He’s not, unfortunately the whole ‘science community’ are forgetting NASA don’t actually have any of the lander capabilities worked out. With Apollo they knew what they had to launch to keep people alive, there and back again. And build a rocket around that… Artemis hasn’t even got an engineering drawing better than a napkin. All the hype has been on the rockets which don’t have the capabilities and are later expecting to calculate their needs based on how many multi billion dollar rockets they can send to make it happen. Adding more and more ‘abilities and tools’ to fuel the hype. But they have no ability to do any of it. 🍿🚀💥 Im here for the show, but it will end in flames and tears.
@@Bow-to-the-absurd This. They are grossly understating the number of fueling launches that have to go off without a hitch for this the work, but even with the reduced number they are admitting, you are looking at multiple huge rockets launching to do what Apollo did with one launch. Instead of a Lunar Orbit Rendezvous mission, they are designing mission architecture for multiple Earth Orbit Rendezvous flights leading into multiple Lunar Orbit Rendezvous. It's a Rube Goldberg mission architecture.
I think Decoding the Unknown is better than Astro graphics, but I'm a resident of the Whistlerverse. Allegedly. I even have some of his failed channels on my sub page. I might need psychological help. Cheers
Science Unbound was good too imo. I still enjoy mega and side projects as well too. I wish they'd just chain him in the basement with Danny and Dave and make him record videos forEVER.
@@adammfharris You could very well have been sarcastic here, but to head off and inform people who won’t see that and will take your statement as factual: no, your iPhone will not work on the moon, at least not for very long, the unfiltered radiation from the sun will kill any technology not “hardened” for those conditions.
I suspect the whole Artemis mission series is designed to fail, so NASA can shrug & say "Hey we tried!" And certain parts of the Artemis mess will be redeployed in some new mission series later on. NASA is a space race dinosaur & should be abandoned. Some BRICS multinational mission will likely be the first manned return to the moon, in the mid-2030s.
I love all the “engineers” in the comments who apparently know better than the thousands of actual aerospace engineers working on this project. Legends.
I agree. There is no ONE engineer who is capable of pulling off this mission. There are entire teams of engineers who are responsible for individual components, whether it's a nozzle, a window, or a space helmet. every one of these components are a potential point of failure. A rubber O-ring failed on the Challenger mission, and it resulted in the deaths of the entire crew. These projects take time, patience, testing, and approvals. I think that even 2025 sounds ambitious, and delays are not a failure on the part of the engineers. Every part of the mission has to succeed, and the astronauts have to get home safely after the mission.
I don't get why it takes so long. Between 69 and 72 they put 12 men on the moon. With today's tech we should been back by now. What's the point of all the probes and rovers? Get people up there!
@@7521ericwell, that’s a complex issue. There is the most obvious reason of course, that being no one cares about space anymore. We aren’t in a space race anymore. There is no political motive. Additionally, the opinion of the general public has broadly shifted to “why aren’t we spending this money here on Earth.” This is reflected in NASA’s budget. NASA spent over 300 billion (adjusted for inflation) on project apollo over a decade. NASA’s budget now is a measly 24ish billion. And that has to be spread out across things such as space exploration, r&d, maintaining the ISS, etc.
@@newforestpixie5297 apologies, I ment the discoveries that are coming from these excursions. Admittedly the fat cats help fund it though there should be space reserved for those than can offer real learning regardless of their finical status.
Outer Space doesn't exist.Earth is the only World there is.There are no other Physical Cosmic Worlds out there and there is no Infinite Cosmic Spatial Vacuum Void.Outer Space has "3 Enormous Problems":Problem 1 - Survivability - Cosmic Space is completely and inherently uninhabitable, inhospitable and unliveable.This doesn't seem/feel right.If Outer Space truly existed it should therefore be completely and inherently habitable,hospitable and liveable.If Outer Space was real it would be 100% welcoming of All-potential Beings,Creatures and Life-forms.This means that Outer Space must be "Breathable",because otherwise Everyone and Everything would immediately and perpetually suffocate and no Life-forms would ever emerge or survive in such a lethal Cosmic Universe.Problem 2 - Cosmic Travel - All-vehicles must push "Something" in order to move and go "Somewhere".In Earth's Atmosphere Automobiles push "Air" to move,Airplanes also push "Air" to move and Cruise Ships push "Water" to move,but Outer Space has no Atmosphere.You cannot travel to/in Outer Space,because The Vacuum of Space neutralizes All-pushing power/travel power.This means that Space Travel is impossible,that No One has ever left The Earth,that No One has ever traveled to Space and that every single Space Mission from the beginning to today is a lie.If Outer Space truly existed it would need to have an "Atmosphere" in order for Outer Space Travel to be possible.Problem 3 - Vast Separation - Celestial Space is just far too tremendously vast as a territory.All-Life-forms are separated,because of the "Humongous Distance" between them.This is not convenient.If Outer Space was real it wouldn't be so gargantuan,because it has to be much smaller and more "Tightly-Knit",so that All-potential Life-forms can locate and discover each other.Outer Space is a lie designed in order to convince The Public that Extraterrestrial Beings exist.The total "Inhospitableness" and "Unfeasibility" of Outer Space proves that Outer Space cannot exist,because Outer Space doesn't exist!
Thanks for the summary. This is actually a new space race in the making. I would like to point out a few inprecise factoids from the video: 1. @0:00 Apollo 17 was correctly mentioned, but then a SpaceX Falcon 9 is shown in the background for some reason. 2. @7:34 the acronym ICPS stands for "Intermin Cryogenic Propulsion Stage" not "Space". It is correctly shown @7:45 3. @14:06 you mention a JAXA owned SLS rocket, but SLS is purely a NASA vehicle. Keep up the great work. But please check for these minor mistakes next time. :)
The SLS is a Boeing spacecraft. NASA claims it as their own due to Congressmen requiring it. That way, they get their kickbacks, inflating their income. The SLS is nothing but a jobs program, accomplishing nothing useful. The SLS is comprised of technology from the 1970s.
Cost is kind of subjective, hour per hour on the moon will be about 100 times cheaper than Apollo. Apollo 17 was on the moon for 27 hours while Artemis 3 will be there for more than a week. So, for the first landing of Artemis they will be on the moon around 6 times longer than the last landing of Apollo. As Artemis progresses it will be on the moon for 2 weeks then a month and a half and so on.
@@mikeguilmette776 So would you rather get a photo of the Grand Canyon or go to the Grand Canyon? You're falling for the fundamental flaw about sending robots. You're not going to get nearly as much funding to send robots or maybe any at all.
Yeah, comparing an actually event with an well into the future event is sooo grounded . . . You spent way too much time on the internet and in video games . ..
That 12:30 till 14:00 segment was hard to watch. The shaking was nauseating. I figured I'd give that as feedback. Besides that great video, hope everything will go as intended and if things don't go as intended that the back up systems are robust enough that everyone can make it home safely.
@@Bow-to-the-absurd I do not really care whether or not it is a mistake, it could be or maybe someone thought it would be a cool effect. That is why I said it was feedback, what they do with it is their business.
Artemis turned out to be a bigger and heavier version of their twin Apollo with a lot more health issues. Probably why Artemis Moon ship was destroyed by General Zod in Superman II.
Anyone interested in Artemis should watch SmarterEveryday's video about it. He raises serious concerns and asks really good questions about it. Starship, for instance, may need a dozen or more launches to refuel just for a single moon landing. The reason for the Gateway is not for science, it is because SLS with Orion doesn't have the delta-v to go straight to the moon's surface like Apollo did. The program seems to be messy with a lot of overcomplications.
I feel like people have the wrong idea of how Starship is going to be refueled. Its going to be one fueling instance at a depot. The depot is what will get the regular fueling missions. Refueling needs to happen as its a huge game changer by essentially resetting the rocket equation. SmarterEveryDay is great, but Destin is old space. SpaceX is new space which needs to happen if we're to move on from flag waving missions.
The point of that was that people did not knew how many refuelings it's gonna take, not that it's a bad thing. It's a problem of miscommunication, there is not much information about Artemis program considering it's a public program.
Its a terrible video that ignores reality of politics budgets and the need for more efficient hardware for any lasting program that is not just an apollo reenactment theater. If you dont remember that program was ended early because of cost and lack of political will. With no starship or replacement there is no long term moon program. Simple as that.
