"Space is the one border us humans share. As soon as we get off this planet it's no longer this neighborhood versus that neighborhood, this city versus that city, this state versus that state or this country versus that country. No. It's humans versus the Universe." I really like that. I will definitely use this quote.
There wil be rivalry eventually after space colonies get established a bit like how things turned out in the SyFy seires the Expanse. Humans are stubborn that way.
So glad you took this topic on Tim, I've been giving an ad hoc answer in my Q&A shows, but I think you really put the comprehensive case here. Humans VS the Universe. I don't like the Universe's odds. :-)
@@EntropyConcept That's not my point. I'm saying that's the only area where the two are competing at all, otherwise they either work together or have nothing to do with eachother.
Basically, NASA should be less concerned with how to get somewhere and more about what to do when they get there. Focus budget on exploration rather than launch and propulsion, leave that to private sector.
I just wanted to make a comment about your NASA mission statement. I think most people forget NASA is also a leader in the development of flight. They have had a part in the development of planes such as the F 22 and F/A 18. We need to realize NASA advances flight and space and the research done their affects everything from the memery foam in your bed to the cameras in your smartphone. SpaceX is not at all like NASA, and we should treat it that way. SpaceX is cool and I realize that but NASA does the research that enables SpaceX to do what they do. But anyway Great Video!
Lately they are spending billions to advertise for the superbowl from the ISS. NASA has lost site of its mission. Give their money to someone who deserves it
Stick to what you're best at. While NASA handles the science, Space-X can be taking care of the engineering & the appliance of the science. I'm not saying NASA are bad at engineering, they're not, but there's too much inertia & bureaucracy in the system for them to do it as effectively as Musk does.
This video is great! A lot of people innocently ask us the same question - and we always have to say they're both great and their relationship is a great thing moving forward! Thanks for elucidating it with your growing (Congrats!) following!
Hey man I just want to say I appreciate that you remain genuine even when it comes down to little details like the titles of your videos. I think a selfish, clickbaity youtuber who values views over being genuine wouldn't have included the second part of the title. There is a bunch of people who just put a title that will get clicks and then go on to unfold a video for which there is obviously a much more suitable title. As always, thanks for the fun and informative videos!
I believe that it is a valid statement to say that I like what SpaceX is doing, advancing reusability, lowering prices and mastering new technologies, along with how they handle construction and contracts, better than NASAs equivalence.
I love your videos so much! My parents never got why I was so interested in everything space but you're making space so much more accessible to everyone! It used to be hard to get such in-depth information but now it's easy and looks amazing. Keep up the good stuff
Always love the videos and your enthusiasm for the future manned space flight programs. I remember vividly the day Challenger blew up, I was stationed aboard the USS Nevada SSBN 733 and we were tied to the pier for a missile load out, that day I was on watch below decks and we had both scopes up so that we could all have a look at the launch and believe me it was very clear and close looking through the scopes. Challenger had just lifted off, I stepped away from the con so the next man could take a look and then shortly after the announcement came over the Subs 1mc letting us all know Challenger had a catastrophic failure, I was 18 years old at the time and I remember it felt like I had the wind knocked out of me as was the expression i saw on everyone else's face around me. The Officer of the deck came across the Subs comms following the announcement and asked that the entire crew remove their covers, pause and reflect on the tragic loss we as a nation had just experienced, It was gut wrenching. I remember watching the last moon landing and then the follow on NASA missions, Skylab which we almost lost due to damage on launch then one of the last Apollo Capsules docked with a Russian Soyuz Capsule and for a short time we had a sense of friendship, you see back then we still practiced duck and cover drills in school because the cold war was at it's peak it seemed and almost every public building in my small town in Ohio had a fallout shelter sign on it. Now at age 51 I have a few things I want to say about "NASA". Many people do not realize NASA is not a public sector space program it at the end of the day belongs to the Department of Defense, civilian purposes come secondary. I often wondered if I would be alive for the Moon outposts NASA had promised us all as young kids or if I would ever see Werner Von Braun's Ring in the sky that I had read about in popular science magazines and then one day be able to go to Mars as a tourist as everyone was always talking about us colonizing Mars by the year 2000 with regular flights to and from, seems kind of silly now I guess. True, NASA did accomplish many things and it is also true NASA inspired so many of us to dream and look to the stars but in the end NASA was (JMO) a waste of time. I still love space and SPACEX keeps me hooked as Elon Musk is not just a dreamer he follows through on what he sets out to do. I believe we would have accomplished many of the things I listed if we had just commercialized space in the 70's. NASA operating budget today is 50 million dollars a day, rounded up about 20 billion a year. The culture at NASA is much like the military in that you have allot of bureaucratic red tape and for many years innovation was stymied. Given the amount of money NASA has squandered and I say that because they really have not learned very much when you look at projects