@@ronniebauman28 So you recall seeing a video of her saying something like that in an interview? Do you remember anything about the context, e.g. the event, interviewer, or how long ago it took place?
Links for mobile users! (Sorry the play-bar might not breakup on mobile either) 00:00 - Intro 03:50 - The Hardware 15:55 - The Missions 29:15 - Safety & Upgrades 35:50 - Program Costs 46:20 - Rant 52:25 - The Good Parts of Artemis 55:35 - Conclusion
I am a great believer in sending an unmanned version to the Moon/Mars landing site ahead of the actual manned flight. This enables the mission to test all the craft involved and also gives reassurance because it would carry ahead lots of food, water, oxygen and equipment needed. It can even mean a spare space craft with engines can be on hand on the target site with spares of everything should they be needed. So the pressure is taken off everyone.
Boeing squeezed another $287 Million out of NASA on the fixed price Starliner contract because NASA was afraid that Boeing would otherwise pull out of Commercial Crew. The SLS and Orion programs could use the same strategy to get more funding. At least until there's a viable commercial option.
When you compare SpaceX Crew Dagon and Boeing Starliner BUDGET and the actual RESULTS. BOEING just looks like a joke ... I won't even mention BOEING 737 MAX ! Pleasing Wall Street is the devil
First and foremost great video perhaps your best. I agree that with all those money spent let's fly that rocket. But if they ask for more money 💰 as I'm sure boeing is how much more would you give them before cancelling. Remember its 30 billion for a new fuel tank cause all the rest is reused.
JackTSR I’m sick of ‘the devil made Nasa do it’ revisionist nonsense.. sick of Nasa apologists blaming NASA’s incompetence/waste/failures on Congress, taxpayers, Shelby, contractors, etc.. Congress acts on Nasa recommendations/promises..contractors do what they’re told, paid, contracted to do. Nasa promised a gullible Congress a ‘cheap, safe, reliable’ STS then delivered a $1.6 billion per flight boondoggle that killed 2 crews & had chronic multi-year service outages.. the most unaffordable, dangerous, unreliable space vehicle in history.. Then Nasa promised Congress a quick, cheap, & dirty Constellation/Sls based on shuttle components.. how’s that going $80 billion & 16 years later? Nasa, Government is the problem, not the solution.
Looking forward to hearing this for the first time since 1972: "Artemis 2, Houston. " "Go ahead, Houston. " "Artemis 2. You are Go for TLI. Over." (that's the Apollo 8 dialogue from 1968 with the spacecraft name updated; the actual Apollo 17 dialog went: "Roger. Guys, I've got the word you wanted to hear; you are Go for TLI - you're Go for the Moon." "Okay, Robert. Understand. America and Challenger with their S-IVB are Go for TLI.")
Just imagine, if you will, they brought in Harrison Schmitt, god willing still with us, to give the TLI call for Artemis 2. A handoff from Apollo to Artemis. Would be amazing.
It's literally 11 pm in India when you released the video ( in India ) I was so curious to watch this video. Great work. Waiting for a video about isro from you tim.
The same happens to me, but in the opposite way 😂😭 (an hour is too much for me) Tim's videos are great, but maybe he should do also a *shorter version* / resume of them ✂️ (maybe a 15~20 min video, in addition to the full video). An hour video for comparing this two rocket systems is definitively too much for the _"space (not too much in deep)amateur"_ . Sure it is tasty for the most ardent fans, but I think for people who just like a little the topics, an hour video looks like *too much* 😬
SpaceX has flown all his stuff and blown it all up and it still didn’t cost as much as the pig that NASA iOS using…go figure. And don’t even mention how long it’s been going on.
Tbh at the current rate of progress, I wouldn't be surprised if Space X just go to the moon themselves before NASA even launches a single SLS. Yet alone build the Lunar Station.
Giving SpaceX the Artemis contract was a major mistake. Especially since Starship still tends to... well, explode. By doing so, NASA has practically guaranteed the deaths of all Artemis crews. I could be wrong, of course, but as of right now I have serious doubts SpaceX knows what it's doing when it comes to super-heavy lift rockets like Starship. Go NASA or Explode.
@@TheOneTrueDragonKing Do you really think space X and NASA will launch people up in a Starship before they have the landing sorted? Unlike the other 2 options space x actually have something that flies, even if it doesn't land just yet. But the only way you learn is through failiure. It was also by far the cheapest to produce. Furthermore space X were probably going to send people to the moon on Starship regardless. Blue Origins option also stipulated advanced payments which NASA refused to sign up for in the contract. And the other option was found to have Negative mass (too heavy).
"NASA maybe dodged a bullet... while driving a car on two wheels on the edge of a cliff inside of a tornado while buying lotto tickets." That sounds a little more risky than 5%
People in Texas do this all the time.. it's no big deal. (I was going to include Florida, but it's flat, and barley above sea level.. so no cliffs.. but then again... Never underestimate Florida Man.)
When Jim Bridenstine was appointed head of NASA, I was sceptical. But boy has he done some incredible things in the last two years! I really really really hope they keep him as head of NASA, no matter who wins in november.
He does seem to have done a pretty good job of balancing competing interests... promoting competition and commercial space, while paying enough respect to political demands to keep himself in the job...
@@kyleking3839 If I remember correctly it was ARM (Asteroid Redirect Mission) under Obama but some of the hardware was the same and they were going to orbit the Moon, just not land on it.
@@zapfanzapfan yeah artemis now has barely any government hardware when it comes to the landing aside from gateway but it doesn't seem necessary for a landing
Love the cost breakdown between SLS and Saturn V. I can't believe how much time and money has been spent on SLS when so much hardware was available. I wish the Artemis program a long life. I just hope the costs don't take away from funding future NASA projects.
Yes, NASA needs to get more funding in general. SLS cost ~1% of the total development cost for the F35, SLS is actually kinda cheap, and we really don't want to make the mistake of losing the capability of the Saturn V again, SLS is the right ship for right now.
guys cost is pointless for this i think,most of the money is turned back to the American economy since you probably import a minimum amount of parts...
50% of the total NASA budget is for human space flight. SLS and all the other stuff (space station) is within that budget, so all the other more scientifically viable programs are not effected. Your still going to have space telescopes, planetary missions, and probes... which are planned out in 10 year cycles... So they are safe no matter how much HSF gobbles up.
What's hilarious is they're going to spend a ton of money to launch an Orion capsule, just to have it dock with a Starship, which the astronauts could have just ridden off the planet themselves.
What has NOT been factored in any of this, is the ultimate goal of the reason for going to the moon: To set up a habitat. The cost to fly there is going to look like change next to a Gold Bar.
After watching this video you have actually changed my view on SLS and Orion. You also upgraded my view of the commercial crew program as well. Before I thought that SLS and Orion was a money pit and ... IT IS.. BUT.. You make very valid points. I now believe the more the merrier. I just hope that going forward NASA purchases Commercial Crew contracts for 10 years in advance just like they did with the SLS to ensure future administrations cannot cancel or change direction of NASA objectives big time.
I think it’s important to note that Orion’s low delta v numbers were because originally it was too travel to the moon with the LSAM / Altair. Altair would perform the lunar breaking burn. When Altair and constellation were cancelled Orion kept these metrics assuming if lunar missions were to be developed again they would have a lunar lander to perform the burn or a Lagrange station (gateway)
I think the current service module of the Orion capsule was developed and built by the European Space Agency for the asteroid retrieval mission during Obama administration(after the cancelation of the lunar and martian projects) , this is the reason why use non cryogenic propellant with low specific impulse (but suitable for long term use in space) and have a lower mass to fit into less performing SLS compared to Aries-5 from the constellation program.
@@theOrionsarms It was but the ESM and USM still have / had the same D/V performance numbers. That is why ESM was chosen as is, it was literally the perfect size for the missions they expected to fly. the USM was in some designs smaller than the ESM
@@rundownpear2601 so basically original service module for the Orion existed only on the paper, like many other hardware in the constellation program in that time , and when they started to built a real thing don't make one new from the scratch(more adequate for their new purposes) only modified a piece of hardware that fits to the original specifications despite in that moment planning to use it in a very different way. The way how NASA keeps changing their lunar program (or pretending to doing, without really make it ) never stop to amaze me.
Vasile Sulica yeah it was never officially contracted I believe, Lockheed just had the designs. I am also noting that the CEV had a delta v requirement of 1742 m/s, still not enough for adequate lunar maneuvers due to Altair’s propulsion.
43:23 Well done Spacex for getting the Human Landing System contract ! Turns out the developpement will cost only 2.9B, not 17.5B as you predicted since Spacex pays half of it.
Yes for the Apollo model limited by earth's gravity well. . Starship is a different model. Refueling in space, space manufacturing and fuel mfg on the moon /Mars moves us from space rafts to equivalent sailng vessels.
@@argylehunter2733 if you haven't seen it yet there's a channel I found called Apogee. He's a young guy but his idea on how to use the Starship is genius. I'll post a link.
Starship Lunar lander will weigh 100 tons, and land 100 tons. The other "lightweight" landers will weigh 10 tons and land 3-4 tons. Oh, and only one of them is fully and rapidly reusable.
Nobody in history ever put it better than Scott Manley: "You strap on solid propellant boosters and pretend its a rocket." Solid rockets belong in Morton The yokel's 20th century. Enough already.
Now try to make people use word "theoretically" properly. People use word "theoretically" instead "hypothetically" and we have those brilliant phrases as "it's just a theory. It hasn't proven yet" P.S. hypothetically is quite hard to say. May be it's one of the reasons why people use "theoretically" instead. Because we lazy :D
@@myentertainment55 Same reason even NASA says space instead of outer space. I'm always thinking' These are supposed to be professionals and they can't even get the name right'.
I see it as a Saturn 5 bogged down by Shuttle hardware. SLS will prove to be a huge waste. Sea Dragon should have been the direction they should have went in if their goal is both a moon base & a mission to Mars. Sea Dragon could have lifted over 1.6 million lbs to orbit & without a launch pad out at sea. It would have been super cheap compared to Shuttle & SLS at around $60 per kelo to space.
