NASA's pricey mission to send U.S. back to moon faces technical challenges | 60 Minutes
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 4 มี.ค. 2024
- American astronauts aren’t heading back to the moon just yet. NASA’s pricey Artemis mission is facing technical challenges. The space agency is now working with both SpaceX and Blue Origin.
"60 Minutes" is the most successful television broadcast in history. Offering hard-hitting investigative reports, interviews, feature segments and profiles of people in the news, the broadcast began in 1968 and is still a hit, over 50 seasons later, regularly making Nielsen's Top 10.
Subscribe to the “60 Minutes” TH-cam channel: bit.ly/1S7CLRu
Watch full episodes: cbsn.ws/1Qkjo1F
Get more “60 Minutes” from “60 Minutes: Overtime”: cbsn.ws/1KG3sdr
Follow “60 Minutes” on Instagram: bit.ly/23Xv8Ry
Like “60 Minutes” on Facebook: on. 1Xb1Dao
Follow “60 Minutes” on Twitter: bit.ly/1KxUsqX
Subscribe to our newsletter: cbsn.ws/1RqHw7T
Download the CBS News app: cbsn.ws/1Xb1WC8
Try Paramount+ free: bit.ly/2OiW1kZ
For video licensing inquiries, contact: licensing@veritone.com
Missed the part where you said "Blue Origin has never made it to orbit, ever."
Blue Origin is a joke. It literally hasn't even made anything before, only has the engine.
That would not fit the narrative. Propaganda has rules. What are we up to? Isn't it something like 206 successful Landing in a row?
"This is where the future is build up"
Noted Blue Origin has been HEAD HUNTING Space X staffs and team that made Space X today.
and the most important of all: NASA NEVER WENT TO THE MOON😮
You can’t compare blue origin and space X. Blue origin has never been to orbit and space X has hundreds of flights to orbit
When they both submit contract proposals, you literally have to compare them. A lot of people misunderstand Blue Origin's history.
Blue Origin also sued NASA at one point lmao
Musk can't get his Starship ready by the deadline because of the number of launches in his action plan. No one is gonna wait for an egotistical Billionaire to play with blowing up rockets. Real professionals use engineering for design. Elon uses fireworks.
@@DiegoGomez-pk5tg And lost.
And landings.😀
very deceptive reporting. I thought 60minutes was better than that. you cant just say "spaceX rockets keep blowing up" and then not explain that's actually their strategy. its called iterative design and rapid prototyping. you failed to mention they are manufacturing those rockets hundreds of times faster than anyone has ever been able to build a rocket even half that size. they build, they test, they improve they build again. they don't waste time trying to think of every possible scenario on the first iteration, they let the real world show them what they need to account for.
It's a different mindset, the Artimis is too big to fail, it has to work for every flight. Space X iterates quickly and learns from each launch, which at this point are experimental test flights. The writing is on the wall, the SLS will eventually be quietly shelved, and commercial operators will take over. The game changer was reusability, a totally new way of thinking from NASA's approach.
You don’t see the impracticality of 10 launches to fuel a craft per moon trip?
@@zaurakdigis10 launches that wouldn't cost 10% of A SINGLE Artemis launch
@@Henrique-hl3xk times ten equals 100% of the Artemis…of course is there any real value repeating what was accomplished 60 years ago. It seems more a matter of pride and it does get down to finding a potable source of water and it will likely need robotics to do that and much of everything else.
@zaurakdigis no issue whatsoever. It costs less for those 10 launches than a single launch of the alternatives. And you have a few benefits on top of that like having all that infrastructure in orbit now as well as reducing mission risk by spreading it out into individual launches
@ 9:15 *"Bezos' Blue Origin has far fewer launches than Musk's SpaceX..."*
Yep. Since its founding in 2002, SpaceX has had over 300 successful launches to orbit. Blue Origin, on the other hand, which began operation 18 months *before* SpaceX... has had ZERO. Heck, BO still hasn't even *tried* to reach orbit. But 60 Minutes fails to even mention that little detail.
It really sucks. Because it shouldn’t be like this. But 60 minutes is becoming more and more biased. 60 minutes mentioned nothing about SpaceX was not expecting orbit on the first launch and were only hoping for orbit on the second launch. 60 minutes makes it sound like they just can’t figure it out. NO! They are DAMN CLOSE!
Blue Origin began as a think tank. Despite being around for over 20 years, it is only in the past 10 years that they have started working toward orbital operation. Even then Blue Origin only started to significantly expand their workforce and facilities in the past 5 or so years.
It's too bad that SpaceX didn't respond back and make this an opportunity to highlight what they're doing. All those shiny graphics could have been SpaceX telling the story, but since Blue Origin picked up the call they got the exclusive interview instead.
@@ryanclark2289 It is surprisingly hard to explain SpaceX's philosophy of allowing launches to fail and not feeling so bad about it. They certainly test these things on the ground and with simulations, just like NASA does. They certainly don't like it when things fail and blow up. The difference comes down to how bad they feel about the explosions. NASA is worried about its public funding and the public doesn't like seeing their rockets blow up. SpaceX is not directly funded by the public (indirectly through NASA contracts) so they don't mind them as much. Try explaining all that in the 60 Minutes format.
So what, Falcon 9 has nothing to do with Lunar mission. 1000 launches of Falcon 9 would means nothing for the HLS contract. A worthless argument.
