NASA is too timid to get us back to the Moon, let alone Mars! RANT ALERT!

The NASA OIG just came out with another discouraging report about the state of Artemis and a huge to do list for Artemis 2!
The question is, what will that list look like for Artemis 3, and will NASA EVER be ready to take the necessary risks to put humans back on the Moon?
#space #spacex #nasa
Please support my channel! AS LITTLE AS 10 CENTS A DAY!!
DISCORD MEMBERSHIP, EXCLUSIVE CONTENT AND EARLY RELEASES PLUS 15% OFF MERCH!
/ angryastronaut
www.paypal.com/paypalme/Angry...
Follow me on twitter:
/ astro_angry

[@BlacklightCurtain]

When I was a kid back in the 70s, I was promised that I would be able to take a vacation to the Moon by the time I was 40. I feel very ripped-off.

[@hawkdsl]

try to live 50 to a 100 years longer.

[@gregbailey45]

I was a trainee a few years out of school. Now I'm retired.

[@strangertoourselves]

You're not alone

[@velisvideos6208]

Vacation in North Korea instead. It's as inhospitable as the Moon.

[@dying2play517]

I'll be 40 in October. Feel pretty certain it'll be a thing before I'm 60. But, males in my family haven't made it that far yet so just hoping for progress soon...

[@Jtretta]

Had an Apollo 13 like event occurred today in Artemis I think they would scrap the entire program. The only American company or agency with enough of a backbone to persevere through something like that would arguably be SpaceX.

[@andrewfarrow4699]

The only thing Artemis is going to achieve is to highlight just how incredible, bold, and lucky Apollo was.

[@eric_sandstrom]

Don't fool yourself. Man has never been to the moon or even left earth atmosphere

[@andrewfarrow4699]

@@eric_sandstrom wiser, better informed, and more trustworthy people than you say otherwise and back it up with science and evidence.

[@jaidei4732]

Sounds like NASA has a problem with analysis paralysis.

[@davidvanriper60]

Humans went from Sputnik to boots on the moon in 12 years. This is just pathetic....

[@jimhofoss9982]

it was a good hoax

[@SirDeadPuppy]

they had political will and way more money and a lot more people give them all that and it be done 15 years ago but we keep saying go to the moon but here a fraction of the amount of money you need

[@Truthrevealed4022]

It because they are hiding something profound!

[@johnreed1580]

"alledgedly"

[@Truthrevealed4022]

All for a good reason. Those who are aware are watching this with great interest.

[@avianvistafarmhomestead7098]

NASA is frequently rantworthy

[@craigmackay4909]

They were negligent in the deaths of 14 astronauts, I know space is dangerous but …

[@tyvernoverlord5363]

@@craigmackay4909 Columbia and Challenger was MURDER, not negligence. A load of difference between a negligent discharge, and willful malice; and in both it may not have been actualized full on murderous malice, but damned if the results don't speak for themselves . . . That NO ONE was/is behind bars and suffered stalinistic unpersonhood for both catastrophic national calamities, is unspeakable.

[@MrEd2291]

The problem is not that NASA is too timid. The problem is that NASA is not competent. Yes SpaceX is not perfect, but it tests frequently and then quickly changes and tries again. Contrast with Artemis in cost, speed, and reliability. It is NASA - not SpaceX - that is holding us back.

[@velisvideos6208]

Well, they both are. Starship is many years away from the Moon as well.

[@raceway3982]

Nailed it...NASA lacks vision, passion, perseverance and leadership! Like it or not, Elon is our only hope.

[@canadiannomad2330]

Sad but true.

[@nextlevelenglish5858]

I think China is the only hope to get on the moon this decade

[@MichaelWinter-ss6lx]

Looks impressive; but Elon is a bit too high in the clouds. You can't send humans to Mars with chemical propulsion. And you can't try a big thing without all the infrastrukture in place. This includes orbital shipyards, a Moonbase, heavy industry on the Moon, regular shuttles to the Moon and back, and big orbital stations, at both ends. Starship could be the beginning, to enable all this. In its current design, it is not the Mars transfer vehikle. Its just barely good for a moon shot. Suboptimal. But for cargo transport it could be great! 🚀🏴‍☠️🎸

[@codeforce5556]

😂 can't be serious

[@user-vo8zx2uj1p]

​@@nextlevelenglish5858 Last week they completed the devlopment of the Lanyue lander, the Mengzhou spacecraft the long march 10 rockets, and the moon suits, they're in the phase of testing and creating prototypes, it seem that they're at least 3 years ahead of schedule and may target in the next few weeks 2026 for the moon landing.

