Welcome to our channel! Here, you'll find fascinating stories and insightful analysis about space and our place in it. From the latest news on the current state of space exploration to intriguing theories about our future in the universe, we've got you covered.
Feel free to add any comments and join the conversation so we can all learn together. Let's enjoy this new era of space exploration and discovery together.
Even thought the catch was amazing, it obviously has a long way to go yet. Main ship is already obsolete. Booster blew a COPV. Engine damage on the way down is another example of why "rapid reusability" is marketing nonsense (the refuel, re-fly idea, not the ships lined up to fly one).
It doesn't matter what we think. Elon runs his company his way even if with an obsession with colonizing mars with ... his Starship. The Starship Lunar Landers ... which Nasa clearly approved ... is stupid replacement for the Apollo LM ... when Space X could easily build a bigger & better Saturn V using disposable Super Heavy & 2nd stage ... with large & improved Command, Service & Lunar modules ... that can be sent directly. But Space X only won the Lunar Lander from Nasa's stupid Artemis program ... given at least $1.4 billion, so he used the money to develop his reusable Super Heavy booster & starship because he was fixated on His Starships being the Gateway to Mars. The fully reusable Starship is only good for get 50 tons to LEO ... because the Starship is the 2nd stage ... of a two Stage ... reusable orbital launch system. So when you make the Starship a Lunar Lander ... you must now top up the propellant tanks with at least 10 Starship launches to get from LEO to a Lunar orbit ... then have enough fuel to get astronauts to & from the surface of the Moon ... why using ... cryo propellent. See. The Starship Lunar Lander is truly stupid ... when Space X could have done all of Artemis ... with a disposable SuperHeavy & second stage .... and their improved version of the Apollo Command, Service & Lunar Modules. But Elon wants his fully reusable Starships ... immediately specifically for colonizing Mars ... instead developing a fully reusable automated Cargo Ship for the FalconHeavy wide bay doors , and legs ... to develop & test the technology .... then start desposable SuperHeavy to get very large objects into orbit ... then develop the reusable Super Heavy with legs ... then ... the Starship with legs ... and only develop the catching tower if you need the extra payload. Space X could have easily built a disposable SuperHeavyLaunch System .... a NG service, command & Lunar module by 2022 .. if NASA asked them to to fulfill Artemis. But Nasa being run by Liberals tender out parts of Artemis .. instead of just seeking who could do Apollo bigger, better & cheaper. Only Blue Origin & Space X .... would be left competing for all of Artemi, with Bezos not obsessed with colonizing mars with a starship and prepared to use disposable upper stages. Again. The Starshp ... is a reusable 2nd stage ... of a two stage LEO Launch System. This is why the Lunar Lander will always be stupid. But Elon & Nasa have decided otherwise.
To answer your question,i will point out that there will NOT be return to the moon for the US without spacex starship achieving full usability, i.e. a fully reusable rocket capable of delivering 100+ tons to LEO and on orbit refueling. And while NASA assumes something like this will be available what are they doing to take advantage of that capability ? Nothing ! These is not even a preliminary design for a lunar pressurized habitat. It;s almost as if......NASA chose starship assuming it would fail so they could blame SpaceX for the failure of Artemis.
Hi good observation about blue origine. One detail, if you look at Rocket Lab you can see that they are growing very fast and if they can grow neutron (medium lift rocket) as fast as electron (small lift rocket) then they will be as big as space X in a matter of 7 years... So I do believe that Rocket lab will be the biggest Space X competitor in 10 years.
For sure, RocketLab is the biggest competitor right now, and it could perfectly be the same in 10 years. But even if they can grow Neutron as fast as they did Electron, they will still be far away from Starship. On the other hand, they have a very good business providing services in orbit (the 3rd stage Photon and the products they sell to satellite companies), and I think this could be a very big business, especially with Starship, as companies will need to move things in orbit and the demand will grow a lot.
The Space run is a Endless Scam, where you can promise anything, accomplish very little and still people won’t judge you because you are protected by a “ Space Entrepreneur Cloak “.
