Boots on the moon quickly should NOT be what Artemis is about. Better to take a few more years and get base supplies there ahead of first human mission so they can stay longer and do more.
Your right, martythealein, and that's about all SpaceX had to offer NASA: a possibility of a cheap "boots on the ground" initial mission. This would placate the U.S. national ego before China/Russia plant their flags (a few hundred meters away). It appears that a market for unmanned lunar "bus" landers is opening up, for delivery of these forward base supplies you refer to; this is a cheap method for small countries to begin lunar projects. SpaceX has already got some of that work launching the Japanese private lunar lander carrying the U.A.E. lunar rover. Lunar Starship has no future with NASA beyond Artemis 4, so SpaceX will probably continue just launching these private lunar landers.
@@davidstevenson9517 Yeah I hope many companies get the opportunity to develop lunar delivery systems. SpaceX can do some, quite a lot probably, but not them alone.
Glad to see some recognition of reality rather than the usual, empty "2025" insistance. Hopefully they use Artemis III for more than Artemis II. Should enter Lunar halo orbit and dock with Gateway HALO/PPE so astronauts can test the foundations of the new lunar space station. Would still be momentus, as it would mark the first time there has been a manned space station in lunar orbit (or anywhere outside of LEO). Only requires SLS/Orion, not HLS, so it's doable.
Helium 3 is from the sun because of earth atmosphere we have very little. Helium 3 is thee perfect element for nuclear fusion. Just a little of it could run a city power grid for ten years and a ton of it a whole country for a year. It is the most precious element in the solar system next to H2O. The moon close extremity to the sun allows buildup of these element. It is estimate there is a 10,000 yr of supply. China probe was successful in collecting moon samples and now know the amt. Of H3 in the moon’s regolith. Whoever obtains this element will probably rule the solar system and our planet and possible interstellar travel through this element for nuclear fusion propulsion system. Another use is a power source for Mars colonization. The use of H3 will probably save our planet and prevent global temperature from rising
I think we can do it. The faster we start to spread out into space the better. If NASA was actually funded properly, we could have had cities on the moon by now. It's so annoying.
Only because the original cost was so low 😂 gods forbid governmental investment in the sciences
ปีที่แล้ว +3
It is not (only) NASA's fault. There were a lot of changes in requirements, program focus and fundings during the last years (decades?). This slows down every project and makes is more expenses. NASA also cannot take the same risks as a private company. The parliament will call for hearings after each (major) incident. This also slows down the development.
@@DOSFS While what you say is true, Apollo as well as Mercury and Gemini before it were doing everything for the first time and also had to build the infrastructure from scratch. Going to the Moon today shouldn't cost nearly as much.
La burocracia y la corrupción son la causa de este retraso, en la década del 70 se fue a la luna con un solo cohete el saturno V (cada misión apolo). ¿Como es que ahora con tanta tecnología se necesitan hasta siete (7) cohetes pesados para cumplir la misma misión?
Russia did it twice in the 70s, returning samples to Earth; China landed a rover on the dark side of the Moon recently; Japan tried to land a U.A.E. rover but had a failure seconds before landing (good try!). We know what's there and smell money; now it's pure prospecting. (P.S. There is no Dark Side of the Moon...it's all dark...)
@@AlexBeyman-j2h - I mean for Artemis-III. Even if they can't land humans for that, then land something - send a robot. Don't just do a crewed circum-lunar flight. You can do that, but at least drop a robot while doing that.
@@manofsan the SLS isn't powerful enough to land anything on the Moon if it needs to bring Orion with it... that's the reason the HLS needs to be independently launched with different rockets. That said, it would have been nice to have something like Curiosity on the Moon way before Artemis, or even better, have several.
@@RobertoMaurizzithe SLS is powerfull enough to launch a curiosity rover to the moon, however it would be overkill to send a SLS, thats where a Falcon Heavy is usefull
Elon fan boys will be disappointed, but anyone with an objective view could've seen this coming. I hope 3 can be used to test docking with and living on gateway. This way still some usefull progress can be made.
Thankfully after hyperloop ,vegas dugout ,self driving , enabling neo nazis on twitter , share rug pulling dodge coin ,monkey brain abuse via neuralink research is that musk fan boys are getting rarer .
@@slartibartfast7921Instead the orange rocket simps must be very happy it gets to fly to nowhere in time if SpaceX can't deliver in 5 years and for the cost of half an SLS rocket something with significantly higher capabilities than the "based on proven Shuttle technology but was 5 years late" SLS, right?
I'm *really glad* that NASA doesn't run a *taxi service*! You might or might *not* get to where you want to go! Come on, SpaceX - step in and do this *yourselves!*
And what it goes “in” will probably be significantly changed from what people think. Though ironically the moon lander is probably a less demanding application of ss than others.
Define soon. Day, week, month, year, decade, century? What? 🤔 Many said SpaceX will never successfully launch, then they did. These people went on to say SpaceX will never be a commercial success, they will never land a rocket, and they will not be able to re-use 10 times. Well they did, so you were smart to use the conditional word Soon. Now you can deny being wrong when SpaceX do land on the moon someday. 😅
I have a really hard time seeing SpaceX and the HLS as being legitimately at fault for any future potential failure of the Artemis mission. No company on earth moves, innovates, builds and tests faster or more impressively…than SpaceX. If NASA really wanted to be “flexible” in their effort to revisit the moon…in the most timely, reliable manner possible…they would have come up with an approach and a plan far different from and simpler than the one they’ve cooked up in Artemis.
You have a really hard time seeing SpaceX holding up the program because you see SpaceX through fandom colored glasses. Although I believe SpaceX can meet the timeline, they have to start getting into gear. It didn't help that there was a brain fart to fly on 4/20, because you know, it was funny... and destroying the pad in the process. That kind of thing has to come to an end. SpaceX has to fly an unmanned HLS and land it on the moon. They have to be able to refuel in orbit... several times. Is all that going to work first time? Highly unlikely. So yes, SpaceX can actually be the one that holds up the program. No shade of fandom glasses is going to change that possibility.
@@hawkdsl bro I can smell your jealousy all the way from the other side of the planet. You just hate Elon musk and hoping SpaceX to fail. Your a disgrace of man. Maybe say that to NASA for making the HLS deadline in mere 4 years.
The problem is simple, but NASA cannot fix the problem. US Congress voted to give NASA billions of dollars for Artemis based solely on funding the existing companies that made the Space Shuttle components. So NASAs hands are tied. NASA has NO CAPABILITY to innovate. NASA cannot design and make anything new because in effect Artemiz has ALREADY BEEN DESIGNED BY POLITICIANS! How is that working out?