The increased mission duration is actually a very interesting perspective, and definitely makes the enormous costs significantly more palatable. Also the head of human spaceflight was forced to resign in May due to improper contact with Boeing regarding their lunar lander submission really proves that indefinite cost overruns and delays won't be acceptable moving forward.
Phenomenal vid!! This is as good or better than anything I've seen on Discovery, National Geographic, PBS, ect. I love the fact that you don't dumb down the content but rather take your audience to be as smart as anyone else. Script, graphics, everything is A+! You could not have done a better job. You have created a unique space for your self that feels like your calling ...few ever achieve this. God bless!!
Yes! Radiation shielding was something I ponder for current future missions into space. It's good to hear that Artemis will have better shields & I hope that'll be a trend going forward. Great animated graphs and stuff too by the way.
@@yoskarokuto3553 They had some shielding but I read that one or more missions had close calls with avoiding solar flairs. They were using tinfoil and thin sheets of led for the bits that went to the moon and back. Nothing strong enough for long term moon bases let alone going to other worlds with people aboard.
I can't stop laughing at that clip at 56:54 "We need to test moving the rocket back and forth" "What, build some specialized machine? Sounds difficult" "Nah, I've got a better idea-get me some interns."
Can there really be a comparison between Apollo and Artemis? Everything- electronics, computer systems, even intergrated circuits, liquid rocket engines and many other technologies were pushed to a limit by Apollo. Apollo created much of the infrastructure for rockets that America has today. What Apollo achieved was invaluable. What companies like Boeing are doing to artimes is pure greed, and should be considered as criminal. I understand the anger caused by this unnecessary wastage. And I am Australian, not American. I do think NASA is on its way towards getting the funding directed where it can give the best value, I hope I am correct, and wish NASA and the U.S. taxpayerall the best.
I've been watching SLS's development for the past decade. And your rant is music to my ears. It is awesome to hear someone bring up the huge scandal of NASA's contractors being careless with taxpayer money. But at the end of the day we have a deep spacecraft now, and I'm just happy we have something that is almost ready to fly.
either nasa's contractors or what we have now- jeff bezos, bill gates, elon musk et al... take your pick it's all the same, one kind of corruption or another.
Brian Wheeldon I understand what you’re saying about corruption. This is why it is vital that we all pay close attention to what is going on around us. It is our job to hold Our Governments to the mark. Otherwise we will be stuck spinning our wheels for 30 years like with the Space Shuttle (Sorry to be tip toeing into politics, but this is important.)
@@HunterKutz Problem is for every 1 of us that actualy pays attention and tries to hold our government and representitives to the mark theres 1000 that dont pay attention at all and vote because theres a D or R next to the name. Thats not even considering all the people that keep voteing in the same guy who's fighting to keep the wasteful programs running because they ensured a critical widget was manufactured in their district resulting in millions of $'s comeing in for what would be a 5$ part in any other program.
Well done, Tim! You’re the only guy on RUclips who can get me to click on a video that is longer than ~20 minutes and keep me watching until the end. Thank you!
Great work Tim, I'm a big lover of Project Apollo and how America in just over 8 years went from a few minutes in sub orbital space to landing men on the moon. Thanks for all your hard work and great informative videos. After watching SLS twice fail to launch and Starship being a crazy system to land on the moon just can't figure out why NASA has gone for these systems.
@@badtrekee4348 Thank you, people don't understand that. NASA only exists to spend money and they do a great job at it, if something gets accomplished so be it, but the important thing is that money gets spent and jobs are created.
I’m currently studying Aerospace Engineering and I hope to one day design such rockets. Your videos have really inspired me and I have actually used your videos as some sources in some of my high school projects. Really great work Tim!
You must have a great school that teaches Aerospace Engineering! Glad your making good use of your education. The biggest advances that Elon has done, is with his Metallurgy Engineers in development of the Raptor engine. There are many aspects of engineering. Find the one you like the most and see what specialist role you can get a job in. Then aim for that. That's my suggestion. May as well enjoy your work than be pushed into something you don't get inspired by.
@@MonkeyKing3333 Yeah, that's the advice I DIDN'T get when I was a kid. I'm now 60 and tried to change my career in my 40's. Though top of the class, fell flat on my face. No one wants an apprentice at that age. Now they are screaming out for trained people in the field that I couldn't get an apprenticeship with? Now I have no sympathy for that industry, just watch them go out of business, one by one.
From me too: "This monster of a video is excellent - great work Tim! Loved the rant :)" Yes -"My blood is boiling" - Too. Kudos, thumbs up! " :) And thanks also for the the chapter "The Good Parts of Artemis" which sets a good mood again, and especially: the Conclusion is a great, great in rounding it off. "A bad sequel to a bad movie", that sums it off. As you said - glad to have SpaceX with Falcon9 and Dragon now.
Okay, I've gotta say it: I ABSOLUTELY LOVE THIS VIDEOS SPACECRAFT TRAJECTORY ANIMATION!! I picture spacecraft operating in a similar way to this in my head, but that's from years of studies in celestial & orbital mechanics, along with just being a massive lifelong spaceflight/rocketry nerd. I think this will go a LONG way in helping those who are new to orbital mechanics "get it": for these ideas to go from an abstract notion of unintuitive maneuvers to a real understanding of exactly how things happen in orbit. Well done Tim Dodd & Crew, well done!! *Post Script: I can't help but giggle a lil everytime I think of you as "Tim" instead of "Everyday Astronaut". I've been here since the beginning: before the "no photoshop" series, the first public pics posted on social media, the transition from art project to spaceflight enthusiast to serious science communicator(term used with due diligence). The first time I heard your name as "Tim", I thought that was just the generic name given to your character "Everyday Astronaut".
I greatly appreciated this video. I actually just wrote a 10-page paper on this very topic, and I came to the same conclusion on the cavalier use of taxpayer money. With the completion of the Starship, I believe that we will see a shift in the program to the more advanced, affordable, and capable Spacex option.
If you look at how the Government manages and administrates, it’s contracts, Boeing or Northrop etc are not the problem, though they get blamed. The problem is how the Government monitors and structures the contract tracking and reporting via an agency called DCMA. It takes engineering teams 5 times more effort to report on their work than actually doing the work. Remember, you are paying an engineer at the same rate, whether they are designing or telling you how they did it.
11:25 OMG he pronounced Thales right. I'm proud of you whether you researched that or not. Much love from a Thales employee who is planning on making the move to Alenia Space based in Bristol, UK.
To be fair, how you pronounce an ancient Greek name depends on what modern language it is used in. But most people I know just say “TAS” instead of Thales Alenia Space, anyway.
@@eypandabear7483 yeah for sure. Thales loves a good acronym anyway. Every business has a different acronym. I was working in IAS (integrated air support), was AOW (Air Operation Weapons), but they deemed the word to be too agreesive in the current climate.
A few words on Orions Service Module: I think it makes sense for it to be so small, since Orion isn't just build for the moon, but it is also supposed to be used for Mars. When you build a capsule solely for the Moon, like Apollo CSM, the approach of having the command module do all the pushing around and returning to earth makes sense, since things are generally lighter that 30 tons and Delta-V requirements are only 2x800 m/s=1600m/s. However, when you look at a Mars Mission, different components can easily weigh more than 50 tons and Delty-V requirements for capture and return are much bigger. Giving Orion a Service Module big enough to accomplish all those goals would be hugely inefficient and would turn Orion more into a crewed space tug than simply a manned capsule. All the pushing-around would be done by high-energy transfer stages like the blie Origin lander one. I feel like Artemis' weird approach to lunar landing is not only dictated by the need to communicate 24/7, but also by Orion's Mars-worthy construction.
Matthew Liebrich oops sorry programme now cancelled but don’t worry we’ve come up with yet another rocket programme which will cost another $100b even though utilising old technology but it’ll keep your local senator in power for another 33 years. Want your beer back? That’ll be another $100b please.
Weren't here cost overruns on commercial crew? For Boeing at least. Though it was "only" $187 million, which is cheap by "traditional" space industry cost overruns.
The rant is greatly justified; Boeing is not the Boeing that we were blessed to have prior to the McDonnell Douglas merger. Right now, the Boeing 737 MAX is STILL grounded, the entire 787 fleet may all end up grounded (again!), the US Military has stopped accepting deliveries of Boeing's KC-46 FOUR TIMES due to production issues... and well, let's not forget the near-miss when testing the crew module. NASA should definitely put a ton of pressure (and threats) against Boeing to recoup the costs, and dial down the orders to 1/4 of what is currently available, and put that funding into other companies that have the capability of developing something new. I'm not happy with this program, not one bit. Like you said, they may as well have modernized the Saturn V and its crew module. And I'm not even American.
@@Mike-oz4cv I'd imagine there are some pretty big differences (and sometimes even with the same lines of business; for example, there's a ton of defects with Charleston-build 787's, but Washington 787's are much better built). However, it doesn't really matter, because the root cause of all of these problems came from the very top - with the decision to shift from engineering decisions to business decisions for maximum profitability.
Meanwhile Boeing had the unmitigated audacity to claim that Bombardier was being unfairly subsidised by the Canadian govt and had to literally give their most promising project to, of all people Boeing's primary airline competitor. Boeing can and should implode. It's a full on metastasized cancer at this point.
Without strong commercial incentives, I fear this will end up going nowhere. I think Musk knows as much, and is doing everything he can to make sure SpaceX won't rely on government funding. After Starlink, the next step might be fast cargo delivery from Earth to Earth, then on to space mining.
Starlink is a fluke and hemoraging spacex money. It is a commersially unfeasable program, unfortuatly i fear starlink will be the death of spacex which is unfortuate. It is littering space around our planet with dangerous space junk increasing the chances for kessler syndrom with each sattelite that they are throwing into LEO. If spacex doesn't cut starlink off like the cancerous tumor that it is spacex will fail
@@derpaton4354 .. / military application. Gear of war. Halo. Just exhausted dreams. Food delivery 🚚. Large payload of food. Rescue teams search and rescue.
