@ 9:15 *"Bezos' Blue Origin has far fewer launches than Musk's SpaceX..."* Yep. Since its founding in 2002, SpaceX has had over 300 successful launches to orbit. Blue Origin, on the other hand, which began operation 18 months *before* SpaceX... has had ZERO. Heck, BO still hasn't even *tried* to reach orbit. But 60 Minutes fails to even mention that little detail.
It really sucks. Because it shouldn’t be like this. But 60 minutes is becoming more and more biased. 60 minutes mentioned nothing about SpaceX was not expecting orbit on the first launch and were only hoping for orbit on the second launch. 60 minutes makes it sound like they just can’t figure it out. NO! They are DAMN CLOSE!
Blue Origin began as a think tank. Despite being around for over 20 years, it is only in the past 10 years that they have started working toward orbital operation. Even then Blue Origin only started to significantly expand their workforce and facilities in the past 5 or so years.
It's too bad that SpaceX didn't respond back and make this an opportunity to highlight what they're doing. All those shiny graphics could have been SpaceX telling the story, but since Blue Origin picked up the call they got the exclusive interview instead.
@@ryanclark2289 It is surprisingly hard to explain SpaceX's philosophy of allowing launches to fail and not feeling so bad about it. They certainly test these things on the ground and with simulations, just like NASA does. They certainly don't like it when things fail and blow up. The difference comes down to how bad they feel about the explosions. NASA is worried about its public funding and the public doesn't like seeing their rockets blow up. SpaceX is not directly funded by the public (indirectly through NASA contracts) so they don't mind them as much. Try explaining all that in the 60 Minutes format.
Musk can't get his Starship ready by the deadline because of the number of launches in his action plan. No one is gonna wait for an egotistical Billionaire to play with blowing up rockets. Real professionals use engineering for design. Elon uses fireworks.
This seems more like a hit piece to discredit Nasa & SpaceX's brilliant work, leaving out important details about how their development cycles operate and distorting information to paint a bad picture of both organisations.
Or your giving them too much credit for to little results. Either way, without starship the moon is not possible. Considering Musk is a wild card that can not or will not keep his more vulgar, radical, and borderline delusional thoughts to himself, is enough in my book to think considering others for this contract is not only the smartest think to do, but required. Most PHDs is the field say of Musk actions recently. He is a man in crisis and may be having a breakdown. Either way a backup plan is needed.
@@ChatGPT1111Yeah but neither Rockwell or United Space Alliance OWNED the Space Shuttles. They are contractors. Credit goes to who owns and operates the vehicles and that would be NASA, which is not a US “company.”
very deceptive reporting. I thought 60minutes was better than that. you cant just say "spaceX rockets keep blowing up" and then not explain that's actually their strategy. its called iterative design and rapid prototyping. you failed to mention they are manufacturing those rockets hundreds of times faster than anyone has ever been able to build a rocket even half that size. they build, they test, they improve they build again. they don't waste time trying to think of every possible scenario on the first iteration, they let the real world show them what they need to account for.
It's a different mindset, the Artimis is too big to fail, it has to work for every flight. Space X iterates quickly and learns from each launch, which at this point are experimental test flights. The writing is on the wall, the SLS will eventually be quietly shelved, and commercial operators will take over. The game changer was reusability, a totally new way of thinking from NASA's approach.
@@Henrique-hl3xk times ten equals 100% of the Artemis…of course is there any real value repeating what was accomplished 60 years ago. It seems more a matter of pride and it does get down to finding a potable source of water and it will likely need robotics to do that and much of everything else.
@zaurakdigis no issue whatsoever. It costs less for those 10 launches than a single launch of the alternatives. And you have a few benefits on top of that like having all that infrastructure in orbit now as well as reducing mission risk by spreading it out into individual launches
Does 60 minutes read their comments on RUclips? Seriously, this is how your audience feels. The content you put out these days omits key details that would properly report the information you are putting out. For example, you omitted that SpaceX rockets blowing up are completely expected. They need to rapidly test their Starship rocket but are being delayed by government agencies. They literally can’t complete testing without these approvals. They operate completely different than NASA. Instead this video comes across as a hit piece on SpaceX and NASA. It’s ridiculous. There’s no need to just be negative. Focus on accuracy and completeness.
IMHO, it's because SpaceX snubbed the request for an interview, whereas BO welcomed them with open arms...SpaceX needs to be as welcoming so they can tell their side of the story.
60 minutes is designed to make you think. They know that they leave stuff out, its the point of the show. Its to make the viewer push pack and think. You are half way there.
@@mohare134 When what you say is going to be bent to fit a narrative, why give an interview? They’ll omit any part of your interview that doesn’t fit their narrative.
Blue Origin is making a small lander, but spaceX is trying to make and entire vehicle to do so. I don't think the NASA director was bad mouthing them, he was being truthful in saying that starship is really cool, but when it comes to having a crew safely fly it and come back they're quite far from that capability
@@diverman1023 I think the NASA director is pretty p*ssed at Musk for stating that Spacex HLS is 5 years away. That is way outside of their contractual deadlines and blowing up rockets and devastating environmentally protected areas meanwhile isn't a good look for your main customer. Meanwhile Blue Origin are also developing an entire vehicle to take their own lander to the moon and i imagine chomping on the bit to demonstrate that the Artemis 5 HLS can get their first.
There's the hip startup approach of having a lot of spectacular launch failures to iteratively learn while also putting on a good show, and then there's the more formal approach of hiring a bunch of guys with PhDs who wear suits and take their time but when they finally launch it somehow doesn't blow up. The first describes spaceX, while the latter describes most NASA contractors, ArianeEscape and Blue Origin. I wouldn't be surprised is their first attempt is a success when it happens, the # of launches shouldn't be too disparaging
@@JWSPEED This is all hogwash.. No one ever said that landing an orbital class booster was "impossible." In fact, The Space Shuttle was an Orbital Class Spacecraft that was landed and re-used. the DC-X demonstrated a propulsive landing decades before Falcon 9.
@@ifldiscovery8500 Starship has made it to orbit more times then Blue Origin has sent any rocket to orbit. If anything is a scam, its Blue Origin. Lmao
@@dewboy2005 Congratulations you sent empty cannister to space to fail all procedures from after deorbating and blow up. Congrats you wasted 12 prototypes and 3 billion in tax payers money. Blue Origin atleast has proven concept for Artemis 3 unlike Spacex. Imagine if Apollo project blew up 12 times and wasted 12 billion dollars....... we would have been to the moon, NASA would have been shutdown.
@@dewboy2005falcon 9 isn’t starship, neither is Falcon heavy. Starship has blown up all but 3 times on impact with the landing pad or earlier, and has only been undamaged once, sn-15 I believe.
Did... did you miss the part where Starship is still in it's R&D phase? Neither of it's launches were contracted missions, they were just hardware tests for further development. Neither had payloads.
Exactly! And I already see all these bezos gobblers in here talking about how great the "reusable" shuttle was and how spaceX is not a special pioneer......
Wait so you’re telling me you have one government entity holding space x up making them do sound tests on seals, then you have another government entity saying it’s taking too long?
This story by 60 Minutes distorted the story of what is really going on. The FAA may have delayed the second flight of the second starship flight, but it did make a mess of area at the launch pad and did have a RUD on the flight. So the problems with all that had to be looked at by the FAA. In addition Space X was very busy after ITF-1 getting stage 0 upgraded and preparing starship to improve on starship's performance. And if course Fish and Game also played in oversight since the launch pad sits next to a protected nature preserve. The FAA has not played a role at all in delaying ITF-3 as that is imminent and besides Space X was busy getting ready. The w WDR aborts slowed them down a bit for one.
You're implying that each and every launch of the many which is needed for each mission will cost $4.4 billion, but he was *specifically* talking about SLS. Starship and New Glenn both cost a tiny fraction of that.
@@xrfa7422 and Ukraine is a money laundering scam on the US tax payer and is burning through decades worth of NASA's budget every few months! Which is worse?!?
@ShockwaveAviation You do realise Elon Musk has little to do with Boca? You've heard the name Shotwell before? Yes? It's basic logic, by the way, particularly after the sucessful test goals reached by IFT3 on Thursday. It makes Zero sense to continue with SLS. It's like scrapping and then building a brand new Boeing after each flight. It's laughable how many fools can't comprehend this!