The blame is with whoever decided to wait until 2020 to select companies for a HLS design then assigned only 2.9 billions for it (and for 2 designs even). If SpaceX wasn't already developing Starship on their own money, NASA would have to wait several more years for a lunar lander. The original LEM development took from 1962 to 1969 and had a stellar budget compared to what NASA allocated now (according to Wikipedia, more than 20 billion in 2016 dollars)
Artemis is a massive boondoggle, perhaps even greater than the Space Shuttle. However, fortunes are being made... and that's what really matters. The world's largest and most expensive disposable rocket!
@@Peachcreekmedia Problem, Peachy, the U.S. Dept. of Defence already controls 80% of NASA so your budget suggestion would merely be "cooking the books". Try another recipe (Blue Moon is on the NASA Menu, with Alpaca as a possible dessert).
No disagreement, but we gotta have a backup in case Starship falls through. We can't be caught with our pants down and need to buy seats on the Soyuz again. Now's kinda a bad time
Federal Agency NASA is torn.. on the one hand they’d like to crush, eliminate SpaceX as competition that embarrasses them daily… on the other hand Nasa needs SpaceX to rescue them. Nasa has blown $500 billion & 51 years since Apollo on one dead end pork boondoggle after another without getting a single American beyond low Earth orbit, leaving it self incompetent/incapable of crewing or even resupplying our own space station. SLS/Orion is another NASA dead-end unaffordable, unsustainable joke. Artemis is dead without SpaceX & Starship. Compare private enterprise SpaceX’s innovation, efficiency, spirit to Federal Agency NASA’s waste, bloat, sloth, & incompetence. Compare SpaceX’s Clean, green, reused, cheap Starship to NASA’s 1960s legacy technology, throwaway, polluting, $4+billion per flight SLS/Orion.
My generation went from 1st man in space to landing on the moon in less than 9 years with Fred Flinstone technlogy. Today's with all our advanced technology are struggling ! Maybe they're just not made of the 'Right stuff' !
Give me a break! Also how many lives did it cost? I recall several men incinerated in a 100% oxygen space capsule sitting on the launch pad. Also a Soviet cosmonaut who knew he would die and insisted upon an open casket funeral so everyone could see his utterly charred corpse so they’d know how the government failed to protect his life. The good old days weren’t all that great.
5:09 “the second orbit .. will fly in an ellipse between 115 and 46,000 miles above earth” 👀 is that an error??? That’s an absolutely massive range.?.?
Here are 10 sentences that the first black female astronaut could say when she first steps on the moon: "One small step for me, one giant leap for diversity, equity, and inclusion." "As I stand here, I honor the trailblazers who paved the way for this moment." "The lunar surface beneath my feet reminds us of humanity's boundless potential." "Looking back at Earth, I'm reminded of the unity that makes our planet beautiful." "This achievement signifies progress, but also highlights the journey ahead." "In this lunar dust, I see the dreams of countless individuals who dared to reach for the stars." "I hope my steps inspire every young girl to reach for her aspirations." "From a world divided to a universe united - the possibilities are limitless." "The cosmos is vast, yet it's our shared humanity that makes us truly remarkable." "With every heartbeat and every breath, I embrace this historic moment for all humankind."
Maybe in orbit, but the landing target is the south pole. It is believed there is allot of frozen water there. Control of this area is critical for all future Moon industry.
I would really be unhappy if Artemis III ends up being another crew test. Even though we’re only 4 months out from 2024, I think that Starship will be able to make it to orbit before new years, and if it does then it will certainly mean that starships launch cadence can increase within the next 2 years
The last static fire didn't help my confidence... at any rate, there are no Starships yet, only prototypes. The only thing about to fly now are gas cans with rocket motors.
I agree. Even if the Starship lunar lander isn't ready, blowing an SLS launch at over $4.5 billion on a repeat performance of Artemis 2 (assuming it all goes to plam) is a waste of time and money. Far better to wait until the Starship is ready to do its job than to conduct expensive and useless public relations exercises.
@@chrisantoniou4366 Starship HLS might not end up being ready until 2028, if not later than that. That would mean a 3-4 year gap in SLS launches which NASA would really like to avoid. On top of that, the last SLS Block 1 vehicle can't stay on the ground forever before it starts delaying the transition to SLS Block 1B, therefore Artemis 4 and the rest of the Artemis manifest. At some point the Artemis 3 vehicle *has* to launch. The next best potential destination for Artemis 3 if HLS gets removed from the mission is a visit to Gateway PPE/HALO with the crew staying in NRHO and checking out the integrated spacecraft, as well as testing Orion's docking hardware and software first flying on Artemis 3. Even if not a landing that is a mission plan that would carry the program forward and teach/demonstrate a lot of useful things. All the money you're talking about is largely fixed costs, they get spent every year even if the rocket stays on the ground and doesn't launch. The SLS and Orion vehicles for Artemis 3 are being built regardless of the mission they are planned to do. Would you rather they spend $4B/year on both programs and not launch, or that they actually get a mission out of that hardware, instead of putting it in storage for years and keep spending that money anyway? In a scenario where HLS crewed landing is delayed until near the end of the decade, why keep Artemis 3 on the ground and create all those problems when they could still be doing a meaningful mission in the meantime? Just so that they stubbornly stick to an old mission plan that no longer makes any sense? Thankfully NASA mission planners seem to know better than that, and mission objectives are indeed flexible.
Starship needs to do a *lot* more than reach Earth orbit. Test flights to the Moon will also have to occur, and probably an unmanned test landing to make sure that the tall spacecraft won't topple over landing on lunar regolith.
SpaceX has demonstrated it can launch 100 flights of its 13 year old mature legacy launcher in 12 months. Indeed it has demonstrated launchpad turnaround of less than 5 days which means with their three launch pads they could launch over 200 flights a year. SpaceX has specifically designed its new CHEAPER successor launcher to be able to launch 1,000 flights per year from each launch pad, and it has one launch pad constructed and a second started at Canaveral, both of which could be operational by 1Q2024. SpaceX has four full Starship stacks already nearly assembled at Starbase, and has two new FACTORIES under construction to speed up construction which should permit building 60 reusable Starship upper stages and 20 reusable super-heavy boosters by December 2025. And yet this *government bureaucrat* is skeptical that SpaceX can launch a mere 8 Starships over the next THIRTY MONTHS to support HLS. Is he, just maybe, trying to cover up that his legacy suppliers, like Boeing, don't believe *they* will be ready? True Musk has predicted that the next test launch has only a 50% chance of making orbit. Those of us who have been around a while know that Musk had little faith in the first Falcon 9 launch, after only one of his Falcon 1s made it to orbit. He also gave only 50% odds of the First Falcon Heavy launch four years ago. And he was not terribly confident that IFT1 would make it past the top of the launch tower. After all B7S24 were already massively obsolete and over a year old. The choice they had was dragging them to the rocket garden and scrapping them, or seeing what happened when they pushed the button. SpaceX would not be remotely as prepared if they had not gone for aerial demolition.