[@johninmd]

At 54 I am becoming less and less confident that I will ever see man set foot on Mars. Even with the NASA and SpaceX partnership, there seems to be an overwhelming number of hurdles to overcome

[@gregbailey45]

For Elon, that glass is at least half full...

[@DemoBot-yq7dn]

It's just a dream. A.I-controlled bots may go to Mars... maybe.

[@fukhue8226]

Partnering to milk the Tax Payer. You bet Elon Musk will take your money if someone gives it to him. He has spent Billions of his own to NOT get into orbit and back successfully!

[@timeforanap6836]

Retired engineer here; worked for a west coast aerospace/nasa contractor early in my career. Agree with you completely; nasa lost their nerve after challenger/columbia accidents and have yet to recover it. As you know, risk and time-to-launch are inversely proportional (1/x) - yet even when time-to-launch is infinite, risk will still not be zero. No matter what they do, how they prepare, risk will still not be zero - and this current crop running nasa just can't abide that outcome. Personally I'm looking to private endeavors to get us back on the surface again.

[@Virtueman1]

Interesting perspective. Why do you think it is that NASA was so effective during the Apollo program, but can't really live up to that time today? Is it the lower funding today? Is it the "crop" running it? Is it a combination? My theory: government funded programs are not sustainable long-term. They can be successful short-term, but when the funding dries out, or bad leadership creeps in, there aren't as effective quality-control mechanisms there as in the free market, to correct course.

[@peterlyall6789]

On top of what you say has Woke crept into NASA?

[@kingdededethegod5313]

They're also scared of iterative testing, because they're terrified of the "NASA rocket blows up 3 times (in testing)" headline, even if it would net them a lot more data. Instead they put all their eggs in one basket with the Artemis 1 test and paid for it

[@myyklmax]

There is a saying: '... Too many cooks ruin the the gumbo/soup!' This means ... When you have too many parts, from too many manufacturers, there will always be problems integration the parts together (getting the railroad tracks from the east, and the railroad tracks for the west, to meet perfectly at the designated location). This is the problem with Orion and SLS. NASA is trying to force too many incompatibilities to mesh together cohesively.

[@peterlyall6789]

In Australia, we have a simpler saying Too many cooks spoil the broth.

[@Yezpahr]

There aren't enough rants on KZbin. Speaking your mind on these projects is necessary.

[@jonny3003]

Imagine all the money which NASA spent into the development of SLS would have be used to accelerate development of a moon mission by SpaceX. We would already have a moon base "right now" and with reusable rockets too!

[@michaelhammar2778]

Sure dream on

[@miguelespinosa80]

With Falcon Heavy and a modified Dragon, without having to wait for Starship to come into operation and be certified for crew transport 😩😞

[@coloradoterroir8736]

Look, I want SpaceX to be successful, but NASA sent a spacecraft with a life support system around the Moon already. SpaceX cannot get Starship to the Moon without more than dozen refueling missions and it hasn't even gotten it to orbit yet. I think there is a real possibility that practically speaking Starship as it is designed will never even be able to do a lunar flyby.

[@jonny3003]

@@coloradoterroir8736 Flight 3 of Starship clearly made it into orbit. The stable orbit was only avoided to guarantee reentry when the deceleration burn couldn't be done. Also who knows what SpaceX has up to it's sleeves. Maybe they have a redesigned lunar lander design which doesn't need that many refuelings. I would rather bet on a reusable design which is "not there yet" than an old space design, where each launch costs 2-4 billion US dollar and where it is guaranteed that we won't get a permanent moon base from.

[@coloradoterroir8736]

@@jonny3003 All that is fine if the goal is to develop a new type of launch system, but that's not NASA's goal. It wants to get back to the Moon sooner rather than later. As far as the redesign for fewer refueling missions that's never going to be possible unless they send a smaller ship that carries less stuff, which frankly would be the smarter idea. I want Starship to succeed, but it's a bad vehicle outside LEO because of the refueling.

[@campursarian1977]

If NASA doesn't produce results, then their funding should be cut. If they produce results, then their funding should be increased.

[@gregbailey45]

Such a Pollyanna!