Wait so you’re telling me you have one government entity holding space x up making them do sound tests on seals, then you have another government entity saying it’s taking too long?
The “government” is just a bunch of people with competing with incompatible priorities
Government gonna’ Government, am I right? 🤷♂️
This story by 60 Minutes distorted the story of what is really going on. The FAA may have delayed the second flight of the second starship flight, but it did make a mess of area at the launch pad and did have a RUD on the flight. So the problems with all that had to be looked at by the FAA. In addition Space X was very busy after ITF-1 getting stage 0 upgraded and preparing starship to improve on starship's performance. And if course Fish and Game also played in oversight since the launch pad sits next to a protected nature preserve.
The FAA has not played a role at all in delaying ITF-3 as that is imminent and besides Space X was busy getting ready. The w WDR aborts slowed them down a bit for one.
@@michaeldeierhoi4096It made a mess of the launch area the first time*. Second time was not an issue the deluge and metal plating held.
Why am I not surprised
Why not talk about SpaceX being the ONLY US company to send humans to the ISS?… starship is a TEST vehicle to test new technologies…
Wrong, the Rockwell designed and built Space Shuttle, maintained and launched by United Space Alliance took scores of astronauts to the ISS already.
@@ChatGPT1111 what happen to that program? ohhh boom
@@ChatGPT1111 …… the space shuttle has been retired for over a decade, crew dragon is the first American spacecraft to take crew to the iss since than
@@ChatGPT1111the shuttle was commissioned by Congress though. SpaceX designed Flacon / Dragon on their own initiative.
@@ChatGPT1111Yeah but neither Rockwell or United Space Alliance OWNED the Space Shuttles. They are contractors. Credit goes to who owns and operates the vehicles and that would be NASA, which is not a US “company.”
How much did Jeff Bezos pay for this ad-spot for Blue Origin?
Right? How obvious is this.
Apparently you missed "SpaceX refused our multiple requests for an interview or comment".
@@markvolstad9380 and rightfully so. 60 min just edits an interview. Would love to see the full interview without cuts of mister Free...
More than what you have broke boy
Completely biased. Shame on 60 minutes.
I'm all for Blue Origin... but they don't just have fewer launches... they've never even made orbit.
There's the hip startup approach of having a lot of spectacular launch failures to iteratively learn while also putting on a good show, and then there's the more formal approach of hiring a bunch of guys with PhDs who wear suits and take their time but when they finally launch it somehow doesn't blow up. The first describes spaceX, while the latter describes most NASA contractors, ArianeEscape and Blue Origin.
I wouldn't be surprised is their first attempt is a success when it happens, the # of launches shouldn't be too disparaging
@@diverman1023 New Glenn's first flight/attempt is an actual mission, not a test. The implication being that failure is extremely unlikely.
@@diverman1023and there is those who land orbital class rockets and literally everyone else who said it's "impossible"
B.O. is indeed way behind in terms of booster, their Human Landing System is way ahead of SpaceX. SpaceX don't even have a mockup.
@@JWSPEED This is all hogwash.. No one ever said that landing an orbital class booster was "impossible." In fact, The Space Shuttle was an Orbital Class Spacecraft that was landed and re-used. the DC-X demonstrated a propulsive landing decades before Falcon 9.
Does 60 minutes read their comments on TH-cam? Seriously, this is how your audience feels. The content you put out these days omits key details that would properly report the information you are putting out. For example, you omitted that SpaceX rockets blowing up are completely expected. They need to rapidly test their Starship rocket but are being delayed by government agencies. They literally can’t complete testing without these approvals. They operate completely different than NASA. Instead this video comes across as a hit piece on SpaceX and NASA. It’s ridiculous. There’s no need to just be negative. Focus on accuracy and completeness.
IMHO, it's because SpaceX snubbed the request for an interview, whereas BO welcomed them with open arms...SpaceX needs to be as welcoming so they can tell their side of the story.
60 minutes is designed to make you think. They know that they leave stuff out, its the point of the show.
Its to make the viewer push pack and think.
You are half way there.
@@mohare134 When what you say is going to be bent to fit a narrative, why give an interview? They’ll omit any part of your interview that doesn’t fit their narrative.
@@tinto278That is the dumbest explanation of their bias that I have ever seen or heard. Congratulations.
The media does not like Elon, period. I think the guy is genius on a level that is rarely seen.
Do you remember when 60 minutes did actual reporting instead of paid hit pieces? Peperidge farms remembers.
Fanboy eh? If your king needs that much defending he's not that great a king.
@@Critical-Thinker895 God is my king pal. Try again.
@@Critical-Thinker895let me guess, Not a Critical-Thinker was already taken?
Nice Blue Origin advertising video. So far they haven‘t accomplished much, not to say nothing.
they put Captain Kirk in space for real 😜
Blue Origin is making a small lander, but spaceX is trying to make and entire vehicle to do so. I don't think the NASA director was bad mouthing them, he was being truthful in saying that starship is really cool, but when it comes to having a crew safely fly it and come back they're quite far from that capability
@@diverman1023 I think the NASA director is pretty p*ssed at Musk for stating that Spacex HLS is 5 years away. That is way outside of their contractual deadlines and blowing up rockets and devastating environmentally protected areas meanwhile isn't a good look for your main customer. Meanwhile Blue Origin are also developing an entire vehicle to take their own lander to the moon and i imagine chomping on the bit to demonstrate that the Artemis 5 HLS can get their first.
