Tech Demos for NASA’s Artemis Program

😂😂😂

yeah🤣🤣

'Meanwhile at Boca Chica some space cowboys launched a steel thing with wings that looks like a pen to 12.5 km, then making it fall in style and finallly not landing it"
*n o i c e*

@@googleacc7472 still better than blue origin which has done nothing

this is the past not the future

ads? are there ads on youtube? oh, yeah, i'm using brave. sorry, moving on.

@@poyaque-estamos3032 same😂

I see no ads on KRplus, except for integrated ones, and whole videos like this one, which are purely for advertising purposes.

@@poyaque-estamos3032 very cool bro lol everyone uses ad-block, tis a joke

actually videos only need to be 9 mins long to get ad revenue these days!
Nice try tho

In 1/6G one would imagine it wouldn't be that difficult.

@@morskojvolk in a pressurized spacesuit though

3:53 lower right corner

@@morskojvolk astronauts at 0 g at the iss find it hard to move... your point is absolute bs

@@ivantimofeev2233 Your kind words aside, none of the astronauts who landed on the Moon expressed any difficulty with ascending the LM ladder, even though the first rung was about 4 feet off the ground. Granted, that ladder was only about 2/3 the length of this proposed lander, but I can't imagine a 30% longer ladder would be much of an obstacle.

I don't know about you buddy but I'd rather have an abort to orbit option than having the crew module low riding close to the surface.

@@odysseyvoyager2354 p
I’m pretty sure they all will have an abort to orbit option, and being lower to the ground is definitely safer too. Image if there is an emergency, would it take more time to get up a 30 ft. ladder in limited mobility EVA suits, or be right there at the ground ready to go?

@@odysseyvoyager2354 you guys should watch the angry astronaut lol

@@odysseyvoyager2354 watch Angry Astronaut's video about this. He has conducted an interview with Dynetics. Dynetics had raised some concerns about this.

@@odysseyvoyager2354 Even the Apollo missions had abort-to-orbit capability, and they weren't 30 feet off the ground. It's not a matter of safety, it's a matter of the dimensions they can cram into payload fairings for the descent mass they want.

@@batugunduz3950 exactly

The old dudes cant handle change. All the Apollo astronauts hate Spacex cause they are different... also a few of them are invested in the heritage companies.

@@batugunduz3950 and even then it is more expensive ;)

@@OBTX91 I believe some Apollo astronauts have changed their opinion on SpaceX.

No they didn't. What are you talking about? They said they're using the same control system as Orion. It's mind-blowing how much hate this is getting.

It even landed, a bit enthusiastically. But I think it was a problem with the raptors. Everything else went perfect.

Step by step, on the video editing room.

@@RogerWilco1 it was a header tank pressure failure, it looks to me as if a burst disc on the O2 tank popped just before landing.

they probably planned to make this animation a year ago too

Everything, even SpaceX is building on the shoulders of those who came before. SpaceX and Blue Origin's efforts are all based around the old DC-X/DC-XA program from the early 1990s.
The technology for Crew Dragon and Cargo Dragon 2 was derived from the original COTS/CRS Dragon, a more than 10 year old system and was contemporary with Cygnus.

@@Nowhereman10 The DC-X never did manage to make an orbital flight. SpaceX, not shackled by government funding, seems to be able to bring a Starship orbital flight about. I'm sure @Beta Boi realises what previous programs have done for contemporary ones.

@@Nowhereman10 Starship is pretty fucking unique bro

​@@Nowhereman10 Look there is no doubt that obviously everything is built on the shoulders of those who came before However there is a key difference between literally just redesigning and refurbishing old technology and techniques like the idea of a decent and accent section. Yes a proven and tried technique but thats not innovating, thats literally a carbon copy of the lunar missions 40 years ago. However SpaceX's Starship not choked by the economics of politics are able to conduct a sub orbital flight with 3 methane rocket engines, conducing a belly flop (as far as I know, the first ever) then conduct a flip manoeuvre (The first ever). That is literally true innovatiion and has never been done before.

@@Nowhereman10
Orion is fucking great, though.

