NASA Is Going Back to the Moon 🚀 Here’s How Its Massive Rocket Was Made

NASA is launching to the moon for the first time in 50 years with its most powerful rocket ever. CNET's Claire Reilly goes inside the factory where this super heavy-lift giant is being built, ahead of NASA's most ambitious human journey yet.
0:00 Introduction
1:46 NASA's Crewed Missions
2:30 Artemis Mission Overview
3:25 Inside the Michoud Assembly Facility
4:41 Artemis Design 101
6:26 The Orion Capsule
8:23 The SLS (Space Launch System)
10:28 Transporting the SLS to Kennedy Space Center
11:21 Inside the VAB (Vehicle Assembly Building)
11:43 The Challenges for Artemis
12:19 'It's Not One and Done'
13:41 The Future of Artemis
Subscribe to CNET: / cnettv
Never miss a deal again! See CNET’s browser extension 👉 bit.ly/3lO7sOU
Like us on Facebook: / cnet
Follow us on Twitter: / cnet
Follow us on Instagram: bit.ly/2icCYYm
Follow us on TikTok: vm.tiktok.com/ZMd2h6yac/
#nasa #artemis #space

[@clairereilly]

Thanks for watching - this video was great fun to make (genuinely still can't believe how cool it was to see the whole rocket all stacked up!) My big question for those who weren't around during Apollo (like me): What do you think it'll be like to see boots on the moon?

[@dpt17]

I was born 10 years after Apollo 11. I can only imagine the wonder and pride that watching Neil Armstrong land on the moon must have given everyone in 1969. To be able to see that live some time this decade with my own eyes would be wonderful and it would help restore faith in humanity that yes we can do big things and that putting someone on Mars perhaps truly is within our grasp.

[@Ou8y2k2]

It'll be surreal: an 8K VR experience in the metaverse, a 4K AR experience in the media room, or a 2.5K experience on the iPhone 17 Pro Max Super Plus Good.

[@lukeskywalker7457]

Thanks for the tour it's amazing what we can accomplish

[@rameshpudhucode6862]

I belong to the Apollo generation. I am excited for Artemis 1. Great video Claire. Thanks

[@seantaggart7382]

It will be amazing A major unity event not seen since then

[@fmtdesign]

I thought the rocket was called SLS and ARTEMIS was the program.

[@epicmatter3512]

Your correct (The rocket is also known as the Artemis rocket however, even thought that is not the official name)

[@me-zu3gm]

Me too!

[@lukeskywalker7457]

Was just going to say that

[@shibashisroy4212]

Same here

[@shanemeyer9224]

Your correct the rocket it self is called the SLS and the mission it was built for is Artemis

[@rh5829]

3:45 where is it not quicker to ride a bike rather than walk 🤔

[@rohanabbas200]

The bathroom

[@huwale]

if you're walking a few inches it will be faster to walk rather than to get on a bike and then bike that few inches

[@craigw.scribner6490]

My thought exactly! I know what she meant, though...

[@esnstrider46]

Being born in the early 1960s , my parents would wake me and my brother up to see the Apollo launches. In the 1990s I met Jim Lovell at a convention in Anaheim. This was before Apollo 13 came out. What a hero. I Will remember that for the rest of my life.

[@rpierce7004]

Nice memory but how is it that we can’t seem to make it back to the moon when we have already been there? They lost the technology? 😳🤣🤣🤣

[@wirefeed3419]

@@rpierce7004 Nasa can make it back to the moon. It has been more than 50 years since the first landing, they are going back bigger in terms of power and capacity, faster to and returning much faster and with more human soles on board and with one launch single use vehicles. There is a ton of all new technology being used it only makes sense test flights occur. Space flight is what America was greatest at, fingers crossed this program will not only lift people to the moon but also lift the nation out of the conspiracy grip that is currently crippling it.

[@raphmaster23]

​@@rpierce7004 well first off it was expensive, and second the technology is drastically different then from what it was 40 years ago

[@friedpork_owl]

It’s exciting to think in a couple years we will be back on the moon & hopefully within a decade have a permanent presence on the surface.

[@albclean]

Space x will be first NASA may get there. Eventually.

[@kennydude7971]

Keep dreaming

[@bpford]

never happening

[@randomizedhumanoid1018]

That would be great.

[@topdog8678]

@@kennydude7971 🔥🔥

[@MegaJason30]

Just goes to show we never had the tech to go to the moon, nasa is now developing the tech,proving we never went to the moon

[@lpg12338]

Exactly!

[@scottmilster4923]

My big concern is that we go back to the Moon and maybe to Mars and then come home again and sit around for another 50 years. If it was just NASA and other governments, then i think that's exactly what would happen. With the new space companies working on doing this without government assistance, I'm hoping that we will make space productive and more valuable. It's only through that, that we'll have a sustained presence in space.

[@jaredf6205]

By the time a human reaches Mars, we will have already been living on the moon. You can’t really get people to Mars without the help of Lunar infrastructure.

[@Mahlak_Mriuani_Anatman]

@Otis B. Driftwood and plastic smfh

[@pallidinyou]

The wild thing is that you have absolutely no idea of what you're talking about.

[@patrikpass2962]

@Otis B. Driftwood the depressed death cult is here.

[@salbtheghost7161]

These foos in it for the 💰💰💰 nothing will change bro.

[@sunilrk]

Flying from London to Newyork on an Airbus A380 just once and discarding it is what NASA is doing Ambitiously.

