Why SpaceX and NASA Rockets Are So Different

[@blakewilliams3702]

Private vs Government…..no comparison.

[@BrianTaylor-v6q]

Yeah, OUR MONEY!! NASA needs to do some of the things SpaceX does. Tired of NASA trash everywhere- space, and all over the world! Because they're part of government, they do what they do, even when it's not right. It's just the way they do things. SpaceX has the right idea. Tax money is more valuable, since it come out of OUR POCKETS! Don't you agree?

[@blakewilliams3702]

Agreed on most of your response. My point is that governmental bureaucracy makes it impossible for them to compete at any level with commercial entities. Look at our national debt. No company can survive spending more $$ than it generates.

[@publiconions6313]

Agreed ... Elon is our Howard Roark

[@jjojo2004]

@@blakewilliams3702 Private is FOR PROFIT and they require a return on their investment. Government doesn’t need a ROI but they do respond to adversary countries trying to do something before us. So if China wants to go to the Moon, well, we’re going back boys! But private companies will need a reason to make money to do something, they don’t do anything just to “advance mankind”! 😂😂😂😂🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸

[@Goodluck-g5m]

@@BrianTaylor-v6qThis is true but nasa gets a small amount of money that it should which is why their not advancing fast if the government up’d their money chances are we would have a lot better space program.

[@OZtwo]

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

[@KamalaChameleon]

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]

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

[@WernerRachtman]

What kinda boosters does the new glenn have?

[@BrianTaylor-v6q]

NASA wastes money, OUR MONEY! Their engines aren't that old.

[@publiconions6313]

I love this comment

[@jeffgrundy7258]

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]

This video was completely dumb and illogical.

[@goldgamercommenting2990]

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!

[@quazars236]

​@@TheBooban kudos to its maker.

[@sfsclips6226]

NASA spent $19,000,000,000 on their launch tower, so now they’re scrapping together a moon rocket with the little remains of their budget and decade old space shuttle parts. SpaceX, on the other hand, has invested substantial amounts of time, research, and money into making their spacecraft more efficient and cost-effective instead of dumping their entire budget into unimportant and unintuitive projects. It’s not that NASA makes more durable rockets to go into deep space, it’s just that they no longer have the means to research and develop new tech at the same rate as SpaceX.

[@ajsooklal]

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

[@avgnbrkids]

I know I started dying inside

[@dipereira0123]

You know who else was innovating? Ocean gate...

[@_kampfkartoffel2195]

10/10

[@JizzWrld]

The ai is crazy now

[@goldgamercommenting2990]

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

[@TeW33zy]

I like the Pros concept, just like the government. Only say the pros and never the cons.

[@BukuiZhao]

AI generated? That’s not the Raptor engine.

[@Phil-D83]

Most nasa rockets were based on icbms. Refuse was not necessary for an icbm...

[@the_mushii]

SpaceX has the most advanced engine in history. It is the most efficient and only flight proved full flow combustion engine in space flight history and their new raptor 3 is sleek and will have about 280 - 300 tons of thrust compared to raptor 2s max 230.

[@billsauer3164]

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

[@smtenor1]

It’s an AI channel, so you’ll know next time.

[@ganeshboro-002]

Just imagine the job of those engineers, designing and preparing such kind of massive and powerful rockets and spacecrafts 😮😮

[@giminai8000]

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

[@wxb200]

When I heard that SpaceX was making a Stainless Steel Rocket, I thought that was batsh*t crazy... I thought it would be way too heavy to even fly. CLEARLY I am no Rocket Scientist. SpaceX never ceases to amaze...

[@Armata6348]

Even experts were speechless when SpaceX managed to catch the first Super Heavy, so it's completely understandable.

