NASA straps dreams of 2024 moon mission to SpaceX rockets
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 26 ธ.ค. 2023
- NASA's dreams of launching astronauts around the moon for the first time in 50 years are depending on Elon Musk's SpaceX rockets. NBC’s Tom Costello reports for TODAY on what's ahead for the space race in 2024.
» Subscribe to TODAY: / @today
About: TODAY brings you the latest headlines and expert tips on money, health and parenting. We wake up every morning to give you and your family all you need to start your day. If it matters to you, it matters to us. We are in the people business. Subscribe to our channel for exclusive TODAY archival footage & our original web series.
Connect with TODAY Online!
Visit TODAY's Website: www.today.com/
Find TODAY on Facebook: / today
Follow TODAY on Twitter: / todayshow
Follow TODAY on Instagram: / todayshow
» Stream TODAY All Day: www.today.com/allday
About: TODAY All Day is a 24/7 streaming channel bringing you the top stories in news and pop culture, celebrity interviews, cooking, and more. All in one place.
#space #nasa #moon
When someone askes you "Why do this? Why go into space?" Just shake your head and say "You either get it or you don't.". No use in wasting your time with people like that.
I think it is worth the time explaining it. I've got many people to change their minds about human space exploration, but it is hard to do.
@@GreenPartyHatNot at all. We all look like humans, but unless we display our ability to recieve, we are not ready to recieve. It is the same adage of leading a horse to water.
he was slow on the draw. He knows the first sentence is usually all that makes it into a clip on popular news shows like this. He should know this and have it ready. For me something like "We go to space to know ourselves and our place in the universe, its an important, unifying perspective."
Humans destroy everything they touch and now want to inhabit the moon.
@@GreenPartyHat resources and if our current planet was to not survive for whatever reason. Why have one home?
The NASA SpaceX partnership will be remembered and revered for centuries
Yet the real moon lander is being sent with a ULA rocket... None of elon's rockets have ever made it out of LEO...
@@Khurosbecause they don’t need to yet. They take the software approach of Silicon Valley with rapid testing, failure, and iteration without overreaching unnecessary goals like leaving orbit yet.
Fancy words for blowing up years of work for PR. NASA would never waste resources like that. You don't destroy years of work for "rapid testing"@@Kannatron
@@KhurosNASA is a government organization so their funding is all but set in stone, SpaceX is different and they’ve been mighty successful at making profit and developing numerous technologies which deserve praise
NASA provides most of SpaceX's funding. Almost all of SpaceX's launches are just starlink.@@chrisboy8708
Ah, journalism. Can't be Starship or SpaceX's Starship, it has to be "Elon Musk's Starship." Twice.
Otherwise, interesting story, I just wish we had a couple more minutes of it.
Yeah its not like Elon is the CEO or anything
@@davahn122 The name of the actual rocket is SpaceX's Starship since it is produced by SpaceX. Of course Elon leads it and is the most important person in space but get the actual name right.
@@davahn122 They didn't call Nasa's program "Bill nelson's Artemis" or "Ted Colbert's Starliner."
@@EntropyConcept Those aren’t public companies
@@davahn122 lol.. you think SpaceX is a public company?
Isn't SLS going to take them on Artemis 2 (2024)? And then Lunar Starship is Artemis 3? Title is inaccurate.
Going "to" the Moon is a maddeningly imprecise phrase. For the Artemis program the astronauts will travel to lunar orbit on SLS and the Orion spacecraft. They'll transfer to a lander to get to the surface. The Starship HLS (Human Lander System) will be the lander. It'll travel from Earth to lunar orbit by itself, empty, and be waiting for the Orion to arrive.
Artemis 2 doesn't involve a landing, it'll just loop around the Moon. Artemis 3 will use SLS & Orion and Starship HLS. Ditto for Artemis 4. For Artemis 5, the plan on paper is for the alternate lander to be ready also. That's being built by Blue Origin with other major manufacturers. However, many in the industry doubt it will be developed in time - it's likely that Starship will take over those landings like Dragon has taken over the Boeing Starliner missions to the ISS. (Also, the BO lander has only a fraction of the capability of the SpaceX one.)
