NASA's Artemis III moon landing could be delayed again
Vložit
- čas přidán 27. 12. 2023
- NASA's Artemis III crewed moon landing will likely be delayed, the Government Accountability Office said in a recent report. The mission was initially planned for late 2024 or early 2025 but is now delayed until December 2025. The watchdog reports it could be pushed back as far as 2027. CBS News space analyst Bill Harwood discusses the mission.
#news #nasa #artemis
CBS News Streaming Network is the premier 24/7 anchored streaming news service from CBS News and Stations, available free to everyone with access to the Internet. The CBS News Streaming Network is your destination for breaking news, live events and original reporting locally, nationally and around the globe. Launched in November 2014 as CBSN, the CBS News Streaming Network is available live in 91 countries and on 30 digital platforms and apps, as well as on CBSNews.com and Paramount+.
Subscribe to the CBS News CZcams channel: / cbsnews
Watch CBS News: cbsn.ws/1PlLpZ7c
Download the CBS News app: cbsn.ws/1Xb1WC8
Follow CBS News on Instagram: / cbsnews
Like CBS News on Facebook: / cbsnews
Follow CBS News on Twitter: / cbsnews
Subscribe to our newsletters: cbsn.ws/1RqHw7T
Try Paramount+ free: bit.ly/2OiW1kZ
For video licensing inquiries, contact: licensing@veritone.com
I'd like to see the government fully fund Artemis, but the criticism isn't fair. Going to the moon is so extremely complicated that if NASA is able to pull it off at any time in the foreseeable future, they've succeeded.
It's not good that NASA is depending on the SpaceX Starship for landing. Starship is a long way from getting near the moon, and they would need to really shake down the vehicle before they could attempt a landing. In Apollo, before landing, they did two flights of the LM before trying to land it on the moon, one flight in Earth orbit and then another flight in the moon's orbit.
NASA is not depending on SpaceX. Blue Origin is also developing a lunar landing system for Artemis.
From the NASA website: "In its work toward a regular cadence of astronaut Moon landings, the agency is pursuing multiple human landing system providers. This approach will increase competition, reduce costs to taxpayers, support a regular cadence of lunar landings, further invest in the lunar economy, and help NASA achieve its goals on and around the Moon in preparation for future astronaut missions to Mars. NASA currently has work on contract with SpaceX and Blue Origin to develop landing systems that meet the agency’s requirements for recurring services, such as the ability to dock with Gateway for crew transfer, increased crew size, and more mass to the surface. Using NASA’s unique and historic experience in lunar exploration, paired with the expertise and innovation of industry partners, this work will ensure NASA can reach the long-term goal of continuous missions."
it's not like the other options are any closer to maturity. (Blue origin and national team)
Also, remember HLS will do a full unmanned lunar landing demonstration mission before getting certified for artemis 3.
NASA is a bloated, political cesspool that is incapable of building a paper clip on a timeline and budget.
Good talk
Starship is set to fly the Dear Moon mission within the next two years, maybe even by the end of 2024 if things go well. SpaceX has a history of rapidly (and thoroughly) testing their vehicles, and since they have more freedom over funds and timing, its very likely Starship will be the work-horse for moon missions for the near and foreseeable future.
My entire adult life NASA has been "planning" to go back to the moon. I realize that NASA's budget is a tiny fraction of what it once was. But I cannot stomach that we literally invented the technology to do this before we even invented the microchip in less than a decade, but now it has been over 18 years since we actually started working on going back, and we still aren't there yet. They already know the math, they already know the physics, and a lot of the new electronics should weigh a tiny fraction of what the old ones did. It is well beyond time to light the candle!
Interesting. What was the name of the lunar landing mission they had planned before Artemis 3?
@@tubecated_development I don't remember the names of specific missions, but it was the Constellation program.
@@slightlynuts Thanks. V interesting. Was the US (in general) angry with Obama for not funding Constellation?