[@ReiseLukas]

​​@@Armata6348 I think experts knew it was theoretically possible for a long time, but the amount of people willing to bank on a possible but still crazy idea is few. Elon Musk as SpaceX were just the crazy few willing to try it. The greatest innovators were considered quacks in their time

[@189643478]

It is too heavy as illustrated by the fact that Starship has never reached orbit even if a completely empty cargo compartment (okay, a single banana as cargo).

[@WatchThis2025]

Definitely sounds like a NASA marketing video by taking frequent swipes at SpaceX

[@karenmarsh1067]

The less opportunities you have The more you take action

[@andromededp5316]

People need to remember, it’s not a rivalry. Their approaches are complementary and both nasa and private space companies benefit from their cooperation

[@The_holy_moscow_empire]

I am using star link to watch this ❤

[@oceanic8424]

Reportedly, the Rocketdyne F1's could be reused up to 10x, however, in the 1960's there was no way to get them back down to Earth in an intact state.

[@anggihxatiya7897]

Admiral general aladeen happy with Spacex rocket design

[@gaurav9411]

125 spacex lauches this year alone and year hasn't ended yet.

[@IgnitionSource]

@beyond facts: Your thumb nail has the wrong amount of engines listed for the SLS.

[@Corey_Wrangler]

"Each one powerful enough to lift a skyscraper".... done 🤦‍♂️

[@Armata6348]

I think he meant "skyscraper" to refer to the rocket because they are actually taller than some skyscrapers, but yes, it's a weird word choice.

[@abuanwp]

SpaceX needs to land the booster, big engines are too hard to control because they are strong and their location is too far from the center of gravity.

[@Study49]

Can the Artemis industry partners, including SpaceX, Axiom Space, Blue Origin, Boeing and Lockheed Martin, land the Artemis 3 crewed mission (the United States and its partners) onto the lunar south pole before China?

[@_kampfkartoffel2195]

No. The Artemis Programm is relies on Starship. Starship will Never Bring Humans to the moon. I would be surprised at this Point of IT ever even brings Somone to Space. Therefore the next Person on the moon will ve Chinese.

[@wolfrust0]

im suprised there aren't any jonkler jokes seeing that title

[@Goomba_N64]

Nice. Just a useless video with stock images and a voice over. I thought this was gonna actually be a breakdown between the engines and subcomponents.

[@Cyge240sx]

How are the herbals comparing?

[@Study49]

The SLS (Space Launch System) rocket is operational. It can travel to the Moon. Space X's Starship is not yet operational because it is still under development and undergoing a series of test flights. When will Starship Human Lander be ready?

[@avgnbrkids]

Yes the sls rocket is ready however the Orion capsule is not the hls lander already has multiple key parts of its system done

[@thecyanadon]

SLS has launched once. Starship has launched 6 times and have another year+ before there will be another SLS. HLS will be ready well before Artemis 3, maybe even Artemis 2

[@_kampfkartoffel2195]

You forgot to mention that during that one Launch of sls. The Orion capsule went around the moon and returned sucessfuly. While Starship (at least the upper Stage) has either exploded ore partialy melted and then exploded every single time.

[@thecyanadon]

@_kampfkartoffel2195 it didn't though. It has a lot of issues that took years to discover. Space X fixed their re-entry issue in what? Less than 6 months?

[@_kampfkartoffel2195]

@thecyanadon they fixes their reentry issue?! Even on flight 6 the ship exploded and also yes the engines litt Up bit you can't reuse the upper Stage at all. Also May i.remind you that the upper Stage is Not even pressurised. Starship IS Not realy that much closer to reaching the moon then the V2 only difference Is that the V2 could carry payload. And flew Higher then Starship in some testflights. Lol

[@DotADBX]

The sls is probably dead after the artimis program is done. Ideally nasa should focus on the process of building rockets/transport systems in space while utilizing spacex for space access and transporting materials from earth to space for building.

[@Baldorcete]

Yep. Launching things to orbit seems a solved problem, or at least cheaper done by private companies than by the government. Nasa must focus in the unsolved problems and innovative solutions, and just contract the easy parts to private companies.