NASA plans to use the SLS+Orion and HLS lander on multiple Artemis missions. IMO it is likely, however, that a different version of Starship will be used instead of SLS+Orion to get the crew to lunar orbit by the time Artemis 4 or 5 is flown.
SLS will get them to lunar orbit, starship is the lander.
But yeah, Artemis 2 is a flyby, Artemis 3 will land.
@@johntheux9238 yes but that's not happening in 2024, only Artemis 2
@@djunior874 Ah, now I see what you mean. Yes, the title is inaccurate.
Correct. Poor journalism. Title is inaccurate. SLS will launch astronauts to lunar orbit in 2024 for Artemis II.
Man i cannot wait to watch the moon launch when it happens its going to be so cool
The live launch was super epic!!
if anyone can do it, its SpaceX
SpaceX has nothing to do with the Artemis II launch to the moon. Inaccurate reporting. Google it.
Not if the FAA keeps getting in the way and slowing things down.
@@OhShiitakeMushroomsthey really haven’t caused much delay since the early suborbital days. But it could become a problem once SpaceX starts to launch very often.
If anyone can do it, its NASA - FTFY
@@lextacy2008 With 100s of Billions of $$$ more, yes of course!! And with no lander still! 😂
I suppose they mean Polaris Dawn will be the highest human spaceflight outside of the Apollo missions
They specified orbital mission, trying to distinguish it from lunar missions. More elaboration would have been proper but this whole report was extremely compressed. The highest solely orbital mission so far was a Gemini one in 1966. Polaris Dawn will go higher than that.
"Elon Musk's Starship" just funny the next 5 seconds 1:30 when they say "land on the moon" they use the nasa concept photo instead of spacex's starship moon lander lol
Wow that headline is spectacularly bad and misleading. The 2024 Artemis mission has zero to do with SpaceX. It’s flying on SLS/Orion, which of course might also be delayed.
Exactly. Poor journalism. Artemis II will launch on the SLS... Nothing to do with SpaceX.
No one's leaving the earth because of firmament.
Why?
Wow
Gotta learn how to build a base in space, the moon is a perfect Guinea pig. To be able to supply and support life on other planets begins with the moon. Amazing.
Lovely
If the government lets Starship fly, as musk said, how is it that he can build a rocket faster then the government can shuffle papers.....
because its the government and not a privately funded company.
Almost a decade now and Starsh!t is still unable to leave the atmosphere....
@@herrschaftg35 Flight 2 technically reached space. Does it really matter though? The next test flight is gonna happen any day now pending the FAA launch license update. Also its not a decade. The starship program has been around for only 6 years.
I thought Nasa pushed back Artemis 3’s mission to sometime in 2026-27 due to spacex needing more time to get this beast into space and confirm that this method is doable.
Also “SpaceX’s starship”
They did but journalists are too stupid for that
Correct. Poor journalism. Title is inaccurate. SLS will launch astronauts to lunar orbit in 2024 for Artemis II, which has nothing to do with SpaceX.
Nasa doesn't even have suits for the mission yet. The company building them has to rework them for whatever reason. The original timeframe was always subject to change. It took over 10 years to even get 1 SLS launch.
@@timreinhart2073 Speaking of accuracy - Artemis 2 won't orbit the Moon, it'll loop around without entering or leaving orbit.
I know - hard to believe, I always have to go and double check.
@@donjones4719 ...love the attention to detail! I stand corrected :)
Elon Musk has done some remarkable things with his service rockets. But going to the moon is a whole different level of complexity. NASA has a proven record
NASA has contracted most of its missions out to Space X and a number of NASAs leadership has left to go work at Space X
I am aware, but NASA did the Artemis unmanned mission with SLS around the moon and back. SpaceX has done nothing comparable yet. NASA still has loads of talent at JPL, Houston, etc. The partnership is good. @@czarnick123
Yep all good but that wasnt starship landing on the moon in the graphic.
space race baby.
The last guy needs to build a submarine
Why?