There is no Starships yet. Your confusing prototypes with actual finished Starships. NASA is not allowing SpaceX to fly Starship at the Cape right now, and that is why all construction has stopped at the Cape. NASA wants SpaceX to work out it's Starship before letting that thing anywhere near the critical launch pads at the Cape. Again, your looking at the situation through fandom glasses. Take the emotion out of your thinking, and look at the picture with logical clarity. Comparing Falcon 9/Heavy with future Starship is erroneous. The two rockets couldn't be any more different if they tried. All the numbers for future Starship operations are projections, or marketing nonsense, and are just fantasy at this time. As I said in another post, I still think SpaceX can meet the deadline, but they have to avoid anymore lawsuits, and silly destructive 4/20 flights.
@@hawkdsl taking the emotion out of the thinking, the fact that NASA waited until 2020 to select the companies to develop a HLS (and a Lunar EVA spacesuit...) then Congress didn't give them any money to pay them is the problem, more than Starship (remember, SpaceX got the contract because they re-bid with the amount of money that was available, they were originally about a billion higher. Then they got sued by Blue Origin 🎉). I'm also worrying about the lunar spacesuits, another egregiously late thought, quite likely due to the fact that they're not developed by the right contractors 😛 But what's important is to launch Artemis 3 on time in 2025 instead of waiting maybe a few months into 2026 (after they waited for Boeing's "shuttle proven technology" like 5 years), god forbids Boeing and LM don't get their money on time. Again, NASA should be free to pursue space flight and research instead of having to comply with the pork barrel distribution system in Washington.
@@hawkdslbro it's NASA fault for waiting so long and decide a 4 years deadline for the HLS suddenly. Enlighten me. What has NASA achieve with SLS? Over budget, excessive spending, more than a decade just to build a single flight capable vehicle? In just 6 years SpaceX has build the entire launch platform, manufacturing buildings, assembly areas, propellant storage tanks, testing platform in just that short amount of time.
@@LeftOverMacNCheese This wasn't a post on NASA vs SpaceX, but because you brought it up -On June 18, 2009, The first public mention of the Raptor rocket engine was made by SpaceX’s Max Vozoff at the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA) It was a low priority development project headed by Max Vozoff and his team as a hydrogen-oxygen upper stage engine 14 years ago and that is when starship development started. Then conceptual ideas for the massive Falcon X, Falcon X Heavy, and Falcon XX super heavy-lift launch vehicles were also presented at the 2010 Joint Propulsion Conference. Then In June 2011, engineer Jeff Thornburg was placed in charge of Raptor engine development and given a small team. Its development proceeded slowly due to its low level of priority. By October 2012, with SpaceX’s engine expertise growing and finances improving, the Raptor had transformed into an engine several times as powerful as the Merlin 1 engine. Multiple Raptor engines were to power a future rocket called the Mars Colonial Transporter capable of lifting 150-200 tonnes to LEO. The next month November 2012, Musk announced that the Raptor was to be a methane/liquid oxygen (methalox) engine. Starship development history 2009 to 2023 14 yrs so far 2 yrs longer than Blue Origin's New Glen witch started in 2011 Blue Origin began work on the BE-4 in 2011, although no public announcement was made until September 2014. This was their first engine to combust liquid oxygen and liquified natural gas propellants. Design work on the Starship as we know it began in 2012; illustrations of the vehicle, and the high-level specifications, were initially publicly unveiled in September 2016. - Bro. And to answer your question; SLS has been to the moon. Starship made it to 127,000 feet. Keep that fandom going though.
Starship is not going to meet that schedule, it never was. At min, it’s going to take 2x the time for SpaceX to meet the delivery. Musk talks a good game but he’s bitten off more than he can technically chew.
Also remember that Artemis is not Elon's prime goal. That is getting Starlink V2 in orbit. There is going to be a lot of shop and testing time involved, and his resources are finite. The only common hardware is the booster and engine, neither of which have yet made it to space.
@@Geekofarm Elon's prime target is to make money. SpaceX is a company trying to make money. Contracting to NASA is done so to make money. 3 billion to help fund Starship is allot of money.
@@RobertoMaurizziAnd also the fact the money they generate through Starlink is enough to fund Starship program more or less. What they get from Nasa is not that much. They don't even have that much to lose if nasa decides to revoke the contract. They might as well can make their own Moon landing mission apart from Artemis.
Not quite the case here. It is a lot of money. It is not enough money. Elon gave a substantial discount, is doing it at a loss, and ran on Elon Time. These things slip; just ask Boeing. @@hawkdsl
Wait till there on mars and they run out of toilet paper and fight over who cleaning whose slipped one when out on a mars walk..can you imagine shitting in a space suit !
Sending humans into space beyond LEO with current propulsion is such a waste of resources. Let's put more into propulsion research before flags n footprints.
Blair, you just made a fool of yourself. You clearly know not the economic difference between expensive methane fuel from Earth and cheap hydrogen fuel from our Moon, which everyone (even NASA!) has known for 50 years. Everyone except you and that salesman Elon Musk.
NASA have: its called "Blue Moon", lunar hydrogen/oxygen powered, is landing as Artemis 5 in 2029, to be permanently stationed at GATEWAY. Post-Artemis 4, adios to The SpaceX Wild Bunch, back to the Mexican border for you, amigos!🤠
That hurts your fandom doesn't it. You'll be OK. Oh, don’t worry about it. As soon as you step outside that door, you’ll start feeling better. You’ll remember you don’t believe in any of this SpaceX will be late crap. SpaceX is in control of it's own life, remember? Here, take a cookie. I promise, by the time you’re done eating it, you’ll feel right as rain.
SpaceX's Starship HLS is the pacing item for Artemis 3 and it keeps getting delayed. Are delays excused because it's SpaceX? No of course not. I don't see any criticism coming from NASA, just the obvious fact that HLS is delaying Artemis 3 and that something might have to be done in the future if they don't want SLS to be grounded for 4 years and start pushing back the rest of the SLS manifest while waiting for the lander to be ready.
According to Elon Starship should already fly to orbit weekly for almost 3 years now. It didn't get to orbit once and it can't even test fire with all engines working for ONCE... But yeah it's "the government"
There's no blame to deflect. The SLS/Orion parts of Artemis 3 are well on their way and quite far along in hardware production. They are the more mature parts of the current mission plan, quite easily too. Meanwhile HLS and the EVA suits are still effectively CAD designs with a long list of progress and tech demonstration to be shown, especially for HLS. It is not difficult to understand what the pacing item for the mission is, and has always been since the decision was made to have Artemis 3 be a lunar landing mission.