@@galaxybootsHLS is proven Starship is not. You are missing the point.
This seems more like a hit piece to discredit Nasa & SpaceX's brilliant work, leaving out important details about how their development cycles operate and distorting information to paint a bad picture of both organisations.
Or your giving them too much credit for to little results. Either way, without starship the moon is not possible. Considering Musk is a wild card that can not or will not keep his more vulgar, radical, and borderline delusional thoughts to himself, is enough in my book to think considering others for this contract is not only the smartest think to do, but required. Most PHDs is the field say of Musk actions recently. He is a man in crisis and may be having a breakdown. Either way a backup plan is needed.
@@rickmcintosh2366you can be critical of spacex without ad hominem or showing rockets exploding and not explaining anything. End of story.
@@rickmcintosh2366 or maybe people shouldn’t interject their political bias onto a rocket company.
Starship is a bad design
@@realnapster1522 No, it is not.
SpaceX just sent Crew8 to the ISS. How many crews has Blue Origin sent to the ISS?
Starship is a scam. Glorified school project tha has failed 12 times already 😂.
@@ifldiscovery8500 Starship has made it to orbit more times then Blue Origin has sent any rocket to orbit. If anything is a scam, its Blue Origin. Lmao
@@dewboy2005 Congratulations you sent empty cannister to space to fail all procedures from after deorbating and blow up. Congrats you wasted 12 prototypes and 3 billion in tax payers money. Blue Origin atleast has proven concept for Artemis 3 unlike Spacex.
Imagine if Apollo project blew up 12 times and wasted 12 billion dollars....... we would have been to the moon, NASA would have been shutdown.
Oh I thought this was a Blue Origin commercial. Didn't realize this was REAL journalism.
You're implying that each and every launch of the many which is needed for each mission will cost $4.4 billion, but he was *specifically* talking about SLS. Starship and New Glenn both cost a tiny fraction of that.
Very true
This is the key waste of money of the whole project. SLS!
I wouldn't spend 3 dollars on this garbage
@@mikeehuber Senate Launch System. They can't say it's a jobs program for important politicians constituents.
Did... did you miss the part where Starship is still in it's R&D phase? Neither of it's launches were contracted missions, they were just hardware tests for further development. Neither had payloads.
Appear to have no idea about spacex's other rocket either which has sent landers to the moon.
Correction. Space x blew up their own rocket. It’s called testing
Thank you!
That's right.
its called a waste of my taxes
Interesting! Why did China blow up their own rocket??
@@jamontiqueq8763 SpaceX isn't tax payer funded
This is horrible reporting. After this piece, I have lost all faith in 60minutes as a credible media organization.
Same here. They just act like we aren't going to notice the lie.
They were trying to be edgy...
@@unotechrih8040 There were no lies in this reporting.
Exactly! And I already see all these bezos gobblers in here talking about how great the "reusable" shuttle was and how spaceX is not a special pioneer......
@@unotechrih8040 the target audience is elon hating boomers so.....
Nice SpaceX hit piece
Go check out Common Sense Skeptic...
@@ericmatthews8497And people warned Columns he’d sail off the flat earth too.
@@toadsauce8091 When it’s late in the decade and SpaceX is still making excuses…. You’ll see.
You can easily tell the Bias agasint SpaceX. Blue Origin hasn't launched a single spacecraft into orbit . . .
A sophomore in high school could do a better job than 60 Minutes could nowadays.
This was a well done piece. SpaceX should have provided comment, but likely didn't want to since they don't have anything to say .. other than .. Yea we lied about 2025.
@@ericmatthews8497 no it’s because they know 60 minutes is run by a bunch of hacks with an agenda.
@@ericmatthews8497 it was a part-hit piece on spacex, starship has so much potential compared to blue orgin's lander in every single way.
@@gutluckbro9802 Starship HLS is not reusable. Blue Moon is reusable.
@@ericmatthews8497 huh HLS is reusable wdym?
Totally biased. And you wonder why SpaceX wouldn't meet with you....
There's nothing biased about this, Elon fanboy
@ShockwaveAviation You do realise Elon Musk has little to do with Boca? You've heard the name Shotwell before? Yes?
It's basic logic, by the way, particularly after the sucessful test goals reached by IFT3 on Thursday. It makes Zero sense to continue with SLS. It's like scrapping and then building a brand new Boeing after each flight.
It's laughable how many fools can't comprehend this!
@@paulkirwan3431
You say it's stupid to go with SLS?
Only SLS is the vehicle that is human-rated spacecraft that's capable of putting humans to moon. Starship is not reliable now. Who knows if it suddenly blow off and it doesn't even have an escape system if something goes wrong. Starship can only replace SLS when it will be human-rated, and that's gonna be many years later.
@@violety_indigo52 Why do people continue to comment on subjects about which they know little? Where do Americans receive their basic news or information from? TicTok?
