NASA Launches the World's Most Powerful Rocket | Artemis I Highlights 

And then a few seconds later SLS sound arrived and completely drowned out all shouts.

I just don't know why NASA should choose Apollo style old technologies of space capsules and expendable heavy lift rockets to go back to the moon? A 21st century Apollo style moon landing which used old technologies of space capsules and expendable rockets is very meaningless.

To be honest, I found their tone slightly annoying! "oH My gOo0od!" But regardless of that, great launch and video!

@@JamesVideoCollection you're not one one to appreciate the joy in others, are you?

Same here!! Unbelievable!

I just don't know why NASA should choose Apollo style old technologies of space capsules and expendable heavy lift rockets to go back to the moon? A 21st century Apollo style moon landing which used old technologies of space capsules and expendable rockets is very meaningless.

@@powerfulstrong5673but it still shows the lessons we learned from Saturn, shuttle, delta, and ares and put it all together to make a miracle and get it done right. Bravo to NASA I keep watching sls and it still blows my mind

I just don't know why NASA should choose Apollo style old technologies of space capsules and expendable heavy lift rockets to go back to the moon? A 21st century Apollo style moon landing which used old technologies of space capsules and expendable rockets is very meaningless.

@@powerfulstrong5673 You said that already. Repeating it doesn't make it any more true :(

@@iamjadedhobo Do you know the Space Transportation System (STS) which NASA proposed in 1969 to replace the Apollo capsules and Saturn V and Saturn IB expendable rockets? The system's major components consisted of: 1. A modular space station in a 270-nautical-mile (500 km) low Earth orbit, and as well as a permanent lunar orbit station. 2. A chemically fueled Earth-to-station shuttle. 3. A chemically fueled space tug to move crew and equipment between Earth orbits as high as geosynchronous orbit, the space tug also could be adapted as a lunar Earth Moon transfer vehicle to ferry crew and cargo between low Earth orbit and the moon. 4. A nuclear-powered ferry using the NERVA engine, to move crew, spacecraft and supplies between low Earth orbit and lunar orbit, geosynchronous orbit, or to other planets in the solar system. As Apollo accomplished its objective of landing the first humans on the Moon, political support for further crewed space activities began to wane, which was reflected in unwillingness of the Congress to provide funding for most of these extended activities. Based on this, Nixon rejected all parts of the program except the Space Shuttle, which inherited the STS name. As funded, the Shuttle was greatly scaled back from its planned degree of reusability, and deferred in time. The Shuttle first flew in 1981, and was retired in 2011. A second part of the system, Space Station Freedom, was approved in the early 1980s and announced in 1984 by president Ronald Reagan. However, this also became politically unviable by 1993, and was replaced with the International Space Station (ISS), with substantial contribution by Russia. The ISS was completed in 2011.

@@iamjadedhobo I think reusable space tugs, in-orbit assembly, space refueling depots, nuclear propulsioned ferry tugs, and reusable delta-winged spaceplanes are very good ideas and are much better than Apollo style hardwares of space capsules and disposable heavy-lift rockets.

To bad all we could see was an exhaust plume and a CGI animation.

@El Bearsidente Hey, sorry if my statement is a little vague but I was referring this being the first of the Artemis launches. Of course it’s a Frankenstein rocket and and im a huge starship/space x supporter but just saying you know…

@@hatchedcoast7495 I really try to get excited about SLS but just can't. It feels to me like we're getting all the huge budget requirements for a flight rate 1/10 of what Shuttle provided. This was intended to be Shuttle's more streamlined, efficient replacement after a "short gap" between programs. There's no sustainable future for SLS except in a few very specialized missions spread at least a year apart. 2025 or 2026 before the next launch which will deliver no Artemis hardware. 2027 is likely the first operational flight.

This actually marks more of a return to the OLD, non-reusable era of space travel. Falcon 9 and Falcon 9 Heavy mare the new era - as will Starship when SpaceX gets that working too.

I just don't know why NASA should choose Apollo style old technologies of space capsules and expendable heavy lift rockets to go back to the moon? A 21st century Apollo style moon landing which used old technologies of space capsules and expendable rockets is very meaningless.

