The Crazy Journey of Artemis 1
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 28 май 2024
- Enter at www.omaze.com/PrimalSpace for your chance to win a Custom Tesla® Model S-APEX and support a great cause, the Petersen Automotive Museum. The experience closes on January 27th at 11:59pm PST and I promise, you don’t want to miss this!
In this video I'm talking about the crazy journey of Artemis 1 and why it took such a weird route to the moon. Getting to the Moon is no easy task. In fact, despite the Moon being 500 times closer, it takes more energy to land on the Moon than it does to land on Mars. Every rocket that goes to the Moon aims to follow the most energy efficient route (depending on the mission.) The goal with Artemis 1 for example, was to send the Orion capsule around the Moon to test out all of its systems. The goal with the Apollo missions however, was to land humans on the Moon and return them to Earth. So why did Artemis 1 take such a weird route to the Moon? Stick around and find out.
Short on time? No problem. Feel free to skip ahead in this video using the chapter links below.
00:00 The Journey of Artemis 1
00:31 How to Get to the Moon
01:18 What is Delta V?
02:33 Apollo Moon Missions
03:52 How the Moon Captured Orion
06:41 How Did Orion Return to Earth?
References:
primalnebula.com/the-crazy-jo...
Thanks for watching this Primal Space video. If you enjoyed it, let me know in the comments below and don't forget to subscribe so you can see more videos like this!
Our animation rendering machine
MacBook Pro 2023 M2: geni.us/7Ped
Intel Core i9-13900KF: geni.us/jSFbI
Support Primal Space by becoming a Patron!
/ primalspace
Twitter: / theprimalspace
Music used in this video:
» To Loom Is To Love - The Mini Vandals
» Sprightly Pursuit - Cooper Cannell
» Double You - The Mini Vandals
» See You - Maxzwell
» Go Down Swinging - NEFFEX
Written and edited by Ewan Cunningham ( / ewan_cee )
Narrated by: Beau Stucki (beaustucki.com/)
Primal Space is a participant in the in the Amazon Associates Programme, an affiliate advertising programme that allows channels to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.co.uk & Amazon.com.
#Nasa #Artemis1 #Orion 
Наука
When do you think Artemis 2 will launch? - Shoutout to Omaze for supporting this video, enter here for a chance to win a custom Tesla Model S: www.omaze.com/primalspace
cant say but 2024 seems to be as we launched artemis1 perfectly
and thankyou for this video i m not finding any detail or simulation of journey of orion spacecraft
Late 2023 maybe
what are the chances of winning a giveaway
Today is basically 2023 in the scheme of things. We're 11 days from it.
Given that this project started in 2012, and the mission was supposed to originally launch in 2017, then in 2022 August had a failure, September had a failure, then launch day had a near-failure.
I think it's going to be start of 2024 at least for Artemis 2.
And there's a solid chance even the contractor-made space suits will not be ready at all in 2024 to put people back on the lunar surface for Artemis 3.
Hello, Zuko here.
I would like to thank Scott Manley and KSP for letting me understand every single one of the terminologies in this video that would have flown over my head otherwise.
some of those did try do do close approaches to my head, in an effort to land, but then got flung out into outer space... 🚀🛰📡
Artemis 1 was dragged back by Aliens.
No Moon mining, please.
Moon does NOT self-rotate.
Moon is holo.
Moon gives light at night to help grow vegetables and fruits by 20%. This helps to reduce famine and wars on Earth.
If Moon is mined, it will be punctured and shrink like a broken flat basketball. It cannot spread light to the surface of the Earth like a convex mirror. It will ONLY reflect to tiny dots on Earth like a concave mirror.
There are invisible structures around Moon to keep the Moon inflated. The inside of the Moon is hollow, like a basketball or soccer. The frequent in and out of Moon rovers, orbiters, and spacecrafts will puncture the structure and destroy the Moon. Earth will have more wars and famine and more inequality. Artemis 1 was dragged back by Aliens.
No Moon mining, please.
Moon does NOT self-rotate.
Moon is holo.
Moon gives light at night to help grow vegetables and fruits by 20%. This helps to reduce famine and wars on Earth.