Ah yes rent a girlfriend fan,and yes,she's too cute

@@Hygix_ im surprised theres anime fans here other than myself

@@rc-pf1wq you are not alone brother

I saw that airlock on top of so called starship soooo

They will probably ride delta v or someone else.

I'm not sure why Bezos thinks he can make any contribution to the space infrastructure for future generations. His best work is that his competition might make SpaceX more motivated.

Will you say the same when they actually achieve orbit one day?

Next year is when Vulcan and New Glenn fly for the 1st time.

@@Nowhereman10 the same year starship will likely achieve orbit for the first time. It's a great time to be alive.

Same here😅

I think it’s funny his response has three times as many views as this video

@Phalkhonieng Gangte with rockets

What dude?

@@keco185 he's an KRplusr.

🤣

Wow a prototype that can't even reach orbit cool

@@loranmorash8532 what would you define as a prototype exactly and what would its objectives be for an only use in space lunar lander? They tested a subscale tank and the descent engines. Seems like pretty good progress so far to me

@@iamarokotmanson sn5 and sn6
boom, there you have, both have successfully hopped, and that is exactly how they are supposed to do it on the moon
meanwhile BO? doesn't even have a mockup....
YOU ARE PATHETIC

@@ivantimofeev2233 exactly how? Where are the upper landing engines? The wider stance landing legs? Far from exactly.

.... and crashed it.

@@Nowhereman10 at least they’re trying to actually make space travel sustainable.

@@Nowhereman10 and gained incredible data for the next launch

@@TheCosmicGuy0111 Interesting factoids here. Both SpaceX and Blue Origin have made fairly cheap rockets. New Shepard, according to Bezos only costs a mere 10,000 dollars to turnaround and according to Musk, a Falcon 9 around 250,000. Both numbers match up well when you compare the rockets' respective sizes and other factors.

@@Nowhereman10 how many non-demo missions have New Shepard flown vs Falcon 9? Also isn't NS a different class rocket it's not really a comparison.

Best comment

aye that guy talking about inovative my arse - this is the very definition of designed by committee and funded by committee.

mind you that they are the only company out of the three to give more than just the basic details of how things can work.

@@transformatron6203 False. Check out the Angry Astronaut channel for details on the other lander design.

@@transformatron6203 The other competition have both released just as comprehensive videos?

they won't build it in ten years, they only want money!

The company has been around over two decades, longer than space x and they haven't put anything into orbit and can barely land their first stage that they have working on since the dawn of time, highly doubt it will ever work, tho NASA keeps funding them

It's amazing to me that you've been seeing CGI of lander that isn't even a year old yet

@Scary Gamer nah, 2030.

Manley is a science illiterate hack. Angry Astronaut is gonna be the one to watch.

@@RogerWilco1 you got the two mixed up. Scott is the expert, unbiased, and realistic person. Unlike AA.

Just watch both

@@iamarokotmanson Scott is a non expert pretending to be an expert. He even admits it in is intro.

@@jcf20010 what do you define as expert exactly?

Blue Origin: We have Heritage*
👁 👁 👁️ 👁️ 👁 👁
👄 👄 👄
* lots of old men over-compensating for the risks they took in the late 60s by votind down and dissing all attempts at innovation in the Artemis program

😂

SpaceX: Come back to me on that when you finally reach orbit with your lipstick rocket.

100 people, eh? Not gonna happen any time soon.

@@atlas8827 Yup , people used to say that about flying the starship as well and look , it just did it first test flight. Soon it will be going into orbital flights. Still it can carry 10 times more people than the Blue Origin moon lander

What's your problem? SpaceX encourages other rocket companies, nobody needs you to bad mouth blue origin.

@@TheVinnythestick yeah SpaceX sure encourages them, and by that, BO should be having at least 1 partially-reusable orbital class rocket just like Falcon 9, or better (like they always tauted with their New Glenn). But we all know it's just a fancy talk and pretty graphics. Unless BO can get those New Glenn up into orbit, they're practically useless.

