Blastoff! ULA's Vulcan rocket launches moon lander on first mission 

The mission is in jeopardy, the lander is low on fuel. 🤣🤣🤣

@@silent1967 oh man I just heard, spoke too soon lol, but at least the Vulcan had a fantastic maiden flight

​@@silent1967 the launch was perfect the mission was not

I told everyone from the very beginning. As soon as I heard there was some private company looking to land on the moon I said "it won't make it, no way is anyone but NASA taking pictures on the moon amd beaming them back, they'll never let it happen."

Yeah, in 45 days. Big deal.

And the govt/military will still fly on Vulcan due to this. Maybe less so now that it's owners Boeing and Lockheed are selling ula

@@nuckerball1259 From where? This cost less than the usual price which would be around 112 million. To take the payload you would have been looking at Falcon Heavy most likely which is still close to 100 million there too. Hell Falcon 9 has never gotten anywhere near 30 million a launch as they continue to fleece the tax payers.

The LRO photos of all of the Apollo Sites didn't convince them. Kind of a waste of time to try i think.

They still wouldn't believe it. You could put their butts on the moon and they'd say it was a scam

Yeah, there's NOTHING at all to doubt about the Apollo Moon missions. Nothing at all. Keep your heads down and stop asking questions!!!

​@@georgepoitras3502😂 Apollo claims they went to the Moon and back in 3 days. That's half a million miles at avg speed of 7600mph.... They say this one will get to the moon in 2 weeks! 😂 Space shuttle burnt to a crisp upon re-entry from low Earth orbit yet Apollo popped a cloth parachute! Nobody has been on the moon. And how exactly did they launch the Apollo LANDING module off the moon and get back up to 7600mph? 😂

@@luckyfisher7240thank you for not understanding physics. Made my day.

I mean except for the failure of the lander and likely not reaching the moon and all...

If they buy ula then Vulcans days are numbered.

I don’t mind boeing / Lockheed selling ula, but I don’t want BO to get it. Hoping we can keep ULA separate.

Right!

😂😂😂I agree this looks sooo freakin fake!!!

necrsaily it was a sercity cam with no one recording that cam

Are you 8 years old? It is an animation as there is no camera attached to the last stage.

Welfare to legacy provers? What do you think SpaceX is other than a welfare company? It exists because of the tax payer. Several of these other rockets can carry a larger payload and have been able to do it the first time. Where is Starship? Still shitting the bed on the pad, that is where it is.

AFAIK Vulcan-Centaur is more a competitor for Falcon Heavy than for the Falcon 9. The Falcon series of rockets have excellent mass to LEO (especially for their cost), but their capabilities drop off quickly for further orbits such as geostationary, lunar, or interplanetary. Vulcan-Centaur costs about as much as a Falcon Heavy, and while it has less than half the mass to LEO, it catches up significantly on the further orbits. Additionally, it has a larger payload fairing, which has been *the* limiting factor for the Falcons (especially Falcon Heavy) when it comes to Air Force launches. (Also Dreamchaser I think) Essentially, while it is a bit more expensive, it is still competitive, has capabilities the Falcons cannot provide, and the U.S. wants to have options.

That's just silly.

And only one try.

They had tons of failures with the be4 before strapping it to the Vulcan, same with Merlin. All 33 raptors fired flawlessly full duration last test flight and static fired perfectly about a week ago. Be4 is also a much less impressive engine compared to something more ambitious like raptor

@@nuckerball1259 Yet still can't reach orbit, will never be quickly reused and turned around and launched the same day or from country to country or ANY of those things. Hell they can't even get Starship to land without damage and from low altitude let along set it down on a rough surface on some foreign planet. Other than the snake oil sold by Musk, there is nothing impressive about it at this point.

Hmmm... yes, why indeed do they not share such critical information? Perhaps there are lies to cover up??? Perhaps you are being deceived. I mean, these "missions" are all funded by governments and backed by politicians... nothing suspicious about any of that...right? Nah, right? It's all real. Just keep your head down and stop thinking independently. And definitely don't listen to your fellow man, who once also believed in this nonsense. Yeah, that guy has an agenda. No doubt.

