Dive into the future of space exploration with "The Arrow of Artemis"! Explore NASA's ambitious Artemis Program, from lunar missions to Mars gateways. Join the journey to unlock the mysteries of space!
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.
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.
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.
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.
No more last-minute launch failure. No more launch delay, No more cost-overrun. This suggestion is gonna work. In addition, it is the most cost effective alternative - that is NASA should team up with China CNSA for a return to the Moon.
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.
@@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!
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.
Nothing puts me in a better mood on Monday morning than checking RU-vid to see I have unwatched uploads from brain blaze, sideprojects, into the shadows, deciding the unknown, casual criminalist, AND astrographics, todays gonna be a good day
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 =)
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
@@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!
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 . ..
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?
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.
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.
They recently (within the last month) they added an Artemis 2.5/ new Artemis 3 where the orian capsule will dock with a starship HLS in earth orbit before the Artemis 3 mission described here
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
You left out a huge reason for harvesting water ice at the south pole. Sure it's needed for drinking and cooking, and washing windows, but the real reason is rocket fuel. Using a relatively simple robotic solar-powered electrolysis system, water can be separated into hydrogen and oxygen, which makes great rocket fuel for trips to mars.
Not a "fanboy" or anything, but Starship/Heavy has over twice the thrust of SLS at liftoff. While SLS is currently the world's most powerful "operational rocket", I don't think that it will be for very long. If starship [eventually] works, it will make most all other rockets obsolete. Especially if they can do it for $10~$20 million per launch. Versus SLS's $4.1 Billion per launch price tag.
Are you not going to mention the inspector general report that recently came out highlighting the massive unexpected craters in the orion heatshield, that nasa has no idea about, as of now? They are bringing in outside people to try to understand it and it is likely to severely delay Artemis II
That's a difficult figure to nail down. It depends heavily on when SpaceX starts reusing hardware. I believe they've produced in the ballpark of 500 Raptor engines thus far, and they'll probably be north of 1000 Raptor engines produced before they start reusing them.
Depending of the refuel flights that endup needing, from 4 to 6 starships. So that should be from around 100 to around 200 raptors, but not sure what's the importance of that specific metric.
@@framegrace1 Did you not read the response by SpaceAdvocate? Put down your hand, you haven’t done your homework. Facts: Starship has successfully completed return to earth only once. How many Raptor Engines were RUD during these test? First stage super heavy booster has never successfully returned to earth to be captured by “chopsticks” device permitting possibility of reuse of engines. Also, Starship not retuned from these tests. How many Raptor Engines were RUD during these tests (booster and Starship)? (Hint: Already over 100 engines not reusable.) How many engines will be expended in next launch? (Hint: All of them.) How many tests before successful demonstration of return of super heavy booster and Starship in condition such that any of the engines can be reused? Is your number for the fueling launches needed for Starship to the moon the same number that NASA is currently estimating? (Tip: Check RU-vid channel Smarter Everyday presentation to NASA.) Will there be an unmanned test launch/landing of Starship on the moon prior to humans going? My back of envelope calculations push the minimum number of engines needed approaching 1000 of course depending on how successful reuse turns out. (And development of announced but as yet unrevealed/untested larger versions of Starship.)
@@jdmather5755 I am curious to know why the figure interests you. What matters is cost. 1000 Raptor engines would at $1 million per engine cost about the same as the engines on about two SLS rockets. Each RS-25 is close to $100 million and the RL-10 engines are probably something like $50 million.
@@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?
I think that Dustin of Smarter Every Day, really shot some holes in the whole NRHO choice. They are going to have to have 20 some star-ships fuel rockets sitting in orbit in order to make this work. We know their track record so far. 🤷♂🤷♂
I believe both Blue Origen’s New Glen rocket and SpaceX’s Starship are both larger and significantly more powerful than SLS. Everything’s been delayed due to COVID and nearly all space development timelines get delayed anyway (inherently complicated and ambitious).
New Glenn isn't close to being more powerful. SLS is around 4,000 tons of thrust, New Glenn is around 1,750 tons. Starship is 7,130 tons, and later versions are planned to reach 10,000 tons.
No New Glenn is comparable to Falcon Heavy and much less powerful than SLS. For comparison, SLS Block 1B and Block 2 will be capable of lifting about as much mass to TLI as New Glenn will be capable of lifting to LEO. Starship does exceed SLS in thrust at liftoff, but since it has yet to successfully reach orbit, SLS is still the most powerful currently operational rocket.
@@plainText384 SLS is technically operational, but it isn’t a super worthwhile distinction. The cadence is just so low. Starship should have done close to ten operational flights before SLS does it’s first operational flight.
@@plainText384 For some reason I thought New Glen was substantially more powerful. If not, it would be a financial boondoggle even compared to SLS - one that doesn’t have any capability to distinguish itself from proven platforms (such as falcon heavy). The biggest issues with SLS is cost, limited production, and production rate. It is a cool stopgap rocket while other developments mature, but too inefficient for long term use. People keep saying Starship didn’t make orbit as if it wasn’t capable or a failure. It deliberately didn’t reach orbit to avoid risk of leaving large space debris and focus on re-entry development. So it can make it to space, it’s mainly just the other capabilities that need to be ironed out.
They will not leave LEO from equatorial region. That would send them through Center of VRB's. Elon himself says StarShip would require several refueling stops, btw...
Going through the center wouldn't be that bad. You want to avoid them if you can, but most of the radiation is blocked relatively easily, and you would pass through the belts quickly, so the actual radiation dose wouldn't be that high.
I personally find it staggering to think that we seem to be having to re-learn, even with the all much more advanced technology available today, what we learned to do almost 60 years ago with "steam" technology!! Have we really advanced that much in the intervening years?
The technology didn't disappear, the money did. And it doesn't help when, for instance, the U.S. congress insists on using a poorly planned piece of garbage rocket that costs fucking $4.2B for a single launch, and a shitty capsule that's been in development for 20 years and is still facing issues, when there are much more cost and time efficient options available.
It's kind of funny that the main delays for SpaceX have been the government itself. The FAA has been dragging their feet on providing the launch licences needed. The only other delay has been the redesign of the launch platform after the first launch due to the RUD of the concrete base. Then you get a government report that SpaceX will have problems with their development timeline... 😅
@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.
lets say you wanted to block access to large parts of the moon? Announce a lunar railroad and ban access to building ect. How would you know where to put the road? Roads connect places...currently no places unless you count historic and natural beauty sites ect
Artemis is in fact not a strategy, but only a very expensive and pompous PR plan to stroke the collective ego at an incredibly high cost with an incredibly symbolic return. Sending people to Mars from the same opera. This corresponds to the theme of famous shows - "Last Space Survivor", but not to the real problems of space exploration.