@@TheVinnythestick BO: **around for 20 years** provides no evidence of any progression, hasnt even made it to orbit, only launched 13 SUBORBITAL SSTOs in the span of 20 years, backed up by the richest man in the world and doesnt actually do anything but gloat bout how theyre the “future of aerospace” (which they are not), receives funding it doesnt deserve, etc
SpaceX: **around for 18 years** Has launched 100+ falcon 9s, has landed a falcon 9 over a hundred times, practically mastered the art of landing the falcon 9, creating a rocket that is actually revolutionary and is aiming to land on mars, shows proof of fast, substantial, major development and progression, has actually made it too orbit, doesnt gloat and get too overconfident just because they landed a rocket one time, has brought humans to space and to the ISS, building one the most complex and complicated ships in record-breaking times, has control of the most powerful (operational) rocket, is trying to provide high-speed wireless internet with starlink, is trying to land and build another civilization on an entirety different planet, etc etc... I dare you to say that again

@@TheVinnythestick The problem is NASA is giving citizen's money to a company that has not proven anything until now. This is just the result of lobbying by these huge companies. Spacex was in the past a gamble from NASA, but their rate of innovation is now so high compared to BO and others. Yes, NASA should have multiple suppliers, but at least price them accordingly. These guys put more money into their marketing than they do on design, and that is just ridiculous. That design, with all these parts bolted together and then they strap a ladder to the outside???? Come on, that is not engineering. Do they really needed 579M USD for that? Meanwhile, Spacex got 135M for a revolutionary design, that will be more useful and expensive to build.

@@urlocalperson2201 How did you deduce all of this? You talk as though Blue Origin should do things the way SpaceX does. Your thinking is totally blinkered. Blue Origin are on a totally different road map to SpaceX and Bezos clearly prefers to play his cards close to his chest. Blue Origin got a rocket to space and back again safely before SpaceX did. They are already build the infrastructure for the first New Glenn to use at the Cape in the first half of this year. They have sold the BE-4 engine to ULA to replace the RD-180 and they already have launch customers signed up.
They just don’t Tweet every time someone does up a securing bolt or post a video when Musk has his lunch. I don’t blame them.

Yeah!

Maybe they should add an electric winch to lift people up and down.

Yep!

A least the one sixth gravity turns it into a half story climb or fall energetically if not time wise.

Well said

Can't wait for it :D

Amen.

Gwynne Shotwell expects starship to go orbital this year, I definitely think we’ll see starship reach orbit before New Glenn now.

@@spotlizard0374 No way New Glenn will be ready before orbital Starship. I think SpaceX can even achieve orbital refueling before New Glenn goes in orbit

SN9 flight tomorrow I'm excited

Ya what a coincidence

Yeah! Plus They have their own rocket to get it up there. The other designs need to work with SLS. I reckon we’ll be looking at several moon transporters. They’ll all learn from eachother to strengthen their weaknesses over time. Space x might go ahead regardless, seems like a logical step before Mars (if the commercial demand for moon journeys arise) Space X’s lunar starship has it’s flaws too. I’d like to know if they intend to use the vacuum optimised Raptors to perform landings or if the low gravity means it can be all with the thrusters. For sure they need them to launch off the surface to go back to the Lunar gateway, and to get to LEO for refuelling. We’re still decades/centuries away from a simple 1-ship-does-all without all the caveats. What a beautiful site it will be to see a nasa branded, all white, finless starship standing tall on the moon with the earth behind it.

Hahaha brilliant.

The video is not about carrier rockets

Just shows they are following in the shadows of a true giant.

1,000,000 lines where something could go wrong

@@Michaelonyoutub We saw what happened with starliner....

Doesn't seem to bother the F-35 fanbois and that thing is up to 8 million lines last time I looked.

Microsoft Exel: am l joke to you?

Not every simplistic notion birthed in a simplistic mind necessarily has merit.

