Great job with the mission and rocket re-creations! Only 2 minor inaccuracies- The Superheavy uses RCS to get away from the lander and the starship's vacuum engines have no gimbal, but great job overall!
@@alrightydave *intended not to use gateway. To land in 2024, nasa wanted to skip the gateway for Artemis 3, but after the delay gateway can be used. However, if gateway is delayed I expect them to skip gateway. At the time that I posted my comment, the plan was still not to use gateway.
I just hope they have cameras galore on the spaceships during the actual launch. So we can see what launching to space looks like from just outside Starship, the Moon's night sky, the view from outside the lander when landing on the moon etc. It'd be so amazing to see that, and to see moon landing conspiracy theorists have egg on their face.
this really demonstrates how awful the artemis mission plan is. 14 flights to refuel? an elevator to get the astronauts down to the surface? this all looks like points of failure galore
@@brocher9539 it’s not ambitious, it’s idiotic. if we wanted to be ambitious, we’d actually build a capable lifter and lander rather than cobbling together some BS plan to appease some politicians. apollo did not take 14 flights for 1 landing
If all NASA wanted to do was send two astronauts, stay for a few hours, and return home, then yes, Apollo was the far better program. Given the objectives of the Artemis program (especially the construction of a lunar base), the current design seems like a reasonable solution.
@@alexb.6013 i don’t see how having a subpar system for a lesser goal will make more ambitious goals more achievable. how is this system more adaptable than apollo was?
@@cdw2468 Can you specify? Why do you think the currently planned system is worse than Saturn 5? As stated before, I agree that Starship as a Lunar Lander is massively overpowered and overcomplicated if all you want to do is land two astronauts, but as far as I understand Artemis aims to achieve much more than that. Let's simply look at payload to the lunar surface (LS): Apollo: There was a proposed (but never realised) unmanned cargo version of the LEM with a payload capacity of 5t to LS. Artemis: Even if the HLS realises only half (!) of what is proposed, it will land 50t payload on LS AND have astronauts on board. I can only guess at how much equipment is necessary to construct a permanent lunar base, but based on the only other permanent station in vacuum, the ISS, with a mass of 450t, I guess it will be at least a couple hundred tons. Therefore, it would take 100 Saturn 5 launches to deliver 500t to LS, while it would take only 10 HLS landings. Since HLS needs to be refueled, which we can assume will take 10 launches each, it also takes 100 launches in total. The difference is of course, that while we would need a completely new Saturn 5 for each launch... The implications for cost and feasibility are clear, unless you don't trust SpaceX to deliver (which is reasonable of course, but empirically unwise)
What happens to the Starship after this? Does it just stay in the lunar orbit forever? Does it have enough fuel onboard to make a return to Earth uncrewed?
Partially answered my own question with some further reading. The HLS doesn't have heat shield or aero surfaces, so it's not capable or re-entering Earth's atmosphere.
It don't have enough fuel to make it back so 2 possibilities: 1: It will deorbit and crash into the moon (Most likely) 2: SpaceX will refuel it to keep using it for future missions
@@shauryadeb-e8lwithout the ability to inspect it, I doubt they will reuse it. I wouldn’t be surprised if NASA will just pay for a new one for each mission.
I doubt starship will mature to the point where HLS starship will even be possible, especially if the plan requires orbital refueling through 14 individual launches.
@@fritzypooo Okay but even if every other part of the program except starship succeeds no one lands on the moon. If only starship succeeds we land on the moon. So why even bother with the other stuff?
@@MrMz90 there’s a little pop up window when you’re flying a craft that says stuff like “flying” “orbit” “surf” etc. you gotta click on the one that says something like “landing”, and that red target will come out
Depot gets 5-6 refuelings 2:22 Lunar starship looks ok But 3:35 yehehehehh that’s not fantastic sorry, try out my SLS Did you do all those refueling flights btw lol Your “SLS” is more like a Jupiter III Direct replica tbh which is good. Better block 1 system 4:44 that’s the ICPS, interim cryo propulsion stage. Not EUS you seem to be quite misinformed with the mission architecture Why is there no gateway? Should be docking to PPE/HALO you really need to learn about Artemis a bit more
The 5-6 launches is outdated, the new number is around 15-16 with the worst prediction being 20+. Seems like your the one who needs to be reading more on Artemis.