[@heyyo162]

Exactly. Hope this will be a very short chapter in NASAs history before sense kicks in and reusable rockets are used also for heavy lifting.

[@jerrymclamb82]

these people need to talk to spacex!

[@MICKEYISLOWD]

Comparing them is ridiculous. SpaceX uses stainless steel rockets because they are reusable for launching satellites ect...Stainless is heavy and this means you can only take smaller payloads and return fuel ect... Nasa needs to take larger payloads that SpaceX can't do. Different designs doing different things. Don't you think about these things before you say anything?

[@heyyo162]

@@MICKEYISLOWD Yes, think about these things before I say anything. The Starship can transport over 150 metric tons to LEO. SLS Block 2 can carry 130 metric tons to LEO. SLS Block 1 and 1B even less (95 and 105 respectively).

[@craigw.scribner6490]

Along with the upgraded Solid Rocket Boosters, the four RS-25 main booster engines are Space Shuttle heritage items as well. They were reusable during the Shuttle program, although I don't know if any of the left-over R25 engines have ever flown. It's too bad they will sink to the bottom of the ocean after just one launch, as they were designed from their conception to be re-usable. Because I was born in 1954 and grew up with the space program, it's a bit difficult for me to get too excited about picking up where we left off over half a century ago. But I'm glad nevertheless, and I hope Artemis can be as successful as her brother, Apollo!

[@heyyo162]

Scrapping RS-25 engines after just one flight should be deemed as criminal waste of tax payers money, when we know new emerging technologies are coming and should be supported maximally (Im thinking foremost about the SpaceX Falcon Heavy and Starship). No way is the SLS feeling futuristic in any sense - such a bad strategy conceived by nostalgic NASA managers who want to relive the Saturn V era.

[@jameswilliamjohnson]

Not really much that new. Shuttle engines, Shuttle solid rocket boosters and a capsule that closely resembles the Apollo. Obviously you use what works and what you have on hand. Without the boosters, the SLS doesn't match the 7.5 million pounds of thrust of the Saturn V. I, too, grew up in the space age so I too am not that impressed. I'm now a proponent of unmanned missions that can return samples as a better bang for the buck. And I sure don't care about going just to put a women or minority on the moon.

[@forrestgumpv9049]

Working at Michoud is a joyful experience. We built the ET here also. It is Great to see the tremendous effort going on here now, Boeing is getting it together and the building repairs too. I hope to pass on some my experience as a CNC/manual Machinist to others here before retiring in a few yrs.

[@jonathanshaw3755]

Thanks!

[@SteverRob]

Where are y'all on the second Core Stage? I haven't been over there in a while (I'm at Stennis).

[@forrestgumpv9049]

@@SteverRob I work for S3 and they do not keep us informed.

[@Gamerguy-501]

Wow!! So we will relive history again! I hope they will have a live session of the moon launch for the first in half a century

[@kerryfat1697]

That’s the most important thing u sooo right let see

[@edwardlobb4446]

If there were assembly and launch platforms within reasonable distance from earth, an entirely new concept of transportation could quickly evolve. In order to obtain the tangible future of space travel, we must compress time. Printing of modular elements requires raw material, and this rocket can deliver a high volume of very dense materials, in massive loads. Through the printing process, in zero gravity, this material can be expanded into an enormous array of space platforms, in a very short time.

[@imjashingyou3461]

Can build pressure vessels and test them with 3d printing much less in space.

[@joshuatucker2521]

That's what I was thinking as well. We should build a launch platform on the Moon for the Mars trip. Much more space and weight for crew for such a long journey. I don't see anyone sitting in a cramped pod for the entire trip to Mars. They gotta figure something out for that trip.

[@Justin_tech]

This video was fantastic! Bravo, Claire and team!

[@nastystang113]

Sadly it isn't.. The footage is wonderful. The editing is nice. However the information is just lacking consistency and correctness.

[@PeterPilotVancouver]

I appreciate that the SLS is meant to take up the maximum payload, this is not sustainable. The cost per KG is astronomical. NASA, Boeing et AL are milking government dollars for a cost plus model. If Nasa could make reusable rockets, there is a weight penalty up front but after several flights the cost per KG will drop. The shuttle was an experiment in reusability but it was overly complicated and inefficient. They need to learn from that and make the next generation of reusable rocket, even it it means multiple trips to haul up the same load. The cost of fuel is way cheaper than building a new rocket every time you want to fly.

[@simian_essence]

Brain-dead simple. Brain-dead true.

[@leontedumitru]

It's just a shame how they lie about it to our faces and then saying how proud they are about what they do here...

[@planetsec9]

Their justification for that was hilarious meanwhile here's SpaceX designing a reusable system with 150-250 tons to LEO with orbital refueling that will be able to take all that mass to the moon. That's really the key to Starship and what makes it so different from oldspace systems, the orbital refueling capability.

[@timothycrystal2623]

No to worry, they are planning on commercializing this rocket... I guess their target customer is people who can't do math. $4,000,000,000 per launch is a bargain if you don't know what money is. I loved the line, "Our goal is to get as much payload into space on a single launch" to justify how they are superior to reusable rockets. I would actually laugh out loud about this nonsense if they weren't funding this from our tax dollars.

[@leontedumitru]

@@timothycrystal2623 this is so true. It just doesn't make any sense the argument with the big payload as spacex is trying to do the same thing with Starship, which is reusable...

[@michaelsterling2664]

Great video of Artemis and the SLS System!