@@Hiram1000 You say it's stupid to go with SLS? Only SLS is the vehicle that is human-rated spacecraft that's capable of putting humans to moon. Starship is not reliable now. Who knows if it suddenly blow off and it doesn't even have an escape system if something goes wrong. Starship can only replace SLS when it will be human-rated, and that's gonna be many years later.
@@violety_indigo52 Why do people continue to comment on subjects about which they know little? Where do Americans receive their basic news or information from? TicTok? SLS means Space Launch System. The Orion Capsule, which can sit on top, is rated for the moon. That Capsule can sit on any vehicle. What you don't seem to understand is that SLS is NOT REUSABLE! One launch, it's gone. That means, before it even launches, it's already behind Spacex's super heavy. Christ, you could even fit Orion on a Falcon 9 and STILL be better than SLS. What you, and many others, refuse to comprehend is that Super Heavy and Starship are TEST Vehicles. They are expected to fail. That's how engineering works. Spacex have the money and freedom to test and build quickly and openly. That's why, to laymen, it APPEARS that they are constantly in trouble and, of course, for Click Bait, the lazy press pushes this agenda in order to get clicks for revenue. It's that simple. Come back to your comment in a year. Trust me, SLS will still be sitting in a tall shed while Starship will be well on the way to being certified.
We must ask ourselves whenever we consume information nowadays "what does this story WANT me to feel/believe?" I think this is a hit piece on space exploration. Something that is vital for humanities survival
This was a well done piece. SpaceX should have provided comment, but likely didn't want to since they don't have anything to say .. other than .. Yea we lied about 2025.
@@markvolstad9380 nope, there was no real success parameter on the first test other than clearing the launch tower, the fact that you deny this and make up a fictional narrative in your head instead is worrying, you should visit a doctor.
This is horrible journalism. Your claiming SpaceX has failed and is not speeding up it starship program, but you never state the fact of why they could only launch a couple times a year if anything it’s bureaucracy, slowing the acceleration of space flight.
Wrong. You cannot launch in a storm, rainy-windy conditions or when the trajectory would be compromised. Our earth is constantly in motion and the planned launch depends on thousands of calculations - not on red tape. Look it up instead of making silly comments based on garbage you hear on Fox. Also, look at Nasa.gov and ask Neil Degrasse Tyson or brian cox.
@@ErinP123 - Not the goal, no. But it was fully expected. Its called iterative design and rapid prototyping. They are manufacturing those rockets hundreds of times faster than anyone has ever been able to build a rocket even half that size. They build, they test, they improve, they build again. They don't waste time (and money) trying to think of every possible scenario on the first iteration, they let the real world show them what they need to account for.
Context is missing. The video leans into past narratives. Starship launches were test flights and essentially expected failures with which to learn from.
Of course they were test flights, but SpaceX fully intended for them to succeed. They didn't. The Saturn V was developed over a shorter period of time and never suffered a "rapid unscheduled disassembly".
@@markvolstad9380 saturn V did have a lot more money and people spent on it though. order of magnitude more. and its not like it didn't have issues - they were just not critical to the mission.
@@markvolstad9380 they didn’t, if your brain can’t handle real world testing, you should probably stop having opinions on things you have no knowledge of or interest in.
@@markvolstad9380Wrong! Plenty of prototypes for the Saturn five exploded. You can use Google to get information. You don’t have to just blindly spit out inaccuracies.
SpaceX is in the testing phase. They are taking a rapid development which will have these RUDs. That said, both test flights of Starship met all their major objectives. The biggest thing slowing Starship development is the FAA and environmental groups suing SpaceX. If you look at the success of the Falcon 9, then you can expect Starship to be the just as reliable.
Why is SpaceX so far ahead of everyone? They learn faster than their competitors. Why you hear them cheering when they make mistakes. They cheer because they learn and move on to the next problem. Yesterday SpaceX launched two separate vehicles and docked with the space station. What did the others do... The bottom line is the faster they find and solve problems, the faster they go. Someone needs to go to Elon and ask him why he knows he will make it to Mars first. He has vision and does it not to make money but because it is the right thing to do. He can answer the why when you talk to him.
Blue Origin "definitely" did not pay for the interview (wink) - This reporter is the type of person who is the reason why we don't progress forward with science and technology
Horrible video. Unsubscribed. And urge people to do the same. This isn't the first time 60 Minutes has done very poor research on a topic. Seems like just an attack on SpaceX and Elon Musk. P.S. 2:20 - $4.2 bln is the cost of the Artemis 1 mission, not the cost of launching an SLS rocket. The first mission is always expensive and the next missions will cost far less than that.
I’m pretty sure the SLS itself doesn’t cost $4 Billion to build, but it’s still not cheap, and even worse not reusable. Even if Starship’s operating costs are double or triple Musk’s stated estimates it’s still way cheaper than SLS.
Artemis 3 which is the first Lunar landing will cost far more than $4.2B. Including HLS and spacesuits it will be around $50B depending on how you allocate development expenses. The following launches will cost more than $4.2B for each SLS mission but that does include $1B for the Orion capsule which is an integral part of SLS. To that needs to be added about $1B for each HLS lander. Note that these costs are for one mission per year and go up if there are years between each mission.
The report said that SpaceX's Falcon Rocket had an excellent track record with 96 launches, but that the Starship has blown up two out of two times. All that is factual. How does that add up to anti-SpaceX bias?
@@brianarbenz1329 they say it as if those failures were unexpected and hindering to progress whereas they far surpassed their expectations of their respective testing campaigns. Hell, most people (including me) thought the first few would explode on the pad at ignition.
@@gutluckbro9802they are supposed to bring people to the moon in two years and they are still blowing up in testing. It's not prepared, they are behind. That's what this report is about. Simple reading comprehension goes a long way.
There is a Chrome extension that will show you the number of downvotes a video gets (like YT used to do prior to 2021). As of this comment, this video has 2.9K up, and 4.9K down.
Interesting how they remarked on starship not getting to orbit yet as a big concern but when they talk about blue origin “it’s the future” cmon 😂 you just hate musk admit it and move on
I lose more respect for 60 Minutes' "journalism" with each passing week. It makes you wonder just how selective they were with their facts decades ago when people just blindly believed what they said.
The Funding they wasted on Artemis would have been better spent invested in SpaceX to expedite their Starship program and you would have moon shot capacity at a fraction of the price..
Of the three.. ONLY SLS can deliver a payload and crew of 4 to Lunar orbit with crew safety systems (launch abort). Starship and Blue Origin have nothing to protect a crew.
@@ericmatthews8497 SpaceX haven't got Starship to orbit yet if they had a ship ready to go to the moon i am pretty sure it would have all the bells and whistles.
@@bobdillon1138 Starship needs so much more than "bells and whistles." SpaceX needs to demonstrate daily launches to a low Earth Orbit cryogenic fuel depot. With the Earth spinning below it, there will be tight launch windows to enable the rendezvous, and that will run against Flight hardware problems, Ground hardware problems, and Weather. It remains to be seen if orbital refueling is even possible .. let alone practical. If this fails, there is no Plan B. If this fails .. Starship fails.
@@markvolstad9380 Why play their games when they just omit information so blatantly like they’ve done in this piece? If SpaceX does an interview or replies they can just omit whatever parts don’t suit their narrative.
@@ScentlessSun More likely ... They didn't want to admit on camera that they lied about 2025. SpaceX got the contract with a lot of SHADY insider help from an interim NASA administrator. .. who now conveniently works at SpaceX.
Funfact: if Earth had only been 10% heavier, rocketry would have been pretty much impossible to leave our atmosphere. So imagine an intelligent civilization somewhere out there, on a planet slightly heavier than ours... they would have to be more ingenious to get into orbit (slingshot machines, or electromagnetic railguns, space elevators).
Bull Crap! Only 10% larger would not have stoped even a 2 stage rocket from achieving orbit. It would have lower payload capacity to the orbit of a larger planet.. but it is still 100% feasible.
How does that make any sense? If a rocket can carry 50 tons to orbit, gravity being only 10% greater makes that almost impossible? How is it not just marginally harder? Edit: Spelling
@@markvolstad9380only if you understood the engineering principles behind learning from failure... SpaceX reduced the cost of going to space thousands of times, and the starship will be successful because the best engineers in the world are in spacex, if you've seen the yesterday's launch you saw That this approach works
Shame on CBS for this. SpaceX purposely blew up their rockets as the test was complete. The way they made it seem like the Starship is dangerous is sad. Blue Origin can't even get to space lol.