@@J-Johna-Jameson I agree with at least 10 now yes. That was back when we didn’t have accurate enough estimates. I’m well read with Artemis and those were the early days in general
![3 Ways to Recover your First Stage Boosters [KSP 1.12]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/jMxsN2_uYV4/mqdefault.jpg)
![3 Ways to Recover your First Stage Boosters [KSP 1.12]](/img/tr.png)
Great job with the mission and rocket re-creations! Only 2 minor inaccuracies- The Superheavy uses RCS to get away from the lander and the starship's vacuum engines have no gimbal, but great job overall!
Also forgot to mention the lunar station, in a much more complex orbit but yeah
@@colegustafson199 Artemis 3 won’t use Gateway at all. Direct docking between lander and Orion.
@@fork9001 yes it will use gateway
It’s launching in 2024 and ready in 2025 with a year of commissioning
@@alrightydave *intended not to use gateway. To land in 2024, nasa wanted to skip the gateway for Artemis 3, but after the delay gateway can be used. However, if gateway is delayed I expect them to skip gateway. At the time that I posted my comment, the plan was still not to use gateway.
@@alrightydave No, it docks directly with starship. Gateway is planned to be used in like 2026 or 2028 iirc.
This is the best Lunar Starship replica I've ever seen, new sub
Check out Yukon. I think you’ll be shocked with the standards of stock replicas now
@@alrightydave eh, its decent.
This is better than the 3d renderings of the mission found elsewhere! Nice job.
This was too good, i HAD to sub. Looking forward to more
Artemis will have 4 astronauts , not 3, but I understand how that wouldn’t be possible
Love the look of the craft, great work! :D
Bro this is insane!
👏 Another great video!
my honest to god, down to earth reaction to the artemis 2/3 delays
ngl i'm expecting 3 won't happen till 2030
Looks really cool, although I don't agree with that flight plan (seems too overpowered to me) it looks really cool in KSP!
Wym by overpowered?
@@gyrotechnics9766 too much delta-v, I suppose
I just hope they have cameras galore on the spaceships during the actual launch. So we can see what launching to space looks like from just outside Starship, the Moon's night sky, the view from outside the lander when landing on the moon etc.
It'd be so amazing to see that, and to see moon landing conspiracy theorists have egg on their face.
Lol they will just say it’s cgi
They have religious devotion to their conspiracies
your wish is true. They had cameras on the 3rd flight
this really demonstrates how awful the artemis mission plan is. 14 flights to refuel? an elevator to get the astronauts down to the surface? this all looks like points of failure galore
space enjoyers when a space agency do something ambitious :
@@brocher9539 it’s not ambitious, it’s idiotic. if we wanted to be ambitious, we’d actually build a capable lifter and lander rather than cobbling together some BS plan to appease some politicians. apollo did not take 14 flights for 1 landing
If all NASA wanted to do was send two astronauts, stay for a few hours, and return home, then yes, Apollo was the far better program.
Given the objectives of the Artemis program (especially the construction of a lunar base), the current design seems like a reasonable solution.
@@alexb.6013 i don’t see how having a subpar system for a lesser goal will make more ambitious goals more achievable. how is this system more adaptable than apollo was?
@@cdw2468 Can you specify? Why do you think the currently planned system is worse than Saturn 5?
As stated before, I agree that Starship as a Lunar Lander is massively overpowered and overcomplicated if all you want to do is land two astronauts, but as far as I understand Artemis aims to achieve much more than that.
Let's simply look at payload to the lunar surface (LS):
Apollo: There was a proposed (but never realised) unmanned cargo version of the LEM with a payload capacity of 5t to LS.
Artemis: Even if the HLS realises only half (!) of what is proposed, it will land 50t payload on LS AND have astronauts on board.