I often wonder why Blue Origin is continually referred to as though it were the same category of beast as Spacex. It seems ludicrous to me. Like speaking of Alexander the Great in the same terms as Pee Wee Herman
After i watched videos of Tim at blueOrigin i noticed like you a lack of innovation they seems to work like a more "traditional" rocket factory. I think we will be surprise by the first or second launch of new gleen beacause this "traditional" approach to built rocket in one way is more reliable than spaceX approach. I personnaly think spaceX built>test>fixing approach is the best for innovation because they need to be more flexible but the result and timeline will be much more unpredictable. So the new gleen can be a great value for a short period of time until Starship be fully operational
No I agree the the vidéo. They use old aliminum fabrication for the full tank that was the technique in the 1970... Even NASA was looking in the 2000 to move to carbon composite... and look at Rocket Lab electron et Neutron rocket that use carbon composite with fiber placement machine... it is lighter and cheaper then machine aluminium lol. If Blue Orgine actual really spend 10 BILLION $ for the R&D + Infrastructure and New Gleen fly as often as Space X flacon 9 (around 400 up to know) then you end up with a 25 Millions $ per fly in amortisation alone... That is not cheaper then space X lol For god sake, Rocket lab is almost finish the R&D and infrastructure for the Neutron rocket and they are on a 300 million budget lol Million not Billion lol
Yes, which is sad and says more about NASA's inefficiency than about Blue Origin. In any case, competition forces everyone to be better and brings better results, which is always a good thing.
While i'm not very optimistic about success on the first launch, when they succeed Blue origin will have a rocket that can potentially outcompete falcon 9 and falcon heavy. And while spacex has starship, it still has a a lot of milestones to achive before it becomes usable. The thing that excites me about Blue Origin is their lobbying power. If you can force the US to give you a an HLS contract while having almost nothing to show for, you can force them to make up missions to use your new glenn and blue moon to send stuff on the moon. And this matters.
I'm not that convinced that they can match the Falcon 9 performance, we are talking about launching every 2-3 days and recovering the booster with 99% accuracy, one thing is recovering the booster, another is make it profitable at scale. I agree on the lobbying part, but relying on that to make your company profitable seems a bad idea to me. In any case, we need competition to ensure that everyone does its best, but I don't know if the plans that Blue Origin has are the right ones to compete with SpaceX.
@@HowEverythingW You need to accept in your heart that there are very few things that are profitable in space and none of that include expanding to the moon or Mars. The most sound business case for space is communication satellites. So no one needs "to do their best". Everything else beyond launching satellites must be done in a goal-orianted way not a profit-oriented way because if you try to do the later you will quickly realize that whatever that is,it can be made on earth for much better profit margin. And this is where SpaceX differs from everyone else. It's that there is such a goal that requires them to go above and beyond launching payloads into LEO. That something while very hard is realizable in a price and timeframe that is worth pursuing. On the other hand the "goal" of blue origin is at best vague and at worse is a product of misreading of our situation. We neither need to move all industry to space to avoid pollution and we are not running out of room to be building O'Neil cylinders. And even if we did, the goal would be not be realizable by private companies and in a timeframe that would matter.
@@HowEverythingW look at Rocket Lab you can see that they are growing very fast and if they can grow neutron (medium lift rocket) as fast as electron (small lift rocket) then they will be as big as space X in a matter of 7 years... So I do believe that Rocket lab will be the biggest Space X competitor in 10 years. If Blue Orgine actual really spend 10 BILLION $ for the R&D + Infrastructure and New Gleen fly as often as Space X flacon 9 (around 400 up to know) then you end up with a 25 Millions $ per fly in amortisation alone... That is not cheaper then space X lol For god sake, Rocket lab is almost finish the R&D and infrastructure for the Neutron rocket and they are on a 300 million budget lol Million not Billion lol
I genuinely believe that this mission marks a turning point in spaceflight. It's the kind of thing that could be talked about for centuries as one of the pioneering moments of space exploration. The fact that two of the passengers are SpaceX employees sent up to support the mission is groundbreaking in my opinion. This, I believe, is ultimately how most people will get to space. Not rich people doing tourism or government agents working for NASA etc. Just civilians going to space to do a job for a private company like anyone else working in the private sector. These two women are the very first in a brand new working class. They're average people who are going to space to work for private companies, just like people on Earth have done for millennia.
It makes me so sad to see how your amazing videos aren't getting views while the AI generated slop gets loads of views. Have you looked into hiring a narrator for your videos? While I personally like the way you speak, your accent might be a barrier for the general audience. Just something to think about. Keep up the good work.
Thanks for the comment, I really apreciate it! I'll just keep grinding and trying to improve on each video so the quality gets better and hopefully the views go up! For now I can't hire anybody and I rather do it all myself, but I agree that it could be a good improvement.