Imagine the incredible Scientific research NASA would have access if instead of Artemis, the budget was use for a large Space Telescope as LUVOIR, probe missions to the icey moons, a lander probe to Europa, a drone mission to Titan, and a Radio Telescope on the Far Side of the Moon.
I wonder If other countries such as China or India's own plan to establish human presence on the Moon is a why this project seem more urgent to the US government.
@@remliqa Absolutely. I think the USA would try everything to not see Chinese Boots on the moon before they can return themselves. The only reason why Artemis is rather slow going (relative to Apollo that is) is because unlike in the 1960s they have a significant headstart. If anything, it's the Chinese who would need to cut corners (which they do). All this serves to reinforce my earlier statement that pushing for the moon has little value in itself, regardless of the Nation or space organization. A large portion of the motivation stems solely for prestige reasons, which is awesome for sure, and also very dumb.
I'm a boomer who remembers watching the Apollo moon landings with 11 and 12 in 1969....14 and 15 in 1971....16 and 17 in 1972.. SIX successful landings on the moon in less than 4 years ..the engineers of that time must of been super brilliant as compared to the scientists we have now
Well...back then the only reason people wanted to go to moon was to prove its possible. It was also part of the cold war. USA wanted to prove that they have better space program than SSSR. But now we want to make moon a 'gateway' to Mars and also somewhere where people could live. And its a lot more harder to put all the equipment you need for that into one rocket without it breaking or costing even more billions than it costs.
@@chikgaming5 a) it suffices not to inject too much oxygen in the cabin used for ground test labelled as "perfectly safe" and the casualties of Apollo 1 will never ever repeat again. That was murder and was deliberate. Also Gus Grissom family member share this opinion. Gus should have been the first man to put foot on the moon but he had the bad habit to denounce loudly the miserable state of the apollo mission. Better believe fancy stories instead. b) "lots of the apollo crew members now have physical and mental health issues". ?????????? Like what? One problem you would expect is the insurgence of cancer because of heavy radiation dose taken in the deep space but nothing of that matter has happened. All good, the boys are just fine
Actually, it's pretty inspiring that people are planning to get back to the moon! I normally watch some educational videos to improve my English at 1.25 but this gut is at the right speed all the time, so X 1.00 =)
Indeed. Somehow the SLS rocket has turned out to be even *worse* than Shuttle in terms of cost and launch cadence, and Artemis is mandated by law to use it because the real purpose of Artemis is to spend money in the right congressional districts rather than to actually reach the Moon.
The true date from nasa was 28. And then politics made it 26 or whatever. And then reality will make it more like 30. This is sadly how it always works.
Orion and Boeing are not cutting it. Elon has started a car company and put his capsules on a launch vechile he invented built tested and has put people into orbit all in less time than Boeing space liner and Orion have been trying to get to the moon. Plus Elon can recycle the launch rocket instead of pollute space
@@marshalbali meh, that's pretty optimistic. It will be 10-15 years before a good lunar base is set up and governments will likely favour that as opposed to a Mars mission as it will deliver a return on investment faster. After that it would take years of development even still to make a Mars mission safe. I'm guessing 25-35 years before a Mars shot.
Elon seems pretty hellbent on getting there in his lifetime, and he's got a couple decades on you (and I). I doubt we'll see any permanent residents living in colonies on Mars in the next 50ish years, but it seems like we're like we're within 15-20 years of the first manned mission. It's definitely gonna be private industry leading the way, if left up to Nasa (or any other government organization) it'd never get done.
I’m 38 and when I was in my early 20s I was so hyped about going to mars and the moon. I use to follow all the launches and updates from nasa and spacex religiously. The hype has faded for me. They keep delaying and delaying. I’ll be typing your comment one day still waiting. Progress has been made but I’ll be in my 60s before we land probably.
@@MyKharli which we have solutions to but they just haven't been implemented on a large scale yet. With an attitude like that your life will suck but ours won't. Have fun. The REALITY is that we have it better than anyone ever before but I suppose there is always someone who wants to cry about it and mistakenly believe that things used to be better
@@chrisyoung9653 Lol my attitude is where are the solutions and how can they realistically be implemented , not childish hopeum fanboy cgi led nonsense ! If my dad was a mugger , i am sure i would have had a rich childhood full of stolen goods , your `best time ever `is on the back of robbing the future of all natures stored bank of fertility , clean water , and energy that have nearly been all used for a flash of greed and hubris ...your go .
Outer Space doesn't exist.Earth is the only World there is.There are no other Physical Cosmic Worlds out there and there is no Infinite Cosmic Spatial Vacuum Void.Outer Space has "3 Enormous Problems":Problem 1 - Survivability - Cosmic Space is completely and inherently uninhabitable, inhospitable and unliveable.This doesn't seem/feel right.If Outer Space truly existed it should therefore be completely and inherently habitable,hospitable and liveable.If Outer Space was real it would be 100% welcoming of All-potential Beings,Creatures and Life-forms.This means that Outer Space must be "Breathable",because otherwise Everyone and Everything would immediately and perpetually suffocate and no Life-forms would ever emerge or survive in such a lethal Cosmic Universe.Problem 2 - Cosmic Travel - All-vehicles must push "Something" in order to move and go "Somewhere".In Earth's Atmosphere Automobiles push "Air" to move,Airplanes also push "Air" to move and Cruise Ships push "Water" to move,but Outer Space has no Atmosphere.You cannot travel to/in Outer Space,because The Vacuum of Space neutralizes All-pushing power/travel power.This means that Space Travel is impossible,that No One has ever left The Earth,that No One has ever traveled to Space and that every single Space Mission from the beginning to today is a lie.If Outer Space truly existed it would need to have an "Atmosphere" in order for Outer Space Travel to be possible.Problem 3 - Vast Separation - Celestial Space is just far too tremendously vast as a territory.All-Life-forms are separated,because of the "Humongous Distance" between them.This is not convenient.If Outer Space was real it wouldn't be so gargantuan,because it has to be much smaller and more "Tightly-Knit",so that All-potential Life-forms can locate and discover each other.Outer Space is a lie designed in order to convince The Public that Extraterrestrial Beings exist.The total "Inhospitableness" and "Unfeasibility" of Outer Space proves that Outer Space cannot exist,because Outer Space doesn't exist!
A bit odd. Description of the video says 1 day old, but SpaceX has announced their EVA suit for use in the Polaris mission, together with confirmation of inner ship fuel transfer Seems a bit of a time disconuity.
Hey, first of all I love your channels. Could you please do a video on the refueling issues of the Starship. It needs 12 refueling rockets all to successfully rendezvous in earth’s orbit in order to get to the Moon. Then it also needs to refuel in Lunar orbit to come back. Nobody in human history has ever refueled in orbit using the type of fuel Space X is using for the Starship. More than 12 successful launches, 12 consecutive rendezvous and orbital refueling yet supposedly they are to land in 2026? PLEASE! With your analytical skills it would prove a good video Take care mate
A starship would require closer to 7-8 if they use Block 3 as a tanker (200T to LEO) and they refuel the lander which would be a Block 2 (1,400T of fuel). Flight 3 proved that they can conduct an in flight fuel transfer within the ship and they will target a ship-to-ship demo early next year. Also, Artemis 3 is probably delayed to 2027 and then 4 for 2028, meaning they have over a year to refuel it.
0:25 funny how media works, everyone knows who Neil Armstrong is but this is the first time ive ever heard of Gene Cernan or Harrison Schmitt but they were just as important as Neil. It takes a different breed to be willing and not just want to go to the moon especially given the comparative level of technology at the time
Naaaa, the first one take all the fame, all followers are just lame copies. Sir Edmund Hillary climbed Mt. Everest the first time, can you name 5 more?
I’m so glad to hear that we will make sure the appropriate groups are represented on these missions. Which one of these people represents the 2slgbtqia+ people?
Why is Simon Whistler the voice of information and education all of a sudden? He used to be with one channel, now he seemingly talks for dozens. No complaint though, I like it.
@@TomHill-xh7ec How many attempts did it take them to perfect it? Also if they're so good at it, why do they have to do it out in the ocean? Wouldn't it be cheaper to do it on land?
Once the Starship program reaches operational status, this whole plan is gonna get turned upside down. I don’t oppose the current development of sls or Orion because it’s never a good idea to put all of your eggs in one basket. But the capabilities of the starship launch system exceed sls and Orion in every way, and some of those ways by several orders of magnitude (especially the $$/kg of mass to orbit ratio). Each starship has a pressure vessel which has almost exactly the same internal volume as the entire international space station. In addition to all this, spaceX is building a gigantic factory in Texas to LITERALLY mass produce these things. And by the way, I’m not necessarily saying that NASA will start using starship for everything they do, I think it’s far more likely that as we start trying to go farther than the moon they will use it to start building much larger vehicles in orbit.