I can only guess at how much equipment is necessary to construct a permanent lunar base, but based on the only other permanent station in vacuum, the ISS, with a mass of 450t, I guess it will be at least a couple hundred tons.
Therefore, it would take 100 Saturn 5 launches to deliver 500t to LS, while it would take only 10 HLS landings. Since HLS needs to be refueled, which we can assume will take 10 launches each, it also takes 100 launches in total.
The difference is of course, that while we would need a completely new Saturn 5 for each launch...
The implications for cost and feasibility are clear, unless you don't trust SpaceX to deliver (which is reasonable of course, but empirically unwise)
I was watching this video at 12:00 am on my birthday. You get a like
hey the exploration upper stage has 4 engines. Edit: also the orbit isnt correct
What happens to the Starship after this? Does it just stay in the lunar orbit forever? Does it have enough fuel onboard to make a return to Earth uncrewed?
Partially answered my own question with some further reading. The HLS doesn't have heat shield or aero surfaces, so it's not capable or re-entering Earth's atmosphere.
Lunar gateway
It don't have enough fuel to make it back so 2 possibilities:
1: It will deorbit and crash into the moon (Most likely)
2: SpaceX will refuel it to keep using it for future missions
@@shauryadeb-e8lwithout the ability to inspect it, I doubt they will reuse it. I wouldn’t be surprised if NASA will just pay for a new one for each mission.
Bros got the stock plume.. really nice vid! But you could use the waterfall mod for better engine plumes
Is it a recreation if it hasn’t happened and this is just the planned concept?
Nice!
Grest Mission👍👍
HLS starship looks so silly next to an orion lol
You should install restock
And Waterfall
And Tundra Exploration
No. Tundra sucks. Replicas are cooler
Restock sucks because it makes replicas look shit. Just makes non replica stock stuff less ugly
Honestly why have any part of this program that isn’t starship. Like literally everything can be done on starship.
Because it’s a job program, not a space program.
I doubt starship will mature to the point where HLS starship will even be possible, especially if the plan requires orbital refueling through 14 individual launches.
@@fritzypooo Okay but even if every other part of the program except starship succeeds no one lands on the moon. If only starship succeeds we land on the moon. So why even bother with the other stuff?
good video
Build walkthrough ? ;)
No lunar gateway?
Are u gone?
nice
how to get the red target aiming laser ?
It’s part of the mod Kerbal Engineer I think
@@benjaminmontenegro3423 i have the mod but I can't find it
@@MrMz90 there’s a little pop up window when you’re flying a craft that says stuff like “flying” “orbit” “surf” etc. you gotta click on the one that says something like “landing”, and that red target will come out
@@benjaminmontenegro3423 thanks ❤
@@MrMz90 hey did it work in the end?
0:52 you accidentally typed "to" 2 times
Are you kidding?!
This is probably the only time you'll see an SLS fly.
Artemis 1 is coming very soon
@@brokensoap1717 Suuuuure it is. Let me hold my breath.
No it isn’t
SLS will fly 42 times
@@alrightydave Ok, now I know you’re high.
Lol
Why don't the astronauts just go up in Starship?
Can’t return and SLS job program
Depot gets 5-6 refuelings 2:22
Lunar starship looks ok
But 3:35 yehehehehh that’s not fantastic sorry, try out my SLS
Did you do all those refueling flights btw lol
Your “SLS” is more like a Jupiter III Direct replica tbh which is good. Better block 1 system
4:44 that’s the ICPS, interim cryo propulsion stage. Not EUS
you seem to be quite misinformed with the mission architecture
Why is there no gateway?
Should be docking to PPE/HALO
you really need to learn about Artemis a bit more
Chill my bro, atleast he landed on the moon
no gateway for artemis 3
The 5-6 launches is outdated, the new number is around 15-16 with the worst prediction being 20+. Seems like your the one who needs to be reading more on Artemis.
@@J-Johna-Jameson I agree with at least 10 now yes. That was back when we didn’t have accurate enough estimates. I’m well read with Artemis and those were the early days in general
its 2021, use plume mods lmao