[@xgtwb6473]

Apply that to all federal government

[@mmstick]

No, if it doesn't produce results, they should look for a change in management. You will care if your job is on the line.

[@tmuny1380]

Time to break out the blueprints for the heat shield that Apollo used over 50 years ago !

[@GreyDeathVaccine]

They know how to do it, but they have chosen different, cheaper approach.

[@peterlyall6789]

In just 11 months from Dec.1968 to Nov.1969 NASA had 4 successful missions to the Moon, Apollo's 8, 10, 11, and 12...Two of those landed on the Moon's surface Apollo's 11 and 12..While Apollo 8, and 10 orbited the Moon. That is not to mention Apollo, 7 orbiting the Earth in Oct.1968 and Apollo 9 in March.1969 to test out the LM in Earth's orbit.....You're right NASA in the 20's and the Artemis program has to get its S together if it wants to get back to the Moon before China???.... Pete from Tasmania...

[@okrajoe]

Whenever I'm discouraged and depressed, I think manned missions are never going back to the moon or anywhere else, and NASA knows it.

[@viarnay]

Negationists of the moon landing must be clapping with them ears

[@jtjames79]

Never rely on Communists.

[@stanleyosburn867]

I agree 😊

[@kirillperov3843]

@@jtjames79 have you seen communists somewhere? Notify the NSA immediately!

[@aiurea1]

Too dangerous? What about Elon

[@ktd66]

Apollo 8 was supposed to take place in orbit around the Earth, where they could practice docking with the Lunar Module. But Grumman wasn't done with it yet. It still weighed too much. Grumman kept removing things and redesigning things so that the LM would be light enough to fly on Apollo. For example, they took out the chairs and made the window very small. So instead of flying around the Earth, they said, let's go fly a practice trip around the Moon (without the LM). When it was time to fly Apollo 10, which became the second practice flight, the trip went well. They were thinking about landing on the Moon with Apollo 10, since they had already accomplished most of the things they wanted on Apollo 8, but they held off.

[@nextlevelenglish5858]

Do you have any information on how close China is to landing on the moon? Just today they launched the chang e 6 lander.

[@albertross2322]

Well given NASA's "Fatal Frontier" record since their inception, it's been more difficult to find the technology that can be trusted to work more than once here in the 21st century. I've been to the Cape many times (living here in Florida) and watch the Falcon launches from my second floor den window. I've yet to see SpaceX lose a single astronaut in comparison to all of the names of men and women who are named on the memorial at the Cape.

[@MichaelWinter-ss6lx]

And all these deaths were predictable and preventable!

[@kirillperov3843]

NASA has been around for 70 years, and SpaceX has only been around for 20 years

[@gregbailey45]

​@@kirillperov3843a valid but minor point.

[@peterlyall6789]

Jordan it was Apollo 8 that orbited the Moon, without the LM on Christmas Day or early morning 1968 as it was here in Australia.... Apollo 10 did the dress rehearsal for a landing on the Moon with the LM "Snoopy" in May of 1969 orbiting the Moon at around 50000 feet or about 17km =10.5 miles above its surface looking for a suitable landing site for Apollo 11 on July 20th same year....Pete from Tasmania...

[@3dfxvoodoocards6]

2070: "NASA postpones Artemis 3 to 2071."

[@rodgerraubach2753]

Space is HARD! They gotta go. These astronauts understand the risks, and it will never be like flying from Denver to LA on United.

[@sinbadw00t]

Here is a question for you; There are only so many sweet spots for a potential moon base that we are capable of converting with so to speak - ease of access to the resources that would be required. When China lands there first they would be able to defend their land? Seeing as there is no clear cut law for the moon, moon soil a requirement for fusion technology (helium 3 in abundance) seems like there would be no stopping them from harvesting the most valuable resource of our lifetimes with no competition.

[@gregbailey45]

Unless they can use it in situ, it'll be the most expensive energy source 'on earth'!

[@SamIIs]

From what I've come to understand, the lunar module was never designed as a backup. That's why during 13 the engineers needed to modify the nitrogen scrubbers between the command module and the LEM.

[@zachb1706]

No it wasn’t.

[@forwardomni1355]

I think the root cause is bad management. They need to get rid of Bill Nelson. Get someone there there’s an engineer in. It knows what’s going on and it’s not a politician.