❤❤❤❤❤❤
The 2024 moon mission, ARTEMIS 2, wont need starship as they wont land
Space force - boots on the moon
IDK why but the shape still seems off to me ❤
Its fake. They will never get to the moon. Moon is not a solid object its made up of plasma
We're behind you Artemis / Starship
@@elonmuskceo-tesla Sioux Falls, SD
A more accurate headline would be "NASA scraps dreams of 2024 moon mission due to SpaceX".
To "boldly" send robots' where robots' have never' been sent' before..
Our first trip back to the moon in fifty years…lol
Ad Astra, Artemis!
I wonder how the E.T’s will feel about this 👽
How do we land on the moon again? There hasn't been a time yet..
Imagine people think we went to the moon in 1969 and landed perfectly and came back without a scratch?
I doubt that this mission will occur in 2024. Every moon mission after the Apollo program has been cancelled.
Probably 2025
They did this crap 50 years ago and it's taking what, 10 years now for SpaceBoi to get his rocket erect?
Why aren’t we using our own rocket, SLS for the upcoming moon mission?
SLS is still going to be the main mode of transportation to the moon at the start, but actually landing on the moon will be done using SpaceX's Starship where the crew will exit the Orion Capsule (SLS) and board the Starship, which is what the lunar lander was to the Apollo program.
1996 landed on the moon. 2025 going around the moon.😭
Super Thanks to American Heroe , Elon Musk, who inflamed the potential of Super Success TO ALL AMERICANS!
China needs to land in the moon, claim it and call it " New Taiwan" and get this party started
Get the telescopes out we need confirmation in 2024
Title is pretty misleading,
Artemis 3 is Not happening in 2024.
it will likely happen in 2027.
Correct. Poor journalism. SLS will launch astronauts to lunar orbit on Artemis II in 2024. Nothing to do with SpaceX.
Da Rock is going to the moon 0:58
Kinda funny to think man supposedly went to Moon in the 60s and now it seems like distant achievement to "go back" yea right
Of course it’s an achievement, especially with the scale of this rocket
I worked for NASA in the 90s and we were working on going to Mars, we aren’t even close to going to Mars, NASA should have focused on the Moon and then Mars.
Yeah,we should learn how to make or grow food and get water on the moon first and colonize it.then we do mars,if we cant get food on the moon,i dont think we can handle mars yet
Oh yah the new space race is so cool. Private corporations are competing for space, the moon and mars. Moving faster than the Apollo missions and the shuttle missions. The shuttle was cool but the idea of a moon colony is even cooler.
"Much more sophisticated than the rocket that flew neil armstrong" yet it cant land on the moon yet 😂😂
Do you know the size and new untested technology of this rocket? It’s in testing
Actually 🤓, Orion has less Delta V than the Apollo spacecraft. (It has less performance)
Weak Orion bs chad Apollo
is it not for cost/simplicity? just use what you need, don't pack too much?
Doesnt matter, orion is better in basically every way.
The sls doesn't have to carry the lander. The lander is launched on a separate rocket. So it probably does have more delta v in total.
that’s literally a good thing. that’s literally more performance if it can achieve a higher lunar orbit with less dV than apollo ever did. not less. what?
*starliner spaceship* 😂
So how many boosters and shuttles were destroyed in the 1970s and 1980s before they were operable?
The space shuttle didn't destroy any prototypes in testing, they built 4 (and a fifth a while later), and used those from the very first test flight until the very end.
And that was kind of a problem. They found a bunch of issues on the first test flight, but because the shuttles had already been built, they couldn't do much to fix them. Many of the issues discovered on the very first flight were still present on the very last, including the external tank debris hitting the heat shield that eventually led to the loss of Columbia.
If NASA had built and flown a quick-and-dirty prototype first, perhaps they could have found some of these issues and redesigned the production version of the shuttle to avoid them.
SpaceX discovered several major issues in their first test flight in April, and made some fairly major changes to the second vehicle that they flew in November, including literally welding on another section on the already built booster that made the whole rocket taller. The second test flight still blew up, but made it a lot further. It'll probably take them quite a few more test flights until their vehicles are launching and landing reliably and they build production vehicles designed to last for many years, but by then they will have lots of experience and plenty of improvements.
From 1969, its still soooo difficult? Bullsht.
This is untested tech and the scale is huge. Are they not allowed to test?
Why go into space?
To explore.