[@EricsonHerbas]

Excellent reporting and editing. Good job CNET.

[@Beafy]

🤣🤣

[@Gltokensp06]

It's amazing that we're finally in a place where we're going to the moon without a military reason! This is truly an exciting prospect that there is funding and interest in this type of exploration with existing NASA budgets as well as private players getting into the mix as well. Here's to the next step for humanity!

[@dare-er7sw]

Space X is better.

[@benroberts8489]

@K3ll Tv We never went to the moon in the first place and the evidence is overwhelming. Whatever is containing our pressurized atmosphere from escaping the so called absolute vacuum of space also prevents anything else from escaping it. Science is controlled by global powers that own NASA which promotes the lie of globe earth and the vacuum of space which is absurd, ridiculous, and is nothing less that pseudo-science.

[@topdog8678]

@K3ll Tv yeah u def on sumn the moon is a light source just as the sun is wtf y’all gullible asf

[@sukryronde460]

Beautiful machines, it was marvelous human achievement. Eager to see it's launch

[@boninm252]

I will be there in person.

[@jackderipper2233]

@@boninm252 Lucky!

[@boninm252]

@@jackderipper2233 Well we weren’t so lucky the launch was scrubbed.

[@jackderipper2233]

@@boninm252 Agreed but it will probably happen on 9/2. Hope you can make it back.

[@boninm252]

@@jackderipper2233 If they said it for September 2 I will be there. I just was not ready to go back this week. Lol getting up at 2 o’clock in the morning to try to beat the traffic was painful.

[@nasa_fanboy4434]

Can't wait to see the first person step foot on the moon, will be amazing! USA USA USA 💪💪💪

[@Mahlak_Mriuani_Anatman]

First?... 🤨

[@scav61]

Next mission is 2 years iffy? It took less time getting there in the 60s considering it was new technology, I would think it would move much faster.

[@mcake1234]

The 60's was a full on cod war space race with the Russians. NASA pushed itself and its subsidiary companies to the limit so as to be the first to the moon, beat the Russians and to fulfil Kennedy's promise to America. Different time, different schedules and different reasons.

[@lopazio]

This is if you assume that they really went to the moon in the 60s...

[@woodworking406]

I am beginning to think the technology to send people to the moon never existed, not in the 60s and not for along time to come. If the technology did exist, why can't they just use the same technology to send people there now?

[@scav61]

@@mcake1234 True but the technology was non existing, now they are using the same technology that is half a century old,they've been to space hundreds of times, yet they can't seem to get it together

[@angelsachse9610]

@@scav61 Well, they are getting significantly less funding since back in the 60's. True, they are using old hardware, but they needed to overhaul the entire launch tower, for example, as SLS only uses LH2/LOX and no RP-1 like the Saturn V. And the Orion spacecraft, probably the most important part of the rocket, is completely new tech.

[@SolCrown80]

There are so many people comparing SLS to Starship. I think this is a misguided comparison, and I think there are very good reasons SLS was designed the way it was. I'll first point out that the SpaceX cost comparison is quite theoretical at this point -- Starship hasn't even orbited Earth yet. Reusable large rockets are still an immature technology that needs a lot of testing, and the amount of time and money that will be required to do that testing is uncertain at this point. If NASA were building their own, all of that development cost would need to be factored into the launch cost. SLS is ready to go NOW, and manned Artemis missions are coming in less than 2 years. NASA could have chosen to develop a reusable rocket, but what purpose would that serve? They would basically be competing with SpaceX, Bezos, etc., spending money on developing a new technology that others are already developing. The amount of money and time it would take to develop them sufficiently to send people to the moon with them is far longer and far more uncertain on both counts than using a proven design, destroying the Artemis mission timelines, and in the meantime, their budgets would be getting spent testing rockets to failure. They would get criticism and pressure for literally blowing up people's tax money on a project with open-ended costs, accusations of incompetence any time a rocket failed, etc. And if their vehicle ends up being less capable than a competitor's? The time and money would be truly wasted for nothing. I completely understand why NASA thinks, and agree, that it is a better idea, both politically and for their science missions, to do what they already know how to do, do it well, and meet their timelines and goals while the private spaceflight companies develop cheaper reusable technology. Right now everyone is comparing the cost of a proven technology to what they imagine the cost of a capability that we don't have yet will be. Yes, reusability is the future, but the future isn't here yet, so it isn't a fair or realistic comparison and it won't get us to the moon.

[@denniss1211]

"know how to do, do it well, and meet their timelines and goals"... how long has this project been in progress? Get real!

[@offensivequandal6334]

it's been in progress for so long because politics

[@porscheguy09]

You would think it would be more efficient and practical to launch individual supply modules into orbit that contain fuel, oxygen, water, food and other supplies and then have the crew module dock with them to make one large spacecraft and then go on to the Moon or Mars from there.

[@luther0013]

They are trying this with the moon cruiser.

[@fanbutton]

It is all one big hoax. With the economy now having gone to pot, what better way to milk the taxpayers even further than by "going to the Moon". Earth is not a spinning ball. It is a level realm...perhaps even spiritual.

[@luther0013]

@@fanbutton please take your crazy conspiracies elsewhere.

[@fanbutton]

@@luther0013 Sounds to me like you are in lala land. You really need to wake up. It's people like you who are pushing this nonsense on our children.

[@luther0013]

@@fanbutton you people have no evidence of your claims and just cry fake at any evidence that disagrees with you.

