thought Nelson would be like Biden: too old to be effective in his position and very partisan. But he has been good. He genuflects occasionally to the administration, which is unavoidable as the NASA administrator, but mostly he plays it pretty straight, as one expects of a public servant. His near-perfect recall of the Apollo 8 mission is proof he's still sharp in the head. Said Christmas Day instead of Christmas Eve but he nailed all 3 crew members names off the cuff no problem.
Why is audio level via BT so low? I have to run it flat out!
Wah ra wong ngemis ..🙏matur suwun kebaikane.
In fact, it is not necessary to fill-up Starship's tanks in complete. 2 times the empty mass is sufficient for moon or mars. More makes it "only" more comfortable.
to master a solar system as identity has become a talent to explore
(the surrection of mars should give humanity infinite economy - to surrect planets is how to live in a universe )
Is it possible to adjust the audio? Just upload it again, please.
The volume is so low I can't hear them.
Other videos play just fine, not my fault.
Why was this was posted soo late
It's nonsense from just another salesperson Elon prefers......she doesn't answer hard questions....... either.
Sorry why did Bill mention Blue Origin at the start.
gjitha deshirate po ju plotsohen a deshirat e mija. 2 muj po ju luti. asnjera.
For the LuLz
The Saturn V was successful on it's first flight. It's a difference in philosophy, I guess.
edhe politike te ju shiqoj. te gezuare.
Ai will help improve rockets
me dore timen e kam shpetu. kam qka te bisedoj. presidetin. putin
Bill Nelson is a joke. How are you a NASA administrator and know so little about SpaceX?
no voice
I hate it when someone as important as the Head of NASA doesn't even know the lauch dates of the most impressive feat of space travel we have ever achieved. The Voyager probes were launched in August 20th 1977 and September 5th 1977. He states in this video that they were launched in 1977 and in 1978. EIther he's uneducated in the history of NASA and the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, or age is starting to affect his recall capability.
Left and right audio channels are out of phase!
Audio is the worst i have Not heard
qellimin tim e kame mrri edhe mos me njofte nuk me qon peshe ate qe kam dashte. e kam maksimumin. kjo me iteresu. e verteta
Audio is horrible. Too bad. I love Gwynne. Nelson- not so much
What's wrong with Bill Nelson?
@@ohedd Go to his Wikipedia article and read the "Space exploration and NASA" subsection.
@@InfoSopheri don’t see anything particularly bad except the fact he was against commercial crew, which he has now admitted that he was wrong about. is there a bit i’m missing?
@@Unbaguettable The main struggle in this area in the last 2 decades was whether to allow for new companies to be funded or to give all resources to incumbents. He, when it really mattered, was always on the wrong side. He still is. So what you have already identified is extremely bad. However, there is a lot more here.
Let's go back to how this evolved:
Under Bush Jr., the space shuttle's unsafety became evident, when the second fatal shuttle accident occured.
This led to a phasing out of this system. Which in turn led to a search for an alternative program.
This is why under Bush Jr. the uninspired and completely underfunded Constellation Program with the Ares rockets was startet.
However, there was also a group of people pushing for giving new entrants a chance. Read this as younger people and outsiders with less money and connections. (And therefore far less ability to corrupt.) This ultimately lead to the COTS program and then commercial cargo and the commercial crew. There's a book about it by Lori Garver who was a key figure in this transition. Something similar had been tried in the 90s (or 80s? I forgot.) before without success. So here too the fact that Space Shuttle failed played a role in the search for alternatives.
A few months before the first Falcon 9 flight, 4 years after the initiation of this program, Nelson was for shifting the long term funds away from SpaceX (and others) and towards old approaches (and mostly old industry players). See article "Sen. Nelson Floats Alternate Use for NASA Commercial Crew Money".
Going back to those old companies and approaches:
Constellation (Bush Jr program) basically was a reuse of old space shuttle technology - and companies that were involved in that.
Under Obama, Constellation got cancelled. Because it was absolutely unrealistic. Absolutely underfunded, because inefficient to begin with. These are all giant non-reuseable rockets we are talking about. You can not fund something that is utterly inefficient. Because by definition it will require too many resources to ever make sense.