If Moon is mined, it will be punctured and shrink like a broken flat basketball. It cannot spread light to the surface of the Earth like a convex mirror. It will ONLY reflect to tiny dots on Earth like a concave mirror.
There are invisible structures around Moon to keep the Moon inflated. The inside of the Moon is hollow, like a basketball or soccer. The frequent in and out of Moon rovers, orbiters, and spacecrafts will puncture the structure and destroy the Moon. Earth will have more wars and famine and more inequality.
@@jerrytoonsz665 except there is no "Return To VAB" after messing up the staging.
@@jerrytoonsz665 Nowadays it's automated. So, yes. Installing mods is ironically the most "realistic" way to experience this game.
@@CrossfeetGaming and a craft can be affected by multiple different gravitational fields at once (unless youre using that one mod)
Thousands of hours in KSP Enhanced and studying and never understood gravity assists like I did after you explained it so simply! Fantastic video!
Then how did you explored moho?
@@molybdaen11 Can't remember, but probably unrealistic amounts of delta V! Probably time to go again!
@@davidfordyoyoguy I only went there once myself.
The rocket was a monster build to lose weight while on the flight and build in Orbit because it was to huge.
All stock parts by the way.
I made it to moho (fast little bugger) and back but it took hours of real time.
I am sure Scott is laughing with his tiny probes.
@@molybdaen11 Orbital maneuver orbital construct and lots of NERVA engine
If you have ksp on pc, you may be interested in a mod called principia, it adds stuff like Lagrange points
4:48 This is the first time I've understood the basic way a gravity assist works. Thank you for the simple and helpful explanation.
Now you make me want to watch. Will I finally be able to _not_ have to brute-force all my planetary transfers in KSP? ;-)
@@monsieurouxx you clicked the video just to comment and not to watch it?
@@sfguzmani it's the other way around : As a space fan I click on most space videos, but stop watching when I see that Musk is involved. I don't support dictatorships.
@@monsieurouxxYou don’t have to like the man, but you have to admire his company. The way they’re approaching space flight is revolutionary.
Best explanation I have heard of the Oberth effect yet! I have been a spaceflight enthusiast for a long time, and its usually hard to understand orbital mechanics without playing KSP, or Spaceflight Simulator for years. I will use that analogy to explain it to my friends a lot!
Thank you so much! I am so glad that you enjoyed the video and my explanation :)
I will also thank him for giving me something new to try, it can help me with a new crewed landing in SFS.
@@history-jovian i dokt think they added gravity assists to ss yet tho so that would probably make things harder
@@axurios_ can you explain what exactly is gravity assist because I dont really understand
Trying to figure out how combustion is happening in the vaccum of space.
4:25 Caught me off guard 😂😂
LOL I couldn't help myself.
Lmao 🤣
I paused here just to check if comments have gone mad with this
Great analysis. I was born in '68. Too young at 4 years old to remember anything about Apollo 17 in '72. Apollo 12 was my favorite Apollo mission. Three buddies going on a road trip to the moon, "dancing" in zero gravity to "Sugar, Sugar" and nailed the pinpoint landing. Add to that Conrad letting Bean fly the LM "Intrepid" while they were on the backside of the moon on their way back up to dock with Gordon in "Yankee Clipper". I pity the fools that don't believe we went to the moon. Never underestimate what our scientists and engineers can build when given the resources and the skills and bravery of the astronauts. I hope I get to see them land on the moon again before I die. Cheers.
Thank you so much for sharing this! So glad that you enjoyed the video and hoping we get to see another moon landing in our lifetime also! Cheers!
Artemis 1 is only our first test to going back to the moon.
If you can make it to 2025 and all continues to go well, Artemis 3 is scheduled to be the first mission to land on the moon in our lifetimes.
Hang in there! We're almost back!
Great video! Just a small correction, the Oberth effect does not increase your delta-v, that is constant. What it does do, is increase your thrust *power*. Power is equal to velocity times thrust (dot product of 2 vectors). At higher speeds, the change in your energy after a burn is higher than at low speeds, here let's put some numbers into it.
KE = 1/2 m v^2
Imagine you are a 1kg object traveling at 1m/s, that gives it a Kinetic energy of 0.5 Joules. If you it speed up by 1m/s, it is now going 2m/s, giving it an energy of 2 J. That is an increase of 1.5 Joules.