That's part of the problem with the government contracting out a lot of their work. It gets lots of lobbyists involved and distracting interests.
It isn't perfect but getting multiple companies involved still seems like the best way they could do it. Eventually, it should work out. SpaceX seems to be doing well now.
It was hard to know what companies would actually deliver and succeed several years ago but it is getting clearer now.
It is good that they're going to the moon first before Mars because the moon is a huge first step. Sending humans to Mars won't happen without the many lessons learned and technology developed putting people on the Moon. That milestone isn't part of some corrupt scheme to profit Blue Origin, SpaceX, and other contractors. Going to the Moon first is the safest and most efficient way to get to Mars. As easy as the Moon might look to some people, astronauts will still be in lots of danger there. On Mars, it'll be suicide until we know what we're doing on something less than 1% of the distance.

this is why it will be selected. government programs are also about job creation and these guys know how to appeal to lawmakers. its a shame because the costs will limit the amount of missions but at least people on earth will have good, high paying jobs for the foreseeable future.

This is just a government hating circle jerk.

@Kilal Googlestaffers it would be far cheaper and easier to solve our existing problems than to go and ravage some other planet.

@Kilal Googlestaffers Like I said, it would be easier and cheaper to solve the worlds existing problems that what you’re proposing. The trouble is that you think this is easy because one publicity whore has told you it would be.
It’s not. What you’re talking about would take at least decades and probably centuries to set up, by which time we may not even exist anymore or we will have resolved a lot of this. There are lots of things we’re doing now that all but eliminate our need for some resources. Meanwhile, we have to figure out how to resolve out problem with plastics. Trashing the earth and then expecting to be able to just go to another planet is ridiculous. We are evolved to live on one planet and this is it.

when they said that I died of laughter. This video was them trying to make them feel good about themselves because SpaceX is absolutely dominating them

@@zaksullivan4093 watching right after the 12 km flight of starship!

@@Jesus_Christ_loves_you_alot i recorded the launch and have it set to my left monitor background XD it gets very distracting but its so beautiful

@Thijs Kievit or imagine the amount of times someone is at the top and as they start climbing in they drip something, and have to climb alllllll the way back down to pick it up

NASA won't pick blue origin to lead our space future. BO haven't even launched a rocket into space yet.

@@zaksullivan4093 lobbying exists 😑

@@Jesus_Christ_loves_you_alot true. Jeff will hook up nasa with free Amazon prime XD

@@Jesus_Christ_loves_you_alot I’m sure nasa will not choose BO if the other competitors have superior technology at a similar price. Lobbyists can’t do much on this.

@@Default012 I don't think you're estimating the power of lobbying correctly. Why does Orion/SLS still exist?

This is far safer and far more capable than Dynetics.

@@applemirer3937 Did you miss the 30m ladder that they will have to climb down every-time. And climbing down ladders in a space suit isn’t very easy

It’s definitely wont win without favouritism especially with it having to go against starship

@@zaksullivan4093 I've climbed down a lot of ladders, some of which were quite tall, and I can't imagine it being a considerable problem. Especially for someone who has trained for it.

@@zaksullivan4093 Starship wasn't designed to be a lunar lander. In order to win the contract, I think SpaceX would have to design a more specific lunar lander.
I do like Starship though.

12 redevouz, docking, refueling of 100tn of cryogenic propellant in quick succession to land...... not complex at all righ?

@@iamarokotmanson For a 100% reusable system that consists of one piece once it gets to the moon, yeah.

@@cbale2000 lol definitely

@@iamarokotmanson sure beats climbing down a 12 m ladder in an EVA suit while producing heaps of space junk

@@iamarokotmanson Starship is a simple and clean design I think. No over engineering or over complexity.

That ascent module is so *smol* !
Ladder is about 35 steps? If OSHA was involved, they would require the astronauts to be on-belay with fall-arresting gear. That seems sensible - not at all excessive precaution.

me too. not dissapointed :D

Same here. I'm not even going to watch the stupid video.

@@tomboad1 😂

@@Raptor828 😘

Lmao !!

@FridayGood He is explaining how the National team lander is not very innovative.

@FridayGood Well, it's expensive as hell and you can't get much payload...

@FridayGood It very much does. The more innovation, the more enhanced our tech can get. And as @John theux said, it's really expensive and weak in terms of payload.

How else would you design a lunar lander? What does a non 1960's lander look like?

@@johntheux9238 Not only that , but the National Team's landers so wasteful! It'll turn Luna into a junkyard!

I can't imagine myself falling off that ladder. Much less an astronaut.