“ a lot of the new electronic should weigh a tiny fraction of what the old ones did”
Have a read about Van Allen Belts and electronics (especially modern tech)
Because NASA’s funding has always been a very controversial thing ever since the very beginning. Americans during the Kennedy administration wanted us to just give up and let the Soviets dominate space after Sputnik. Even during the Apollo era, a lot of citizens and people in power were against NASA’s funding and wanted it cut. It’s really no surprise that with the end of the Space Race, we haven’t been back to the moon. I’m glad you at least recognize NASA’s funding is nowhere near what it was in the Apollo days. What people don’t understand is that every space program since project Mercury has had constant delays and such. It’s a part of the space industry. We are dealing with new technology, new capsules, starship, etc. All of this new technology requires a lot of testing. Add to that the limited funding that NASA has. Be patient. A lot of interesting and fascinating things will happen with space and our lifetime and don’t expect it be quick and within estimated deadlines.
{{{{{crickets chirping from the OP}}}}
Gee who could have predicted this?
As likely as the Nixon admin being honest.
Artemis 2 was only supposed to circle the moon like Apollo 8 with humans onboard. That has nothing to do with SpaceX and Artemis 1 completed it's unmanned mission so these excuses do not make any sense.
There's been six previous moon landing between '69 and '72 . Six !!
Why is the seventh so hard to achieve?? 🤔🤔
India achieved it last year with Chandrayaan-3
China in recent years, ie:
On 3 January 2019 at 2:26 UTC Chang'e 4 became the first spacecraft to land on the far side of the Moon.
On 6 December 2020 at 21:42 UTC Chang'e 5 landed and collected the first lunar soil samples in over 40 years
@@tubecated_developmentthose are just spacecrafts, not with humans
@@TheQWER9 You only specified moon landings. It is much more more difficult, costly and dangerous to get humans on the moon. Why do you seem to mistakenly believe that the Apollo landing was not hard to achieve? Artemis is not the 7th Apollo landing, it’s a whole new mission with different tech.
NASA's budget peaked in 1964-66 when it consumed roughly 4% of all federal spending. The agency was building up to the first Moon landing and the Apollo program was a top national priority, consuming more than half of NASA's budget and driving NASA's workforce to more than 34,000 employees and 375,000 contractors from industry and academia. That’s far from the case today. In 2018, Business Insider surveyed approximately 1,000 US residents to determine what they believed was the annual NASA budget. The average respondent estimated that NASA's budget was 6.4% of annual federal spending, when it was actually 0.5%.
5 of those missions were flown in a 12 month period with 4 reaching the moon and 2 landing. Apollo 9 was a LEM test in Earth Orbit.
If the first landing was real why don't they do everything that they did the first time this time, I'm sure they wrote it all down somewhere😂😂
they can't find the same cameras and the studio was shut down
@@Vekikev1 that's what I figured 😂
the first moon lander from the US can literally be seen in pictures on the moon taken as recently as 2021 😂😂 its cute how clueless youtube commenters are
@@TheQWER9 your inability to follow up and read between the lines gives your age away
They had a dune buggy on the moon and did donuts as well Apollo 15, 16 and 17.
It's more difficult than it looks eh? Kubrick was a genius, we just wont be able to fake another landing until we have a filmmaker like him. Gotta delay it
stop shitting on Kubrick’s memory with parroted lies.
They better fake it better this time. That last time was hilarious, just like all the "space station"-clips on youtube.
@@robonez
They landed six times from '69 to '72. NASA must really suck, these days.
I bet you’ve really studied the NASA budget, spending and allocations over the last 20-30 years, amirite? And also compared it to the Apollo era?
@@tubecated_development Of course. Hasn't everyone?
@@Cheka__ People rarely study anything before commenting.
@@tubecated_development I know. I can't stand reading uninformed comments.
5 of those missions were flown in a 12 month period with 4 reaching, 8, 10, 11 and 12 and with 11 and 12 both landing between December 1968 and December 1969. Apollo 9 was a LEM test in Earth Orbit.
Everyone believed us when we created a cinematic movie landing on the moon in 1969. Why can we use the same script this time .... oh wait! NASA say it does not work anymore.