Why didn't 60 minutes go after the SLS other than stating the cost? Why didn't they talk about the wet kisses in the SLS contract to reuse space shuttle suppliers? And that those 10 launches from SpaceX cost the same as one launch of the SLS. SpaceX's lander it's pretty nuts, but nothing is nuts as the SLS.
I didn't get the impression that 60 Minutes understood their own subject when they made this piece. After emphasizing the bloated cost of NASA's Artemis, I was expecting them to point out how Space X by contrast is cheaper, better, and faster than NASA at building and launching rockets, but instead they seemed to absurdly suggest that Space X was 'holding back' NASA from getting to the moon quicker. That, and putting Blue Origin on par with Space X made we wonder whose back pocket dictated the narrative of this odd story, assuming the writers really aren't this clueless about the state of the modern space industry.
This is a really strange video and proof you can create any message by selecting snippets of information. Poor play 60 minutes, you're not fooling anyone who is knowledgeable.
To be fair spacex starship is still in prototype form. They still need to do ift3 tests and get the data to refine ift4. You can't learn without Rockets in the sky. SpaceX has proven to be a hardware company and it will get starship in space.
IFT-3 will happen in 2 weeks probably and there is a high chance it gets to orbit. On the other hand.. Blue Origin has only JUST put a prototype new glenn vertical for the first time. Would you rather a lander that doesn't exist right now or a lander thats launching every 4 months ish?
Funny how a SpaceX competitor, BO, gives a fairer assessment of Starship HLS and SpaceX than 60 mins. Your coverage of SpaceX and the Starship program and Starship HLS is incredibly unfair and reeks with bias. Just for starters, you mention that Starship blew up with a quippy little line that sounds like it was written by a college intern, but you somehow find it imprudent to tell the listener WHY that happened and the implications of such. Something that would only take a sentence or two. Just incredibly dishonest "reporting". I wouldn't be surprised to learn that a competitor had paid for this coverage.
Yeah they had to say "again" when instead it was the most successful launch of starship yet. If starship hadn't gotten off course, it would have made it to its target.
Both the Spacex and Blue Origin landers look quite top heavy. Based on recent events on the moon, I would suggest they both contract with Hasbro for their Weebles technology secrets.
I don’t know why everyone is pissy about the timetable. Apollo took 9 years from creation to launch with almost 5% of the entire federal budget at the time. Artemis is about 6 years in with only 0.5% of the budget (note not all that money goes to Artemis it goes to NASA as a whole)
I remember watching an episode of Penn and Teller 15+ years ago called 'why NASA is BS' and it featured Elon; Penn and Teller were more accurate in the 2000s than 60 minutes is today.
I've always been a big, enthusiastic supporter of space exploration, and humans being an participating element. I grew up watching the Apollo Moon missions and before that. Now, however, I've become more concerned about the looming environmental crisis here on Earth. At the same time, I think we ought to continue exploring space through less expensive, and more scientific returns on such investments. If we advance out into the larger universe having a better, more environmentally sustainable way, then these other goals won't be so at odds with the social, political, and economical challenges we now face.
Should point out that the Apollo program, adjusted for inflation, cost $257 billion in 2020 dollars. Spread out over 14 missions, that gives a mean cost of about $18.36 billion per mission (Wikipedia gives a value of $1.23 billion in 2019 dollars for just each Saturn V's launch). In any case, in my opinion, the root of the problem of the $600 million is the huge consolidated defense contractors building SLS/Orion (Boeing, Airbus, Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman) operating in this shareholder-first, profit-above-all business environment and overcharging NASA, while NASA's purse string holders on Capitol Hill get lobbied to maintain the corrupt, wasteful practice of cost-plus contracting instead of fixed-cost (I do hope SpaceX and Blue, being space-focused, mitigate this somewhat, but there are signs they're limiting data sharing with NASA and the public, and I find that a bit troubling)
@@Dre2Dee2it's not that 1960s technology was better, it's that 1960s technology was dangerously unsafe by today's standards. Almost every Apollo mission resulted in near death for the astronauts. Apollo 1 did result in death after the crew module caught fire on the launchpad. There's no way that stuff would fly today (pun not intended). The space shuttle was banned from flying after it exploded twice (killing seven astronauts) and that thing was way safer than Apollo. Apollo was also far too expensive. That's why Congress shut it down. We could have been back on the moon years ago if we were willing to spend that much money again but without the looming threat of the Soviet Union there was no point. Now China says they're going to the moon and suddenly NASA wants to go back again. I wonder why. This time it will be a lot cheaper though. During the 60s NASA was getting 4% of the GDP in funding. Now they're only getting 0.3% and that has to be split between going back to the moon and launching spy satellites amongst other things.
@@Souljourney22 not elon fanboys, but space enjoyers. people interested in space know a lot more about this than a youtube commenter on an incorrect video
@@duckvs.chipanddale585 Brotha it's obvious you are still clueless. If you knew anything about the real history that has been hidden. You would know why a manned mission hasn't happened in over 50 years. I suggest you do some research unaware citizen. "Truths protective layers." - N. Armstrong
I have been a nut about space exploration since I was 12 and that was 50 years ago. New coverage of the programs have all followed the same pattern. When the program (Apollo, Skylab, Shuttle, ISS and now Artemis) is first announced, the press write about what a fantastic thing it will be. Then comes the grumbling about how expensive it is and how NASA is behind and overbudget and "should we even be doing this?" Then when it launches, they write about what an amazing thing it is. The carping about the Shuttle program was endless until about two weeks before the first launch and then, overnight, the coverage was all about what a fantastic thing this will be. The press had a field day when the Hubble Space Telescope first had poor optics, (which was the fault of the Department of Defense, who refused to allow NASA to double check the mirror which was then considered a top secret process), and Hubble has now proven to be one of the greatest achievements in the history of Astronomy. This 60 Minute story follows the pattern exactly. As much as Elon Musk appears to be loosing his marbles, SpaceX has proven the nay-sayers wrong every time and I, for one, have confidence they will sort out the Starship the same way they sorted out the Falcon-9.
Actually, Starship is likely to be the first part of Artemis that will be ready for the Moon. Everything else will be delayed and cost-overrun, but they will blame it on SpaceX.
Yeah they focused on the booster that every company before has discarded in the ocean. Starship went off course but would have made it, just not exactly where it was supposed to.
Ship 25 would've actually made it to the coast phase (SECO) if the engineers didn't vent the remaining fuel from the tanks, which unfortunately caused an engine fire which in turn resulted in the RUD of the vehicle.
@@duckvs.chipanddale585 yes, the booster blew up because they were venting access fuel because they didn't burn enough due to not having a payload. So what happened to starship?
I love how everyone you guys interview speaks so highly of SpaceX and 60 minutes can't do anything except talk about "explosions" of the incredible starship.......
I don't understand the money problem. Us government just prints money anyway so what's the problem. Oh wait the problem is who gets insanity rich off of this project while explaining to everyone why we need to tax you more
Saying the 2 starship launches so far ended the same way in a RUD was silly. The 2nd flight performed successful stage separation and made it to space, and introduced many upgrades and both flights proved out a multitude of systems and provided much needed flight performance data to validate against models. They make it sound like no progress was made and no changes were made between flights. ! Still good to see the news reporting on the space program. The inaccuracies of this article will soon fade into obscurity. Starship is the beginning of a new era in space travel - the real space age where fully reusable starships help ,make mankind a multi planet species. And the costly single use expendable vehicles of the past will seem like the horse and cart in the era of automobiles.
First all female crew in space… Artemis: Houston, we have a problem. Houston: Copy, Artemis. What’s the problem? Artemis: Nothing. It’s fine…I SAID IT’S FINE.
It's sad and bewildering that this country was sending people to the moon almost regularly over 50 years ago and yet now it's a "challenge". We should have colonies on Mars by now. Maybe they shouldn't have spent decades doing science fair experiments on the "space shuttle".
The massive technological innovations that have come from space exploration which have changed the way of life of everyone on the planet for the better isn't enough?
@@jiggyv6139 Wrong. The point is, we are vulnerable. Remember what happened to the dinosaurs? Every day, we are just one asteroid strike away from being wiped out entirely. Until we are a multi-planet species, we are in danger of extinction. THAT'S the point.