SpaceX has spoiled us with their Falcon 9 telemetry and cameras everywhere.

SpaceX has spoiled us with their Falcon 9 telemetry and cameras everywhere.

Well this is down to 112 million and the heavy is still 100 million with no indication that reusability means much of anything at this point. ULA was able to reduce prices over time on the other platforms while SpaceX still hasn't done that after several hundred successful Falcon 9 launches with this supposedly amazingly cheap reusable rocket. Not to mention it did it on the first launch....

​​​@@jeffhaggarty9879 All true. That said, Falcon-9 is still cheaper to use than it's "competitors." That is largely due to F9 being reusable after many launches. With no real competition, SpaceX has no reason to reduce its prices. I would like to see a booster with nine Raptors replace Falcon-9 in that niche when the current boosters start being retired. They would need separate launch facilities because tge would use different fuels and be somewhat larger. That size booster would also give SX something with which to work out "catch mechanics" with a much smaller blast yield in the event of a crash for any reason.

That being said why does it look like animation, I mean good job but still fake.

the camerea was being pointed up if you didint know 🤓

I was thinking the exact same thing. How EASILY people disregard the Reality of what they are actually witnessing. LOL, but it's SO true that: “It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled.” ... whoever ACTUALLY said that. But just remember, those Lying Liars who "nobody" trusts (Politicians, Governments), are not ALSO lying to us about these specific things (unmentionable due to censorship and the snowflakes' feelings) like this latest trip to the Moon. Because, no man, that stuff's real...because, because it can't be fake. I NEED THIS!!! Don't take away this ONE dream, PLEASE! Smh. And lastly, where are ALL the satellites and telescopes out in "space" that can verify ANY of this in real time??? No? Nothing?? Oh, okay, that makes sense.

That's the new Hypergolic fuel that lights up in space now. 😂😂😂 This is how we can tell this one is FAKE. 😂😂😂

@@theuglytruth8162 Hypergolic fuels have always burned in space.... what's wrong with people like yall. Have neither of you used a telescope?

@@phoenixrising4573 will I be able to use a telescope to view this rover on the near side of the moon starting February 22nd?

@@phoenixrising4573 didn't you see them rockets firing on that little capsule, and didn't even move it. FAKE

All of our endeavors into space are important. ULA had a great launch and a good vehicle to handle some payload on it's way to the moon, no doubt it's doing well. Unscheduled disassembly is a requirement to learn how to build a rocket that we can recover and reuse, not burn up in the atmosphere. We can't work on stopping single use plastics by banning straws but still waste immense resources on rockets. We need to move forward and build reuse technology, that requires testing and sometimes that testing results in failures.

​@@jamesalbanito1317Really? How much has been recovered so far?

@@jamesalbanito1317 We should be Team Space. And avoid fanboyism as some Soccer Fans.

RUD because of a whole new technology testing? worth it

@@BennyKleykens Reusability in the Rocket industry is quite overrated if you add refurbishment costs, as Delta-v losses. This ULA approach, allows ULA to gather data already on commercial missions, and from there attempt to recover some of the sections.

Um actully we're going to the moon with this type of technolgy next year 🤓

What exactly are you trying to say?

Camera views were awesome as well. 🙄🙄

Local 43-year-old Man has Parasocial Relationship with Defense Contractor

Was that before or after Starship failed to reach orbit or have any success of any kind?

Tu es là mon amour Need u so my love Je t adore mon amour and need u so Dwayne chéri U love when i say u are le plus merveilleux chéri cause u are really so beautiful man so manly and so emmotional Dwayne Elliot chéri Je t'aime si fort mon merveilleux amour Serre moi si fort mon merveilleux amour need u so Dwayne chéri Je t adore Dwayne Elliot chéri Kiss u so slowly mon amour its so bright and so sweet Dwayne chéri Tu es le plus merveilleux chéri je le dirai toujours mon amour Je t'aime Dwayne ...

