Duh

Yup

😘😘 I miss you and your channel so much.

NO only Space-X can Get out of your blue Origin you Coffee Cat son of a b-

@@tfscropairlinessaveukraine7930 Ever heard of the dunning kruger effect. If yes you may know what i´m about to say: Your education on rocket science is horribly bad

@@OG1813 who was busted

@@OG1813 Thunderf00t does nothing but shit on others for a living. Supporting people like that is really scummy. Every time there is a company trying something new, he just throws hate their way. What a way to encourage business to change..

@@OG1813 Which channel are you referring to?

@@Newsthink this channel obviously lol

@@spigg_iff They had a convo about another channel, but the original comment was deleted

Now comes space shuttle fans.. 😹😹

@@CreativeThinkingSujith no he's right, falcon 9 is refurbishable that's why they have turnaround time. Starship will be truly reusable because it can be reused without repairs.

@@uhmmm2110 but refurbishable time of falcon 9 is only 2 months, while space shuttle takes many months

@@CreativeThinkingSujith They've flown a couple now with under a month between flights.

@@phunkydroid not with same booster.. They have about 10-11 boosters free for each mission

Indeed

Orange tank is used as a insulation form, seen in space shuttle and sls

Lol cool

STS-1 external tank was painted white but the weight of the paint cost payload mass.

Because they love trump Its a joke please don't hurt me

Agree

NASA hasn’t designed a rocket since Saturn. Since then they’ve been designed and built by contractors, NASA just selects the design they want and manages the development.

NASA hasn't built anything for a long time. Apart from the technological needs, it's one of the reasons why Space Shuttle was so expensive. They needed to pay for the profit of every contractor.

The last rocket *Boeing* will ever design and build.

Cancel SLS

Can of worms?

@BBQ BEER FREEDOM I meant reusablity that actually makes sense.

@@deathwish374 It's a Murphy's Law reference: if you open a can of worms, you cannot put the rest of the worms back into the same can. Used for non-undoable events.

Possibly, but not all no. Some rockets can't be reused.

@BBQ BEER FREEDOM The cheapness of a rocket where both stages can RTLS and immediately launch again means you can simply brute force your way to the destination for less cost than launching a slightly more efficient but expendable rocket.

Agree 100%. And her voice is crystal clear. Such a great narration.

Mass - elephant (el)

Tell them 👏😤

SpaceX didn’t put the flag on the moon tho.

@@andrewdoesyt7787 they’re about to put more than just a flag

Like all other Federal Agencies, Nasa is paralyzed by incompetence, irresponsible sloth, & uncaring stupidity..struggling to maintain a facade of relevance..while wasting taxpayer $billions... dedicated only to propagating & expanding itself.. while Nasa drones spin red-tape while drinking 3 martini lunches & waiting on their fat retirements laughing at sucker taxpayers.

@@wrwhiteal Lol

I never thought about that

It is done and tested, parts are being shipped to Florida for integration and launch this year. Numerous stages have already been built for subsequent launches.

@@jamese9283 that's what they said last year

@@shawno8253 it's gonna fly by end of the year or the next

@@shawno8253 Don't forget that all that hardwares still needs to be intergrated and seeing Boeing's recent track record, you'd be right to think its still a long way off.

@@robertdefoe2396 Integration for launch is being handled by TOSC, not Boeing.

Fucking furri- I mean yeah I agree with you!

I'm just a weeb

@@EmbeddedWithin you just about to call me a furry?

@@Faolon-dx2ft uh- no no I wasn’t.

@@EmbeddedWithinmhm

that is the correct answer

“That’s pretty cool”

All spacex ever does is copies

McDonnell Douglas DC-X is a toy that never flew in space, let alone launched anything

finally someone who's actually thinking with a brain when they say it's not that hard to reuse the rs 25's on the SLS. the amount of weight added to recover them would make the payload capacity so low that it wouldnt even be able to put orion on a TLI

Reusable rockets will replace nonreusable. Your concerns are just hurdles that's all.

Pedro Kantor Cool. Starship has yet to prove anything.

@@damien-nk9ko Except for that reusable rockets are now a THING! Or did you already forget what just happened?

@@damien-nk9ko Why are you trying to downplay this break through? Watching too much Thunderfoot?

That is NOT true. This video is full of shit. NASA has actually designed PLENTY of reusable designs, my favorite being Sea Dragon. Congress just won't FUND any of them.

15000 MANAGERS IN NASA.

@@esecallum and they still landed humans on the Moon, two car sized rovers on Mars and spacecraft all over the solar system, among other things. Why do you people talk shit? What do you gain from it? Lmfao, you guys are useless keyboard warriors.

Because trying to land a stage means risk. If the first stage doesn't land perfectly the first time (Real example: if a landing leg fails), the risk-averse politicians in Congress will consider it a failed project and shut it down forever. SpaceX can do what it does because top-level management is an engineer, rather than hundreds of politicians.