[@McClarinJ]

Each launch of the expendable SLS rocket will cost NASA about $2 billion whereas the cost to launch the SpaceX Starship to orbit is figured at $2 million with some padding for profit. Of course, the Starship needs to be refueled in orbit, requiring at least five more Starship Tanker launches and possibly 10 or 15 tanker launches. Let’s call it nine, making the cost for the refueled Starship to land on the moon about $20 million plus profit. That’s hundreds of times less than the SLS price to send the Orion space capsule to lunar orbit where it still needs to transfer astronauts to the Lunar Starship for going down to the lunar surface and back. Of course, the figures for Starship are estimated cost, not estimated price and a complete mission would include a launch to send the crew to a rendezvous with the Starship in LEO and return them after their stay on the moon. One figure I found for a SpaceX crew mission to and from the International Space Station (ISS) is about $287 million so, if a SpaceX Crew Dragon could be used to get them to the Starship, wait around in orbit for their return, and deorbit to a splashdown, the savings would still be enormous. Note that the Starship price would be fixed whether or not the SLS is used so the real comparison is for delivering and returning the astronauts, $287 million vs. $2 billion.

[@gregbailey45]

Sounds fair!

[@velisvideos6208]

2 million for a Starship launch? Forget it. Just another muskism. It will end up around 50 million

[@coloradoterroir8736]

SpaceX has spent $2 billion of your money on Starship and not put a single thing into orbit with it.

[@wadewelch3798]

Thanks A.A , your videos are always great to watch and are really informative. Keep up the great work. Wade from Alberta Canada.

[@theadventuresofbrockinthai4325]

Hey Angry, I think I have to agree with you about NASA. I have always said that if the pioneers comeing West, with the same thinking as NASA, we would still be setting on the East side of the Mississippi River trying to figure out how to get people on the other side without killing someone. Space is a very harsh place and people are going to die. That's just a fact and we have to make the ride as comfortable as possible considering what we're doing.

[@johnruckman2320]

That's why I think spaceflight needs to be completely put into the commercial and private sector. Get nasa, osha, and Public SERVANTS out of it. Let the Public decide what businesses survives and who dies based upon their actions.

[@ReiseLukas]

That should be the case for all industries. Yes, corporations need to be held accountable for any wrong they do, but this level of Government regulations and oversight is absurd

[@dennisdenise1]

OSHA inspects private industry. I believe the agency that inspects government operation is called POSHA. ( I think, I’m just another internet genius )

[@johnruckman2320]

@@dennisdenise1, POSHA, yeah I wouldn't be surprised if it was called that. POSH A. Living extravagantly.

[@garypeter6645]

so enjoy ur pod casts. love your subtle sarcasm

[@efx245precor3]

I agree. Did we make it before or was it Kubrick. And now we can’t get there with much more advanced technology? Something’s up here.

[@allanchurm]

love this channel ..been subscribed from day one so to speak

[@your20downrange]

Did you hear that man's testimony before Congress? He said we don't know what's on the far side, it's dark all the time there, and we have no clue why China wants to go there.

[@Truthrevealed4022]

I said this the other week on a recent video and yt removed my comment. Bill Nelson is lost.

[@craigmackay4909]

Always dark 😂

[@Truthrevealed4022]

@@craigmackay4909 😄😄

[@mauricegold9377]

Certainly Bill Nelson is in the dark. I find him creepy.

[@robbibobbi6]

Greatest accomplishment ever... Or was it? Confused and such... Love your show.... 👍

[@charlesblithfield6182]

10 refueling missions: 10 perfect launche and perfect orbits, 10 perfect docks and fuel transfers, 10 perfect rentrys of Starship and perfect chopstick catches of Starship and boosters 20 times in a row, flowed by perfect refurbishment and stacking for relaunch. A lot has to be perfect on a very high cadence for this to work. Is this feasible?

[@karrelen]

shortly..no...the whole infrastracture as it is planned is pretty stupid, its hard to fathom why nobody in NASA see it

[@MrRalph301]

Ok Angry, maybe yes they are afraid because they never landed on the moon back on the 60’s.

[@haywardgaude8589]

Apollo 10 most definitely had a LEM! Callsign Snoopy and got very close to the surface. They even joked with NASA about landing!