Moreover, anyone studying the original giant rocket program (Apollo) as well as what followed it (Shuttle) will realize that the only reason why Apollo was cancelled was because of the one-time-use aspect of these rockets. They were inefficient. (This is why Shuttle was planned as a reuseable vehicle. Which however - in the end - turned out to be even less efficient the way it was done - for various and complicated reasons.)
If you want to dig deeper into this, or any of what we're discussing here, I HIGHLY recommend the Planetary Radio podcast which has a monthly series within its regular schedule that's all about the interplay of politics and space. It's called "Space Policy Edition". They dived into many of these topics over the years. In particular in the first years of Space Policy Edition you will find much about these large programs. And so you can find episodes about all that interests you there.
Going back to the timeline. Constellation was to be cancelled under Obama.
This is when Nelson played a key role in keeping Constellation alive under a new name: SLS.
Of course it was supposed to be cheaper and faster than it ultimately turned out to be.
Since then, SLS ate up a ton of resources. It's THE main drag on NASA resources right now. Because money has gotten more expensive (FED funds rate = interest rate) NASA's budget does not creep up anymore as it did in the years before the pandemic and war. So now, SLS even starts eating up scientific programs.
It is 100% clear that SLS has no use whatsoever. Because already everything that is done with one SLS rocket could practically also be done with 2 Falcon Heavy rockets. With some comparatively cheap adjustments.
SLS does not lead anywhere. So it would be Nelson's responsibility towards the future of NASA and society in general to finally cull this program. It has already eaten up over 40 billion $ (inflation adjusted and taking everything into account it might be over 80, see graph in "SLS and Orion costs - the third rail of cost estimating") and will never be useful.
Certainly not if SpaceX succeeds with the Starship rocket. Then there will not be any justification for it anymore. (But they will say that Starship hasn't flown often enough yet to be considered a proven launch vehicle.)
The only debate to be had is whether SLS is still kept alive due to corruption, or because Nelson would have to step down if he nixed it now. Because of his huge involvement in it.
Personally, I'd refound NASA. It's so completely misguided at this point. Most of its resources should flow towards long term, strategic, efficient tech development. Which is not the case.
@@InfoSopher Yea, I read Escaping Gravity by Lori Garver where she talks about the whole process of ushering in the commercialization of space, and how Bill Nelson was definitely part of the old guard. But literally everyone was, and he's updated his stance since then and as NASA administrator he's been doing great. NASA betting on SpaceX worked out, but it may just as well not have. Just look at Astra; they hired a whole Falcon 9 development team from SpaceX and they couldn't make it happen. We are where we are in commercial space today pretty much because Elon is a superhuman founder.
How does point to point rocket travel, (to be delivered in 2028) as promised by Gwynne Shotwell - manage to safely track through the flight paths twice with no threat to the flying public ?. Can the FAA advise the poor exactly how this will be achieved without delaying the vast majority ???.
Isn't this simply nonsensical marketing over reality ???.
Just keep watching. You will be amazed. As most people are already by what SX has accomplished. They are doing things no other earth entity can do. The Chinese and others are trying very hard to catch up. Things like reusing boosters and fairings with 90+ launches in 2023. Manufacturing the most efficient rocket-cycle engine at a rate of 1 per day with the FFSC Raptor. One of the things they do is make most of the parts for these rockets themselves. You've heard of ULA's problems with valves on the Atlas V that was supposed to take Boeings Starliner to the ISS. They buy these things from other companies. SX makes their own. There is a lot more going on at SX.
@@stefanbaartman5893 Gwynne Shotwell obviously doesn't understand what the FAA's fundamental responsibility is to the travelling public. You don't get anything more fundamental than that......for someone supposedly an aerospace engineer !!!. It's only the engineers that are running this company ALSO.
@@davidpearn5925 As it should be. Otherwise you get a Boeing, with their MBAs running the company into the ground.
@@stefanbaartman5893 she's simply a sales executive...... just like the super-salesman. Look at those old Popular Mechanics magazines and see the origins of the Spacex point to point rocket travel, and Hyperloop, Boring, FSD, Optimus Dojo hyperspeculation.. Elon's vision is simply a rehash.
Left and right audio channels are out of phase..!