I guarantee that the system that they will employ will not allow an astronaut to fall from those stairs....

Considering the gravity on the moon I don't think falling would be such a big deal. It's still stupid though.

As we all know, it ought to look cool like 50s SF movie rockets...
Meanwhile, in Boca Chica :-)

Agree, but blue origin has cooler design

@@akunlama89 cooler does not mean safe. And when you're talking about human spaceflight, safety is the upmost priority.

@@akunlama89 Cooler design? Have you seen SpaceX's Starship?

@@sneakytom7416 well I agree but blue origin has the coolest design.

@@aconite72 yes, the lunarship were also cool

pffft, Falcon booster touchdown... tha's so 2015
SN8 bellyflop... hell yeah!
:-)

Uhh.... the SpaceX one has an elevator.....

HLS proposals literally are required at min to be ascent module reuse by 2028. Both descent and transfer element can be upgraded with reusability, though descent requires ISRU which is long term tech; not this decade. Still got nothing on tech required for Starship though.

when you design it so that if the engines you used to land fail, the astronauts die is when its clear that you need to redesign it. It also needs 11 launches of a SHLV to refuel it (Moonship)

@@transformatron6203 Incorrect.

@@angadsingh9314 correct. to get a full tank of fuel to NHRO, you need eleven launches of superheavy

Great comment lol blue origin sucks at innovation

Different risks to mission success on schedule, NASA's approach is encouraging we'll actually get there 🌕

Nobody helping to push space exploration sucks, my friend. Fanaticism in this is not a good thing, everyone is pushing in the same direction

@@juanmanuelgonzalez3789 except Blue Origin uses Bezos' political connections and lobbies to choke out any one else they can. If they were more competent they may have succeeded, so yeah, fuck them.

@@juanmanuelgonzalez3789 not trying to be fanatical. I'm just saying BO is kinda lame. Its a frankenlander that isn't very innovative. Of the 3 candidates they are the farthest behind.

yeah the HLS - Huckster Lobby System on the SLS - Senate Launch System ...

@@tma2001 Ah, Blue Origin and companies like Boeing never cease to amuse and horrify us.

Seems like we watch 2 the future

Hahahahahaah I noticed that

I n n o v a t i o n

congress always want the most expensive options smh

That's why sls is taking so long, unfortunately

@FridayGood Well, mainly Blue Origin here. Despite having a less innovative and reusable landing system than Dynetics or SpaceX, they are getting far more funding than them.

@FridayGood The correct answer here is "yes"

@Alpha Centauri Oh yes. I don't really blame NASA for this, more the senate. They have never seemed exactly keen on spending much money on space policy. But SpaceX will be able to refuel the Starship with tankers, so it could be utilised for reusability. All in all, SpaceX, while not risk averse, have shown themselves to be capable of delivering a reliable and cheap vehicle in the Falcon 9, and Starship could certainly be trusted to work particularly if funding was increased.

Mind you that this is the only lander powered by hydrogen. You can't get methane on the moon. Also, the descent element is capable of reaching LEO with a full tank on the lunar surface, once ISRU is developed iirc.
Meanwhile, moonship needs eleven superheavy launches to be refuled.

@@transformatron6203 this "thing" does not exist! and demands even more idiotic SLS project. and by the way . i all for base on mars.all against loonar orbital station as its a waste of money. and musk mars goals look to me like ramblings of an insane person

I think that's only Blue Origin.

that would be 4 shots =0

Did you forget about Lockheed, Northrop and Cygnus?

@@transformatron6203 No, but this ain't their video, is it?

@@transformatron6203 No. They have heritage.

If you're too lazy to to climb a ladder, you shouldn't be an astronaut

@@vaclavzajac214 crazy idea, but I don’t think mission success should be based on a a fully suited astronaut with limited mobility being able to ascend and descend a ladder of that scale. And what if things go off-nominal, and one astronaut has to drag another up that ladder?

@@vaclavzajac214 it’s just a way more of a hazard to have to climb a 12 m ladder to get access to the only hatch

@@vaclavzajac214 totally ignore the fact you can fucking die if you fall off

@@vaclavzajac214 It might be the dumbest way to die on the moon

Go look through Blue Origin's videos on their channel. They have videos showing hardware under construction and being tested.