Grow up, at least for your own sake
the first moon lander from the US can literally be seen in pictures on the moon taken as recently as 2021 😂😂 its cute how clueless youtube commenters are
@@TheQWER9more like pathetic lol😂😅
While I am excited to see this in my lifetime I want it to be a safe moon landing not rushed. So if it takes until 2025 or 2027 then so be it.
It was announced by NASA today, Jan 10, 2024, that the Artemis mission is delayed AGAIN!!! Hey! Who had January in the pool???
50 years ago we went to the moon six times with no delays. Or so they say.....
“With no delays” yeah, you obviously don’t know what you’re talking about. EVERY space program since the project Mercury days have have had delays.
@@AV4Life No launch delays for Apollo
@@MinusEighty No, The Apollo 1 fire greatly delayed the entire Apollo program as the original capsule needed a ton of work before it could be used on future missions. Apollo 8 was delayed for several months.
@@AV4Life you have a reading comprehension problem
@@MinusEighty Oh I forgot one, Apollo 16, taken off the launchpad March 17th and didn’t launch until April 16. Do better next time.
NASA’s budget needs to be increased from 25 billion dollars to 400 billion dollars.
Still less than a year’s military expenditure
@@tubecated_development 400 billion dollars is much better than 25 billion dollars… we Americans need to double down and put more time, money, and resources into our space program.
That would be an expensive movie
@@censorshipBS NASA is not a movie 🎥 NASA is a scientific space organization.
@@Skankhunt42-xl9fq oh really i didnt know that! I was being sarcastic because they have never been to the moon and in 1969 Stanley Kubrick made a movie pretending they did so thats why i said it. They cant even get there in 2024 let alone 1969
I've got 30 years worth of popular mechanics with articles on how we will land on Mars (people)in 2008,2015,2023,ect ect if you look at the advances in electronics, metals and everything else, then add up what we've spent on space programs. We should be asking why don't we already have a moon base???
And they are trying constantly trying to ground Star Ship.... Even the FCC are getting suspicious about the why it`s grounded for long periods from outside forces.
They are not “constantly grounding Starship.” It was grounded for a short period after the launch that destroyed the launch pad and threw large debris into public areas that could have killed someone. This were basic safety protocol that any launch vehicle would have to comply with.
NASA subcontracts the building of all their rockets and spacecraft and satellites. It's been this way going all the way back to the Apollo missions and even before that. This includes the Saturn V, the Space Shuttle, even the US parts of the ISS. The Artemis program will be no different.
If they can’t do it now, what makes you think they did it 50 years ago? 😂
They are attempting to build a more complex lander this time. They are attempting to land a pencil upright on the moon, on uneven terrain. They are going to have to relaunch it from the surface of the moon. The Apollo landers were squat. Starship has many more problems to solve. Also, Apollo was run by NASA which is probably a wiser way to get a complex mission off the ground. SLS completed its flight to the moon flawlessly.
Mountains of physical and scientific evidence of the Mercury, Gemini and Apollo programs, missions and landings is what makes us think that.
because they did it in studio
the first moon lander from the US can literally be seen in pictures on the moon taken as recently as 2021 😂😂 its cute how clueless youtube commenters are
@@TheQWER9no it cannot. Youve never saw those photos stop spreading bs.
Boeing can’t even keep a plan together. How do you expect them to go to the moon? Huge waste of spending.
Shocker!
Next payload should be a moon landing with 3 live humans, a return rocket with fuel, golf clubs and a dune buggy. Just like the good old days. What a fairytale.
(( Google's AI Says Moon Landing Photos/Videos Are Fake )) why space is hard ?
belissimo
relax people, they animation and CGI doesn't full rendering
the first moon lander from the US can literally be seen in pictures on the moon taken as recently as 2021 😂😂 its cute how clueless youtube commenters are
Godspeed, Capricorn One!
Why bother. You can tell my grandchildren about.
Let me give you a suggestion. There will no more delay in moon landing. It is gonna work. And it is the most cost-effective option ever. That is, NASA should team up with China in a joint mission to the moon.