SLS means Space Launch System. The Orion Capsule, which can sit on top, is rated for the moon. That Capsule can sit on any vehicle. What you don't seem to understand is that SLS is NOT REUSABLE! One launch, it's gone. That means, before it even launches, it's already behind Spacex's super heavy. Christ, you could even fit Orion on a Falcon 9 and STILL be better than SLS. What you, and many others, refuse to comprehend is that Super Heavy and Starship are TEST Vehicles. They are expected to fail. That's how engineering works. Spacex have the money and freedom to test and build quickly and openly. That's why, to laymen, it APPEARS that they are constantly in trouble and, of course, for Click Bait, the lazy press pushes this agenda in order to get clicks for revenue. It's that simple.
Come back to your comment in a year. Trust me, SLS will still be sitting in a tall shed while Starship will be well on the way to being certified.
Complaining that SpaceX's developmental PROTOTYPES blew up is like complaining that the car in your crash test... crashed.
We must ask ourselves whenever we consume information nowadays "what does this story WANT me to feel/believe?" I think this is a hit piece on space exploration. Something that is vital for humanities survival
No we don't need space exploration to survive. And a correction, it is '' humanity's ''
Definitely a hit piece! I thought 60 minutes had integrity, turns out, you can buy their integrity.
@pietrojenkins6901 Go back to sleep, 60 Minutes fan boi.
@@pietrojenkins6901we do need space exploration to survive. Staying on one planet is asking for extinction.
how does humanity need this to survive? you sound so brainwashed. I loveeeee space and soace exploration but this is ridiculous.
Context is missing. The video leans into past narratives. Starship launches were test flights and essentially expected failures with which to learn from.
Of course they were test flights, but SpaceX fully intended for them to succeed. They didn't. The Saturn V was developed over a shorter period of time and never suffered a "rapid unscheduled disassembly".
@@markvolstad9380 saturn V did have a lot more money and people spent on it though. order of magnitude more.
and its not like it didn't have issues - they were just not critical to the mission.
@@markvolstad9380 they didn’t, if your brain can’t handle real world testing, you should probably stop having opinions on things you have no knowledge of or interest in.
@@markvolstad9380Wrong! Plenty of prototypes for the Saturn five exploded. You can use Google to get information. You don’t have to just blindly spit out inaccuracies.
@@markvolstad9380you’re making yourself look dumb.
after they landed a rocket on a moving platform at sea i have learned not to underestimate Elon & the spaceX team
They’re taking a hell of a beating for this video.
There is a Chrome extension that will show you the number of downvotes a video gets (like YT used to do prior to 2021). As of this comment, this video has 2.9K up, and 4.9K down.
Uh. They are miscontextualizing Starship blowing up. It was deliberately blown up. This is insanely skewed against Space X.
It was deliberately blown up to prevent it from crashing in a populated area. That still constitutes mission failure.
@@markvolstad9380 nope, there was no real success parameter on the first test other than clearing the launch tower, the fact that you deny this and make up a fictional narrative in your head instead is worrying, you should visit a doctor.
@wick9427 he's been media shilling all over the comments. He's probably one of the loser writers for 60 minutes.
@@unotechrih8040He’s another but hurt ex Twitter user.
@@markvolstad9380It was not going to crash over a populated area, wtf are you on about. It was launched over the gulf of mexico.
A SpaceX hit piece.
I like how uneducated these people are saying that’s starship is is going to fail
It did fail. Twice.
@@markvolstad9380 did spacex touch you in a nono place?
They can't return people to the moon. Learn the real history!
@@markvolstad9380only if you understood the engineering principles behind learning from failure... SpaceX reduced the cost of going to space thousands of times, and the starship will be successful because the best engineers in the world are in spacex, if you've seen the yesterday's launch you saw That this approach works
This is horrible journalism. Your claiming SpaceX has failed and is not speeding up it starship program, but you never state the fact of why they could only launch a couple times a year if anything it’s bureaucracy, slowing the acceleration of space flight.
Wrong. You cannot launch in a storm, rainy-windy conditions or when the trajectory would be compromised. Our earth is constantly in motion and the planned launch depends on thousands of calculations - not on red tape. Look it up instead of making silly comments based on garbage you hear on Fox. Also, look at Nasa.gov and ask Neil Degrasse Tyson or brian cox.
SpaceX is in the testing phase. They are taking a rapid development which will have these RUDs.
That said, both test flights of Starship met all their major objectives.
The biggest thing slowing Starship development is the FAA and environmental groups suing SpaceX.
If you look at the success of the Falcon 9, then you can expect Starship to be the just as reliable.
So they’re using the Elizabeth Holmes approach of fake it till you make it, right?😂
@@MultiPetercool no, running simulations instead of testing real hardware like they do would be quite literally more like “faking it til’ you make it.
Funfact: if Earth had only been 10% heavier, rocketry would have been pretty much impossible to leave our atmosphere. So imagine an intelligent civilization somewhere out there, on a planet slightly heavier than ours... they would have to be more ingenious to get into orbit (slingshot machines, or electromagnetic railguns, space elevators).
Or how much easier for a light atmosphere planet.
“Only”
Bull Crap! Only 10% larger would not have stoped even a 2 stage rocket from achieving orbit. It would have lower payload capacity to the orbit of a larger planet.. but it is still 100% feasible.
Keep smoking the stuffs.
How does that make any sense? If a rocket can carry 50 tons to orbit, gravity being only 10% greater makes that almost impossible? How is it not just marginally harder?