Right! As if going to the moon and with higher safety standards doesn't make the whole endeavour harder!! 🙄. By the way who else is on the verge of returning to the moon again?
@@AlexBeyman-j2h You obviously haven't followed NASA and its funding arrangement. Funding continued to NASA but not for rockets to go to the moon. Congress and the government and the American people had lost interest in going to the moon so the support dried up to that program, but continued for many many other programs. So to say the NASA budget was gutted is missing the point. Personally I would like to have seen NASA get several times the budget that received which paid way more benefit than dumping money on the military which has only engaged in one military misadventure after another for the last 50 + years!! NASA has still accomplished a hell of a lot for having a gutted budget as you so state in a classic example of being misinformed!!
The Artemis program is a big joke. The mission profile is like " going around one's ass to get to their elbow" Much too complicated !!! Apollo-Saturn did it better ..in one shot ! If we improved the Saturn V and Apollon We could do it better, SLS can not even lift into orbit what the Saturn did. Artemis is "one giant leap backward" !!!
I disagree. We could do it quicker if it was just a stunt like in 1969. But NASA is laying groundwork and infrastructure to make routine trips to and from the Moon safer, like Gateway Station and the surface habitat. Now if you wanna complain about something, complain that Gateway is tiny and cramped, about the size of a school bus, when Airbus and Gravitics Labs both offer 33 foot diameter individual modules NASA could buy. Imo our boys deserve better digs, our astronauts are American heroes.
WHY the rush since SPAM in a CAN manned spaceflight is hugely inefficient with respect to science return versus cost and is SO 1960s... Book: The End of Astronauts: Why Robots Are the Future of Exploration (2022)
Bigger wastes of money are sports cars, private jets, luxury yachts, diamond jewelry, golf courses, the fashion industry, limos, and the Kardashians. There is more than enough money for all science but it is wasted on the rich. 🤣
I would not stand on the street corner with my hands in my pockets waiting for Space X like a late night bus, They have too many things on their plate owing to the consequences of Elon's toy Rocket ship going BOOM "For excitement." The "Gateway" still strikes me as a very big box of things that could go wrong at the worst possible time. This whole Magilla has been made too complicated from the start. Now those complications are beginning to compound one on the other to shove this remedial space mission farther and farther into a politically uncertain future, complicated by the fact that all the pieces of it have less and less chance as the months' roll by of being ready all at the same time. The ugly truth is this: As of 12 August 2023, The United States is no more ready to re-land on the Moon than we are to land a crew on Mars. The day may be coming sooner than anyone thinks when a load of political hacks looking to score points for the next Election will cast narrow eyes and narrower minds on this "Moon mess" and start asking very pointed and uncomfortable questions about what in the Heck we are trying to do, and why in the name of Sweet Auntie Sarah other countries get closer by the hour to doing what The US as already done, while we look SO incompetent trying to "out-Lunar" Ourselves trying to re-do something we did better more than 50 years back!
We are significantly closer to landing on the moon, than we are to landing on Mars. Mainly, because SLS and Orion are finally on getting close to being ready to land on the moon, while being nowhere close to being capable of bringing humans to Mars. We are also absolutely not trying to "redo" something we did 50 years ago. Artemis is significantly more ambitious that Apollo ever was. Not only is Artemis adding the Gateway to allow for longer stays on orbit, they are also planning to stay longer on the surface, with NASA working up from one to six months on the moon, vs. a three day stay during Apollo.
There are international reason for this moon trip that involve strategic control of certain areas and orbits of the moon. This race is not for flag planting, but future control of resources. Artemis and the programs that come after are guaranteed.
@@hawkdsl your correct neither does the rest of the world just putting resources into pointless crap. even if they make it what does it benefit 99% of the world absolutely nothing .
You can thank boeing and blue origin for failing. their greed ways of business ruined it. called it long ago. boeing should be forced to refund every dime they took for this project.
Boots on the moon quickly should NOT be what Artemis is about. Better to take a few more years and get base supplies there ahead of first human mission so they can stay longer and do more.
Always begin small
Your right, martythealein, and that's about all SpaceX had to offer NASA: a possibility of a cheap "boots on the ground" initial mission.
This would placate the U.S. national ego before China/Russia plant their flags (a few hundred meters away).
It appears that a market for unmanned lunar "bus" landers is opening up, for delivery of these forward base supplies you refer to; this is a cheap method for small countries to begin lunar projects.
SpaceX has already got some of that work launching the Japanese private lunar lander carrying the U.A.E. lunar rover. Lunar Starship has no future with NASA beyond Artemis 4, so SpaceX will probably continue just launching these private lunar landers.
@@davidstevenson9517 Yeah I hope many companies get the opportunity to develop lunar delivery systems. SpaceX can do some, quite a lot probably, but not them alone.
100% agree
Why build a base, just bring an extra starship?
Glad to see some recognition of reality rather than the usual, empty "2025" insistance. Hopefully they use Artemis III for more than Artemis II. Should enter Lunar halo orbit and dock with Gateway HALO/PPE so astronauts can test the foundations of the new lunar space station. Would still be momentus, as it would mark the first time there has been a manned space station in lunar orbit (or anywhere outside of LEO). Only requires SLS/Orion, not HLS, so it's doable.
Sooner we get the Helium 3 the better. MoonMiner for hire I’m ready
why helium-3? and why do u think it would be on the moon?
Helium 3 is from the sun because of earth atmosphere we have very little. Helium 3 is thee perfect element for nuclear fusion. Just a little of it could run a city power grid for ten years and a ton of it a whole country for a year. It is the most precious element in the solar system next to H2O. The moon close extremity to the sun allows buildup of these element. It is estimate there is a 10,000 yr of supply. China probe was successful in collecting moon samples and now know the amt. Of H3 in the moon’s regolith. Whoever obtains this element will probably rule the solar system and our planet and possible interstellar travel through this element for nuclear fusion propulsion system. Another use is a power source for Mars colonization. The use of H3 will probably save our planet and prevent global temperature from rising
Thanks man! 😎
I think we can do it. The faster we start to spread out into space the better. If NASA was actually funded properly, we could have had cities on the moon by now. It's so annoying.
AH! Good old say of Apollo with not so much to do... no practice run (#8), keep faith!
Lunar Starship is doomed. Blue Moon has been resurrected! (7:00) "NASA will seek... Artemis 3...alternative mission options".
Blue moon will not be ready before the turn of the century.
Alternative mission option means flying crew to lunar gateway.
I'm certain NASA can pull it off for three times the original cost.