Starlink will make the Tesla Pi the new IPhone at which point Musk will be the first trillionaire giving him the personal wealth to lead us to be a multi planetary species. F those government clowns
The first Saturn V launch was less than two years before Apollo 11 (20 months). The scheduled lunar landing is in 2024 (no month that I know of), with most of the relevant rockets planning to fly in 2021, though SLS and Super Heavy may slip to early 2022. At minimum, the rockets for the return will have more time between the first launch and the actual lunar mission, and its unlikely we’ll see significant problems like the pogo oscillations that plagued the early Saturn V launches. It’s also nearly certain that every rocket except SLS will have more launches by that mission than the Saturn V, as they’re commercial vehicles in a growing and competitive industry.
It’s because SLS is a jobs program for the state of Alabama. They’re essentially using billions in taxpayer money from all over the country to keep people employed in one specific part of the country. Make of that what you will
SLS = Senate Launch System. I oversaw a gov contact once. I was so pissed about all the money I lost from my program to all the legal requirements in gov contracting.
I think that the best part of Artemis is the Lunar Gateway in the elliptical Moon Orbit since it can be used by potentially any partner and will be somewhat similar to ISS.
Arnav Singh, I have a auto immune condition where in my neutrophils are low I got a infection that didn’t respond to the meds I hade at home so I when to get iv antibiotic because oral antibiotics don’t work well. With my condition a pimple and have half my face swollen in 24 hours one it starts to get bad.
Second time I've watched this video. One thing that comes to mind; Tim Dodd represents all or most of us. He does his "job" better than anyone else could. We are fortunate to have him.
Anyone who is surprised that retrofitting an older solution is so expensive has clearly never worked on legacy code. Making modifications to an existing system can be just as hard as building a new system sometimes.
@@west_adv The issue is that if NASA tried to rebuild everything from scratch and it didn't work, it would be a huge political black eye and the program could get completely scrapped. NASA learned that the hard way with the space shuttle program. When it comes to the politics of keeping the Artemis program going, the best option is the more expensive but safer route of basically reconfiguring and updating the Apollo systems rather than the potentially cheaper but far riskier option of building something completely new.
Well in fairness to Aerojet Rockdyne, the RS-25 is still one of the best engines ever made with many unique and powerful features like having the ability to run at 105% thrust, a unique nozzle that sorta compensates for the altitude, highest specific impulse of any liquid engine that has flown and the first fully reusable engine. However I do agree to build something new or to completely refit the engine for modern manufacturing techniques but building a new engine takes time, a lot of money, no guarantee that it will perform the way you want or even if the engine is needed to begin with. Cough cough F-1B engine
I''m not so sure that Tim is surprised as much as he knows most of his audience will be surprised. Congress has turned this part of NASA into jobs program, not a space program.
People who take a critical look at government spending: “Wait this is insane these numbers don’t check out” Military industrial complex: “Money printer go brrrrrrr”
@@whosjulez1157 I hate to call you out but all of Orion's and Artemis's problems are from Obama's administration. In fact Jim Bridenstine Trump's appointee is probably the best NASA administrator we've had in a long time. It's actually the one thing Trump's probably done best.
Until you compared SLS to Saturn V, I had no idea how much less capable we had become. It's profoundly crazy that we never kept the F1 on the board and lost our ability to produce them.
The F1 as great of an engine as it is is just outdated. Putting it on new rockets would be like trying to get 4k on a CRT screen. The engines on the SLS are proven, while Starships are not.
@@Raiders1917 but then the F1 could be modded for todays use. i strongly belive and have faith on the F1. my take is why not re-engineer the F1 to a much modern vehicle engine? its crazy going backwards....with a much more powerful engine and eficeint engine missions will surely get better
I look forward to the upcoming huge bailout program when the whole company is about to go under because of the whole 737 intentional deaths thing. Dumb criminals rob banks, smart criminals run banks, and really smart criminals get enough government contracts going that the government can't let them fail
@@damstachizz That's why smart crimes only have civil consequences. You think smart criminals will chance prison time? The cards are stacked. (Bernie Maddoff's mistake was stealing from too many people, smart wealthy people. That's when the doors clang shut, not thump.)
"The American Tax-payer: Keeping -Boeing- Lockheed in the black since 1961." Fixed that for you. At least Boeing can survive on civilian transport. Try seeing Lockheed-Martin continue to exist without a government contract. Worse yet? Lockheed has quite the history of greasing palms to get the military contracts that they do get. F-104 Starfighter for the German Air Force ring any bells? It should.
Tim: 'and this is actually how long it takes for signals to travel to the moon' Boeing: 'and that's exactly how long it takes for us to spend $1000 tax dollars on Artemis' Ok I was joking it actually takes around 8 3/4 seconds...
I think it really depends on how much the program benefits or hurts society as a whole. If a few corporations are the only benefactors, then it probably hurts. However, if those corporations are using their developments to advance communications technology or significantly improve rocket technology, then it may be worth it. Based on the what SpaceX has already accomplished though, seemingly on their own, it does look to me like wasteful spending in comparison. I'd much rather have seen all that money go towards more significant science and research based endeavors, than unnecessary trips to the moon. Perhaps we need to see a video on the proposed science experiments planned for the lunar surface. It sounds as if NASA has already committed itself to spending that large amount though, and if it has already surpassed paying out at least 30-40% of those contracts, I think it needs to remain committed to fulfilling those contracts and completing the mission, however bad of an idea it may have been to begin with.
It could be just an easy vehicle to fund black book programs, it is Northrop and Boeing. Two Zombie Companies that are in massive amounts of debt to the Government (Financial control) who build and hold A LOT of advanced technologies that are necessary for national defense.
@@twichy4life1 You may have a point. It's been pretty clear for many years now that the F-35 program is just a money laundering program for Lockheed Martin's black projects (particularly in the drone area).
@@jacekrowinski5637 so right. People continually underestimate the utility of the F35 being a stealthy networked mini-AWACS. Whether they perform as well in a dogfighting paradigm (which is likely an anachronism at this point) is a point of contention that really misses the point: f35s are designed to fight like wolves.
I honestly don't care how much it costs. There's massive opportunity costs for *not* going back to space, and they outweigh rockets costing several orders of magnitude greater. The Apollo program was expensive, but we ultimately profited from it financially as well as culturally and scientifically. While getting costs down is a good thing, obviously, I'd rather spend more now to get something ASAP than wait.
@@fakecubed think elon musk said something about life on 2 planets means 1 extra life. 2 lives better than 1. Every waking moment theres a chance a rogue planet or asteroid rams earth and end life just like that. We would probably know weeks in advance but that wouldnt change anything. What angers me most is when people see this as a waste of money and instead argues it should be funneled to problems at hand. Problems we have cant be solved once and done forever. if we do then our humanity's future is sealed into extinction.
The cult of Elon Musk is probably the worst fandom in existence right now. Want to talk about costs? Look into how much the US taxpayer has subsidized his businesses over the years. SpaceX is just another Boeing or McDonnell Douglas, but we’re supposed to think it’s something new. All that’s new is there’s a rich egomaniac taking up the spotlight instead of thousands of anonymous engineers working government contracts same as it ever was.
SLS is like going to the mechanic because your car won't start. You: How much will it cost? Mech: As much as a brand new car? You: What? Mech: Oh, and we'll take parts from your old car so you can't use those anywhere else. Aaand, we'll take your garage to build your car with your old parts (not gonna return it). You: Okay fine. Just get it going. Mech: You get 8 trips. 🤣🤣😭😭 fk Boing. boing! boing!
A fixed cost contract is for the services originally contracted. If the customer changes requirements after that, it's unreasonable to expect the supplier to keep to the same terms. The solution is for the customer to figure out what they want ahead of time and stick with that.
@@shatterpointgames Wrong! They pushed a landing gear up to prepare a falcon nine for transport once and the landing gear suddenly fell back out. Luckily no one was in the way. That was a close call. If someone had been in the wrong place when it happened it could have been horrible!
@Lovecraft No one is going to die either if the navy does not get new ships. Ever heard of upgrades? Those ships are still state of the art. Also new carriers are being build and the Zumwalt-Class as well. Hell how many more new ships do you want? Do you want to exchange all of the ships withing like 30 years? I mean 11% are easily possible without compromising anything. Hell even 50% would be fine.
@Lovecraft no, just that it could be lower and still well enough for defense. Of course defense isn't enough for the US. since they could probably rename the DoD to DoO, as that's all they've been doing after WW2 - I count WW2 as defense since Japan did pose a threat to the US. But yeah, civilians from other countries in the world that would never be able to harm the US anyway won't die by themselves. Well, actually they would, but not as quickly so funding is required after all.
@Lovecraft I'd be ok with defending my country if someone actually attacked it. Going somewhere around the world bombing someone's family to express the military might of my country - not an ambition of mine. It's easy to be pro war when you are over a century away from the last time war affected the civilian population on your own territory, so it's easy for the US to forget that's a thing. War affects everyone, not just those in the military. I don't want that on my land, but if nobody's gonna do that to me, I ain't bringing that to anyone's homes either. Living as a civilian in a land ravaged by a war you didn't even want would do good for that attitude of yours.
Holy cow I can’t believe I watched the whole thing already. After so much anticipation. Another excellent job Tim I just wish it didn’t go by so fast.😂
For Starship, they really should put a detachable capsule at the top of it for the lunar landing models. Every time they go, they leave what is essentially useful future habitation behind. "Virtually impossible to have cost overruns" - You REALLY underestimate modern space programs and their ability to find creative ways to spend ridiculous amounts of money unnecessarily...
I was reading literally 2 days ago that most of the aerospace industry, except Boeing, think SLS will be canceled and that a lot of people want it to be. I hope it isn't. I want really badly to take my father to an SLS launch.
@@rundownpear2601 That would actuality be fine -IF- they stop flying out after something exists which can actually do the jobs SLS is being built to do.
I mean, once Starship is flying, SLS is going to have an awfully hard time continuing to justify its existance. And I strongly suspect Starship will beat SLS to orbit.
@@Keldor314 it totally will. It's well on schedule to do that despite several failures. The hi iteration rate is not possible with dinosaur companies like Boeing. They should stick to planes.