@@powerfulstrong5673 ok, we gotcha, how many times are you going to piss on this parade? We all follow these launches and are aeware of the history of this launch, but the fact that it did indeed launch safely, up to this point, is something to acknowledge, not admonish.

@@rogerthomas169 Do you know the Space Transportation System (STS) which NASA proposed in 1969 to replace the Apollo capsules and Saturn V and Saturn IB expendable rockets? The system's major components consisted of: 1. A modular space station in a 270-nautical-mile (500 km) low Earth orbit, and as well as a permanent lunar orbit station. 2. A chemically fueled Earth-to-station shuttle. 3. A chemically fueled space tug to move crew and equipment between Earth orbits as high as geosynchronous orbit, the space tug also could be adapted as a lunar Earth Moon transfer vehicle to ferry crew and cargo between low Earth orbit and the moon. 4. A nuclear-powered ferry using the NERVA engine, to move crew, spacecraft and supplies between low Earth orbit and lunar orbit, geosynchronous orbit, or to other planets in the solar system. As Apollo accomplished its objective of landing the first humans on the Moon, political support for further crewed space activities began to wane, which was reflected in unwillingness of the Congress to provide funding for most of these extended activities. Based on this, Nixon rejected all parts of the program except the Space Shuttle, which inherited the STS name. As funded, the Shuttle was greatly scaled back from its planned degree of reusability, and deferred in time. The Shuttle first flew in 1981, and was retired in 2011. A second part of the system, Space Station Freedom, was approved in the early 1980s and announced in 1984 by president Ronald Reagan. However, this also became politically unviable by 1993, and was replaced with the International Space Station (ISS), with substantial contribution by Russia. The ISS was completed in 2011.

@@powerfulstrong5673 yes

@@rogerthomas169 NASA becomes to take a conservative approach in space flight since the 2003 Space Shuttle Columbia accident. It's a shame that the program of the Venture Star spaceplane was cancelled in 2001.

I just don't know why NASA should choose Apollo style old technologies of space capsules and expendable heavy lift rockets to go back to the moon? A 21st century Apollo style moon landing which used old technologies of space capsules and expendable rockets is very meaningless.

I just don't know why NASA should choose Apollo style old technologies of space capsules and expendable heavy lift rockets to go back to the moon? A 21st century Apollo style moon landing which used old technologies of space capsules and expendable rockets is very meaningless.

@@powerfulstrong5673 they are not SpaceX = they are bad and old. Ok

They're not silent, they're just not here. It's like 4am and they're probably passed out, the bars just closed two hours ago and they probably did some drinking when they got home.

You gotta stop letting them live in your head rent free.

@@wolfrig2000 yeah Besides When we land on Artemis 3 The unity event shall wipe them all

Huh, you believe in the moon?

I deny that we landed on the moon with this flight. 😁

I just don't know why NASA should choose Apollo style old technologies of space capsules and expendable heavy lift rockets to go back to the moon? A 21st century Apollo style moon landing which used old technologies of space capsules and expendable rockets is very meaningless.

I just don't know why NASA should choose Apollo style old technologies of space capsules and expendable heavy lift rockets to go back to the moon? A 21st century Apollo style moon landing which used old technologies of space capsules and expendable rockets is very meaningless.

@@powerfulstrong5673 who tf cares, is not NASA's fault, is USA goverment fault, they don't bring the attention this program needs to be succesful, also, is everything but Apollo style landing, is not a go and back program like the Apollo, there is going to be a literal moon station with continuous human presence if everything goes right, that will made companies design new tech to provide a safer and cheaper flight to make it sustainable, SLS is the pathfinder that opened the window to that future, it isn't going to be launching a lot to be a considerable amount of money wasted ( The budget of the SLS is literally the same amount of money that the US has sent to Ukraine ), also is neccesary as it is a safer and most technology proven alternative to start with, Starship will not be magically human rated as most fanboys think, it is a new concept that has a lot of risk that will need loads of testing and technology development, the same goes with every existing vehicle, there is no replacement or better alternative than the SLS right now, the SLS is a solid way of delivering crew to the moon and back, is literally the start of the program, they can't risk to fail with new technology with the absurdly little amount of budget they recieve to fund the program, they need to start safe and assure the maturity of the program to start using new tech, also, they will already implement little improvements and use of new tech, with the Gateway lunar station and the Starship as moon landing vehicle, aswell with more vehicles that companies are designing to contribute to the project