Only because the original cost was so low 😂 gods forbid governmental investment in the sciences
It is not (only) NASA's fault. There were a lot of changes in requirements, program focus and fundings during the last years (decades?). This slows down every project and makes is more expenses. NASA also cannot take the same risks as a private company. The parliament will call for hearings after each (major) incident. This also slows down the development.
@@sailears9593 I wouldn't call Apollo $257 billion (when adjusted for inflation) low....
@@DOSFS While what you say is true, Apollo as well as Mercury and Gemini before it were doing everything for the first time and also had to build the infrastructure from scratch. Going to the Moon today shouldn't cost nearly as much.
@@DOSFS Not when compared to Artemis' $93 billion by 2025, which is the subject we are talking about
La burocracia y la corrupción son la causa de este retraso, en la década del 70 se fue a la luna con un solo cohete el saturno V (cada misión apolo). ¿Como es que ahora con tanta tecnología se necesitan hasta siete (7) cohetes pesados para cumplir la misma misión?
Space x should make a starship mimi
Like the Dragon Heavy?
Why waste money on that when you have a nearly working Starship program. Making it smaller doesn't reduce complexity.
*Why not maybe land some robotic vehicle on the Moon which can do some useful surface exploration?*
Russia did it twice in the 70s, returning samples to Earth; China landed a rover on the dark side of the Moon recently; Japan tried to land a U.A.E. rover but had a failure seconds before landing (good try!).
We know what's there and smell money; now it's pure prospecting.
(P.S. There is no Dark Side of the Moon...it's all dark...)
We did. So did 3 other countries.
@@AlexBeyman-j2h - I mean for Artemis-III. Even if they can't land humans for that, then land something - send a robot. Don't just do a crewed circum-lunar flight. You can do that, but at least drop a robot while doing that.
@@manofsan the SLS isn't powerful enough to land anything on the Moon if it needs to bring Orion with it... that's the reason the HLS needs to be independently launched with different rockets. That said, it would have been nice to have something like Curiosity on the Moon way before Artemis, or even better, have several.
@@RobertoMaurizzithe SLS is powerfull enough to launch a curiosity rover to the moon, however it would be overkill to send a SLS, thats where a Falcon Heavy is usefull
Elon fan boys will be disappointed, but anyone with an objective view could've seen this coming.
I hope 3 can be used to test docking with and living on gateway. This way still some usefull progress can be made.
Thankfully after hyperloop ,vegas dugout ,self driving , enabling neo nazis on twitter , share rug pulling dodge coin ,monkey brain abuse via neuralink research is that musk fan boys are getting rarer .
Spacex will have a private manned mission to the moon before NASA?
The Elon simps are becoming less loud. It’s… It’s wonderful
@@slartibartfast7921Instead the orange rocket simps must be very happy it gets to fly to nowhere in time if SpaceX can't deliver in 5 years and for the cost of half an SLS rocket something with significantly higher capabilities than the "based on proven Shuttle technology but was 5 years late" SLS, right?
@@gamerfortyninewont happen before artemis 2
Seems like NASA Chief Bill Nelson didn't get enough budget from Congress. Probably still need the money for three comfortable seats.
We need 4K HDR footage 🤬
I'm *really glad* that NASA doesn't run a *taxi service*!
You might or might *not* get to where you want to go!
Come on, SpaceX - step in and do this *yourselves!*
Delays are inevitable 😅
Glad to meet professor
NASA Canadian 8gb -badi 2024
first... man on the moon was armstrong
Correct, 10 points, good job.
I don't understand the point you are trying to make?
Clever.
@@DaniNyaaaReally? Ok, he pretended to be one of the guys that comments "first" on the video, but then switched it up with his Armstrong comment.
Actually the first people on the moon were Armstrong and Aldrin. The only thing Neil did first was go out the door. 😄
SpaceX isn't going to the moon any time soon.
If ever .
And what it goes “in” will probably be significantly changed from what people think. Though ironically the moon lander is probably a less demanding application of ss than others.
Define soon. Day, week, month, year, decade, century? What? 🤔
Many said SpaceX will never successfully launch, then they did. These people went on to say SpaceX will never be a commercial success, they will never land a rocket, and they will not be able to re-use 10 times. Well they did, so you were smart to use the conditional word Soon. Now you can deny being wrong when SpaceX do land on the moon someday. 😅
that star ship does not look safe,, i don't think it can even land on the moon successfully let alone lift off again and make orbit.
@@cbgardenmarylandemail spacex and let them know of your findings.
I have a really hard time seeing SpaceX and the HLS as being legitimately at fault for any future potential failure of the Artemis mission. No company on earth moves, innovates, builds and tests faster or more impressively…than SpaceX. If NASA really wanted to be “flexible” in their effort to revisit the moon…in the most timely, reliable manner possible…they would have come up with an approach and a plan far different from and simpler than the one they’ve cooked up in Artemis.
You have a really hard time seeing SpaceX holding up the program because you see SpaceX through fandom colored glasses. Although I believe SpaceX can meet the timeline, they have to start getting into gear. It didn't help that there was a brain fart to fly on 4/20, because you know, it was funny... and destroying the pad in the process. That kind of thing has to come to an end. SpaceX has to fly an unmanned HLS and land it on the moon. They have to be able to refuel in orbit... several times. Is all that going to work first time? Highly unlikely. So yes, SpaceX can actually be the one that holds up the program. No shade of fandom glasses is going to change that possibility.
@@hawkdsl bro I can smell your jealousy all the way from the other side of the planet. You just hate Elon musk and hoping SpaceX to fail.
Your a disgrace of man.
Maybe say that to NASA for making the HLS deadline in mere 4 years.
The problem is simple, but NASA cannot fix the problem.
US Congress voted to give NASA billions of dollars for Artemis based solely on funding the existing companies that made the Space Shuttle components. So NASAs hands are tied. NASA has NO CAPABILITY to innovate. NASA cannot design and make anything new because in effect Artemiz has ALREADY BEEN DESIGNED BY POLITICIANS!
How is that working out?
Put most of the blame on JB, with all of his frivolous lawsuits
The blame is with whoever decided to wait until 2020 to select companies for a HLS design then assigned only 2.9 billions for it (and for 2 designs even). If SpaceX wasn't already developing Starship on their own money, NASA would have to wait several more years for a lunar lander. The original LEM development took from 1962 to 1969 and had a stellar budget compared to what NASA allocated now (according to Wikipedia, more than 20 billion in 2016 dollars)
Artemis is a massive boondoggle, perhaps even greater than the Space Shuttle. However, fortunes are being made... and that's what really matters. The world's largest and most expensive disposable rocket!
How about we reduce the defense budget by half and use the savings?