Water has been spotted on the south pole of the moon. Setting a base on the moon would mean farther space exploration such as Mars. Also it could lead mining astroids in our solar system or even Saturn. But we probably won't be alive for that but this is all part of future planning
This is a misleading framing of the situation. They pretend as if Blue Origin isn't entirely in the pie in the sky phase. Then they're super critical of Spacex ignoring that Spacex's development process essentially achieved what the Space Shuttle intended to do and failed miserably at of driving down the cost of regular launches by foregoing NASA's slow development process.
How are you guys saying they would go with blue origins lander so soon? They have never launched or tested it. Plus new Glenn isn’t operational either.
They're not hating on spaceX, they're saying that startship is really cool but that it's quite far from being certified to not blow up astronauts when asked if starship was suitable to launch astronauts very soon
Both cost money, but only the latter could save your life. For a nation to do great things, it must first defend itself from destruction. And defending our democratic friends under attack by a despotic neighbor, defends our nation as well.
Typical newsoutlet for grinding the gears of SpaceX, if you wouldve truly done your research you wouldve known the true progression SpaceX is making. Also, what the Blue Origin sr. VP said is exactly the same thing SpaceX is trying to achieve. Promoting Blue Origin only because you got those guys to do a interview is unfair...
![Seungmin "그렇게, 천천히, 우리(As we are)" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/kAzmhLHePqU/mqdefault.jpg)
@ 9:15 *"Bezos' Blue Origin has far fewer launches than Musk's SpaceX..."*
Yep. Since its founding in 2002, SpaceX has had over 300 successful launches to orbit. Blue Origin, on the other hand, which began operation 18 months *before* SpaceX... has had ZERO. Heck, BO still hasn't even *tried* to reach orbit. But 60 Minutes fails to even mention that little detail.
It really sucks. Because it shouldn’t be like this. But 60 minutes is becoming more and more biased. 60 minutes mentioned nothing about SpaceX was not expecting orbit on the first launch and were only hoping for orbit on the second launch. 60 minutes makes it sound like they just can’t figure it out. NO! They are DAMN CLOSE!
Blue Origin began as a think tank. Despite being around for over 20 years, it is only in the past 10 years that they have started working toward orbital operation. Even then Blue Origin only started to significantly expand their workforce and facilities in the past 5 or so years.
It's too bad that SpaceX didn't respond back and make this an opportunity to highlight what they're doing. All those shiny graphics could have been SpaceX telling the story, but since Blue Origin picked up the call they got the exclusive interview instead.
@@ryanclark2289 It is surprisingly hard to explain SpaceX's philosophy of allowing launches to fail and not feeling so bad about it. They certainly test these things on the ground and with simulations, just like NASA does. They certainly don't like it when things fail and blow up. The difference comes down to how bad they feel about the explosions. NASA is worried about its public funding and the public doesn't like seeing their rockets blow up. SpaceX is not directly funded by the public (indirectly through NASA contracts) so they don't mind them as much. Try explaining all that in the 60 Minutes format.
So what, Falcon 9 has nothing to do with Lunar mission. 1000 launches of Falcon 9 would means nothing for the HLS contract. A worthless argument.
You can’t compare blue origin and space X. Blue origin has never been to orbit and space X has hundreds of flights to orbit
When they both submit contract proposals, you literally have to compare them. A lot of people misunderstand Blue Origin's history.
Blue Origin also sued NASA at one point lmao
Musk can't get his Starship ready by the deadline because of the number of launches in his action plan. No one is gonna wait for an egotistical Billionaire to play with blowing up rockets. Real professionals use engineering for design. Elon uses fireworks.
@@DiegoGomez-pk5tg And lost.
And landings.😀
This seems more like a hit piece to discredit Nasa & SpaceX's brilliant work, leaving out important details about how their development cycles operate and distorting information to paint a bad picture of both organisations.
Or your giving them too much credit for to little results. Either way, without starship the moon is not possible. Considering Musk is a wild card that can not or will not keep his more vulgar, radical, and borderline delusional thoughts to himself, is enough in my book to think considering others for this contract is not only the smartest think to do, but required. Most PHDs is the field say of Musk actions recently. He is a man in crisis and may be having a breakdown. Either way a backup plan is needed.
@@rickmcintosh2366you can be critical of spacex without ad hominem or showing rockets exploding and not explaining anything. End of story.
@@rickmcintosh2366 or maybe people shouldn’t interject their political bias onto a rocket company.
Starship is a bad design
@@realnapster1522 No, it is not.
Why not talk about SpaceX being the ONLY US company to send humans to the ISS?… starship is a TEST vehicle to test new technologies…
Wrong, the Rockwell designed and built Space Shuttle, maintained and launched by United Space Alliance took scores of astronauts to the ISS already.
@@ChatGPT1111 what happen to that program? ohhh boom
@@ChatGPT1111 …… the space shuttle has been retired for over a decade, crew dragon is the first American spacecraft to take crew to the iss since than
@@ChatGPT1111the shuttle was commissioned by Congress though. SpaceX designed Flacon / Dragon on their own initiative.
@@ChatGPT1111Yeah but neither Rockwell or United Space Alliance OWNED the Space Shuttles. They are contractors. Credit goes to who owns and operates the vehicles and that would be NASA, which is not a US “company.”
Missed the part where you said "Blue Origin has never made it to orbit, ever."
Blue Origin is a joke. It literally hasn't even made anything before, only has the engine.
That would not fit the narrative. Propaganda has rules. What are we up to? Isn't it something like 206 successful Landing in a row?
"This is where the future is build up"
Noted Blue Origin has been HEAD HUNTING Space X staffs and team that made Space X today.
and the most important of all: NASA NEVER WENT TO THE MOON😮
very deceptive reporting. I thought 60minutes was better than that. you cant just say "spaceX rockets keep blowing up" and then not explain that's actually their strategy. its called iterative design and rapid prototyping. you failed to mention they are manufacturing those rockets hundreds of times faster than anyone has ever been able to build a rocket even half that size. they build, they test, they improve they build again. they don't waste time trying to think of every possible scenario on the first iteration, they let the real world show them what they need to account for.
It's a different mindset, the Artimis is too big to fail, it has to work for every flight. Space X iterates quickly and learns from each launch, which at this point are experimental test flights. The writing is on the wall, the SLS will eventually be quietly shelved, and commercial operators will take over. The game changer was reusability, a totally new way of thinking from NASA's approach.
You don’t see the impracticality of 10 launches to fuel a craft per moon trip?
@@zaurakdigis10 launches that wouldn't cost 10% of A SINGLE Artemis launch
@@Henrique-hl3xk times ten equals 100% of the Artemis…of course is there any real value repeating what was accomplished 60 years ago. It seems more a matter of pride and it does get down to finding a potable source of water and it will likely need robotics to do that and much of everything else.
@zaurakdigis no issue whatsoever. It costs less for those 10 launches than a single launch of the alternatives. And you have a few benefits on top of that like having all that infrastructure in orbit now as well as reducing mission risk by spreading it out into individual launches
Does 60 minutes read their comments on RUclips? Seriously, this is how your audience feels. The content you put out these days omits key details that would properly report the information you are putting out. For example, you omitted that SpaceX rockets blowing up are completely expected. They need to rapidly test their Starship rocket but are being delayed by government agencies. They literally can’t complete testing without these approvals. They operate completely different than NASA. Instead this video comes across as a hit piece on SpaceX and NASA. It’s ridiculous. There’s no need to just be negative. Focus on accuracy and completeness.
IMHO, it's because SpaceX snubbed the request for an interview, whereas BO welcomed them with open arms...SpaceX needs to be as welcoming so they can tell their side of the story.
60 minutes is designed to make you think. They know that they leave stuff out, its the point of the show.
Its to make the viewer push pack and think.
You are half way there.
@@mohare134 When what you say is going to be bent to fit a narrative, why give an interview? They’ll omit any part of your interview that doesn’t fit their narrative.
@@tinto278That is the dumbest explanation of their bias that I have ever seen or heard. Congratulations.
The media does not like Elon, period. I think the guy is genius on a level that is rarely seen.