[@SpruceMoose-iv8un]

NASA did not build the SLS, NASA issues contracts to company's to build things, the SLS is built by the United Launch Alliance or ULA, they are comprised of Boeing, Lockheed Martin and i think another company. These mega corps give millions upon millions to political campaigns to get government contracts, NASA is strong armed to favor there company's by politicians.

[@hdun1489]

Elon vs government

[@snehasmitapanda8095]

They work together

[@eg300]

Not a race between spacex and nasa. It’s a race between spacex and the world… with China being a very Very Veeeeeeeerrrrryyyy distant second.

[@spartangladio6378]

NASA and SpaceX work together, And china is NOT a close second, Everything they make is copied off of another organization, Most of "their" missions are just propaganda

[@michaelp772]

I think SpaceX is playing the long game. NASA is just treading water and shrinking from major challenges.

[@ReiseLukas]

NASA was important to Jumpstart the space age, but nowadays it needs to pass the torch to the Private Sector. Let's stop wasting taxpayer money on bloated projects.

[@basher1904.5]

In terms of budget from the government, NASA has one half of a penny

[@JoseMaria-dj6pc]

I thought u gonna say some technical and logical thing

[@alexhanna3921]

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.

[@r3yuk682]

It should be pointy

[@consolastv2380]

Pointy is scary

[@cormakorma]

NASA or SpaceX? 👇

[@viktorw00]

Nasa

[@cedrichillary2131]

SpaceX

[@goldgamercommenting2990]

I’d say both

[@franciszurielburgos3798]

spaceX nasa is actually slow asf

[@Cryo-dt6zl]

Spacex

[@johndextersantos9541]

the way he pronounces SpaceS*x sounds funny,haha 😅

[@willmigl3620]

Acting like NASA makes higher quality than SpaceX is like talking after doing hard drugs.

[@SkyGabrielValdez]

I don't think their budgets are that different. Yes NASA and SpaceX are different in terms of money, but think of it this way. NASA does everything on a single go (or at least, fewer tries). While SpaceX does things one at a time. I like to think that NASA uses 100$ for a single mission meanwhile, SpaceX uses 10$ for 10 missions.

[@OubleJum]

Deep thro- WHAT?

[@dwightlooi]

SIMPLER VERSION: SpaceX is about going to space quickly and doing so cheaply. NASA is about spending lots of money and do it for as long as possible. Everything else is incidental to those paradigms. Understand?

[@JamAwsome]

Tldr One plays career mode One plays sandbox mode

[@TeW33zy]

Listen to dude, you don’t throw away a car after one trip do you? You don’t throw away a plane after one flight do you? No we don’t throw them away however a car does travel throw an atmosphere that heats up to 7,000 degrees upon reentry otherwise we would. A airplane doesn’t fly through 7,000F plasma field for 5 minutes either otherwise we would throw it away as the material’s integrity is compromised. A car and plane outer structure isn’t built to withstand atmospheric reentry.

[@ihl0700677525]

FYI we used to have cars and airplanes that could only be used for few/several times. Heck, even modern Supercars from certain Italian brand has reputation of being very exciting to drive, but very unreliable. So, IMO this is not just about technology, but also about design philosophy. It is exactly like Elon said, if all cars are Supercar, only select few could afford it. On the other hand, most people can afford the reliable and affordable Toyotas.

[@jakekielty1]

No shit. Who would believe that the government wastes money. What a conundrum

[@fakemusicprojectofficial]

Is this voice AI??

[@189643478]

And where does SpaceX gets its money? Government subsidies... I don't believe the claims that reusability of a rocket will have much if any effect on the cost. Making rockets reusable means they become much heavier (e.g. due to the added heat shield and extra fuel needed to land) leading to the need for extra fuel during launch. This extra cost of fuel and extra components probably negates most if not all the benefits of reuse. The more often a rocket can be reused the better the reuse economics would be but the problem here is that demand for rocket launches is relatively small. It's not like planes where tens of thousands of planes are flying around the world every day...