@@Peachcreekmedia Problem, Peachy, the U.S. Dept. of Defence already controls 80% of NASA so your budget suggestion would merely be "cooking the books". Try another recipe (Blue Moon is on the NASA Menu, with Alpaca as a possible dessert).
No disagreement, but we gotta have a backup in case Starship falls through. We can't be caught with our pants down and need to buy seats on the Soyuz again. Now's kinda a bad time
Federal Agency NASA is torn.. on the one hand they’d like to crush, eliminate SpaceX as competition that embarrasses them daily… on the other hand Nasa needs SpaceX to rescue them. Nasa has blown $500 billion & 51 years since Apollo on one dead end pork boondoggle after another without getting a single American beyond low Earth orbit, leaving it self incompetent/incapable of crewing or even resupplying our own space station. SLS/Orion is another NASA dead-end unaffordable, unsustainable joke. Artemis is dead without SpaceX & Starship.
Compare private enterprise SpaceX’s innovation, efficiency, spirit to Federal Agency NASA’s waste, bloat, sloth, & incompetence. Compare SpaceX’s Clean, green, reused, cheap Starship to NASA’s 1960s legacy technology, throwaway, polluting, $4+billion per flight SLS/Orion.
@@PeachcreekmediaWe need defense. Nobody needs to go to the Moon.
Art3 was to only orbit moon
No, that's artemis 2. Artemis 3's goal is to land on the moon using lunar starship
My generation went from 1st man in space to landing on the moon in less than 9 years with Fred Flinstone technlogy.
Today's with all our advanced technology are struggling !
Maybe they're just not made of the 'Right stuff' !
Your generation had ~4% of the national budget for Apollo. Now the WHOLE OF NASA gets ~0.5% (and most of it goes NOT TO HLS OR SPACESUITS OR GATEWAY).
Give me a break! Also how many lives did it cost? I recall several men incinerated in a 100% oxygen space capsule sitting on the launch pad. Also a Soviet cosmonaut who knew he would die and insisted upon an open casket funeral so everyone could see his utterly charred corpse so they’d know how the government failed to protect his life. The good old days weren’t all that great.
@@Syclone0044 you just confirmed my point. Today's generation doesn't have the right stuff !
5:09 “the second orbit .. will fly in an ellipse between 115 and 46,000 miles above earth” 👀 is that an error??? That’s an absolutely massive range.?.?
No its true
This allows Orion to go to the moon after it separates from SLS
Here are 10 sentences that the first black female astronaut could say
when she first steps on the moon:
"One small step for me, one giant leap for diversity, equity, and inclusion."
"As I stand here, I honor the trailblazers who paved the way for this moment."
"The lunar surface beneath my feet reminds us of humanity's boundless potential."
"Looking back at Earth, I'm reminded of the unity that makes our planet beautiful."
"This achievement signifies progress, but also highlights the journey ahead."
"In this lunar dust, I see the dreams of countless individuals who dared to reach for the stars."
"I hope my steps inspire every young girl to reach for her aspirations."
"From a world divided to a universe united - the possibilities are limitless."
"The cosmos is vast, yet it's our shared humanity that makes us truly remarkable."
"With every heartbeat and every breath, I embrace this historic moment for all humankind."
The first woman on the moon will speak Chinese..
Will Artemis see Apollo?
Maybe in orbit, but the landing target is the south pole. It is believed there is allot of frozen water there. Control of this area is critical for all future Moon industry.
I would really be unhappy if Artemis III ends up being another crew test. Even though we’re only 4 months out from 2024, I think that Starship will be able to make it to orbit before new years, and if it does then it will certainly mean that starships launch cadence can increase within the next 2 years
I'd prefer more test launches to dead Astronauts, that's how you get funding pulled real quick
The last static fire didn't help my confidence... at any rate, there are no Starships yet, only prototypes. The only thing about to fly now are gas cans with rocket motors.
I agree. Even if the Starship lunar lander isn't ready, blowing an SLS launch at over $4.5 billion on a repeat performance of Artemis 2 (assuming it all goes to plam) is a waste of time and money. Far better to wait until the Starship is ready to do its job than to conduct expensive and useless public relations exercises.
@@chrisantoniou4366
Starship HLS might not end up being ready until 2028, if not later than that.
That would mean a 3-4 year gap in SLS launches which NASA would really like to avoid.
On top of that, the last SLS Block 1 vehicle can't stay on the ground forever before it starts delaying the transition to SLS Block 1B, therefore Artemis 4 and the rest of the Artemis manifest.
At some point the Artemis 3 vehicle *has* to launch.
The next best potential destination for Artemis 3 if HLS gets removed from the mission is a visit to Gateway PPE/HALO with the crew staying in NRHO and checking out the integrated spacecraft, as well as testing Orion's docking hardware and software first flying on Artemis 3.
Even if not a landing that is a mission plan that would carry the program forward and teach/demonstrate a lot of useful things.
All the money you're talking about is largely fixed costs, they get spent every year even if the rocket stays on the ground and doesn't launch.
The SLS and Orion vehicles for Artemis 3 are being built regardless of the mission they are planned to do.
Would you rather they spend $4B/year on both programs and not launch, or that they actually get a mission out of that hardware, instead of putting it in storage for years and keep spending that money anyway?
In a scenario where HLS crewed landing is delayed until near the end of the decade, why keep Artemis 3 on the ground and create all those problems when they could still be doing a meaningful mission in the meantime?
Just so that they stubbornly stick to an old mission plan that no longer makes any sense?
Thankfully NASA mission planners seem to know better than that, and mission objectives are indeed flexible.
Starship needs to do a *lot* more than reach Earth orbit. Test flights to the Moon will also have to occur, and probably an unmanned test landing to make sure that the tall spacecraft won't topple over landing on lunar regolith.
SpaceX has demonstrated it can launch 100 flights of its 13 year old mature legacy launcher in 12 months. Indeed it has demonstrated launchpad turnaround of less than 5 days which means with their three launch pads they could launch over 200 flights a year. SpaceX has specifically designed its new CHEAPER successor launcher to be able to launch 1,000 flights per year from each launch pad, and it has one launch pad constructed and a second started at Canaveral, both of which could be operational by 1Q2024. SpaceX has four full Starship stacks already nearly assembled at Starbase, and has two new FACTORIES under construction to speed up construction which should permit building 60 reusable Starship upper stages and 20 reusable super-heavy boosters by December 2025. And yet this *government bureaucrat* is skeptical that SpaceX can launch a mere 8 Starships over the next THIRTY MONTHS to support HLS. Is he, just maybe, trying to cover up that his legacy suppliers, like Boeing, don't believe *they* will be ready?