Nice Blue Origin advertising video. So far they haven‘t accomplished much, not to say nothing.
they put Captain Kirk in space for real 😜
Blue Origin is making a small lander, but spaceX is trying to make and entire vehicle to do so. I don't think the NASA director was bad mouthing them, he was being truthful in saying that starship is really cool, but when it comes to having a crew safely fly it and come back they're quite far from that capability
@@diverman1023 I think the NASA director is pretty p*ssed at Musk for stating that Spacex HLS is 5 years away. That is way outside of their contractual deadlines and blowing up rockets and devastating environmentally protected areas meanwhile isn't a good look for your main customer. Meanwhile Blue Origin are also developing an entire vehicle to take their own lander to the moon and i imagine chomping on the bit to demonstrate that the Artemis 5 HLS can get their first.
@@galaxybootsHLS is proven Starship is not. You are missing the point.
I'm all for Blue Origin... but they don't just have fewer launches... they've never even made orbit.
There's the hip startup approach of having a lot of spectacular launch failures to iteratively learn while also putting on a good show, and then there's the more formal approach of hiring a bunch of guys with PhDs who wear suits and take their time but when they finally launch it somehow doesn't blow up. The first describes spaceX, while the latter describes most NASA contractors, ArianeEscape and Blue Origin.
I wouldn't be surprised is their first attempt is a success when it happens, the # of launches shouldn't be too disparaging
@@diverman1023 New Glenn's first flight/attempt is an actual mission, not a test. The implication being that failure is extremely unlikely.
@@diverman1023and there is those who land orbital class rockets and literally everyone else who said it's "impossible"
B.O. is indeed way behind in terms of booster, their Human Landing System is way ahead of SpaceX. SpaceX don't even have a mockup.
@@JWSPEED This is all hogwash.. No one ever said that landing an orbital class booster was "impossible." In fact, The Space Shuttle was an Orbital Class Spacecraft that was landed and re-used. the DC-X demonstrated a propulsive landing decades before Falcon 9.
SpaceX just sent Crew8 to the ISS. How many crews has Blue Origin sent to the ISS?
Starship is a scam. Glorified school project tha has failed 12 times already 😂.
@@ifldiscovery8500 Starship has made it to orbit more times then Blue Origin has sent any rocket to orbit. If anything is a scam, its Blue Origin. Lmao
@@dewboy2005 Congratulations you sent empty cannister to space to fail all procedures from after deorbating and blow up. Congrats you wasted 12 prototypes and 3 billion in tax payers money. Blue Origin atleast has proven concept for Artemis 3 unlike Spacex.
Imagine if Apollo project blew up 12 times and wasted 12 billion dollars....... we would have been to the moon, NASA would have been shutdown.
@@dewboy2005falcon 9 isn’t starship, neither is Falcon heavy. Starship has blown up all but 3 times on impact with the landing pad or earlier, and has only been undamaged once, sn-15 I believe.
That's because Origin is thinking past ISS. ISS only has 10 more years!!!
Did... did you miss the part where Starship is still in it's R&D phase? Neither of it's launches were contracted missions, they were just hardware tests for further development. Neither had payloads.
Appear to have no idea about spacex's other rocket either which has sent landers to the moon.
Do you remember when 60 minutes did actual reporting instead of paid hit pieces? Peperidge farms remembers.
Fanboy eh? If your king needs that much defending he's not that great a king.
@@Critical-Thinker895 God is my king pal. Try again.
@@Critical-Thinker895let me guess, Not a Critical-Thinker was already taken?
Whats the point of me even watching this video then. 😂
Maybe Musk should have answered their calls?
This is horrible reporting. After this piece, I have lost all faith in 60minutes as a credible media organization.
Same here. They just act like we aren't going to notice the lie.
They were trying to be edgy...
@@unotechrih8040 There were no lies in this reporting.
Exactly! And I already see all these bezos gobblers in here talking about how great the "reusable" shuttle was and how spaceX is not a special pioneer......
@@unotechrih8040 the target audience is elon hating boomers so.....
Wait so you’re telling me you have one government entity holding space x up making them do sound tests on seals, then you have another government entity saying it’s taking too long?
The “government” is just a bunch of people with competing with incompatible priorities
Government gonna’ Government, am I right? 🤷♂️
This story by 60 Minutes distorted the story of what is really going on. The FAA may have delayed the second flight of the second starship flight, but it did make a mess of area at the launch pad and did have a RUD on the flight. So the problems with all that had to be looked at by the FAA. In addition Space X was very busy after ITF-1 getting stage 0 upgraded and preparing starship to improve on starship's performance. And if course Fish and Game also played in oversight since the launch pad sits next to a protected nature preserve.
The FAA has not played a role at all in delaying ITF-3 as that is imminent and besides Space X was busy getting ready. The w WDR aborts slowed them down a bit for one.
@@michaeldeierhoi4096It made a mess of the launch area the first time*. Second time was not an issue the deluge and metal plating held.
Why am I not surprised
You're implying that each and every launch of the many which is needed for each mission will cost $4.4 billion, but he was *specifically* talking about SLS. Starship and New Glenn both cost a tiny fraction of that.
Very true
This is the key waste of money of the whole project. SLS!
I wouldn't spend 3 dollars on this garbage
@@mikeehuber Senate Launch System. They can't say it's a jobs program for important politicians constituents.
@@xrfa7422 and Ukraine is a money laundering scam on the US tax payer and is burning through decades worth of NASA's budget every few months! Which is worse?!?
Oh I thought this was a Blue Origin commercial. Didn't realize this was REAL journalism.
How much did Jeff Bezos pay for this ad-spot for Blue Origin?
Right? How obvious is this.
Apparently you missed "SpaceX refused our multiple requests for an interview or comment".
@@markvolstad9380 and rightfully so. 60 min just edits an interview. Would love to see the full interview without cuts of mister Free...
More than what you have broke boy
Completely biased. Shame on 60 minutes.
Nice SpaceX hit piece
Go check out Common Sense Skeptic...
@@ericmatthews8497And people warned Columns he’d sail off the flat earth too.
@@toadsauce8091 When it’s late in the decade and SpaceX is still making excuses…. You’ll see.
Totally biased. And you wonder why SpaceX wouldn't meet with you....
There's nothing biased about this, Elon fanboy
@ShockwaveAviation You do realise Elon Musk has little to do with Boca? You've heard the name Shotwell before? Yes?
It's basic logic, by the way, particularly after the sucessful test goals reached by IFT3 on Thursday. It makes Zero sense to continue with SLS. It's like scrapping and then building a brand new Boeing after each flight.
It's laughable how many fools can't comprehend this!
@@Hiram1000
You say it's stupid to go with SLS?
Only SLS is the vehicle that is human-rated spacecraft that's capable of putting humans to moon. Starship is not reliable now. Who knows if it suddenly blow off and it doesn't even have an escape system if something goes wrong. Starship can only replace SLS when it will be human-rated, and that's gonna be many years later.
@@violety_indigo52 Why do people continue to comment on subjects about which they know little? Where do Americans receive their basic news or information from? TicTok?
SLS means Space Launch System. The Orion Capsule, which can sit on top, is rated for the moon. That Capsule can sit on any vehicle. What you don't seem to understand is that SLS is NOT REUSABLE! One launch, it's gone. That means, before it even launches, it's already behind Spacex's super heavy. Christ, you could even fit Orion on a Falcon 9 and STILL be better than SLS. What you, and many others, refuse to comprehend is that Super Heavy and Starship are TEST Vehicles. They are expected to fail. That's how engineering works. Spacex have the money and freedom to test and build quickly and openly. That's why, to laymen, it APPEARS that they are constantly in trouble and, of course, for Click Bait, the lazy press pushes this agenda in order to get clicks for revenue. It's that simple.
Come back to your comment in a year. Trust me, SLS will still be sitting in a tall shed while Starship will be well on the way to being certified.
We must ask ourselves whenever we consume information nowadays "what does this story WANT me to feel/believe?" I think this is a hit piece on space exploration. Something that is vital for humanities survival
No we don't need space exploration to survive. And a correction, it is '' humanity's ''
Definitely a hit piece! I thought 60 minutes had integrity, turns out, you can buy their integrity.
@pietrojenkins6901 Go back to sleep, 60 Minutes fan boi.
@@pietrojenkins6901we do need space exploration to survive. Staying on one planet is asking for extinction.
how does humanity need this to survive? you sound so brainwashed. I loveeeee space and soace exploration but this is ridiculous.
A sophomore in high school could do a better job than 60 Minutes could nowadays.