[@junaidulislam1212]

Thank you

[@noellythall8284]

Just watched the launch got scrubbed for the second time, it leaks like a sieve, something wrong with the whole set up?

[@spuwho]

By the time Artemis sends anyone to Mars, SpaceX will have already been there for 3-5 years at the funding levels and pace NASA moves at.

[@fukhue8226]

At the pace NASA moves now with Billions of Dollars (considered a small budget) invested in one Throw Away rocket that doesn't work and if your lucky 5% of it gets there and returns, NASA is showing us it is "Impossible" for them to go to Mars. But they could spend over 100 Billion Dollars trying if you give them the money! If they can't fly to the Moon and land on it within a ten year period after already achieving the goal 50 years ago that's ridiculous!

[@fanbutton]

You have to be brainwashed and indoctrinated to believe any of this nonsense.

[@deplant5998]

Isn’t it always quicker to ride a bike than walk?

[@veritateseducational217]

Unless it’s around your house, you have to get the bike out, get on it, and push off

[@VRtheFuture]

_Uses rocket sub sections as quarter pipes_

[@LordAmpire]

Can someone explain whats happening at 8:39 she said welding

[@gazrev7671]

This mission should give us some insight into what it would be like going to the Moon. . . . oooh hang on 🤔

[@lopazio]

Lol they are caught on their lies

[@simian_essence]

Wow. For anyone who follows rockets, this video was - near the end - filled with some incredibly cringeworthy statements. For example: "...building reusable rockets comes at a cost." What follows that statement was epic cringe. Here's another one: "NASA wants to get a return on its investment." Wow. A real jaw-dropper that one. But wait, there's more! : "Eventually the space agency wants to commercialize Artemis..." I'll end with this inversion: "It's a rocket for a new generation." >>> ???????? Uhh.....the reality is this: It's a rocket for a very old generation.

[@youerny]

You’re right, but I just suppose those statements are kind of “mandatory”, to prevent criticism. SLS is born old. It is a super expensive Frankenstein rocket obtained reusing tech from late 70s /80s and actual spare parts from 90s (despicable boosters, RS25 are elements of the venerable STS). Just the capsule and the service module are new from scratch, even if experience from Apollo could have played some role. With starship aiming at launching dozens of starships with the most futuristic engine ever (R2), with a true scale economics by production lines and full reusability in mind (robozilla chopsticks is an example of true fantasy at power! Luv it) there is no comparison with the 3 SLS that are going to lift off from the cape. Please consider the bright side: NASA option for SpaceX lander is a commitment to Starship technology stack for the near future. Different choices would have been indication for conservative planning and further wasted time because of political equilibria inside the US. Lucky it will be not, apparently. For the moment, however, they just can say what they said. Let’s hope at least they stick to the plans for the landing. We can cover 👂 until then. Then I hope NASA and SpaceX make a fruitful marriage in the interest of all mankind, where possibile. Please accept my optimistic view as personal and Godspeed:)

[@simian_essence]

@@youerny SLS is understandable from an historical perspective. I support 3 or 4 launches or whatever allows for a smooth transition to Starship. The thing that pisses me off the most is not the money but rather the fact that they're going to trash the RS25's in the ocean 🌊. They belong in a museum! Their value in a museum will only grow with time. In a museum they would become priceless historical artifacts. As it is they will just turn them into disposable pieces of metal.

[@defencebangladesh4068]

I was like what 😂😂😂😂

[@picassoboy52]

dude who promised you everything you see on the internet was going to be flawless and catering to your sense of satisfaction.....good grief man anyone can pick something to pieces, but to what end? either enjoy the thing or dont

[@simian_essence]

@@picassoboy52 When it comes to KZbin videos, and given the focus on clickbait, one never knows the quality of the video until it's been watched. Your advice to "either enjoy the thing or don't" is another way to say "don't comment". But I get great satisfaction from commenting (either positively or negatively), so will continue to do it.

[@user-fn8sy9tb4d]

10:34 VAB sticks out like a sore thumb on the top left side of the screen there 😂😂

[@godseeker1168]

I've only felt like this 2 other times

[@__taylor__]

Not true.. Reusability doesn’t impact payload as Starship can launch 300,000 lbs at a fraction of the cost, while Artemis can only launch 190,00 lbs. He just doesn’t want to admit that their $92B tech that is 6+ years delayed is now obsolete.

[@SolCrown80]

It isn't obsolete because Starship hasn't shown that it can actually do any of that stuff yet. And who knows how long it will be until it does? Uncertainty is the nature of developing new technologies. You're talking about future hopes as if they were current realities. There is still a place for proven technology while the new stuff matures.

[@cliffwatson8478]

Today is the 53rd anniversary of the first walk on the moon which I watched when ten years old in Australia as a kid, it was a magic time. In 2017 on my first trip of my life, I was an assistant Astronomer on a tour bus for a tour group for the Great Total Eclipse at Yellow Stone, was Fantastic as not only did I see 3 Space Shuttle's, the Mt Wilson Observatory and got to see the Kennedy Space Centre, was taken through the gate to see the space centre complex, Space X booster's and to stand on top of the SLS tower itself. This is Truly Humanity's Greatest Achievement that we are now Exploring and traveling to other worlds and learning how the whole universe works. There were tears in my eye's standing on top of the Tower thinking of Neil and Buzz and the complexity of it all and somehow from Ten years old I was going to be a part of this as I have run the Pomona Astronomy Club in Australia, Queensland for 10 years now, teaching people and kid's Space, It is again a Magic Time! My colleague David Reneke that I was assisting, has had coffee at Buzz's home in 2008.