@@danko8983 Do you know the Space Transportation System (STS) which NASA proposed in 1969 to replace the Apollo capsules and Saturn V and Saturn IB expendable rockets? The system's major components consisted of: 1. A modular space station in a 270-nautical-mile (500 km) low Earth orbit, and as well as a permanent lunar orbit station. 2. A chemically fueled Earth-to-station shuttle. 3. A chemically fueled space tug to move crew and equipment between Earth orbits as high as geosynchronous orbit, the space tug also could be adapted as a lunar Earth Moon transfer vehicle to ferry crew and cargo between low Earth orbit and the moon. 4. A nuclear-powered ferry using the NERVA engine, to move crew, spacecraft and supplies between low Earth orbit and lunar orbit, geosynchronous orbit, or to other planets in the solar system. As Apollo accomplished its objective of landing the first humans on the Moon, political support for further crewed space activities began to wane, which was reflected in unwillingness of the Congress to provide funding for most of these extended activities. Based on this, Nixon rejected all parts of the program except the Space Shuttle, which inherited the STS name. As funded, the Shuttle was greatly scaled back from its planned degree of reusability, and deferred in time. The Shuttle first flew in 1981, and was retired in 2011. A second part of the system, Space Station Freedom, was approved in the early 1980s and announced in 1984 by president Ronald Reagan. However, this also became politically unviable by 1993, and was replaced with the International Space Station (ISS), with substantial contribution by Russia. The ISS was completed in 2011.

@@powerfulstrong5673 that program is irrelevant, as i said, NASA's budget is so small because the goverment doesn't give the attention Artemis needs to implement new tech, what you're saying is so out of reality, it was concieved on the 60s, just as many proposals that only stayed on paper because of budget cuts due to Vietnam war and literally you said that, how in the world do you expect to do that with the budget they have bruh, the budget they get today is less than 1% of federal budget, and the highest it has ever been was during 1966, in that year the budget was over 4% of the federal budget. In order to make the Space Transportation System happen NASA would need like 5 times the budget of the Apollo era, which is as you can already guess, it's impossible, so why tf are you complaining about NASA doing what they do ( that is literally the best they can with their budget, so be thankful that at least another lunar program is being worked on ) instead of complaining about the US goverment not giving the funding needed to raise the tech development to use in new programs.

@@danko8983 I think reusable space tugs, in-orbit assembly, space refueling depots, nuclear propulsioned ferry tugs, and reusable delta-winged spaceplanes are very good ideas and are much better than Apollo style hardwares of space capsules and disposable heavy-lift rockets.

Except the "most powerful rocket" part being a lie. Never mind starship, it's weaker than the Saturn 5, the rocket it's meant to replace. Heck, it's weaker than the Energia too.

@@carljohan9265 the lion's share of the power comes from those two SRBs. About 6.5 million lbf of thrust just from the two SRBs. With 1.6 to 2 million lbf of thrust from the four RS-25s. So no, Energia, and in fact Saturn V as well, are actually weaker than SLS. 6.5m lbf from the Zenit boosters and 1.3m lbf from it's core stage.

@@setesh1294 It IS weaker, because it can carry less payload. Thrust means fuckall when you got such a shit specific impulse as an SRB, and sea level hydrolox engines has never been a good idea but everyone got hung up on them anyway.

@@carljohan9265 like, 11,000 pounds less. That's just on the Block 1. Block 1B and eventually Block 2 will far surpass Energia in payload to LEO. To TLI it's closer to 20,000lbs. But again, Block 1B and Block 2 will surpass that. And Energia never went to TLI to begin with so this argument is kinda moot. As for Saturn V, SLS far surpasses it to LEO and gets really fuckin close with block 1B to TLI, and surpasses it with the Block 2.

@@setesh1294 Really? Because the SLS can do around 95 tonnes and the saturn could do 140.

Artemis III is the first manned flight.

@@rjswas Artemis II will carry crew on the same flight path as Artemis I but Artemis III will be the first to actually put them on the surface

@Taurus Space Ah my bad, I thought they said on here that 3 would be the first crewed flight, i guess I miss understood, thanks for the correction.