[@cubano100pct]

ULA (joint venture between Boing and Lockheed Martin) made the SLS rocket together with Startliner from Boing was a complete failure. It left the astronauts stranded in the ISS and SpaceX has to come to the rescue. SLS and Startliner was nothing but delays, un-reliable and over budget.

[@Cyge240sx]

Private sector will always win out

[@jjojo2004]

Well, all critics aside, the SLS already sent a spacecraft to the moon years ago. Starship launched 6 times with varying degrees of success and only went to low Earth orbit with varying degrees of success. 🤔🤔🤔🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸

[@flipz8632]

starship is a prototype thats making breakthroughs in aerospace engineering and setting records and sls is an overpriced unfinished Frankensteins monster of space shuttle parts that hasnt completed its primary objective in decades while starship started development 5 years ago

[@jjojo2004]

@ The only breakthrough Falcon or Starship has shown is reusability and launch frquency. The only thing both have accomplished is just going into low Earth orbit. There is NOTHING breakthrough about that. NASA has been putting stuff into orbit since the 50’s. 🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔

[@thecyanadon]

SLS launched once and had issues that have taken multiple years to discover Starship has launched 6 times already. Not slowing down. Having already caught a booster, they will only be going faster.

[@jjojo2004]

@ That one SLS launch sent a spacecraft to the Moon-years ago. All ANY Falcon OR Starship has ever done is go to Low Earth Orbit--nothing groundbreaking there…….🤘😎🤘🛸🛸

[@thecyanadon]

@jjojo2004 it also had many issues, some still unknown. Falcon has taken stuff well below LEO bud 😂 Sorry, but which SLS returned to launch site? Sorry but, SLS did nothing special. Not to mention that 1 SLS launch was more expensive than every Starship launch AND the second SLS launch is nowhere in site. While the next starship launch is next month.

[@WeUpChannel]

Simple. 5/33 engine loss Beats 1/5.

[@zat-1-fury]

Simple explanation they are abusing physics by having more engines 😅

[@juancho71]

Got most of your facts wrong!!!! Waisted my time...

[@thatgirllola9357]

Out of curiosity, which ones do you mean? trying to learn

[@Saleemkhan-ox5jw]

Space X rockets look dirty after re-entry and landing. Like stove does to utensils.

[@tonysu8860]

Practically everything in this video is wrong. This isn about private vs public or even that SpaceX is more efficient or few engines vs many. All of those proposed reasons are factually without any basis. The main difference between SoaceX and the ithers is that SpaceX was contracted to build something new and the others were tasked to use up assets left over from the ild space program while building new when necessary. Reusability is probably less an issue if you're using leftovers. There are advantages and disadvantages comparing fewer or more engines. Fault tolerance is a plus for numerous smaller engines but adds a big level of complexity distributing fuel and managing many separate engines to function as one. Additionally, NASA is the government contracting entity that distributes funds to the contractors like SpaceX and ULA. Referring to SpaceX as competing with NASA is incorrect.

[@Golla_Street]

If NASA Had an unlimited budget per se….. why didnt they focus on the reusability? They had unlimited resources, fundings and intelligent minds in the industry and yet they didnt maximize their capability? This video shows the excuses made by NASA for not achieving their goals.. SPACEX did the work for them in just few years… 😅

[@corydavey3026]

It's the government. their stuff is never going to be as cool as a do what I want private company

[@willmigl3620]

Announcer needs to get off NASAs rod. The SLS sucks and SpaceX is the future.

[@ronin2963]

No!

[@TonyOlsenFerris]

This video tries so hard to spin NASA's inferior approach is better than SpaceX... but in the end StarShip is superior to SLS in every way... and for a fraction of the price and timeline.