How come they did it in 1969?
They didn’t. NASA’s Mercury, Gemini and Apollo team did it in 1969. With an astronomical (SWIDT) budget and nearly half a million people involved. The Apollo program was a success, but not a perfect success. Apollo I was a tragedy with an amazingly negligent cause, that the possibility of a fire was simply dismissed. Apollo 13 was a close call that demonstrated the high risk inherent in complex systems. Apollo 13 returned without landing and the last three Apollo flights were cancelled to support Skylab and to divert the NASA budget to new programs. The Apollo program achieved only six of the ten planned moon landings.
@@tubecated_development within a 1 year period Apollo 8 and 10 reached and 11 and 12 landed and Apollo 9 tested the LEM in Earth Orbit. All in the span of less than 1 year.
My mom just got diagnosed with late-stage Lung Cancer. Before we knew she was this sick I was hoping we would do a Moon Landing Watch Party this year. Now with these delays I’m afraid she’ll never make it.
Bunch of baloney.
they have dates set for technology we dont even have ready yet lmao. its so overly complicated its gonna be 2030s when this happens if at all.
Wired headphones still sound better than airpods
Hello Tomorrow.
Are you saying we are more stupid now then 50 years ago?? 🤣🤣🤣🤣 R.i.p Stanley.
At the SLOW pace NASA is moving, I predict a solo landing on the moon by SpaceX
NASA has successfully designed, built and launched SLS, the rocket that will take us to the moon and to Mars. Unfortunately, SpaceX has not been able to complete its contribution to the mission, the lander. I’m glad that Blue Origin is also working on a lander. I predict the Blue Origin lander will be ready first.
@@SeDe-bq7qs I think you are nuts... Blue Origin has NOT even achieved orbit yet. They are WAY off schedule. And I disagree with you regarding NASA. NASA is now saying that the moon landing will not happen until 2027. And it probably will not happen then either... The SLS is a complete waste of money too. The SLS COMPLETELY throws away close to $1 billion of engines and hardware on every launch. Not smart. At this point, SpaceX might actually get to the Moon AND Mars without the need for NASA or SLS at all. Don't be surprised if SLS gets completely scraped all together. No joke.
@@SeDe-bq7qs what are you smoking ? Blue origin hasnt even gone to orbit
Hopefully the landing occurs on time but the tech has to be ready. Though I'm hoping this space race encourages politicians to increase the NASA budget. For competition and for infrastructure development. That has a return on investment.
Just admit you can't safely send humans to the moon and back due to extreme radiation. Never could.
exposure is 60 microsieverts of radiation every hour. thats easily tanked without issues. 10 CT scans is 6x the levels of what apollo astronauts received throughout the entire mission.
Damn this hurt.. I thought for a second we would have something amazing to look forward to for the new year. 2024 will probably be just as bad if not worse than the last 3 years. Have to come to expect it at this point and maybe.. just maybe.. I'll be proven wrong.
You do. Artemis II, Starship maturity, New Glenn testing, Dreamchaser Inagural flight, Vulcan First flight launching missions designed to explore the landing sites and further colonization points of interest.
Simply put: Engineering of this scale, magnitude, and collaborative nature doesn’t happen on time, at least not in its best form.
Patience breeds results when in the right hands
(also worth noting mainstream media often jumps to these conclusions on contracts based off performance rather than projection)
Our government says we live in the best Germany we ever had. So the last 3 years must have been a blast. NOT.🤣🤣🤣🤣😂
Artemis 2 is only going to circle the moon just like Artemis 1 only with humans. What are you talking about?
Do they have any idea they know what they're doing? We put people on the moon in less then 10 years back when the tech was in black and white.
Different mission different tech different times different budget why are these concepts so alien to you?
@@tubecated_developmentSo much so they destroyed all the plans and knowledge to get back 😂 They also use harnesses and green screen which is available to watch any time you like.
@@RuudHooletsNest which ‘plans’ exactly did they destroy? you lie about all plans, because plenty are available to read in the archive. They also have mountains of microfiche.