[@knoxtarot]

You watched guys in a movie studio lol

[@MikeMoe710]

Congrats , I’m jealous you having breakfast at Sir Aldrin’s 👍🏻good for you👍🏻

[@MikeMoe710]

@@knoxtarot 12 Americans walked on the moon 🇺🇸😃

[@ferrari0323]

Truly Magic ! But the Earth is Flat. Grow Up!

[@Paul-qs3nu]

Iv watched the mock up of this unmanned flight, there seems to be a big concern about the re-enter of the capsule to earth, right angle, heat shield etc. Can someone explain to me , why this is when we have space X and others popping in and out of our earth's atmosphere

[@acikusej]

There is a simple explanation.

[@Stefan-ht3tv]

Thank you.

[@njamatia]

In the face of SpaceX it is too expensive for it's capabilities.

[@dare-er7sw]

Haha, Yes. Government projects are a spending blackhole. They are still stuck with an older design.

[@fiddlix]

For the unknown data that has yet to be collected, this NASA X SpaceX project might prove to be quite the bargain. Not only for the US, but for all of humanity.

[@cedric182]

Yo mama

[@fiddlix]

@@cedric182 and yo mama too.

[@SolCrown80]

SpaceX doesn't have any capabilities yet, Starship hasn't even completed an orbit. Reusable rockets are not mature enough yet. NASA had a time horizon and a design that it knows will work. Is it cost-effective? No. Is it effective, period? Yes. I personally don't care about pinching pennies for science.

[@joshnizzle]

I remember years ago nasa saying they would be to mars by the mid 2020s. NASA can’t focus on long term goals because each new doofus president changes the previous ones plan

[@Quis_ut_Deus]

8:39 what kind of welding this is?

[@raphmaster23]

Type of pressure welding?

[@Quis_ut_Deus]

@@raphmaster23 with magnets?

[@raphmaster23]

@@Quis_ut_Deus good question I'm not too familiar with the different types of welding, my apologies

[@5hamon]

3:45 - It's always quicker to ride a bike than to walk!

[@Redmist.65]

People dont understand the difference between getting to LEO and to the Moon. SpaceX will need to refuel to get there and thats multiple launches just to get to the Moon.

[@darkskull745]

they do understand, but the question is of innovation and improvement, where it seems like nothing rly changed compared to 40-50 years ago.

[@Redmist.65]

@@darkskull745 its 15% more powerful and its not about innovation....its about reliability and ensuring it works first time and wont fail. NASA arent out there to rock the boat. They have a job and ensure it gets done first time.

[@johntheux9238]

Yeah, but it can get 200 tons to the moon surface and back while Orion can't even land...

[@Redmist.65]

@@johntheux9238 how many rockets will spaceX go through to get to that point. Don’t get me wrong, I am a massive SpaceX fan but they are two different machines for two different jobs.

[@johntheux9238]

@@Redmist.65 They need 16 launches to get that much payload to the moon and back. But to get

[@ispeeeaaakeeewhaaaleee]

The rocket is called SLS (Space Launch System) and the program ARTEMIS, not the other way around. 🌍 🚀 🌑

[@nixonvaij]

What is the launch date?

[@timothyconley5871]

I think it's possible If we has a docking station in space exploration of our solar system within 20 yea

[@eliasgallegos3058]

Awesome can't until we have a permanent presence on the Moon!

[@adambraun666]

Can’t wait till we grow trees in The Sahara

[@eugenioasanchezperez1406]

that will never happen my friend... you dreaming too much, try and learn more science to say that

[@Mahlak_Mriuani_Anatman]

@@eugenioasanchezperez1406 well..... A man can dream

[@alexos8741]

7:12 I love how they treat Europeans. Not as partners or allies...they are just "good folks".

[@mred419]

no pre-flight for Apollo missions

[@brianmpihl]

Like a 454 v8 & dual 4 barrels A crazy amount of expensive resources..

[@DavidOwensuk]

It shines a light on the awesome job SpaceX are doing at a fraction of the cost… Finally, it’s very exciting that we are going back to moon and beyond…

[@ericgeorge7874]

Totally agree. NASA (government) is still old tech that was fine in the past. Going forward let private commercial (eg, SpaceX) do this because they are hungry and have purpose these days. Therefore you will see innovation. Except for Boeing that is not hungry anymore because of several reasons.

[@bigtee7389]

He sounds like he had a problem with what SpaceX was doing with reusable rockets towards the end of the video he’s saying payload is the issue but it’s clearly not with the small amount that can fit in that capsule the Starship could for 10x

[@erichayes2890]

If they launch three whole rockets to the moon, with a crew on the surface by say 2025, that is going to end up being a LOT of expendible, wasted parts, as well as money. NASA has good ideas and a well-thought out plan for lunar exploration, but might be even better if it could be like SPACEX, where parts are reusable.

[@luther0013]

I don’t really blame NASA or Boeing for the lack or reusability in SLS the government required them to use as many parts from the STS shuttle in the construction of SLS so it is likely too expensive to reuse such old designs. Also lack of reusability can allow NASA to justify getting a new rocket built instead of continually upgrading SLS.

[@ansonwheat5675]

I hope they make it! 🙏🏽

[@birajlohar7289]

Such a great I'm from india

[@rustywp]

Hey NASA, how's that "going back to the moon" thing workin' out?