Now, imagine that the same object is going at 100m/s, giving it an energy of 5000 Joules. Then we speed it up by 1m/s, making it go 101m/s, giving it 5100.5 J. That is an increase of 100.5 Joules.
Our delta-v (change in velocity) was the same in both cases, 1m/s. But our delta-E (change in Energy) was higher when we were going faster. This also applies to slowing down of course. This is the Oberth effect, a rocket engine has more power the faster it is going, because it gives a constant acceleration, but changes in speed while you are going faster change your energy faster, the rate of this change is what we call power.
This video really helped me understand how space travel can be affected by just simply moving closer or further away from a planet/moon, you explain it so well!
Thank you so much! So glad you enjoyed the video!
This reminds me of the movie Gravity, which James Cameron called "The most realistic space movie ever made". Apparently he didn't see Apollo 13 lol. In gravity you have satellites that blow up and debris circling the earth, and as the movie describes, once the debris has passed, it will circle the earth and come back again in 90 minutes. But this is not possible because if the debris travels so fast that it can circle the earth and come back to hit them in 90 minutes, the orbit of the debris would be further out. That movie had so many mistakes in it, holy crap. Like when George Clooney has some weird force acting upon him, that seem to ignore Sandra Bullock xD
Gravity stops working underwater.
Gravity pulls the moon towards the earth, pulls the oceans towards the moon, holds us to the earth and can’t b recreated in science. However the theory is in fact relative
@@duramaxdad You need to start eating vitamins man, you have average room temperature IQ.
This video is very satisfying to watch and also both extremely informative and very well illustrated. Well done Primal Space. It is a pleasure for our eyes and ears. Bravo! Look forward for more!
Thank you so much! I really appreciate the kind words and I'm so glad that you enjoyed watching as much as I enjoyed creating this one! Can't wait to share what's coming next!
I have always been fascinated by the wonders of space since I was a kid. There was a point where I gave up on the dream, but seeing what we can accomplish today, and knowing that (hopefully haha) I've got years ahead of me, I might actually be able to go to space on day :)
Good luck, l hope you make it. 👍
Bring your long underwear!
Keep dreaming
Is it just me or hearing the Artemis 1 roaring gave me goosebump and is very satisfying to listen.
You're definitely not alone!
4:25 You got me there 😂😂😂
😂😂😂 I just couldn't help it
The graphics for this episode were top notch. Love the detail on Apollo and Artemis spacecraft.
People always joke about rocket scientists but it's explanations like this that put into perspective how smart the people are that come up with all this stuff in the first place and actually make it happen.
Agreed! Just learning about it all puts my head in a spin sometimes. I can't imagine the minds the come up with it all! Pretty amazing.
I have never expected so much KSP skills will help with real life understanding of space missions.
The real reason Orion only briefly came near the moon was because a loss of the craft would have ended the program that is already billions over budget and years behind.
It’s amazing how NASA figured out all of these factors on the Apollo missions without launching any rockets before. There are so many moving pieces all perfectly and mathematically aligned to take us there again and again, it never ceases to amaze.
38 / 5.000
i think you believe also in the easter bunny
its amazing, but not special, if you understand what i mean
they figured out how to fool the whole world. But they archived many other thing in the Earths orbit. Moonflights are not useful just a risk and waste.
@@maozedung7270 you anti-space flight or something?
@@GamerGod-fp1tj Hello, no but we should not go behind a certain level. We face to many problems here.
This is a great video with fantastic visualizations of an otherwise difficult to understand topic; can't stress enough that this was a great job. Just a small correction: the delta V requirements for launch are usually more than double what you listed---more on the order of 10,000 m/s (low earth orbits have an orbital speed of roughly ~8,000 m/s). Really puts into perspective why launch vehicles like the SLS and Saturn V need to be so damn huge.
Going to the Moon and beyond is absolutely crazy, to me. Just imagining the journey is just so FUN and breathtaking!
Pretty amazing to think about. I would love to experience those views for myself!
Damn. Your Oberth effect explanation is by far the best one I've ever seen. Great Video!
Thank you so much! So glad you like it!