You're talking total bullshit. SLS-Orion is the only system capable of safely carrying crew to deep space and returning them to Earth. NASA would never ever even consider using Starship as a primary vehicle, it would be the worst choice they could make as there would be so many problems with that. Not like Starship will be proven anytime soon anyway, especially to carry crew in any capacity like for its HLS role. I wouldn't be surprised if that doesn't even happen in this decade at this point. The public perception of the Starship program is one giant illusion, I can tell you that for a fact. NASA is already losing patience and not happy at all with how their contract is going.
SLS as currently designed can lift much heavier cargo than starship to geosynchronous orbit and beyond. Maybe that will change over time, but it's a fact today.
@@FrankyPi NASA doesn't have to start using Starship without Orion to carry crew to the surface of the moon. SpaceX are saying they will do it. NASA will have the choice between coopting the SpaceX plans, or watching SpaceX do it by themselves. I'm thinking it could go either way. I'd guess the first Orion-less moon landing happens before Artemis 5, with or without NASA.
@SpaceAdvocate Never gonna happen buddy, and if it somehow does happen, I wish best of luck to those people who decide to fly on it, they'd need it for sure.
@matthewcasady6276 It can lift much heavier payload anywhere, and even New Glenn can lift more assuming their 45 tons is accurate (probably is), as Starship is only capable of lifting around 35 tons or less to LEO due to severe underperformance from multiple design issues.
I belive the new current thinking is that they'll board the Starship in Earth Orbit, and go straight to the moon surface. Which I'd prefere.. why use a VW Bug when you can use a Greyhound bus..
Because the Greyhound (aka HLS Starship) does not have enough propellant and/or a heat shield to safely bring the Austronauts back to Earth. So far, this is only possible via the Orion spacecraft. No other way. That said, the proposal you mention is very real and definetely worth considering, because you could replace the expensive Orion with a cheap Dragon 2 from SpaceX, saving billions of dollars. But this needs more development to solve the problems as stated above.
No, it's not. You're talking about rumours from Ars Technica that NASA is apparently considering downscaling Artemis III to an Apollo 9 style mission, where Orion and HLS would test procedures in LEO, because HLS won't be ready in time to make it to the Moon due to refueling. These rumours have been shot down by Nelson in a recent conference, what I heard from people working on HLS at NASA is that they're considering making Artemis III another Orion only mission, because they think HLS will be nowhere near ready to do anything. NASA would also never even consider using Starship instead of SLS-Orion, for very good reasons. SLS-Orion is the only system capable to safely carry crew to deep space and return them to Earth. There is no other option and likely won't be for a very long time.
@@FrankyPi I thought we were only talking about Earth orbit rendevous. Dragon can obviously not go to the moon. Although I can imagine a lunar rated Dragon at some point. Heat shield, radiation and comms/navigation are probably the most significant hurdles. I agree, SLS-Orion will remain the only viable US human-rated vehicle for yet some time. But things might change over the years, especially if the Artemis program turns out to be a success. Or if the Chinese pressure the US into even more lunar activity.
@@debott4538 You'd need an additional propellant transfer in somewhere in the LLO-NRHO area to bring the crewed HLS Starship from lunar orbit to LEO, using propulsion. The HLS Starship still wouldn't have a heat shield, so it would need to rendezvous with a reentry craft. That could be a Dragon or Starship. In my opinion, the easiest architecture for an Orion-less moon landing would be: 1. Launching two propellant depots to LEO and filling them up with propellant. 2. Sending one of the propellant depots to LLO. 3. Launching an HLS Starship. 4. Having HLS Starship rendezvous with the propellant depot in LEO and filling the tanks. 5. Launching a Crew Dragon. 6. Having Crew Dragon rendezvous with the HLS Starship, and transfering crew onto HLS Starship. 7. Having HLS Starship go all the way to the moon, perform the surface mission, and return to LLO. 8. Having HLS Starship rendezvous with the propellant depot and adding some propellant. 9. Having HLS Starship propulsively go to LEO. 10. Having Crew Dragon rendezvous with the HLS Starship, and transfering crew from HLS Starship to Crew Dragon. 11. Perform the reentry with Crew Dragon. Beyond some minor modifications, this doesn't need anything that SpaceX doesn't already have operational or is developing for NASA.
Starship has twice the thrust and has been to space. That makes it a legitimate space ship. True, it hasn't been to orbit yet or landed but no one has ever tried landing a skyscraper before.
Starship and SpaceX fan, but SS not realized quite yet. I’ll concede to the SLS disposable money sink for right now, but soon it will be undeniable. IFT-4 coming soon and I am excited for them to crush it. Not even China is going to catch SpaceX, if only the US government were actually behind SpaceX and not being a headwind
I hope they can do it -- but note that an EMPTY Starship failed to make orbit with all engines, as far as I could tell, functioning (earlier flights had problems losing engines, so OK, while you work that out it is understandable that you won't make orbit. But with all engines firing on an empty ship, it should have been hugely oversupplied in terms of reaching orbit.)
@@JMartJr On flight three, Starship reached the target trajectory, which was slightly suborbital. They would have been in orbit had the plan been to enter orbit, but to ensure that the Starship would reenter in a known location regardless of what happened next, the plan was to stay slightly suborbital. Starship also reached the target trajectory with probably around 70 tons of propellant left over. That demonstrates roughly 40 tons of payload to LEO, in reusable mode.
StarShite was supposed to have an Orbital flight done by now, I doubt it will ever be a viable Spacecraft. What happens when you give unregulated tax dollars to a Malignant Narcissist. Elon Musk is a Conman and Starshite is an EPIC FAIL.
@@cu9.11neither did the Shuttle. It did have abort options like abort to orbit or aborting to an airport across the ocean, but none on the pad and none during the first minute. There was one theoretical abort option called RTLS where if the shuttle lost one of the RS-25’s shortly after launch, they could potentially fly the shuttle away and then back to the cape to land. Apollo astronaut John Young said that this abort would “require continuous miracles interspersed with acts of God to be successful”. Starship could have similar abort options if they included lightweight emergency landing legs like we saw for the SN5-15 flights and maybe could do a pad abort if the failure was with the booster, which is made easier with the hot staging ring. By quickly firing all 6 or 9 engines and slowly draining the fuel while descending down to do a splashdown or soft land on the ground, which Elon said could still be an optional abort mode even without legs but i would prefer splashdown less than a km of the coast or on land if they will include single use emergency landing legs.
The forest behind the tree: the Starship system (booster, tanker/crew/cargo/lunar ship) is being designed to be able to ferry 100t of cargo/crew from Earth to Moon and back. Artemis III is a big milestone but not the end goal.
@favesongslist A year behind? They promised the fuel transfer test, which needs to be done before any landing can happen, by April 2022, two years ago. Per the GAO audit of the program, they put it at nearly 3 years late, and likely will not deliver until 2030.
@SpaceAdvocate three years delayed *in 2023*, and have yet to progress much since. Their specific point was that out of the 13 milestones they were to have met by the end of FY2023, they only met 6 of them. That means they predict it will take twice as long, so instead of 4.5 years, 9 years. And do note, I would be incredibly happy for this prediction to be wrong.
Surprisingly out of date for something that dropped just today. The issues discovered with the Orion craft have pushed Artemis III to an _optimistic_ 2027. This gives NASA's subcontractors three years, starting now, to have their obligations sorted out, and that assumes nothing new rears its head in the ensuing three years, such as during Artemis II.
First - the critique. What the heck was up with the high school PowerPoint bouncy image during the Gateway description part? Please knock it off. Second - how is this not a mega project? Third - love your videos, keep them coming.
VIPER .... you just know that in the meeting to name the robot they first came up with the coolest name, then spent hours trying to think up words that started with those letters of its name, LOL :D
Congress mandated Cost-Plus contracts in action.... NASA even testified to Congress that the Cost-Plus contracts weren't working, and that the cost was unsustainable. Congress ordered NASA to keep using Cost-Plus contracts..... Senate Launch System.