Keldor314 starship will probably not beat SLS too orbit, but if it does good for them. There’s a big difference between sending an operational vehicle to orbit and a prototype
Why the price tag? Every dollar went to a person, providing "jobs". The more spent, the more "jobs". And Shelby and company supported it to supply "jobs" for their states.
Although I understand it’s not not burning money, like Apollo generated $0.50 for every dollar spent and that’s what they want with SLS. I think most of the criticism comes from Boeing purposely making the program go over budget and abusing the cost plus contract method
The problem isn't the cost; it's the way the money is being spent. They've operated this program as inefficiently as possible by abusing generous government contracts to line executives' pockets. The fact that they've created jobs is just the cost of doing business if they want congress to keep the pork coming, and congress doesn't seem to much care what contractors actually get done so long as they can claim to have created jobs in their respective districts. Just look at what SpaceX and Blue Origin are doing. Look at what they've accomplished and imagine what they could have accomplished with Artemis' budget and consider the fact that they'd probably create more jobs while doing it. It's daylight robbery, pure and simple, and it's all the more outrageous when you consider the fact that there's a good chance the program will get canceled well before its time.
RundownPear "Compared with other forms of investment, the return is outstanding: A payback of $7 or 8 for every $1 invested over a period of a decade or so has been calculated for the Apollo Program, which at its peak accounted for a mere 4 percent of the Federal budget. It has been further estimated that, because of the potential for technology transfer and spinoff industries, every $1 spent on basic research in space today will generate $40 worth of economic growth on Earth." (Google economic return of nasa investment)
![Twenty One Pilots - The Line (from Arcane Season 2) [Official Audio]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/XCz7WUotXs8/mqdefault.jpg)
![Stromae, Pomme - “Ma Meilleure Ennemie” (from Arcane Season 2) [Official Visualizer]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/1F3OGIFnW1k/mqdefault.jpg)
Your rant reminds me of a quote by Gwynne Shotwell: "I don't even know how to spend $400 million on a rocket"
Somebody needs to hold these contractors accountable.
Hahahah, did she say that? Beautiful. :D
That's a great quote if it's real. Could you provide a source? I did a web search and wasn't able to find it.
I'm pretty sure it was a sit down interview.
@@ronniebauman28 So you recall seeing a video of her saying something like that in an interview? Do you remember anything about the context, e.g. the event, interviewer, or how long ago it took place?
Links for mobile users! (Sorry the play-bar might not breakup on mobile either)
00:00 - Intro
03:50 - The Hardware
15:55 - The Missions
29:15 - Safety & Upgrades
35:50 - Program Costs
46:20 - Rant
52:25 - The Good Parts of Artemis
55:35 - Conclusion
Tim you are the best and amazing.
Hmm, the play-bar works on google
Play bar breakups are working on my Pixel 4 on the RUclips app
It works on the RUclips app
Mmm bar breaks up for me
This monster of a video is excellent - great work Tim! Loved the rant :)
Oh look, famous person
Hey Joey 🐝
Joey? 🤔
BPS moon landing by 2024!
Look, it's the carbonated milk guy
I am a great believer in sending an unmanned version to the Moon/Mars landing site ahead of the actual manned flight. This enables the mission to test all the craft involved and also gives reassurance because it would carry ahead lots of food, water, oxygen and equipment needed. It can even mean a spare space craft with engines can be on hand on the target site with spares of everything should they be needed. So the pressure is taken off everyone.
Sounds like a good plan.. redundancy...
Sounds expensive.. redundancy...
@@elnico5623we are already doing that anyways
‘It’ll be virtually impossible to have cost overruns’ Boeing: Well how we gonna make money now?
Boeing squeezed another $287 Million out of NASA on the fixed price Starliner contract because NASA was afraid that Boeing would otherwise pull out of Commercial Crew. The SLS and Orion programs could use the same strategy to get more funding. At least until there's a viable commercial option.
When you compare SpaceX Crew Dagon and Boeing Starliner BUDGET and the actual RESULTS. BOEING just looks like a joke ... I won't even mention BOEING 737 MAX ! Pleasing Wall Street is the devil
@@TheGoyard thats why a lot of companies are staying or returning to private.
First and foremost great video perhaps your best. I agree that with all those money spent let's fly that rocket. But if they ask for more money 💰 as I'm sure boeing is how much more would you give them before cancelling. Remember its 30 billion for a new fuel tank cause all the rest is reused.
JackTSR
I’m sick of ‘the devil made Nasa do it’ revisionist nonsense.. sick of Nasa apologists blaming NASA’s incompetence/waste/failures on Congress, taxpayers, Shelby, contractors, etc..
Congress acts on Nasa recommendations/promises..contractors do what they’re told, paid, contracted to do.
Nasa promised a gullible Congress a ‘cheap, safe, reliable’ STS then delivered a $1.6 billion per flight boondoggle that killed 2 crews & had chronic multi-year service outages.. the most unaffordable, dangerous, unreliable space vehicle in history..
Then Nasa promised Congress a quick, cheap, & dirty Constellation/Sls based on shuttle components.. how’s that going $80 billion & 16 years later?
Nasa, Government is the problem, not the solution.
Looking forward to hearing this for the first time since 1972:
"Artemis 2, Houston.
"
"Go ahead, Houston.
"
"Artemis 2. You are Go for TLI. Over."
(that's the Apollo 8 dialogue from 1968 with the spacecraft name updated; the actual Apollo 17 dialog went:
"Roger. Guys, I've got the word you wanted to hear; you are Go for TLI - you're Go for the Moon."
"Okay, Robert. Understand. America and Challenger with their S-IVB are Go for TLI.")
Just imagine, if you will, they brought in Harrison Schmitt, god willing still with us, to give the TLI call for Artemis 2. A handoff from Apollo to Artemis. Would be amazing.
Hearing anything get the go for TLI makes me moist. The chance of hearing it in the 21st century makes my heart race.
''You are go for TLI''
I'll probably cry hearing those words
"aaaaaaaand ACTION"
More likely to be "Go ahead, Boca Chica".
It's literally 11 pm in India when you released the video ( in India )
I was so curious to watch this video. Great work. Waiting for a video about isro from you tim.
I will watch it in 4k tomorrow on large screen.. 🇮🇳🇮🇳
desi gang
Whelp, you were accurate with the lander animation for the mission profile. Spacex did in fact win the contract.
This aged well
“Boeing: ‘Failure is not an option, it comes standard in every product.’”
Lmao
got us in the first half
You still have to pay extra for it, though...
Omg lol
boeing 737 max
Me: Sees that Tim has uploaded a vide “ah yes”
Also me: Sees the video is over an hour long “OH HELL YES!!!!”
Runs for snacks and gets comfortable
wait i just watched this for an hour and didn't realize it was that long
The same happens to me, but in the opposite way 😂😭
(an hour is too much for me)
Tim's videos are great, but maybe he should do also a *shorter version* / resume of them ✂️ (maybe a 15~20 min video, in addition to the full video).
An hour video for comparing this two rocket systems is definitively too much for the _"space (not too much in deep)amateur"_ .
Sure it is tasty for the most ardent fans, but I think for people who just like a little the topics, an hour video looks like *too much* 😬
@@cicher *Our goals are beyond your understanding*
"The rockets should by no measure be going backwards."
That's why it's essential to verify which is the pointy end before launch.
Dad jokes!!! Classic
"Apollo program at Astronomical costs"?
...
Basically half of one years defense spending
well actually there's something to be said there for deceleration and landing...
@@jyuyd8274 Jj?jjjjjj
@@jyuyd8274 jjjjjjjjj
Congrats to SpaceX for winning the contract for the lunar lander!
@J6F05 CHEUNG Hei-yeung Andy Yes they changed some aspect of the design, like those you cite.
SpaceX has flown all his stuff and blown it all up and it still didn’t cost as much as the pig that NASA iOS using…go figure. And don’t even mention how long it’s been going on.
Tbh at the current rate of progress, I wouldn't be surprised if Space X just go to the moon themselves before NASA even launches a single SLS. Yet alone build the Lunar Station.
Giving SpaceX the Artemis contract was a major mistake.
Especially since Starship still tends to... well, explode.
By doing so, NASA has practically guaranteed the deaths of all Artemis crews.
I could be wrong, of course, but as of right now I have serious doubts SpaceX knows what it's doing when it comes to super-heavy lift rockets like Starship.
Go NASA or Explode.
@@TheOneTrueDragonKing Do you really think space X and NASA will launch people up in a Starship before they have the landing sorted?
Unlike the other 2 options space x actually have something that flies, even if it doesn't land just yet. But the only way you learn is through failiure.
It was also by far the cheapest to produce. Furthermore space X were probably going to send people to the moon on Starship regardless.
Blue Origins option also stipulated advanced payments which NASA refused to sign up for in the contract. And the other option was found to have Negative mass (too heavy).
"NASA maybe dodged a bullet... while driving a car on two wheels on the edge of a cliff inside of a tornado while buying lotto tickets."
That sounds a little more risky than 5%
People in Texas do this all the time.. it's no big deal. (I was going to include Florida, but it's flat, and barley above sea level.. so no cliffs.. but then again... Never underestimate Florida Man.)
LOL
hawkdsl, you just replace the cliff with a croc or gator
While dangerous in it's own right, it does seem an effective way to dodge a bullet.
They did do it 6 times successfully so that would be 5%^6 = 0.0000015625% chance of success.
When Jim Bridenstine was appointed head of NASA, I was sceptical. But boy has he done some incredible things in the last two years! I really really really hope they keep him as head of NASA, no matter who wins in november.
He does seem to have done a pretty good job of balancing competing interests... promoting competition and commercial space, while paying enough respect to political demands to keep himself in the job...
This is one of my concerns this November and beyond. I hate how political NASA has to be but it's finally seemed to turn a corner under Bridenstine.
@@chyza2012 but wasn't artemis announced under Obama because Biden's whole campaign is pretty much I knew Obama and was his VP
@@kyleking3839 If I remember correctly it was ARM (Asteroid Redirect Mission) under Obama but some of the hardware was the same and they were going to orbit the Moon, just not land on it.