@@rjswas Artemis II is like Apollo 8

@@orionSpacecraft Cool, i don't know much about the old shuttle launches and how they did it, just bits and pieces.

I just don't know why NASA should choose Apollo style old technologies of space capsules and expendable heavy lift rockets to go back to the moon? A 21st century Apollo style moon landing which used old technologies of space capsules and expendable rockets is very meaningless.

I just don't know why NASA should choose Apollo style old technologies of space capsules and expendable heavy lift rockets to go back to the moon? A 21st century Apollo style moon landing which used old technologies of space capsules and expendable rockets is very meaningless.

I just don't know why NASA should choose Apollo style old technologies of space capsules and expendable heavy lift rockets to go back to the moon? A 21st century Apollo style moon landing which used old technologies of space capsules and expendable rockets is very meaningless.

@@powerfulstrong5673 Because they were ordered to by the US government.

@@_starfiend Do you know the Space Transportation System (STS) which NASA proposed in 1969 to replace the Apollo capsules and Saturn V and Saturn IB expendable rockets? The system's major components consisted of: 1. A modular space station in a 270-nautical-mile (500 km) low Earth orbit, and as well as a permanent lunar orbit station. 2. A chemically fueled Earth-to-station shuttle. 3. A chemically fueled space tug to move crew and equipment between Earth orbits as high as geosynchronous orbit, the space tug also could be adapted as a lunar Earth Moon transfer vehicle to ferry crew and cargo between low Earth orbit and the moon. 4. A nuclear-powered ferry using the NERVA engine, to move crew, spacecraft and supplies between low Earth orbit and lunar orbit, geosynchronous orbit, or to other planets in the solar system. As Apollo accomplished its objective of landing the first humans on the Moon, political support for further crewed space activities began to wane, which was reflected in unwillingness of the Congress to provide funding for most of these extended activities. Based on this, Nixon rejected all parts of the program except the Space Shuttle, which inherited the STS name. As funded, the Shuttle was greatly scaled back from its planned degree of reusability, and deferred in time. The Shuttle first flew in 1981, and was retired in 2011. A second part of the system, Space Station Freedom, was approved in the early 1980s and announced in 1984 by president Ronald Reagan. However, this also became politically unviable by 1993, and was replaced with the International Space Station (ISS), with substantial contribution by Russia. The ISS was completed in 2011.

@@javaman4584 EDT => BST

@@javaman4584 I think reusable space tugs, in-orbit assembly, space refueling depots, nuclear propulsioned ferry tugs, and reusable delta-winged spaceplanes are very good ideas and are much better than Apollo style hardwares of space capsules and disposable heavy-lift rockets.

I just don't know why NASA should choose Apollo style old technologies of space capsules and expendable heavy lift rockets to go back to the moon? A 21st century Apollo style moon landing which used old technologies of space capsules and expendable rockets is very meaningless.

Also a massive threat to ears, wildlife and local flora

@@chickensoldier9790 true, but if Nasa are still stuck in the non-reusable era they may aswell go out with a bang 🤣

@@AldenDoble they are stuck because dumbass US politics.

When I saw Falcon heavy at night it was as bright as a sunrise

I’ve seen Atlas, Falcon 9 & Heavy but SLS was so much brighter and just overall more intense! The sound was something I’ve never heard before. It was almost like windows were bending as if they were plastic…crazy!! (11 miles away)

@@KCJbomberFTW yes. It so bright

@@thomasttrr Great description-al feedback. Bet a few non space people thought it was their last day on earth 😵‍💫

Or how loud.

IS THAT JESUS CHRIST

Ayo its Jesus Christ!!

Amen To That One Lordy Lordy for sure!

Not again… Now, we meet again my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ! He even likes rockets! Nasa Spaceflight, Pin this!

Ey man, I aint heard back from you yet

We all get frustrated on a No launch but would we travel in a car on xmas holidays with faulty brakes tyres leaking oil etc Nope! Least taking safety cautions on leaks better than the disaster rushing a launch last time Columbia with the O/rings sad that Ego trip they where told but ignored the warning .

I just don't know why NASA should choose Apollo style old technologies of space capsules and expendable heavy lift rockets to go back to the moon? A 21st century Apollo style moon landing which used old technologies of space capsules and expendable rockets is very meaningless.