[@tra-viskaiser8737]

I always liked to think the old story about the apollo 10 lem being loaded with "ballast" instead of the normal mission load of fuel... Cause our astronauts had the exploration and spirit, that the planners thought they would land if a spot was found and they thought it would work... Exploration dont come within a life time if all is "safe"

[@jmwoods190]

Angry meant to say Apollo 8 but mispoke in the video. He did correct it in the subtitles

[@synfiguring]

I'm sure all of us that were following Apollo as kids all jumped when we heard Jordan say that :-)

[@synfiguring]

A long time ago they had the command module of either 8 or 10 hanging low enough at the Air and space museum that I was able to jump up and get some black stuff off the heat shield on my fingers.

[@haywardgaude8589]

@@jmwoods190 gotcha - didn’t see it. 👍

[@classic_sci_fi]

When Apollo 10's LEM was cut loose, the transfer hatch ripped off the spacecraft. That's cutting things a bit close.

[@keithallver2450]

Considering that most of what we know about the solar system has come from robotic probes and the advances in AI will make them even more capable in the future manned space flight is not practical or necessary.

[@brycestewart3181]

I believe that Nasa has lost it's edge and the pricing has gotten out of control " opinions on who's fault that is" Nasa needs to get out of Elon's way, he has proved his way is better/safer/faster. IMHO. Thx for sharing, your concerns are spot on. We are quickly falling behind.

[@craigmackay4909]

Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman will be creaming it.

[@Bigglare]

I wonder what the feasibility of using the ISS as a stepping stone. Sending crew to ISS and leave from ISS to moon/gateway. Dock Starship at ISS to fuel and refuel. Sounds like a good Polaris project.

[@tra-viskaiser8737]

But a thousand reasons why we can't do that! This is what nasa would come back with.. cowardness being near the top of the list I suspect.

[@mikehipperson]

How will you get the fuel to the ISS in sufficient volumes to refuel Starship for Lunar or Mars landings? Where would it be stored safely?

[@Bigglare]

@@mikehipperson I have to do all the planning...

[@Bigglare]

@@WhatsNextVideos is space travel like pac-man, the capsules pick up gold coins as they fly?

[@jimmykelly2809]

Well that sucks about the heat shield. I and 2 other coworkers made the aft bulkhead that the heat shield is bolted to on the Orion. We spent almost 6 months getting it absolutely perfect. They’re going to send us to watch the launch when it goes up. Hopefully it happens before I retire

[@hawkdsl]

As far as the OIG report goes, I have to agree with NASA's response. There was allot of hyperbole in that report, and NASA was right on clapping back at that. The heat shield "problem" could be as simple as a bad build, improperly mixed components, and etc. I maintain that NASA is being forced to slow the train down to allow it's partners to catch up, especially Starship/HLS, which is no where near ready to do anything right now.

[@user-xs3sj3em6u]

There's good reason that the original NASA astronauts were all from a military background. There is always risk, risk can be mitigated but never completely eliminated.

[@NCSVeniceShorebase]

With a few modifications, crew dragon can probably get us there, hang out a while, and come back if strapped to a Falcon Heavy.

[@lonniepetty6341]

Even with a budget of roughly 2% of GDP Apollo was never subjected to such a ludicrous level of scrutiny.

[@ross077]

NASA officials, like so many accountable individuals these days, are so concerned about being blamed, they're not willing to take risks.

[@amptunes]

Let's vote on NASA handing over the keys to Elon.

[@zimmymine5017]

No more rock music background 😂

[@jamesretired5979]

The list is ok, the ability to rapidly address them and move on IS the problem. Be more like SpaceX

[@zimmymine5017]

Never A Straight Answer AsstroNOT… Firmament.

[@ericblanchard5873]

Space Travel is for the brave, not for the timid.

[@gregpapadatos5832]

The heat shield DIDN'T do very well. It survived, but it had big, noticeable pits in it, after re-entry - much larger than expected.

[@stevieathome4942]

Risk aversion leads to issues...

[@kanukistani2984]

That heat shield had fist size chunks of Avcoat come off of it from multiple locations which then followed along behind the capsule and re-entered on top of it. Its supposed to ablate off evenly across the surface. They don't know why this happened. They were lucky it even made it through reentry. They should probably address this?

[@durgadin5675]

NASA changed when the mission switched to a middle eastern outreach program. Now they spend lots on really nice renders but when its time to knuckle under they hmm and haw and delay delay. personally i think SpaceX will proceed with or without them, they are far less risk adverse then NASA.

