Why SpaceX and NASA Rockets Are So Different

Поделиться
HTML-код
  • Опубликовано: 3 дек 2024

Комментарии • 29

  • @OZtwo
    @OZtwo 21 час назад +18

    Very simple: NASA rockets are over 30 years old whereas SpaceX are still developing new rockets.

    • @KamalaChameleon
      @KamalaChameleon 13 часов назад +4

      Yeah.. even SLS is basically just a bunch of shuttle LEGOs rearranged.. and it's so expensive because they gotta restart entire factories just to make all the old crap function

    • @axidhaus
      @axidhaus 4 часа назад

      NASA was founded by a NASI member and space X wasn’t

    • @WernerRachtman
      @WernerRachtman 2 часа назад

      What kinda boosters does the new glenn have?

  • @blakewilliams3702
    @blakewilliams3702 18 часов назад +12

    Private vs Government…..no comparison.

  • @jeffgrundy7258
    @jeffgrundy7258 20 часов назад +6

    So your premise is that NASA makes rockets more durable than SpaceX's rockets because NASA's rockets go into deep space. This is factually incorrect. The SLS almost entirely falls back into the atmosphere and is destroyed minutes after launch.

    • @TheBooban
      @TheBooban 17 часов назад +1

      This video was completely dumb and illogical.

    • @goldgamercommenting2990
      @goldgamercommenting2990 17 часов назад +1

      NASA also does make their own satellites for deep space missions like Europa clipper
      That’s one of the reasons SpaceX has falcon heavy, it’s certainly one of the many reasons why governments and private companies need such a vehicle since starship is still at its infancy.
      That’s why I like both, NASA with historical backgrounds and the superb probe and satellite production and SpaceX to provide the vehicle. Put them together, we have a SUPERIOR ALLIANCE!

  • @billsauer3164
    @billsauer3164 13 часов назад +1

    There's 10 and a half minutes of my life I will never get back

  • @JizzWrld
    @JizzWrld 20 часов назад +4

    The ai is crazy now

  • @goldgamercommenting2990
    @goldgamercommenting2990 17 часов назад +2

    The thumbnail is sorta off with the SLS’s 4 RS-25s
    The original concept had 5 but was reduce to 4 due to of course money

  • @giminai8000
    @giminai8000 12 часов назад

    1:59 hmm that looks like the Delta 2 rocket that exploded on GPSIII because if you look at the SRB on the far right you can see what i think is a large crack going up the length of the casing of the SRB

  • @alexhanna3921
    @alexhanna3921 5 часов назад

    It has to do with the trickle down of technology. NASA gets funding to experiment with military hardware, its initial purpose is is delivery of a weapons system. The exotic materials are for other reasons than simply putting humans into space. The g force envelope is entirely different, humans aren’t the final payload.

  • @JMBailey73
    @JMBailey73 14 часов назад

    Nothing can justify the costs!

  • @ajsooklal
    @ajsooklal 3 часа назад

    0:35 shows Rocket Labs Electron Rocket when he says SLS

  • @cormakorma
    @cormakorma День назад +3

    NASA or SpaceX? 👇

  • @ronin2963
    @ronin2963 13 часов назад

    No!

  • @jessebonds1014
    @jessebonds1014 Час назад

    Nasa has its moments, but let's be real... nasa has become a joke when building rockets.. It's a money grab... and it said in this video.. Elon puts more rocket engines so that if one fails, it's ok.. hell, several can fail.. but Nasa has three rocket engines. If one fails, the whole rocket fails spectacularly, lol😂

  • @JMBailey73
    @JMBailey73 14 часов назад

    I call bs!