the guy with the baseball hat is a headass. "Where did the constellation budget go? Where did the shuttle budget go?", over the 30 year lifetime of the space shuttle, it cost $211 BILLION dollars. By 2010, it was still costing ~$400M PER FLIGHT. It cost NASA, on average, $7B per year over the 30 year lifetime and it cost several billion a year to continue running the program even by 2010. How was that defensible at all in the wake of the worst financial crisis the world had seen since the great depression? The shuttle program was axed, NASA was given the directive to help seed-fund new space startups, and this was successful! For ~$300M, NASA seed funded Spacex and now the cost to LEO is ~$4,000/lb vs the shuttles ~$50,000/lb. "Where did the shuttle money go" is such a disingenous question. NASA's budget went down in the 2010's *because they didn't have to pay ridiculous launch costs anymore thanks to spacex existing*. SLS is a waste of money. The only reason it has to exist is so that the US government has its own super heavy launch option. But in 10 years time, spacex will be leasing or outright selling starships to the government and render SLS completely obsolete. NASA will build its scientific payloads to meet the constraints and capabilities of these new launch options. Europa Clipper taking longer to get there is just an example of growing pains of us transitioning away from old launch architecture. It does not accurately represent future scientific endeavors. The only reason we can even talk about a moon landing this decade is because of commercialization. If SpaceX didn't exist, the scope of the artemis missions would be far more narrow.
so i got about 600 beer cans piled up in my back yard... i'm talkin high grade aluminin. as a fellow space enginer. how many more 24 packs am i going to need to build one of these bad boys?
The problem with massive interdependent amalgamation projects that are expensive but can't be cut for fear of cutting something else is that they leave a sour taste in people's mouths and lower NASA's reputation from being devoted to science to just being another government agency. And that can work for a moment, or for a couple decades, but eventually the thing does get cut and you end up with a lower baseline of funding. Yes, once the SLS is cut you will probably have less money going to NASA overall, but only because it demonstrated that the money was spent inefficiently, like happened with shuttle. Had it been perceived as really well-managed, you might have seen the opposite, an increase in funding to see what NASA would do next.
I personally believe that commercial launches for science is okay. Commercial space pushes innovation. Relying on SLS is a horrible idea. While I personally believe SLS is a good rocket, they are slow to make and grossly expensive. Relying on congress to give giant budgets is a bad idea. Commercial space allows NASA to put most of their budget into the payload with a cheaper launch. We are in the first two decades of proper commerical space. You will be surprised by the options NASA will have within the next decade. Think Starship, Neutron, Terran R, and many other providers. Consider Starship's payload bay could hold an efficient deep space stage and would allow us to send payloads to other planets in a more timely manner.
NASA being a jobs program has funded itself well for the past few decades, but don’t underestimate the power of corporate lobbying that will gain funding in this new era. Blue Origin lobbied a senator in their state to get them an Artemis contract
Trevor: I think NASA is hesitant to depend on Starship exclusively, banking on the system evolving to perfection, considering how exotic the launch platform is. Elon talks big, but radical things are risky, and NASA has learned to be risk averse. SLS is presently the extremely expensive bird in hand.
Exactly. That guy was making such a weird argument. Everything we do has a cost. There's going to need to be some justification no matter what. Removing the burden of developing and maintaining launch hardware from nasa has proven to be a good thing. It enables them to have far larger ambitions and to focus their budget on actual science and experimentation vs constantly wasting time and resources on an SLS program that literally everyone knows is doomed.
Why is someone on this channel speaking like they know space flight, but who doesn’t know who Gene Kranz is? This is a low point for the entire NSF team.
All of NASA's launch vehicles are built by commercial companies. The ONLY difference is the contractual basis. And the efficiency and competence of those commercial companies which is reflected in the cost (overruns). NASA will be able to do more science without SLS and it's huge (pork barrel?) costs.
I’ve always loved NSF, and it’s the only reason I pay for YT premium. But I really can’t bring myself to like this AJ dude. Too much of a loudmouth, too much ego, too much bla bla bla. I don’t like it. Even his voice is a bit much.
Cj shoul open the "Devil's advocacy firm" because he loooves playing that role 😂😂😂😂 Seriously, I undestand the necessity of see the other side, but this time the argument just doesn't make sense. I reaaly reaaly doubt the public, or Congress, who barely pays attention to science would be mad and cancell a program because it took longer to get data rather than because it cost a billion dollars more. And about the argument if Nasa should really be using private companies for these kind of things,.well, we reached a point where NASA is spending ludicrous amounts od money with the SLS program who will do only 1/3 of the work, while APollo NASA did everything. And this debate is happening in several sections of the USA administration, people are realising that the government is just not good with money management. Does NASA assuming 100% of Apollos was necessary? F*cking yes. But Apollos did its job, it created a new generation of engineers who can now do these very complicated projects on private companhies for a fraction of the price, so NASA's rocket factory time is indeed over.