[@logicalfundy]

Looks like NASA already responded, with estimated completion dates for recommendations 1, 2, and 3 being June 30, 2024, June 30, 2024, and and September 30, 2024. Recommendations 4-6 they say are already completed.

[@MrDark21knight]

Recycling the Apollo design was bad idea. The heat shield is not that good. Artemis needs more powerful thrusters

[@juanestonia7213]

I suspect the "others" , won't permit us.

[@papac6831]

i don't mind who's first to make a base on the moon as long as they are safe and can get back again.

[@SRMoore1178]

10:28 Was that real footage on the left side? I've always wanted to see a launch from space.

[@kristjiannne]

I thought the reason we haven’t been back is we were warned by the aliens, or just because they showed up on the crater’s rim.

[@robertoler3795]

none of these risk are worth taking. Starship is very unproven and there are problems with the heat ship.

[@waynemapp6333]

Orion has been in development for literally decades. Why can't they get it right? Compared to the Space Shuttle, Orion is a relatively simple vehicle. It is not a huge leap from Apollo. Maybe part of the problem is a cadence issue. If you only launch a manned deep pace mission every two or three years then maybe you never get a decent level of reliability and repeatability.

[@venturefanatic9262]

Maybe semi submerged launches are in order with these bigger and bigger craft.

[@bigianh]

TBF after Challenger & Columbia NASA has unsurprisingly reduced its risk appetite significantly. Though on the other side of this Artemis is a hell of a lot safer than the Space Shuttle. Artemis actually has a launch abort system. At the end of the day their main issue ATM is the heatshield behaving unexpectedly which of course they need to sort out *Edit* I should really watch the whole video before posting ;)

Find a cave first then build a launch platform near the cave then build the moon base in that cave with a lot of robots then send people. That is the logical way to do that.

[@JabelldiMarco]

The step to get human-rated is the biggest step a spaceship can make and to risk humans in a mission is the greatest risk a organization can take; any loss of life would terminate the project for years. And NASA has to take every cent required for this step from useful unmanned missions, with little to show for Artemis 2. Maybe if China, Japan or Russia would also try something similar with big PR, the money earmarked for keeping the war in Ukraine going might be redirected.

[@venturefanatic9262]

Timid, possibly. NASA is still freaked out by both Shuttles going down from their less than timid decisions culminating to both of those craft's destruction. A rush rush attitude brought on the first Shuttle's demise. Could of waited for the Temps to rise for a safe launch. Then you have simple stupidity to not inspect any Shuttle before reentry leading its destruction.

[@Odder-Being]

The background music is to loud and distracting. Please Mr Angry could you try and replace it with something else.

[@stephengarrity9702]

There is no way NASA is going to take any significant risk with human lives. One fatal accident will halt the program for no less than three years if not kill it entirely. Don't compare with Apollo 8 or Apollo in general. If there was no race to beat the soviets, or Kennedy's before the decade is out challenge, Apollo would have looked a lot different. It was designed for one purpose - to get to the moon's surface first. As such, risks were taken that otherwise wouldn't have. If there was no space race, the landing would have taken at least three or four years later with a lot more safety margins. Parts of Artemus' heat shield chipped away. This is serious, and that's why there are unmanned test flights. NASA has to be cautious, and the consequences of high risk causing what would have been a preventable loss of crew would be disastrous for NASA and the space program.

[@dennisdenise1]

The photos of the heat shield damage is very unsettling. I’m concerned.

[@andrewhillis9544]

I THOUGHT THERE IS A MAJOR ISSUE TO DO WITH THE HEATSHIELD ON THE ORION CAPSULE BECAUSE THE HEATSHIELD WAS DANGEROUSLY DEGRADED DURING RE-ENTRY ON THE ARTEMIS-1 ORION CAPSULE ! ! ! ? ? ?

[@rocroc]

This is with regard to a problem with the operation of the channel itself. I use a 4k PC to view this channel. The quality of the video itself is 1080 p HD. The problem I have is that the line showing the ID for the channel including Angry's logo, Title, number of subscribers, Join, Subscribed, likes, dislike Share, Thanks etc., spreads down the page as the resolution is increased. The impact is that the opening line length spreads down over many lines rather that the 2 or 3 lines it should require. I think the solution would be to limit the length of the material shown on the first line. In other words, you could move likes, dislike and shares, etc. to the next line down. That would give each line width room to spread out. Right now on line one I see the AA logo and The, the second line I see Ang, the third line I see ry, the next line I see Astr and the other notifications, the next line I see ona, the next line I see ut. Finally, I get to the description. I suspect all it would take is a simple key entry and the problem would be resolved.