@@zapfanzapfan yeah artemis now has barely any government hardware when it comes to the landing aside from gateway but it doesn't seem necessary for a landing
Love the cost breakdown between SLS and Saturn V. I can't believe how much time and money has been spent on SLS when so much hardware was available. I wish the Artemis program a long life. I just hope the costs don't take away from funding future NASA projects.
Yes, NASA needs to get more funding in general. SLS cost ~1% of the total development cost for the F35, SLS is actually kinda cheap, and we really don't want to make the mistake of losing the capability of the Saturn V again, SLS is the right ship for right now.
guys cost is pointless for this i think,most of the money is turned back to the American economy since you probably import a minimum amount of parts...
50% of the total NASA budget is for human space flight. SLS and all the other stuff (space station) is within that budget, so all the other more scientifically viable programs are not effected. Your still going to have space telescopes, planetary missions, and probes... which are planned out in 10 year cycles... So they are safe no matter how much HSF gobbles up.
What's hilarious is they're going to spend a ton of money to launch an Orion capsule, just to have it dock with a Starship, which the astronauts could have just ridden off the planet themselves.
What has NOT been factored in any of this, is the ultimate goal of the reason for going to the moon: To set up a habitat. The cost to fly there is going to look like change next to a Gold Bar.
After watching this video you have actually changed my view on SLS and Orion. You also upgraded my view of the commercial crew program as well. Before I thought that SLS and Orion was a money pit and ... IT IS.. BUT.. You make very valid points. I now believe the more the merrier. I just hope that going forward NASA purchases Commercial Crew contracts for 10 years in advance just like they did with the SLS to ensure future administrations cannot cancel or change direction of NASA objectives big time.
How are these videos free?
This is an absolutely fantastic in depth video. Well done Tim 👏
Patreon
@@panaxion ads and sponsorships as well
these hands down could sell for absolute bank
Is a commercial to sell rockets and spacecraft to our kids and our grandkids. New used rockets for sale. Start your mining colony today.
@@robertothigpen511 - i was sold by red dwarf… i’m just waiting for deep core mining ships to come down in price…
I think it’s important to note that Orion’s low delta v numbers were because originally it was too travel to the moon with the LSAM / Altair. Altair would perform the lunar breaking burn. When Altair and constellation were cancelled Orion kept these metrics assuming if lunar missions were to be developed again they would have a lunar lander to perform the burn or a Lagrange station (gateway)
Huh. I always wondered why Altair had such a massive lower stage.
I think the current service module of the Orion capsule was developed and built by the European Space Agency for the asteroid retrieval mission during Obama administration(after the cancelation of the lunar and martian projects) , this is the reason why use non cryogenic propellant with low specific impulse (but suitable for long term use in space) and have a lower mass to fit into less performing SLS compared to Aries-5 from the constellation program.
@@theOrionsarms It was but the ESM and USM still have / had the same D/V performance numbers. That is why ESM was chosen as is, it was literally the perfect size for the missions they expected to fly. the USM was in some designs smaller than the ESM
@@rundownpear2601 so basically original service module for the Orion existed only on the paper, like many other hardware in the constellation program in that time , and when they started to built a real thing don't make one new from the scratch(more adequate for their new purposes) only modified a piece of hardware that fits to the original specifications despite in that moment planning to use it in a very different way. The way how NASA keeps changing their lunar program (or pretending to doing, without really make it ) never stop to amaze me.
Vasile Sulica yeah it was never officially contracted I believe, Lockheed just had the designs. I am also noting that the CEV had a delta v requirement of 1742 m/s, still not enough for adequate lunar maneuvers due to Altair’s propulsion.
"That's going to do it for me, I'm Tim Dodd the Everyday Astronaut..."
Me *Nooooo please Tim don't leave I want to watch you rant for another hour*
Then go watch the Our Ludicrous Future podcast.
@@Gibson99 true but I already do that lol, I just need more tim in my life, I think we all do
Just watch it again
43:23 Well done Spacex for getting the Human Landing System contract ! Turns out the developpement will cost only 2.9B, not 17.5B as you predicted since Spacex pays half of it.
Well that’s just for the initial phase of the contract. It’ll still be several billion more once in operation
@@EverydayAstronaut
Freed
Two years later &:Spacex has wasted 1.5 billion and has nothing but a Rocket Go Boom!
@@java4653 they are still on time and within the budget, unlike sls
@@java4653huh?
A friend working at NASA told me "the reason we can't get to the moon now is that the amount of paperwork to be done would be unsurmountable".
Lol
We were warned not to come back .
@@carymartin9548 lolll, wrong
@@carymartin9548 yeah sure buddy
Are they still using Paper now LoL🤣
LOL lunar lander size comparison - Starship hello little guys.
Starship itself can hold all the moon landers
SLS is actually Senate Lunch System
Orion + Starship coupled... which one is the lander, again?
@@anwar4227 Oof, truth singularity right there
all the other landers hitch a ride in a cargo starship
Finally this is the episode I was looking forward to.
ONE HOUR
Mannnn......
It's funny - it has been up a few minutes and already has 140 comments, and almost 500 likes. Now to make some popcorn!
@@ghaznavid yeahh boyy
Me too
5:11 “you want your lunar lander to be as lightweight as possible”. SpaceX: “ I don’t think so”
Yes for the Apollo model limited by earth's gravity well. . Starship is a different model. Refueling in space, space manufacturing and fuel mfg on the moon /Mars moves us from space rafts to equivalent sailng vessels.
@@argylehunter2733 if you haven't seen it yet there's a channel I found called Apogee. He's a young guy but his idea on how to use the Starship is genius. I'll post a link.
@@argylehunter2733
⁰⁰⁰
@@argylehunter2733 Yeah because it’s flying on a booster that can lift like 100 tons lol
Starship Lunar lander will weigh 100 tons, and land 100 tons. The other "lightweight" landers will weigh 10 tons and land 3-4 tons. Oh, and only one of them is fully and rapidly reusable.
Those Shuttle Main Engines deserve better than to end their lives discarded on an expendable rocket.
Yeah they could have easily refurbished them after each launch and slap it under the next rocket.
Seriously. Just the innovations in hydrogen turbo pumps alone. Painful to think of all that magical tech just burning up. :-/
Humans will pack bond with anything.
Nobody in history ever put it better than Scott Manley: "You strap on solid propellant boosters and pretend its a rocket."
Solid rockets belong in Morton The yokel's 20th century. Enough already.
Grak70 than we would have another Ares V, I won’t explain if you already know but am happy to elaborate
At 50:02 Tim finally uses the word “literally” properly. I am figuratively blown away.
Steven Banks 💪😎
Steven Banks +1 best comment award.
Now try to make people use word "theoretically" properly. People use word "theoretically" instead "hypothetically" and we have those brilliant phrases as "it's just a theory. It hasn't proven yet"
P.S. hypothetically is quite hard to say. May be it's one of the reasons why people use "theoretically" instead. Because we lazy :D
@@myentertainment55 Same reason even NASA says space instead of outer space. I'm always thinking' These are supposed to be professionals and they can't even get the name right'.
At least he knows how to use "regardless", people that say "irregardless" drive me into orbit! Hell, Grammerly didn't even pick that up, Gawd.
SLS looks like if Saturn V and The space shuttle had a baby
Thanks for the heart Tim! 🤙 😁
It is very very similar
That's exactly what I always thought
Maybe more Starship than sls
I see it as a Saturn 5 bogged down by Shuttle hardware. SLS will prove to be a huge waste. Sea Dragon should have been the direction they should have went in if their goal is both a moon base & a mission to Mars. Sea Dragon could have lifted over 1.6 million lbs to orbit & without a launch pad out at sea. It would have been super cheap compared to Shuttle & SLS at around $60 per kelo to space.
Shoutout to KSP for actually teaching me stuff that was required for this video
The increased mission duration is actually a very interesting perspective, and definitely makes the enormous costs significantly more palatable. Also the head of human spaceflight was forced to resign in May due to improper contact with Boeing regarding their lunar lander submission really proves that indefinite cost overruns and delays won't be acceptable moving forward.
Studio's lookin' pretty great!
Well the wood panelling is nice, but all those "cigar shaped objects"... it has a bit reseamblance to a high class sex shop by now :D
Ugly German Truths wtf
@@3m_my admit it you can't unsee it now either...
Ugly German Truths why you gotta be like that tho broski
Phenomenal vid!! This is as good or better than anything I've seen on Discovery, National Geographic, PBS, ect. I love the fact that you don't dumb down the content but rather take your audience to be as smart as anyone else. Script, graphics, everything is A+! You could not have done a better job. You have created a unique space for your self that feels like your calling ...few ever achieve this. God bless!!
*etc.
Yu
Yes! Radiation shielding was something I ponder for current future missions into space.
It's good to hear that Artemis will have better shields & I hope that'll be a trend going forward.
Great animated graphs and stuff too by the way.
apollo none of any radiation shielding ?
@@yoskarokuto3553 They had some shielding but I read that one or more missions had close calls with avoiding solar flairs.
They were using tinfoil and thin sheets of led for the bits that went to the moon and back. Nothing strong enough for long term moon bases let alone going to other worlds with people aboard.
I can't stop laughing at that clip at 56:54
"We need to test moving the rocket back and forth"
"What, build some specialized machine? Sounds difficult"
"Nah, I've got a better idea-get me some interns."
xD
That won't happen today though, because no company will lose the op to skim another billion quid for specialized equipment.
I believe this test actually worked too! I read that there were structural weaknesses discovered during the rocking
@@nathanjohnson9464 You mean those 2 guy's had to get leg massages after an hour of rocking? Quiet a structural weakness alright. ;-) 🦵
Hell yeah.. Getting paid to work out.
Can there really be a comparison between Apollo and Artemis?
Everything- electronics, computer systems, even intergrated circuits, liquid rocket engines and many other technologies were pushed to a limit by Apollo.
Apollo created much of the infrastructure for rockets that America has today.
What Apollo achieved was invaluable.