like ORION, SLS etc. ORION has much more technology and is almost twice the size of the Apollo Capsule but at the end of the day you still have a capsule and SLS is still a throw away package, not very impressive in my opinion when you consider how young SPACEX is and how very quickly they rose to the top because it was formed as a business and you do not start a business to loose money unlike the government which is in the business of spending and wasting money lolol. I have followed the "MAR's" direct" folks and frankly think they more than most have the best, fastest and most economical approach with technology that has been built here and proven already, people keep saying how dangerous it would be and that the risks are too high and that may be so but there is no lack of courageous explorers highly trained knowing all the risks that are willing to go right now. In fact much of the technology needed we had already in place in 1973. To qualify on a Submarine you must know every system like the back of your hand, it is exhausting to get your dolphins or Submarine qualified, day and night you are studying, setting up interviews and physically touching every component on the Sub getting ready for your board interview, my board was 7hrs long and comprised of 5 crew members conducting the interview. What i do remember is a system we had on board the Sub called CAMS, it was the very same system used on the space shuttles, "CENTRAL AIR MONITORING SYSTEM" every compartment had a hockey puck sized disk that was constantly reporting the air quality in every space and where needed bringing scrubbers, filtration systems and oxygen bleeds online to keep the air perfect, it worked very well. Have any of you ever heard of this project? I spoke with the gentleman heading this up and allot of their technology has been built some proven I have no idea where they are at today but check it out. gatewayspaceport.com/
Everyday Astronaut, you're technically wrong with saying that NASA promised SpaceX 1.6b"before SpaceX had flown their falcon 9 once. They promised 1.6b for completion of milestones. If Spacex hadn't met those milestones, they would not have gotten the money. Similar to Rocketplane Kisler who failed to meet their milestonesr. This also introduces a new contract style. In addition to fixed contract and cost plus contracts, there is are milestone based contracts like COTS and Commercial Crew.
Dear Joe: thank you for clarifying that, I was really confused about that because I don’t follow this stuff all that closely, but I was pretty sure that SpaceX did not get a dump of $1.6 billion for better or worse. Best wishes, Steve
I love your music! So many space themed soundtracks (especially in movies) are so intense, but that always ruins the mood for me. Personally, I imagine traveling through space to be as calm as calm gets (minus the initial launch). Just peaceful drifting through an ocean of silence as the lights the cosmos tell tales of ancient grandure. At least that's how I like to see it, and your music I feel hits the nail on the head.
Talking of early NASA, we need a Crossover between Mark Felton and Tim talking about Wernher von Braun and the whole progress of rocketry from its very beginnings all the way to Apollo 11
Just FYI about the comment near the beginning. The Redstone missile that launched Freedom 7 (and Liberty Bell 7) was an IRBM, not an ICBM. That means "Intermediate Range." It couldn't reach the ~5,000 mile range to be called "Intercontinental." The Atlas, used with the rest of the Mercury flights, and the Titan II, used with the Gemini program, were ICBM's.
Okay Tim, I'll give you this. Your executive decision to break up the video in two parts was really good. I voted for one video but I see now how this is better. Good job!
Thank you!!! I struggled with this decision a lot. It just really seemed too unreasonable to make it that long. This feels right to me, I’m really excited to get the second part edited. I shot them together so at least I’ll be able to get the second one out in a few days already!
Tim, you are fantastic. These two videos are great summaries of complex subjects explained succinctly with honesty and candor. Dont ever think otherwise, as if you ever would. Love it.
Superbly fair question, superbly unfair question! It’s both as they don’t compare but they do, a superb contradiction! NASA’s biggest problem at the moment is they perhaps don’t realise it but they are in transition and they don’t know what type of organisation they should be. Personally I’m convinced they NEED to get out of the space trucking business and let the private companies take over the transportation of the important part. Being the payload whatever that is, be it habitats, infrastructure, moon or Mars bases, space telescopes, rovers, space stations and deep space exploration.
NASA's mission will always evolve. Back when no one knew how to build and launch rockets it made perfect sense for NASA to build and launch rockets. So long as no one is colonizing or mining Mars it makes sense for NASA to robotically explore Mars. In a few hundred years when NASA needs clearence from MASA (Mars Aeronautic and Space Administration) to land there then it's time for NASA to do something other than land robots on Mars.
Problem is Congress won't let them do that. It's all pork-barrell politics. I'm sure NASA would love to just build the science stuff and let SpaceX/whatever be the "space bus" that takes those projects to their destinations, but Congress won't let them do that
One thing I haven't seen mentioned with the cost comparisons. The insurance side of it. Which brings the costs much closer between space x, and ULA. It is way cheaper to insure satellites on ULA Atlas 5 rocket compared to insuring a satellite on a Falcon 9. The atlas has a perfect track record vs the falcon 9's not so perfect track record(downside to constant changes to design). To be clear not picking a side. I love all the activity and competition going on. Just adding that to the conversation. It will also be interesting to see how that changes when ULA switches to the Vulcan rocket with the new Blue Origin engines (BE4 I think).