Different angle on Jared Isaacman and Hubble: All the worldly things Jared owns couldn't pay for a replacement if his private flight damages Hubble I have a hard time imagining anyone offering Jared insurance against a full spectrum of damage scenarios, including the loss of Hubble. Being able to get there and offering to pay for transport doesn't just qualify you for tinkering with much of anything on Earth. Changing that would set a dangerous precedent for Space.
@@zachb1706 For the moment, this seems like the usual media pressure campaign to get NASA to prematurely sign off on something that's not currently developed to the point where they are comfortable with the idea. Going back to STS-125, it was rightfully off the books after Columbia, until NASA found a way to consolidate a flight rationale under their now better understanding of the dangers of flying a Shuttle to a non-ISS-aligned orbit. The sad part is that there is all the time in the world to actually plan such a mission thoroughly and investigate all the question marks to their logical conclusion. Jared's next flight will already provide lots of data for the space suits and general space walk operations questions with Dragon.
Something tells me that this channel is on its way to greater things. Outstanding job gentlemen.
These flame trenche discussions are great 👍 👌
yes... that was an insane launch view!! Thanks to all!!!
I watched Live but had to come back in to grab URL with timecode for a friend, and have watched the whole launch thru' landing again. Thanks again
I got to see this one in person. What a privilege! I will be missing the Starliner launch, but I got this.
Spectacular jellyfish effect! Lotsa replays pending!
I gotta say; this was THEeeeeee most exciting launch since like Crew-2 mission. It was SOOOOOOOOO GORGEOUS!!! 😍😍😍😍
WOW I thought the ussf 67 flight was spectacular but that topped the lot. Utterly gobsmacked
I didn't get notified but watched it on my porch go up.
None here too.
That jelly fish was just amazing!
Yo No Cap I Was Walking home from taking out the trash and i saw the launch happen😂
Once again, amazing tracking footage!
2:04:34 Jake makes an appearance
2:24:36 Start of Falcon 9/Starlink launch coverage
3:25:22 Liftoff of Falcon 9
3:28:22 Awesome "Jellyfish"
Great coverage!!!
the guy with the baseball hat is a headass. "Where did the constellation budget go? Where did the shuttle budget go?", over the 30 year lifetime of the space shuttle, it cost $211 BILLION dollars. By 2010, it was still costing ~$400M PER FLIGHT. It cost NASA, on average, $7B per year over the 30 year lifetime and it cost several billion a year to continue running the program even by 2010. How was that defensible at all in the wake of the worst financial crisis the world had seen since the great depression? The shuttle program was axed, NASA was given the directive to help seed-fund new space startups, and this was successful! For ~$300M, NASA seed funded Spacex and now the cost to LEO is ~$4,000/lb vs the shuttles ~$50,000/lb. "Where did the shuttle money go" is such a disingenous question. NASA's budget went down in the 2010's *because they didn't have to pay ridiculous launch costs anymore thanks to spacex existing*.
SLS is a waste of money. The only reason it has to exist is so that the US government has its own super heavy launch option. But in 10 years time, spacex will be leasing or outright selling starships to the government and render SLS completely obsolete. NASA will build its scientific payloads to meet the constraints and capabilities of these new launch options. Europa Clipper taking longer to get there is just an example of growing pains of us transitioning away from old launch architecture. It does not accurately represent future scientific endeavors.
The only reason we can even talk about a moon landing this decade is because of commercialization. If SpaceX didn't exist, the scope of the artemis missions would be far more narrow.
Loving the movie references. Last week was Clerks, this week it's Happy Gilmore.
Attach a starlink derived sattelite to the soft grapple point on the hubble and use elextric thrusters for reboost and pointing?
No one seem to notice the eksplosion sound at 3:26:24. Sounded pretty wild. But i guess it was not a problem since it launched anyways
That's venting from the rocket, it sounds like that
NASA-X is the right way to go. If they collaborated, we would be 10 years ahead of the game.
Who is behind this guy on the poster( on the right)
so i got about 600 beer cans piled up in my back yard... i'm talkin high grade aluminin. as a fellow space enginer. how many more 24 packs am i going to need to build one of these bad boys?
The problem with massive interdependent amalgamation projects that are expensive but can't be cut for fear of cutting something else is that they leave a sour taste in people's mouths and lower NASA's reputation from being devoted to science to just being another government agency. And that can work for a moment, or for a couple decades, but eventually the thing does get cut and you end up with a lower baseline of funding. Yes, once the SLS is cut you will probably have less money going to NASA overall, but only because it demonstrated that the money was spent inefficiently, like happened with shuttle. Had it been perceived as really well-managed, you might have seen the opposite, an increase in funding to see what NASA would do next.
We heard you. Audio 5/5
The space port in Boca Chica is called Star Base 1. The space port in space is called Star Base 2.
PLEASE release uncut footage of 3:32:55
Fairing halve simultaneous attitude control pulses! That might be a first!