Oh wait, you’re parroting misinformation? Then I suggest you grow up?
@@RuudHooletsNest {{{{{crickets chirp}}}} Shall I ask you again? which ‘plans’ exactly did they destroy? you lie about all plans, because plenty are available to read in the archive. They also have mountains of microfiche.
@@tubecated_development Why are you so emotional? LoL Some of y'all make me laugh.
We should just explore the ocean instead I guess.
Not that we are in a ‘race’ to get to the moon, but it would be a blow if another country gets there before we do. In an ideal world, we would be happy for any Earthling to make it back.
its 2023... why does he sound like hes on the moon? get your act together cbs.
Plot twist: he is, he is waiting for starship completion so others can join him 😃
Because it never happened and maybe never will.
The moon isn’t real, the Earth is flat and Stephen KuBRickS left all the clueeeeees
Must be harder to do than in 1969 as Stanley Kubrick is now dead
Yes they don’t have such crappy 1960s VFX now…so it’s much more difficult
I think he believed that if he made more and more landing movies people would believe it more. But it was the opposite. By the time Apollo 17 was made, most people (except for rocket scientists and VFX artists) had figured out that EVERYTHING was wrong. it took Kubricks nearly 2 years to shoot minutes of ‘space footage’ for 2001 A Space Odyssey. And even then, he still got so much wrong. It looks entirely unconvincing. But with tax-payer’s dollars he somehow managed to also film another 6 missions and moon-landings in less than twice that time. Less than 4 years shooting around 19 hours and 39 minutes of Apollo missions ‘footage’, and got it all wrong, forgetting about flags blowing in the wind. And the stars. And the lunar rovers, spacesuits, dust, reflections, Earth, sun, shadows, boots, lander, exhaust gases, dust, studio lights, wires, etc etc. He got it pretty much all wrong.
Which movie looks more realistic? “2001 A Space Odyssey”. Easily. He dropped the ball 6 times after that, and with an astronomical budget. He never guessed people in the future would have The Internets and we could figure it all out. We got smart. S . M . A . R . T, smart.
They better make sure they fake it better this time.
they think hard about this 🤣🤣🤣
Artemis is DoA.
The carrier is basically a Saturn 5, concerning the costs it is simply not possible to have a permanent station on moon.
Shred it now, focus on reuseable rockets. Makes far more sense
The SLS is not the problem. It has been completed and already flown a mission. They will get funding for this working, proven design. Starship unfortunately is the problem. It’s very ambitious, but they have not yet been able to build a working Starship. It’s harder to get funding for something that keeps exploding. I believe they should have opted for a simpler design. One option would have to build an updated version of the Apollo landers. That could have been done very quickly.
The second I saw SpaceX get the contract for the lunar lander, I immediately said that the lunar landing will be pushed back at least half a decade. They should have gone with one of the other contractors. Northrop, or whoever built the lunar lander back in the Apollo days. @@SeDe-bq7qs
@@GeoStreberNobody is ‘back in the days’ anymore.
The fact that we have had such difficulty replicating a feat that was presumably done successfully with less advanced tech makes me skeptical
They also just jumped into it back then and didn’t have the regulations for space like we do now.
No, it's not that tech is not the issue or even the ability to replicate the process. The biggest restraints in the Artemis program is funding from congress. Without funding and commitment from the federal government it's been difficult to even use old technology the Artemis rockets are. Compared to Space X which has the funding and set priorities straight have been able to innovate at the same time. Any skepticism about past success landing on the moon shouldn't be doubted because back then we funded our space programs.
I don’t think you know the difference between the words ‘sceptical’ and ‘cynical’. You are being cynical.
They aren’t trying to “replicate” everything though. They are starting from scratch using today’s technology.
To make it to the Moon, we had to combine the minds and calculations of thousands of engineers, doctors, physicists and mathematicians. Most of whom are probably too old or six feet under at this moment. Most of the calculations were also done on papers and whiteboard too, since computers were pretty much too basic back then.