@@serpentphoenix What we gain is that tax payers' money goes to those who have the best solutions (cheapest with most quality), not to those that have the most experience (doing the same stuff for decades). We want a healthy competition in space race. Look at the video. The difference between these 3 solutions are huge. 10 B compared to 2 B?!!! I am so amazed that people who has done this 60 years ago, think there is no other way and they are the only ones who can do this ever! They should make place for others to try. That's what we are saying.

wow.. that seems kinda dangerous tho ngl

Somebody never heard of kinetic energy, I suppose

Another proposal was the "Flyback F1", which modified the first stage with wings, jet engine pods and landing gear. It would be a fully reusable shuttle launch stage. Unfortunately, the projected annual development expenditure was about 20% more than Nixon's OMB was willing to allow. Here is an alternate history about the plan: www.alternatehistory.com/wiki/doku.php?id=timelines:right_side_up.

I think the stage had the helicopter on it. Not a helicopter to grab it midair. Might be wrong though

They will try

As I understand it, Falcon Heavy is planned to launch the first two Lunar Gateway segments together in May 2024 for the Artemis III Moon landing in Oct 2024. A Starship tanker will get fully fueled in low Earth orbit (LEO) by other Starship tankers. Then an unmanned Lunar Starship will meet the Lunar Gateway at the Moon. Orion will then launch in Oct 2024 on SLS to meet Lunar Gateway & Lunar Starship. The Lunar Starship will land half the astronauts and return them back to the Lunar Gateway after a week or so. Then Orion will take all the astronauts back to Earth. Starship has no planned abort system, so it's expected to take many, many successful, reliable flights for it to be considered safe for Earth takeoffs landings with people in board. Orion has the range to get to the Moon and back and evidently only SLS can lift it to orbit. Falcon Heavy is not man-rated and Orion appears to be too long for it currently. Crew Dragon and Starliner only have the range to LEO. Apparently, a fully fueled Lunar Starship can get from LEO to the Moon, land, and get back to lunar orbit, but it needs more fuel to return back to Earth. It's possible that a Lunar Starship variant could shuttle between the Earth and the Moon, but that would likely be after the initial Moon landings. NASA is worried enough about having enough Starship Tankers just to refuel Lunar Starship without adding in another one to refuel.

@@steveaustin2686 thanks I really understand, but I a bit confused with tanker Starship. When the tanker lift off from earth, will it carrying fuel cargo or just empty cargo?

@@febrianarifin7723 Apparently the plan for a Tanker Starship is to be nothing inside but a methane tank, a LOX tank, and avionics. A regular Starship is planned to have 1,200 tons of propellant and 100 or so tons of cargo. Most of that 1,200 tons of propellant is used to get to LEO and I don't know how much is expected to be left over. Likely, only SpaceX and NASA know. So a Tanker Starship will have 100+ tons of extra propellant once it gets to orbit. Most estimates seem to be 5-12 tankings to fill up a Starship. Just for guessing, lets say a regular Starship with 100 tons of payload (crew spaces & cargo) gets to orbit with around 100 tons of propellant left over and some margin for landing. So it has almost 1,100 tons of empty tanks. So a Tanker Starship could carry 200 tons (100 tons left over and the 100 tons cargo), then you can get 1,200 tons of propellant in 6 tankings (200 tons in the first flight and 5 more of 200 tons each). So you send up a Tanker Starship and fill it 5 more times to get your 1,200 tons of propellant. You then have the regular Starship/Lunar Starship meet the Tanker and refill all at once. Then you send off the newly refueled Starship and land the Tanker if you need to do maintenance on it or leave it up to start refueling for the next mission if it is launching close enough. Lunar Starship is planned to have a 100 days of loiter capability to wait for Orion to meet it in lunar orbit. So if the Tanker Starship has the same, then it could take 100 days to refuel it to full 1,200 tons capacity. IF you needed 6 flights, that is one flight every 16.7 days. Right now, two different Falcon 9's have turned around in 27 days. So if Starship can get to a one to two week turnaround, then refueling Starships in orbit is doable. I know Musk wants multiple flights in a single day, but just a week turn around would be a huge jump in reusability.

starship will probably not cost that per launch, it will be much higher, being optimistic it will cost 1 billion dollars

Jupiter IV is a fan name, not the official name.

@@veritateseducational217 i know, that's why i wrote it in capitols letters

@@veritateseducational217 Jupiter IV is an undeniably better name to be honest

@@lorisperfetto6021 I actually like the name SLS Block 1B.

@@veritateseducational217 I too, but...I don't know, i think JUPITER IV has something more to it, as much as SLS Block 1B sound badass.

😆

No, comparisons like that is used the world over, we all know the standard units. ..Stupid remark.

@@tonyelsom6382 Well, when you say "we", I'm sure you're referring to the US, because for the rest of the world our "standard units" are anything but "standard" 😉

@@tonyelsom6382 r/whoosh

@@nicholasspence480 Whoosh yeah, fuck the "r"..What has reddit got to do with this whoosh?..All the same, stupid joke.