They have the same problem as almost all companies: BlackRock is pushing DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) and ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance). It all started with feminism 55 years ago when they decided that if women weren't employed, it was because of sexism. So, we began with quotas, then moved on to intersectionality... and soon, we can forget about meritocracy because being the right gender and the right color becomes more important than being a good engineer. Anyway, if you don't follow the narrative, you won't get money from Wall Street and the banks, so everyone has to display the rainbow logo in June, or else..
I agree that DEI is an important factor, but there is much more to consider. Many companies prioritize DEI as much as Boeing does, yet they don't face the same challenges. In any case, Boeing seems to be doing everything they can to destroy their legacy as quickly as possible. The good news is that others will fill their place and do it better.
Having lived during the last 50 years of space exploration, progress don't look very impressive so far. We would need an incredible acceleration of inovations and investments if we would to put human on Mars in the next 25 years. Then look how hard it is to put humans at the south pole of earth where we need constant resupply from main land, The south pole of earth is a tropical paradise compared to Mars. Self sustainable Mars colony is not going to happen anytime soon. We can't have self sustainable colonies on earth in places where you got plenty of water and unlimited amount of oxigene.
I agree with your statement, and I may be a bit optimistic regarding these topics, but we are also in a period of time where we are going to have a truly revolutionary moment in space exploration (Starship) with enough people aligned with that goal. It's a difficult endeavor, but for the first time, I think we have all the technical capabilities to do it. We only need the will and economic resources.
Have any evidence starship will be $100 per kilo or are just repeating claims from a man that makes outrages claims in order to sell something to someone? As of what has currently been built starship is a 100% reusable launch vehicle to deploy starlink satellites. Current starlink deployment vehicles wastes the stage starlinks are deployed from.
There are reports that estimate the construction costs at about $90M for each whole stack (payload research does a great job at this). Considering that they are reusing the Falcon 9 first stage more than 20 times, it is not crazy to think they will be able to do at least the same for Starship, which would set the costs at $5M per launch (amortization) + operational costs. I don't think that $10M is that difficult to get, considering what they have done with Falcon 9, and that amount would be the 100 $/Kg that I mention. What do you think would be a reasonable price per kilo for Starship?
@HowEverythingW No verifiable payload analog has been launched by Starship, until that is done, no total tonnage can be calculated. The larger the vehicle gets the more fuel it has to use to lift the vehicle itself, making it more expensive. Correct me if I am wrong here, Falcon heavy uses merlin engines and super heavy uses raptors, if correct, how can you even make a comparison? New vehicle, new engines, needs a damn payload analog to test its actual capabilities, not some SpaceX datasheet. Do you buy a tesla based on its specs from the pre order hype or the real world testing?
Almost correct. The key is that no profits can be extracted by the expansion into space. I challenge anyone to come up with a profitable idea that would justify expanding outward. The reason Apollo program succeeded was that the idea of capitalism's supremacy was challenged by the high profile achievements of USSR . The Apollo program, as outstanding as it was, was first and foremost a propaganda piece. Once apollo 11 landed on the moon, and it became clear that the soviets didn't have the rocket to follow, NASA lost its reason for being. However,abandoning the space program would still look bad for capitalism. So NASA was kept alive with minimum funding but now with the implicit knowledge that they were not required to deliver. And precisely because there are no profits to be extracted by expanding into space, no private business had any incentive to achieve anything meaningful, but rather extract as much profit as possible from NASA (who was supposed to be the end user). SpaceX is a very different beast. SpaceX wasn't founded as a profit making company. They had to turn a profit because they live in a capitalist world but profit wasn't their reason for being. It was to fulfill the founder's dream of making humanity an interplanetary species. A far more ambitious goal than turning a profit, and in an organization that couldn't rely on constant government money and because of that an atmosphere of "no bullshit" was established at SpaceX. Of course it wasn't just that. It was also the competence of the Elon, who had a keen eye on who's a real top notch engineer and who was a bullshiter. Something that Bezos doesn't have. But in the end what is needed is for everyone to understand that SpaceX and interplanetary humanity is the "superyacht" of Musk. This may sound like a horrific reason for expanding into space but on closer inspection it's by far the best reason in a capitalist,short-term profit seeking economy. And far superior than a low priority prestige project of various governments who may or may not care about the outcome.