Trevor Sesnic is a great addition 👍
I personally believe that commercial launches for science is okay. Commercial space pushes innovation. Relying on SLS is a horrible idea. While I personally believe SLS is a good rocket, they are slow to make and grossly expensive. Relying on congress to give giant budgets is a bad idea. Commercial space allows NASA to put most of their budget into the payload with a cheaper launch. We are in the first two decades of proper commerical space. You will be surprised by the options NASA will have within the next decade. Think Starship, Neutron, Terran R, and many other providers. Consider Starship's payload bay could hold an efficient deep space stage and would allow us to send payloads to other planets in a more timely manner.
NASA being a jobs program has funded itself well for the past few decades, but don’t underestimate the power of corporate lobbying that will gain funding in this new era. Blue Origin lobbied a senator in their state to get them an Artemis contract
Trevor: I think NASA is hesitant to depend on Starship exclusively, banking on the system evolving to perfection, considering how exotic the launch platform is. Elon talks big, but radical things are risky, and NASA has learned to be risk averse. SLS is presently the extremely expensive bird in hand.
Science already has a price whether NASA does it directly or not.
Exactly. That guy was making such a weird argument. Everything we do has a cost. There's going to need to be some justification no matter what. Removing the burden of developing and maintaining launch hardware from nasa has proven to be a good thing. It enables them to have far larger ambitions and to focus their budget on actual science and experimentation vs constantly wasting time and resources on an SLS program that literally everyone knows is doomed.
Are you selling any of the images from tonight, @NasaSpaceFlight?
Yeah, hot mic.
Has anyone said,, Hey! let's put a fuel tank in the Cargo Hold,,??
NASA got bit by its own exclusivity.
dudes pinned out
How do you forget to purchase the launch vehicle lol. Sounds like nasa wanted to use falcon heavy anyway lol.
Why is someone on this channel speaking like they know space flight, but who doesn’t know who Gene Kranz is? This is a low point for the entire NSF team.
Sorry, NO space corporation should receive a blank check. About 50% of discussion seems misplaced somehow.
All of NASA's launch vehicles are built by commercial companies. The ONLY difference is the contractual basis. And the efficiency and competence of those commercial companies which is reflected in the cost (overruns). NASA will be able to do more science without SLS and it's huge (pork barrel?) costs.
I’ve always loved NSF, and it’s the only reason I pay for YT premium. But I really can’t bring myself to like this AJ dude. Too much of a loudmouth, too much ego, too much bla bla bla. I don’t like it. Even his voice is a bit much.
I think your savings estimates are off. At least 4 billion probably 5 billion in savings.
Cj shoul open the "Devil's advocacy firm" because he loooves playing that role 😂😂😂😂
Seriously, I undestand the necessity of see the other side, but this time the argument just doesn't make sense. I reaaly reaaly doubt the public, or Congress, who barely pays attention to science would be mad and cancell a program because it took longer to get data rather than because it cost a billion dollars more. And about the argument if Nasa should really be using private companies for these kind of things,.well, we reached a point where NASA is spending ludicrous amounts od money with the SLS program who will do only 1/3 of the work, while APollo NASA did everything. And this debate is happening in several sections of the USA administration, people are realising that the government is just not good with money management. Does NASA assuming 100% of Apollos was necessary? F*cking yes. But Apollos did its job, it created a new generation of engineers who can now do these very complicated projects on private companhies for a fraction of the price, so NASA's rocket factory time is indeed over.
Is 3:30:49 the VAB squeal?
I'd much rather EC get there and WORK vs get there faster and be the galaxy's most expensive paperweight which will never see a sheet of paper.
WOW can't believe I just renewed my membership in the NASA haters club.
no earth orbit
Looks like water
Different angle on Jared Isaacman and Hubble: All the worldly things Jared owns couldn't pay for a replacement if his private flight damages Hubble I have a hard time imagining anyone offering Jared insurance against a full spectrum of damage scenarios, including the loss of Hubble.
Being able to get there and offering to pay for transport doesn't just qualify you for tinkering with much of anything on Earth. Changing that would set a dangerous precedent for Space.
I don’t think it sets a bad precedent. He’s not going to repair it without NASA’s approval
@@zachb1706 For the moment, this seems like the usual media pressure campaign to get NASA to prematurely sign off on something that's not currently developed to the point where they are comfortable with the idea.
Going back to STS-125, it was rightfully off the books after Columbia, until NASA found a way to consolidate a flight rationale under their now better understanding of the dangers of flying a Shuttle to a non-ISS-aligned orbit.
The sad part is that there is all the time in the world to actually plan such a mission thoroughly and investigate all the question marks to their logical conclusion. Jared's next flight will already provide lots of data for the space suits and general space walk operations questions with Dragon.
E.J. is a great addition to the channel
NASA does the little, X does the big.
Test
Star Trek does it better.
Oxymoron
estos son como neófitos