This was a well done piece. SpaceX should have provided comment, but likely didn't want to since they don't have anything to say .. other than .. Yea we lied about 2025.
@@ericmatthews8497 no it’s because they know 60 minutes is run by a bunch of hacks with an agenda.
@@ericmatthews8497 it was a part-hit piece on spacex, starship has so much potential compared to blue orgin's lander in every single way.
@@gutluckbro9802 Starship HLS is not reusable. Blue Moon is reusable.
@@ericmatthews8497 huh HLS is reusable wdym?
You can easily tell the Bias agasint SpaceX. Blue Origin hasn't launched a single spacecraft into orbit . . .
Very disappointing!!Very poor journalism!!
Uh. They are miscontextualizing Starship blowing up. It was deliberately blown up. This is insanely skewed against Space X.
It was deliberately blown up to prevent it from crashing in a populated area. That still constitutes mission failure.
@@markvolstad9380 nope, there was no real success parameter on the first test other than clearing the launch tower, the fact that you deny this and make up a fictional narrative in your head instead is worrying, you should visit a doctor.
@wick9427 he's been media shilling all over the comments. He's probably one of the loser writers for 60 minutes.
@@unotechrih8040He’s another but hurt ex Twitter user.
@@markvolstad9380It was not going to crash over a populated area, wtf are you on about. It was launched over the gulf of mexico.
This is horrible journalism. Your claiming SpaceX has failed and is not speeding up it starship program, but you never state the fact of why they could only launch a couple times a year if anything it’s bureaucracy, slowing the acceleration of space flight.
Wrong. You cannot launch in a storm, rainy-windy conditions or when the trajectory would be compromised. Our earth is constantly in motion and the planned launch depends on thousands of calculations - not on red tape. Look it up instead of making silly comments based on garbage you hear on Fox. Also, look at Nasa.gov and ask Neil Degrasse Tyson or brian cox.
Complaining that SpaceX's developmental PROTOTYPES blew up is like complaining that the car in your crash test... crashed.
Correction. Space x blew up their own rocket. It’s called testing
Thank you!
That's right.
its called a waste of my taxes
@@jamontiqueq8763 SpaceX isn't tax payer funded
@@ErinP123 - Not the goal, no. But it was fully expected. Its called iterative design and rapid prototyping. They are manufacturing those rockets hundreds of times faster than anyone has ever been able to build a rocket even half that size. They build, they test, they improve, they build again. They don't waste time (and money) trying to think of every possible scenario on the first iteration, they let the real world show them what they need to account for.
Context is missing. The video leans into past narratives. Starship launches were test flights and essentially expected failures with which to learn from.
Of course they were test flights, but SpaceX fully intended for them to succeed. They didn't. The Saturn V was developed over a shorter period of time and never suffered a "rapid unscheduled disassembly".
@@markvolstad9380 saturn V did have a lot more money and people spent on it though. order of magnitude more.
and its not like it didn't have issues - they were just not critical to the mission.
@@markvolstad9380 they didn’t, if your brain can’t handle real world testing, you should probably stop having opinions on things you have no knowledge of or interest in.
@@markvolstad9380Wrong! Plenty of prototypes for the Saturn five exploded. You can use Google to get information. You don’t have to just blindly spit out inaccuracies.
@@markvolstad9380you’re making yourself look dumb.
SpaceX is in the testing phase. They are taking a rapid development which will have these RUDs.
That said, both test flights of Starship met all their major objectives.
The biggest thing slowing Starship development is the FAA and environmental groups suing SpaceX.
If you look at the success of the Falcon 9, then you can expect Starship to be the just as reliable.
So they’re using the Elizabeth Holmes approach of fake it till you make it, right?😂
@@MultiPetercool no, running simulations instead of testing real hardware like they do would be quite literally more like “faking it til’ you make it.
Why is SpaceX so far ahead of everyone? They learn faster than their competitors. Why you hear them cheering when they make mistakes. They cheer because they learn and move on to the next problem. Yesterday SpaceX launched two separate vehicles and docked with the space station. What did the others do... The bottom line is the faster they find and solve problems, the faster they go. Someone needs to go to Elon and ask him why he knows he will make it to Mars first. He has vision and does it not to make money but because it is the right thing to do. He can answer the why when you talk to him.
Blue Origin "definitely" did not pay for the interview (wink) - This reporter is the type of person who is the reason why we don't progress forward with science and technology
after they landed a rocket on a moving platform at sea i have learned not to underestimate Elon & the spaceX team
Horrible video. Unsubscribed. And urge people to do the same. This isn't the first time 60 Minutes has done very poor research on a topic. Seems like just an attack on SpaceX and Elon Musk.
P.S. 2:20 - $4.2 bln is the cost of the Artemis 1 mission, not the cost of launching an SLS rocket. The first mission is always expensive and the next missions will cost far less than that.
I’m pretty sure the SLS itself doesn’t cost $4 Billion to build, but it’s still not cheap, and even worse not reusable.
Even if Starship’s operating costs are double or triple Musk’s stated estimates it’s still way cheaper than SLS.
Artemis 3 which is the first Lunar landing will cost far more than $4.2B. Including HLS and spacesuits it will be around $50B depending on how you allocate development expenses. The following launches will cost more than $4.2B for each SLS mission but that does include $1B for the Orion capsule which is an integral part of SLS. To that needs to be added about $1B for each HLS lander. Note that these costs are for one mission per year and go up if there are years between each mission.
PER LAUNCH , he clearly repeated that fact as well.
Per
Launch
As in each launch
Terrible coverage. Complete BS about SpaceX.
The report said that SpaceX's Falcon Rocket had an excellent track record with 96 launches, but that the Starship has blown up two out of two times. All that is factual. How does that add up to anti-SpaceX bias?
@@brianarbenz1329 Falcon rocket has had 300 launches with 200 landings, not 96.
@@brianarbenz1329 and they failed to mention that starship is still in it's testing phase
@@brianarbenz1329 they say it as if those failures were unexpected and hindering to progress whereas they far surpassed their expectations of their respective testing campaigns. Hell, most people (including me) thought the first few would explode on the pad at ignition.
@@gutluckbro9802they are supposed to bring people to the moon in two years and they are still blowing up in testing. It's not prepared, they are behind. That's what this report is about. Simple reading comprehension goes a long way.
Even the wright brothers had a few RUD ,Mr know it all reporter
They’re taking a hell of a beating for this video.
There is a Chrome extension that will show you the number of downvotes a video gets (like YT used to do prior to 2021). As of this comment, this video has 2.9K up, and 4.9K down.
Interesting how they remarked on starship not getting to orbit yet as a big concern but when they talk about blue origin “it’s the future” cmon 😂 you just hate musk admit it and move on
Maybe Blue Origin should stick to its origins and just deliver my parcel on time tyvm.
I lose more respect for 60 Minutes' "journalism" with each passing week. It makes you wonder just how selective they were with their facts decades ago when people just blindly believed what they said.
I’m pretty sure what you just saw wasn’t journalism. I think they call that a hit piece or even propaganda.
I like how this reporter just expects spacex to build the worlds biggest spacecraft, and for it to fly perfectly the second time they launch it.
how come you didnt mention that starships also FULLLLLYYY reusable not PARTIALLY reusable. Some bias here.
It's not a proven concept this Starship still blowing up without any load on board.
The Funding they wasted on Artemis would have been better spent invested in SpaceX to
expedite their Starship program and you would have moon shot capacity at a fraction
of the price..
That money with blue origin would have been better as well!
Of the three.. ONLY SLS can deliver a payload and crew of 4 to Lunar orbit with crew safety systems (launch abort). Starship and Blue Origin have nothing to protect a crew.
@@ericmatthews8497 SpaceX haven't got Starship to orbit yet if they had a ship ready to go to the moon i am pretty sure it would have all the bells and whistles.
@@bobdillon1138 Starship needs so much more than "bells and whistles." SpaceX needs to demonstrate daily launches to a low Earth Orbit cryogenic fuel depot. With the Earth spinning below it, there will be tight launch windows to enable the rendezvous, and that will run against Flight hardware problems, Ground hardware problems, and Weather. It remains to be seen if orbital refueling is even possible .. let alone practical. If this fails, there is no Plan B. If this fails .. Starship fails.
@@ericmatthews8497Starship can do an abort to Orbit.
why hate on SpaceX?