@Richard South He means this:
krplus.net/bidio/kdqfYoiMh2mzc6A
krplus.net/bidio/qcV9i6CshaycdJw
krplus.net/bidio/ZtF_doqrqXjOZpQ

@@mikedicenso2778 does a piece of metal really count as seeing a whole rocket?

@@thomasackerman5399 Those videos were posted 9 months ago. Blue Origin could have built something bigger than a single piece of metal, haven’t they?

@@zaksullivan4093 It is proof that the rocket is being built and given when the video was released, it's very likely much further along than that.

To be fair Dynetics hasn't launched any rockets into orbit either but I only see people shaming their lander all the time
I think it's the most logical choice of the three, even though none of them is ideal by no means

Same here

What's gonna happen when you'll get serious?

What will you move the goal posts to next year, Jamie when Blue Origin launches New Glenn?

Similar things were said about SpaceX. We will see how it goes.

Because they know how dangerous a big ladder is. Exactly why it's being used on the lander itself.

Other companies in the partnership have put things into orbit first, and the company that built the LM never made a rocket themselves. They are testing hardware, did you even watch the video? They're using imperieal in this video because its intended for an american audience smh.

@@transformatron6203 mixing imperial and metric is a perfect recipe for disaster. You have to choose one and stick to it to avoid any possible confusion.

@@dislike__button As Transformatron pointed out, they're using imperial _in the video_ for the intended audience. The aerospace industry does, indeed, use the metric system precisely because of _past_ mistakes.

@@morskojvolk
If blue origin were serious about being a space faring company, they would be using the appropriate measurements regardless of the audience.
I mean, isn't the audience the entire world?
America may be big, but there are other places who are just as interested in space, and everything made is for the same goal for humanity.

@@julianemery718 This was a video about a NASA program, who do you think primary audience was: the people _paying_ for the program, or the rest of the world?

I definitely agree! But they should really find an alternative for the ladder. That thing endangers not only the Artemis program, but most of all the astronauts lives.

@@robin9321 It's a boeing pun:
twitter.com/elonmusk/status/938816780444745728
I really hope they get to the moon using New Glenn because SLS is too damn expensive.

Starship is the toughest competitor Blue origin have right now...

Of course, but we do not care how tough a competitor is...
WE SUPPORT TEAM SPACE!

@@dhanashrikulkarni5878 Falcon heavy is a tough one too. New Glenn has a bigger fairing but it's only an advantage in low earth orbit where the payload capability meets the fairing volume.

Can you do something more innovative please?

really ? I would be embarrassed to be part of this disposable, wasteful and dangerous to get in/out in an emergency Frankenstein of a lander.

Uhh, how about putting your efforts and time behind and with SpaceX - a company who has actually been to orbit and delivered both cargo AND humans to orbit.
These Blue Origin clowns haven’t even made it to orbit yet, never mind delivering anything to orbit.
And now they want to play on the moon?

This whole project is a national embarrassment. Being associated with it and part of it means you carry that embarrassment too. Its a disaster of a project, doomed to fail. Its NASA and partners literally recycling 50yr old tech, and to knock it out of the park, taking 50yr old tech and making it worse.

@@greggb557 you're a complete dumbass

I completely agree with you.

I cant hear anything they say over the annoying load background music - its like trying to hear Matthew McConaughey mumbling in Interstellar.

Jeff WHO?

lmao

most underrated comment here

A fall from 10m on the moon is equivalent to a fall from less than 2m on Earth, so not quite as dangerous as it looks.

@@AndrewMeyer 2m free fall on a rocky surface... on a presurized suit... ;)

Tether to a slidewire like the Shuttle payload bay had for EVAs. No problem.

@@AndrewMeyer What if they fall and tear open their suit? how quick can they get backup to safety or have another astronaut try to seal the suit?

@@AndrewMeyer still all it takes is 1 breakage in the space suit and that person is dead, espically if they have to climb THAT ladder to get back to oxygen.

They have to throw the word "Apollo" in there so they can see themselves as associated with the greatest achievement of the human species.