[@MTisOnly1]

I don't care how awesome they say it is. It is still sixties technology.

[@sarcomakaposi2054]

And still prohibitively expensive.

[@youerny]

And still unproven to be fully functional. It is a mess, but this is what we have in AD 202x. At least let Hope it works, at least as advertised. After that a switch to SpaceX tech will be unavoidable, I expect. Deep insight in the senate politics and lobbying to keep space jobs as they are would be interesting, but such view is not easy to be obtained and understood by Italian eyes, passionate about space, US fan for everything NASA and science. Thank you, US friends, for supporting space adventures since 1961. We owe you … a lot

[@chrisnguyen3647]

Reusable Rocket is the future. For the cost of flying one Artemis Rocket into space. SpaceX can launch many more and each Startship can provide multiple functions so that we can move the goals of having humans on the moon and Mars a reality within our lifetime.

[@SolCrown80]

Sure, eventually. Not right now it can't. Starship hasn't even completed an orbit yet. Reusable is the future, yes. This works in the present.

[@maxmccann5323]

2:10 man sounds like Forrest gump

[@kb8570]

You can guarantee that SpaceX could do this with 1/10 the cost.

[@alexlabs4858]

SLS has cost $32 billion so far. It’s also not reusable. Those boosters just plop into the ocean. Starship’s goal is $2 million per launch with a target of 1,000 flights per vehicle.

[@gerardanderson9665]

@@alexlabs4858 SpaceX numbers is so absurd, Starship will never cost $2 million per launch I tell you that, my minimum realistic estimate is probably $50 Million per launch. But that's still cheap compared to SLS, $2 Billion per launch

[@53af00d]

Come on guy use your brains and stop listening to vapourware salesmen

[@wildbill7267]

If Space X’s Starship works as advertised, it will make Artemis obsolete. Will take longer to develop than SLS

[@colors6692]

Q question for the SpaceX fanboys: If SpaceX is so great why didn't they build the SLS so?.....I'm waiting....thought so!

[@jonathanshaw3755]

It’s so exciting to imagine going to the moon! I’m trying to pick up any clues they might drop by accident. I think it’s going to be really big. Please share if anyone else finds anything.

[@paulcoffman9841]

not to excited, i see very few bugs, I did see one white butterfly the other day. Went for walk at night , one mouth. Good job!

[@Ejeby]

5:20 ICPS Interim Cryogenic Propulsion Stage

[@patrikpass2962]

If we have landed once already with a much smaller rocket why do all these pre missions?

[@950gege7]

That is the question !

[@hurtighansen1]

Moonbase Alpha

[@GARRYDUGGAL]

Excellent coverage in detail... Great job CNET .... WE have been waiting for the next moon mission since 72... Well before I was born... it's really surprising it has taken such a long time to get back there... Fingers crossed.... Waiting for humanity's next small step and the next giant leap...!!

[@gurukural4970]

Honourable and Beloved Chief's, Happy to see you all. Aiming the artillery FU-CAL Strength absolutely in vision, the environment and launch setups really very good in condition. Hope the attempts to discover something ordered the levels much in conditional layer's. Featured levels are revealing. Thank you to all the Chiefs.

[@leontedumitru]

I can't believe they just gave the argument that reusability is not the way because they need to have more payload capability. Did they ever heard about... I don't know... STARSHIP? Saying they are so proud about their work is kinda weird when you think a single launch costs billions.

[@veramae4098]

Aerojet Rocketdyne Northrop Grumman Boeing United That's who is building the SLS rockets. Boeing is famous in "space circles" as always too expensive, too late, and too bad.

[@fredthebulldog529]

My jaw dropped...for such intelligent people building these things, you'd think they put in a little effort to come up with a better excuse for being shown up by SpaceX. That was pretty sad to hear as an excuse. I hope it tore him up inside a little bit saying that.

[@veritateseducational217]

Starship, the unproven, untested, dangerous, experimental fuel tank of a rocket.

[@leontedumitru]

@@veritateseducational217 it's fine. People said the same thing when SpaceX landed its rocket on a barje in the middle of the ocean. I understand the pessimism

[@fredthebulldog529]

@@veritateseducational217 I see we found the Boeing or Northrop Grumman engineer 😂😂

[@numnut1516]

Needs some fact checking. Don’t think any of the misinformation was intentional, but there is plenty there. For example: When talking about he capacity SLS can deliver to space vs Saturn you cite gross weight on the launch pad, not payload it can place in space. When talking about the distance to be traveled by Artemis compared to the ISS you compared the distance to be traveled to the ALTITUDE of the ISS. You don’t understand that the launch vehicle is SLS, and the craft on top is Artemis. Come on, this is your j o b

[@jonathanshaw3755]

It almost feels like they’re making this 💩 up as they go. Putting that aside, we’re going to the moon baby!!! Wait, do what?

[@jonathanshaw3755]

They should try to time this so that the ISS can video it. That would be cool.

[@joeybulford5266]

@@jonathanshaw3755 That would be awesome! Although with how fast the ISS travels I’m sure parts of the launch will be filmed from the ISS.

[@premjitchowdhury262]

Why 2 bulkheads for oxygen and hydrogen? Apollo had 1 bulkhead to reduce weight. Please update this design flaw.

[@montymonto6430]

What is the logic of building in Louisiana then testing somewhere else (Alabama?) then shipping to Houston?