3-body orbits sure are a lot more complicated than the simplified ones in Kerbal Space Program😅
With a few mods, you can get kerbal to show you paths like these
@@thomasw4422 that would be Principia, right? i've heard of it but never played with it
“Neil Armstrong was the first man to walk on the moon. I am the first man to piss his pants on the moon.”
― Buzz Aldrin
Why I never heard ANYTHING about Artemis and I watch vids on space and astronomy every day?
I watched it on and off live. I have an app that tells me when something leaves our atmosphere (obviously not including secret launches from various countries) probably because nasa doesn't do a good job at advertising. Space x loves to get us hyped. I didn't know artemis was launching till shortly beforehand. Shit just appeared in my app, tho i bet if i went back to unconfirmed launches, i might have seen it
4:45 Very good and cool video! However, a small correction, gravity assist mattered little in this case. Gravity assist alters the craft's velocity vector and transfers planet/moon's orbital momentum to the craft, however that only matters if the craft is doing a flyby and leaves the dominant gravity influence of the planet/moon to go somewhere else. If it stays in orbit of the planet/moon, then it doesn't gain anything in relation to the planet/moon. From the reference frame of the Moon, Orion didn't speed up nor slowed down during its flyby, so it's irrelevant from which direction it approached. However, Oberth effect did play a huge role in reducing the delta-v needed for orbital insertion. A retrograde gravity assist is used to gain a free return trajectory (or less delta-v intensive maneuver) back to Earth if anything goes wrong.
Well said. It was a decent way to explain gravity assists, but it's completely irrelevant for what Orion was doing. It actually takes more fuel to get a retrograde capture because TLI requires more delta V to get to that point and you don't get that fuel back on the other end. But like you said, it's worth it for the potential free return (which saved Apollo 13's lives).
The explanation of the Oberth effect was just straight-up wrong too, but that's a really hard one to simplify without just resorting to showing the equations so I hesitate to criticize too hard. Closest thing to real life I can think of is how we're taught in drivers ed that a car's speed and its stopping distance is not a linear relationship, it's exponential. But that's also a terrible analogy trying to equate stopping distance with total orbital energy...
If it is not a gravity assist because there was no momentum transfer, is there a proper name for such "velocity vector adjusting" maneuvers?
@@sntslilhlpr6601 I can see the explanation at 7:05 ("gravitational pull") being wrong but the walkway example of the Oberth effect seems accurate. I'm not entirely sure I understand your braking example - initially I had assumed it was just a mv² thing increasing the energy to be dissipated, but are you actually trying to say that in terms of work, trying to stop in a shorter distance requires way more braking force? Or that at low velocities, the same amount of braking force has less decelerative effect?
As far as I understand there _was_ a moment transfer, but the point is that the direction from where Orion approached didn't matter since the goal was to enter Moon's orbit. Same amount of fuel would be expended if it did the prograde capture vs. the retrograde capture. So the direction of the approach didn't "slow down" the craft when observed from Moon's reference frame - the only frame that matters when you want to enter orbit around a body.
Term "gravity assist" is used when the vessel executes a flyby to go towards another body. Then, when viewed from the Sun's reference frame, vessel indeed did speed up or slowed down depending on the approach.
Thank you so much for explaining this with simplified graphics! Makes it easier for us non-rocket scientists to understand. Subscription added 🙂👍🏿
So glad that you enjoyed the video and my explanation! Thank you for subscribing and welcome to the primal space community!
Apollo missions also used a free-return trajectory (or close to it) just in case something went wrong. "Free-return" means exactly what it says on the tin: The capsule isn't actually on a trajectory to orbit the Moon, but rather it is aimed for a really high orbit of Earth. You have to do an additional burn near the Moon in order to get the capsule into lunar orbit. Without that additional action (say, if the engine fails) the capsule will return to Earth without having to spend any more fuel.
Is that what Apollo 13 did? I know they were supposed to land on the moon, but due to the problem mid-flight, they returned without having landed on the moon. So, am I correct in understanding that is exactly what you are talking about: the free-return trajectory was used because of what went wrong?
Apollo never happened on the moon and there will not be any manned ship to the moon either.
@@GadgetNeil Yep That's right. And a good thing too.
And a couple of white knuckle course corrections on the way back
Another factor for Apollo was that at the time we were pushing the limits of what the technology was able to calculate in terms of orbital mechanics. They had to keep things simple to narrow the variables involved. With modern technology that’s less of a challenge and we can make more efficient choices on where to allocate mass.