I'm gonna check out here...so enjoy ChatGPT4 Exactly, the perspective that Starship did not carry any "useful" payload during its test flights might stem from a misunderstanding of the spacecraft's design and the objectives of these flights. Starship is engineered to carry more fuel than what is required merely to reach orbit. This extra fuel capacity is part of its design to enable longer missions beyond Earth orbit, such as to the Moon and Mars, and for in-space operations like refueling and maneuvering. During the test flights, carrying additional fuel-beyond what would be needed just for reaching orbit-serves as ballast to simulate the mass and balance of a fully equipped operational flight. This helps test the spacecraft’s performance under expected future mission conditions. The fuel serves a dual purpose: it acts as ballast and is part of essential tests like the propellant transfer demonstration. Understanding this dual functionality is key to recognizing why SpaceX designs its test flights this way. It's not just about reaching orbit but preparing the spacecraft for the complex, multi-phase missions for which it is ultimately intended.
8-10 with Starship but it’s fully reusable so it will be ridiculously cheap to refuel and could be theoretically done with the same booster that launched the lander. Estimated costs for a fully reused starship and booster for refuelling is probably around $5-10M each launch.
Since learning more about the gravity well around earth, I see building a moon base and launch pads on the moon as very important whereas before I found the whole mission pointless. I think they do need to mainly have the operations run by robots though, as the heat and cold on the moon, as well as the lack of life supporting materials, means robots doing most of the work would be advisable.
Actually, hour for hour on the moon this Artemis will be about 100 times cheaper than Apollo. The longest time spent on the moon was 27 hours by Apollo 17. Whereas Artemis 3 will spend over a week.
@@captainspaulding5963 That an hour on the moon costs so much more for Apollo than an hour Artemis. If you spend 2 billion dollars for 27 hours on the moon for Apollo and you spend 2 billion dollars for 650 hours on the moon for Artemis. The hourly rate is 2 billion divvied by 27 for Apollo versus 2 billion divvied by 650 for Artemis.
You forgot to mention that, in Greek mythology, Artemis is the twin sister of Apollo --- a nod to the original manned missions to the Moon.
Beat me to it
I didn’t know that. Thanks for sharing.
In the same mythology, Artemis killed Orion.
NASA's lunar capsule name is Orion.
Right! And Gemini program had 2 astronauts in each mission, i.e. twins.
@@1ndragunawan The Orion may be killed but the Dragon will rise
I love that every few months I discover a new channel of Simon's
fax
I find one every few minutes.
@@viktorm3840don’t forget about the beard too
That isn't a good thing
Whenever he forgets his password he just starts a new channel.
That was a very optimistic look at Artemis. I hope you're right.
He’s not, unfortunately the whole ‘science community’ are forgetting NASA don’t actually have any of the lander capabilities worked out.
With Apollo they knew what they had to launch to keep people alive, there and back again. And build a rocket around that…
Artemis hasn’t even got an engineering drawing better than a napkin.
All the hype has been on the rockets which don’t have the capabilities and are later expecting to calculate their needs based on how many multi billion dollar rockets they can send to make it happen.
Adding more and more ‘abilities and tools’ to fuel the hype.
But they have no ability to do any of it.
🍿🚀💥
Im here for the show, but it will end in flames and tears.
Optimistic? Or delusional. This will all get canned, but not after the money is spent
Nobody leaves low earth orbit. The Nixon administration lied. Simple.
Artemis is the opposite of 'simplify and add lightness'
@@Bow-to-the-absurd This. They are grossly understating the number of fueling launches that have to go off without a hitch for this the work, but even with the reduced number they are admitting, you are looking at multiple huge rockets launching to do what Apollo did with one launch. Instead of a Lunar Orbit Rendezvous mission, they are designing mission architecture for multiple Earth Orbit Rendezvous flights leading into multiple Lunar Orbit Rendezvous. It's a Rube Goldberg mission architecture.
This is the best non-business Blaze channel in the Whistleverse
I think Decoding the Unknown is better than Astro graphics, but I'm a resident of the Whistlerverse. Allegedly. I even have some of his failed channels on my sub page. I might need psychological help. Cheers
Science Unbound was good too imo. I still enjoy mega and side projects as well too.
I wish they'd just chain him in the basement with Danny and Dave and make him record videos forEVER.
Love watching him blaze those businesses
I like warographics
I like the Whistleverse. ❤
Gonna be crazy to get 2025 quality video of humans on the moon. Crazy.
Lets hope NASA isn't still using 320 x 400 CMOS cameras. You never know
@danthevanman294And why wouldn’t you?
Just take your iPhone with you. It will work just fine.
@@adammfharris You could very well have been sarcastic here, but to head off and inform people who won’t see that and will take your statement as factual: no, your iPhone will not work on the moon, at least not for very long, the unfiltered radiation from the sun will kill any technology not “hardened” for those conditions.
@@adammfharris iPhone: *chilling on the moon*
Unobstructed solar radiation spectra: Allow us to introduce ourselves
I suspect the whole Artemis mission series is designed to fail, so NASA can shrug & say "Hey we tried!" And certain parts of the Artemis mess will be redeployed in some new mission series later on. NASA is a space race dinosaur & should be abandoned. Some BRICS multinational mission will likely be the first manned return to the moon, in the mid-2030s.
Love all your channels Simon! Always have to listen at 0.75 though!
One of the best (and least biased) takes on the entire Artemis campaign, thank you Simon (and Arnaldo)!
Finally!! Now start doing more Science Unbound videos! I miss when it was called science of science fiction, but either way, we need more of them.
I agree. More Science Unbound
Sorry to say that Simon has confirmed that channel is dead and has been partially folded into this one.
@@kevinmcqueenie7420 awww damn.
Where does he announce these things?
@@MrSpectralmania think I saw it on a live blaze, but can’t be sure.
@@kevinmcqueenie7420 thanks mate 👍
Oh boy, a Simon channel I hadn't heard of before with 6 months of content to binge watch!
I love all the “engineers” in the comments who apparently know better than the thousands of actual aerospace engineers working on this project. Legends.
So true 😂😂
After a few decades that aspect of humanity really starts to make you feel depressed
I agree. There is no ONE engineer who is capable of pulling off this mission. There are entire teams of engineers who are responsible for individual components, whether it's a nozzle, a window, or a space helmet. every one of these components are a potential point of failure. A rubber O-ring failed on the Challenger mission, and it resulted in the deaths of the entire crew.
These projects take time, patience, testing, and approvals. I think that even 2025 sounds ambitious, and delays are not a failure on the part of the engineers. Every part of the mission has to succeed, and the astronauts have to get home safely after the mission.
I don't get why it takes so long. Between 69 and 72 they put 12 men on the moon. With today's tech we should been back by now. What's the point of all the probes and rovers? Get people up there!
@@7521ericwell, that’s a complex issue. There is the most obvious reason of course, that being no one cares about space anymore. We aren’t in a space race anymore. There is no political motive. Additionally, the opinion of the general public has broadly shifted to “why aren’t we spending this money here on Earth.” This is reflected in NASA’s budget. NASA spent over 300 billion (adjusted for inflation) on project apollo over a decade. NASA’s budget now is a measly 24ish billion. And that has to be spread out across things such as space exploration, r&d, maintaining the ISS, etc.
This is such an exciting age of exploration
it is for those whom can afford Cruises or Mountaineering but general tourism is over priced & lacks authenticity in my opinion. 👍
@@newforestpixie5297 apologies, I ment the discoveries that are coming from these excursions. Admittedly the fat cats help fund it though there should be space reserved for those than can offer real learning regardless of their finical status.
We haven’t left low earth orbit in 50 years. (If you trust the Nixon administration, maybe we did prior.) This isn’t an age of exploration.