Saturn five first stage engines were too big to land like F-9. Need more smaller engines, ideally with higher isp and lower thrust. Launch it from West coast so it could land on land where a landing pad with radio beacon can be made and that could be done with 60-ies technology. Don't need a computer for simple control loop which rocket engine is. Ironically Soviet Moon rocket was ideal for first stage recovery and Korolyev was thinking about that. If only he didn't died so early...

Or even getting a rocket to orbit let alone a manned one.

Jeff Bezos sucks

You forgot to mention the National Aerospace Plane.

Lol, Even Toy companies can make better Rockets Than Nasa!!🤦‍♂️

Plot twist, the SLS isn't called the Senate Launch System. It was forced upon NASA. It was designed by politicians to spend maximum tax payer money. NASA engineers had to fight hard to give a little money to private companies like SpaceX.

dont you have some spendings inspection in US?

A lovely fantasy world you're in but very little connection to reality.

@@CausticLemons7 The Expert with 20 + years of Different expertise levels* Please go on and correct me, what did i say wrong?

🤣

Jeff who

One of the least informed assumptions ever made. NASA gets scraps compared to the military. What is 24bln per year vs 730bln that the military gets every year? It's pocket change. People see words like billion and think that's a lot. Frankly, i'm surprised that NASA managed to accomplish what it did, with the little funds they get from congress

She failed to specify whether they were African or Indian elephants. The world needs to know.

Theoretically, you could retrieve and refurbish the first 2 stages of the Saturn V.

@@veritateseducational217 true, though it would be much more difficult with stage 2 since it would most likley burn up due to reentry loads (info from apollo 8 saturn 5 flight manual)

eh, inflation

@@ascherlafayette8572 dur. A little inflation sure. But that's not what has happened since the leaving the gold standard and is gonna get worse. *already getting

Yes no doubt Investing right now should be at the top of everyone’s list

@@valerialopez10 Yeah Investing for today is priceless because tomorrow isn’t promised, trading Bitcoin, Gold, Silver and Crypto secures a better tomorrow

@@danielmccarthy2368 Yes no doubt investing in crypto seems to be the best an easy way to make money nowadays

@@emiliascott1646 Yeah for sure Been investing in the crypto world for 2yrs now I can say its really profitable

wanted to trade crypto but got confused by the fluctuations in price

Nope

@@stafvanacker9019 yeah I have bad luck

@@vinedarbunit6733i was first 😁

I think they leave a small bit in so the engines don’t run dry or something idk

Yeah you are

Long way? The first SLS is nearly complete and all of the pieces are currently in the VAB. Artemis I is scheduled to launch in November.

I swear there's gonna be a r/whoosh in here

@@vinedarbunit6733 reddit moment

One of the least informed assumptions ever made. NASA gets scraps compared to the military. What is 24bln per year vs 730bln that the military gets every year? It's pocket change. People see words like billion and think that's a lot. Frankly, i'm surprised that NASA managed to accomplish what it did, with the little funds they get from congress

@@adriank8792 Well to anyone outside the US, billions seems like alot.

@@adriank8792 military makes money by enslaving other countries nasa doesn't ...

I love that you love that.

@@BoogerDeluxe22 I love that you love that he loves that

Crypto is the new gold

I wanted to trade Crypto but got discouraged by the fluctuations in price

@@bryanlittle5142 That won't bother you if you trade with a professional like Mr Randy Burton

I heard that his strategies are really good

@@elvisaaron4232 Yeah, My first investment with Mr Randy Burton earned me profit of over $25,530 US dollars, and ever since then he has been delivering

Yea, but non crewed, crewed is 2022 I think

I really hope there are no setbacks, I'm excited as hell, first time since the Apollo era that a spacecraft with crew capabilities will circle the moon.

The reason is for safety purposes. Rocket engines are temperamental and they need to re-check after you used them. The Space Shuttle was re-usable and the RS-25 engines need to be refurbished and the cost is sometimes more than using a brand new engine.

The design for SLS started before SpaceX perfected landing the Falcon 9.

@@steveaustin2686 I know , I am saying if it had been designed that way that would have allowed it to have far more relevance and may be multiple uses.

@@vikkycb7948 But why design for reusability when you don't yet have the capability of the hardware? We also have yet to see how well scaling up the Falcon 9 to the size of Super Heavy works. It should be ok, but I can see why you wouldn't want to start trying to land something at that size. And the SLS is much closer to the Super Heavy than the Falcon 9.

@@steveaustin2686 Either you start or you keep waiting. I understand all the reasons why NASA could not have worked on a reusable launcher it is just that had they decided to do it end product would not be facing irrelevance before it has flown

The reason is for safety purposes. Rocket engines are temperamental and they need to re-check after you used them. The Space Shuttle was re-usable and the RS-25 engines need to be refurbished and the cost is sometimes more than using a brand new engine.

@@MrJSabadojr that is exactly what i mean, as you explain in detail here😁 , reusable doesn't make it cheaper,/safer, the demand of more supplies paid off does, with a newly conditional parts. An example, investnent care of a car, can end up like a lemon-mobile syndrome , if never a new investment.