Might in 2034.
CGI for all!
So like, I'm not a scientist and have zero idea at all about how these things work. That being said. We've gone to the moon several times. So why now with modern and new technology and equipment are we just flying by? (We already did that once too, LOL.) Just taking a slow approach to it or what?
Yes. The scale and complexity of this rocket requires testing. Apollo did many flybys before landing
@@SamScott99 Thanks for giving a straight up, non ignorant reply.
@@jakemensik2842 no problem! I work in the industry and the news is awful at what they do so I try to add clarity
The Rocks going to the moon???
3rd not 2nd
Still have hope for Boeing 😂😅 🙏
Perfect machine. Perfect work in the world Perfect team in the world Perfect mission. Thank you very much. 231230.
Resembles the g.i joe spaceship' in the 80's😂
I want a lawyer & my real human, legal & constitutional rights now.
🤣 nasa - Adolphe Duke of Nassau
Nasa scraps space x rockets for 2024 moon mission is what the title should read
한 나라가 1조원씩 보태고, 100여개국이 참가하면 100조원은 금방모여. 그돈이면 1000번이상은 쏠수있어. 그럼 비용은 이제 문제가 아니야. 무기 전투기 전함을 만드는데도 몇조원씩 각 나라들이 쓴다고, 우주개발에 몇조원 안쓸까? 안쓰면 뒤쳐지는거야. 그러면 이걸 어떻게 산업화를 할까? 국가산업으로는 이미 경제성은 문제가 아닌데, 민간산업 기업의 입장에서 이익추구를 위한 우주개발을 할수있냐는거지. 내가볼땐 우주관광산업을 스페이스X나 아마존이나 버진캘럭틱이나 시도하는데, 발사 비용이 내려가면 가격대가 내려갈수록 수요자가 점점 생기겠지. 아니면 스페이스X가 팔콘 9을 발사할때, 스타링크 위성을쏠때 그 착륙하는 팔콘 9부분에 사람을 태우고 같이 쏜후에 아래부분만 같이 재착륙시켜서 관광시킬수도있을까? 거기 사람 탈수있는 부분을 만들어서 태우고 위쪽은 위성을 쏘고 아래부분은 사람하고 같이 착륙해서 우주관광을 시켜줄수있을까? 이것도 가능할거같은데 이미 100번이상 했잖아. 조금만 개조하면 거기 사람 태우고 발사후에 위성 쏘고 사람 태우고 재착륙시키는것이 일상이될까? 360도 방향으로 창문을 작게 만들고 둥글게 10명이상 태울수있을꺼같은데 2억원에 해주면 20억. 그러면 할수있을까?
If we had strapped our dreams to NASA for any longer, we would be another $30 billion in the hole and still get nowhere. Say, you know, nothing about the history of the SLS program without saying you know nothing about the SLS program…
Yet people are hungry in this world.
Go help them then
@@Ethan_Roberts Why can't they fly all the poor people to the moon and Mars and start a new genesis.
We ought to be selective towards what we do with the moon: mundano Moon Dano não no no no.
Chinese astronauts on the Moon by 2030? They’re late to the party by 61 YEARS!!! 😂😂😂😂😂😂
Pesawat roket luar angkasa jarkasi also tahun 2023 kirim roket satelit jarkasi also kepelusuk Indonesia
Space Nerd here:
highly inaccurate video.
This is Artemis II (2024). This mission sends astronauts AROUND the moon, in NASA's rocket.
Artemis III (in 2025-26) LANDS astros on the moon in a SpaceX lander.
What else would you expect from "fake news". Just look at their footage of "civilian astronauts in training", which is actually random people training for skydiving.
sick, now if we could stop the wars on our planet; and give all people basic needs; maybe they could contribute also to the Mars mission
Alright. Take your savings and what you have put back for your kids to go to College and give it to Richard Homeless on the street....
Wait you didn't do that? Instead of bumped your Internet's speed up?
What was that? You had a family night out to that restaurant but that is gonna cost... Oh my... 100+ dollars!?
But.
...
But there are people who need that money. And wars and stuff too.
Put your money where your mouth is (literally) or shut up.