Outer Space doesn't exist.Earth is the only World there is.There are no other Physical Cosmic
Worlds out there and there is no Infinite Cosmic Spatial Vacuum Void.Outer Space has "3 Enormous Problems":Problem 1 - Survivability - Cosmic Space is completely and inherently uninhabitable,
inhospitable and unliveable.This doesn't seem/feel right.If Outer Space truly existed
it should therefore be completely and inherently habitable,hospitable and liveable.If Outer Space was real it would be 100% welcoming of All-potential Beings,Creatures and Life-forms.This means that Outer Space must be "Breathable",because otherwise Everyone and Everything would immediately and perpetually suffocate and no Life-forms would ever emerge or survive in such a lethal Cosmic Universe.Problem 2 - Cosmic Travel - All-vehicles must push "Something" in order to move and go "Somewhere".In Earth's Atmosphere Automobiles push "Air" to move,Airplanes also push "Air" to move and Cruise Ships push "Water" to move,but Outer Space has no Atmosphere.You cannot travel to/in Outer Space,because The Vacuum of Space neutralizes All-pushing power/travel power.This means that Space Travel is impossible,that No One has ever left The Earth,that No One has ever traveled to Space and that every single Space Mission from the beginning to today is a lie.If Outer Space truly existed it would need to have an "Atmosphere" in order for Outer Space Travel to be possible.Problem 3 - Vast Separation - Celestial Space is just far too tremendously vast as a territory.All-Life-forms are separated,because of the "Humongous Distance" between them.This is not convenient.If Outer Space was real it wouldn't be so gargantuan,because it has to be much smaller and more "Tightly-Knit",so that All-potential Life-forms can locate and
discover each other.Outer Space is a lie designed in order to convince The Public that Extraterrestrial Beings exist.The total "Inhospitableness" and "Unfeasibility" of Outer Space proves that Outer Space cannot exist,because Outer Space doesn't exist!
**experimentation rather!
Thanks for the summary. This is actually a new space race in the making.
I would like to point out a few inprecise factoids from the video:
1. @0:00 Apollo 17 was correctly mentioned, but then a SpaceX Falcon 9 is shown in the background for some reason.
2. @7:34 the acronym ICPS stands for "Intermin Cryogenic Propulsion Stage" not "Space". It is correctly shown @7:45
3. @14:06 you mention a JAXA owned SLS rocket, but SLS is purely a NASA vehicle.
Keep up the great work. But please check for these minor mistakes next time. :)
The SLS is a Boeing spacecraft. NASA claims it as their own due to Congressmen requiring it. That way, they get their kickbacks, inflating their income. The SLS is nothing but a jobs program, accomplishing nothing useful. The SLS is comprised of technology from the 1970s.
2:34 I thought the Starship was the most powerful rocket or am I getting smth wrong?
I love how many channels you have. Your voice is great.
Too fast, its not an advert. slow it down a bit
Just adjust your player to play it at .75 speed. It's almost perfect that way
You know I feel like it’s every day I find out you have a new channel ? Just how many do you have !
Simon is an AI character! 😂
I double checked my youtube settings, 1x, now I change it to 0.75x
me too!!!
Me three!
This man speaks faster than my brain can order information. There should be a warning for epilepsy in front of this video. ;-)
English is my third language and I still perfectly understand him
Same
At this point picking on Artemis is like beating the cripple. It's just not a fair fight.
ruclips.net/video/OoJsPvmFixU/видео.html#t=21m36s
😂
Jaques - Thankyou 👍
Artemis is much bigger than going to the moon for the hell of it. We are building a gateway in space
@armaniwebb4467 yes, and by we, you mean SpaceX. Boeing and Congress is just fleecing the American taxpayers with SLS.
@@EmperorFist323 Hmm, more likely a castle of air in air free space 😂
Cost is kind of subjective, hour per hour on the moon will be about 100 times cheaper than Apollo. Apollo 17 was on the moon for 27 hours while Artemis 3 will be there for more than a week. So, for the first landing of Artemis they will be on the moon around 6 times longer than the last landing of Apollo. As Artemis progresses it will be on the moon for 2 weeks then a month and a half and so on.
And eventually twice an many people.
Sending robots would be even cheaper.
@@mikeguilmette776 So would you rather get a photo of the Grand Canyon or go to the Grand Canyon? You're falling for the fundamental flaw about sending robots. You're not going to get nearly as much funding to send robots or maybe any at all.
Yeah, comparing an actually event with an well into the future event is sooo grounded . . . You spent way too much time on the internet and in video games . ..
@@JacquesMartini Well at least I can read a NASA schedule and budget.
Thanks for the vid, must’ve read my comment asking about Artemis a few days ago lol
Good Luck with that load of optimism
If any single things go wrong, SpaceX will solve anything about that.
Good luck with that skibidi fanum of yours
without optimism ther would be no progress!
K then nihilist you enjoy not believing in humanity
Really enjoying this channel
Fantasy!
Shhh! Let them find out when they're old enough.
Haha skibidi toilet reference gooning
@@patrickirwin3662 what's up fello goon maxxer
Oki need a clear and concise list of all his channels. He is trying to elude us all from content.
Well, believe it when I see it
I just found this channel after watching the Kharkiv update on Warographics. Simon and the team don’t sleep
Darkside of the moon is just a point of view from Earth.
The"dark side" receive as much sunlight as the side we look at.
there are deep craters at the south pole were sunlight doesnt reach
More considering the shadow we cast on the Earth facing inside
Hi. In my opinion is to buil with automation an base first and then to go. Thank you very much. Eventualy ice particle analisio for breathing air.
That 12:30 till 14:00 segment was hard to watch. The shaking was nauseating. I figured I'd give that as feedback. Besides that great video, hope everything will go as intended and if things don't go as intended that the back up systems are robust enough that everyone can make it home safely.
Felt like a mistake to me
@@Bow-to-the-absurd I do not really care whether or not it is a mistake, it could be or maybe someone thought it would be a cool effect. That is why I said it was feedback, what they do with it is their business.
Artemis turned out to be a bigger and heavier version of their twin Apollo with a lot more health issues. Probably why Artemis Moon ship was destroyed by General Zod in Superman II.
Anyone interested in Artemis should watch SmarterEveryday's video about it. He raises serious concerns and asks really good questions about it. Starship, for instance, may need a dozen or more launches to refuel just for a single moon landing. The reason for the Gateway is not for science, it is because SLS with Orion doesn't have the delta-v to go straight to the moon's surface like Apollo did. The program seems to be messy with a lot of overcomplications.
I feel like people have the wrong idea of how Starship is going to be refueled. Its going to be one fueling instance at a depot. The depot is what will get the regular fueling missions. Refueling needs to happen as its a huge game changer by essentially resetting the rocket equation. SmarterEveryDay is great, but Destin is old space. SpaceX is new space which needs to happen if we're to move on from flag waving missions.
The point of that was that people did not knew how many refuelings it's gonna take, not that it's a bad thing. It's a problem of miscommunication, there is not much information about Artemis program considering it's a public program.
@@motokid6008 Hahahaha, new SpaceX physics, inventet by genius Elon!
@@JacquesMartini - What new physics are those?
Its a terrible video that ignores reality of politics budgets and the need for more efficient hardware for any lasting program that is not just an apollo reenactment theater. If you dont remember that program was ended early because of cost and lack of political will. With no starship or replacement there is no long term moon program. Simple as that.
Never thought the world would reach for the stars this hard in my life, thought it would be my daughter seeing this.
Isn't the SpaceX Starship the most powerful rocket in the world?
Yes, by an extremely large margin (nearly 2x).
Starship will help Artemis mission during 4th 5th mission
@spaceexploration-Don not even starship is expected to be apart of Artemis 3
Just when I thought I'd seen all of Simon's channels this pops up (not complaining)
Imagine the incredible Scientific research NASA would have access if instead of Artemis, the budget was use for a large Space Telescope as LUVOIR, probe missions to the icey moons, a lander probe to Europa, a drone mission to Titan, and a Radio Telescope on the Far Side of the Moon.
Agreed. Human spaceflight is very wasteful. LEO stations are fine, but Luna? I'm not convinced yet.
Yes! All make more sense than Artemis.
@@debott4538 Luna just as minor step in establishing our reach beyond Earth , such as Mars or further.
I wonder If other countries such as China or India's own plan to establish human presence on the Moon is a why this project seem more urgent to the US government.
@@remliqa Absolutely. I think the USA would try everything to not see Chinese Boots on the moon before they can return themselves. The only reason why Artemis is rather slow going (relative to Apollo that is) is because unlike in the 1960s they have a significant headstart. If anything, it's the Chinese who would need to cut corners (which they do).
All this serves to reinforce my earlier statement that pushing for the moon has little value in itself, regardless of the Nation or space organization. A large portion of the motivation stems solely for prestige reasons, which is awesome for sure, and also very dumb.
Starfishes love you guys
I'm a boomer who remembers watching the Apollo moon landings with 11 and 12 in 1969....14 and 15 in 1971....16 and 17 in 1972.. SIX successful landings on the moon in less than 4 years ..the engineers of that time must of been super brilliant as compared to the scientists we have now
Well...back then the only reason people wanted to go to moon was to prove its possible. It was also part of the cold war. USA wanted to prove that they have better space program than SSSR. But now we want to make moon a 'gateway' to Mars and also somewhere where people could live. And its a lot more harder to put all the equipment you need for that into one rocket without it breaking or costing even more billions than it costs.