Because they're doing it better than the government
They keep asking for unlimited time
They hate Elon Musk because they hate his politics. They have trouble separating the companies he leads from his personal beliefs. It’s ridiculous.
@@ScentlessSun No . He over promises and under delivers.
@@ericmatthews8497 what other company takes astronauts to the ISS? "underdelivers" is the other guys.
I get that news reporters are supposed to ask tough questions but this seemed more biased toward Blue origin 😅
Perhaps that's because SpaceX refused requests for an interview or comment??
@@markvolstad9380 Why play their games when they just omit information so blatantly like they’ve done in this piece? If SpaceX does an interview or replies they can just omit whatever parts don’t suit their narrative.
@@ScentlessSun More likely ... They didn't want to admit on camera that they lied about 2025. SpaceX got the contract with a lot of SHADY insider help from an interim NASA administrator. .. who now conveniently works at SpaceX.
Bradley, Reasoner, Hewitt, Wallace, Safer, Simon, Rooney & them are turning in their journalistic story-telling graves.
LOL, at 9:16 he says "Blue Origin has had far fewer launches than SpaceX".
Yea, like ZERO launches to orbit. That's quite a bit fewer.
Like 300-0
A SpaceX hit piece.
I have launched Exactly as many rockets into orbit as Blue origin - Seriously
What a joke, this is a heck of a fluff piece for Blue Origin. 12-16 months is silly!
Funfact: if Earth had only been 10% heavier, rocketry would have been pretty much impossible to leave our atmosphere. So imagine an intelligent civilization somewhere out there, on a planet slightly heavier than ours... they would have to be more ingenious to get into orbit (slingshot machines, or electromagnetic railguns, space elevators).
Or how much easier for a light atmosphere planet.
“Only”
Bull Crap! Only 10% larger would not have stoped even a 2 stage rocket from achieving orbit. It would have lower payload capacity to the orbit of a larger planet.. but it is still 100% feasible.
Keep smoking the stuffs.
How does that make any sense? If a rocket can carry 50 tons to orbit, gravity being only 10% greater makes that almost impossible? How is it not just marginally harder?
Edit: Spelling
I like how uneducated these people are saying that’s starship is is going to fail
It did fail. Twice.
@@markvolstad9380 did spacex touch you in a nono place?
They can't return people to the moon. Learn the real history!
@@markvolstad9380only if you understood the engineering principles behind learning from failure... SpaceX reduced the cost of going to space thousands of times, and the starship will be successful because the best engineers in the world are in spacex, if you've seen the yesterday's launch you saw That this approach works
Shame on CBS for this. SpaceX purposely blew up their rockets as the test was complete. The way they made it seem like the Starship is dangerous is sad. Blue Origin can't even get to space lol.
Sort of. They would’ve liked it to go all the way but weren’t expecting it to. It did meet their expectations though both times.
Why didn't 60 minutes go after the SLS other than stating the cost? Why didn't they talk about the wet kisses in the SLS contract to reuse space shuttle suppliers? And that those 10 launches from SpaceX cost the same as one launch of the SLS. SpaceX's lander it's pretty nuts, but nothing is nuts as the SLS.
I didn't get the impression that 60 Minutes understood their own subject when they made this piece. After emphasizing the bloated cost of NASA's Artemis, I was expecting them to point out how Space X by contrast is cheaper, better, and faster than NASA at building and launching rockets, but instead they seemed to absurdly suggest that Space X was 'holding back' NASA from getting to the moon quicker. That, and putting Blue Origin on par with Space X made we wonder whose back pocket dictated the narrative of this odd story, assuming the writers really aren't this clueless about the state of the modern space industry.
Lots of dogging on SpaceX but they're years ahead of Blue Origin.
This is a really strange video and proof you can create any message by selecting snippets of information. Poor play 60 minutes, you're not fooling anyone who is knowledgeable.
To be fair spacex starship is still in prototype form. They still need to do ift3 tests and get the data to refine ift4. You can't learn without Rockets in the sky. SpaceX has proven to be a hardware company and it will get starship in space.
Does Bezos now own 60 minutes? Pure BS
I love blue but this seems more like a hit piece against space x
IFT-3 will happen in 2 weeks probably and there is a high chance it gets to orbit. On the other hand.. Blue Origin has only JUST put a prototype new glenn vertical for the first time.
Would you rather a lander that doesn't exist right now or a lander thats launching every 4 months ish?
Funny how a SpaceX competitor, BO, gives a fairer assessment of Starship HLS and SpaceX than 60 mins.
Your coverage of SpaceX and the Starship program and Starship HLS is incredibly unfair and reeks with bias.
Just for starters, you mention that Starship blew up with a quippy little line that sounds like it was written by a college intern, but you somehow find it imprudent to tell the listener WHY that happened and the implications of such. Something that would only take a sentence or two. Just incredibly dishonest "reporting".
I wouldn't be surprised to learn that a competitor had paid for this coverage.
Yeah they had to say "again" when instead it was the most successful launch of starship yet. If starship hadn't gotten off course, it would have made it to its target.
Both the Spacex and Blue Origin landers look quite top heavy. Based on recent events on the moon, I would suggest they both contract with Hasbro for their Weebles technology secrets.
Get rid of those $70 million RS-25 shuttle engines and trade them out for the more efficient and powerful Space X Raptor engines at $250k.
The Raptor engines use methane. You’d have to re-design the entire SLS and ground equipment.
I don’t know why everyone is pissy about the timetable. Apollo took 9 years from creation to launch with almost 5% of the entire federal budget at the time. Artemis is about 6 years in with only 0.5% of the budget (note not all that money goes to Artemis it goes to NASA as a whole)
The most surprising thing to me is that 60m still exist.
Actually it did me too. I had no clue they were still making episodes
5:09 The term 'rapid unscheduled disassembly' predates SpaceX by several decades.
Elon would get it done for a fraction of NASA's costs.
AND be successful.
I remember watching an episode of Penn and Teller 15+ years ago called 'why NASA is BS' and it featured Elon; Penn and Teller were more accurate in the 2000s than 60 minutes is today.
I've always been a big, enthusiastic supporter of space exploration, and humans being an participating element. I grew up watching the Apollo Moon missions and before that. Now, however, I've become more concerned about the looming environmental crisis here on Earth. At the same time, I think we ought to continue exploring space through less expensive, and more scientific returns on such investments. If we advance out into the larger universe having a better, more environmentally sustainable way, then these other goals won't be so at odds with the social, political, and economical challenges we now face.
What a beat up of SpaceX. Where did they hurt you?
Sounds like 60 minutes hurt your feeling, talking about SpaceX.
@@truebluereef419 Seriously, is that honestly the best reply you can come up with? The old “you are but what am I”. Haha
@@GodlessAussie read your question again. You sound really hurt by the piece.
@@truebluereef419 it's just very obvious to anyone who follows the space industry that this wasnt fair and honest reporting.
@@truebluereef419 you should probably stop talking, you don’t really know anything about this topic.
Should point out that the Apollo program, adjusted for inflation, cost $257 billion in 2020 dollars. Spread out over 14 missions, that gives a mean cost of about $18.36 billion per mission (Wikipedia gives a value of $1.23 billion in 2019 dollars for just each Saturn V's launch). In any case, in my opinion, the root of the problem of the $600 million is the huge consolidated defense contractors building SLS/Orion (Boeing, Airbus, Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman) operating in this shareholder-first, profit-above-all business environment and overcharging NASA, while NASA's purse string holders on Capitol Hill get lobbied to maintain the corrupt, wasteful practice of cost-plus contracting instead of fixed-cost
(I do hope SpaceX and Blue, being space-focused, mitigate this somewhat, but there are signs they're limiting data sharing with NASA and the public, and I find that a bit troubling)
All I got was the aliens were serious when they said don’t come to the moon anymore
all I got was "either technology in 1960 was better, or they were completely bullshitting us back then"
@@Dre2Dee2it's not that 1960s technology was better, it's that 1960s technology was dangerously unsafe by today's standards. Almost every Apollo mission resulted in near death for the astronauts. Apollo 1 did result in death after the crew module caught fire on the launchpad. There's no way that stuff would fly today (pun not intended).
The space shuttle was banned from flying after it exploded twice (killing seven astronauts) and that thing was way safer than Apollo.