This is savage as hell X)

I never thought about it from that point of view lol. Your absolutely correct.

Don't worry, 2 landers get in. And i feel like Dynetics has very high chance of entering

@FridayGood no they didn't?
3 landers entered competition and results are at february.
My gues is:
Winners: National Team and Dynetics.
And NT will probably be on Artemis 3, but it's nothing official yet. No decision was made

@FridayGood Im hoping for Dynetics and SpaceX, ILV is too bulky and complex

As for our malfunctioning Congress getting the job done right, that's wishful thinking.

😂

LOL. Elon is further along with his moon lander, merely by painting a Starship nosecone white. lol

@@asraharrison he is further along because Starship is actually in development and has done several tests and is wayy far ahead of BO. Not to mention that SpaceX has actually achieved orbit and does so regularly. Also, spacex has had crewed missions. Meanwhile, BO has not

Do any of you have the remotest idea what the Delta V burn would be like trying to put that much weight on the Moon?

@@thethirdman225 28 raptors gooo burrrrr

That's ambitious

@@kirkc9643 you’re right, 2067.

Yep, and they did it with like 1% of the government funding that these other companies did :)

Boeing is not involved in any of this so i don't see how what you're saying has any relevance. LockMart, on the other hand, has delivered Orion and that craft as well as flown a test flight on a ULA Delta IV. Orion, unfortunately, has to wait now until SLS is ready.

@@Nowhereman10 Really hope Boeing is not involved. They need New Glenn done, I don't want to this thing to be launched on the SLS.

@@Nowhereman10 relax I'm speaking about this as a whole, you knew that. SLS is a bloody joke

Exactly

Is it so unchanged? What do you make of other solutions such as Starship?

@@phooogle It is Lunar Orbit Rendezvous architecture (same thing used by Apollo), but because SLS rocket isn't as powerful as a Saturn V, it requires the Transfer Element to get all the way to lower lunar orbit. It passes out as much money as possible to as many contractors as possible.
Starship is a fully reusable super heavy lift rocket. You could do whatever with it. You could use it to land directly with re fueling (current plan), or you could have it deliver other tugs to space (earth orbit rendezvous) that could be refueled, but at least it's going to be fully reusable.

@@phooogle Starship is like a Tesla. This Lunar Lander is like the original Ford Model T.
We have Tesla tech and should be advancing Tesla tech, but these clowns want to use Ford Model T tech instead.

Ah! The SpaceX fanboys. their starship is just a shiny tin can hoping prototype and they are already saying it is landing on the Moon and tomorrow on Mars... And that everything else is horseshit. Those kids are adorable.

Hahaha, of course they’ll use starship

@FridayGood it’s a joke, I’m referring to starship being cheap af and them hitching a ride in it

@FridayGood nah you’re good

@FridayGood Where is it? I saw half a fairing once and a few engines, but that's pretty much all.

@@johntheux9238 DIdn't you see the Blue video showing the fuel tanks under construction in Florida several months ago? If not, go look it up. They have actually both halves of the fairings, the two standard types of payload adapters (you can see them in the fairing and other videos in the background) and they have the propellant tanks, among other hardware.

this comment need more upvotes ,
literally

with this antiquated approach, you will never get there. It's just a more complicated Apollo.

Better enter right astronaut selection now, later it might be harder

I've been waiting on a Mars trip for 60 years.

Me too, i'm 13 and space travel needs to become really efficient and low cost by at least 2050 to see space travel as a common thing in our lifetimes.

My 2 cents, focus on health, wealth and happiness. Stay healthy so that even when you get old you can handle and enjoy a launch, be successful so that when SpaceX begins offering tickets onboard a Starship designed to carry 100 people, you can afford a ticket, and stay focussed on being positive. I am also 36 and I have made it my goal to fly in space for my retirement, so not as far as the Moon, but this is what is making me take my health seriously, and push harder at work, to learn as much as I can and to live below my means in order to invest for the future, It has made me love what I do and look forward for what is to come. It's a great time to be alive, most are unaware of just how much space will be opening up to everyday people over the next few decades due to companies like Blue Origin, SpaceX, Virgin Galactic etc.