To “replicate” everything we did back then and put it on current day tech is almost impossible and expensive. And I don’t think any of the US people over there like the government to dump billions of dollars on some Moon projects just to make a point to some online conspiracies.
@@tubecated_development the fact that you want to criticize me yet cannot properly spell the word skeptical is hilarious
I suppose we can't say in 2024 that she's very beautiful, like the Cleopatra of Canada.
Why wait for SpaceX when they have the SLS already successfully tested?
SpaceX is handling the lunar lander, they can get into space but not to the lunar surface without starship.
@@1234debp NASA subcontracts the building of nearly everything they do. Even back in the Apollo era, the Lunar Lander was built by subcontractors.
Space X submitted a contract that said they would be ready, and outlined how they would be. They are not meeting their own contract expectations.
Fantasy tales
Like NASA can go back to the moon
No one has ever been to the moon.
Annnd, we're "going back" (hee hee) WHY???!!!
So disappointed 😢
its already delayed and way overbudget cancel this stupididty
That’s the spirit
If only they treated the challenger just as serious
I remember, a long time ago, when NASA could send astronauts to space using technology they made.
Since when? NASA has always used subcontractors to build their stuff. This includes the Saturn V and Space Shuttle. Even the SLS is built by subcontractors.
@@EchoesDistant lots of people call themselves sceptical and what they actually mean is cynical. They just don’t know the difference
Actually that tech was developed by private Aerospace firms under NASA contract.
just search up who made the Lunar Modules
Not uhhhhgin. Hmmm...
To the moon for what? What's the mission other than build more friggin military?
This report is misleading. I’m a huge SpaceX fan and the public must understand how rapidly they can iterate design changes. In 2019 they flew about 20 times which is very good for a rocket company. In 2020 SpaceX launched the first Americans into space. In 2022 they flew 61 flights, about 1 per week. In 2023 they flew 96 times! They fly more rockets than any other COUNTRY or PRIVATE COMPANY period. In 2023 there were roughly 200 rocket launches from planet earth. About 1 out of 2 flights is SpaceX.
When the current Falcon 9 rocket was being developed it took many, many flights to perfect the rocket WHICH CAN LAND ITSELF PROPULSIVELY!! The first successful landing (that didn’t blow up) was in 2016.
SpaceX is developing 2 new rockets to achieve their goal of getting humans into regular interplanetary flights to Mars. The 1st rocket is the SUPERHEAVY BOOSTER with 33 Engines - an unbelievable design for raw power. The 2nd rocket sits atop the 1st and is called STARSHIP.
Every traditional rocket launch DISCARDS THE USED ROCKET AFTER FLIGHT but SpaceX is trying to make these massive rockets land themselves - which will take many, many tries. But to be fair they don’t need to land themselves back on earth for a moon mission. The 1st 2 test flights were very, very promising. In the 2nd flight the SUPERHEAVY BOOSTER worked perfectly, but after separating as planned it didn’t land itself so the media saw that as a failure - but it was a “failure” of its secondary goal which will take many tries. The STARSHIP reached 95% of its altitude and speed goals. Just before shutting off the engines the flight computer realized it was slightly off course and so the flight termination system triggered the explosives on board to SELF DESTROY STARSHIP while it was high in the atmosphere over the ocean.
Space X rapidly builds BOTH new rocket and can prototype all different configurations RAPIDLY. It can fly BOTH rockets ASSEMBLED TOGETHER from Texas as fast as the FAA will grant launch licenses. I seriously doubt the final delay will be because of Starship. More likely a spacesuit manufacturer won’t be ready, or the Orion spacecraft, which still hasn’t flown humans, will be the cause of a serious delay. My bet is that SpaceX will be ready before the end of 2025 as currently scheduled.
Very funny 😮
NASA should delay its moon landing another 20 years until China sets up their lunar base, and then NASA can rent rooms.
NASA would save $100 billion dollars.
The moon isn't going anywhere soon ... 😮😮😮
❤❤❤❤❤
NASA needs more funding
ha ha ha! Still working on that radiation shielding? Let an international unmanned rover visit and view the Apollo 11 landing site why don't-cha? Call it peer review.