Apollo was also far too expensive. That's why Congress shut it down. We could have been back on the moon years ago if we were willing to spend that much money again but without the looming threat of the Soviet Union there was no point. Now China says they're going to the moon and suddenly NASA wants to go back again. I wonder why. This time it will be a lot cheaper though. During the 60s NASA was getting 4% of the GDP in funding. Now they're only getting 0.3% and that has to be split between going back to the moon and launching spy satellites amongst other things.
Finally a person who knows the real history! All these spacex fanboys are completely clueless.
@@Souljourney22 not elon fanboys, but space enjoyers. people interested in space know a lot more about this than a youtube commenter on an incorrect video
@@duckvs.chipanddale585 Brotha it's obvious you are still clueless. If you knew anything about the real history that has been hidden. You would know why a manned mission hasn't happened in over 50 years. I suggest you do some research unaware citizen. "Truths protective layers." - N. Armstrong
I have been a nut about space exploration since I was 12 and that was 50 years ago. New coverage of the programs have all followed the same pattern. When the program (Apollo, Skylab, Shuttle, ISS and now Artemis) is first announced, the press write about what a fantastic thing it will be. Then comes the grumbling about how expensive it is and how NASA is behind and overbudget and "should we even be doing this?" Then when it launches, they write about what an amazing thing it is. The carping about the Shuttle program was endless until about two weeks before the first launch and then, overnight, the coverage was all about what a fantastic thing this will be. The press had a field day when the Hubble Space Telescope first had poor optics, (which was the fault of the Department of Defense, who refused to allow NASA to double check the mirror which was then considered a top secret process), and Hubble has now proven to be one of the greatest achievements in the history of Astronomy. This 60 Minute story follows the pattern exactly. As much as Elon Musk appears to be loosing his marbles, SpaceX has proven the nay-sayers wrong every time and I, for one, have confidence they will sort out the Starship the same way they sorted out the Falcon-9.
I didnt know sending humans safely to the moon and returning had technical challenges.. great title.
NASA needs to contract this to Space X so it will actually get done right
They did.. and SpaceX cannot meet the Artemis III timeline ..even after pushing it back to 2026.
Funny how these clueless people still believe the illusion!
Actually, Starship is likely to be the first part of Artemis that will be ready for the Moon. Everything else will be delayed and cost-overrun, but they will blame it on SpaceX.
@@curtisquick1582 Nope. Quit the BS. Starship is floundering.
@@ericmatthews8497 starship wont be the first part of artemis, but i wouldnt call it floundering
4:57 they did not end the same way at all. the second flight made it to stage sep, and almost to completion, with all engines running.
Yeah they focused on the booster that every company before has discarded in the ocean. Starship went off course but would have made it, just not exactly where it was supposed to.
Ship 25 would've actually made it to the coast phase (SECO) if the engineers didn't vent the remaining fuel from the tanks, which unfortunately caused an engine fire which in turn resulted in the RUD of the vehicle.
@@Kennerad0 I thought they were talking about the booster. Was it the ship?
@@Bryan-Hensley the booster blew up after stage sep during its boostback burn, while the ship continued.
@@duckvs.chipanddale585 yes, the booster blew up because they were venting access fuel because they didn't burn enough due to not having a payload. So what happened to starship?
I love how everyone you guys interview speaks so highly of SpaceX and 60 minutes can't do anything except talk about "explosions" of the incredible starship.......
As a reminder starship has flown twice… Every flying vehicle with realistic use cases has early failures… the f-16’s first flight was an accident!
The problem is doing things on time which that company isn't very good at.
@@roadrash999 hope you're talking about nasa and not spacex lmfao
@@roadrash999 - SpaceX's biggest problem when it comes to being on time, is how long the EPA and FAA take to give their approvals.
@@Garryck-1not really the FAA’s fault when they are basically guaranteed to cause another kiloton explosion in the atmosphere lol
False. The Saturn V was developed more quickly than Starship and never suffered a "rapid unscheduled disassembly".
60 Minutes should be embarrassed by the truly misleading information they presented here, mostly inaccurate about SpaceX.
Yeah....don't mention that they are really waiting on the space suits to use on the moon as well and they may take longer. SpaceX hit piece.
I don't understand the money problem. Us government just prints money anyway so what's the problem. Oh wait the problem is who gets insanity rich off of this project while explaining to everyone why we need to tax you more
Better to find the challenges now, then to find them when astronauts are onboard.
Shame on you 60 minutes. This is such a clear hit piece on SpaceX and advertisement for Blue Origin.
Bro garbage interview. Homie trying to pin blame or throw shade at space x. Shoot for the moon, make your own rocket
Saying the 2 starship launches so far ended the same way in a RUD was silly. The 2nd flight performed successful stage separation and made it to space, and introduced many upgrades and both flights proved out a multitude of systems and provided much needed flight performance data to validate against models. They make it sound like no progress was made and no changes were made between flights. !
Still good to see the news reporting on the space program. The inaccuracies of this article will soon fade into obscurity.
Starship is the beginning of a new era in space travel - the real space age where fully reusable starships help ,make mankind a multi planet species. And the costly single use expendable vehicles of the past will seem like the horse and cart in the era of automobiles.
First all female crew in space…
Artemis: Houston, we have a problem.
Houston: Copy, Artemis. What’s the problem?
Artemis: Nothing. It’s fine…I SAID IT’S FINE.
It's sad and bewildering that this country was sending people to the moon almost regularly over 50 years ago and yet now it's a "challenge". We should have colonies on Mars by now. Maybe they shouldn't have spent decades doing science fair experiments on the "space shuttle".
Biased much???
Why we fighting so hard against going into space? Weird
because it’s pointless
The massive technological innovations that have come from space exploration which have changed the way of life of everyone on the planet for the better isn't enough?
@@jiggyv6139 Wrong. The point is, we are vulnerable. Remember what happened to the dinosaurs? Every day, we are just one asteroid strike away from being wiped out entirely. Until we are a multi-planet species, we are in danger of extinction. THAT'S the point.
Water has been spotted on the south pole of the moon. Setting a base on the moon would mean farther space exploration such as Mars. Also it could lead mining astroids in our solar system or even Saturn. But we probably won't be alive for that but this is all part of future planning
Because were in another Cold War
This is a misleading framing of the situation. They pretend as if Blue Origin isn't entirely in the pie in the sky phase. Then they're super critical of Spacex ignoring that Spacex's development process essentially achieved what the Space Shuttle intended to do and failed miserably at of driving down the cost of regular launches by foregoing NASA's slow development process.
this is a hit piece
Typical low-quality and biased journalism. Anybody who follows only a little bit SpaceX and NASA knows that this is a hit piece.
Contractors are milking the program to death.
How are you guys saying they would go with blue origins lander so soon? They have never launched or tested it. Plus new Glenn isn’t operational either.
That "so soon" is not until 2029 if the Artemis program stays on schedule which is highly unlikely.
Why crap on SpaceX? They are doing stuff NASA could never do on budget
What the heck does race and gender have to do with it, unbelievable!
Whoever wrote this script obviously doesn't know a single thing about NASA, Spacex, or Blue Origin 😂
fake newswhy are you hating on spacex?
Because of agenda against Elon Musk.
Stop slurping Trump
They're not hating on spaceX, they're saying that startship is really cool but that it's quite far from being certified to not blow up astronauts when asked if starship was suitable to launch astronauts very soon
SpaceX promised 2025 .. and they cannot deliver.
@@ericmatthews8497 are you a bot or something?
They don't touch on the biggest hurdles for our race back to the moon... the EPA and FAA.
No those are the biggest hurdle for private companies that want to dump waste wherever they want and endanger lives of people using falling debris.
If the EPA and FAA are your "biggest hurdles," maybe you should rethink your objectives...
Going to the moon is expensive. But supplying ammunition in a war isn’t.
Both cost money, but only the latter could save your life. For a nation to do great things, it must first defend itself from destruction. And defending our democratic friends under attack by a despotic neighbor, defends our nation as well.
No, it doesn't. Especially since there are dozens of rich European countries that can do it themselves.@@curtisquick1582
Typical newsoutlet for grinding the gears of SpaceX, if you wouldve truly done your research you wouldve known the true progression SpaceX is making. Also, what the Blue Origin sr. VP said is exactly the same thing SpaceX is trying to achieve. Promoting Blue Origin only because you got those guys to do a interview is unfair...