Edit: Spelling
Interesting how they remarked on starship not getting to orbit yet as a big concern but when they talk about blue origin “it’s the future” cmon 😂 you just hate musk admit it and move on
how come you didnt mention that starships also FULLLLLYYY reusable not PARTIALLY reusable. Some bias here.
It's not a proven concept this Starship still blowing up without any load on board.
Very disappointing!!Very poor journalism!!
I get that news reporters are supposed to ask tough questions but this seemed more biased toward Blue origin 😅
Perhaps that's because SpaceX refused requests for an interview or comment??
@@markvolstad9380 Why play their games when they just omit information so blatantly like they’ve done in this piece? If SpaceX does an interview or replies they can just omit whatever parts don’t suit their narrative.
@@ScentlessSun More likely ... They didn't want to admit on camera that they lied about 2025. SpaceX got the contract with a lot of SHADY insider help from an interim NASA administrator. .. who now conveniently works at SpaceX.
Terrible coverage. Complete BS about SpaceX.
The report said that SpaceX's Falcon Rocket had an excellent track record with 96 launches, but that the Starship has blown up two out of two times. All that is factual. How does that add up to anti-SpaceX bias?
@@brianarbenz1329 Falcon rocket has had 300 launches with 200 landings, not 96.
@@brianarbenz1329 and they failed to mention that starship is still in it's testing phase
@@brianarbenz1329 they say it as if those failures were unexpected and hindering to progress whereas they far surpassed their expectations of their respective testing campaigns. Hell, most people (including me) thought the first few would explode on the pad at ignition.
@@gutluckbro9802they are supposed to bring people to the moon in two years and they are still blowing up in testing. It's not prepared, they are behind. That's what this report is about. Simple reading comprehension goes a long way.
Maybe Blue Origin should stick to its origins and just deliver my parcel on time tyvm.
The Funding they wasted on Artemis would have been better spent invested in SpaceX to
expedite their Starship program and you would have moon shot capacity at a fraction
of the price..
That money with blue origin would have been better as well!
Of the three.. ONLY SLS can deliver a payload and crew of 4 to Lunar orbit with crew safety systems (launch abort). Starship and Blue Origin have nothing to protect a crew.
@@ericmatthews8497 SpaceX haven't got Starship to orbit yet if they had a ship ready to go to the moon i am pretty sure it would have all the bells and whistles.
@@bobdillon1138 Starship needs so much more than "bells and whistles." SpaceX needs to demonstrate daily launches to a low Earth Orbit cryogenic fuel depot. With the Earth spinning below it, there will be tight launch windows to enable the rendezvous, and that will run against Flight hardware problems, Ground hardware problems, and Weather. It remains to be seen if orbital refueling is even possible .. let alone practical. If this fails, there is no Plan B. If this fails .. Starship fails.
@@ericmatthews8497Starship can do an abort to Orbit.
why hate on SpaceX?
Because they're doing it better than the government
They keep asking for unlimited time
They hate Elon Musk because they hate his politics. They have trouble separating the companies he leads from his personal beliefs. It’s ridiculous.
@@ScentlessSun No . He over promises and under delivers.
@@ericmatthews8497 what other company takes astronauts to the ISS? "underdelivers" is the other guys.
Blue Origin "definitely" did not pay for the interview (wink) - This reporter is the type of person who is the reason why we don't progress forward with science and technology
I lose more respect for 60 Minutes' "journalism" with each passing week. It makes you wonder just how selective they were with their facts decades ago when people just blindly believed what they said.
I’m pretty sure what you just saw wasn’t journalism. I think they call that a hit piece or even propaganda.
The most surprising thing to me is that 60m still exist.
Actually it did me too. I had no clue they were still making episodes
Even the wright brothers had a few RUD ,Mr know it all reporter
Why didn't 60 minutes go after the SLS other than stating the cost? Why didn't they talk about the wet kisses in the SLS contract to reuse space shuttle suppliers? And that those 10 launches from SpaceX cost the same as one launch of the SLS. SpaceX's lander it's pretty nuts, but nothing is nuts as the SLS.
Why is SpaceX so far ahead of everyone? They learn faster than their competitors. Why you hear them cheering when they make mistakes. They cheer because they learn and move on to the next problem. Yesterday SpaceX launched two separate vehicles and docked with the space station. What did the others do... The bottom line is the faster they find and solve problems, the faster they go. Someone needs to go to Elon and ask him why he knows he will make it to Mars first. He has vision and does it not to make money but because it is the right thing to do. He can answer the why when you talk to him.
All I got was the aliens were serious when they said don’t come to the moon anymore
all I got was "either technology in 1960 was better, or they were completely bullshitting us back then"
@@Dre2Dee2it's not that 1960s technology was better, it's that 1960s technology was dangerously unsafe by today's standards. Almost every Apollo mission resulted in near death for the astronauts. Apollo 1 did result in death after the crew module caught fire on the launchpad. There's no way that stuff would fly today (pun not intended).
The space shuttle was banned from flying after it exploded twice (killing seven astronauts) and that thing was way safer than Apollo.
Apollo was also far too expensive. That's why Congress shut it down. We could have been back on the moon years ago if we were willing to spend that much money again but without the looming threat of the Soviet Union there was no point. Now China says they're going to the moon and suddenly NASA wants to go back again. I wonder why. This time it will be a lot cheaper though. During the 60s NASA was getting 4% of the GDP in funding. Now they're only getting 0.3% and that has to be split between going back to the moon and launching spy satellites amongst other things.