True Musk has predicted that the next test launch has only a 50% chance of making orbit. Those of us who have been around a while know that Musk had little faith in the first Falcon 9 launch, after only one of his Falcon 1s made it to orbit. He also gave only 50% odds of the First Falcon Heavy launch four years ago. And he was not terribly confident that IFT1 would make it past the top of the launch tower. After all B7S24 were already massively obsolete and over a year old. The choice they had was dragging them to the rocket garden and scrapping them, or seeing what happened when they pushed the button. SpaceX would not be remotely as prepared if they had not gone for aerial demolition.
There is no Starships yet. Your confusing prototypes with actual finished Starships. NASA is not allowing SpaceX to fly Starship at the Cape right now, and that is why all construction has stopped at the Cape. NASA wants SpaceX to work out it's Starship before letting that thing anywhere near the critical launch pads at the Cape. Again, your looking at the situation through fandom glasses. Take the emotion out of your thinking, and look at the picture with logical clarity. Comparing Falcon 9/Heavy with future Starship is erroneous. The two rockets couldn't be any more different if they tried. All the numbers for future Starship operations are projections, or marketing nonsense, and are just fantasy at this time. As I said in another post, I still think SpaceX can meet the deadline, but they have to avoid anymore lawsuits, and silly destructive 4/20 flights.
@@hawkdsl taking the emotion out of the thinking, the fact that NASA waited until 2020 to select the companies to develop a HLS (and a Lunar EVA spacesuit...) then Congress didn't give them any money to pay them is the problem, more than Starship (remember, SpaceX got the contract because they re-bid with the amount of money that was available, they were originally about a billion higher. Then they got sued by Blue Origin 🎉). I'm also worrying about the lunar spacesuits, another egregiously late thought, quite likely due to the fact that they're not developed by the right contractors 😛
But what's important is to launch Artemis 3 on time in 2025 instead of waiting maybe a few months into 2026 (after they waited for Boeing's "shuttle proven technology" like 5 years), god forbids Boeing and LM don't get their money on time.
Again, NASA should be free to pursue space flight and research instead of having to comply with the pork barrel distribution system in Washington.
@@hawkdslbro it's NASA fault for waiting so long and decide a 4 years deadline for the HLS suddenly.
Enlighten me. What has NASA achieve with SLS? Over budget, excessive spending, more than a decade just to build a single flight capable vehicle?
In just 6 years SpaceX has build the entire launch platform, manufacturing buildings, assembly areas, propellant storage tanks, testing platform in just that short amount of time.
@@LeftOverMacNCheese This wasn't a post on NASA vs SpaceX, but because you brought it up -On June 18, 2009, The first public mention of the Raptor rocket engine was made by SpaceX’s Max Vozoff at the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA) It was a low priority development project headed by Max Vozoff and his team as a hydrogen-oxygen upper stage engine 14 years ago and that is when starship development started. Then conceptual ideas for the massive Falcon X, Falcon X Heavy, and Falcon XX super heavy-lift launch vehicles were also presented at the 2010 Joint Propulsion Conference. Then In June 2011, engineer Jeff Thornburg was placed in charge of Raptor engine development and given a small team. Its development proceeded slowly due to its low level of priority. By October 2012, with SpaceX’s engine expertise growing and finances improving, the Raptor had transformed into an engine several times as powerful as the Merlin 1 engine. Multiple Raptor engines were to power a future rocket called the Mars Colonial Transporter capable of lifting 150-200 tonnes to LEO. The next month November 2012, Musk announced that the Raptor was to be a methane/liquid oxygen (methalox) engine. Starship development history 2009 to 2023 14 yrs so far 2 yrs longer than Blue Origin's New Glen witch started in 2011 Blue Origin began work on the BE-4 in 2011, although no public announcement was made until September 2014. This was their first engine to combust liquid oxygen and liquified natural gas propellants. Design work on the Starship as we know it began in 2012; illustrations of the vehicle, and the high-level specifications, were initially publicly unveiled in September 2016. - Bro. And to answer your question; SLS has been to the moon. Starship made it to 127,000 feet. Keep that fandom going though.
@@RobertoMaurizzi Excellent points. I still think SpaceX can make the dead line.. but they need to get flying ASAP. They have allot to work out.
No "like" for science-tech videos w/o SI units!
I'm sorry. I thought NASA was an animation company since the mid 1970s?
Starship is not going to meet that schedule, it never was. At min, it’s going to take 2x the time for SpaceX to meet the delivery. Musk talks a good game but he’s bitten off more than he can technically chew.
Also remember that Artemis is not Elon's prime goal. That is getting Starlink V2 in orbit. There is going to be a lot of shop and testing time involved, and his resources are finite. The only common hardware is the booster and engine, neither of which have yet made it to space.
@@Geekofarm Elon's prime target is to make money. SpaceX is a company trying to make money. Contracting to NASA is done so to make money. 3 billion to help fund Starship is allot of money.
@@hawkdsl 2.9 billion to help fund Starship is good, but not as good as 4.5 billion per piece of throwaway SLS 🥳
@@RobertoMaurizziAnd also the fact the money they generate through Starlink is enough to fund Starship program more or less. What they get from Nasa is not that much. They don't even have that much to lose if nasa decides to revoke the contract. They might as well can make their own Moon landing mission apart from Artemis.
Not quite the case here. It is a lot of money. It is not enough money. Elon gave a substantial discount, is doing it at a loss, and ran on Elon Time. These things slip; just ask Boeing. @@hawkdsl
Starship will n
Imagine smell of 10 days in a small capsule 3 guys have using toilet
Wait till there on mars and they run out of toilet paper and fight over who cleaning whose slipped one when out on a mars walk..can you imagine shitting in a space suit !
on one of the apollo missions one of the astronauts had an accident with their poop bag which left a few pieces floating
Smells like heaven.
@@iamaduckquack probably they make enough methane gas for boost back burn
@@MyKharli Apollo 10 the floating turd
Sending humans into space beyond LEO with current propulsion is such a waste of resources. Let's put more into propulsion research before flags n footprints.
Blair, you just made a fool of yourself. You clearly know not the economic difference between expensive methane fuel from Earth and cheap hydrogen fuel from our Moon, which everyone (even NASA!) has known for 50 years.
Everyone except you and that salesman Elon Musk.
Do both in parallel!
@davidstevenson9517 -Gosh Dave! I guess you know the economics and you're the ONLY one who knows. It's never been done, professor.
Artemis is not about flags and footprints... and NASA is already working on nuclear propulsion for the next generation of space craft.
Like what?
Make the lander simpler or focus on the gateway.
NASA have: its called "Blue Moon", lunar hydrogen/oxygen powered, is landing as Artemis 5 in 2029, to be permanently stationed at GATEWAY.