Remember Gus Grissom?!
the first moon lander from the US can literally be seen in pictures on the moon taken as recently as 2021 😂😂 its cute how clueless youtube commenters are
@@TheQWER9 Yes ... I have seen those images ... have you heard of photoshop ... we're talkin' tiny specs. Do you also believe in angels, WMDs in Iraq, Gulf of Tonkin, Natural Origin of the Frankenvirus, Jan 6 trials, Lahaina narrative ... your problem is with heresy - Remember Giordano Bruno
Damn. It seems real hard to goto the moon again.
If they just didn't lose the R&D and tech of them house sized calculators. If only our tech was as good as it used to be.
Good luck. I mean. God speed
Their tech was too costly.
@@theotheleo6830🤭😆
None of the factories that made the parts for the Apollo Saturn V rockets even exist anymore. They weren’t made by NASA. The computers were a small part of the system. Think before you speak.
Almost as difficult as supersonic passenger transport…
@@tubecated_development that wasn't difficult obviously. Since it existed. And has halted across seas but still exist barley. It's called the concord..... The difficult thing with supersonic transport is going supersonic and not causing a sonic boom. Which can be done. But not for regular passenger transport.
So what do you mean by your comment.
Also, we need to treat NASA project, as starship, as a military operation and not civil. This would give priority in launching.
the reason starship is taking longer is the governments fault they take f*king ages to give them take off window
SpaceX is essentially developing a rocket to land on Mars. Landing on the moon is just a step in that development. Oh yeah, Starship is being designed to be reusable. Artemis not so much.
USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA
Name 1 thing, besides landing on the moon, that we did in the 1970s but can't do now because its too difficult... this is why people don't think it ever happened.
Complex question fallacy. ‘Too difficult’? What does that even mean? And people don’t think it happened for a whole host of BS reasons.
Moving on:
See also: What is the fastest piloted plane?
See also: What is the fastest passenger aircraft ever built?
@tubecated_development we didn't stop building better aircrafts, just because we set a speed record. And we aren't promised every 5yrs that someone's going to attempt it, just to get told its being bumped out another few years... for 5 decades.
@@mitchelltriplett7974 so you have an argument with the funding, the management, or both? PS my question was what do you mean by ‘too difficult’?
“We are promised every five years”. Source: trust me bro
What happened to supersonic passenger air travel?
oh wait...
@@tubecated_developmentif it's not "too difficult" they would either do it or stop promising us they're going to do it. Obviously, it's "too difficult" because they haven't been able to attempt it in 5 decades. And neither has ANY other country.
Artemis is a clusterf***. Even if Starship ever manages to complete a mission without blowing up, who knows how long it will take them to get a human rated vehicle. And if and when that happens no one has really addressed the elephant in the room of how many refueling missions Starship requires. As for Bezos, his rocket has barely made it out of the CAD stage after 10 years. The only launch vehicle that has actually made it to lunar orbit is SLS, and that rocket is way too expensive to be sustainable.
SpaceX is building mulitple starships simultaneously. They'll do 2-3 test flights this yr, so getting a vehicle human rated isn't gonna be that difficult for them with their rapid rate of development.
Assuming those test flights are successful...
Why doesn't NASA just go back to that obsolete technology it used back in the sixties to get all those guys to the Moon all those times??? Too bad Moon Mission Director Stan Kubrick is graveyard dead because, after all, he got us there (ahem) 55 years ago.🤣🤣😅😅😆😆😆😂😂😂😅😅😅🤣🤣
the first moon lander from the US can literally be seen in pictures on the moon taken as recently as 2021 😂😂 its cute how clueless youtube commenters are
Grey-matter-density:emojis-density ratios seem inversely proportional to one another.
Its ok, there is nothing on the moon anyway.
❤😂😂🎉😢😮😅
To be fair this is completely expected. The Apollo missions also faced delays. LBJ told Nasa to have men on the moon by 1967. As we know it didn't happen until 1969. A large reason for this was also the fact that the moon lander wasn't finished, which is why they decided to make Apollo 8 an orbit of the moon, to test all the finished equipment. History has a funny way of repeating itself.