Wow as an engineer for a company hired by ASML, this sounds all so familiar! Making changes fast (concurrent engineering) is a must in this day and time!
One thing I think that tends to get lost with people when talking about NASA is their in atmosphere stuff, whether it's climate, atmosphere, or aeronautical research. Relatively recently was the announcement of the X-58, the X plane studying quiet sonic booms.
Gwentarino Kripperino - considering that IBM tried _everything in their power_ to go back from PC to proprietary hardware and their stance on software and hardware licensing, I'd say you're wrong.
Its more like China vs everyone else, forward in the days. 2025 almost all the heavy launch-lifting will be done from 747-capable airports, hypersonic air-frames in the boost phase, rockets mostly in the upper stage, China selling the air-frames.
NASA:Experienced father,there to help child Spaced:Curious,super ambitious child,never afraid to try and risk,doing things different than dad,BUT when needed taking his advice
Hey Tim, I would love a video about the ESA! Would be pretty interesting, maybe you can also compare the ESA to the NASA. Have a good one and greetings from Berlin :)
Julius, sad to say, but anything from ESA would be but a cure for insomnia. They are almost irrelevant. I would almost put my money on Russia before the ESA. Is there anybody that loves bureaucracy more than ESA?
What about cross-filling the falcon heavy? They said that the empty mass of the boosters is too low to makes effective the effect of asparagus architecture but in the reusable mod, the boosters AREN'T EMPTY when they detach. So the faster the boosters are, the more fuel they need to land. If they detach two by two keeping the other boosters totally full, they will detach earlier and so they don't need too much fuel.
SpaceX did not include propellant cross feed into FH because it would be really difficult to do, and the performance was already way greater than their original plans needed
Delta IV also studied it. It was easily the highest risk of any potential upgrade path, and the lowest readiness. Not very worthwhile. Falcon Heavy is a niche rocket anyway. I don't anticipate it'll get all that many flights
I have looked at a lot of videos about colonizing the moon & Mars. And I haven't found any with my same ideas. I think we should set up a moon colony on earth. We should have inflatable domes, which we cover with 3D printers with simulated moon mortar. The domes should be connected to each other by inflatable tunnels covered with simulated moon mortar. There should be living quarters, hydroponic green houses, gardens with garden soil for recreational gardening, a 5 acre pasture with one inch of garden soil and one inch of grass turf, a park with artificial turf and with small sections of real grass turf, and maybe even a very small zoo. All the domes will have plastic floors so no water is lost. Condensation forming on the ceilings will be drained into the water supply. All the domes will be blown up with compressed air from earth and will have a refresh system, which will refresh the air and maintain the air pressure. Humidity, Temperature will be maintained by humidifiers, heaters, fans and coolers. Light will be provided by multi-color LEDs, mostly white. Power will be supplied at first by solar power, and later by nuclear or fusion power. All water will be re-cycled, almost zero loss of water. There will be a bull, a cow, two sheep, and two goats, two chickens, two turkeys, two fish, and two rabbits. There will also be pets, two dogs, two cats, two bunnies, etc. (and maybe a small zoo) All of this will be set up by astronauts and robots before the colonist arrive. The first colonist will be 5 fathers and 5 mothers, and 90 babies. The parents will be good parents, gardeners, farmers, zoo keepers, teachers, etc.. During the first two years an exact duplicate facility will be built on the moon. When the babies are two years old, they will move to the moon and live on the moon. Or if it is proven that they will be too young to travel to the moon than the facility on earth will be added to, to accommodate 10 more parents and 90 more babies. The two year olds would move into the new addition. Every two years the facility will be either added to, or 100 people will move to the moon. This plan will allow the kids to grow up in the isolation of the colony, and will make it easier for them to live in the isolation of the colony on the moon. And will allow them to grow up on the moon and be better able to adjust to the lower gravity on the moon, although some artificial gravity maybe eventually provided. This artificial gravity will especially be good for the parents. The kids will have everything in the facility to keep them occupied and entertained. Also they could have some books, movies, games, etc., especially adapted for them, being careful not to give them anything that would make them feel isolated. After 20 years there could be 2000 people living on the moon, most of whom grew up on the moon. This program could be speeded up so in 20 years there could be 4000, 6000, or 8000 people living on the moon. This program could be simultaneously done to colonize Mars so we could have 2000 people on the Moon and Mars at the same time. For the moon we could send supplies every month, but for Mars we could only send supplies every 26 months. So I suggest we send 10, 20, or 30 rockets to Mars every 26 months all at the same time. We could have several refueling stations along the way to mars and orbiting mars so rockets could refuel along the way to mars and right before landing on mars so the empty rocket would have enough fuel to take off again, refuel in space and return to Earth. Eventually the colonist could grow trees, bamboo, and other plants for raw materials that could be used for making things. Eventually the moon and Mars could export minerals or small expensive items that were assembled on the moon or Mars, like jewelry, iphones, iwatches, etc. Or grown on the moon like caviar, marijuana, etc. What do you think ? :-)
It seems like a better question to ask is "is NASA or SpaceX more engaging" which I think currently has a clear answer. Comparing the Apollo era NASA and SpaceX now would be a hard call but, comparing them in the present, SpaceX seems to be massively more engaging and approachable. Time scales are easier for people to follow for SpaceX, progress (including failure) is consistently being shown and the company tries to engage the public directly through the hosted launches.