@@Kloppin4H0rses you used a lot of words to say nothing useful
@@RedzicMuharem I said a lot of useful things.
Namely calling you a hypocrite.
More CGI. Yawn....
There is no chance at all of Artemis 3 landing on the Moon in 2025 or indeed for at least several years after that. It depends on Starship getting people to the surface of the Moon, a vehicle that has not made a successful flight yet and gone into orbit around the Earth, let alone landing on the Moon! A lot of test flights will be needed before Starship can be certified safe, or as safe it is possible to be, to carry people on board and Starship will also need to be refueled many times and dangerous propellants to be transferred safely from vehicle to vehicle in space, something that has NEVER been done before. So 2035 would,it seems to me, to be a more realistic date for the Moon landing and even that depends on everything going well with no catastrophic disasters. By then, of course, people could be fed up with The Whole thing and cancel it without any landing ever been made. I certainly would not be surprised,given NASA’s inability to keep costs under control, or at least reasonably under control. Otherwise the epitaph for Artemis could be “Never in the field of spaceflight has so much money been spent on a project for so little or for nothing at all.”.
Take it to a bookie, and see what odds you can get on a moon landing before 2030.
All these 'optimists' out here should put the money down and bet on it.
99.99% schoolboy enthusiasm, and almost zero comprehension of real physics,
like the role of the Van Allen belts, for instance...
At 2:00 "Why do this?" -- "Because space is so big." About sums up the stupidity of it all!
화성에 로봇을 수없이 착륙시켜서 탐사를 성공시켰는데, 달에 착륙을 못할까? 그럴리가 없지. 달에 착륙하는건 훨씬 쉬워. 그냥 가능해. 얼마나 더 빠르게 가고, 더 적은 비용으로 더 쉽게 하냐 이 문제인거같아. 갔다오고 말것이 아니고 달에 기지를 지을꺼면, 우주정거장이 필요하지 않나. 무인으로 지금도 국제우주정거장에 스페이스X 크루드래곤이 자동 으로 간다고, 무인으로도, 그럼 달 우주정거장에도 그렇게 할수있어. 사람 1명도 없이 물건이며, 연료며, 식량이며, 다 보내놓을수있어. 무인으로 다 가능해. 그런후에 사람이가서 일을하면 더 빨리 뭘 하든 할수있지. 더 오래 체류할수도있고, 더 안전하며, 한번에 더 많은 일들을 할수있지. 스페이스X가 로켓재활용을 수십번씩하잖아. 그러면 로켓을 또 만들필요가 없어. 그럼 가격이 재활용 1회 추가할때마다 비용이 내려가지. 지금 수십번씩했잖아. 이게 100번을 넘으면 기존 로켓 발사 비용의 수십분의 1이되는건데, 그럼 수천억이였으면 수백억수준이고 더 내려갈수있지. 거기다가 3d프린터 로켓제작처럼 3d프린커가 제작을하면 비용은 더 싸지지. 그럼 발사 한대당 수십억원 수준으로 정말 말도 안되는 싼 가격으로도 가능해. 안에 들어간 물건배고, 그냥 순수 운송비만, 그럼 1조원으로도 수십번이상은 발사할수있어. 그럼 가격 경쟁력이 생기지.
이미 달보다 훨씬 멀리 떨어진 화성에도 로봇을 몇대나 보냈다고, 달에 가는건 훨씬 쉬워. 화성에도 이미 여러번 보냈는데, 달이 어려울까? 그러진 않아. 어떻게 더 빨리 더 안전하게 그리고 더 적은비용으로 할껏인가. 이런것이 주목적이지 않을까? 화성에 로봇을 몇대나 착륙시킨것이 훨씬 어려워. 100미터 목표물을 맞추는것보다 500미터가 훨씬 어렵듯이 화성이 더 어려워. 달은 쉽지. 화성에 비하면 엄청 가까우니까. 내가 볼때 지금 기술로 100% 착륙은 그냥 쉽게할꺼같아. 근데 다시 출발해서 오는것이 어려울듯, 그것도 그런데 잘할꺼같아. 달 표면에서도 출발할수있지. 근데 속도가 나오는가, 이걸 모르겠어. 달에서 출발해서 지구까지 오는 속도가 나올만큼의 연료를 가지고 갈수있나? 되게 느리지 오지 않을까? 이걸 보안할려면 달 우주정거장에서 교체하면 엄청 빠르게 올수있지 않나?