What companies like Boeing are doing to artimes is pure greed, and should be considered as criminal. I understand the anger caused by this unnecessary wastage. And I am Australian, not American.
I do think NASA is on its way towards getting the funding directed where it can give the best value, I hope I am correct, and wish NASA and the U.S. taxpayerall the best.
Woo, this video has been hyped. Going to be a fun watch!
I agree
Tim drops Artemis vs Apollo video
Me: this does put a smile on my face
I love how there is just a section called RANT 😂🤣
The Rant section was good!
Best presented and most informative rant on youtube.
Ideot he just put his kneck on the line with NASA and Jim B . That's Funny !!!!!!
Same rant applies to most government programs...good job Tim.
When Tim started ranting, I was like .. YEAHH !!! That's rite !! Yeahh .. Preach it brotha !!
Re-watching this in April 2023. So excited for the upcoming launch of Starship!
The sheer professionalism of this guy blows me away.
I've been watching SLS's development for the past decade. And your rant is music to my ears. It is awesome to hear someone bring up the huge scandal of NASA's contractors being careless with taxpayer money. But at the end of the day we have a deep spacecraft now, and I'm just happy we have something that is almost ready to fly.
either nasa's contractors or what we have now- jeff bezos, bill gates, elon musk et al... take your pick it's all the same, one kind of corruption or another.
Brian Wheeldon I understand what you’re saying about corruption. This is why it is vital that we all pay close attention to what is going on around us. It is our job to hold Our Governments to the mark. Otherwise we will be stuck spinning our wheels for 30 years like with the Space Shuttle (Sorry to be tip toeing into politics, but this is important.)
@@HunterKutz Problem is for every 1 of us that actualy pays attention and tries to hold our government and representitives to the mark theres 1000 that dont pay attention at all and vote because theres a D or R next to the name. Thats not even considering all the people that keep voteing in the same guy who's fighting to keep the wasteful programs running because they ensured a critical widget was manufactured in their district resulting in millions of $'s comeing in for what would be a 5$ part in any other program.
@@merendell Not all corruptions are created equal, the tea party running NASA is the least wasteful we taxpayers possibly get for now.
@@brianwheeldon4643 how is MUSK corrupt ??????
Well done, Tim! You’re the only guy on RUclips who can get me to click on a video that is longer than ~20 minutes and keep me watching until the end. Thank you!
Great work Tim, I'm a big lover of Project Apollo and how America in just over 8 years went from a few minutes in sub orbital space to landing men on the moon.
Thanks for all your hard work and great informative videos.
After watching SLS twice fail to launch and Starship being a crazy system to land on the moon just can't figure out why NASA has gone for these systems.
Cause they cant fake it with spacex
The problem with SLS is just bad project management. But Jim seems to be fixing that.
It's a job program dude. They don't care about getting to the Moon or anywhere else. Jim can't do anything congress funds NASA.
@@badtrekee4348 Thank you, people don't understand that. NASA only exists to spend money and they do a great job at it, if something gets accomplished so be it, but the important thing is that money gets spent and jobs are created.
I’m currently studying Aerospace Engineering and I hope to one day design such rockets. Your videos have really inspired me and I have actually used your videos as some sources in some of my high school projects. Really great work Tim!
Obviously from this video... it's where the real money is. Good choice. You'll be able to afford a really hot chick.
@@hawkdsl Even musk can't afford that.
You must have a great school that teaches Aerospace Engineering! Glad your making good use of your education. The biggest advances that Elon has done, is with his Metallurgy Engineers in development of the Raptor engine. There are many aspects of engineering. Find the one you like the most and see what specialist role you can get a job in. Then aim for that. That's my suggestion. May as well enjoy your work than be pushed into something you don't get inspired by.
@@David-yo5ws That's great advice for everyone.
@@MonkeyKing3333 Yeah, that's the advice I DIDN'T get when I was a kid. I'm now 60 and tried to change my career in my 40's. Though top of the class, fell flat on my face. No one wants an apprentice at that age. Now they are screaming out for trained people in the field that I couldn't get an apprenticeship with? Now I have no sympathy for that industry, just watch them go out of business, one by one.
BASK IN THE GLORY OF A 1 HOUR LONG VIDEO!
Extremely rare!
EFAP: "Hold my rhino milk!"
From me too: "This monster of a video is excellent - great work Tim! Loved the rant :)"
Yes -"My blood is boiling" - Too. Kudos, thumbs up! " :)
And thanks also for the the chapter "The Good Parts of Artemis" which sets a good mood again,
and especially:
the Conclusion is a great, great in rounding it off. "A bad sequel to a bad movie", that sums it off.
As you said - glad to have SpaceX with Falcon9 and Dragon now.
Okay, I've gotta say it:
I ABSOLUTELY LOVE THIS VIDEOS SPACECRAFT TRAJECTORY ANIMATION!!
I picture spacecraft operating in a similar way to this in my head, but that's from years of studies in celestial & orbital mechanics, along with just being a massive lifelong spaceflight/rocketry nerd.
I think this will go a LONG way in helping those who are new to orbital mechanics "get it": for these ideas to go from an abstract notion of unintuitive maneuvers to a real understanding of exactly how things happen in orbit.
Well done Tim Dodd & Crew, well done!!
*Post Script: I can't help but giggle a lil everytime I think of you as "Tim" instead of "Everyday Astronaut". I've been here since the beginning: before the "no photoshop" series, the first public pics posted on social media, the transition from art project to spaceflight enthusiast to serious science communicator(term used with due diligence). The first time I heard your name as "Tim", I thought that was just the generic name given to your character "Everyday Astronaut".
I greatly appreciated this video. I actually just wrote a 10-page paper on this very topic, and I came to the same conclusion on the cavalier use of taxpayer money. With the completion of the Starship, I believe that we will see a shift in the program to the more advanced, affordable, and capable Spacex option.
If you look at how the Government manages and administrates, it’s contracts, Boeing or Northrop etc are not the problem, though they get blamed. The problem is how the Government monitors and structures the contract tracking and reporting via an agency called DCMA. It takes engineering teams 5 times more effort to report on their work than actually doing the work. Remember, you are paying an engineer at the same rate, whether they are designing or telling you how they did it.
Where can we read this paper?
11:25 OMG he pronounced Thales right. I'm proud of you whether you researched that or not. Much love from a Thales employee who is planning on making the move to Alenia Space based in Bristol, UK.
I thought it was thayls lol.
The company? Yes, correct . The Greek philosopher: “thay -leez “
To be fair, how you pronounce an ancient Greek name depends on what modern language it is used in. But most people I know just say “TAS” instead of Thales Alenia Space, anyway.
@@eypandabear7483 yeah for sure. Thales loves a good acronym anyway. Every business has a different acronym. I was working in IAS (integrated air support), was AOW (Air Operation Weapons), but they deemed the word to be too agreesive in the current climate.
Spot on, Tim! No fluff. No waisted time. Good pace. I appreciate the rant. You are more objective and kind than I am. Great job!
A few words on Orions Service Module: I think it makes sense for it to be so small, since Orion isn't just build for the moon, but it is also supposed to be used for Mars. When you build a capsule solely for the Moon, like Apollo CSM, the approach of having the command module do all the pushing around and returning to earth makes sense, since things are generally lighter that 30 tons and Delta-V requirements are only 2x800 m/s=1600m/s. However, when you look at a Mars Mission, different components can easily weigh more than 50 tons and Delty-V requirements for capture and return are much bigger. Giving Orion a Service Module big enough to accomplish all those goals would be hugely inefficient and would turn Orion more into a crewed space tug than simply a manned capsule. All the pushing-around would be done by high-energy transfer stages like the blie Origin lander one. I feel like Artemis' weird approach to lunar landing is not only dictated by the need to communicate 24/7, but also by Orion's Mars-worthy construction.
I still can't believe that the Orion capsule is going to mars. How can a crew stay healthy in such a small area, especially without gravity?
@@henryfleischer404 Well you would bring an habitation module along with you
@@edki669 I don't understand your comment about the command module doing all the pushing around. This makes no sense.
I'll bet you a million dollars that Orion never goes to Mars (except as a display piece for the martian air and space museum).
Tim: "it'll be virtually impossible to have cost overruns"
NASA: "Hold my beer"
* Hold my $2 million beer.
@@riparianlife97701 It's $3M now.
Matthew Liebrich oops sorry programme now cancelled but don’t worry we’ve come up with yet another rocket programme which will cost another $100b even though utilising old technology but it’ll keep your local senator in power for another 33 years. Want your beer back? That’ll be another $100b please.
*Hold my rocket.
Weren't here cost overruns on commercial crew? For Boeing at least. Though it was "only" $187 million, which is cheap by "traditional" space industry cost overruns.
The rant is greatly justified; Boeing is not the Boeing that we were blessed to have prior to the McDonnell Douglas merger. Right now, the Boeing 737 MAX is STILL grounded, the entire 787 fleet may all end up grounded (again!), the US Military has stopped accepting deliveries of Boeing's KC-46 FOUR TIMES due to production issues... and well, let's not forget the near-miss when testing the crew module.
NASA should definitely put a ton of pressure (and threats) against Boeing to recoup the costs, and dial down the orders to 1/4 of what is currently available, and put that funding into other companies that have the capability of developing something new.
I'm not happy with this program, not one bit. Like you said, they may as well have modernized the Saturn V and its crew module.
And I'm not even American.
How much do the different branches of Boeing actually have in common?
@@Mike-oz4cv I'd imagine there are some pretty big differences (and sometimes even with the same lines of business; for example, there's a ton of defects with Charleston-build 787's, but Washington 787's are much better built).
However, it doesn't really matter, because the root cause of all of these problems came from the very top - with the decision to shift from engineering decisions to business decisions for maximum profitability.
We should never have allowed Boeing to buy Embraer.
Meanwhile Boeing had the unmitigated audacity to claim that Bombardier was being unfairly subsidised by the Canadian govt and had to literally give their most promising project to, of all people Boeing's primary airline competitor. Boeing can and should implode. It's a full on metastasized cancer at this point.