Finally a person who knows the real history! All these spacex fanboys are completely clueless.
@@Truthrevealed4022 not elon fanboys, but space enjoyers. people interested in space know a lot more about this than a youtube commenter on an incorrect video
@@duckvs.chipanddale585 Brotha it's obvious you are still clueless. If you knew anything about the real history that has been hidden. You would know why a manned mission hasn't happened in over 50 years. I suggest you do some research unaware citizen. "Truths protective layers." - N. Armstrong
Bradley, Reasoner, Hewitt, Wallace, Safer, Simon, Rooney & them are turning in their journalistic story-telling graves.
Better to find the challenges now, then to find them when astronauts are onboard.
I didnt know sending humans safely to the moon and returning had technical challenges.. great title.
LOL, at 9:16 he says "Blue Origin has had far fewer launches than SpaceX".
Yea, like ZERO launches to orbit. That's quite a bit fewer.
Like 300-0
Lots of dogging on SpaceX but they're years ahead of Blue Origin.
As a reminder starship has flown twice… Every flying vehicle with realistic use cases has early failures… the f-16’s first flight was an accident!
The problem is doing things on time which that company isn't very good at.
@@ckush928 hope you're talking about nasa and not spacex lmfao
@@ckush928 - SpaceX's biggest problem when it comes to being on time, is how long the EPA and FAA take to give their approvals.
@@Garryck-1not really the FAA’s fault when they are basically guaranteed to cause another kiloton explosion in the atmosphere lol
False. The Saturn V was developed more quickly than Starship and never suffered a "rapid unscheduled disassembly".
IFT-3 will happen in 2 weeks probably and there is a high chance it gets to orbit. On the other hand.. Blue Origin has only JUST put a prototype new glenn vertical for the first time.
Would you rather a lander that doesn't exist right now or a lander thats launching every 4 months ish?
I love how everyone you guys interview speaks so highly of SpaceX and 60 minutes can't do anything except talk about "explosions" of the incredible starship.......
Horrible video. Unsubscribed. And urge people to do the same. This isn't the first time 60 Minutes has done very poor research on a topic. Seems like just an attack on SpaceX and Elon Musk.
P.S. 2:20 - $4.2 bln is the cost of the Artemis 1 mission, not the cost of launching an SLS rocket. The first mission is always expensive and the next missions will cost far less than that.
I’m pretty sure the SLS itself doesn’t cost $4 Billion to build, but it’s still not cheap, and even worse not reusable.
Even if Starship’s operating costs are double or triple Musk’s stated estimates it’s still way cheaper than SLS.
Artemis 3 which is the first Lunar landing will cost far more than $4.2B. Including HLS and spacesuits it will be around $50B depending on how you allocate development expenses. The following launches will cost more than $4.2B for each SLS mission but that does include $1B for the Orion capsule which is an integral part of SLS. To that needs to be added about $1B for each HLS lander. Note that these costs are for one mission per year and go up if there are years between each mission.
PER LAUNCH , he clearly repeated that fact as well.
Per
Launch
As in each launch
What a beat up of SpaceX. Where did they hurt you?
Sounds like 60 minutes hurt your feeling, talking about SpaceX.
@@truebluereef419 Seriously, is that honestly the best reply you can come up with? The old “you are but what am I”. Haha
@@GodlessAussie read your question again. You sound really hurt by the piece.
@@truebluereef419 it's just very obvious to anyone who follows the space industry that this wasnt fair and honest reporting.
@@truebluereef419 you should probably stop talking, you don’t really know anything about this topic.
I love blue but this seems more like a hit piece against space x
I have launched Exactly as many rockets into orbit as Blue origin - Seriously
What a joke, this is a heck of a fluff piece for Blue Origin. 12-16 months is silly!
To be fair spacex starship is still in prototype form. They still need to do ift3 tests and get the data to refine ift4. You can't learn without Rockets in the sky. SpaceX has proven to be a hardware company and it will get starship in space.
NASA needs to contract this to Space X so it will actually get done right
They did.. and SpaceX cannot meet the Artemis III timeline ..even after pushing it back to 2026.
Funny how these clueless people still believe the illusion!
Actually, Starship is likely to be the first part of Artemis that will be ready for the Moon. Everything else will be delayed and cost-overrun, but they will blame it on SpaceX.
@@curtisquick1582 Nope. Quit the BS. Starship is floundering.
@@ericmatthews8497 starship wont be the first part of artemis, but i wouldnt call it floundering
How are you guys saying they would go with blue origins lander so soon? They have never launched or tested it. Plus new Glenn isn’t operational either.
That "so soon" is not until 2029 if the Artemis program stays on schedule which is highly unlikely.
Get rid of those $70 million RS-25 shuttle engines and trade them out for the more efficient and powerful Space X Raptor engines at $250k.
The Raptor engines use methane. You’d have to re-design the entire SLS and ground equipment.
4:57 they did not end the same way at all. the second flight made it to stage sep, and almost to completion, with all engines running.
Yeah they focused on the booster that every company before has discarded in the ocean. Starship went off course but would have made it, just not exactly where it was supposed to.
Ship 25 would've actually made it to the coast phase (SECO) if the engineers didn't vent the remaining fuel from the tanks, which unfortunately caused an engine fire which in turn resulted in the RUD of the vehicle.