I just want to point out, Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) is a backronym from the long used Commercial Off The Shelf (COTS), which is an acronym that has been used for a very, very long time within the government vernacular. FYI, the opposite of COTS is GOTS, or Government Off The Shelf. The whole point being, that instead of developing something brand new, you use an already developed system and adapt it to serve your current purpose. COTS being ready to use systems developed by industry with industry funds, and GOTS ready to use systems that were developed specifically for the government using government funds.
Great video and one very important for our time. People need to realize that NASA is a HUGE part of why SpaceX is able to do what it does and that SpaceX is one of several providers that NASA pays to do stuff. I love SpaceX (and NASA and all the other cool space companies), but the 'fan boys' who say things like, "We should just give the whole NASA budget to SpaceX" demonstrate a lack of understanding of what all NASA does. So, thanks for helping to clear that. So, great video, but it could have been a bit shorter I think 11-12 minutes would have been a good duration target.
I'm with you on being a fanboy of all space exploration. I keep in mind all the amazing things the 'Old Guard' has done that SpaceX can't do yet. Like send rovers to Mars. I am torn about the SLS, who wants to spend all that money for nothing if it is cancelled? SLS needs a mission that only it can do to be worthwhile.
I liked the video, and learned a few things/details. But I feel like the next part of this video is what it's really about while this one is for people that don't really know too much about the matter.
This, especially space exploration, shouldn’t be a competition. It’s science and knowledge we are trying to obtain, and that’s not something we should have to fight for. Unless of course they use it for military use. Who knows when
Love them both (and all the innovators and developers in the space - pun intended)! This is an exciting time for those of us that have been starving for more and new space exploration. I will say though, watching SpaceX rockets return to earth and land autonomously is breathtakingly awesome! My 81 year old mother almost cried when I showed her a video of the Falcon Heavy Demo. She said rhetorically, "How is that even possible?", and laughed for ages about the roadster and Spaceman being launched toward Mars (although apparently they missed the mark such that it and he are now in an orbit ostensibly around the sun and earth LOL). She told me of the first time NASA launched a rocket on television, how impossible it seemed and how scary it was to watch at the time. But then when it worked, of the amazement and joy she felt. Of course she had no idea of the goings-on in the realm of space technology and the endeavors being achieved these days because it never makes the mainstream snooze -- I mean, news. They're too wrapped up in Trump hysteria sadly. Thankfully we DO have alternative means these days, even if we do have to hunt for it a bit. Thanks so much for your channel, love what you're doing! Keep up the great work my friend.
FML - 13:29 - Coat of arms of Croatia!!!! someone explain this to me please - whats the meaning of this? if that guy is Croatian, he's our newest national hero! Oh, btw, greetings from Croatia!
Love it Everyday Astronaut , very informative and agree with you about the versus battle. It is all for the benefit of future generations and I am excited to be a witness for the foundation of it all. Love your channel thanks.
basically nasa is better at the science research stuff and spacex is better at making a better launch system which gets better with every iteration, it should be a better solution to combine these attributes and become one where one focuses on the other, can you do a video on whether nasa will still stick to the sls after launching the thing that's so heavy that the falcon heavy can't launch, some people asked why they don't ask spacex to launch a satellite (i think it's james webb) to launch it and it was because of weight issues.
I agree it's not a fair comparison, i.e. NASA vs SpaceX, one has a very broad mission covering almost all aspects of space science as well as aeronautics. The other is a private company that builds and operates launch systems. A fairer comparison would be the United Space Alliance and SpaceX, or Boeing vs SpaceX. It was an interesting take and thanks for putting your views out there :-)
Don't forget the PICA-X Dragon heat shield they derived from the NASA developed PICA heatshield with the help of NASA ;) So not just financial or testing/investigation support, also in some parts development support...