Not necessarily. We’re just making sure that the mission is far more reliable and safe so less people die.
@@chikgaming5 the only people of apollo mission who died have been deliberately assassinated (Apollo 1)
@@nicolagianaroli2024 a) wouldn’t want that to happen again b) lots of the apollo crew members now have physical abd mental health issues
@@chikgaming5 a) it suffices not to inject too much oxygen in the cabin used for ground test labelled as "perfectly safe" and the casualties of Apollo 1 will never ever repeat again. That was murder and was deliberate. Also Gus Grissom family member share this opinion. Gus should have been the first man to put foot on the moon but he had the bad habit to denounce loudly the miserable state of the apollo mission. Better believe fancy stories instead. b) "lots of the apollo crew members now have physical and mental health issues". ?????????? Like what? One problem you would expect is the insurgence of cancer because of heavy radiation dose taken in the deep space but nothing of that matter has happened. All good, the boys are just fine
Actually, it's pretty inspiring that people are planning to get back to the moon!
I normally watch some educational videos to improve my English at 1.25 but this gut is at the right speed all the time, so X 1.00 =)
There is zero percent chance the Artemis moon landing happens as currently planned.
Indeed. Somehow the SLS rocket has turned out to be even *worse* than Shuttle in terms of cost and launch cadence, and Artemis is mandated by law to use it because the real purpose of Artemis is to spend money in the right congressional districts rather than to actually reach the Moon.
@@facedeerare Lockheed Martin Northrop Grumman Boeing price gouging?
2030 still feels ambitious
The true date from nasa was 28. And then politics made it 26 or whatever. And then reality will make it more like 30. This is sadly how it always works.
Space x bout to blow this whole thing
for how long this mission？ wait using Starship as a Base？
Orion also has heatshield problems.
Orion and Boeing are not cutting it. Elon has started a car company and put his capsules on a launch vechile he invented built tested and has put people into orbit all in less time than Boeing space liner and Orion have been trying to get to the moon. Plus Elon can recycle the launch rocket instead of pollute space
Houston - Orion has many problems.....
Great, more of this sort of thing. But your editor is clearly over-worked,
looks like he just blacked-out for a few minutes around @12:40 8 )
Victor Glover appears to be the ultimate human. Mad respect
I don’t think I’ll be around for mars (I’m 28 ish)
You probably will, not for us to establish a proper colony but the first manned landing is within 10-20 years.
@@marshalbali meh, that's pretty optimistic. It will be 10-15 years before a good lunar base is set up and governments will likely favour that as opposed to a Mars mission as it will deliver a return on investment faster. After that it would take years of development even still to make a Mars mission safe.
I'm guessing 25-35 years before a Mars shot.
USA vs China vs Private ... yeah definitely not taking 25, 35 yrs.. it's 10.. maybe 12
Have more faith in starship
Elon seems pretty hellbent on getting there in his lifetime, and he's got a couple decades on you (and I). I doubt we'll see any permanent residents living in colonies on Mars in the next 50ish years, but it seems like we're like we're within 15-20 years of the first manned mission. It's definitely gonna be private industry leading the way, if left up to Nasa (or any other government organization) it'd never get done.
Let’s go Artemis to the beyond
It always breaks my heart when I think about what knowledge we'd wield if we had launched as many science space telescopes as we have spy satellites.
Breaks my heart that ppl blindly trust the Nixon administration did something nobody has been able to replicate for 50 years.
Probably not as much, the space telescopes we have already do a pretty good job
Didn't Orion on Artemis1 not have any life support on board?
@@debott4538 It didn't have the life support. It wasn't needed for the uncrewed flight.
"Starship" has no life support, either.
@@michaelsommers2356 That's true. Not yet.
Ugh... not me. Frankly, at 64, I doubt it's in the cards for me,but DAMN ! Hope I live to see it.
Aye the Wright Brothers witnessed the moon landing, you very well may be
I’m 38 and when I was in my early 20s I was so hyped about going to mars and the moon. I use to follow all the launches and updates from nasa and spacex religiously. The hype has faded for me. They keep delaying and delaying. I’ll be typing your comment one day still waiting. Progress has been made but I’ll be in my 60s before we land probably.
I am not sure if I live to see it but I am hoping to see the formal admission of the hoax before I die.
Love this channel and a great video! Hope you guys keep it up as the channel grows. Thanks Simon and the writers!
An amazing time to be alive
In an existential climate catastrophe with hyperloop level space fantasy projects ..yeah right !
@@MyKharli which we have solutions to but they just haven't been implemented on a large scale yet. With an attitude like that your life will suck but ours won't. Have fun. The REALITY is that we have it better than anyone ever before but I suppose there is always someone who wants to cry about it and mistakenly believe that things used to be better
@@chrisyoung9653 Lol my attitude is where are the solutions and how can they realistically be implemented , not childish hopeum fanboy cgi led nonsense ! If my dad was a mugger , i am sure i would have had a rich childhood full of stolen goods , your `best time ever `is on the back of robbing the future of all natures stored bank of fertility , clean water , and energy that have nearly been all used for a flash of greed and hubris ...your go .
The late 1960s?
Outer Space doesn't exist.Earth is the only World there is.There are no other Physical Cosmic
Worlds out there and there is no Infinite Cosmic Spatial Vacuum Void.Outer Space has "3 Enormous Problems":Problem 1 - Survivability - Cosmic Space is completely and inherently uninhabitable,
inhospitable and unliveable.This doesn't seem/feel right.If Outer Space truly existed
it should therefore be completely and inherently habitable,hospitable and liveable.If Outer Space was real it would be 100% welcoming of All-potential Beings,Creatures and Life-forms.This means that Outer Space must be "Breathable",because otherwise Everyone and Everything would immediately and perpetually suffocate and no Life-forms would ever emerge or survive in such a lethal Cosmic Universe.Problem 2 - Cosmic Travel - All-vehicles must push "Something" in order to move and go "Somewhere".In Earth's Atmosphere Automobiles push "Air" to move,Airplanes also push "Air" to move and Cruise Ships push "Water" to move,but Outer Space has no Atmosphere.You cannot travel to/in Outer Space,because The Vacuum of Space neutralizes All-pushing power/travel power.This means that Space Travel is impossible,that No One has ever left The Earth,that No One has ever traveled to Space and that every single Space Mission from the beginning to today is a lie.If Outer Space truly existed it would need to have an "Atmosphere" in order for Outer Space Travel to be possible.Problem 3 - Vast Separation - Celestial Space is just far too tremendously vast as a territory.All-Life-forms are separated,because of the "Humongous Distance" between them.This is not convenient.If Outer Space was real it wouldn't be so gargantuan,because it has to be much smaller and more "Tightly-Knit",so that All-potential Life-forms can locate and
discover each other.Outer Space is a lie designed in order to convince The Public that Extraterrestrial Beings exist.The total "Inhospitableness" and "Unfeasibility" of Outer Space proves that Outer Space cannot exist,because Outer Space doesn't exist!
Please do q load out and include where load out must br used with you vehicle successfully
A bit odd. Description of the video says 1 day old, but SpaceX has announced their EVA suit for use in the Polaris mission, together with confirmation of inner ship fuel transfer
Seems a bit of a time disconuity.
Hey, first of all I love your channels. Could you please do a video on the refueling issues of the Starship. It needs 12 refueling rockets all to successfully rendezvous in earth’s orbit in order to get to the Moon. Then it also needs to refuel in Lunar orbit to come back.
Nobody in human history has ever refueled in orbit using the type of fuel Space X is using for the Starship.
More than 12 successful launches, 12 consecutive rendezvous and orbital refueling yet supposedly they are to land in 2026?
PLEASE! With your analytical skills it would prove a good video
Take care mate
A starship would require closer to 7-8 if they use Block 3 as a tanker (200T to LEO) and they refuel the lander which would be a Block 2 (1,400T of fuel). Flight 3 proved that they can conduct an in flight fuel transfer within the ship and they will target a ship-to-ship demo early next year.
Also, Artemis 3 is probably delayed to 2027 and then 4 for 2028, meaning they have over a year to refuel it.