They couldn’t afford that

Why would they do that?

The company is for sale as Boeing and LM know it’s a money losing company.

@rustyshackleford234 why would they put what type of rocket it is on the the side of the rocket?

Yeah I was wondering about that too...

maybe as too not bomb terrain? idk that's what im thinking

It may be required for the SRB's to fall within required SRB separation load specs

@@user-uc6ss2qw9z that makes more sense otherwise they might fling back into the space craft yeah?

This isnt waste of moeny, its making money

Picturing the Count from Sesame Street... Ah ah ah ah!

Oh, why would THAT be important??? I mean, shouldn't we just NOT think and then marvel at being able to see such a site? I mean, why ask any questions, right? After all, all Governments and Politicians around the world are talking about these things... and THEY don't ask those questions. So, it must be legit, right? I mean, next thing you're gonna say is that those "people" are Lying Liars... huh?

… are you serious? It’s CGI to show what’s happening, there isn’t a camera on the top stage as there isn’t much to look at up there.

Maybe next time they could put a camera on top stage to record some images of earth and moon. It would be interesting and almost costless

@@coelhinhodapascoa5712 This is a commercial transportation system, not someone's personal science experiment. The entire flight is visible from the ground up to operational height with binoculars or a telephoto lens, and the satellites are trackable both visibly in the sky for several hour after sunset and before sunrise, and by their radio signals. What value would more cameras add for ULA, or are we thinking this machine should be designed with giving conspiracy theorists something to grinningly shriek 'fake' at as they look at the video o their screen, while the damn thing is visible flying through the sky over their house?

@@coelhinhodapascoa5712 maybe, but in the grand scheme of things it doesn’t really matter. But I guess most Americans want instant gratification so they probably should add a camera.

New Glenn is at least 5 years away from first launch

New glenn supposedly also need to do reentry and landing

@@lusbax2822 stop, its launching within the year or 2.

Elon Musk admitted he had to do some "on the job training" and had zero experience launching rockets, prior to SpaceX. However, I would hesitate to criticize Elon, since he showed a lot of guts, determination and innovation. Sometimes you learn more from failure than success, as a Chinese Fortune Cookie recently reminded me. Before SpaceX, I don't think anyone had Rockets return by making a soft landing on Earth, or on a ship! Elon will be noted for that.

You're comparing oranges to apples. Starship is different than any of these rockets, which utilize already proven technology and they're outdated. Starship is an entirely new concept with entirely new engine designs. In addition, pretty sure Elon isn't the one doing all the engineering, his employees are.

yes

and theres nothing inside besides a lander

You must be joking 💀💀💀💀

What am I joking about, nothing I said is incorrect.@@Zarllos Initially scheduled for a 2020 launch, the program was delayed many years due to problems with the development of the BE-4 engine. Is It built entirely in house? No, 100's of subcontractors so reliability any where in chain is suspect. Any of it reusable No its not. If you bring up the engines will be, that's a joke catching them with a Helo. Space X tried that with faring halves and a large net, how did that work out for them? LOL The moved locations of hardware so the now are fished from the water. If this rocket ever has a reusable piece it will be maybe in a decade that it happens. Now on to cost over runs. You think because it was delayed their has not been addition costs, your mistaken. The overruns are there, and where does the government get their money? Its not from selling a product it through taxes, tax payers foot the bill.

Speaking of late, over budget, government contractors...is Starship ever going to fly?? Try again, Muskrat...

@@jamesk641 space x also uses government funding so why you cheering space x if you’re crying over government funding . New Glenn is gonna be launching this year . Blue origin litteraly strives for quality while space x rushes . How do I know this ? I have worked at space x and blue origin

@@codymoe4986SpaceX has done more in the short time they’ve been operational and at lower cost than NASA. NASA is too bloated. Any change needs a committee for every little thing. This leads to cost and delays. Not making any part of this reusable in this day and age is just wasteful.

Ok you may be right.... they really shouldve done a test flight before doing this.