[@97BuckeyeGuy]

Short answer: No. Longer answer: Hell, no. I don't believe SpaceX was the right choice for the initial Moon lander. They're too far behind and slowing down whatever momentum we might have had after Artemis 1.

[@stevewalker6936]

After the capsule’s separation and return to earth, Could they leave the return 2nd stage of Orion 2 in an orbit that Starship could practice docking with it?

[@jondurr]

When are you leaving for the UK?

[@robsturgeon8284]

Tired of safety society. Lets go.🎉

[@Agent77X]

That where Boeing, ULA, Lockheed Martin and Blue Origin will make it happen in 2029-32 when NASA has increased it funding for the Artemis project!😊

[@tonycincera3353]

A slightly different view. It’s not the same environment as in the 1960s. At that time there was a national priority and an actual race to highlight the better governance/economy/technology. Today it’s simpler..it’s not about going to the moon, it’s only about THE MONEY.

[@anotherspontaneousvideo5826]

How cool it would be testing propulsive landing on the moon with a range extended modified falcon heavy core , payload full of fuel only ?

[@pipersall6761]

I believe we were there numerous times but it has to make you wonder with how difficult it seems to be to return, did we ever really make it??? Why is it so hard? Were we duped? We are kept from so much, denied as the source of funding for our governments efforts what really happened and why does it seem so freakin difficult to return????????

[@gregbailey45]

It's hard but not THAT hard to go there for a few hours, or even days, and come back. Setting up a permanent base is not comparable!

[@Kapitananime]

ORION is having issues with its heat shield

[@matfax]

I wonder if they could test the improved heat shield with Starship.

[@sliceofheaven3026]

But Nasa didnt at least knowingly risk the lives of its astronauts in the 1960´s. I think its bit shocking to say that Nasa should just try to fast track it to Moon. I really dont think that it matters who gets back to moon first in the long run. Important thing is to do it as safely as we can since human deaths can cause major setbacks for the program in general.

[@telfordguy34uk]

I thought NASA had decided to slash certain programs , including the Mars sample return mission , to concentrate on the Dragonfly mission to Titan ?

[@HouseJawn]

Right now 😎 🌌

[@markvanalstyne8253]

I think our government is more concerned with a military presents in space then any public space program goals.

[@johndoepker7126]

Does anyone really think if NASA does dump LunarStarship/HLS that'll stop SpaceX from going anyways....i dont....Elon wants to get to Mars so bad he needs the moon as a literal stepping stone....so if NASA chickens out....we will still have SpaceX to fall back on !!! Jus my overly optimistic opinion of course.

[@concernednewfie]

When will this SpaceX run at a profit. It is still burning investor cash.

[@user-sl1sf6ps1h]

The future is commercial not geopolitical

[@jimmykelly2809]

As long as the engineers do their jobs it will be a success. We worked everyday getting those parts absolutely perfect. The most perfect parts we ever created. Let go!

[@VeryWarmBear1]

Could Orion dock with the ISS or a crew Dragon capsule or the space plane from Sierra in an emergence of it they are to chicken to trust the heat shield?

[@Barskor1]

NASA Not Actually Space Agency

[@cryptosupplyshop3425]

Where is the SpaceX book you promised? Your FB page says your an AUTHOR of many published books and you're an ACTOR?

[@matthewparsons4955]

4:31 - LET ALONE LANDING MANNED CRAFT ON MARS!!! ;-) Quite Angry from Grantham, England.

[@greggweber9967]

Jobs for voters and votes for politicians.

[@canadiannomad2330]

I've long thought accountants, lawyers, insurance and politicians are all a giant "make-work" program.

[@markvietti]

why would they be so interested in old tech when they have anti gravity..

[@jackdowling4606]

Could Falcon Heavy launch Orion to LEO?

[@mikehipperson]

Possibly but too many egos would get their panties in a bunch before they see common sense!

[@Plus9dB996]

It's because we can't get there from here.

[@robsturgeon8284]

Leaving on a jet plane. Dont know when ill be back again.😂🎉