@@archierush868 Thanks for the info
0:25 funny how media works, everyone knows who Neil Armstrong is but this is the first time ive ever heard of Gene Cernan or Harrison Schmitt but they were just as important as Neil. It takes a different breed to be willing and not just want to go to the moon especially given the comparative level of technology at the time
What about the other 8 moonwalkers, heard of them?
Maybe blame your lack of education instead of "the media".
Naaaa, the first one take all the fame, all followers are just lame copies. Sir Edmund Hillary climbed Mt. Everest the first time, can you name 5 more?
@@THE-X-Force Unless you were around during the Apollo era, It is unlikely to know much more than Apollo 11 from school.
a “ space nut “ commented he’d been unaware of the Apollo/Soyuz 1975 missions until finding a YT video. I found this tragic .
I’m so glad to hear that we will make sure the appropriate groups are represented on these missions. Which one of these people represents the 2slgbtqia+ people?
Artemis was never the personification of the moon that was Selene.
Why is Simon Whistler the voice of information and education all of a sudden? He used to be with one channel, now he seemingly talks for dozens. No complaint though, I like it.
SpaceX's Starship system is almost twice the size of SLS.
Like the average american, twice the size of regular humans! 😂
Good luck landing a sky scraper on the Moon.
@@JoeBManco Think BIG! 😂
@@JoeBManco Landing a skyscraper on Earth was considered impossible in 2010.
@@TomHill-xh7ec How many attempts did it take them to perfect it? Also if they're so good at it, why do they have to do it out in the ocean? Wouldn't it be cheaper to do it on land?
Yeah, good luck with that SpaceX Starship Lunar lander. They are so far behind on schedule already. XD
Once the Starship program reaches operational status, this whole plan is gonna get turned upside down. I don’t oppose the current development of sls or Orion because it’s never a good idea to put all of your eggs in one basket. But the capabilities of the starship launch system exceed sls and Orion in every way, and some of those ways by several orders of magnitude (especially the $$/kg of mass to orbit ratio). Each starship has a pressure vessel which has almost exactly the same internal volume as the entire international space station. In addition to all this, spaceX is building a gigantic factory in Texas to LITERALLY mass produce these things. And by the way, I’m not necessarily saying that NASA will start using starship for everything they do, I think it’s far more likely that as we start trying to go farther than the moon they will use it to start building much larger vehicles in orbit.
You're talking total bullshit. SLS-Orion is the only system capable of safely carrying crew to deep space and returning them to Earth. NASA would never ever even consider using Starship as a primary vehicle, it would be the worst choice they could make as there would be so many problems with that. Not like Starship will be proven anytime soon anyway, especially to carry crew in any capacity like for its HLS role. I wouldn't be surprised if that doesn't even happen in this decade at this point. The public perception of the Starship program is one giant illusion, I can tell you that for a fact. NASA is already losing patience and not happy at all with how their contract is going.
SLS as currently designed can lift much heavier cargo than starship to geosynchronous orbit and beyond. Maybe that will change over time, but it's a fact today.
@@FrankyPi NASA doesn't have to start using Starship without Orion to carry crew to the surface of the moon. SpaceX are saying they will do it. NASA will have the choice between coopting the SpaceX plans, or watching SpaceX do it by themselves. I'm thinking it could go either way.
I'd guess the first Orion-less moon landing happens before Artemis 5, with or without NASA.
@SpaceAdvocate Never gonna happen buddy, and if it somehow does happen, I wish best of luck to those people who decide to fly on it, they'd need it for sure.
@matthewcasady6276 It can lift much heavier payload anywhere, and even New Glenn can lift more assuming their 45 tons is accurate (probably is), as Starship is only capable of lifting around 35 tons or less to LEO due to severe underperformance from multiple design issues.
How did you mess up your own captions?
I belive the new current thinking is that they'll board the Starship in Earth Orbit, and go straight to the moon surface. Which I'd prefere.. why use a VW Bug when you can use a Greyhound bus..
Because the Greyhound (aka HLS Starship) does not have enough propellant and/or a heat shield to safely bring the Austronauts back to Earth. So far, this is only possible via the Orion spacecraft. No other way.
That said, the proposal you mention is very real and definetely worth considering, because you could replace the expensive Orion with a cheap Dragon 2 from SpaceX, saving billions of dollars. But this needs more development to solve the problems as stated above.
@debott4538 Good luck reentering from TEI with Dragon 2...
No, it's not. You're talking about rumours from Ars Technica that NASA is apparently considering downscaling Artemis III to an Apollo 9 style mission, where Orion and HLS would test procedures in LEO, because HLS won't be ready in time to make it to the Moon due to refueling. These rumours have been shot down by Nelson in a recent conference, what I heard from people working on HLS at NASA is that they're considering making Artemis III another Orion only mission, because they think HLS will be nowhere near ready to do anything.
NASA would also never even consider using Starship instead of SLS-Orion, for very good reasons. SLS-Orion is the only system capable to safely carry crew to deep space and return them to Earth. There is no other option and likely won't be for a very long time.
@@FrankyPi I thought we were only talking about Earth orbit rendevous. Dragon can obviously not go to the moon. Although I can imagine a lunar rated Dragon at some point. Heat shield, radiation and comms/navigation are probably the most significant hurdles.
I agree, SLS-Orion will remain the only viable US human-rated vehicle for yet some time. But things might change over the years, especially if the Artemis program turns out to be a success. Or if the Chinese pressure the US into even more lunar activity.
@@debott4538 You'd need an additional propellant transfer in somewhere in the LLO-NRHO area to bring the crewed HLS Starship from lunar orbit to LEO, using propulsion. The HLS Starship still wouldn't have a heat shield, so it would need to rendezvous with a reentry craft. That could be a Dragon or Starship.
In my opinion, the easiest architecture for an Orion-less moon landing would be:
1. Launching two propellant depots to LEO and filling them up with propellant.
2. Sending one of the propellant depots to LLO.
3. Launching an HLS Starship.
4. Having HLS Starship rendezvous with the propellant depot in LEO and filling the tanks.
5. Launching a Crew Dragon.
6. Having Crew Dragon rendezvous with the HLS Starship, and transfering crew onto HLS Starship.
7. Having HLS Starship go all the way to the moon, perform the surface mission, and return to LLO.
8. Having HLS Starship rendezvous with the propellant depot and adding some propellant.
9. Having HLS Starship propulsively go to LEO.
10. Having Crew Dragon rendezvous with the HLS Starship, and transfering crew from HLS Starship to Crew Dragon.
11. Perform the reentry with Crew Dragon.
Beyond some minor modifications, this doesn't need anything that SpaceX doesn't already have operational or is developing for NASA.
More simon channels please! Just found this, hoping this is one of 10 😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅
Starship has twice the thrust and has been to space. That makes it a legitimate space ship. True, it hasn't been to orbit yet or landed but no one has ever tried landing a skyscraper before.
Starship and SpaceX fan, but SS not realized quite yet. I’ll concede to the SLS disposable money sink for right now, but soon it will be undeniable.
IFT-4 coming soon and I am excited for them to crush it. Not even China is going to catch SpaceX, if only the US government were actually behind SpaceX and not being a headwind
There's a lot of work to do to have it reliably land on the moon. Here's hoping they pull it off!
I hope they can do it -- but note that an EMPTY Starship failed to make orbit with all engines, as far as I could tell, functioning (earlier flights had problems losing engines, so OK, while you work that out it is understandable that you won't make orbit. But with all engines firing on an empty ship, it should have been hugely oversupplied in terms of reaching orbit.)
@@JMartJr On flight three, Starship reached the target trajectory, which was slightly suborbital. They would have been in orbit had the plan been to enter orbit, but to ensure that the Starship would reenter in a known location regardless of what happened next, the plan was to stay slightly suborbital.
Starship also reached the target trajectory with probably around 70 tons of propellant left over. That demonstrates roughly 40 tons of payload to LEO, in reusable mode.
StarShite was supposed to have an Orbital flight done by now, I doubt it will ever be a viable Spacecraft. What happens when you give unregulated tax dollars to a Malignant Narcissist. Elon Musk is a Conman and Starshite is an EPIC FAIL.
If starship will do the landing then why not just launch on it. What’s the point of the Orion part?
Starship doesn't have a launch abort system like sls do
@@cu9.11neither did the Shuttle. It did have abort options like abort to orbit or aborting to an airport across the ocean, but none on the pad and none during the first minute. There was one theoretical abort option called RTLS where if the shuttle lost one of the RS-25’s shortly after launch, they could potentially fly the shuttle away and then back to the cape to land. Apollo astronaut John Young said that this abort would “require continuous miracles interspersed with acts of God to be successful”.