We have definitely come much further thanks to those advancements.
Thanks for a clear and understandable explanation of the Artemis flight mechanics.
So glad you enjoyed it!
KSP Players like: "Yes yes, a direct insertion into distant lunar retrograde orbit using the absolute minimum Δv, we've all done it"
" That's What she said " at 4:25 is hilarious 😂
haha thanks. Couldn't help myself!
I like how we go from serious presenter voice to “that’swhatshesaidhahaha”
You’ve been randomly selected among my giveaway winners 👆!
4:27 😂LMAO
I just had to haha
I love these trajectory videos! How about one explaining the math involved in planning an insertion?
Basically nasa just went "work smarter not harder" here
Haha that's one way to look at it for sure!
It´s like a massive slingshot around the moon to get back. It´s empresive how we can take advantage of these forces. It´s almost science fiction.
Very impressive. I have a lot of fun learning all about it!
I love all of you videos primal space your videos are amazing. I would also like to see how all the parts of the iss came up. And you animations are the BEST! Love them.
Thank you so much for such a kind comment. I'm so glad that you enjoy the content. I really love to make it as well and I'm looking forward to sharing what's coming next!
Amazing video man, its really cool to learn about grav assists, the oberth effect and more being used in real life (and a really good analogy for the oberth effect). Also did you animate the flight paths in the vid? Its really good 👍
Thank you so much! I really appreciate that and I'm so glad that you enjoyed the video and my explanations. I really had a great time putting this one together. Cheers and happy holidays!
Looks like the Apollo missions worked well without computers. To make it more complicated and taking longer takes a computer.
In reality they had 4 computers running in parallel for redundancy. And one even got damaged by a lighting strike
@@alexplosion_ITA Wasn’t that on Apollo 12?
Interesting fact the Apollo command and service modual combo was designed to be able to make direct return to Earth from the Lunar surface, this would have been it's only task with a whole other stage doing the landing. The use of the service module engine for lunar insertion and trans Earth injection were designed after the vehicle was finalized.
i think you believe in the easter bunny
That was one of the best explanations for gravity assists I've seen
Thank you so much. That means a lot!
The moving walkway analogy for the Oberth effect is really good, props if you came up with that
Thank you so much! I'm so glad that you found the explanation helpful!
What a great explanation of the Artemis orbit. I'd seen it explained elsewhere but you did it the best. Thanks!
Thank you so much! I am so glad that you enjoyed the video and found my explanation helpful. I really enjoyed putting this one together.
This was exceptionally well explained. Great job.
Thank you! So glad that you enjoyed it!
BEST explanation of so many things about this flight that NASA didn’t seem to think ordinary people would wonder about!
Thank you so much. So glad that you enjoyed the video as much as I enjoyed making it! Cheers!
Thanks for your work.
I know how hard it is, to create episodes like this. In order to make interesting video, with correct information in it - you have to sit and make big research - going trough tons of sites, literature and encyclopaedias. After that, most of the info is unusable at all - you have to choose most interesting parts for further plot of the video. Then, video editing comes - which is consuming large amount of energy - hours and hours of editing - u have to sit at one place so many time.
It’s easier to make dumb video on tik tok and get million views. So, we have to appreciate the work that has been done by such a channels like Primal Space.
Thank you so much for such a kind comment. These videos are certainly a lot of work, but I really enjoy making them and it means a lot that even one person enjoys them! I really appreciate the support!
I've always wondered about orbital dynamics. Very informative. Interesting they would use a grav assist and retrograde orbit
1:04 the SLS might be more powerful thrust wise but in what actually matters, which is the payload capacity, the Saturn V still remains and will remain for a long time, the king of rockets because the SLS can set 95 tons into orbit and the Saturn V 145 tons. So in 50 years we lost 50 tons of payload capacity hbt. And starship is also not gonna beat that. As far as i know, its gonna be 100 tons for starship
I am looking forward to studying a career related to space exploration and your videos are perfect. Not only understandable and clear information, but it also transmits passion and interest. Love it!