[@icare7151]

SpaceX will be on the Moon before NASA for half the price.

[@RasakBlood]

Well NASA will be the ones paying spacex to be there. So.

[@icare7151]

@@RasakBlood Space X has a great business relationship with NASA but also has its own goals and objectives apart from NASA. Both NASA and Space X have their own rockets, Moon and Mars station plans totally independent from each other. For every $1 Space X spends for the same missions NASA does it on own, cost the tax payers about 20 times more money because of all the government bureaucracies inefficiencies. (Waste, fraud etc.)

[@adiposerex5150]

I recall a 1970's men's cologne called Artemis. I liked it.🤪

[@markgreiser464]

😆

[@zakariahtulloch5754]

sick

[@letthetruthbetold6716]

Which Hollywood studio this time?

[@on33r4jo3]

Warner Bros. Universal did it last time but we can clearly see that it's fake right??? Hahahahahahahahahahaha haha😂😭😭😂😂🤣🤣🤣😭😂🤣😭😭😂😭😂😭😛😜🤪🤪😝😝🤪😭😂😭😂😭🤣😂🤣😭😝😛😛😜😜

[@ToddRickey]

Artemis, Sister of Apollo

[@lpg12338]

Outstanding, we are finally going to the moon, for real this time!!!

[@jerrygriffin7629]

Well, Maybe

[@jamesbailey6255]

how much fuel will it take from lifted-off to its return to earth?

[@soulteripeasant7317]

So Dope

[@ndirangugichuki6260]

I know there will be better rocket engine propulsion in the future, but personally, nothing beats the Saturn V.

[@hassanchop7096]

Yeah and the Saturn 5 didn't get them to the moon either!😂😂

[@sachahector5674]

@@hassanchop7096 … Saturn five was what got them to the moon I know you are flat earthed and a conspiracy theorist. But Saturn five went to the moon. Just reality

[@hassanchop7096]

@@sachahector5674 Where did you read that rubbish, the NASA website???🤣

[@zukacs]

3:43 Wow I had no idea it was quicker to ride a bike then to walk

[@MICMON]

Haha had the same thought. That was an odd sentence to put in there.

[@aliensoup2420]

That depends on how often the bike breaks down.

[@GhostFlashDrew]

good luck, shame you dont work with space x. Imagine how good your rocket could be if it could land too.

[@j0kerplaysss]

BROO I CANT WAITT

[@oliverschwarz6055]

Don’t they know that SpaceX is working on Starship?

[@johnhaas2523]

Congress doesn't give a you know what

[@awheeler7344]

They do?

[@DAVIDE-bk8by]

Van Allen radiation belt? Hello.....?

[@philward2538]

They should land back at Taurus Litrow where Apollo 17 landed in 1972

[@Fartattacks]

look how hard it is nowadays....... must of been a piece of cake in the 60s

[@clarencejones7916]

once I actually believed we went to the moon then I saw the conspiracy theory and it changed my mind just go ahead and say it will really be our first time on the moon

[@grantv2313]

Everybody keeps using this excuse. Ok let’s pretend the Soviets did say it was faked. Would everybody just throw their hands up and say, “welp that’s that! The Russians having all the reason in the world to discredit it, discredited it.” Nobody wouldve believed anything they claimed anyway. Not at the time and not now. So that’s really not a valid excuse and distracts from the actual physical arguments. If they had done one moon mission, it would have been more believable than doing 7 at the time. Especially since it’s nearly impossible to send a test aircraft to orbit it in 2022 one time. Look at all they’re going through with the technology we have today. But it was routine every 6 months in the late 60s. Again it’s the only technology that hasn’t improved and become routine in the history of man, in any country in the world including the country that started it. So make of it what you will.

[@elAJpr]

I know the video is about the SLS, but at least mention Artemis 3 correctly. It will use a private contractor to land humans on the surface of the moon. Meaning SpaceX HLS.

[@atlaslesueur171]

also like building a base on the Moon why not establish docking-way-pionts first through-out the traveling distant to Mars that way they can be Emergency prepared or even just for refueling along with several space satellites for communications or surveillance

[@dokus-kurzknapp3991]

What is 20/24?

[@basileusmcfadden8152]

Amazing how Americans went to the moon in the 1960s with very poor technology, I thought with the better tech since the opening of the 21st century, they would've scaled the moon more than often

[@Equalshares]

It never happened

[@woodworking406]

How did they manage to get to the moon in the 60s but can't even launch a rocket off the launchpad 50 years LATER. SMH

[@Equalshares]

@@woodworking406 they destroyed the technology evidently.

[@GarnetLynne]

I'll believe it when I see it. I've been watching this since I was 10 yrs old, we seem to be putting a lot of money out for little results.

[@giuseppetrezza8215]

amen... if they actually do it, it will be the first time we go to the moon in my opinion. talk talk talk and money money money but i will believe it when you get there

[@c.w.1525]

yes, but this is sooooo important......

[@dare-er7sw]

@@giuseppetrezza8215 Space X doing better with less money where as NASA is stuck with an older design.

[@giuseppetrezza8215]

@In Lee right on

[@mrrobertwolfiii1079]

They did do the mintitures very nice

[@julesdomes6064]

Are you OK? Have you had a stroke?