I like your argument but I think there are more variables that affect. I agree that for now extracting profits from space exploration is not easy, but SpaceX has demonstrated that it's possible (Starlink) and there are many other ways to do it (space stations, space telescopes, asteroid mining, space tourism, etc.), and altough I agree that the Apollo missions were mostly a propaganda and a contest against the USSR, they had a positive "return of investment" in terms of technology and knowledge. We are still in the early days of space exploration, it's like saying that the european missions to America wouldn't be profitable 500 years ago. In any case, this is a much wider topic that would require hours of converstion to understand all the nuances, I'm just glad that each day there are more people, institutions and companies involved on it and that we are experiencing all this technological progress.
@@HowEverythingW This is why i talk about space expansion. Meaning going to the moon and/or Mars ->TO STAY<-. To have a family. To live your life. Starlink of course involves space. But the focus is earth and providing a service to people on earth. Starlink doesn't require anyone living in space,and as a business model it's nothing new. Communication satelites were and still are a major space investment. The things you mention (space stations, space telescopes, asteroid mining, space tourism, etc.) none of them are actually profitable now or ever. But even if they were how would they justify space colonization ? If you are a space miner on a 5 year contract,would you chose to start a family there ? Who's gonna pay for all the stuff that have nothing to do extracting profit ? You ? There is another hint you could see that proves my point. How disinterested are the major governments that have a space program that could potentially do these things ? Are they scramming for it ? No. Space,especially crewed flight are a prestige venture. Do you think that Artemis would look like that if they were business interests were expecting profits from the moon ? Is this how the US government prepares to invade or coup foreign countries ? Maybe we'll send two soldiers 20 years from now ? Furthermore ARE YOU interested in space expansion because you expect profits or even a slightly higher standard of living ?...or because it's cool ?
I think their short-term goal is not to get people to Mars. Instead, it is to get TeslaBots and some sort of stripped-down Mars edition of the cybertruck to Mars and get them started building a base and gather resources.
" hard to understand " It is hard because everything is in some ones/AI creation. Please use the known science we have through NASA's years of investigation. Do not be duped. Here is the temperatures on Mars from NASA "The median surface temperature on Mars is -85°F (-65°C). Because the atmosphere is so thin, heat from the Sun easily escapes Mars. Temperatures on the Red Planet range from the 70s°F (20s°C) to -225°F (-153°C). Occasionally, winds on Mars are strong enough to create dust storms that cover much of the planet". I hope you find this helpful.
Hello I've seen your videos. The info u giving is simple awesome.. I can refine ur video with good skilled editings. So that it can reach out to more audience and u can get quick attention from all to be successful.
Thanks for the comment and the offer! I’m sure you would do a better job than I, but I also want to learn and improve myself, so for now I’ll keep editing my videos. I’ll let you know if someday I need some help :)
if a city on EARTH that they are trying to build in saudi arabia has an estimated cost of $2 Trillion its going cost cost a hell of a lot more to build a city on mars.
The Line city in Saudi Arabia is a more ambitious project than the Mars city (and Mars is crazy enough). The cost of a Mars city is immeasurable, but we can start approximating the cost to send the materials there, which is where the $1 trillion comes from. Also, you need to consider the efficiency in spending. SpaceX has built Falcon 9, Heavy, Dragon, Starlink, and Starship with $10 billion of outside investment. The same money in the hands of the California Government would get you around 20 miles of high-speed train, so it also matters who is building and what incentives they have.
@@HowEverythingW I don’t agree the line is more ambitious than a city on MARS. But, I agree that government spending is mental, i’m from the UK and the money spent on hs2 is just insane. I just think that elon has lost a lot of credibility and I struggle to see promises like this becoming reality.
The chat part is too basic, I gave up on it back in September. It took a very long time to learn to get and produce training data and effectively use the playground as it cost money. The arrival of assistance is where I felt the leap. GPT 4 chat is extremely outdated and it is obvious they are laddering it and milking everyone. GPT 5.0 chat should have been out back in February.
We need thousands times more efficient computronium to make "generative netflix" even possible. Generating whole series takes to much flops, modern computers are not advanced enough. Generating gifs and short videos is our limit for now. And who knows if making more efficient chips is even possible. It actually can be found that room-temperature superconductors are impossible at all.
Someday, when Elon Musk's brain chip detects thoughts of resistance or rebellion- AI will red flag you and his Tesla will drive you off a cliff and AI generate video of you saying "I can't take this life anymore!"