The Mars missions only had robots, not humans, meaning that there is no blood on NASA's hands if something goes wrong. A mission with a potentiality for deaths needs a 110% confidence that, well, there wont be any. This in part takes us to the fact that the Mars rovers use a small fraction of the payload requirements needed for a Moon mission. We're talking about needing large habitats, regular shipments of maintenance items, fuel and oxygen canisters, etc. NASA already knows that they can land on the Moon once then land back on Earth, but the whole mission is about a permanent habitat. This includes the space station. Additionally, the concerns over the inflated expenses for easing safety concerns are from the fact that the US would have happily disregarded safety for the means that they would win the space race. As we have seen it worked well as a gamble, but we aren't in a political space race anymore so we don't need to take these chances. Although I am still genuinely amazed at how NASA has managed to spend so much money to create the 'SLS' that will probably be succeeded by SpaceX's 'Starship'--having a fraction of the development cost--in a couple months. It's honestly incredible.
Pdnwer
They already made a comment a while back about you're not an astronaut unless you're a scientist or some crap like that it's why that they couldn't claim Jeff bozos as an astronaut where he's not a scientist or something like that apparently you have to be studying something to be considered an astronaut.
My Hope Is that unit is designed better than the Tesla cars otherwise they'd probably be better off with the Apollo equipment
That's right. NASA no longer recruits strictly USN and USAF fighter pilots. They want astronauts who are all-rounders.
Rockets didn't improved at all. Just software.
Artemis is a cluster____. Starship most likely isn't a viable vehicle for this even if they ever manage to get it out of Earth orbit due to extensive refueling requirements. And even if they manage to ever complete a mission who knows how long it will take for Starship to become human rated. Bezos's rocket is barely out of the CAD stage (after 15 years). And the only rocket that has actually made it to lunar orbit, SLS, is so expensive it's not sustainable.
FLIGHT = 2023 **
Man has dreamed of flying high
Since birds first avoided his spear.
Not until nineteen-o-three
Was it done despite his fear.
With gasoline and engine,
Propellers and wings for lift
The Wright brothers flew their plane
And gave mankind their gift.
Many countries built their planes
As our world became insane.
Planes were used in two world wars
With bombs and bullets to rain.
Now we fly in outer space
In search of life's creation.
Though most succeed, some will die
Pioneers of aviation.
Nothing else man can conceive
Is more luring but God's sky.
To be as one with the stars
Is the wish of all who fly.
By Tom Zart
Most Published Poet On The Web!
Do you all really believe that we went to the moon, I don't think we did cause if you pay attention to the Flag there is a pole going across from west to east on top of the pole to hold the flag open, plus the mobile car how can it work if the moon has no gravity to hold it down. If we did go don't you all think, we would already know how we made it once and it won't be a problem for us to go again and again.
You do realize the moon has gravity. It’s much less than earth but iis still there
If i am betting on anyone to perform the miracle that is starship i would bet on SpaceX over anyone else on earth.
Full UFO disclosure now!
We have better technology than rockets😉
It will be at least 2030 before humans step foot on the moon again……
Expert take....
This is 10000 percent fake 😂
Who watches this news lame journalism
HEY MR HELOHEEN MASK 🎭 YOU NEED MAXWELL CHIKUMBUTSO IN YOUR LIFE SO YOU CAN HAVE LESS STRESS WITH YOUR WIFE 😀
They will not make it. Its impossible.
How is it impossible?
The Firmament buddy , no one leaves earth, nice try.
Why?
@@SamScott99 god separted the waters from below from the waters above the firmament .
@@ELImparableTony you aren’t reading genesis correctly. The author is using his limited knowledge of the world too describe the creation events while being inspired by the Holy Spirit. We can obviously tell that space travel is an everyday thing these days and that the sky is penetrable
There is no firmament
@@SamScott99 The heavens declare the glory of God; And the firmament sheweth his handywork.