I hear a Muskrat squeak, but it carries no weight...as per usual...

relax bucko

It launched at 2am, cameras use LIGHT to take video. Of course it’s not gonna look good.

no, the lander never made it there.

It was being pointed up if you didnt know 🤓

Yeah, and where are ALL the photos of ALL the previous Moon landing sites??? Or the "satellites" covering this mission "live?" Oh, is that too much to ask? Okay, I'll just put my head back down and stop asking questions.

@@earthmancometh7416I could literally teleport your butt to the lunar landing site and you’d still say it isn’t real.

@@rustyshackleford234 And yet you "literally" couldn't do that... nor can anyone ever get to the Moon you see in our sky. It's. Not. Possible. Sorry to take away your ball, little boy. But THAT is reality.

no it was just the lander, not the entire rocket

It's a vastly smaller rocket than Saturn v so it takes more time to reach the moon

They literally explain why in the stream. It’s to test the technology in the lander. Also the Russian lander that crashed took the short route. And the Indian lander that successfully landed took the extremely long route.

@@rustyshackleford234 and in July of 1969 we sent two men down to the surface of the moon on a lander and it worked. Actually worked 6 times counting all Apollo missions.

@@WiilyDerbbinphlatte guess what they did before that? THEY TESTED THE LANDER IN ORBIT AROUND THE MOON. This is this lander’s first ever time being launched so they want to make sure everything works properly.

@@WiilyDerbbinphlatte The answer is in your question: That was 55 years ago. Every engineer who worked on the design and the construction of those landers is long retired. The knowledge to do this isn't just reading a text book, you know? And Apollo had 3 crew o it - it had to get there and back in time for the life support, food, and toilet bags not to give out, and burned as much fuel as needed to do so, on a faster but less efficient path. This is an unmanned lander. It can take much longer, follow a slower course that needs less fuel, and so makes the whole thing less expensive.

It was a private space company, lunatic. Had NOTHING to do with joe. Now the rocket will have had a lot of tax payers money over the years make it into that product and it worked flawlessly and delivered the payload exactly where it needed to be. What a moron...

Did US launch this? no. Did a US company launch this? yes.

@@CanadianPacific1293Fan Are you goofy or what ?

It's a rocket launch. It's visible for, like, 500 miles in every direction, all the way up to operational height. As for the satellites... I satellite spot. I catch a few every clear night, where they're predicted to be. I've done triangulation measurements ( via scale drawing, or using simple trig) with the help of friends or relatives a few hundred km away, and measured these object’s heights and groundpeeds - these always come out as hundreds of km and km per second respectively. I've caught a couple of the bigger, lower altitude ones (including the ISS) through my telescope and they look as expected. And, getting a bit more technical, I used a radio set and a directional antenna to follow the signals produced by several of them, across the sky, so they are definitely machines in communication with the ground. All the above is repeatable by anyone, has been many times. Don't take my word for it, go out and try it. .

wdym

found the bot

If you think rockets are fake you need to get off the internet and stop spreading misinformation and dumbing down the new generations EVEN MORE.

With respect, the launch is visible for 500 miles in every direction, all the way up to operational height, using binoculars, telescopes or telephoto lenses. And there are literally thousands of people who do so with every launch. It's a hobby. Then the satellites... I satellite spot. I catch a few every clear night, where they're predicted to be. I've done triangulation measurements ( via scale drawing, or using simple trig) with the help of friends or relatives a few hundred km away, and measured these object’s heights and groundpeeds - these always come out as hundreds of km and km per second respectively. I've caught a couple of the bigger, lower altitude ones (including the ISS) through my telescope and they look as expected. And, getting a bit more technical, I used a radio set and a directional antenna to follow the signals produced by several of them, across the sky, so they are definitely machines in communication with the ground. All the above is repeatable by anyone, has been many times. Don't take my word for it, go out and try it.

You first

Why are you worried about that when planes are worse and there are a few thousand airplane flights each year. We need to stop using planes.

So real!