@@Kennerad0 I thought they were talking about the booster. Was it the ship?
@@Bryan-Hensley the booster blew up after stage sep during its boostback burn, while the ship continued.
@@duckvs.chipanddale585 yes, the booster blew up because they were venting access fuel because they didn't burn enough due to not having a payload. So what happened to starship?
Whoever wrote this script obviously doesn't know a single thing about NASA, Spacex, or Blue Origin 😂
$4 billion a launch IS RIDICULOUS 😂
And how much of that 4 billion is going to payroll? My guess? HALF
It's actually pretty reasonable.
The average Apollo mission cost a little under 3 billion (in today's dollars). The technology back then was far more rudimentary, they required fewer materials, NASA didn't have to pay competitive salaries to keep their people from going to SpaceX or BO, and the goals for the program overall were far less ambitious. NASA's budget shrinking during the Nixon admin and the need for funding to develop the Space Shuttle led to the program's end.
NASA then gave us the ISS, multiple rovers on Mars, several probe missions to other planets, the Hubble Space Telescope, and just recently the James Webb Space Telescope. All of those missions have unlocked knowledge and technology that was never accessible before.
Consider how computers and wireless technology developed by NASA now contribute to our modern age every day, fifty years later. Now consider what new technologies they might develop for Artemis. Long-distance manned space travel to Mars in ten years could mean unmanned drones bringing billions in rare metals from the asteroid belt in twenty or thirty years. The possibilities are endless; but only we're willing to pay for them.
@@Famousguy15the average person doesn't care about the geology of the moon or pretty space telescope pictures. If you want to convince them that space exploration is worth paying money for you have to sell them on the idea of mining the moon for metals. If the average person understood just how much gold there is in space they would be demanding that the military's budget is reallocated to NASA. The US could be to gold and aluminum what Saudi Arabia is to oil. That is what the average person cares about. Not having knowledge for the sake of having knowledge.
And keep in mind that the SLS is the finished product. A few tweaks will happen along the way, but it's basically as is. Space X on the other hand is still testing the starship and had spent in development through last year of 5 billion. Compare that to the Artemis cost of 4 billion per launch!!
So getting starship to a functional licensed rocket capable of carrying humans will cost billions more. Only much later can Space X expect to bring the costs down. Getting a large rocket with humans on board is expensive any way you cut it!!
Not to the greedmiesters it ain’t!
Biased much???
I didn't get the impression that 60 Minutes understood their own subject when they made this piece. After emphasizing the bloated cost of NASA's Artemis, I was expecting them to point out how Space X by contrast is cheaper, better, and faster than NASA at building and launching rockets, but instead they seemed to absurdly suggest that Space X was 'holding back' NASA from getting to the moon quicker. That, and putting Blue Origin on par with Space X made we wonder whose back pocket dictated the narrative of this odd story, assuming the writers really aren't this clueless about the state of the modern space industry.
Realistically it all depends on SpaceX now.
Back where?
This is a really strange video and proof you can create any message by selecting snippets of information. Poor play 60 minutes, you're not fooling anyone who is knowledgeable.
Yeah....don't mention that they are really waiting on the space suits to use on the moon as well and they may take longer. SpaceX hit piece.
First all female crew in space…
Artemis: Houston, we have a problem.
Houston: Copy, Artemis. What’s the problem?
Artemis: Nothing. It’s fine…I SAID IT’S FINE.
Contractors are milking the program to death.
Going to the moon is expensive. But supplying ammunition in a war isn’t.
Both cost money, but only the latter could save your life. For a nation to do great things, it must first defend itself from destruction. And defending our democratic friends under attack by a despotic neighbor, defends our nation as well.
No, it doesn't. Especially since there are dozens of rich European countries that can do it themselves.@@curtisquick1582
This is a misleading framing of the situation. They pretend as if Blue Origin isn't entirely in the pie in the sky phase. Then they're super critical of Spacex ignoring that Spacex's development process essentially achieved what the Space Shuttle intended to do and failed miserably at of driving down the cost of regular launches by foregoing NASA's slow development process.
I have been a nut about space exploration since I was 12 and that was 50 years ago. New coverage of the programs have all followed the same pattern. When the program (Apollo, Skylab, Shuttle, ISS and now Artemis) is first announced, the press write about what a fantastic thing it will be. Then comes the grumbling about how expensive it is and how NASA is behind and overbudget and "should we even be doing this?" Then when it launches, they write about what an amazing thing it is. The carping about the Shuttle program was endless until about two weeks before the first launch and then, overnight, the coverage was all about what a fantastic thing this will be. The press had a field day when the Hubble Space Telescope first had poor optics, (which was the fault of the Department of Defense, who refused to allow NASA to double check the mirror which was then considered a top secret process), and Hubble has now proven to be one of the greatest achievements in the history of Astronomy. This 60 Minute story follows the pattern exactly. As much as Elon Musk appears to be loosing his marbles, SpaceX has proven the nay-sayers wrong every time and I, for one, have confidence they will sort out the Starship the same way they sorted out the Falcon-9.
10:41 Respect to the cameraman who runs all of this equipment alone! 🫡
Bro garbage interview. Homie trying to pin blame or throw shade at space x. Shoot for the moon, make your own rocket
“Rapid Unscheduled Disassembly” and “Special Military Operation” will be the catchphrases of the decade. 😂
"RUD" has been a term used jokingly in rocketry for almost a decade. This isn't new.