However, I feel like today's delays could have been avoided if NASA had chosen a less ambitious design for their lander. Starship is huge, complete overkill for landing only 2 people on the moon. It is also fully reusable and will require tens of orbital refuelings, something we have never done before. I feel like their attempt to save money in the short run by contracting Space X will bite them back in the long run. If they had gone ahead with a more conventional design, such as the one proposed by the National Team, or even the one they had designed for Constellation 20 years ago, we could have seen a manned landing this year.
🤭😆 QUITE A SHOW 🍿
I don’t think a landing will happen until *at least* 2029.
Right now, I’d say 2028 or 2029 yeah. And then Mars probably a decade or so later.
2029 is the time for China’s manned moon landing. China plans to send astronauts to the moon before 2030 and jointly build a lunar base with Russia.
This is what happens when you give SpaceX the contract for the lunar lander.
This isnt SpaceX fault. What are you waffling about? Lol
Dit stroperige project is geld verspilling
Blah blah ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
Seem like we never landed in the first place
@@nickwilson5774 Then, they should just do another fake landing and call it a day. That would not only save mucho dinero but it would be greener as well.
Yes, and the earth is flat.
That's known as a straw man argument. Obviously the Earth is round and it's obvious that we never landed on the moon. There are Van Allen Radiation belts that no human has ever been through. Look it up.
NASA spent roughly 26 billion dollars between 1960 and 1973 on the Apollo program. Today, the entire NASA budget is less than that. It’s even worse when you adjust for inflation which in today’s money, would make the cost of the Apollo program $257 billion. If the Artemis program is to be the successor of the Apollo, congress certainly isn’t funding it appropriately.
Seems like you left your brain on a slab somewhere
Oh they will never land on the moon with SpaceTwitter
Of course it will. Politicians and NASA can make more that way.
As is tradition :(
Budget issues? Yea right
Actually it is nasa’s budget that is the problem nasa only gets about 25 billion dollars per year compared to the American 🇺🇸 military budget of 700 billion dollars per.
Yeah, actually. Budget issues.
Better hurry..the moon won't last long...lol
It is Magnetism responsible for gravity our magnets currently aren’t sensitive enough If we made very sensitive magnets, we will find that it’s not only moves matter, but it will also Worp time My evidence, for this is the moon it has rust on it. The magnetosphere stretches all the way to the moon, and it is responsible for its gravity to the Earth. How else with the moon have rust on it
Sorry guys money went to Ukraine 😂😂😂and others
From americas military budget they could BUY Ukraine🤣
It really feels like humans are being strung along year after after year , decade after decade “we will return to the moon”. I reckon it’ll never occur ever again in my lifetime nor my children’s (or unborn grandchildren)
Whether what you say is factual or not (I’m old and I don’t seem to remember more manned lunar missions promised before Artemis?) , why is a moon landing important to you and your children? Look what we are doing to our home/Earth? You think the moon is a better bet? Where is the focus required?
@@tubecated_developmentactually it’s not important to me at all tbh. I’d rather they spend the money on housing the poor and feeding the hungry. It’d be better spent money than the trillions spent on space & to have very little to show from all the waste of money. Artemis is another example of waste.
shame to nasa and bill nelson.
Shame to Elon Musk and Space X.
They are the ones who agreed to build the Lunar Lander in the timeframe specified by NASA. They are the ones causing this delay.
Do an ounce of research on the space industry and stop being so ignorant.
These old people is bringing down our future
What are you young people doing with your future? Apart from spending 99% of your time online looking at influencers, clickbait and BS?
@@tubecated_development didn't mean it like that
@@Cloudz3468 No matter however obscure you wish to continue being, my question is still valid.
Total waste of money and resources....
Actually NASA’s budget is only about 25 billion dollars while the American 🇺🇸 military gets 700 billion dollars per year for its budget if anything is a waste of my money it’s the military.
@@Skankhunt42-xl9fq At least the military is legit