Given SpaceX's roughly 1 in 10 success rate on new tech, I wouldn't expect the 2024 moon mission under SpaceX's current leadership can get a rocket of that complexity off the ground till 2042.
Given the rapid development of Starship, im sure that SpaceX will have at least an unsuccessful landing on the moon this year. Artemis 3, which is the one where they will use Starship to land on the moon is slated for December 2025 anyway.
1/10???
@@herobrine024 : Starsh!t was supposed to launch a crewed mission to the moon in 2018. Yet it is 2024 and it still can't leave the atmosphere without blowing up...
@@herrschaftg35 Thats how Musk does things. Sets mostly unrealistic timelines to push his employees to do the impossible that eventually does come to fruition. Not that it matters since SpaceX is privately funded and the only one loosing money on delays is SpaceX.
They are going to have do more than explode after lift off.
They’re improving drastically 👍
The first plane couldn’t carry a hundred + passengers on a 15 hour flight across the Pacific Ocean, but here we are.
Yes, but it will. Space x's falcon 9 wasn't perfect either early on, and now its constantly setting records for most launches in a single year while being largely reusable as well. Starship is the most powerful rocket ever with 33 engines, and is trying many other things that have not been done before, so its not surprising that it isnt perfect but it is improving at a much faster pace then other rockets even then, sure nasa probably wouldn't have had a rocket explode by this point in development but they also wouldn't have had any rocket attempt to launch at this point in development, its a different development philosophy, these are just test vehicles.
@@TheGentooGamer Exactly. You made many great points. And not to mention the fact his launches are immensely cheaper than NASAs SLS or Saturn V rockets, show that he can give it as many tests as he can in order to achieve proper performance. Like they say “Rome wasn’t built in a day”
Neither was SpaceX 👍
educate yourself before acting a fool
“Back to the Moon and then Mars” say the female astronaut. Lady, NASA has no balls in that game, or whatever they told you. Is SpaceX who is going to Mars; not NASA, nor the US, neither Santa and his 7 Reindeers, No!
Why you are trying to steal the candles from someone else’s birthday cake?
You do realize that NASA wants to be a customer of commercial providers, right? If SpaceX can land on mars then they'll just buy seats. Better for everyone involved.
@@herobrine024 Thats a completely different assumption, Bro. But stating, as a matter of factual in front of the cameras, that your agency IS GOING with astronauts to Mars, when actually is just struggling to put its billions dollars rocket (SLS) on its way to the Moon, in a gargantuan effort for each and every flight they will attempt, is ridiculous to talk about GOING to Mars when everybody, including them, don’t believe such BS! We know whats going on with NASA and their budgetary hurdles and the hypercostly SLS rocket numbers don’t add up.
You are lost. NASA has sent multiple rockets and satellites to mars and has done so for decades.
@@herrschaftg35 Landing Rovers and sending Satelites is very different from sending Humans as the total mass required for habitable space, resources for a year-long trip and the reusability factor exceed double the payloads that were ever sent to Mars by all of humanity. If it were that easy, they would've done it by now.
@@herobrine024: Which is why NASA were not dumb enough to send a crewed mission to Mars in the first place. By no means is such a mission economically viable. There isn't even a version of Starsh!t that can carry a years worth of supplies for a mission like that.
The entire "Mars colony" BS peddled by Musk only exists to fool investors who have more money than brains. Like I said previously, Starsh!t can't even escape the atmosphere without blowing up, it is certainly not sending a crewed mission to Mars by the end of this year. Especially since Artemis-3 will most likely be delayed due to SpaceX.
Why does it have to be Elon Musks Starship? This is a SpaceX Starship.
On the subject of the number of the beast, let’s decode what NASA’s full name is, the ‘National Aeronautics and Space Administration’.
Not by chance, it sums to 666, corresponding with the tilt of earth according to some sources, which is said to be at 23.4°, or 66.6° off center (it is also reported as being at 23.5°).
National Aeronautics and Space Administration = 13+26+7+18+12+13+26+15 + 26+22+9+12+13+26+6+7+18+24+8 + 26+13+23 + 8+11+26+24+22 + 26+23+14+18+13+18+8+7+9+26+7+18+12+13 = 666
Delusional much?