@@TheEDFLegacy wonder what the difference is between Charleston and Washington that leads to those quality differences.
Without strong commercial incentives, I fear this will end up going nowhere. I think Musk knows as much, and is doing everything he can to make sure SpaceX won't rely on government funding. After Starlink, the next step might be fast cargo delivery from Earth to Earth, then on to space mining.
We need to get together and buy one of those things. And make some money 🤑💰. On the moon.
$ 100.000 To get in. Mine team One.
Starlink is a fluke and hemoraging spacex money. It is a commersially unfeasable program, unfortuatly i fear starlink will be the death of spacex which is unfortuate.
It is littering space around our planet with dangerous space junk increasing the chances for kessler syndrom with each sattelite that they are throwing into LEO.
If spacex doesn't cut starlink off like the cancerous tumor that it is spacex will fail
@@derpaton4354 .. / military application. Gear of war. Halo. Just exhausted dreams.
Food delivery 🚚. Large payload of food.
Rescue teams search and rescue.
Starlink will make the Tesla Pi the new IPhone at which point Musk will be the first trillionaire giving him the personal wealth to lead us to be a multi planetary species. F those government clowns
@@tomdolan9761 moon slavery . Get your first day moon slave?
the scary part, is none of the listed launch vehicles have flown yet.
Starship is coming, baby!
The first Saturn V launch was less than two years before Apollo 11 (20 months). The scheduled lunar landing is in 2024 (no month that I know of), with most of the relevant rockets planning to fly in 2021, though SLS and Super Heavy may slip to early 2022. At minimum, the rockets for the return will have more time between the first launch and the actual lunar mission, and its unlikely we’ll see significant problems like the pogo oscillations that plagued the early Saturn V launches. It’s also nearly certain that every rocket except SLS will have more launches by that mission than the Saturn V, as they’re commercial vehicles in a growing and competitive industry.
@@Imbeachedwhale tbh, it is really unlikely that first Artemis mission to moon. Will be 2024. More like 2026
Starship flew, it just landed a bit hard the first time.
@@jordonberkove7438 SN5 and SN6 landed. But landing is not all
Tim: the costs for artemis are insane, how is this possible?
Me: Easy, corruption!
Simone Bartolini Answer: Boeing : The only company where safety features are optional upgrades...
B O E I N G, a cancer in the aerospace world.
Jixuan & Sebastian can tell you also. Corporate lobbyists by Boeing & Lockheed Martin.
It’s because SLS is a jobs program for the state of Alabama. They’re essentially using billions in taxpayer money from all over the country to keep people employed in one specific part of the country. Make of that what you will
SLS = Senate Launch System.
I oversaw a gov contact once. I was so pissed about all the money I lost from my program to all the legal requirements in gov contracting.
Tim at the beginning: "We're diving deep"
Tim at the end: "We just scratched the surface"
Expectation: Liquid.
Reality: Very solid.
'Tis but a scratch
Think of it like the ocean. A deep dive for one person is anything beyond 60m, whereas that barely scratches the surface of the oceans 10,929m depth
@@FlightRecorder1 Oh, do that's how metaphors work! Thanks. I thought he was really going for a dive.
@@FlightRecorder1 The Earth's ocean depth is nothing compared to Enceladus's 60-mile deep ocean!
I think that the best part of Artemis is the Lunar Gateway in the elliptical Moon Orbit since it can be used by potentially any partner and will be somewhat similar to ISS.
Last time I was this early Tim used to wear his orange suit
Last time i was this early Tim's dad had just finished pulling out
.......
@@nicosmind3 Why where you there?
and it needed ironing, too
@@Tuning3434 Isnt that answer obvious?? Tim's mum of course
I get out of the hospital, sleep in a real bed, and then wake up to this. Looking like a great day so far.
Congrats for getting home and getting better. Hope u stay healty
Congrats! What happened?
I’m glad you’re home, safe, and healthy!!
And then you get to eat home cooking and it get's even better!
Arnav Singh, I have a auto immune condition where in my neutrophils are low I got a infection that didn’t respond to the meds I hade at home so I when to get iv antibiotic because oral antibiotics don’t work well.
With my condition a pimple and have half my face swollen in 24 hours one it starts to get bad.
Second time I've watched this video. One thing that comes to mind; Tim Dodd represents all or most of us. He does his "job" better than anyone else could. We are fortunate to have him.
He easily won access to Elon as an equally conspiratorial nerd. Very likeable together, I thought.
I’m proud that My daughter Artemis by coincidence was born 2018 just 2 months before introducing Artemis program by NASA.
That's an awesome name for a kid!
Anyone who is surprised that retrofitting an older solution is so expensive has clearly never worked on legacy code. Making modifications to an existing system can be just as hard as building a new system sometimes.
Yes, and that's why it was so stupid to use 50 years old technology instead of inviting somethig new and really better.
@@west_adv The issue is that if NASA tried to rebuild everything from scratch and it didn't work, it would be a huge political black eye and the program could get completely scrapped. NASA learned that the hard way with the space shuttle program. When it comes to the politics of keeping the Artemis program going, the best option is the more expensive but safer route of basically reconfiguring and updating the Apollo systems rather than the potentially cheaper but far riskier option of building something completely new.
The U.S.A. government can't ever upgrade old technology without huge additional costs. It's all that corruption in congress and so forth.
Well in fairness to Aerojet Rockdyne, the RS-25 is still one of the best engines ever made with many unique and powerful features like having the ability to run at 105% thrust, a unique nozzle that sorta compensates for the altitude, highest specific impulse of any liquid engine that has flown and the first fully reusable engine. However I do agree to build something new or to completely refit the engine for modern manufacturing techniques but building a new engine takes time, a lot of money, no guarantee that it will perform the way you want or even if the engine is needed to begin with. Cough cough F-1B engine
I''m not so sure that Tim is surprised as much as he knows most of his audience will be surprised. Congress has turned this part of NASA into jobs program, not a space program.
People who take a critical look at government spending: “Wait this is insane these numbers don’t check out”
Military industrial complex: “Money printer go brrrrrrr”
MIC : we fund the development of Gps that you use go brrrrrtttt
@Robert Willis Yeah, something likes this would never happen in the defense industry.
Or basically every other industry
@Robert Willis okay, then we are on the same page.
I think many of NASA's dubious decisions are because of the current "administration"
@@whosjulez1157 I hate to call you out but all of Orion's and Artemis's problems are from Obama's administration. In fact Jim Bridenstine Trump's appointee is probably the best NASA administrator we've had in a long time. It's actually the one thing Trump's probably done best.
Hahaha
"it will be virtually impossible to have cost overruns ..."
Tim, Tim, Tim ...😔
Government- hold my beer
I prefer to use the word probable or certain cost overruns…
There are people in Boeing right now saying ''Challenge accepted''.
I was in my teens when we went to the Moon. It's amazing that it has taken so long to get where we are now.
Until you compared SLS to Saturn V, I had no idea how much less capable we had become. It's profoundly crazy that we never kept the F1 on the board and lost our ability to produce them.
especially where f1a was ready in general, what would have been a nice improvement
So little progress in NASA rockets since 1969.
The F1 as great of an engine as it is is just outdated. Putting it on new rockets would be like trying to get 4k on a CRT screen. The engines on the SLS are proven, while Starships are not.
@@Raiders1917 but then the F1 could be modded for todays use. i strongly belive and have faith on the F1. my take is why not re-engineer the F1 to a much modern vehicle engine?
its crazy going backwards....with a much more powerful engine and eficeint engine missions will surely get better
Makes you realise how amazing Apollo was 50 years ago
52 years ago
Juì. Vml
Almost TOO amazing to be true.
@@theconspiracydentist Definitely not, though.
@@maxv9464 definitely not true? Or definitely not too amazing?
27:29
RIP to the camera man who got left on the moon so he could get this shot
can't wait until someone says "He DiDnT GeT StUcK HeS NoT a PeRsOn"
@@TheWagonroast He DiDnT GeT StUcK HeS NoT a PeRsOn
They picked him up on the next mission.
@@AdamNDJ no they used the Gemini SRS
@@maxattack3853 oh no
It just points the fact the Bush era Constellation Program with its Ares-I and Ares -V along with Altair lander , was more practical program.
Obama canceling that and Congress creating this pork barrel jobs program is nonsense. Commercial Crew worked after countless delays.
The American Tax-payer: Keeping Boeing in the black since 1961
I look forward to the upcoming huge bailout program when the whole company is about to go under because of the whole 737 intentional deaths thing.
Dumb criminals rob banks, smart criminals run banks, and really smart criminals get enough government contracts going that the government can't let them fail
@@damstachizz that's a good line
@@damstachizz unfortunately, sad but oh so true.
@@damstachizz That's why smart crimes only have civil consequences. You think smart criminals will chance prison time? The cards are stacked. (Bernie Maddoff's mistake was stealing from too many people, smart wealthy people. That's when the doors clang shut, not thump.)
"The American Tax-payer: Keeping -Boeing- Lockheed in the black since 1961."
Fixed that for you. At least Boeing can survive on civilian transport. Try seeing Lockheed-Martin continue to exist without a government contract.
Worse yet? Lockheed has quite the history of greasing palms to get the military contracts that they do get. F-104 Starfighter for the German Air Force ring any bells? It should.
Never clicked so fast on a notification.
Same
Same
Tim: 'and this is actually how long it takes for signals to travel to the moon'
Boeing: 'and that's exactly how long it takes for us to spend $1000 tax dollars on Artemis'
Ok I was joking it actually takes around 8 3/4 seconds...
That was great I love the way you broke down each one of the cost
That was amazing, I heard "shiny rocket good, orange rocket bad". Amazing job Tim, that is a beast of a documentary.
"borderline criminal" - you're being very kind
"The rockets should by no measure be going backwards."
That's why it's essential to verify which is the pointy end before launch.
I think it really depends on how much the program benefits or hurts society as a whole. If a few corporations are the only benefactors, then it probably hurts. However, if those corporations are using their developments to advance communications technology or significantly improve rocket technology, then it may be worth it. Based on the what SpaceX has already accomplished though, seemingly on their own, it does look to me like wasteful spending in comparison. I'd much rather have seen all that money go towards more significant science and research based endeavors, than unnecessary trips to the moon. Perhaps we need to see a video on the proposed science experiments planned for the lunar surface.