Have you heard of Kerbal Space Program
shoutuot to kerbal space program for teaching me what 90% of these words mean
💯💯💯
The burn to leave orbit makes total sense. It’s like accelerating down a hill in a car… which directly translates to this as the down the hill is the gravity well.
You’ve been randomly selected among my giveaway winners 👆.
I'm genuinely surprised that a video this informational entertained me, especially since it's relevant since this mission was fairly recent. I look forward to seeing the next upload.
Thank you so much! So glad that you enjoyed it!
0:39 Why is that? Shouldn’t it be easier to land on the Moon with low gravity?
Thank you for these great videos!
I also would've liked some more explanation. Maybe the fact that Mars allows Sone amount of aerobreaking plays a role. Or they just meant it's easier to get into a Mars _orbit_ than to _land_ on the Moon. No idea.
@@unvergebeneid yeah, I was thinking the same about aerobraking, since they could use parachutes while you can’t on the moon
Mars has an atmosphere which will significantly slow a spacecraft down, whereas the Moon does not, so it needs to burn fuel all the way down.
Yeah, I wish this was explained more too. They specifically say "land" which must mean they're including aerobraking at Mars with a heat shield and parachutes. If they said "land and return" it should require a lot more dV to go to Mars and back. It should also take more dV to propulsively capture in Mars orbit without aerobraking.
It takes more energy to go from the earth to the moon than from the moon to mars. Perhaps this is what they intended to say. It's untrue the way they formulated it, as you need more energy to go out of the "gravitational well" from both the earth and the moon than just from the earth.
All I see is among us in the thumbnail lol
😂😂😂 and I can't unsee it now
Best Kerbal Space Program tutorial I've seen
Hopefully one day this will be the first step to be able to have a vacation on the moon
How amazing would that be? I want to go!
I love physics. i am in no way smart enough for this. But I love learning about this stuff.
So glad! I really enjoy putting these videos together.
Absolutely love your videos mate, keep them up.
Thank you so much. So glad that you enjoy the content!
The oberth effect was not explain correctly. The reason why it's more efficient to accelerate at low orbit is due to higher kinetic energy having from pulse from the engine rather than having better gravitational assist. It's due to conservation of momentum generates more energy due to higher kinetical energy gain (due to much higher speed)
It's even harder to get into a near Sun orbit because you are accelerating into the gravity well most of the way. Then you need to slow down or you'll be in a highly elliptical orbit, like a comet.
Hope humankind reaches the Moon in my lifetime.
🤡
@@JacobLM42 Witty. At least half.
You’ve been randomly selected among my giveaway winners 👆.
Artemis 2 is scheduled for 2024, the mission is similar to Artemis 1 but it will be with a human crew, Artemis 3 is scheduled for 2025 and it will land on the Moon.
@@gamingdevil1236 So maybe then 🤞🏻
This was incredibly well-explained. Excellent work!
Thank you so much! I am so glad that you enjoyed the video. I really had a great time making this one.
Who else understood all terms and related physics because all those courageous Kerbals that trust in our hands to push their space program
Orbital mechanics are just amazing!
Agreed!
Thank you very much for the easy to understand explanations! 😊
You're very welcome! I am so glad that you enjoyed the video !
Why Thumbnail AMOGUS
🤨
You got the whole squad laughing
i cannot unsee it now
Eh... barely
I CAN’T UNSEE IT
The field of astronomy and astrophysics is so fascinating and breath taking. And it feels so good that you (who is interested in astronomy) are the choosen one to love and understand the universe! And channels like Primal space make it really easy to understand difficult concepts! Thanks!
if you don't mind, may I ask you what program did you use for this video?(drawing things)
Thumbnail looks Sussy.
😂😂😂
Amongus on the moon
This is a good video explanation on what its actually doing, thank you for that! Most videos just kinda pass right through without actually saying whats going on and why and how.
Thank you so much. So glad you enjoyed the video and my explanation. Lots to cover in such little time! haha
It's nice to have gimmicky space missions like the Artemis mission now and again to help raise funding from new sectors of the populous. Though, the sooner we can scrap the SLS for a rocket that is not a scam the better.
The SLS isn’t a scam, it’s a jobs program, which is exactly what the Artemis program needs.
That's a really good and informative video you made. I wonder, when NASA will lunch their Artemis 2 (Probably May 2024) and Artemis 3, would they follow the same route ?