Post-Artemis 4, adios to The SpaceX Wild Bunch, back to the Mexican border for you, amigos!🤠
How far out can we take humans from Earth. Take that sucker as far from Earth and shake down the craft.
OFC a NASA crony blames SpaceX.
That hurts your fandom doesn't it. You'll be OK. Oh, don’t worry about it. As soon as you step outside that door, you’ll start feeling better. You’ll remember you don’t believe in any of this SpaceX will be late crap. SpaceX is in control of it's own life, remember? Here, take a cookie. I promise, by the time you’re done eating it, you’ll feel right as rain.
SpaceX's Starship HLS is the pacing item for Artemis 3 and it keeps getting delayed.
Are delays excused because it's SpaceX?
No of course not.
I don't see any criticism coming from NASA, just the obvious fact that HLS is delaying Artemis 3 and that something might have to be done in the future if they don't want SLS to be grounded for 4 years and start pushing back the rest of the SLS manifest while waiting for the lander to be ready.
Cheapest to land humans in my backyard
Ah yes, the executive bureaucrat's finely honed art of deflecting blame and throwing others under the bus.
According to Elon Starship should already fly to orbit weekly for almost 3 years now. It didn't get to orbit once and it can't even test fire with all engines working for ONCE... But yeah it's "the government"
There's no blame to deflect.
The SLS/Orion parts of Artemis 3 are well on their way and quite far along in hardware production.
They are the more mature parts of the current mission plan, quite easily too.
Meanwhile HLS and the EVA suits are still effectively CAD designs with a long list of progress and tech demonstration to be shown, especially for HLS.
It is not difficult to understand what the pacing item for the mission is, and has always been since the decision was made to have Artemis 3 be a lunar landing mission.
NASA can not repeat the moon landing now but it nailed it in the 60's. Play games. Read books. Laugh.
Right! As if going to the moon and with higher safety standards doesn't make the whole endeavour harder!! 🙄. By the way who else is on the verge of returning to the moon again?
That's what happens when you fully fund them for a decade, and then gut their funding for 50 years
@@AlexBeyman-j2h You obviously haven't followed NASA and its funding arrangement. Funding continued to NASA but not for rockets to go to the moon. Congress and the government and the American people had lost interest in going to the moon so the support dried up to that program, but continued for many many other programs. So to say the NASA budget was gutted is missing the point.
Personally I would like to have seen NASA get several times the budget that received which paid way more benefit than dumping money on the military which has only engaged in one military misadventure after another for the last 50 + years!!
NASA has still accomplished a hell of a lot for having a gutted budget as you so state in a classic example of being misinformed!!
The Artemis program is a big joke. The mission profile is like " going around one's ass to get to their elbow" Much too complicated !!! Apollo-Saturn did it better ..in one shot ! If we improved the Saturn V and Apollon We could do it better, SLS can not even lift into orbit what the Saturn did. Artemis is "one giant leap backward" !!!
I disagree. We could do it quicker if it was just a stunt like in 1969. But NASA is laying groundwork and infrastructure to make routine trips to and from the Moon safer, like Gateway Station and the surface habitat. Now if you wanna complain about something, complain that Gateway is tiny and cramped, about the size of a school bus, when Airbus and Gravitics Labs both offer 33 foot diameter individual modules NASA could buy. Imo our boys deserve better digs, our astronauts are American heroes.
Yea, bob got it wrong.
SLS block 2 will have Saturn V capability. The lander will be a lot heavier and more capable but so will Orion in capability with the crew module
@@alrightydave People always forget the other SLS variants. The first 3 will be the smallest versions.
The Lunar Gateway is an enormous white elephant that contributes nothing to a manned Moon landing!
WHY the rush since SPAM in a CAN manned spaceflight is hugely inefficient with respect to science return versus cost and is SO 1960s... Book: The End of Astronauts: Why Robots Are the Future of Exploration (2022)
Bullshit
What a monumental waste of effort and money when far far more worthy science is begging for cash .
Bigger wastes of money are sports cars, private jets, luxury yachts, diamond jewelry, golf courses, the fashion industry, limos, and the Kardashians.
There is more than enough money for all science but it is wasted on the rich. 🤣
@@martythemartian99 Unfortunately mainly on war :(
Americans spent $136.8 billion on their pets in 2022. NASA budget is about 25 billion a year.
@@hawkdsl Then we should send Rover and Puss to the moon. 🤣
Such as ?
I would not stand on the street corner with my hands in my pockets waiting for Space X like a late night bus, They have too many things on their plate owing to the consequences of Elon's toy Rocket ship going BOOM "For excitement." The "Gateway" still strikes me as a very big box of things that could go wrong at the worst possible time. This whole Magilla has been made too complicated from the start. Now those complications are beginning to compound one on the other to shove this remedial space mission farther and farther into a politically uncertain future, complicated by the fact that all the pieces of it have less and less chance as the months' roll by of being ready all at the same time. The ugly truth is this: As of 12 August 2023, The United States is no more ready to re-land on the Moon than we are to land a crew on Mars. The day may be coming sooner than anyone thinks when a load of political hacks looking to score points for the next Election will cast narrow eyes and narrower minds on this "Moon mess" and start asking very pointed and uncomfortable questions about what in the Heck we are trying to do, and why in the name of Sweet Auntie Sarah other countries get closer by the hour to doing what The US as already done, while we look SO incompetent trying to "out-Lunar" Ourselves trying to re-do something we did better more than 50 years back!
We are significantly closer to landing on the moon, than we are to landing on Mars. Mainly, because SLS and Orion are finally on getting close to being ready to land on the moon, while being nowhere close to being capable of bringing humans to Mars. We are also absolutely not trying to "redo" something we did 50 years ago. Artemis is significantly more ambitious that Apollo ever was. Not only is Artemis adding the Gateway to allow for longer stays on orbit, they are also planning to stay longer on the surface, with NASA working up from one to six months on the moon, vs. a three day stay during Apollo.
Star ship will never successfully land on the moon
@@plainText384 Mars is greenland
@@cbgardenmaryland %100
There are international reason for this moon trip that involve strategic control of certain areas and orbits of the moon. This race is not for flag planting, but future control of resources. Artemis and the programs that come after are guaranteed.
never been never going .. aint shit on earth that can survive the van allen belts at 11k kelvin
I've got good news.. you don't have to go.
@@hawkdsl your correct neither does the rest of the world just putting resources into pointless crap. even if they make it what does it benefit 99% of the world absolutely nothing .
You never finished high school did you !
@@sidstevens9035 lol .. actually a engineer
@@moek28 In other words you never finished grade school...
You can thank boeing and blue origin for failing. their greed ways of business ruined it. called it long ago. boeing should be forced to refund every dime they took for this project.