[@truckingjourneys]

SLS is estimated at 2 billion USD per launch, of tax payer money. I don't give a good God damn. I ain't paying for that shit

[@joshquiroz]

*Paid for by NASA

[@kart182]

This video completely shits on nasa, what are you on about?

[@wzk921109]

You didn’t answer the technology question what so ever.

[@aaronrichter3590]

This is a bunch of woke AI bull shit.

[@tylercolvin8653]

You take a car to the airport then fry across the world, you don’t take the airplane to your front door it’s just not practical, building space only ships and having other smaller ones to go to surface could be more practical and your not putting all your eggs in one basket

[@JMBailey73]

Nothing can justify the costs!

[@avgnbrkids]

Ummmm it can

[@breakthechains8362]

25 billion dollars already spent and over a decade for 1 flight even though it's made from recycled Space Shuttle parts. Its criminal, and I hope DOGE shuts them down.

[@hankwinters5787]

What in the crappy a.i video trash is this

[@petervasil5073]

nasa and reliable ??? how many casualties has nasa caused and how many has the spacex done ? none nasa cant keep up with the pace anymore this video is made either by ai or amateur

[@LesNessman2001]

Blue Origin is better than SpaceX. Better tech, better people, better ideas. Elon is a bit of a weirdo. He gets caught up in bad ideas and can’t mentally get passed them.

[@weekiely1233]

Blue Origin has literally never flown to orbit. SpaceX has 120+ times… this YEAR. Their tech is also not better. Raptor is the most complex engine ever developed for one

[@gunglegeorge7213]

Totally off the top of an empty head.

[@nassdn6519]

Lowkey this video sucks and got hella incorrect information

[@danielduffy4134]

Yeah no space X is king

[@RileyMarkley]

This video has an awful thumbnail.

[@ohasis8331]

Pretty much a nothing video.

[@SheldyxSheld]

This video is bad

[@IchbinJohannNibhcI]

its still all fake anyway

[@fred36956]

The tiles cannot withstand the increased speed a spacecraft entering Earth's atmosphere from beyond Earth's orbit. Earth's gravity pulls a spacecraft from Lunar orbit at 25,000 mph not 17,500 mph. The heating is at least 5,000 degrees F versus under 3,000 degrees F when entering from LEO. SpaceX would have to use a heat shield that can survive the increased heating when coming back from outside of Earth orbit. Either the Starship would need to have enough fuel to slow down from 25,000 mph to 17,500 mph or SpaceX will need a different thermal protection system than ceramic tiles. Now consider the cost of a "reusable" Starship that will need to be refueled in LEO with perhaps 6 to 8 other Starship launches to fuel the first Starship just to get out of Earth orbit. Meanwhile 55 years ago one Saturn V with its three stages could lift (according to Wikipedia) about 312,000 pounds to low Earth orbit and about 113,000 pounds to the Moon. We'll see how much multiple Starship launches costs to send even heavier payloads to the Moon let alone Mars. Entering Mar's atmosphere, being much thinner than Earth's atmosphere, has been problematic in landing small space probes/rovers on to the surface of Mars. So we'll have to see how a spacecraft designed to enter Earth's much thicker atmosphere will be capable of landing safely on Mars, lifting off Mars and coming back to "land" on Earth. As a space buff I hope Elon's vision(s) become reality.

[@avgnbrkids]

There is so much wrong with this comment 😂

[@dr.d5920]

One mistake: SpaceX is the one thinking big; NASA is the one playing small & has done nothing disruptively innovative in decades.

[@JMBailey73]

I call bs!

[@avgnbrkids]

On what ?

[@YodaBit]

SLS is a POS. 4.5 billion per launch on SLS vs 10 million with F9 and eventually starship. It’s not even a comparison. SLS will be defunct in 10 years.

[@jessebonds1014]

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😂

[@rusbea.2279]

Wow! The narrator hates nasa so much haha

[@BaffledBelief]

Lol this guy. Sls can't even stop leaking long enough to launch.