Artemis 2 should be following the same route but with people. If the SLS for Artemis 3 launches then we might have the Lunar Gateway space station by this point which would be placed around the moon in the distant elliptical orbit shown at 5:32. Orion will dock with the Gateway and then the astronauts will move to the lander (that will already be docked on the Gateway) and begin their descent on the moon. If the Gateway is not completed by this point, then the moon lander will be placed alone in this elliptical orbit waiting for Orion. After the mission on the moon is done, then the moon lander will launch and dock with the Lunar Gateway (or Orion if the Gateway is not yet ready) and then Orion will take the astronauts back to Earth. As of now, it is not known whether the lunar lander will be immediately disposed after completing the mission or whether it will instead re-fuel and wait for Artemis 4. Artemis 4 should be the first launch of the SLS 1B. Orion is planned to follow the same trajectory but this time it will take a new habitat module that will be permanently placed on the Lunar Gateway for future missions. This module should be able to extend the amount of time astronauts can stay around the moon. Artemis 5 will be similar but is planned to instead send two modules with Orion instead of one. A refueling tank for the Gateway and a moon rover. This will mark the end of the Artemis missions unless new missions are added. Who knows, maybe by this point we'll be confident enough to go to Mars.
@@jrc1606 Artemis II will actually just be using a free-return trajectory for safety reasons, IIRC
AMONG US
It wasn't intentional I swear 😂
@@primalspace XD I had to lol
The orbital scientists have got to just be flexing at this point
I'm curious about 0:33 and why it takes more energy to go to the moon compared to Mars.
My guess:
Going to te Moon is almost liberation speed (which is what's needed for Mars. So the difference is small.
However, landing on Mars can be done by parachutes (that takes no energy), while landing on the Moon *needs* rockets. And that's very costly, massively over the speed difference.
Its really not about the distance. Its about the energy it takes TO LAND on the celestial bodies, and other factors. The distance doesnt matter too much, because in vacuum you dont lose any speed, so you, regardless of distance, use up the same amount of fuel.
@@c4rb0n40 Thank you, that makes sense. I think it also means that the faster you want to get somewhere will cost you energy twice; once to accelerate out and again to slow down once you get there.
@@NicolasPare yeah, you are absolutely correct.. acceleration by itself consumes a lot of fuel.. for example, the voyager uses a thruster ehich wouldnt even propell anything on earth.. yet over time in a vacuum, it can accelerate the probe to huge speeds..
@@NicolasPare the thing is also, that for every.. even single kilogram, you would need tens of liters of fuel more
sus
Absolutely sus
Among us
The Orion team and NASA are humankind's true heroes.
Wow did not know that Artemis did that. And pretty genius to use gravity as accelerator and decelerator. the same what they did with the voyager missions
It’s done with basically all interplanetary missions. For example, Bepicolombo, Rosetta, MESSENGER, Mariner 10 etc. Wikipedia has a list of all flybys done actually, in en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetary_flyby#List_of_planetary_flybys
Artemis 1 empty can , not very risky ,,,, Apollo 8 carried three men . Apollo was multitude of times more risky than that empty can Artemis was . The amazing thing is that Apollo was over half a century ago ( 60 years )
Why are you making it out like a higher chance of death makes it cool. I’d rather have slightly more boring ride with a largely smaller chance of death than a risky ride with a high chance of death. Apollo being old and dangerous is not a flex.
@@Spaceguy-nineteensixtynine what I'm saying is they have done nothing that wasn't done more that sixty years ago . What is all the fuss about ? Break new ground " but they have flown farthest away earth than ever before , yes, the empty can did fly 460,000 miles away from earth , but Apollo 13 flew 410,000 miles away from earth and it had men in it ,and was a broken space ship , they still made it back .. land on the moon with a manned craft or at least circle the moon with men or women on board then start the hype . Until then they have done nothing that wasn't done to point of becoming boreing over half a century ago . PS they did all that without the aid of computers like we have now .
@@FemboyModels They said nothing about SpaceX though? Both Apollo and Artemis are NASA missions so . . . ?
You’re making it sound like Artemis is bad for not being risky. Risks are good to take sometimes, but it must be reduced as much as possible when human lives are at stake.