It sounds as if NASA has already committed itself to spending that large amount though, and if it has already surpassed paying out at least 30-40% of those contracts, I think it needs to remain committed to fulfilling those contracts and completing the mission, however bad of an idea it may have been to begin with.
"no cost overruns"
NASA: laughs in sunken cost fallacy
It could be just an easy vehicle to fund black book programs, it is Northrop and Boeing. Two Zombie Companies that are in massive amounts of debt to the Government (Financial control) who build and hold A LOT of advanced technologies that are necessary for national defense.
@@twichy4life1 You may have a point. It's been pretty clear for many years now that the F-35 program is just a money laundering program for Lockheed Martin's black projects (particularly in the drone area).
@@fakecubed You maybe right but F35 is a major advance tech speaking.
Military spends way more in just 1 FRICKEN PLANE!!!!
@@jacekrowinski5637 so right. People continually underestimate the utility of the F35 being a stealthy networked mini-AWACS. Whether they perform as well in a dogfighting paradigm (which is likely an anachronism at this point) is a point of contention that really misses the point: f35s are designed to fight like wolves.
The difference between Boeing and SpaceX is that Boeing cares only about quarterly profits. SpaceX actually has goals.
Tim Dodd, The Everyday Astronaut turns into The Angry Astronaut when the costs are spoken about! 😆
I honestly don't care how much it costs. There's massive opportunity costs for *not* going back to space, and they outweigh rockets costing several orders of magnitude greater. The Apollo program was expensive, but we ultimately profited from it financially as well as culturally and scientifically. While getting costs down is a good thing, obviously, I'd rather spend more now to get something ASAP than wait.
As well as he (or anyone) should.
@@fakecubed think elon musk said something about life on 2 planets means 1 extra life. 2 lives better than 1. Every waking moment theres a chance a rogue planet or asteroid rams earth and end life just like that. We would probably know weeks in advance but that wouldnt change anything. What angers me most is when people see this as a waste of money and instead argues it should be funneled to problems at hand. Problems we have cant be solved once and done forever. if we do then our humanity's future is sealed into extinction.
Tim is a Space X fanboy .. that's why
The cult of Elon Musk is probably the worst fandom in existence right now. Want to talk about costs? Look into how much the US taxpayer has subsidized his businesses over the years. SpaceX is just another Boeing or McDonnell Douglas, but we’re supposed to think it’s something new. All that’s new is there’s a rich egomaniac taking up the spotlight instead of thousands of anonymous engineers working government contracts same as it ever was.
Blessed be this day! The everyday astronaut has posted!
🙏🙏🙏
Blessed be the moon fruit.
SLS is like going to the mechanic because your car won't start.
You: How much will it cost?
Mech: As much as a brand new car?
You: What?
Mech: Oh, and we'll take parts from your old car so you can't use those anywhere else. Aaand, we'll take your garage to build your car with your old parts (not gonna return it).
You: Okay fine. Just get it going.
Mech: You get 8 trips.
🤣🤣😭😭 fk Boing.
boing! boing!
You just might be my new favorite youtuber. Incredible video
"Fixed cost" contracts rarely are. As soon as ANYTHING changes in the requirements, the costs bump. Good video nonetheless!
A fixed cost contract is for the services originally contracted. If the customer changes requirements after that, it's unreasonable to expect the supplier to keep to the same terms. The solution is for the customer to figure out what they want ahead of time and stick with that.
@@TonboIV The problem is, there is a "tradition" of low balling the initial bid, knowing that there will be changes and then gouging on the changes.
@@mjlagrone Isn't that the truth.
Oh, another important Orion vs CSM Upgrade Orian has a toilet no more bags that upgrade is worth every penny spent.
Great fun being able to help with the article version of this!
Thank you
The massive structures we have to build to make this possible (alone) is impressive!
"Yes, they dropped a tank once" - that's hard to believe. Also, not the customer's problem.
It's hard to believe? Yeah SpaceX has never had any close calls or expensive mistakes.
Thanks to cost-plus contracts, it is the customer's problem!
Two Eye yet they dont charge the customer for their own failures
@@shatterpointgames Wrong! They pushed a landing gear up to prepare a falcon nine for transport once and the landing gear suddenly fell back out. Luckily no one was in the way. That was a close call. If someone had been in the wrong place when it happened it could have been horrible!
@@shatterpointgames 😁😂🤣Some people really do require a sarcasm hashtag!
Tim, thanks for your hard work on this video. Your video always offers a perspective that the space community agrees with. Cant wait for part 3.
I like how different SpaceX's approach is
Trial and error
basically 2 stages and the upper stage/lander is HUGE compared to others
Very amusing to read the insanity of the MuskCult as it ages.
This video is a masterpiece
This is one of the very few channels where I like the video before I see it because I already know it's going to be awesome.
Same here
Yes, another Everyday Astronaut video! Always makes my day. Awesome content.
Edit: this is the longest video Tim has ever made
Almost! Aerospike video was 2 minutes longer 😉
@@EverydayAstronaut hmm, I remember the aerospike video being 1 hour 1 minute
@@EverydayAstronaut hi tim
Everyday Astronaut do you know when the starship update will happen
I keep seeing you macer
Thanks for your videos Tim, I'm learning some really cool stuff from you, I may just go and sign up for your Patreon to help you make these😁
So if we snagged 11% of the military's budget, one year, we could fund the entire program? Boy am I proud to be an american :/
@Lovecraft No one is going to die either if the navy does not get new ships. Ever heard of upgrades?
Those ships are still state of the art. Also new carriers are being build and the Zumwalt-Class as well. Hell how many more new ships do you want? Do you want to exchange all of the ships withing like 30 years?
I mean 11% are easily possible without compromising anything. Hell even 50% would be fine.
@Lovecraft How about just reduce the military then? You dont need so many ships, no overworking, and keep out of foreign affairs.
Win, win, win.
Seriously, no country would even think of attacking the US anyway.
@Lovecraft no, just that it could be lower and still well enough for defense.
Of course defense isn't enough for the US. since they could probably rename the DoD to DoO, as that's all they've been doing after WW2 - I count WW2 as defense since Japan did pose a threat to the US.
But yeah, civilians from other countries in the world that would never be able to harm the US anyway won't die by themselves.
Well, actually they would, but not as quickly so funding is required after all.
@Lovecraft I'd be ok with defending my country if someone actually attacked it. Going somewhere around the world bombing someone's family to express the military might of my country - not an ambition of mine.
It's easy to be pro war when you are over a century away from the last time war affected the civilian population on your own territory, so it's easy for the US to forget that's a thing. War affects everyone, not just those in the military.
I don't want that on my land, but if nobody's gonna do that to me, I ain't bringing that to anyone's homes either.
Living as a civilian in a land ravaged by a war you didn't even want would do good for that attitude of yours.
Holy cow I can’t believe I watched the whole thing already. After so much anticipation. Another excellent job Tim I just wish it didn’t go by so fast.😂
If nothing else, a SLS launch will be one HELL of a show
@(S)-Riley Dunn Old reused SRBs
Assuming it ever does launch.
@@FARLANDER762 there's a 99.9 percent chance it will
For Starship, they really should put a detachable capsule at the top of it for the lunar landing models. Every time they go, they leave what is essentially useful future habitation behind.
"Virtually impossible to have cost overruns" - You REALLY underestimate modern space programs and their ability to find creative ways to spend ridiculous amounts of money unnecessarily...
I was reading literally 2 days ago that most of the aerospace industry, except Boeing, think SLS will be canceled and that a lot of people want it to be. I hope it isn't. I want really badly to take my father to an SLS launch.
My prediction is that SLS will only get this initial production run of 6-10 vehicles and than either get shelved or have some major restructuring done
@@rundownpear2601 That would actuality be fine -IF- they stop flying out after something exists which can actually do the jobs SLS is being built to do.
I mean, once Starship is flying, SLS is going to have an awfully hard time continuing to justify its existance. And I strongly suspect Starship will beat SLS to orbit.
@@Keldor314 it totally will. It's well on schedule to do that despite several failures. The hi iteration rate is not possible with dinosaur companies like Boeing. They should stick to planes.
Keldor314 starship will probably not beat SLS too orbit, but if it does good for them. There’s a big difference between sending an operational vehicle to orbit and a prototype
Finally!!! This is going to be great!!!
Why the price tag? Every dollar went to a person, providing "jobs". The more spent, the more "jobs". And Shelby and company supported it to supply "jobs" for their states.
Although I understand it’s not not burning money, like Apollo generated $0.50 for every dollar spent and that’s what they want with SLS. I think most of the criticism comes from Boeing purposely making the program go over budget and abusing the cost plus contract method
The problem isn't the cost; it's the way the money is being spent. They've operated this program as inefficiently as possible by abusing generous government contracts to line executives' pockets. The fact that they've created jobs is just the cost of doing business if they want congress to keep the pork coming, and congress doesn't seem to much care what contractors actually get done so long as they can claim to have created jobs in their respective districts.
Just look at what SpaceX and Blue Origin are doing. Look at what they've accomplished and imagine what they could have accomplished with Artemis' budget and consider the fact that they'd probably create more jobs while doing it. It's daylight robbery, pure and simple, and it's all the more outrageous when you consider the fact that there's a good chance the program will get canceled well before its time.
RundownPear "Compared with other forms of investment, the return is outstanding: A payback of $7 or 8 for every $1 invested over a period of a decade or so has been calculated for the Apollo Program, which at its peak accounted for a mere 4 percent of the Federal budget. It has been further estimated that, because of the potential for technology transfer and spinoff industries, every $1 spent on basic research in space today will generate $40 worth of economic growth on Earth." (Google economic return of nasa investment)
yeah, lots and lots of bullshit jobs that serve no purpose other than making billionaires more money
@@TheBest14184 Yes, they could. But productivity is irrelevant to politicians who want to buy votes.