@@barometricfunk Musk has taken it to a new level though. 😂
@@MultiPetercoolNot really. It was Tom Mueller who started using it at SpaceX in 2003
@@island97 Ok catchphrases of the CENTURY. 😂
"Americans have trouble facing the truth, so they invent a kind of a soft language to protect themselves from it."
-George Carlin
Bureaucracy turned NASA from a badass into a bell boy, whistling at SpaceX for a cab 😂
That's the first time I feel smarter than a NASA person.
60 Minutes should be embarrassed by the truly misleading information they presented here, mostly inaccurate about SpaceX.
Typical low-quality and biased journalism. Anybody who follows only a little bit SpaceX and NASA knows that this is a hit piece.
We should heed Carl Sagan's advice and opt for robotic exploration.
you dont need robot explorers when all youre trying to do is build weapon systems but disguise it as "space exploration" to get the public to fund it
*Moon People:* Ah you guys are back! I hope we didn't scare you last time. Apollo, right?
*Astronauts:* 👁👄👁
Funny how a SpaceX competitor, BO, gives a fairer assessment of Starship HLS and SpaceX than 60 mins.
Your coverage of SpaceX and the Starship program and Starship HLS is incredibly unfair and reeks with bias.
Just for starters, you mention that Starship blew up with a quippy little line that sounds like it was written by a college intern, but you somehow find it imprudent to tell the listener WHY that happened and the implications of such. Something that would only take a sentence or two. Just incredibly dishonest "reporting".
I wouldn't be surprised to learn that a competitor had paid for this coverage.
Yeah they had to say "again" when instead it was the most successful launch of starship yet. If starship hadn't gotten off course, it would have made it to its target.
Elon would get it done for a fraction of NASA's costs.
AND be successful.
I remember watching an episode of Penn and Teller 15+ years ago called 'why NASA is BS' and it featured Elon; Penn and Teller were more accurate in the 2000s than 60 minutes is today.
Both the Spacex and Blue Origin landers look quite top heavy. Based on recent events on the moon, I would suggest they both contract with Hasbro for their Weebles technology secrets.
I can't believe this is a 60 minutes production. Really?
fake newswhy are you hating on spacex?
Because of agenda against Elon Musk.
Stop slurping Trump
They're not hating on spaceX, they're saying that startship is really cool but that it's quite far from being certified to not blow up astronauts when asked if starship was suitable to launch astronauts very soon
SpaceX promised 2025 .. and they cannot deliver.
@@ericmatthews8497 are you a bot or something?
When it happens will be exceptional .. relatively short space missions to the moon and mars will become regularly scheduled movements.
What the heck does race and gender have to do with it, unbelievable!
The shuttle was abandoned because each launch was 1 billion. This new rocket was supposed to be cheaper... yet it's 4x as much lol
no its not. that is the cost of an entire mission, including ground infastructure and the probe. sls is only a portion of that. sls is a big reason why the missions get funding. sls is also more capable than the shuttle, which was abandoned because it was dangerous.
@@duckvs.chipanddale585 they said sls 4 billion and shuttle was 1 billion, this is a fact.
@@mcduvall2000 you have to actually know what is behind the 4 billion, and not just take what is actually in the video at face value. sls is also more capable than the shuttle
@duckvs.chipanddale585 I'm not knocking the rocket, it's awesome. Doesn't matter "what's behind the cost." At the end of the day if it works out to 4 billion per launch, then it costs 4 billion to launch, which us absurd... It's just hilarious that we abandoned apollo for the shuttle because it was going to be cheaper and better, then the opposite happened. Did the same thing with the shuttle, canceled it for the sls because cheaper and better then the opposite happened... sure sls has double the lift capacity of shuttle, but in theory 2 shuttle shuttle launches for half the price would accomplish the same thing. SLS capacity is 154k lbs, falcon heavy is 141k lbs... and falcon heavy costs 0.97 billion per launch lol. I'm just pointing out the absurdity of nasa saying things will be cheaper and they turn out way more lol. They thought "sls will be cheaper than shuttle, but use same boosters, same fuel tank, same rocket engines, (with 4 being thrown away now instead of reusing all 3 on shuttle) and switching shuttle for a 2nd stage and capsule..." if 75% of the vehicle is based on the thing it's replacing and you're throwing more of it away, in what world would that be cheaper!?!? Lol
@@mcduvall2000EXACTLY one hundred percent.
PER LAUNCH!
ignoring the fact that starship is less expensive and more capable than sls itself and attempting to propose that blue origin is a better option despite having never launched to orbit?
Starship costs 2 billion each time it fails..... Just blew up near Austrailai without getting to orbit. You got 2 years for the contract.
@@ifldiscovery8500no it doesn’t
Space missions definitely cost too much.
During the Apollo Era, the Saturn V was ready before the lander, just like now. During the Apollo Era, NASA performed technical feats that had never been done (lunar rendezvous), just like now (on orbit fuel transfer). During the Apollo Era, there were many who expressed skepticism about the project and were critical of its costs, just like now. I'm so glad 60 minutes provides this important historical context instead of creating a cheap hit piece.
If the news discovered this , then you know it's all been around for quite a time