@@luigi580 it's much ado about nothing lol read up about Apollo 8 , Apollo 11 . Not only were the Saturn rockets new , but the computers were new , inputs were in nouns and verbs . And they made it work . That was something to get excited about . This latest flight is just so ho-hum
Thanks for this. Had been pondering the Artemis trajectory all during the flight - now I get it (I think)!
Thanks so much for the comment. So glad that you enjoyed the video and found it helpful!
That was a very clear explanation of the orbital mechanics, beautifully illustrated.
There is a BIG misconception about gravity assists.
The first law of thermodynamics, states that energy cannot be created or destroyed, only converted from one form to another.
Gravity assist's can only change the direction (or vector of speed) of an object, there is no energy given or loosen, you will exit a gravity assist at the same velocity that you entered it, just in a different angle/direction or vector of speed.
The only way gravity assist's help to save fuel is in the change of vector of speed of an object.
no, gravity assists can give more energy than you went in due to the orbit of the assisting body. The assisting body slows down a little
I enjoy how clearly you explain the different concepts concerning the mission. Great video
0:37 This may seem false but you have to thrust all the way down to land on the moon which takes LOTS of energy, but on Mars, you can deploy a very large parachute to save you from using a lot of fuel to land. Notice he said LAND of moon and mars, not a roundabout mission. A lunar gravity assist can be used to get to Mars, and then only a small low delta-V using corrective burns have to be done to finish the journey.
NASA has gotten scary good at using slingshot maneuvers to more efficiently use resources. I learned about a proposed orbiter to be sent to the Pluto system that would make use of slingshots to jump between Pluto and Charon and then at the end of the mission the possibility to use one to send it to go check out a third Kuiper Belt Object.
You’ve been randomly selected among my giveaway winners 👆.
All my years playing and getting good at Kerbal Space Program made me understand this video perfectly lol.
It wasnt so crazy to me, I just viewed it as an orbit of the moon.
Amazing and very informative video, space and the engineering and calculations needed to explore it never cease to intrigue me 👏
Thank you so much! So glad that you enjoyed this video! I really enjoyed putting it together.
I think people underestimate how genius this planning is.
Fantastic explanation. But will next missions do the same pattern, or this long one was exclusive for extended instrument testing?
No, this is the only DRO planned for Artemis.
Artemis II will have a simple free return trajectory (akin to Apollo 8 without ever going into lunar orbit)
Artemis III and later will travel to NRHO, a complex orbit where the capsule is closest when passing over the north pole, and farthest when passing over the south pole.
The plan is to have a lunar space station in this NRHO orbit as well.
Thank you, good video. You answered questions I had about the mission maneuvers.
Thank you so much. So glad that you enjoyed the video and that I was able to provide you with the answers you were looking for!
May I ask where you got them pictures of the moon from in this video? @Primal Space
I tried to recreate this in KSP, with a 70km Munar orbit. Direct insertion left me me with 5801 m/s, doing the Artemis maneuver left me with 5823 m/s. Some 20 m/s saved, not very significant, is it? For comparison: getting into Low Kerbin Orbit costs approx. 3400 m/s, Munar transfer burn is approx. 855 m/s
Whoa! I never thought that I could understand it very well in a short period of time!
So glad you found the video helpful! I really enjoyed putting this one together.
0:39 384.4 Mm; 192 Gm
1:09 70 Mm
1:22 7 km/s
1:24 8 km/s
1:38 9 and 64 Mg; 2 Gg
1:41 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, and 40 hm/s
1:47 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, and 60 Mg
2:05 26.52 and 28.8 Mg
2:07 12 and 28 hm/s
4:37 70 Mm
5:33 70 Mm
You’ve been randomly selected among my giveaway winners 👆!
You know it’s gonna be a great day when you start it with Primal Space’s latest video !!!!
did not expect Michael Scott. Very happy that he made an appearance hahahahaha
As a big fan of the Office, I couldn't help myself haha Glad you enjoyed it.
@@primalspace Big fan of the Office. infact when this video came out i was on my umpteenth rewatch. So much appreciated :D !
Hey primal I hope your having a good Christmas break , congrats on the success ! :)
Thank you so much! Really enjoying the holidays this year! All the best to you as well :)
@@primalspace :)