Starship could have similar abort options if they included lightweight emergency landing legs like we saw for the SN5-15 flights and maybe could do a pad abort if the failure was with the booster, which is made easier with the hot staging ring. By quickly firing all 6 or 9 engines and slowly draining the fuel while descending down to do a splashdown or soft land on the ground, which Elon said could still be an optional abort mode even without legs but i would prefer splashdown less than a km of the coast or on land if they will include single use emergency landing legs.
Moon water! The next $100 bottle of water.
Mooneshiner's in space! 😂
Fun fact: there is considerably more water in the Sahara Desert then what can be found in the shadows of the Moon's south pole.
@@JoeBManco why? what about ice underneath the soil or bigger pieces of ice
@@24_AB The amount of ice under the soil is very minimal. Again, there is more water in the Sahara Desert.
The forest behind the tree: the Starship system (booster, tanker/crew/cargo/lunar ship) is being designed to be able to ferry 100t of cargo/crew from Earth to Moon and back. Artemis III is a big milestone but not the end goal.
2025? Not likely. I don't want to make a firm prediction, but I'll be happy if NASA gets humans on the moon this decade.
The concern is SpaceX delivering the lunar lander at this point. They were supposed to land their test article on the moon last month.
@@downix SpaceX appear to be running a year behind, yet the amazing work expanding Starbase will more than pay off over time.
@favesongslist A year behind? They promised the fuel transfer test, which needs to be done before any landing can happen, by April 2022, two years ago. Per the GAO audit of the program, they put it at nearly 3 years late, and likely will not deliver until 2030.
@@downix If they're three years delayed, the landing would happen in 2027. That doesn't seem unreasonable. Orion is almost as delayed.
@SpaceAdvocate three years delayed *in 2023*, and have yet to progress much since. Their specific point was that out of the 13 milestones they were to have met by the end of FY2023, they only met 6 of them. That means they predict it will take twice as long, so instead of 4.5 years, 9 years.
And do note, I would be incredibly happy for this prediction to be wrong.
great video but I don't think you need to put the subtitles straight in the video
Surprisingly out of date for something that dropped just today.
The issues discovered with the Orion craft have pushed Artemis III to an _optimistic_ 2027. This gives NASA's subcontractors three years, starting now, to have their obligations sorted out, and that assumes nothing new rears its head in the ensuing three years, such as during Artemis II.
The current date for Artemis 3 is September 2026. But it wouldn't be surprising at all if it slips to 2027.
Cannot watch. great connects and presentation but feel like I have taken Speed.
I really don't think Starship will be ready in two years! 😅
Ehh there’s really only a few construction errors, but they are making much better improvements that’ll lead to better space flight capabilities.
Could you put any effort on CC? Every time he says "Orion" I hear and see "Iran" and that sucks
First - the critique. What the heck was up with the high school PowerPoint bouncy image during the Gateway description part? Please knock it off.
Second - how is this not a mega project?
Third - love your videos, keep them coming.
I thought We'd be colonizing Mars by now!
It's really named for Artemis Gordon, from "wild wild west", lol, 😅 (actually, the writer thought 'artemis' was a male name)
Or Artemis Fowl. It's always a name for smart guys too
@@calebbean1384 lol, forgot that one
I'm one of the three people who apparently enjoyed that movie lol ..
@@THE-X-Force I was about the t.v. show, but I kinda liked the movie.
Does that mean Artemis Gordon is the forefather of Flash Gordon?
VIPER .... you just know that in the meeting to name the robot they first came up with the coolest name, then spent hours trying to think up words that started with those letters of its name, LOL :D
Congress mandated Cost-Plus contracts in action....
NASA even testified to Congress that the Cost-Plus contracts weren't working, and that the cost was unsustainable.
Congress ordered NASA to keep using Cost-Plus contracts.....
Senate Launch System.
Starship is the most powerful rocket. But it is still in its testing phase
Its a tin can that can't get in to orbit.
im not a fan of the buzzing sound/tv static that astrographics uses...feels like a hardware issue at my end. simon, do something about this!
You are incorrect about the most powerful rocket. SpaceX Starship is currently the most powerful operational rocket of all time.
_"SpaceX Starship is currently the most powerful operational rocket of all time.
"_
Too bad it can't, so far, take a single ounce of payload to LEO.
@@michaelsommers2356 It can. Unless you did not watch the last launch.
@@darrenorange2982 Yes, I watched it, and saw it carry no payload and not reach orbit.
@@michaelsommers2356 it carried extra fuel.
I'm gonna check out here...so enjoy ChatGPT4 Exactly, the perspective that Starship did not carry any "useful" payload during its test flights might stem from a misunderstanding of the spacecraft's design and the objectives of these flights. Starship is engineered to carry more fuel than what is required merely to reach orbit. This extra fuel capacity is part of its design to enable longer missions beyond Earth orbit, such as to the Moon and Mars, and for in-space operations like refueling and maneuvering.
During the test flights, carrying additional fuel-beyond what would be needed just for reaching orbit-serves as ballast to simulate the mass and balance of a fully equipped operational flight. This helps test the spacecraft’s performance under expected future mission conditions. The fuel serves a dual purpose: it acts as ballast and is part of essential tests like the propellant transfer demonstration.
Understanding this dual functionality is key to recognizing why SpaceX designs its test flights this way. It's not just about reaching orbit but preparing the spacecraft for the complex, multi-phase missions for which it is ultimately intended.
11:36 I Never realized that cutting off part of the word "Earth" would have such a unique result
LMAO you had me and my wife laughing so hard😂
Ain't happening with the current budget
Yea Ukrainians took it all.
@@craigmackay4909 Thanks to George Bush, we wasted all that money that could have gone to space projects on Iraq and Afghanistan.
@@craigmackay4909 Ukraine is a superior country tho. (Blonde people with blue eyes in big numbers)
I was double checking if my play back speed was too fast
looking at how the program went so far, i think we will be fortunate if we can see a human on the moon before 2035
Moon landing before gta 6 is crazy
How many rockets will it take to refuel the lander?
8-10 with Starship but it’s fully reusable so it will be ridiculously cheap to refuel and could be theoretically done with the same booster that launched the lander. Estimated costs for a fully reused starship and booster for refuelling is probably around $5-10M each launch.
The Department of Agriculture..I mean NASA is going to get us back to The Moon? Hold on to that dream.
This guy thinks genshin impact better than wuwa
As navy men navigated the space ways the first time so shall it be this time.
Starship will never work to put people on the moon, NASA now knows this...
About time.
SLS is not the world’s most powerful rocket
It is operationally.
@@FrankyPi They didn't say the worlds most powerful operational rocket.
It was at one point, which i believe the source they got it from is slightly outdated
Then what is? You can't comment a "fact" without sources. Especially in Simon's community.
@@TheCanagoose Starship.
Since learning more about the gravity well around earth, I see building a moon base and launch pads on the moon as very important whereas before I found the whole mission pointless. I think they do need to mainly have the operations run by robots though, as the heat and cold on the moon, as well as the lack of life supporting materials, means robots doing most of the work would be advisable.
Don't worry, by the time the mission flies it will cost more than Apollo, by a lot.
Actually, hour for hour on the moon this Artemis will be about 100 times cheaper than Apollo. The longest time spent on the moon was 27 hours by Apollo 17. Whereas Artemis 3 will spend over a week.
What's your point?
@@captainspaulding5963 That an hour on the moon costs so much more for Apollo than an hour Artemis. If you spend 2 billion dollars for 27 hours on the moon for Apollo and you spend 2 billion dollars for 650 hours on the moon for Artemis. The hourly rate is 2 billion divvied by 27 for Apollo versus 2 billion divvied by 650 for Artemis.
@@joeker1013 "will spent over a week". Sure thing!
@@JacquesMartini Spend not spent. You should actually read the NASA plans and budget. Or don't you think Space Xs lunar lander can last a week?
Another day, another Simon Whistler channel you have found.
How long did iy take to grow your beard?
Meanwhile in China...
China is just a late starting point, and it is normal to innovate from unknown practices
Thank you for making videos without an intro song
We also know that there will be two more lunar landings, a second by SpaceX’s Starship and one by Blue Origin
Simons the man !
Had to watch this in .75x and thats a first
Only channel I have to reduce velocity to understand the video 😄