[@c.w.1525]

this is so important, more important than people starving to death, war, economic crisis, greed, compulsive fraud on comon people, corruption, i am so happy all this people work hard to find a solution to human problems. Thank you so much, i also want to thank Elon Musk and and the Mr Evil from Amazon, keep going like this

[@jhaz89]

Do you know why there are so many starving people in Africa? Because women have 4.5 kids on average. To compare: Europe: 1.6, North America: 1.9, Latin America: 2.0, Asia: 2.1 Women in Africa need to stop having so many children. That's generally a trend in a lot of poverty-stricken places. That's a cultural change that needs to happen though and you can't exactly just fix that with money. It would be a lot easier for African women to just stop having so many kids than for the rest of the world to have to come to the rescue and solve problems that they're creating

[@c.w.1525]

@@jhaz89 ok, and?the crazy space ship will solve that problem?

[@jhaz89]

@@c.w.1525 Uhhh, nobody is claiming that this will solve all our problems. Should money never get spent on things not aimed at solving things the world's problems?

[@c.w.1525]

@@jhaz89 in my way of seeing it, spending money is ok, is what we humans have been doing for centurys, exchanging stuff, and it is a vital part of human culture, but spending trillions in space ships for going to the moon, and bla bla, just sounds like something to big for almost no benefit for humanity. Probably a important part of the money for that absurdity comes from tax payers, ask them if they preffer to have 10 or 15 extra dollars in their pockets or if they prefer to look at some rocket going to no one knows were for no one knows what a reasson. It is the same story over and over again, those in power playing around and looking for the big slice of the pie, in the meanwhile millions of people going to stupid jobs and just losing their time to be a real humans. For me it sounds absurd. I am happy for those scientist, making big discoverys, still they made also a decision what for and for whom they spend theyr knowledge and time.

[@GreenMountian]

I though big non-reusable rockets like this were a thing of the past?

[@Egorka413]

another comment of a person who didn't watch a video

[@Mahlak_Mriuani_Anatman]

Eh

[@randybates335]

Physics. It all depends on the payload and distance. If you are using a SpaceX Falcon 9 to lift a two ton payload only 240 miles, you don't need a large tank of explosive fuel. But going 240,000 miles is a huge difference. Even if it was just the same payload as SpaceX it would need exponentially more fuel. The lift capability is mostly for the fuel. This SLS Fuel tank is way too large to re-enter Earth's atmosphere and safely land. It's like comparing a freight train engine to a moped.

[@martinw245]

So, the claim is... not reusable because reusability limits payload. First SLS launch will be only 27 tons, if success. It will take three disposable, expensive rockets before they get to 70 tons. SpaceX Starship will be 100 to 150 tons AND fully reusable.

[@youtubeviewer4489]

Exactly, this rocket is dated before it even came out.

[@aliensoup2420]

Like Tesla will have a fully AI humanoid robot - when they get past the conceptual art stage and actually BUILD it. When Starship actually makes it into sustainable orbit and survives reentry, then they can gloat.

[@atlaslesueur171]

I really feel NASA should redesign the shapes of there space craft. what would be safer to send Humans so deep in to space perhaps a cylindrical type style or saucer shape would make it less likely to collide with space debris or particles maybe even less susceptible to levels of radiation

[@darploin5071]

I thought they were going to build a habitat facility at lake Armstrong

[@montyrayza7220]

20 times she said "I just cannot give you an idea of how massive this thing is" WITHOUT telling us it's height, diameter and weight BECAUSE then she would have actually given us a well defined sense of how massive it is. . Actual journalists that deal with Space X (A company that flys rockets instead of just talking about them forever) have continually asked in depth engineering and design questions including basic specs to start off. Lose the glamorous upbeat music, do some research and bring us some facts.

[@adambraun666]

Waste of resources, why don’t they colonize the Sahara desert.

[@3nigma.3nc]

Wow, who hurt you?

[@danijel124]

It has almost the same payload capacity or worse than saturn 5. Its big advantage is that it is wider which allows for bigger cargo but not heavier cargo. In my opinion the rocket should be bigger than saturn 5. But then it probably wouldnt fit into the factory... Short: they need to upgrade factories to allow for bigger rockets and make the boosters reusable to justify the cost. Sls boosters just fall into the ocean and they need to build new ones...

[@danijel124]

P.s. the rocket is considerably shorter than saturn 5

[@danijel124]

Considering the sls tech specs this rocket will never go to mars...

[@ProckerDark]

The USA managed to send people to the moon twelve times in twelve separate missions from 1968 to 1972 Now in 2022 the US is struggling to make one mission to the moon a reality You know why? Because this time is real not filmed in a studio

[@entangledmindcells9359]

thank you for your meaningless opinion. Next. You obviously are much smarter and better at detecting fraud than all the scientist & engineers around the world that have studied the moon landings and their data.. So tell us why it was faked so many times.. Really.. why would the US give everyone additional opportunities at exposing for fraud with no upside.

[@jerrymclamb82]

what do you mean " struggling' ? can you do it better, if so, you should be calling NASA

[@jackderipper2233]

Does your tinfoil hat scratch your head?

[@kerriealison6545]

Yes!!

[@lpg12338]

Very true, Operation Capricorn One. 👍

[@captainf1027]

WE ARE BACK BABY!

[@Kiki-en9vm]

Well , for those saying is not sustainable, well , that is why ,they are trying to make it sustainable this time.

[@RasakBlood]

They are not. Its a single use rocket that costs 4 billion per trip. There is nothing sustainable about that.

[@Cballin]

Can it land itself to be reused?

[@HamburgerHelperDeath]

No

[@_mikolaj_]

Its not economically feasible with requirements and demands